Bay 12 Games Forum

i'm told the secret is hobbyist sewing

bloody fashion can't take pockets from you when you can just put them back!

Don't ask me the specifics, 'cause I'm too tired to remember them and don't have the energy to go looking for a proper summary, but it's something to do with the financial instruments involved, how the funds are currently held/used and what drawing on them entails.

... could be off base, but probably some degree of their value is tied to how much of it there is, so if you, say, cut the pie by a fifth to feed it to an investment mistake, suddenly the remaining pie is worth less than just that missing fifth. In some ways there's more value in being able to buy twitter than there is in actually buying it, basically, because once you've bought it you're less able to buy another. You'll have your twitter, but the rest of your shit has less weight, and the value of a twitter probably isn't going to make up the difference

"A 2013 National Research Council report found that studies looking at the effectiveness of different self-protective strategies had consistently found that victims who used guns defensively had lower injury rates than did victims who used other strategies."

And the direct paragraph after the one that references in the report being cited:

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

The paragraph immediately after in the wiki page was

A 2015 study by Solnick and Hemenway which analyzed NCVS data reported "little evidence that [DGU] is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss."[35]

Disarming law abiding citizens while criminals have illegal guns won't help things.

Considering where a lot of those illegal guns come from, it pretty certainly would, actually. Can't steal the gun that's not there to steal.

Instead they'll ask for your social media account and deny you based off a silly minions meme you posted on facebook in 2012

You want gun in NY? Time for a social media review!

Man, imagine having to go through as much shit to get a gun as you do to get employed. The tantrum 2A cultists would throw over that would be impressive.

Good joke from the sheriff association guy saying it'd be a constitutional violation of privacy, though. SCOTUS just pissed on that this year

E: See what the rest of the law in question is trying, though? Hours of mandatory training, proficiency check, character witnesses and personal interviews. It actually is getting pretty close to an employment process, ha.

I've just straight cut out caffeine entirely, except the occasional bit of chocolate. Got where I really didn't like the effect it was having on me when I had it. Never liked coffee, but I've found I miss hot tea the most, drink wise. You can get the stuff decaf, but... effort, bleh.

Me and the workers caught a rat inside a bottle while working on a roof because we were bored, one wanted to kill it but I refused, because I already named him

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Can I keep him?
Can I keep him?
Can I keep him?

Probably you can keep him? Rats make remarkably good pets, from what I understand. Talk to a vet or other rat owner, find out what you'd need to do to take good care of them, adopt squeakyfriend

A pitbull on the other hand…

A pit -- most dogs, really -- generally takes a hell of a lot more effort to make "cause trouble" than either a gun or a car, actually. It takes concentrated abuse to make a pit even remotely as dangerous as a car, nevermind a gun. They're not troublesome breeds unless someone actively makes them one.

Put another way: If you need gun bans / controls to keep you safe, you've already lost in some philosophical sense.  I also maintain it's hypocritical: there are many more things that kill and injure far more people per <pick your time period> than gun violence, yet "we" justify those things away simply because they are less sensational and because they are things "we" don't want to have taken away.

About the only thing I'm aware of as (or more) capable of killing people as firearms is nuclear/biological/chemical shit and explosives, maybe fire. You'll note that's all things, even in most of the US, that's heavily regulated, and largely pretty well enforced. Firearms very much stand out.

It's not just a matter of other things being less sensational or not wanting them taken away, it's a matter of all that other shit being far less easy to kill someone with, especially in a short period of time. The overall death toll's higher because of greater use or more folks dealing with the whatever, not greater danger. There's no hypocrisy involved with that.

Though yeah, del hits a good point. There's bigger killers (for all firearm related deaths are still a pretty fucking huge one stateside!), but it's not like we're not trying to address those, too.