The only difference between those descriptions and an unsafe gun owner is the final act. Before that person suited up in body armor and went into the mall to shoot people, what was he?
There may not be accidental shootings, but there are plenty of accidental gun injuries (usually stemming from negligent care or supervision, but at this point we're starting to split hairs).
So, what's your solution? I mean, any sane person would agree that certain things don't belong in the hands of the common person. But where do you draw the line? Or how do you draw the line? Do you just say "Oh, it's just a grey area!" throw your hands up, and quit?
Things rarely fall into nice, easily-distinguished categories. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make these decisions, though.
I don't know if I'd say "most," but I'd definitely say that many certainly are responsible. I'm just worried about those that aren't. And that's not to say that these people have bad intentions. My neighbors across the street growing up were wonderfully nice people. They enjoyed hunting, and I'd never want to take that away from them. And yet, their house is not only filled with more firearms than they could possibly know what to do with, they're lying around, out in the open, ammo boxes beside them, absolutely no protection whatsoever (even when their children were still minors). You don't have to be a bad person to create a bad situation.
Personally, I'm always in favor of more education with respect to any problem. I have no problem knowing that others own guns, so long as I know they're treating them properly. Unloaded, locked, in gun safes... It's so simple to make things safer, be it from accidents or intentional misuse, but too many people either don't care, are too lazy to take such measures, or simply don't know about proper gun handling. And you know what? Those people are ruining it for all of those who do know how to handle their weapons.
If anything, it's the unsafe gun owners that gun enthusiasts should be verbally attacking, not the people who just want to feel safe from such irresponsible people. I know it's easier to attack someone like me for my views, but I'm really not the one you should be worried about.
From the founding of this country up until about the 1980s, they agreed with me. And seeing as most people interpret the Constitution as a living document, subject to change as circumstances change, it wouldn't be beyond the stretch of imagination to think that one day the pendulum might swing back the other way, and the Supreme Court could change its mind.
See my other response. If it's purely cosmetic differences, I personally don't believe that should make a difference, and I never made the argument that it should.
I believe *most* of the recent New York legislation is common sense. Not all of it, but most of it.
First off, stop being a jackass. I basically skipped over his comment once he started going off on rants about things that nobody was talking about.
However, to respond directly, no I would not consider it common sense, at least not with what you have presented. Appearance alone should not make a difference, but I would like to know more before making a final judgment.
I have nothing against things like hunting rifles. However, when you slap on a 30-round mag and make it a semiautomatic, I really have a hard time believing that such additions are at all necessary for hunting. But as for whether it's made of wood or black metal, I don't care, and I don't think that should matter.
Though, that now brings to mind the idea about compulsory military service. It seems to work in other countries, like Switzerland, where gun ownership is high, similar to the US, but gun violence is much lower.
Personally, I wouldn't want to serve in the military, and I know many others wouldn't either, so why not consider a hybrid system? Everyone is afforded some basic gun rights, subject to regulation, but if you want something more powerful (and potentially more dangerous), that requires some sort of military service, to ensure that the individual has the training and experience to know how to safely operate and keep such weapons?
Not saying that I think that's a great idea, but it's worth exploring, if nothing else. Personally, my biggest issue is not with the guns themselves, but with the reckless irresponsibility of the gun owners.
Ugh. Yet again, people latch onto a point and make an argument about something I was never arguing for in the first place.
The emphasis is on militia, not regulation. My point is that the right to bear arms is granted for the purpose of forming a militia to protect your country. That is, a formal group of citizens who receive proper training and know how to handle weapons responsibly.
That is what the Second Amendment grants, and for the majority of the history of the United States, that's precisely how it has been interpreted. In fact, it wasn't until the late 1970s / early 1980s, when fringe elements began pushing for deregulation of firearms that the modern interpretation began to be adopted, and wasn't until 2008 (!) that the Supreme Court took on this view in the Heller case.
The siege near Waco left a death toll of 74 Branch Davidians, of whom 21 were minors, who were accidental casualties. The massacre at Newtown left 26 dead, of whom 20 were minors, who were intentional targets.
So yes, technically speaking, more minors were killed at Waco. But if you try to compare the two scenarios in any sort of objective light, you will see there is absolutely no comparison at all. That's no excuse at all for the deaths of children in Waco, which was also a tragedy, but there is a world of difference between accidental casualties and intentionally slaughtering children.
And to touch on your point about children killed where they cannot be protected by firearms, that's a red herring argument at best. Just look at your own example of Waco, for instance. The children who died there not only were not protected by their parents having weapons, they were directly put in harms way by the acts of their gun-hoarding parents. Also, as you may recall, part of the reason why the FBI even stormed the compound was because (at least it is claimed) that they were afraid that the group would commit mass suicide, and that those children were being mistreated.
Sorry if you didn't really get the point of my post...
I was just trying to point out the ridiculousness of the proposition that New York's recent legislation is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. Now, I wholly admit that their reaction is almost certainly stronger due to the recent events, but I'm trying to make the point that the legislation is not simply a reaction to a single, recent event, but rather a long overdue reaction to a string of literally dozens of mass shootings over the past decade. We can argue over what kind of action should be taken, but the one thing that should be blatantly obvious to anyone is that action of some sort is not only necessary, but should have been enacted long ago.
And no, it's not a brainless "think of the children!" There are far more gun deaths than those reported in the numerous school shootings. And yet, just because the argument is a bit cliche doesn't mean we should not think of the children. It's been nearly 14 years since Columbine, and what steps have been taken to help prevent such mass shootings, children or otherwise?
As for your "don't bother coming back" quip, I think I'll just disregard that. I don't often post on Slashdot--only if I feel truly compelled or that I have something worth saying--and my comments are generally well-received. I'd be curious to see how your own posts are received, but as an Anonymous Coward, that's not possible. I would suspect that you post as an AC for a reason, though.
And you're the reason why a calm, serious discussion is unable to take place in this country. I would say I'm coming from a relatively reasonable position of allowing firearms, but putting in place common sense restrictions. You immediately dismiss everything, and then proceed to make up an stance to argue against that is completely fictional. I'm really speechless as to where you even get some of your arguments, or how they at all factor in as a response to what I've said.
I gladly welcome greater regulation of all firearms, but I have no desire to see them outright banned. I am not an opponent of the Second Amendment, though it seems you seem to have a very limited view of what it says. Do not be confused, the Second Amendment does not simply say "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." If you bother to read the whole text, it states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to grant every yokel the right to whatever firearm they please. The purpose is not to take up arms against your own government, but rather to take up arms for your government, as part of a militia, in order to defend your country from others. Within that scope, I am fully supportive of the right of individuals to bear arms. However, I do not support the right of anyone and everyone to go buy an assault rifle with no regulation whatsoever, as many gun enthusiasts are crying out for.
I totally agree. The problem is not merely guns, but gun culture, and the irresponsibility of gun owners.
As for limiting magazines, I doubt a change from 10 to 7 will have a noticeably effect, but it also couldn't hurt. I agree with limiting high capacity magazines, though. Sure, it's not all that difficult for a skilled gunman to swap out one for the next, but anything that can be done to make it just a little harder for mass murder is a good thing. Again, this is a case where just because something doesn't have the greatest efficacy doesn't mean we shouldn't try. At any rate, we shouldn't go out of our way to make it any easier for such atrocities to be carried out, even if the measures aren't incredibly effective. Every little bit helps.
Totally! We've only had, what, a few dozen mass gun shootings over the past decade? It's totally a knee-jerk reaction to take ANY form of control in response to an epidemic like that. We should totally wait; it won't be the appropriate time until at least a hundred more children are shot up, am I right?
While it's very true that mental health is a much more important issue to tackle, it's also exponentially more difficult. It takes far more time and money, neither of which we have much to spare. In the meantime, while it may not be the most efficient, why not put some common-sense restrictions in place with regards to weapons? Banning assault weapons might not be 100% effective, but at the same time, shouldn't we at least try to make it a little harder for mentally unstable people to get their hands on weapons designed specifically to create large numbers of people as quickly as possible?
Sure, there will be ways around it. There are always ways around it, and there are always alternatives. But the mere existence of these doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, if you look back at all these gun massacres, you'll find that in almost every case, the firearms were obtained completely legitimately, not from the black market. There is a point, of course, at which we have to say "Okay, we've done all we can reasonably do." Banning cars or propane tanks or whatnot would be ridiculous. Yes, they *could* be used for mass harm, but they generally aren't. Assault weapons are. It's only logical to put at least some restrictions on these things, since they have a history (not to mention purposeful design) of harming large numbers of people.
I considered that, but I was afraid a custom frame would've been prohibitively expensive, especially considering the wafer itself cost only something like $20.
Luckily, I managed to find a good match (as can be seen) after checking a number of arts & crafts shops.
I'd count myself among those geeks. Not long ago, I bought an interesting etched silicon wafer off ebay (not too expensive, really), and then framed it and hung it on the wall. I think it's beautiful in its own right, and the geekiness just makes it that much better.
And yet, even the very day of the election, there were still large numbers of pundits predicting a landslide victory for Romney. Guess the predictions aren't that easy, or perhaps it's just easier to ignore the numbers and resort to wishful thinking.
While the possibility of that is certainly true, it is false for this recent presidential election. Not all districts have reported in, but the most recent numbers show that Obama is ahead in the popular vote by a hair under 2.9 million votes.
This is what I like to use at work, since I often have to squeeze a ton of notes into a small space and need it all to be legible. The only problem I've had is that depending on the quality of paper (and other things), sometimes the ink doesn't dry immediately. You have to watch out writing on glossier surfaces, but other than that, an excellent pen that isn't ridiculously expensive.
But you wouldn't drive in the lane to get a full power-up; you'd only need enough to maintain cruising speed, which is a lot less power. Or even less than that, if you're just looking for any sort of external boost to make up for the inherent issues with trying to store power onboard.
As for slowing the car down, that may be the case with a magnetic charger, but I'm not sure about inductive coupling--I'll defer to the EEs to make a ruling on that one.
Joking aside, that's not a half-bad idea. Even if we're talking about the non-magnetic forms of wireless power transmission, it could be possible in the distant future to embed the technology in our highways and have it powered by roadside solar panels, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The only difference between those descriptions and an unsafe gun owner is the final act. Before that person suited up in body armor and went into the mall to shoot people, what was he?
There may not be accidental shootings, but there are plenty of accidental gun injuries (usually stemming from negligent care or supervision, but at this point we're starting to split hairs).
So, what's your solution? I mean, any sane person would agree that certain things don't belong in the hands of the common person. But where do you draw the line? Or how do you draw the line? Do you just say "Oh, it's just a grey area!" throw your hands up, and quit?
Things rarely fall into nice, easily-distinguished categories. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make these decisions, though.
I don't know if I'd say "most," but I'd definitely say that many certainly are responsible. I'm just worried about those that aren't. And that's not to say that these people have bad intentions. My neighbors across the street growing up were wonderfully nice people. They enjoyed hunting, and I'd never want to take that away from them. And yet, their house is not only filled with more firearms than they could possibly know what to do with, they're lying around, out in the open, ammo boxes beside them, absolutely no protection whatsoever (even when their children were still minors). You don't have to be a bad person to create a bad situation.
Personally, I'm always in favor of more education with respect to any problem. I have no problem knowing that others own guns, so long as I know they're treating them properly. Unloaded, locked, in gun safes... It's so simple to make things safer, be it from accidents or intentional misuse, but too many people either don't care, are too lazy to take such measures, or simply don't know about proper gun handling. And you know what? Those people are ruining it for all of those who do know how to handle their weapons.
If anything, it's the unsafe gun owners that gun enthusiasts should be verbally attacking, not the people who just want to feel safe from such irresponsible people. I know it's easier to attack someone like me for my views, but I'm really not the one you should be worried about.
...As of 2008.
From the founding of this country up until about the 1980s, they agreed with me. And seeing as most people interpret the Constitution as a living document, subject to change as circumstances change, it wouldn't be beyond the stretch of imagination to think that one day the pendulum might swing back the other way, and the Supreme Court could change its mind.
See my other response. If it's purely cosmetic differences, I personally don't believe that should make a difference, and I never made the argument that it should.
I believe *most* of the recent New York legislation is common sense. Not all of it, but most of it.
First off, stop being a jackass. I basically skipped over his comment once he started going off on rants about things that nobody was talking about.
However, to respond directly, no I would not consider it common sense, at least not with what you have presented. Appearance alone should not make a difference, but I would like to know more before making a final judgment.
I have nothing against things like hunting rifles. However, when you slap on a 30-round mag and make it a semiautomatic, I really have a hard time believing that such additions are at all necessary for hunting. But as for whether it's made of wood or black metal, I don't care, and I don't think that should matter.
Touché.
Though, that now brings to mind the idea about compulsory military service. It seems to work in other countries, like Switzerland, where gun ownership is high, similar to the US, but gun violence is much lower.
Personally, I wouldn't want to serve in the military, and I know many others wouldn't either, so why not consider a hybrid system? Everyone is afforded some basic gun rights, subject to regulation, but if you want something more powerful (and potentially more dangerous), that requires some sort of military service, to ensure that the individual has the training and experience to know how to safely operate and keep such weapons?
Not saying that I think that's a great idea, but it's worth exploring, if nothing else. Personally, my biggest issue is not with the guns themselves, but with the reckless irresponsibility of the gun owners.
Ugh. Yet again, people latch onto a point and make an argument about something I was never arguing for in the first place.
The emphasis is on militia, not regulation. My point is that the right to bear arms is granted for the purpose of forming a militia to protect your country. That is, a formal group of citizens who receive proper training and know how to handle weapons responsibly.
That is what the Second Amendment grants, and for the majority of the history of the United States, that's precisely how it has been interpreted. In fact, it wasn't until the late 1970s / early 1980s, when fringe elements began pushing for deregulation of firearms that the modern interpretation began to be adopted, and wasn't until 2008 (!) that the Supreme Court took on this view in the Heller case.
All right, let's run with this one...
The siege near Waco left a death toll of 74 Branch Davidians, of whom 21 were minors, who were accidental casualties.
The massacre at Newtown left 26 dead, of whom 20 were minors, who were intentional targets.
So yes, technically speaking, more minors were killed at Waco. But if you try to compare the two scenarios in any sort of objective light, you will see there is absolutely no comparison at all. That's no excuse at all for the deaths of children in Waco, which was also a tragedy, but there is a world of difference between accidental casualties and intentionally slaughtering children.
And to touch on your point about children killed where they cannot be protected by firearms, that's a red herring argument at best. Just look at your own example of Waco, for instance. The children who died there not only were not protected by their parents having weapons, they were directly put in harms way by the acts of their gun-hoarding parents. Also, as you may recall, part of the reason why the FBI even stormed the compound was because (at least it is claimed) that they were afraid that the group would commit mass suicide, and that those children were being mistreated.
Sorry if you didn't really get the point of my post...
I was just trying to point out the ridiculousness of the proposition that New York's recent legislation is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. Now, I wholly admit that their reaction is almost certainly stronger due to the recent events, but I'm trying to make the point that the legislation is not simply a reaction to a single, recent event, but rather a long overdue reaction to a string of literally dozens of mass shootings over the past decade. We can argue over what kind of action should be taken, but the one thing that should be blatantly obvious to anyone is that action of some sort is not only necessary, but should have been enacted long ago.
And no, it's not a brainless "think of the children!" There are far more gun deaths than those reported in the numerous school shootings. And yet, just because the argument is a bit cliche doesn't mean we should not think of the children. It's been nearly 14 years since Columbine, and what steps have been taken to help prevent such mass shootings, children or otherwise?
As for your "don't bother coming back" quip, I think I'll just disregard that. I don't often post on Slashdot--only if I feel truly compelled or that I have something worth saying--and my comments are generally well-received. I'd be curious to see how your own posts are received, but as an Anonymous Coward, that's not possible. I would suspect that you post as an AC for a reason, though.
And you're the reason why a calm, serious discussion is unable to take place in this country. I would say I'm coming from a relatively reasonable position of allowing firearms, but putting in place common sense restrictions. You immediately dismiss everything, and then proceed to make up an stance to argue against that is completely fictional. I'm really speechless as to where you even get some of your arguments, or how they at all factor in as a response to what I've said.
I gladly welcome greater regulation of all firearms, but I have no desire to see them outright banned. I am not an opponent of the Second Amendment, though it seems you seem to have a very limited view of what it says. Do not be confused, the Second Amendment does not simply say "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." If you bother to read the whole text, it states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to grant every yokel the right to whatever firearm they please. The purpose is not to take up arms against your own government, but rather to take up arms for your government, as part of a militia, in order to defend your country from others. Within that scope, I am fully supportive of the right of individuals to bear arms. However, I do not support the right of anyone and everyone to go buy an assault rifle with no regulation whatsoever, as many gun enthusiasts are crying out for.
I totally agree. The problem is not merely guns, but gun culture, and the irresponsibility of gun owners.
As for limiting magazines, I doubt a change from 10 to 7 will have a noticeably effect, but it also couldn't hurt. I agree with limiting high capacity magazines, though. Sure, it's not all that difficult for a skilled gunman to swap out one for the next, but anything that can be done to make it just a little harder for mass murder is a good thing. Again, this is a case where just because something doesn't have the greatest efficacy doesn't mean we shouldn't try. At any rate, we shouldn't go out of our way to make it any easier for such atrocities to be carried out, even if the measures aren't incredibly effective. Every little bit helps.
Totally! We've only had, what, a few dozen mass gun shootings over the past decade? It's totally a knee-jerk reaction to take ANY form of control in response to an epidemic like that. We should totally wait; it won't be the appropriate time until at least a hundred more children are shot up, am I right?
While it's very true that mental health is a much more important issue to tackle, it's also exponentially more difficult. It takes far more time and money, neither of which we have much to spare. In the meantime, while it may not be the most efficient, why not put some common-sense restrictions in place with regards to weapons? Banning assault weapons might not be 100% effective, but at the same time, shouldn't we at least try to make it a little harder for mentally unstable people to get their hands on weapons designed specifically to create large numbers of people as quickly as possible?
Sure, there will be ways around it. There are always ways around it, and there are always alternatives. But the mere existence of these doesn't mean we shouldn't try. After all, if you look back at all these gun massacres, you'll find that in almost every case, the firearms were obtained completely legitimately, not from the black market. There is a point, of course, at which we have to say "Okay, we've done all we can reasonably do." Banning cars or propane tanks or whatnot would be ridiculous. Yes, they *could* be used for mass harm, but they generally aren't. Assault weapons are. It's only logical to put at least some restrictions on these things, since they have a history (not to mention purposeful design) of harming large numbers of people.
Hey, don't blame the White House for the fact that only the joke petitions are getting enough signatures to require an answer.
Want answers to serious questions? Get all your friends to sign those serious petitions.
I considered that, but I was afraid a custom frame would've been prohibitively expensive, especially considering the wafer itself cost only something like $20.
Luckily, I managed to find a good match (as can be seen) after checking a number of arts & crafts shops.
I'd count myself among those geeks. Not long ago, I bought an interesting etched silicon wafer off ebay (not too expensive, really), and then framed it and hung it on the wall. I think it's beautiful in its own right, and the geekiness just makes it that much better.
Framed Silicon
(On a side note, finding sufficiently large square pictures frames turned out to be much more difficult than I had imagined.)
Man, if it's operating at 17 petaflops per second, just think how fast it'll be by this time next year!
And yet, even the very day of the election, there were still large numbers of pundits predicting a landslide victory for Romney. Guess the predictions aren't that easy, or perhaps it's just easier to ignore the numbers and resort to wishful thinking.
While the possibility of that is certainly true, it is false for this recent presidential election. Not all districts have reported in, but the most recent numbers show that Obama is ahead in the popular vote by a hair under 2.9 million votes.
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
This is what I like to use at work, since I often have to squeeze a ton of notes into a small space and need it all to be legible. The only problem I've had is that depending on the quality of paper (and other things), sometimes the ink doesn't dry immediately. You have to watch out writing on glossier surfaces, but other than that, an excellent pen that isn't ridiculously expensive.
But you wouldn't drive in the lane to get a full power-up; you'd only need enough to maintain cruising speed, which is a lot less power. Or even less than that, if you're just looking for any sort of external boost to make up for the inherent issues with trying to store power onboard.
As for slowing the car down, that may be the case with a magnetic charger, but I'm not sure about inductive coupling--I'll defer to the EEs to make a ruling on that one.
They're called killa-hertz for a reason, right?
Joking aside, that's not a half-bad idea. Even if we're talking about the non-magnetic forms of wireless power transmission, it could be possible in the distant future to embed the technology in our highways and have it powered by roadside solar panels, etc.