Slashdot Mirror
Assault Weapons Ban
An anonymous reader writes "With all the Constitutional arguments that appear on /., perhaps some readers might be interested in this BBC Article about the expiration of the Clinton assault weapons ban. Both presidential candidates have spoken in favor of it, but no one is willing to vote to keep it."
This is one of those issues which wouldn't be complicated if we could sit down and work out a reasonable comprimise, but of course that's not how we work in America anymore. Gotta stick with either-or's, and the other side are a bunch of wackos or nutcases. But, even though I know it's gonna get my ass flamed, I'll take a swing at it. I'm not scared. I got my aesbestos underoos on.
Obviously guns don't cause people to shoot each other, there are more complex reasons for it. That said, however, it's the access to high-capacity weapons (like the ones that were banned) that enables these folks to go out and kill half their highschool. Preventing gun makers from building these guns obviously makes it tougher for people to get them, which is a Good Thing -- nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip.
But the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA, who don't let reason creep in on their paranoia about pinko lefties coming to take away their guns and kick over their stills or whatever. They, combined with a few people on the extreme left who don't think people ought to be able to hunt or whatever, combine to paralyze the whole damn debate.
But then we're down to the apparently unresolvable gun control back and forth. But that's okay, 'cause I got my fireproof underoos. Flame away.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Let's see how long this takes to get modded into the toilet.
It's funny that the article mentions that this law bans "military-style" weapons, because "style" is mostly what this law is about.
From the Beeb article - "The move means that ordinary citizens will be allowed to keep heavy assault weapons in their homes."
Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing.
Take a look at this page for some interesting info.
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/
--riney
More power for you, and I mean that in the figurative sense, does not in any way imply less power for the government. If, for whatever reason, the gubment went sour and there came a time for armed revolt, you having a gun doesn't make it any harder for you to be killed. It just means that you have a possibility of taking a few others with you.
Unfortunately, it's morons with no dicipline, self control or sanity using the extra "power" afforded to them by the second amendment to remove othewise innocent people from this earth.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
Commentators from both sides of the gun control debate have gone on record as saying that the Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an effect on crime. Certain guns were banned because of how they looked (folding stock, pistol grip, etc.), not because of how they functioned (all the banned guns fire the same caliber of bullets and at the same speed as ordinary hunting rifles). In addition, large rifles are not weapons of choice for committing crimes. Criminals prefer handguns.
The ban is sunsetting because it didn't really do any good and nobody is willing to risk their political career on renewing it. Even if it did come to a vote, I'm not sure Kerry would risk the swing state votes by voting to renew it. Bush would probably be forced to eat his words when it comes to signing it.
The whole thing is one great political football. The assault weapons I'm worried about are those that are being used on both sides of our failed war in Iraq, not the ones sitting in a gun collector's safe.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...common-sense...
It seems strange that at a time when preventing terrorism is a priority that they would be willing to let weapons such as these enter circulation...
It's easy to take things to the rediculous extreme, in which case they're rediculous and irrelevant
Hunt 7 rabbits.
The Clinton ban did not ban "assault weapons," unless you use the term to mean "anything I want to call an assault weapon." It SPECIFICALLY does not ban "AK-47, Kalashnikov and Uzi rifles."
In the US, automatic weapons are covered by the National Firearms Act of 1935, and can be owned by any citizen who can pass the background checks, demonstrate the ability to store them securely and pay the licensing fees. And then pay the exorbinant prices a machinegun commands on today's market, and pay for a private range membership to fire it at, and pay for all that ammo you would use up.
In practical terms, the Clinton ban's main effect was to limit civilian handguns to 10-round magazines. And even then, preban magazines are still widely available for many models of handguns, and law enforcement officers can buy whatever they want.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
If, for whatever reason, the gubment went sour and there came a time for armed revolt
I know quite a few people who, after living through the last four years of being attacked economically by our own government, economically by our own corporations, and physically by foreign invaders from Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and India; feel that it is LONG PAST time for armed revolt and the only reason that it hasn't happened is because the government is allowed to own tanks and rocket launchers and the best we can do is a puny little assault rifle.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" was nothing more than a feel-good measure that had nothing to do with crime or safety. All it did manage to do was annoy and/or piss-off people who buy or own guns. No appreciable benefit to any constituency, and a big downside to a rather sizeable constituency. It is no wonder that most politicians don't want to touch this issue, and Bush knew full well that it would never end up on his desk. If you ignore the Democrats in "safe States" like California, who can soapbox on this issue all day without consequences, it is a "third-rail" issue everywhere else whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
The 1994 Congressional blood bath pretty much assures that gun control won't be touched again for a long time.
You just wait until the armies of the undead come
knocking. You'll be wishing for a belt-feed.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Yes, because rebellion against the US government has been so fscking effective.
Lets see:
Shay's Rebellion
Whiskey Rebellion
Fries's Rebellion
Nat Turner's Southampton Rebellion
John Brown's attack @ Harper's Ferry
Civil War
Waco
Come on people, owning a machine gun doesn't mean crap when the other guy has smart bombs.
The whole idea that we should own guns to keep our own government from opprssing us is just wishful thinking, quit dreaming of Rambo and crack a law book.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Semi-Automatic: One pull of the trigger, one round fired
Burst/Select Fire: One pull of the trigger fires 2-5 rounds, the MP5N and M16A2 IIRC uses a three round burst
Fully Automatic: One pull of the trigger fires the gun until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammo.
The article linked is incorrect that the AK-47 (and other fully automatic and select fire weapons ie M16, L85, M60, Uzi's, FNFAL, AK-74 and their chinese ripoffs , HK G36, G21, G11, and G53 series rifles, Glock 17 pistols) were banned as a result of the Assault Weapons Ban, it is actully banned under the 1934 National Firearms Act. To posses these weapons today, you must have a Class III Federal Firearms Licence, which includes a massive federal background check, and pay $150 tax per weapon.
The assualt weapons only covers weapons that look different than a traditional deer rifle, there is no functional difference between a AR-15 (semi auto version of the M16) and a Deer rifle you could buy at walmart, they fire the same ammo (.223 Remington Magnum), as fast as you can pull the trigger.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
That disproportional allowance is patently unconsitutional, and its perpetuation makes a prima facie case that the court system has failed. The foundational laws of the nation are mooted by practice, so that the U.S. is in practice a lawless
system of interconnected potentates weilding what power they can for what ends they will. This internal lawlessness is reflected in a lawless international policy.
Assassination politics is the last, best hope of good government.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
The reasoning behind granting everyone the unrestricted right to keep and bare arms was that a well armed populace is harder to oppress then an unarmed populous. I.e. he government should not have an excessive advantage over the populous in the amount of force at its disposal.
Carrying this to its logical conclusion, citizens should be allowed to posses all the weapons the government is allowed to; if they cannot, there is no way a popular revolt could succeed. The government, with its tanks and other large weapons, could easily roll over any revolt by citizens.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison,
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government."
No, you do not need an assault weapon for hunting. But you do need it for personal defense against an oppressive government. That is the justification for allowing them to be possessed.
Aside from that, how am I going to kick the ass of a foreign army, marauding zombies, or invading aliens if I don't have a handy, insanely large supply of firepower?
________
Magnus frater spectat te
John F. Kennedy. Robert F. Kennedy.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Umm, all your cites are about the Brady Bill. This topic is about the Assault Weapons Ban. They are not the same thing.
Get your facts straight.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...cite checker...
Do you REALLY think *terrorists* would purchase their weapons in corner gun store???
Paul B.
Don't get me wrong, we should keep our right to drive on the highway, but we shouldn't allow anyone to be able to go 100 miles per hour just as we don't allow people to roll down the highways in tanks or giant bulldozers.
Important law? My friend. the assualt weapons law has to be the least important law on the books. It does nothing of substance. It has been a complete and total failure.
Finkployd
Your post has NOTHING to do with the assault weapons ban. The guns banned as assault weapons are mostly LESS powerful than common hunting guns. In fact for many common hunting activities the guns banned are not powerful enough.
All this ban does is prohibit some cosmetic things. No bayonet mount on your gun for instance. How does a bayonet on a gun make it less acceptable in your eyes?
I saw an interesting piece about the ban today in the time. Basically, the ban is worthless. Guns, very much similar to "banned" guns can still be had. Usual difference is a non-pistol grip, no flash suppressor (replaced by a muzzle), or even having a collapsing stock pinned so it can no longer collapse (like the Washington belt-way sniper used).
You could always deer hunt with an AK-47 (and variants), they are perfectly legal under the ban. Were you under the mistaken impression that the assualt weapons ban was actually effective at anything and not just political fluff with no substance?
Why do you think we *have* the Second Amendment, crispyman?
It has nothing to do with sport weapons.
It is, very simply, to avoid oppressive regimes from ever dominating the citizenry by disarming them.
A gun that could only shoot non-humans would have absolutely nothing to do with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Gun rights were guaranteed specifically so that *people* could be shot as a last ditch resort.
I have no interest in ever owning a gun -- the benefits provided by the Second Amendment are present as long as enough citizenry own guns. However, I strongly support allowing citizenry access to assault weapons.
Note that guns simply guarantee Hobbsian "rough equality" between people and soldiers -- if soldiers have assault rifles, people also need assault rifles. I do *not* support allowing people to have weapons that allow massive amplification of killing power above that of a soldier as long as they strike first -- like bombs and the like. Assault weapons? Sure, I'd say that it's pretty much essential to allow people to have assault weapons.
Take a look at Switzerland -- they have almost no limitations on the weapons civilians can have. You want a howitzer, you can have one. And if you're a male and above a certain age, you *must* own a rifle -- you're considered part of the militia. As a result (even aside from the fact that Switzerland has never been invaded) Switzerland has a low gun crime rate, much lower than the United States. It's hard to glamorize a tool that everyone has (e.g. you could stick someone in the eye with a pen, but everyone has a pen and it isn't very exciting). Furthermore, it's a dissusasive factor to someone who might consider committing a crime if most people are walking around with weapons. Sure, maybe you can pull out your gun and hold up a bank, but you're nothing special -- it'd be like doing so with a knife when everyone else has knives. Or with your bare hands when everyone else has bare hands -- you're going to be hurt by similarly-armed people.
I could *maybe* even see gun laws banning handguns. But never assault rifles. Assault weapons are the core of the Second Amendment.
May we never see th
The law banned manufacture of large capacity magazines, except for sale to police. So in many towns, police traded in their old guns and large mags for new, and their old large mags went into the secondary market. Go to a gun store and ask to see the selection of large mags, if you don't believe me. There's a glut.
The whole thing was about appearances, and giving people the warn fuzzies. Did you know the law banned bayonet lugs on the muzzle? Sure, I'm real concerned about being STABBED when someone's pointing a gun at me.
Ever felt threatened by a folding stock? Banned.
Anything that looks like a milspec gun? Banned.
The EXACT SAME barrel, ammo, receiver, trigger action, etc? Not banned.
The latest Slashdot meme.
Of course no one will touch renewing this law. It was a law for soccer moms and for gun control advocates who wanted a foot in the door to confiscating and banning all guns. None of the gun laws we have on the books are Constitutional. And if any of them ever got tried in the Supreme Court, they would be blotted off the books.
This was one of the worst laws because it robbed people of the full functionality of a class of weapon specifically protected by the Second Amendment, did nothing to affect crime, unreasonably increased costs to manufacturers, and it left the option open for greater encroachment upon our rights.
As Patrick Henry said, "The great object is that every man be armed." You can't be a good American unless you choose to arm yourself. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone upon which all our other rights rest.
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
1. The thing to remember with Columbine is none of the guns used were legally obtained by the kids using them.
2. None of the guns on the ban are fully automatic guns. Those have been illegal since the 1940's.
3. So what if some one shoots a bunch of people with a gun that looks like a hunting rifle or a military style rifle. The results are still the same.
Kill the criminals and stop attacking the guns.
If you've tried to stop Politics stories from showing up on your Slashdot front page by checking the appropriate boxes in your Preference page, you may still find them showing up. This is because of a bug in Slash that's been outstanding since July, when CmdrTaco said it'd be back "soon enough". If you're tired of seeing Politics stories go leave a comment in hopes that this bug will be fixed before we go mad!
Ahahahahahaha
Ok first of all the number of crimes that has been commited with these weapons is statistically insignifigant anyway.
Yes really. Aside from a few random gangland drive bys and a couple of high profile cases, nobody uses them for anything other than target practice.
Why? Its a purely logistical matter. Your average 9mm pistol is a) a whole heck of alot cheaper b) a whole heck of alot easier to conceal and c) just as effective for 99.999% of the crimes that people commit with guns.
Nobody walks into a convinience store with an ak-47 looking for the cash. MAYBE they walk into a bank with one, but lets face it, your average bank robber doesn't even use a weapon. All he has to do is walk up to the clerk and hand them a note claiming to have one... no clerk or security every questions the fact that he has one for the safety of themselves and all of their customers.
This has absolutly no bearing on crime rate at all.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
...then it's the terrorists who'll get shot.
Terorists are going to have shady contacts to acquire guns regardless. Or make them, which isn't too hard if you have facilities for machining metal. So the only real difference will be whether or not you disarm the law-abiding potential victims.
How can you compare a gun to a nuclear bomb?
Come on people, owning a machine gun doesn't mean crap when the other guy has smart bombs. The whole idea that we should own guns to keep our own government from opprssing us is just wishful thinking, quit dreaming of Rambo and crack a law book.
You're assuming that arms are the only way to fight a rebellion. All of those examples except for the Civil War were small minded, and the Civil War was too segregated to be effective.
If people really wanted to rebel, they'd have to have very large numbers, be willing to take huge losses, and be spread out about the country. The end result wouldn't be trying to take out the tanks, it'd be to try and demoralize our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, sons, and daughters who would fight against the rebellion inside of those tanks. Your trigger finger itches less when you're about to put a shell in a family member's home.
The _only_ way to succeed with violence would be to make the entire country too hot to handle politically and emotionally for our current government. We're nowhere near that in terms of an oppressive/unpopular government or a distressed/pissed off populace.
So, all in all, assault weapons wouldn't help in a rebellion. Riots and Tianimen Square style protest are what it'd take against our US of A.
P.S.: Even though the series is sword and sorcery, Terry Goodkind's Faith of the Fallen from the Sword of Truth series covers this pretty well.
This statement is false.
The Civil War?
I mean, they didn't win, but it was a near thing.
And just how many smart bombs do you think are around? Smart bombs are for targeting specific targets, and we don't have that many. They don't do anything against an overwhelming angry populace. I guess you could use nuclear weapons, but that's the kind of last-ditch effort that you'd have to be insane to use.
May we never see th
Sometimes ideals and principals are worth the cost of a few lives. Guns in the hands of criminals should be considered "A Bad Thing," but the only way to keep this from ever happening is to eliminate guns completely...which will never happen. To pass silly laws which only get rid of certain weapons while ignoring all the other ones with similar capabilities is simply a waste of time for Congress. Neither party is willing to take the drastic step I mentioned above, so let's stop blowing smoke up the American public's ass by telling them that they will be "Safer" if this bill gets renewed.
For someone to assert that there is "no legitimate need" for a 30 round clip is simply missing the point of what freedom is. Certainly, I am not saying that we as citizens of a "Free Country" are free to do what we please no matter who it hurts, but when has simply owning a gun hurt anyone. There are already a myriad of laws making it a crime to shoot, kill, and even threaten people with said gun. If for no other reason than it is fun to shoot off 30 rounds in one second I think we should be able to own and legally use what ever gun we choose.
Sure, I feel bad for the victims of gun crimes, but making all the legal users suffer for the failings of a very small minority known as criminals, just doesn't seem all that American to me.
The AWB does not ban these - they are covered under an earlier law which does not expire (they can still be owned under certain onerous conditions).
The AWB, despite its name, actually covers semi-automatic rifles which resemble to certain assault rifles. Semis fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, in the same way that a policeman's pistol or a cowboy's revolver does. They are not assault weapons since they cannot be fired in automatic mode. The AWB lists guns resembling certain assault weapons, or which have more than a certain number of specific features, such as a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, a flash hider, or a telescoping stock.
The AWB bans semi-automatic rifles which look scary, ignoring the fact that the average deer rifle is far more powerful and has better range.
I own an AR15 which I use in CMP target matches. While this rifle fires essentially the same round as our soldiers are using in Iraq, in many places I could not even use it to hunt deer legally, since its too feeble a round. Something like this packs a much bigger punch. Of course, there is no talk of banning this rifle, since it does not look scary.
A good analogy to the AWB would be if the legislature decided to attack dangerous driving by banning fuzzy dice and chrome exhausts. It might make some people feel better, but actually attacks the wrong target. (The right target is the criminal, not the gun.)
The (so-called) "Assault Weapons Ban" is a very silly law which did not ban Assault Weapons, or detectably reduce crime. I'm glad its dying. I'm not going out to buy any of the 'scary features' for my rifle - it's fine as it is. But I will like having the ability to do so if I wanted - that's what freedom is all about.
...which is hardly suprising given their status as a nationalized company funded via a TV tax, and their mandate to be "better for you" than commercial TV.
I believe the USA equivalent is "PBS"? They aren't known for their love of guns either.
Down boy! Just because you can respond to every attempt to be humorous with an overly-earnest attempt to create a "teachable moment" doesn't mean you have to.
This has been a very ill-conceived and widely misunderstood law, and I will be glad to see it go.
The affected weapons are mostly ones that outwardly resemble military firearms, while having nowhere near the firepower. Rather than firing bursts of ammunition like their fully-automatic counterparts, the so-called assault rifles fire one shot at a time, with less powerful ammunition than a hunting rifle. Pistols affected by this law generally had outward designs similar to fully-automatic submachine guns, but had only the same caliber and rate of fire as an ordinary handgun - with much bulkier size and weight.
A criminal would be an idiot to choose a firearm from the affected class of firearms. They would use an ordinary handgun, or if they really sought something more powerful as defenders of the legislation claim, they would smuggle in some firearms that actually WERE military grade instead of just superficially looking like it.
In practice, the only people affected by the law have been legitimate gun collectors, who disagree with the law but struggle to comply with it. What shape grips constitute a "conspicuous pistol grip"? When the law requires a barrel attachment to be "permanently affixed", do you weld it, super-glue it on, pin it, use lock-tight? Interpret the subjective phrases differently than someone at the ATF, and you become a felon.
The other major provision was a limitation on ammunition magazines ("clips") to 10 rounds. Much like 640k of memory, this might seem to be enough for anybody. But, given that those who are most in the know about defending oneself in life and death situations (police, military, federal agents, etc.) generally carry larger magazines than this themselves, even with superior training to worry less about missing their target, perhaps there is something to be said for having a couple extra rounds just in case.
The other flaw with the 10 round limit is that it was based on the arbitrary assumption that no civilian would ever need more than this to protect themself, but provided no guarantee to back this up. Why did the law not include language guaranteeing that before any civilian had fired the 10th shot in a life-and-death situation, police would had arrived on the scene and taken their attacker into custody?
This is great. I can finally get some 17-round magazines for my Glock at a reasonable price.
The ban never really affected anything. Guns were either modified to be legal under the ban, (and functionally identical) or the costs of pre-bans was driven through the roof.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Down boy! Just because you can respond to every attempt to be humorous with an overly-earnest attempt to create a "teachable moment" doesn't mean you have to.
MUST....EDUCATE.....SLASHDOTTERS.........
As long as I can get a Rifle that can hold more than one round in a magzine, (5 will do). If the times comes for revolution, (which if Bush wins a second term, there will be one), all I have to do is kill one solder, pick up his gun and the ammo on him, and procede to kill more solders, pick up their guns and ammo for my friends, and there you have it, we are now equally armed.
Trained is another matter, though there are guns similar to the M16 that one could still get with an Instant Background check.
If a revolution is to suceed, it will only suceed through a carefully laid out stratigy. Given a smart enough mind, and ANY kind of gun this can be brought to pass. Hell, you could "steal" a battalion of tanks if you plan it, (though I would much rather have an M-16 from a dropped solder, than a thank)
There were some good details of this legislation, namely that it furthered the effort to enforce existing laws regarding background checks and waiting periods, but there were numerous loopholes.
For example, gun configurations were banned, like large-scale magazines, weapons with built-in cleaning kits, bayonets, folding stocks, etc., however the individual sale of many of these components wasn't completely restricted so in many cases you could buy an SKS or AK-47, purchase a folding stock separately, and configure the weapon on your own. It was way too easy to get around this.
The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer? Unfortunately, the passage of this bill didn't really reduce the availability of these weapons or their components in my opinion. I've always been able to go down the street to the gun shop and buy a cheap Chinese-made AK-47 for less than it costs to pick up a modest hand gun.
What I found most ironic about the Brady Bill and Feinstein Amendment, was that the NRA blew the consequences of this legislation way out of preportion and suggested its passage was going to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The facts since then have indicated otherwise - the more-stricly-enforced background checks have reduced the number of firearms getting into the hands of people who were prohibited from owning them. At the same time, the proliferation of many of the assault weapons has not been noticeably diminished. Ironically, the NRA, for all its anti-commie, freedom-lovin', second-amendment protecting propaganda, vehemently pushed for the opposition of this bill which mainly would have had the most profound impact on the substantive importation of communist-Chinese-manufactured assault weapons which have been flooding the US. This is a case of the NRA agenda helping directly fund a communist regime - irony of ironies, and a talking point they never brought up in all their dialogue on this law.
Funny, the district court held that NFA '34 was unconstitutional.
When it got to the Supreme Court, they never read or heard the defendants' views, heard only one side of the matter, the government's side, and declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s).
Short barreled shotguns have been used by the military since the Civil War. They are certainly appropriate weapons for the militia, as defined by the Second Amendment (any able bodied male; note the definition is from the Federalist Papers, not the Bill of Rights).
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
Maybe you understand why gun owners don't trust Kerry or the Democratic Party in general. They lie about us and about gun issues when they can't get traction with the truth. I would personally like to vote for someone other than Bush, but I'm sure as hell not voting for Kerry.
Sorry I cannot spell that correctly, but I'm not German. The Germans, however, are the ones that invented and named the "assault rifle".
.30-06. The .30-06 fires a heavier slug far faster. Yet functionally identical AK's were banned, while "standard" deer rifles continued to be made and sold.
It is a small, relatively under-powered sub machine gun. Small cartridges, so more can be carried because more are wasted.
The Ban didn't effect "assault rifles", because those are already covered by the 1934 and 1968 laws.
As was stated by the people who wrote the "assault weapon" ban, they were counting on the American public being duped into thinking that the rifles effected were "assault rifles", Machine guns, Actual military hardware. What we got was pointless regulation which demonized cosmetic features and created massive confusion and cost for everyone involved.
Compare cartridge power of the dreaded AK-47, the 7.62x39, with the "standard" American deer rifle cartridge, the
Then there is the stupidity of prohibition. Every time it is tried it fails. Alcohol prohibition created the environment of criminal gangs, mafia, "organized" crime that is alive and well to this day.
Few people call for alcohol prohibition, because "it failed." Many people are calling for an end to drug prohibition, because "it's failing." Yet many of the people who believe it's stupid to prohibit peaceful drug ownership call for prohibition of peaceful gun ownership. Where is the logic in that?
There isn't any logic, of course. Any prohibition in a so-called "free" society is doomed. Either the prohibition is ignored, or the freedoms that would allow the law to be ignored are taken away.
There has been continual prohibition in the US since January 16th, 1919. Government has grown titanic, organized crime are almost peaceful compared to the jack-booted thugs who hide behind their badges. "Citizens" are tracked like cattle, allowed freedom only in limited, carefully regulated bounds, while the police kill at will.
And all because we forgot the most important part of the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The existence of prohibition is, on its face, such a usurpation. The fact that there are many prohibitions right now merely demonstrates that our masters are indeed persuing invariably the same object.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
And WHY did the Supreme Court only hear one side of the issue?
Miller was dead!
And short barreled shotguns were being used in WWI to clear trenches IIRC. The Supreme Court never got to hear that though. Might have changed a lot of things if Miller had still be around for his hearing.
Same muzzle velocity, same barrel length, same everything that is important ...
But no flash suppressor. Big whoop dee doo! Like I need a flash suppressor.
As for the clip ruling. You just count your shots. When you have one left (in the chamber) you drop the old clip and slot a new one. With a bit of practice, you can do this in under 2 seconds.
Also, the larger capacity clips are still legal (just as you've pointed out with the weapons themselves). But private citizens are only allowed to own ones from before the "ban".
The only thing(s) this "ban" did was:
#1. Jack up the prices on the weapons and clips
#2. Give everyone who didn't read it a warm fuzzy false sense of security and accomplishment.
device. Tomorrow it's the mad grad student."
Professer Farnsworth
you do realize that nobody with out the 'Marxist' prefixe will buy into that 'attacked economically' crap. We usually don't get to make up nonsense concepts that might mean anything and not get called on it.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Tianimen Square. Its funny how you use the prime example, of what ultimatly happens when a defenseless public is pitted against the might of their government, for disarmend and so deliveration of even more people into defenselessnes, with the only resistance left: the density of your bones against tank tracks.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. eh? I wonder how switzerland has virtually no gun crimes and guns (all types) in every home.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Actually, even people WITH the Marxist prefix are unable to buy the 'attacked economically' stuff until it happens to them, personally. And it doesn't just happen to poor little socialists either- it's happened to rich capitalists more than once, they don't call it a hostile takeover for nothing.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolf Hitler
Creative Demolition
haha, the 9mm fans are celebrating like there is no tomorrow.
but it don't make no difference to the 1911 owners. 7+1 is all she wrote...
ain't that right ESR? http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/rig.html/
-
-- Believe your Justice!
Just a quick note: rapid fire weapons were known (but rarely, if ever used) well before the American Revolution. James Puckle patented a weapon he called a "defense system" in 1718. It was a more or less a large tripod-mounted revolver capable of firing 9 shots a minute. There is mention of a test on another site where one man fired 63 shots in seven minutes--an incredible volume of fire considering it takes roughly 2-3 minutes to load and fire a black powder musket. The weapon, oddly enough, didn't fare too well in the market. But it wasn't the only weapon of firing (more) rapidly that were at least known of during the period; a breif google search turned up multiple-barreled weapons dating to the late 1500's. Since many of the Founding Fathers had military experience and/or military training as a part of their schooling it is highly unlikely that they would be ignorant of these devices, although they may have scoffed at their practicality.
As for larger weapons, we do have to remember that around the time of the American Revolution private persons owned merchant ships (and privateers) that went about armed with cannons.
there are plenty of guns that have "assault weapon" functionality.they just banned the mean looking ones.
friggin stupid. in reality, they wanted it to be a stepping stone to tighter control.
as all gun laws are.
There are an estimated 30,000,000 assault rifles in the United States. 0.01% of those are estimated to have been involved in crimes.
Ted Kennedy's care is responsible for more deaths in America than 29,997,000 assault rifles.
s/care/car/
Alot of people have said that an armed populace cannot stand against an armed military. Will this true in the absolute sense. You are failing to take into account the citizens in uniform. Not all and probably most american soldiers would not likely fire on an american citizen. Period.
If a populace is unarmed the decision to subjagate them is alreadt made and the soldier never has to make that decision.
"To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
I'm far from an expert here, but...
The ban is being attacked for being focused on appearance rather than function. But I think there's a useful issue behind it, and that's making it so law enforcement officers can do their job.
My impression is that the nasty guns (automatics, etc) are under very heavy regulation, and I would suspect that legally-owned automatics are the property of responsible gun collectors. That means that if law enforcement officers see one, and its not on a gun range or in a collector's home, or at a gun show, they could have this sneaking suspicion that it's illegal.
Furthermore, if you see one of these weapons involved in commission of a crime, there's clearly a different set of 'rules of engagement' than if you see an ordinary rifle or pistol. The officer is up against a far more dangerous foe, and deadlier force is appropriate.
Enter 'assault weapons,' something that looks like an automatic weapon. Now if the officer sees what looks like an automatic weapon being used in commission of a crime, the rules of engagement are less clear. If it's really an automatic and force is used appropriate to an assault weapon, policemen may die. If it's really an assault weapon and force is used appropriate to an automatic, suddenly the police are Brutal Pigs.
Appearance CAN be important.
I'd like to see serious proposals by the NRA for how we solve the problems that cause others to call for firearm bans. I get the distinct impression that the NRA is strictly "pry it from my cold, dead hands" and just doesn't think about the consequences of those guns in the wrong hands. The REAL problem is bad people doing things with guns, and many think the solution is to take away the guns. Maybe there's another solution - at least work on the idea.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Poor examples.
I remember the riots of the 60's. Nothing changed. Change was effected by the likes of peaceful marches of MLK, and the sympathetic led by John and Robert Kennedy. You know, those two guys that some other poster was so proud to have killed by an ordinary gun, thereby demonstrating how important it is that everybody have one.
Tienanmen Square. Yeah, I remember that. Nifty footage at the time. Didn't make squat for a difference in China, though. AFAIK, the only difference is a change in public assembly rules - and access to Tienanmen Square. China has changed, but that has been in response to other pressures, not the protests.
A BIG part of the problem is that both sides treat this as a simple issue.
The pro-gun-control side thinks we can control deadly crime by controlling guns.
The pro-gun side refuses to accept ANY limitations on guns, but also turns a blind eye to their societal problems.
Nobody is really looking for an answer that will work.
** One of my pet proposals is to legalize drugs - put them on an equal footing with tobacco and alcohol. IMHO, crimes of funding drugs are now a bigger problem to society than the drugs, themselves. Legalizing and regulating drugs is bad, but not as bad as the crime associated with illegal drugs. Add drug treatment programs and work on demand reduction instead of supply intradiction. I suspect strife in South America would settle down, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"The premise behind the law was sound: Who needs a "hunting" weapon that was exclusively designed for killing people in wartime? Who needs a folding stock or a 30-round magazine for hunting deer?"
;), who needs an Anything?
;)
Not to pick on you in particular (except, well, that I am picking on you in particular
The idea that things not specifically "needed" (as determined by whom?) are suspect or should need to be justified for some reason has implications that I don't like, most especially when applied blithely to weapons (potentially, at least) of self defense.
Who needs plastic bags for groceries? After all, (conventional) plastics rely on petroleum, and contribute to the dissipation of natural resources. [Ignore the considerations of price, convenience, shipping convenience, reusability, etc, that might lead a person or a business to prefer them.]
Who needs more than one child? The world has enough people, and any more mouths to feed are a net loss. If you want more, too bad, others have decided you don't need any. (Forced abortions in the western provinces of China.)
Who needs more than 2000 calories a day? It's unhealthy to overeat, and people who overeat (and then develop health problems) are a burden and drain on society.
Who needs more than 10 shirts? Can't those people just wash more often? They're depleting resources and spending their money inefficiently, and hurting all of us.
Who needs sharp knives? They're dangerous in the hands of lunatics.
Who needs a computer that is powerful enough to play a significant role in designing nuclear weapons?
I wish these questions were more rhetorical, but obviously some of them are not! And of course, who needs a Xerox machine? (Illegal to have such a thing during most of the history of the Soviet Union.)
Another snide but serious answer to "Who needs a gun designed to kill people?" is, "Well, the Swiss seem to think that they do, and they don't get invaded very often." Also, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, when they were being rounded up for extermination camps and -- bravely but ultimately unsuccessfully -- fought back with what weapons they *did* have. I don't mean to activate Godwin's Law here, I hope I've stayed just shy of it
To further tread that line; the question is not whether governments ever grow tyrannical and oppress the people they're supposed to be serving (at least when they make the gesture of claiming to be a servant in the first place), it's how often, to what degree, and under what circumstances. The Third Reich is only one of many such in the last 100 years. Stalin and others killed either more in absolute numbers or as a percentage of their country's / dominion's population.
Cheers (uh, if that is the right closing note),
Tim
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Banning the guns by name was meaningless. So are some of the restrictions, but what about these ones:
It's true that the assault weapons ban is not a very well written or well designed law. It focuses way too much on little details which may be completely irrelevant. On the other hand, it is trying to address a real concern.
If it is illegal to own an automatic weapon, but it is easy to buy a semi-automatic weapon that's easy to modify, then it's easy for criminals to get automatic weapons.
The page you link to says this:
Doesn't it make sense that it should always be that hard to convert a weapon to fully automatic?
Anyhow, if the assault weapons ban is so badly written, what alternative do you propose? No law at all? Or a better written law that targets assault weapons properly?
hostile takeover is just one of many phrases the media has coined to 'millitarize' the business world. While it is competetive it is seldom destructable or even invasive. If you trade stocks (ownership titles to x percent of the company) a 'hostile takeover' could happend at anytime. The term itself is grossly missleading. If the managment can't control the trading of it's stock through contractual obligation of the shareholder why should they have any say in who sells how many stocks to whom? If a hostile takeover is possible the management doesn't own a company, the shareholders do. No property, or life nor limb has been harmed by physical force. This is why the term 'attacked' is not applicable.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
If you're calling a semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle", you're stupid.
If you're calling magazines "clips", you're stupid.
If you think that the 2nd Amendment is just for protecting hunters, you're stupid.
If you think that registration won't lead to confiscation, you're stupid.
If you're that damned stupid, why the hell are you even participating in this discussion?
Well, I've got an "assault rifle". It has two 30-round clips jungle-clipped together sticking out the bottom. Ever hear of a hurricane? How about looters? That's one reason to own such a weapon. The other, of course, would be to prevent tyranny by the government (whose soldiers are quite well armed with similar but even faster-cycling weapons). The assault weapons ban was a dumb-ass law anyway. They banned guns based on how they look, not how they function. As an example, I have an AK that was imported from a former soviet bloc country. The factory that exported it just left the muzzle brake off. The US company that imported it swapped out some pins, screws, other small parts, and changed the pistol grip. Perfectly legal, now it's a "US made" gun under the law. The only thing the "assault weapons" ban ever did was drive up the price for "pre-ban" guns with flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. Now collectors pay more, but nothing else ever came of it. Stupid laws should be repealed.
How can you compare a rapid fire handgun with a revolutionary war muzzleloader?
Look buddy,
It's people like you that make everyone else who is literate on the planet look bad. I hate to break this to you, but the soldiers you talk about....they're your friends and family ass hole. If you seriously think average Americans, most of which just joined the military for college money, are just going to suddenly turn on everyone they know and support a stalanistic lifestyle because some idiot who knows how to kiss babies told them to, then you need to check yourself into a psych ward.
The situation that existed when the second amendment was written was during a colonial period where your "government" was a monarchy that was 4000 miles away. If you seriously beleive that anyone is capable of reverting America back to a monarchy or dictatorship, once again, seek professional help.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
First point: the 1994 "ban" didn't do anything. Since there's no "core technical difference" between a standard semi-auto hunting rifle like this Remington:
http://www.remington.com/firearms/centerfire/7400w d.htm
and this "AR Pattern" rifle available in one of the *weaker* calibers Remington supports on the 7400 (the 308 Nato):
http://armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar10b.htm
The Remington is pictured with a 5rd magazine but 10rd that poke out of the bottom of the gun are available now and with the ban on 10+ magazines gone, they'll be available there soon.
Both guns are semi-auto, magazine fed. After midnight tonight, it will be possible to sell either with such accessories as bayonette lugs, flash dohickey on the end of the barrel, etc...none of which affect lethality.
Because the guns that "look scary" aren't technically different from those that look more "sporting" like that Remington (one of many examples I could show), back in '94 Congress banned certain "evil features" that were purely cosmetic, in an attempt to home in on the "evil looking guns" and leave the deer rifles alone.
Which made the law arbitrary and stupid, and is what's really causing it's death tonight.
Which leaves two questions:
1) Why would anybody want a "military pattern rifle" in the first place?
A: first, parts are widespread and cheap. They usually share at least some components and accessories with the full-auto military versions which are banned; as long as the parts in question don't add full-auto capability, they're legal.
Second, when rifles are engineered to be able to handle full-auto stresses and battlefield conditions via rigorous testing, they're tough as nails. Once the full-auto capability is stripped for the civilian market, they're even tougher as they don't need to cope with that. (Full-auto fire can wear out a barrel in just a few hundred shots in some cases, which is why real military machine gunners keep extra barrels with them for quick swaps.)
Why have a tough gun?
Because competitive shooters must practice a lot - practice levels beyond what hunting rifles can cope with. The vast majority of full-power rifle competition happens not with deer rifles or even high-accuracy target rifles, but with AR-pattern critters distantly related to the US military M16 family, hot-rodded for accuracy.
The Remington probably has a total lifespan of a couple thousand rounds. Less in the hotter calibers like 30-06 or 270Winchester.
AR-pattern rifle owners can sign up for a three-day class in riflework by nationally known instructors such as John Farnham, and shoot 1500 rounds in a three day weekend...and the gun will *probably* hold up. He has loaner spares just in case they don't, as that's one hell of a duty cycle...one that no "pure civilian origin" rifle could even hope to survive.
-----------
Which leaves the other, more controversial issue: the full-capacity magazines of 20 to 30 rounds, or the truly high-cap mags like the Beta-C drums of 75 - 150.
Who needs that?
Slashdotters of all people should know a critical thing: the majority isn't always right. If you thought otherwise, why don't we format all our Linux partitions and run Windoze? I mean, the market has spoken, right?
Spoken in favor of rank idiocy. "The market" is made up of the same technoturnips that try and find the "any key" when the screen says "press any key to continue".
That particular kind of idiocy is harmless. But every once in a while, the sheeple masses get violently stupid all at once. They riot in LA because of a court decision, or a bunch of morons decide to loot after a hurricane or other natural disaster.
Those are recent examples; in both, homeowners and business owners often sto
hostile takeover is just one of many phrases the media has coined to 'millitarize' the business world. While it is competetive it is seldom destructable or even invasive.
Tell that to the millions who lose their jobs in such mergers every year.
If you trade stocks (ownership titles to x percent of the company) a 'hostile takeover' could happend at anytime.
Exactly right- which is one of the myriad reasons why the stock market needs to be banned as an anti-democratic institution.
The term itself is grossly missleading. If the managment can't control the trading of it's stock through contractual obligation of the shareholder why should they have any say in who sells how many stocks to whom?
Which is why going public is always the wrong choice.
If a hostile takeover is possible the management doesn't own a company, the shareholders do. No property, or life nor limb has been harmed by physical force. This is why the term 'attacked' is not applicable.
Tell it to the workers who become homeless in the merger. They were attacked, and they should be able to have retribution against the shareholders. Violent if necessary.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
AWB is nothing more than feel-good legislation that offers no further protection than the already established laws banning fully automatic weapons... the ones I believe you're actually thinking of.
.30-06 as "designed to kill one deer"? Remember, if it's better at killing one deer (because of its higher caliber and velocity) it's also better at killing one human.
Semi-automatic weapons, the only kind the AWB covers, are incapable of spraying or blanketing anything. They fire one round per trigger pull, just like a semi-auto deer rifle.
Also, what defines a
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
withdrawing from a contract (in the predetermined or default way, agreed upon before hand) is hardly aggression. Its liberty. You actually call for enslaving people to provide work. Good that it doesn't work that way.
By what authority are you requesting this ban? It's none of your business. It's the property of other people. Its equal to me banning you from using your toothbrush. Do you believe this would be my call to make as well?
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
The situation that I'd like to see made more difficult is someone getting depressed, picking up a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, and mowing down everyone in sight. Would the higher-caliber ammunition not make it more difficult to fire in rapid succession?
Also, don't underestimate the testosterone aspect. Some depressed guy who doesn't know about which features one rifle does or does not have is just going to want the baddest-ass looking gun he can find (that AWB bans). It's an emotional, not a rational decision at that point. Perhaps all guns should be made hot pink.
So, yeah, the old law was probably flawed. But can you see what I'm getting at?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
withdrawing from a contract (in the predetermined or default way, agreed upon before hand) is hardly aggression. Its liberty. You actually call for enslaving people to provide work. Good that it doesn't work that way.
Sure- liberty. The liberty to suddenly become homeless. The liberty to lose all hope. The liberty to be told by society that you're a worthless good for nothing for two or three years while you're searching for the next job. Loads of LIBERTY there- liberty is no good without basic life support.
By what authority are you requesting this ban? It's none of your business. It's the property of other people. Its equal to me banning you from using your toothbrush. Do you believe this would be my call to make as well?
Private property is a myth. It's only allowed by the state to provide for the welfare of the people. As soon as private property stops providing for the welfare of the people, it becomes an evil instead of a good. Constitutionally- Private Property comes under the heading of providing for the common welfare. Is the Stock Market providing for the common welfare? Is giving people such incredibly unstable employment that they can't count on having a job long enough to pay off a mortgage providing for the common welfare?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm guessing you weren't replying to my comment, but in case you were and you REALLY misunderstood: My family has been military for the past 200 years. I'm the first oldest son not to serve. The reason? I was told "Don't unless you have to, it will frustrate the hell out of you and burn you out. Don't do it" by career guys. Did you know that they make picture books now to explain how to operate an M1 Abrams? No text? See, most recruits don't know how to read. That is depressing. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops, and sometimes force is the only way to go. I try not to think we're fucked as a country, but we're running out of uneducated people (even though the public schools are cranking them out as fast as they can) and people willing to put up with the bullshit (and go to OTC) who can actually shoot a gun if they have to. Yes, I think Iraq was a mistake. On the other hand, if we stay there, I'm afraid we'll wind up drafting a bunch of frat boys who can read but don't understand the rest of it.
It's really sad when I as a Canadian can buy a gun that Americans can't. My "Law Enforcement Only" Bushmaster is a fun toy, but not exactly a practical gun for a criminal. It's not easy to hide, and doesn't have the sphincter tightening sound that racking a pump shotgun does. Much better as a defesive weapon...
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
I see what you're getting at, but the AWB does nothing at all to prevent the things you fear.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Sure- liberty. The liberty to suddenly become homeless. The liberty to lose all hope. The liberty to be told by society that you're a worthless good for nothing for two or three years while you're searching for the next job. Loads of LIBERTY there- liberty is no good without basic life support.
But you have the right to 'not become homeless', 'hope' and 'finding a job immediatly'?.Liberty is the basic foundation. Regardless of the ultilarian argument or those of the social justic crowd, you are either with indiviual liberty and self responsibility or you are not. In the later case I just wonder why you tipptoeing around banning the stock market. Why not just come straight out with you plans to rebuild society and eliminate all that is individual.
Private property is a myth.
If this is case, your right to live is also a myth.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
But you have the right to 'not become homeless', 'hope' and 'finding a job immediatly'?.Liberty is the basic foundation. Regardless of the ultilarian argument or those of the social justic crowd, you are either with indiviual liberty and self responsibility or you are not. In the later case I just wonder why you tipptoeing around banning the stock market. Why not just come straight out with you plans to rebuild society and eliminate all that is individual.
The stock market isn't about individualism- it's about letting chaos destroy liberty. I'm certainly with liberty and self-responsibility; I'm against letting you have control over my liberty just because you have money. Money destroys liberty, as does the concept of private property, that is, property reserved to the use of a single individual. Why should YOU be allowed to destroy the liberty of others for your own selfish gain?
If this is case, your right to live is also a myth.
It doesn't follow- but you're absolutely correct- it is a myth. Governments have this myth called rights that is used to keep people from having liberty.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I am not a gun owner and I know jack shit about guns, so go easy on me here.
No problem, I understand.
The "issue" you have with firearms is based on emotion without experience or context. We can sit here and argue hardware all day long, but it won't get us any closer to having a context.
For context, I think there are two sites you should take some time to explore: http://www.jpfo.org and http://www.lneilsmith.com
I can especially recommend L. Neil's essay entitled "Why did it have to be 'guns'?"
There is more, of course, such as the fact that in every state where it has been made easier for people to lawfully own and carry firearms, crime rates went down. Every state. The one state with no firearms laws at all, meaning you can put an Uzi under your coat and go to the grocery store and no one will say "boo" about it, has the lowest crime rate in the nation. Chicago and Washington DC have very tight gun control, and tend to swap places at numbers 1 and 2 for highest numbers of murders ever year.
Gun control is not and has never been about crime.
I say you're looking at the wrong thing because I don't care if a hunting rifle fires a heavier slug faster because that is not a weapon designed to kill many people. It's designed to kill one deer. I object to weapons that shoot low-velocity rounds that produce little recoil so you can just blanket an area in lead. What sporting purpose do these weapons serve short of giving a deer a heart attack?
I quote that paragraph in its entirety, because it's important for you to understand how ignorant of hardware it is. The fact that you think "produce little recoil" is a valid statement shows the truth about your stated lack of experience.
Everything in this paragraph is belied by something you have no objection to: The Shotgun. A 12-gage with 00-buckshot puts out exactly the kind of barage of lead (or steel) that blankets an area as you are afraid of.
In the 2.5 seconds it takes me to empty a pump-action shotgun, more "bullets" are fired into the air than an Uzi sub-machine gun with a high-capacity magazine. Yet I can buy one at any gun shop and many hardware stores in great variety and quantity.
That is why we can argue abou hardware until we're both blue in the face. The real issue isn't hardware, it never has been.
That is also why this "assault weapon ban" was bogus, it was written to demonize emotionally charged yet irrelevant physical features, that have nothing to do with function, in order to confuse people into thinking that the ban effected machine guns and thus generate an emotional response in people who have no experience.
I look forward to your reply.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The situation that I'd like to see made more difficult is someone getting depressed, picking up a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, and mowing down everyone in sight.
Did you know that machine guns, both sub- and full, are actually still perfectly legal in these United States? Yet, even though there are about 100,000 legally owned fully automatic weapons in the United States, only one has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.
All the rest, regardless of prohibition, have been illegally possessed. So the prohibitions on big bad evil machine guns has done nothing what so ever to effect crime rates. The people who abide the law are not and never were the problem.
If simple ownership of firearms were to be a hazard, then the crime rates would be the opposite that they are in fact. Everywhere that prohibits "lawful" ownership has much higher crime rates than where "lawful" ownership is easier. Where the laws change, like England, Australia, Florida and dozens of other US states, that same inverse effect is seen with perfect consistency. The rates rise where firearms are further restricted, and drop where restrictions are loosened.
I do really understand what you are getting at. It is a demonstrable fact that prohibition is exactly the wrong thing to achieve your goal.
John R. Lott ran the numbers of multiple victim shootings, the very thing you are concerned about, against the changes in laws regarding firearms ownership. Multiple victim shootings showed the greatest effect of the changes, with their incidence nearly vanishing when the laws were changed to make lawful carrying of arms easier.
In those places where firearms are the most restricted, like NY trains, public schools, government offices and restaurants that serve alcohol, multiple victim shootings are the most likely to happen.
There are two obvious lesson here: Those people who abide the law are not now, and have never been, the problem; Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The reasons for AWB, IIRC, were some high-profile shootings at office buildings (a CA law firm, and some such other place). As someone who works in a high-pressure office, I would not want someone who is untrained in weapons safety to get depressed and be able to just go buy the baddest-ass looking bad-ass semi-automatic weapon at the local gun shop and shoot up the office.
Don't believe that could happen? I was at IBM out in San Jose (Cottle Rd. campus) when they had a big round of layoffs and someone got depressed drove a car into a building. No, I don't think we should allow cars, as they serve a much more useful purpose. Nor do I think we should outlaw all guns, as they serve a useful purpose. But why not outlaw guns that are specifically designed to kill as many humans as possible? What useful purpose do they serve?
Shotguns and handguns are great for self-defense, rifles are great for hunting. But what are assault weapons good for? Why do soldiers use assault weapons and not shotguns? Because they are good for killing as many other soldiers as possible! I may not be a gun expert, but I am not stupid, either.
Yes, I realize that the AWB was flawed, and in that sense, I'm glad it was not renewed. If it were up to me, the US would pass a real assault weapons ban with real penalties like in DC if you are caught with an illegal weapon.
By all means, go ahead and keep a properly stored handgun or shotgun in your house. If someone breaks in and threatens you with deadly force, please kill him before he breaks into my house. But if you were going to keep a weapon for self-defense, would you really choose an AK-47 to defend your dark house!? Of course not. Sure, you might kill the intruder, but you'll also kill your wife, your dog, and 2 of your kids by the time you get done emptying your 30 rounds.
P.S. "But will someone please think of the collectors!" you say. Fine. Let the collectors collect. Just block the barrels so they cannot be fired.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
This is not the case. Bob, by all means, please carry a handgun for self-defense. If someone goes nuts and begins a shooting spree, please kill him before he claims more victims. No assault weapons ban infringes upon your right to defend yourself. It is merely attempting to ban weapons whose design is to look mean and kill as many human beings as possible.
This is why soldiers, whose job is to kill as many opposing soldiers as possible, carry assault weapons and not hunting rifles or Saturday-night specials. ;)
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
That is why we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
.22 for exactly the same reasons.
False. Didn't you read what I wrote? Erase the laws of prohibition and prosecute murder, assault, endangerment, whatever, regardless of the weapon used.
The "laws that are already on the books" have been on the books for 4 thousand years. Murder has been illegal the entire time, gun control had no effect on that.
I think you're equating banning assault weapons with banning all guns.
No, I'm extending your logic to its rational, reasonable conclusion. If I cannot be trusted with a machine gun, then I cannot be trusted with a
That is why the 1934 NFA isn't the only gun control law. Once begun, the basic logic that people cannot be trusted with their own arms leads to only one conclusion: Disarmament.
This is why soldiers, whose job is to kill as many opposing soldiers as possible, carry assault weapons and not hunting rifles or Saturday-night specials.
Look again. Soldiers carry anything and everything. Military shotguns, for instance. The venerable 1911 military pistol had only 7 rounds, showing the absurdity of the assertion that only the military "needs" high capacity magazines. The "Liberator" was junk by any measure, yet worked very well indeed.
The ugly rifle ban certainly did infringe upon my right to choose my own defense, since I was unable to purchase such an ugly gun if that indeed was what I concluded would fit my needs best. Prohibitions on Nigger Town Saturday Night Specials mean poor people cannot afford legal arms for their defense. How many times must prohibition fail before you give up on it?
By taking it upon yourself to make that choice for others, you have made yourself morally liable for anyone who died because their choices were limited.
Are you ready for that?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The rest of your post is just one big false dilemma. The choice isn't an all-or-nothing where either you can have all guns including assault weapons, or no guns at all. If it were up to me, you could have as many hunting and self-defense guns as your little heart desires. Why do you want to own an assault weapon, anyhow?
Look. I've said over and over I am not advocating outlawing all guns. But since you keep bringing it up, why don't you prove it! While you're proving it, make sure to explain why in 2002, Honolulu had the lowest homicide rate per 100,000 people of all US cities with at least 500,000 people, yet Hawaii has strict gun control (permit required to purchase any gun, registration of all firearms, and permit required to carry). For that matter, explain why Memphis was ranked #4 in homicides per 100,000 and TN has little gun control (no gun registration, no permit required to purchase). Milwaukee was ranked 8th, and WI has little gun control as well. California had Los Angeles ranked highly at #9 but San Diego and San Jose had low rates (ranked #28 and #30 out of 32, respectively). Explain that one.Maybe homicide rate is not so tightly correlated to gun control, after all? I'm certainly not finding any evidence to support a tight correlation. Maybe I should rethink my views regarding gun control? Maybe it really does work? Sure seems like it's working in Hawaii! Thanks for pointing that out!
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Your argument repeatedly returns to hardware, that there are attributes of hardware what you wish to prohibit but not "all guns".
It is time for you to define "assault weapon", since that is what you wish to prohibit.
It's not a machine gun or sub-machine gun, since that would be "assault rifle" and is already covered by law.
So what is it? Is it the black plastic you don't like?
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
You're missing the point, then. The point is prevention, not prosecution.
Let us cut off our arms at the shoulder, then, since I can kill with my hands.
The largest mass murder in the US, prior to September, 2001, was inflicted with Gasoline. Let us prohibit gasoline and prevent such crimes.
Since wearing a shock-collar which would prevent anyone but legally married people from getting within 3 feet of each other would prevent rape, many murders, pickpocking, let's wear them.
Since it is possible for me to incite violence with words, shall all speech be cleared through censors first, to prevent that crime too?
Here's the problem: Prevention by any other means than education eliminates the very concept of "rights". The police in the US used to be peace officers. When some broke the peace, they were punished.
Then they became "law enforcement", and the jack booted thug and standing army inside the borders is a daily occurrence.
It's easy to talk high and mighty about preventing other people from doing bad things. But it is altogether another thing to accept the responsibility for the kind of society it requires to prevent crimes.
Do you accept moral responsibility for every mass-murder?
I accept the moral responsibility for my own actions. That is why I own arms for my own defense and the defense of innocents against predation.
If you choose to prevent me from making that choice, you are taking a positive step to interfere in my life. My owning arms in no way impells someone else to commit murder. Your supposed conundrum is false.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
as does the concept of private property
As you said 'that doesn't follow'. But I am curious, in a world of mutual physical exclusion, how will you prevent property? At the very minimum, lets say at a hypothetical start of the world, my property is the 2 square foots I'm standing on. Also the air I consume and the food I eat. If I am allowed to use this, it is in fact, my property. If I am not, no one else can be either -> no human life.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Do you know why California invented the "assault weapon" ban?
In 1992, a group of police beat the crap out of Rodney King.
They were later acquited of assault because, surprise surprise, it turned out that they were indeed "just following orders." It was, and likely still is, in their rule book to "hit the suspect until he stays down" even if it kills him.
During the ensuing riots, the police abandoned the city of Los Angeles to the rioters. Sorry folks, you're on your own. The police have no legal requirement to protect you (look it up, it's true).
The news cameras were still rolling, however. Lots of pictures of wide spread violence and looting, but not everywhere. There were islands of peace in the maelstrom.
Pictures of store owners and their employees and families defending their property and their customers with rifles made the evening news.
Mere citizens standing firm, peacefully, successfully, while the police cut and run.
The various government bureaucrats, politicians, and especially the police were furious! They looked at the pictures, saw that the shop owners had done nothing illegal, and decided to punish them.
So the bureaucrats looked to see what kind of weapons the shop owners had used so effectively, cataloged them, called them something nasty sounding which they hoped gullible citizens would confuse with machine guns, and decried how these things were "the weapons of choice of criminals".
That's why the definition of "assault weapon" is meaningless, it's based on nothing but looks.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
As you said 'that doesn't follow'. But I am curious, in a world of mutual physical exclusion, how will you prevent property? At the very minimum, lets say at a hypothetical start of the world, my property is the 2 square foots I'm standing on. Also the air I consume and the food I eat. If I am allowed to use this, it is in fact, my property. If I am not, no one else can be either -> no human life.
Mutual physical exclusion doesn't extend to the time axis, it only exists in the first three dimensions. The 2 square feet you're standing on will be vacant once you leave- you're only borrowing it, you don't own it. I'm not the inventor of this principle- even Christ used it in one of his parables (the parable of the talents, and how we're not the ultimate owners of the world, but rather mere stewards for the One True Owner). Use alone doesn't make for property ownership- only rental. Ownership would imply that once you've used it, nobody else can either- for any purpose. Of course, if that was true, the 30 or so ghosts standing behind each and every one of us would have used up the consumables on the planet long ago- no human life with that sort of ownership either. The air you consume and the food you eat will eventually be eliminated from your body, and will go back into the cycle of life, eventually becoming air and food consumed by somebody else. It's always been amazing to me how we use our technology to hide this fact from ourselves.
Of course, once you start thinking four dimensionally instead of three, it's hard to stop. But stop we must- for our minds and actions are commited to traveling only one direction along that axis and never stopping.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'd just like to say I love how the media and some police organizations would have you believe that the expiry of this ban allows "machine guns" to fall into civillian hands.
The basic fact is that machine guns in general for civillian use were first banned in 1934. In the mid 1980's (I think 1984), another law was passed limiting legal sale of machine guns to civillians with the proper clearances to pre-law dates.
Therefore, not only is the general populace barred from purchasing a machine gun unless subjected to FBI background checks and other measures, anyone who gains such permission is only allowed to purchase one built before 1984.
For more information, here's a link:
Gun Control: Machine Guns
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
One final comment for this thread, unless I see something particularly ludicrous that needs addressing, is a very good source of information on the history of the "gun culture" and gun control. The book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross is an excellent work of historical fiction. Ross takes actuall historical events dating from WWI onward, and describes their impact on a set of fictitious character, ranging from politicians to lawyers to big-game safari hunters. He goes into great detail about various legislative measures, but does not touch the gun control act, as the book was published prior to its implementation. This was in fact the first reference I had seen to the NFA (National Firearms Act). I highly recommend this book to anyone interrested in gun control, regardless of your stance. When I first started reading, I fell into the category of those who ride the fence on this issue: I felt some control was necessary, but could offer no reasonable suggestions as to where to draw the line. While reading the book, I simply could not believe some of the abuses and legal manipulation described, so I verified it with reliable third-party sources. This book made me aware of the events surrounding Ruby Ridge and Waco, and provided me with an interest in researching these matters. What I found was not only a government that would trample citizen's rights, but also not hesitate to use lethal and brutal force to keep its populace "in their place". Because of my knowledge of the abuses perpetrated by the US government against its own citizens, I was not surprised (although still completely appaled) to learn of the disgusting torture occuring in Guantanamo and Abu Gahrib, nor was I startled to hear American politicians discussing the "acceptable" use of torture, and to see a president of this once great nation seeking for ways to circumvent the Geneva Convention. But I digress. Read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross. You'll be skeptical of the events described. Do your homework. Verify their authenticity and accuracy. If you still want to give the government the names of gun owners, if you still want them to say what guns you may and may not own, if you still want to have bans on concealed carry, you must be quite mad.
There seems to be a persistent misunderstanding here, and perhaps I can clear it up.
.223 cartridge used by both the full-auto M-16 and the semi-auto AR-15 are designed to wound rather than kill the enemy, based on the theory that a wounded soldier also takes one or two others out of the action as they have to tend to the wounded one.)
.22 target pistols used in Olympic Competition (actu
There is a very important difference between a "machine gun," and an "assault weapon" such as those types of guns affected by the ban.
The difference is between "semi-auto" and what is sometimes called "full auto" or "select fire."
Machine guns and the rifles soldiers use are "full auto" or "select fire." With these guns, you pull the trigger and the gun keeps firing bullets until you either release the trigger or run out of ammunition.
"Assault weapons" such as those affecte by the recently expired ban, are called "semi-auto" and shoot differently. You pull the trigger, one bullet gets fired. To fire another, you have to release the trigger and then pull it again to fire one more bullet. Just about every handgun you can find shoots this way, and many hunting rifles do as well.
The only functional difference between an "assault rifle" such as this, and nearly all pistols and many hunting rifles, is that the "assault rifle" carries more ammunition in one magazine. But this can be compensated for by carrying additional magazines. With a bit of practice, you can drop an empty magazine and load a new one in less than two seconds.
These so-called "assault weapons" cannot "spray bullets" as many opponents have claimed. Also, the cartidges/bullets they shoot are generally smaller and less powerful than many hunting cartridges/bullets. (In fact, the
The question has also been asked, what value is an "assault weapon" other than to kill a lot of people? The answer is, sometimes the ability to kill a lot of people is vital to defending one's own life, home and family.
I live in the Los Angeles area, which has been the scene of periodic race riots. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the only businesses in the riot area which survived were those guarded by owners and their relatives, carrying guns which can kill a lot of people.
Even aside from the threat of race riot, there is the threat of a major earthquake, which would induce a collapse of all social services. Before very long, those who had practiced proper earthquake preparedness would find themselves beseiged by those who had not. Law enforcement would be busy guarding city/county property and VIPs, the rest of us would be on our own.
Most of the US is not in an earthquake zone, but there are always tornados, hurricanes, and possible man-made calamities to consider.
One scenario involves a family living in a fairly isolated area. There's a prison 20-30 miles away, and some prisoners make their escape, stealing a van or small bus. This gang of 6-12 desperados knows they need to ditch the van, and a place to hide out, and provision themselves. Your isolated home looks like a good candidate. In such a situation, the best weapon to have would be a full-auto M-4, but the second-best would be a semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47.
Finally, there has been the insistence that banning "assault guns" is not the same as banning all guns. Well, if you look at just a moment in time, this is correct. But if you look at the history of gun control in virtually evey country that once had free private ownership, you will see the same story.
First, a ban was only applied to a few guns which few owned and especially frightened many. A few years later, the ban was expanded. Then, the class of people prohibited from owning guns was expanded. Then another expansion here, another expansion there, until ultimately, the only guns permitted in either England or Australia were single-barreled shotguns (and even those were tightly controlled) and maybe certain types of single-shot
KryonD,
You must not be a history major. The US will not last forever and its people are not immune to terrible fates. Will it fall apart during our lives? Probably not. But, at the same time, I would consider it wise to make sure you and your family are protected.
So, who gets to 'organize' the rental. In other words, how does it get done? Especially, how do you think that conflicts would be resolved. Say A and B would like to eat apple C. Who gets it and by what standard? I am sincerely asking. Arguing is over, since our basic axioms are different. There is no way to have a discussion about 'fundamental' truths.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
So, who gets to 'organize' the rental. In other words, how does it get done? Especially, how do you think that conflicts would be resolved. Say A and B would like to eat apple C. Who gets it and by what standard?
Why not fcfs algorithim? It works fine in Unix resource allocation, to a large extent. This gets to my second fundamental truth- economic systems are just physical world operating systems.
I am sincerely asking. Arguing is over, since our basic axioms are different. There is no way to have a discussion about 'fundamental' truths.
If you can't learn to question basic axioms, you'll never grow beyond them. That's the basic meaning behind Godel's incompleteness theorem.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Why not? Well, for one, human beings are in two ways different from processes:
A process doesn't 'die' unless you tell it to. No matter how many resources a process can acquire or is denied, it will always remain 'alive' as long as it is 'run' by the system (kept in memory, for humans this would be their bodies within the universe). You can program it to retry, at periodic intervals, even for memory:
This is impossible with humans. You can not create a living thing that could operate this way.
Secondly, a process within an operating system is a means to an end, directly or indirectly a human end at that. The operating system too. This is a basic difference. Humans are ends in themselves and not means to the end of others.
Also, economics is nothing like an operating system. For one, resource allocation in an operating system is always a zero sum game. In real world economics, it is rarly so. Processes can not create new resources, and they can't modify algorithms (usage of resources) to run more efficiently on their own. They can't overcome the limitations set by their creators. They can't create.
If you can't learn to question basic axioms, you'll never grow beyond them. That's the basic meaning behind Godel's incompleteness theorem.
basic axioms are called that because they can't be proven. They are supposed to be apparant. Either you see them or not. Gödel has not much to do with it. The theorem only says that it is impossible to be complete and consitent at the same time, for every formal system that is complete must be inconsitent ( A==A and A!=A are both true or false) or it is consitent but not complete (it is not possible to state all truths about the system within the system).
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
A process doesn't 'die' unless you tell it to.
And a human being doesn't die unless it's reached that life's natural end point OR you deny it the resources needed to survive- just like a process needs memory to survive. Deny it that memory, and you deny it life.
Secondly, a process within an operating system is a means to an end, directly or indirectly a human end at that. The operating system too. This is a basic difference. Humans are ends in themselves and not means to the end of others.
Human beings are not ends within themselves- they exist to procreate, much like any computer virus. They are a part of the greater whole of the culture, society, and species.
For one, resource allocation in an operating system is always a zero sum game. In real world economics, it is rarly so.
Really? Where are we getting the extra elements and electrons then? There's nothing in the Solar System that hasn't been there for the entire time humanity has been alive. It's a zero sum game in that there's nothing being added or subtracted- it's just that humanity is a much smaller part than we'd like to imagine ourselves to be. In the end, on a universal scale, economics IS indeed a zero sum game, always. Can't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics indefinately.
Processes can not create new resources,
Neither can humans, we can only develop what's already here.
and they can't modify algorithms (usage of resources) to run more efficiently on their own.
Have you never written a self-modifying program? I've got plenty of programs that modify their own algorithims for more efficient resource usage on their own in my house- admitedly I use quite a bit more artificial intelligence than the average computer user, but I don't see why I should need to mess with something when the computer can mess with itself perfectly well and much faster than I can.
They can't overcome the limitations set by their creators. They can't create.
Strictly speaking, neither can human beings. There are limits on our creativity. If you don't believe me, just try to go eat a radio wave.
basic axioms are called that because they can't be proven. They are supposed to be apparant.
But they aren't very apparent. That's the whole point of thinking outside of their box. Most of them are simply myths that we accept because we were taught to- they have no real existance in and of themselves.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Its not same. As long as you keep the process in existance (executable and stack in memory) the process will not disappear. You might force it to 'pause' by not giving it more resources but you can't kill it that way (my example). A human being is different. Existance does not equal life. Its perfectly easy to store a person forever as long as you let them occupy space within the universe (in memory so to speak). And as the universe is so near to infinite that it doesn't matter much to us, you could 'store' a large number of human bodys. Living is a different matter. A little hitch in resource allocation and you die. Malloc must not return a pointer to void. Can your algorithm gurantee that?
Human beings are not ends within themselves- they exist to procreate, much like any computer virus. They are a part of the greater whole of the culture, society, and species.
This is what I meant when I said we differed on our basic axioms. If you speak truth about reality, why is it that I thrive to futher myself and my own goals? Why am I artificially sterilized without having a single offspring? Why do the vast majority of people act the same way (being selfish)? What is the 'I' I talk about and how could it possibly come about? Do you feel comfortable implying that an abstraction ('we') is, in fact, an instance while at the same time treating the instance as non existing? To put it an other way, society is an abstraction that describes shared properties (name=nationality,value=german) of individuals. Individuals are not properties of an society because society does not, in reality, exists (hence abstraction). To put it in programing terms:
The result of this query(simplified) would be what we call 'society' which at best can be viewed as a 'virtual' table, while individual is a table that actually is meaningful or real.
Have you never written a self-modifying program? I've got plenty of programs that modify their own algorithims for more efficient resource usage on their own in my house- admitedly I use quite a bit more artificial intelligence than the average computer user, but I don't see why I should need to mess with something when the computer can mess with itself perfectly well and much faster than I can.
The rounds a human can go with this are only limited by his lifetime. A program can not reason about itself. It can not step out of the system es hofstaeder said. level l is the level of optimization. Humans can always do l+1. If you got a program able to do this, you should talk to MIT.
Really? Where are we getting the extra elements and electrons then? There's nothing in the Solar System that hasn't been there for the entire time humanity has been alive. It's a zero sum game in that there's nothing being added or subtracted- it's just that humanity is a much smaller part than we'd like to imagine ourselves to be. In the end, on a universal scale, economics IS indeed a zero sum game, always. Can't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics indefinately.
Obiously, this is not true. Look at the stars at night. The photons hitting your retina where not here before humanity arrived. Or even yesterday. But I see your point nonetheless. In this reality, economics is not concerned with the universal scale. Where humans live and are able to act is what matters. Also, there is the pesky fact that eventhough E equals mc^2 not all energy is equally useful to us. Humans require special carbon hydrates and triglycerides combined with delicate enviromental conditions (tempratures and such) to function. These are not found in abundace on this planet. The whole point of the economy is to convert energy into other forms of it or m
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Its not same. As long as you keep the process in existance (executable and stack in memory) the process will not disappear. You might force it to 'pause' by not giving it more resources but you can't kill it that way (my example).
And yet- the stack is also a resource, as important to the process as air is to a human being. Delete the stack- or even merely "pollute" it with junk data, and the process will die- usually very loudly and painfully. So no, your example actually fails. Deny the process all resources, and it will die. Deny the human being all resources, and that human being will die.
If you speak truth about reality, why is it that I thrive to futher myself and my own goals? Why am I artificially sterilized without having a single offspring? Why do the vast majority of people act the same way (being selfish)? What is the 'I' I talk about and how could it possibly come about?
It's a myth- the myth of independance, one of those "basic axioms" you're so fearfull about questioning all right. And since you don't question it, you're exactly as selfish as your parents taught you to be.
The rounds a human can go with this are only limited by his lifetime. A program can not reason about itself. It can not step out of the system es hofstaeder said. level l is the level of optimization. Humans can always do l+1. If you got a program able to do this, you should talk to MIT.
But so few humans do so- you don't for instance, you're limited by your myth of independance to step up to the next level of efficiency. You're limited by both your programming (the basic axioms) and your physical world. The first can be destroyed easily, just as with a computer program- all that is needed is a change of the properties, a change of the point of view. The second is harder- but workarounds do exist.
Obiously, this is not true. Look at the stars at night. The photons hitting your retina where not here before humanity arrived. Or even yesterday. But I see your point nonetheless. In this reality, economics is not concerned with the universal scale. Where humans live and are able to act is what matters. Also, there is the pesky fact that eventhough E equals mc^2 not all energy is equally useful to us. Humans require special carbon hydrates and triglycerides combined with delicate enviromental conditions (tempratures and such) to function. These are not found in abundace on this planet. The whole point of the economy is to convert energy into other forms of it or mass or to manipulate mass with energy. At the end of which stands matter and energy that ensures and makes as comfortable as possible the individual survival. Or to put it an other way: where there was just sunlight, today here is bread. This is no violation of the 2nd law of TD but it matters to us a great deal anyhow.
And unlike what the economists claim- it's not an infinite ability. One cannot create without paying a cost. And that's where the zero sum game lies- in that cost. Governments and economic systems can hide the cost- but they cannot eliminate it.
No, we create resources, literally. We don't create the matter or energy, but that is not the issue. A resource is per definition something of value. Value relates to individual preferences but roots in the satisfaction of needs. If humans where never cold, wood wouldn't be a resource. Only after the first person recognized that wood could be used to satisfy the need for warmth, had wood become a resource. Before it just kinda sat there. It existed alright but it wasn't a resource.
Ah, but it was usefull to us- we just didn't know it. Without forests, we wouldn't have useable air to breathe- the wood was absorbing carbon and releasing oxygen, all along. How shortsighted of us to burn it as fuel without replenishing it! That's what I mean by a zero sum game- the economics may hide it, but there is ALWAYS a cost to the use of resources- and resources are made up of matter and energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed by human methods. Just because the basic axioms and myths have hidden the costs does NOT mean that the costs don't exist.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And yet- the stack is also a resource, as important to the process as air is to a human being. Delete the stack- or even merely "pollute" it with junk data, and the process will die- usually very loudly and painfully. So no, your example actually fails. Deny the process all resources, and it will die. Deny the human being all resources, and that human being will die.
I still think there is a distinction, but it might be too subtle to matter.
But so few humans do so- you don't for instance, you're limited by your myth of independance to step up to the next level of efficiency. You're limited by both your programming (the basic axioms) and your physical world. The first can be destroyed easily, just as with a computer program- all that is needed is a change of the properties, a change of the point of view. The second is harder- but workarounds do exist. This is the first time efficency has stepped into the picture. I thought we where discussing morals. Well, suit yourself. I think the burden of proof that your 'system' must be more efficient lies on you. Believe me, I'm comfortable in my ablities to support the efficiency of capitalism both by experience and deduction.
As for man vs. machine: The distinction could but rarely does vs can not and does never is quite important and is fundamental in understanding the differences of mind vs machine.
And unlike what the economists claim- it's not an infinite ability. One cannot create without paying a cost. And that's where the zero sum game lies- in that cost. Governments and economic systems can hide the cost- but they cannot eliminate it.
Well, again, the universe is also not infinite (depending on which side of the kantian argument you look at
Ah, but it was usefull to us- we just didn't know it. Without forests, we wouldn't have useable air to breathe- the wood was absorbing carbon and releasing oxygen, all along. How shortsighted of us to burn it as fuel without replenishing it! That's what I mean by a zero sum game- the economics may hide it, but there is ALWAYS a cost to the use of resources- and resources are made up of matter and energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed by human methods. Just because the basic axioms and myths have hidden the costs does NOT mean that the costs don't exist.
Well, how fortunate that it was discovered that the main player in the process are algea. Trees actually play quite a small role in it. And using wood doesn't necessarily imply killing trees either. Enough of them die. And it doesn't imply that you deplete the forest. This is actually a very good utilitarian argument for property. The owner of a forest has a long term interest in maintaining the ecosystem, raising new trees for those that where cut down. In an analogy, the value of a functioning TV plant is usually assigned to me more than an equally large structure filled with TVs. As for the costs of production, the single significant form of energy on this planet is solar. Be it fossile fuel or even wind mills, those are all results of the energy released by the 4H->1He process. For our purposes this energy output is steady. We can either make use of it and so make our lifes easier or we could stop and let it all go to waste. This is the part of which I say it is not zero sum. The amout of energy within the universe will stay the same anyways and always. We should be solely concerned with the things that concern us and this is identifing (and thereby creating them) resources (silicon is a prime example) and making use of them.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
This is the first time efficency has stepped into the picture. I thought we where discussing morals. Well, suit yourself. I think the burden of proof that your 'system' must be more efficient lies on you. Believe me, I'm comfortable in my ablities to support the efficiency of capitalism both by experience and deduction.
;) but for us it doesn't and will never matter. The term zero sum game is not meant as opposing the 2nd TD law at all. All it means is that my wealth must not and for the most part does not deprive you of anything.
I used to think I could support the efficiency (or rather lack thereof) of capitalism- until I was laid off so that my boss could get another quarter of a percent in profit sharing. Then I realized for the first time that the management class is an unfair tax on the working class- stealing effort like a tapeworm steals food from it's host. But whatever replaces the free market- where the corporate parasites exist- must do *something* to eliminate the parasites on the system. Just as an operating system needs a virus scanner, economic systems need protection against human greed.
As for man vs. machine: The distinction could but rarely does vs can not and does never is quite important and is fundamental in understanding the differences of mind vs machine.
And yet, in the end result, means wasted effort that can be better put to other uses. If you don't have to THINK about your economic/operating system, you can devote more clock cycles to the real problems. Henry Ford discovered that when he invented actually paying people enough to buy what they were making; I can't remember the first name, but Kaiser discovered that ship builders in WWII worked faster when they didn't have to worry about health care. Both these men would be considered horrible liberal communists by the ethical standards of business today; after all, who wants to give up profit to actually take care of the workers?
Well, again, the universe is also not infinite (depending on which side of the kantian argument you look at
The trouble is that axiom is proveable false- the more money the upper class has, the more expensive things get, and the more time it takes the lowest class to earn even the basics for survival. It's called inflation- and there's a good way around it proposed by Plato back about 2500 years ago in the Republic- a law that no man may earn more than 10x what another man does (For the United States, that would put the maximum wage at about $235,000/year, currently, indexed to minimum wage working maximum hours). Of course, that's forbidden too in our current system- which puts personal profit and greed as the highest virtue.
Well, how fortunate that it was discovered that the main player in the process are algea. Trees actually play quite a small role in it. And using wood doesn't necessarily imply killing trees either. Enough of them die. And it doesn't imply that you deplete the forest.
Care to take a look at a real-world example? In 1620, the King of England declared coal smoke to be a pollution he no longer wanted in his kingdom. Within 80 years, there wasn't a tree left anywhere in England, and even the venerable yew had to be brought back from imported German stock. If you don't replant three trees for every tree you take, you WILL deplete the forest, eventually.
This is actually a very good utilitarian argument for property. The owner of a forest has a long term interest in maintaining the ecosystem, raising new trees for those that where cut down.
Good analogy alright. Now let's say that owner is a stockholder looking only at the three month bottom line (like most stockholders in the United States do) with no actual responsibility for when things go wrong. He doesn't care about the future- he'll have sold his stocks before the six month quarterly report hits. It's in his best interest to do the short term thing, cut all the trees down and sell the wood, and le
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.