Slashdot Mirror

That's a little misleading...Those statistics include people who are arrested for various types of exhibitionism, public indecency, possession of child porn, etc, and not just people who actually go out and actively solicit children for sex.

It's been true in the past, and it's true right now, and it, in all likelihood, will continue to be true...It is far far far more likely for a child to be molested/sexually assaulted by a family member than by a random stranger off the internet...90.2% of sex crimes against minors (bjs) (17 and younger) were by acquaintances and family members, and that percentage only gets higher as they get younger.

As usual though, no one wants to look at that issue...They would much much rather focus on the improbable event of an assault by a stranger, than the far more likely event of an assault by a family member or a family friend.

How ironic !

A criminal organization lecturing us about obeying the law.

Er, since when does Malibu have an international airport?

People seem to have gotten this case confused with an earlier one. David Carruthers, CEO of BetonSports PLC was, indeed arrested in July, 2006 while on layover in Dallas/Fort Worth.

John Lefebvre was arrested in Malibu, however.

The official DOJ press release:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/Januar y07/Neteller%20Arrests%20PR.pdf

Article citing the earlier arrest of David Caruthers while in transit:

http://www.point-spreads.com/news/industry/netelle r-founder-john-lefebvre-granted-bail-20070117.html

next guy to do this will not only be shaking in his boots, but will most likely think twice (ie: is it worth it? probably not.)

Deterrance is a myth easily disproved by none other than the department of justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.htm

Between 1980 and 2000 the number of people in state prison for violent crimes went from 200,000 to 600,000 -- a 150% increase. I can tell you with certainly the US population has not increased that much over the same period of time, so we can assume the prison rate per capita is increasing despite the idea of "making an example".

Wrong document? So if the December status report co-authored by the complainants and defendants disagrees with your forgone conclusions you dismisss it? Perhaps others would care to read for themselves: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f219800/219800.htm

A good explanation here.

And what about gun control laws in America? It's harder to get a gun now than it has been at any prior point in time, yet gun crime is generally trending upward and has been for a long time. Are you sure about that? Read this: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

"Myth. Such a "monopoly" does not exist."

The US DOJ found Microsoft enjoys a "monopoly power". And if that is calling your baby ugly, too bad.

Recidivism rates in sexual offenders are through the roof.

No, they are not: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders." (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Sex offenders are, however, four times more likely than non-sex offenders to commit another sex crime. Ready for the number? Drum roll, please ... 5.3 percent! Through the roof? Pfft.

A more detailed BJS breakdown indicates that people jailed for property crimes are the most likely to reoffend. So, how come the government isn't telling me which of my neighbors I shouldn't loan a cup of flour to?

"By admitting DRM is useless and treating customers like clients instead of criminals?"

Customers shouldn't be treated like criminals, but they shouldn't act like criminals either. Many "customers" act as criminals then bitch and moan when they're being treated as such.

What is needed is a DRM that is advanced enough to be flexible enough to allow all "fair use" while curtailing piracy. That would be the ideal. But the reality is that DRM isn't advanced enough and won't be any time soon, if ever. So the best would be to get rid of DRM altogether. But please do NOT pretend that DRM is broken primarily for "fair use". It's broken for piracy over torrents and P2P and warez sites. In other words, it's broken for "criminal" activity, so I seen no reason why those engaged in such should be treated as "criminals".

Note: I put "criminal" in quotes, because copyright infringement is actually a "civil" offense rather than "criminal", in the US. Unless one pirates more than $1000 worth of works in 180 days, in which case it does become "criminal".

A little digging at the library showed that the population of at federal, state, county and local detention facilities was roughly doubling every 10 years.

Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,320,359 persons at
yearend 2005. This total represents persons held in--

--Federal and State prisons (1,446,269, which excludes State
    and Federal prisoners in local jails)

--territorial prisons (15,735)

--local jails (747,529)

--facilities operated by or exclusively for the Bureau of
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement(10,104)

--military facilities (2,322)

--jails in Indian country (1,745 as of midyear 2004)

--juvenile facilities (96,655 as of 2003).

Nearly 1.6 million inmates were held in the Nation's prisons and local jails

<snip>

Since 1985 the Nation's prison and jail population has nearly doubled on a per capita basis. In 1995 the number of inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents was 600 -- up from 313 in 1985.

The rate of incarceration in prison at yearend 2005 was 491 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents, up from 411 in 1995.

A little digging at the library showed that the population of at federal, state, county and local detention facilities was roughly doubling every 10 years.

Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,320,359 persons at
yearend 2005. This total represents persons held in--

--Federal and State prisons (1,446,269, which excludes State
    and Federal prisoners in local jails)

--territorial prisons (15,735)

--local jails (747,529)

--facilities operated by or exclusively for the Bureau of
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement(10,104)

--military facilities (2,322)

--jails in Indian country (1,745 as of midyear 2004)

--juvenile facilities (96,655 as of 2003).

Nearly 1.6 million inmates were held in the Nation's prisons and local jails

<snip>

Since 1985 the Nation's prison and jail population has nearly doubled on a per capita basis. In 1995 the number of inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents was 600 -- up from 313 in 1985.

The rate of incarceration in prison at yearend 2005 was 491 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents, up from 411 in 1995.

A little digging at the library showed that the population of at federal, state, county and local detention facilities was roughly doubling every 10 years.

Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,320,359 persons at
yearend 2005. This total represents persons held in--

--Federal and State prisons (1,446,269, which excludes State
    and Federal prisoners in local jails)

--territorial prisons (15,735)

--local jails (747,529)

--facilities operated by or exclusively for the Bureau of
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement(10,104)

--military facilities (2,322)

--jails in Indian country (1,745 as of midyear 2004)

--juvenile facilities (96,655 as of 2003).

Nearly 1.6 million inmates were held in the Nation's prisons and local jails

<snip>

Since 1985 the Nation's prison and jail population has nearly doubled on a per capita basis. In 1995 the number of inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents was 600 -- up from 313 in 1985.

The rate of incarceration in prison at yearend 2005 was 491 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents, up from 411 in 1995.

Roe vs. Wade doesn't seem to explain http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crp r.htm income equality has been rising in the time of those graphs too, even the falling portion. maybe progressive social thinker professors spew b.s. about income inquality causing crime, and that's why people repeat it, but reality doesn't agree. Elimination of criminals is a good solution for lowering crime rate. Prison with no parole. Death sentence for rape and murder. Illegally immigrate and join a criminal gang, get classified as invading enemy combatant/terrorist and put to death.

Let's try this again....

I'm afraid not. Copyright infringement is not a crime. If it were a crime, then cases in courts involving copyright infringement would be in criminal courts. They are not.

From: here
Under the Copyright Felony Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-561, 106 Stat. 4233 (1992), infringement of a copyrighted work may now constitute a felony under federal law

Unfortunately, the fact that the victim benefited is rarely a valid defence in a court of law. What's wrong is wrong, period.

MICROSOFT'S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET

33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.

Yeh it's about 3 times our murder rate. Looks far lower when it's a percentage. Wonder if firearm laws make a difference. We don't have the second ammendment like you and firearms laws became strict after the Port Arthur Massacre. So theres no legal ownership of semi-automatic or automatic weapons i think. Farmers and sports shooters can register shotguns and rifles though.

It's interesting to note that hand guns are the weapon of choice for murder in America. Whereas in Australia only 16% of murders are commited with firearms. Australians tend to use knives as the weapon of choice followed by physical force.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/02_s electedCrimeProfiles.html#homicide

The exact reason we are giving credibility to them is because they are credible and directly result in agency policies and procedures. In this case some spooky organization can open your mail and the president will go to court to preserve their ability to do so and that takes time. Lots of it.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm where you will find, "We believe that such statements may on appropriate occasions perform useful and legally significant functions.... directing subordinate officers within the Executive Branch how to interpret or administer the enactment...."

Is there any respect (or even understanding) of the process of law in this country anymore?
Maybe, but the wheels of justice move so slowly that the Executive office can do as they please for quite a while. Along with the last decade or so of vast expansion of Executive power it makes it all the more relevant. Historically speaking, you will note the current supreme court calendar is relatively empty as well.

Here's another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

They may decrease the actual number of murders though, which would be a better result than just increasing the number of convictions.

Well, if you look at the cited circumstances for homicide, a full third of homicides in the U.S. are due to argument. I don't see that cameras would decrease that. Then you have homicides "committed during a rape, robbery, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and violations of prostitution and commercial vice laws, other sex offenses, narcotic drug laws, and gambling laws." Again, I don't see that cameras would decrease homicides in those circumstances. Gang killings? Same thing.

The only category that cameras *may* have an effect are "unknown", which is about a third of the homicides, or about 5,000 people.

Compare that with the fact that in 2003, 13,700 people (at least) died from falling.

Why doesn't everyone make such a big stink about preventing the number of falls in the United States? Why does this country let itself be run by fear?

funny...but I can't believe the number of murders you guys have each year.

Considering the number of people, it's not that high. Although it is higher than Australia:

Murder rate: Australia 0.015 per 1000 people, United States 0.042 per 1000 people.

But there are also more burglaries in Australia vs. the United States: Australia 21.7 per 1000 people, United States 7 per 1000 people.

(link)

Then look at the fact that the homicide rate in general in the U.S. has been decreasing.

Honestly, I don't understand America's obsession with a headlong rush towards a police state.

And not only that, if you look at the U.S. Conviction rate for murder in the United States as compared to the United Kingdom, you'll see that the U.S. conviction rate is several times higher. Even though the U.K. has more cameras.

With results like these, again, is there really an argument for these cameras? Police seem to be doing just fine without them.

Getting us "involved" in Vietnam was pretty long ago, unless you want to count the Republican Eisenhower who got us "involved" (invaded) in Korea just before that - where we're still bogged down a half century later, now a nuclear standoff. Or if you want to count Nixon promising he had a "secret plan to end the War" in Vietnam, while privately planning to dump the Vietnamese after he was re/elected. You want to talk about Republicans being no worse that Democrats, I guess the 50s and 60s - a half-century ago - has some examples to back you up.

Is Barney Frank using a prostitute is the worst you can do "lately" (a quarter century ago)? Compare that with the prostitution ring actually run in Bush Sr's White House. Reagan/Bush's White House also featured the Iran/Contra/S&L operation, which not only shipped arms to America's worst enemy, Iran (now a nuclear standoff). It also funded the operation with illegal bribes^Wdonations from the Saud family (now a nuclear standoff). Illegal arms dealing to foreign cocaine cartels. And (illegal) cocaine sales in the US. All by the CIA that Bush built after Nixon. Also funded by fake CIA identities robbing the S&L's Bush deregulated. While stealing $1.5TRILLION that I'm still paying off in taxes (but Bush's bribers^Wcontributors aren't).

Clinton's pardons are well below the top scores by other presidents - not that you can tell from the Republican corporate media. Let's not forget Ford's selfserving pardon of Nixon, which kept the impeachment or civil trial from exposing Nixon's Republican criminal enterprise. Which kept Republican National Committee Chair Bush Sr free to run a party that attacked the Constitution. Then a CIA under Ford which backed fascist butchers like Pinochet who took down elected governments. Or Bush Sr's pardons of his Iran/Contra/S&L gangsters.

So while it's clear that our government has way too much unaccountable abusability, it's also pretty clear that Republicans are the masters. What else would you expect from the corporate party with the ideology that government is at best obsolete, at worst "communist tyranny"? When they get government power, they wield it like obsolete communist tyrants. Democrats have serious problems (and I'm not one myself), but they're at least sustainable in their abuse. If you want to try to argue a strawman, like "neither party is composed of saints", I guess that's right, but there is an obvious difference in the range of reasonable expectations.

Let's just keep in mind that we're discussing "Republican Aide Tries to Hire Hackers". When you've got news of a Democrat doing that, not maybe just a Democrat using "pencil" as the password to the non-secure laptop they take home from an Agriculture subcommittee, we can talk about "no better". Until then, my sense of proportion screams otherwise.

- DocRuby, posting from an undisclosed location.

Search for "MySpace" on the National Center for Victims of Crime website, and you get a staggering 12 hits, mostly to articles talking about parents groups freaking out.

There is also a victim report(pdf warning) from the DoJ, but the most recent one is 2000, so not much can be made of that. However, searching the DoJ website itself turns up a big 29 hits for MySpace, which drops to 12 hits if you refine the search to include "sexual".

That's pretty damn low.

Search for "MySpace" on the National Center for Victims of Crime website, and you get a staggering 12 hits, mostly to articles talking about parents groups freaking out.

There is also a victim report(pdf warning) from the DoJ, but the most recent one is 2000, so not much can be made of that. However, searching the DoJ website itself turns up a big 29 hits for MySpace, which drops to 12 hits if you refine the search to include "sexual".

That's pretty damn low.

They don't go running to big mama regulator to help them out from the mean old Microsoft bully.

You sure about that?

Microsoft was CONVICTED by the USA Department of Justice for Predatory trade practices and Monopolistic behavior. In that litigation is was proven that Microsoft did indeed limit the ability of all hardware vendors to sell alternative operating systems by:

1. Contractual obligation. Only Microsoft products can be pre-installed or the vendor loses the ablity to sell any Microsoft products.

2. Incentives: All hardware vendors are offered incentives to advertise Microsoft products. When you go to Dell and see the logo: "Dell reccomends Microsoft XP" it is there only because Microsoft will pull Dell's incentive programs if it isn't.

3. Bundling: Microsoft was convicted of predatory practices because of bundling products in order to remove competition.

The list of dirty tricks from Microsoft is vast, but if you want proof of hardware vendor lock-in by Microsoft, look no further than the ruling in US vs Microsoft.

see:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

and for more dirty tricks:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_hist ory

They seem to be largely opinion pieces.

It's not even an exhaustive list of horrible things MS has done. It's not even an exhaustive list of horrible things MS did during the case (e.g. faking video evidence).

And the fact that they got away scott free when Bush came into office doesn't make me feel any better about them either.

Where do you assume this is physically hardwired?

That is specious and presumptious at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

As far as I know there have existed a number of socieities that have been quite permissive of pedophiles and in some cases made it socially expected.

This hardly indicates a hard-wired aversion.

It IS social conditioning of the strongest kind. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but you are inventing science to support your moral argument, which is disingenuous.

Ok, now lets actually address what you SAID.

statistics show paedophilia charges and convictions are on the rise.

The only thing that is "obvious" is that media reports of these charges are on the rise.

Please cite statistics that show charges and convictions are on the rise. Or you can simple let me illustrated that you are ignorant of the facts and are simply pontificating on moral grounds with your "epidemic" "on the rise" claims

Here, let me do it for you

Statistics show a decline in child abuse and neglect
The decline in child sex abuse cases
national child abuse and neglect statistics continued to decline
Child-Abuse and Neglect Cases Decline for Fifth Year, HHS Says ...
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
Statistics Show Decline in Child Abuse
national child abuse and neglect statistics reported by states continued to decline
total decline of 39% in identified sexual abuse cases over a 7-year period
New Child Maltreatment Statistics Show Continuing Decline
Department of Justice: CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES FALL 31 PERCENT OVER SIX YEARS
he hotline has seen a 24 percent annual decline in child abuse reports

I'm sorry, that's just the first two pages out of about 40 in my google search.

Speaking of head in the sand...

Stewed

Sex offenders are generally tracked for a long time out of fear of recidivism, which has a very high rate among sex offenders

Does it? From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

• Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense -- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
• Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison -- 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

I don't know about the rest of you, but 5.3% recidivism doesn't sound awfully high to me. Am I reading that wrong?

Or, perhaps more likely, do the scare tactics about sex offenders simply have no basis in reality?

"To a degree, you are correct. I don't know of anyone who has taken a group of children and raised them in a specific manner as to test these claims, and compare them against another group of children who were strictly kept from these kinds of exposures."

Happily, there's another way to test it, that's almost as good as the one you suggest.

We take one group of children and raise them in a hazily-remembered "golden age", when people didn't lock their doors, nobody had ever heard of drugs and video games were unknown - say, roughly 1976.

Take another group of children and raise them in a sharply-delineated "modern" world, with mass-media, pornography, violence nightly on the TV and violent video games in every bedroom - say around 2006.

Now, take national statistics from both groups, and what do you find?

Well, this, actually.

The US DOJ does this each and every year, and the result is that violent crime, including violent crime by minors has dropped in a more-or-less straight line ever since 1973. I've seen other similar charts which purport to go back even further - to 1903 in one case. All show the same trend.

Say it with me: Media Hysteria != Factual Statistics

"However, if the military knows that to weaken (to the point of destruction) a person's inhibitions against doing X, they just need to "brainwash" them into doing X over and over, the idea has some merit, no?"

No. Brainwashing != playing. The military uses an entire suite of techniques to break down civilian response-sets and inculcate military-appropriate ones - reduction of sleep, tightly regimented lifestyle, punishment for hesitation or disobedience, etc, etc, etc. This is why boot camp isn't "fun" - it's deliberately stress-inducing and unpleasant.

A kid can turn off their console at any point, and games which aren't "fun" don't sell.

It's like comparing apples and peas, because they're superficially similar and both involve "green".

"So, repetitive exposure to exercises where you shoot a human-shaped target creates a habit and a reflex such that you then do this without thinking. This isn't rocket science. It's how you create habits."

The main aim of repetitive exercises is to build up "muscle memory", making the action automatic. Soldiers use guns, and actually run around in muddy fields.

Our kids sit in warm heated/air-conditioned rooms and use joypads or mice.

All we're training our kids to do is to wave a mouse at an enemy soldier and click.

I can see where you're coming from, but this does indicate:

1. A lack of understanding of the technical details of indoctrination/brainwashing procedures
2. A lack of understanding of muscle memory
3. A completely unproven (in fact, counter-indicated) link between two disparare activites
4. A complete inability to differentiate between a fun, unreal game and a real life-or-death choice

"t should not be that difficult to apply the understanding of techniques for creating a habit to the situation of a child with minimal (or oppressive) parental supervision who has a TV or a computer for a baby-sitter."

Aaaaah, the venerable "Of course, my kids are well-brought-up and know the difference, but think of the poor kids with bad parents" argument.

How about we also ban:

* Action figures or toy guns (since it involves actual movement it's more "realistic" training than FPSs)
* Plastic bags (Timmy might choke)
* All cars (Timmy might run out into the road)
* Etc.

"No, this is not the beloved Scientific Method; it involves more than following a rote set of rules and procedures. But if you seriously think about it, it will take you out of your comfort zone, particularly if you enjoy those kinds of games, but mostly because it can apply to multiple areas of life outside of gaming."

Bonus points her

That's like saying First they came for the communists...

You may not be a criminal by way of drug laws, but I guarantee you there is some law out there that makes you a criminal. If it's not a drug law, some other law will do it.

Have you downloaded 10 or more songs worth over $2500 in total? That makes you a criminal. The same law makes you a criminal if you willfully download 1 or more songs worth over $1000.

That's a very difficult question to even attempt to answer. As soon as somebody might attempt to produce a statistic showing one way or the other, the validity of that statistic could be questioned on the grounds of structural racism.

It's impossible to get statistics about who commits more crimes by race, because we don't necessarily even know how many crimes are being committed, and we don't necessarily catch the perpetrator (or even visualize them closely enough to ascertain their race). The closest you could get would be the percentage or number of people arrested for crimes by race, or convicted, or incarcerated.

Most of those statistics (the ones I've ever seen) show a disproportionate number of minorities -- particularly black males -- being arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. One commonly cited figure is the percentage of black men incarcerated vs white men. But this is not necessarily equal to the number of crimes committed, since it assumes that a white and black person have the same odds, after committing a crime, of being caught, arrested, successfully prosecuted and convicted, and sentenced to prison. This is where various aspects of alleged structural racism -- intentional or not -- come into play. Questions arise about the different types of crimes and law enforcement attention paid to them, and which are more likely to be committed by each group, plus different punishments for each. Example: given two people with an equivalent amount of powder cocaine and crack cocaine -- crack being less expensive and more popular with minorities in cities -- the crack has far stiffer penalties for possession per gram.

There have been studies done where people of different races did similar activities (sat outside a fast food joint, in the one I saw), in the same locations, and could consistently be assured of more police attention if they were a minority. While not entirely convincing, it provides some weight to theories that minorities are under more police scrutiny and are thus more likely to get caught in a similar crime (say property crime) than a non-minority.

In the end, it gets so tangled that it's basically impossible to say with certainty that any particular 'race' is more or less likely to commit a crime (and then we can go back and forth on whether races actually exist in any quantifiable way). What does seem to be almost common sense though, are that some 'racial' minority groups tend to live in areas where crime exists at a higher rate than in areas inhabited by majority-group members. Though this would tend to suggest that they are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crimes (by virtue of proximity), the relationship isn't necessarily causative -- there's no evidence (that I've ever seen) that would substantiate calling the minority groups the source of the crime per se, or that if they were replaced by a socioeconomically similar but 'racially' different group, that the net outcomes would be different.

"The percentage of tort cases concluded by trial in U.S. district courts has...declined from 10% in the early 1970s to 2% in 2003." Civil Justice Statistics

It ROCKS!

I usually carry my Kel-Tec P32, which has a Pocket Slipper Laser Aimer. Sits in the front pocket like a PCA or wallet. http://www.smartcarry.com/xsl.jpg

Guns And Laws

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Nice, small gun

http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec_P3AT.htm and

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/keltec_0 92304/ Lifetime guarantee. .32 caliber, $250~ Slightly larger and more money: http://www.waltheramerica.com/firearms/ppks.cfm

Florida gun laws

http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/florida

If you know anyone with young children who need gun safety training http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/materials.asp

The official police academy book for gun laws in Florida http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/indexbook.shtml

The ethics of owning guns http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

Florida's concealed carry permit office http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.htm l

FAQ http://www.guncite.com/index.html and http://gunscholar.com/

Purchase From Dealer

There is no license or permit required to purchase a firearm (rifle, shotgun or handgun) in the State of Florida. However, at the time of purchase an "instant background check" is performed by the dealer calling an 800 number that connects him to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The FDLE operator uses the basic information about you provided by the dealer (name, address, birthdate, Social Security Number, etc.) to check the state and federal computers to determine whether or not you have a criminal record, domestic violence conviction or are subject to a restraining order. If you have a clean record, FDLE tells the dealer that you are Approved, and the sale takes place. If there is a problem with your record the dealer is told that you are Disapproved, and he may not sell you the firearm. Assuming that you are "approved", you may take a rifle or shotgun home immediately. In the case of a handgun, you must wait three days to take it out of the store, a so-called "cooling-off" period. If you are approved, the state distroys the record of the call for the instant background and the dealer keeps a written record, which is later checked by the ATF. From a dealer, the minimum age of a rifle or shotgun is 18; for a handgun it is 21. Persons holding a valid Florida Concealed Weapon License are exempt from the handgun waiting period. Persons holding a Florida Concealed Weapons License must have the Instant Background Check performed. Sale or Transfer Between Individuals

There are no formal requirements for the sale/transfer of a firearm between individuals. However, it is a crime for you to knowingly transfer a firearm to an underaged person, or to a person who you know to be otherwise disqualified (such as a person previously convicted of a felony). For private sales, the minimum age for a rifle, shotgun, or handgun is 18 and no waiting period or background check.

Special County Requirements

In accordance with a Constitutional Revision passed by the voters in November of 1998, any County within Flor

Um, maybe you should check out the WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD.

Yes, one should. One would see countries like Switzerland and Israel where people have easy access to guns, and a murder rate much lower than in the U.S.

We Americans stab and bludgeon each other to death more than most other nations commit total muders.

In the U.S. firearms are used in only 71% of murders. With a base homicide of 5.6 per 100,000 people, that give 1.6 non-gun murders per 100,000.

According to stats here (a bit old, admittedly), that's more than the total muder rate in Denmakr, Austria, Switerland, France, England, Belgium, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Norway, New Zeland, Ierland, the Netherland, Spain, Greece, or Kuwait.

If all guns disappeared from the U.S. tomorrow, and we pretended that guns were never used defensively and that people wouldn't turn to other methods of killing each other, the U.S. would still have about two and half times the murder rate of Japan (0.62/100,000).

Our problem with violence does not rest in our guns.

The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. It's not their job to "interpret" law or the constitution. It is their job to execute the law of the land. Did you flunk middle school and high school history/civics?

I don't know about him, but you sure seem pretty ignorant of how our system works. As the attorney for the United States, the USAG is tasked with rendering opinions and advice on the law for the benefit of the government and the public at large. The USAG's opinions are not binding precedent like a court, but they can be admitted in a court of law as evidence of reliance that a person believed they were acting within the law.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/opinions.htm

The Attorney General has directed the Office of Legal Counsel to publish selected opinions for the convenience of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government, and of the professional bar and the general public. The authority of the Office of Legal Counsel to render legal opinions is derived from the authority of the Attorney General. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Attorney General was authorized to render opinions on questions of law when requested by the President and the heads of executive departments. This authority is now codified at 28 U.S.C. 511-513. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 510 the Attorney General has delegated to the Office of Legal Counsel responsibility for preparing the formal opinions of the Attorney General, rendering opinions to the various federal agencies, assisting the Attorney General in the performance of his function as legal adviser to the President, and rendering opinions to the Attorney General and the heads of the various organizational units of the Department of Justice. 28 C.F.R. 0.25.

The United States Department of Justice says that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

We have over a 3% INMATE population in the US.

Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,071,686 persons at yearend 2000.

Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,267,787 persons at yearend 2004.

We have over a 3% INMATE population in the US.

Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,071,686 persons at yearend 2000.

Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,267,787 persons at yearend 2004.

It is absolutely beyond any doubt that such killer games desensitise unstable characters and can have a stimulating effect.

You want the single most compelling argument that this guy, and every other politician like him, are talking out of their asses?

Try the U.S. government's own Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics graph for Serious violent crime by perceived age of offender.

Consider that the serious violent crime rate (and murder if you check those numbers too) has dropped pretty much year on year since 1993 - the year Doom, arguably the first "murder simulator," was released.

About the one connection you can draw is the murder rate went up rapidly under Reagan and Bush I, down rapidly under Clinton and is slowly going up again under Bush II. Now whether conservatives cause murders or vice-versa and conservative voting is simply a sign of a homicidal society, I'm not even going to venture a guess. But, compared to the "absolutely beyond any doubt" connection that's falsely drawn by conservative politicians to video games and violent crime, it is curious that there's a vastly stronger and far more demonstrably connection between the politicians themselves and violent crime.

RTF"A" - copyright infringement is only a crime when used to gain commercial advantage or private financial gain, or through reproduction or distribution of content with a retail value of over $1000 within a 180 day period. Clearly neither of these fit the situation, so it is not a criminal offence under this law. Also, note the previous post which (probably correctly) explains that copyright infringement is generally speaking a civil violation (see "It's not stealing" by plopez (54068) on Tuesday December 05, @03:37PM #17118440)

I think it's interesting that the 9/11 Report recommended that United States agencies such as the DoD, CIA & FBI learn to share information more freely to overcome terrorism and now they're turning to internet community applications to accomplish that."

They will be sharing more internally, cutting across organizational boundaries and through previous barriers, and not necessarily with the outside world.

We will often never hear of their successes, even when some of them are readily available. I'm astonished how often you read comments denying that there have been any terrorism arrests or convictions, and acting as if it was all made up*.

* And this doesn't even get into the fringe ideas worthy of debunking.

Bull shit.

It sounds very much like just taking a connecting flight through the US could allow you to end up in custody, declared as an illegal combatant, and locked away.

Are you engaged in a plot to kill large numbers of Americans? Are you giving money to Islamist extremist terrorist organizations that are plotting to kill large numbers of Americans? Are you supplying terrorists with: weapons? documents? intelligence? Have you been hanging out on any battlefields and shooting or lobbing grenades at Americans? Have you been spending long periods of time in various countries known for training terrorists after proclaiming your allegiance to Bin Laden and your steadfastness in pursuing Jihad? Are you a Muslim extremist who demands that Spain be returned to Muslim rule, Israel be destroyed, and hang around with extremists Imams while having the occasional problem with weapons that you shouldn't have?

No?

So, why do you think they will be interested in you? They have real threats to be concerned about.

I realize it's unlikely, it's just eerie to know they believe that they can do anything they want.

Unlikely is an understatement. No, they don't believe that they can do anything that they want. That impression might be caused by not knowing American law, history, and the extensive but still limited powers of the US President, especially in time of war. I doubt that President Bush has done much of anything that President Roosevelt didn't do in the 1940s, and in many respects, far less.

. ... and short of torture (which they defined in terms or organ failure and death)

I very much doubt that.

The scary thing is that half of the people in this country would seriously agree with you 100%.

I suspect that many people in this country know of at least some of the terrorism convictions on this partial list from the FBI, and recognize that the recent changes in national security laws actually serve a useful purpose while having little or no significant effect on the vast majority of Americans.

I think the truly scary thing is that a large number of people in this country will deny that there is any threat from terrorists whatsoever despite the convictions, fairly regular fresh arrests, and continuing threats. Simply averting your eyes doesn't make the problem better.

There has not been an al-queda attack on american soil since 9/11, this is absolute proof...

I think this list of just some of the terrorism convictions that the FBI has obtained is more persuasive.

Most it came from an illegal monopoly