Hmm Brosnan in a wild west flick? He looked desperate lol.

Holy crap... I need to pick apart a whole lot of that to see what percentage I actually remember. (But I don't want to remember Wild Wild West, Ed Edd & Eddy, Spongebob, and Jar-Jar Binks.)

The more I think about it, the more Russia seems like the wild west of yore.

This video has been removed from all channels (Wild West Show, Lies, Politics, Comedy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by chingalera. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Comedy, Lies, Politics) - requested by chingalera.

Sure. Alcohol, for example, clearly does more harm than it does good if alcohol-related death statistics are accurate. The question is whether or not guns actually do more harm than good and that's a difficult question to answer. There are certainly other countries with strict gun laws but those are different countries with different populations, different economies and different cultures. In an ideal world, banning guns would solve all our problems. Crime rates would decrease and nobody would have anything to fear. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen in reality. Criminals would still get guns (because they don't care about laws) and there would still be gun-related deaths (albeit fewer), in addition to all the unrelated violent crimes. I'd be surprised if overall crime didn't increase to compensate for the lack of guns and the inability for civilians to protect themselves.

It just seems to me that the recent uproar about gun laws is a reactionary response to the occasional shooting spree. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed using pistols (such as the one used in this story), yet everyone is focused on assault rifles which are almost never used. Then everyone is ignoring the fact that smoking and alcohol cause significantly more deaths than guns do. Why is no one trying to ban those? Oh, right, we've tried that already and it failed. Banning liquor during the prohibition only resulted in criminals getting the upper hand, just as banning guns would do today.

A good way to judge the effectiveness of gun laws is by comparing Florida to Washington D.C. Floria basically has no gun laws. You can buy assault rifles in garage sales. No licenses or registrations required. It's essentially the Wild West. Conversely, D.C. has strict gun laws. No assault rifles, no automatic weapons, no concealed carry, no open carry, an extensive registration and permit process, etc. However, despite all this, D.C. had more than double the violent crime rate of Florida in 2011 and more than triple the murder rate.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

First, I agree that the NRA is totally nuts. Let's get that right out of the way.

During gun rights discussions on Videosift, I often hear "this isn't the wild west anymore", that gun ownership is no longer justified in modern society. Given that, when NO was reduced to something resembling a post-apocalypse movie, with burglars and looters a constant threat, and with authorities overwhelmed, isn't that exactly the time when people ought to have a way to protect themselves?

Confiscating guns at a time like this is no different than suspending habeas corpus for terror suspects or ignoring freedom of speech because people are critical of the government: that's what those rights are there for.

You're just being facetious. "They're demons that much be purged by fire raaah raaah".

That's nice.

It doesn't have much to do with academic achievements, it's just about being able to maintain a healthy living. Having guns freely available is outdated; it's turning the US into the wild west, and civilization has moved on from there. Get with the times.

I wouldn't want to be in society where just anyone and everyone had a gun on them. Much less a high school or college - fuck those people are all retarded, I don't want them to have a gun.

I'm all for having a weapon in your home to protect yourself from intruders; it's your home, so it's outside of everyone else's "realm of protection", but in the public space minimizing weapons is a good thing. There will still be violent muggings - you have to avoid the places where these things happen, not go in brazenly with a gun - but less people on both sides will be killed outright, because the weapons that make kills easy aren't readily available.

Denmark's muslims aren't mistreated, they're coddled. We have muslim gangs and shit, that I would love to quash, but I don't want to go in there guns blazing. If I see a big group of "suspicious people", I just turn away and go some other way. And in general I just avoid the places that they roam in.

How do you mean "average as high"? Salary? Violence? I think you accidentally a word.

no, man, you misunderstood me. I'm not opposed to americans owning guns. I mean, go ahead; shoot yourselves to death, I don't give a fuck. just saying, seems bloody insane to me ... why would you need policemen then, if all you need is to arm every man, woman and child in america so they can defend themselves against each other? you're not living in the times of the wild wild west any more and you're not some 3rd world country where non-functional states can't provide adequate protection for their citizens ... and don't give me that 2nd amendment bullshit, cause you're all reading it wrong

Fragility? Hmm.

In any case, I'm certainly biased for it, because I think people should have the option to choose. The same way I think drugs should be legal, but still regulated. Right now the "drug industry" outside of medicine is like the wild west, and the porn industry is near the same. They should have checks and balances in the same way that other industries have, and honestly they should have significantly more of them, because of the nature of the business. This is nothing compared to what the illegal drug industry goes through - ever seen the results of Mexican Cartels? That stuff ain't pretty either.

She is calling for illegalizing it completely, and that's just stupid.

I don't think my bias is as big (hmm, which word is correct instead of "big"?) as hers and not to the extent that people should feel the need to invalidate my arguments, but that's not really up to me to decide.

When I say that "she's biased" it is to call attention to the fact that I think her bias should be considered when evaluating her point. She is doing these two
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

And while I don't doubt that's she's been through hell and back, her data is not all the data.

I agree that this was not conveyed when calling it "biased" as I intended, so I'll retract that and stand corrected.

I'd be very pleased to see a new law stating that in order to buy a gun, you must take an approved course (that happens monthly or so) that is tax-funded either by state police or local police with federal aid.

This would ensure that all the moron Rambo wannabes actually know something about the weapon they bought and how to properly wield it, and no one's 2nd Amendment rights are infringed.


>> ^VoodooV:

The only problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that it says nothing about being trained or being competent with a firearm
Any insecure idiot who longs for the days of the wild west with delusions of grandeur can buy a gun, but it says nothing about whether or not they can use it well.
If everyone had the same training and skill as that cop I doubt I would have a problem with excessive gun ownership.
But the odds of those idiots actually using a gun well is actually pretty low and in such a case, they'd be more of a liability than a benefit.
It's just like that sift of the old dude who happened to have a gun when the internet cafe he was at was being robbed. He fired it indiscriminately regardless of the nearby bystanders. Fucking asshole was lucky not to have hurt the bystanders instead of the criminals.

>> ^VoodooV:

The only problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that it says nothing about being trained or being competent with a firearm
Any insecure idiot who longs for the days of the wild west with delusions of grandeur can buy a gun, but it says nothing about whether or not they can use it well.
If everyone had the same training and skill as that cop I doubt I would have a problem with excessive gun ownership.
But the odds of those idiots actually using a gun well is actually pretty low and in such a case, they'd be more of a liability than a benefit.
It's just like that sift of the old dude who happened to have a gun when the internet cafe he was at was being robbed. He fired it indiscriminately regardless of the nearby bystanders. Fucking asshole was lucky not to have hurt the bystanders instead of the criminals.


I don't think you would have many gun enthusiasts complaining about a show of competency in safety before owning a gun, because most enthusiasts are emphatic about this themselves...the cost and red tape may become an issue for some but eh...can't please everyone.

Did you watch the video of the old man? I just rewatched it and based on the 2 main camera angles of the video it was safe to shoot within the building (you could not easily account for people on the other side of the wall/door). When he opens fire he is almost even and a couple feet to the side of a bystander, but according to the 2 views the only people in the radius of where he fired were the robbers.

Not only that, but he had decent form (2 handed grip with bent knees and squared shoulders) and paused his movements when he fired, all of which point to someone experienced with the firearm. If anything I'd say he showed great poise for an untrained person.

The only problem I have with the 2nd amendment is that it says nothing about being trained or being competent with a firearm

Any insecure idiot who longs for the days of the wild west with delusions of grandeur can buy a gun, but it says nothing about whether or not they can use it well.

If everyone had the same training and skill as that cop I doubt I would have a problem with excessive gun ownership.

But the odds of those idiots actually using a gun well is actually pretty low and in such a case, they'd be more of a liability than a benefit.

It's just like that sift of the old dude who happened to have a gun when the internet cafe he was at was being robbed. He fired it indiscriminately regardless of the nearby bystanders. Fucking asshole was lucky not to have hurt the bystanders instead of the criminals.

Below is the parable of the ox: (http://www.johnkay.com/2012/07/25/the-parable-of-the-ox)

Though it is about our economies in general, it also says something between the lines about markets without guidance. Namely that in ANY market, given enough time, you will get people who "abuse" the lack of rules and change the game in their favor. (Libor, credit default swaps, monopolies, etc etc) As free market policies work only when there is plenty of competition, as soon as some one cheats or in another form effectively removes competition the entire thing will collapse. Free market policies can be optimal during a time, however, that time is limited as before (just started market, monopoly or wild west) and after (mature market, few or 1 large competitors ruling the market, monopoly) you need guidance to make sure all the stakeholders are protected, not just those with power.

(BTW though there are rules setup to make sure the system works, you can see those are reactionary because otherwise the system doesnt work at all. They make sure there are good options for everyone, not just maximum options for those with power, aka in this case the cheaters)

25 July 2012, Financial Times

In 1906, the great statistician Francis Galton observed a competition to guess the weight of an ox at a country fair. Eight hundred people entered. Galton, being the kind of man he was, ran statistical tests on the numbers. He discovered that the average guess (1,197lb) was extremely close to the actual weight (1,198lb) of the ox. This story was told by James Surowiecki, in his entertaining book The Wisdom of Crowds.

Not many people know the events that followed. A few years later, the scales seemed to become less and less reliable. Repairs were expensive; but the fair organiser had a brilliant idea. Since attendees were so good at guessing the weight of an ox, it was unnecessary to repair the scales. The organiser would simply ask everyone to guess the weight, and take the average of their estimates.

A new problem emerged, however. Once weight-guessing competitions became the rage, some participants tried to cheat. They even sought privileged information from the farmer who had bred the ox. It was feared that if some people had an edge, others would be reluctant to enter the weight-guessing competition. With only a few entrants, you could not rely on the wisdom of the crowd. The process of weight discovery would be damaged.

Strict regulatory rules were introduced. The farmer was asked to prepare three monthly bulletins on the development of his ox. These bulletins were posted on the door of the market for everyone to read. If the farmer gave his friends any other information about the beast, that was also to be posted on the market door. Anyone who entered the competition with knowledge concerning the ox that was not available to the world at large would be expelled from the market. In this way, the integrity of the weight-guessing process would be maintained.

Professional analysts scrutinised the contents of these regulatory announcements and advised their clients on their implications. They wined and dined farmers; once the farmers were required to be careful about the information they disclosed, however, these lunches became less fruitful.

Some brighter analysts realised that understanding the nutrition and health of the ox was not that useful anyway. What mattered were the guesses of the bystanders. Since the beast was no longer being weighed, the key to success lay not in correctly assessing its weight, but rather in correctly assessing what other people would guess. Or what others would guess others would guess. And so on.

Some, such as old Farmer Buffett, claimed that the results of this process were more and more divorced from the realities of ox-rearing. He was ignored, however. True, Farmer Buffett’s beasts did appear healthy and well fed, and his finances were ever more prosperous: but, it was agreed, he was a simple countryman who did not really understand how markets work.

International bodies were established to define the rules for assessing the weight of the ox. There were two competing standards – generally accepted ox-weighing principles and international ox-weighing standards. However, both agreed on one fundamental principle, which followed from the need to eliminate the role of subjective assessment by any individual. The weight of the ox was officially defined as the average of everyone’s guesses.

One difficulty was that sometimes there were few, or even no, guesses of the oxen’s weight. But that problem was soon overcome. Mathematicians from the University of Chicago developed models from which it was possible to estimate what, if there had actually been many guesses as to the weight of the animal, the average of these guesses would have been. No knowledge of animal husbandry was required, only a powerful computer.

By this time, there was a large industry of professional weight guessers, organisers of weight- guessing competitions and advisers helping people to refine their guesses. Some people suggested that it might be cheaper to repair the scales, but they were derided: why go back to relying on the judgment of a single auctioneer when you could benefit from the aggregated wisdom of so many clever people?

And then the ox died. Among all this activity, no one had remembered to feed it.

And this is what we'll see in the remake of Wild Wild West, starring once again Will Smith!

So Florida is the Wild West...as long as you're the only surviving witness? Just have to tell the cops it was self defense and you're free to go. Even if you deliberately stalk your target, lose him, continue searching, acquire him again, and finally engage him.

About the suspension, 10 days does seem pretty significant. Doubtful it was for murder, maybe a food fight? And only 1 suspension? Not that Zimmerman knew any of this ffs, so it seems kind of moot.