However, it strikes me as extremely problematic from a military point of view. The AnCap forces would be extremely handicapped if they have to give every single individual the benefit of the doubt. No attacking supply lines as long as the truckers leave the fighting to others. A bomber is approaching overhead. We can't identify the crew, so we don't know if any of them have committed aggression. Ok, now the bomber has started to bombard the city. Can we shoot now, or maybe that was the work of a rogue on the crew without the sanction of the others? If nothing else, you'd never have the initiative. I can't imagine it would be easy to convince everyone to stick to high-minded non-aggression ideals. You are confusing an evil with who is responsible for that evil. If you are an evil aggressor, and in fighting you my best option is to shoot an innocent person, then I'll do that, and that is an evil. But it is *your* evil, not *my* evil. My force, even if aimed at an innocent, is still retaliation against your aggression. There is no evil in choosing the option that minimizes evil. The classic hypothetical is the "shoot through the hostage" example: If an evil madman has a finger on a button that will blow up a school full of children, you may certainly shoot him through a hostage. And the murder of the innocent hostage is a terrible evil. But it's not *your* evil. You have no superior option and your optimum response can never be an evil on your part. What you've done is you've done the good of reducing the madman's evil from causing the death of a school full of children to causing the death of one hostage. In that case, the hostage being "murdered" would be considered so if 1) the 'murderer' is the bomber, under the felony murder rule (anyone who dies in the commission of a felony, even if they died at a good Samaritan's hand, is considered to be murdered by any/all remaining criminal conspirators) and 2) the shot through the hostage even caused death, when handgun wounds have a rather low mortality rate (20% or less). Plus, if you're trying to shoot through a hostage to a hostage-taker, and you're a good shot, the vital organs of the hostage shouldn't exactly overlap the HT's, so you might be shooting through a non-vital area to get to a vital one. If you're not going for a headshot in hopes of a one shot stop, and waiting for the HT to drift into your sights. Otherwise, if the hostage were to die, the bomber will have committed felony murder, and the good Sam homicide, but an entirely excusable homicide, if it were obvious the HT had command det wire going to a bomb or you saw the bomb had a cellphone or other radio receiver, antennas attached to it. I would never be anywhere near certain shooting through a hostage would kill her, considering the aforementioned mortality rate. If you're shooting a HT in the head, you don't shoot the hostage in the head first, because 1) you most likely don't carry a handgun with enough oomph to get through the hostage's skull AND the HT's enough for a one shot stop and 2) if you carry a rifle (unlikely outside theater), you have an easier time aiming around the hostage's vitals. Hell, if the HT is showing his detonator, shoot him in the fricking hand that's holding it. |
|
|
|
I think it is not unreasonable for politicians to be able to edit the quotes. It makes it so they don't have to (or can't) later say, "what I meant to say was ...". It also ensures that the quote is accurate.
Recording devices. |
|
|
|
|
Weird. I selected the third bunny, ran them, it reached the right side first, but the result said I finished 2nd. Bad animation?
|
|
|
|
|
Yay @ the use of btcticker.
|
|
|
|
 Nice vanity addy. |
|
|
|
I'll be your worst enemy for 1BTC per day.
Enemy is OK but a little weaksauce. How much for a nemesis? 10BTC |
|
|
|
Anyone interested? I will not go first for the record, however, I am willing to use BTCrow if you don't trust me.
Yes, I did read the warning sticky.
You might use this automatic service: https://www.nanaimogold.com/pp_exchange.phpIs that a 1-month average? $11.1? |
|
|
|
|
I'll be your worst enemy for 1BTC per day.
|
|
|
|
You'd sell some of this stuff if your prices were reasonable. I collect foreign coins and bills so I actually watched your video. I was patient, it took forever to load. Don't ask me why. Where did you come up with $5 each for these bills?  $60 for all of them?  Good luck, dude! There are standard catalogs for coins, but for bills there isn't - as far as I know. What I do is figure out the exchange rate if the bills are in circulation and go from there. Sometimes you can look them up online if you can figure out what country they're from. I can't tell what they are or where they are from. Why the video? Why not just take pics of them? I was hoping the video would have audio telling me where they're from or some other info, but I didn't hear anything. If you have a scanner, paper money scans well. Video started streaming instantly for me... I have no clue how to figure out what some of them are or what they're worth so I just took pics and put them in a slideshow video so the ad wouldn't be bogged down by a ton of pictures. The price is the mean average of circulated out of print currency that I poked around eBay completed listings of, IIRC. Clearly the bills need to be viewed in person, and the only scanner I possess is someone else's consignment item - since I already tested all its functions, not sure if it would be ethical to use it any further without paying a rental fee. Thanks, oldschool! |
|
|
|
|
Well, I have seen criminals in prison saying they were scared shitless of armed victims, and that they sought softer targets if they knew their victims could defend themselves. So shove your pro-criminal safety BS where the sun don't shine, because that's the only place it can survive.
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that it says the card is owned by BitInstant. AFAICT, that means when you swipe it, the merchant is debiting BitInstant's pool account(s), and BI has a $1,000 limit before it gets denied, to prevent their accounts being emptied before more can be transferred in.
Where do I sign up? And for the hell of it, can we provide our own vanity keypairs?
|
|
|
|
There's a video in the Guns thread, I think, of just such an action. They go in with, if I remember correctly, a shotgun, and come out with several more guns and whatever was in the register. Ballsy move, but had the clerk been armed, and proper security measures been followed, it would never have happened.
Even that's apples and oranges. If you're not able and willing to protect your merchandise or your life by any means necessary, your merchandise will be taken, and you have to pray they don't load your merchandise and take your life. |
|
|
|
Notice he said AT GUNPOINT. It appears both links you provided were pure strong-arm robberies. In other words, hand to hand combat only. Both attributable to lack of preparation on the part of the victims. They let the perps close distance and apparently because the perps were unarmed, they felt they couldn't shoot. Even an unarmed robbery of a gun shop justifies homicide in self-defense (assuming the perps end up being rare fatalities from handgun wounds), because if you don't neutralize the threat, criminals get the guns and can kill you and god knows how many others. |
|
|
|
If cousin Sally regularly carries her S&W Ladysmith wherever she goes, maybe Uncle Bob thinks twice about doing anything untoward. Maybe that co-worker decides to just have another drink instead of following her into the supply closet, on the off chance she really did just need to go get some rubber bands. Maybe the mugger sees the pistol on the guy's hip and decides that this guy will not be the easy mark he was hoping for. Maybe the robber thinks twice when he sees the sign on the door: "Warning, Cashier is ARMED." As to the home invasion, well, have a peek at this. Except that's not how most rapes happen. Read a bit more about it. Uncle Bob starts with a few innocent things that eventually progresses. The colleague takes advantage of someone that had too much to drink, or changed her mind when they reached the bedroom. A mugger that sees an armed person will hopefully not attack, or they will see the threat and act to neutralize it first. All depending on the level of desperation. Same goes for the shopkeeper. Shoot first and get money later. In any case the assault will be more violent, not less. It doesn't really work that way. Have you ever heard of someone robbing a gun store at gunpoint? Or a doughnut shop with three cop cars parked out front? Key word missing: successfully. |
|
|
|
"Matured" into acting out of fear, rather than logic?
When you grow up, you'll realize there's no need to fear peaceful people.
Is that the same logic that you used before? "If we arm everybody and put them in a violent society, there will be peace"? Did you know that in the UK most police doesn't carry a gun? And while they have slightly higher crime rates, they have fewer homicides by gun, or gun crimes overall. And carrying a gun has a stiff penalty attached. Someone mentioned in another thread that incentives work. Indeed they do. I don't fear peaceful people. Never have. I do however want it to be damn hard for someone intoxicated, psychotic or otherwise mentally unhinged to get access to a gun. People do go bat-shit crazy sometimes, even for short periods of time. Drugs, desperation, something else, it does happen. The UK is a criminals' utopia. As a criminal, not only can you murder, rape, maim, and commit all lesser crimes with effective impunity, but if your victims defend themselves with absolutely reasonable force or even lesser force, THEY go to prison. |
|
|
|
|
Love it, now I'm digitally selling my dad's record side that hardly anybody would buy in vinyl!
|
|
|
|
States, as in US states I assume. What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know. Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess. Actually, it's far easier to kill with most everything but guns. Guns make LOTS OF NOISE, and handgun fatalities are rare, according to morbidity stats. Full auto rifle fatalities at further than contact distances are also rare, when you realize that most of that lead is spraying everywhere but at the target's vital organs, if it even hits the target at all. You only begin to approach the difficulty of killing with a gun if you are screaming like a banshee while you wield whatever silent weapon you're about to use. And yes, that even means bombs, because once they make noise, either the suicide bomber is dead (stupid suicide bombers announcing their intentions get shot in the head), or the command detonator is safely away. Smart killers (real ones, not fictional ones with 'silencers' that in real life, don't silence SHIT) use guns as a last resort, and only at the furthest imaginable distances so they minimize their chances of getting caught. You don't have to go to Camp Peary to know this common sense shit. |
|
|
|
niemivh: do you expect to gain some rep being so full of hot air or are you just trolling for the sake of it?
Define what you mean by 'hot air'. You just did. |
|
|
|
|
Fewer guns in the hands of good Samaritans, more killings/injuries with all other weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
