The rampage was done with plain jane semi-automatic pistols (.22LR and 9mm). No fancy mean-looking "automatic assault weapons" here.
You obviously know nothing about firearms, because anyone who's had any experience with them knows most automatic small arms expend ammunition needlessly whilst being hard to control at anything past point blank ranges. Automatic weapons only become useful when mounted on a tripod/bipod or a vehicle and used in a crew-served role.
You also obviously know nothing about the Brady Bill, which had nothing to do with automatic firearms (which have been strictly regulated since the earlier half of the 20th century). The Brady Bill merely regulated features of firearms such as magazine capacity, bayonet lugs, and how much a legal semi-automatic firearm -looked- like an evil scary-looking "assault weapon".
You are obviously a clueless idiot, so stop mouthing off about something you know -nothing- about.
Depends on your priorities and point of view. Civilized countries:
-Do not allow the conscious and selfish actions of a young adult capable of rational thought and aware of the consequences facing his actions, to indirectly destroy the lives of hundreds of other people, and their families.
"execute nannies after years of abuse"
Please elaborate, and refrain from sensationalizing the issue.
"We may have some conceptions, but some other conceptions are base in hard facts."
Your conceptions seem to be based on opinions, not facts.
"Yep true singapore still canes people for littering or graffiti and executes drug offenders."
Singapore only has a mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, and only if they've been caught trafficking more than a certain amount (usually the case). Regular druggies get the usual assortment of fines, jail terms, caning (men-only priviledge), and rehab.
"First, there were assigned seats in the movie theaters. There weren't any signs saying such and the theater attendent took great delight in selling me the worst seat in the house despite being 3 hours early for the show."
There are several cinema operators in Singapore, and each has their SOP. The "Golden Village" operator which is by far the most successful and widespread, allows you to choose your seats, so you know exactly where your seat is. If I recall correctly, the operators "Shaw" and "Eng Wah" do not, and that is why I avoid their movie theaters whenever possible. Your beef is with the cinema operator, not Singapore. Vote with your wallet.
"Rudeness to visitors is SOP there."
Ignoring how you seem to have drawn that conclusion based on misinformation and a single personal experience, the fact is that if anything, Singaporean service staff have been criticized for showing favouritism to foreigners or tourists, and this was widely publicized in the local newspapers.
"Second, I ate in a mall fast food joint where the sinks for washing hands are in a conspicuous location, not in the bathrooms, in the middle of the seating area. It was clear that the purpose was so you could see that everyone washed their hands whenever they were supposed to. Customers regularly took notice of hand washing and the stink of judgement was unmistakable. I personally don't care or want to know if someone washes their hands. In Singapore it seems it seems not just a moral imperative to wash but also to verify. It creeped me out."
The purpose of situating the sinks in the middle of the seating area is merely convenience, and not some sinister plot to embarrass hygiene rebels. The large majority of Singaporeans, being as busy as they are, simply do not have the time nor the inclination to observe whether you've washed your hands or not.
"As far as Singapore's government working, that depends on your perspective. I'm sure it works for those who profit from it much like the US government does. I wouldn't want to live there though another visit would be fine."
I agree, Singapore's government works from a practical standpoint, but it has also resulted in a country that is exceedingly boring and devoid of its own distinct culture.
"I'll be sure to get good seats the next time."
Remember to go for Golden Village theaters; They're usually cleaner, with seats that are way more comfortable.
"If convicted, Tan faces up to three years in jail and fines of up to S$10,000 (US$6,425; 5,000) under the Computer Misuse Act."
Three years and a $10,000 fine is the MAXIMUM sentence, usually reserved for malicious computer-related crimes, e.g. DoS attacks, phishing, hacking, etc. The kid hasn't even had a court hearing or been sentenced yet, and chances are he'll just get a slap on the wrist.
The Singaporean press frequently publicizes such cases, to instill fear in the public which tends to police itself. The strength in Singapore's harsh penalties and laws lies in the deterrent effect they have, rather than actual enforcement.
The media mentions the maximum sentence in order to sensationalize stories for morons like you who can't read. And I would absolutely love living in any country where you would get jailed and caned if you spray-painted MY car or MY wall.
Please moderate parent informative. I am Singaporean, and most of the misconceptions about Singapore's infamously draconian laws are highly exaggerated. The Singapore Police Force relies more on the threat of such laws and the occasional example being made to ensure social order, rather than the actual enforcement of such laws. This has resulted in a population that is obedient, self-policing, and politically apathetic; every politician's wet dream.
Just because the developer thought it was funny, doesn't mean he fantasizes about it. Could it not have been social commentary? Strippers might be victims of circumstance, but they do have the freedom to choose another line of work. Most choose it anyway because it pays well. There's a price for almost everything, and obviously they were willing to sell themselves.
The comparison you're drawing between the visual in the game and the developer's alleged misogynistic tendencies is thin at best. It would seem to me that poking fun at women who denigrate themselves and the image of women in general, would be the opposite of being misogynistic. Would you call me an anti-White male-basher if I drew a comic strip poking fun at Ku Klux Klan members?
There're plenty of self-proclaimed armchair historians who conveniently equate German conscripts with willing volunteers, and one's nationality with political orientation, so as to justify their opinions. It's always easy to take a piss on the little details when preaching to the ignorant and stupid.
"The weapons are unfun rehashes of similar weapons from other titles."
Aren't they all? How different can a shotgun or sub-machine gun be? The same can be said of almost any other FPS out there, including Doom 3 or Half-Life 1/2.
"How they managed to make an auto-shotgun unsatisfying to use is a trick, but there just doesn't seem to be much weight to the action."
"The controls, despite being standards throughout the genre, manage to feel cumbersome and unwieldy in this setting."
"Whether I was firing a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle, I always managed to feel as though my opponents had a better grasp of the whole 'pointing the mouse' thing."
"Some of the weight of the sound effects from the original game seems to have been lost, as well, leaving weapons fire somewhat hollow."
Why did you find the auto-shotgun unsatisfying? Rate of fire too slow or the lacklustre animation? Why did the controls feel cumbersome and unwieldy? Was it because it was laggy? Having an opinion is fine, but I hate it when people are unable to substantiate them. It's like telling someone who asks you why you liked a movie "Oh I don't know, I just do!". Drivel like this sets off my B/S alarm, and holds no weight with me.
The mandarin word for space is "tai kong", so that's what might have given rise to the prefix "taiko" in taikonaut. I distinctly recall astronauts being refered to in mandarin as "tai kong yuan" in books i've read, not "yu hang yuan" though. "Yuan" means personnel or something to that effect by the way.
i think he forgot to mention that she weighs 200 pounds in unladen weight. add in the dorritos and mountain dew, and she tips the scales at 250 pounds.
"Do we need to have another definition of "Lawful Combatant" discussed here? This has already been done to death in the Gitmo threads, but we'll go over it again."
no we don't, because i am perfectly well aware of the definition of what a lawful combatant is. the point of my previous post was that it is unethical to consider conscripts lawful combatants due to the reasons i have stated.
-----
"If they were all conscripts, why did they not kill their own officers and surrender? Why did they not overthrow Saddam themselves and retake their country? There's a difference between being forced to fight at gunpoint, and simply being a reluctant participant."
gee, that sounds so simple doesn't it? on the same token, if the chinese were all living in fear under their communist government, why didn't they just kill their leaders, overthrow the regime and retake china for themselves? doing something because you have no other choice due to the circumstances you're in, doesn't constitute free choice.
-----
"How do you propose we tell conscripts from Special Republican Guard or Fedayeen at 800 meters?"
we can't, and i never said we could. again, the point i was trying to make was that despite the laws of war and its supposed purpose of making war less chaotic, it introduces some moral quandraries that cannot be ignored. simply because i point out a problem, doesn't mean i purport have a fool-proof solution for it.
-----
"It's also better to be a surrendering soldier than a deserter. In previous wars, deserters and soldiers out of uniform were often considered unlawful combatants, who could be (and were) summarily tried and executed in the field."
and what do you think the opposing force does to it's deserters? bid them farewell and a safe journey? conscripts are caught between a rock and a hard place, due to no fault or choice of their own.
-----
"The German army was using teenage and elderly conscripts by the end of WWII, yet nobody cries and weeps and claims that those were "civilian" casualties."
it might be easier not to acknowledge it since dehumanizing the enemy makes war more palatable, but that doesn't make it right.
-----
"I see a great deal of this conceptual gerrymandering as a thinly-disguised effort by the International ANSWER crowd and their political allies to inflate "civilian casualty" figures, specifically to bludgeon the current administration about their "brutality" and the "unethical, unlawful" war. Sorry, but simply calling everyone, including members of the Iraqi Army "civilians," doesn't make it so."
think what you might, i have no political agenda whatsoever.
-----
"The distinctions between civilians and combatants are sharp in the minds of every soldier. As a matter of policy and military culture, we don't slaughter surrendering enemy soldiers, and we don't deliberately kill civilians. I was a field-grade officer in those same armed forces, and we don't do that... we just don't."
just don't ever think that conscripts are there because they want to. the laws of war might make them fair game simply because it's much more convenient and practical to, and that's all there is to it.
-----
"Not my definition... those are straight from the Laws of War."
They are not, NOT "civilians." They may have been conscripts of dubious military skill... but they had arms, and the ability to fight. Those that stood and fought were crushed, those who ran survived... but they were not "civilians," and your attempt to lump them in with the populace dilutes that critical distinction, and endangers the innocents in the latter group.
the parent post's point was that conscripts do not choose to fight. they are civilians forced to take up arms, hence it is unethical to consider them combatants even though they might be defined as such by the rules of engagement.
should sex slaves be prosecuted for vice just the same as prostitutes?
by your sweeping definition, most of the united states populace should also be considered combatants, since they're armed and both willing and able to fight. should 9/11 then be considered an act of war, not terrorism?
your definition of what constitutes a combatant conveniently ignores the factor of choice that distinguishes conscripts from willing combatants, in an attempt to rationalize the unethical slaughter of military slaves during wartime.
"6 people in a balloon, too much weight. Its heading into the rough seas below. Casting one over will save the other 5."
Just a suggestion: if you ever find yourself in a predicament like that, throw the fatest excuse for a human you have overboard. Fat people are a waste of food and space. Besides, they'd keep the sharks busy longer, and it makes more sense to dump the largest weight overboard.
Damn I hate fat people.
If we started running our cars on the fats liposucked out of fat asses we could stop our reliance on fossil fuels.
You've entirely missed the point of the grandparent post.
If rapists and child molesters killed their victims due to the danger of getting caught and executed, then you'd have rapists and child molesters killing all their victims and escaping arrest, raping/molesting and killing more victims.
You can't permanently remove them from society, if you can't catch them in the first place.
What's the deal with calling cheating and conning people "social engineering"? Giving it a catchy name doesn't make it any more fashionable or acceptable. I guess we have the l337 underground crowd to blame for this idiotic euphemism.
Re:Should have let them kill eachother
on
Flash Mob Gang Warfare
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If just ONE innocent person is put to death wrongly, the whole system has failed. Its easy to speak like you do, but I'd like to see you put in such a position. Just keep telling yourself you're saving taxpayers' money as you get strapped into the electric chair for something you didn't do, whilst the guilty person walks free.
I don't see how killing innocent people whilst letting those who are guilty walk free will benefit society in any way.
I've been updating all my systems running pirated copies of windows XP through the windowsupdate site with no problems whatsoever. What am I missing here?
"If you make the argument that people should be allowed to possess guns, then you are also making the argument that a few drunken shootings, a few wife-beatings that turned into murder, a few children accidentally shooting themselves or their friend every year is an acceptable price to pay."
If you make the argument that guns should be banned, then you are also making the argument that any incident (probably a lot) involving criminals using illegally-owned guns to rob and possibly murder defenceless and law-abiding citizens is an acceptable price to pay for outlawing firearms.
Banning firearms in a country which has long allowed legal gun ownership is no different from banning cars, since to ban people from owning firearms is to potentially reduce their ability to defend themselves from criminals who will have guns (that's why they're criminals).
Unless you can come up with a surefire method to find and destroy every single illegally firearm in circulation in the entire country, in addition to ensuring firearms originating from other countries do not cross the borders, then you'd have a viable case for the banning of firearms. Until then, firearm education and allowing law-abiding citizens to own firearms would be the best approach in reality. In addition to that, I think mandating certain measures of safety in storing firearms (such as in gun-safes), increasing the penalties for the careless "misplacing" of firearms and restricting the sale of ammunition (no ammunition = no shootings) would go a long way towards reducing the number of criminal shootings*.
e.g. Being in possession of any ammunition or firearm or parts thereof in Singapore results in a mandatory jail sentence of 7 years. Using a firearm in a crime in Singapore (whether fired or not) results in a mandatory life sentence in jail or the death sentence (usually the latter). The result is that you can usually count the number of shootings each decade on one hand.
Slashdot Mirror
The rampage was done with plain jane semi-automatic pistols (.22LR and 9mm). No fancy mean-looking "automatic assault weapons" here.
You obviously know nothing about firearms, because anyone who's had any experience with them knows most automatic small arms expend ammunition needlessly whilst being hard to control at anything past point blank ranges. Automatic weapons only become useful when mounted on a tripod/bipod or a vehicle and used in a crew-served role.
You also obviously know nothing about the Brady Bill, which had nothing to do with automatic firearms (which have been strictly regulated since the earlier half of the 20th century). The Brady Bill merely regulated features of firearms such as magazine capacity, bayonet lugs, and how much a legal semi-automatic firearm -looked- like an evil scary-looking "assault weapon".
You are obviously a clueless idiot, so stop mouthing off about something you know -nothing- about.
Depends on your priorities and point of view. Civilized countries:
-Do not allow the conscious and selfish actions of a young adult capable of rational thought and aware of the consequences facing his actions, to indirectly destroy the lives of hundreds of other people, and their families.
"execute nannies after years of abuse"
Please elaborate, and refrain from sensationalizing the issue.
"We may have some conceptions, but some other conceptions are base in hard facts."
Your conceptions seem to be based on opinions, not facts.
"Yep true singapore still canes people for littering or graffiti and executes drug offenders."
Singapore only has a mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, and only if they've been caught trafficking more than a certain amount (usually the case). Regular druggies get the usual assortment of fines, jail terms, caning (men-only priviledge), and rehab.
"First, there were assigned seats in the movie theaters. There weren't any signs saying such and the theater attendent took great delight in selling me the worst seat in the house despite being 3 hours early for the show."
There are several cinema operators in Singapore, and each has their SOP. The "Golden Village" operator which is by far the most successful and widespread, allows you to choose your seats, so you know exactly where your seat is. If I recall correctly, the operators "Shaw" and "Eng Wah" do not, and that is why I avoid their movie theaters whenever possible. Your beef is with the cinema operator, not Singapore. Vote with your wallet.
"Rudeness to visitors is SOP there."
Ignoring how you seem to have drawn that conclusion based on misinformation and a single personal experience, the fact is that if anything, Singaporean service staff have been criticized for showing favouritism to foreigners or tourists, and this was widely publicized in the local newspapers.
"Second, I ate in a mall fast food joint where the sinks for washing hands are in a conspicuous location, not in the bathrooms, in the middle of the seating area. It was clear that the purpose was so you could see that everyone washed their hands whenever they were supposed to. Customers regularly took notice of hand washing and the stink of judgement was unmistakable. I personally don't care or want to know if someone washes their hands. In Singapore it seems it seems not just a moral imperative to wash but also to verify. It creeped me out."
The purpose of situating the sinks in the middle of the seating area is merely convenience, and not some sinister plot to embarrass hygiene rebels. The large majority of Singaporeans, being as busy as they are, simply do not have the time nor the inclination to observe whether you've washed your hands or not.
"As far as Singapore's government working, that depends on your perspective. I'm sure it works for those who profit from it much like the US government does. I wouldn't want to live there though another visit would be fine."
I agree, Singapore's government works from a practical standpoint, but it has also resulted in a country that is exceedingly boring and devoid of its own distinct culture.
"I'll be sure to get good seats the next time."
Remember to go for Golden Village theaters; They're usually cleaner, with seats that are way more comfortable.
RTFA, dumbass.
"If convicted, Tan faces up to three years in jail and fines of up to S$10,000 (US$6,425; 5,000) under the Computer Misuse Act."
Three years and a $10,000 fine is the MAXIMUM sentence, usually reserved for malicious computer-related crimes, e.g. DoS attacks, phishing, hacking, etc. The kid hasn't even had a court hearing or been sentenced yet, and chances are he'll just get a slap on the wrist.
The Singaporean press frequently publicizes such cases, to instill fear in the public which tends to police itself. The strength in Singapore's harsh penalties and laws lies in the deterrent effect they have, rather than actual enforcement.
The media mentions the maximum sentence in order to sensationalize stories for morons like you who can't read. And I would absolutely love living in any country where you would get jailed and caned if you spray-painted MY car or MY wall.
Please moderate parent informative. I am Singaporean, and most of the misconceptions about Singapore's infamously draconian laws are highly exaggerated. The Singapore Police Force relies more on the threat of such laws and the occasional example being made to ensure social order, rather than the actual enforcement of such laws. This has resulted in a population that is obedient, self-policing, and politically apathetic; every politician's wet dream.
Just because the developer thought it was funny, doesn't mean he fantasizes about it. Could it not have been social commentary? Strippers might be victims of circumstance, but they do have the freedom to choose another line of work. Most choose it anyway because it pays well. There's a price for almost everything, and obviously they were willing to sell themselves.
The comparison you're drawing between the visual in the game and the developer's alleged misogynistic tendencies is thin at best. It would seem to me that poking fun at women who denigrate themselves and the image of women in general, would be the opposite of being misogynistic. Would you call me an anti-White male-basher if I drew a comic strip poking fun at Ku Klux Klan members?
There're plenty of self-proclaimed armchair historians who conveniently equate German conscripts with willing volunteers, and one's nationality with political orientation, so as to justify their opinions. It's always easy to take a piss on the little details when preaching to the ignorant and stupid.
"(and I think Zonk kind of misses the deliberate badness of SS2's cutscenes)"
"Posted by Zonk on Tuesday November 01, @01:13PM
from the too-serious-for-its-own-good dept."
Irony at its best.
"The weapons are unfun rehashes of similar weapons from other titles."
Aren't they all? How different can a shotgun or sub-machine gun be? The same can be said of almost any other FPS out there, including Doom 3 or Half-Life 1/2.
"How they managed to make an auto-shotgun unsatisfying to use is a trick, but there just doesn't seem to be much weight to the action."
"The controls, despite being standards throughout the genre, manage to feel cumbersome and unwieldy in this setting."
"Whether I was firing a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle, I always managed to feel as though my opponents had a better grasp of the whole 'pointing the mouse' thing."
"Some of the weight of the sound effects from the original game seems to have been lost, as well, leaving weapons fire somewhat hollow."
Why did you find the auto-shotgun unsatisfying? Rate of fire too slow or the lacklustre animation? Why did the controls feel cumbersome and unwieldy? Was it because it was laggy? Having an opinion is fine, but I hate it when people are unable to substantiate them. It's like telling someone who asks you why you liked a movie "Oh I don't know, I just do!". Drivel like this sets off my B/S alarm, and holds no weight with me.
The mandarin word for space is "tai kong", so that's what might have given rise to the prefix "taiko" in taikonaut. I distinctly recall astronauts being refered to in mandarin as "tai kong yuan" in books i've read, not "yu hang yuan" though. "Yuan" means personnel or something to that effect by the way.
Sheesh...
"I know it's annoying when ppl correct your spelling..."
That should be "people".
"but you spelled woman with an e..."
"Women" is the plural of "woman". Get a clue yourself before you start getting all pedantic man.
i think he forgot to mention that she weighs 200 pounds in unladen weight. add in the dorritos and mountain dew, and she tips the scales at 250 pounds.
still want her gamertag, loverboy?
"Do we need to have another definition of "Lawful Combatant" discussed here? This has already been done to death in the Gitmo threads, but we'll go over it again."
no we don't, because i am perfectly well aware of the definition of what a lawful combatant is. the point of my previous post was that it is unethical to consider conscripts lawful combatants due to the reasons i have stated.
-----
"If they were all conscripts, why did they not kill their own officers and surrender? Why did they not overthrow Saddam themselves and retake their country? There's a difference between being forced to fight at gunpoint, and simply being a reluctant participant."
gee, that sounds so simple doesn't it? on the same token, if the chinese were all living in fear under their communist government, why didn't they just kill their leaders, overthrow the regime and retake china for themselves? doing something because you have no other choice due to the circumstances you're in, doesn't constitute free choice.
-----
"How do you propose we tell conscripts from Special Republican Guard or Fedayeen at 800 meters?"
we can't, and i never said we could. again, the point i was trying to make was that despite the laws of war and its supposed purpose of making war less chaotic, it introduces some moral quandraries that cannot be ignored. simply because i point out a problem, doesn't mean i purport have a fool-proof solution for it.
-----
"It's also better to be a surrendering soldier than a deserter. In previous wars, deserters and soldiers out of uniform were often considered unlawful combatants, who could be (and were) summarily tried and executed in the field."
and what do you think the opposing force does to it's deserters? bid them farewell and a safe journey? conscripts are caught between a rock and a hard place, due to no fault or choice of their own.
-----
"The German army was using teenage and elderly conscripts by the end of WWII, yet nobody cries and weeps and claims that those were "civilian" casualties."
it might be easier not to acknowledge it since dehumanizing the enemy makes war more palatable, but that doesn't make it right.
-----
"I see a great deal of this conceptual gerrymandering as a thinly-disguised effort by the International ANSWER crowd and their political allies to inflate "civilian casualty" figures, specifically to bludgeon the current administration about their "brutality" and the "unethical, unlawful" war. Sorry, but simply calling everyone, including members of the Iraqi Army "civilians," doesn't make it so."
think what you might, i have no political agenda whatsoever.
-----
"The distinctions between civilians and combatants are sharp in the minds of every soldier. As a matter of policy and military culture, we don't slaughter surrendering enemy soldiers, and we don't deliberately kill civilians. I was a field-grade officer in those same armed forces, and we don't do that... we just don't."
just don't ever think that conscripts are there because they want to. the laws of war might make them fair game simply because it's much more convenient and practical to, and that's all there is to it.
-----
"Not my definition... those are straight from the Laws of War."
a definition that you seem to have subscribed to.
They are not, NOT "civilians." They may have been conscripts of dubious military skill... but they had arms, and the ability to fight. Those that stood and fought were crushed, those who ran survived... but they were not "civilians," and your attempt to lump them in with the populace dilutes that critical distinction, and endangers the innocents in the latter group.
the parent post's point was that conscripts do not choose to fight. they are civilians forced to take up arms, hence it is unethical to consider them combatants even though they might be defined as such by the rules of engagement.
should sex slaves be prosecuted for vice just the same as prostitutes?
by your sweeping definition, most of the united states populace should also be considered combatants, since they're armed and both willing and able to fight. should 9/11 then be considered an act of war, not terrorism?
your definition of what constitutes a combatant conveniently ignores the factor of choice that distinguishes conscripts from willing combatants, in an attempt to rationalize the unethical slaughter of military slaves during wartime.
The FBI is investigating a civil offence that has very far-reaching consequences which aren't limited to the company alone.
i have a software firewall on a CD that i install first whenever i reformat my winxp box, before even getting online. no problems that way.
"Those singaporians :ROFL:"
The correct spelling is "Singaporean".
"Being an atheist what forms the ground truth of your "ethics"?"
Reciprocity. i.e. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." - Matthew 7:12.
"6 people in a balloon, too much weight. Its heading into the rough seas below. Casting one over will save the other 5."
Just a suggestion: if you ever find yourself in a predicament like that, throw the fatest excuse for a human you have overboard. Fat people are a waste of food and space. Besides, they'd keep the sharks busy longer, and it makes more sense to dump the largest weight overboard.
Damn I hate fat people.
If we started running our cars on the fats liposucked out of fat asses we could stop our reliance on fossil fuels.
You've entirely missed the point of the grandparent post.
If rapists and child molesters killed their victims due to the danger of getting caught and executed, then you'd have rapists and child molesters killing all their victims and escaping arrest, raping/molesting and killing more victims.
You can't permanently remove them from society, if you can't catch them in the first place.
What's the deal with calling cheating and conning people "social engineering"? Giving it a catchy name doesn't make it any more fashionable or acceptable. I guess we have the l337 underground crowd to blame for this idiotic euphemism.
If just ONE innocent person is put to death wrongly, the whole system has failed. Its easy to speak like you do, but I'd like to see you put in such a position. Just keep telling yourself you're saving taxpayers' money as you get strapped into the electric chair for something you didn't do, whilst the guilty person walks free.
I don't see how killing innocent people whilst letting those who are guilty walk free will benefit society in any way.
I've been updating all my systems running pirated copies of windows XP through the windowsupdate site with no problems whatsoever. What am I missing here?
"If you make the argument that people should be allowed to possess guns, then you are also making the argument that a few drunken shootings, a few wife-beatings that turned into murder, a few children accidentally shooting themselves or their friend every year is an acceptable price to pay."
If you make the argument that guns should be banned, then you are also making the argument that any incident (probably a lot) involving criminals using illegally-owned guns to rob and possibly murder defenceless and law-abiding citizens is an acceptable price to pay for outlawing firearms.
Banning firearms in a country which has long allowed legal gun ownership is no different from banning cars, since to ban people from owning firearms is to potentially reduce their ability to defend themselves from criminals who will have guns (that's why they're criminals).
Unless you can come up with a surefire method to find and destroy every single illegally firearm in circulation in the entire country, in addition to ensuring firearms originating from other countries do not cross the borders, then you'd have a viable case for the banning of firearms. Until then, firearm education and allowing law-abiding citizens to own firearms would be the best approach in reality. In addition to that, I think mandating certain measures of safety in storing firearms (such as in gun-safes), increasing the penalties for the careless "misplacing" of firearms and restricting the sale of ammunition (no ammunition = no shootings) would go a long way towards reducing the number of criminal shootings*.
e.g. Being in possession of any ammunition or firearm or parts thereof in Singapore results in a mandatory jail sentence of 7 years. Using a firearm in a crime in Singapore (whether fired or not) results in a mandatory life sentence in jail or the death sentence (usually the latter). The result is that you can usually count the number of shootings each decade on one hand.