A great many hams are lawyers. This has some interesting uses for our project, since codecs are one of the more litigious areas of technology. A pile-on defense is actually helpful, since the other side is generally trying to make you broke while you defend yourself. We can turn that around in the Free Software tradition.
And of course it helps with spectrum defense. But there is also an ARRL Spectrum Defense fund to which you are encouraged to donate.
How does this account for all the people committing suicide in Finland? There aren't many cheap chinese food places there
Finns in general have an asian genetic admixture. So, their food is chinese:-) . They also culturally drink incredible amounts of coffee. And there are cultural differences, including a stoicism that may lead to people getting less help for emotional issues. But perhaps the biggest issue is:
It's dark there. For much of the winter. People are sensitive to light.
You don't seriously think that you'd be the first person who had to go through having a gun taken under United States law. It happens every day, and be assured that the people whose weapons are confiscated are not paid for them.
I would protect that 12 year old by taking the guns from you and people like you. She is more at risk from people with guns than any other sort of assailant. 20 dead kids are sufficient proof of that.
The blood of 20 kids is on your hands and those of all of the other gun holders. But you won't take ownership for what you, and people like you, are responsible for. But I know, and lots of people like me know. It's you.
Of course it's realistic. And it wouldn't cost $300 Billion, that's silly. It's a firearm, not a lottery ticket. You make sure it's permanently disabled, or you find yourself on a labor crew away from home and your family for a few years. In my state, that sort of prisoner gets to work in the backwoods fire crew instead of jail.
The second amendment is not a problem. You aren't part of any militia. Far from it. And if you are, we have some countries where you can serve until you're over that idea.
The point is, it's time to get tough with folks who think they can arm themselves at the expense of little kids. Don't expect sympathy.
I am not providing a statistical argument because I don't need to. The only really workable gun control is no guns. You don't need statistics to explain that.
We will get rid of 300 million guns by criminalizing possession, buy-backs, and other strategies. It won't work perfectly, but it will be sufficiently effective to save lives.
My father had war trophies, including a German luger. He was sensible about guns, and thus would not allow one that could be fired in the house. So, he rendered his souvenirs unfireable.
Those trophies, however, were stolen when our home was robbed. Little of value other than that was taken. He was really glad he'd altered them.
That's what I think should be done to your collection. Fill the barrel with molten lead, and grind off the head of the firing pin. Have it done by someone who will certify it, or do it yourself and have it certified. Then, keep your collection. No problems with property rights.
The 10th amendment is not a block to firearm regulation, since the constitution grants the various article 1 section 8 powers, which are sufficient for firearm regulation.
So how did it prevent the Ft. Hood shooting?
Hasan purchased the weapon off-base. Had the same rules existed off-base as on, his victims would be alive today.
Why should the 12-year-old not have had a firearm? Yes, she might have been harmed or killed. But 20 other children would be alive today if an effective firearm ban had been in place.
Yes, they really would stop people from getting killed. There will still be deaths, from knives and other things. But fewer of them, and the assailant will less often have the stand-off power of a gun.
I think you're misusing the quote of Franklin. It's from a 1755 letter from the Pensylvania Assembly to the King's governor of Pensylvania, and the context is that it is a letter to a monarch's deputy about the defense of the frontiersmen against the natives (who, with all justice, were upset at having their home taken by invaders). It doesn't mean that carrying a weapon is an essential freedom, or that the safety gained from a gun prohibition would be temporary.
Here is Franklin's letter:
Our Assemblies have of late had so many Supply Bills, and of such
different Kinds, rejected on various Pretences; some for not complying
with obsolete occasional Instructions (tho' other Acts exactly of
the same Tenor had been past since those Instructions, and received the
Royal Assent;) some for being inconsistent with the supposed Spirit of an
Act of Parliament, when the Act itsekf did not any Way affect us, being
made expresly for other Colonies; some for being, as the Governor was
pleased to say, "of an extraordinary Nature," without informing us,
wherein that extraordinary Nature consisted; and others for disagreeing
with new discovered Meanings, and forced Constructions of a Clause in
the Proprietary Commission; that we are now really at a Loss to divine
what Bill can possibly pass. The Proprietary Instructions are Secrets
to us; and we may spend much Time, and much of the public Money, in
preparing and framing Bills for Supply, which, after all, must, from
those Instructions, prove abortive. If we are thus to be driven from
Bill to Bill, without one solid Reason afforded us; and can raise no
Money for the King's Service, and Relief or Security of our Country,
till we fortunately hit on the only Bill the Governor is allowed to
pass, or till we consent to make such as the Governor or Proprietaries
direct us to make, we see litttle Use of Assemblies in this Particular;
and think we might as well leave it to the Governor or Proprietaries to
make for us what Supply Laws they please, and save ourselves and the
Country the Expence and Trouble. All Debates and all Reasonings are
vain, where Proprietary Instructions, just or unjust, right or wrong,
must inviolably be observed. We have only to find out, if we can,
what they are, and then submit and obey. But surely the Proprietaries
Conduct, whether as Fathers of their Country, or Subjects to their King,
must appear extraordinary, when it is considered that they have not
only formally refused to bear any Part of our yearly heavy Expences
in cultivating and maintaining Friendship with the Indians, tho'
they reap such immense Advantages by that Friendship; but they now,
by their Lieutenant, refuse to contribute any Part towards resisting an
Invasion of the King's Colony, committed to their Care; or to submit
their Claim of Exemption to the Decision of their Sovereign.
In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed
Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power,
consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pensylvania, for
their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their
Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who
would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
DESERVE neither Liberty nor Safety.--Such as were inclined to defend
themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are
informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured,
out of Monies given by the last Assemly for the King's Use; and the
large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to
do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their further
Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he
supposes, "if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the
Province into
How do you explain the British then? Home of James Bond. Don't like having their cops carry guns, because they tend to kill innocent people when they do.
You are, you know, writing to a film professional. The fact that you don't go to other sorts of films does not mean that they aren't the largest hits. Many top films are quite empty of gun violence.
By your logic, you have no right to free speech unless you can justify it as beneficial to the state.
No. It is the second amendment that is written to justify its purpose as its benefit to the state. Nowhere else in the constitution is there any mention of an inalienable right to carry firearms, and any such thing would be in contravention of the civil rights of the potential victims.
Yes, the US takes casualties, mainly from IEDs. But the U.S. military is limiting gun access to its own troops outside of combat situations because they are much too prone to inflict violence upon each other. Most military bases already prohibit anyone but MPs from routinely carrying weapons.
Your rights, yes, are the mutual agreement of the society you live in. There is a libertarian notion of living independently from society and enforcing your rights with your own firearm. But this is a romantic notion far from reality. Murder rates per locality back then were close to those of today, but with 1/100 the population. The net effect of firearms where there was no effective civil justice was that more innocent people were killed.
I don't think you've justified at all that the right to bear arms is a net positive. You've just said there are a lot of them. I don't object to your defending yourself - but I would not have a firearm on either side of the exchange. Their defensive function is not a social benefit if removing them from most people's hands would in general remove the reason for using them defensively. The net result would be more survivors. And we can do something about criminals who are armed. Most criminals are well-known to the police before they commit murder. We can disarm them when they first enter the criminal justice system, and keep doing it.
I spend a good deal of time in places where police do not routinely carry guns. They are fine places to live. One thing that I notice is that the police are in general nicer there.There's none of the "you are alive only by my forbearance" attitude that cops have here. They do have gangs with guns, but the gangs have to make their own ammunition and it doesn't work well. The gangs are hacking starters pistols into firearms, and those don't work well either. Most people whom they shoot survive. I'd be quite happy if we could get that far here.
With all due respect I am sure that people can put together a pseudo-statistical argument like yours while being driven by illogic and emotion.
Have you not noticed you live in the United States of America, as opposed to the American colony of Britain?
Proponents of gun ownership as a deterrent to tyranny seem not to have noticed that things have changed since then. Tyrants and their armies, today, need never place themselves in range of your bullets to win.
Hand-held firearms are no longer an equalizing tool in warfare. Only in personal conflict.
And thus, firearm ownership no longer is justified by the second amendment. Owners don't constitute a well-armed militia and don't contribute to the security of the state.
American popular taste in film, violent as it may be, doesn't translate to American taste in daily life. Most people do not want violence around them. Film is by definition escapist. And despite its management in film, sex is still quite popular:-)
Americans odd taste in film wouldn't keep us from achieving a handgun ban.
If you look at the list of Canada massacres, the very worst there is with a weapon obtained legally which nobody should have had the right to own.
I don't really buy the health checkup argument, because a lot of gun violence is done by the "temporarily insane". Mental health is no absolute, the most stable people have their moments. I'd prefer that they not be lethal moments.
Despite our discussion here, patience has just run out. Something will change.
How can someone who is such an advocate for freedom
Did you miss the part about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I have the right to not be shot dead, and so did 20 kids today. That's the kind of freedom I advocate for.
Actually, I don't believe I will have to do a thing. Others will do it for me. And you should definitely not count on the power of the right-wing. That time is done.
There's someone sending multiple mod points long after the discussion started. Their purpose is to hide this and other anti-gun discussion. Of course it could be anyone, but I know that there are many PR companies that hold multiple moderation accounts on web sites that perform moderation. I can just imagine who they work for.
So, we can't protect kids because we'd be overrun by elk if we did. And besides, we need that duck stamp too badly.
Somehow I am finding these unconvincing. Ecological management could still take place without the gun holder. Probably at a lower overall cost to society.
I hope you can detect my sarcasm when I say how well I sleep at night knowing that YOU are out there protecting me from tyranny with your gun. First, you can't do it. Governments have bigger weapons than you. Second, nobody wants you to do it. Indeed, lots of us live in fear that you'll decide that now's the time and start shooting up people.
I, for one, would kill anyone who tries to take away my right of self-defense, and I am hardly alone in this stance.
Your proposal would be civil war. I dare you to bring it.
We don't want to take it from your cold dead fingers. You might die of thirst or starve to death, of your own will, while resisting. Would that be such a great cost to society if we could, by doing that, protect a few dozen kids from being the random victims of another gun-holder?
So, you're going to resist tyranny with your firearm, huh? You're going with your firearm down to the MPAA, and to congress, about abuse of copyright and software patenting?
The day when the population of a nation could resist tyranny with handheld weapons is long over. Syria just fired a missile on its own people. There is no shortage in government hands of weapons superior to the ones in your home.
Thanks, but no thanks. The worst thing that could happen to me would be yahoos who think they are defending my freedom with their guns against their perception of tyranny. I prefer peaceful civil discourse, and when that doesn't work, passive resistance.
Pilots get medicals because they are likely to kill people around them, including on the ground, if they have a medical lapse while controlling an aircraft. So it is a balance between the social benefit of the usefulness of an aircraft and the potential to do harm. Firearms, in contrast, have little purpose except to kill. Auditing individuals who wish to use them would not establish a balance, because there is little social benefit in a firearm.
Slashdot Mirror
A great many hams are lawyers. This has some interesting uses for our project, since codecs are one of the more litigious areas of technology. A pile-on defense is actually helpful, since the other side is generally trying to make you broke while you defend yourself. We can turn that around in the Free Software tradition.
And of course it helps with spectrum defense. But there is also an ARRL Spectrum Defense fund to which you are encouraged to donate.
Maybe you should review RamDoubler on Amazon, where it's still for sale! here.
Finns in general have an asian genetic admixture. So, their food is chinese :-) . They also culturally drink incredible amounts of coffee. And there are cultural differences, including a stoicism that may lead to people getting less help for emotional issues. But perhaps the biggest issue is:
It's dark there. For much of the winter. People are sensitive to light.
You don't seriously think that you'd be the first person who had to go through having a gun taken under United States law. It happens every day, and be assured that the people whose weapons are confiscated are not paid for them.
I would protect that 12 year old by taking the guns from you and people like you. She is more at risk from people with guns than any other sort of assailant. 20 dead kids are sufficient proof of that.
The blood of 20 kids is on your hands and those of all of the other gun holders. But you won't take ownership for what you, and people like you, are responsible for. But I know, and lots of people like me know. It's you.
Of course it's realistic. And it wouldn't cost $300 Billion, that's silly. It's a firearm, not a lottery ticket. You make sure it's permanently disabled, or you find yourself on a labor crew away from home and your family for a few years. In my state, that sort of prisoner gets to work in the backwoods fire crew instead of jail.
The second amendment is not a problem. You aren't part of any militia. Far from it. And if you are, we have some countries where you can serve until you're over that idea.
The point is, it's time to get tough with folks who think they can arm themselves at the expense of little kids. Don't expect sympathy.
I am not providing a statistical argument because I don't need to. The only really workable gun control is no guns. You don't need statistics to explain that.
We will get rid of 300 million guns by criminalizing possession, buy-backs, and other strategies. It won't work perfectly, but it will be sufficiently effective to save lives.
My father had war trophies, including a German luger. He was sensible about guns, and thus would not allow one that could be fired in the house. So, he rendered his souvenirs unfireable.
Those trophies, however, were stolen when our home was robbed. Little of value other than that was taken. He was really glad he'd altered them.
That's what I think should be done to your collection. Fill the barrel with molten lead, and grind off the head of the firing pin. Have it done by someone who will certify it, or do it yourself and have it certified. Then, keep your collection. No problems with property rights.
The 10th amendment is not a block to firearm regulation, since the constitution grants the various article 1 section 8 powers, which are sufficient for firearm regulation.
Hasan purchased the weapon off-base. Had the same rules existed off-base as on, his victims would be alive today.
Why should the 12-year-old not have had a firearm? Yes, she might have been harmed or killed. But 20 other children would be alive today if an effective firearm ban had been in place.
Yes, they really would stop people from getting killed. There will still be deaths, from knives and other things. But fewer of them, and the assailant will less often have the stand-off power of a gun.
I think you're misusing the quote of Franklin. It's from a 1755 letter from the Pensylvania Assembly to the King's governor of Pensylvania, and the context is that it is a letter to a monarch's deputy about the defense of the frontiersmen against the natives (who, with all justice, were upset at having their home taken by invaders). It doesn't mean that carrying a weapon is an essential freedom, or that the safety gained from a gun prohibition would be temporary.
Here is Franklin's letter:
How do you explain the British then? Home of James Bond. Don't like having their cops carry guns, because they tend to kill innocent people when they do.
You are, you know, writing to a film professional. The fact that you don't go to other sorts of films does not mean that they aren't the largest hits. Many top films are quite empty of gun violence.
No. It is the second amendment that is written to justify its purpose as its benefit to the state. Nowhere else in the constitution is there any mention of an inalienable right to carry firearms, and any such thing would be in contravention of the civil rights of the potential victims.
Yes, the US takes casualties, mainly from IEDs. But the U.S. military is limiting gun access to its own troops outside of combat situations because they are much too prone to inflict violence upon each other. Most military bases already prohibit anyone but MPs from routinely carrying weapons.
Your rights, yes, are the mutual agreement of the society you live in. There is a libertarian notion of living independently from society and enforcing your rights with your own firearm. But this is a romantic notion far from reality. Murder rates per locality back then were close to those of today, but with 1/100 the population. The net effect of firearms where there was no effective civil justice was that more innocent people were killed.
I don't think you've justified at all that the right to bear arms is a net positive. You've just said there are a lot of them. I don't object to your defending yourself - but I would not have a firearm on either side of the exchange. Their defensive function is not a social benefit if removing them from most people's hands would in general remove the reason for using them defensively. The net result would be more survivors. And we can do something about criminals who are armed. Most criminals are well-known to the police before they commit murder. We can disarm them when they first enter the criminal justice system, and keep doing it.
I spend a good deal of time in places where police do not routinely carry guns. They are fine places to live. One thing that I notice is that the police are in general nicer there.There's none of the "you are alive only by my forbearance" attitude that cops have here. They do have gangs with guns, but the gangs have to make their own ammunition and it doesn't work well. The gangs are hacking starters pistols into firearms, and those don't work well either. Most people whom they shoot survive. I'd be quite happy if we could get that far here.
With all due respect I am sure that people can put together a pseudo-statistical argument like yours while being driven by illogic and emotion.
Yes, but there is no shortage of murder and suicide among people not thought to be mentally ill - except for that moment.
And thank goodness for Obamacare, which will get help to more people.
Proponents of gun ownership as a deterrent to tyranny seem not to have noticed that things have changed since then. Tyrants and their armies, today, need never place themselves in range of your bullets to win.
Hand-held firearms are no longer an equalizing tool in warfare. Only in personal conflict.
And thus, firearm ownership no longer is justified by the second amendment. Owners don't constitute a well-armed militia and don't contribute to the security of the state.
American popular taste in film, violent as it may be, doesn't translate to American taste in daily life. Most people do not want violence around them. Film is by definition escapist. And despite its management in film, sex is still quite popular :-)
Americans odd taste in film wouldn't keep us from achieving a handgun ban.
If you look at the list of Canada massacres, the very worst there is with a weapon obtained legally which nobody should have had the right to own.
I don't really buy the health checkup argument, because a lot of gun violence is done by the "temporarily insane". Mental health is no absolute, the most stable people have their moments. I'd prefer that they not be lethal moments.
Despite our discussion here, patience has just run out. Something will change.
I stopped thinking about your opinion as worth discussing after "gynocentric".
Did you miss the part about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I have the right to not be shot dead, and so did 20 kids today. That's the kind of freedom I advocate for.
Actually, I don't believe I will have to do a thing. Others will do it for me. And you should definitely not count on the power of the right-wing. That time is done.
There's someone sending multiple mod points long after the discussion started. Their purpose is to hide this and other anti-gun discussion. Of course it could be anyone, but I know that there are many PR companies that hold multiple moderation accounts on web sites that perform moderation. I can just imagine who they work for.
So, we can't protect kids because we'd be overrun by elk if we did. And besides, we need that duck stamp too badly.
Somehow I am finding these unconvincing. Ecological management could still take place without the gun holder. Probably at a lower overall cost to society.
Yeah!
I hope you can detect my sarcasm when I say how well I sleep at night knowing that YOU are out there protecting me from tyranny with your gun. First, you can't do it. Governments have bigger weapons than you. Second, nobody wants you to do it. Indeed, lots of us live in fear that you'll decide that now's the time and start shooting up people.
We don't want to take it from your cold dead fingers. You might die of thirst or starve to death, of your own will, while resisting. Would that be such a great cost to society if we could, by doing that, protect a few dozen kids from being the random victims of another gun-holder?
So, you're going to resist tyranny with your firearm, huh? You're going with your firearm down to the MPAA, and to congress, about abuse of copyright and software patenting?
The day when the population of a nation could resist tyranny with handheld weapons is long over. Syria just fired a missile on its own people. There is no shortage in government hands of weapons superior to the ones in your home.
Thanks, but no thanks. The worst thing that could happen to me would be yahoos who think they are defending my freedom with their guns against their perception of tyranny. I prefer peaceful civil discourse, and when that doesn't work, passive resistance.
Pilots get medicals because they are likely to kill people around them, including on the ground, if they have a medical lapse while controlling an aircraft. So it is a balance between the social benefit of the usefulness of an aircraft and the potential to do harm. Firearms, in contrast, have little purpose except to kill. Auditing individuals who wish to use them would not establish a balance, because there is little social benefit in a firearm.