It's barely a "joke".

"You people" eh? I guess you mean Republican. I didn't vote for him bud, I'm not a citizen yet. And for the record, it's pretty clear I don't like him. But I don't suck from the Democrat teat just to oppose Trump. I'm not that naive.

FYI, he's the leader of all Americans.

Lol, you think I'm going to "shut the fuck up" because you said to. So funny. I'll do whatever "the fuck" I please thanks mate.

Do something useful? Where? In my day job? On the internet? Lol, I'm about as useful as you are on the internet.

The length units don't matter in trig (as long as they are consistent of course). Easy to forget I guess.

My measurements versus your estimates? I'll take the measurements thanks.

A full length pic for you here.
https://wrrv.com/21-photos-direct-from-the-2020-west-point-graduation/

Rise on my screen is 14 mm (from grass to top of white curtain), run is 81 mm. 10 degrees. You can measure this yourself.

No really, put a ruler on the screen and tell me what you get. No estimates. What does a measuring device say?

No, they weren't closer. And you can't do trig very well.

Measure on screen and it is a 240 (hypotenuse), 235, 46 right angle triangle. sin^-1(46/235)= approx. 11 degrees. (I did well for several years at university calculus - but this isn't calculus).

Here is a nice pic you can measure. You'll get about 12 degrees.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/13/donald-trump-west-point-us-values-endure-turbulent-times/

Put your measurements and calcs up. It makes no sense that you are fighting this. They got it wrong. It doesn't make Trump look any less awkward walking down the ramp.

They weren't accurate on the incline though.

You can measure it on the screen if you like. A bit of trigonometry and you'll come up with a number a bit over 11 degrees.

Yes, jokes are "supposed" to be funny. If you show a video of an 11 degree ramp and say "oh its only 3 degrees" it adds nothing to your suggested punchline of the joke. In fact it detracts from it (i.e. if it is only 3 degrees then Biden running up it is meaningless).

Trump was factually correct. It was a steep ramp. There is just no way out of that. It doesn't mean he didn't look like a baby learning to walk as he walked down it, but it was still steep.

The punchline (if it were a joke, and it's not) would be Joe Biden running down the ramp. Not up. Unfortunately, for some reason, never before has the media foccused on a president walking down a ramp and it been a topic of conversation (because really, it is fucking inane). But if you hunt enough, you can find a video of Obama striding down the back ramp.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?293666-1/us-military-academy-commencement

A basic requirement for being funny is... being funny. Which this video is not. But each to their own I guess.

Part 1: the video portrays mocking. If they're going to mock someone, they should at least get their numbers right, otherwise they're no better than Trump and his continual exaggerations (e.g. it's like them saying "and it was the least steepest ramp in the world, and I've walked all the ramps of the world, more than anyone else").

Part 2: if they're trying to be funny by comparing two things then you have to, you know, compare the two things. So where is the video of Biden coming down the ramp? I want to see Biden cartwheel down the ramp like a champ.

Part 3: "I can 100% expect Trump, if he ever sees the clip, to respond exactly as your comment did", except for the fact that Trump already described this event (walking down the ramp) in this video. So you better check your 100%.

BTW, there is no dilemma - no sarcasm was implied or could be interpreted from my comment, and there is a little sarcasm check box that remained unchecked (just to be sure). On the other hand, I fully expected someone to try to diminish my comment, because facts always get in the way of a good story.

It's an 11 degree ramp, not 3, which is over 2 times the gradient allowed (as per the ADA). And the ADA requires ramps of this sort to have handrails.

Where's the comparison video? I.e., Biden coming down the ramp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States

I hope NYC pulls through OK. I was there last year. Such an amazing group of people and city.

To be fair, it will mainly kill off inner city inhabitants who are in close contact with each other.

I.e. it will kill off his opponents voter base.

Absolutely there is a distinction.

And because of that distinction, and the fact that vehicle collisions kill more people by "accident" (we call them accidents but a significant amount of them end up being charged with reckless/careless driving) than firearms do on purpose, I think that vehicles are very dangerous.

"There is an answer to stop gun violence only when guns are not your answer."

I like the cut of your gib. Too many Americans see violence (no matter the tool used) as a solution to their problems. When you humanise the problem, you see that we need to change people and their lives rather than arbitrarily restrict tools (guns) that are 99.99% used for lawful purposes.

Yes, they have lower rates. But the point isn't that the rates are the same (they're not), the point is that the rates are low enough to not have an immediate fear of them. An immediate fear would be unwarranted and irrational.

E.g. you probably don't fear dying every time you hop into a vehicle because it has a relatively low risk of killing you (even though the risk is much higher than that of being killed in a homicide by firearm). Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

You probably don't fear dying in a general accident (i.e. including all work place and public accidents together). Even though it represents about 170,000 deaths a year (an number so large it makes the topic of firearms deaths look like a joke), it is still a relatively low risk. Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

This is not to suggest that these things are not to be respected. We must try and reduce all mortality and morbidity. But you need to be effective at it. This is public health. You choose the method that will have the largest effect.

For example, you will have a bigger effect restricting sugar intake to reduce diabetes deaths, which outnumber homicide by firearm deaths by about an order of magnitude.

The majority of the 40k firearm deaths consist of suicides. There is an important distinction between homicide (the topic) and suicide. Don't mix them up if the topic is homicide by firearm.

Go look at what is actually killing people:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

The document is in duplicate. Literally in the link. Yes, fingerprint card also. The cost is low. The cost of the firearm is a separate issue.

Yes, the background check. The "process" I'm referring to has context, i.e. the background check process. Obvious really.

"No one asked you that."

You asked me.

"So [do] you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal? Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?"

"Which you begrudgingly".

What language made it begrudging? I stated it was the case without any issue. Stop making stuff up.

I didn't say they can't be regulated. I said that they can't be "effectively regulated". I also stated that there are many regulations that are probably illegal (waiting for supreme court challenges). And I said that there are some regulations that do exist because the supreme court debated it and came to the conclusion that it was within the scope of the 2A.

"especially when you can verify by just scrolling up"

Yeah, exactly, so what are you on about. My comments are literally above you. Why distort them? Do you have comprehension issues? No shame if you do.

"This is a paranoid delusion."
You're entitled to your opinion. History supports their argument though.

"Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct"

Yes, there are better issues to throw money at, but the issue is they don't want to throw money at anything when there is a low cost red herring issue they can use to gain public standing instead.

"Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work."

Yes, they are all warnings. And valid ones at that. The issue is context. You don't put a "warning strong current" warning in the middle of a desert because there is nothing to warn about.

Likewise making those warnings here makes no sense. Ergo, no, these warnings don't imply anyone needs warning. They are just random warnings.

Otherwise we could continue on and I could say:

Don't be dumb and fuck your mother's dead body.
Don't be dumb and fuck animals.
Etc., etc., warnings that are truly good advice but make no sense in the given situation.

On the other hand:
"Danger, high voltage wires" on a cabinet that holds a large transformer makes sense.
"Do not dig, high pressure gas lines buried here" above buried high pressure pipes makes sense.

Do you see the difference?

"Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose"

Well, everyone is welcome until they're not. And they're not welcome pretty quick here.

"but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person"

Funny about that, that's what I'm doing.

Thanks for the good questions.

a) yes
b) yes
c) no
d) yes
e) n/a

If you exclude suicide, the USA doesn't have a staggering rate of gun deaths. It is high compared to some other western countries, but on a world rate it is still very low.

When looking at public health (which is the reason for reducing gun violence) you need to be pragmatic. What will actually give a good outcome for public health? In this case there are about a half a dozen things that kill and maim US citizens at much higher rates than firearms do.

E.g. you are much more likely to be killed in a car crash than murdered by someone with a firearm. Cars by accident kill more people in the USA each year than firearms do on purpose. That's some scary shit right there. Think about that for a second, cars are more dangerous than firearms and people are not even trying to kill themselves or someone else with one. So as an example, you'd be better off trying to fix this first.

Or fix the suicide rate in the US. People aren't in a happy place there.

Obesity kills more people. Doctor malpractice kills more people. Etc. But these are hard issues to tackle that will cost billions or trillions. The low hanging fruit is firearms.

Free health care and mental health care, a better social security system, and various other means would all have magnificent outcomes on everyday life in the USA. But again, they cost a lot and require a paradigm shift.

Have you ever encountered interpersonal violence against you (i.e. had someone attack you)? Or have you maybe worked in a job where you often come into contact with people who have been attacked? I find people change their mind after they realize that they were only ever one wrong turn away from some crazy bastard who wanted to hurt them badly.

It is relatively easy to get a quite common pre 1986 machine gun.

The whole process is cheap. $200. Fill out a ATF form 4 and attach a passport sized photo. There are only a few questions to answer (that take up about 2.5 pages). This took about 30 seconds on google to find out. It is not more difficult to pass this background audit than that of a federal agent. I've looked into applying to be a federal agent and their process is an order of magnitude more stringent.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-4-application-tax-paid-transfer-and-registration-firearm-atf-form-53204/download

"What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing."

You asked me what I considered a firearm. I answered both my personal opinion, and then specifically said that what the government considers a firearm to be is what it is. I'm surprised you seem to have missed this.

Registries are a step towards being able to confiscate guns en-masse. If you know who has what it is much easier to take it away from them. This sentiment is well documented on pro-gun forums.

"It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload"

Very true. I was tempted to point this out but I didn't. I believe that this is one of the core reasons they want to do it. It makes you think they are doing something when they aren't, and it costs sweet fuck all compared to say, spending money on anything else that will genuinely improve the average man's lot.

'your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption'

Now that's the thing about warnings, you aren't assuming the behaviour of anyone. You only know it is a possibility that you don't want to happen. You don't know if it will happen or not. So you put up a warning. That's how warnings work.

But hey, this is your house right? Make no mistake, you've stamped yourself all over videosift like a dog marking its territory. Outsiders who don't comply with your way of thinking basically aren't welcome.

I didn't call you dumb. I warned you that if you were to do something (future tense possibility) then the result would be that you were being dumb.

Do you get how that works? There are multiple future possibilities, I don't want one to happen so I warn against it. This is not a difficult concept so I am at a loss as to why you don't understand it.

There was nothing in your previous correspondence to suggest that it would be a statement referring to a past tense behavior. You unfortunately assumed it to be referring to past tense behaviour. If you had doubt as to what I was referring to you could have just asked. I.e. if you read it and went "does he mean past tense or future tense? There isn't any past tense behaviour he could be referring to, so logically it must be future tense. I'm still confused though", you could have just asked which it was.

I believe any restrictions on the 2A have been justified by the supreme court. So they believe it was within the scope of what the founders intended. That is how.

"Hazard a guess" and "assume" are two different things.

Hazard a guess means to admit you don't know what is true but that with the given information you will gamble on an outcome (with full disclosure that it could be wrong).

Assume means to presume something is true, without any proof that it is.

You're welcome.