The most comfortable chair I've had was the height of a bar-stool, and I didn't have to use it. Stand-up workspaces, where you can constantly change your postion, are better for you than always sitting for hours at a time.
Most cubicle forms that are more than 3 feet high allow for the tables to be attached at standing height.
Try it. Stand at your terminal. You'll be amazed how much more comfortable you are.
Ok, I admit this thread started with the "What do you want to see in a city" concept, but I am apalled by the number of otherwise intellegent people who are crying for other people to pay for their conveniences!
"Public" health care? Your health is YOUR problem, not mine. Don't rob me at gun-point because you're too stupid to buy your own health insurance or find your own doctor, or prepare when you DO have a job for those times when you DON'T.
The best places I've lived have always been the ones with the least taxes. Those were also the places with the most available doctors, the most reachable churches and community organizations, the easiest regulations, and the most friendly neighbors.
Along with that came nearly non-existant crime, little or no "drug" problems, no gangs, tollerance for race/sexual-preference/religion/style.
Before you go decrying how "public" services are required, remember that no matter how well those "public" services seem on paper, they always cost more than the same service provided by interested, involved individuals.
It's too bad that logical thinking required by high-tech work does not extend into other parts of peoples lives. On the other hand, the 'Net is a hotbed of support for individual rights, so maybe those who haven't yet applied logic to social issues are a decreasing minority.
The "Domain Name" service is merely a registry for IP addresses that is being used as an Index.
Who cares if 207.25.71.27 is pointed to by www.cnn.com, or www.cnn.at.ga.us? or even asdf.asdf.asdf.123443234?
The entire failure is in trying to use the registry like an index. That is what is creating the bogus "scarcity" issue and allowing idiots to demand that an ICANN exist at all.
Every "top level domain" needed already exists, in the form of the country codes. If someone wants to create a new "Top Level Domain", let them do what the AlterNic did and run their OWN server to serve it.
Geocities effectively does this with their vast number of subdirectories pointing to individual pages. www.Geocities.com acts as their customers "top level domain" logically.
We return to the eternal question, What Justifies The Initiation Of Force?
"For the children", or "scarce resource", or simply "you can't be trusted with that choice" is what is justifying it right now, in all the various prohibitions of all governments. Their real reason may be control, but they use rationalization to keep from loosing their jobs to an actually informed population. It used to be "devine right of Kings", but that went out of fashion.
This issue of open access is not new, it's been discussed online since I've been reading discussions on various networks starting in 1983.
"The Internet" as we know it is a wonderful example of unanimity. If you don't like your service, you take it elsewhere. If you don't like/., you don't read/.. Or use Microsloth. Or AOL. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
Open access means you choose what you do and do not use. If you don't want the tax man's services, he uses force. You pay anyway.
The corporate/government alliance does not want you to have that choice.
As the parent of this posting suggests, watch for what rationalizations are used for taking this choice away from you, as so many other choices have been taken away.
The marijuana metaphor is a good one. Useless, expensive, abusive prohibition of something that harms no one.
IPv6 is a perfect example of this "second system effect".
I dreamed once, likely from having a fever, that I went back in time and told the developers of IPv4, "Add two more octets to the address space. Yes, I know it seems like overkill right now, but it will solve so many problems in the future!"
Then the crime has not been prevented, it is punished. If they're caught.
You might want to check your local laws. In America at least, it is explicitly written into state and many local laws that the police (and government agents of all stripes) have no legal requirement to protect anyone. Government agents cannot be prosecuted for failure to provide "protection". It's not their job.
Also, governments do not have "rights", they have "powers" that have been granted to them.
The B.F. quote is no strawman. I did not put it there to tear down and then blame you for it. Neither is is use of "essential" at issue, because "essential" is subjective.
Or have you somehow granted to government the power to regulate what is and is not "essential"?
Yes, it's been interesting. And I was talking about the lack of crime being comparable, not much else.
We do have one very serious disagreement, however:
"it is the primary duty of the government to prevent crime"
No, it is the primary duty to protect the rights of the citizens. Europe is full of people who believe they must forfeit their rights in order to be safe, to "prevent crime."
"They that give up essential libery for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
How is this any different than what you said? Because in order to prevent crime, you must be able to crush the rights of citizens at will. To prevent crime is to not wait for a crime to be committed before taking action. Yet, if no crime has been committed, all that is left is a "government" continually crushing the rights of its citizens, arbitrarily using powers of search, prohibition and imprisonment to prevent whatever the "government" defines as crime this week. In more honest circles, it's called a "protection racket".
What people who want to be safe forget is that the minorities of Germany, only 60 years ago, were murdered by their lawfully elected government. The Soviet Union, China, Armenia, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Waco Texas, I use these examples because most peope can remember some recent history.
The real issue is not, and never has been "guns" or crime. The issue is control, prohibition, censorship. The illusion of safety, the safety of the tyrant where the criminals are the ones in uniform.
"the Netherlands, with fairly tough gun controls has in fact one of the lowest levels of violent crime in Europe."
the Netherlands also compares well with rural US, where lawful firearms ownership is common. you actually do a wonderful job of demonstrating my point, that violent crime has nothing to do with guns.
from an historical perspective, i would be very interested in the changes to Netherland law that saw the enactment of firearms prohibition, or if it was a general expansion of private arms prohibition as technology changed, etc. Europian peasents have historically been unarmed, so it's perfectly reasonable that "gun control" is irrelevant there. i've not made a study of the Netherlands in that respect.
the general rape and slaughter of unarmed Europian peasents by armed thugs, be they government or freelance, is also a well known historical fact. it is not happening right now, true, but 60 years is not a long time.
automatic weapons are as much a "hot button" for the civil rights activist because of the principle that there is something an individual is not allowed to choose, just as someone who understands engines would object to government mandated "rev limiters", or someone who understands computers would object to government mandated "clock speed limits" or "connection speed limits".
strangely, when talking about denial of service attacks, i have not seen people decrying how this wouldn't happen if people didn't have fast connections, since the misuse of such "assault ADSL" connections demonstrate that easy availablity promotes abuse.
This is not a US-centric issue, it's a human rights issue.
You speak of "mowing down a schoolyard full of children", and bring up the very straw-man "easy availability of automatic weapons that made the perpetrator so dangerous" without any basis for your statements.
I must conclude you have never actually fired a fully automatic weapon, or you would know that "spray and pray" doesn't work anywhere but Hollywood. I must also conclude that you believe arms control and prohibition to be a new political phenominon. Both have been refuted so often as to be laughable.
Your conclusion is also completely false. This is not a "uniquely US cultural issue". The increases in crime in the countries that have recently expanded their prohibitions on private firearms ownership are good exmaples. The Swiss, who maintain fully automatic firearms at home and have private firearms ownership (I believe) even higher than the US and yet very little violent crime, are another example.
In direct contradiction to your assertion, Israel actually did have a problem with terrorists "mowing down school children". The answer was to arm teachers, and allow armed parents to accompany school outings.
The result was not more "blood in the streets", the result was simply that after a few dead terrorists the attackes stopped. I will gladly trade a dead terrorist and a couple injured children for a dozen dead children. Won't you?
The only reason there is any debate at all is because of the emotional training that has been received, that firearms are somehow "more inherently dangerous", and private individuals cannot be trusted with them.
This emotional training rejects every historical, statistical and anecdotal rebuttal. When someone finally attempts to argue against the emotional training with emotion, those who fear modern firearms simply reject the appeal as mere emotional argument.
The only reason this is an issue at all is because politicians believe they can get elected by playing on the fears of their citizens. The lowest and most vile of politicians do so by playing on the fears citizens have of other citizens.
If, as you say, anything can be used as a weapon, what is the common ground? What makes punching a hole in a paper target just fine, and punching a hole in a human body an evil act?
Intent.
That's why causing a death by accident isn't murder, there is no intent.
Social standards are applied to such situations to determine negligence, the lessons learned by such efforts are an excellent way to assist people in knowing how to own something without injury to others. So is insurance.
Since anything can be used to cause harm, and only the intent is what creates a crime, then prosecute actions based only on the actors intention.
This would, however, make simple ownership of weapons of all kinds, drugs, computer software, rocket engines, annonymous bank accounts and lots of other things perfectly lawful. There are a great number of busy-bodies who just couldn't stand not being able to control others lives to that extent.
Mart, "How can you assure that it's not predominantly them that get to carry weapons, without infringing on the rights of all citizens?"
By not infringing on, or restricting, the peaceful carrying of arms.
To oversimplify, prohibition doesn't work, be it alcohol, drug, gun or any prohibition without, as you specify, "infringing on the rights of all citizens". You might want to read what Machiavelli had to say on the subject. Gun control is not a new idea, regardless of what the media and prohibitionists tell you. It has been tried, and failed, throughout history.
Punish abuse. Prosecute those who harm others, regardless of weapon. To stigmatize "firearms" obfuscates the issue of violence and predatory action which is what you actually want to "do something about".
Every emotional railing against "firearms" for their effectiveness diverts attention from the fact that, yes, they are effective in the hands of a weaker, smaller victim in defense against larger, stronger, or even multiple attackers. Had Bernie Geotz(sp?) in NY several years ago caused the same injuries to his attackers by using karate moves, or an umbrella, even if his attackers had died he would have been hailed as a hero for defending himself.
But no, he chose to defend himself from attack by using a firearm, and that's all anyone remembers.
If you're on/., you're most likely someone who works with logic, definate rules, cause and effect. You wouldn't expect 2+2=7 no matter how many times someone said it was 7. So, in effect, do the math: Criminals break the law. Prohibition disarms only those who abide the law, who are by definition not criminals. Therefore, prohibiton doesn't work.
As England and Australia have discovered with their incendiary increases in violent crimes, including crimes committed utilizing firearms, after their prohibitions on lawful private firearms ownership, the issues are far more complex than just what is "lawful".
"what are the safeguards in place in the US to ensure that only the responsible citizen gets to own a gun?"
Your assumptions are that that there can be such safeguards.
Lawful firearms ownership is, by its definition, responsible ownership in the same way that lawful automobile ownership implies that you haven't harmed anyone by using it irresponsibly. The "law" punishes irresponsible use, anything beyond that is legislated opinion.
It is far easier to unlawfully purchase a firearm in the US than it is to lawfully do so. Waiting periods, background checks, licenses in almost all states to purchase and carry those firearms. Again the experience in England and Australia that when those people who abide the law and forsake ownership give up their arms, the only people left armed are the ones who acquire them unlawfully.
In New York City, Chicago and Washington DC, to cite the most restrictive locations, private lawful firearms ownership is nearly impossible. Yet these are also locations at the top of the "death by firearm" statistics.
Your presumption concerning licensing is also, in my opinion, reversed. It is not impossible to get a license to carry a firearm in those same high-crime cities, the licenses are in fact very hard to get.
Yet in those places where firearms licenses are not required, crime rates are very low. Where the laws have been changed to make lawful firearms ownership easier, in direct contradiction to your implied argument, crime rates have gone down.
The reason for this is simple: Those people that the "laws" disarm are those who were never a problem in the first place.
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for
one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men
because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy
for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are
of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted
and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to
prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."
--Cesare Beccaria, _On Crimes and Punishments_, 1764
"...you should be careful with statements like this."
Why? Because saying the truth hurts?
Since even you admit that deregulation *and* individual responsibility works best, then to ever say the opposite is to betray your real feelings.
Government distortions in the market have fostered polution on a vast scale, hidden the damages and costs of inefficient technologies (like monolythic-style atomic power), and been used as political game-pieces to pay off powerful friends.
I am very carefull when saying "statements like this". I say them loudly, and often.
The point is, that most gun victims don't die because the other one wanted to kill them in the first place.
I know this may violate some rule, but can you provide *ANY* citation or support for this absurd statement?
You do realize that someone breaking into your house is not an excuse for you to kill him, don't you?
Obviously you live somewhere that is not in 49 of 50 states of America and most of the rest of the world too. (Massachusetts is one exception, or at least it was when I lived there)
Someone breaking into your house is defacto evidence that your life and limb are in danger. Killing them is simple self defense. It is prudent to at least *try* to yell "get down" or something first, but as has so often proven true there are times that there simply isn't time for that.
You can argue all day long that "they didn't deserve to die", but then they shouldn't have been breaking into someones home either.
however, it does raise a valid point: at what point is an individual choice so fearful that ones neighbors will kill someone rather than let them make that choice? AnnonCoward believes that atomics are sooooo dangerous that he would rather kill his neighbor than let them own one.
if you think i am "arguing to the absurd", think again. each and every law, no matter how small, depends on the state's ability to take your life, through imprisonment or death, you if you disobay.
so lets say for argument that i choose to buy an atomic device. my insurance company tells me the specifications for safe storage, so that i don't loose my coverage and have to pay myself for any incidental damage. i am personally liable for misuse, however, as with everything.
how about biological weapons? i can deliberately err when making canned tomatos and manufacture a very effective botulin grenade, complete with glass container for maximum shatter effect.
or how about concentrated niccotine? a little Dimethylsulfoxide to carry it into the bloodstream, and lets go spread it on peoples automobile door handles at night as a lark!
and that DSL connection you have, that's too fast. people have been known to use fast internet connections to send large ammounts of spam, and to facilitate denial of service attacks. no one *needs* anything more than 64Kbps, and we all know that speed kills.
The "purpose" of a gun is to propell a lump at high velocity in a given direction.
Every other aspect of the tool is dependent entirely on its weilder.
"plenty of guns available for target shooting only purposes,..." as if a.22 Olympic target pistol won't kill, if used for that purpose? GET REAL!
The reason that, "but these don't seem to be the type of gun people want to own", is because firearms that are target-shooting specific are like race-cars. They are delicate instruments that operate best when used in skilled hands for their use-specific design purpose.
There is no reason you cannot use a race-car on a city street, nor that a target pistol cannot be used in a self defense situation.
But one does not race a mini-van at Indianapolis Speedway, nor does one (commonly) carry a Thompson Center Contender in.223 every day for self defense.
(however, i have a great story about a G.I. who took his T.C.C. to 'Nam, and "defended" his squad quite effectively)
AnnonCoward needs to do some soul searching as to what qualities people want in a firearm before he calls others purchasing decisions "odd".
Bob-
Oh No!!!!!!!!!! the Red Chinese might get their hands on DVD technology?!?
We Can't Have That! How can we permit communists to have degraded video playback capabilities?
This will destroy our American Way Of Life, the fundimental belief that the latest technology can only exist in America! By Law!...oh, wait, i'm not in america either. wow. i guess i have to downgrade to WinXP.
Bob-
Solar cells are a great product for a targetted market: putting relatively low power into a location not otherwise served. And solar cell deployment is both cheap and clean, for places where such considerations are called for. (like on sail-boats)
However, solar cell production is neither cheap, nor clean. Heavy metals and lead, light metals like arsenic, or non-metals such as silicon, all contribute to the polution load for their manufacture.
Hiding those production costs behind tax incentives, grants, EPA loopholes, does not stop the polution, nor clean it up. Only honesty in the real costs of production would drive incentive to clean up the process.
Ronald Regan did not "kill" solar cells, his administration stopped the artificial incentives for wasteful production. Research has gone on, and clean (and therefore cheap) production methods will either be developed, or solar cells will remain a niche market.
I also believe in the export of high-tech to "developing" regions as quickly as possible, to prevent their needing to pass through the awfully poluting "heavy industry" cycle just because some politicians are too cowardly to admit that "brown" people are people too.
Bob-
Mourn on the 4th of July, set a place at the table for Thomas Jefferson, and toast "Next Year, In Philidelphia."
You should read Kings of the High Frontier
on
Movies in Space?
·
· Score: 1
If you think this is bad, try Kings of the High Frontier by Vicktor Komen.
Reading that book made me wish I'd never worked at NASA.
Bob-
cheaper with special effects...
on
Movies in Space?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, much cheaper to "float your stars" with effects.
But there's another side to this: Zero-G effects the human body. Oh, sure, breasts will jiggle in interesting ways, but with the body-fluid shifts filling the upper body those pretty starlets will get ruddy, puffy faces and clogged sinuses.
Not a pretty thing to do to someone whos living is made by their looks.
Slashdot Mirror
Most cubicle forms that are more than 3 feet high allow for the tables to be attached at standing height.
Try it. Stand at your terminal. You'll be amazed how much more comfortable you are.
Bob-
"Public" health care? Your health is YOUR problem, not mine. Don't rob me at gun-point because you're too stupid to buy your own health insurance or find your own doctor, or prepare when you DO have a job for those times when you DON'T.
The best places I've lived have always been the ones with the least taxes. Those were also the places with the most available doctors, the most reachable churches and community organizations, the easiest regulations, and the most friendly neighbors.
Along with that came nearly non-existant crime, little or no "drug" problems, no gangs, tollerance for race/sexual-preference/religion/style.
Before you go decrying how "public" services are required, remember that no matter how well those "public" services seem on paper, they always cost more than the same service provided by interested, involved individuals.
It's too bad that logical thinking required by high-tech work does not extend into other parts of peoples lives. On the other hand, the 'Net is a hotbed of support for individual rights, so maybe those who haven't yet applied logic to social issues are a decreasing minority.
I certainly hope so.
Bob-
Sure the "three T's" are all well and good, but so is quality of life, clean air, clean water, and tollerance of life, not just life style.
If I can't target shoot off the back porch, how am I going to relax after a hard session of coding?
Bob-
Who cares if 207.25.71.27 is pointed to by www.cnn.com, or www.cnn.at.ga.us? or even asdf.asdf.asdf.123443234?
The entire failure is in trying to use the registry like an index. That is what is creating the bogus "scarcity" issue and allowing idiots to demand that an ICANN exist at all.
Every "top level domain" needed already exists, in the form of the country codes. If someone wants to create a new "Top Level Domain", let them do what the AlterNic did and run their OWN server to serve it.
Geocities effectively does this with their vast number of subdirectories pointing to individual pages. www.Geocities.com acts as their customers "top level domain" logically.
Bob-
Maybe they never read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
Being it doesn't have any pictures, I doubt that any CNN reporter or producer would be interested.
Bob-
"For the children", or "scarce resource", or simply "you can't be trusted with that choice" is what is justifying it right now, in all the various prohibitions of all governments. Their real reason may be control, but they use rationalization to keep from loosing their jobs to an actually informed population. It used to be "devine right of Kings", but that went out of fashion.
This issue of open access is not new, it's been discussed online since I've been reading discussions on various networks starting in 1983.
"The Internet" as we know it is a wonderful example of unanimity. If you don't like your service, you take it elsewhere. If you don't like /., you don't read /.. Or use Microsloth. Or AOL. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.
Open access means you choose what you do and do not use. If you don't want the tax man's services, he uses force. You pay anyway.
The corporate/government alliance does not want you to have that choice.
As the parent of this posting suggests, watch for what rationalizations are used for taking this choice away from you, as so many other choices have been taken away.
The marijuana metaphor is a good one. Useless, expensive, abusive prohibition of something that harms no one.
Bob-
I dreamed once, likely from having a fever, that I went back in time and told the developers of IPv4, "Add two more octets to the address space. Yes, I know it seems like overkill right now, but it will solve so many problems in the future!"
Bob-
So, what are your "mount" parameters that work for you? Or do you mean that "mtools" read the memory stick?
Bob-
"ie when we break the law."
Then the crime has not been prevented, it is punished. If they're caught.
You might want to check your local laws. In America at least, it is explicitly written into state and many local laws that the police (and government agents of all stripes) have no legal requirement to protect anyone . Government agents cannot be prosecuted for failure to provide "protection". It's not their job.
Also, governments do not have "rights", they have "powers" that have been granted to them.
The B.F. quote is no strawman. I did not put it there to tear down and then blame you for it. Neither is is use of "essential" at issue, because "essential" is subjective.
Or have you somehow granted to government the power to regulate what is and is not "essential"?
Bob-
Loudly said: Deregulate.
Deregulate solar. Deregulate oil. Deregulate speech. Deregulate sex. Deregulate money. Deregulate pleasure. Deregulate choice.
To quote the short-movie "Closet Cases of the Nerd Kind", "He keeps on saying the same thing."
Bob-
Yes, it's been interesting. And I was talking about the lack of crime being comparable, not much else.
We do have one very serious disagreement, however:
"it is the primary duty of the government to prevent crime"
No, it is the primary duty to protect the rights of the citizens. Europe is full of people who believe they must forfeit their rights in order to be safe, to "prevent crime."
"They that give up essential libery for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
How is this any different than what you said? Because in order to prevent crime, you must be able to crush the rights of citizens at will. To prevent crime is to not wait for a crime to be committed before taking action. Yet, if no crime has been committed, all that is left is a "government" continually crushing the rights of its citizens, arbitrarily using powers of search, prohibition and imprisonment to prevent whatever the "government" defines as crime this week. In more honest circles, it's called a "protection racket".
What people who want to be safe forget is that the minorities of Germany, only 60 years ago, were murdered by their lawfully elected government. The Soviet Union, China, Armenia, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Waco Texas, I use these examples because most peope can remember some recent history.
The real issue is not, and never has been "guns" or crime. The issue is control, prohibition, censorship. The illusion of safety, the safety of the tyrant where the criminals are the ones in uniform.
Bob-
the Netherlands also compares well with rural US, where lawful firearms ownership is common. you actually do a wonderful job of demonstrating my point, that violent crime has nothing to do with guns.
from an historical perspective, i would be very interested in the changes to Netherland law that saw the enactment of firearms prohibition, or if it was a general expansion of private arms prohibition as technology changed, etc. Europian peasents have historically been unarmed, so it's perfectly reasonable that "gun control" is irrelevant there. i've not made a study of the Netherlands in that respect.
the general rape and slaughter of unarmed Europian peasents by armed thugs, be they government or freelance, is also a well known historical fact. it is not happening right now, true, but 60 years is not a long time.
automatic weapons are as much a "hot button" for the civil rights activist because of the principle that there is something an individual is not allowed to choose, just as someone who understands engines would object to government mandated "rev limiters", or someone who understands computers would object to government mandated "clock speed limits" or "connection speed limits".
strangely, when talking about denial of service attacks, i have not seen people decrying how this wouldn't happen if people didn't have fast connections, since the misuse of such "assault ADSL" connections demonstrate that easy availablity promotes abuse.
same argument, same reasoning.
Bob-
This is not a US-centric issue, it's a human rights issue.
You speak of "mowing down a schoolyard full of children", and bring up the very straw-man "easy availability of automatic weapons that made the perpetrator so dangerous" without any basis for your statements.
I must conclude you have never actually fired a fully automatic weapon, or you would know that "spray and pray" doesn't work anywhere but Hollywood. I must also conclude that you believe arms control and prohibition to be a new political phenominon. Both have been refuted so often as to be laughable.
Your conclusion is also completely false. This is not a "uniquely US cultural issue". The increases in crime in the countries that have recently expanded their prohibitions on private firearms ownership are good exmaples. The Swiss, who maintain fully automatic firearms at home and have private firearms ownership (I believe) even higher than the US and yet very little violent crime, are another example.
In direct contradiction to your assertion, Israel actually did have a problem with terrorists "mowing down school children". The answer was to arm teachers, and allow armed parents to accompany school outings.
The result was not more "blood in the streets", the result was simply that after a few dead terrorists the attackes stopped. I will gladly trade a dead terrorist and a couple injured children for a dozen dead children. Won't you?
The only reason there is any debate at all is because of the emotional training that has been received, that firearms are somehow "more inherently dangerous", and private individuals cannot be trusted with them.
This emotional training rejects every historical, statistical and anecdotal rebuttal. When someone finally attempts to argue against the emotional training with emotion, those who fear modern firearms simply reject the appeal as mere emotional argument.
The only reason this is an issue at all is because politicians believe they can get elected by playing on the fears of their citizens. The lowest and most vile of politicians do so by playing on the fears citizens have of other citizens.
Bob-
Three Mile Island: 0
Go Nuclear!
If, as you say, anything can be used as a weapon, what is the common ground? What makes punching a hole in a paper target just fine, and punching a hole in a human body an evil act?
Intent .
That's why causing a death by accident isn't murder, there is no intent.
Social standards are applied to such situations to determine negligence, the lessons learned by such efforts are an excellent way to assist people in knowing how to own something without injury to others. So is insurance.
Since anything can be used to cause harm, and only the intent is what creates a crime, then prosecute actions based only on the actors intention.
This would, however, make simple ownership of weapons of all kinds, drugs, computer software, rocket engines, annonymous bank accounts and lots of other things perfectly lawful. There are a great number of busy-bodies who just couldn't stand not being able to control others lives to that extent.
Gee! What a Great Idea! When do we Start?
Bob-
"How can you assure that it's not predominantly them that get to carry weapons, without infringing on the rights of all citizens?"
By not infringing on, or restricting, the peaceful carrying of arms.
To oversimplify, prohibition doesn't work, be it alcohol, drug, gun or any prohibition without, as you specify, "infringing on the rights of all citizens". You might want to read what Machiavelli had to say on the subject. Gun control is not a new idea, regardless of what the media and prohibitionists tell you. It has been tried, and failed, throughout history.
Punish abuse. Prosecute those who harm others, regardless of weapon. To stigmatize "firearms" obfuscates the issue of violence and predatory action which is what you actually want to "do something about".
Every emotional railing against "firearms" for their effectiveness diverts attention from the fact that, yes, they are effective in the hands of a weaker, smaller victim in defense against larger, stronger, or even multiple attackers. Had Bernie Geotz(sp?) in NY several years ago caused the same injuries to his attackers by using karate moves, or an umbrella, even if his attackers had died he would have been hailed as a hero for defending himself.
But no, he chose to defend himself from attack by using a firearm, and that's all anyone remembers.
If you're on /., you're most likely someone who works with logic, definate rules, cause and effect. You wouldn't expect 2+2=7 no matter how many times someone said it was 7. So, in effect, do the math: Criminals break the law. Prohibition disarms only those who abide the law, who are by definition not criminals. Therefore, prohibiton doesn't work.
As far as "paranoid militias" go, check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Bob-
As England and Australia have discovered with their incendiary increases in violent crimes, including crimes committed utilizing firearms, after their prohibitions on lawful private firearms ownership, the issues are far more complex than just what is "lawful".
"what are the safeguards in place in the US to ensure that only the responsible citizen gets to own a gun?"
Your assumptions are that that there can be such safeguards.
Lawful firearms ownership is, by its definition, responsible ownership in the same way that lawful automobile ownership implies that you haven't harmed anyone by using it irresponsibly. The "law" punishes irresponsible use, anything beyond that is legislated opinion.
It is far easier to un lawfully purchase a firearm in the US than it is to lawfully do so. Waiting periods, background checks, licenses in almost all states to purchase and carry those firearms. Again the experience in England and Australia that when those people who abide the law and forsake ownership give up their arms, the only people left armed are the ones who acquire them unlawfully.
In New York City, Chicago and Washington DC, to cite the most restrictive locations, private lawful firearms ownership is nearly impossible. Yet these are also locations at the top of the "death by firearm" statistics.
Your presumption concerning licensing is also, in my opinion, reversed. It is not impossible to get a license to carry a firearm in those same high-crime cities, the licenses are in fact very hard to get.
Yet in those places where firearms licenses are not required, crime rates are very low. Where the laws have been changed to make lawful firearms ownership easier, in direct contradiction to your implied argument, crime rates have gone down.
The reason for this is simple: Those people that the "laws" disarm are those who were never a problem in the first place.
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, _On Crimes and Punishments_, 1764
Bob-
Why? Because saying the truth hurts?
Since even you admit that deregulation *and* individual responsibility works best, then to ever say the opposite is to betray your real feelings.
Government distortions in the market have fostered polution on a vast scale, hidden the damages and costs of inefficient technologies (like monolythic-style atomic power), and been used as political game-pieces to pay off powerful friends.
I am very carefull when saying "statements like this". I say them loudly, and often.
Bob-
I know this may violate some rule, but can you provide *ANY* citation or support for this absurd statement?
You do realize that someone breaking into your house is not an excuse for you to kill him, don't you?
Obviously you live somewhere that is not in 49 of 50 states of America and most of the rest of the world too. (Massachusetts is one exception, or at least it was when I lived there)
Someone breaking into your house is defacto evidence that your life and limb are in danger. Killing them is simple self defense. It is prudent to at least *try* to yell "get down" or something first, but as has so often proven true there are times that there simply isn't time for that.
You can argue all day long that "they didn't deserve to die", but then they shouldn't have been breaking into someones home either.
Bob-
however, it does raise a valid point: at what point is an individual choice so fearful that ones neighbors will kill someone rather than let them make that choice? AnnonCoward believes that atomics are sooooo dangerous that he would rather kill his neighbor than let them own one.
if you think i am "arguing to the absurd", think again. each and every law, no matter how small, depends on the state's ability to take your life, through imprisonment or death, you if you disobay.
so lets say for argument that i choose to buy an atomic device. my insurance company tells me the specifications for safe storage, so that i don't loose my coverage and have to pay myself for any incidental damage. i am personally liable for misuse, however, as with everything.
how about biological weapons? i can deliberately err when making canned tomatos and manufacture a very effective botulin grenade, complete with glass container for maximum shatter effect.
or how about concentrated niccotine? a little Dimethylsulfoxide to carry it into the bloodstream, and lets go spread it on peoples automobile door handles at night as a lark!
and that DSL connection you have, that's too fast. people have been known to use fast internet connections to send large ammounts of spam, and to facilitate denial of service attacks. no one *needs* anything more than 64Kbps, and we all know that speed kills.
Bob-
The "purpose" of a gun is to propell a lump at high velocity in a given direction. Every other aspect of the tool is dependent entirely on its weilder. "plenty of guns available for target shooting only purposes,..." as if a .22 Olympic target pistol won't kill, if used for that purpose? GET REAL!
The reason that, "but these don't seem to be the type of gun people want to own", is because firearms that are target-shooting specific are like race-cars. They are delicate instruments that operate best when used in skilled hands for their use-specific design purpose.
There is no reason you cannot use a race-car on a city street, nor that a target pistol cannot be used in a self defense situation.
But one does not race a mini-van at Indianapolis Speedway, nor does one (commonly) carry a Thompson Center Contender in .223 every day for self defense.
(however, i have a great story about a G.I. who took his T.C.C. to 'Nam, and "defended" his squad quite effectively)
AnnonCoward needs to do some soul searching as to what qualities people want in a firearm before he calls others purchasing decisions "odd".
Bob-
Oh No!!!!!!!!!! the Red Chinese might get their hands on DVD technology?!? We Can't Have That! How can we permit communists to have degraded video playback capabilities? This will destroy our American Way Of Life, the fundimental belief that the latest technology can only exist in America! By Law! ...oh, wait, i'm not in america either. wow. i guess i have to downgrade to WinXP.
Bob-
However, solar cell production is neither cheap, nor clean. Heavy metals and lead, light metals like arsenic, or non-metals such as silicon, all contribute to the polution load for their manufacture.
Hiding those production costs behind tax incentives, grants, EPA loopholes, does not stop the polution, nor clean it up. Only honesty in the real costs of production would drive incentive to clean up the process.
Ronald Regan did not "kill" solar cells, his administration stopped the artificial incentives for wasteful production. Research has gone on, and clean (and therefore cheap) production methods will either be developed, or solar cells will remain a niche market.
I also believe in the export of high-tech to "developing" regions as quickly as possible, to prevent their needing to pass through the awfully poluting "heavy industry" cycle just because some politicians are too cowardly to admit that "brown" people are people too.
Bob-
Mourn on the 4th of July, set a place at the table for Thomas Jefferson, and toast "Next Year, In Philidelphia."
Reading that book made me wish I'd never worked at NASA.
Bob-
But there's another side to this: Zero-G effects the human body. Oh, sure, breasts will jiggle in interesting ways, but with the body-fluid shifts filling the upper body those pretty starlets will get ruddy, puffy faces and clogged sinuses.
Not a pretty thing to do to someone whos living is made by their looks.
Bob-