patrick.net

Kevin says

ou're going to trust a Russian government owned publication with zero transparency over Wikipedia

I would trust anything over Wikipedia just based on the propaganda I've seen on it including removing references to presidents being against women's suffrage during the early 20th century, removal of content about Guantanamo Bay during the Bush administration, removal of content about unpublished Canadians laws that people were arrested for, etc.

I've challenged you time and again, to go back to the RT News videos I've linked to on this site and point out any falsehood including lies of omission. You have pussied out every single time. Why would I take your word when you refuse to site one specific lie of omission or any other kind in any of the RT News videos I've posted?

Again, if you actually did demonstrate a significant and deliberate lie of omission, then I'd accept your case. The fact that you haven't speaks volumes more than Propogandapedia.

Kevin says

You're a crackpot.

You're welcome to prove this conjecture. However, calling me a crackpot certainly does not instill me with any faith that you have an informed opinion about anything.

We as a nation need to stop labeling people as crackpots if they stand up for their principles.

FortWayne says

We as a nation need to stop labeling people as crackpots if they stand up for their principles.

I agree. Even if someone is undeniably proven wrong on any given topic, that does not make them a crackpot. Things get even fuzzier on topics as they get more complicated and where the answer is not so clear. However, the needle on the crackpot meter starts to edge towards "full on" when denial is the response to sound reasoning backed by clear evidence. Also, we do indeed live in a world where crackpots exist and the internet seems to give them much more of a voice than standing on a soapbox in Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park.

As far as Dan goes I have seen him admit fallibility on a few occasions when faced with evidence contrary to his opinions.

leo707 says

As far as Dan goes I have seen him admit fallibility on a few occasions when faced with evidence contrary to his opinions.

And that's all we can ask of anyone.

Dan8267 says

However, on the pro-gun-control side, there's a valid argument that a gun in the household with kids is more likely to result in the kid shooting himself than the parents shooting an armed intruder.

Whenever I have looked at the studies that show that, the vast majority of the homes where the kids are getting accidentally shot are homes with other problems: domestic abuse, criminal activity, alcohol/drug abuse, etc.

Even with that said I think that any home with gun(s)+kids should be required to have any and all guns locked at all times when there is not an adult directly supervising. Because of my kids I do not currently keep any guns loaded and unlocked. However, I have been shopping around for one of those quick access handgun gun safes (anyone have experience or a recommendation for one of these?).

I think that every parent--during all the other giving birth/hospital discharge stuff--should be made plainly aware of the dangers of unlocked guns. In the piles of booklets and pamphlets there was all kinds of advice on child proofing, etc. I don't recall a single mention of guns, or anyone at the hospital mentioning guns. Our pediatrician did ask if when had guns and the conversation was about 5 seconds:

Pediatrician: "Do you have guns in the house?"

Us: "Yes."

Pediatrician: "Are they locked?"

Us: "Yes."

Pediatrician: "OK."

And that was all.

Dan8267 says

point out any falsehood including lies of omission.

FWIW -- off the top of my head, they didn't really cover the Putin protests at all. I don't recall any coverage of or even a mention of the Pussy Riot trial, either.

I like RT, by the way. I like the BBC better, though!

Forget Russia specific issues. Read their coverage on Syria. Its practically a transcription of Russian government officials statements on the conflict.

FortWayne says

Another good reason to have a gun.

Agreed, but a crossbow is better.

JodyChunder says

FortWayne says

Another good reason to have a gun.

Agreed, but a crossbow is better.

Those don't do too well outside Victoville Jody. :)

FortWayne says

Those don't do too well outside Victoville Jody. :)

Nothing to do with Vville -- there was a study conducted by the CIA from a few years back citing the crossbow as the single-most effective handheld weapon for intimidating an enemy/intruder.

I know there's been some progress made on repeating crossbows as well in the last few years, though nothing terribly elegant has yet emerged.

IDDQD says

leo707 says

I have been shopping around for one of those quick access handgun gun safes (anyone have experience or a recommendation for one of these?).

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/192-0959196-6858010?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Gun+Vault

I have been using their two-shelf "deluxe" model for last 3 or 4 years. No complaints so far.

Thanks.

I have been thinking of getting one with fingerprint entry. Is there a reason why you did not go with that?

I was thinking very simple, one shelf, I don't want to be fumbling around in the dark.