Slashdot Mirror


FBI Releases File On the Anarchist Cookbook

An anonymous reader noted that the FBI has released its file on The Anarchist Cookbook, the 1971 manual of mayhem. It's a pretty long PDF that isn't actually OCRd but there's some crazy stuff in there. But my personal favorite is the scanned in images of 3.5" floppy disks.

375 comments

  1. Eh, it's tame... by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

    There was a chemistry teacher at my high school who had a copy printed off and bound on his front counter desk.

    Of course, he also like to set up those little green plastic army men on that counter during tests, pour flammable liquid over the scene, then light it and play with them, making sound of death and agony as they melted.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Eh, it's tame... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      They have to offer some job perks to encourage people who could be chemists to endure a classroom packed with children...

    2. Re:Eh, it's tame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If he was at my high school, he would have been tarred and feathered.

    3. Re:Eh, it's tame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... without pouring flammable liquid over the kiddies and setting them on fire.

    4. Re:Eh, it's tame... by shuz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nice, I remember my Sr. high school chemistry teacher not smiling a lot, except for on the one day of the year when he demonstrates the power of group 1 alkali metals and acetylene. For the acetylene he would fill a balloon with the gas, open up all the windows as well as open fire doors to the outside, then had a student wearing protective gear use a glowing splint to pop the balloon. He would be giggling the entire time, which to say was a little disconcerting at the time.

      --
      There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
    5. Re:Eh, it's tame... by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

      isn't that one of the perks?

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    6. Re:Eh, it's tame... by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Of course, he also like to set up those little green plastic army men on that counter during tests, pour flammable liquid over the scene, then light it and play with them, making sound of death and agony as they melted.

      We had a crazy old guy on the verge of retirement, he had a long history of flammable experiments. The one that really showed his humanity was with a hand-cranked centrefuge that he had dug out of the old lab equipment.

      Long story short, he managed to over spin and shatter both of his vials and sprayed chemicals and glass across half the room. He then stood up from behind the bench he had hidden behind, looked out at the mayhem he had wrought looked shocked and apologized. "I guess that was a bad idea."

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    7. Re:Eh, it's tame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine got investigated for kiddie porn and shot himself.

    8. Re:Eh, it's tame... by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      No, the perk is making the kids set themselves on fire.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    9. Re:Eh, it's tame... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      You're talking about the brighter students in the class here, right?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Eh, it's tame... by lordmetroid · · Score: 1

      My friend set his arm on fire under one the experimental lessons we had in chemistry class in 9th grade. No injuries, though I never saw him wearing that sweater again.

    11. Re:Eh, it's tame... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Oh, and if only you where talking about the teachers.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    12. Re:Eh, it's tame... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      My Jr. High chem teacher had a string of balloons for her birthday, above the desk anchored at both ends. Reasonably normal. Until the janitor walked in, and the lit taper-on-a-stick hit the first balloon. Then it came out that they were all filled with a 2:1 Hydrogen:Oxygen mixture.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    13. Re:Eh, it's tame... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 2

      >For the acetylene he would fill a balloon with the gas

      I assume it was a mix of acetylene and oxygen. Shop teacher would pop 3 balloons with a lighter, one pure oxygen, one pure acetylene, one much smaller balloon, mostly O2 with 1/3 acetylene. About the only difference in the first 2, was the pure acetylene left a bunch of soot behind. the third one, well it was much more exciting.

    14. Re:Eh, it's tame... by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      When my dad was first working, back in the 60s, there was a prank they'd do on new guys, where they'd fill a big plastic bottle with acetyline, put a spark plug in and tape it under a car wired to the ignition. When someone would turn the car on, there would be a massive explosive sound, flames would engulf the car for about 1 nano-second and then it'd all stop, being largely a low heat-high flash flame unable of sustaining itself because the flames had nowhere to go.

      Insane and reckless stunt, but this was a full 25 years prior to 9/11 and was seen as just pranksterism. Anyway, one day the state supervisor turned up at the yard to see how a new employee was doing, and the guys , thinking that the car was the new guys, taped the acetyline bottle to his car.

      Well yeah.... lot of explaining to do. The big boss had less of a sense of humor about it then the lads did.

      In this day and age he'd probably have been thrown in front of the supreme court on terrorism charges.

      Admittedly at the high-end of stupid pranks.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    15. Re:Eh, it's tame... by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      And does any body remember Ricin ?

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    16. Re:Eh, it's tame... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      My friend set his arm on fire under one the experimental lessons we had in chemistry class in 9th grade. No injuries, though I never saw him wearing that sweater again.

      Obviously he had no affinity for the subject. A real chemist, no matter where in his educational career, would have worn the sweater as a badge of honour, until he had something even more disreputable, smelly and interestingly tattered to replace it with.

      (I considered "s/he-ing" the genders ; but sadly, I've almost certainly got the gender correct.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re:Eh, it's tame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol I want that teacher

  2. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Put that in your nitrate and smoke it

  3. I do the same thing. by imamac · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's how I backed up all my floppy disks, too!

    1. Re:I do the same thing. by TWX · · Score: 3, Funny

      I kept the important ones on the fridge with a magnet, so I knew where I could find them.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:I do the same thing. by somersault · · Score: 1

      I kept the important ones on the fridge with a magnet, so I knew where I could find them.

      I kept the [________________] ones [___________________________________________]

      PS FUCK YOU ASCII ART FILTER

      PPS YOU TOO CAPS FILTER

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:I do the same thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure those filters knew that nobody would have a freaking clue what you are talking about anyway. You should have obeyed them.

    4. Re:I do the same thing. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      I'm Magnet Mayhem. Your cut rate insurance may not cover you. Are you in good hands?

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    5. Re:I do the same thing. by somersault · · Score: 1

      If you look at the PDF, a lot of stuff is classified and blocked with white squares, to the point where it makes no sense.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:I do the same thing. by jdpars · · Score: 1

      I also noticed a dozen references to hippies, bookstores that "cater to the hippies," etc. I mean really, they couldn't call them "extreme-left malcontents" or something halfway bureaucratic sounding?

  4. Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by ACK!! · · Score: 2

    Ah the book with the recipe for napalm that will according to legend blow you the fuck up. Great stuff. Its all fun and games until someone explodes into a ball of fire.

    --
    ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
    1. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by chemicaldave · · Score: 2

      Ah the book with the recipe for napalm that will according to legend blow you the fuck up. Great stuff. Its all fun and games until someone explodes into a ball of fire.

      You mean the OJ concentrate + gasoline formula (even styrofoam + gasoline)? Friends and I used that plenty of times as kids. It's actually very unimpressive, certainly no explosions.

    2. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not like the book isn't that well known. You'd think if the recipes were really dangerous (as opposed to harmless, they just don't work) more people would would be blowing their faces off. The FBI's PDF here has more functional information for Anarchists then the book does.

    3. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I'm fairly sure that it isn't supposed to explode, per se; but if it doesn't stick to kids it just ain't the real thing...

    4. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure that it isn't supposed to explode, per se; but if it doesn't stick to kids it just ain't the real thing...

      It will stick if you throw it one someone (or some creature). But the gasoline won't explode, just burn slowly. On a cold enough day, it won't even light on fire.

    5. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Most caulk and sub-floor glue works. Looks like a torch! Just don't fling it at the ground and then try to stamp it out with your shoe. At least I can say those -- stop, drop, and roll films -- worked.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    6. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by definate · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then you should have tried the saltpeter and sugar smoke bomb. We smuggled quite a lot of saltpeter out from school. We also decided to throw in some match heads, and naphthalene (why not?). Cooked it on the oven, luckily in a small test quantity. All of a sudden, BAM, the room was full of smoke, from what was about a 50cent piece worth of material.

      The smoke was initially red, making me think the match heads got too hot. Scared the shit out of us. A red/white cloud, that races at your face, and quickly fills the entire kitchen. Mum was shocked, and impressed.

      I'd highly recommend this recipe to anyone. Given the quantities are small enough (and given we weren't extremely lucky), we had it literally blow up right in our faces, and all we got was a little smoky, and the shock of our lives.

      Having a look at ones like this...
      saltpeter smoke bombs inside
      Smoke bomb (KNO3 + Sugar)

      I don't know what we did differently. Perhaps they're using a low grade KNO3, we were using lab grade stuff, and we prepared the mixtures specifically, made sure it was consistent. Also, we did a very thin, but wide mixture. Additionally, maybe the match heads (and naphthalene?) made it react quicker. Also, it reaching some temperature on the oven, might have triggered it to all ignite at once.

      Ours was more like this...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IZX80i4cpU

      But in a confined space, with a fraction of the material, and it all went off at once.

      BIG BADA BOOM! (Minus boom, just menacing hissing, and fuckloads of smoke)

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      I've had a 10lb container of KNO3 for the last five years for expressly this purpose and haven't gotten around to doing it. Maybe I will this week...

    8. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      I think it's the pipe bomb instructions that can backfire on people. There's many important little details to keep in mind. You know like, be sure to drill the hole THEN put the cap on. Ooops.

      It's also easy to get some powder in the treads and make it pop while screwing it together.

      I've seen plenty of guys with missing fingers just from setting off firecrackers, so how many idiots messed up trying to make their own pipe bombs for fun?

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    9. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by JiffyPop · · Score: 1

      Was that recipe the gasoline and styrofoam or gasoline and dish soap? I can see how not adding enough of the thickener to the gasoline could easily leave a lot of fumes hanging around. It was really fun watching the foam disappear into the puddle of gasoline. Only tried it once (probably 15 years ago...), but kept my eyebrows intact. There were plenty of miscreant how-to manuals in the late 90's. I had a lot of fun comparing all of the slightly different instructions on making nitroglycerin. I was (thankfully) never dumb enough to try synthesizing it...

    10. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need instructions on how to make a pipe bomb, you're too stupid to be doing it anyway.

    11. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Instant Darwin Award.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    12. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had a 10lb container of KNO3 for the last five years for expressly this purpose and haven't gotten around to doing it. Maybe I will this week...

      Awesome! We'll be there. -- FBI & DHS

    13. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Its all fun and games until someone explodes into a ball of fire."

      And then it's a party!

    14. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Stop Drop n Roll doesn't work in the forest. It just lights the pine needles on the ground. I know, I've got the scars (not kidding).

      On the happier side, I was declared the official Olympic Torch in 1984.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on the matchheads you used, you may have to account for phosphorus in the mixture. Might have something to do with it's volatility, just guessing, though.

    16. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the temperatures in the NG recipe are a little bit high too. (Or at least they were in one of the old versions of TBB)

    17. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by plopez · · Score: 1

      Yes a chemist friend told me some of the recipes were either flat out wrong or horrifically dangerous. IIRC it has a recipe for nitro, which is a recipe for disaster.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    18. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown sugar works better than than regular or confectioner's sugar, at least in my experience.

    19. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      I don't know what we did differently. Perhaps they're using a low grade KNO3, we were using lab grade stuff, and we prepared the mixtures specifically, made sure it was consistent. Also, we did a very thin, but wide mixture. Additionally, maybe the match heads (and naphthalene?) made it react quicker. Also, it reaching some temperature on the oven, might have triggered it to all ignite at once.
      If I had to guess I would say there difference could come from salt hydrates vs anhydrous salts. Those extra water molecules can impede the rate of reaction. Also surface area/volume ratio can affect the reaction rate.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    20. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Not meant to explode, I don't think. Now it will stick to anything and everything, and it will eat through plastics, and boy will it stain -- to the point that I once pointed at a splotch on a sidewalk and told my nephew, "That splotch was from a drip of some napalm that I had concocted when I was your age, a decade ago. It was dissolving my poor choice of a container for it. If you ever make napalm, store it in glass."

    21. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by afidel · · Score: 1

      Powder in the threads is why you use teflon tape, the powder sticks less and shows up a lot better than it does against the black or grey pipe material.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    22. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by afidel · · Score: 1

      An acquaintance in HS almost burned down his parents house after heating the gasoline on a natural gas stove. The fumes caught the main liquid on fire and as he was carrying it into the back yard he tripped and spilled it on the porch. Bigger problem was that the siding flared back up after the fire department had put it out and it almost caught the 5lbs of black powder he had in his closet. When the fire chief found out about the powder he almost physically assaulted the guy, putting all the firefighters in danger by omitting that piece of information was almost as dumb as trying to make the napalm on an open flame.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    23. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I bow to you sir... You are the coolest uncle ever!

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    24. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by russotto · · Score: 1

      IIRC it has a recipe for nitro, which is a recipe for disaster.

      Is there even a safe way to make nitroglycerine? IIRC the biggest problem for a do-it-yourselfer is temperature control. Heat sets the stuff off, and the synthesis is exothermic.

    25. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try mixing it with a small amount of dish soap instead. ;)

    26. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Wow.

      Making all those pipe bombs looked MUCH easier in the Terminator movie...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    27. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Ah the book with the recipe for napalm that will according to legend blow you the fuck up.

      Great stuff.

      Its all fun and games until someone explodes into a ball of fire.

      I beg to differ. That is precisely when the fun and games begin.

    28. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That's just stupid. There's a much simpler, cheaper, and easier way: put the powder in a plastic bag, insert the fuse, and wrap a rubber band around the mouth of the bag (sealing it around the fuse) before getting it anywhere near the pipe.

      Anybody who gets grains of powder anywhere near the threads on a pipe bomb -- tape or not -- is a blithering idiot.

    29. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by johanatan · · Score: 1

      I've seen plenty of guys with missing fingers just from setting off firecrackers

      Dude, really?!? I've seen exactly zero such instances. What kinds of circles do you run in?

    30. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by rts008 · · Score: 1

      IRC, according to our training in the US Army, you mixed it an ice-water bath. If it started to get out of hand, you were supposed to tip the mix over into the ice bath.

      'Safe' is a relative term here. Making nitro was considered a 'not too safe, only under extreme circumstances, not advised', type of info for unusual times in combat. (according to our instructors)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    31. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Napalm is meant to stick to things and burn, not necessarily explode.

    32. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by afidel · · Score: 1

      You'd still want to check the threads before attaching the cap just to make sure and checking's a lot easier when they are white =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    33. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Blue collar workers.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    34. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I will grant you that. I did not mean to imply that the tape was useless; only that anyone who got powder near the threads was making a mistake.

    35. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Dabido · · Score: 1

      You mean the OJ concentrate + gasoline formula...

      I thought that was the secret recipe for coca-cola!!!

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
    36. Re:Great Page Turner for Miscreants ! by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Eh, my nephew reminds me so much of me when I was his edge, just with cooler but easier video games (I occasionally point him at an emulator and put in one of the games I played when I was younger and talk him into playing it just to watch him rage at them =p). So, it's not like I'm suggesting he *should* make napalm, just that when he *does* do so, or something else equally crazy (like I know I did on more than one occasion, ranging from minor vandalism to theft of county property, to playing with some mild explosives/incendiaries), that he should know what he's doing, do his research, and for the love of all that is holy, be sure the dangerous/toxic/incendiary thing he concocts will actually be held by it's container!

      You can't stop that kind of thing, the best you can do is make sure they know how not to ruin their lives when they try it -- same logic as applies to teenagers having sex.

  5. A whole lot of redacted files. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for transparency.

    1. Re:A whole lot of redacted files. by evanism · · Score: 1

      Couldnt be hard to find. I had a copy as a kid off a BBS. Considering the ancient shit on my backup drive i would be surprised to find it still there!

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
  6. The actual Author?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Page 33 of 171 from the .pdf;
        "William R. Powell, student at Windham College, Putney Vermont."
    My ANARCHIST.TXT doesn't have an actual name in there for author...

    1. Re:The actual Author?? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The published "Anarchist Cookbook" and the BBS TXT files are not the same.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:The actual Author?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I thought it was Bill Ayers all along.

  7. analog scanner by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    Of course by "scanned" you mean "photocopied" (and that photocopy later scanned).

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  8. Back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, like in 7th grade or something, a guy at my school took it with him to school because we were all very cool back then. Then they had a meeting with his parents, lol.

    1. Re:Back in the day by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Funny

      Back in the day, like in 7th grade or something, a guy at my school took it with him to school because we were all very cool back then. Then they had a meeting with his parents, lol.

      Almost as cool as using "lol"?

    2. Re:Back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the day" was last Tuesday.

    3. Re:Back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But slightly less cool than calling someone out for using a well known, widely used acronym.

  9. I always enjoyed it. by MooseDontBounce · · Score: 1

    It was a great read back in the days before the internet. About 10 years ago around the time my son turned 7 or 8 I got rid of my copy. I didn't want he finding it and trying some of the recipes and killing himself, his friends, us, etc..

    1. Re:I always enjoyed it. by psergiu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You just became "them". Please stop accessing slashdot.org - all the info that now matters to you is on the Fox channel.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    2. Re:I always enjoyed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh screw you. There's a big difference between keeping his kid from napalm recipes and scare stories about how the President is a Muslim that plans on handing us over to the Middle East or something. Slashdot- against all forms of information "censorship" no matter what the context.

    3. Re:I always enjoyed it. by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      May I be the first to just say - "Wooosh!'

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    4. Re:I always enjoyed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't want he finding it

      Given your command of written English, you should be more concerned with him finding your Slashdot posts.

      Although, if he has your genes, he probably wouldn't notice either.

    5. Re:I always enjoyed it. by Creepy · · Score: 2

      Well about 1981 I got a hold of a 336 page printable copy floating around the BBS world. In 1981 I was not much older than your son, and around 1983 (pretty sure we got our printer in 1983 - we also got a non-loaner modem that year) I almost got suspended from school for bringing a couple of pages to school. It didn't help that another kid photocopied them and started selling them in the library... then fingered me as his source, the cops got called, my parents got called, etc - incidentally, I mainly brought them because of the killer smoke bomb of potassium nitrate and sugar that I wanted to show another kid, and the one that they terrified the principal didn't even work (potassium permanganate and gasoline - in the late 1970s a neutralizing agent was added to pure potassium permanganate fish tank cleaner to slow its reaction with gasoline, and pure permanganate is harder to get now).

      Scary that I even remember the ingredients... but my day with the police and the principal scared the beejesus out of me, so much so that I became much more careful with just about everything. I admit, before I was 16 or so I committed a lot of white collar crime (hacking in the bad sense, phreaking, piracy, etc) with my parents largely ignorant of it. Funny how now I'm very much against the crimes I perpetrated back then, and most of the people I associated with are too (in fact, the two I keep in contact with are an MIT trained professor and a guy with a doctorate in physics who works for Alcatel-Lucent).

    6. Re:I always enjoyed it. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you kidding? The right thing to do is to read it with your kid, and explain each and every way that following the book would get him blown up. Then you take him out and build some model rockets or smoke bombs so he has a non-destructive way to deal with the urge. This kind of material is a perfect teaching opportunity.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  10. Lame by snookiex · · Score: 1

    I wanted to learn how to make Napalm from human fat and all I find is a bunch of letters signed by Edgard Hoover :(

    --
    Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
    1. Re:Lame by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wanted to learn how to make Napalm from human fat

      Napalm is a mix of gasoline with soap. To make soap from human fat, get (by weight) 7 parts fat, 2 parts water, and 1 part sodium hydroxide. Mix thoroughly in a blender until it starts thickening. Pour in a mold and let stand for a few days. To make napalm, grind the soap and mix 2 parts gasoline with 1 part soap.

    2. Re:Lame by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      And for the sodium hydroxide, drip water through ashes (hardness of wood tends to determine hardness of the lye). Soap is pretty dadgum easy to make.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    3. Re:Lame by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Tyler Durden, is that you?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    4. Re:Lame by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Nah, just a guy concerned that we're a generation or two away from people who knew how to do this kind of stuff.

      So far I can make beer, butter, mayonnaise and soap. Not all that useful yet, but I'm getting there.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  11. It was 'must have' for every BBS back in the 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was 'must have' for every BBS back in the 90's
    Remember different versions, editions. Most of them in txt format.

  12. Are you sure it isn't OCRed at least a little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me...I am able to select a lot of the text as if it has been through OCR. Is that a feature of acrobat reader?

    1. Re:Are you sure it isn't OCRed at least a little? by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      No, you're right...it's been OCRd. Adobe Reader doesn't have the ability to OCR, it can only read a file that's been run through and saved. The full version of Adobe Acrobat can OCR but it's not an automatic "feature" as you imply; you have to tell it to do so.

      --
      Loading...
    2. Re:Are you sure it isn't OCRed at least a little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is that a feature of acrobat reader?

      Nope, but the malware which uses it as an infection vector sometimes has that as a side effect.... ;-)

  13. Well meaning.. but evil by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disturbing to look at letter after letter to the FBI. All these well meaning people thinking that they're doing the right thing by reporting this work to the FBI, suggesting that the FBI stop it's publication. These people are a greater threat to freedom than anyone who has bought this book.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Well meaning.. but evil by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I actually had the same thought.

      Honestly it was a bit reassuring that they just seemed to be sending reply letter after reply letter along the lines of "the FBI doesn't control what books get published, here's some stuff to read"

      Myself I don't see the big deal with the book.

      You'd be a bit insane to try the "recipies" in it, for anything real what you want is a big fat chemistry book with the most boring title you can find.

    2. Re:Well meaning.. but evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. And I was reading through some of the letters and noticed a few things.

      1)Take this quote:

      I noted in the New York Times the U.S. had something like 3500 bombings.

      3500 bombings when...in all of American history? Perhaps that figure may be true, but also pointless (we've also had a lot of people killed by British soldiers, but somehow I don't really think that's relevant today). But if this is meant to be per year or even per decade, I don't believe that figure is even remotely accurate.

      2) Several of the writers expressed concerns along the lines of, if this book is allowed to be sold, prepare for all hell to break loose. Well, it's been 30 years now, and I don't think much hell has really broken loose due to this book.

    3. Re:Well meaning.. but evil by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Disturbing to look at letter after letter to the FBI. All these well meaning people thinking that they're doing the right thing by reporting this work to the FBI, suggesting that the FBI stop it's publication. These people are a greater threat to freedom than anyone who has bought this book.

      However, the FBI's response of "we don't stop publication of books" was pretty refreshing; especially given the period they were written.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Well meaning.. but evil by jd · · Score: 1

      I dunno about evil. They may well have disliked the book intensely, but they did defer to the "proper authorities" rather than take the matter into their own hands. I'd regard as evil those who put themselves above society and impose their own personal "law". Since nobody will ever know everything, everyone is going to be misguided and/or deluded on something. The entire point of a society is that you absolutely don't want these people going Wild West but to defer to those with a better understanding. In this case, the delusions were only mildly toxic because society's safeguards worked. Which, frankly, is a good thing.

      Those who adhere to the belief that they depend on no-one, rely on nothing, and live their own life with absolute independence - they're the ones I'm scared of. They're not going to make use of society's safeguards because "they don't have to". They'll be just as misguided, just as deluded, as the rest of us, only they're going to bypass all the social safety-nets and impose those delusions on others.

      However, just as evil are the social safety-nets that, instead of operating with knowledgable people working to their strengths, operate with people just as deluded as the extreme fringes. The FBI's history is, sadly, full of such examples. As, sadly, are Arizona and Texas at the moment. When the lunatics run the asylum, you have problems.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Well meaning.. but evil by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Though it probably does "trickle down" into many areas (as you do seem to point out) ... morality based on intentions, and on top of that on what one merely convinces oneself is good, is a shaky concept in general (just one post about it)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  14. *THE* R L Shackelford? by sprag · · Score: 1

    Or should I say...

    DALE GRIBBLE?

    No, I shouldn't.

    1. Re:*THE* R L Shackelford? by Dachannien · · Score: 2

      Boy, I tell you what, man, you got that there dang ol' FBI hangin' around yer house, them black helicopters goin' chopchopchopchopchop all over the place, man.

    2. Re:*THE* R L Shackelford? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right, Boomhauer. That's why I sell propane and propane accessories, I'll tell you what.

    3. Re:*THE* R L Shackelford? by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 1

      Every time I fill out one of those "let us track how often you shop here" shopping saver cards, I always use "Rusty Shackelford" for my name, as a tribute to Dale.

      I also use "1060 West Addison Street, Chicago, IL 60613" as my address, as a tribute to the Blue Brothers

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
  15. Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When my father found me reading a copy he took it and destroyed it, providing me w/ a copy of the TM 31-210 Improvised Munition Handbook instead:

    http://www.libertylib.com/improvised-munitions-handbook/improvised-munitions-handbook.shtml

    Which if nothing else should be mandatory reading for people who mistakenly believe gun control can be made to work --- I used to make black powder by collecting nitrates from underneath piles of cow manure in local fields, collecting charcoal when emptying the ashes from the fireplace and sulfur by purchasing sulfur candles from the local store (unfortunately there weren't any naturally occurring sulfur deposits w/in bicycling distance).

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correect!
      The book was only made dangerous by what it omitted, incomplete information in that book probably lost some people a few fingers

    2. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by jovius · · Score: 1

      Quite typical is that people screw pipe bomb caps in without using any lubricant.

      Anarchist Cookbook kind of literature could be used as a way to find out the crazies and have them blow themselves up.

    3. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      gun control is not meant to stop criminal masterminds and intelligent determined boy scouts. its meant to stop casual hotheads and insane people. if you stop people from getting guns easily someone like yourself and criminal geniuses will still have guns. nobody thinks making guns harder to get will stop someone like you

      so who won't get guns? the kind of guy who shoots up a disco because a chick looked at him funny or the guy who shot the congresswoman in arizona. these people aren't fine thinking specimens: they get guns simply because they are easy to get. so make guns less easy to get, and insane people and casual hotheads won't get guns. that's it

      you have to understand, they aren't trying that hard, at much of anything in life, and it is these sort of people that cause all of the tragedy with guns

      i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting site that starts out with the sentences "A sharp mind is your best weapon. Liberty References is here to help you keep that weapon sharp." just to go on a list a host of resources for making weapons and related stuff. So, if that's liberty, I don't want to know what the opposite of this so-called liberty is. It's one thing for a small boy to play around with gun powder (I did that, too, and more dangerous/exciting stuff), but for grown ups to promote building bombs or even chemical warfare truely shows that there are a lot of sick people around in this world.

    5. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Which if nothing else should be mandatory reading for people who mistakenly believe gun control can be made to work --- I used to make black powder by collecting nitrates from underneath piles of cow manure in local fields, collecting charcoal when emptying the ashes from the fireplace and sulfur by purchasing sulfur candles from the local store (unfortunately there weren't any naturally occurring sulfur deposits w/in bicycling distance).

      I don't think anyone -- out of those who have thought about it, anyway -- think gun control can eliminate guns. The objective is to reduce the availability of guns to the vast majority of people who lack either the knowledge or the motivation to fabricate the components from scratch. In Japan, where private gun ownership is effectively illegal, the few guns in private hands are imported from relatively lawless regions like SE Asia and North America, not by Yakuza lackeys formulating black powder from cow manure.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    6. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if the Arizona shooter wouldn't have been able to purchase a gun legally, he would have stopped right there and not obtained one illegally?

      Makes complete sense, since not being able to legally obtain a gun obviously stopped the Columbine shooters, right?

    7. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot heads are and they will always be. You may stop the initial shooting, but then you've just set yourself up the bomb.

    8. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by bhlowe · · Score: 2

      Dangerous indeed. The smoke bomb recipe instructs you to heat the concoction with low heat to melt it into a sticky caramel. Skip that step and its a great recipe-- do that step and watch your parent's house fill with smoke and nearly burn down.

    9. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by WillAdams · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I should've poked around a bit for a better link:

      http://cryptome.org/0001/tm-31-210.htm

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    10. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

      Cool dad!
      Leave mom in the kitchen while the guys blow up the garage.
      Thats i what i call male bonding.

    11. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Ben4jammin · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think there are a couple of issues here. First of all, how are you going to define a "casual hothead" before the fact? Sure it easy to see after the fact, but how do you define it beforehand in a way that isn't also going to snare a lot of people that it shouldn't?

      With someone who is insane, once they are diagnosed you have a paper trail. But what about before that? Exactly when are they insane? How can you tell before they act without also limiting the rights of everyone?

      The NICS guidelines (http://crime.about.com/od/guns/a/handgun_check.htm) can help, but what about people that up to a point have been good citizens, but for whatever reason, go off?

      And if you look at what has been going on in CA (http://www.redding.com/news/2009/oct/12/gov-signs-ammunition-sales-bill/) check this part out:

      De Leon spokesman Dan Reeves has said the local laws have helped police track down 200 criminals who bought handgun ammunition. Some were drug dealers and many had large caches of illegal guns or explosives

      So even with a BUNCH of laws, both state and federal, covering both guns AND ammo bad guys still get guns/ammo. Now true, they are referring to convicted felons, which is not what you were talking about. But none of those people were convicted felons the first time they committed a felony. Are you sure it is so easy to predict? At some point, if you aren't careful, the gun laws will just put law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage without actually helping to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Where that point of diminished returns is, I don't know. But my point is that I think you are oversimplifying things a bit.

    12. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it more sad that people think crime will be solved by removing the tools of that crime. After guns are removed and people start using knives they will be the first people to limit the size of knives people can buy. After that?

      Crimes of passion may be prevented by minor gun control... but I'd venture to say that the recent publicized acts were all premeditated and legality of purchase would have had little (if no) affect on the outcome. This wasn't some guy that decided one morning to go out and "get him a human head."

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    13. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Interesting

      japan and germany have tight gun control. yet japan and germany still have tragedies with guns

      but guess what? A HECK OF A LOT LESS TRAGEDIES than the usa

      that's the "makes complete sense" part you are missing. that's the whole point: less senseless deaths

      but i can hear the gun lovers now: OMG YOU HATE FREEDOM YOU ARE FASCIST WHARRRRGARBBBBL

      gee, maybe i just think the regular litany of pointless carnage in the usa is wrong? so guns should have sane controls on them? could that be my motivation?

      pfffffft

      it's like arguing with creationists about evolution when you talk about sober limitations on guns in the usa. gun onwership is not a topic you can have a sane conversation with some americans, its like a quasireligious principle to some people. pathetic

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    14. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like gun control is crime control. For the nutjob who wants to kill people, not having a gun isn't a problem.

      Example:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25026870/

    15. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is easier to get an illegal gun. Especially if you live in a poor neighborhood. The gun control thinking is flawed. The casual hotheads will get the guns either way. The person at a disco would have got it from the local thug anyways. The guy who shot up the congresswoman did some research before hand. You take away guns and I promise you that deviant mind will come up with a different way to cause destruction. My bet is on roadside bombs or something worse.

    16. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      all your base are belong to hotheads?

      in all seriousness, i have zero doubt that if you make guns hard to get, that knives, bombs, ice cream trucks mowing down kids in the park, etc.: mayhem will still continue. some people, when they commit to killing, they will kill. i don't in any way doubt that

      my point is to simply stop the CASUAL killer. you know, the guy who just isn't thinking that much about it. he's got the gun in his waistband, the chick looked at him funny, obvious conclusion: shoot up the night club. such a person is not the kind of person who painstakingly make his own gun powder and watch police patrol patterns to set the bomb at the proper time. such a person, if a gun is too hard to get, they simply don't have a gun. they just aren't trying that hard

      CASUAL killers. that's my target. get it?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    18. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      you do realize that countries with more stringent gun control like japan, germany, etc., still have gun crime, but a heck of a lot less gun crime than the pointless carnage and mayhem that defines the usa. kid of counteracts your central premise and supports mine, no?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    19. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by the_raptor · · Score: 2

      Nuts can just get a knife* or a brick and still kill lots of people. In most mass shootings the availability of a gun doesn't increase the mortality rate because the killer is either incompetent with the weapon or not thinking clearly enough to kill efficiently. eg the Arizona shooter who didn't even kill his primary target.

      The guy pissed off at his ex-girlfriend can still kill her with a knife. But if the woman had a gun she would have a far higher chance of winning the fight. And no the police won't protect someone in that situation. Here in Australia where you aren't allowed to have weapons for self-defence women in that situation have to hide in shelters because the police will do zero to actively protect them.

      Epidemic violence is due to social conditions and a lack of social welfare, not the availability of weapons. Magic all the firearms out of America and the gang-bangers would just resort to stabbing each other.

      * We semi-regularly get incidents of lone killers successfully murdering or severely injuring most of a family in a home invasion with no firearms involved.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    20. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Sla$hPot · · Score: 0

      Most of it didn't actually work. At least not for making fire crackers.
      Vaseline isn't more dangerous than regular butter or parrafin.

      >The book was only made dangerous by what it omitted, incomplete information
      >in that book probably lost some people a few fingers

      Burned fingers perhaps.
      I think the greatest danger is that young teenager burns some nasty holes in the carpet or sets the curtains on fire.

    21. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

      countries with more stringent gun control like japan, germany, etc., still have gun crime, but a heck of a lot less gun crime than the pointless carnage and mayhem that defines the usa

      furthermore, anyone can get a knife. there was a guy in japan who went into a school and stabbed a bunch of kids

      but by and large, the usa has tons more senseless homicides per capita, period, than japan. simply because more firepower = more deaths

      yes, you can kill someone with a knife. but it take work. set one guy with a knife on a crowd, versus one guy with a gun spraying that crowd with bullets, and you tell me who is going to do more killing. send a guy into a field with oxen, versus a guy into a field with a john deere tractor. the technology you use and the job you set out to do obviously makes a difference

      the tool DOES matter: it amplifies the intent to kill, it makes it easier than with knives. so cut down on guns, and there will be less senseless death

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    22. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      No, gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of the average person (while of course stimulating the illegal market). Look at Switzerland which is outraged not about gun crime, but that people have the means of killing themselves so easily when they deserve the pain of cutting or suffocating themselves. Nothing can protect you from the hothead or crazy person since they will literally tear you apart with their hands. Except a gun.

    23. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, Japan and Germany really did used to be Fascist countries. Coincedence?

    24. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      so why does japan and germany, with stringent gun control, have so much less senseless deaths than the usa? germany and japan have knife wielding maniacs, and also gun shooting maniacs. but a heck of a lot LESS. that's the point

      the simple availability of a tool in general cuts down on the whether that tool is used or not. you talk about the deviant mind? i'm not talking about the deviant mind: i'm talking about the dimwitted thug, who, if he can't get a gun, just doesn't have a gun. i have no illusions that some criminal masterminds and hard working boy scouts will still get guns, no matter what the laws. but there is a class of person, who does most of the senseless killing in the usa, that is not thinking hard or trying hard about anything, and has a gun, only because guns are easy to get. make them hard to get, and such a low iq lazy go-with-the-flow loser simply won't have a gun

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    25. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun Control also doesn't stop common thugs in countries that have banned firearms from obtaining them. Strangely, it's just as easy to package guns with the cocaine as it is to just send the cocaine.

      Also, almost all "Gun Control" regulations have devolved over the years into petty attempts to ban guns outright. For instance, there are tons of rules/procedures to follow to aquire a firearm. It requires a federal background check if you buy it from a dealer, and more info than, quite frankly, i'd be comfortable giving under other circumstances (frankly, i don't care if the feds want the info, but the gunshop sees those details as well).

      Here's an example of gun regulations. This, in california, is an "Assault Weapon" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Sturmgewehr_44.jpg

      This is not: http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/Gun%20cam/guncamfinal1.jpg

      Factor in that the 2ndA is a fundamental, individual right (See Heller, McDonald, and further cases) for the purposes of self defense and the arming of the populace against the government (the basic purpose of the 2ndA, which makes sense given that all arms/cannon/ships in the revolution were privately owned) and there should be a rehaul of the mental health system, not the gun industry.

      In old words: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. See the UK for a case study ;-)

    26. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Gun control is a slippery slope. Once you let them take your guns away, next they will want to ban fully automatic reloading crossbows!

    27. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns"

      OK I live here in California, I am a veteran as well. Can I just go get a concealed weapons permit to carry a weapon? No. Even though I have NO criminal record and have served this country I cannot get a concealed weapons permit unless I have a "reason" to carry a weapon, and they do not consider "self protection" a valid reasons unless you show police reports that show why you should be allowed to carry a weapon. Unlless you are a jeweler or carry large amounts of cash for your job you cannot get a concealed weapons permit where I live.

      Every thug here has a gun or can get one easily does THAT sound like gun control?

      I'm sorry but a person will think twice about robbing a liquor store or some random person on the street if they KNOW that 10-15% of the population is legally armed.

      Not a single law abiding citizen here in California have I seen carry a weapon, where I use to live about 50% the people I knew legally carried a weapon, None of them got mugged, carjacked, or robbed in their own home ALL of which I have seen happen here to my friends in California.

    28. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, so you can make crappy low-grade black-powder that proves gun control "doesn't work", that's why we have as many shootings in the UK as the US, it's all those home-made blunderbusses.

    29. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no, not a coincidence. both germany and japan are extremely allergic to war, armies, and weapons in general, due to their horrible humbling experiences as fascist countries. you wonder if it will take a similar experience for the usa to become similarly allergic. because there's one simple truth about fascism and guns: heavily armed paranoid people is not a protection from fascism, heavily armed paranoid people are the soil in which fascist movements grow

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    30. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      The idea that a well armed populace is safer is clearly a boy scout fantasy. No one shot back when Reagan was shot, the gunman was tackled, even with Secret Service all around. In gun happy Tucson, no one shot back at Jared Loughner. The gunman was tackled, again. This idea that some heroic virtuous gun owner will intervene in these events is Hollywood, not reality.

      The point of stricter gun control is to simply keep them out of the hands of the insane and the casual hotheaded. Gun proponents counter that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

      No one doubts that criminal masterminds will still get guns, even if they are illegal. But if guns are hard to get, casual hotheads and the insane will indeed not get guns. Because of their nature: they aren't trying too hard, at much of anything. They get a gun simply because they are easy to get, and again, since they aren't trying to hard to rationalize anything, they'll use their gun instead of their mouth or their fists. It is because of these kinds of people that gun control is necessary. Hundreds of pointless deaths every year in the USA at the hands of casual hotheads and the insane is the reason why.

      It is casual hotheads who shoot up discos because some chick looked at them funny, and the insane who shoot up malls, schools, and politicians. Meanwhile, by definition of what a criminal mastermind is, their gun use will be careful, precise, and well thought out. Such that even if you are well-armed, you will find yourself dead before you even have a chance. The protection of a gun is simply an illusion.

      Anyone smart and armed and bad intentioned is going to use their gun in such a way that you have no time to react: they anticipate your options and make sure you don't get the drop on them. Meanwhile, casual hotheads and the insane are random in their behavior. You don't have enough time to anticipate their behavior because there is no rhyme or reason about how they behave: you're already shot before you have a chance to react. The protection of a gun is simply an illusion.

      Why won't a part of this country's population listen to reasonable limitations on a device in civil society whose only purpose is to kill? It's like some sort of religious conviction: some people can't think rationally about the lack of a proper role of guns in civil society.

      Look: when our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. If the Founding Fathers were to witness how the meaning of the Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA (who work for gun manufacturers: increase profits, be damned the consequences), they would be angry, not supportive.

      It is time for the USA to join every other sober industrialized nation in the world and severely restrict guns. Reason will prevail, it always does. Even though we will pay a horrible price in senseless deaths until the stink finally gets too high. Eventually, too high even for those with an irrational religious conviction about the virtuousness of guns. The rest of us are waiting for you to finally come to their senses. We're not too patient though, we're sick of the carnage. Hurry up and figure it out.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    31. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you lock your front door? Why? Do you mistakenly believe locked doors can be made to work? I can break a window and get in that way.

      Your logic is flawed, gun control and locks aren't meant as absolutes, its meant as a deterrent .

    32. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      UK?! You do realize that a lot less senseless death in the UK than in the USA, right?

      Look: when our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. If the Founding Fathers were to witness how the meaning of the Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA (who work for gun manufacturers: increase profits, be damned the consequences), they would be angry, not supportive.

      It is time for the USA to join every other sober industrialized nation in the world and severely restrict guns. Reason will prevail, it always does. Even though we will pay a horrible price in senseless deaths until the stink finally gets too high. Eventually, too high even for those with an irrational religious conviction about the virtuousness of guns. The rest of us are waiting for you to finally come to their senses. We're not too patient though, we're sick of the carnage. Hurry up and figure it out.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    33. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by PPH · · Score: 1

      But the people who are highly motivated to build or acquire guns are exactly those that you don't want possessing them. Those are the people for whom possession of a gun (or other weapon) has a high profit motive or benefit to cost ratio. Criminals, in other words.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    34. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      The problem is a country that sees no problem with a mentally deranged individual just going into a store and buying a glock with an extended magazine. Do you have a problem with that reality? I do.

      So who is impinging on whose rights and freedoms? Because I think my right to live is pretty obviously limited by the bullets flying around my cities due to madmen and hotheads, because you and others view guns as religious totem objects of absolute virtue. Your irrational insistence on no limits whatsoever on firearm purchases in this country leads to hundreds of deaths every year, that simply do not have to happen, if we simply limit guns.

      Especially since there is no earthly reason to own one in civil society. It certainly doesn't protect you, that's an illusion. I will not suffer more deaths because you and others who can't think the problem through can't see the real truth of unlimited guns: death, death, death. On our streets. For no reason whatsoever except the blind stubbornness and ignorance of some caught up in almost religious passion about guns. Look to the countless deaths because of easy guns in your country. What does it mean to you?

      (And I of course already know your answer: "It means I should be more heavily armed to protect myself." Ah, the bliss of delusion.)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    35. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murders per 100,000 people:

      USA 4.2
      UK 1.4

      Yeah, factor of 3 we're beating you by there, that UK case study is a real bitch when you look at the actual fucking numbers huh?

      But please, don't let things like statistics and evidence get in the way of your half-hearted BS.

    36. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      (Posting anonymously because I don't think my employer would appreciate this post)

      I manage a gun store, and while I see two or three people a month denied guns through the formal background check process, I deny firearms to about twenty times as many people because in my "professional opinion" based on 10-60 seconds of observation they are too stupid to own a gun:
      1. The kid who comes in with his buddy, gawking at the guns, laughing and saying things like, "whoa, that shit is CLEAN, yo." That phrase automatically disqualifies at least one person a week.
      2. The guy who asks to see a semi-automatic, assault-style .22 and points it at other customers in the store, holding it sideways as if he's a gangsta' with a handgun in a movie
      3. The scent of marijuana that tells me I'm not about to sell a gun to whoever it is that's approaching the counter
      4. The guy who tells me he just wants something cheap because he's just going to shoot a bunch of people, then threatens me when I refuse to sell him anything (the police were at his house less than an hour later, he tried to run out the back door and was arrested for making a "terrorist threat" ... their term, not mine).
      5. The woman who tells me she's buying the gun for her husband/boyfriend because he can't buy it for himself (illegal immigrant/felon/domestic abuse record/etc), then tries to buy a gun at the next closest gun store 5 miles away 30 minutes later, and the next closest store 20 miles away a couple hours later, not realizing we all notify each other when straw purchases are attempted. And after pretending to allow the sale so he could record her info, the third guy points out that he knows when and where she's been for the last couple hours and that if they try another store she's going to jail.
      6. The list goes on...

      So, yes, gun control stops a lot of casually stupid people who clearly have no business owning a gun from obtaining one. It does not, and never will, stop an intelligent, determined person from obtaining one. The world is not a perfect place, but it would be a lot worse if we made it easy for casually stupid people to obtain guns.

    37. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Actually no it doesn't.

      You might want to look at what the nuts in Japan do use in their crimes before declaring it a success.

      You might also look at the demographics of our 'pointless carnage and mayhem'. If you exclude the 'inner cities' (you know what that's code for) we _are_ Canada.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by grassy_knoll · · Score: 2

      Why do you make a distinction between "crime" and "gun crime"? Someone gets killed, I don't think it's OK so long as they weren't killed with a gun.

      In spree killings, having a gun doesn't mean there will be a higher body count. The link I cited previously had 7 dead, 10 injured from knife wounds. In one memorable shooting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gale#Shootings_at_the_Alrosa_Villa_club , there were 4 dead, 2 injured.

      Doesn't seem like controlling the tools controls the behavior, but instead the behavior adapts to different tools.

    39. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also recall at least Germany having a problem with a government that systematically rounded up what they considered undesirables and putting them to death...

      The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, self defense, or casual target shooting - it is about the ability for the citizenship to revolt against the government.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    40. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by mr1911 · · Score: 2

      so who won't get guns? the kind of guy who shoots up a disco because a chick looked at him funny or the guy who shot the congresswoman in arizona. these people aren't fine thinking specimens: they get guns simply because they are easy to get. so make guns less easy to get, and insane people and casual hotheads won't get guns. that's it

      The problems with your idea on gun control:
      1. How do you tell who is a "casual hothead" or a potential "casual hothead"?
      2. Who decides the "casual hotheads" from the "OK" people?
      3. How do you prevent the "hotheads" from getting a gun?
      4. What if the "casual hothead" has access to a knife, car, container of gasoline and match, barrel of ammonia fertilizer and jug of diesel fuel, claw hammer, baseball bat, large rock, or any of the hundreds or thousands of items that have been used as weapons in the past, many with far more devistating effects than any handgun could ever conceivably cause?

      Sorry to scratch the lens of your rose colored glasses, but degrading the rights of all due fear of actions for of the few has never successfully accomplished anything but degrading the rights of all. The few you are afraid of will not abide by your rules, and although you may slightly alter their course you are very unlikely to stop them.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    41. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      thank you for your one anecdote. its amazing how you extrapolate so much truth form your one scenario

      of course, in reality, with many data points, we find the simple truth that countries with more gun control have much less senseless death, period

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    42. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      "degrading the rights of all due fear of actions for of the few has never successfully accomplished anything but degrading the rights of all."

      There are natural limitations on all rights and freedoms.

      For example: freedom of speech.

      I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I cannot stand outside your window at 3 AM with a megaphone preaching gun control. I cannot slander or libel you. There are, in other words, common sense limits on my right to free speech.

      Just like there should be common sense limits on your right to a firearm.

      The problem is a country that sees no problem with a mentally deranged individual just going into a store and buying a glock with an extended magazine. Do you have a problem with that reality? I do.

      So who is impinging on whose rights and freedoms? Because I think my right to live is pretty obviously limited by the bullets flying around my cities due to madmen and hotheads, because you and others view guns as religious totem objects of absolute virtue.

      Your irrational insistence on no limits whatsoever on firearm purchases in this country leads to hundreds of deaths every year, that simply do not have to happen, if we simply limit guns.

      Especially since there is no earthly reason to own one in civil society. It certainly doesn't protect you, that's an illusion. I will not suffer more deaths because you and others who can't think the problem through can't see the real truth of unlimited guns: death, death, death. On our streets. For no reason whatsoever except the blind stubbornness and ignorance of some caught up in almost religious passion about guns. Look to the countless deaths because of easy guns in your country. What does it mean to you?

      (And I of course already know your answer: "It means I should be more heavily armed to protect myself." Ah, the bliss of delusion.)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    43. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      Pease mod parent up. A gun store manager preaching common sense: gun ownership needs common sense limitations

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    44. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      The objective is to reduce the availability of guns to the vast majority of people who lack either the knowledge or the motivation to fabricate the components from scratch.

      If we can't keep heroin away from junkies, how do you think we can keep firearms away from crooks? It's no harder to make automatic firearms than to make meth -- WWII resistance groups were able to make submachine guns in underground workshops. If we somehow made all firearms disappear from the U.S. tomorrow and sealed the borders, the black market would be supplying firearms to crooks in a matter of months if not weeks.

      The reason Japan has few guns is that, due to cultural and economic factors, there's little demand for them, not because they're hard to get if someone is determined.

      Sure, people under parole, probation, or other types of supervised release, and perhaps those out on bail or under protective orders (though here we have due process concerns), ought not to be permitted guns. Other than that, the idea that we can keep firearms away from people who are not under close supervision, is a sad joke.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    45. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite easy to manufacture a gun. People who have a need for guns find ways to manufacture them in VERY short order, regardless of how restrictive the gun laws are or how watchful the police is. The equipment you usually find in a bike-repair shop is quite enough for a shotgun or a small-caliber zip-gun. In a good auto parts shop you can probably build just about any kind of gun.

    46. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they have much less gun crime, but far more knife crime. Take a look at the "knife assault" numbers in those countries, they are far higher per capita then the US. Its goten so bad in the UK that officers are issued "knife vests", basically chain-male with a fabric covering for comfort. I know there are various knife control laws in Japan, and I think they've been proposed in the UK (I believe age restrictions for kitchen utensil purchase are already in effect)

    47. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      We'll have to disagree. There's no practical way to eliminate guns from the US and, even if there were, it would not stop deranged individuals.

      Here's another spree killer without a gun:
      http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/12/new-york-city-cops-arrest-maksim-gelman-in-deadly-rampage/

    48. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      well yeah, duh. but a lot less death overall. that's the point. surely you understand it is easier for a hothead to kill more people by spraying a crowd with bullets than it is for the same hothead to run through the crowd stabbing people, right?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    49. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Duradin · · Score: 1

      "...they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. "

      Right, since that was just assumed to be normal for any gentleman to be discretely armed against stray curs and ruffians and their unsavory ilk.

    50. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      but guess what? A HECK OF A LOT LESS TRAGEDIES than the usa

      Japan, Germany, and many other developed nations have lower murder rates than the U.S. even if you disregard all of the shootings in the U.S. and look at just our non-firearms homicide rate versus other nation's total rate. We stab, bludgeon, and strangle each other at three times the rate that the people of Japan do.

      Our problem isn't so much legal access to guns as it is social, economic, and cultural factors.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    51. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by juasko · · Score: 1

      It requres quite a lot more to cut someonecs throwht than tho shoot the same one. Banning guns won't stop those capable of using a knife, or even an pencil as their murder weapon. But it will stop most of those who easely does it with a gun. Whit a gun you can do it from distance, with a knife you'll be struggling with a viktim that might fight back effectively, an non the less you'll be looking your viktim in the eye.

      Most triggerhappy gunmen would stop long before that. But far from all of them.

      To me it's obvious, owning guns should be hand in hand with license and schooling. You don't give a car to someone without a drivinglicense and tell them to go to NewYork and have some fun, do you.

    52. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who else won't get guns? The kind of guy who might need to protect himself and his family/coworkers/customers from a criminal mastermind or snapped determined boyscout with a gun.

      Look at Washington DC, where we've lost more American lives since the war in Iraq began than we've lost in Iraq. Strictest gun laws in the country.

      The answer, whether you want to consider it or not, is to encourage as many people as possible to carry at all times. If you know, beyond a doubt, that you're not the only one in the room with a gun; that is, if you know that, by the time you've taken aim at your target, several others have taken aim at your head; you'll be *MUCH* less likely to draw your weapon. Even if you're a hothead.

    53. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, maybe we can do something about the paranoia, and guns won't be such a a big issue.. But then I suppose the easy route is the way to go. In the meantime, I don't know why self defense isn't taught in the schools. Are we that frightened of a childrens' revolt?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    54. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by aceboomblain · · Score: 2

      One word - women. The average man can physically overcome the average woman ... unless she has a gun. Maybe you are just some pervert who wants to make sure your victims won't have a gun. If you don't like that the Constitution of the United States of America allows me to carry firearms, perhaps you should move to one of the countries you cite.

    55. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Hatta · · Score: 2

      so who won't get guns?

      The guy seeking to defend himself from an oppressive government, that's who. The 1st amendment exists to ensure the possibility of peaceful revolutions. The 2nd amendment exists in case the 1st fails.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    56. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      thank you for linking to the gelman massacre

      tell me, how many would gelman have killed if he had a gun instead of a knife?

      understand yet?

      this gelman is exacly the sort of casual hothead that i am talking about: he grabbed a knife, because that's all he could grab. he's in new york city, which has tight gun control. if a gun were easier for him to get, what scenario would play out? how many more dead?

      and please don't tell me an well-armed city would stop him. in gun happy arizona, nobody shot back as the congresswoman and people around her were mowed down, they had to tackle him. heck when ronald reagan was shot with SECRET SERVICE around, no one shot back, they tackled him. this notion that you are going to stop a hothead running around shooting people by being armed yourself is some sort of boy scout fantasy, not reality

      if you make guns harder to get, less hotheads like gelman get guns. simple as that! thank you for linking to this timely story to illustrate my point

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    57. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by vajrabum · · Score: 1

      Could we simply start with preventing paranoid schizophrenics getting guns? I know that these folks aren't supposed to get guns already but we seem to do an absolutely lousy job of it as recently witnessed in Az to our collective sorrow and horror.

    58. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      japan and germany have tight gun control. yet japan and germany still have tragedies with guns

      but guess what? A HECK OF A LOT LESS TRAGEDIES than the usa

      No they don't. You are deluding yourself.
      The number of people who just start shooting because they are "casual hotheads and insane" is minuscule. The majority of gun violence in the USA is drug-related. The crazies like the kid in Arizona are so rare that such incidents make the national news for days at a time.

    59. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns

      i would be able to understand computer lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent control of the internet, copyrights, and patents.

    60. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by khallow · · Score: 1

      The idea that a well armed populace is safer is clearly a boy scout fantasy. No one shot back when Reagan was shot, the gunman was tackled, even with Secret Service all around. In gun happy Tucson, no one shot back at Jared Loughner. The gunman was tackled, again. This idea that some heroic virtuous gun owner will intervene in these events is Hollywood, not reality.

      You cherrypick two ambushes in crowds. In either case, a shooter fires several shots in a few seconds while immersed in a crowd. That combination is difficult to react to and it is hard to shoot someone without endangering other people.

      Anyone smart and armed and bad intentioned is going to use their gun in such a way that you have no time to react: they anticipate your options and make sure you don't get the drop on them. Meanwhile, casual hotheads and the insane are random in their behavior. You don't have enough time to anticipate their behavior because there is no rhyme or reason about how they behave: you're already shot before you have a chance to react. The protection of a gun is simply an illusion.

      You make this claim on the basis of two shootings in the past 30 years and then claim that you have a clue about what "reason" is.

    61. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by juasko · · Score: 2

      Where I live there is a regulatioin of how big knives your allowed to carry in public places, unless it's used as a tool in your job and your there working. The regulation is 5cm long blade at maximum.

      Knifes of any size can though be transported freely, and used freely in non public areas. But you don't carry +5 cm blade in ur lessure time in public areas. Well this is quite much overlooked as many do carry their letherman or similar which is usually more than 5cm. But that is more a tool than a weapon.

    62. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the idea that rednecks in the woods will stop the rise of fascism is a joke, a myth, a bad hollywood movie. not reality. in fact, if there is any relation between paranoids hording guns in the woods and the rise of fascism it is that paranoids hording guns are the type of pyschology that fascism grows in. paranoids hording guns in the woods are seeds in which fascism grows, not a protection from it. if the usa ever falls under the boot of fascism, god forbid, it will start with heavily armed factions. wake up from your quasireligious belief in the holy infallibility of the gun

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    63. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      look to nyc. washington dc is an anomaly because people just buy their guns next door in gun happy virginia

      "by the time you've taken aim at your target, several others have taken aim at your head; you'll be *MUCH* less likely to draw your weapon. Even if you're a hothead."

      this is of course a boy scout fantasy, not reality

      in gun happy arizona, nobody shot back as the congresswoman and people around her were mowed down, they had to tackle him. heck when ronald reagan was shot with SECRET SERVICE around, no one shot back, they tackled him. this notion that you are going to stop a hothead running around shooting people by being armed yourself is simply not how reality works. and it is exactly this sort of lack of understanding of reality, that motivates good people to get guns, when the simple truth is, simply having a gun changes scenarios and outcomes in such a way that you are more likely to get shot or use your gun in such a way that even though well-meaning, you do more harm than good

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    64. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to point out that much of the disparity between the UK murder rate and the US murder rate is in how the numbers are arrived at.

      In the US if a coroner established that the death of an individual was caused by another individual that death is counted as a homicide (murder).

      In the UK the death of an individual is not considered a murder UNTIL someone is CONVICTED of causing the death and if that murderer caused multiple deaths it is counted as ONE murder.
      In other words the Home Office doesn't report dead bodies they report convicted killers.

    65. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that a well armed populace is safer is clearly a boy scout fantasy. No one shot back when Reagan was shot, the gunman was tackled, even with Secret Service all around. In gun happy Tucson, no one shot back at Jared Loughner. The gunman was tackled, again. This idea that some heroic virtuous gun owner will intervene in these events is Hollywood, not reality.

      That's some terribly specious reasoning on your part. In the case of Reagan the SS knows better than to start shooting into a crowd of people. As for Arizona, it is just as plausible to argue that the current limitations on ownership made it too much of a PITA for any of the people there to acquire a gun.

      Eventually, too high even for those with an irrational religious conviction about the virtuousness of guns.

      Lollers. Given your poor rationalizations it seems you are what you accuse others of being - having an irrational religious conviction about guns.

    66. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Do you complain every time cops apprehend someone instead of just shooting them?

      Just because you have a gun does not mean you should always use the gun.

      If someone, with no indication of their intent, opens fire, they have the advantage and no amount of 'holstered' firepower will stop that. Now if that person comes in brandishing their weapon giving the responding side time to react before shots are fired its a different story.

      Also, a Democratic gathering is not one I'd be expecting a lot of concealed carry going on. The state may be gun happy but that does not mean all the supporters are.

    67. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two senior students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, embarked on a massacre, killing 12 students and one teacher. They also injured 21 other students directly, and three people were injured while attempting to escape. Doable with a knife?

    68. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by juasko · · Score: 1

      It is a problem.

      Have you ever killed anything, bigger than a fly? Try killing a bird, cat, dog or an other pet first and se how easy it is, especially without a gun. I've had to neck a bird that was sick once, and it wasn't easy to swing that axe. But I've shot 2 minks, that is much easier to do.

      Shooting the minks from 10m distance was simple. Killing that bird with an axe, though it was so sick that there was no struggle was way way harder.

      Reducing guns on the street will reduce crime. It will not remove crime, but it will be reduced significatly. Gun controle isn't the same as prohibiting guns. It's controlling who has access to one. And that can be in connection with schooling and checkups on mental suitability. Which can't be to hard for the ones owning the guns to obtain. Or if it is, they should not have them in the first place.

    69. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea that a well armed populace is safer is clearly a boy scout fantasy.

      It's not at all clear to me, nor to many scholars who've studied the issue. I assume you've read John Lott's seminal work that kicked off an ongoing debate about the effect of widespread concealed carry, right? And the many other research papers that support his finding that the more law-abiding citizens are carrying firearms the less violent crime there is? And noted the fact that the (relatively few) studies that find to the contrary, with only a single exception, find that rather than more guns increasing crime, they have no significant effect? And I'm sure you've also read the FBI reports that analyze the question from the criminal's perspective, and conclude that citizen concealed carry is the largest single deterrent in the minds of most violent criminals. I can provide links, but all of this information is readily accessible via Google.

      I think this is a case where what appears to be common sense is actually just ignorance. Real study of the issue shows that privately-owned, concealed firearms are a real deterrent to crime, and the numbers show that the otherwise law-abiding "hothead" who "flips out" and starts shooting people doesn't exist. In the case of Jared Loughner, I think the crowd is lucky he had a gun. Without that, he'd have had to fall back on simpler and far more deadly weapons -- like his truck. What would be even better, of course, is to identify mentally ill people like him beforehand and get them into treatment. People wouldn't die, and they'd have happier lives. But the presence or absence of guns doesn't significantly affect that dynamic.

      It is time for the USA to join every other sober industrialized nation in the world and severely restrict guns. Reason will prevail, it always does. Even though we will pay a horrible price in senseless deaths until the stink finally gets too high. Eventually, too high even for those with an irrational religious conviction about the virtuousness of guns. The rest of us are waiting for you to finally come to their senses. We're not too patient though, we're sick of the carnage. Hurry up and figure it out.

      What carnage?

      Yes, approximately 30,000 people die in the US annually from gunshot wounds. That's terrible. But when you break down the numbers, you learn some interesting things.

      First, approximately half of those deaths are suicides. Without access to a firearm, would those people still be alive? Perhaps some of them, only because guns tend to be a quite effective way to do yourself in. But they're hardly the only way.

      Second, the vast majority of the deaths that remain are gang- and drug-related. If you want to eliminate most of those deaths, the solution is quite apparent: Legalize drugs. Regulate them tightly, but make them most readily available through legal channels and you'll cut the legs from under the gangs. Without drugs, they have no funding. Without funding, they die. We experienced all of this nearly a century ago, yet we continue paying a horrible price in senseless deaths and loss of civil liberties, and will continue paying it until we wise up and deal with drug abuse as a social and medical problem, not a criminal one.

      Third, we get the portion that are really hard to address: domestic violence. There are about 4,000 deaths per year where an angry spouse/child/parent/whatever grabs a gun and starts shooting. Some of these people would not die if guns were unavailable, and I don't really know what we can do about it. More readily-available family counseling services, perhaps. More shelters and programs to help battered women and children escape a dangerous situation before their abuser grabs a gun and kills them -- or before they grab a gun and kill their abuser (though I have to say I find those outcomes less heartbreaking... not that they're the best outcomes, but they're better than many of the alternatives).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    70. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      I don't presume he would have killed any more, or less, people. Too many variables to make a simple correlation.
      That you do presumes an inherent bias in your thinking.

      Might as well say that if he'd been institutionalized no one would have been killed.

      Really though, neither of us will convince the other.

    71. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a mentally deranged individual just going into a store and buying a glock with an extended magazine"

      Where are you talking about? Have you ever purchased a firearm before? Its not half as easy (at least in my area, Michigan) as most people make it out to be. You have to fill out a packet of information, have a state issued drivers license. And wait about 30 - 60 minutes for background checks. We have a few really good sporting goods stores in my area and even they don't carry many extended mags, you usually have to purchase them by mailorder/internet.

      And there are plenty of reasons to own a firearm in a "civil society", target shooting, "plinking", fun, home defense. I've know a few people from the "guns are scary" crowd. They wine and complain, but if you can manage to get them out to the range and behind a gun, they always walk away with a smile from ear to ear and at least a somewhat more tolerant view of firearms.

    72. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by juasko · · Score: 1

      Illegal guns have a legal source, do the math young boy.

    73. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by nschubach · · Score: 1
      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    74. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    75. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      Self-defeating nerd is self-defeating, news at 11. Only because you know there's nothing you can ever do, do not speak for the rest. Your "reason" boils down to "I'm a powerless piece of shit so... So... EVERYBODY MUST BE TOO!" And that's why you deserve a brown swirlie. By the way a sober and industrialized nation, Switzerland, just this weekend shot down an initiative to toughen gun laws in a popular vote. This is, probably, the safest and more peaceful nation in Europe. Dismissed, loserboy.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    76. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so who won't get guns?

      Well, criminals for one, as they're already breaking the law anyways. And anyone that wants to illegally buy their gun from said criminals. They might need to pay a lot more, but if you're willing to throw away the rest of your life to kill a congress woman, I doubt pawning all your posessions would be that big of a deal for you.

      i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns

      Honestly this is what I side with gun lovers the most on, despite the fact that I really don't think I qualify as one -- I own a .22 rifle that was a gift, but no handguns, no conceal & carry permit, or anything similar. The thing is if you keep fighting at the 'most obvious and prudent restrictions' then thats where you keep the fight, if you concede then they will keep pushing until you're having to fight the most obvious and prudent freedoms you want to keep.

      Just think about smoking. We can all agree its not a bad idea to ban smoking on airplanes, so nobody fought that. Then it got pushed into airports..people still thought 'well, okay'. Then it became inside most resteraunts. Again, smokers were inconvenienced but okay. Then all bars.. a lot of people fought, but at this point it was too late. Now its like 15 feet from the entrance of most places.

      If you don't fight for your rights early, you won't be able to when its late.

    77. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take them out the stores and the black market will thrive. Inner city youth, cannot currently buy guns - but guess what? They buy them anyway. The more difficult it is to get, the bigger the black market gets.

    78. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      At least once in relatively recent American history a "bunch of rednecks" have used armed revolt against government and won... check out the Battle of Athens, Tn.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    79. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by modecx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, if you take the guns away, there are many other, perhaps more effective and or more creative tools for creating mayhem and destruction. Maybe he brings a knife, and casually walks around stabbing people., or maybe he casually walks out to the parking lot to retrieve his truck, only to casually drive it through the nightclub and the crowd waiting in front.

      Blades don't need to be reloaded, and if you think a pocket pistol has anything on a 4,000 pound guided cruise missile, well, I'm sorry for you.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    80. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it more sad that people think crime will be solved by removing the tools of that crime. After guns are removed and people start using knives they will be the first people to limit the size of knives people can buy

      And I'm absolutely fine with that. It's a lot easier to evade or run away from a knife-wielding wacko than it is to evade or outrun bullets from a gun-wielding wacko.

    81. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also have a higher rate of suicide and tighter restriction on media output. Enough said.

    82. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns

      And I'll never understand how gun banners fail to grasp that violent crime rates decrease when their "Sane obvious and prudent restrictions" are lifted.

      These blood-drenched fantasies of yours are so rare as to be statistically irrelevant, and quite often happen where 'sane obvious and prudent restrictions' exist, because disarmed people make easier targets.

    83. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Duradin · · Score: 1

      I prefer the term "multi-ton murder machine".

    84. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a lot easier for me to shoot you in the head for drawing a weapon on me than to run away from a knife wielding maniac.

    85. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by the_womble · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what happened in the UK. Stronger enforcement of gun laws lead to a reduction in gun crime, and a huge panic about the rise in knife crime, and then laws about carrying knives.

    86. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Hatta · · Score: 2

      if the usa ever falls under the boot of fascism, god forbid, it will start with heavily armed factions. wake up from your quasireligious belief in the holy infallibility of the gun

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" (Sinclair Lewis). Wake up from your quasi religious belief in the holy infallibility of the government. Either way, Fascism will come, the only question is whether we will have the tools to fight it when it does.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    87. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by ceswiedler · · Score: 1

      When I was in England (which has strict gun-control laws), I saw a report on the nightly news of someone being killed with a knife. I could not (and still cannot) remember a similar news report in the US. Here, people always use guns.

      I would much, much prefer criminals to be restricted to knives. You may think people are safer if everyone owns guns, but saying they're equivalent to knives is just lunacy.

    88. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by krakround · · Score: 1

      What did you do with that? Shoot a Gorn?

    89. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by afidel · · Score: 1

      So in order to stop the criminal element you want to punish all law abiding citizens, nice logic there.....

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    90. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Noren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why does Switzerland, where most males from ages 19-34 are required to keep an assault rifle in their homes as part of their compulsory military service, have much less senseless deaths than the USA?

      There just might be reasons other then the simple availability of tools.

    91. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Just on a personal note, yes, I've killed a number of things larger than a fly. Next time you're finishing off a bird, wear gloves, hold it against a cutting board, plank, or similar and use a decent knife to decapitate. If the bird is larger, insert blade into it's neck from right to left, then cut away from the body. Easy peasy.

      On crime: here in the US we've seen dramatic declines in crime even as more and more states legalize carrying concealed firearms. If guns caused crime, then why did the crime rate decline?

    92. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RE: Giffords

      Just tell me, how many people would have died in the Arizona attack on Giffords - if the guy had a knife.

      Perhaps zero.

      But it certainly would not have been the huge number of dead and injured it was.

      True, crazy people will [perhaps] still get a weapon and use it. But to claim they'll be just as bad and there's nothing you can do is crazy.

      By your standard, crazy people should be able to have nuclear weapons. {sarcasm} "I mean, if we don't let them have nuclear weapons, they'll just get a tank, and kill everyone anyway. It's just totally impossible and unmanageable to keep people from nuking whole cities." {/sarcasm}
      Sheesh.

      How much damage you can do is directly proportional to the power of the tool and how easily it's obtained.

      Making it a little harder to get the "tool" [a gun] and how much damage capability [power] it has goes a long way toward preventing it from being used and useful in a crime of convenience. The GP is right. These people aren't trying hard at much. If it took more work to get a gun, and there were some pretty minimal safeguards around it, I'd guess the body-count would go down considerably.

      [And oh, for those who would claim a gun is a protection against a rogue government...I have news for you. No matter how many guns you have, it's not likely to have much impact on a rogue government - especially ours. Thousands of tanks, perhaps. So, while I do believe the founders did intend it as a credible threat against a rogue government, I think that day has LONG past. Using that argument as a reason for gun ownership really seems like a VERY weak argument - constitutional guarantee or not.]

    93. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by nschubach · · Score: 1

      pointless carnage and mayhem that defines the usa

      I was delaying answering your post because I can't decide how to respond kindly so I'll leave this...

      Being a resident of the US living in one of the largest 15 cities, I do not see this. Yes, there are neighborhoods where crime is more prevalent and just about every major town has pockets of criminally active communities. Though, to say that the entire USA consists of "pointless carnage and mayhem" makes me think you get your viewpoint of the US from movies and television.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    94. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It that case may as well make certain drugs illegal and others controlled. Then only the 'right' people will be able to get them. Oh wait...

    95. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Angst+Badger · · Score: 0

      Criminals, in other words.

      It's not quite that simple. In most years, there are half again as many suicides by firearms than homicides.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    96. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by tangent3 · · Score: 1

      It won't solve crime, but it will reduce crime.
      Are we supposed to outright reject any proposal that doesn't solve a problem 100%?

    97. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by cusco · · Score: 1

      No, actually they were talking about cannons and the like, to hold off pirates, brigands and Spaniards. Anyone with money could buy a cannon, and ship owners needed to do that at the time. The British had, among other things, attempted to prevent the practice as a means of controlling trade, insisting that ship owners pay the Royal Navy to protect them. By arming their own ships they were able to break that dependence. Wealthy citizens used to buy cannons and donate them to the community or local militia as well, the 'town hall cannon' was not always a useless ornament.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    98. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it more sad that people think crime will be solved by removing the tools of that crime. After guns are removed and people start using knives they will be the first people to limit the size of knives people can buy. After that?

      You could read the public order law to get a preview of a possible future. The translation is poor and mixes languages, unfortunately.

    99. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by jd · · Score: 1

      The British system, as I recall, requires a mental evaluation beforehand. It is one of the most rigorous systems in the world, but it does not stop gun ownership. (IIRC, the official stats from HMG say there's over 3 million guns legally owned in the UK out of a population of 60 million.) Since the added restrictions after Dunblane and the resulting Snowdrop Petition, gun crime has dropped about 14% and 9 deaths in 2007 was considered a bad year for the country.

      It's not perfect, by any stretch. There's still around one mass shooting every ten years or so. (Err, yeah, once a decade. Hungerford was in 1987, Dunblane in1996, and the Cumbria shootings in 2010.) That hasn't changed with the added restrictions, but heat-of-the-moment shootings are measurably lower.

      5% of the population owning guns therefore seems to be about right, at least for that country. No two societies are the same and you can't simply hammer in one nation's experience into another. Nonetheless, I'd argue that only an idiot would refuse to look at the experience and the consequences (good and bad - and yes, there have been negative consequences too).

      In the US, there are also rules, but investigative journalists claim these (including laws on selling to felons) are ignored at gun shows and not always bothered with overmuch at stores. It's possible that the US doesn't actually need any tighter regulation, merely respect for what there is. However, a psych checkup beforehand probably wouldn't be a bad idea if there was the slightest possibility that either the psychs or the populace would give a shit. Pdocs rarely give a shit about the work they currently do, which is why accidental deaths due to drug combinations are almost always incompetently prescribed medications. If they're comfortable with their clientele dying from stupidity, I really can't see them being overly concerned about prevention of anything much less direct, especially as there'd be no money in it.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    100. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do realize that countries with more stringent gun control like japan, germany, etc., still have gun crime, but a heck of a lot less gun crime than the pointless carnage and mayhem that defines the usa. kid of counteracts your central premise and supports mine, no?

      And Switzerland, where most households are required to have a fully automatic military assault rifle and ammunition readily accessible, also has "a lot less gun crime". Guns cause crime the way flies cause shit.

    101. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by cusco · · Score: 1

      Yep, that ploy has worked so well to keep drugs out of the hands of low IQ lazy go-with-the-flow losers that we certainly should extend the idea to guns as well.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    102. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with expecting civility in agglomerations. This act starts out that way, then it ventures into specific devices (which is where I feel they've lost the point...) Everyone keeps trying to categorize crime into divisions based on tools when you need to look at it in terms of the crime and the criminal. It feels as though blame is being taken away from the person doing the crime and being placed on the weapon... as if the human committing said crime is a victim of the device.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    103. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its meant to stop casual hotheads and insane people. if you stop people from getting guns easily someone like yourself and criminal geniuses will still have guns.

      You don't have to be a criminal "genius," any career criminal can get a firearm in an hour in any major metropolitan area. And if you've got an idea of how to reliably identify "casual hotheads" your first priority should be informing NHTSA because two tons of car is a lot more metal than 9mm of bullet, and I dodge cars launched at me damned near every day.

      so who won't get guns? the kind of guy who shoots up a disco because a chick looked at him funny or the guy who shot the congresswoman in arizona.

      In the case of Loughner, of course, he would have been receiving treatment at a facility if those regulations worked. The same was true of the Fort Hood massacre. And, in both situations, an armed citizen (or soldier!) could have prevented it.

      It's also worth noting that no nut has ever tried to shoot up a gun show. However delusional or psychotic they may be, they all seem to realize that "gun-free zone" really means "no one will shoot back."

      i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns

      Like most gun grabbers, you have no idea who you're trying to stop, what you're trying to stop, how gun owners use firearms, how criminals use firearms, and your experience with firearms is probably limited to movies. Go to an NRA course and actually learn how to shoot one, learn the safety, meet some actual gun owners.

      You'll learn that the obvious and prudent restrictions are already enforced by private individuals because gun owners genuinely don't want anyone to get hurt.

      All of the regulations suggested force law-abiding citizens to do what they'd do anyway and are ignored by criminals. When you actually understand how firearms work, many of the "obvious" proposals make no sense. The most famous regulations, like the assault weapons ban, were based entirely on how scary a firearm looked or peculiarities of its manufacturing that had little tactical significance. When you take a step back, you realize that they served no purpose except to establish precedence for greater government authority over a constitutionally protected right.

      Broadly, it is the poor, minorities, elderly and women that benefit most from gun ownership. The NRA got their start by battling the KKK, the executive summary is that it's pretty damned hard to burn a cross in someone's back yard if he's shooting at you, so the first gun control was aimed at black people. In some neighborhoods, the crime is bad enough that people can't go out at dark unarmed; it's as though they're living in a police state where there's a curfew. For them, the 2nd amendment is a serious civil right and you've got to consider those life experiences rather than assuming it's just a bunch of rich white guys.

    104. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by modecx · · Score: 1

      That's pretty awesome, mind if I steal it?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    105. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by XCondE · · Score: 1

      I find it more sad that people think crime will be solved by removing the tools of that crime. After guns are removed and people start using knives they will be the first people to limit the size of knives people can buy. After that?

      Would you rather be robbed by a person with a gun or with a knife?

    106. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by secretcurse · · Score: 1

      Did you write a script that randomly chooses from a few different anti-gun tirades and strings together a post? I've read several of your posts in this thread and it seems like you have a handful of paragraphs that you copy and paste into each new post in slightly different orders. If you haven't written a script, you might want to. It should greatly increase your trolling efficiency.

      --
      I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
    107. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by The+Gaytriot · · Score: 1

      It's funny, I see many, many people here arguing pro gun and only one person who is anti-gun, copying and pasting the same reply to every post. That person is you, circletimessquare.

      --
      Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
    108. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I find it more sad that people think crime will be solved by removing the tools of that crime

      Of course it won't remove the crime, the idea is that they'll be less deadly.

    109. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. If I am unarmed and someone with a knife 10 feet away from me wants to kill me, I figure I have a fair chance of surviving. The same person with a gun? I am likely to be on the ground bleeding in less time than it took for me to type this.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    110. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, what the fuck does anyone need a gun for?
      I have never held a live firearm. I (obviously) don't own one and don't know anyone who does.
      The only firearms I can recall actually seeing are those on the belts of cops.

      I have never been threatened with one and never been in a situation where my owning one would have improved anything at all.

      What the fuck do you need a gun for?

    111. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it more sad that people think crime will be solved by removing the tools of that crime. After guns are removed and people start using knives they will be the first people to limit the size of knives people can buy.

      And that's just fine by me. It's a lot easier to evade or outrun a knife-wielding attacker than it is to evade or outrun the bullets of a gun-wielding attacker.

    112. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns

      If those who are ignorant and/or phobic about weaponry actually had any idea whatsoever about what sort of restrictions were sane, obvious, and prudent, maybe we wouldn't freak out so much.

    113. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      It won't solve crime, but it will reduce crime.

      *Citation Needed* Sorry, but between the figures I've seen, "gun crime" might be reduced, but crime is not. For that matter, murder rate doesn't drop for any longer than the first year after the ban either. People just switch to other weapons. So unless you figure it is inherently better to be killed with a knife than a gun, gun control really doesn't seem to solve anything. The one thing it does usually show is an increase in crime and police brutality.

    114. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by trollertron3000 · · Score: 1

      if it infringes on the rights of citizens that have done nothing illegal? Yes.

      --
      Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
    115. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by trollertron3000 · · Score: 1

      What about a bomb? Those aren't hard to make you know. Just read the topic at hand.

      Which would you rather have a gun or a bomb?

      Oh I thought we were setting up straw men, sorry I'll move along.

      --
      Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
    116. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes your comment especially stupid is the fact that Loughner went to MULTIPLE stores on the day of the shooting to buy ammunition. Some vendors had the sense to turn him down, some didn't. Guess that pretty much destroys your whole "homicidal maniacs won't kill people if we make it harder" theory, doesn't it?

    117. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by guspasho · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is a problem. They can't kill as many people as easily. Since it was already mentioned, take the wacko in Arizona. If he had a knife instead of a gun he might have stabbed the Congresswoman Giffords but he wouldn't have killed or injured all those bystanders.

    118. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also worth noting that no nut has ever tried to shoot up a gun show. However delusional or psychotic they may be, they all seem to realize that "gun-free zone" really means "no one will shoot back."

      Or maybe they just never get upset at Gun Shows, so have no reason to show up. Besides, the reason they might get upset, would be because they got denied a gun, so...they couldn't be shooting anything up!

      i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns

      The NRA got their start by battling the KKK, the executive summary is that it's pretty damned hard to burn a cross in someone's back yard if he's shooting at you, so the first gun control was aimed at black people.

      Uh, stop getting history from liars. The NRA got their start in 1871, in New York. The founders made no claims about civil rights, just a concern over markmanship. The KKK was based more in the South, and it used violence and terrorism to accomplish its goals, but the Federal government responded with the Force Acts that let them be prosecuted, which lead to the KKK being broken up by the time the NRA was formed. So the NRA had nothing to do with it, as that organization was concerned with Markmanship, not Civil Rights. Unfortunately, the destruction of the KKK never meant anything, the whites still got their way in the South, and kept oppressing the blacks till the 60s when we finally started enforcing the laws. Of course, you still had morons like Goldwater who thought it was state business, and the Republicans saw what a success that got him in the South, so they decided to switch away from Civil Rights.

      And Gun Control has been around for centuries, what do you think inspired the 2nd amendment? The British actually did try to confiscate firearms several times. Yes, certainly gun control was attempted to disarm blacks, but it wasn't the FIRST by any means.

    119. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical American view.

      Nuff Said.

    120. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by XLR8DST8 · · Score: 1

      the guy who shot the congress woman could easily just go to a gun show & find a guy who will sell him one. it's not that hard & doesn't take a genius. or even a sane person. the guy is insane, not retarded.

    121. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by __aapspi39 · · Score: 1

      But he didn't say how he'd respond to someone trying to buy a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range...

      Sorry, but if he can't be clear on that situation right upfront then it's doubtful he should be in that line of work.

    122. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Just tell me, how many people would have died in the Arizona attack on Giffords - if the guy had a knife. Perhaps zero.

      Way to completely miss the point of the thread. You're working on the idea that the attacker, unable to find a firearm would have used a knife. The point made here is, he could just as easily decide to use a bomb or poison. (You know using recipes from some book like the one we're discussing.) That is certainly the case in some south american countries where drive by pipe bombings are incredibly common.

      Making it a little harder to get the "tool" [a gun] and how much damage capability [power] it has goes a long way toward preventing it from being used and useful in a crime of convenience.

      True, but it also makes it less likely to be used to prevent a crime. Further it doesn't mean that the overall problem is decreased due to the availably of other suitable tools. By your argument passing a law banning a particular color of gun would be useful. I think you have to actually look at it from a scientific perspective. Show evidence that changes to particular gun ownership laws are likely to result in decreased murder and violent crime in general and you have an argument. Handwave about the obviousness of the truth of your unsupported (and some would say falsified) hypothesis and you're just blowing hot air.

    123. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by airdweller · · Score: 0

      First, calm down. No need for a hissy fit if you disagree with someone.
      Second, in addition to having a gun one also needs to be able to use it efficiently, which I'll dare say most women aren't.

    124. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by airdweller · · Score: 0

      "Nuts can just get a knife* or a brick and still kill lots of people."
      So you think there would be the same number of victims if this guy had just a couple of knives? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

    125. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what free society, which has the freedom of economic exchange of nearly any sort, is gun control going to work if the intelligent and calm, who can produce guns, isn't going to find an avenue to sell arms downstream, including to the nutcases and hotheads?

      You can't even stop massive drug use, rape drugs, highly addictive drugs, from being available. You think something you can produce from a hunk of metal and fire is going to be stopped? Seriously?

      In what free society, where information is passed on easily, is an outlawed technology not going to increase the pressure to research and reveal even easier methods of manufacture and alternatives?

      Have YOU been READING slashdot, or you just spouting off and missed the hundreds and thousands of posts that have shown your opinion on the matter to be frankly unrealistic. Just because it's guns doesn't make it an exception to the advance and rule of technology and people trying to limit it.

      Also, as a person who might be considered a hothead, or who has a (checked but rapid upswing in) temper, I can guarantee you, that intelligence is not exclusive of emotion. I'd argue my emotion is what drives my intelligence, and I can find a dozen ways to produce a zip gun or cross bow. And no, I don't own and have never owned a firearm or gun.

    126. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death is death. It doesn't matter what tool you use.

      Also, knife wounds can be more deadly than gunshot wounds:
      http://www.lwcbooks.com/articles/edgedweapons.html

      From the summary:
      FBI Statistics:
      Edged weapon attackers are responsible for 3% of all armed attacks of police
      Firearm attacks account for 4%
      Both of the above stats represent fatalities
      Subject shot, 10% die from their wounds
      Subjects stabbed, 30% die from their wounds

    127. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      A quote I read once: "The biggest fear in America is not having a gun pointed at you. It's not being able to point one back."

    128. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by datsa · · Score: 1

      Your slippery slope argument goes both ways.

      You simply can't kill as many people with a knife as you can with a gun. Just like you can't kill as many people with a gun as you can with explosives. Which is why we ban explosives. Period.

    129. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

      I find it more sad that people think crime will be solved by removing the tools of that crime. After guns are removed and people start using knives they will be the first people to limit the size of knives people can buy. After that?

      Well there seems to be a direct correlation between the availability of guns, and crimes committed with guns. You take a look at the statistics from countries that don't allow their citizens to carry guns and you'll find that, *surprise*, there are far fewer gun-related deaths. At least if you're using a knife you're bringing back the personal one-to-one nature of murder where the murderer must at least touch his victim instead of mowing them down from across a field. And there's much less collateral damage as well.

    130. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by datsa · · Score: 1
      The pen is mightier than the sword (or gun). Fascism is held at bay by an educated, ethical populace.

      One striking thing in Egypt is that so many of the police officers (and military) abandoned Mubarak, took off their uniforms, and joined the protestors. They realized they were on the wrong side.

      Sometimes it's close, but most of the time I'm still more comfortable with the police officer on the street being armed than the NRA enthusiast next door.

    131. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is far more killing each year due to accidents involving firearms than due to aggretions.
      USA have the highest number of people killed by firearms in the whole modern world but sure, it has nothing to do with gun legislation...

    132. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by jwhitener · · Score: 2

      In a previous slashdot debate about gun control, one guy described Canada's gun sales system, and it sounded pretty solid. They have more guns than we do, yet way less gun crime. There are probably many factors contributing to their lower gun crimes, but the the process for obtaining a gun must be one of the major ones.

      There was some amount of wait time, some sort of background check, and you had to have your wife sign a letter saying it was OK! (I'm assuming there is a list of people close to you that they would consider acceptable for the letter, father, mother, etc..).

      There were other provisions also. I think you had to have a gun license of some sort. I would assume that the license would require some periodic maintenance by turning in another family letter, and/or another background check.

      I may have gotten some details wrong. Read more on wikipedia if you want

    133. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      It seems like what is missing from gun control laws, is any effort to establish a system to periodically check on the mental health of the gun owner. Canada requires you to apply for a gun license, which must be renewed every 5 years, and I believe requires letters of recommendation from some number of people.

      I think if you had to get a couple/few real people to vouch for you every year or so to renew a license, it would drastically cut down on the number of incidents where a gun owner is mentally deteriorating over time and snaps.

      But even that isn't addressing the root cause(s) of US gun crime rates. We have astronomically higher gun crime rates than Canada, Switzerland, and other high gun owning Nations. I bet if someone did an honest study of the situation, they'd discover that the major factors are caused by our extreme income disparities, lack of social safety nets, and other socio-economic issues that Europe in generally is more "socialistic" about.

    134. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I bet if someone did an honest study of the situation, they'd discover that the major factors are caused by our extreme income disparities, lack of social safety nets, and other socio-economic issues that Europe in generally is more "socialistic" about.

      I can practically guarantee that the crime is caused by that (and I'm a very libertarian person...) The problem, however, is that socialist programs in the US usually end up with more people not willing to work and live off the system. We simply can't afford to allow people to do that here.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    135. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The whole point of gun control is that you don't allow guns at all except in very specific circumstances.

      Does it remove liberties from people? Yes, definitively. Is it justified? I'm not sure.

    136. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by sjames · · Score: 1

      so who won't get guns? the kind of guy who shoots up a disco because a chick looked at him funny or the guy who shot the congresswoman in arizona. these people aren't fine thinking specimens: they get guns simply because they are easy to get. so make guns less easy to get, and insane people and casual hotheads won't get guns. that's it

      Exactly! They'll just have to plow through the crowds in their SUVs or go nuts with a baseball bat. The really dedicated crazies can slash up the disco with their chainsaw!

    137. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by rhkaloge · · Score: 1

      I used to make black powder by collecting nitrates from underneath piles of cow manure in local fields, collecting charcoal when emptying the ashes from the fireplace and sulfur by purchasing sulfur candles from the local store (unfortunately there weren't any naturally occurring sulfur deposits w/in bicycling distance)

      and penny cost a nickle! and we walked to school up hill, both ways! GET OFF MY LAWN!

    138. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have to consider the ban on analogies of justice and the requirement of the description of a crime to be exact, that is, if an act can't be fitted in the textual description of the act in the written law, it is not a crime.

    139. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Spread the word. With these dangerous weapons lurking on every street no child is safe. The world must know.

    140. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      he problem, however, is that socialist programs in the US usually end up with more people not willing to work and live off the system. We simply can't afford to allow people to do that here.

      We are the richest nation on earth. If Europe can do that, surely we can. Of course, it would either require a tax rate like Europe, or major cuts to Defense, and neither are likely to happen.

      And my google-fu appears broken today, but I am pretty sure I recall reading several studies that showed that the higher unemployment benefits in European countries don't lead to higher unemployment rates. Rather, they are good enough supports so that people can re-educate themselves, and get back into the workforce.

      If for some reason it is different here in the US, then there are probably another set of root causes that need to be addressed. Not the unemployment benefits themselves, but more likely, how the benefits are structured, and what goal the benefits are designed to reach. I don't know all the poverty programs out there, but if all we give folks is medicaid and foodstamps, that is obviously not going to help as many people as some support system with job training, community college vouchers, or other more complete packages designed to get someone working again.

    141. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by PMuse · · Score: 1

      If concealed carry deters crime, wouldn't non-concealed carry deter it more? What are the advantages of concealed carry over open carry?

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    142. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Nocturna81 · · Score: 1

      The one thing it does usually show is an increase in crime and police brutality.

      *Citation Needed* A case of pot meet kettle I believe? You should back up your bold statements as well (we have very stringent gun control laws here and yet no elevated levels of crime and police brutality. Heck the latter is probably non existent!)

    143. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by gordguide · · Score: 1

      Well, since I know all the details, I may as well chime in about the procedure in Canada. First of all, it might be worthwhile to mention that Canada has had Gun Control legislation since the 1930's. What follows refers to the current incarnation.

      You must pass a Firearms Safety Course before you can touch a loaded firearm. There are two Firearms Safety Courses, one for long guns (rifles, shotguns) and one for handguns.

      The courses are not difficult and usually can be done in an afternoon or an evening. Most of the course instructors are the same gun hobbyists that would be active NRA members in the US, and they can make a nice little side income (but not a living) from teaching the courses. You just need to pass the instructor course, which is essentially no more difficult than the course you'd be teaching.

      Armed with the proof of passing the course, you then apply for a license to possess firearms. That's where the you get the details a bit wrong with such things as "you had to have your wife sign a letter". One of the questions you must answer is about marriage or common-law relationship within the last 5 years (from the date of application). No wife, no live-in relationship, no problem. Otherwise the current or ex has to sign the application. The background check is performed after you apply.

      It's a fairly simple Criminal Records check (for example, you won't be asked to submit fingerprints) that looks for violent crime offences plus serious non-violent offences that a US resident would probably refer to as a "serious felony". Lesser problems with the law won't be grounds for rejection. Expect it to take about 6 months to get your license. If that's what you refer to as "some amount of wait time", there you go. But, it seemed to me that could be interpreted as suggesting there was a law similar to some US states where you have to wait a short period before you can take possession of a gun after you buy in a store.

      Not so in Canada. You do have to show the license to by a gun, but assuming that part is fine, you walk out with the long gun as soon as you pay for it. Handguns are somewhat different, in that you need a permit to convey for a handgun, so sort that out first, or buy first and then get the permit. Either way, there's no specific waiting period that needs to be adhered to. Handgun permits are issued by the local police.

      There's been some changes over the years, there used to be an "possession only" license that allows you to buy ammunition but presumably either already owned a gun or don't plan on actually owning, just shooting, guns, but it's not offered anymore. You could not buy a new gun with that version. If you have one you can continue to use it.

      If not you could have applied for the "acquisition" type which allows you to buy both guns and ammunition, as of now it's the only kind. Done all at once, you could get the handgun version if you have both courses, otherwise you get the long gun acquisition licence and would have to apply for a new license if you subsequently took the handgun course and wanted to buy handguns.

      There is also a decade-old law requiring registration of all guns, although it's widely ignored by gun owners and with many provinces stating clearly they won't be charging anyone for failure to register violations (Ontario, BC and Quebec probably would though), and with the current Federal Government intent on abolishing it (although so far, mostly due to having a minority government, they've not succeeded). I personally have never heard of anyone being charged with not registering a weapon, but if you lived in, say, Toronto, your experience might be different.

      Handguns have always had to be registered in Canada going back to the 1930's and have always required permits issued by the local Police Department to transport or store. Ironically, prior to the new safety course requirement, you occasionally heard of local police refusing to issue permits to certain individuals. Now, if you have the proper license, it's basically a rubbe

    144. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by swillden · · Score: 1

      If concealed carry deters crime, wouldn't non-concealed carry deter it more? What are the advantages of concealed carry over open carry?

      That's a good question, and a subject of much debate. I focused on concealed carry simply because it's less controversial than open carry, but I think there is a good argument to be made that open carry is a better deterrent.

      Without going into a full exploration of all of the pros and cons, I'll highlight some of the key points on both sides (and, yes, this is an abbreviated list -- a full discussion would be much longer):

      • Opponents of open carry argue that criminals are deterred by concealed carry because they can't know if their victim is armed or not.
      • Proponents of open carry argue that open carry doesn't preclude concealed carry, so that part of the deterrent effect need not be lost, and argue that criminals are even more likely to be deterred if they actually see a gun.
      • Opponents of open carry argue that a criminal who is determined to commit the crime will see the openly-carried firearm and target that person first.
      • Proponents of open carry argue that criminals want easy targets and rather than targeting the open carrier will instead choose to go elsewhere. (I should say that I have yet to hear of a case where an open carrier other than a uniformed security guard or law enforcement officer was deliberately targeted, but the number of open carriers is also quite low, so it may be that it just hasn't happened yet.)
      • Opponents of open carry argue that it makes firearms too accessible to criminals who want a gun but don't have one.
      • Proponents of open carry argue that criminals who want guns have easier ways to get them, though they also recommend that those who want to open carry use a retention holster and practice techniques to defeat gun grabs.
      • Opponents of open carry argue that since police officers are most often shot with their own guns, open carriers are taking on the same risk.
      • Proponents of open carry argue that in practice that doesn't seem to happen.
      • Opponents of open carry argue that open carriers give up the tactical advantage of being able to surprise the criminal with their firearm.
      • Proponents of open carry argue that any loss in tactical advantage is more than offset by the strategic advantage of the deterrent effect. Said another way, they argue that concealed carry provides a better tactical situation should you have to deploy your gun, but open carry reduces the likelihood of having to use it at all.
      • Opponents of open carry argue that open carriers are just stroking their egos by displaying their guns.
      • Proponents of open carry argue that this isn't true, that they open carry for reasons of comfort, easy access to their firearm, as a form of speech in support of their firearms rights or to educate the public.

      Personally, I'm a fan of open carry, and I open carry fairly occasionally. I do it primarily because of the opportunities it provides to educate the non-carrying public about the fact that ordinary, law-abiding people carry guns. On the other hand, when concealment is more socially convenient, I do that instead.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    145. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Far more people are killed by cars in advanced countries than firearms ever well.

      If you read the statistics on gun violence, it is quite clear that many of the deaths are coming from gang violence. So every time 2 gang bangers kill each other, and they are (say) 19 and 20, then 'two kids are victims of gun violence.'

      Spare me.

      Gun banners simply cannot imagine a world where individuals are NOT AT THE MERCY OF THUGS.

    146. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I would attribute the mandatory military training as damping any future gun crime in Switzerland. But what accounts for Canada's lower gun crime rate than the US?

    147. Re:Dangerous book w/ incomplete instructions by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I also recall at least Germany having a problem with a government that systematically rounded up what they considered undesirables and putting them to death...

      You mean like what "Americans" did to the "Indians"? Or if you want to limit it to later 20th century - those "Americans" of darker complexion.
      You know what's the BEST part? Germans had several constitutions until they got the current one. They also had a complete madman running the place at the time.
      USA-ians did their genocides with the very same constitution that is in use today. Including all those single-digit amendments.
      All democracial like...

      The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, self defense, or casual target shooting - it is about the ability for the citizenship to revolt against the government.

      You mean like the "Indians" did? Oh yeah... that worked great for them. And they were actually able to shoot down the cavalry - now the cavalry has much greater range than what is even remotely available to civilians. Also, flamethrowers...

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  16. Congressional ignorance by Morris+Thorpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The letter from congressman George Mahon (D-TX) is disheartening.
    He tells Hoover that "several of my constituents" have expressed alarm about the book. He then says he has not read the book but "the reviews have caused quite a bit of controversy." Finally, he asks for something to tell the constituents.
    The process is totally hollow. And isn't that the way things continue to work40 years later? If anything, it's worse. Today's congressperson would scream louder and vilify the opposition (all while willingly ignorant about the issue at hand.)

    1. Re:Congressional ignorance by lowtekk · · Score: 1

      I have to concur with this thought. In writing to my senators and such over the years, I have noticed that they (or whichever staffer actually responds) have often not bothered to actually read the letter that I sent them, much less the actual legislation that I am writing about. They depend too much on someone else's opinion, expert or otherwise, to determine what their understanding of a particular matter will be.

    2. Re:Congressional ignorance by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I always seem to get back the standard form letter describing their opinion on the situation even though I asked for elaboration on a particular point or provided historical evidence to the contrary.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Congressional ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... a congressman asking another federal agency for a brief on a matter his constituents have raised to him is disheartening? This is 1971. It's not like he can hop on Amazon and order the book for himself. For all we know, he sent off this memo while sending staffer around to bookstores looking for the book. It looks like the congressman is simply looking for information that he, at that time, doesn't have immediate access to.

    4. Re:Congressional ignorance by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

      It's supposed to be hollow in the regard you presented. He is a representative of his district. If he thinks he constituents have an issue then he needs to address it, regardless of how baseless it is. His job is to represent. Period

      Thus, I think the problem you have is actually with the people. If there is a problem with the people's lack of intelligence, you have to give them the ability to increase their intellect. The problem is that "increased awareness" is not increased intellect, and tends to take the form of brainwashing rather than allowing for an overall improvement in cognitive thinking.

      --
      - Sig
    5. Re:Congressional ignorance by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      You do realize that politicians at the national level simply don't have the time to read every book, bill, etc. that comes down the pipe? That doesn't mean they're ignorant. That's what an army of staffers is for. They do the reading, give a summary presentation, then send Sen. John Doe to work. A lot of delegation is necessary when you've got that full a plate.

      Lots of people in this country think that politicians are somehow wasting time by not spending enough on the issue of the day. I recommend you watch some CSPAN. These guys burn lots of time on mundane tasks and bills you've never even thought about.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    6. Re:Congressional ignorance by afidel · · Score: 1

      I've had quite the opposite experience. I've written to my rep (now congressman) about issues that I care about where he sat on the specific subcommittee and received well thought out responses to my particular points. If fact when I met him at a fundraiser and had an opportunity to speak with him he happened to remember my letter and commented on some of my ideas. I have only written him once since he became a senator and while the response was slower and less personalized it still seemed to respond to my particular letter and was not just a form response (though the writing style was different so it was probably a staffer and not the congressman who responded).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Congressional ignorance by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The letter from congressman George Mahon (D-TX) is disheartening.

      Seriously? You expect someone as busy as a congressman to read everything with regards to a minor issue that comes across his desk and the lacking the requisite background knowledge form a reasonable opinion about it? That's ridiculous.
       
      I see a congressman doing what I hope mine does - delegating and asking the experts.

    8. Re:Congressional ignorance by secretcurse · · Score: 1

      We live in a republic, not a democracy. It is true that we elect leaders to represent us, but the central difference between a democracy and a republic is that, in a republic, it is not the job of a representative to simply do whatever a majority of their constituents want on every issue. That would be a democracy. In a republic, we elect representatives and trust them to use their own judgement to do what is best. We then evaluate at regular intervals and decide whether or not to allow someone to continue representing us.

      --
      I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
    9. Re:Congressional ignorance by lowtekk · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to hear that you haven't shared my experience. In my state we have two pretty established senators, and in my opinion, one been encamped in Washington a little too long. The other may have a few more years of good service. My district has a new congressman who is a bit of a firebrand, and based on his performance locally, I expect him to be the type to read everything and ask heated questions. He still calls into the local talk station and gets an ear-full from constituents, so I have high hopes for him.

  17. Why so serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are Americans so damn neurotic?!

    Btw. the guy next to you looks a bit like a terrorist, don't you think? Maybe he's got a bomb on him.

    1. Re:Why so serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the redneck claimed this country is theirs and want to find reason to expel all minorities.

      They forgot Chinese people has been here some thousands of years ago when Alaska and Russia are still connected by land.

  18. I Don't Understand This Legacy by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ah the book with the recipe for napalm ...

    I simply don't understand the legacy this "book" has gathered over the years. I, in my infinite youth, once read the manual and you know what jumped out at me wasn't all these alleged homemade napalm and pipe bombs ... in fact, that stuff seemed so low quality and stupid to me that I don't even remember much of it. And I've often been told the napalm in the book really isn't the best stuff you can make with homemade items. Apparently there are much better mediums to use with fuel like Vaseline (petroleum jelly) if you can get enough of it.

    But what really stuck out to my late teenage mind was how the author of it seemed to be obsessed with disruption. I remember it reading like a case study for "common" scenarios whereby you could operate within questionable circumstances to undermine regular corporate and government actions -- specifically in Western nations.

    For example, in one of the scenarios the book presupposes that you have a large contractor building some huge building right next door to your home that you refused to sell (like the beginning of the film Up). So it goes about how to put nails through strips of webbing, then lay them across the dig site at night and cover them with a bit of gravel to puncture holes in the tires of machinery. Or get used oil from your car and go spill it next to their machinery and then tip off the EPA. The list went on and on for many pages about how to sabotage several scenarios.

    And I wasn't too impressed with it. It was as if everyone thought that until this point in time no one had ever engaged in determined guerrilla warfare or an unfriendly neighborly spat. This book exhibits somewhat of an active imagination in causing trouble ... oftentimes this trouble is easily traced back to you no matter how well the book tries to convince the reader you're being super careful and are virtually untraceable.

    It simply blew my mind that someone could be arrested for possession of this book because after all the notoriety it's really not that useful. Sure, if your given scenario matches any in the books, you've got some cheap tricks at your disposal but anyone with an imagination would be far better equipped than anyone with that book. I found nothing permanently useful in that book and would recommend any of the US Army Field Manuals for reading before that since the information is more generalized and interesting like the one on Counterinsurgency. FM 21-76 served me well in Boy Scouts -- probably better than the boy scout's manual. Why do we flip out that The Anarchist's Cookbook is available to terrorists when the Army is releasing far more useful books to anybody and everybody?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      The anarchists cookbook also has many things in it that are too dangerous to do, or wouldn't work at all. Some of them have a significant probability of hurting you.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a naughty title, some media types and politicians went nuts over and and managed to ban it in various countries. Kids got hold of it, spread it around, and reveled in the naughtiness of it all. Like gaming from your youth, people have fond memories of it at the time.

      Anyone with half a brain knew you could easily get better information from standard chemistry books from high school and college libraries, and stores.

    3. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Cap'n.Brownbeard · · Score: 1

      It simply blew my mind that someone could be arrested for possession of this book because after all the notoriety it's really not that useful.

      I think you know why the gov't wants to lend the book notoriety

      This book exhibits somewhat of an active imagination in causing trouble ... oftentimes this trouble is easily traced back to you no matter how well the book tries to convince the reader you're being super careful and are virtually untraceable.

      Dumb criminals are dumb. And easy to catch.

    4. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by CODiNE · · Score: 2

      So that really WAS the book after all. I downloaded a copy of that as a kid and it seemed so stupid I figured I'd gotten a fake one.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    5. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      None of it's contents were worth a damn. Any kid with 1/2 a brain and without a pot addiction could make better anything by just thinking about it.

      Bomb? grab 10-20 packs of sparklers, the kiddie safe ones with wood sticks worked best, but the extra-dangerous metal wires ones work as well.
      Strip off all the stuff stuck to it, collect it and make sure it's in a powder. If you just want a "Bang" then simply use a plastic pill bottle and wrap it in a lot of paper tape, want it safer? then make your own paper canister. pack the powder into the container really tight. I mean REALLY tight. I would use a wooden dowel and a 5 pound sledge to tap it several times. I would then drill into the packed material and place a fast waterproof wick in it, top with cotton and cap it off.

      Within 20 feet of detonation, 20 packs of sparklers will make a bang you can not hear. all you hear is Ba...Riiiiiiiiiiingggggggggg.... after you feel the shockwave impact blow you back. the ringing will not stop for about 30 minutes, shouting is the only way you can hear each other talk.

      There is a ton more you can use around your home to make really nasty things.... a real "anarchist" learns mechanics, chemistry, and physics.... the Posers smoke pot and paint A's with circles on things.

    6. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      The anarchists cookbook also has many things in it that are too dangerous to do, or wouldn't work at all. Some of them have a significant probability of hurting you.

      Well, that was the allure of having the book in junior high, wasn't it? And if you did that stuff and survived, you were really the shit. Bonus points for scarring.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    7. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you know why the gov't wants to lend the book notoriety

      Actually, they didn't.

      That's probably the most interesting takeaway I got from the FOIA docs: FBI not only realized that there was nothing in there that wasn't already widely-known amongst the hippie counterculture, but they were even aware of the Streisand Effect, and explicitly made note not to mention the book's name in further updates to law enforcement, let it drum up more publicity for the book.

      As for the old "being arrested for being in posession of the book", what's really interesting is that nowhere in the docs do I see any serious attempt to try and pull the book from the shelves. There are letters from panicked citizens and politicians, but the FBI's take is pretty sane: find out who wrote it, figure out if they're actually encouraging people to do the things in the book (as such encouragement would be illegal), and when no such incitement could be found, shrug your shoulders and try to downplay the importance of the thing.

      If Hoover's FBI - with his legendary paranoia and long track record of abuses - was that sane with respect to TAC, maybe the present-day HomeSec apparatus is similarly-sane with respect to (pick your favorite privacy/crypto/piracy issue), and we just have to wait 40 years to find out that we, too, were also just being paranoid.

    8. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by onepoint · · Score: 2

      Where I find your observation is ... time frame reference.

      In the 70's and 80's, the lack of access to information ( even in public libraries ) was rather large. Therefor, people found this book useful ( even if they never used it ). The legacy is that people above the age of 40 speak to youth about how good it was to have something to fight the establishment.

      Given, you can find just about everything now on the internet, including the armed forces manuals, but back in the day, this was as near as the general public could get.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    9. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's how it was for most of us.

    10. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The book was memorable because it was prohibited. As a teenager, having a copy was one of the greatest taboos a middle-class suburban kid might violate. What better symbol of rebellion? It was common for the same reason kids in online games today scream "nigger" even though there is no indication that there are black people playing, and the kids themselves probably aren't particularly racist--it's a just violation of society's most severe taboos.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    11. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I always figured the Anarchist's Cookbook was just an idiot trap in two ways. One, you part suckers from money. Two, you give a bunch of these idiots a chance to blow themselves up should they actually try any of this crap. And three, in the modern age, you can tie their purchase to their identity cheaply in many cases. Biometrics are getting more popular and powerful and security cameras are as well. How long is it before you can pay with cash and be tied to a purchase in real time?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Steauengeglase · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was a bit like the Hacker's Manifesto in that it was written by a very passionate young person (William Powell, 22 at the time) that ran like wildfire amongst other passionate, like-minded (or at least very curious) young people. It also had the same reaction as H.M. when it's author went back, re-read it and was startled by how angry, foolish and idealistic they were in their youth and that almost all of that rage was caused by other sources.

      From what I've read Powell has felt very guilty about that book and he doesn't advise anyone to ever bother reading it.

    13. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually had the paperback version for a while. Didn't think it was worth it then either.

    14. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by FauxReal · · Score: 2

      You're right, the Anarchist Cookbook was rather pedestrian and some of the things there were not good ideas. The Poor Man's James Bond was a much better book and even that wasn't so great... but nobody flipped out over that one.

      I think it was the mystique of the AC that made people freak out, the name and having any sort of "dangerous" information in the hands of a subversive let their imaginations run wild with paranoid ideas. Think of the children! [TM]

    15. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because by spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) people can be manipulated and controlled politically.

      Fear is a powerful tool in the wrong hands..

    16. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      intent..

    17. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by plopez · · Score: 1

      Heavy equipment is hard to damage. They are built for abuse, e.g. running over scrap rebar. I still read FM 21-76, fun stuff. Great for weekends of survival camping, which is the best kind.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    18. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a copy and I had no idea having one would be illegal. It was just something I grabbed off a BBS somewhere.

    19. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by cusco · · Score: 1

      The authors weren't really trying to create a terrorist handbook, they were conducting an experiment in free speech vs censorship. IIRC they were surprised at how popular the book became, and that it was never really shut down (at least in the US).

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    20. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by 1729 · · Score: 2

      I downloaded a copy of that as a kid

      I feel old now.

    21. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Or get used oil from your car and go spill it next to their machinery and then tip off the EPA.

      Are you sure that's in the original book and not one of the later (digital) versions? Because in 1971, the EPA wouldn't have cared. The absolute paranoia about the tiniest spill of anything was over a decade away.
       
      OTOH, given the other stupid idea you list (popping the tires of heavy construction machinery... which are designed to survive the rough environment of construction sites) the suggestion about the oil may just be one more example the (original) authors overactive imagination.

    22. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by EdIII · · Score: 1

      It simply blew my mind that someone could be arrested for possession of this book because after all the notoriety it's really not that useful.

      I was arrested for this book... well almost. Vice Principal was certifiably insane. It did not help that in really tense situations as a child I started to laugh uncontrollably. She was walking around the office with a few other staff members around it reading parts of it out loud... and my only reaction was smiling and laughing.

      The Sheriff came in and started listening to her rant and demand that I was put in handcuffs. He stopped her after about a minute of it and told her that I had broke no laws of any kind and just walked out. *THAT* just pissed her off like no tomorrow because she is now looking like a fool in front of everyone in the office.

      I ended up expelled for 10 days till my parents got me back in school with the threat of lawsuits. It took a couple of people higher up in the school board to listen to reason.

      Guess what helped?

      1) I never showed it to anybody. It was left in my bag which was found later by a staff member trying to figure out who the bag belonged to.
      2) The chemistry teacher (interesting how many posts here mention this) had a copy he used for some neat experiments.
      3) The *valedictorian* of the school had it in his possession and actually did one of them as an experiment in his chemistry class.
      4) The fucking thing had an ISBN number. ISBN-10: 0962303208

      My conclusions about the book were pretty much inline with yours. I was dubious of most of them, but interested in some of the phreaking stuff. Not to really harm any networks or anything, but mostly just sincere curiosity.

      What I really took away from the whole experience are the double standards present in life and how some very irrational people can want to control others and punish them simply for possessing information, let alone distributing it. I think we see this now more than ever.

      P.S - This did come back to haunt me years later because I got a reputation through the school that I was a hacker and a terrorist and that it was the FBI that came to investigate me for getting into a bank. Wonderful how a story about a kid with a book can escalate and give you a reputation like that.

    23. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "It was common for the same reason kids in online games today scream "nigger" even though there is no indication that there are black people playing, and the kids themselves probably aren't particularly racist--it's a just violation of society's most severe taboos."

      Hmm..since when did uttering the word nigger become one of "societies most severe taboos"?

      I hear it in ordinary conversation on a regular basis..granted, not when black people are within earshot...but in a non-mixed race crowd, it is common for people to use the term nigger as being synonymous with black people in general.

      It isn't generally used as a derogatory term mind you, just a synonym.

      And no..these aren't mouth breathing rednecks either...prominent, educated people..even politicians.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    24. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by th0mas_g · · Score: 1

      It simply blew my mind that someone could be arrested for possession of this book because after all the notoriety it's really not that useful.

      Just like locks are put on doors to keep honest people honest, banning the sale of this book keeps the half-heated attempts of "disruption" at bay. Those who would use the tactics in the book aren't going to be stopped by it's ban, just like those who would break into your house aren't going to be stopped by a deadbolt.

    25. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by th0mas_g · · Score: 1

      My apologies to the English language... "by its ban"

    26. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The politicians who represent Southern white trash tend to be prominent Southern white trash. If you live in a white trash area you might hear politicians who say that. It would be unthinkable to hear that in most (all) of the civilized world, especially in school. Saying that within earshot of a teacher would get you worse punishment than actual physical violence it a lot of modern schools.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    27. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      I'm only 33, but when I was in my teens I checked it out from the library. I wasn't arrested, nor was I prohibited (even as a minor) from looking at it.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    28. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "The politicians who represent Southern white trash tend to be prominent Southern white trash. If you live in a white trash area you might hear politicians who say that. It would be unthinkable to hear that in most (all) of the civilized world, especially in school. Saying that within earshot of a teacher would get you worse punishment than actual physical violence it a lot of modern schools."

      I'd guess it might more of a regional thing...maybe more taboo in the northeast than in the southeast.

      But it isn't something I've noticed JUST in the southern US, but in many parts of the US.

      I hear it from old, young, wealthy, poor, trash, non-trash...even from non-whites. And of course, you hear black people calling each other niggers ALL the time...quite often in public.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    29. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You keep poor company.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    30. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Powell wrote the currently discussed book. Loyd Blankenship wrote the H.M.

      Powell has disowned the A.C (read the editorial review on Amazon's site - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0962303208/)

      Blankenship has not, as far as I'm am aware, ever recanted the Manifesto. Nor should he, it was not the same sort of document.

    31. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      And 10 seconds after I hit submit, my brain finally parses your comment correctly, revealing that you were actually correctly attributing the AC to Powell. Sorry about that, something in the sentence structure took me a while to get.

    32. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      nastiest trick I heard of is a bottle of milk spilled behind a shelf, on a carpet. I hope no one ever does it at my company!

    33. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *laughs and points his finger as he runs across your lawn*

      HAWW HAWW

    34. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by adolf · · Score: 1

      I downloaded a copy of that as a kid

      I feel old now.

      How old do you feel?

      It was the first e-book I'd ever read, though I didn't know it at the time: I downloaded it as a kid, too -- in 1991.

      And then, one of the older folks around me loaned me a copy of it. IIRC in high-quality, library-bound hardback form, which had been stolen from a local high school library. We both agreed, at the time, that physically stealing a book titled "Anarchist's Cookbook" really was the most appropriate means of acquisition.

    35. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "You keep poor company."

      And you must have a VERY limited number of people you associate with. Sounds limited and sheltered from what commonly goes on in the larger real world out there.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    36. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Viperpete · · Score: 1

      I had a similar experience with the book. I was able to lay my hands on a copy almost 20 years ago (late teens almost 20ish) and generally was not very impressed with the information in it. I spent my early to mid-teens doing a lot of model rocketry and making my own fireworks.

      The FM 21-76 is a great book. I would also suggest the "Improvised Munitions Black Book" and "The Poor Man's James Bond" for more effective content.

      Disclaimer: I bear no responsibility for any persons usage of the information I have related in this comment. I have never used any of the information I have gotten from the books I have read in any destructive or disruptive manner.

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
    37. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by lennier · · Score: 1

      I downloaded a copy of that as a kid

      I feel old now.

      Nah, he probably pulled it off Community Memory.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    38. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I feel the age I am,40. I first got this as a Paper Copy called "Steal this Book"

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    39. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by nurb432 · · Score: 0

      Why do we flip out that The Anarchist's Cookbook is available to terrorists when the Army is releasing far more useful books to anybody and everybody?

      Marketing.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    40. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      At every company I've worked at, using that word would mean immediate termination. At every school I've attended, that's one of the highest disciplinary offenses. Perhaps you went to school in 'challenged' areas of the south, and have only worked for small-time operations owned and managed by unsophisticated individuals?

      But then I've only worked and lived in the north, and I tend not to associate with scumbags socially. Your acquaintances don't happen to be part of the KKK, do they?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    41. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "an idiot trap in two ways.
      One, you part suckers ...
      Two, you give a bunch...
      And three, in the modern age... "

      *Amongst* the ways to trap an idiot are...

    42. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Nope..Man chill...never seen anyone get that bent out of shape. Are you black?

      Seriously....it is JUST a word. I don't have a problem with words....No worse than saying moherfucker, or asshole or spic or wankel rotary engine...alll just words man.

      I've worked many high end jobs my friend...and no, all of what I saw is JUST in the south. Maybe you need to go through other parts of the country, from what you said, sounds like you haven't experience much of America outside of where you were born and raised up north...as you put it.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    43. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by sjames · · Score: 1

      I've wondered why it was taken so seriously myself, then I saw a story about how the FBI convinced itself there were secret subversive and probably communist messages hidden in Louie Louie (yes, the song by the Kingsmen). They actually brought the band members in for questioning! I guess they've been making much ado about nothing for a long time. They're about one step away from having to keep their bullets in their pocket to protect their feet.

    44. Re:I Don't Understand This Legacy by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      True, Blankenship didn't recant it, I should have chosen my words better. Listening to a talk he did on it some years back, he seemed a bit embarrassed as it was revealing about his upbringing, surrounded by dogma and boredom.

  19. HoneyPot by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    Don't download it...they'll grab your IP and add you to a database of possible miscreants. Buy Catcher in the Rye or Mein Kampf and you'll be swarmed by men in black within 30 sec.

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:HoneyPot by PPH · · Score: 1

      Oh crap! Now you tell us.

      I guess I'd better get out of this Starbucks before the black helicopters arrive.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:HoneyPot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad how many people actually believe this, I remember being told this in high school by a teacher and gave up trying to explain the impossibility of tracking everyone who downloaded it, it was available on too many websites for it to be possible.

    3. Re:HoneyPot by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      I'm ok with people not really understanding. I feed my kids with money that comes from people who don't know much about computers and I, for one, hope it stays this way for a long time.

      Of course, when I'm trying to get the desperately needed server virtualization project approved I wish they knew a lot more but hey, what are you gonna do?

      --
      Loading...
  20. Don't like by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always found Anarchists a bit gamey, no matter how they're cooked.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:Don't like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, win my 'Excellent Sense of Humor' reward for the day.

      Congratulations, please keep your acceptance speech to less than 2 minutes.

    2. Re:Don't like by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of using the right spices and serving the right wine. Some people don't like the wild taste no matter what. It seems to be a matter of what you grow up with.
      IMO anarchists are better baked rather than cooked. With some good company they usually turn out to be sweet, and they never hog the bong.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    3. Re:Don't like by JustOK · · Score: 1

      most anarchists i've met are only half-baked at best.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  21. "Not Always Complete" by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the PDF under "enclosure" from someone reviewing the book:

    "The formulas and procedures presented concerning the production of high and low explosives cannot be called incorrect but they are not always complete and therefore present a hazard to anyone using the information"

    No kidding. Darwin Awards waiting to be handed out.

    As a BBSer with my own copy back in the day, we didn't dare try any of that shit because it even looked like it was missing steps.

    The Amateur Astronomer's Handbook has recipes for silvering mirrors, and there are warnings to not keep the mixture (sugar recipe) standing around too long because it creates silver fulminate. The complete lack of similar safety warnings in the Anarchists' Cookbook is a red flag not to try this stuff. Consult a real explosives manual instead.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:"Not Always Complete" by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      The Anarchists Cookbook is a very provocative book on first sight, but the closer one looks, the more it is revealed to be a coffee-table ornament.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    2. Re:"Not Always Complete" by Angst+Badger · · Score: 0

      As a BBSer with my own copy back in the day, we didn't dare try any of that shit because it even looked like it was missing steps. [...] Consult a real explosives manual instead.

      Seriously. The paperwork to get an explosives license and be able to buy dynamite and other explosives legally is quite simple. What's difficult is demonstrating that you know what the hell you're doing and having the necessary setup to store them safely. Explosives are, by definition, unstable. That's a large part of what makes them explosives in the first place and why it took several centuries of experimentation to produce powerful explosives that were stable enough to handle if the people doing the handling knew what they were doing. Even then, the number of fatal accidents caused by explosives at construction sites and military installations is quite sobering.

      The real catch is that producing explosives safely, at least in a developed country, is such an involved process that you can't avoid attracting the attention of the authorities, and doing it clandestinely is extremely dangerous even if you do know what you're doing. There's a reason clowns like Osama bin Laden sit safely in their hideouts while barely literate chumps make their bombs for them at a safe distance.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    3. Re:"Not Always Complete" by Creepy · · Score: 1

      True, but what they did by naming it that was give a big middle finger to the people fighting against free speech and say we have the right to tell people how to do this, whether it's legal to do or not - this is the same time frame as other free speech wars were also being fought (like pornography), so it is very significant for its time.

    4. Re:"Not Always Complete" by russotto · · Score: 1

      Explosives are, by definition, unstable.

      No, they aren't. A lot of explosives are unstable, but it's not necessary for an explosive to be unstable, and it's often desirable that it not be. TNT is stable, RDX is stable. Nitroglycerin is unstable in liquid form, and it was worth a good deal of money to Nobel to come up with a way of making it more stable.

    5. Re:"Not Always Complete" by Markvs · · Score: 1

      Absolutely right! I also had a few versions and it all looked so... dated to my 1986 eyes. The weapons descriptions, the basic tactics, and the technology (never mind the bomb making) read more like a history book than a real manual. (That and a kid I knew blew half of his hand off making pipe bombs.) IMO the AC was never really meant to incite revolt but to serve as either a "cautionary work" or to "point people in the right direction". Anyone who actually tried applying anything from it likely walked away somewhat disappointed and/or with a few wounds to lick.

      --
      46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
  22. Knock knock: Banana Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think if the recipes were really dangerous (as opposed to harmless, they just don't work) more people would would be blowing their faces off.

    Probably most idiot readers just tried smoking the roasted banana peels and after they realized all it gave them was a headache and coughing up nasty phlegm, they gave up on the remainder of the book.

  23. Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still have a copy of this book somewhere in storage

  24. dangerous threat to freedom? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    OH , I thought you were talking about this
    LOL, CIA

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  25. The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by MaxNomad68 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The true power of The Anarchist Cookbook has almost nothing to do with its contents. Matter of fact, if it were Mexican Cuisine, the Anarchist Cookbook would be day-old Taco Bell. The thing that William Powell (the original author) managed to do was accidentally come up with one of the underground's most powerful BRAND NAMES, one that could single-handedly ignite the imaginations of a typical teenager so much that it got out of his control. Once the publisher saw that it was such a money-maker, they refused to let it die. Eventually, the early crop of computer underground "anarchists" on the BBS scene took the book concept and created digital extensions of the information in the form of "G-Files" and early 8-bit graphics. By the time the Anarchist Cookbook made it to the Internet, it was no longer a book. It was a movement, one without direction or guidance or measurable intent, all loosely bound together by a set of files that had been slapped with the same Anarchist Cookbook brand name. Most of the people who downloaded the Cookbook, in whatever form, probably never tried much beyond a smoke bomb or two. The thrill was in the power of the potential of the information itself, even if it was incorrect. For the FBI to dedicate this much time studying it makes me sit back and scratch my head. Truth be told, the Central Library in any given city is far more dangerous... it just doesn't sound anywhere near as appealing to the typical kid.

    --
    Max Nomad . Bohemian Griot Publishing, LLC . http://www.bgpublishing.com
    1. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by jftitan · · Score: 1

      I pissed off a neighbor by leaving Bologna on his hood.

        it sat there for a whole day roasting on his hood in the Texas dry sun. Realized his paint job forever on would have a round mark.

        Experiment tested, and completed 5/15/98

      --
      "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
    2. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by MaxNomad68 · · Score: 1

      I pissed off a neighbor by leaving Bologna on his hood.

      it sat there for a whole day roasting on his hood in the Texas dry sun. Realized his paint job forever on would have a round mark.

      Experiment tested, and completed 5/15/98

      ...and that was one of those things that came from the digital extention of the Anarchist Cookbook, not in the original published book. My crew and I were among that crop of underground types that had converted the Anarchist Cookbook to a [Apple] disk-based archive back in 1984. By 1986 we had moved on to the Kurt Saxon's books (Poor Man's James Bond, etc). All in all, once the digital version of The Anarchist Cookbook hit the 90s it had basically been stripped of all the original anti-Vietnam War and anti-government rhetoric. It was just a collection of how-to articles for pranks, expensive revenge stunts, a few munitions, and occasional drug-related info. My point -- real knowledge is a only dangerous thing depending on the brain that possesses it. Once the feds stick to that notion they'll be better off finding the real threats instead of archaic books that won't go away.

      --
      Max Nomad . Bohemian Griot Publishing, LLC . http://www.bgpublishing.com
    3. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by weav · · Score: 1

      Darn, and my mod points expired yesterday.

      +1 Insightful!

    4. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      For the FBI to dedicate this much time studying it makes me sit back and scratch my head. Truth be told, the Central Library in any given city is far more dangerous...

      Not in 1971 it wasn't. At least not without weeks and months of rooting around in a wide variety of books with the vague hope of finding what you're looking for.
       
      Like many here on Slashdot you have no freaking idea how hard it was to get this kind of information before the BBS's and eventually widespread public access to the internet.
       

      Eventually, the early crop of computer underground "anarchists" on the BBS scene took the book concept and created digital extensions of the information in the form of "G-Files" and early 8-bit graphics. By the time the Anarchist Cookbook made it to the Internet, it was no longer a book. It was a movement, one without direction or guidance or measurable intent, all loosely bound together by a set of files that had been slapped with the same Anarchist Cookbook brand name.

      I bet you think you kids invented sex too... (You didn't.) That 'movement' existed before the widespread public internet, before BBS's.
       
      We were passing around second and third generation photocopies from the Cookbook in Junior High by 1974. And there weren't coin operated photocopiers on every corner then either... (Generally you had to have stealth access to one in a business or a sympathetic adult providing access.) Why do you think that when files sharing BBS's became common over a decade later that somebody thought it was a good idea to sit down and type all that stuff in?

    5. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The thing that William Powell (the original author) managed to do was accidentally come up with one of the underground's most powerful BRAND NAMES, one that could single-handedly ignite the imaginations of a typical teenager so much that it got out of his control.

      Today we'd have wiki.anarchistscookbook.com
      and every page with chemical reactions would have a link to youtube with step by step demonstrations.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by MaxNomad68 · · Score: 2

      For the FBI to dedicate this much time studying it makes me sit back and scratch my head. Truth be told, the Central Library in any given city is far more dangerous...

      Not in 1971 it wasn't. At least not without weeks and months of rooting around in a wide variety of books with the vague hope of finding what you're looking for. Like many here on Slashdot you have no freaking idea how hard it was to get this kind of information before the BBS's and eventually widespread public access to the internet.

      Eventually, the early crop of computer underground "anarchists" on the BBS scene took the book concept and created digital extensions of the information in the form of "G-Files" and early 8-bit graphics. By the time the Anarchist Cookbook made it to the Internet, it was no longer a book. It was a movement, one without direction or guidance or measurable intent, all loosely bound together by a set of files that had been slapped with the same Anarchist Cookbook brand name.

      I bet you think you kids invented sex too... (You didn't.) That 'movement' existed before the widespread public internet, before BBS's. We were passing around second and third generation photocopies from the Cookbook in Junior High by 1974. And there weren't coin operated photocopiers on every corner then either... (Generally you had to have stealth access to one in a business or a sympathetic adult providing access.) Why do you think that when files sharing BBS's became common over a decade later that somebody thought it was a good idea to sit down and type all that stuff in?

      Derek,

      While it's true that (1) all kids more or less grow up doing the same s**t (based on the technology of the day) and (2) I appreciate the fire in your response, I'm pretty sure you completely missed my points. I wasn't trying to claim any credit or validate ANY version (or variation) of the Anarchist Cookbook in any era.

      My points:

      • The Anarchist Cookbook doesn't go away because it has become a runaway brand name unto itself -- regardless of the fact that it contains a ton of inaccurate information.
      • The most dangerous information in the Anarchist Cookbook was (and still is) available in any well-stocked library or military munitions manual. People have been making black powder for over 1500 years. There's nothing new with most of those basic formulas, only the applications.
      • The FBI dedicating all that time to "investigating" the Anarchist Cookbook was a huge waste of time and taxpayer dollars. What they did was like investigating a book like "The Joy of Sex" because of issues related to STDs and teen pregnancy.
      --
      Max Nomad . Bohemian Griot Publishing, LLC . http://www.bgpublishing.com
    7. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by MaxNomad68 · · Score: 1

      The thing that William Powell (the original author) managed to do was accidentally come up with one of the underground's most powerful BRAND NAMES, one that could single-handedly ignite the imaginations of a typical teenager so much that it got out of his control.

      Today we'd have wiki.anarchistscookbook.com and every page with chemical reactions would have a link to youtube with step by step demonstrations.

      Excellent point!

      --
      Max Nomad . Bohemian Griot Publishing, LLC . http://www.bgpublishing.com
    8. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't miss you points - I showed the factual errors in the assumptions that underlie your points. You're falsely projecting from your experience backwards into a very different era.

    9. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by MaxNomad68 · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't miss you points - I showed the factual errors in the assumptions that underlie your points. You're falsely projecting from your experience backwards into a very different era.

      My experience has nothing to do with the era; I was 3 years old when that book was originally published. Matter of fact, the only reason I brought up the BBS era was because the other responder to this thread had mentioned doing a "bologna on the hood of a car" prank -- something that was not published in the original book. Stunts like that weren't even in the spirit of what the original book was about. And the fact that he mentioned a 1998 date kinda illustrates that he's probably not that old, either. The mention of the digital era was solely to show how the Anarchist Cookbook took on yet another life of its own outside the published version.

      --
      Max Nomad . Bohemian Griot Publishing, LLC . http://www.bgpublishing.com
    10. Re:The Real Power behind The Anarchist Cookbook... by Viperpete · · Score: 1

      Not that I have ever done any such a thing, but I always thought it to be more interesting if you were to cut out bologna letters for this malicious prank. I hear mustard works well, too. Additionally, cramming sardines into their hood vent air intakes (that goes to the cab heat/AC) or even dead fish behind their hubcaps were also interesting concepts to me.

      Once again, I have never done these things and bear no responsibility for any one who takes this comment out of it's informational context and does them. Personally, I just am not that mean spirited and if I have a problem with someone I prefer direct face-to-face legal confrontation.

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
  26. Some might make their own perks.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1
    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  27. Re:chemistry teacher by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    My Gram taught at the Jr. High chem depart, but it turned out she was a Mole for the FBI. /Joke

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  28. got to love the FBI by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    I love how they clearly breached copyright law on page 170 of the PDF and made a duplicate of the floppy disk before giving the original back...

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  29. Imaging a Disk by AbrasiveCat · · Score: 1

    I have always though that "Imaging a Disk" was a little more complicated than putting it on a copier. No wonder the FBI isn't the lead agency for cyber security.

  30. See something, say something BS by whoda · · Score: 1

    The people writing to the head of the FBI to get the whole investigation started really surprised me.

    Just imagine what all these 'concerned citizens' are reporting to the head of the FBI these days.

  31. Purchase by masterz · · Score: 1

    I purchased this book at Borders some years ago. I had to order it, as they didn't have it in stock. The first time the order came in, they gave me "The Anarch Cookbook" Turns out it's not the same thing. It's quite an amusing read. I'm not sure there's actually one piece of useful information in there.

    1. Re:Purchase by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      http://www.amazon.com/Anarch-Cookbook-Friendly-Masquerade-Sourcebook/dp/1565040481

      The Anarch Cookbook: A Friendly Guide to Vampire Politics (Vampire The Masquerade Sourcebook) [Paperback]
      Bill Bridges (Author), Kerry Thornley (Author)

      The one review

      The Anarch Cookbook is well written. It is indeed a manual for Anarch politics, warfare and their way of unlife. With descriptions on strategies for times of peace as well as melee and ranged combat tactics, weapon infos and bomb making. Notes on water cannons, bullet proof vests and shield parry. How to incite riots and revolts and how pacify them again. Useful for Anarchs and counter forces, like the Prince, the Primogen, the police and paramilitary units. It is a manual and for that it's good. On the other hand it lacks everything concerning their history and decision making processes within the movement, either in Camarillan cities, the Anarch Free State or in Sabbat strongholds.
      The Cookbook only pictures the USA. The statement all, Anarchs left Europe in an Exodus-like migration, seems to be blown out of proportions. The movement began in the old world and nothing explains why all Anarchs should have left European cities only to live in the then Camarilla controlled American cities.
      The book misses any comment on the unlifespan of Anarchs. I guess not all of them are neonates. Or is it their doom to die young - even in "peaceful" cities? Though many probably do, a number of Elders from the of the Inquisition might still exist.
      To resume, it's not an encyclopaedia it's a cookbook.

      $15 new or used from $2.32 potential for scoring points with goth chicks maybe.

    2. Re:Purchase by masterz · · Score: 1

      I guess my antecedents were confusing. I didn't meant to say the Anarch Cookbook was not useful, as I didn't read much past the cover. The Anarchist Cookbook is good only for entertainment value.

  32. too all the kooks out there: by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    If you don't build a steam-powered robot to go into a place to shoot it up, you're just some limp-dicked pussy playing with himself.

    Can't you at least bother with the effort to build an armoured bulldozer if you feel disgruntled and want to smash shit up?
    Although stealing a tank and rampaging down the freeway generates some lulz for a while...

    geeze, going by this, and my other posts in this thread, you'd think I have a full set of looney collector cards or something...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  33. Re:It was 'must have' for every BBS back in the 90 by Creepy · · Score: 1

    The BBS version dates to the early 80s (for certain 1981 - I had a borrowed modem and 48k Apple ][ that summer, though I'm not 100% certain that was the huge 336 page one I printed by 1983 -- and I'm sure it got bigger). It had a lot more techie stuff than the printed copy I saw years later (for instance phone phreaking boxes, hacked modem lines like the pentagon press server, etc).

  34. No, he became smart by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You just became "them".

    He didn't say he didn't want his son making explosives. He just doesn't want him doing it wrong.

    Leaving the Anarchists Cookbook around is like leaving a cookbook around that uses arsenic as the main ingredient. It's just a bad idea that could easily mislead someone reading it into doing something that would hurt them simply because it was wrong.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:No, he became smart by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, a lot of us that had the book and tried stuff from it seem to be doing ok and posting here on Slashdot today. Why would our offspring fare any worse - after all they have our genes!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    2. Re:No, he became smart by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I also read through the book but it was complete drek. The only reason others are still alive is because enough things failed before they gave up to get to the things that would have worked against them.

      That's the thing, you wouldn't want your son reading it not because of the danger so much as because so much of it is plain wrong.

      If it's still around at all, a much better book is "The Poor Mans James Bond". tons of awesome stuff that actually works.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  35. Author disowned it by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    For anyone who doesn't know, the author has since disowned the book. See his comment on Amazon:
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0974458902

  36. KNO3 + Sugar is more useful than mere smokebombs by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Such a mixture is sometimes referred to as "Rocket Candy", because you can make your own solid fuel rocket motors from it:

    http://www.jamesyawn.net/
    http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/
    http://sugarshot.org/

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  37. Some things never change. by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

    It's good to know that even back in the 70's people were still using multiple punctuation marks to make a point.

    "Danger! What are you doing about this???"

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  38. Old news ... by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Anybody ever read "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffmann?
    (anybody ever steal a copy of Steal this book?)

    1. Re:Old news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I stole "Steal This Album" by System of a Down!

    2. Re:Old news ... by splatter · · Score: 1

      Yes sir!
        Proudly next to my copy of "Steal This Urine Test", "On the road", "Dharma Bums", "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests", and other Beat / Hippy / Yippies literature. I found though a lot of the material of "steal this book" to be out dated and no longer relevant even when I read it over twenty years ago. It was more to read as a period piece for me then anything else.

      No I did not steal either of Hoffman's books. I would still recommend reading them if your interested in the 60's counter culture.

           

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  39. The Monkey Wrench Gang by plopez · · Score: 2

    Required reading if you like the Anarchists Cookbook. See also:

    http://earth-liberation-front.org/

    http://www.animalliberationfront.com/

    Which have practical field tested techniques.

    I'll probably end up on a watch list for this post.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  40. "Five day waiting period? But I'm mad NOW!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obligatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

    - I'd kill you if I had my gun!
    - Yeah, well, you don't.

    .

  41. Heavy equipment sabotage.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    You just need a more specific kind of book.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/20067785/7797489-Eco-Defense

    Plenty of detailed instructions on neutering heavy construction equipment.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  42. "Five day waiting period?" by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

    "Five day waiting period? But my psychotic ex is threatening to kill me and my children TODAY!"

    1. Re:"Five day waiting period?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Five day waiting period? But my psychotic ex is threatening to kill me and my children TODAY!"

      And a gun will really help you more than say a police force that's actually willing to take steps to help you with your safety?

      Don't get me wrong, I detest how the police can as easily oppress somebody with force as they can get somebody killed with indifference, but don't you think it'd be a good idea if they did something rather than just relying on you having a gun and using it at the right time in the right way?

      Somehow I think for the cost of that gun, you could be put up in a shelter just as easily.

  43. Who's the lucky one. by meerling · · Score: 1

    I'd say my chemistry teacher was lucky to survive us students.

    Just two of the incidents that occurred:

    One of them had us splitting water to release hydrogen. I'd done this before and knew I was doing it right, but the stupid punks wouldn't ignite the hydrogen. After a half hour of frustration, I turned the beaker over the bunsen burner and got a nice little explosion. As the teacher went to yell at me, the rest of the class, also very frustrated by this time, followed suit. It sounded like a battlefield with all the explosions. After that he dismissed class and went to the teachers lounge.

    A second incident he was demonstrating the volatility of manganese in water. (Or was it magnesium, I always get those names mixed up.) He was having each of us take a tiny piece off of this huge chunk he had, and tossing it in the fish tank to watch it skitter around on top. Right after I did it, my friend came up. He didn't take a small piece, he tossed in the entire chunk before the teacher could stop him. The teacher only had time to yell "oh shit, duck!" just before the fish tank blew. This was yet another day he dismissed class and went to the teachers lounge.

    There were several other things that happened there that year, all were the fault of us students. That poor chemistry/science teacher probably lost his hair and sanity very early because of us.

  44. Yeah by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I loved that Star Trek episode too.

  45. Cookbook by Luckster7 · · Score: 1

    When I was about 16 my mom found my Anarchist Cookbook. She proclaimed "Son, I'm so proud of you! You have a cookbook!". True story.

    --
    Deuteronomy 13:06-9
  46. I RTFA by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

    From reading the actual FBI file, I noticed something interesting :

          1. The FBI made an effort to investigate the book's author BEFORE they determined a crime had even been committed.
          2. The FBI wrongly assumed the author was a pseudonym because they felt the topics "spoke from firsthand experience". They obviously never asked a chemist or someone who had actually tried these techniques if anything in the book would work. Had they done so, they would have realized the book was fake. Also, these government agents tended to take advertising copy at face value...getting information from the media the same way we do.
          3. The FBI REALLY IS WATCHING YOU. Send them a letter and a news clipping and complain, and the FBI will INVESTIGATE YOU! Every letter written by some old lady had a note attached where an agent checked the files on that lady and found out what she had sent in the past. (evidently each time when the FBI found that a person had sent them things that seemed supportive of the agency, they would stop investigating)

    The Man's own private records reveal many of the things we say about him are true. The Man really is ignorant and responds to popular opinion, not common sense. Criticize The Man, or communicate with him at all, and he will try to find a reason to send you to prison.

    1. Re:I RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The FBI made an effort to investigate the book's author BEFORE they determined a crime had even been committed.

      Well, duh. How would you determine whether a crime has been committed, without investigating? Ouija board?

      3. The FBI REALLY IS WATCHING YOU. Send them a letter and a news clipping and complain, and the FBI will INVESTIGATE YOU! Every letter written by some old lady had a note attached where an agent checked the files on that lady and found out what she had sent in the past. (evidently each time when the FBI found that a person had sent them things that seemed supportive of the agency, they would stop investigating)

      Again, duh. "I've got a letter here from Mrs Trellis of North Dakota. Is she one of the usual nutjobs who writes us every week?"

      Seriously, what's the minimum you would do if you received a letter like that? You'd surely at least look up to see if you'd had any correspondence with this fruitcake in the past. If that's what you mean by "INVESTIGATE YOU!", I can live with it.

      The Man's own private records reveal many of the things we say about him are true. The Man really is ignorant and responds to popular opinion, not common sense. Criticize The Man, or communicate with him at all, and he will try to find a reason to send you to prison.

      Dear g^Hmods...

      In round numbers... how many of these people who wrote to the FBI were subsequently jailed? What's that as a proportion? Do you think the answers to those questions will back up the case that The Man "will try to find a reason to send you to prison"?

  47. Floppy disk scan isn't crazy by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    I don't think the scan of the floppy disk is particularly crazy. They were just cataloging it along with anything else that came with it.

  48. Re:KNO3 + Sugar is more useful than mere smokebomb by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Yes, but if you do, you had better do it carefully. When I was in 7th grade, one of the other kids in the same grade blew part of his hand off making a rocket engine out of that stuff.

    It's one of those simple formulas that most people will (or at least should) stay the hell away from.

  49. Somewhat shocking, by bored · · Score: 1

    That I didn't see an analysis of the book anywhere in that whole stack of crap. If this is what constitutes and FBI file, either the FBI didn't take the book seriously, or they waste a lot of effort on stupid BS.

  50. Is this a trick question? by rts008 · · Score: 1

    How about neither.

    I choose not to be robbed.

    How do you justify that ridiculous binary choice?
    Being a victim is a mindset/attitude. Your choice to be one, or not.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  51. Gun or knife... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    It depends, really.

    Personally, I think somebody robbing me with a gun is less likely to shoot than a guy with a knife is going to stab me. Why?

    A gun is LOUD. A knife, not so much. In most areas I frequent, a gunshot is going to get a lot of attention, and a robber is most likely going to know that.

    Plus, guns are just plain more valuable - if he fires, he has to worry about ballistic evidence, and especially today there's a fairly high probability of not getting enough money to replace it. With a knife? Simply discard after wiping prints(or wear gloves), they're not even $20.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  52. Re:What about a bomb? by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Someone who keeps making his own bombs is likely to blow himself up soon. That's what happened to a classmate back in highschool -- put a quick end to his promising football career.

  53. "why is this allowed to be published" by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I think the letters to the FBI are more frightening then a book's content ever could have been.

    American citizens calling for someones first amendment rights to be stripped, simply beacuse they disprove of the content, should scare the hell out of anyone with 1/2 a brain.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  54. I have to laugh by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    The putting nails in webbing then covering with gravel to puncture tires made me laugh. Why? Because I'm picturing them trying to use 2" nails to puncture the tires of a bulldozer - either treads or tires with multi-inch layers of rubber.

    Why do we flip out that The Anarchist's Cookbook is available to terrorists when the Army is releasing far more useful books to anybody and everybody?

    Not sure. I think it's because it's attained a sort of cult legend status.

    And arresting somebody for merely possessing it seems to be like asking for a lawsuit.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  55. Fallacy by jvonk · · Score: 1

    tell me, how many would gelman have killed if he had a gun instead of a knife? understand yet?

    Just to weigh in on this facet of the debate, I would like to point out that you have here committed a logical fallacy often referred to as Moving the Goalposts.

  56. bananadine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tripped balls on bananadine.

  57. Anarchist's Cookbook by pedro1948 · · Score: 1

    I bought a copy of this book about 1971 in NYC in the Village and it was a laugh. No formulas for explosives, poisons, etc., just a load of crap like putting a contact explosive in a whistle. I can't believe the FBI wasted time and money on this. I think it cost me $2.98 and that was $2.97 too much.