Interview With id Software's Robert A. Duffy

LEXI writes: "Accompanying our recent first set of Q3Radiant Tutorials I had the chance to interview one of the programmers behind the editor and the new engine, Mr. Robert A. Duffy of id software. 10 questions asked, 10 answers given. Topics range from personal details, education, job description, over to the new engine and the new tools, to violence in games and George W. Bush. The English original can be found here; the German translation resides at this very spot. The interview should be interesting for as well the quake player desperately awaiting the new engine, as the fresh or old-school mapper."

Comments

What a waste of questions.

[reaper20]

As far as I understand legislation in your country, it is part of the constitution that every american citizen is allowed to wear a gun. In my opinion that is one major reason for teenage high-school killings - while claiming games like "Doom" guilty is completely ridiculous. What is your opinion?

Are you kidding me? They get a chance to ask this guy 10 questions and this is what they come up with? Anyone do any research on this?

Slightly offtopic, but I was wondering how typical non-American's view Americans concerning the second amendment? Surely people don't think we're a bunch of cowboys shooting everything in sight ala Homer Simpson.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-American, I can quite honestly say, "Yes, we do".

Re:What a waste of questions.

[Phosphor3k]

You mean we are not supposed to shoot first and ask questions later?

Re:What a waste of questions.

[Kalani]

Upside, another Einstein

Only if you assume Einstein's work to be a product of genetic predisposition.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[zulux]

Surely people don't think we're a bunch of cowboys shooting everything in sight ala Homer Simpson.


Yep! I've met a lot of French people who think we're all a bunch of gun carying death-penalty xenophobes. Of course when they talk to me, they think I'm one of the rare polite Americans. It's kind fun to watch their reaction when I tell them that I'm pro 2nd ammendment, and feel we should hold criminals accountable for their actions. They just can't seem to grasp that there could be someone that holds these views and is still a decent and kind human being.

I've actually been quite sucuessfull in persuading a large quantitiy of French people that personal responsibility and personal accountability are the true choice of a Liberty seeking people.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[sunking2]

Apparently the rest of the world is as ignorant of America as they claim Americans are of the rest of the world.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[Skirwan]

Yep! I've met a lot of French people who think we're all a bunch of gun carying death-penalty xenophobes.

I suppose it's only fair, since a lot of Americans think the French are all a bunch of wine-sipping snobby knight-taunters.

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

--
Damn the Emperor!

Re:What a waste of questions.

[zulux]

I tend to agree with a quote I read once: "As far as I'm concerned, your French should be bowing down to America on a daily basis, thanking us for saving your butts from the Nazis, which I'm still not convinced was that great an idea in the first place."

Don't mistake the hot words of the jerk French Socialists for the true feelings of most of people of France

Native French people are honored that we, and our allies, came to their defense and helped them in their time of need. Hell, they even have a bit of their homeland to the United States as a token of their appreciation. The gravesites of Allied soldiers from WWI and WWII are lovingly cared for.

One of the most touching things I've ever seen, was in a small church near Le Puy - inside was a chapel dedicated to the American dead of WWI. Complete with fresh flowers and a vigil candle, it wasn't a show for American tourists - there hadn't been one there for years.

If you ever have the chance to go to France, do two things: Learn a small amount of French (they'll love you for it) and travel outside of Paris (it's a completly different counry).

Re:What a waste of questions.

[dgroskind]

As far as I'm concerned, your French should be bowing down to America on a daily basis..

To a large extent, America owes its independence to French assistance during the Revolution as this history attests:
Throughout the war France dealt liberally with the colonies. She had driven no hard bargain, when she promised them her aid; if it had not been for French assistance, the army of Washington would have disbanded because the states were unable or unwilling to raise the money to supply the needs of the soldiers; had it not been for the assistance of the French army and fleet, Yorktown would not have been taken.

Perhaps it is you who should be bowing down on a daily basis.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[Hast]

Yes, and just like a lot of people in the states they have no grasp of irony. ;-)

Re:What a waste of questions.

[pete-classic]

The irony is overwhelming. Frenchmen considering Americans to be xenophobic. Aren't these the people who wouldn't allow the word "rocket" into their language?

On the subject of the French language, is it possible to say "Defend the border." in French? They hate American guns except on the occasions when those guns are sparing them from becoming a German province.

-Peter

Re:What a waste of questions.

[NonSequor]

Ideally, coffee should be heated to 170 degrees. Past that it starts to burn. 180 degrees is slightly hotter than is desirable, but not much hotter than any other cup of coffee.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[56ker]

As I don't speak French I used babelfish -

Défendez le cadre!

Then I realise you didn't mean it literally!

Re:What a waste of questions.

[Chagrin]

You can find the truth about the case here.

She was ultimately only awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $480,000 in punitive damages. Also, she initially offered to settle with McDonalds for $20,000, but McDonalds refused (this was presumably to pay for her medical bills).

I think the real sin here is how the media managed to put the wrong answer in everyone's mind, as demonstrated by the general lack of knowledge about the true outcome of this particular case.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[tweek]

Hehehe. My family's lineage is french and I still make jokes about it.

My fav is that somewhere in Paris, there is a document that says "Fill in name of invading country here."

Re:What a waste of questions.

[dgroskind]

I've actually been quite sucuessfull in persuading a large quantitiy of French people that personal responsibility and personal accountability are the true choice of a Liberty seeking people

Perhaps you succeeded where Montesquieu, Voltaire, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man failed.

Perhaps they were delighted to have an American explain what their true choice should be as a libery-seeking people. After all, the French had only abolished slavery in France a mere 70 years before it was abolished in the U.S.

Perhaps the French had no paragons of personal responsibility and accountability to match Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton and thus were happy to use your humble self as a working example.

Now perhaps some of your fellow Americans could stand some similar enlightenment.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[1010011010]

+1 insightful, but the Americans and French have a long history of helping each other.

Neither France nor America should bowing down to the other, just as friends and brothers do not bow down before each other.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[shawnmelliott]

Which is why in WW1 and WW2 we had to be there to cover their front lines. If it wasn't for American intervention there would be no more french controlled Paris. Of course we did come late in the action but the point is that they were at a standstill or even worse ready to break

Re:What a waste of questions.

[thelizman]

heh heh...the french are the last people who should cally anyone xenophobic.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[jcast]

I think this is where the Declaration of the Rights of Man failed...

Re:What a waste of questions.

[beerits]

Just posting to cancel out my moderation, it was supposed to be underrated not overrated
sorry

Re:What a waste of questions.

[spongman]

sparing them from becoming a German province

Ahem, that should be 'rescuing them from being a German province.'

Re:What a waste of questions.

[dgroskind]

And this is where the Bill of Rights failed. And here.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[sydb]

Zulux: Hey you Frenchies! You think you understand liberty? It's time to wake up and smell the coffee! The good ol' US of A can teach you all there is to know about liberty! It's about responsibility and accountability! These are standards at the core of our national psyche! That should be obvious. Now look at our wonderful country!

Jacques: Wot iz zis mad American on about? 'E comes over 'ere, telling us, ze French, about ze Liberty!

Claude: Zut! I know wot you mean... but 'e 'as been doing zis wiz everyone 'e 'as met! I say, 'umour 'im.

Jacques: Ah, oui...Yes Zulux! You are so right... I wish I 'ad understood earlier!

Re:What a waste of questions.

[pete-classic]

You are 100% correct.

I was posting too rapid-fire. Thank you for the correction.

-Peter

Re:What a waste of questions.

[zulux]

I assume your points were made in jest and not out of ignorance, so I won't attack the straw-man that you have carefully built for yourself.

Your average Parisian is still far removed from the thoughts of the great French thinkers - they are still consumed with thoughts of safty and comfort, and will happiliy trade liberty for them.

So yes, childish giggling aside, your average American is much more liberty minded than your average comfort/security mided city dwelling French person.

You'll note that I've made a distinction between the Parisian and non-Parisian citizens - the diferance between the two are imense and need to be taken into account when one is making generilisations.

Ah what the hell, your straw-man is too tempting..

Need we compair the paranoid Nixon and the randy Clinton to the merderous Vichey? Say whay you want about Americans, but very few of us would trade our liberty for the temporary safty of surrendering to an army of evil. Would the rest of world be so liberty minded.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[YouAreCorrect]

One day I really have to read an American high school history text book. I'm interested in seeing the revising of history in action.

American involvement against the Germans was quite minimal compaired to other countries, as most of their efforts were directed at Japan (rightfully so.. Japan was the one that bombed the hell out of Pearl Harbour). It's just interesting to see people believe that the world was losing and dying against the Germans until the Americans swept in and kicked the ass of everything that moved. I'm not trying to downplay the role of the USA in the second world war here, as every little bit helped.
The people you helped most would be Australians, Chinese, and the serveral island countries that Japan seemed intent on taking over at the time.

It just amazes me to see American people not knowing the history of the largest conflict of modern times.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[pete-classic]

American involvement against the Germans was quite minimal compaired to other countries

Very true. The only ones who did less than the US was France.

Well, perhaps my history book replaced the truth about the French standing on the beach on D-day yelling "Go home Americans, with your dirty guns!" and replaced it with the lie that France fell to the Germans.

Thank you for setting me straight.

-Peter

Re:What a waste of questions.

[dgroskind]

your average American is much more liberty minded than your average comfort/security mided city dwelling French person.

Not judged by voter turnout at elections. The U.S. has the lowest turnout of any of the Western democracies. I don't know where your liberty-minded Americans are but they tend to stay home on election day.

Say whay you want about Americans, but very few of us would trade our liberty for the temporary safty of surrendering to an army of evil.

The U.S. sat safely behind its ocean stronghold for 2 full years while the "army of evil" overran everything it its path. In fact the U.S. pre-war policy was exactly one of trading national security for temporary safety as long as it could.

In any case, the French defeat had to do with mistaken reliance on the Maginot Line and outdated military strategy, not a deficiency of personal responsibility and accountability, your two great lessons in liberty. When you compare the crime rate in France vs. the U.S., I have no idea why you think the French deficient in personal responsibility.

Would the rest of world be so liberty minded.

A neat and typically American dichotomy here: the U.S.A. and the Rest Of The World. I'm not sure what you mean by "liberty minded" but you appear to think America has some kind of monopoly on it. FYI, it doesn't.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[zulux]

Uh oh.

I get the feeling that your just another euro-troll, trying to make a big deal over the diferences that make the world an interesting place.

Here's a hint for your life: atempting to make yourself feel better by draging another though the mud is only a temporary satisfaction. Perhaps you should lead a more introspective life, and perhaps this will do you good.

Good bye.

Re:What a waste of questions.

[Paul Komarek]

"do two things: Learn a small amount of French (they'll love you for it)"

This is very true in my experience. When I've used my horrible, broken, wrong, pathetic tatters of French learned long ago, the French I've encountered were patient and made a strong effort to understand and help me. I've been told, though, that they really hate it when some American expects them to know English. Sounds fair enough to me.

-Paul Komarek

Re:What a waste of questions.

[dgroskind]

just another euro-troll

From your original post:

They just can't seem to grasp that there could be someone that holds these views and is still a decent and kind human being.

You seem to have the same problem yourself.

evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[isolation]

When I read this crap it just makes me want to go buy more guns.

We dont have the right to bear arms based on a need to hunt or to be protected from bandits (Stated Cowboys above). We have the right to bear arms for the purpose of overthrowing our government in the event it becomes something the violates the basic rights of man.

Try thinking rather then feeling.

.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[McCarrum]

(sigh)

Emotions aside, my rather quick statement had little to do with 'feeling'. I understand why these clauses exist. Again, that is not the issue.

The only issue I raised is that the age of the document does not help address all the issues faced by the nation - not that the issues the document raises are invalid.

Still, this is slashdot, so I should expect knee jerk reactions :)

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[abigor]

If you people (Americans) honestly think that a bunch of suburbanites armed with rifles and handguns can overthrown the government in charge of the most powerful military the world has ever seen, you are even dumber than your reputation allows.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[kyras]

I would politely point out here that the Constitution is not the only body of law in the US. Consequently, new issues that need to be addressed can be handled by making new laws without amending the Constitution. I'm not saying American govt is perfect (in fact, I think it's quite the opposite). I'm just saying that this whole "well, the Constitution is old so none of the new issues must have been addressed" stuff is rather silly.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[kingred]

Ah, but that is exactly what happened when the American Colonies rebelled against England. England was, at that time, the most powerful nation on earth, militarily. And yet the Colonists managed to win their independence. Heck, they didn't even have cannons in the beginning.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[w00d]

What makes you think our military would have anything to do with actions against our own citizenry? This isn't 1938 Germany. Our military has more respect for our Constitution than 99% of our politicians do. They're the ones who uphold its values, the politicians are the ones who destory it. You've got it all backwards, friend.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[rot26]

In the end, ALL wars are won or lost by men carrying guns and shooting at each other. Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc all prove the rule.

And since you apparently haven't notice, some things are worth fighting for EVEN WHEN YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOOMED TO FAILURE.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[dangermouse]

The idea, actually, is to provide a balance of military power between the Federal and State governments; should the Federal government attempt to use military means to usurp power, the States stand ready with their militias (read: the National Guard) and the posse comitatus to oppose that usurpation.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[grylnsmn]

When my father joined the navy, he took the same oath that the President of the United States, the Vice President, Senators, Congressmen and judges take, namely to "preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic". His oath was not to the President, Congress or any other person/entity. If the President and/or Congress started to act unconstitutionally, the military would join the rebellion, not fight against it. That is why an officer cannot be ordered to do something unconstitutional, because his oath take precedence over his orders.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[lothix]

Well said! Mod this up please.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[hettb]

Calm down and get over your irrational, baseless inferiority complexes.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[dangermouse]

The national guard is actually under dual command. It is under federal command in time of war, but the States retain officer appointment and all recruiting responsibilities, as well as command for law enforcement or emergency response purposes. It was brought under this dual command at the beginning of the 20th century, formed from the existing state militias.

The recruiting and appointment powers ensure that the States retain control of their national guard units in the event of a Federal vs. State military engagement; officers owing their appointments to a State will owe their allegiance first and foremost to that State, as will recruits.

The National Guard is still very much a State-centric force. There's a pretty good history available here.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[mselmeci]

That is why an officer cannot be ordered to do something unconstitutional, because his oath take precedence over his orders.

Would said officer necessarily remember that part when ordered? Just because he won't be incriminated in a court-martial doesn't mean that the threat of court-martialing him won't drive him to action.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[mrfunky405]

It would be nice if we could count on things to work that way.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[Lemmy Caution]

(sigh)

Frankly, I don't have strong feelings about the 2nd amendment one way or another. But ninety percent of the arguments made by the pro-gunners seem so strained, ridiculous and hysterical, that it actually weakens my respect for their stance. (Versus only about 20 percent of the anti-gun arguments.)

As far as I'm concerned, all countries are equally unfree as long as the core, essential freedom of being able to do with your own body want you want is universally infringed. I say this as a teetotalling drug-abstainer: that the criminalization of drugs, especially pretty harmless ones, is a far greater civil liberties issue than the 2nd amendment. But you don't see the would-be warriors of freedom doing much about it.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[Martin Blank]

If you people (Americans) honestly think that a bunch of suburbanites armed with rifles and handguns can overthrown the government in charge of the most powerful military the world has ever seen, you are even dumber than your reputation allows.

I submit to you Exhibit A: The Afghan mujahideen, who used rifles and a few light rockets to defeat an army of well-trained soldiers equipped with tanks, helicopters, and fighter-bombers.

I submit to you Exhibit B: Palestinians, who, with the exception of their abhorrent use of suicide bombers, have made a major pain of themselves using only light weapons and homemade explosives, managing to destroy two Merkava tanks -- arguably the best tanks in the world -- as well as successfully ambushing a number of Israeli patrols.

I submit to you Exhibit C: The Chechnyans, who used (and still use) small arms and homemade explosives almost exclusively to not only hold back the well-trained, well-equipped Russian army, but to also make Chechnya the most feared assignment for a soldier since Afghanistan.

A rifleman standing up to a tank is committing suicide. A coordinated team of private citizens, well motivated and using light weapons, can conduct a guerilla campaign to exploit the weaknesses inherent in a large, well-equipped force. Armor is meant for use against armor and fortified structures. Vehicles are inherently less mobile than people. Soldiers do not want to march into certain death. All are weaknesses that work well to a rebel's advantage.

Consider, also, that even with a peak army of two million personnel, the United States armed forces would have been facing a significant portion of 250 million guns, and you gotta get out of that tank sometime.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Just because he won't be incriminated in a court-martial doesn't mean that the threat of court-martialing him won't drive him to action.

My understanding is that obeying an unjust order can lead an officer to court martial. Sometimes there is no good way out of a bad situation.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[abigor]

Sorry, I didn't realise that people in the military made no oath to the President, etc. I stand corrected. Still, I question whether a general uprising of the American people would be supported by the military. Sorry, it just seems a bit...romantic (for lack of a better term). I suspect the media would spin it as a Waco type of thing. And another thing: if the American government were to become hopelessly corrupt and harmful to its citizens, how would you know? It's not like they would start mercilessly killing people at random, or ban elections. So how do you know it hasn't happened already? Must you wait for a Germany circa 1933 scenario before you act?

By the way, I'm not European (this is in reply to all the others who responded to the original inflammatory post I made). And no, I don't REALLY think all Americans are idiots -- being Canadian, I've several American friends -- but hey, that is the general worldwide reputation, and it's fun to rile you guys up sometimes :)

However, it must be said that an all-Canadian Stanley Cup would be cool.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[Waffle Iron]

Exhibit A: The Afghan mujahideen, who used rifles and a few light rockets to defeat an army of well-trained soldiers equipped with tanks, helicopters, and fighter-bombers.

However, routed in a few weeks by US-led forces.

Exhibit B: Palestinians, who, with the exception of their abhorrent use of suicide bombers, have made a major pain of themselves using only light weapons and homemade explosives, managing to destroy two Merkava tanks -- arguably the best tanks in the world -- as well as successfully ambushing a number of Israeli patrols.

The only area where they have made an impact is the suicide bombings, which is based on explosives and, more importantly, instant worldwide video coverage. Their guns aren't relavent; few would notice if all they did was pick off a few Israeli sodiers.

Exhibit C

I don't know enough about that one to comment.

Small arms are increasingly irrelevant in today's conflicts. The effective weapons used by today's rebels and/or terrorists are already illegal in the US.

The average gunowner could do just about diddly squat to overthrow a hypothetical oppressive regime in the 21st century. The regime would probably be elected into power, no offensive assault necessary. The people couldn't launch a counter-offensive because modern technology allows the tracking of all communications and movement; a bad regime would use these methods to their fullest extent.

All that would remain to cement the hold on power would be to use old-fashioned Stalinist methods to eliminate the most troublesome 5% of the population one household at a time, in the middle of the night. The secret police would have body armor and better weapons than most any of their victims.

If you really want the Constitution to protect you from evil governments, you should consider bringing it up to date with the latest advances in information technology. For example, an ammendment to prevent the government from accumulating a Gestapo-like dossier on each citizen by correlating all available tidbits of personal knowlege in a database.

Ultimately, however, the most effective way to avoid this scenario is for each citizen to work against putting these types of people in power in the first place. All that requires is voting intelligently.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[Martin Blank]

The Taleban were routed in a few weeks by US-led forces. That's not the same as the mujahadeen that fought off the Soviets in the 80s.

With little more than rifles and a few anti-aircraft missiles supplied by outsiders like the United States and China, the mujahadeen inflicted losses on the Red Army as had not been seen since WW2. The Russians had used similar tactics to resist the Germans, but then grew complacent in their technology as the decades passed.

If you really want to see how low they went, look on Kazaa or a similar program for the keywords "Russian soldier" and watch as one gets executed. (WARNING: You'd better have a STRONG stomach to watch that film, and not have eaten anything in the prior half-hour.) Such simple, brutal deaths led to the complete demoralization of the Red Army and the resultant withdrawal. When your army doesn't want to fight anymore, it's hard to press them into battle. Technology was not a factor in those battles. The mujahadeen made themselves difficult to hit, and inflicted losses despite the changing tactics of the Russians.

As for the Palestinians, what you don't often see are the deaths and injuries on the Israeli side of the gun battles. With a well-planned ambush, Palestinian gunmen recently led Israeli troops into an ambush in which 13 soldiers were killed and a further seven wounded. Israeli soldiers have died in other engagements. The only limiting factor is the terrain, which is hard to hide in by the Palestinians.

In the United States, as in most countries, we have varied terrain in which to fight. They're STILL looking for Eric Rudolph for the bombing of an abortion clinic (or maybe two) and the Atlanta Olympics. He disappeared into the Appalachian forest, and the biggest manhunt in US history ensued. His knowledge of the terrain kept him from being found. The same could -- and does -- happen with small groups of rebels. Consider that it took a couple of thousand troops to dislodge/kill 800 al Qaeda forces in Operation Anaconda, even with air superiority, and the US side still lost at least nine soldiers. I haven't seen how many the Afghan allied forces lost.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[thelizman]

And why not? No level of technologically advanced weaponry can defeat the will of a people fighting for their right of self determination. I would think the Viet-Namese, Mujahadeen, Somali Militia, and so on would have made that point clear by now.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[thelizman]

If you honestly think that buying drugs is "harmless", you really need to take a step back. The illegal drug trade is operated by and profits post-marxist leninst rebel groups who have become nothing more than petty thugs that terrorize their local populations.

Then, you've got to consider that drug dealers USUALLY commit crimes to protect their turf, and drug users sometimes commit crimes to support their habit, and even more people get hurt.

So maybe if we legalize it, some of this will go away, but you can't sit there say with a straight face that the crackhead down the street isn't hurting more than just himself. I don't think you're that dumb.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[thelizman]

Just like the Mujahadeen, using heavy infantry armed with antiquated rifles and improvised weaponry using guerilla tactics did'nt kick the soviets out of Afghanistan?

No military in the history of man has been able to completely conquer a people not willing to be conquered.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[thelizman]

Emotions aside, the Constitution was written as a living document, meant to evolve to take on the changing demands of an evolving society. BUT, those first ten amendments were written to be unquestionable. They form the foundations by which our government operates with respect to it's subordinate governments (state, county, local) and its citizens. It very clearly defines both the powers and limitations of what the federal government can do. Looking at this document in a historical context is useful for understanding why they said these things, but looking at it in a modern context is required of us.

Re:evolving document - I wish I had more guns

[Lemmy Caution]

I don't know where to start - with your obvious confusion over the fact that it is the very illegality of drugs that creates a crime-infested black market, with your conflation of the economy of the illegal drug market with the right of every individual to do what he wants with his own body, with the mix-up between what people do to support habits good, bad and indifferent and their relative rights to have those habits to begin with - your entire post is an exercise in irrelevance and confusion. Please try again.

No firearms?

[WhaDaYaKnow]

Robert Duffy: Well wearing a gun and owning a gun are two very different things and neither of them have to do with any game in my opinion. The only countries I have ever seen citizens wearing guns are ones where it was illegal. I don't think to date I have seen a citizen wearing a firearm in public here in the US.

Riiiight. That's not a gun in my pocket, I'm just happy to see you.

Re:No firearms?

[WhaDaYaKnow]

Uhm, read the newspapers, and then tell me again that no-one carries a gun.

Who are you trying to fool? Not only do people carry guns, people get killed by those very same weapons. If these guns where sitting at home behind a lock, how come so many people get killed?

Even a 'pro gun' website like guncite admits that there's kids killed in accidents. I quote:

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents.

Oh, good! there's more kids drowning, so that justifies it then. God, you all make me sick.

Re:No firearms?

[dietz]

Uhm, read the newspapers, and then tell me again that no-one carries a gun.

The difference here is that we're talking about how "wearing" a gun is legal for everyone in the US. That's true. It's legal to carry a firearm around if it's not concealed.

It is NOT however legal to carry a gun in your pocket without special permission. That's a concealed weapon.

You don't understand the difference, so you argue a bullshit point.

Way to go, dipshit.

Re:No firearms?

[Gordonjcp]

You have been propogandized so extensively against ones choice to own a firearm, that you have become emotional about it.

I live in the UK. I choose to own a firearm, so I do. Simple as that. I just don't agree that everyone has a right to own a gun. Where's the problem with that? I am all for stricter controls on guns. The way it currently works is this:

In order to own some sort of gun, you need a licence. In order to get this licence, you need to be basically not a loonie and not a criminal. You fill out a few forms, get the licence stamped at your friendly neighbourhood police station, then go and get what you want. You need different licences for different kinds of guns, and if you want to become a gun dealer you need a different kind of licence altogether (but then you can legally own automatic weapons, RPG's, anything really).

Getting a gun licence in the UK is marginally harder that getting a driving licence, but quite a bit more expensive.

Re:No firearms?

[WhaDaYaKnow]

It is NOT however legal to carry a gun in your pocket without special permission. That's a concealed weapon.

Oh, yeah, good point, so how is having a permission and carrying a concealed weapon NOT carrying a gun?

You are absolutely right that I don't understand the difference between wearing a gun and wearing a gun. That one is with a license and the other one isn't doesn't change a rats ass for me. The point for me is that people are killed by guns and you CAN NOT DENY THAT.

But, of course a silly discussion to start on an american website. If there's one way to get an american excited, then it is to start about their guns.

Re:No firearms?

[dietz]

Oh, yeah, good point, so how is having a permission and carrying a concealed weapon NOT carrying a gun?

Fuck, read what you wrote. We were talking about wearing a gun, which is a different thing entirely than carrying a concealed weapon. The dipshit on the website was claiming that America was evil because anyone is allowed to wear a gun. Well he, LIKE YOU, does not understand what "wearing a gun" means. I dare you to find statistics on people killed by non-concealed weapons. I'd bet you money it was nearly non-existent.

And, FWIW, I fully support gun control, but I also am opposed to idiots who argue about things they don't understand. In this case, that's you.

Re:No firearms?

[Gordonjcp]

I am by no means rich. Anyway, I don't have a gun to defend myself. I neither need, nor want, a gun to defend myself. A gun is a pretty handy way of getting rid of foxes and hoodie crows, but a pretty impractical method of defence.

What would I need to defend myself against, that I need a gun for?

Re:No firearms?

[WhaDaYaKnow]

I dare you to find statistics on people killed by non-concealed weapons. I'd bet you money it was nearly non-existent.

Uhm, 250 kids in accidents? I pulled that from a pro-gun website. I know it's less than kids dying from drowning, but water is around for other reasons than just being a weapon. I think it's a sickening comparison.

BUT, don't get me wrong either, if you are saying that most killing happens by people ilegally carrying a gun, then yeah that's probably right.

However, it's an order of magnitude easier to obtain a gun here ilegally than it is in, say Germany. You probably have great arguments that that has nothing to do with people owning guns legally in the US, so go ahead.

In any case, I don't know if people should be allowed to have guns. I like the way the Dutch look at it: if it hurts someone else, than forget about it. If it doesn't, but it could potentially hurt yourself, well, that's your own choice. Hence: no guns, but smoke whatever you must.

I'm also not saying that guns being legal makes the US evil, or that it has caused high-school shooting. I believe that's a simple conclusion to draw, but the bottom line is that there's still a person at the other end of the barrel that decides to pull the trigger. If he hadn't had a gun he'd probably have found something else...

Anyways, thanks for calling me a dipshit and idiot. Let's see what you can come up with this time.

Re:No firearms?

[Gordonjcp]

And do you not have tyranny in the US? From the relative freedom of Europe, it certainly looks like it.

Things like rape alarms, and pepper spray, work pretty well against rapists, or indeed any other attacker. I, like you, rely on being male, 6' tall and 14 stone as a physical deterrent. However, what's to stop a rapist pulling a gun on their intended victim? What are the actual figures for guns preventing physical assault?

Also, bear in mind that if you do shoot someone who attacks you, you're still going to be in trouble yourself, even with a plea of self-defence.

Re:No firearms?

[thelizman]

I carry a gun. .45 caliber Ruger P-97 DC, 8 round clip plus I keep one in the chamber. I also keep an extra clip handy. Here in Arizona, we have open carry rights, so I occasionally wear it on my hip holster (like when I'm biking or hiking). I also have my concealed carry permit, and when I go out I keep it tucked away under a jacket. I prefer it concealed cause I don't have to put up with mindfucked blank stares and dumfuck questions from gun-paranoid idiots.

To date:

• I haven't shot anyone
  
• Nobody has been shot by my gun
  
• I've only pointed my gun at two people, both of whom where about to commit a crime against my person or property (and both of those times were actually in Texas, where you can only carry concealed)
  
• Only five people have ever known I was even carrying (the afore mentioned would-be criminals, two cops, as it is your duty to inform an officer of the law, and one girl who hugged me and asked "what the fuck is under your shirt").
  
• My gun has been completely out of the reach of children, drunks, manic depressives, schizophrenics, and generally anyone not properly trained in handling a firearm.
  

Yes, more children die from drowning or burns than die from guns, but nelly little faggots like you would rather attack the inanimate object involved in a shooting accident than the more culpable agent - the idiot so called adults who don't excercise proper supervision and safety in the area of their children.

But then, just as we should ban all guns, lets also ban DeCSS. Makes sense both ways right?

Re:No firearms?

[thelizman]

The point for me is that people are killed by guns and you CAN NOT DENY THAT.

I deny it. Unless you bludgeon someone with the gun, guns don't kill - it's the bullets that do the killing.

Fuck it, guns don't kill people, I kill people.

Re:No firearms?

[thelizman]

That is essentially what is involved in the US.

To purchase a handgun, depending on the state, you have to either procure a permit (and wait 5 days for the permit to process, which is also a cooling off period), or submit to an instant background check. For both handguns and longguns, you have to fill out BATF form 4473, which basically asks you if you're a nut, child/wife beater, etc. Lying on the form is easy to do, and it's also purjury.

In some places, you cannot carry a firearm in public. Most places, you can carry it concealed with a permit. A few places you do not require a permit to carry in the open (but concealed still requires a permit). In almost every case, discharging the weapon in city or town limits is a crime, even if you are defending yourself or stopping a crime (in which case the court often dismisses the discharge under the "Doctrine of Lesser Harms", or "Doctrine of the Right of Self Defense").

To purchase a given quantity of guns in a year, you need to have a Federal Firearms License, which requires strict background checks, and you must maintain a log of all your guns and when they leave your posession.

In any of the above cases, fully automatic and silenced firearms require that you register the weapon and pay a $200 yearly tax (why would anyone want a silenced weapon? Well, it's a lot more fun to shoot targets when you don't have to worry about pissing off or waking the neighbors).

In all cases, the right of a US citizen to keep and bear arms (and by extension, to purchase) is protected and unimpeachable unless that person is convicted of a felony, kicked out the military dishonorably, or declared a nut by a judge. Unfortunately, the same people who vehemently defend the first amendment are noticeably silent about the second. As evidenced by this, there is currently a condition (it's not even a law, but it is enforced as such) where if you have had a restraining order placed against you, you cannot have a firearm. What that means is, your constitutional right can be stripped from you without due process, simply because someone else asks that you stay away from them.

Michael Kinsley, former editor of Slate and unabashed liberal, once said that "if liberals regarded the second amendment as they did the first, gun ownership would be mandatory".

Re:No firearms?

[WhaDaYaKnow]

I've only pointed my gun at two people, both of whom where about to commit a crime against my person or property

That's great, until you run into the next criminal that holds a gun of his own. Or do you think criminals do not wisen up to that?

I'm getting a little tired of this argument, I fail for example to see what the CSS stuff has to do with it.

I hope I will never be within shooting range from you, because as much as you trust your judgement, I do not.

nelly little faggots like you

The name calling that you and your gun loving friends use here, display a wealth of intelligence, and makes me feel a lot better about y'all having your guns.

Re:No firearms?

[thelizman]

Quite honestly, it's the stupidity of the people who leave guns, water, and fire sitting out in the open where kids can get to it that are the problem. When I was a kid, my parents kept the fire locked up in the stove, water locked up in the faucet, and the guns locked up in the top shelf of the closet.

I mean, it took forever to cut that damn lock off the gun, even after I managed to climb up and get it. I was pissed when I could'nt find the bullets...

Re:No firearms?

[linzeal]

What about swimming pool fences? What about bike helmet laws or god forbid the mandating of bike paths on all public roads? Guns are here for a reason to protect people from the tyranny of government. Are you going to ban all poisonous chemicals and make us start using simple green because kids can drink it like kool-aid?

Re:No firearms?

[linzeal]

Manic depressives? What the hell is wrong with letting people who are little whacky but not homicidal have a gun?

Re:No firearms?

[jcast]

Sorry, but using the word ``y'all'' will not convince us of your non-``civilization''.

Cilivilized man, n.: someone begging to have a crime committed against him.

Re:No firearms?

[jcast]

What are the actual figures for guns preventing physical assault?

Here.

Re:No firearms?

[TotallyUseless]

so if someone wants to shoot another person, you think because they have to get a key and unlock their gun, they will change their mind? most shootings involve people illegally carrying firearms, not law abiding citizens. if someone wants to go shoot the guy that has been screwing his wife, not having a permit to carry a concealed handgun isnt going to stop him. Not having any firearms available in the country would stop him, but if you look at the problem from that point of view, you are about 200 years too late. guns are here in the US, and here to stay. no way you could get rid of them now.

also, just as you shouldnt get a pool installed at your home without teaching your kid to swim, you also shouldnt own a firearm without teaching them to haver proper respect for it, I.E. treat a firearm as tho it is always loaded, even if you 'know' it isnt. if you teach a kid proper respect for firearms, and he still kills himself, well, then something else prolly would have gotten him at some point. its called natural selection. not everyone dies of old age.

Re:No firearms?

[EpsCylonB]

Why do they have guns ?, becuase they are allowed to by their constitution.

Re:No firearms?

[EpsCylonB]

if you teach a kid proper respect for firearms, and he still kills himself, well, then something else prolly would have gotten him at some point. its called natural selection. not everyone dies of old age.

Thats fascism. Why should we bother to help disabled or sick people ?, they woudn't survive naturally would they ?.

Re:No firearms?

[Gordonjcp]

Yeah, I've read ESR's paper before. He makes a pretty convincing argument for carrying a gun in much of the US.
I'd like to re-iterate my previous point. Yes, you get violent crime in the UK, but not to the point that I'd consider carrying a gun to "defend" myself. Looking at your figures, or rather Eric Raymond's figures, it looks like the US must be one of the most violent countries in the world.

I'm just not even going to trot out the tired old chestnut about "You're the ones with metal detectors in schools" ...

Re:No firearms?

[thelizman]

That's great, until you run into the next criminal that holds a gun of his own. Or do you think criminals do not wisen up to that?

How about, 'I don't give a shit if he has a gun or not'. Your expectations are wholly unrealistic. To think that a criminal has a moral standard that he/she applies to carrying a gun is as ludicrous as any other view you've expressed thus far.

I hope I will never be within shooting range from you, because as much as you trust your judgement, I do not.

That's fine by me, just know that you're perfectly safe in my "shooting range" (which is rougly 5,000 feet since I also own a rifle) so long as you are not in the act of committing a crime against myself, another person, or my property.

Re:No firearms?

[jcast]

If you had read the paper I linked to, you would have read:

By Don B. Kates Jr.*

* Don B. Kates Jr. attended Reed College and Yale Law School. In the Civil Rights Movement he worked in the South for civil rights lawyers including William Kunstler; thereafter he specialized in civil rights and police misconduct litigation for the federal War on Poverty program. After three years of teaching constitutional law, criminal law and criminal procedure at St. Louis U. Law School, he returned to San Francisco where he currently practices law and teaches and writes in criminology. He is the editor of FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY (1984 -- paper bound copies available from the Pacific Research Institute) and the Winter, 1986 issue of LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, and the author of the entry on the Second Amendment in M. Levy & K. Karst, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, "Firearms and Violence: Old Premises, Current Evidence" in T. Gurr (ed.) 1 VIOLENCE IN AMERICA (1989) and "Precautionary Handgun Ownership: Reasonable Choice or Dangerous Delusion" forthcoming B. Danto (ed.), GUN CONTROL AND CRIMINAL HOMICIDE (1990).

Re:No firearms?

[Gordonjcp]

And this means what, exactly, to me? I live in a society where it's relatively easy for those within the law to own guns, relatively difficult for those outside the law to own guns, and violent crime is a vanishingly small statistic.

So, explain more clearly why letting *everyone* own a gun is a good thing?

Having guns to protect yourselves worked really well on September 11, 2001, didn't it? And it certainly helped stop Dubya force the presidential election his own way, didn't it?

Seriously, in Europe, we think that at best you're all gun-toting hicks, and at worst, you are barely an evolutionary step above the lower simians.

Re:No firearms?

[Gordonjcp]

Mmm. Fair enough, I didn't know that. I suppose the EUian idea that you can pick up a MAC-10 at the corner shop with your milk and papers is much the same as the USian idea that no-one is allowed to have a gun in the UK.

Re:No firearms?

[jcast]

We didn't have guns to protect ourselves on September 11. And Bush didn't force the election; he was what the overwhelming majority of the country wanted. And btw, thanks for discrediting yourself by giving in to ad-homenin attacks. I have nothing further to say.

Re:No firearms?

[Gordonjcp]

Bush may not have forced the election, but that's what the majority of people outside the US believe. Here in the UK, we think he's kind of like a cross between Robert Mugabe and a howler monkey.

Re:No firearms?

[jcast]

And what gives you the right to think that?

Re:No firearms?

[Gordonjcp]

I live in a free country. That gives me the right to think anything I like, including that. You *used* to live in a free country, now I'm not so sure...

In Case of Slashdot Effect

[long_john_stewart_mi]

In case of the Slashdot effect, here's the interview:

Interviewer: Boxers or briefs?

Robert Duffy: I'll have to keep my take on this to myself.

Interviewer: We would like to thank Robert Duffy for taking the time to answer our questions and wish both him and id software all the best for the future.

Duffy is Now With id?

[idonotexist]

I always wondered what happened with Sergeant Duffy after his roles in Infocom's Witness and Deadline...

Re:Duffy is Now With id?

[dimator]

I wish they were talking of yet a different duffy. (I couldn't find a picture portraying her GREAT (perfect?) legs.)

uhhhh

[/dev/trash]

05 As far as I understand legislation in your country, it is part of the constitution that every american citizen is allowed to wear a gun. In my opinion that is one major reason for teenage high-school killings - while claiming games like "Doom" guilty is completely ridiculous. What is your opinion?

Uh if this was a guy ruunning for president, the question makes sense....but to ask some programmer dude....
and besides everything the brats at Columbine did were already illegal.

Worst. Interview. Ever.

[ziggles]

Why was this even posted on slashdot?

id Employee Interviews

[Judecca]

id Employee's have always been good at keeping their mouths shut, and it often prevents them from looking like idiots.

Too many game companies shout out dates and features that they never meet or implement.

Gamers are cranky and stubborn, its best we don't hear anything until we can try it.

This interview is boring

[MiTEG]

At the risk of losing Karma, I'd have to say this interview blows. I've touced it up a little to make it more interesting.

Question 1
Mr. Duffy, to start off with: What does the "A" in Robert A. Duffy stand for, how old are you, when did you join id software and what does your job description say in terms of your duties within the company?

Robert Duffy: The fucking a motherfucking stands for Allen. Goddamned sons of bitches like you. I am 38 and I've been full time at id for about two and a half years and I did contract work for them bastards for about one and a goddamn half years before that. You will feel my burns. My juicy job description is "Programmer", I work on the fucking editor, tools, the fucking in-game gui systems and game code ( doors, security cameras, etc.. You are a pussy. about to get started on some effects for shits as well ). You are a pussy. I also (in addition to the fact that you're a shit) deal with our licensees most of the fucking time as far as code updates and shit and at times work on other shits as needed. I should slam your throat. I worked with Kevin [Cloud] on the fucking Wolf MP shit and did some work on Wolf towards the fucking end of the fucking project tidying some shit up.

Question 2
I'm sure a lot of enthusiastic gamers out there would like to know and follow in your footsteps: What kind of education did you go through and what other companies / projects did you work for before you got hired by id? What did you want to be when you were a kid?

Robert Duffy: I am self taught. Pop Quiz, why are you such a fuckhead? The fucking last 3 companies I was at before id I wrote code as well as managed the fucking development process. Jesus was right, you are a shithole. I was Director of Technology for a motherfucking company in Los Angeles just prior to coming to fuckin' id, co-founded a fuckin' net company back in the fucking early-mid nineties before that.. You are a pussy. etc..

A fighter pilot but my fucking vision rules.

Question 3
Who was around when you had your application interview and how did you feel when you entered the "holy hallways" of id software for the first time?

Robert Duffy: John [Carmack] sent my stupid ass an jizz saying them poo pirates wanted to hire my stupid ass full time. I went up and talked to fuckin' that piece of shit ( and I think Graeme [Devine] was there at the fucking time ) told that bastard I'd get back to that piece of shit in a fuckin' day or so god-damn and after discussing that piece of shit with my fucking wife went for that shit. I was first at id many years ago when DOOM was first shipping, we were looking to license technology for some shit at the fucking time.

More recently when I started contracting that piece of shit was a motherfucking GOOD impression but a goddamn bit intimidating.

Question 4
Violence in Gaming and its influence on teenagers is a huge topic worldwide. My opinion is that people who spend some time kicking butt in fast-paced shooters like Q3A will definitely not tend to aggressively kick butt out on the streets. What is your take?

Robert Duffy: I'll have to keep my goddamn take on this bullshit to myself.

Question 5
As far as I understand legislation in your country, it is part of the constitution that every american citizen is allowed to wear a gun. In my opinion that is one major reason for teenage high- school killings - while claiming games like "Doom" guilty is completely ridiculous. What is your opinion?

Robert Duffy: Well wearing a gun and owning a gun are two goddamn different shits and neither of them shits have to fuckin' do with any game in my goddamn opinion. The only fucking countries I have ever seen citizens wearing guns are ones where the fuck that piece of shit was illegal. You are a fuckmonster. I don't think to date I have seen a citizen wearing a fuckin' firearm in public here in the fucking US.

Question 6
Doom 3: Quoting John Carmack, for the new engine the editor will be part of the main game executable and called via a command line parameter. Will that make it possible for level designers to preview their maps without fully re-compiling each time? Will the 3D-Window within the editor finally be game-engine-powered? And what will this mean in terms of the editor's looks and usability in general?

Robert Duffy: Yes the fucking editor is built into the fucking game ( as are all the fucking tools ). You and your sluts can preview in realtime fuckin' what a level looks like. The fucking editor is much like Q3Radiant but with additional functionality.

Question 7
In your opinion, what is the biggest benefit community & professional level designers will face using the new tools / editor compared to what Q3Radiant does for them today?

Robert Duffy: Real time preview and integration will help a whole shitload.

Question 8
How is development of the new engine and tools coming along? Are the new tools already in use by anyone, creating content for the new engine? In general - without giving "when it's done" statements ;o) - when do you think a demo version of the new engine will be available: Late 2002, Early 2003 oder Late 2003?

Robert Duffy: Things are going goddamn well.

Question 9
If you were - and you are now :o) - to give yourself three attributes without giving a damn about what other people might think about you - what would they be? Robert Duffy: Hmmm.. I dunno, I'm fairly happy to live with myself as I am and deal with the fucking GOOD and "f'ing great" aspects of that ;-)

Question 10
What do you think about George Bush? Do you believe in God? What are your basic ethical values in every day social life?

Robert Duffy: He has done a great job under intense pressure. I am glad he is our president. Yes but not like most people probably do. I try to fuckin' be a GOOD moral human on a fuckin' daily basis.

We would like to thank Robert Duffy for taking the time to answer our questions and wish both him and id software all the best for the future."

Hehe

[afay]

Robert Duffy: Well wearing a gun and owning a gun are two very different things and neither of them have to do with any game in my opinion. The only countries I have ever seen citizens wearing guns are ones where it was illegal. I don't think to date I have seen a citizen wearing a firearm in public here in the US.

Obviously this guy's never been to the midwest.

American Psychos

[Anonymous Coward]

I have met quite a few US citizens and they were every bit as nice as the Europeans I know. I'm sure the same could have been said about Germans 1933 to 1945, of course (forget Godwin's Law, I am trying to make a point here).

As individuals, US Americans are not all that different from Europeans. In fact, from my personal experience, I couldn't tell whether they are more likely to be gun nuts, and they certainly didn't seem to be xenophobe.

But put a bunch of people together to form a nation, add some context (history, environment), and small differences you didn't notice before add up to something significant. It's not individuals. Nations and societies are different.

First and foremost, your French friends were blasting the US, not you. The funny thing is that most US citizens don't seem to understand this because they have no idea what their country looks like from the outside. Not a pretty sight. Of course you can argue that the foreign media have it all wrong, but that won't change a bit the way the US is perceived.

The way you describe how you enlightened those poor French folks about the true meaning of Liberty doesn't help much in changing that picture, either. If you think you can change what boils down to cultural heritage of a society just with reasoning, you're kidding yourself.

Death penalty, environmentalism, gun control, social standards, etc. have very little to do with reason. For each you can argue either way in good faith and with sensible arguments. Which way you're leaning is very likely the result of the society that raised you, not the product of your own deep thinking. It is hardly by chance that your opinions seem so neatly aligned with US mainstream.

Re:American Psychos

[Kuad]

In my experience, it doesn't matter how many terrorists fly planes into buildings; the Europeans will still believe that the greatest threat to the security of the world is the United States.

huh?

[interstellar_donkey]

So when they can't hack it at 'Teen Beat' anymore, really awful interviewers work for German game websites?

Re:No brains?

[thelizman]

Go next door to Switzerland bubba. 1 in 3 people there own a firearm (500,000 pistols and 600,000 semiautomatic rifles). Yet, the rate of violent crime in which guns are involved in that country of 6 million is so low, they don't even keep statistics.

[reference]

So, are we to conclude that merely the existance of a gun will lead to a shooting death? Or, would it not be more reasonable to assume that the attitudes a soceity has towards guns is at fault. Then, given the basic and fundamental fact that the government cannot, never has been, and never will be able to regulate a populations attitude, what sense does it make to legislate against guns?

That simple immutable fact, my friend, is why you are considered a typical eurotrash fucknut.

Re:What a waste of questions. (OT)

[PD]

This is off the top of my head, so I could be wrong...

The battle of the Somme was in 1916, no? Americans only entered the war in 1917. Therefore, those soldiers would be the 20,000 British killed there.

That explains a couple things.

Someone Burn me please i'm at 50 who cares....

[phunhippy]

OK i'm drunk..
No. 1... no
2. That interview is so fucking lame..
no 3. i gave credit to the editors for posting good articles.. till now...

time to puff a bong.. almost makes me sorry i gave 5 bux to slashdot after this article..

Re:You didn't know enought about any of it to resp

[Waffle Iron]

Oh and "All that requires is voting intelligently." what happens if they take our right to vote away?

Who the hell are they? Unless we are conquered by external forces, (not likely) they are the ones we elect.

If we are sure to never elect the type of asshole who would take our right to vote away, we avoid this whole military confrontation crap in the first place. This kind of vigilance will be more effective at avoiding bad government than keeping your gun oiled.

Thank you...

[Succa]

...for the most unhelpful interview of all time!

Seriously, you'd think these guys would take the time to answer with something other than a one-liner for each question....

It's not far from the truth

[schmaltz]

Relative to the rest of the western world, Americans have an astronomically high number of gun deaths each year. For 1998, there were 30,708 firearm-related deaths, 11,798 of which were homicides. And this was the lowest point of a 35 year downward trend.

To contrast, the United Kingdom, which has a population of around 60 million, had 49 firearm homicides in 1998. If you scale this to the US population of about 270 million in 1998, that would still only be 217 deaths. Given this, the US has roughly 50 times the firearm-related homicides of the UK.

So it's no wonder why the rest of the world thinks Americans are gun-toting cowboys... relative to them it rings true.

Just to provide balance, the United States doesn't have the highest homicide rate in the world, just of industrialized western nations. For example, Canada's homicide rate per 100,000 is about 2 in 1997, whereas the US is 7.2, yet Mexico is 14.6.

South Americans, on the other hand, enjoy an even higher homicide rate, ranging as high as 70 per 100,000 for Columbia in 1997. But Americans don't compare themselves to "third world" nations, only to G7 nations, really.

Re:It's not far from the truth

[spongman]

Given this, the US has roughly 50 times the firearm-related homicides of the UK.

That's pretty low considering that there's probably many more than 50 times the number of guns per capita in the US than there are in the UK.

For the most part it's not the cowboys in the US that commit the shooting crimes. If you were to call such a crimial a cowboy, they'd probably shoot you...

Re:It's not far from the truth

[Saib0t]

That's pretty low considering that there's probably many more than 50 times the number of guns per capita in the US than there are in the UK.

What a weird thing you're telling. IMNSHO it's totally irrelevant that the number of weapons per capita is higher, what matters is that it cost the life of 12000 people.

With death penalty and that 2nd amendment, it's really no wonder the american stereotype is a cowboy. And look at the majority of movies you export to the rest of the world: USA are depicted as a violent country with little moral values filled by cowboys, fat people watching TV and racists. Also, this whole story of the "american dream" depicted in movies translates fpr the common people into "americans are workaholics", "corporations are ran by power-hungry, selfish, discriminating people".

If I didn't know better, I'd think that too...

Re:It's not far from the truth

[sunking2]

Nice numbers, now how about some reality of living in America. The majority of the people don't own and have never handled a gun, even though they have the right. The vast majority of people will never fall victim to a violent crime in which a gun is involved. The vast majority of people will never take part in or be a victim of a homicide.

Your numbers show that in a very small percentage of the population violent crime is rampant and a serious issue. I doubt that there are many Americans who would argue against this. Econmics is the major cause of these issues, not the 2nd amendment.

Re:It's not far from the truth

[JebusIsLord]

What sort of economics would you blame? surely you are not suggesting that the united states is a third-world country and hence succeptible to third-world-like crimerates?

Re:It's not far from the truth

[spongman]

What a weird thing you're telling. IMNSHO it's totally irrelevant that the number of weapons per capita is higher, what matters is that it cost the life of 12000 people.

Of course it's relevant. It indicates that it's not just the guns that are responsible for the killings. The bottom line is that people that want to kill other people will find the means to do so whether or not you make it legal to obtain guns. Handguns are illegal in the UK, but those numbers indicate that the law isn't all that effective in stopping gun crime. Sure it reduced it somewhat, but it's still pretty high compared to a country where handguns are legal. The point being that criminals are criminals whatever country you're in, and that the vast majority of (legal) gun owners in the US take the solemn responsibility of owning a gun seriously, take steps not to let them fall into the wrong hands, and don't in fact fire them in anger or even in self-defense.

The idea that gun owners are crazed lunatics is one widely propagated by the ant-gun lobbyists in the US. But it just isn't true.

And look at the majority of movies you export to the rest of the world

They're stories! Come on! They're made-up people in made-up situations. Movies about average people doing average things just don't sell. Why pay to sit in a cinema to watch that when you can just watch life for two hours?

Re:It's not far from the truth

[IpalindromeI]

Regardless of the overall economic standing of a nation, basic sociological laws tell us that any society more advanced than hunting-and-gathering will have some amount of ecomonic stratification. And because people are fundamentally self-maximizing, those on the bottom will want to raise their position. If the perceived lowest cost way to do that, be it monetary or otherwise, involves crime, that is what they will resort to.

Re:It's not far from the truth

[Saib0t]

It indicates that it's not just the guns that are responsible for the killings

Of course, guns don't kill, people do...

Handguns are illegal in the UK, but those numbers indicate that the law isn't all that effective in stopping gun crime

I think 50 TIMES less gun crimes IS effective, that's 98% less...

They're stories! Come on! They're made-up people in made-up situations. Movies about average people doing average things just don't sell. Why pay to sit in a cinema to watch that when you can just watch life for two hours?

When you don't know anything about a country but that or CNN, it's obvious that the stereotype is what it is.

By the way, in Europe we have quite a bunch of movies about normal people doing normal things, social movies. And they DO sell here. Take, for instance, the movie "Amelie" (whose real name "The wonderful fate of Amelie Poulain" was shortened for the US market, go figure), it's a movie about a normal person doing normal things with normal other people. I think it's "just" in the US that people are interested only in extravanganza...

Re:It's not far from the truth

[Zathrus]

I think 50 TIMES less gun crimes IS effective, that's 98% less...

Depends. How did the overall homicide rate compare? If you don't take that into account, then it could be that the relative rate of homicides was the same, but murderers in the UK used other methods because guns weren't as accessible.

That said, I'd be surprised if the overall homicide rate is as high. Why? Because a gun is a very impersonal way to kill someone. You can do it from a reasonable distance away, you can do it by accident a good bit easier, and you can do it in a random manner via drive by shootings. It's also a considerably more effective way to do it, since firing a gun requires less training to kill someone than using a knife or club (yes, you can pick up a knife or solid object and kill someone, but generally not with one strike).

I think it's "just" in the US that people are interested only in extravanganza...

Which is why Hollywood exports vastly more, successfully, than the rest of the world, right?

About the only other movie industry coming close to Hollywood's success is the Indian film industry.

George W Bush

[t_allardyce]

Ok, who bribed him for the George W Bush answer? At the very least he could have said "I whip that mans ass at quake"

Re:No brains?

[dunkelfalke]

it is a bit different in switzerland. nearly all male sitizens have go to the army. when they are back home they keep their rifle (sig 550 nowadays) and some rounds of ammo. switzerland is small but neutral and they take their neutrality very seriously.

Re:You didn't know enought about any of it to resp

[Saib0t]

Who the hell are they? Unless we are conquered by external forces, (not likely) they are the ones we elect.
If we are sure to never elect the type of asshole who would take our right to vote away

If you (clever people) are not even able to do that with ICANN, how do you hope to be able to do that as a country filled by less-educated people who vote according to what they see on TV or with arguments like "my family has been democrat since 822 BC" or whether some dude screwed his secretary?

I really wonder...

Note that I'd wish it to be the case, but I have no trust in US citizen (as a whole) acting in a responsible way, as they don't seem to have done so since the revolution...

Did she hug you again?

[theolein]

Huh?

Eurotrash vs. Trailertrash

[theolein]

Firstly I live in Switzerland, so don't quote bbc references to me, since I've mailed the bbc at least twice on faulty references they posted.

Secondly, what is this hatred of Europe thing that seems to be in vogue right now? Why is it that anytime someone asks a question about something that happens in the USA that all the insults start flying and some people who haven't ever been there start making death threats? Does this threaten your personal existence? Are you so fragile in your personality that you feel the need to respond with violence to everything?

Thirdly, carrying of pistols in Switzerland is illegal, concealed or not. You need a Waffenerwerbsschein (Weapon possesion certificate) to get a weapon privatly in Switzerland, and they do a very thorough background check before they give it to you.

Fourthly, Most of the military grade weapons in Swiss households are weapoons that swiss soldiers take home. In Switzerland soldiers have to shoot regularly at shooting stands and there is a compulsory three week military camp every year. Soldiers having their weapons with them is simply easier than having to hand it out to them every time they need it. BUT probably within the next two years the swiss will drop this and Military rifles will not be taken home any more.

Fifthly, you calling any European that has a different opinion to you Eurotrash is probably a compliment to him.

Re:Eurotrash vs. Trailertrash

[thelizman]

Secondly, what is this hatred of Europe thing that seems to be in vogue right now?

It is the American response to the rough moral equivalent of US bashing that goes on persistantly and constantly in Europe. Ironically, Europe likes to talk about American arrogance, but fails to recognize it's own arrogance.

As to the rest of your comments, I would ask that you spend a little less time whittle away at the irrelevant points that I did not make, and focus on the primary issue: The reason for the lower per capita incidence of firearm violence in Switzerland is because of the education and attitudes towards firearms.

Re:Eurotrash vs. Trailertrash

[WhaDaYaKnow]

The reason for the lower per capita incidence of firearm violence in Switzerland is because of the education and attitudes towards firearms.

Yeah, or how about, if you return to the military and you don't have your gun anymore, you have a whole lot of explaining to do.

In other words, for a gun to end up on the markets, someone is going to have his tits in the wringer, big time.

Re:No brains?

[thelizman]

Yes, it's different but the difference has nothing to do with the type of weapon or the compulsary impressement of citizens into the military (something that is also a reality in Israel). Swiss neutrality (which is a nice front, but in reality the Swiss economically support those they cannot militarily or politically support, so spare me the rhetoric) doesn't have a bearing either. The fact that every swiss male is taught respect for and proper handling of firearms is the at the root of the lack of a gun problem in that country.

Re:The uberworld of biogeophysicists

[SnarfQuest]

Is anyone else getting tired of the Redmond beast posting completely off-topic drivel everywhere? I know they have lots of money to waste, but don't they have anything better to do with it (like fix bugs) than trying to encourge more people to hate them with their silly tactics?