> when used with wildcards and other matching expressions, is much faster than selecting a set of files and dragging them to another window/folder, etc
Except when the group of files do not have anything in their filename in common. Let's say you have 300 MP3s in a folder of various genres, but the genre is not in the filename. You know that in your head, so you con identify them, but the OS cannot. Using a shell, you would have to pick & choose them one by one, but with a GUI, you can select all those in a genre and drag & drop it to the right folder. That's just one example in which using the CLI is horribly tedious.
I agree that for files that are sorted by something in the name, yeah, a CLI is MAAAANY times faster -- just not in all cases.
> I'm curious to know your reasons on why MoveOn.org is a kook fringe organization. > From what I can see, they seem to stand for anything anti-Bush (without question).
You answered your own question. Blindly following ANYTHING is "kooky." They also cry foul about things that happen to them that aren't illegal and should not be -- specifically, their Super Bowl commercial that was blocked by the network.
> Because country of origin is an accident of birth.
I'm unclear what you mean by that. Do you mean that I should care about other countries because of the random placement, or that you agree that I don't have to care because of it?
> I get the impression sometimes that a lot of the population of the US doesn't believe that anything outside its borders really matters.
That is because, to most people inside those borders, the other people REALLY DO NOT MATTER. We never have any interaction with you, so we don't care what you do. Just like what we do inside our borders really doesn't matter to you, unless you choose to get upset by it.
It helps that you have a different perspective: it's almost trivial for you to go to another country for the afternoon. For most Americans, you have to plan a full day just to get outside the country. That is why we don't care about foreign relations much, because we don't ralate to foreigners -- generally, the only people we meet are Americans (or tourists).
I'm a bit annoyed by people claiming we have some responsibility to do something based SOLELY on the country we happened to be born in. I know you think I'm priviledged or an asshole just because I'm an American, and that I should try to feed all the starving babies in the world since I've "had everything handed to me." Well, that's crap. I still have to work my ass off to survive reasonably plus cable TV and Internet access (that's my entire entertainment budget). I still have to worry about day-to-day stuff like everyone else, I am not able to join the Peace Corps, even if I thought it was useful, I simply cannot afford to.
What gives you the right to demand that I care about anything, regardless of borders? You have no such right, just as I have the right to not give a shit, to hate my government, or to be an obeying sheep.
> I, for once, would consider the second lawyers are needed the moment of decline
Do you have ANY idea how long lawyers have been around? As long as Democracy; longer, even. Never heard a quote from a Greek philosopher about lawyers, eh? They were considered a "necessary" evil WAAAAY back then too.
What should be considered the moment of decline (in that regard) is when people decided they could make a quick million by acting like a retard and hurting themselves and not taking responsibility for their idiocy.
Sorry, I'm not trying to insult any retards by equating them with lawsuit-happy assholes.
Normally I don't like "then install this..." answers, but that does look very nice. Looks like a WM should, but isn't cluttered with junk all over the place. I think I'm gonna give that a go tonight, thanks!
I agree that MS Office is a billion times better than OO.o, but the only way it "sets the standards" is by modifying previous standards. It's not about catching up at all, it's about MS intentionally changing things so that it doesn't work the same as old "standards," which don't happen to be standards at all.
The point of "standards" is that a group of people decides what a file format looks like. If that "group" is one company that will not release the information, it is just a format, not a standard.
I dislike Windows immensely, but Linux is not a viable permanent option at the moment. I heard someone claim that Linux is faster, but that is only true if you tweak things, or at least don't use default install options. I have an AMD 450 that dual boots Windows 2000 SP4 and Mandrake Linux 10. They take about the same amount of time to get to the login prompt, (Linux may actually be 2-3 seconds faster there) but after logging in, Windows takes about 7 seconds to show the desktop, and another 3 or four until you can actually do anything. When Gnome (KDE was even slower) loads, it's about 20 seconds until the desktop shows up and another 10-20 (or longer) until anything can be run. When the desktop comes up, I usually open up a console window. I click on the icon and have to wait almost 45 seconds until it appears. After that, the operational speed of the OSes are pretty similar. Yes, I'm sure it's possible to change some things to make it run faster, but I have no idea what, other than disabling services & options that are present in Windows. That would take some previous knowledge and/or a lot of research. The real problem is that "the average desktop user" will not know that this is possible. You can educate them, but they don't want to know how to recompile anything, or even edit a textfile to change options. Yes, it's easy to do, if you know what you are doing -- most people don't.
Then the elitist geek attitude comes in, "then they should learn how to use it." No, they shouldn't. Not everyone that drives a car knows how an internal combustion engine works. We know that really, it's pretty simple. That doesn't mean that someone should be unable to drive if they don't know how it works (I know, many of you would disagree -- get over yourself).
You don't know how the brain works, does that mean you shouldn't be able to use it?
> "Real" property is just as artificial a construct as intellectual property, as nearly as I can tell
Then you can't tell very nearly at all. I can hold a television in my hands, I can pick it up and taek it away from you. I can take a CD as well. I cannot take a song. I cannot take a piece of software. I cannot take a movie. I can take the media that movie is printed on, but the media is not the production. They are not even remotely the same.
> I would like to share some of the things you are currently using.
Sure, but if you don't believe in ownership, you also don't believe that me stabbing you with a sharp stick when you come into the place where I live is illegal either. So if you feel like being killed, sure, come take whatever you want.
Really, though, in my ideal world, there isn't any need to steal it, you could borrow it, or just have one of your own.
> You're saying that the number of guns available to criminals carrying guns will go up
Geez, you are wrong in the first sentence. Read what I said, not what you want me to say. Basically, what I said was: 1) There are a set number of guns out there. Hell, an increasing number 2) X% of them (probably X >90) have permits 3) That means (100-X)% (10?) are illegal 4) You reduce the number of permits, and therefore the percent of guns without a matching permit goes up. See?
> we're interested in the availability of guns to people who intend to commit violent crimes with them
If someone can obtain something legally, they can obtain it illegally, so in a sense, that is not at all what we should be interested in. We should be interested in making these people not want to use those "illegal" guns.
> You could argue that a further criminalization of gun ownership will cause some current peaceful gun owners to become violent criminals
You are putting words in my mouth, I said nothing remotely close to that.
> others will drop out of the market.
When you are talking about (dedicated) criminals, however, they don't "drop out" of the market, they go to another source. Such as killing someone they know DOES have a gun -- like another gang, the POLICE, whoever.
Removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens and "common" criminals could lower the instances of things like gunpoint holdups, where the armed person rarely has any intention of shooting, they just need some intimidation to convince the other person to hand over the moolah. These could be done with sharp sticks, but certainly wouldn't carry the same threat of death as a gun, and they know it. What WOULD increase is organized crime, gangs, etc. who can either afford to buy them, or have the resources to steal them.
> Would it be a lot of use for defence if someone sprayed you first?
If someone is beating you, you have a good idea where they are, even if blinded. Being a human, or maybe even getting a look at the mugger before he sprayed you, you have a good idea where his head should be. After that, it's a simple matter of spraying like mad, in that general direction. Better a blind victim & a blind mugger than a blind victim minus wallet/valuables and a mugger prancing happily away.
Come on, pepper spray illegal? What a load of shit.
> Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify repealing the first amendment.
Umm, most of our rights protect us from intrusions from the government. They do not apply to companies trying to intrude on our lives. Especially the one about free speech. Sure, they're getting to be the same, but there is a fine line -- such as, the government can decide to fuck over a company on almost a whim (such as, if an executive of theirs said something that pissed off someone "important").
> Uh, if you steal an artist's work, you steal from an artist. The artist is not going to get paid their share. There is no "partially correct" about this
Yes, there is. I don't subscribe to the belief that nontangible things can be owned. Therefore there is no stealing involved. You also assume that they automatically deserve "their share" when they create music. It's nice to give people things for using their work, but just because your beliefs fall where they do, does not mean that mine do as well. If I download music, I am doing it just for the sake of listening to it. I am not doing anything morally wrong by listening to music. If I go to a store and steal a CD, I am. If I go to the artist's home and force them to perform for me, I am breaking the law as well.
Those artists chose to sign contracts. People chose to do things that resulted in that music being created. I did not choose to abide by their contracts, I did not choose to be born into a capitalist country, I do not choose to accept that things can really be owned. You can call it a cop out, you can call it justifying theft, I can say it's my right as a human to do as I want, I can call you a closed-minded fool. None of them are 100% right.
The music is there to be downloaded. The intent of posting it may be good, may be malicious, may be neutral (usually the last). I know it is there. Since I do not believe in ownership of such things, I have no moral qualms downloading it. Counter to your claim, however, I HAD THIS BELIEF BEFORE P2P WAS DREAMED OF. I had it before I ever copied a piece of commercial software. It is not some magical justification I pulled out of my ass as soon as I needed to defend myself. No matter what you call "logic," it still relies on some basic assumptions: namely that everyone views legal ownership the same way you do. Cry as much as you want that it's a cop out, but it is the truth, regardless how much you don't want to believe it. Stop thinking everyone thinks like you.
> It's the naivete of youth that thinks it knows the system.
It's the stubbornness of the old that keeps any good change from happening. You can make up stupid phrases that mean nothing, but so can I.
You talk about those hippies, and you are right, most of them thought it would be easy & thought they were making a political statement -- they were not prepared to deal with reality. If they were not doing it in California, they would have been forced to succeed, and would have (or died). However, they lived in an area already populated with capitalist ideas, they just took the easy route and gave in to the system. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's a flip side. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM WANTING TO LIVE COMMUNALLY EITHER. They just happened to be too lazy to pull it off.
> I've heard that concerts are often expected to lose money but help promote album sales.
Strange, I've heard the exact opposite -- CD sales pay for the creation of the music, and then the artists make money by going on tour. I wonder which is true, or if both are, depending on style, popularity, etc.
> So, am I the only person you know who thinks you should need a good reason for carrying any offensive weapon?
That same category includes a pen knife, OR A FORK. Yes, you are the only person I have ever met (or conversed with in some way) with such a ludicrous ideal.
> How often do you and your compatriots use your firearms to defend yourselves against, or otherwise duly influence your government?
That is not the point. The point is that the government would have more power over the people if the people have no way to retaliate. If we were using guns to counteract things like PATRIOT, then you would be perfectly right in banning them. The fact that no one was shot because of it (bring on the baseless cries of military abusers) proves that we AREN'T ready to jump up and shoot anyone!
> Now ask how often firearms are used against your fellow citizens. Your friends. Your neighbors. Your family.
Never. Not the answer you were looking for, but it's the truth. You seem to have this idea that everyone in the U.S. owns a gun, or at least there's one on every block. There isn't. Where I live, there may be, but I live in what would probably be considered a "hick" area -- There are a lot of hunters, but they teach their children gun safety from a young age, and keep them locked away (the guns, not the kids:). They also eat what they hunt; they don't just kill a deer, chop off its head or antlers and let the rest of it rot in the field. Many of them butcher the animals & donate the meat to places like soup kitchens if it is too much for them & their families to use in a timely manner.
Gun owners aren't barbarous, ignorant heathens -- they are people just like like you and I (I am not a gun owner, nor will I probably ever own one). If they get into an argument, they don't think about killing someone any more than we would. In fact, they may be LESS likely to kill someone than if they hadn't learned how to use one responsibly from an early age.
Where my ideals and my reason conflict, however, is in cities. There is no reason to own a gun inside a city. However, these people have the right & ability to go hunting somewhere else, so simply banning guns in cities isn't viable either. They could keep them in some other town, but that's an unreasonable burden just to keep an unused gun out of an urban area.
> that doesn't necessarily mean that withholding such permits would have no effect on the availability of such guns to such people
Umm, actually, yes it does. If they aren't getting permits, and the only new restriction you impose is making permits harder to get, then the number of people carrying without permit actually goes up -- they are still carrying, just not bothering to try for a permit. As if they would have before...
> Are you arguing that whithholding of licenses will not reduce the availability of guns to criminals?
I'm not the poster, but I feel confident that that is exactly what he means. Guns that are used consistently in crimes are generally stolen. The black market for guns would make them more valuable, but for people who are intent on carrying them, it would not be hard. You know supply & demand? As soon as guns are banned, demand skyrockets. Prices rise, and more violence occurs as a result of people wanting them much more, especially in "organized" crime. The underground arms market becomes huge, insanely tense, and very hostile.
> > It just demonstrates a government's utter contempt for its citizenry. > it demonstrates the British government's utter consideration it has for its citizens.
It does neither. Gun control does one thing. It takes the power of decision out of the hands of the people, and makes the equally (or more) fallible government their stand-in parents. The power of decision is what freedom is all about. That is one good reason why guns are not banned in the U.S. The same applies to drug policy. The government wants us to believe that we are thinking for ourselves, while making sure we don't think "the wrong things". The problem is that they just attempt to manipulate us in other ways, primarily propaganda & flat-out lies -- and that is both primary parties (and some "3rd" parties too, probably).
> Neither you, nor you gun, will ever move to London.
So, you believe you should have the right to judge whether a person can move to your country based on his political beliefs? In that case, neither you, nor your bad teeth will ever move to New York. Of course, I don't believe that you have bad teeth, nor that you will ever come to the U.S., but what gives me the right to say you can't come here? The same right you have to say he can't go there. That is up for your country's immigration bureau to decide, not you.
As an aside, I don't believe the government controls the media. The media makes money by promoting fear, so they are doing what the government wants, but not by force. They have the same goal -- keep people focused on anything but important issues.
Slashdot Mirror
> when used with wildcards and other matching expressions, is much faster than selecting a set of files and dragging them to another window/folder, etc
Except when the group of files do not have anything in their filename in common. Let's say you have 300 MP3s in a folder of various genres, but the genre is not in the filename. You know that in your head, so you con identify them, but the OS cannot. Using a shell, you would have to pick & choose them one by one, but with a GUI, you can select all those in a genre and drag & drop it to the right folder. That's just one example in which using the CLI is horribly tedious.
I agree that for files that are sorted by something in the name, yeah, a CLI is MAAAANY times faster -- just not in all cases.
> My apologies for misunderstanding you
:)
No problems. Misunderstanding is the first step towards learning something new. Today, you learned that I'm universally apathetic
> It means that you should care as much about a person in another country as you would a random person in a town two miles away.
Ah, I see. No, I do not like someone more just because they are situated closer to me.
> I'm curious to know your reasons on why MoveOn.org is a kook fringe organization.
> From what I can see, they seem to stand for anything anti-Bush (without question).
You answered your own question. Blindly following ANYTHING is "kooky." They also cry foul about things that happen to them that aren't illegal and should not be -- specifically, their Super Bowl commercial that was blocked by the network.
> I betcha a palm reader would predict your single
How do you even know he makes music? Oh, "you're."
> Because country of origin is an accident of birth.
I'm unclear what you mean by that. Do you mean that I should care about other countries because of the random placement, or that you agree that I don't have to care because of it?
> I get the impression sometimes that a lot of the population of the US doesn't believe that anything outside its borders really matters.
That is because, to most people inside those borders, the other people REALLY DO NOT MATTER. We never have any interaction with you, so we don't care what you do. Just like what we do inside our borders really doesn't matter to you, unless you choose to get upset by it.
It helps that you have a different perspective: it's almost trivial for you to go to another country for the afternoon. For most Americans, you have to plan a full day just to get outside the country. That is why we don't care about foreign relations much, because we don't ralate to foreigners -- generally, the only people we meet are Americans (or tourists).
I'm a bit annoyed by people claiming we have some responsibility to do something based SOLELY on the country we happened to be born in. I know you think I'm priviledged or an asshole just because I'm an American, and that I should try to feed all the starving babies in the world since I've "had everything handed to me." Well, that's crap. I still have to work my ass off to survive reasonably plus cable TV and Internet access (that's my entire entertainment budget). I still have to worry about day-to-day stuff like everyone else, I am not able to join the Peace Corps, even if I thought it was useful, I simply cannot afford to.
What gives you the right to demand that I care about anything, regardless of borders? You have no such right, just as I have the right to not give a shit, to hate my government, or to be an obeying sheep.
> I, for once, would consider the second lawyers are needed the moment of decline
Do you have ANY idea how long lawyers have been around? As long as Democracy; longer, even. Never heard a quote from a Greek philosopher about lawyers, eh? They were considered a "necessary" evil WAAAAY back then too.
What should be considered the moment of decline (in that regard) is when people decided they could make a quick million by acting like a retard and hurting themselves and not taking responsibility for their idiocy.
Sorry, I'm not trying to insult any retards by equating them with lawsuit-happy assholes.
> So are you saying that anything is all right so long as you do it for money?
You are a fucking idiot.
He said:
> > Just because I state something simply, doesn't mean there isn't more to the picture
> Switch to XFce
Normally I don't like "then install this..." answers, but that does look very nice. Looks like a WM should, but isn't cluttered with junk all over the place. I think I'm gonna give that a go tonight, thanks!
> It loads in seconds, sets the standards
I agree that MS Office is a billion times better than OO.o, but the only way it "sets the standards" is by modifying previous standards. It's not about catching up at all, it's about MS intentionally changing things so that it doesn't work the same as old "standards," which don't happen to be standards at all.
The point of "standards" is that a group of people decides what a file format looks like. If that "group" is one company that will not release the information, it is just a format, not a standard.
I dislike Windows immensely, but Linux is not a viable permanent option at the moment. I heard someone claim that Linux is faster, but that is only true if you tweak things, or at least don't use default install options. I have an AMD 450 that dual boots Windows 2000 SP4 and Mandrake Linux 10. They take about the same amount of time to get to the login prompt, (Linux may actually be 2-3 seconds faster there) but after logging in, Windows takes about 7 seconds to show the desktop, and another 3 or four until you can actually do anything. When Gnome (KDE was even slower) loads, it's about 20 seconds until the desktop shows up and another 10-20 (or longer) until anything can be run. When the desktop comes up, I usually open up a console window. I click on the icon and have to wait almost 45 seconds until it appears. After that, the operational speed of the OSes are pretty similar.
Yes, I'm sure it's possible to change some things to make it run faster, but I have no idea what, other than disabling services & options that are present in Windows. That would take some previous knowledge and/or a lot of research. The real problem is that "the average desktop user" will not know that this is possible. You can educate them, but they don't want to know how to recompile anything, or even edit a textfile to change options. Yes, it's easy to do, if you know what you are doing -- most people don't.
Then the elitist geek attitude comes in, "then they should learn how to use it." No, they shouldn't. Not everyone that drives a car knows how an internal combustion engine works. We know that really, it's pretty simple. That doesn't mean that someone should be unable to drive if they don't know how it works (I know, many of you would disagree -- get over yourself).
You don't know how the brain works, does that mean you shouldn't be able to use it?
> "Real" property is just as artificial a construct as intellectual property, as nearly as I can tell
Then you can't tell very nearly at all. I can hold a television in my hands, I can pick it up and taek it away from you. I can take a CD as well. I cannot take a song. I cannot take a piece of software. I cannot take a movie. I can take the media that movie is printed on, but the media is not the production. They are not even remotely the same.
> I would like to share some of the things you are currently using.
;)
Sure, but if you don't believe in ownership, you also don't believe that me stabbing you with a sharp stick when you come into the place where I live is illegal either. So if you feel like being killed, sure, come take whatever you want.
Really, though, in my ideal world, there isn't any need to steal it, you could borrow it, or just have one of your own.
1 Microsoft Way, Redmond...
> You're saying that the number of guns available to criminals carrying guns will go up
Geez, you are wrong in the first sentence. Read what I said, not what you want me to say. Basically, what I said was:
1) There are a set number of guns out there. Hell, an increasing number
2) X% of them (probably X >90) have permits
3) That means (100-X)% (10?) are illegal
4) You reduce the number of permits, and therefore the percent of guns without a matching permit goes up. See?
> we're interested in the availability of guns to people who intend to commit violent crimes with them
If someone can obtain something legally, they can obtain it illegally, so in a sense, that is not at all what we should be interested in. We should be interested in making these people not want to use those "illegal" guns.
> You could argue that a further criminalization of gun ownership will cause some current peaceful gun owners to become violent criminals
You are putting words in my mouth, I said nothing remotely close to that.
> others will drop out of the market.
When you are talking about (dedicated) criminals, however, they don't "drop out" of the market, they go to another source. Such as killing someone they know DOES have a gun -- like another gang, the POLICE, whoever.
Removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens and "common" criminals could lower the instances of things like gunpoint holdups, where the armed person rarely has any intention of shooting, they just need some intimidation to convince the other person to hand over the moolah. These could be done with sharp sticks, but certainly wouldn't carry the same threat of death as a gun, and they know it. What WOULD increase is organized crime, gangs, etc. who can either afford to buy them, or have the resources to steal them.
> Would it be a lot of use for defence if someone sprayed you first?
If someone is beating you, you have a good idea where they are, even if blinded. Being a human, or maybe even getting a look at the mugger before he sprayed you, you have a good idea where his head should be. After that, it's a simple matter of spraying like mad, in that general direction. Better a blind victim & a blind mugger than a blind victim minus wallet/valuables and a mugger prancing happily away.
Come on, pepper spray illegal? What a load of shit.
> A pen knife is not primarily used as an offensive weapon
And a stick is? You seem to be making disconnected arguments whenever it suits you.
> Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify repealing the first amendment.
Umm, most of our rights protect us from intrusions from the government. They do not apply to companies trying to intrude on our lives. Especially the one about free speech. Sure, they're getting to be the same, but there is a fine line -- such as, the government can decide to fuck over a company on almost a whim (such as, if an executive of theirs said something that pissed off someone "important").
> Typical spew from someone who probably listens to too much Hannity or Limbaugh
Hey, screw you! I listened (past tense, because I actually do work during the day now) to them, and I STILL think that guy's full of shit.
> Uh, if you steal an artist's work, you steal from an artist. The artist is not going to get paid their share. There is no "partially correct" about this
Yes, there is. I don't subscribe to the belief that nontangible things can be owned. Therefore there is no stealing involved. You also assume that they automatically deserve "their share" when they create music. It's nice to give people things for using their work, but just because your beliefs fall where they do, does not mean that mine do as well. If I download music, I am doing it just for the sake of listening to it. I am not doing anything morally wrong by listening to music. If I go to a store and steal a CD, I am. If I go to the artist's home and force them to perform for me, I am breaking the law as well.
Those artists chose to sign contracts. People chose to do things that resulted in that music being created. I did not choose to abide by their contracts, I did not choose to be born into a capitalist country, I do not choose to accept that things can really be owned. You can call it a cop out, you can call it justifying theft, I can say it's my right as a human to do as I want, I can call you a closed-minded fool. None of them are 100% right.
The music is there to be downloaded. The intent of posting it may be good, may be malicious, may be neutral (usually the last). I know it is there. Since I do not believe in ownership of such things, I have no moral qualms downloading it. Counter to your claim, however, I HAD THIS BELIEF BEFORE P2P WAS DREAMED OF. I had it before I ever copied a piece of commercial software. It is not some magical justification I pulled out of my ass as soon as I needed to defend myself. No matter what you call "logic," it still relies on some basic assumptions: namely that everyone views legal ownership the same way you do. Cry as much as you want that it's a cop out, but it is the truth, regardless how much you don't want to believe it. Stop thinking everyone thinks like you.
> It's the naivete of youth that thinks it knows the system.
It's the stubbornness of the old that keeps any good change from happening. You can make up stupid phrases that mean nothing, but so can I.
You talk about those hippies, and you are right, most of them thought it would be easy & thought they were making a political statement -- they were not prepared to deal with reality. If they were not doing it in California, they would have been forced to succeed, and would have (or died). However, they lived in an area already populated with capitalist ideas, they just took the easy route and gave in to the system. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's a flip side. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM WANTING TO LIVE COMMUNALLY EITHER. They just happened to be too lazy to pull it off.
> I've heard that concerts are often expected to lose money but help promote album sales.
Strange, I've heard the exact opposite -- CD sales pay for the creation of the music, and then the artists make money by going on tour. I wonder which is true, or if both are, depending on style, popularity, etc.
> People are entitled to defend themselves. They shouldn't use offensive weapons to do so. They can find another way.
Aha, proof of a troll! HE WAS CRIPPLED, YOU IDIOT. There WASN'T ANOTHER WAY to defend himself.
> So, am I the only person you know who thinks you should need a good reason for carrying any offensive weapon?
That same category includes a pen knife, OR A FORK. Yes, you are the only person I have ever met (or conversed with in some way) with such a ludicrous ideal.
> How often do you and your compatriots use your firearms to defend yourselves against, or otherwise duly influence your government?
That is not the point. The point is that the government would have more power over the people if the people have no way to retaliate. If we were using guns to counteract things like PATRIOT, then you would be perfectly right in banning them. The fact that no one was shot because of it (bring on the baseless cries of military abusers) proves that we AREN'T ready to jump up and shoot anyone!
> Now ask how often firearms are used against your fellow citizens. Your friends. Your neighbors. Your family.
Never. Not the answer you were looking for, but it's the truth. You seem to have this idea that everyone in the U.S. owns a gun, or at least there's one on every block. There isn't. Where I live, there may be, but I live in what would probably be considered a "hick" area -- There are a lot of hunters, but they teach their children gun safety from a young age, and keep them locked away (the guns, not the kids:). They also eat what they hunt; they don't just kill a deer, chop off its head or antlers and let the rest of it rot in the field. Many of them butcher the animals & donate the meat to places like soup kitchens if it is too much for them & their families to use in a timely manner.
Gun owners aren't barbarous, ignorant heathens -- they are people just like like you and I (I am not a gun owner, nor will I probably ever own one). If they get into an argument, they don't think about killing someone any more than we would. In fact, they may be LESS likely to kill someone than if they hadn't learned how to use one responsibly from an early age.
Where my ideals and my reason conflict, however, is in cities. There is no reason to own a gun inside a city. However, these people have the right & ability to go hunting somewhere else, so simply banning guns in cities isn't viable either. They could keep them in some other town, but that's an unreasonable burden just to keep an unused gun out of an urban area.
> that doesn't necessarily mean that withholding such permits would have no effect on the availability of such guns to such people
Umm, actually, yes it does. If they aren't getting permits, and the only new restriction you impose is making permits harder to get, then the number of people carrying without permit actually goes up -- they are still carrying, just not bothering to try for a permit. As if they would have before...
> Are you arguing that whithholding of licenses will not reduce the availability of guns to criminals?
I'm not the poster, but I feel confident that that is exactly what he means. Guns that are used consistently in crimes are generally stolen. The black market for guns would make them more valuable, but for people who are intent on carrying them, it would not be hard. You know supply & demand? As soon as guns are banned, demand skyrockets. Prices rise, and more violence occurs as a result of people wanting them much more, especially in "organized" crime. The underground arms market becomes huge, insanely tense, and very hostile.
> > It just demonstrates a government's utter contempt for its citizenry.
> it demonstrates the British government's utter
consideration it has for its citizens.
It does neither. Gun control does one thing. It takes the power of decision out of the hands of the people, and makes the equally (or more) fallible government their stand-in parents. The power of decision is what freedom is all about. That is one good reason why guns are not banned in the U.S. The same applies to drug policy. The government wants us to believe that we are thinking for ourselves, while making sure we don't think "the wrong things". The problem is that they just attempt to manipulate us in other ways, primarily propaganda & flat-out lies -- and that is both primary parties (and some "3rd" parties too, probably).
> Neither you, nor you gun, will ever move to London.
So, you believe you should have the right to judge whether a person can move to your country based on his political beliefs? In that case, neither you, nor your bad teeth will ever move to New York. Of course, I don't believe that you have bad teeth, nor that you will ever come to the U.S., but what gives me the right to say you can't come here? The same right you have to say he can't go there. That is up for your country's immigration bureau to decide, not you.
As an aside, I don't believe the government controls the media. The media makes money by promoting fear, so they are doing what the government wants, but not by force. They have the same goal -- keep people focused on anything but important issues.