Does anyone actually use chording keyboards? We've been messing with chording keyboards since the 1980s with the Microwriter and the Frogpad today and yet I've never actually seen anyone really using one beyond as a tech demo.
Indeed the fundamental problem in the world is scarcity. We don't have unlimited resources. Some resources are nearly infinite (solar/wind energy) while others are quite scarce (gold). If you can eliminate any scarcity of manual labor, you can then better extract resources from the earth (and beyond!) to where there is virtually no scarcity of resources. When there's no scarcity of labor and no scarcity of resources, the only "job" left to do is one of the tinkerer or inventor because only one major scarcity remains and that is knowledge.
From a purely economic standpoint, no, if we can have robots do everything for us, there's no need to have jobs. Of course I don't think we will ever advance to that point... But still, it is a possibility.
Except that when you really look at the long term, the west has been working less and less for basic needs.
Naturally with meaningless, fiat currencies and increased government intervention in the economy, true wealth for most has dropped recently. But let's go farther back to see the general trend.
Today the average worker works for about 8 hours. Now depending on the job field that can be really working for 8 hours or it can be working for a couple hours while being "on duty" for 8 hours. Back 150 years ago, you literally worked from sunup to sundown, something that few workers do anymore, excepting those employed in agriculture which is down to about 3% or so of people in the US.
For example, working in as a "tech guy" at a fairly small business, I'm there for 8 hours on weekdays but probably only do 3-4 hours of actual work while the rest is just downtime (waiting for a patch to download, etc.). Now, if there is a problem I work much longer hours (until the problem is fixed) but I'd say I've got about a 20 hour workweek already. There's no reason to think that its going to get much longer anytime soon, unless we add a new computer system and even then it will only be temporary, or unless we expand REALLY quickly. Sure, I'm on call for 40 hours a week, but do I really work those 40 hours if all goes well? Nope.
Except that China -wants- businesses in China. In the past 30 years its gotten much, much, much, much easier to operate a business in China. In the past 30 years its become much, much, much, much harder to operate a business profitably in the US. Even ignoring the cost of labor, it is still more economical to operate a business in China because the government -wants- businesses there and so they don't have all the regulations and taxes that the US has. The US government has said by their regulations and tax structure that they don't want businesses to be based in the US. China has said by their tax structure and regulations that they want businesses over there. Simple as that.
Except that there are still a good chunk of websites that still use Java. For example, Minecraft and RuneScape to name two.
And sure you -can- have it be fully client side but it doesn't always work. Many schools and workplaces will filter out.exe file extensions but will let you run in-browser applications just fine.
The web is not just things developed in 2013, but also for things developed back in 1997. And as such, it needs to be at least partially backwards compatible with older technologies.
The real issue here isn't about browser plugins but it is the terrible management of Java by Oracle. There is nothing that inherently should make Java more unsafe than a generic web browser, the problem is unlike most web browsers, Oracle has time and time again proven to be unable or unwilling to fix gaping holes in their programs. Even when they do create a fix they still try to bundle in crapware such as the "Ask" toolbar and switch my default search engine to Ask. A slimeball tactic that should be reserved for those making keygens and the like.
There is nothing that makes Java any more insecure than JavaScript except for Oracle. Rather than simply dropping a useful element of the web, we should pressure Oracle to do what a software firm should do: fix the bugs!
Sounds good until you replace your phone, which if you are like a lot of people is every 2 years at minimum because phones change. On the other hand, let's see what all the devices I've got that use remotes:
1) A VCR that was purchased about 23 years ago
2) A DVD player bought in 2001
3) A PS3 bought in 2008 used for Blu-Ray (yeah, I know I can play DVDs on it, but the PS3 frequently goes between the upstairs and downstairs TV)
4) A TV bought back in 2005
5) A cable box that I think I got in 2008-ish
6) An old stereo that is about 20 years old
Assuming that tomorrow I upgrade all those things to something that I can use my Smartphone with, and assuming I keep my devices (aside from my phone) for as long as I have, how long before my phone won't have an application to communicate with them? Already we have problems with specialty applications such as remotes not working with the newest version of Android, mix that with hardware changes and you've got something that will only work for a few years before a key feature becomes obsolete. And given that there's few reasons to upgrade generic appliances unlike something like a phone, you've got an expensive featureset that won't be able to be used for most of the device's lifespan.
Sure, but you can't really "opt-out" of a public school as a kid. If you have the cash you can go to a private school or if your parents don't work you can be home-schooled, but those are small exceptions. And if the student believes the RFID tags are invading their privacy and the parents don't want to fight it, they are stuck there.
On the other hand, if I think that RFID is invading my privacy at work, I can quit and go to one of the many jobs that don't use RFID. A student doesn't have that luxury.
We've had nice paper thin displays for years now. But a thin display doesn't mean a thin tablet. Until we have thin CPUs and thin RAM sticks, and thin flash memory and thin connectors, we aren't going to have a paper thin tablet.
When you get all the components you need for a tablet you end up with something just as thick as what we've got on shelves today. By no means thick, but not paper-thin.
Except that most ID badges aren't being used to track where I am at the office. They aren't being used to see if I'm there at work, they're being used to let me into the building, more of a virtual key. There's a HUGE difference between an electronic key and being treated like cattle.
Of course they shut down airports for no reason whatsoever because they have no motivation NOT to because they are paid by the government, not the airlines themselves.
A worker who is hired by the airline and reports to airline management is not going to overreact because an overreaction means that the airline loses money. On the other hand a TSA agent has no reason not to shut down an entire airport. I mean, what do they have to lose? It isn't their money, they'll get paid no matter what and the airline doesn't have a say in their hiring/firing decisions.
We really need to abolish the TSA and replace it with security guards who are hired by the airline itself and security policies decided by the airline itself. Thus allowing for passengers to choose where they feel safest, be it in an airplane where all the passengers are free to carry pistols if they so choose, or in an airplane where passengers are subjected to an intensive cavity search before boarding, or anywhere in between.
Yes, you should say you shouldn't do it but do you think that a teenager knows that if you don't get enough sleep you wake up tired? And don't you think that a teenager knows that if you're tired you won't be as focused? A two year old is completely different than a teenager.
What ends up happening in so many households is that when kids don't have natural consequences for their actions they start viewing the parent as the problem. The action is viewed as consequence-free when the parent is removed. This leads to rebellion when the parent is removed (such as college) and destructive habits reign supreme because in the absence of someone saying that you can't do that, in their mind such an action is free of consequences.
...Except for the fact that going to prison is going to surround you with nothing but bad influences (at least in the US). What ends up happening in the US is:
A) Person is convicted for a rather minor crime
B) That person makes connections in prison with other inmates
C) When that person is released X months later, they are understandably going to have lost a lot of respect of their peers and friendships/relationships will be strained
D) With a lack of pre-prison relationships, that person connects with the people they had connections with in prison that have already been released
E) Eventually, the person gets involved in criminal activity with their new friendships
F) The criminal activity results in them being convicted again and sent back to prison and so the cycle starts over again.
I went to a college fairly close (although far enough away that most students got apartments rather than live at home) to my high school to get my basic education requirements out of the way before transferring to a state college for my major. Because of that I knew a lot of people because I'd gone to high school with them (and Jr. High, and middle school, and elementary school) and so yes, I knew them and knew which ones had overly strict parents and which ones didn't. And naturally being at college I knew which ones got wasted every night and which ones didn't.
Exactly. And THAT should be the punishment. If someone can stay up until 5 AM playing WoW and still end up doing well in school, what's the problem? If they're tired in the morning and end up having a horrible day because of it, chances are they're going to go to bed earlier so they don't get tired.
Except for the fact that strict, controlling parenting is (most likely) what lead to this happening. I was blessed to have normal, sane, parents who cared enough to make sane rules based on reason, not irrationality. Rather than saying "no phone after X PM" they just let me suffer the consequences. If I talked on the phone until 4 AM on a weeknight, I went to school tired. They didn't say that I couldn't eat cookies. Instead if I went on an Oreo binge and ate the entire package I'd suffer the consequences (such as throwing up, to this day I can't eat an Oreo without gagging). On the other hand, those with strict parents with the most bizarre rules ended up being the kids that in college spent all their time drinking, partying and generally wasting away their life which further strained their relationship with their family.
Except for the fact that you don't have your kid arrested.
Yeah, there's blame on both sides of the aisle. Yes, it was a pretty stupid thing to do to your parents, yes it was dangerous, reckless even. But to take it to court is basically to ensure that your kids have no future. Either because they turn to a life of crime after being released from jail (the US "justice" system isn't designed to provide for a bright future after release) or they become basically unemployable and live a life of poverty due to a criminal record.
There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of this situation.
The problem is though, controlling a child in silly ways like an "internet curfew" when they are teenagers isn't productive and leads to deeper problems.
Of course there are times to be firm and times to be unyielding, namely when a child's safety is at stake. But silly things like an "internet curfew" will simply lead to the kid resenting their parents.
I think back to when I was in college, those with very strict and controlling parents usually ended up being the kids who drank heavily and skipped class and ended up having strained relations with their family. On the other hand, those with parents who were more rational and let their kids realize that staying up until 4 AM on the phone on weeknights lead to a miserable school day the next day rather than imposing a "phone curfew" ended up being more responsible.
The problem with lecture style learning is you can get it all online. A simple query on YouTube brings up thousands of results for a lecture in computer science.
And sure, it might be worth a bit more money, but not a whole lot more. For an instate resident at most smaller state schools tuition at 15 credit hours ranges from $3-5 thousand dollars a semester. At MIT tuition/fees cost ~$21 thousand dollars a semester. That is a HUGE jump. That means that tuition at MIT for 4 years costs ~$168,000, or the price of a decent house. On the other hand, you can expect to pay ~$40,000 at a smaller state schools. I think there are many, many, better ways you can spend $128,000 to benefit your learning than going to MIT.
Sure, a degree is pretty much required anymore (and ITT isn't much better than high school when dealing with HR) and so going to college is pretty much the only option if you live in the West, but with many lectures being available online and the huge cost involved with going to a prestigious university, I simply don't see how it is worth it.
Someone who really puts their mind to their studies will excel more by studying by themselves than someone who only does the bare minimum at MIT.
I've never really understood the allure of going to an ivy league school as opposed to a more obscure state university or smaller private school. This isn't 1960 anymore, the information presented in an MIT, Yale or Harvard lecture is available online to anyone with an internet connection. The technology is the same at a small state school when compared to MIT for all practical intents and purposes. Sure, if your focus is on supercomputers MIT might have hardware that is unavailable at a smaller school, but for most people, the hardware is identical.
About the only advantage I can see going to a larger school would be networking and getting a higher paying or more enjoyable job, something that is defeated by the much, much, much, higher prices of going to a "prestigious" school, where one year of tuition costs as much as 4 years at a different school.
But mass killings does not equal reduced death. Mass killings are only a small subset of murders and even a smaller subset of deaths. By my calculations ~88 people died in a mass shooting in the US in 2012. Out of the 311,000,000 people who live in the US, the odds of getting shot in one of these mass shootings is virtually zero.
Instead of focusing on such an insignificant portion of US deaths. Why not focus on curing "rare" diseases which kill many more than 88 people a year in the US? Instead about debating about such an insignificant figure, why not work to cure cancer something that will kill over 6000 times as many Americans?
Yes. Private citizens (so long as they can store them safely) should be allowed the same arms that the government has. Although, the sheer price of such things would keep them off the street (how many people do you know can afford to buy a $200,000+ tank?). Indeed, if people are willing to pay the price to license them most weapon can be bought.
You can't compare crimes from 2 different countries where one has lax gun laws and one has strict gun laws because those two countries are vastly different in their culture, their reporting of violent crime, and the people that make up those countries. If you compare those 2, you will end up with skewed data.
Instead, you can look at the data at a country that has gone from relatively lax gun laws to strict gun laws such as Australia. Depending on the source you will either find a slight increase in violent crimes or no major change.
Guns are not the problem. The problem is, unsurprisingly, people. Violent people will find ways to commit violence no matter what tools are in their disposal. Just look at the school stabbing in China, or the epidemic of knife violence in the UK.
Indeed if you look at the places where mass murders took place (Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc.) you find a distinct theme: the attacker is the only one with a gun. If you want to have a massive body count, you don't attack someplace where people can defend themselves. Instead, you find places where law abiding citizens cannot legally defend themselves, places like schools. You look at attempted mass shootings like the one at the Oregon mall and you find it stopped by someone who was legally armed.
And you can't buy fully automatic (where you hold down the trigger and the gun fires until it runs out of bullets) weapons in the US easily (you have to have a massive background check and pay a large "tax stamp" to buy one, not to mention the price of the gun itself). What you are most likely talking about are semi-automatic rifles (where when one round is fired another is loaded in the chamber) which are used in many, if not most modern hunting rifles (personally I use a semi-automatic 30.06 for deer hunting, although for big bore rifles bolt action or a break-open design is better for example a.416 Rigby or.404 Jeffery).
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone actually use chording keyboards? We've been messing with chording keyboards since the 1980s with the Microwriter and the Frogpad today and yet I've never actually seen anyone really using one beyond as a tech demo.
Eventually, we might not have to.
Indeed the fundamental problem in the world is scarcity. We don't have unlimited resources. Some resources are nearly infinite (solar/wind energy) while others are quite scarce (gold). If you can eliminate any scarcity of manual labor, you can then better extract resources from the earth (and beyond!) to where there is virtually no scarcity of resources. When there's no scarcity of labor and no scarcity of resources, the only "job" left to do is one of the tinkerer or inventor because only one major scarcity remains and that is knowledge.
From a purely economic standpoint, no, if we can have robots do everything for us, there's no need to have jobs. Of course I don't think we will ever advance to that point... But still, it is a possibility.
Except that when you really look at the long term, the west has been working less and less for basic needs.
Naturally with meaningless, fiat currencies and increased government intervention in the economy, true wealth for most has dropped recently. But let's go farther back to see the general trend.
Today the average worker works for about 8 hours. Now depending on the job field that can be really working for 8 hours or it can be working for a couple hours while being "on duty" for 8 hours. Back 150 years ago, you literally worked from sunup to sundown, something that few workers do anymore, excepting those employed in agriculture which is down to about 3% or so of people in the US.
For example, working in as a "tech guy" at a fairly small business, I'm there for 8 hours on weekdays but probably only do 3-4 hours of actual work while the rest is just downtime (waiting for a patch to download, etc.). Now, if there is a problem I work much longer hours (until the problem is fixed) but I'd say I've got about a 20 hour workweek already. There's no reason to think that its going to get much longer anytime soon, unless we add a new computer system and even then it will only be temporary, or unless we expand REALLY quickly. Sure, I'm on call for 40 hours a week, but do I really work those 40 hours if all goes well? Nope.
Except that China -wants- businesses in China. In the past 30 years its gotten much, much, much, much easier to operate a business in China. In the past 30 years its become much, much, much, much harder to operate a business profitably in the US. Even ignoring the cost of labor, it is still more economical to operate a business in China because the government -wants- businesses there and so they don't have all the regulations and taxes that the US has. The US government has said by their regulations and tax structure that they don't want businesses to be based in the US. China has said by their tax structure and regulations that they want businesses over there. Simple as that.
With as many bugs as Java (and its related technologies) have, Oracle would go bankrupt paying people to find them.
Except that there are still a good chunk of websites that still use Java. For example, Minecraft and RuneScape to name two.
.exe file extensions but will let you run in-browser applications just fine.
And sure you -can- have it be fully client side but it doesn't always work. Many schools and workplaces will filter out
The web is not just things developed in 2013, but also for things developed back in 1997. And as such, it needs to be at least partially backwards compatible with older technologies.
The real issue here isn't about browser plugins but it is the terrible management of Java by Oracle. There is nothing that inherently should make Java more unsafe than a generic web browser, the problem is unlike most web browsers, Oracle has time and time again proven to be unable or unwilling to fix gaping holes in their programs. Even when they do create a fix they still try to bundle in crapware such as the "Ask" toolbar and switch my default search engine to Ask. A slimeball tactic that should be reserved for those making keygens and the like.
There is nothing that makes Java any more insecure than JavaScript except for Oracle. Rather than simply dropping a useful element of the web, we should pressure Oracle to do what a software firm should do: fix the bugs!
Sounds good until you replace your phone, which if you are like a lot of people is every 2 years at minimum because phones change. On the other hand, let's see what all the devices I've got that use remotes:
1) A VCR that was purchased about 23 years ago
2) A DVD player bought in 2001
3) A PS3 bought in 2008 used for Blu-Ray (yeah, I know I can play DVDs on it, but the PS3 frequently goes between the upstairs and downstairs TV)
4) A TV bought back in 2005
5) A cable box that I think I got in 2008-ish
6) An old stereo that is about 20 years old
Assuming that tomorrow I upgrade all those things to something that I can use my Smartphone with, and assuming I keep my devices (aside from my phone) for as long as I have, how long before my phone won't have an application to communicate with them? Already we have problems with specialty applications such as remotes not working with the newest version of Android, mix that with hardware changes and you've got something that will only work for a few years before a key feature becomes obsolete. And given that there's few reasons to upgrade generic appliances unlike something like a phone, you've got an expensive featureset that won't be able to be used for most of the device's lifespan.
Sure, but you can't really "opt-out" of a public school as a kid. If you have the cash you can go to a private school or if your parents don't work you can be home-schooled, but those are small exceptions. And if the student believes the RFID tags are invading their privacy and the parents don't want to fight it, they are stuck there.
On the other hand, if I think that RFID is invading my privacy at work, I can quit and go to one of the many jobs that don't use RFID. A student doesn't have that luxury.
We've had nice paper thin displays for years now. But a thin display doesn't mean a thin tablet. Until we have thin CPUs and thin RAM sticks, and thin flash memory and thin connectors, we aren't going to have a paper thin tablet.
When you get all the components you need for a tablet you end up with something just as thick as what we've got on shelves today. By no means thick, but not paper-thin.
Except that most ID badges aren't being used to track where I am at the office. They aren't being used to see if I'm there at work, they're being used to let me into the building, more of a virtual key. There's a HUGE difference between an electronic key and being treated like cattle.
Of course they shut down airports for no reason whatsoever because they have no motivation NOT to because they are paid by the government, not the airlines themselves.
A worker who is hired by the airline and reports to airline management is not going to overreact because an overreaction means that the airline loses money. On the other hand a TSA agent has no reason not to shut down an entire airport. I mean, what do they have to lose? It isn't their money, they'll get paid no matter what and the airline doesn't have a say in their hiring/firing decisions.
We really need to abolish the TSA and replace it with security guards who are hired by the airline itself and security policies decided by the airline itself. Thus allowing for passengers to choose where they feel safest, be it in an airplane where all the passengers are free to carry pistols if they so choose, or in an airplane where passengers are subjected to an intensive cavity search before boarding, or anywhere in between.
This is what happens when we let fear reign supreme. All common sense goes out the window.
Seriously, logic and common sense seem to go out of the window whenever air travel is involved. The conversation should have gone something like this:
Security Officer: Err, what's that buzzing noise
Passenger: Whoops, looks like my toothbrush turned on, I'll just turn it off
Note the distinct lack of mass panic and knee-jerk reactions.
Yes, you should say you shouldn't do it but do you think that a teenager knows that if you don't get enough sleep you wake up tired? And don't you think that a teenager knows that if you're tired you won't be as focused? A two year old is completely different than a teenager.
What ends up happening in so many households is that when kids don't have natural consequences for their actions they start viewing the parent as the problem. The action is viewed as consequence-free when the parent is removed. This leads to rebellion when the parent is removed (such as college) and destructive habits reign supreme because in the absence of someone saying that you can't do that, in their mind such an action is free of consequences.
...Except for the fact that going to prison is going to surround you with nothing but bad influences (at least in the US). What ends up happening in the US is:
A) Person is convicted for a rather minor crime
B) That person makes connections in prison with other inmates
C) When that person is released X months later, they are understandably going to have lost a lot of respect of their peers and friendships/relationships will be strained
D) With a lack of pre-prison relationships, that person connects with the people they had connections with in prison that have already been released
E) Eventually, the person gets involved in criminal activity with their new friendships
F) The criminal activity results in them being convicted again and sent back to prison and so the cycle starts over again.
It is no wonder that nearly 63% of all those who are released from prison are arrested again within 3 years in the US. ( http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/welcome.htm )
I went to a college fairly close (although far enough away that most students got apartments rather than live at home) to my high school to get my basic education requirements out of the way before transferring to a state college for my major. Because of that I knew a lot of people because I'd gone to high school with them (and Jr. High, and middle school, and elementary school) and so yes, I knew them and knew which ones had overly strict parents and which ones didn't. And naturally being at college I knew which ones got wasted every night and which ones didn't.
Exactly. And THAT should be the punishment. If someone can stay up until 5 AM playing WoW and still end up doing well in school, what's the problem? If they're tired in the morning and end up having a horrible day because of it, chances are they're going to go to bed earlier so they don't get tired.
Except for the fact that strict, controlling parenting is (most likely) what lead to this happening. I was blessed to have normal, sane, parents who cared enough to make sane rules based on reason, not irrationality. Rather than saying "no phone after X PM" they just let me suffer the consequences. If I talked on the phone until 4 AM on a weeknight, I went to school tired. They didn't say that I couldn't eat cookies. Instead if I went on an Oreo binge and ate the entire package I'd suffer the consequences (such as throwing up, to this day I can't eat an Oreo without gagging). On the other hand, those with strict parents with the most bizarre rules ended up being the kids that in college spent all their time drinking, partying and generally wasting away their life which further strained their relationship with their family.
Except for the fact that you don't have your kid arrested.
Yeah, there's blame on both sides of the aisle. Yes, it was a pretty stupid thing to do to your parents, yes it was dangerous, reckless even. But to take it to court is basically to ensure that your kids have no future. Either because they turn to a life of crime after being released from jail (the US "justice" system isn't designed to provide for a bright future after release) or they become basically unemployable and live a life of poverty due to a criminal record.
There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of this situation.
The problem is though, controlling a child in silly ways like an "internet curfew" when they are teenagers isn't productive and leads to deeper problems.
Of course there are times to be firm and times to be unyielding, namely when a child's safety is at stake. But silly things like an "internet curfew" will simply lead to the kid resenting their parents.
I think back to when I was in college, those with very strict and controlling parents usually ended up being the kids who drank heavily and skipped class and ended up having strained relations with their family. On the other hand, those with parents who were more rational and let their kids realize that staying up until 4 AM on the phone on weeknights lead to a miserable school day the next day rather than imposing a "phone curfew" ended up being more responsible.
The problem with lecture style learning is you can get it all online. A simple query on YouTube brings up thousands of results for a lecture in computer science.
And sure, it might be worth a bit more money, but not a whole lot more. For an instate resident at most smaller state schools tuition at 15 credit hours ranges from $3-5 thousand dollars a semester. At MIT tuition/fees cost ~$21 thousand dollars a semester. That is a HUGE jump. That means that tuition at MIT for 4 years costs ~$168,000, or the price of a decent house. On the other hand, you can expect to pay ~$40,000 at a smaller state schools. I think there are many, many, better ways you can spend $128,000 to benefit your learning than going to MIT.
Sure, a degree is pretty much required anymore (and ITT isn't much better than high school when dealing with HR) and so going to college is pretty much the only option if you live in the West, but with many lectures being available online and the huge cost involved with going to a prestigious university, I simply don't see how it is worth it.
And yet information is easier to get than ever.
Someone who really puts their mind to their studies will excel more by studying by themselves than someone who only does the bare minimum at MIT.
I've never really understood the allure of going to an ivy league school as opposed to a more obscure state university or smaller private school. This isn't 1960 anymore, the information presented in an MIT, Yale or Harvard lecture is available online to anyone with an internet connection. The technology is the same at a small state school when compared to MIT for all practical intents and purposes. Sure, if your focus is on supercomputers MIT might have hardware that is unavailable at a smaller school, but for most people, the hardware is identical.
About the only advantage I can see going to a larger school would be networking and getting a higher paying or more enjoyable job, something that is defeated by the much, much, much, higher prices of going to a "prestigious" school, where one year of tuition costs as much as 4 years at a different school.
But mass killings does not equal reduced death. Mass killings are only a small subset of murders and even a smaller subset of deaths. By my calculations ~88 people died in a mass shooting in the US in 2012. Out of the 311,000,000 people who live in the US, the odds of getting shot in one of these mass shootings is virtually zero.
Instead of focusing on such an insignificant portion of US deaths. Why not focus on curing "rare" diseases which kill many more than 88 people a year in the US? Instead about debating about such an insignificant figure, why not work to cure cancer something that will kill over 6000 times as many Americans?
Apparently Firefox ate part of my comment.
*Most any weapon can be bought under current laws.
Yes. Private citizens (so long as they can store them safely) should be allowed the same arms that the government has. Although, the sheer price of such things would keep them off the street (how many people do you know can afford to buy a $200,000+ tank?). Indeed, if people are willing to pay the price to license them most weapon can be bought.
What "numbers" are you looking at?
.416 Rigby or .404 Jeffery).
You can't compare crimes from 2 different countries where one has lax gun laws and one has strict gun laws because those two countries are vastly different in their culture, their reporting of violent crime, and the people that make up those countries. If you compare those 2, you will end up with skewed data.
Instead, you can look at the data at a country that has gone from relatively lax gun laws to strict gun laws such as Australia. Depending on the source you will either find a slight increase in violent crimes or no major change.
Guns are not the problem. The problem is, unsurprisingly, people. Violent people will find ways to commit violence no matter what tools are in their disposal. Just look at the school stabbing in China, or the epidemic of knife violence in the UK.
Indeed if you look at the places where mass murders took place (Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc.) you find a distinct theme: the attacker is the only one with a gun. If you want to have a massive body count, you don't attack someplace where people can defend themselves. Instead, you find places where law abiding citizens cannot legally defend themselves, places like schools. You look at attempted mass shootings like the one at the Oregon mall and you find it stopped by someone who was legally armed.
And you can't buy fully automatic (where you hold down the trigger and the gun fires until it runs out of bullets) weapons in the US easily (you have to have a massive background check and pay a large "tax stamp" to buy one, not to mention the price of the gun itself). What you are most likely talking about are semi-automatic rifles (where when one round is fired another is loaded in the chamber) which are used in many, if not most modern hunting rifles (personally I use a semi-automatic 30.06 for deer hunting, although for big bore rifles bolt action or a break-open design is better for example a