Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greiger]

It's baby sized, it doesn't even take 30-06.  Nobody could cause any harm with a .22 [/sarcasm]

[Haspen]

This.

Asians v:<

[Lord Shonus]

Found out Candy Box was featured on Kotaku, so I went there to look for the article. Meanwhile, I found THIS. What. The. Fuck. I feel sick.

Why on earth would you give an 11 year old a rifle?

It's been pretty solidly proven that teaching young people respect for a gun is more effective in reducing accidents than "don't touch" lectures and access denial (or, even worse, pretending you don't have a gun at all), if there are already guns present in the household or in the households of friends and neighbors. The best way to do that is to teach them to shoot, robbing the weapon of mystery, and helping to show just how much power even a light round has. The safest way to do this is to use a youth-model gun that is sized for a smaller-framed person, firing the relatively safe .22LR cartridge, as a full-sized rifle will be too large to handle safely, and a larger cartridge would produce enough recoil to increase the risk of an accident. This means that simply teaching them to soot your regular rifle is unattractive. Typically, these guns are locked in the same cabinet as any other firearm, and accessible only by the adults of the household, although it's fairly common to relax such restrictions by 14 or 15.

In this case, it's highly likely that the youth in question was either experimenting with drugs, or is developing a mental disorder that needs treatment, judging from the changes in personality that the article mentions.

[Kansa]

It's been pretty solidly proven that teaching young people respect for a gun is more effective in reducing accidents than "don't touch" lectures and access denial (or, even worse, pretending you don't have a gun at all), if there are already guns present in the household or in the households of friends and neighbors. The best way to do that is to teach them to shoot, robbing the weapon of mystery, and helping to show just how much power even a light round has. The safest way to do this is to use a youth-model gun that is sized for a smaller-framed person, firing the relatively safe .22LR cartridge, as a full-sized rifle will be too large to handle safely, and a larger cartridge would produce enough recoil to increase the risk of an accident. This means that simply teaching them to soot your regular rifle is unattractive. Typically, these guns are locked in the same cabinet as any other firearm, and accessible only by the adults of the household, although it's fairly common to relax such restrictions by 14 or 15.

In this case, it's highly likely that the youth in question was either experimenting with drugs, or is developing a mental disorder that needs treatment, judging from the changes in personality that the article mentions.

Couldn't you just take them to a shooting range to teach them that rather than buying them their own personal one?

[RedKing]

This.

Asians v:<

Heh. Nice to see it presented that way. One of those things that I've known for a long time but never had it framed that way.

Like I've said before, when you've been to a sleepy "college town" of six million people, it puts things in perspective. Especially when you go to a megapolis like Shanghai, come back, and actually find yourself saying "Wow, it's so nice to be back in quiet, slow, uncrowded Hangzhou" (with a population density of 3800 per km²) -- about twice that of Vatican City.



Just noticed that two of the most desolate countries in the world (in terms of population density) are Canada and Australia. Given the number of Aussies and Canucks on the forum, it makes ya wonder. 

[penguinofhonor]

That's because those guys are the entire populations of their countries. There are actually no non-Bay12 Australians or Canadians.

[FearfulJesuit]

Of course, something like 90% of Australians live in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra or Perth, and I'm sure if you pulled out the metropolitan populations of Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto etc. you'd probably get at least 70% of Canadians. Do we have any Mongolians on the board? I know we have a Greenlander, but that doesn't count because you can only live on a very, very small strip of coastal rock in Greenland. Canada has lots of habitable land, it just isn't used.

[RedKing]

Of course, something like 90% of Australians live in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Canberra or Perth, and I'm sure if you pulled out the metropolitan populations of Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto etc. you'd probably get at least 70% of Canadians. Do we have any Mongolians on the board? I know we have a Greenlander, but that doesn't count because you can only live on a very, very small strip of coastal rock in Greenland. Canada has lots of habitable land, it just isn't used.

"Habitable" is in the eye of the beholder.

"-40F in the winter and infested with moose" != habitable in my book.

Likewise, much of Australia is uninhabitable. Which means that -- Australians being Australians -- people live there.
"Cor...it's 50C in the shade here, mate! And there's poisonous everything and no water!"
"Too right...where should we place the pub, then?"
 

[Fniff]

Curiosity didn't find life on Mars.

Well, exempting the Australians.

[Sirus]

Anyone else getting Gateway Time-Out messages every time they try to post? O_o

[Descan]

I wonder what the population density of countries would be if you took out uninhabitable land.

It would be a measure of carrying capacity, I suppose? Might have some sociological implications as well.

[da_nang]

I wonder what the population density of countries would be if you took out uninhabitable land.

It would be a measure of carrying capacity, I suppose? Might have some sociological implications as well.

Post-apocalyptic movie making machinery, commence!

[Descan]

I... I meant "take it out of the equation". Don't count it as "land of the country". :I

[RedKing]

I wonder what the population density of countries would be if you took out uninhabitable land.

It would be a measure of carrying capacity, I suppose? Might have some sociological implications as well.

Ahem. it's looking at "arable land" rather than "habitable" but close enough for guesswork.

The Arabian Peninsula states become ridiculously crowded because they're 98% desert.
Places like India and Bangladesh become somewhat less crowded because they're ridiculously arable (near or above 50% of land area).
Canada and Australia remain near the bottom, despite having relatively low arable percentages (4.57% and 6.15% respectively) because the initial populations are still low.

And Greenland suffers a division by zero error, because nothing grows in Greenland.

[MonkeyHead]

With Antartica collaping into a singularity?