The easy observation is that it's far more likely that guns simply do nothing than they are to kill anyone.
I am about 50, and I can tell the difference between when my mental health was in a place where I might kill myself and where I am now.
That makes the math around gun ownership a lot more straight forward- hoping that the bigots will off themselves before they start lynching folks again (because it wouldn't be the first time) doesn't seem like the safer bet.
I am glad you live in a place that has never been touched by bigots excited by war- clearly there is no way that in Europe the bigots have or will ever (again?) require local resistance fighting (right?).
First, it's a bit of a silly cliché, but a true one, that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The way you've phrased it, even aside from the facts, makes it feel like FUD implying that someone's gun is going to creep up on them in the night.
Second, you can just take it from the horse's mouth, since papers give you an abstract stating their findings. An even briefer snippet of what they say themselves there is:
> Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns
> in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. They were also at greater risk
> of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person
> was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in
> the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in
> the home. Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from
> suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different
> method.
The first half of that regarding homicide says nothing about being killed by your own gun, only about being a homicide victim in your own home. It _could_ and likely does include some of that, but it's not captured or quantified, all we see is total homicide numbers. Nor does it have any statistics about anyone else killed, either outside the home, or someone else killed in your home, so there's no basis for comparison there.
The second half only claims to be true for males in the first place, not everyone. It also explicitly acknowledges that it doesn't deal with the likely confounder of people who don't have a means of suicide in the home committing suicide _outside_ the home, and thus not being included in their numbers.
Right, but the basic point - that people who have guns are more likely to die by guns is true, right?
The sophistry about whose gun killed them is kinda moot. They don't actually track whether the gun-owners died by their own gun or not, as you say.
But it's likely, isn't it? We're talking about people who either kill themselves, or kill their family members. It's likely using the gun that's already in the house, rather than a new, different gun being brought in from outside.
And if it is a stranger coming in from outside with a different gun, then doesn't that contradict the entire point of owning a gun? That you can protect yourself and your family from strangers with guns?
They demonstrate a correlation, but not causation. In fact they point out the reverse is likely true, too, that people more likely to die by gun might want to keep a gun at home.
What you call "sophistry" others might consider "not misrepresenting what research says to fit an agenda." There's value in using precise language to communicate what the numbers actually show.
And I don't even understand how the fact that a gun isn't a guarantee in any way contradicts that it _can_ be used in self defense.
Personally I'd be fine with a commercial license with source available here... the issue isn't the price, it's the fact that you're asked to MITM every network connection you make under the control of a binary blob.
I think it's fair to ask that a developer choosing to build a thing that requires that kind of access should be expected to err on the side of transparency.
> Not even being ironic. I don't understand the point
Because there is a significant part of the country that would love to ban guns completely but they currently don't, and perhaps won't ever, have quite enough support to make a change to the constitution to allow them to. In the absence of that, and given they do have plenty of support to create local law many places, the strategy seems to have become to create a regulatory regime that technically still allows guns while making it as impractical as possible for anyone to actually do so.
> Because there is a significant part of the country that would love to ban guns completely but they currently don't, and perhaps won't ever, have quite enough support to make a change to the constitution to allow them to.
Both, though I don't know the breakdown. I'm confident saying there's absolutely some people who seem to see onerous regulation as a path to a de facto ban, though.
I'd be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to those pushing regulations if the regulations themselves seemed well thought out and drafted rather than leaning on kneejerk "guns bad, rules good" reactions from voters to get passed. Unfortunately the actual situation seems to be that left-leaning areas where it's easy to push anti-gun law lean farther and farther into restricting both first and second amendment rights without meaningful impact, while the right-leaning areas that actually could use some additional regulation over the perhaps overly lax federal level laws can't or won't do anything.
More likely the detailed ones came out of ECAD systems that often include 3d models in their component libraries so you can automatically visualize/model the finished product while designing a board, and integrate with physical CAD for designing enclosures and other mechanical parts.
Not the first one... but the "pair of interconnected mugs" that is described as "emphasizes connectivity and collaboration, suitable for serving beverages in a shared or communal setting" is pretty amazing too. I never knew I was missing out on communal mug holding.
AFAIK they claim to still be selling general purpose CNC machines that aren't marketed as being for firearms... but only take the money and ghost customers without actually delivering anything.
Notepad++ is Windows-based and could use the Windows store instead of the built in updater. Microsoft charges a one time fee. It would pass SmartScreen checks. His website has a bunch of ads integrated which I assume are there to help pay for hosting.
Mr. Ho already has hosting charges and he uses GitHub. For those who use GitHub, he could continue his GnuPG method for signing. Additionally, GitHub integrates with Sigstore. Windows wouldn’t trust his signature but at least there would be better traceability. Version 8.8.7 labeled “authenticity guaranteed” is a step in that direction.
The real “issue” here was his outside hosting platform for updates from my reading of the article.
That article says no such thing, despite people often claiming it does.
reply