Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Bans Gun and Knife Videos In the UK

PatPending writes with a depressing excerpt from the UK's Metro: "The Google-owned video-sharing site YouTube has decided to introduce the ban [on weapons-related videos] for the UK only amid widespread unease about the increase in knife crime in the country. 'We recognise that there has been particular concern over videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of the areas we are addressing,' a YouTube spokesperson said. 'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said."

521 of 632 comments (clear)

  1. 'cause everyone knows by ichbineinneuben · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guns and knives don't kill people. Videos kill people.

    1. Re:'cause everyone knows by flayzernax · · Score: 3, Funny

      Vidoes dont kill people, Youtube kills people

    2. Re:'cause everyone knows by calmofthestorm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Youtube doesn't kill people. Google kills you, except in Soviet Russia.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    3. Re:'cause everyone knows by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Informative


      Knives are this month's hysteria in the UK. That's not to say there isn't a problem with knife use in the UK. And it isn't to say that videos on YouTube can't be used for intimidation of specific people and so should be removed in such cases. But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.

      It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    4. Re:'cause everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah I've never understood this obsession with banning weapons or even pictures of weapons on the left which I consider myself a part of BTW. If the state disarms FIRST maybe, until then fuggit about it. Standing a-prori naked and defenseless against governments that have murdered literally hundreds of millions of people in the last hundred years is just not very bright. And to make it a thought crime is even more appalling.

      Orwell was just off by 20 years, that's all.

    5. Re:'cause everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.

      I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic, the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

      Before it is all over you English won't be allowed possession of anything harder than mushy peas. I've no idea how you'll manage to cook them or mash them for that matter because anything sufficiently rigid enough to cook them in or mash them with will have been made illegal to possess.

      Turing word: disarm
      (Sometimes I swear they're added a lexical analyzer.)

    6. Re:'cause everyone knows by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Funny

      With a name like "Foobar of Borg"? Please. At worst you assimilate people. More likely, though, you just run around at Star Trek conventions, pretending that you matter.

    7. Re:'cause everyone knows by dangitman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

      That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.

      BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.

      Riiiiiiiggght. Got any evidence to back that up?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    8. Re:'cause everyone knows by paganizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama!
      Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    9. Re:'cause everyone knows by paganizer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Interesting reality you live in there.
      results of a really quick google search:
      http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html (england & gun control)
      the Obama thing is a little hard to pin down, as he has been pretty good at avoiding any straight answers. But you could start here: http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
      note: if you are pro-gun control, you obviously won't see anything wrong with this.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    10. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

      That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.

      BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.

      Riiiiiiiggght. Got any evidence to back that up?

      You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping? As to the Obama claim, look at his voting record on gun issues. All the proof you need is right there.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    11. Re:'cause everyone knows by dangitman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?

      As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    12. Re:'cause everyone knows by sveard · · Score: 1

      is this one of those pre-emptive reversals i've been hearing so much about lately?

    13. Re:'cause everyone knows by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      No, Orwell was off by 600 miles.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not surprised you got modded "flamebait"; how DARE you criticize Obama! Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area. I guess a person could be concerned that he hasn't defined what an Urban area is...but still, shut up! he Gives us hope!

      But, you can only possess those as long as you can find a gun store which would still be in operation. Under a 1999 Obama proposal, all gun stores within five miles of any school or park. Such a law, if actually proposed and passed, would kill off pretty much every gun store in the country which wasn't way in the boonies. Now, this admittedly wasn't proposed as a bill (as that would require him to have actually done something). This was proposed in a speech at an anti-rights rally. Yep, a real rights supporter he. ;)

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    15. Re:'cause everyone knows by dangitman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, so where does your link show skyrocketing knife crimes correlating to a ban of knives? That's what the GP claimed.

      Also, the Reason article you link to is from 2002, so is rather outdated. Violent crimes have dropped in the UK since then. And I'm not seeing the claimed correlation between UK gun laws and the incidence of violent crime. Again, linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm

      From your link on Obama, he states "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?

      The funny thing is that your own links rebut the argument you were trying to make with them!

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    16. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Aside from the part about banning knives (they haven't gotten around to doing that as yet), how is this flamebait? Because it doesn't tow the left leaning groupthink on /.?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    17. Re:'cause everyone knows by mweather · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard Obama mention introducing any Constitutional Amendments. Or are you saying the Supreme Court that just verified the individual right to keep and bear arms and overturned a gun ban is going to allow Obama to ban guns? Your fears are irrational.

    18. Re:'cause everyone knows by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches?

      Simple: we were always sissified little bitches. But now we can't send the people who upset us to serve time in Australia or the army in the Raj.

    19. Re:'cause everyone knows by Bob+The+Magic+Camel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because he's talking bollocks, that's why. There is more gun crime in New York, than there is crime in England. Our gun control works, and shootings are a rare event, when they happen it still makes the news. The reason guns aren't involved in crime within the UK: the police aren't armed, and the citizens aren't armed. If the police or citizens have guns, then the criminals know they need guns, a whole lot more people die. And it's rarely the criminals.

      The knife ban was a response to inflating knife crime, not the cause of it. And US politics has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. He was simply going through a list of subjects that he knew could spark a flame war. The definition, if you will, of flamebait.

      --
      This signature is esoteric
    20. Re:'cause everyone knows by paganizer · · Score: 1

      What really sort of scared me was this statement he made in 2003:
      "I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns"
      lets see...since what he considers a "Assault Weapon" is in reality just a scary looking hunting rifle, that would illegalize ammunition for every single one of my hunting rifles; I imagine you could still get 30-30 rounds, 22-250 and some other weak rounds that were never chambered for a scary looking gun. but you would also lose a lot of hunting rifles because they use pistol ammunition, like the .357 and .44 marlin lever actions. So, what, 90% plus of all rifles made illegal or "limited"?
      If he came out and definitively said "I'm going to fully restore all the rights infringed upon by BushCo, the patriot act, etc" it would be a little easier to swallow having someone so intent on crippling the 2nd amendment as a potential president.
      On the other hand, with McCain the only hope we have is that he can't really make things much worse, can he?

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    21. Re:'cause everyone knows by kdemetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with gun/knife control is that the real criminal will still be able to get knives or guns from the black market.

      So it won't really stop crime . It may however , decrease the chance of accidents happing with guns.

      But still , anything can be used as a lethal weapon in some way. You can do some serious damage with an umbrella if you know how.

    22. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?

      As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm

      Nothing, I believe the poster above was referring to Obama's documented desire to eliminate all semi-automatic guns, among others. One can only imagine that if he would be willing to do that, a total ban on any effective ownership wouldn't be out of the question. Whether Congress would pass such a law is admittedly doubtful in both cases, however it doesn't change his position. He's also on the record as being opposed to concealed carry. He, of course, also would like to reimpose the failed assault weapon ban. He is also on the record as desiring a total ban on handguns, with only the lack of it being popular enough currently to do it. (See the last link) Obama is possibly the most anti-rights candidate ever.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    23. Re:'cause everyone knows by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      It's hard to get guns in the UK

      And yet there are three gun shops in a five mile radius, and nearly everyone I know owns (legally) some sort of gun.

    24. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      What really sort of scared me was this statement he made in 2003: "I would support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for handguns" lets see...since what he considers a "Assault Weapon" is in reality just a scary looking hunting rifle, that would illegalize ammunition for every single one of my hunting rifles; I imagine you could still get 30-30 rounds, 22-250 and some other weak rounds that were never chambered for a scary looking gun. but you would also lose a lot of hunting rifles because they use pistol ammunition, like the .357 and .44 marlin lever actions. So, what, 90% plus of all rifles made illegal or "limited"? If he came out and definitively said "I'm going to fully restore all the rights infringed upon by BushCo, the patriot act, etc" it would be a little easier to swallow having someone so intent on crippling the 2nd amendment as a potential president. On the other hand, with McCain the only hope we have is that he can't really make things much worse, can he?

      Any person who on the one hand would claim to restore certain rights, while in the same breath declare he wishes to end certain other equally fundamental rights cannot be trusted.

      Also, I believe he is on the record as desiring a ban on "armor piercing" ammo. I further believe that statement referred to common police body armor, which can be defeated by almost any rifle round. Thus, such a ban would eliminate all modern rifles more powerful than .22LR.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    25. Re:'cause everyone knows by dattaway · · Score: 1

      Next videos of people spitting on sidewalks will be banned. Then only people spitting on sidewalks will have videos. Or something.

    26. Re:'cause everyone knows by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Of course there are more people shooting other people in NY than in, say, London. When people are helpless against the (gun owning) criminals, they have to do what they tell them, or die. It takes a lot of either courage or stupidity to attack someone pointing a gun at you while you are unarmed, so usually, no one shoots. But in the US, you can actually defend yourself against criminals, though if both people draw a gun, not only the chance to get away from the criminal rises, but also the chance that someone gets shot.

      Still, living in a country with very tight gun control and skyrocketing crime (just look at the statistics. Austria can't do s**t against criminals), I'd prefer to take the risk of getting shot but also be able to defend myself to being completely helpless in a criminal's paradise.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    27. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Because he's talking bollocks, that's why. There is more gun crime in New York, than there is crime in England. Our gun control works, and shootings are a rare event, when they happen it still makes the news. The reason guns aren't involved in crime within the UK: the police aren't armed, and the citizens aren't armed. If the police or citizens have guns, then the criminals know they need guns, a whole lot more people die. And it's rarely the criminals.

      The knife ban was a response to inflating knife crime, not the cause of it. And US politics has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. He was simply going through a list of subjects that he knew could spark a flame war. The definition, if you will, of flamebait.

      There actually was a knife ban? I missed that. My mistake.

      However, you're making the same mistake that a great many people do. There is no such thing as 'gun crime' or 'knife crime' anymore than there is 'car crime' or 'swimming pool crime'. These terms are all designed to redirect the discussion away from the real issue, crime, and towards the object used to commit the crime. I will agree that some of the GP's statements were a bit over the top. The core argument, however poorly made or not, is still sound. Prohibitions on weapons do not work to reduce crime. They merely, at best, shift the tools of choice to something else. The crime doesn't go down, the law abiding population just become defenseless.

      Furthermore, comparing New York (I presume you meant just the city) with England is neither wise nor fair. The NYC Metro population is a third of the population of all of England packed into an area much smaller. You have a much higher density of poorer people, which tends to lead to more crime in general. The UK also had 1,201 murders in 2002. Whereas NYC had less than 500. Perhaps the comparison wasn't so bad after all. ;)

      I submit that gun control can only be said to work if you use the faulty methods I mentioned above of segregating so-called 'gun crime' from regular crime. If the goal is simply to reduce crime committed by people using guns, then you might be able to succeed. However, if the goal is the far more useful object of reducing crime in general, gun control will fail every single time. There's just no evidence on hand, unless you can provide such, that proves that banning a given type/class of weapon reduces crime in general.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    28. Re:'cause everyone knows by extrasolar · · Score: 1

      But at Google, you kill Soviet Russia!

    29. Re:'cause everyone knows by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      The president selects justices for SCOTUS. That is how it would change. The Heller decision was a 5-4 majority. It only takes replacing one of the 5 to make it go the other way in future cases.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    30. Re:'cause everyone knows by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      > Obama is a gun control freak
      Lie requires source or retract.

      He will likely support gun control then not do anything. It's not one of his central issues, so I hardly think one can call him a freak.

      Of course if freak := disagree with you than I apologize for calling your statement a lie, for it is then correct.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    31. Re:'cause everyone knows by jcr · · Score: 1

      How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches?

      All the tough ones left England to build that empire, and they stayed in their former colonies when the empire collapsed.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    32. Re:'cause everyone knows by 117 · · Score: 1

      Guns and knives don't kill people. Videos kill people.

      no, rappers do

    33. Re:'cause everyone knows by didroe84 · · Score: 1
      My Google search revealed this: http://www.anxietyculture.com/crimescare.htm

      You fail to understand how rediculous our government has become with regards to targets and statistics. I'd be interested in seeing the percentage of violent crime that led to death in the UK and US, that would be more indicative of the impact of guns. Obviously you would have to adjust the statistics so they were counting the same kinds of crime as violent first.

      From that link you gave:

      Principles that Obama supports on gun issues: * Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. * Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. * Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

      Seems pretty sensible to me. What reason can you have for owning a semi-automatic weapon? You can't say "to fight the government" as if you really had to, you'd be fucked regardless (how many more hundred billion than you do they spend on "defense"?). Not to mention the probability of a gun being used to intentionally, or worse accidentally, kill someone is far higher than you having to fight the army.

    34. Re:'cause everyone knows by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Well, people do get hurt for the sake of videos. Look up 'happy slapping'. I'm not sure what YouTube is expecting to achieve here though. Any speculation as to their motives?

    35. Re:'cause everyone knows by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic, the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

      If rocks and sticks are just as lethal and effective as guns and knives, as you claim, then why do you Americans insist you have to have the right to carry handguns, assault rifles, etc, etc? Just put a pointy stick in your back pocket.

      Don't be a hypocrite: Guns and knives are designed to kill people (before you start sneering about butter knives, pop guns, etc; just assume the words are defined sensibly as the lethal kind of offensive weapon). Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you. Don't claim they are no more dangerous than "pointy sticks".

    36. Re:'cause everyone knows by Stevecrox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Media histeria says violence and crime have gone up, facts say the opposite. (I agree a 41% drop isn't note worthy.)

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm

    37. Re:'cause everyone knows by cliffski · · Score: 2, Informative

      so tell me, how is easy access to handguns going in the US?

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

      gun homicides per 100,000 pop

      #1 South Africa: 125.965
      #9 Zimbabwe: 11.9841
      #14 United States: 9.1
      #28 Chile: 1.7237
      #29 Germany: 1.635

      the UK doesn't even make the list.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    38. Re:'cause everyone knows by cliffski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      burglaries per capita:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

      The US has a higher rate than France, Ireland and Greence. Why don't all those handguns prevent people stealing from houses?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    39. Re:'cause everyone knows by xlcus · · Score: 1

      You can do some serious damage with an umbrella if you know how.

      Sshhhhh! They'll be banning those next!

    40. Re:'cause everyone knows by damburger · · Score: 4, Funny

      There have already been calls in this country to ban kitchen knives with a point, I shit you not. Some chefs have said that you can use knives without points for most things anyway, and that pointless knives are the norm in China and they do OK.

      Others point out that gang violence in China simply involves fatal hackings instead of fatal stabbings.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    41. Re:'cause everyone knows by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can do some serious damage with an umbrella if you know how.

      But anyone can do real damage with a gun and they don't even need to know how.

    42. Re:'cause everyone knows by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      There have already been calls in this country to ban kitchen knives with a point, I shit you not. I have no problem in opposing silly extremism like that.

      Others point out that gang violence in China simply involves fatal hackings instead of fatal stabbings.

      Kitchen choppers are designed to cut through meat and bones. So very effective at close quarters, but not easy to conceal. I'd point out though that there are many non-lethal "hackings". It's often used to send a message ("pay your debt") rather than assassinate, for which more conventional weapons are used. (I do know a bit about this, living in Hong Kong. Been years since any gun murders here, though.)

    43. Re:'cause everyone knows by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      You can with a car, too. In fact, especially if you don't know how. Let's ban cars!

    44. Re:'cause everyone knows by wisty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good article. It says that crime rates in the UK are flat, or decreasing. The only reason the media are worried is because changing demographics are shifting poor people from Glasgow (and other traditionally poor regions) into London, and bringing crime closer to the reporters.

    45. Re:'cause everyone knows by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't be a hypocrite: Guns and knives are designed to kill people (before you start sneering about butter knives, pop guns, etc; just assume the words are defined sensibly as the lethal kind of offensive weapon). Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you.

      I have never once in my life seen a knife that was designed to be a weapon. I have seen and own plenty which most certainly can be used as such, such as my meat cleaver. Of course, if I wanted to kill someone with a bladed weapon, I'd pick my axe, which should be able to split your skull just as easy as a log for my fireplace. And I regularly carry a sharp knife or scissors with pointed ends around with me, because I regularly find myself needing to cut things cleanly, or to simply clean the space below my fingernails.

      Your assertion is ridiculous, and you are either a liar or an idiot to have made it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    46. Re:'cause everyone knows by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course there are more people shooting other people in NY than in, say, London. When people are helpless against the (gun owning) criminals, they have to do what they tell them, or die.

      What? Do please show me your statistics that show a rocketing rate of armed burglaries in London.

      (Hint: one reason why hardly anyone gets shot during burglaries in London is, in fact, that burglars in London generally don't have guns. There's a reason why even the police in Britain generally see no need to carry a lethal weapon.)

    47. Re:'cause everyone knows by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can with a car, too. In fact, especially if you don't know how. Let's ban cars!

      Or maybe we could require anyone who wants to operate a car to pass some kind of test and medical exam first. Regulate drivers, with something like a driving license, or something ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    48. Re:'cause everyone knows by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, guns control you !

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    49. Re:'cause everyone knows by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair it's been "this month's hysteria" for awhile.

      The UK does have a problem with kids stabbing each other but to be honest I think the news reporting on it makes it worse more than any Youtube video.

      The news makes it seems like it's a bigger deal (if everyone is doing it then I should be) and it shows you a kid can make national headlines quite easily and people are more obsessed with fame these days.

    50. Re:'cause everyone knows by centuren · · Score: 1

      You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping? As to the Obama claim, look at his voting record on gun issues. All the proof you need is right there.

      This sentence makes no sense as a response. Regardless of whether or not Obama's voting record now constitutes proof, it's utterly ridiculous to assume a direct comparison between the USA and the UK when it comes to things like gun crime (and remember, the parent post you responded to doesn't make that comparison, the grandparent post it's responding to does).

    51. Re:'cause everyone knows by IanCal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with gun/knife control is that the real criminal will still be able to get knives or guns from the black market.

      Nicely avoiding the issue of how *easy* it is to get illegal weapons. It's possible, yes, but not as easy as it would be if they were legal to buy.

      But still , anything can be used as a lethal weapon in some way. You can do some serious damage with an umbrella if you know how.

      Nice fallacy there. An umbrella has a use other than injuring/killing animals.

      You want a gun in the uk for something like hunting, or have some other reason you would actually need a gun apart from shootn' t'rrists? That's actually legal. (apologies for not linking to the actual law, the home office site is to irritating to find things on)

      Oh but officer, this 9mm is for foxes, dontcherknow.

    52. Re:'cause everyone knows by mini_razor · · Score: 1

      "Guns dont kill people rappers do!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv-2XYOtgCg for all you americans who havent experienced the wonder of Goldie Lookin Chain.

    53. Re:'cause everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches? Ban guns, gun crime skyrockets. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

      Probably due to World Wars I and II, when the British faced huge odds, and the Americans refused to do anything but sell us ammunition at great cost. You know we only finished paying that debt off in the 1990's? Then the Americans finally joined in towards then end of both wars (after the Russians pulled out in WWI, and after Pearl Harbour in WWII). We were still hurting from WWI, when some really stupid field marshals decided that the best offence was the bodies of tens of thousands of young men being thrown into the path of German machine guns. In WWII, we came up with numerous technological advances like radar and computing that enabled us to actually get anywhere. The Americans in return call this the 1942-1945 (it started in 1939), don't know the difference between English and British, and refuse to include any British actors in war movies. After years of being in financial debt to America, we end up with the idiot Prime Minister Tony Blair, who despite having three times Dubbya's IQ acted like a puppy dog, and followed every lead. It was only a matter of time before we ended up following the whims of anyone sufficiently vocal. And we ended up joining the European Union, we've also followed every little instruction they've given (despite all the British people being against joining the EU, our politicians are just really weak willed). In the end, banning knives and guns won't solve crime, only increasing living conditions, improving education and health care, and giving young people something to do other than hang around in gangs. But hell, that's too complicated. Let's make knee jerk reactions, and just do what other people tell us.

    54. Re:'cause everyone knows by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area.

      That's pretty much exactly the words I'd use to rip off someone complaining about these bans.

      No sir, you may not have your semi-automatic, but there are still plenty of instruments of pain and death with triggers to lay your itchy fingers on...

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    55. Re:'cause everyone knows by toriver · · Score: 1

      Was the "Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates." statement documented? Did you ask for evidence for those claims? Or did you simply accept them regardless because you believe the same thing?

      Why should only one side (the "others") have to document claims?

    56. Re:'cause everyone knows by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      The lawbreakers don't obey weapons-control laws.

      They're not expected to. Besides, the issue is moot if weapons supply is properly enforced. Just because criminals and gun nuts really, really, really want a gun to squeeze doesn't mean they'll be able to get their hands on one.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    57. Re:'cause everyone knows by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Or... just make a law mandating anyone who commits a violent crime, with a deadly weapon, to have their thumbs surgically removed. That would make weapon wielding quite difficult.

    58. Re:'cause everyone knows by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      So that's why since the gun ban violent crime has skyrocketed? Home invasions, specifically those that occur when the dwelling has people in it, were up over 50% almost overnight (figuratively speaking)

    59. Re:'cause everyone knows by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      I'm not an American citizen . Where i live , it's all regulated , and still they easily get all the weapons they need illegaly.

      In fact , i'm pretty it's easier to get an illegal gun here , then a legal one.

      Your point about guns is valid ( and i wouldn't even justify using it to kill animals ) , however it can also be used to prevent killing/violence. Every police officer knows that. Most of them have used their guns to prevent someone from harming someone else , yet a lot less have actually had to pull the trigger.

      Everything is a tool , and can be used for good and bad. That depends on the person using it , not on the object itself.

    60. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 1

      I was stabbed in March in an unprovoked attack. I have a scar on my left side. Knives are fucking everywhere.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    61. Re:'cause everyone knows by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps you should read the link ... Unless you're going to claim that it isn't logically proven (or "scientifically proven") by those facts. Of course since Godel we know that nothing can be logically proven. It could all be a great coincidence, and you can never exclude any amount of coincidences, therefore "any model fits". It could all be random. However if we really thought like that, we'd all still live in caves, so reasonable people are going to go with that the article proves it until something better comes along.

      The cycle of violence, obviously was not started by the ban. However the ban, both on guns and later on knives, did not only NOT stop the problem, but actually accelerated it.

      "An inconvenient truth" - one that is actually true

    62. Re:'cause everyone knows by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      We didn't need 'safety' measures for decades/centuries, the only reason accidents occur with guns nowadays is people no longer respect the danger/power of a gun and fuck around with them, as well as do not teach their children that same respect that their parents had taught them. Also, how in the fuck are you supposed to get a gun lock off a gun, find the bullets and load it, while someone is breaking into your house/already broken into it and you're in a state of panic? Gun control is using two hands imo.

    63. Re:'cause everyone knows by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After living in Moss Side (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss_Side) since the late 1990s I reckon I have a unique perspective on Gun and Knife crime.
      One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.

      A few years ago I had one pointed at me while I walked down the road. The guy wielding it had just attempted to mug someone and had been disturbed by a large group of people. He felt intimidated enough to jump into a car and bail and I was walking up the road paying too much attention to his car as it sped off. This particular gang of thugs had been very active in my area and had already appeared on the police radar. The police watched them, then waited until they were all together one evening in someones house and paid them a visit. All of the people present in that house then got a mandatory 5 year sentence for the revolver, automatic pistol and submachine gun that was found in the middle of the table they were all sat around.

      If possessing a firearm in a private residence was legal this would be much harder as you would have to catch them in process of committing a crime. Even if you could you may not have enough evidence to convict them all if some were just keeping a look out for potential victims. The fact is that there is no reason to own a firearm in an inner city area except to use on other people and the courts here take a very dim view of this, even iff you try and argue self defence.

      Even if I chose to carry a weapon (illegally) for my own protection there is a high likelyhood I would not get a chance to use it. I have only been mugged once in Moss Side and I did not see it coming at all. The first I knew was when I got punched to the back of the head and was jumped by 3 people. In this situation a firearm would have been useless since all 3 were at close range.

      The fact is that having a large number of untrained people with guns is not useful for society. The US has a much higher murder rate then the UK even though they allow private firearm ownership. Look at the page linked below and compare the US with other countries that have a much more restrictive policy on gun ownership like those in Europe. I know the US doesnt top this list, but it does come a lot higher that other countries with a similar economic and political status.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    64. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen, and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!

      Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea? Do they give you an erection?

      So youtube are removing videos of boyz in da hood waving guns around saying "I'm gonna fuck you up". Not a real loss. Perhaps if they could then physically remove the individual little twat from society and put them in a nice home or something while they learn some respect for other individuals, I'd be happy.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    65. Re:'cause everyone knows by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Funny

      In line with your suggestion, I propose all people who wish to use a knife possess a Boy Scout merit badge. This will solve any and all conceivable problems and issues once and for all, just like how licensed cars and guns have removed any possible dangers from these items.

    66. Re:'cause everyone knows by gsnedders · · Score: 1

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Firearmsources.svg -- the majority of guns used in crimes in the US come from _legal_ sources. It does have an effect on whether criminals have guns.

    67. Re:'cause everyone knows by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.

      That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.

      What has happened is that there has been an increase in knife crime. This almost exactly matches the drop in gun crime resulting from the last crackdown,

    68. Re:'cause everyone knows by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.

      This just in ... The UK has now banned all images and depictions of fear sticks on the popular internet video site, YouTube.

    69. Re:'cause everyone knows by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So youtube are removing videos of boyz in da hood waving guns around saying "I'm gonna fuck you up".

      Better to leave the videos up there. If these shit-thick chavs are stupid enough to publish evidence that could be used to track them down then let them do it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    70. Re:'cause everyone knows by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      The US has a much higher murder rate then the UK even though they allow private firearm ownership. Look at the page linked below and compare the US with other countries that have a much more restrictive policy on gun ownership like those in Europe. I know the US doesnt top this list, but it does come a lot higher that other countries with a similar economic and political status.

      And without any analysis of those numbers, they are (sort of) useless.
      How many of those are criminal on criminal? Most, probably.

    71. Re:'cause everyone knows by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You're assuming causation. And more to the point you're assuming it in the counter intuitive direction. That the ban caused rises in gun crime, rather than that the ban came in because there were rises in gun crime.

      There's certainly no acceleration as you claim, The 10 year chart here shows a deceleration in gun crime over 9 years, leading to a fall last year.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

      As a Brit I can tell you that the rise in gun crime was down to two drivers. Various hip-hop and R&B trends that used gun imagery implying that it was cool to carry a gun. Secondly the rise in illegal drug dealing, and the associated gangs that protect that activity.

      The idea that the gun crime rise came *because* of the ban is a hysterical twisting of the truth from the NRA and sympathisers desperately looking for reasons not to control weapons in the US. It has nothing to do with the reality in Britain.

    72. Re:'cause everyone knows by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's actually not a bad suggestion. When did you ever hear in the news "Ex-boy scout John Smith has been found guilty of homicide"?

      If a boy spends his formative years getting scout merit badges rather than hanging around on street corners, then I'm pretty sure that he's far less likely to end up committing violent crime and ending up in prison.

    73. Re:'cause everyone knows by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

      1. I like target shooting
      2. I like to collect finely made items
      3. I live way the hell out in the country, and coyotes have been taking some of the smaller livestock
      4. I like to and it is legal
      5. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away

      (These may or may not apply to me personally)

      The idiots on Youtube? Bust em. They shouldn't be allowed near a squirtgun.
      But a firearm in my hands is zero danger to you. You're in more danger from your neighbors car. Unless of course you try to do harm to me and mine.

      Are you that paranoid?

    74. Re:'cause everyone knows by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      The traditional solution to stopping people climbing over your back garden walls, breaking into your house and stealing your stuff was to cement broken glass onto the top of your walls. On a sunny day, it would look quite pretty, especially if you used different colored bottles. Alternatively there is the metal railing with the fake spear tips on the top. These can be seen around public parks, although they do spear the occasional delinquent who tries to climb a tree to escape from the police.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    75. Re:'cause everyone knows by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      So that's why since the gun ban violent crime has skyrocketed? Home invasions, specifically those that occur when the dwelling has people in it, were up over 50% almost overnight (figuratively speaking)

      Figuratively speaking, eh? I like that. Is the '50%' figurative, or the 'almost overnight'? It's a handy phrase that acts as a get-out-of-jail-free card if anyone calls you on your made-up statistic. I mean, given that burglary rates have dropped by almost 60% since 1995.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    76. Re:'cause everyone knows by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      At youtube resolution its quite hard to tell if the gun has replica or D.E.S.E.R.T E.A.G.L.E .50 written down the side

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    77. Re:'cause everyone knows by itsdapead · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How did the English, who once ruled a vast empire, become such sissified little bitches?

      We have knives.

      The USA has Janet Jackson's nipple... or, in some states, try mentioning dice (gambling!) or magic (religion!) in a school maths book.

      I remember once, while visiting the USA, I caught a showing of the British political satire/thriller "To Play The King" on PBS. PBS felt it necessary to prefix the show with a patronising lecture on why monarchies were a bad thing and the US had fought a war of independence against the idea. I was astounded - we might get warnings about potentially offensive material/flashing lights/may contain nuts before a show, we might get slightly edited versions of shows which are shown when the kids are awake, we might get "helpline numbers" if a show mentions child abuse or AIDS but we do not get lectured on how we should interpret the show we are about to see.

      Different folks, different disproportionate obsessions, I suppose. Now, the knife crime figures are being shamelessly talked up at the moment, but I think its pretty safe to say that they account for more deaths than "wardrobe malfunction".

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    78. Re:'cause everyone knows by pwizard2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

      It's about freedom. As an American, I have certain rights that people before me fought and died to give me. One of these is gun ownership, as described in the constitution. As a competent, law-abiding citizen, I should be able to own a gun if I wish and be able to freely use it in certain instances, such as for sport or in cases where my life or someone else's life is directly being threatened. Even in the last scenario, I would not pull the trigger unless I had no choice.

      Now, gun ownership isn't for everyone, and I can understand that. Some people feel the need to have a gun around for legitimate purposes, such as protection, collection, or hunting (I'm from Alabama, and quite a bit of hunting goes on down here) Some people don't want a gun, and that's okay, too.

      Freedom is about letting both types of people have what they want. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but never at the expense of freedom.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    79. Re:'cause everyone knows by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]
      as most of the knife crime hysteria is based around teenage gangs that are off records, I would be supprised if there was an increase in knife crime according to the stats.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    80. Re:'cause everyone knows by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      If you look under the sink you'll probably find several bottles of poison in your kitchen (and if you mix the wrong ones together it could even result in toxic gas!). Guns are designed to accelerate and direct a projectile at a high rate of speed, not to kill people. Landmines are a bit more evil, as unlike a gun, they don't require somebody to pull the trigger. I was about to go off into a rant about the dysfunction of society, the human condition, overpopulation, freedom of speech, and possibly a myriad of other things, but then i realized that the sun is up, I haven't been to sleep yet, and I'm responding to somebody who used the word 'erection' in their post without referring to the act of building something...

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    81. Re:'cause everyone knows by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First they took our guns.

      Then they took away our right of free speech.

      Next they took us to the cotton plantation to work the fields.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    82. Re:'cause everyone knows by Hubbell · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
      That good old gun ban really did the trick now didn't it :)

    83. Re:'cause everyone knows by drsquare · · Score: 1

      It may be a serious issue. But it's definitely something that Labour are trying to use for political gain and as a fear stick.

      I don't see how Labour are gaining anything through it. If anything, their atrocious record on law and order plays straight into the hands of the Tories.

    84. Re:'cause everyone knows by strabes · · Score: 1

      Maybe if some of the citizens in the UK had guns the knives wouldn't be such a problem.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    85. Re:'cause everyone knows by drsquare · · Score: 1

      What I think's funny, is that people on a site that continually screams 'correlation is not causation', suddenly use a correlation to claim a causation because it's convenient.

      I'm not sure how legalising the carrying of knives is going to reduce knife crime, if anything it would just cause more of it.

    86. Re:'cause everyone knows by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a Boy Scout? Or Jeffrey Dalmer? Or Charles Manson? They teach boy scouts more than just how to spot gay scout masters. The idea that only ex-Boy Scouts should carry guns is stupid.

      It's the second amendment that protects the First.
      Ban the second amendment, and you might as well set fire to the whole Bill of Rights.
      "From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    87. Re:'cause everyone knows by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Unfortuanately those figures are government statistics. From the same government that has a vested interest in reporting lower crime, and the same government with a history of bollocks statistics.

    88. Re:'cause everyone knows by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      How about this one?

    89. Re:'cause everyone knows by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      When the people rose-up against the Polish government in 1990, the people won by sheer force of numbers. Don't say a government can not be overthrown.

      In Switzerland everybody own a gun (armed militia).
      And yet they have one of the lowest violent crime rates.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    90. Re:'cause everyone knows by Lennie · · Score: 1

      With Obama as president ? That would be kind of ironic.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    91. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'OK, so where does your link show skyrocketing knife crimes correlating to a ban of knives? That's what the GP claimed.'

      From the GGP: 'Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.'

      It would seem he claimed both. As for knife crimes, this story seems to suggest that knife crimes are indeed a growing problem in the UK.

      'From your link on Obama, he states "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?'

      Yes, they are a half step. A number of regulations that make it harder for honest citizens to acquire weapons with which to defend themselves against the criminals who ignore gun laws anyway.

      'Also, the Reason article you link to is from 2002, so is rather outdated.'

      I'm fairly sure guns were already banned in the UK in 2002. Any change in the pattern after that would be the result of some other action.

    92. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'You're assuming causation.'

      Along with all research and conclusions draw by man in any matter in history. Lightning struck a log, the log burst into flame. We assumed causation.

      'Various hip-hop and R&B trends that used gun imagery implying that it was cool to carry a gun.'

      Imagery doesn't cause anything except patterns of light to be reflected into your eyes. People take it from there.

    93. Re:'cause everyone knows by Velex · · Score: 1

      Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea? Do they give you an erection?

      Oh I don't know. You see, as a sexual minority, there might be some people who want to kill me, so I might want to defend myself at some point. Do you really want to just call the cops and hope for the best if you're attacked one day? I hope you have 911 on speed dial. You don't even need to be a kind of person some people will pick out as a target for the 5 minutes it could take the cops to get there to make a big difference in the outcome.

      Might I also mention that even in 2008 there are some cops and doctors who might not even want to help me. I think I'm better off exercising my right to self-defense for a few more years at least, thanks.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    94. Re:'cause everyone knows by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      But how do we make sure someone does not simply steal someone else's? Theft is not much of a problem to one who would commit murder.

    95. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'What I think's funny, is that people on a site that continually screams 'correlation is not causation', suddenly use a correlation to claim a causation because it's convenient.'

      On one hand, correlation doesn't equal causation. On the other hand, all conclusions drawn by man depend upon correlation.

      'I'm not sure how legalising the carrying of knives is going to reduce knife crime, if anything it would just cause more of it.'

      In the case of guns, the correlation isn't limited to one area. In fact, you can look most anywhere and you won't see a reduction in crime caused by gun bans or restrictions.

      Legalizing guns reduces crime because it raises the stakes when committing a crime. The person you are attacking is more likely to be armed. Robbing an unarmed victim is one thing, robbing grandma when she might pull an uzi from her purse is another matter entirely.

      It is important not to pigeon hole the issue to "knife crime" or "gun crime" of course. If there are more knives or guns there are likely to be more crimes committed with them. The problem is the violent crime, not the tool used to commit it. The more honest citizens who are armed, the less crime is committed against them overall.

      I have a federal firearms license here in the states and that makes stealing weapons from me a big no no punishable by federal pound me in the tailpipe prison. They issue me a sign to display stating as much. I display that sign prominently in my window. Honestly, I don't think people who have no intention of being caught by the morons in law enforcement are concerned about the consequences if they were. But they sure as hell don't want to be shot by the crazy asshole with all those guns. They will rob the guy next door instead.

    96. Re:'cause everyone knows by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      When handguns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Then ban shotguns so only outlaws will have shotguns. Then smoothbore rifles, so only outlaws will have smoothbore rifles. Try to ban knives, so only outlaws will have knives. And don't forget banning cricket bats, so only outlaws will have cricket bats. (Ok .. that last article was satire...)

      When all that fails, ban fists so only outlaws will have fists.

      And then every street corner will have a camera to find the outlaws letting their dogs poop in the street.

      Remember ... it started in the UK with the banning of hand guns. That excuse was trying curb violence. Doesn't seem to work well....

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    97. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.'

      If anything, Moss Side is evidence of what happens when guns are banned. Those with no morals have access to black market weapons and those with have no way to defend themselves. This isn't even about successfully pulling your weapon when the time comes, its about the bad guy knowing you are likely to have a gun and having to decide if your wallet is worth getting shot for.

      As for police, in my experience they are the worst criminals at all.

    98. Re:'cause everyone knows by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      In the UK? That would be a miracle!

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    99. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people'

      I CAN carry them to kill people who threaten me or my family. People who annoy or frighten me aren't in the equation.

      The right to bear arms is in our constitution because it has been needed before. We had to kill ENGLISHMEN.

    100. Re:'cause everyone knows by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen, and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!"

      I've used a shotgun to deter assault (without having to brandish, threaten to use, or fire it) when trespassing drunks showed up trying to dump trash on my rural property. I lived far enough out that police response time was over a half-hour (when they could find the place) so there was no question of them being able to protect me from thieves or worse. If you don't live next to police protection, you don't HAVE rapid police response.

      I've never shot anyone, but I have firearms for the same reason I have a fire extinguisher. When you need one, nothing else will do.

      If you have an emotional reaction to firearms as displayed by your post, you are perfectly free not to own one, unless you are a householder in Kennesaw:

      http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

      "25 years murder-free
      in 'Gun Town USA'
      Crime rate plummeted after law
      required firearms for residents"

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    101. Re:'cause everyone knows by caluml · · Score: 1

      Where was this, and what happened? Who was the "stabber"?

    102. Re:'cause everyone knows by mweather · · Score: 1

      So how many times has the court agreed to hear a case that's already been decided by a previous court?

    103. Re:'cause everyone knows by ultranova · · Score: 1

      How about this one?

      Nice knife. Notice this sentence: "Added blade spine rasp for notching, filing, and thumb placement." So, even this "military knife" is advertized based on its utility value, rather than its killing power, which is never once mentioned in the page you linked.

      Besides, I didn't claim that there are no pointy, sharp objects intended to be used as a weapon; just that claiming that they are, generally speaking, designed to kill people is ludicrous. Knifes are generic tools, and quite necessary in everyday life - have fun cutting meat without one. They are no more weapons than an office chair is a weapon; it sucks to have one thrown at you, but that's not what they are designed for.

      You can kill someone with a pillow, but that doesn't mean that pillows are designed to kill.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    104. Re:'cause everyone knows by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Funny


      Ain't that just like an american, to bring guns to a knife discussion.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    105. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Us Brits once fought for freedom too. It was called the English civil war, and Thomas Jefferson was inspired by it in the war for US independence. [citation needed, i know, but i can't be arsed. look it up, it's there]. When the parliamentarians found themselves up against the catholics, the new model army was formed, and people that NEEDED guns got them, in vast supply. I guess it's a different philosophy here. People fighting against a corrupt government weren't a loosely-knit group of people coming out of their houses with the gun they kept in their cupboards, they were an army formed by a cause big enough to form it. That's why we didn't bother with the "right to bare arms" rule when democracy was won in 1646.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    106. Re:'cause everyone knows by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?

      Gun control advocates have employed a slippery slope approach to accomplishing what they cannot do outright. For example. here in Massachusetts, handgun licenses are issued only at the discretion of the local chief of police. While that sounds reasonable on its face, what this means in terms of real-world effect is that the police chiefs of certain towns and cities have de facto repealed the Second Amendment for most citizens. Patterns of abuse range from outright denial of a permit to a qualified and law-abiding citizen, to simply never allowing the process to finish, by dragging it out for months.

      My right to vote, or free speech, or freedom of worship do not depend on my police chief's permission, nor should they. Why should my right to bear arms be restricted? I have not been deemed a threat to anyone around me. The free speech and fifth amendment rights of a convicted murderer/rapist receive more protection than the self-defense rights of an innocent man in this country.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    107. Re:'cause everyone knows by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      The idiots on Youtube? Bust em. They shouldn't be allowed near a squirtgun.
      But a firearm in my hands is zero danger to you.

      Says who? Who decides who gets guns and who doesn't?

      Those who support gun ownership frequently make the, probably critical, mistake of promoting gun rights for some, but no for others. Rights don't work that way. Either everybody has them, or everybody doesn't. If you argue for your right to own a handgun, then you must admit that that right must be given to any 18 year old street hooligan who wants one to use it in a Youtube video.

      If you don't, then you're arguing for a privilege, not a right. And yes, this right should extend to convicted criminals who have served their time. You must understand that for this reason arguments about guns being restricted to "responsible" people will not hold much water with gun control advocates. A right is a right is a right, not a privilege.

      Personally, I think gun ownership as a privilege is an acceptable system, as it is in England. Even America, where guns are supposedly a right, effectively implements a privilege system anyway.

      Going back to the story, while gun ownership may be a right or a privilege, the right to speak about, and advocate, guns and their use is a very firm right and one which should not be denied to anyone. Of course there are those who argue that Youtube, as a private company, is free to host and remove whatever videos it pleases. These same people ignore that Youtube increasingly represents the privatization of public broadcasting, and the privatization of public censorship in the modern age. To paraphrase Agent Smith; What good is a soapbox, if you are unable to speak?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    108. Re:'cause everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons...Seems pretty sensible to me.

      I run, and sometimes I carry a pistol with me. It has to be lightweight and can't be that wide. A Kel-Tec P-32 is about the right size and weight. This is a semi-automatic weapon. Obama would outlaw it.

      A blanket ban on one form of technology is just playing on ignorant people's fears. If his suggestion sounds sensible to you, then it doesn't sound like you have a complete grasp of the issues. If smaller semi-automatic weapons are banned, does that mean I'll get a pass when my larger revolver prints against my wet running shirt, or is the hope that I'll choose to carry nothing at all instead of risk a brandishing charge?

      Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

      This is the code for, ``we're going to make them harder to get.''

    109. Re:'cause everyone knows by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Says who? Who decides who gets guns and who doesn't?

      You do. If you commit a crime with it (as are these assclowns on the YT video - threatening people with a firearm is a crime), then you voluntarily give your rights away. You can, you know, own a gun without being as asshole with it.

    110. Re:'cause everyone knows by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Where was this, and what happened? Who was the "stabber"?

      He was a madman! He said his name was Jack before he began attacking me with his knife - I barely escaped. Fortunately, a very nice gentleman who lives at 221-B Baker St. saved me just in time. He went after the attacker, not before telling his assistant, Watson, to take me to the hospital.

    111. Re:'cause everyone knows by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 2, Informative

      You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping?[sic]

      He's actually right on this matter. "Does he got the evidence?" No, but the Home Office do. I've provided instructions for finding the dox below, as well as an executive summary. All incidents of violent crime are dropping, and the only category of crime which has shown an increase is "Drug offences" which showed an 18% increase between 06/07 and 07/08.

      1. Google British Crime Survey
      2. Click on first result: rds british crime survey
      3. Scroll down to "Key publications"
      4. Click first link: Crime in England and Wales 2007/08(PDF)
      5. Navigate document.

      Page 19, Comparison 2006/7 to 2007/8:

      • All BCS Crime down 10% to 10.1 million crimes
      • Police recorded crime down 9% to 5.0 million crimes
      • BCS Violent Crime down 12%
      • Police recorded "Violence against the person" down 8%
      • Police recorded "Most serious violence against the person" down 12%
      • Police recorded robbery down 16%
      • Police recorded Domestic burglary down 4%

      Page 20: Graphs showing number of incidents, as measured by the British Crime Survey, lowest they've ever been since the introduction of the BCS in 1981.
      Still on page 20, the percentage change in offences 1995-2007:

      • Vandalism: Down 20%
      • Domestic Burglary: Down 59%
      • Vehicle-related theft: Down 66%
      • Other household theft: Down 53%
      • Bicycle theft: Down 34%
      • Theft from the person: Down 15%
      • Other theft of personal property: Down 53%
      • All BCS violence: Down 48%
      • All BCS Crime: Down 48%

      Page 23:

      Weapons were used in a quarter (24%) of BCS violent crimes (this figure has been stable over the past decade); hitting implements were used in 7%, knives in 6%, glasses/bottles in 4% and firearms in 1% of incidents.

      As for Obama's voting record on gun-control issues, I have no interest in discussing it, but this appears to be a useful link for anyone who wants to know more: Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (IL)'s track record.

    112. Re:'cause everyone knows by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

      The last time somebody broke into my home, I would have certainly liked to shoot him in the face. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to do so. The previous time, my dog was still alive and gave the asshole a hard time. When my father was approached by a violent man who threatened him with a sharp tool (huge scissors, to be exact), I think it would have been sensible to at least show, but even better use, a weapon on him.
      NB: I live in a nice area in a good city in a European country.
      NB2: Switzerland is heavily armed. Norway is, too. Both countries have amazingly low crime rates.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    113. Re:'cause everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have never once in my life seen a knife that was designed to be a weapon.

      You have now

    114. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 1

      NB2: Switzerland is heavily armed. Norway is, too. Both countries have amazingly low crime rates.

      Switzerland also has one of the most corrupt police forces (and governments) in Europe. My cousins have lived there for 20 years. When my youngest cousin was knocked off his moped by a drunk friend of a police officer, what do you think happened? He bought a new moped with his own money.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    115. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 1

      Walthamstow. Some arab guy started demanding a fag off me. I said "why do I owe you a cigarrette?". Next thing he pulled a knife out and used it.

      Managed to kick him in the face first though :-D

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    116. Re:'cause everyone knows by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?"

      Gun 'control' and registration of all guns, is the first step in banning them.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    117. Re:'cause everyone knows by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Only the wite folk, the rest will be shipped to Cabrini green.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    118. Re:'cause everyone knows by QuickSilver_999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh but officer, this 9mm is for foxes, dontcherknow.

      Funny you should bring that one up. My landlord just purchased a nice .45 cal a couple of weeks ago (tritium night sights, grip squeeze integral laser site, beautiful tool) because he got tired the second time he had to run from a bear while working on his farm outside of town. He said "when you look back and see something that big running after you, and catching up, and you're praying you left the RV door unlocked so you can get in quickly, you start thinking it might be wise to carry something big enough to put him down."

      When I was doing guard work, we were told in our firearms course to always refer to our sidearms as either sidearms or firearms or tools. Never a weapon. Only bad guys have weapons. Good guys have tools.

      --
      - No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
    119. Re:'cause everyone knows by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all pointed out that groups equipped with small arms can make a serious nuisance of themselves even against a much more powerful enemy.

      The US military is quite expensive to run. We spend close to half a trillion dollars each year supporting roughly two million people. The US has some 250 million firearms in private ownership scattered amongst about 80 million owners. Presuming that the government would prefer, if it came to civil war, to not flatten the entire country, that level of gun ownership presents a real dilemma for someone trying to take a dictatorship role. Sure, there could always be a draft. But then there's the risk of drafting people whose loyalty is questionable, and providing them training on fighting effectively in an urban environment, and then you give them automatic weapons (at the low end).

      The guns are not needed for immediate action now, and may never be needed for action in the future. But the deterrent factor is always there, and that was exactly the intention.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    120. Re:'cause everyone knows by MagdJTK · · Score: 1

      And if everyone in the US had a personal nuclear device that went off automatically should their vital signs fail, there would be a lot less gun crime in the US. Maybe you should implement that.

    121. Re:'cause everyone knows by hemorex · · Score: 1

      You are a proud member of a species that realized, many ages ago, that by smashing someone over the head with a rock they could kill more effectively. Our rocks have gotten more sophisticated, sure. However, no amount of banning of weapons will cure the human urge to harm and maim each other. If you ban all technology more complicated than rocks, people will simply stone each other to death.

    122. Re:'cause everyone knows by QuickSilver_999 · · Score: 1

      Call me some kind of freak or something,

      OK, you're a freak. I didn't want to say it, but hey, you asked for it.

      but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

      Because I believe that it is sometimes necessary for people to protect themselves and their loved ones from people that wish to do them harm. The police cannot be everywhere, and I do not believe that "restitution" is a result that makes someone whole after a violent attack.

      Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen,

      As has been noted there are probably several under your kitchen counter, and I have a friend who is ex special forces that could probably use most of those chemicals to make everything from a large explosive to a chemical weapon.

      and put land mines in the garden while you're at it.

      Because it makes it too difficult to use the rototiller, and at the price of vegetables these days I'm willing to have a little less safety to save the money. :) Actually though because it is not a necessity. If it was a post apocalyptic world, I might be considering it, since my freedom would be in even more danger.

      Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!

      Love too, but those dang inspection rules say I can't have anything that might catch on a passerby.

      Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea?

      No, I'm realistic enough to realize that there are only so many police in this town of 100K people, and a good chunk of them are always over on the east side where the poorest people live. I've personally seen it take over an hour for cops to respond to a domestic violence call. I made the call, and the domestic violence was taking place on top of a cliff for heavens sake, and they STILL didn't show up until over an hour after he forced her into the car and took off.

      Do they give you an erection?

      No more so than a cool LCD screen does, or a nice car, or a nifty computer. They are a tool, and an incredible piece of machinery. They deserve respect which they usually don't get. I also own several swords from when I was studying Japanese live blade cutting. They're in my house too, and swords are definitely made only to kill something. Should I be ashamed of owning them? I think not. As a funny aside, although I carry a sidearm occasionally, I've actually only used the sword in defense. Coming home from class one night my friend (and landlords son) and I noticed some strange characters walk up the sidewalk to my house. We followed and asked them what they were doing there. When the woman replied they lived there, and we saw the male character standing off to the side of the door getting ready to do a home invasion, we both instantly dropped out bags and drew steel. Scared the crap out of my GF when she answered the door to see us holding 26" steel blades on the goblins. At least she listened when I yelled to her to close the door. The woman looked at the guy and said, "N*er you gonna get us killed!" and both took off across the lawn at a high rate of speed. Never saw either of them in our neighborhood again.

      So youtube are removing videos of boyz in da hood waving guns around saying "I'm gonna fuck you up". Not a real loss.

      I'll agree here, although I hope that they prosecute these people. Of course, with how the justice systems in most countries work, they won't even bother to prosecute even though it's definitely a crime. Here it's called terroristic threats.

      Perhaps if they could then physically remove the individual little twat from society

      2 agreements... I'm getting scared!

      and put them in a nice home or something while they l

      --
      - No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
    123. Re:'cause everyone knows by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      With a name like "Foobar of Borg"? Please. At worst you assimilate people. More likely, though, you just run around at Star Trek conventions, pretending that you matter.

      Actually, what I wrote is a line from UHF. You and the morons who modded me troll need to turn in your geek cards now. And actually, I've never been to a trek convention, though once I made the mistake of going to a Star Trek movie on opening night. Scary people...

    124. Re:'cause everyone knows by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? - Guns are fun. How about that? In Canada we have a problem - there is no second amendment, however you can still buy guns for hunting after taking courses and passing exams. I, on the other hand, learned how to make my own hand guns and it is a lot of fun.

    125. Re:'cause everyone knows by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Hey, I was just making a joke. I'm rather shocked to see that you got modded troll. I see nothing trollish whatsoever about your comment.

      I don't think UHF is a geek movie, though - it's just cult-ish. I hadn't even seen it until a year ago, and I wasn't very impressed with it. Weird Al had his moments, but he was a bit of a dink.

    126. Re:'cause everyone knows by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.

      It has been dropping over the last two years, at least for England and Wales. It's still up over what it was in 2002/03. For crimes in the category of "violence against the person" there were 844,692 recorded crimes in that reporting period. This rose to a peak of 1,058,786 in 2005/06 (a 25.3% increase), declining to 960,167 in 2007/08 (a decline of 9.3% from 05/06 but still 13.7% higher than in 02/03).

      London and Wales are doing better than they were in 02/03, with recent crimes reported lower overall than they were then, but most are still higher. The mid-2002 population estimate for England and Wales was 52,455,000, and for 2007 it was 54,072,000, a growth of 3.1%, well short of the 13.7% higher crime count. Crime rates for this category for those years are therefore roughly 1610 per 100,000 for 02/03 and 1780 per 100,000 for 07/08, a difference of 10.6%.

      All crime numbers are from the Home Office Research Development Statistics site. I'm not comparing them directly to those of the US, as the UK's definition differs from that of the US violent crime statistics; for instance, the US violent crime rates include rape, whereas the UK's does not seem to explicitly cover that; similarly, the UK apparently covers mere possession of a weapon as a crime against the person, but this is not considered a violent crime in the US.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    127. Re:'cause everyone knows by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I thought they invented platemail for this very reason.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    128. Re:'cause everyone knows by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      If possessing a firearm in a private residence was legal this would be much harder as you would have to catch them in process of committing a crime.

      This is a troubling argument to me. It sounds like you're arguing that the convenience of arresting someone for a weapons charge is better than picking him up for the attempted robbery that you mention.

      While police work shouldn't be impossibly difficult, it also shouldn't necessarily be easy. Make it too easy (or too hard for that matter), and they start cutting corners.

      I wonder in addition how many of those picked up had already been convicted of one or more felonies. Such people would (in the US) be prohibited from owning or possessing (or in some cases being in proximity to) any firearms in the first place.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    129. Re:'cause everyone knows by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      The number of times I've read or seen a news report about a 4yo taking napping mommy's keys and takes the family minivan for a spin

      Those must be some pretty tall 4-year-olds.

    130. Re:'cause everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "PBS felt it necessary to prefix the show with a patronising lecture on why monarchies were a bad thing and the US had fought a war of independence against the idea."

      I do not believe you. I've relied on PBS for most of my British media (other than MTV for the Young Ones) since 1970. I've never seen nor heard of such a caveat. Where was the series of pre-show lectures on the evils of the Black and Tans before an airing of "The Irish RM"? Or, for that matter, how come no such introductory remarks before "Blackadder"? Provide a date and a video clip and "we" will believe you.

    131. Re:'cause everyone knows by halber_mensch · · Score: 1

      Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

      For the same reason you would own any other possesion, you desire it and/or it has purpose for you.

      Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen,

      Such as cleaning solvents and drain-o?

      and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!

      The drama is making me weep.

      Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea?

      Yes. As long as there are people in this world that will hurt or kill others to take from them their life, liberty, or property or simply to inflict pain and death, it is a very wise idea to have a weapon with which to defend yourself. If you shirk your responsibility to ensure your own survival in this world, your life is unavoidably at the whim of your predators. Lions and lambs don't yet lay together, friend.

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    132. Re:'cause everyone knows by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Driver's licenses and insurance requirements clearly have obviated all road hazards.
      Less sarcastically, I'm surprised that the German model of training drivers thoroughly, at their own expense, before licensing hasn't caught on in the US.
      Likely it would hurt sales for the Big 3, since you couldn't just give Muffy an SUV and a new cel phone for his/her sweet 16.
      A ban on automatic transmissions, at least, would cut down the cel phone crap. However, that would require some competence from drivers.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    133. Re:'cause everyone knows by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      Semi automatic means the gun fires 1 bullet per pull of the trigger, which is every handgun except revolvers (i may be wrong on revolvers though) and every rifle except bolt action ones or full auto.

    134. Re:'cause everyone knows by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      That number is badly out of date. While it's still high in comparison to some European nations, the firearm homicide rate is down to about 4.0 per 100,000 as of 2007.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    135. Re:'cause everyone knows by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Before it is all over you English won't be allowed possession of anything harder than mushy peas. I've no idea how you'll manage to cook them or mash them

      Don't worry, Brits are quite used to eating inedible, poorly-prepared food.

    136. Re:'cause everyone knows by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Even if I chose to carry a weapon (illegally) for my own protection there is a high likelyhood I would not get a chance to use it. I have only been mugged once in Moss Side and I did not see it coming at all. The first I knew was when I got punched to the back of the head and was jumped by 3 people. In this situation a firearm would have been useless since all 3 were at close range.

      The people who lurk on internet forums boasting about their guns and constructing elaborate fantasies about how they'll use them if someone tries to mug them tend to be sheltered suburbanites who would freeze up at the first sign of trouble.

    137. Re:'cause everyone knows by xaxa · · Score: 1

      On the streets of London (say), there is no other reason to carry that knife that to intimidate/hurt/kill someone.

      There are knives designed only for killing -- swords and daggers, for instance.

      Incidentally, carrying a knife in the UK is illegal, unless you have a good reason, e.g. you need it for your job, or you just purchased it.

    138. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 1

      Fun.

      Awesome! If you want to prove your ability to aim at something, archery is far more elegant. And you can't pack a bow. And hunting? We have slaughterhouses for that.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    139. Re:'cause everyone knows by DarkIye · · Score: 1

      *posts common sense*

      *is a troll*

    140. Re:'cause everyone knows by localman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More guns means less crime in some areas. It means more crime in other areas. Generally speaking I support gun rights, but I wish people who do would admit that in very socially messed up places, giving more people guns does not improve things. If it did, then the gangs in LA would be at peace, right?

      Guns as a deterrent depends on people valuing their lives, accepting mortality, but believing they can live longer if they're careful. If you're young enough, tough enough, dumb enough, or your life is shitty enough, that might not be the case, and thus you end up amplifying the mess by giving everyone a license to kill.

      Guns don't cause violence, but they don't uniformly solve it either. And in some places they can exasperate it. When gun control people and gun rights people can agree on these facts, maybe a productive discussion can begin.

      Cheers.

    141. Re:'cause everyone knows by Warbothong · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic, the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

      He's got a board with a nail in it!

    142. Re:'cause everyone knows by insllvn · · Score: 1

      Don't be a hypocrite: Guns and knives are designed to kill people (before you start sneering about butter knives, pop guns, etc; just assume the words are defined sensibly as the lethal kind of offensive weapon). Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you.

      As an American supporter of the Second Amendment, I want to tell you that you are half right. Guns are meant to kill people. That is why the founders of my country enshrined the right to own them in our founding treatise. You are mistaken about who they are meant to kill, or at least you have generalized to the point of absurdity. Guns (in America) are a protected right because they are meant to kill agents of oppressive government.

      We don't have the right to bare arms for every day self defense, that would be impractical and make almost every citizen a vigilante. We have them to safeguard our right to violent armed rebellion. The men who wrote our Constitution had just lived through a rebellion against a tyrant which would never have been successful without frontier farmers and their guns. While you may argue that, with the profusion of modern weapons (planes, tanks, etc) we could never win such a rebellion again, such was thought at the time of the American revolution, when more importance was placed on the training and superior equipment of the British army than the passion and local knowledge of the rebels.

      It is always better to talk things out, and to try and fix the system from within, but we should never give up the ultimate plan B. It is the wet dream of every tyrant, strong man, and one party state to take from the people the power of armed resistance. That is why we want our guns, or at least those of us who have studied history and know what we are talking about.

    143. Re:'cause everyone knows by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      We have knives.

      Well yes and no. See you used to have guns too, but those are gone. Now that people are committing crimes with knives, they're banning knives, but crime rates are still going up. I suppose years of terrorism from Ireland can do things like that to people, but still no excuse. Perhaps some things to watch from this. But perchance, lets say the knife issue continues and such and the criminals who pay heed to no law go onto screwdrivers, or baseball bats? Will there be a ban on those? Maybe Cricket bats? I'm sure you can see where this will run.

      You've got enough camera's to make a people cry but it doesn't seem to be working to reduce crime, you have parents who are taking background checks and the same for volunteers for every conceivable activity. And there's nothing like having the odd issue of a parent drop by saying they've had one of these checks but...still not even knowing their name.

      I personally feel that far too many people suffer from the government is always right, the media is reporting the truth and it's lost focus with the local stories, blowing larger national stories out of touch; Allowing fear to go rampant inside the UK and power hungry politicians are using this to secure their own little place in history rather then doing the right thing.

      It's sad to see the UK fall from what it once was, and I live in a country that was founded under the commonwealth. I can see the same trends here, and people are generally either too apathetic or believe that government knows best. Especially those of us that live under common law.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    144. Re:'cause everyone knows by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Swords aren't knives. There's a gray area when you get into long knife / short sword range. Generally though, a knife has a rather rigid blade, they don't flex much if at all (aside from specialized knives like fillet knives). Swords need a flexible blade to reduce the shock felt by the wielder and to just not outright shatter on impact. They dissipate energy like a tuning fork. They also tend to be much longer in both the blade and the grip, making them impossible to conceal. And having been to London and carried a blade (yay! I'm a criminal!) I can say you people aren't too bright. If you can't see usefulness of a utility knife like a swiss army knife or a leatherman you've got as much thought capacity of a cobble stone. Also, bladed weapons are defensive weapons. They provide a surface that can parry or block the strike of another object. Unlike guns you don't need to worry about over-penetration. /sigh. sheeple in the UK.

    145. Re:'cause everyone knows by caluml · · Score: 1

      Sheesh. I imagine that even if you'd given him one, the same would have happened.
      What parts of London are safe these days anyway?

    146. Re:'cause everyone knows by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Short blades are legal (25mm? Something like that). I carry one in a Swiss army knife-type thing (actually a credit card shaped thing that fits in my pocket).

      There's a difference between justifying a leatherman, craft knife or whatever, and explaining why you're carrying the kind of knife needed in the jungle or for hunting round a city.

    147. Re:'cause everyone knows by Larryish · · Score: 1

      But anyone can do real damage with a gun and they don't even need to know how.

      Which is why everyone should be allowed to carry a gun.

      Who says you have to be skilled in order to defend yourself?

    148. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 1

      Boy did I open a can of worms with this post! :-)

      You call me friend. I call you the same, but you're the one who trusts me so little as to hold a weapon.

      Civilised society is where guns are unnecessary. Few British police have guns, and that makes the more approachable, and therefore more trustworthy when doing their jobs. I mentioned in an earlier post about how the British fought for their own freedom in the English civil war (and it spread into Scotland, Wales and Ireland (although the Irish largely got fucked up by it) which is why I say British), but this whole "right to bare arms" thing.. a fascist monarch wanted to take over the country. Enough people wanted to overthrow the bastard, and guns suddenly appeared and the new model army defeated him.

      They didn't keep them in a cupboard waiting for a varmint to turn up, they were provided by an organised militia with enough support to overthrow the king.

      Guns tend to appear if your country is being oppressed.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    149. Re:'cause everyone knows by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      APPROACH TWO: The logical approach: A robber bursts into your house. He's holding a loaded handgun with the safety off. To shoot you he has to point it at you and pull the trigger. To shoot him you have to get up, grab your gun, take the safety off and shoot him. Who do you think is going to win? A gun fight so massively favours the person who initiates it, that a gun can almost never be considered a defensive weapon. Sure if you ban them there's the odd occasion when someone might threaten you with a gun when you're unarmed, but if someone points a gun in your face and has the guts to pull the trigger, having a gun in your pocket won't make a huge difference. Besides, this scenario is extremely uncommon, as owning an illegal gun is so risky that you're not going to get one just for a few muggings.

      Typical point of entry during a home invasion is not often the same room that the occupant(s) are currently in. I'm not going to wait until a invader is already in my room to get up and grab my gun. If I hear the door open, or a window smash at any time during the night, I'm going to instantly grab it - given that it's a double action design that needn't remain cocked, then there is no safety to worry about fumbling with (many actually versed in using a gun recommend against safeties on such guns, and only those who don't truly understand how a double-action designs works gets jittery about the lack of a safety). My gun sits loaded on top of the nightstand by my bed - I have no children so there's no worry. I can literally go from laying in bed to being ready to take a shot in less than 2 seconds (and I generally practice at least every other week - I'm confident in my ability to place a shot where I need it quickly).

      Most people who deny the usefulness of a gun as a defensive tool simply impose enough artificial limitations until their argument works. In their world the bad gun always pounces right on you and your gun is locked in a time delayed safe separate from the ammunition with a safety on yada yada. Their bias against the gun in the first place automatically pushes forward these assumptions about how the gun "needs" to be kept. In the real world, anybody without such bias can safely keep their gun much more accessible, and without those limitations it's a much more useful tool.

      As to your statistics, whey don't you also compare the homocide rates of other countries with prevalent gun ownership, such as Switzerland. In a country where every male citizen is issued a fully automatic military weapon, and gun ownership is incredibly high, they have a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000 - almost 50% lower than even England where firearms are almost completely illegal, and they're not talking about de-edging the knives. As obvious, there's a lot more at play than simply gun laws. ESPECIALLY when you consider that many of the homicides commited in America come from heavily urbanized areas (ie, gang related) where gun laws are typically much more strict than in the rural areas.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    150. Re:'cause everyone knows by Praxx · · Score: 1

      There are a few problems with your scenarios:

      1. Guns require training. It isn't just point & click, especially at a distance. I'll bet on a trained homeowner against an untrained criminal using the same firearm all day long. Obviously, if you're a homeowner with a gun and no training, you're very much more at risk of accidental harm or having your own weapon used against you. But that's a problem of self-responsibility, and not my problem.

      2. Said criminal isn't necessarily going to be in your room when he breaks in. It isn't much work to retrieve your gun, and as a trained gun owner, arm it.

      3. Not every situation where a gun might be necessary involves an immediate attack against you.

      --
      http://www.policystew.com/
    151. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      You got the evidence to back up your claims of crime in England dropping? As to the Obama claim, look at his voting record on gun issues. All the proof you need is right there.

      This sentence makes no sense as a response. Regardless of whether or not Obama's voting record now constitutes proof, it's utterly ridiculous to assume a direct comparison between the USA and the UK when it comes to things like gun crime (and remember, the parent post you responded to doesn't make that comparison, the grandparent post it's responding to does).

      If Obama's voting record and public statements doesn't constitute evidence of his stance on issues and the things he'd like to do given a chance, then what pray tell does?

      As to comparing so-called 'gun crime' rates between the US and UK, I wasn't attempting to do so. The PP put forth that violent crime is dropping in Britain, with the possible implication that it is the draconian gun laws which are to thank. I asked for his evidence that rates are dropping. No direct comparison of crime rates, not gun crime as that is a misnomer, between the UK and the US can be made as you are correct that such a thing would be ridiculous.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    152. Re:'cause everyone knows by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      As for the argument that it protects you from your government, oh please. Do you really think the public would stand up to the full force of the US military for long?

      Well I think the current number for how long "people with small arms standing up to the full force of the US government" is about five years. Although to my understanding the guys in Afganistan are pretty good too.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    153. Re:'cause everyone knows by AJWM · · Score: 1

      We don't have the right to bare arms for every day self defense

      The Second Amendment places no limitations on why we're allowed to bear arms. The Supreme Court just struck down the DC gun ban because it discerned just such a right to self defense.

      --
      -- Alastair
    154. Re:'cause everyone knows by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      > What happened to: Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

      Are you sure that's a proof ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    155. Re:'cause everyone knows by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Semi-automatics, also known as auto-loaders, fire a charged round and then expend a portion of the round's energy to eject the spent casing and load a new round. The way you define semi-automatic would include revolvers.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    156. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Was the "Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates." statement documented? Did you ask for evidence for those claims? Or did you simply accept them regardless because you believe the same thing?

      Why should only one side (the "others") have to document claims?

      It was not and I did not. I do believe that crime will generally tend to rise in the absence of a populace able to defend it self from crime, providing the real reasons for crime also exist. On the other hand simply banning guns, knives, pointy sticks, or whatever does not by itself lead to higher crime. There is no evidence to support this. However, there is some evidence which indicates the opposite. Areas of the country which have loosened their laws on such issues as Concealed Carry have experienced drops in general crime rates. It must be said though that since causality does not equal causation there could be other forces at work. What cannot be denied is that gun control has never shown a drop in crime rates, and it's opposite has never shown a rise.

      One who is advocating the expansion or protection of a right is always given great latitude in issues such as documentation or evidence. Would we have seriously demanded evidence and such before giving women suffrage? Or *insert minority*? Of course, not. If a person is advocating from a position of rights restrictions, yes, they should have to provide overwhelming evidence that the right should be curtailed for a definite provable good. Otherwise, it is simply bigotry in action against a particular right and those who choose to exercise it.

      Some have claimed that the rise of the powerful Federal government, as opposed to the sovereign states, along with its huge budgets and all consuming power can be traced directly to 1920 and women's suffrage. Most people can agree at some level the Federal government is overly powerful and intrusive these days. However, would this be considered sufficient evidence to remove the vote from women? Of course, not. Such would be ridiculous. In fact, it could say that no amount of evidence can be used to justify the elimination, or virtual elimination by over regulation, of a core right.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    157. Re:'cause everyone knows by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Managed to kick him in the face first though

      So let me get this straight: you kicked him in the face -- after confrontational language -- and then he stabbed you?

      Sounds like he was carrying the knife for self-defense, and justifiably so.

      What ever happened to just ignoring beggars, rather than trying to start arguments with them? Were you trying to start an argument so as to justify to yourself a little arab-bashing? Are you a racist?

      --
      -- Alastair
    158. Re:'cause everyone knows by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Oh, so now some knives are ok and others aren't?

      I thought the only reason to carry a knife was to intimidate/hurt/kill someone.

    159. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun? Hell, why not keep some bottles of poison in the kitchen, and put land mines in the garden while you're at it. Hey, put spikes on the front of your car!

      Are you actually so paranoid (or macho) that owning something designed to kill people sounds like a good idea? Do they give you an erection?

      So youtube are removing videos of boyz in da hood waving guns around saying "I'm gonna fuck you up". Not a real loss. Perhaps if they could then physically remove the individual little twat from society and put them in a nice home or something while they learn some respect for other individuals, I'd be happy.

      Last points first. I'd generally agree with your entire last paragraph. Youtube is free to remove whatever they like from their site and the idea of removing such individuals from society at large and teaching them better, if possible, is a good one.

      Why not keep poison in the kitchen or landmines in the garden? Because, that would be silly. I own guns because I enjoy shooting them as as skill, and for protection if it should (God forbid) ever come to it. One will likely never need them for such a task. However, if you do there is no replacement for them.

      If it is paranoia to own a gun for protection, given the low likelihood of using it for such, then I presume it is also paranoia to have home owner's insurance or fire extinguishers. You're not likely in any given year to need either of these things, so I assume you'll be getting rid of them shortly if you have them.

      I think the question of "Do they give you an erection?" says far more about you than it does about me. Would you like to ask the women I know who own and use guns the same question? Or are you simply projecting your issues on me/us?

      What I really want to know is who marked your comment Insightful. I don't think that word means what they think it means.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    160. Re:'cause everyone knows by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm glad he's got something to make him feel better, but I'm not sure that even a .45 is going to slow down a bear much. As for the RV door, I don't think that'd necessarily slow down something like a grizzly much; they've been known (I've seen pictures) to tear the entire back off a camper (the pickup truck mounted kind, not a person camping - although I'm sure they've done that too).

      --
      -- Alastair
    161. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Thank you :)

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    162. Re:'cause everyone knows by Nursie · · Score: 1

      They're a special type of pea, I believe the affect is achieved by boiling them for several weeks.

    163. Re:'cause everyone knows by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I suspect such drops have more to do with other issues, the crime rate there wasn't all that terrible to begin with. I further suspect as the economies of the world take a beating we'll see a general rise in crime. Though I believe in gun ownership, I'm uncertain whether a ban causes crime to automatically go up. There seems to be a lack of evidence supporting that. There is some evidence that crime rates trend down in areas with more permissive ownership as compared to comparable, geographically and demographically, areas.

      Do you not wish to discuss his record because you aren't American, and therefore don't care, or because it isn't important to you?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    164. Re:'cause everyone knows by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      You can with a car, too. In fact, especially if you don't know how. Let's ban cars!

      Or maybe we could require anyone who wants to operate a car to pass some kind of test and medical exam first. Regulate drivers, with something like a driving license, or something ?

      You're right, the government is licensing ordinary citizens to wield deadly weapons with the potential for mass destruction. This must be stopped at all costs. Think of the children.
       
      --
        finding the ip

    165. Re:'cause everyone knows by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, Colt Made Men Equal.
       
      --
        finding the ip

    166. Re:'cause everyone knows by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Actually in all seriousness, cars kill more people every year than most things. If we spent all the time and money spent fear mongering on guard rails we would assuredly save more lives.
       
      --
        finding the ip

    167. Re:'cause everyone knows by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic,

      There is a weapon known as the "Milwall Brick" made from a newspaper. Football hooligans being just as capable when it comes to improvised weapons as prisoners.

      the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

      Variations on the latter including "branch with a sharp piece of stone in the end" and the "2m 10x5cm" (known as the "six foot 4 by 2" to the older generation) piece of wood.
      So long as nobody realises that even without deliberate attempts to use them as weapons vehicles kill more people than guns, knives, clubs, etc combined.

    168. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 1

      No, I hit him in the face after i deliberately dived onto my bum to avoid the knife, and caught him when he followed me down. The "arab" reference wasn't a judgement on an entire race, it was more for people who know the way shit is around here to know which corner it was coming from. The article talks about people stabbing eachother. Of the 27 knife murders this year in london, 25 of the victims were from ethnic minorities. It's not the slightest bit racist to look at this statistic and ask "wtf is going on here?", and it's certainly not racist for members of the very same communities to be the ones holding peace marches across london and to be the ones asking for this filth to be removed from youtube. This is a wider issue. Not just about movies being removed from youtube, but a seriously broken social community that needs urgent help. Incidentally, my attacker ran off shouting "don't fuck with pakis like me". I would never use that word myself. If there is a racist involved in the incident, it certainly wasn't me.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    169. Re:'cause everyone knows by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      I only needed to see the tagline of that site "free minds and free markets" to take a good guess at the political views. An American site, run by libertarians. I think I've even come across it before.

      Anyway, it's economical with the truth. Why don't you read sources directly, instead of editorials? Gun deaths are down, period.

    170. Re:'cause everyone knows by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      At least your approach one is (at least, I'm taking your word on it) the homicide rates. Thats better than looking at "gun violence" rates. So, credit to you for that.

      Your approach two is.. not so logical. A robber bursts into your house. Apparently he breaks into the same room you're in, with no other indicators. He does this while having his gun out, safety off, and is observing the general rule of firearms usage to keep booger hooks off of bang switches until ready to fire. What? Maybe your house really is that small and fragile. Maybe your criminals really are that agile, dexterous, and disciplined. Someone bursting into my house is almost certain to not end up in the room I'm in. They're also very unlikely to do so without making quite a bit of noise. Also, you describe the situation as if the safety is some complicated feature of a firearm. They're not, from a user standpoint. Usually not, even from a mechanical one. It isn't difficult to incorporate operation of the safety into the draw or presentation of the firearm.

      You're also overlooking some other physics. If I'm in the one room (in my house) that a situation as you describe could occur, he could end up facing me. Thats about as bad as it gets, as is mostly as your approach two goes. Of course, if he's willing to kill me, I'm dead anyway and having a gun in the house didn't hurt me any. So, consider me a little leery of trusting criminals to do the right thing in the midst of not doing the right thing. If he isn't facing me, he probably has to sweep the weapon about 90 degrees to present to me. I, on the other hand, am probably facing that direction already. So, I've got to pick up and ready the weapon, but I've got less aim adjustment to do. Which of us is more likely to be ready to fire first? I don't know. I do know it isn't nearly as obviously bad as you describe.

      Does this apply to everybody? Well no, I can't make that claim. Experience suggests to me, though, that many homes are not conducive to making your approach two come true as often as you might like me to believe.

      Also, yes the public could last quite awhile against the US military. The full force of the military utilized against a civilian population is devestating. I think we've enough recent proof of that, and that isn't even the full force of the US military. Actually deploying the full force of the US military against the civilian population is a highly unlikely occurance. The leader of such an action may be the big fish, but it'll be a really small pond. A dirty, trash filled puddle really. In addition, a real insurrection is likely to include portions of the military. So, training, experience, and possibly military equipment being used against the military. Is it going to be easy? Hell no. It isn't supposed to be. Rebellion is supposed to be a tool of last resort.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    171. Re:'cause everyone knows by sqldr · · Score: 1

      oh, and as for the confrontational language.. he was in the same pub as me. he threatened me in the pub after I gave my friend a cigarette, and he asked for one and I said no. He said "gimme a cigarette, or I'll do something to you". I had none left. He demanded I go to the shop and buy him some. He followed me out of the pub half an hour later and then the incident happened. I'll give you the crime reference number if you like.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    172. Re:'cause everyone knows by mpe · · Score: 1

      If rocks and sticks are just as lethal and effective as guns and knives, as you claim, then why do you Americans insist you have to have the right to carry handguns, assault rifles, etc, etc? Just put a pointy stick in your back pocket.

      People in the US have the right because the US Consitutution (which is the highest "law of the land") explicitally says so. Actually the word used is "arms". Which includes pikes (not that you could fit one in pocket), arrows, missile launchers, etc. (In other words any weapons technology from the Paelolithic onwards.)
      Also criminals have little problem getting hold of whatever weapons they want.

    173. Re:'cause everyone knows by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      I believe the issue was threatening people through the videos. Doesnt really matter whether its a real gun or not.

    174. Re:'cause everyone knows by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Well here in Massachusetts you lose your gun rights for practically any misdemeanor. Drive drunk and you can still drive a car, but you can't own a gun.

    175. Re:'cause everyone knows by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      I do not believe you.

      As is your prerogative. However, I'm not selling you anything or claiming to have proven some scientific truth - just offering an anecdote to illustrate my observation about different cultures having different sensitivities. (I could also mention things like adverts for prescription medicines or unregulated political commercials which are commonplace in the US but would be unthinkable in the UK).

      Anecdote is not evidence - but then a Slashdot comment is not a scientific paper or an article in The Economist so please excuse me if I didn't spend a week trying to locate an online archives of 1990s PBS announcer links., Its also vaguely possible that it was some other US TV network with a penchant for airing BBC dramas.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    176. Re:'cause everyone knows by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there ;-)

      What I should have said above was "the only reason to carry a knife like that" (the hunting/military/whatever knife) "is to intimidate/hurt/kill someone".

    177. Re:'cause everyone knows by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      but crime rates are still going up.

      Actually (as others in this thread have stated) violent crime is going down. (see page 19 of The British Crime Survey - warning, 200+ page PDF - I couldn't quickly find a news report because for every article on this there are a dozen about someone being stabbed in a fight). There might be some rise in knife crime amongst younger people, but that might be because the fscking media have got every kid in the country convinced that every other kid is carrying.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    178. Re:'cause everyone knows by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Well, at least he has peace of mind. However, with a .45 the only way he's going to do much but make the bear angrier, is with a brain-shot.

      He should keep the gun but as for bears, as silly as it sounds, he's probably safer carrying extra-strength pepper spray (google for "bear spray"). More likely to disable, and also nothing (or at least much less) to report to the Ranger.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    179. Re:'cause everyone knows by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      We have slaughterhouses for that.

      I love these comments the best! "You are only allowed violence by proxy, see if you shoot, stab, or trap an animal you are morally evil and wrong, eternal punishment is the best you deserve. Now if you take that same animal and put it though and equally violent industrial process, well, that's A'O.K."

      I eat meat both from the store and that I've hunted, it's still meat. My family are farmers and my mom worked in a slaughterhouse for years.

      This is just the same old hypocracy rehashed over and over again.. "I don't believe in guns.. but I'll call the cops and have them shoot you down" or "I don't do X, but I'll gladly take the benefits of the society that does X."

    180. Re:'cause everyone knows by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Guns and knives are designed to kill people

      No. Guns are designed to stop people. That makes them excellent tools for self-defense, as the object of self-defense is to stop someone who is attacking you.

      Unfortunately, since human beings can be tough animals, no one has yet invented the phaser we can set to "stun", it takes a level of force that can be potentially lethal to quickly and reliably stop someone.

      (No, pepper spray does not reliably stop someone. Nor do electric stunguns - and electric stunguns are also potentially lethal. And make excellent torture devices as well.)

      Knives are designed for cutting things. Those things may be human flesh, or may be carrots or cardboard. A knife can be a decent tool for self-defense, but requires you to let the attacker get close - a definite disadvantage as compared to a gun.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    181. Re:'cause everyone knows by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      People in the US have the right because the US Consitutution (which is the highest "law of the land") explicitally says so.

      People have the right to keep and bear arms because the most basic natural right they have is that of self-defense, both individual and collective; the right to self-defense implies the right to possess the tools needs to defend oneself.

      Were the Second Amendement repealed, the right would remain; the Bill of Rights recognizes rights, it does not create them.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    182. Re:'cause everyone knows by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      It may however , decrease the chance of accidents happing with guns.

      The chances of a gun accident are already very, very low. You are more likely to die in a drowning accident than in a gun accident.

      In 2004, 649 people died from accidental shootings. 878 died from choking on food. 1,638 died from falls on stairs. 3,308 died from drowning. While one death from a firearms accident is one too many, it's clear that gun accidents are a small threat.

      Some intellectually dishonest advocated of gun control like to conflate suicides by means of firearms, with firearm accidents. Don't be fooled.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    183. Re:'cause everyone knows by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      When did you ever hear in the news "Ex-boy scout John Smith has been found guilty of homicide"?

      Well, he hasn't been found guilty yet, but a couple of months ago it appears that this Boy Scout killed his parents and two brothers.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    184. Re:'cause everyone knows by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      There's a great story I've heard repeated about this question.

      Man walks into a gun shop and asks what handgun he should buy to protect him from bears.

      The guy behind the counter points him to a small revolver without small sights.

      The man looks confused. "this will stop a bear" he says.

      "No," the store owner replies, "but it'll hurt less afterwards when he shoves it up your ass."

      If you need to protect yourself from bear, use a high powered rifle or maybe a shotgun with deer slugs. Even a .45 will take some very good shooting from very close range to do much good against a grizzly.

    185. Re:'cause everyone knows by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      If you've worked in construction, you'd know the huge value of a 3-6" lock blade with a third blade. Most indispensable thing I ever had in my pocket, and perfectly capable of killing someone... doesn't mean that was why I carried it.

    186. Re:'cause everyone knows by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      You call me friend. I call you the same, but you're the one who trusts me so little as to hold a weapon.

      Not so, friend. He's the one that trusts you so much as to be ok with you holding a weapon. You don't seem to hold him in the same high opinion.

      Civilised society is where guns are unnecessary.

      When the government decides what is necessary and unnecessary and bans the unnecessary you are no longer in a free society. Whether any given thing is necessary is irrelevant. A few feet away, I have a brass vase. Certainly it is unnecessary, but it would be a horrible direction for society to take to ban it on that basis. Incidentally, it's big enough to be an effective weapon.

      Few British police have guns ...

      ... and yet you have this knife violence problem. You're not the only ones either, check out page 21 of the 2007 Australian Institute of Criminology report[pdf warning] and you'll see that in 33% of homicides the weapon is a knife, 14% blunt instrument, 18% hands and feet. So unless you think that being stabbed or beaten to death is somehow preferable to being shot, the gun laws don't seem to have accomplished anything of value. What they have done is given the advantage to the physically strong. Restrictive gun laws are inherently discriminatory against women and the elderly and have no place in a civilised, equitable society. And don't get me started on mass murders, the Rwandan genocide had about half a million people killed, largely by machetes. There have also been a number of smaller scale mass murders with machetes and similar weapons, including Laskar Jihad (who use guns when they can get them, but aren't at all stopped from mass murder by using swords, machetes and fire).

      I mentioned in an earlier post about how the British fought for their own freedom in the English civil war but this whole "right to bare arms" thing.. a fascist monarch wanted to take over the country. Enough people wanted to overthrow the bastard, and guns suddenly appeared and the new model army defeated him.

      And yet at the end of the English civil war, they instituted the Bill of Rights 1689 which gave, among other things, the right to bear arms (although in a more limited sense than the US bill of rights did later). Why did they do that do you suppose? Guns did not "suddenly appear" they were manufactured and distributed, and you need those guns to be manufactured and distributed before the shooting starts. "Guns will suddenly appear if we need them", sheesh!

    187. Re:'cause everyone knows by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      You cannot seriously think that this knife was designed for any purpose other than killing human beings. A great deal of work went into perfecting it, and quite honestly it sucks as a general purpose tool.

      A generic cutting tool would look more like this, which due to it's clever little locking collar is considered every bit as illegal as the Fairburn-Sykes in the UK. (3" non-locking pocket knives are still OK for the time being, but who knows what fresh lunacy lies in the near future)

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
    188. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'If it did, then the gangs in LA would be at peace, right?'

      California and LA have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The dangers of LA actually demonstrate why making it harder for honest citizens to possess guns is a bad idea.

      'When gun control people and gun rights people can agree on these facts, maybe a productive discussion can begin.'

      The second amendment exists to assure that no discussion is needed. In the United States at least, all gun control is illegal. Then again, the powers at be aren't likely to be concerned with the constitution since they have disarmed the citizenry.

    189. Re:'cause everyone knows by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Guns have two purposes. To hurt and kill things. Handguns have the purpose of hurting and killing people. If you think guns only have these purposes then I worry more about you then all the other drivers on the road.

    190. Re:'cause everyone knows by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      If you think guns only have these purposes then I worry more about you then all the other drivers on the road.

      Replace guns with cars in this sentence.

    191. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 1

      On another note, I doubt you'll find many legal weapons in the hands of the gang members in L.A. They use illegal black market weapons. Even without gun control, people aren't keen on committing crimes with weapons that can be traced back to them.

      The only ones who might use legally purchased weapons are the potential victims.

    192. Re:'cause everyone knows by icebrain · · Score: 1

      No. Guns are designed to stop people. That makes them excellent tools for self-defense, as the object of self-defense is to stop someone who is attacking you...

      Knives are designed for cutting things. Those things may be human flesh, or may be carrots or cardboard. A knife can be a decent tool for self-defense, but requires you to let the attacker get close - a definite disadvantage as compared to a gun.

      To add... the advantage of the gun for lawful self-defense is that it is usable by everyone. A knife requires its user to have at least some physical strength and speed, since you're fighting in close to someone and the weapon requires direct manual input of force. Clubs, sticks, bats, etc. are similar. The gun only requires that you be strong enough to point it and shoot. It lets the elderly man defend himself against a group of young thugs; it lets the old grandmother defend her house against the teenager that broke in (funny story: one old lady held the guy at gunpoint and made him call the cops on himself ), it lets the petite 95-pound woman defend herself against a 250lb would-be rapist.

      If you're really concerned about gun violence, lets figure out why people do that to begin with, and attack the root cause. Better education and a justice system that intervenes with delinquents early on (instead of just giving slaps on the wrists until a serious crime is committed) would go a long way towards this.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    193. Re:'cause everyone knows by MisterBlueSky · · Score: 1

      Gun control advocates have employed a slippery slope approach to accomplishing what they cannot do outright.

      I don't think they do, because there are better reasons to control the use of guns. But the slippery slope approach is used by your like-minded: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970735&cid=25092259

    194. Re:'cause everyone knows by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      GP poster is obviously a moron, but to properly compare you should use the overall homicide rate. Obviously the UK will have fewer firearm homicides, they have a few levels of magnitude fewer firearms. Overall rates, while still lower, are not as dramatic.

    195. Re:'cause everyone knows by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Your assertion is ridiculous, and you are either a liar or an idiot to have made it. It must be wonderful to see the world with such clarity. No self doubt, no concern that any opposing viewpoint could have any merit.

    196. Re:'cause everyone knows by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I CAN carry them to kill people who threaten me or my family. People who annoy or frighten me aren't in the equation.

      Sure. It's so easy to tell the difference.

      There have been plenty of cops who have killed people in the belief, later proven incorrect, that they were a threat. You think you can do this infallibly? Of course you do, in the same way that 90% of people think they are above-average in driving skill.

    197. Re:'cause everyone knows by feepness · · Score: 1

      If rocks and sticks are just as lethal and effective as guns and knives, as you claim, then why do you Americans insist you have to have the right to carry handguns, assault rifles, etc, etc?

      There is a significant difference between "Right to Own" and "Right to Carry". I'm not sure where you are getting your misinformation, but I, like many Americans, support right to own, while I don't particularly support right to carry. Not all states allow carry and a few places don't even allow ownership.

    198. Re:'cause everyone knows by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you.
      .... You are mistaken about who they are meant to kill, or at least you have generalized to the point of absurdity.

      I wasn't talking about who they are MEANT to kill, but who they actually kill.

      It is the wet dream of every tyrant, strong man, and one party state to take from the people the power of armed resistance.

      This is a peculiar American fantasy. Lots of countries have instituted "strong man, one-party government", in countries awash with guns (often in post-war regimes with an AK-47 under every ex-soldier's bed). It makes it easier for the "strong man" to increase police powers, reduce civil rights, with the aim of protecting people from armed gangsters or insurgents. Look how far your own government has come in that regard recently. You're not Zimbabwe yet, but you've certainly been going in that direction.

    199. Re:'cause everyone knows by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      I have never once in my life seen a knife that was designed to be a weapon.

      Sure hope that stays true. You don't want to see a flick knife/gravity knife, butterfly knife whilst walking home at night. In the UK it is an offense to carry and of these knives: They are all specifically designed as weapons. It is also an offense to be carrying any knife with a fixed blade greater than 3 inches on there person. There are provisions for carrying cuttlerey home from the store.

    200. Re:'cause everyone knows by bogjobber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just have two counterpoints to make.

      The first is that correlation does not equal causation. Sure, the US has very liberal firearm laws, but that's not really the most important factor. Take a look at Canada. They have similar gun laws, but a much lower murder rate. Brazil has more restrictive laws, but a much higher murder rate.

      The largest factor for these high murder rates is poverty. The US is a very wealthy place but neighborhoods of extreme poverty exist in most cities. Generally speaking wealthy people don't kill each other, poor people do. Passing a law criminalizing guns wouldn't save many lives, fixing the root cause would.

      Second, waving a gun at somebody is a crime in the US. You just can't go about brandishing firearms here. I'm not sure why you seem to think that would make it more difficult to catch criminals. In the US having a automatic weapon (usually) doesn't make you a criminal, so they don't need to be caught. They only need to be caught if they actually commit a crime.

    201. Re:'cause everyone knows by feepness · · Score: 1

      If possessing a firearm in a private residence was legal this would be much harder as you would have to catch them in process of committing a crime. Even if you could you may not have enough evidence to convict them all if some were just keeping a look out for potential victims.

      It'd be even easier if we just could just have the police arrest them if they were simply under suspicion.

    202. Re:'cause everyone knows by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      I have many left-leaning views, but I tend to agree with your argument. And having spent many years in U.S., I have grown to respect and cherish the right to own firearms. Though I do not currently own a firearm, knowing that I could if I so chose to gives me a measure of comfort.

      The main cause of crime will always remain poverty resulting from unfair dissemination of wealth. U.S. is only too apt to keep the margin between wealthy and poor very high. So crime in general will remain high. And as a result all forms of crimes will too. And given how most people are locked into their neighborhood by their income bracket, such pockets of poverty only exacerbate the problem, and very often blur the lines between the perpetrator and the victim.

      So please stop your self-righteous, know it all attitude. Gun laws have very little to do with crime in the U.S. The high level of crime is the result of unique social-economic situation present here. And as such cannot be fixed as easily as simple law banning gun ownership.

    203. Re:'cause everyone knows by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 1

      Think guns are a bad idea in America? High murder rates a big deal to you?

      Next time you're in Burma, try asking someone how they plan to overthrow the Junta.

      The problem in America isn't that we've got guns, it's that we often don't actively promote responsible gun ownership. Instead, we shy away from them and try to lock down and control them which often results in the bad guys being the only ones with easy access.

      If I'm a 'bad guy,' and I'm going to commit some violent crime, I'm probably gonna give it a second thought if I think there's a decent chance my victim is going to shoot back.

      There's a college in Utah that allows students to carry firearms on their person in classrooms so long as they're licensed. Think the Virginia Tech shooting guy would have racked up as many kills there? At worst there may have been some chaos for a few seconds and someone may have accidentally been shot due to confusion, but that's a bit better than a few dozen dead students, right?

      Furthermore, since we've tried to clamp down on guns, too often people, young kids specifically, don't receive any education on gun safety and thus don't learn any respect for them. Is it then any wonder that Timmy accidentally shot Sammy with his dads gun? ...Or that his dad didn't have it locked up with the other components in a separate location in the first place?

      The problem isn't that we have guns, it's that we don't properly embrace them as a society.

    204. Re:'cause everyone knows by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Nicely avoiding the issue of how *easy* it is to get illegal weapons. It's possible, yes, but not as easy as it would be if they were legal to buy.

      Gun laws keep guns away from bad guys about as well as drug laws keep heroin away from junkies.

      Making guns legal or illegal has very little effect on how easy it is for criminals to get ahold of a gun.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    205. Re:'cause everyone knows by insllvn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you. .... You are mistaken about who they are meant to kill, or at least you have generalized to the point of absurdity.

      I wasn't talking about who they are MEANT to kill, but who they actually kill.

      Fair enough. When we look at who guns (in America) actually kill, we find that just above half the time, they kill their owners. I believe suicide, or the choice to cease living, is a natural human right, and guns are a quick and painless (if messy) way to go, so no problems there. Do you believe in the right to die? I would argue that the other half of gun deaths fall into four categories as follows: premeditated, passion, accidental, self-defense.

      Premeditated: If you are going to take the time to plan it out, are you going to buy a gun from, a licensed dealer who will take your name, and keep records with serial numbers, ballistics info, and other data (only a fool thinks guns should be sold like other products), or will you seek someone out on the street? If a gun wasn't available (is it impossible or just difficult to get a gun in Britain?) could you come up with another way?

      Passion: If you are so enraged that you would kill another person, momentarily psychotic with anger, would the lack of a gun stop you, or just make it harder?

      Accidental: Shit happens. Incidentally, it happens with more frequency in cars.

      Self-defense: Is it acceptable to use lethal force in self-defense?

      It is the wet dream of every tyrant, strong man, and one party state to take from the people the power of armed resistance.

      This is a peculiar American fantasy. Lots of countries have instituted "strong man, one-party government", in countries awash with guns (often in post-war regimes with an AK-47 under every ex-soldier's bed). It makes it easier for the "strong man" to increase police powers, reduce civil rights, with the aim of protecting people from armed gangsters or insurgents.

      An informed and educated populous, with access to the free exchange of ideas, is of far greater importance for democracy than an AK-47. That being said, look at your own argument; First a would-be dictator comes to power, then he expands his powers using as evidence the large number of armed citizens that "the common man" needs protection from, and then he takes away their guns. Finally, he is able to oppress as he sees fit, having established a monopoly on armed force.

      Look how far your own government has come in that regard recently. You're not Zimbabwe yet, but you've certainly been going in that direction.

      My own government has used nationalism, terrorism, and a complacent and profit driven corporate media to seize expanded powers, not fear of a gun toting mob, so I am not sure how your comparison to Zimbabwe is relevant.

      As a brief aside, I hope you are enjoying this debate as much as I am. I would hope it goes without saying, but it doesn't always so: I respect and appreciate your opinion.

    206. Re:'cause everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have news for these people, you can still stab someone with a rounded tip knife!!

      it might be a little harder, but it's still relatively easy.

      outlawing inanimate objects will never curb violence. it's the person behind the killing object that we need to figure out.

    207. Re:'cause everyone knows by kklein · · Score: 2, Informative

      Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you. Don't claim they are no more dangerous than "pointy sticks".

      --Except that:

      1) He didn't claim anything.

      2) He didn't even imply that they were equal. He pointed out a "slippery slope" problem, moving from the most obviously dangerous, to the ludicrously least dangerous--his point being that if we try to eliminate dangerous items from society, it gets pretty silly pretty quickly.

      Please make sure you understand the rhetorical structure of the post you're replying to before you jump down someone's throat.

    208. Re:'cause everyone knows by delvsional · · Score: 1

      You do realize of course that most hand guns are semi-automatic, right? How is a semi-automatic weapon useless? Automatics may be but not semi-auto.

      --
      Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
    209. Re:'cause everyone knows by bigtangringo · · Score: 1

      Here's a whole boatload of examples of people defending themselves from criminals.

      --
      Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
    210. Re:'cause everyone knows by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Sorry?
      the majority of handguns in use today in the US are semi-automatics; I can't find any decent statistics for this, and about the only stats likely to show up are for new weapons sales, but if you took any 10 random individuals out of all the hunters I know, maybe 8 of them would own a semi-automatic hunting rifle; probably 4 of the 10 are going to own a semi-automatic shotgun.
      Between me and my 70 year old Dad, we have in rifles: 1 lever action, 1 bolt action, 1 semi-auto. in shotguns, 2 semi-autos and one single-shot. in pistols, 3 revolvers and 3 semi-automatics.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    211. Re:'cause everyone knows by localman · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing my point. The gun laws in California don't prevent gang members from getting guns, so for all intents and purposes they live with complete gun freedom. And the main problem there is not that the gang members are shooting honest citizens who don't have guns, it's that they're shooting other gang members who do have guns. That is: people with guns are shooting other people who they know have guns because they don't care. It's not a deterrent for them. Either they think they can get away with it or they think they're dead anyways so it doesn't matter to them.

      If the honest citizens in LA had more guns, it is doubtful it would make any improvement because the gang members have already demonstrated they are not afraid of people with guns: they are not afraid of each other.

      Of course one could say that since the gang members can still get them then we might as well not bother trying to restrict them at all. While I don't think it's as simple as that, at least that wouldn't be claiming that adding more guns are going to solve such a complex problem.

      The second amendment does not mean no further discussion is needed. The constitution is open for discussion and has been variously interpreted and modified since its creation. Guns are not allowed in court (except for officers) and there are plenty of other places where we've collectively determined that it's better off not to allow guns.

      I actually spent this very afternoon shooting a 9mm SIG handgun and a semi-auto Romanian AK-47 out in the Nevada desert. I don't dislike guns, or think they are always dangerous. However they aren't candy either, and some degree of practical regulation in public places is reasonable. Whether the specific laws in each area beneficial or harmful is open for debate.

      Cheers

    212. Re:'cause everyone knows by didroe84 · · Score: 1

      Sorry? the majority of handguns in use today in the US are semi-automatics; I can't find any decent statistics for this

      When did I say that?

    213. Re:'cause everyone knows by paganizer · · Score: 1

      you said:
      "Seems pretty sensible to me. What reason can you have for owning a semi-automatic weapon? You can't say "to fight the government" as if you really had to, you'd be fucked regardless (how many more hundred billion than you do they spend on "defense"?). Not to mention the probability of a gun being used to intentionally, or worse accidentally, kill someone is far higher than you having to fight the army."

      From your statement, I got the impression you were thinking one of two possible things; the first possibility I considered was that you did not know what a Semi-Automatic is, which is a weapon which fires one time when you pull the trigger, and uses, usually, a portion of the energy released by firing to both eject the empty casing and feed another round to the chamber, preparing the semi-automatic to fire the next time the trigger is pulled.

      The 2nd possibility was that you completely and totally reject private ownership of firearms, and feel that figures of authority would never abuse their position to the extent that Private Citizens could find no other survival option except armed resistance.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    214. Re:'cause everyone knows by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Guns as a deterrent depends on people valuing their lives, accepting mortality, but believing they can live longer if they're careful. If you're young enough, tough enough, dumb enough, or your life is shitty enough, that might not be the case, and thus you end up amplifying the mess by giving everyone a license to kill.

      Are you a creationist ? Since what you say flies in the face of evolution theory. If any group of people thought like that, they would be extinct before they had any real amount of children, therefore said group wouldn't last long.

      Now of course, the little hole in my argument is that gangs in LA do indeed not last long.

      So rest assured, if there are indeed groups where more guns = more dead, then those groups will die out "naturally" (unless you consider evolution unnatural).

      (and btw, guns are all but outlawed in LA, so it is a very good illustration why gun control doesn't work. An argument that outlawing guns only puts honest people at a disadvantage).

    215. Re:'cause everyone knows by rarity · · Score: 1

      The only reason the media are worried is because changing demographics are shifting poor people from Glasgow (and other traditionally poor regions) into London

      Cite, please? I'm having a hard time with the notion of poverty-stricken Glaswegians being "displaced" into the single most expensive place in the UK to live. And London has perfectly good knife-wielding nutters of its own.

    216. Re:'cause everyone knows by Kirth · · Score: 1

      Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

      In my case, because I do historical reenactment/living history. All of them are muzzle-loaders, tough (those which went out of fashion in the 1850ies and haven't been used for violent crimes for 50 years), except for the big ones, they are breech-loaders: http://seegras.discordia.ch/About/Pixels/Gunner.jpg

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    217. Re:'cause everyone knows by kieran · · Score: 1

      The fact is that there is no reason to own a firearm in an inner city area except to use on other people

      While I agree with most of the parent post, a small correction is due here. I live in central London and (legally) own a shotgun, which I use when I go clay pigeon shooting (which I have to drive some way to do, but there you go).

    218. Re:'cause everyone knows by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Legalizing guns reduces crime because it raises the stakes when committing a crime. The person you are attacking is more likely to be armed. Robbing an unarmed victim is one thing, robbing grandma when she might pull an uzi from her purse is another matter entirely.

      So, where's the evidence of that? The USA has very high rates of violent crime with guns. Those with stricter gun-control laws, and fewer guns in the hands of the people, tend to have lower violent crime rates.

      The theory that more guns causes less crime doesn't seem to hold up in the face of evidence.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    219. Re:'cause everyone knows by dangitman · · Score: 1

      So, where do you expect the statistics on arrests by government officials to come from? And they actually have better reporting of crime than in the US, so I think the vested interest in reporting lower crime is bunk. Especially as the UK government likes to over report crime, for political reasons - i.e, creating a moral panic.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    220. Re:'cause everyone knows by z80kid · · Score: 1
      The second Amendment says "the right to bear arms".

      So do you define "bearing something" as owning it, or carrying it around with you?

    221. Re:'cause everyone knows by CotterPin · · Score: 1

      burglaries per capita:

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

      The US has a higher rate than France, Ireland and Greence. Why don't all those handguns prevent people stealing from houses?

      Perhaps because if you're a burglar, and you think there might be a good chance of the home owner also being a gun owner, you might plan your burglary when the home owner isn't there? In the UK, where guns are banned, the burglary rate is very nearly double. It looks to me like "all those handguns" are quite posibly preventing people from stealing from houses.

      --
      Haiku's are easy
      The best can touch you deeply.
      Hippopotamus.
    222. Re:'cause everyone knows by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      In the US having a automatic weapon (usually) doesn't make you a criminal, so they don't need to be caught.

      Yes, it does. Automatic weapons, aka machine guns, have been banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    223. Re:'cause everyone knows by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      To clarify my own post, machine guns must be registered with BATF, which may deny permission. It is illegal to carry fully automatic firearms on one's person in public.
      wiki link

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    224. Re:'cause everyone knows by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I don't think they do

      They do. I'm living it. But you didn't answer my question. Why should my Constitutional right to bear arms be abridged, although I meet all the legal requirements to bear arms (not violent, not a felon, etc.)? Second, exactly what safeguards any rights in the Constitution if even one can be quashed without due process?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    225. Re:'cause everyone knows by MisterBlueSky · · Score: 1

      Why should my Constitutional right to bear arms be abridged,

      This right shouldn't be in a constitution in the first place. Times have changed since it was put in there. Society has changed. Maybe it once was a good idea to grant people this rights, but today it is not.

      although I meet all the legal requirements to bear arms (not violent, not a felon, etc.)?

      I don't know about other countries, but gun control over here works like this: most people don't have guns. Police officers have guns. Criminals have guns. That's about it. However, in your case (not a felon, etc), if you want to own a gun you can. Maybe because you like guns. Maybe because you want to hunt. Maybe you are a collector. Doesn't matter. You can own a gun. The only thing is: you will be registered and you will have to take some lessons.

      Second, exactly what safeguards any rights in the Constitution if even one can be quashed without due process?

      Nothing. But if the right to own a gun isn't in the constitution in the first place there is no problem. That's the case in most countries I think. If it is in the constitution it is time for due process and take it. Any Constitution can be wrong, after all.

    226. Re:'cause everyone knows by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      This right shouldn't be in a constitution in the first place. Times have changed since it was put in there. Society has changed. Maybe it once was a good idea to grant people this rights, but today it is not.

      That's your opinion; I strongly disagree. The need for and right to self-defense has not disappeared. Perhaps we are not defending our farms from indians, Mexicans, or whomever we stole the land to begin with, but we face dangers even in our "civilized" society, and guns are an effective deterrent. Fact: violent crime goes down when there are more legal gun owners.

      But if the right to own a gun isn't in the constitution in the first place there is no problem.

      But it IS in the Constitution. If people think it shouldn't be there, then they have to try and create and ratify a new amendment to revoke that right.

      And if freedom from unreasonable search & seizure weren't in there, all this trouble with obtaining warrants would be out the window. No killer would roam free because evidence was tossed out on a paperwork snafu. There are lots of nice-sounding reasons why people would be "safer" if we simply took a few shortcuts across a law or two, but they are universally bad ideas.

      However, in your case (not a felon, etc), if you want to own a gun you can.

      No, actually I can't. My right to own a handgun has been made subject to the DISCRETION of my police chief, and he is anti-gun.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    227. Re:'cause everyone knows by stoobers · · Score: 1

      Getting illegal guns is easy.

      Getting legal guns is hard.

      Just the way it should be. (???)

    228. Re:'cause everyone knows by stoobers · · Score: 1

      Guns do prevent crime.

      Americans are a passionate lot. We are twitchy. We practice "road rage". Give us an inch and we try killing someone with that inch, maybe by tying it around their throat. We are not mellow. If we didn't think there might be guns next door, we would all rob and pillage one another.

      You want mellow, go to Canada. Some of us here do just that (go to Canada). And sometimes, Canadians come here to America, seeking affordable housing and health care. Blast those Canadians, with their clear accents, tolerance of diversity and polite manners. Bunch of sissies!

      And sometimes, people from around the word, from all sorts of different cultures, speaking different languages, with different ethnicities, values and religions, come here. They seek better lives, and a little know thing called FREEDOM and a better way of life. (Listen up, president Bush, you commie bastard who bails out jackass fake banks w/ public money and squandering the birthright of the next generation for a bowl of lentil soup).

      Besides, Americans are proud, pompous jerks. Our military is always off "working" on something - if we didn't have a bunch of guns, Canada would raid us. Or that other country across the pond, known as "europe" (which rhymes with syrup). But who knows if that place really exists or not.

      Warning - this posting may contain nuts.

    229. Re:'cause everyone knows by cliffski · · Score: 1

      in which case guns are no use at all. seems like investing in tougher windows and door locks would make more sense than everyone getting a shotgun?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    230. Re:'cause everyone knows by cliffski · · Score: 1

      so I'm still three times safer in Chile right?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    231. Re:'cause everyone knows by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      The next in sequence after guns and knives is awls.

      In the US, we've already banned flying awls (lawn darts).

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    232. Re:'cause everyone knows by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I'm glad he's got something to make him feel better, but I'm not sure that even a .45 is going to slow down a bear much. As for the RV door, I don't think that'd necessarily slow down something like a grizzly much

      You shoot the door's window and dive in, removing the question of whether or not is locked.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    233. Re:'cause everyone knows by CotterPin · · Score: 1

      "in which case guns are no use at all"

      What? The statistics that you gave show that incidence of burglaries is half in the US (guns) than that of UK (no guns). I'm given to understand that most burglars try to strike when no one is home, it won't elimiate *all* burglaries, so it's a bit of a straw man argument anyway. Also, if I take into consideration the costs involved, you're looking at thousands of dollars per window for unbreakable glass, plus steel reinforced door frames, etc., as opposed to a few hundred for a home defense weapon. Lastly, back to my original point, a burglar is likely going to avoid a house in which he thinks there is a home owner ready and willing to defend him or herself.

      --
      Haiku's are easy
      The best can touch you deeply.
      Hippopotamus.
    234. Re:'cause everyone knows by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      That depends on when the statistic from Chile was gathered.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    235. Re:'cause everyone knows by halber_mensch · · Score: 1

      Civilised society is where guns are unnecessary.

      When the government decides what is necessary and unnecessary and bans the unnecessary you are no longer in a free society.

      You took the words right out of my mouth. I'm a law abiding citizen with no felony record and no history of violent or psychotic behavior. I've clearly demonstrated I am not a danger to others around me. It should be "presumed" that my actions will be "innocent" of criminal intent. That's the fancy civilized "presumed innocent" thing in action, see. If a person that can't think that way, and distrusts his neighbors to the point of regulating their lives.. that person is a totalitarian shit. That person blatantly opposes the concept of liberty; he desires to remove the ability of his neighbors to act according to their own will by removing from them the circumstances with which to exercise their will. That's the whole point of banning guns and knives after all - to restrict the ability for a person to act on their own will, and therefore short-circuit their will altogether rather than allowing their will to be exercised and judged. Totalitarian shits see that there are people using guns and knives in crime, and then have the bright idea that "Hey! If we take their guns and knives away, then the people won't get the chance to decide to shoot or stab someone! Brilliant!" So law-abiding citizens, by their nature of abiding the law, are stripped of another liberty; and the criminal that holds the law in contempt already continues to express his criminal and violent will.

      I also wanted to say that, like so many other ideals, the notion that guns are not necessary in a civilized society is fundamentally flawed because we do not live in a peaceful utopia in which greed and violence do not exist. Weapons will always be necessary as long as there are adversaries that would wish to deprive others of life or inflict injury, whether you consider foreign armies, civil war, street thugs, angry bison, or little green men from mars - unless of course you perceive a civilized society as a highly regulated police state. It's not paranoid at all to want to be prepared for defense against these things (maybe in the case of the bison or little green men, especially if you wear a tinfoil hat). In fact, it's pretty rational. Given the amount of violent crime we already know exists, it's not unreasonable to wish to have an effective means of defense. And ultimately, if history can teach us anything about civilized society, it's that it is fleeting at best. All great civilized societies before ours have perished in violence. The Persians, the Greeks and the Romans, and the Byzantines after them, the Ottomans; all of these are great civilized societies that suffered death in violence - both internal and external. Our societies will collapse one day too. When that happens, there will be no Bobbies with billy clubs and shiny whistles to scare away the meanies. Violent people will take what they want from others, they will kill or maim anyone they want, and then they'll post videos of it on YouTube. I'd rather be armed before that point, myself.

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    236. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'So, where's the evidence of that? The USA has very high rates of violent crime with guns.'

      Make up your mind, are we talking about violent crime rates or are we isolating the issue to gun violence. More guns means more gun violence. Any moron can tell you that. There is gun control in place throughout the United States despite the second amendment. In places where gun control has been relaxed, violent crime as a whole has gone down.

      For example, look to Florida and concealed carry permits. After concealed carry permits were implemented violent crime and murder rates plummeted dramatically. In Washington D.C. the opposite was demonstrated, with gun controls put in place the murder rate rose to one of the highest in the nation.

    237. Re:'cause everyone knows by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yet you missed the point, it doesn't have to do with crime rates. It has to do with banning of said items in the public for whatever reason, be it guns, knives or *insert generic blunt object*.

      Much like the poster below you.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    238. Re:'cause everyone knows by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.

      I actually think it would make it harder to arrest them because, after all, they have a gun.

    239. Re:'cause everyone knows by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Do they give you an erection?

      Does minding other people's business for them give you one?

    240. Re:'cause everyone knows by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      The US has a much higher murder rate then the UK even though they allow private firearm ownership

      Many parts of the U.S. heavily regulate private firearm ownership, to the point in some cases of an effective ban.

      Those regions are the regions with the highest murder rates.

      And, even if you removed all homicides committed by firearm, the U.S. would still have a higher murder rate than the U.K. - even with guns as available as they are, we stab and beat each other to death enough to outrank you. Our non-firearm homicide rate is 2.97 per 100,000 people[*]; your total murder rate is only 1.57 per 100,000.

      It's not about the guns: compared to us, you guys in the U.K. are just pikers when it comes to killing each other. It's like you aren't even trying to have a murderous and violent underclass in your society!

      ([*]Stats for the U.S. in that table are clearly in the wrong column.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    241. Re:'cause everyone knows by feepness · · Score: 1

      That is a difficult question. The gist of the amendment seems to indicate a citizenry with access to arms despite the fact that the actual word bear is a synonym for carry.

      So you could argue either way. I personally would be happy enough with "own".

    242. Re:'cause everyone knows by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      A ban on automatic transmissions, at least, would cut down the cel phone crap. However, that would require some competence from drivers.

      Lots of people drive a manual transmission and talk on the phone at the same time. I have done it, and seen many others do it. I'm not saying I am a good driver while trying to shift and talk (or even text) at the same time; indeed I know for a fact that my driving while doing it is rather terrible. However, it does show that having a manual transmission does not prevent people from talking.

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    243. Re:'cause everyone knows by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      This isn't even about successfully pulling your weapon when the time comes, its about the bad guy knowing you are likely to have a gun and having to decide if your wallet is worth getting shot for.

      Firstly, is it legal to carry a concealed weapon in public where you are? If it is not the whole point of your post with regard to your wallet is irrelevant since without the ability to concealed carry in public the potential thief does not have to worry about you having a gun assuming you look like a law abiding citizen. If you do not look like a law abiding citizen the local laws with regard to gun control are irrelevant anyway.

      It is also about you deciding if the contents of your wallet are worth fighting for, and whether fighting would help you hold on to it.

      Most muggers on the street will try and jump you so you do not see them coming. Ideally we would always walk around paying 100% attention to our surroundings and never put ourselves in position where someone could get that close, but in a city this is not always an option. Think how many stairwells or blind corners you walk past on a daily basis. In this situation even a pistol will not help you fight off multiple opponents. If you have a gun on you, it will probably just end up in their hands to be used on their next victim.

      What will help more is a sound knowledge of martial arts but even this may not be of assistance unless you have spent many years practising engaging multiple opponents and can be sure your response will be truly autonomic. If this is the case you will prossibly find yourself standing in the midst of a collection of seriously injured assailants if you succeed. This made you several enemies and meant they may come looking for you or your family / friends in future. Their friends are probably nastier than yours. If you did not succeed you are probably dead and they took your wallet anyway.

      I know of a martial arts instructor who, when put in this situation chose to let them take his wallet as it was a lot easier than the alternative.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    244. Re:'cause everyone knows by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      "we find that just above half the time, they kill their owners."

      Via Suicide... which can be easily accomplished without guns

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    245. Re:'cause everyone knows by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      "APPROACH ONE: The stats approach: The homocide rate per 100000 people is 5.7 in the US. That's compared to 2.03 in the UK, 1.64 in France, and 0.5 in Japan."

      There is a huge false assumption here: correlation equals causation... Lets look at non violent crime rates what you will find there that Japan is more often than not among the lower rates, because of culture. There are underlying issues which pushed the US to high levels of crimes in multiple areas..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    246. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'Firstly, is it legal to carry a concealed weapon in public where you are?'

      Yes.

      'If it is not the whole point of your post with regard to your wallet is irrelevant since without the ability to concealed carry in public the potential thief does not have to worry about you having a gun assuming you look like a law abiding citizen.'

      True, but it is, and concealed carry bans are gun control laws as well. This is a discussion about removing those laws.

      'It is also about you deciding if the contents of your wallet are worth fighting for, and whether fighting would help you hold on to it.'

      Not really. The mugger knows you have a gun, he will go for easier prey.

      'What will help more is a sound knowledge of martial arts but even this may not be of assistance unless you have spent many years practising engaging multiple opponents and can be sure your response will be truly autonomic.'

      A knowledge of martial arts might help you fight back or it might not. Modern martial arts aren't really street fighting arts. That said, it won't help prevent you from being mugged in the first place. Readily available firearms will. Not that nobody will be mugged, but it will take much more desperation to do the mugging.

      It isn't about what you do when confronted with a mugger, fight, don't fight, shoot, have a gun, don't have a gun. If most people have guns then there are easier ways to make a buck than mugging. Just as if most people have guns in their home there are easier ways to make a living than burglary.

      Considering the number of confrontations they engage in, people rarely attack police officers. The reason is not the officers knowledge of martial arts or that police officers are intimidating. The reason isn't the legal consequences should be caught. The reason is the thunder cannon the officers openly display.

    247. Re:'cause everyone knows by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      A knowledge of martial arts might help you fight back or it might not. Modern martial arts aren't really street fighting arts. That said, it won't help prevent you from being mugged in the first place. Readily available firearms will.

      Readily available firearms do not help if you are already engaged in hand to hand combat, that was the entire point of my post. Since you did not bother reading my first post I can not be bothered explaining it all again.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    248. Re:'cause everyone knows by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'Readily available firearms do not help if you are already engaged in hand to hand combat, that was the entire point of my post. Since you did not bother reading my first post I can not be bothered explaining it all again.'

      I read your post, I'm just not confusing your example with the premises and conclusion made. Your argument was faulty because firearms reduce the likelihood of being in a hand to hand combat situation in the first place.

      The best method of self defense in a confrontation is a separate issue from this conversation and overall topic.

  2. can't get to TFA. by Itninja · · Score: 1

    The link in the summary goes to "http://slashdot.org/ahref=". Nice.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:can't get to TFA. by Translation+Error · · Score: 5, Funny

      The link in the summary goes to "http://slashdot.org/ahref=". Nice.

      They thought it was unfair how the few people who actually read the articles have a huge advantage in discussing them, so they decided to level the playing field.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    2. Re:can't get to TFA. by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's the actual article, it's protecting society through ignorance.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:can't get to TFA. by extrasolar · · Score: 1

      One day the linked to article is going to be on a completely different subject than the summary indicates, and no one will know the difference.

    4. Re:can't get to TFA. by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to read the article when there are so many /. readers who would fly off the handle and post something ignorant and stupid like "OMFG censorship, Google is worse than Hitler!" For the record I see idiotic activity from both sides during moral panics like this newest British moral panic WRT knives, I especially include those who scream loudest, who in this discussion are the ones screaming about the "evil" censorship from Google at the top of their lungs.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  3. Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outside by compumike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, I'm a bit torn here.

    I think it's really oppressive when governments do things like telling a company that they'd have to do something like this (which the government did *not* do)... But it's almost scarier that they're doing it on their own initiative as a company. It's like one of those many situations in which someone will self-regulate to a stronger degree than is necessary just to present the appearance that outside regulation is not necessary. I certainly believe that Google/YouTube has the right to do this, but not necessarily that they should. So is it better that this came from within rather than from external forces?

    --
    Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

  4. UK is full of spineless pussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    VIDEO of weapons scares them? Do they ban Schwarzenegger movies too?

    1. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Funny

      personally know several people who have been robbed using Arnold Schwarzenegger as a deadly weapon. They call the victim's "California Taxpayers" :)

      (jk - I think he has been lowering taxes)

    2. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      It's not the videos of weapons: it's the voiceovers by gangs telling rival gangs what they'll do to them with the weapons if they stray across the postcode boundary. It's not as extreme as the videos some Mexican gangs post of decapitated rivals, but it's still probably illegal under English law, which has more restrictions on speech than the USA.

    3. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "(jk - I think he has been lowering taxes)"

      But by lowering taxes, the state government hasn't gotten the income it needs, and our education system (including the state universities, such as UCLA and Berkley) is taking a large hit. He is also threatening to close state parks, trim health care, and release prisoners in order to help close the budget hole. Californians are being robbed in more ways then money....

      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/11/MNCUUD91O.DTL

    4. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Well, in that case, ban stupid people. It won't be easier to enact than enacting a ban on gun videos (Streisand effect, anyone? Whoever wants to watch gun videos just uses a proxy or looks somewhere else, it isn't like Youtube is the only website where you can watch videos), but at least, it would make sense.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    5. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      They should be glad they weren't robbed using Chuck Norris as weapon of mass and total destruction.

    6. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by rossz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhm, it doesn't matter how much they raise or lower the taxes in California. There will always be a shortfall because non-discretionary spending is set (by law) at something like 103% of the state budget. Idiot people kept voting in mandatory money for their pet projects. 3% here, 5% there, and now we are required to spend more than will be available.

      That is what Ahnold meant when he said the budget is inherently broken. Fixing it is proving impossible. No one is willing to cut even one dollar from anything. I'd like to see a (state) Constitutional amendment that penalizes the members of the assembly by not paying them for the periods when we don't have a budget. I think we're up to three months now. A 25% salary cut across the board for all assembly members sounds like a damn good idea. Alternately, we could just lynch a few of the bastards. Either way works for me.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    7. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by darkeye · · Score: 1

      yes, this was my first though as well - are they going to ban practically _all_ hollywood movies, which "involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation"? this is basically 99% of them. oh wait, in these movies, they actually kill people, not just intimidate them...

    8. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by Kjella · · Score: 1

      it's still probably illegal under English law, which has more restrictions on speech than the USA.

      Threats of death or bodily violence aren't protected speech in the US either, as far as I know. However, you seem to get away with a lot more in the US as long as you don't name individuals. I don't see why threats towards a group fitting certain criteria, such as in this case being rival gang members, should be protected speech either. After all, these criteria do translate to named individuals and serve pretty much the same function. However, it's in this space most of Europe's hate speech laws operate and are consistently rejected in the US under freedom of speech. Don't get me wrong, I think there should be a broad leeway to criticize a group's social and cultural impact on society but not to include speech that would be pretty clearly illegal if targeted at one member of that group.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Or even clips of mailcall. Or any war documentary.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    10. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by slashgrim · · Score: 1

      That is what Ahnold meant when he said the budget is inherently broken. Fixing it is proving impossible. No one is willing to cut even one dollar from anything. I'd like to see a (state) Constitutional amendment that penalizes the members of the assembly by not paying them for the periods when we don't have a budget.

      Unfortunately, the Californian populace is too busy watching Reality Television to actually get out and vote for the Governator's policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_special_election,_2005#Proposition_76:_State_Spending_Limits On the other hand, all the unions that control California did get out and voted "no."

    11. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      For reference, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate President pro Tempore receive salaries of $133,639 per year. The Minority Floor Leader also gets this pay level, while the Majority Floor Leader and Second Ranking Minority Floor Leader get $124,923. All other members of the legislature get $116,208. All members of the legislature are allowed $170 per diem for living and travel expenses while they are traveling to or from or engaged in any legislative activity (including committees) so long as any recess in these activities is not longer than three days.

      I would also vote for an initiative that would prevent legislators from drawing a salary or a per diem while the budget is late, and that these monies would be prohibited from being retroactively paid.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    12. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      I wonder how such a flamebait title was modded as insightful. If it were about Muslims or Blacks or any race Americans had been nasty to in the past, collective self-guilt would mod it Flamebait in an instant.

      Having lived in America for 6 years while I studied, conflict resolution there tends to be either: avoidance, lawyers, therapy, or guns, in about that order. In Europe, including the UK, it is usually manly confrontation and discussion. Guns are right out, therapy is sneered at, lawsuits are not lihgtly initiated, and avoidance is anti-social and cowardly.

      Who are you calling spineless pussies again? Are you American?

    13. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by rossz · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you mentioned the per diem, I didn't think of it. I agree. Not one cent when there is no budget and no retroactive payments.

      Doing some quick math. 80 assembly members at 116k/year and no budget for 90 days (roughly). 116k/365*80*90 (salary/days_in_year*assembly_members*days_without_budget) = $2.29 million dollars (rounded) so far. And that's not even taking into consideration their per diem.

      I still like the lynching idea.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    14. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      With how much it costs to get elected, how many of the people who make legislature really care about that extra 100k/year?

    15. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by tftp · · Score: 1

      But by lowering taxes, the state government hasn't gotten the income it needs

      The state government will get as much as we, taxpayers, permit them to have. The government should not have any say in how much it needs, because otherwise the demand for money would be infinite.

      and our education system (including the state universities, such as UCLA and Berkley) is taking a large hit

      Why should I pay for some universities? Is this some sort of socialism here? (well, maybe there is, in CA.) If a university needs funds it should get them from private sources - like, maybe, students that get valuable knowledge there. What has it to do with a taxpayer?

      Californians are being robbed in more ways then money...

      Maybe. But let's fix the money problem first, and the rest will follow. If people don't have money they are not likely to solve any problems.

    16. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

      There will always be a shortfall because non-discretionary spending is set (by law) at something like 103% of the state budget.

      It's not quite 103% -- more like 80% -- but it's actually worse than "by law". All these fixtures to state funding were set by ballot propositions, not by laws. That means they are constitutional amendments. The state assembly does not have the power to change them.

      When people complain that the state assembly can't balance the budget, the blame falls squarely on the voters and a 50-year tradition of using ballot propositions as if they were laws.

      --
      I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    17. Re:UK is full of spineless pussies by rossz · · Score: 1

      The process in this mess was as follows.

      1. Elected officials ignore the will of the people.
      2. People turn to ballot initiatives to do the work the assembly should be doing.
      3. Assembly says, "Screw you. We'll just vote to overturn your initiative."
      4. People say, "Screw you back, we're giving them the power of the Constitution."
      5. Elected officials say, "oh, shit!"
      6. People say, "Cool, that was easy, let's give guaranteed funding to 'Lesbian Vegan Poets for Pet Rocks'."
      7. Government says, "Uh, guys, we're broke."
      8. People say, "WTF is wrong with you assholes!?"

      That concludes today's lesson on California Government.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
  5. As can be logically concluded... by Kingrames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody knows how to use a knife until they first search for it on youtube.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:As can be logically concluded... by seriesrover · · Score: 1

      You might not recall videos on YouTube re:how to mug someone with a knife, but then 99% don't use YouTube to look up that stuff. YouTube are doing 'their bit' to stop the idiots that do.

    2. Re:As can be logically concluded... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      No no, What we need is to impose a 5 day waiting period on thinking about viewing a Youtube video (and the adverts) before learning on Youtube. After all, why ban weapons when you can ban knowledge?

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:As can be logically concluded... by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Still, it's one thing to remove videos of people mugging other people with knifes, but it's another thing to remove every video about knifes. That's like removing Diet Coke and Mentos videos, you can have a lot of fun with it, but if you force someone to drink the stuff, he won't feel very well either I guess...

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    4. Re:As can be logically concluded... by IanCal · · Score: 1

      but it's another thing to remove every video about knifes.

      Ok, ok, I know this goes against slashiquette, but the title of the article is "YouTube bans some weapons footage".

      I'm not saying I agree with the move, but attacking a strawman is always a fallacy no matter which side you're on.

  6. Working link by RockMFR · · Score: 4, Informative
  7. 'knife crime?' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    pure idiocy.

    no one seems to realize that there is no such thing as "gun" or "knife" crime. there is crime, and the most convenient tool to carry it out with for threatening people and causing harm. where guns are available this is the tool, where guns are not it's knives or bludgeoning implements.

    'knife crime' is going up because that's what is available.

    i've gotten a hell of a lot of decent information about my firearm from youtube (if you keep it to videos featuring nationally recognized figures you can't get steered too wrong, like todd jarett).

    this is just a plain stupid move on youtube's part.

    1. Re:'knife crime?' by Instine · · Score: 1

      And I see your comment as plane stupid. Funny world ain't it... If you make the tools more convinient to use and more 'effective' then the crime becomes more catastophic more quickly and more often. Why not give everyone the right to bare nulear arms?

      Because that would be crazy right? Well living in a country where gun crime is very low and guns are heavily controlled, alowing people to arm themselves seems just as insane to me. Well maybe not quite, but I hope you see my point.

      and the argument about saving yourself from a rogue government seems completely lost now. You can't. They have bigger guns. Oh, and nukes. Which is crazy - right?

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    2. Re:'knife crime?' by piojo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I disagree. It's a culture problem. It seems that violence is becoming more "cool" in the UK of late, and Youtube does not want to be a part of that.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    3. Re:'knife crime?' by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Its possible to cause major injury to someone by bashing them with a cricket bat, does that mean we should ban all videos featuring cricket? You can use all kinds of power tools to hurt and even kill someone (saws, grills, grinders etc), does that mean we should ban woodworking videos featuring these tools?

    4. Re:'knife crime?' by cliffski · · Score: 1

      I agree. nobody is ever influenced by anything they watch in a video clip.
      This is why advertisements never work.
      err.......

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    5. Re:'knife crime?' by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Thankyou for finally making the nuclear bomb comment. As an Australian I find these Americans quite disturbing with some of their opinions and am glad to see a likeminded individual.

    6. Re:'knife crime?' by Arterion · · Score: 1

      and the argument about saving yourself from a rogue government seems completely lost now.

      Except we crazy Americans -- you know, we already did this once. So we'd like to reserve to try to at least try to do it again if we need to.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    7. Re:'knife crime?' by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      and the argument about saving yourself from a rogue government seems completely lost now. You can't. They have bigger guns. Oh, and nukes. Which is crazy - right?

      Tell that to the Iraqi insurgency. The kid hiding in a bush with a $20 AK-47 has proven to be quite effective against the supposedly higher tech, better armed U.S. military. No military in the world stands a chance against a sufficiently armed, motivated, and organized group of civilians defending their homes.

      The founding fathers of the U.S. were wise to very deliberately guarantee INDIVIDUALS the right to bear arms, as a final check against an out of control government.

    8. Re:'knife crime?' by nametaken · · Score: 1

      A reasonable point... but where are guns not available? Is there such a place?

    9. Re:'knife crime?' by Instine · · Score: 1

      "The kid hiding in a bush with a $20 AK-47 has proven to be quite effective against the supposedly higher tech, "

      I disagree. I think a lot of them are getting blown to hell.

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    10. Re:'knife crime?' by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      and the argument about saving yourself from a rogue government seems completely lost now. You can't. They have bigger guns. Oh, and nukes. Which is crazy - right?

      Big guns don't mean much in a guerrilla war. See: Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, Afghanistan (vs the Russians). If we can't easily subdue the Iraqis how do you expect us to subdue our own brothers?
       
      --
        finding my IP address

    11. Re:'knife crime?' by tftp · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I think a lot of them are getting blown to hell.

      This is not a failure, being blown to hell, as long as the attacker kills at least one opponent. There are more Iraqis (and Taliban, etc.) willing to fight than the USA has soldiers. Also their religion presents such a death as highly honorable; but that is not even required - in WWII European guerrilla fighters, not being Muslim at all, fought Nazis with extreme bravery and many were killed by superior Nazi war machine. But we know who won in the end.

    12. Re:'knife crime?' by Instine · · Score: 1

      "I think a lot of them are getting blown to hell.

      This is not a failure "

      Then I wish much success. ;) (sorry - just a bad joke - but I am sick of The Nobility of War bollox. )

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
  8. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Informative

    it's to stop idiots posting stuff showing them knifing people/things and rob them of their 15 minutes of fame. i totally agree with it. the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  9. Cooking knives by Lucky75 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What about videos describing how to cut food properly? Are they going to ban all the videos that teach you how to cook too? Maybe TV shows or movies/trailers with violence in them? Yep, it's those darn youtube videos that are really causing all the violence.

    --
    DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
    1. Re:Cooking knives by IanCal · · Score: 1

      Are they going to ban all the videos that teach you how to cook too?

      Yes, because that obviously falls under the heading of "videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation".

      Although it may be easier for you to ask a question, you may find it useful to RTFA once in a while.

    2. Re:Cooking knives by tpholland · · Score: 1

      Are they going to ban all the videos that teach you how to cook too?

      No, I wouldn't think so. Would you?

  10. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world"

    I don't think that "Internet service provider" means what she thinks it means.

    1. Re:Hmm by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Informative

      They do provide a service on the internet.

    2. Re:Hmm by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2

      But they don't provide internet service, which is the normal way of using that term.

    3. Re:Hmm by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But they don't provide internet service

      With all that fibre they own across the country surely they don't have an ISP. Therefore they are an ISP to their employees :P

    4. Re:Hmm by KGIII · · Score: 1

      In some cases "ISP" even covers hosting companies and some of the protections afforded to ISPs are also given to web hosting companies as I recall. This is just from a few hours worth of time for a lawyer so who knows how accurate that is.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. playing devils advocate here by omar.sahal · · Score: 1

    Maybe youtube needs to have some sort of moderator system, like slashdot, so that deleted content can be viewed by them and reinstated if necessary.
    We then can have a balances between peoples right to security (which out weighs your right to free speech) and free speech. Thwarting any reasonable sounding excuse politically motivated entities have for curtailing free speech.

    1. Re:playing devils advocate here by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Youtube moderate Slashdot!

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:playing devils advocate here by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      We then can have a balances between peoples right to security (which out weighs your right to free speech) and free speech.

      Aren't there some books you could be burning somewhere?

    3. Re:playing devils advocate here by Bob+The+Magic+Camel · · Score: 1

      You have no right to freedom of speech on the internet. It is not an extension of the US, even if it were there is nothing preventing private entities reducing what you're allowed to say, only the government.

      --
      This signature is esoteric
    4. Re:playing devils advocate here by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Maybe youtube needs to have some sort of moderator system

      Kinda like +1 shiv ??

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    5. Re:playing devils advocate here by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? You should read some xkcd, these comics tell you a lot about Youtube users (if you have the luck not to have to experience them in person).

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    6. Re:playing devils advocate here by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Please turn in your geek card at the front desk. Thanks.

      Are you going to let anyone do anything they want to on your hardware/systems/property regardless of what you want or will you secure it against intrusion? If you do secure it against intrusion are you thus prohibiting free speech?

      There is such a thing as freedom, liberties, and security. They are not mutually exclusive even though the latest trends from some of the governments around the globe seem to be advocating. Again, not mutually exclusive...

      Your attempt to let the pendulum swing shows your illogical thinking.

      To automatically assume that one touting security is also a book burner or needs to be compared to one implies a great deal about your motives.

      Balance. Moderation in all things. If one freedom needs to be curtailed to ensure another then that is okay so long as it is done in moderation and with fairness. Something along the lines of yelling fire in a movie theater applies. You ARE free to do so. You're not at liberty to do so.

      Of course, in this case, the idea of banning knife videos is just fricken stupid but meh... 'Tis Google. They do some dumb stuff. We all do. Even me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  12. Typical Google/Youtube ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Videos of weapons are banned but pedophilia and children exploitation is OK:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqIPFTF7JeY

    1. Re:Typical Google/Youtube ethics by hax0r_this · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is that a video of? I live in America, I don't care to follow it and find out whether or not I'll be arrested.

    2. Re:Typical Google/Youtube ethics by not+flu · · Score: 1

      It's just a foot massage. Unless I'm missing out by not having audio it's not sexual in any way whatsoever.

    3. Re:Typical Google/Youtube ethics by not+flu · · Score: 1

      If foot massages count as exploitation I really wish I got exploited more often. Stop being a retard.

  13. Really increased? by duck0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I remember hearing about this on BBC's radio4...

    A quick search later found this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm

    According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995.
    Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.

    However:

    But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.

    1. Re:Really increased? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing about this on BBC's radio4...

      A quick search later found this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm

      According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995. Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.

      However:

      But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.

      Didn't they also get caught out fudging the books on crime awhile back, or was that Chicago? Either way, it of course doesn't take into account unreported crime. Given the reports from people on the ground over there, I'd have to think that a 41% decrease is bull. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    2. Re:Really increased? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      But the BCS figures do not include under-16s

      Yeah, and who do you think is going to be the most influenced by videos they see on YouTube?

    3. Re:Really increased? by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Given the reports from people on the ground over there, I'd have to think that a 41% decrease is bull. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

      Yeah, you're right there. Anecdotal evidence is always more reliable than the results of organised surveys.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  14. Do not be alarmed, all is well... by Grym · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't it obvious what the real problem is? These videos implicitly question the effectiveness of the UK police state and are, thus, are doubleplusbad. After all, it makes no sense to have the telescreen speaking ill of big brother now does it?

    I implore those who question the usefulness of the second amendment here in the U.S. to take a hard look at what's happening in the U.K. today. The slippery slope is very real.

    -Grym

    1. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by boxxertrumps · · Score: 1

      Doubleplusungood, you mean.

    2. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Uhh, what would this have to do with the British government or laws, or the second amendment? Google decided to do this of their own free will. They could easily decide to ban gun videos in the USA, and the Second Amendment wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it.

      It's within Google's First Amendment rights to show whatever they see fit, and not show what they don't see fit.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    3. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      It has everything to do with it. How many knifing epidemics have you ever heard of in the United States?

      I doubt it would be reported, as America has a violence-loving culture, and we generally don't care much. We do care if titties are shown on TV, though. Or if people are enjoying sex too much.

      As for the "knifing epidemic" in the UK, it doesn't exist. It's a fabrication of the media.

      Google very clearly did this in response to a request by U.K. officials.

      How is that "very clear"? the article doesn't mention any request from officials whatsoever.

      Makes you wonder about the "Do No Evil" mantra, eh?

      Nope. I've always considered that slogan to be empty marketing bullshit. That said, many people would consider the broadcasting of violent videos to be evil. So it depends on your definition of evil.

      But back to the point - how does the Second Amendment stop Google from doing something similar in the USA?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      According to the BBC [bbc.co.uk],"MPs criticised video-sharing websites, including YouTube, in July, saying they should be doing more to vet content."

      That was in a press conference. There is no mention of a direct request. There was no compulsion for Google to do this, even if they did get a request. So how is it anybody but Google's fault?

      Since your reading comprehension seems to be deficient,

      How is my reading comprehension deficient? You then go on to ramble about irrelevant things, but fail to answer the question - how does the Second Amendment prevent Google, of their own free will, from implementing a similar policy in the USA? Also, you say:

      the Second Amendment to the Constitution upholds the right of the people to bear arms. This right is under increasing political attack,

      That's simply not true. The gun control debate has gotten a lot quieter in recent years. Democrats don't want to touch it, as it's a political third rail. The gun control lobby was much more vocal 10 years ago. If anything, the Second Amendment is under decreasing political pressure. How many times have you heard Obama mention gun control this election season? He talks about everything but gun control.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by OriginalArlen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, give me a fucking break. I'm a member / supporter of a number of civil lib type orgs here in the UK, and we certainly do have our share of stupid, counter-productive, illiberal and potentially-authoritarian laws. But, really, I assure you that (apart from the insane law about protesting within a half-mile of Parliament, and similar special cases), free speech is really not a problem over here. "questioning the effectiveness of the UK police state"?! You've obviously never read the British tabloid press; take away their right to ridicule the police and they'd be out of business overnight.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    6. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by russotto · · Score: 1

      That's simply not true. The gun control debate has gotten a lot quieter in recent years. Democrats don't want to touch it, as it's a political third rail.

      That's right; the attacks on gun ownership in the US reached their height with the assault weapons ban, and after Democrats failed to receive the kudos they felt they were due for this (and were rather targeted successfully to be booted out of office), they haven't been too willing to touch it. I'm sure they'll start again soon, though.

      It's to the point where a couple of years ago, one Pennsylvania politican said that other legislators should put aside concern for their political future to vote for a particular gun control bill. Needless to say, that bill died a quiet death thereafter.

    7. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Catharsis.

      Look it up.

    8. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Sure, though it is still worrying if they cave into political or media scaremongering (it's one thing for them to decide they don't want the material at all, but that's not what's happened here - it's just the UK they're blocking). We can still criticise them for that, and I wouldn't put it past the UK Government to try to bring in new laws either to block content or criminalise it (either publication or possession). Some MPs have called for this; there's also the recent plans to criminalise pro-choice suicide websites not to mention the recent criminalisation of possession of "extreme" adult images.

    9. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by feepness · · Score: 1

      These videos implicitly question the effectiveness of the UK police state and are, thus, are doubleplusbad.

      The correct term is doubleplusungood. Please report for reeducation to Room 101 at your local Ministry of Love immediately.

    10. Re:Do not be alarmed, all is well... by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      Well, I did, and it means what I thought it did; your point, however, remains obscure..?

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
  15. Does anybody really think by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... that censoring YouTube will have a significant effect on crime?

    Study after study have shown no verifiable link between violence in the media and violence in real life. In fact, there is some evidence that there is a negative correlation, though small.

    So what's the point? "Let's do anything, even if it's wrong!" ??

    1. Re:Does anybody really think by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      Study after study have shown no verifiable link between violence in the media and violence in real life.

      Can you name said study after study? Because the ones I can name start with Bandura, A, D Ross & S A Ross (1961): 'Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models', Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63: 575-82 and work their way forwards and they say exactly the opposite. Perhaps you're confusing "person after person said that study after study have shown" with "study after study have shown" because they often do say so. They're wrong.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  16. Go elsewhere by eggman9713 · · Score: 1

    If you can't find your knife fix on youtube, there are plenty other clones of it out there to find it. Not to mention that these clone sites are often run by people who don't really give a flying **** about internet users outside their country of jurisdiction. This is all just a big PR stunt. Whether it will have a positive or negative effect will be up to the users (and not the shareholders, they are happy with whatever Gootube does as long as it makes them money.)

  17. Corporate responsibility by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Actually, if a company does this on its own because they are concerned about it, that's called "being responsible." If a government requires it via an official censorship policy, then I have a problem with it. Ideally it should work this way, with corporate entities being sensitive to the needs of of the communities they do business in, so governments don't feel the need to intervene and implement sweeping, draconian limitations on everyone. You can still film yourself practicing your nunchuck skills or slashing the air with a knife, and share the video with other morons, you just can't use Youtube to do it in the UK now, I guess. This is all fine, as we don't have any guaranteed right to post on Youtube, and this decision will make many people happy, until they realize that the internet is global and local laws do not apply to the creation or dissemination of content in other countries.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:Corporate responsibility by azgard · · Score: 1

      No, corporations should make money. They shouldn't be (by themselves) responsible to other "communities" than to their shareholders. The reason is that making money is why they do exist; to behave differently is expecting them to behave irrationally. Government intervention changes the cost-benefit ratios so it becomes rational for them to do things which they normally wouldn't, such as acting responsibly to communities.

      If you want production to be in the hands of some body that cares about communities by itself, there are alternatives, such as collectives or cooperatives. These are entities controlled by the target community, and as such they behave rationally to please the community, without the need of government intervention.

    2. Re:Corporate responsibility by Bob+The+Magic+Camel · · Score: 1

      I can't believe I've actually found someone who doesn't think that the internet is an extension of whatever Country they call home, and demanding whatever rights their Country decides to grant them. Thank you, you have somewhat revitalised my faith in humanity.

      --
      This signature is esoteric
    3. Re:Corporate responsibility by piojo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, corporations should make money. They shouldn't be (by themselves) responsible to other "communities" than to their shareholders. The reason is that making money is why they do exist; to behave differently is expecting them to behave irrationally.

      That's a narrow view. First of all, if the company isn't publicly traded, then its job is to do whatever the owners want, which is frequently more complex than "make as much money as possible". So if we're talking about publicly traded companies, wouldn't companies benefit from positive public opinion? The company's job isn't just to make money this year--it's to seek long term profitability, and that may involve "being responsible".

      On another note, these companies, even the public ones, are run by their officers. Those officers are people with principles, whatever they be, and I would hope that these people follow their principles, as well as do their best to lead their company to success.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    4. Re:Corporate responsibility by Arterion · · Score: 1

      If they wanted to be responsible, they could sponsor some knife safety videos. Such as the correct way to don and wear platemail or chainmail, how to properly oil it and care for it, and some tips for extended wear scenarios.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    5. Re:Corporate responsibility by Arterion · · Score: 1

      They could also sponsor some videos that train people in Wizardry. It seems the Wizards always do fine against people with knives, and they also never wear armor. Perhaps a few simple shielding spells should be put up on YouTube UK, and this whole knife problem would go away entirely.

      And wouldn't you know, the magical reagent businesses would start to boom like you've never seen. This could be a real boon to the economy as well!

      At least until the big corps come run Mum a Poppa out of business as people would rather buy cheap newt from the mega-mart than get the quality stuff from the local witches.

      Of course, you know, then we'll see more videos explaining how to enchant your knives to bypass the protection spells, and we're back a square one. To fix things, the government will just outlaw magic all together. This will just create a black market for magical supplies, and you'll have mage-lords bent on wealth and power. People will get so desperate for their "fix" of magic, that they'll be stabbing people left and right looking for money or drugs. I mean spell components.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    6. Re:Corporate responsibility by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I think long-term profitability is generally regarded as the best way to make the most profit. A lot of higher-ups don't seem to care anymore, though. They want to make their little fortune, then live the good life.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    7. Re:Corporate responsibility by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      People should not be demanding the rights granted to nor the limitations placed on them by their particular Country decides. It can make for a confusing mix on occasion, but it's better than settling for the lowest common denominator.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  18. Re:first post by BPPG · · Score: 4, Informative

    I must admit, these trollish little first posts do make good place holders.

    TFA should probably be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621013.stm. Interestingly enough, it makes use of the increasingly ubiquitous "vet".

    --
    What's the value of information that you don't know?
  19. Sympathetic magic. by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

    What's the word for failing to draw a distinction between a representation of something and the thing being representing?

    'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,

    Because whatever that word is, this is it:

    If I make this doll that looks like you, and use a piece of your hair, I can jab it with pins and you'll be injured. If we remove pictures of knifes from the internet, knife crime will fall. If we allow depictions of knives on the internet, knife crime will rise.

    Perfectly insane.

    1. Re:Sympathetic magic. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      First off, let me say that I'm not a fan of censoring much of anything. When we ban stuff like the publication of State Secrets, child porn, and that sort of stuff it is, in fact, censoring. I can agree that there has to be a limit somewhere. There simply has to for a civilized community.

      Having said that, I have to wonder if maybe you're mistaken? I don't really know and I'm not going to even begin to pretend that I'm an expert but if I see all of my friends doing it then I'm more likely to do it too so to speak. This isn't entirely true for me, I am rather oppositional (as you can probably see) but peer pressure doesn't change when people age, it doesn't care about race, it doesn't care about gender.

      As we become accustomed to violence, as we become adept at accepting violence, as we need to be violent, as we become exposed to violence doesn't natural law pretty much insist that we adapt?

      Maybe I have a skewed opinion on this last bit but this is one of the reasons that I think it odd that we try to thwart nature as much as we do. We fight greenhouse gasses in hopes of stopping climate change. We struggle to eat healthier so that we live longer. We stop trying to make species extinct. In general we all insist that those are good things. In reality I don't know if they are? What if the order of things requires us to eliminate species, pretty much destroy the planet, breed out the weaker, and generally try to stop what is natural? If it exists it is natural. There are NO unnatural elements. If something that was natural made it we'd call that too natural. If a human makes it we call it something else but we don't call bird's nests unnatural.

      What if our future requires means we destroy most of the planet and kill off the human species and something better comes of it? Something bigger, stronger, and we are the Neanderthals? We seem pretty hell bent on thinking we're at the top, if not by what we say then by what we do.

      I guess my point is, really, is that these videos and other exposures may actually desensitize us and make us more prone to violence. I don't know why anyone thinks we're supposed to be peace loving tree worshipers. I hunt, fish, chop down my own trees for firewood, and consider myself to be a naturalist in every sense of the word. If this does make us more violent then, well, why stop the progress? What if it is our destiny to be more violent? What if our being more violent is actually a trait we're developing so that we're more prepared for hardships to come? What if our warring is based on factors we're not aware of and the benefit is to prepare us to war with a different species from, perhaps, an alien nation? (Okay, so I'm stretching a wee bit on that last one.)

      I guess, in closure, we should probably spend less time being concerned with other people doing what comes naturally to them and worry about what comes naturally to us but, then again, maybe being concerned about what someone else is doing more so than we worry about our own actions is natural.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Sympathetic magic. by russotto · · Score: 1

      What's the word for failing to draw a distinction between a representation of something and the thing being representing?

      Idolatry? No, that's not it, or rather it is, but specifically with gods. The psychiatric term "paleological thinking" might cover it, but it's probably too general.

    3. Re:Sympathetic magic. by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      What's the word for failing to draw a distinction between a representation of something and the thing being representing?

      Idolatry? No, that's not it, or rather it is, but specifically with gods. The psychiatric term "paleological thinking" might cover it, but it's probably too general.

      Hmmm. Idealism? Delusion?

      ...wait, I've got it: advertising!

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    4. Re:Sympathetic magic. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      When we ban stuff like the publication of State Secrets, child porn, and that sort of stuff it is, in fact, censoring. I can agree that there has to be a limit somewhere. There simply has to for a civilized community.

      But those things are not cases where things are censored merely for being depictions. Child porn should be illegal because it's images of abuse of actual children. State secrets aren't anything to do with claimed links between viewing and behaviour.

      As for effects of violent images - if that is really a problem, there's a whole load of violent films that would need to be banned, I don't see why it's just images on the Internet.

    5. Re:Sympathetic magic. by natarnsco · · Score: 1

      What's the word for failing to draw a distinction between a representation of something and the thing being representing?

      Reification

  20. Why bother with knives? by andyring · · Score: 1

    I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.

    1. Re:Why bother with knives? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1
      I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.

      And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:Why bother with knives? by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 1

      Aside from the obvious double entendre, you really shouldn't carry a pistol in a pocket not designed for it. Holsters are designed to avoid the risk of an accidental firing, and pockets are not. In addition, it's slower to extract a pistol from a pocket than a holster in an emergency, and when you're faced with an emergency that requires you to draw a gun, milliseconds count.

    3. Re:Why bother with knives? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      And I'll happily stick to England where i don't have to.

      Each to their own i suppose.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    4. Re:Why bother with knives? by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Ahem.
      Immediately after reading your post I walked up to the road by my house, then urinated in public (nobody around, of course).
      This made me a Criminal on an American Street, and I have to tell you, I have no idea where I would go right at this moment to get an illegal handgun.
      And, taking my tongue slightly out of my cheek, you are pretty much wrong; a certain class of criminal may well always know where to go to get an illegal handgun, but the majority of criminals who reside outside of the very largest metro areas aren't going to know where to go to get a illegal pistol.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    5. Re:Why bother with knives? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.

      And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)

      Because bans on things like drugs and, in the past, alcohol worked so well, didn't it? Those mentioned criminals are breaking several laws acquiring those guns. All the paper trail and background check requirements did exactly what to stop that? It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that you seem to be advocating more of the same ineffective regulations and laws. Thus, the law abiding will be disarmed, or hampered, and the criminal element will simply laugh and carry on business as usual. See Chicago, NYC, and Washington, D.C. as examples. If you want international examples, see Russia with an almost total ban on handguns. Yet, they have sky high rates of crime and in particular murder.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    6. Re:Why bother with knives? by Grym · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that criminals would not still be able to get handguns despite any and every governmental ban possible? And do you concede that such prohibitions will also have a negative impact on law-abiding gun owners and unintended consequences such as U.K.'s current knifing epidemic?

      There's been a war on drugs for over 20 years now, and not only are drugs still available to those willing to break the law. Even worse, the streetprice of these drugs has not even increased despite all the laws, despite all the convictions, and despite all the money spent trying to prohibit them. I'll never understand how my liberal-minded friends can be so quick to recognize the folly of the "War on Drugs" whilst simultaneously calling for similar prohibitions on guns.

      -Grym

    7. Re:Why bother with knives? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      You're right, let's mandate that all citizens, hell all residents regardless of citizenship, are required to carry loaded guns at all times. Yeah, that will work out great. Around here, law abiding citizens may obtain permits to carry CONCEALED handguns in many public locations, and the castle doctrine is pretty forgiving in one's home. Should we not even try to control guns? Japan does pretty well as far as gun crimes are concerned, because they don't tolerate them legally or socially.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    8. Re:Why bother with knives? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      There's a difference - the average person doesn't mind drugs although they wouldn't bother with them (excepting cannabis, which is almost universal.. heck you can get high from the smoke alone in most busses) . Most people in the UK have no interest in coming within 20 miles of a gun.

      If I see someone with drugs I ignore them.. it's a common enough sight. If I saw someone with a gun I'd be on the phone to the police in double quick time (as would everyone else). I never have done though... I hope I never do.

      Sure, they exist, but even criminals know that using them in a crime involves a mandatory 2 year sentence just for the possesion of the firearm, so it's so rare than when one *is* used it makes front page news.

    9. Re:Why bother with knives? by toriver · · Score: 1

      ... but is the person threatening you with a gun going to let you draw it? Or are they going to just shoot you? Guns are for offense not defense.

      There is a Catch 22 like situation here: If you aren't able and willing to kill, the gun is pointless. And if you are able and willing you really should not be allowed to get one...

    10. Re:Why bother with knives? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Err... Actually you might want to look at Virgin, Utah and their crime rates. Yes, gun ownership is mandatory.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Why bother with knives? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am able and willing to kill. I'm also really quite adept at it. I also carry a firearm nearly all the time. I carry openly, I carry concealed (permitted to do so in my state), and I've never killed anyone with it nor have I felt a need to resort to it when I have been (and I have been) in danger. The only place I can't carry it, generally, is into a court house. I have had buddies get into trouble and gone in to offer some support and they make me take it off so I don't bother trying to bring it with me any more. I go into the bank with it. I go into the bank with it openly on my hip sometimes. Hell, I've walked out of the woods while finishing up hunting and come out closer to town than I wanted and actually have gone into a bank with a RIFLE on my back. Not just me but SEVERAL of us. One of them was a huge Hungarian who had been a freedom fighter and had a huge accent.

      We've never shot anyone. We've never had our firearms used to hurt anyone. We've never had a child get ahold of our weapons (and we all have kids) and shoot someone. I think we've had maybe a dozen shootings in the past 12 years that resulted in a death and probably half of those were hunting "accidents." (Err... They *might* have been someone meting out the local form of justice by the way.)

      As much as I abhor Moore's movies I'd suggest watching Bowling For Columbine. The problem is NOT the guns. If it was then Canada would be one hell of a murderous place. Look at the areas where gun ownership is higher (per capita) than elsewhere and you'll probably find that there aren't a whole lot of violent gun acts. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, PARTS OF Michigan, Alaska, etc... Correlation, causation, ya know...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Why bother with knives? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      You're right, let's mandate that all citizens, hell all residents regardless of citizenship, are required to carry loaded guns at all times. Yeah, that will work out great. Around here, law abiding citizens may obtain permits to carry CONCEALED handguns in many public locations, and the castle doctrine is pretty forgiving in one's home. Should we not even try to control guns? Japan does pretty well as far as gun crimes are concerned, because they don't tolerate them legally or socially.

      You are making the mistake of segregating 'gun crime' from 'crime'. There is no such thing as 'gun crime' anymore than there is 'pencil crime' or 'car crime'. There is just 'crime'. To say other wise is to redirect the debate away from the act and towards the tool. Excluding certain relatively rare cases, this isn't useful.

      Japan has relatively low crime rates for reasons that have nothing to do with gun prohibition. They just don't have as many people committing crimes. However, what is undeniable is that the victims of those crimes are generally left defenseless against such crime. I fail to see how that improves the situation any.

      To answer the question of "Should we not even try to control guns?" you simply have to look at how ineffective prohibitions are in general. At best blanket gun bans, and lesser bans such as the Assault Weapons Ban (a misnomer in the first place) simply create a black market for the banned items. Regulations requiring background checks and such have produced no measurable, verifiable impact on crime. In short, there is no evidence of any kind which proves that gun control works for reducing general crime, violent or otherwise. If you can provide such, please do.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    13. Re:Why bother with knives? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Err... Actually you might want to look at Virgin, Utah and their crime rates. Yes, gun ownership is mandatory.

      Whereas I agree with your sentiment, it must be noted that the crime rate in Virgin, Utah is non-existent for far simpler reasons. Their population is only a few hundred. How much crime could they have?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    14. Re:Why bother with knives? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm no criminal either, but I've heard statistics that up to 1/2 of households have at least one gun owner. So you could start by burglarizing people's homes until you find one. Make sure they aren't around first though...

    15. Re:Why bother with knives? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      Cultures are different. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Japan has its own problems, like 30,000+ suicides a year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

    16. Re:Why bother with knives? by tftp · · Score: 1

      So you could start by burglarizing people's homes until you find one.

      I don't think the percentage of handgun owners is that great. In a city that would be very few, and the criminal would have to turn the whole house upside down to find a gun that is most likely not even there, or locked in a safe, or otherwise hidden, or the owner just carries it with him.

      Outside of a city there would be farmers with long guns - which are totally useless to a criminal. Besides, said farmers are always around, may carry firearms at all times, and they always notice strangers on their small, narrow country roads.

    17. Re:Why bother with knives? by tftp · · Score: 1

      but is the person threatening you with a gun going to let you draw it? Or are they going to just shoot you?

      If someone wants to shoot you then they will; several US presidents were shot even though they have protection. So this case is not interesting. If someone wants you dead, you will be dead.

      However casual street crime is a different story. Hooligans would think twice about attacking an armed person. An armed robber will not attack an armed person, just because it's not worth the risk. In other words, no sane person will attack an armed person if there is a choice. A criminal is not willing to gamble his life on a bet how much training his opponent got. Besides, many criminals are poorly trained in most things in life, and marksmanship is on top of that list (felons can't own guns.) In some cases the criminal's gun doesn't even work. So if it comes to the question of who will win a duel, the criminal does not always have that much of an advantage.

    18. Re:Why bother with knives? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Comparing the US with almost any other country and trying to derive useful information from it is a waste of time. This is also probably true for any sufficiently different countries. One could probably compare certain EU countries to others in the EU and gather somewhat useful data. Hell, it isn't even wise to compare various States in the US to each other for the same reason. The population of Kansas and Nevada aren't all that far apart. However, I suspect comparing them would be a waste of time for some pretty obvious reasons. Wichita is a nice place, but it isn't Las Vegas.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    19. Re:Why bother with knives? by emarkp · · Score: 1

      Criminals in the UK can get guns also. And?

    20. Re:Why bother with knives? by paganizer · · Score: 1

      I, and I think the GP, was referring to the situation in the US, not the UK.
      According to the Department of Justice and a few other similar extremist groups, legal gun ownership in the US is somewhere between 35% and 43%.
      That varies, of course. I've hunted or plinked with all but one of my 10 closest neighbors, and that one is a retired New York cop, so he's probably got a crate of Uzi's in his closet.
      Oddly, my neighborhood has Zero violent crime and no robberies for at least the last 5 years.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  21. So... by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    So I guess all of the awesome surveillance the UK is imposing upon its citizens is doing much for crime...why not take them all out and put the money into a national Internet firewall? Maybe THEN humans will have only happy thoughts.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  22. Hmm by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

    Does that mean I can't post re-enactment videos then? Even though all the firearms I use for that are licensed and legally held...

    --

    Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  23. Awesome idea! by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 5, Informative
    This will work great, until every kid in the UK finds that he can replace the "uk" in "uk.youtube.com" with "www" and see awesome, inspirational stuff like:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoiu2Coxrc or

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHQqW8zOSk

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:Awesome idea! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      only these idiots are running round thinking knives are cool, changing uk to www seams a bit above them tbfh

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    2. Re:Awesome idea! by 117 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd be surprised if many of them are even aware that uk.youtube.com exists - most people I come across seem to believe that every URL has to begin with "www.", so they don't automatically think they need to add "uk." to the start of "youtube.com"

    3. Re:Awesome idea! by damburger · · Score: 1

      Both those are available from the UK using uk.youtube.com, and both involve guns not knives. So, what the fuck?

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    4. Re:Awesome idea! by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      The second video is a great example of why it is important to be armed, and why the sudden fear of guns is irrational. Here in the US, AK47s are illegal. Now, if someone passing, or the police themselves, may have happened to have something better than a hand gun, many lives would have been saved.

      Thinking people who would commit murder are going to be stopped by laws on weapons is quite short sighted.

    5. Re:Awesome idea! by slashgrim · · Score: 1

      only these idiots are running round thinking knives are cool, changing uk to www seams a bit above them tbfh

      Sounds like underestimating criminals is a big problem in the UK.

  24. What about fictional works? by Skapare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it common to disallow fictional work, such as movies, that have guns or knives used as intimidation? YouTube is a common place for budding movie producers to show short films, too. But if this kind of thing is censored in UK, then I guess YouTube doing it is going along with the flow.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  25. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    I am going to see if I can single-handedly cause an increase in crimes involving the use of hammers and soccer balls. Just because I want to see the headline when those items are banned from youtube.

    (Just playing devil's advocate here)

  26. Eliminate all the controvertial content... by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and YouTube becomes a much less interesting place. All you'll have left is a bunch of gossip videos by teens (oh wait those could be controvertial too) and a bunch of gaming video captures (isn't that controvertial too given the copyright issue over the game content). Well we can always just show people at Sunday school (oh no we can't - what's more controvertial than religion).

    Seriously all this is is pandering. YouTube knows that most interesting content has a controversial element and that almost anything could be offensive to someone. It's just those who shout loudest that are too big a pain in the behind to bother butting heads with so they comply with these demands. (Ah the irony of giving in to terrorism, when the subject is weapons and violence).

    The sensible and sane way to deal with this is simply to remove videos that contain illegal content (and bring themt to the attention of the authorities). Wouldn't most of the offending videos with guns and knives be in some way illegal? If not they should wait for the law to be modified.

     

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Eliminate all the controvertial content... by MariusBoo · · Score: 1

      Your post raises the question: What the fuck is controvertial? Or spell check.

    2. Re:Eliminate all the controvertial content... by syousef · · Score: 1

      Your post raises the question: What the fuck is controvertial? Or spell check.

      Your post raises the question: Has slashdot become a haven for pedantic trolls? It also answers it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Eliminate all the controvertial content... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If your post still remains at only a 1 then please know that at least one person found your post quite funny but, then again, he's kinda sorta intoxicated. I'm sure it will still be funny in the morning when I roll over. At least I hope so.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  27. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, I don't like your tone.

    Get off my internet.

  28. Re:first post by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1, Funny
    That's already become everyone's new favorite election year buzzword here in the US, so why wouldn't the BBC pick up on it, too? I need to hire one or two more sub-entry level underlings next week, so I need to vet some candidates, too. It's this year's "flip-flop."

    I'm Uvajed Ekil, and I feel compelled for no good reason to point out that I approved this message, even though it consisted solely of me stating what I think.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. That's quite alright ... by Tink2000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They can just replace them with walkie-talkies.
    Right?
    RIGHT?!?

  31. A few simple steps - by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said.

    First it's guns,
    then it's knives,
    then it's drunken louts with their angry fists,
    then it's "unsavoury behaviour" in the street,
    then it's public demonstrations/rallies,
    then it's any dissent at all.

    All for the good of the people, of course.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
    1. Re:A few simple steps - by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      What's going to be interesting is how they stop these people in "real life". They defintely aren't going to talk them down. Or do they think that batons, tazers and guns are non violent when the wielder has a badge?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    2. Re:A few simple steps - by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      That was my initial reaction too. Quoth the article:

      'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said.

      Tolerated by whom? Or else what? Lets assuming Jacqui Smith is talking about the UK Government, then I'd guess the "else" is being assaulted, restrained, detained, raped, and financially crippled... er, I mean arrested and imprisoned for an arbitrary length of time.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:A few simple steps - by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Bullshit!

      Guns - banned in the UK for years
      Knives - banned on the streets (concealed/lock knives/fixed > 3 inches) for years
      Drunken Louts with theit angry fists - unlawful behaviour for years (public order acts)

      Pulic Demonstrations/rallies - Happen all the time. Literally, people do this in London every day of the year for some cause or another.

      Any dissent at all? Satire, and general piss taking of government policy is as strong as it ever was.

      This is just alarmist prose. If you think it needs to be said - then at least say why.

    4. Re:A few simple steps - by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      It's the vibe I got off said rep I was trying to enumerate.
      It smacks of a nasty mix of Political Correctness, Censorship and slowly turning up the heat until your boiling the unsuspecting frog.

      "Today, We don't like knives. Get rid of all the knife vids - don't want anyone to know about the dangerous knife."

      What's next?

      "Today, We don't like fatty food. Get rid of all the deep-fryers, so that people can't die of heart failure."

      Wait, I think a few US states have done that one already....

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  32. Four words by KDR_11k · · Score: 1, Funny

    Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  33. Knives don't kill people by bigplrbear · · Score: 1

    Chuck Norris kills people!

  34. As long as YouTube doesn't ban... by Skapare · · Score: 1
    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  35. Makes perfect sense by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    1. Knife attack epidemic in one country
    2. Videos depicting violence involving knives are viewed in this country just like in other countries
    3. There's no such knife attack epidemic in other countries

    Conclusion : banning these videos will fix the knife epidemic!

    I say, correlation != causation, right? Therefore, no correlation = causation!!

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:Makes perfect sense by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "1. Knife attack epidemic in one country"

      It's a press-manufactured scare, not an epidemic. The only two hard statistics that are available refer to:

      1) offences with sharp implements, which includes broken glasses and bottles, and encompasses all levels of offence including being arrested for having an implement in a public place. These indicate that the rate fell every year since 1995, and then rose again from 2005 onwards, but is still lower than it was in 1995.

      2) Hospital admissions for injuries from sharp implements, a figure which is often quoted by the press and politicians, who conveniently overlook the fact that the vast bulk of such admissions are due to people accidentally cutting themselves at home or at work.

      All the other so-called statistics that claim alarming rates of knife crime are sample-based, and therefore dependant on the nature of the questions that were asked, and who they were being asked of (e.g. extrapolating results obtained from inner cities to the country as a whole).

      "There's no such knife attack epidemic in other countries"

      There's no knife attack epidemic in Britain either, although they do have a notable epidemic of scare-mongering media, politicians who are all too willing to respond to the scare-mongering by enacting knee-jerk legislation, police bodies who feed the scare-mongers to gain more powers for themselves, and members of the public with such tiny IQs that the only thing which qualifies them for membership of the human race is a rough morphological similarity.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    2. Re:Makes perfect sense by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Watch "The Powers of Nightmares." BBC did it, it is a documentary. I *think* it was up at www.moviesfoundonline.com but you could torrent it probably, search for it online, or even buy it. Either way it is worth watching.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Makes perfect sense by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Watch "The Powers of Nightmares." BBC did it, it is a documentary."

      It was a three part documentary series by the excellent Adam Curtis, who was also responsible for another BBC documentary series about the power of propaganda called "The Century Of The Self". I've seen both during various UK-based programming contracts.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    4. Re:Makes perfect sense by KGIII · · Score: 1

      And I think it might be "Power of the Nightmare" rather. I'd link to it but, well, let's *not* slashdot 'em.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Makes perfect sense by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Damn, and to think that it's what you guys get from a "liberal" government... mind blowing.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    6. Re:Makes perfect sense by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      What I find mind-blowing is the fact that somebody whose knowledge of British politics could obviously be written on the head of a pin with the side of a supertanker would bother to prove it by posting such an obvious piece of tripe.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    7. Re:Makes perfect sense by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      ZOMG I said liberal instead of labour. So what. You guys still have a pretty fucked up kind of "liberals".

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    8. Re:Makes perfect sense by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "ZOMG I said liberal instead of labour."

      The important thing here is that New Labour isn't at all like the traditional Labour Party, which had a largely socialist viewpoint (although they believed in socialism via democratic choice rather than it being forced on people). By contrast, New Labour was first elected with a manifesto several points to the right of the one that got Margaret Thatcher's government elected in 1979, and has been accused by the Conservatives (centre-right party that's also different from the way many Americans use the term) of "stealing" their policies and platform on more than one occasion, so they're a centre-right party, not one that's centre-left like old Labour used to be.

      "So what. You guys still have a pretty fucked up kind of "liberals"."

      British "liberals" appear to fit what a notably respected American dictionary defines the term as:

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

      So they aren't the ones who are "fucked up"...

      NB: I don't live in the UK, so the term "you guys" is inappropriate, because I'm not one of those guys at all.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  36. You're wrong. by janrinok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm afraid that you are talking crap.

    There has been a significant increase in knife crime in the UK over the last decade. Guns however, have never been legal for common ownership in the UK (at least in recent history) and so it is entirely wrong to try to connect the recent increase in knife crime with the fact that guns have never been permitted. There is no connection between the two. You might have been correct had you said that many youths are using knives because of the difficulties they face when trying to obtain guns, but you didn't. Violent crime, particularly armed violent crime, is on the increase and those that commit it will use whatever weapon they can find. That doesn't justify making guns more readily available. Incidentaly, firearms are also being used increasingly in the UK by criminals but at a much lower level than, say, in the USA where such weapons are more readily available.

    And finally, for those outside the UK who don't keep abreast of developments but who like to make statements based upon their imperfect knowledge of other countries, you need to be aware that there are armed police in the UK. Some people actually think that there are too many of them. But the UK does not find it necessary to arm all of the policemen all of the time

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    1. Re:You're wrong. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Guns however, have never been legal for common ownership in the UK

      Do USians never get tired of being wrong? It's easier to get a shotgun licence in the UK than a motorcycle licence. In fact, I'm technically breaking the law by *not* owning a shotgun.

    2. Re:You're wrong. by janrinok · · Score: 1

      Er...

      Do USians never get tired of being wrong?

      I'm a Brit! And I am not wrong. Yes, of course it is possible to get a shotgun licence. Now go and get one for a handgun, or an automatic weapon. A bit more difficult, eh? Firearms exist in the UK, but they are far from common. Farmers, clay-shooting, vermin control etc all entitle you to apply for a shotgun licence, but nevertheless they are hardly a common item in the majority of homes in the UK. So I believe I was correct in saying 'for common ownership', but I did not say could not be obtained at all. However, try getting a licence for a shotgun while using 'personal defence' as justification and let me know what the police allow in this particular instance.

      I would venture that the use of shotguns in crime has not changed significantly in the last quarter century or so. Yes, they are used from time to time but it is still so unusual that such an event becomes a major national news item. Handguns and automatic weapons are used, but again far less so than in those countries where firearms are easier to obtain. I accept that the use of all kinds of weapons in crime is increasing.

      And if, in your experience, it is easier to obtain a shotgun licence than a motorcycle licence then I would question how your local bobbies carry out their checks on prospective licence holders. I can assure you that it is not easier in the middle of Manchester, for example.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  37. Re:Guns don't kill people... by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    My mistake. Someone already said something similar.

  38. Re:first post by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you actually read the blog post you linked, you would find that 'vet' "has been used in Britain since the early years of the 20th century". Actually we use it more widely than the screening of a candidate for public office: I consider it a straight synonym for 'screen' in the sense of investigation and filtering. The BBC usage of vetting videos is one example; another would be the vetting of people who work in a security-conscious environment.

  39. WTFPOST by sporkme · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The link in the article leads to a Slashdot 404. Wtf

    The link is this

    What a noodle-spined move on the part of Google! If only UN language were so effective on the rogue nations of the world!

    "I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world," said Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who has also stated that police should restrict photography by citizens. Indeed, why not suppress free speech in in all ways in Britain and in the rest of the world, you dunce? It would certainly decrease violence!

    The hysterical myths about computer game violence have in many cases been debunked, as recently discussed, and why are YouTube videos any different? Movies, games and books which incite dissent are next on the worldwide chopping block, folks! To see Google assume the position on this debate, which includes no specific legislation, is a grim forecast on government intervening in our daily lives with their friendly companies on Politically Correct leashes opening our bedroom doors for them.

    The cheeky bastards.

    1. Re:WTFPOST by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Why are you trying to read the article? Im surprised it only took 100 comments to be noticed.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  40. "the increase in knife crime in the UK" is a lie. by Karellen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Knife crime has not increased in the UK.

    Reporting of knife crime in the UK has increased dramatically. It just happens to be what the papers happen to be focusing on this year. Last year it was the McCann thing. A few years ago it was the great paedophile threat, which came about due to one or two high-profile cases featuring photogenic young girls. Before that it was ... thankfully I can't remember.

    Anyway, the papers finally decided they needed new "fear" stories to run and grab headlines with. Knife crime appears to be the one they're rallied around this time.

    You are still much, much more likely to die in a car accident than to be stabbed to death by a "teenage yob". Doesn't make good headlines though or instill the same level of fear though, does it?

    --
    Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
  41. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The BBC should use 'vet' because it's been in common usage in the UK for the last 100 years.

    This 'new' word is only new to the US.

  42. Re:first post by BPPG · · Score: 1

    Well, it's interesting nonetheless. Otherwise, I simply wouldn't have posted that link, Sherlock ;-)

    And if you must know, I've spent the better part of an hour, "actually" reading different articles on that blog, although now I'm just getting off-topic.

    --
    What's the value of information that you don't know?
  43. The British Press Need a sense of Responsibility by plusser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The main problem within the UK is that over the last few decades we have decided that we have rights rather than understand that responsibilities go with those rights. We have always had a "thug" (or gang) culture somewhere in our society, but we have never had the leadership to sort out these problems directly, instead we blame ethic minorities, drugs, gambling and any other area of perceived illegal activity, all of which are indirectly related to thug culture. However, we never appear to properly examine the problem because we are too quick to blame and not to understand.

    I have a very good example. I was involved in a serious car accident on Friday, quite frankly I should not be here, yet alone sitting at the computer uninjured. The accident was caused by the car I was travelling in (being driven by my future father in-law) was side-swiped by a left hand drive Portuguese lorry trying to more into the middle lane of the motorway, without realising that we were there. The car spun, hit the soft embankment, rolled twice and dug itself in upright on all four wheels.

    There is a known problem with these lorries in that they have a massive blind spot. Unfortunately, knowing our xenophobic press, if the actually bother to do their research as this problem is quite serious, they would seek to ban every foreign lorry on British roads, even though Irish lorries are Right Hand Drive and British and Irish lorries cold potentially have the same blind stop when driven in Continental Europe, as they drive on the right instead of the left.

    I myself don't blame the lorry driver in so much that he was doing his job. I do feel that the company that hired the lorry and haulier hold responsibility for attempting to cut costs.

    For want of a better expression, there is technology in a £30 mobile phone (i.e. camera and screen) that could be used as an effective blind spot mirror. In addition, many cars today have reversing sensors that could be employed to warn lorry drivers that the lane next to them is not clear.

    Now what has this got to do with knife crime? not a lot you would think? Well actually it has. Sadly you are more likely to die at the hands of a car than a knife in the UK. On that level will You Tube be banning the viewing of any car on their website? Of course not. Cars (and I suppose lorries) can be used to kill and so can knives, but then knives are even more vital to society than cars; you can't cut your food without a knife, but you can walk instead of drive.

    So, when are we answer the question properly - Why do people wish to carry knives for self defence?

  44. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You mean for offtopic karma-whoring posts that aren't related to the FP at all?

    Yes.

  45. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    I find it less scary that a company is choosing to do it themselves, rather than having the government officially banning it. YouTube is not a public service, and if they don't want this kind of content on their site because they think it causes more harm than good, then they are free to ban it. Sure as hell beats legislation.

  46. Re:first post by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 1

    i vet you are vrong!

    --
    sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
  47. 0, Troll??? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    So guns and knives are abhorrent and should not be promoted in the UK (and in fact should be censored), but guns and knives are perfectly fine for Youtube to cash in on in the US? Congrats on the great use of mod points!

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:0, Troll??? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Well yes, actually... as this discussion shows. The (largely US based) slashdot don't like regulating anything, whereas the average UK citizen can't see what the problem with this is (although we mostly know that the knife crime issue is being used as a political football right now - with a government in trouble they need to be seen to be doing something to gain some popularity).

      They're different societies with vastly different ideas of what they see as acceptable.

  48. Forks by eagl · · Score: 1

    I bet it's possible to kill someone with a fork, possibly even with a well aimed rock. I think forks and rocks should also be banned in the UK. Videos depicting forks used in a stabbing fashion, and rocks being used in a... rockish smashing sort of manner, also need to be banned.

    Save the children, ban teh forks and rocks!

    What about very small rocks? Well, even a grain of sand at orbital velocity can kill. This is why the UK has banned all participation in manned spaceflight, but it is a simple matter of doing the math to determine how large of a rock (or grain of sand) would be required to kill someone at any arbitrary sub-orbital speed. So maybe the entire violent, child-killing gamut of objects from fine grains of sand to large boulders, should be categorized by threat and velocity likely to be encountered, and certain, common-sense restrictions should be applied. Like banning rocks. And videos of rocks, especially videos of rocks that are moving. Someone showing both a fork AND a rock in a video should of course be detained and questioned, for only a terrorist would have two such lethal and dangerous restricted objects.

    Damned forks. And rocks. We'll be better off once we're rid of them for good. Let the colonists keep their dirty murdering forks out of our country, the savages.

    1. Re:Forks by Sobieski · · Score: 1

      Not saying this banning is OK, but... a fork is, according to my personal experience, not designed to kill.

      Neither is a rock, unless maybe you believe that a god made the first rock when he wanted David to kill Goliath.

      --
      Particles, stuff that matters.
  49. Re:What constitutes a "knife" video? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    I'll try an experiment. I'll film myself chopping up some vegetables and meat, and post it on YouTube. In fact, simpler than that, I'll demonstrate the correct way to dice an onion. This will involve a big sharp kitchen knife (10" blade and definitely classed as a weapon if I was stupid enough to take it into town on a Friday night). We'll see what happens.

    I suspect context is everything.

  50. WE TOLD YOU SO! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    In the 1990s, during the Clinton era, liberals talked about how we should model outselves after England because of their low gun crime. We said that if there were a sudden rash of stabbings/slashings they'd move to institute knife control. We were called kooks, gun-nuts, paranoids and worse.

    Now, just like we said 12 years ago. The UK is going batshit nuts to ban knives....
    KNIVES... Mankind's tool since the bronze age.

    Next, it'll be rock control.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:WE TOLD YOU SO! by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      You are "kooks, gun-nuts, paranoids and worse".

      Violent crime in the US is still much, much higher than it is in the UK precisely because, I am glad to say, we're still prepared to do something about it.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    2. Re:WE TOLD YOU SO! by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are "prepared" to do something about it: you whine and cry for your government to protect you. You giddily ask for "MORE LAWS, MORE LAWS", because you don't want to take any responsibility for the shit you're in.

      You limeys decry violence? Hypocrites. Your wretched nation has wrought violence on the whole world. You enslaved, robbed, killed, raped entire peoples. The stench of british "influence" is still felt all over the planet. Do you expect any sympathy because your clueless youth is happily knifing itself into oblivion? Well, you won't get it. You deserve it. Enjoy your fading into irrelevance, while the world shits on your face.

      Well said.

      --
    3. Re:WE TOLD YOU SO! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Let me take this opportunity to say what a fine job you yanks are doing in the Middle East. And you really showed them Russkies who's in charge!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:WE TOLD YOU SO! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      That is only because 1% of the population is responsible for 99% of the crime.

      When a criminal can have 15 pages on their rap sheet, including 13 incidents of illegal possession of firearm. But still be loose on the streets - something is wrong.

      Seems like the only time they lock up a criminal is when in the case of the above mentioned individual; they kill a cop.

    5. Re:WE TOLD YOU SO! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Saddam is dead and there is no USSR. I'd say you're quite right.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    6. Re:WE TOLD YOU SO! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You'd bend over and take it in your collective ass if someone convinced you that it was way to stay safe.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    7. Re:WE TOLD YOU SO! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Saddam is dead

      Indeed, the entire set of problems - from Israel and Palestine through Iran's nuclear program to Pakistani militancy all stopped miraculously with the demise of than one man.

      there is no USSR

      And the world is much safer because they've re-renamed Stalingrad and changed the flag and anthem. Of course, renaming something isn't the whole picture; thankfully no former members of the communist party or KGB are running the new set-up. Not even a little bit.

      Thanks for enlightening us.

      Wild guess - you'll be voting McCain - Palin?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:WE TOLD YOU SO! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I AM a Republican. I will be voting for McCain.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  51. Oh.. by sleeponthemic · · Score: 1

    I see you've played knifey spoony before...

    --
    I record my sleeptalking
  52. They should also report them to the police. by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see them go much further and hand over the evidence to the police.

    Failing to report a crime (unlicensed possession of a firearm) is a criminal offence: never mind threatening behaviour, intent to commit or actual assault.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:They should also report them to the police. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Thank God for our gun rights. They've been eroded in some states, but we still can own pretty much anything.

      --
  53. useful ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said.

    It is already forbidden to stab people over the internet...

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  54. Just one of many subjects youtube doesn't allow. by pat+sajak · · Score: 1

    Whether or not there is a knife & gun crime wave going on right now, do we really need videos that glorify weapons on youtube where impressionable youth can find them? It's not like the government is taking away your right to watch what you want to watch, this is about youtube deciding to expand their criteria for videos they will not show (along with porn, drugs, explicit violence and gore). Youtube is not a public service. They can be held responsible for their content. You want to talk about rights? How about youtube's right to decide what type of content they do and don't want to broadcast?

  55. Don't make me hit you with a two-by-four! by suck_burners_rice · · Score: 1

    That's ok. I think it would be more amusing if people would beat each other up with 2x4s instead.

    --
    McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
  56. Re:The Press Need a sense of SANITY by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Fixed the subject for you.

    More people in the state I live in have died playing highschool football than have died in the entire world from Avian flu since the 'epidemic' started...

    Yet the media still loves to sensationalise every case that might exist. Hopefully, youtube will ban bird flu videos next, but its more likely we'll end up having this outcry over the dangers of football.

    Forget the fact that in almost every case, the death is the result of a congenital defect rather than a specific incident that happened while playing. For instance, heart failure.

    And we're not even talking 'real football', we're talking American football. If these fat slobs had to actually run for a full hour like soccer players, I think the entire nation would fall over dead from some sort of 'failure', probably 'congenital laziness'.

    Theres always going to be something that 'kills the most people'. We're probably going to end up with it being depression that finally does us in because we've taken all the actual fun out of life due to fear that something *might* go wrong. In which case, I hope all they people who say the LHC is safe are wrong and we do get swallowed up by a Higgs boson that goes back in time and negates the Earth so that it doesn't have to worry about being created. Sounds more entertaining at least.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  57. Re:What constitutes a "knife" video? by dw604 · · Score: 1

    Let's slashdot-report all the butter knife videos. That'll keep Google busy.

  58. Re:And: by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

    To an extent they are - a movie involving violence is likely to be an 18, or at the minimum a 15 (for what they call 'mild violence'). There are no such rules regarding internet videos (because nobody's worked out a way of enforcing it short of something like the great firewall of china).

  59. Re:What constitutes a "knife" video? by kramerd · · Score: 1

    Sure, but who the hell wants to watch a video of someone eating a steak or spreading butter on something?

    Have we really reached an entertainment void so high that this is what people would be posting?

    I see a bigger problem than videos being removed in videos being posted. Maybe there are videos on youtube that are interesting or insightful or funny or some other term that gets modded on slashdot, but the vast majority of them are troll or redundant or just absolute crap.

    I'm fairly certain that videos being removed are ones that normally would just have a click through agreement saying 'I understand that a knife is in this video' on most web sites.

  60. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    quick +5 funny ... karmic gold. )

    If I am not misinformed, funny mods does not count towards karma.

    This post should be modded informative, though.

  61. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by IAmAI · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, self-regulation concerns me far less than than government regulation, simply because it only affects the one site. Although YouTube might have a monopoly on video streaming, if they decide to impose certain regulations or censor that too many members of the community disagree with, they can go to another site. When the government sets regulations they will apply to all UK websites and a result those affected with have little if any alternatives to turn to.

  62. Re:first post by damburger · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. True English has uses 'vet' in common speech all the time.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  63. It ends here... by caliburngreywolf · · Score: 1

    The problem with successfully banning guns is that knives become just as bad a problem within a few years. Of course, the problem with banning knives is that bricks become just as bad a problem within a few years. OF course, the problem with banning bricks is that boards with nails become just as bad a problem within a few years. Of course, the problem with banning boards, nails, and bricks, is that everyone is homeless.

    1. Re:It ends here... by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      Just ask the Mexicans how good the gun ban in their country is working.

      Or ask any of the knife victims. Or shooting victims.

      --Toll_Free

  64. Well that really sucks... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I am a bit of a gun nut myself, although I don't live in the UK I love bigass sniper weapons like the 50cal.
    The only exposure I get to these cool weapons is through youtube, I don't have access to them (and honestly, I don't really think I care that I don't have access)

    That's fairly extreme censorship and I doubt it's going to solve their problems to be honest.

    1. Re:Well that really sucks... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      One of my best friends inherited his father's M2, yes you read that right... You need to get out and find new friends because having access to THAT is a treat. It costs a lot to have fun with (even with reloading our own rounds). I can go to the store and get a beautiful .50 cal at the Kittery Trading Post here in Maine. I've almost bought it a few times. *sighs* It is a wonderful flintlock and each one is beautiful. Something something Kentucky something I think was the name...

      *goes to look it up on their site*

      Alright, so I wasn't even close.

      http://www.kitterytradingpost.com/product.php/pid/103/sid/664/prodid/11051

      But yeah... Why shouldn't you want access to one? *grins*

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  65. Re:The British Press Need a sense of Responsibilit by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

    "Sadly you are more likely to die at the hands of a car than a knife in the UK."

    You're a _lot_ more likely to be killed on the road than by a knife. Stabbing deaths in the UK have been a fairly constant 220-250/year since 1995, with a goodly proportion of these /about 30%) being domestic violence incidents where the victim was killed by a family member, usually indoors. Road deaths for the same periods average around 3200/year.

    --
    I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  66. And nothing of value was lost. by Kerr · · Score: 1

    I fail to see why the targets of this move, the gangs of scum that hang around the outskirts of UK cities having their recruitment videos taken down is such a bad thing.
    These videos show hooded/masked youths, bragging about their violent crimes, and showing off their hoards of stolen/black-market guns and knives.
    Taking down the recruitment videos helps to stop the gangs growing, it's part of a wider tactic police here use to disrupt the social lives of the gangs, forcing them apart.
    Of course, if you'd rather the scum of the British underclass were allowed to rob, stab shoot, and deal drugs freely, you're welcome to take them, and let them do so in your own country.
    We're sick of it here, especially in Liverpool.

    --
    Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox
  67. Completely Trapped by mattsday · · Score: 1

    I don't normally get this angry about government or the percieved loss of liberty in the UK.

    However, this does really frustrate me. Not only do we have a government that has no problems with blanket censorship of content (in a nation where freedom of the press is very important) but we have no means of avoiding it.

    I know some have indirectly blamed the press for this on the basis that they create a state of fear; but it's not their doing. It's the doing of a government that has so little to differentiate itself on against its competitors that knee-jerk responses to worries like knife-crime is all it has left.

    The next election for us will be a tight race between the incumbants, Labour, and the Conservatives. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Conservatives would do the same thing. In fact, I tried finding their response to such a gross curtail of our freedom and got nothing.

    I feel trapped. Today it's knives and 'think of the children' censorship. Tomorrow it's regulation by government to show only 'approved content'. Soon it's 'approved content' on 'approved devices' (trusted computing)... What can I do to get out of this?

    I can't vote them out, I'm sober enough to know that my vote makes no difference and even if we got the bastards out, we'd get a new set in.

    I can protest it, but these are times when you either look like a paranoid dillusionist or a criminal with something to hide. Also, where would the awareness be made? With the press being mostly behind these moves, it gives little space to be competitive.

    All I can do is use technical measures (VPN) to get around the issue at first and when it gets too scary, move to a country that isn't doing stupid stuff like this. Given English is my only language, I think that leaves Australia or Canada!

    --
    Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
    1. Re:Completely Trapped by damburger · · Score: 1

      Agreed, there seems to be nothing to check the think-of-the-children insanity that is allowing our government (and the identical copy of it laughably called an opposition) to crap on every liberty going.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  68. Mod Parent Up by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    He's a troll, but he's right. Why won't these people just go fuck themselves already. Seriously, this is nonsense.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by Kattspya · · Score: 1

      Don't you think I have tried?

  69. Re:first post by centuren · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mod parent up. True English has uses 'vet' in common speech all the time.

    Typos aside (always understandable), is the issue here that Uvajed's post thought it interesting that the primary British news source used "vet" in the primary English-language manner?

    Fascinating that it's become ubiquitous enough that it's normal use, by a source most likely to use it so, can be considered interesting. Considering BBC being a reputable news agency, I don't see any other way it really could be used. They'd certainly not use it as an abbreviation.

  70. Re:What constitutes a "knife" video? by stimpleton · · Score: 1

    "Does a video of someone eating a steak get banned...

    Like this one?

    Knife and kitty Oh the humanity!! This video should be the benchmark....knives and animal cruelty!!

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  71. No different than stuff banned in US by poptones · · Score: 1

    There is a popular dance fitness program that started in Chile. Because the program is meant to appeal to ALL ages and get them involved it often features preteen dancers. But posting one of these videos - from a Chile TELEVISION program - will get you banned from Youtube in a heartbeat for violating their TOS (inappropriate). I don't see how this is any different - Youtube is trying to keep up a "clean cut" appearance by filtering to a lowest common denominator.

  72. Re:Have you even looked? by SlashBugs · · Score: 1

    >You are the one who is calling bullshit, so you have the obligation of demonstrating bullshit.

    Really, really no.

    You said "This contraversial statement is true".
    Dynasoar asked "Do you have any evidence?"

    You made a controversial claim, it's up to you to support it. ...or should we just assume that everything we read is true until we find evidence to the contrary?

  73. Doug209 by doug209 · · Score: 1

    You can make a knife out of anything, even a plastic spoon! Going down the route of banning knives (and videos!) is a dead end. And it ends in New World Order.

  74. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.

    True.

    And if those videos commit a real crime (as in, an actual murder rather than some twit mangling a perfectly good side of beef), they at least provide evidence to use against the attacker.

    If not? Well, I fail to see the problem with some twit mangling a side of beef, as long as he owns it.

  75. Re:Have you even looked? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Actually... You're the one claiming "study after study" or some such and not backing that up whilst you were refuted with a study that has been peer reviewed and is considered authoratative on the matter. I believe the effort to overturn what is considered to be factual evidence, or at least commonly accepted knowledge having been expert reviewed and approved, is to rebuttal with greater factual evidence in support of your statements.

    In short you said that the experts said that the sky is yellow. He replied and said it is blue. He then showed you that the experts agree that is indeed blue. You responded and said "Nu uh!!! Yer a liar! The sky might have been blue 50 years ago but it has changed today! I don't have to prove what I'm saying because I believe it to be true."

    It's all well and good but, well, we expect a wee bit more here at /. sometimes.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  76. What are you talking about? by ctid · · Score: 1

    The government isn't doing this. Youtube (or google if you prefer) are doing this.

    --
    Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
  77. It's annoying by kipman725 · · Score: 1

    I am a student off to university even though I am 18 and am classed as an adult,can vote and be tried in a court as an adult I cannot buy my own damm knives (even cutlery) and have had problems buying things like screw drivers. This has greatly inconvenienced me.

  78. Re:The British Press Need a sense of Responsibilit by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    many cars today have reversing sensors that could be employed to warn lorry drivers that the lane next to them is not clear

    Sorry to nitpick, but these sensors use ultrasound, and are not going to be accurate at the speeds and ranges involved in motorway driving ; your idea about the CCTV camera is a much better one, and probably far cheaper to implement.

  79. Re:What constitutes a "knife" video? by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Context requires people. I suspect they could filter based on shape and color for *most* knives thus cutting the workload down. I suspect that they just might if this is anything more than a PR stunt. Either way - post a link to the videos you make. I'll giggle.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  80. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    -1 lame idea. Enjoy your Orwellian society.

  81. Re:"the increase in knife crime in the UK" is a li by KGIII · · Score: 1

    I don't live in the UK but I have a lot of friends there so allow me some literary license please?

    "This just in. VAT to go up 1.5% over the next 18 months! The Parliament expects the added pressures from the tax to result in lower emissions, added revenue, and they expect the decision to result in a higher approval rating with the Greenies. More on this and other top stories when BBC News returns in a minute."

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  82. Re:The Press Need a sense of SANITY by KGIII · · Score: 1

    And we're not even talking 'real football', we're talking American football. If these fat slobs had to actually run for a full hour like soccer players, I think the entire nation would fall over dead from some sort of 'failure', probably 'congenital laziness'.

    Are you xenophobic often or just not aware that "American football" players are generally in phenomenally good health and typically the most fit of the species regardless of ones believe in the BMI?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  83. Re:"the increase in knife crime in the UK" is a li by jimicus · · Score: 1

    I don't live in the UK but I have a lot of friends there so allow me some literary license please?

    "This just in. VAT to go up 1.5% over the next 18 months! The Parliament expects the added pressures from the tax to result in lower emissions, added revenue, and they expect the decision to result in a higher approval rating with the Greenies. More on this and other top stories when BBC News returns in a minute."

    You're miles out for a number of reasons:

    1. I've never heard "This just in" in anything UK-based. "Recent reports" or "We're receiving reports of...", possibly.
    2. "Returns in a minute"? It's the BBC, they don't have adverts.
    3. The government wouldn't do anything as obvious as raise VAT. They've spent the last 10 years increasing taxes in ways which aren't immediately obvious and by and large have become fairly good at it.

  84. No.. by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

    "Guns don't kill people, rappers do"

    - Goldie Lookin' Chain

  85. The timing on this is deeply weird... by nowhere.elysium · · Score: 1

    Only about an hour ago, there was a small anti-knife march going past my flat in East London. I have to admit that I reckon that licensed regulation has always been a better method for lowering misuse of weapons than an outright ban. However, that's going to be bloody hard to achieve with knives, given their prevalence as a tool in the real world. Oh well.
    It's just a wonder that they haven't gotten as far as mounting an armistice on archery equipment, such as compound and recurve bows, or crossbows. Oh, that's right: it requires skill to use those. I guess I'm not so worried about the police coming to take my bows away from me, then.

    --
    http://xkcd.com/313/
  86. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by drsquare · · Score: 1

    You're arguing that social responsibility is better than government authoritarianism? If more companies acted like Google we wouldn't need so many laws.

  87. Re:first post by Lennie · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should link to Hot For Words on YouTube ?:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzzKXZqLQt8

    I know I don't really like video as an information medium, and the images are distracting, but it's very probably correct.

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  88. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Its also my right to no longer do business with them.

    Idiots.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  89. Re:"the increase in knife crime in the UK" is a li by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Well, that's why I needed literary license. Sheesh. Gotta have it sound SOMEWHAT realistic for the FauxNews watchers here at home.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  90. Inalienable rights? by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

    As an American, I have certain rights that people before me fought and died to give me.

    No one gave us our rights, we inherently have them by being human. After all, if someone gave them to us, it is easier for someone to grant themselves the authority to take them away.

    1. Re:Inalienable rights? by sqldr · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. The "we fought for our rights" thing is getting boring. People have fought for their rights ever since fascism started. The concept of "freedom" is treated as a universal concept. Yet "free" countries ban all sorts of things. You're not free to murder or distribute child-porn (surely a contradiction to the first amendment which we begrudgingly accept?). Britain added one to that list after some wanker in Dunblane killed 16 children and 2 teachers with a gun he bought in a shop. I feel freer now that when I go outside; it's difficult for the local shitheads to buy a gun.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    2. Re:Inalienable rights? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. The "we fought for our rights" thing is getting boring. People have fought for their rights ever since fascism started. The concept of "freedom" is treated as a universal concept. Yet "free" countries ban all sorts of things. You're not free to murder or distribute child-porn (surely a contradiction to the first amendment which we begrudgingly accept?). Britain added one to that list after some wanker in Dunblane killed 16 children and 2 teachers with a gun he bought in a shop. I feel freer now that when I go outside; it's difficult for the local shitheads to buy a gun.

      As a point of order, there is no freedom to make real child porn. I say real child porn to distinguish between semi-arbitrary definitions of child (can we really say a 17 year old is a child?) and undeniable children. The reason there is no freedom to do that is the same as there is no freedom to commit murder. You do not have the freedom to initiate harm on another against their will. A child cannot give true consent.

      On the other hand, I'm not sure if the prohibitions of distribution are wise either. Not because such "products" are a good thing, but because I'm uncertain whether such efforts actually serve to protect children, or merely make society feel better because they are 'doing something'.

      I am also compelled to point out that feeling freer isn't the same thing as being freer. Not anymore than feeling safer is the same as actually being safer. The laws you refer to don't make you any safer at all. If those 'shitheads' are truly threats, those laws won't stop them at all, will they? ;)

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    3. Re:Inalienable rights? by sqldr · · Score: 1


      On the other hand, I'm not sure if the prohibitions of distribution are wise either.

      This is a point that troubled me on the concept of the inalienable right to free speech, but something occurred to me. These are pictures of individuals taken without their consent. The right to possession rule kind of moves in here.

      But a more important philosophical fact is brought in. Is ALL speech rightful? The vast majority of people don't want this stuff going around. The people who do have the right to protest the contrary. It's a dangerous issue to debate, but I don't think it's too dangerous to political expression and the foundation of democracy that the distribution of pictures of another without their consent which aren't in the public interest, in the name of nothing more than trivia, which is rather specific, is wrong. Might kill off the celeb magazine industry, but who the hell reads those comics anyway?

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    4. Re:Inalienable rights? by atriusofbricia · · Score: 1

      Is all speech rightful? This is a serious and deep question. I believe the answer is, yes. Specifically, if speech or expression which is unpopular is deemed not protected then where would we draw the line? One can argue that bans on the production, and to a point distribution of child porn is okay, from a free speech perspective, on the grounds that it isn't so much the expression that is being regulated but the abuse of children. I believe that line is crossed when one tries to pass laws against simulated child porn using either CGI or young looking, yet legal, people. At that point one is no longer regulating the abuse of children but directly regulating the expression of an unpopular view point.

      The other issue is what is defined as child porn from the perspective of age. For instance, the definition of pedophile (which of course is linked indirectly to the definition of child porn) is well documented. However, people are often accused of this when they really shouldn't be. To wit, a person of age X finding a person of age Y attractive/sexy/whatever when Y is equal to some semi-arbitrary number. This assumes that the Y in this case is a fully developed (at least physically) member of their sex. It is my opinion that if an older male can say they've never found a 16 year old female attractive they are either lying or blind. That's biology. There's nothing inherently wrong or immoral about this. However, take a naked picture of such a young woman and you're up the creek. Never mind that we as society have decided that such a person is old enough to drive, hunt, and various other activities where when one considers the full implications of, life hangs in the balance.

      I'm not prepared to argue whether it should be legal to take such pictures or engage in such related activities. I do, however, call into question the logic stated by those who would argue in favor of such bans. This also, of course, touches on related issues of "age of consent" both to sexual issues and other areas where it has been decided that one needs a certain level of maturity. Some people at 16, to continue to use my own arbitrary number, are more than mature enough to engage in sex with whomever they like in addition to the other responsibilities of an 'adult'. Others are not. I suppose in the end we have an arbitrary number, usually 18, simply because it is easier. There is nothing magical about turning 18 that makes one suddenly mature enough to handle all life has to offer and I believe anyone with any sense knows that. It is probably just believed to be too hard and too complex to come up with any kind of sliding scale or tests. After all, how do you measure maturity and if you had such a test and found that large portions of the existing 'adult' population failed, then what?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

  91. Thanks, Google by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

    Ahh, thanks Google.

    I mean, I hated actually having free will to watch what I wanted. It was HORRIBLE having to actually monitor my children on the internet as well.

    IOW, Fuck You, Google! Censorship is censorship, period. If it wasn't for Google, after all, where would I find my videos to watch?

    --Toll_Free

  92. Ignorance must really BE bliss ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    "I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world"

    She does realize that violence is a part of the real world, has always been and always will be a part of the real world, and that that is not always bad?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  93. Get real by JustNiz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    >> 'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said."

    Sure lets ruin the whole notion of free speech and an uncensored internet just because of a few kids with knives. Why is it these crazy liberal do-gooders have no notion of perspective?

    Now if you REALLY want to address violence, then punish the biggest perpitrators of violence (by far) in the world, namely the US government.

  94. Re:To my friends in the U,K. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    This has got precisely **NOTHING** to do with free speech.

    This isn't the UK government banning anythng - it's a private company changing it's terms of service.

    It's as if your dad announced a ban on your friends swearing in your house, or flashing their knives there.

    If knife afficianados, or teenage thugs for that matter, want to start their own web site for sharing pics and videos, there is nothing - certainly not UK law - stopping them from doing it. With all the cloud services available it'd be a snap to do (as long as you have more than the three half-firing neurons of the typical teenage thug).

  95. They just don't get it by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People who anthropomorphize inanimate objects are seriously delusional. The UK bans private ownership of guns. Criminals don't give a rusty f*ck. It's just another law to break. Now it's about knives. When are these people going to learn that a piece of paper with a bunch of flowery latin written on it doesn't stop crime. It's like a cop holding up his badge saying "Stop, thief!" and expecting them to actually stop. "Stop! Or I'll yell 'Stop!' again!" Oy.

  96. Re:first post by russotto · · Score: 1

    I consider it a straight synonym for 'screen' in the sense of investigation and filtering. The BBC usage of vetting videos is one example; another would be the vetting of people who work in a security-conscious environment.

    It's used that way in the US, too. Don't confuse one ignorant poster with a true difference between dialects.

  97. Re:first post by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's been in common usage in American English for at least as long as I've been alive as well.

    Maybe the meaning is slightly different, we would vet people for corporate positions, but we sometimes vet software for suitability in a process. Either way it's a try before you buy idea, rather than a definitive selection.

    Vet is a perfectly cromulent word. A word I loathe more, is "tap", which is increasingly a slang for sex, and also choosing someone to a position. One could say "McCain tapped Palin for VP position", and not be sure if we need to reread the Kama Sutra, if he was merely physically getting her attention or if she was being chosen for a job.

  98. Censored? Nope, not, nada, negatory by pabarge · · Score: 1

    I just went to uk.youtube.com and searched on knife fight and voila, lots of viewable clips. What censorship? Oops.

  99. Try ... by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

    ... watching this short clip and thinking before you leap to conclusions.

  100. Causation doesn't exist by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 1

    The "correlation isn't causation" argument has its limits. You might as well say that people should be allowed to shoot other people, because the act of pulling the trigger doesn't actually cause the other person to die, and not everyone that is hit by a bullet dies as a direct or indirect consequence of that. But there is quite a strong correlation between aiming a gun at someone and pulling the trigger and that someone not being alive shortly afterwards.

    Hell, even in physics we don't know "why" stuff happens, we just know that some stuff seems to happen consistently after some other stuff, even in cases where looking deeper reveals no mechanism linking the two things. Causation is just a (very) strong correlation.

    The above isn't related to this particular case; just to the tendency people have to use the "correlation isn't causation" argument around here.

    Regarding these videos, something made with the aim of "intimidating people" probably falls under "incitement to violence", and is therefore already forbidden in most civilised countries. From TFA, it seems Google has no problem with videos showing knife tricks, etc., so no real loss. Basically they're just saying they'll now keep an eye out for something they should already have been keeping an eye out for.

    I definitely prefer well defined rules ("you can't post this") than a situation where people who break some unknown rule are then the subject of police investigation, surveillance and possibly (unjustified) arrest (think students requesting some book tagged as a "terrorist manual" from a public library to use as part of some project, etc.).

  101. nope by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    You just have a home invasion rate double that of america, because criminals can act with impunity. The rise in knife crimes is more likely a delayed response to the gun ban, than to a kinfe ban.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  102. Re:The Press Need a sense of SANITY by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should learn what xenophobia is ... it's kind of silly to call me xenophobic when I'm an American refering to American football players. Or at lease use know what the words mean before you use them. I think that one is just a little too big for you.

    Add yourself to your foe list so your sig fits properly.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xenophobia
    an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  103. What will they do ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... when people start committing assaults with cricket bats?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  104. Media driven, motive clear by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    I live in the UK and have done for over 20 years.

      I haven't heard knife crime mentioned in everyday conversation much until massive blanket media coverage recently.

    Nobody here has mentioned being bothered about it. I have heard no mention of it in a pub or bar. Only on the TV.

    There has then been some discussion following the media prompting to discuss it.

    I guess the hysteria is wanted so stop and search is justifiable perhaps, or just a want to pacify attitudes.

    It seems like a follow on from the guns theme. Only knives now. I don't think the whipping up FUD for knives is working because people use them to chop their vegetables after work for dinner.

  105. A Fair Point by insllvn · · Score: 1

    The right, as codified in the Second Amendment, is not limited to any one specific use, and thus permits self-defense, hunting, skeet shooting, trick shooting, target practice, etc. I was speaking more to the original intent, as I interpret it. Having just fought a war of rebellion, and written the first amendment to guarantee basic human rights, they wrote the Second Amendment to safeguard our right to protect those primary freedoms.

    I am of a mind that we ought to rewrite and update the constitution myself, and would welcome a lively debate on the merits of the Second Amendment. The only argument I can personally conjuor on behalf of a universal right to bear arms is the right of rebellion. Hunting only requires certain types of weapons, and thus chipping away at the right. It allows for a neutered "conditional right." Even self-defense, in ones home or on the street, only requires a pistol. Only the right to armed rebellion explains adequately and with no room for equivocation, the need for a populous to have unfettered access to all forms of projectile weapon.

    In short, I agree with you. I merely suggest that my rational is, while not the only, the primary justification for the right to bear arms.

  106. This is predictable by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    The UK has always been 10-20 years ahead of the US in the utter pussification of society.

    I can hardly wait to see what they ban next - or what surveillance they roll out to watch their subjects.

  107. Re:The British Press Need a sense of Responsibilit by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well let me respond, being a professional lorry driver.
    Here's a fact - it's just as bad in a right hand drive in the UK. And the only time it's dangerous, is when a car drives at the same speed while along side instead of overtaking properly. Add to this the normal car drivers habit of driving right up close to the back of the trailer before suddenly swinging out to overtake. One minute your mirrors are clear and you can see about 5 or six cars at varying distances behind you. You gauge the time is right, check your mirrors again and find a car level with the back of the cab about 2 feet away from your wheels and 5 feet below your head.
    WTF did they come from ? You have to make obvious moves when you drive any size vehicle, dithering just confuses people. If you're passing me, pull out a way back so I can see you, then GET ON WITH IT. I can see you, I'm catching a slower vehicle so I'll wait until you've gone before I move out. But you just glide by doing 2mph faster than me and I'm only doing 55mph !
    So next time you pass a truck, make sure you catch the drivers eye in his mirror before you go past, which means pulling out in plenty of time. And if you don't get it over with immediately, you may expect him to pull out, coz he ain't slowing down for you. You don't realise the grief you cause when you force a truck to brake on the motorway. It has a 0-55 time of about 1 minute fully loaded, and braking hard from 55 brings you down to 30 or 40, which is a bitch and maybe 4 gears to crawl up from.
    At the end of the day, I have 3 big mirrors each side of the cab and if I can't see you in them, you aren't there. Keep your car where the mirrors can see you.
    Quentin bloody Wilson did a shock horror story on TV about this very issue, and he was shitting himself driving the truck. Not exactly objective. These people don't realise how many lives are saved every day by NOT hitting dumb drivers. That sounds very grand, but the dumb drivers involved usually don't even realise they've just avoided death due to there being a decent driver in the truck they just cut up.
    I resent being seen as an obstruction, and then deliberately held up, by the same driver. Everybody want to be in front of everybody else even though the road's packed. When the rush hour starts it's like a load of rats suddenly infest the streets, filling every available space. You can't drive like that and just expect other vehicles to deal with it. Adding technology to the wrong vehicle won't improve manners on the road. Address the real issue - driving skills.
    </rant>

  108. Banning weapons? == Karate! by gmezero · · Score: 1

    Someone needs a history book me thinks. Wasn't it the total ban of all types of weapons in feudal China/Japan that led to the development of Martial Arts?

    God what f'tards.

  109. knife crime stats by devlp0 · · Score: 1

    Occasionally but very rarely, the media do actually report some statistics. Radio 4 reported the other day that knife crime numbers are actually pretty steady and haven't changed much over recent years. They did say however that the general/average age of people committing knife crime has decreased.

    --
    >/dev/null 2>&1
  110. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by Spatial · · Score: 1

    The internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.

    A privately owned website isn't, but the Internet... Yes it is.

  111. First by Kenrod · · Score: 1

    First they came for the guns and I said nothing because oooooo guns are scary and loud. Now only the criminals have guns.

    Then they came for the knives and I said nothing because who needs a knife really - can't you just gnaw on meat instead of cut it up neatly? It was good enough for our ancestors. Now only the criminals and licensed butchers have knives...

    Who's next?

    It's ironic that the left in England used to call Margaret Thatcher a fascist...who's the fascist now?

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
  112. Re:"the increase in knife crime in the UK" is a li by Spatial · · Score: 1

    the great paedophile threat

    I remember that, check out The Brass Eye's magnificent parody of it all, 'Paedogeddon'.

    Check it out, it's hilarious.

  113. Re:What constitutes a "knife" video? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Ok, help me out with this. I'm thinking I'll need to do three videos - actually three different audio dubs of the same video. One will be narrated in my normal voice (clearly Scottish, a bit BBC newsreader-y), one in a cod Glaswegian accent (might get someone in to do this) and a third with no voiceover at all - possibly a music bed?

    Am I overcomplicating it? I do hope so...

  114. Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs by swb · · Score: 1

    the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.

    That's right, it needs Crown regulation. I hope everyone remembers why we parted ways 200 some years ago and what the difference between a CITIZEN and a SUBJECT is.

    "...all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." This MEANS something -- our rights do not spring from the approval of our government, our rights exist INDEPENDENT of the government.

  115. Kinda bad move... by kabocox · · Score: 1

    My local law enforcement agency has picked up some teens that were playing fight club and up loading the videos to youtube. They didn't search youtube, one of the teens told them it was happening and gave a link.

    There about 5 1-2 minute videos of high school kids beating the crap out of each other with a cheering section. I was very mixed on it myself. Actually where the big problem was that they were doing this in folks yards that were involved or that the losers were telling momma that they were jumped and beat up so momma called the cops to stop the not so innocent one from getting beat up.

    Now, I would think that the UK would be encouraging the posting of all those minor crimes so that they'll have a easy spot to download all of it from and use as evidence when locking the little ones away. But that's a really foreign concept to some people.

  116. Can they really ban ? by kentsin · · Score: 1

    Recall from Boom? A-Boom?

    Not even can they ban weapons, they even can not ban complicate and easyily detected weapons.

    Is ban really solve the problem?

    If that never got fully executed, does it work at all?

    Is ban smth really do the tricks even if fully carried out?

    DO WE HAVE BRAIN? Or just have excess power to exercise?

  117. Re:first post by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've heard that quite a few times, but I've not seen anything that supports it.

  118. Re:first post by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    See! If you hadn't been AC, that would probably be +5 by now...

  119. State Violence by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    "I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world"

    Unless of course it's State sponsored violence.

  120. Will discussion of guns & knives be banned nex by deputycleric · · Score: 1

    Maybe the UK will ban discussion of guns and knives next.

    Their ban on guns and other weapons hasn't worked out too well. Rather the opposite, in fact.

    Therefore, everyone in the UK will just feel better if alternative, more effective approaches can't be discussed.

    Just remember: Prohibiting the law-abiding from defending themselves isn't the least bit dangerous. Freely discussing the issue IS dangerous.

    At least to those who benefit from the current setup where victims are defenseless.

  121. dining with knife. by bronney · · Score: 1
  122. Articles of Incorporation by OneIfByLan · · Score: 1

    Have you ever wondered why corporations get special tax breaks and shielding from liability? Well, if you take a second to read some Articles of Incorporation, you'll find the answer. When the Corporation is founded, they make a very sepcific bargain, spelled out in black and white.

    If the People of this State will allow us the legal fiction that we aren't really a group of specific people, but instead one single entity, if they will grant us tax benefits and protect us in court, then we will do something that benefits the People of this State. Our corporation will enhance the general welfare.

    Nowhere in that language do you find a "duty to make money." You've bought into the Big Lie that Carl Icahn and T. Boone Pickens and all the other Raiders got laughed out of the room with when they first started spouting it in the 80s.

    Corporations absolutely have a duty to the people of the state they were founded in, not because it would be pretty to think so, but because that was the deal they signed at the beginning. The shareholders don't even enter into it.
           

  123. knife killings by TechBCEternity · · Score: 1

    the only reason knife crime is such a big issue in the UK is because of the strict gun laws. By august of this year we've surpassed the previous years knife killings but even thats pretty low at 21? for a city of 12million?. Somehow I doubt banning gun videos are going to do anything about the knife killings.

  124. OT: Tried to mod-up but had some weird results.. by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    I've been seeing fields like "op, sid, cid and pid" ... wondering really what they are belonging to; although I could fill them in and press "moderate" if I wanted to.

    I was unable to copy the bug after. The fields seem to be also hidden in the code ...

    Is this a new way of moderation where we can choose our own sid, cid, op and pid ? ;)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  125. Re:first post by dintech · · Score: 1

    In the UK, 'vet' first started out life as an idiom and through time was more or less accepted as a verb in it's own right. From the reactions in the periphery media, it would appear that the US has only just adopted this word in the mainstream.

    Because of the nature of this adoption, it very interestingly highlights the echo-chamber phenomenon that is endemic in modern political commentary.

  126. Seems to be working better than the UK by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

    Your own link shows that Australia and the UK both have much higher incidences of robbery than America, despite both having extreme gun laws.

    So your point was...?

    --
    Huh?
  127. Oh come on.... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    YouTube banned such videos just because well...um...yeah...no reason what-so-ever. Balloon videos are next on the random banning list.

    OR

    Because they've received political pressure to do so from the U.K. government?

    ***

    You analogy is like arguing a government hasn't banned books. Publishers have just ceased publishing those sorts of books because the government has expressed it's displeased with such books.

    ***

    Oh, I am not a troll, I'm an ogre. :P

  128. meaningless by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Well that was a meaningless post.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  129. BAN KILLING by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    My country has a ban on killing each other. It seems to be moderately effective.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  130. Silly bitch by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I AM a Republican. I will be voting for McCain.

    Fair enough - you can't expect others to vote for you if you wouldn't vote for yourself.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  131. I have to wonder by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    if, these days, modders even know what "troll" means. Based on what I have seen on slashdot, my guess is no.

  132. Another internet tough guy. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    You don't understand the way the world works, and that is why you lose.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  133. Ambasa! by Ambasa · · Score: 1

    I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world