The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.
That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns. And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist. Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold. You might be an exception. He's not. I'm a liberal, gay loving (literally), race mixing, overeducated atheist. I also don't actually own a gun myself, though I wouldn't mind having one, just out of curiosity. Curiosity killed the cat, Rassah. Dafuq... This is the credo I live by! http://areidcuriosity.blogspot.com/I mean it sincerely. Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.Uh_0TbyDuvE
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/Possessing a gun makes you less safe not more safe: http://www.examiner.com/article/possessing-a-gun-makes-you-less-safe-not-more-safe10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-checkGuns don't offer protection – whatever the National Rifle Association says: http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-associationThe health risk of having a gun in the home: http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-homeRisks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit: http://phys.org/news/2011-04-guns-home-greater-health-benefit.htmlStatistics, Guns, and Wishful Thinking: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking#Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death?: http://www.guncite.com/cummingsjama.htmlAssociation between handgun purchase and mortality from firearm injury: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full |
|
|
|
The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.
That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns. And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist. Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold. You might be an exception. He's not. I'm a liberal, gay loving (literally), race mixing, overeducated atheist. I also don't actually own a gun myself, though I wouldn't mind having one, just out of curiosity. Curiosity killed the cat, Rassah. |
|
|
|
Gun crimes increase with gun ownership. It's been stated. It doesn't need to be stated why, for it is obvious. Gun crimes depend on gun ownership.
Car thefts increase with ice cream sales. It has also been stated, and is actually a fact. I could also say that it's obvious. So, would you agree to me preventing you from being able to buy ice cream on this fact alone? I won't want my car stolen, so the obvious thing is to reduce ice cream sales. You're being ridiculous. Go eat a McDonald's cheeseburger, since you think they're to die for. |
|
|
|
You really like to argue this silly and utterly pointless point. Let's consider:
1. Temperatures dropping below 0 degrees Celsius seem to correlate with water turning into ice.
2. Loch Ness monster sightings increase as the hemlines of skirts get higher.
By way of hypothetical example, Rassah trots out an example like number two, claims correlation does not equate to causation, and tries to use it to dispute the conclusion that water turning into ice is the result of lower temperatures.
Your arguments are pointless. Everywhere.
You are absolutely correct: correlation does not equate to causation. I am simply showing that it is your arguments that are pointless. Correct, water dropping below 0 correlates with ice. Correct, Loch Ness monster sightings correlate to the heght of skirt hemlines. And correct, global temperatures correlate to drop in piracy. But that argument IS pointless. Just as increased crimes correlate to increased gun ownership is a pointless argument. If you want to make an actual valid argument, explain WHY water dropping below 0 causes ice, WHY height of skirt hemlines increase Loch Ness monster sightings, and WHY increase in guns causes more violence. You guys keep failing at that, relying on correlation arguments, and I'm just pointing out that such arguments are worthless. Gun crimes increase with gun ownership. It's been stated. It doesn't need to be stated why, for it is obvious. Gun crimes depend on gun ownership. But feel free to start discussing pirates and climate change, if you wish to be completely irrelevant. |
|
|
|
The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.
That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns. And then there is the real world. I'm a liberal, gay loving, race mixing, overeducated atheist. Generalizing is a path to wrong answers, it is what racism is all about. You may wish that gun owners fit your bias, but here in America we are free to be who we are and do not have to fit a mold. You might be an exception. |
|
|
|
The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.
That sounds like the demographic that most craves having guns. |
|
|
|
Maybe because if its not your family who is threatened you don't really care, even if those murders are committed in YOUR name?
You can't kill someone in someone else's name. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Saying it's in some random guy's name is bs, and no one else is responsible but you. Well, in that case world statistics say that less guns = less violent crime.
Statistics also say less pirates = higher global temperatures. That's a fact. Back when we had lots of pirates, temperatures were way lower. As the number of pirates went down, global temperatures went up. Way up. More recently, in the 2000's, the rise in temperatures leveled off a bit, at the same time that Somali pirates started up their activity. During the last two or three years, US really cracked down on piracy in Somalia, killing a bunch of them, and we also had the two hottest years on record. You really like to argue this silly and utterly pointless point. Let's consider: 1. Temperatures dropping below 0 degrees Celsius seem to correlate with water turning into ice. 2. Loch Ness monster sightings increase as the hemlines of skirts get higher. By way of hypothetical example, Rassah trots out an example like number two, claims correlation does not equate to causation, and tries to use it to dispute the conclusion that water turning into ice is the result of lower temperatures. Your arguments are pointless. Everywhere. |
|
|
|
No, I haven't seen. Are you claiming your code is gorgeous? Plus
if(eval)
{
// code
}
is much better than
if(eval) {
// code
}
It's much better? One of the reasons for putting the opening curly on the same line is to show a little more code per page, decreasing scrolling for comprehension. Note that I'm not using the word 'better'. I'm stating a reason for a preference. Whitespace is good, and necessary, but not in this case. |
|
|
|
Old school!
What is old school? |
|
|
|
|
I prefer titles which are reflective of the content and are indicative of some level of intelligence, and even sound scholarly, such as "On methods to improve the adoption of Bitcoin". I only read enough of the post to make sure my improved title was on track. Otherwise, I lost interest because I felt the post would be immature and unintelligent due to the title and the first sentence.
|
|
|
|
bool check_collision_rect(Rect *A, Rect *B)
{
// The sides of the rectangles
int leftA, leftB;
int rightA, rightB;
int topA, topB;
int bottomA, bottomB;
// Calculate the sides of rect A
leftA = A->x;
rightA = A->x + A->w;
topA = A->y;
bottomA = A->y + A->h;
// Calculate the sides of rect B
leftB = B->x;
rightB = B->x + B->w;
topB = B->y;
bottomB = B->y + B->h;
// If any of the sides from A are outside of B
if(bottomA <= topB) {
return false;
}
if(topA >= bottomB) {
return false;
}
if(rightA <= leftB) {
return false;
}
if(leftA >= rightB) {
return false;
}
// If none of the sides from A are outside B
return true;
} and double distance(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2)
{
// Return the distance between the two points
return sqrt(pow(x2 - x1, 2) + pow( y2 - y1, 2));
}
bool collision_circle(Circle A, Circle B)
{
// If the distance between the centers of the circles is
// less than the sum of their radii
if(distance(A.x, A.y, B.x, B.y) < (A.r + B.r)) {
//The circles have collided
return true;
}
// If not
return false;
} Fixed your code. Issues included no spaces between comments and double slashes, failure to put opening curly bracket for if/else/for/while constructs on same line as opening statement, failure to align assignment operator for variables belonging to a group, and excess spacing around parenthesis. |
|
|
|
Lose. Not loose.
This must be the most common spelling mistake on the Internet. Unacceptable.
ouups, fixed it  thx Thank you. My heart rate and blood pressure has now dropped. EDIT: 'not' should've read 'now'. Now fixed. |
|
|
|
|
Lose. Not loose.
This must be the most common spelling mistake on the Internet. Unacceptable.
|
|
|
|
Just a little perspective from someone who has seen both sides of this (and, just to be transparent here, yes I do own a gun.. as well as a crossbow and several swords and knives). I grew up in and around Los Angeles, California. As most of you probably know, gun control there is pretty strict by American standards. Even if you're transporting a gun legally, you can expect a lot of hassle from the police if you get pulled over. In spite of California's "may issue" concealed carry laws, it's virtually impossible for anyone who isn't a police officer, politician or celebrity to get a concealed carry license. Purchasing and owning a gun legally is hard, carrying or transporting it legally is even harder. Growing up in L.A. gun violence was an almost every day occurrence. It wasn't too uncommon to see a neighbour’s house sprayed with automatic weapons (typically an Uzi or an AK-47). The gang members had pretty easy access to these weapons, and even easier access to handguns and semi-auto rifles, while law abiding citizens had to jump through hoops to protect themselves and the police were unwilling and/or unable to help.
Now I live in a small rural desert town. Everybody here owns a gun, most people here carry since it's legal to open carry and a concealed carry license is pretty easy to get (self-defense is considered a legitimate reason for a license by the local Sheriff's department). Even with nearly everyone carrying guns, either openly or concealed, shootings are rare. In the 5 years I've lived here, two people have been shot, one was an accident and the other was a legitimate case of self-defense. There are far more stabbings than shootings. There are also legitimate reasons to own and carry a gun even in the absence of gun violence, there are wild animals here that can and will kill an unarmed person, I've personally fired my gun twice in self-defense against wild animals (a rattlesnake and a mountain lion).
I feel safer and more comfortable here than I ever did in L.A., I'd even go as far as to say that even if I didn't own a gun myself I'd still feel safer and more comfortable knowing that the criminals and the police weren't the only people carrying them.
While you posted a very good example, I must say that rural areas are generally more safe than urban ones. In rural areas of my country people leave their properties unlocked and unattended, while in the city you cannot even leave an empty baby stroller near some shop for 10 minutes. I wouldn't consider his example good by a long shot. When evaluating his post, and the many things he said, please use some knowledge and common sense. |
|
|
|
I can sort of see how you might consider a gun an encumbrance.
Carrying a gun is a huge pain in my ass, not to mention a heavy responsibility. So far, as far as I know, it has been a pointless exercise. Hopefully that never changes. That said, I will continue to carry a gun every day for the rest of my life. There you go, mdude77. Doc Holliday has spoken, and he knows. |
|
|
|
Is he still fraudulently claiming he lives where there is absolutely no chance of violent crime ever occurring, nor the need for self-defense? Jeeezus. That's a fucking future distopia where everyone has a kill chip to instantly shut them down if they ever have an evil thought.
You're referring to me? I never said there's no chance of violent crime happening where I live. I'm just smart enough to know that it's stupid and paranoid to think I should need to take away my freedom by believing I need to encumber myself with a gun. Wow, that's some twisted logic you have there about taking away freedom and encumbering yourself with a gun. Using that logic, you shouldn't have a car. It's not twisted at all. I don't know why you think it would be. See the keyword I bolded? I can sort of see how you might consider a gun an encumbrance. After all, it does have some weight. I fail to see how you twist that into taking away your freedom though. A better example using your analogy would be a cell phone. You carry it around, so it's an encumbrance. You give up some of your freedom because big brother(s) can trace your every move and call. Nobody who doesn't covet a gun would consider carrying one around to not be an encumbrance. And we're not just talking about weight here. But it wouldn't surprise me that you, one who covets guns, wouldn't understand. |
|
|
|
Perhaps you're the one being stupid for thinking Somalia is something great.
Well, you're stupid for thinking North Korea is something great  I have never made any comments regarding North Korea. For the record, I think they're horrific. On the other hand, you have declared a fondness for Somalia in the past. Try to not to resort to fiction so much in your arguments. Guns in a good culture aren't necessary at all. Guns in bad culture aren't a good thing, no matter how you look at it. Guns everywhere merely supply the baddies with guns, making the bad culture worse.
Well, the baddies will get their guns either way. It's the goodies that we need to get guns to, so they can defend themselves against the baddies. At least until the culture changes. Focus on changing the culture, first. No. The baddies get their guns because the gun lovers want a market for guns. We already have 300 million guns in this country. Do you really think more is better? Do you really think 300 million is optimal? More guns in the hands of good people would be better, yes. Do I think 300 million is optimal? Well, do you think 300 million guns in US means that almost every person owns a gun? I don't. For instance, "Did you know that the US has 7,700 nuclear missiles? That means that one out of every 45,000 Americans owns a nuke." That makes just about as much sense. You seem to fail that a large majority of non gun owners don't want a gun, nor feel the need for a gun. It's only gun lovers who keep calling for more guns, which translates to more guns for criminals. |
|
|
|
Is he still fraudulently claiming he lives where there is absolutely no chance of violent crime ever occurring, nor the need for self-defense? Jeeezus. That's a fucking future distopia where everyone has a kill chip to instantly shut them down if they ever have an evil thought.
You're referring to me? I never said there's no chance of violent crime happening where I live. I'm just smart enough to know that it's stupid and paranoid to think I should need to take away my freedom by believing I need to encumber myself with a gun. Wow, that's some twisted logic you have there about taking away freedom and encumbering yourself with a gun. Using that logic, you shouldn't have a car. It's not twisted at all. I don't know why you think it would be. See the keyword I bolded? |
|
|
|
Is he still fraudulently claiming he lives where there is absolutely no chance of violent crime ever occurring, nor the need for self-defense? Jeeezus. That's a fucking future distopia where everyone has a kill chip to instantly shut them down if they ever have an evil thought.
You're referring to me? I never said there's no chance of violent crime happening where I live. I'm just smart enough to know that it's stupid and paranoid to think I should need to take away my freedom by believing I need to encumber myself with a gun. |
|
|
|
And I recall a desire to go to Somalia on your part. Is that a better place that gives you freedom (no need to carry a gun).
Don't be stupid. Perhaps you're the one being stupid for thinking Somalia is something great. Really? Are you sure the better thing is not to force this bad culture to give up its guns?
Guns in a good culture aren't necessary at all. Guns in bad culture aren't a good thing, no matter how you look at it. Guns everywhere merely supply the baddies with guns, making the bad culture worse. And bad culture just drags everyone down. Don't be a fool for the rest of your life. We already have 300 million guns in this country. Do you really think more is better? Do you really think 300 million is optimal? Seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
