No all legal assault rifles owned by civilians are registered in the US and require a in depth background check by the FBI and a tax stamp, gun dealer licence, and large transfer fees.
I was talking about guns in general it really doesn't matter if you have a automatic or semi-auto, a gun is a gun and is dangerous. Besides you can always add slide fire to turn it into automatic.
What if you buy one at a gun show? Are you required to report the ownership change?
semi-automatic and manual require a background check and often a waiting period, unless you have a concealed carry permit in that state or dealer licence (in which cases you have already passed the background checks).
I wasn't talking about background checks or waiting period, I was talking about registration of a gun to a name and accountability for the registration just like in the case of a drone.
Additionally we have a constitutional provision protecting right to own firearms. But we have no such constitutional protection for ownership of RC toys.
Just because you have a stupid constution doesn't really make it any more sane.
You can't just spout false equivalency without backing up why that is false equivalency, which you didn't.
Besides, many argue for even stronger regulations on firearms, they simply are not able to bring those arguments to fruition.
People argue for many things, but if they are not in effect they are meaningless. In this case this is a real drone regulation that is coming into effect. I can assure you that in the next 50 years there will still be no gun regulation in America and Americe will still have a lot of school shootings.
>RC aircraft are being regulated because of the abuses that have been carried out through the operation of RC aircraft. The desire to regulate firearms comes from the abuses that have been carried out through the operation of firearms. They do not compare
No you just compared them exactly right in this sentence.
they are each their own specific situation, with only one well known example of overlap.
They are different yes, just like all things, but here they are being compared exactly on the same thing. They are being registered so you have some accounability in the event of misuse of the device.
Wait! Let me get this straight. If you own a 250 gram toy drone you need to register it because it could be dangerous? But if you own an assault rifle with 100 round magazine you don't need to register it. Yes, only in America.
If only there was some kind of network system where everyone could share files and everyone would help in seeding the files. We could even call it something like "stream" or "flooding" or maybe "torrent"?
So let me get this straight: You have to register a small flying device because it poses danger to people. But if you have a gun that can kill people you do not.
I have an idea: Take this regulation, replace every word "drone" with a the word "gun" and then you have a gun regulation.
Did you just equate a single firearm with a nuclear weapon?
Yes because that exactly shows why your argument is stupid. Gun nuts like to say that the 2nd amendment gives them right to own *any* weapon with no limitations, even weapons created long after the amendment was written, but then when you ask about a nuclear weapon then of course that isn't in the list. But if the 2nd amendment doesn't have a clause about a nuclear weapon why can't I own one? You can then go down the list and ask about: attack helicopter, missile launcher, tank, land mines, rpg e.t.c
There are obviously some things that a civilian should not be allowed to own, even though most of them would be responsible because the danger is just too much and unnecessary.
The swimming pool death rate is 4x-5x higher than firearm death rate. There is no "IF" about it - both numbers are on the CDC website (different pages on the same website). If we restrict the stats to children only, then the swimming pool death rate is around 20x the firearm death rate.
Regardless of what $FOO is "designed for", if it is measured, in practice and over the course of decades, to be safer than swimming pools then what it is designed for is irrelevant - it may be designed for killing but if it isn't any more dangerous than a swimming pool then you can't really call it a killing machien, now can you? It kills far fewer people than innocuous equipment.
Death rate in swimming pools doesn't invalidate other claims. It's not like we can't put in any laws about guns because people die in swimming pools. No we can do something about all issues. Swimming pool death rate only shows that this is also a issue that can be lowered by having more monitoring and life guards at public swimming pools and other safety regulations for private swimming pools. I can tell you that in my some European countries there are regulations that require private swimming pools to be elevated at a height above the ground, this is so that small children don't fall into them. Swimming pools are useful in society, guns are not.
It may no be a gun but encryption algorithms are classed as a "munition" by US/UK/AU. Exporting a controlled algorithm to a foreign country was tightly controlled up until the late 80's - early 90's when Phil Zimmerman released PGP and demonstrated that the export controls could be circumvented by a changing a #define in legally exportable code.
The horse has bolted, the global financial system depends on encryption for their bread and butter. Doesn't matter what a retired IRA supporter thinks.
Yes and defining encryption as "munition" is beyond stupid. You might as well just ban math for all the good it will do.
"Yes that is correct you don't need to own an encryption program to write documents, but you do need encryption to use the Internet. "
Who the fuck told you that? The internet pre-dates SSL by quite some time. I am not even going to address what you wrote, since it is merely a re-hashing of your cluelessness. Since you clearly can't understand what I'm writing, have no idea what you are talking about, and refuse to learn anything it's time for this sound: Plonk
And that is exactly why the old Interweb was totally unsafe. If you do any online shopping or handle critical documents you need encryption period. Don't let the plonk hit you on your way out.
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
Yes it matters what $FOO actually is. It depends on what the thing is used for. Let's do a $FOO=Nuclear weapon, I would think most nuclear weapon owners would be responsible so why ban civilians owning nuclear weapons? What about $FOO=Sarin gas?. You can see your line of reasoning is ridiculous.
If you've got a good reason for why you'd want to ban guns but not residential swimming pools when the death rate for guns is lower, I'd like to hear it.
Because guns are designed to kill people, that's why. Swimming pools are not designed primarily to kill people, they actually have other purposes. But yes if swimming pools have a high death rate it also means we need more regulations for swimming pools and how they are designed and safety concerns for them, but that only means we need regulation for both swimming pools AND guns.
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
That is because sex and guns are not the same things. Just like drugs, there is a chemical element to it that motivates you physically to have sex. You can't ban sex and expect it to just work, because your body (teenagers especially) is constantly pumping out hormones to make you want to have sex. If there was no chemical element to it, banning it would be really easy. In the same way totally banning all drugs isn't going to work in the long run.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand, just because you don't like it, banning or limiting guns is a possibilty. Let's take a different object like cars. Could you ban cars? Yes you could. You could argue that cars are dangerous and some people even use cars to kill people. But would that make much sense? No, cars are not primarly designed to kill people, they are designed as transport. So usefulness of cars outweigh their detriment in society. Guns however only have a detriment.
A gun is a barrel, plus a firing pin, etc. An encryption device is, for example, a general purpose computer + software that performs encryption. Barrels aren't banned. Firing pins aren't banned. Metal isn't banned. The banning is of the complete system. Computers aren't going to be banned. Software isn't going to be banned. The complete system will be banned (as there is no other way to do it.) See? No difference.
Well you could try to do that but since encryption is just math, banning it realistically in any way or form is basically impossible. The difference is that guns are physical objects and that is a lot easier to handle or ban, guns are also a lot harder to create than software. To create encryption you only need a general purpose computer and the thoughts in your brain. To use encryption you only need to download it from somewhere. It's like the difference between a store selling physical counterfet copies of music discs and music piracy on the Internet. The first example is easy to monitor and regulate, the second is almost impossible.
" Now you might argue that you can use computers for writing documents. Yes but then you don't need to own an encryption program!."
See how that works? For anything you write about guns, I can substitute the encryption machine analog
Yes that is correct you don't need to own an encryption program to write documents, but you do need encryption to use the Internet. In the same way you do not need to own an assault rifle to hunt animals, but you do need one to kill a lot of people. In the former encryption is useful for society and doesn't harm people, in the second assault rifles aren't useful for society and harm people. You can substitue encryption for guns in a sentence but since they are not the same thing that doesn't always make sense.
No I think mostly only the police should be allowed to own guns. Security people should not, if they need guns for something they should call the police.
In case not, allow me to elaborate. Encryption is performed with some kind of physical object. They won't outlaw the concept, since that is impossible. They will outlaw the tools. You see, it is the same thing as guns. You just haven't thought it through before posting.
No it is not the same thing, you just haven't thought it through before posting. Encryption is performed by a computing device. You can't ban computers as a whole, because computers are useful devices for a lot of things. Just like cars are dangerous devices but we don't ban cars because they are designed as transport and are useful in society. Guns are designed for only one thing to kill people, they are not useful for anything else. Now you might argue that you can use guns for hunting animals. Yes but then you don't need to own an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. At most you should only be allowed to own a shotgun with a maximum magazine of 3 shots and a single shot rifle and with very strict rules about ownership.
No you are confused. Guns, drugs and encryption are not the same things. Guns are objects designed to kill people, drug is a material designed to give you euphoria and are physically addictive, encryption is a mathematical concept. It is possible to ban or limit guns, it is very hard to ban drugs because once people get addicted their only purpose in life is to get more drugs, encryption is extremely hard to ban because it is a mathematical concept.
What is so hard to understand?
More people have been killed by their own government than by any other cause
And so what? It just means you have a bad government. If the government is trying to kill, you should move somewhere else. Trying to inflict more death by guns isn't the answer. If you are afraid the government will kill you, there is something wrong with your system or you.
No it's not the same as guns. Guns are physical objects, encryption is not. Encryption is nothing else than a few mathematical formulas. It is impossible to ban thoughts and speech however you can ban guns.
As I drone enthusiast myself I say it is a good thing this asshole was fined. You never ever fly over any congested areas because it doesn't matter if you are a good pilot or not, you can always have rotor malfunction or interferance leading to loss of control and over congested areas that is very likely to lead to injuries to bystanders.
If I was a billionaire I would travel around in disguise and, because it is impossible to help everyone, I would help a number of random persons I would see. Like a homeless man in the street, a single mother on welfare, e.t.c. I would create a company with staff which only purpose would be to help those people to find a home, a job and education.
Imagine this would have happened in Iran or any other place in the middle east. Some middle eastern country would have shot down an airliner with a missile and then blamed the rebels. You really think we would be here a year later and nothing would have been done?
The only reason why this is happening is because the software developers are morons. In a mission critical system you never give write access from an entertainment module to critical system. The information system should not have the ability to make any changes in the engine software. The best way to enforce this is to use a hardware read only bus that sits between the entertainment system and engine system and only allow traffic to flow from the engine to the info system but not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
No all legal assault rifles owned by civilians are registered in the US and require a in depth background check by the FBI and a tax stamp, gun dealer licence, and large transfer fees.
I was talking about guns in general it really doesn't matter if you have a automatic or semi-auto, a gun is a gun and is dangerous. Besides you can always add slide fire to turn it into automatic.
What if you buy one at a gun show? Are you required to report the ownership change?
semi-automatic and manual require a background check and often a waiting period, unless you have a concealed carry permit in that state or dealer licence (in which cases you have already passed the background checks).
I wasn't talking about background checks or waiting period, I was talking about registration of a gun to a name and accountability for the registration just like in the case of a drone.
Additionally we have a constitutional provision protecting right to own firearms. But we have no such constitutional protection for ownership of RC toys.
Just because you have a stupid constution doesn't really make it any more sane.
False equivalency.
You can't just spout false equivalency without backing up why that is false equivalency, which you didn't.
Besides, many argue for even stronger regulations on firearms, they simply are not able to bring those arguments to fruition.
People argue for many things, but if they are not in effect they are meaningless. In this case this is a real drone regulation that is coming into effect. I can assure you that in the next 50 years there will still be no gun regulation in America and Americe will still have a lot of school shootings.
>RC aircraft are being regulated because of the abuses that have been carried out through the operation of RC aircraft. The desire to regulate firearms comes from the abuses that have been carried out through the operation of firearms. They do not compare
No you just compared them exactly right in this sentence.
they are each their own specific situation, with only one well known example of overlap.
They are different yes, just like all things, but here they are being compared exactly on the same thing. They are being registered so you have some accounability in the event of misuse of the device.
Wait! Let me get this straight. If you own a 250 gram toy drone you need to register it because it could be dangerous?
But if you own an assault rifle with 100 round magazine you don't need to register it. Yes, only in America.
I just wish Google would focus on first fixing all the massive amounts of bug in Android before trying to shovel more crap into Android.
If only there was some kind of network system where everyone could share files and everyone would help in seeding the files. We could even call it something like "stream" or "flooding" or maybe "torrent"?
So let me get this straight: You have to register a small flying device because it poses danger to people. But if you have a gun that can kill people you do not.
I have an idea: Take this regulation, replace every word "drone" with a the word "gun" and then you have a gun regulation.
Did you just equate a single firearm with a nuclear weapon?
Yes because that exactly shows why your argument is stupid. Gun nuts like to say that the 2nd amendment gives them right to own *any* weapon with no limitations, even weapons created long after the amendment was written, but then when you ask about a nuclear weapon then of course that isn't in the list. But if the 2nd amendment doesn't have a clause about a nuclear weapon why can't I own one? You can then go down the list and ask about: attack helicopter, missile launcher, tank, land mines, rpg e.t.c
There are obviously some things that a civilian should not be allowed to own, even though most of them would be responsible because the danger is just too much and unnecessary.
The swimming pool death rate is 4x-5x higher than firearm death rate. There is no "IF" about it - both numbers are on the CDC website (different pages on the same website). If we restrict the stats to children only, then the swimming pool death rate is around 20x the firearm death rate.
Regardless of what $FOO is "designed for", if it is measured, in practice and over the course of decades, to be safer than swimming pools then what it is designed for is irrelevant - it may be designed for killing but if it isn't any more dangerous than a swimming pool then you can't really call it a killing machien, now can you? It kills far fewer people than innocuous equipment.
Death rate in swimming pools doesn't invalidate other claims. It's not like we can't put in any laws about guns because people die in swimming pools. No we can do something about all issues. Swimming pool death rate only shows that this is also a issue that can be lowered by having more monitoring and life guards at public swimming pools and other safety regulations for private swimming pools. I can tell you that in my some European countries there are regulations that require private swimming pools to be elevated at a height above the ground, this is so that small children don't fall into them. Swimming pools are useful in society, guns are not.
It may no be a gun but encryption algorithms are classed as a "munition" by US/UK/AU. Exporting a controlled algorithm to a foreign country was tightly controlled up until the late 80's - early 90's when Phil Zimmerman released PGP and demonstrated that the export controls could be circumvented by a changing a #define in legally exportable code.
The horse has bolted, the global financial system depends on encryption for their bread and butter. Doesn't matter what a retired IRA supporter thinks.
Yes and defining encryption as "munition" is beyond stupid. You might as well just ban math for all the good it will do.
Who the fuck told you that? The internet pre-dates SSL by quite some time. I am not even going to address what you wrote, since it is merely a re-hashing of your cluelessness. Since you clearly can't understand what I'm writing, have no idea what you are talking about, and refuse to learn anything it's time for this sound: Plonk
And that is exactly why the old Interweb was totally unsafe. If you do any online shopping or handle critical documents you need encryption period. Don't let the plonk hit you on your way out.
What's hard to understand is the rationale that because 0.001% of $FOO owners are responsible, we need to take away $FOO from the other 99.99% of $FOO owners. It doesn't matter what $FOO actually is - when you propose that the state bans something that is responsibly used by 99.99% of owners you better have a damn good reason, especially when the numbers show that residential swimming pools have a death rate roughly 4-5 *TIMES* higher than residential fiream ownership.
Yes it matters what $FOO actually is. It depends on what the thing is used for. Let's do a $FOO=Nuclear weapon, I would think most nuclear weapon owners would be responsible so why ban civilians owning nuclear weapons? What about $FOO=Sarin gas?. You can see your line of reasoning is ridiculous.
If you've got a good reason for why you'd want to ban guns but not residential swimming pools when the death rate for guns is lower, I'd like to hear it.
Because guns are designed to kill people, that's why. Swimming pools are not designed primarily to kill people, they actually have other purposes. But yes if swimming pools have a high death rate it also means we need more regulations for swimming pools and how they are designed and safety concerns for them, but that only means we need regulation for both swimming pools AND guns.
Ah. The abstinence approach to guns... Why would you think abstinence works with guns? We've seen it not work with sex. What *did* work in reducing teenage pregnancies was sex education, not preaching abstinence.
That is because sex and guns are not the same things. Just like drugs, there is a chemical element to it that motivates you physically to have sex. You can't ban sex and expect it to just work, because your body (teenagers especially) is constantly pumping out hormones to make you want to have sex. If there was no chemical element to it, banning it would be really easy. In the same way totally banning all drugs isn't going to work in the long run.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand, just because you don't like it, banning or limiting guns is a possibilty.
Let's take a different object like cars. Could you ban cars? Yes you could. You could argue that cars are dangerous and some people even use cars to kill people. But would that make much sense? No, cars are not primarly designed to kill people, they are designed as transport. So usefulness of cars outweigh their detriment in society. Guns however only have a detriment.
A gun is a barrel, plus a firing pin, etc. An encryption device is, for example, a general purpose computer + software that performs encryption. Barrels aren't banned. Firing pins aren't banned. Metal isn't banned. The banning is of the complete system. Computers aren't going to be banned. Software isn't going to be banned. The complete system will be banned (as there is no other way to do it.) See? No difference.
Well you could try to do that but since encryption is just math, banning it realistically in any way or form is basically impossible. The difference is that guns are physical objects and that is a lot easier to handle or ban, guns are also a lot harder to create than software. To create encryption you only need a general purpose computer and the thoughts in your brain. To use encryption you only need to download it from somewhere. It's like the difference between a store selling physical counterfet copies of music discs and music piracy on the Internet. The first example is easy to monitor and regulate, the second is almost impossible.
Yes that is correct you don't need to own an encryption program to write documents, but you do need encryption to use the Internet. In the same way you do not need to own an assault rifle to hunt animals, but you do need one to kill a lot of people. In the former encryption is useful for society and doesn't harm people, in the second assault rifles aren't useful for society and harm people. You can substitue encryption for guns in a sentence but since they are not the same thing that doesn't always make sense.
No I think mostly only the police should be allowed to own guns. Security people should not, if they need guns for something they should call the police.
In case not, allow me to elaborate. Encryption is performed with some kind of physical object. They won't outlaw the concept, since that is impossible. They will outlaw the tools. You see, it is the same thing as guns. You just haven't thought it through before posting.
No it is not the same thing, you just haven't thought it through before posting. Encryption is performed by a computing device. You can't ban computers as a whole, because computers are useful devices for a lot of things. Just like cars are dangerous devices but we don't ban cars because they are designed as transport and are useful in society. Guns are designed for only one thing to kill people, they are not useful for anything else. Now you might argue that you can use guns for hunting animals. Yes but then you don't need to own an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. At most you should only be allowed to own a shotgun with a maximum magazine of 3 shots and a single shot rifle and with very strict rules about ownership.
No you are confused. Guns, drugs and encryption are not the same things. Guns are objects designed to kill people, drug is a material designed to give you euphoria and are physically addictive, encryption is a mathematical concept. It is possible to ban or limit guns, it is very hard to ban drugs because once people get addicted their only purpose in life is to get more drugs, encryption is extremely hard to ban because it is a mathematical concept.
What is so hard to understand?
More people have been killed by their own government than by any other cause
And so what? It just means you have a bad government. If the government is trying to kill, you should move somewhere else. Trying to inflict more death by guns isn't the answer. If you are afraid the government will kill you, there is something wrong with your system or you.
Drugs are not the same as guns. You don't get physically addicted to guns. You are comparing apples and oranges.
No it's not the same as guns. Guns are physical objects, encryption is not. Encryption is nothing else than a few mathematical formulas. It is impossible to ban thoughts and speech however you can ban guns.
It's a trap
As I drone enthusiast myself I say it is a good thing this asshole was fined. You never ever fly over any congested areas because it doesn't matter if you are a good pilot or not, you can always have rotor malfunction or interferance leading to loss of control and over congested areas that is very likely to lead to injuries to bystanders.
Fix the damn fucking browser first, before doing any pet projects.
If I was a billionaire I would travel around in disguise and, because it is impossible to help everyone, I would help a number of random persons I would see. Like a homeless man in the street, a single mother on welfare, e.t.c. I would create a company with staff which only purpose would be to help those people to find a home, a job and education.
Note: an update that the story reports has since been pulled
I think you accidentally a word.
No
Imagine this would have happened in Iran or any other place in the middle east. Some middle eastern country would have shot down an airliner with a missile and then blamed the rebels. You really think we would be here a year later and nothing would have been done?
The only reason why this is happening is because the software developers are morons. In a mission critical system you never give write access from an entertainment module to critical system. The information system should not have the ability to make any changes in the engine software. The best way to enforce this is to use a hardware read only bus that sits between the entertainment system and engine system and only allow traffic to flow from the engine to the info system but not the other way around.