Lol, I read "imaginary Hiller" (and assumed you meant Hillary). My bad.



We have reasonable laws already.
Most things people ask for either already exist (and anti-gunners just don't know because they don't have to follow those laws), or only screw collectors and sportsmen while not doing anything to reduce risk (which I already covered, I assume you read the earlier part, eg California compliant AR15, etc).



Nobody expects to need to form a militia.
Nobody expects the country to go to hell.

The seat belt analogy is about preparedness for unlikely events.
Like, you don't "need" flood insurance in Houston - unless you do.

Owning a gun also hurts nobody.
By definition, ownership is not a harm.

Almost all guns will never be used to do any harm.
The very statement that "guns are all about hurting other people" is a non-empirical assertion.

Just shy of every last gun owner doesn't imagine themselves as Bruce Willis. Asserting that they do is a straw man.


You remind me of Republicans that complain that Black people are welfare queens (so they can redirect money out of welfare). Or Republicans that complain that Trans people are pedophiles in hiding (so they can pander to religious zelot voters). Creating a straw man and then getting mad about the straw man (rather than the real people) is self serving.


* Only the rarest few people think they are Roy Rogers. That is a straw man that does not apply to just shy of every gun owner.
* You don't need a gun for home defense... unless you do.
* Differences in likelihood of death armed vs unarmed is happenstance.
(Doesn't matter either way. Googled some likelihoods : http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/15/how-likely-are-you-to-die-from-gun-violence-this-interesting-chart-puts-it-in-perspective/
You'd have to suffer death 350'000 times before you're at a 50/50 chance of your next death being by firearms.)
[EDIT, math error. Should say 17'000 years lived to reach a 50/50 chance of death by firearms in the next year]
* Technically, even 1 vote gets someone elected. You don't control who is on the ballot.



NRA and NSSF are on life support. They have to fight the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, most major newspapers. They are way outclassed. Current events don't help either.
The "big bad NRA" rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As is the rhetoric that the NRA only represents the industry.

-sceherazade

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

Very analogous to Westboro Baptist "church" stooges. They (ab)use their constitutionally protected rights to free speech to say the most offensive and provocative crap that they can come up with, specifically with the intention to incite a (violent) reaction against them. Why? Because pretty much the entire Phelps family are lawyers, and they know that they can generally win any assault case that they can provoke people into. All that hate they spew boils down to a stupid, petty moneymaking scam.

Is the Seattle Nazi that devious and cunning? I doubt it. Probably just a crazy / fucked up guy, as Maher said. That doesn't excuse his fuckwittery, but it does reinforce Maher's argument that punching the guy is NOT the best response.

Morello is awesome, with RATM and Audioslave, and now Prophets of Rage, etc. But he's dead wrong on this issue, and comes across as a bit of an "internet tough guy". Outside of just ignoring them, I kinda think the only way to one-up these people is to know the law, what constitutes assault etc., and essentially beat them at their own game (ie. provoke them into doing something to you). On the other hand, there's something to be said for using using passive-aggressive snark to mock / humiliate them in a nonviolent way, ala the Foo Fighters:

I believe he is right in speaking on state's rights but I think his example is not well thought out. He compares many of his and others views on rights and says that it's their turn to act like the rednecks in the 60s who wanted to maintain segregation. Well if he looks back at what happened he won't be too happy. The US government stepped in and said Nope ain't gonna happen and used the courts, military, and other resources to force the beginning of the end of segregation. So to carry his analogy to it's logical conclusion then the US government would step in and say Nope to their sanctuary cities, gay marriage,women's choice, and all of the other concepts he listed.

Like I said I believe in state's rights and agree with him in concept on what he was saying. Just think he used a very poor analogy to make his point.

I think we can all tone down on the insults in these already over-heated times... They speak in their regional accents, I speak my own... no big deal.

My blood boils easily too during conversation, but online, I try to be calmer.

IMO when throwing insults we usually end up just speaking pass each other, nothing constructive gets done.

But get ya, I'm 100% with you. Analogy well articulated.

Actually, the whole point was to "go on a journey into the mind of white America". You can't just change his objective because you thought it was something different.

Furthermore, he didn't try to engage meaningfully in the society and the (racist) systems that it has set up. He wasn't looking for a job, he didn't try to purchase a house, he didn't have exposure to the judicial system.

You're (once again) saying there isn't systemic racism because a foreign journalist didn't run into overt racism. The cancer analogy holds just fine.

How foolish.

He whole point was to see if there was racism. Or in you case systemic racism.

Being a black man walking and driving around, if there were systemic racism he would have bumped into it.

You cancer analogy is wrong, pick another.

Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.


As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

Back in the day that was the way things were. There were no cause of redress.
I am not saying that is right but that that was the way.

Today there are laws that prevent this from happening.

I don't think you can look at yesterdays problems through the prism of today logic. If you did you would certainly come up with a solution using the judgements of today social thinking.



As for your statement:

I ( white people ) am blocked from voting.
Do I have cause for redress? -- Yes ( under todays laws and standards)

This occurs for next 150 years ( this sucks) then corrected.

Are my grand children due for the violation of their rights, but not yours? Depends of the customs/ standards/ law of the day that my right to vote were taken away. Would it not?


Now the BLM corrects and reverses the decision of its for fathers and allows Whites to vote. Should I be grateful No I should have had the right long ago.
If you can vote ( BLM) then I can vote ( whites).

Under you scenario BLM owes my grandchildren nothing. They legally voted me not to vote then generationaly later voted my grandchildren to vote. A sorry from the government would be appropriate but individuates owe me nothing. They did not make the law, only lived under it.


I hope I have answered your question.



? If you were born a white on the south with a family owing slaves and many of those in the community owned slaves..

You might accept this as the norm and go along with it and someday own some salves also.

As you grew up you might start to think that this is wrong but would you dare go against the grain? Only when you had a shit load of people think the same way do things change.

----------------

Another analogy of saying this is:

Using todays logic / ways of medicine on the way they practice medicine 150 years ago... Today we think how barbaric they were. But those living in the day it was all they knew.

Simple tests like this are meant to reveal how comfortable an applicant is at interpreting a problem and quickly translating it to code. It's analogous to how math tests in school required you to translate word problems to algebra. If someone struggles at this stage, they probably won't be a good coding hire. Or instead they might show some foresight into likely problems, gotchas, scalability, or testing.

I've been whiteboarded in a few interviews, and I've been hired based on a phone call. I don't know what the best method is, but I really hate the idea of "instant-fail" questions with a narrow "correct" answer. It's better to ask a few relatively easy, open-ended questions and see how comfortable the applicant is.

I'm not an ornithologist but I think he just forgot how to fly, which in turn, gave the appearance of floating. That's my analogy and I'm sticking to it.

I think those are actually part of the brakes. I was once told ( but I never verified) that the braking system on a train is analogous to a power generator. All of the power dumps to heating coils, on top of the train.

(**EDIT** hmm, code HTML tag doesn't seem to allow whitespace to show at the beginning of lines, so I'm replacing spaces with _underscores_ in the pseudocode below)

Code uses spaces or tabs to visually distinguish the flow of the program, what code belongs to what functions / loops / whatever.

Here's some C-style "pseudocode" that should get the idea across:

void function fizzbuzz {
__for (i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
____set print_number to true;
____If i is divisible by 3
______print "Fizz";
______set print_number to false;
____If i is divisible by 5
______print "Buzz";
______set print_number to false;
____If print_number, print i;
____print a newline;
__}
}

The braces { } show the beginning and ending of a "function" (essentially one of potentially many self-contained algorithms in a program) and the beginning and ending of a "for loop" (that will repeat the code inside it some number of times). And the "if" statements will only perform the stuff after them IF the test they perform evaluates to true.

So in that pseudocode, there's sort of 4 tiers or things going on. First is the function (named "fizzbuzz"). Since functions are kind of the most basic structural unit of the code, they are on the far left -- not indented at all. Sorta like Roman Numerals in an outline.

Then, the actual content of that function (the code that makes up its algorithm) is set a consistent amount of space to the right to make it clear that it is contained inside the function. That can be done with *1* tab, or some consistent amount of spaces so that it lines up. The only thing in that tier is the "for loop" and the braces that show its beginning and end.

Then the content of the for loop is set a bit further to the right (with another space or another set number of spaces). All of the "if" statements are at that 3rd tier level, along with a bit more code at the beginning and end. Then, the actual content of the if statements is set one more tier to the right to help distinguish that it will only run IF the conditions are met.

That pseudocode uses spaces for all of the tiering -- 2 spaces per tier. I'm a tab person like the guy Richard in the video, because it seems easier to press tab once per tier than hitting the spacebar 2/3/4 times per tier. But it really is just a personal preference issue, because as he said in the video, by the time the code is compiled (turned into an executable file that the computer can run) the final result will be the same whether the programmer used spaces or tabs.

But like with many things, Silicon Valley really hits the nail on the head here. Programmers tend to be very set in their ways and anal about their style preferences for code. If we have to go through someone else's code that doesn't follow our style conventions exactly, it kinda tends to throw us out of whack. To make an analogy with something less nerdy, consider how annoying it can be when someone borrows your car and you have to adjust the seat / mirrors / radio stations etc. when you get back in.

The video pretty drastically oversold the benefits of Political Correctness, in my opinion. I do, however, completely agree that generic "politeness" is a far superior standard to hold yourself to or goal to aspire to.

PC vs politeness seems very highly analogous to perceiving things as either intrinsically "offensive" or being personally "offended". Humor is frequently a fantastic way of exploring those kinds differences, and SMBC comics did an excellent strip on offensive vs offended:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-02-23

The conclusion there is that "I'm offended" starts arguments (ie., it can create rational and beneficial dialog) while "offensive" ends them (ie., it stifles progress). I feel that it is equally accurate to say that politeness can help resolve problems while PCness really doesn't; it is possible to politely disagree, but in the realm of PC disagreement in and of itself is often deemed offensive and seen as something to be discouraged.

I think part of being an adult is learning that people will often disagree, and that is actually a good thing.