I'm in my 50's and remember the moon shots. They were awe inspiring at first but they became more routine (for the public) over time. I believe NASA and the public were ready for the next big thing. The shuttles were exciting at first too and it seemed we were on a track that could lead to ordinary people getting into space. Of course the shuttle program ended and manned space flight hasn't really broken any new ground for awhile.
43 years ago, we quit going to the moon and it didn't seem like a bad decision given the expense and that we'd already been there several times. But I don't think anyone believed that it would be 50 years or more before a person would set foot on another planetary body.
You don't cram more fiberglass into the walls. That will definitely not work. You use a material designed to be effective when densely packed. A two inch diameter hole is drilled in the space between each stud. The material is then blown in.
New doors, windows, and most importantly improve the insulation in your walls and attic, - also air seal. Insulation can be "dense packed" into walls without opening them up.
Not only does it make your home quieter, it makes it more energy efficient. It may not eliminate all outside noise, but at least bring it down to a less distracting level.
The trend in regards to sea-level rise is more like 0.12 inches per year; If their feet are getting wet it's not because of sea-level rise.
That's not the trend. That's the current rate of rise. If you look at the article you linked to, you'll note that the trend is that the rate is increasing. Further, the current rate also doesn't account for things that have not happened yet, - like the potential loss of major ice sheets like the Amundsen sea, which according to http://www.nature.com/news/ant... could lead to a sea level rise of 6 meters (though I think that has been recently revised downwards).
Further the sea level rise figure you quoted is a global average. The seas can and will rise faster in some places than in others.
I don't see heating and air conditioning or air travel as inherently unethical. However there is a lot of energy expended needlessly on inefficient systems, waste, and even on lazy and gluttonous behavior.
For example, there are lots of ways to heat a home and lots of ways to minimize the amount of energy required to do it.
Forgot to answer you other question. From an ethical standpoint I believe I should do the right thing. The fact that someone else may not act ethically doesn't change that.
Trends don't tell the complete story. I'm guessing you know that.
Imagine I weighed 700 pounds and last year I consumed an average of 5,000 calories a day. This year I cut that back to 4,800. The trend is down. My neighbor weighs 180 pounds and last year he consumed 2,700 calories a day. This year he consumed 2,800.
Yes, I'm heading in the right direction while my neighbor is not, but it's easy to see that I've got a much more serious problem than he does. The trend matters but what also matters is whether change is happening quick enough.
To answer your question, I think the US has made some strides but has a long way to go. In 40 or 50 years we are likely to still be be producing dangerous amounts of CO2. So, yes we will still be to blame, as will China and any number of other countries. Perhaps that won't be true.
I agree that taking responsibility is more effective than blame. As far as productive things to do go, a number of years ago I left my job and started working for an organization that does energy efficiency research.
I think the point of the article is that climate change has already started to have serious affects on some people and over time it will affect more. Why should millions of Americans care? You could argue that since we produce a disproportionate amount of CO2 we have a moral responsibility to those that are adversely affected by it.
Even if you don't feel we have any moral obligation I would argue this: Why is it that we have ships, soldiers, weapons, military advisors, spies deployed across the world at great expense? Why did we try so hard to broker a Middle East peace plan? What are we trying to achieve? Stability. We benefit from a stable world.
People across the world are quite willing to blame the West and Americans in particular for the crappy conditions in their own regions, - whether we really have any responsibility or not. What does instability look like? Syria. Somalia. We are already fearful of immigrants and terrorism. Imagine even more people displaced and rightfully angry.
Like I said we should be making decisions based on the best science we have. I'm sure it will be always easy to argue that the science is somehow tainted when it favors the opinion of people you generally disagree with.
I doubt anyone believes than anything can be reversed in time to help that particular country.
There's plenty of proof that human actions can dramatically alter our environment. Just look at the Aral sea for example.
Personally I believe we should be acting on the best scientific information we have. It's not perfect and we are learning more all the time, but institutions like NASA have sent probes to then ends of the solar system, have landed a rover on Mars, and returned people from space. I trust them more when it comes to understanding our atmosphere and what can have long term impacts on the climate than I do the Koch brothers.
I should probably be clear what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a CS degree and not software engineering or some other degree that focuses on managing software projects and such. Though I would agree that those still qualify as formal training and in that sense I'm wrong. Then there is a whole host of 2 year curriculums or individual classes that will teach adults various programming skills.
As far as CS degrees go though, a quick survey of curriculums showed that they still teach operating system design and other courses that almost certainly would use C. Some course descriptions mentioned it specifically. You also have to remember that C is not just any language, it's an exceptionally important one. It's a step above assembly that many (most?) compilers, interpreters, run time environments, and even operating systems are written in. Things like micro controllers and embedded systems will often have one language choice other than assembly and that is C.
And yes, I realize that today's students are taught Java, Scala, Schema, or something else. When I graduated in 1987, the language of choice for various programming concepts was Pascal and that's what I was taught. However, I was also taught LISP, ADA, assembly, and probably a couple of others. There was no specific class on C, but we had to learn it for our more advanced coursework, as did most everybody else I would guess.
The thing is you will find people in any occupation that don't know everything that you would expect them to, - even plumbers, electricians, and cabinet makers.;)
I'm glad you've found an occupation that you enjoy but sometimes happiness can be found just by switching employers rather than careers. Good IT departments do code reviews.
Something else I should add: it's extremely expensive to replace an employee and it's a risk to replace a good one. Nothing will wake a company up more than losing its best employees. So if things are bad, talk to management. Tell them you're considering leaving and tell them why. Of course you need to be prepared to leave if nothing changes, so don't make that threat without a plan.
For a group of what you would think are relatively smart people, it's surprising how many slashdot posters end up in crappy work environments. Here's what you should know. There is a certain amount of hassle in hiring an H-1B. As a company, unless you employee a lot of programmers and have an HR department equipped to deal with the red tape, it's just not worth it unless you have no alternative.
Something else you should know. The actual cost of an employee is 1.5 to 2 x their salary. This is because of benefits, vacation, training, space, equipment, etc. This is why many companies hire contractors or contract work out. They can pay a contractor more per hour than their actual employees and it will cost them much less in the long run. What this means is that if you're savvy and OK with a certain amount of risk, you can come out way ahead by being an independent contractor.
Having said that, as an IT directory is a smallish company, I'd rather have a full time staff person than utilize contractors, - other than to fulfill a short term need. HR agrees with me. There are good reasons for that which I won't outline here.
Finally, if you're in a bad situation, leave. And when looking for another job, consider more than just compensation. Early in my career I changed jobs every 3 years or so. Sometimes it was just taking an opening somewhere else in the same company. It never had to do with salary. There really is a demand for good programmers, so you can be somewhat selective about where you work. If that's not true where you live now, then consider moving. Also something that I eventually figured out is that programmers can be their own worst enemies. They will work ridiculous hours of their own accord because they made completely unrealistic estimates and didn't do enough early in the project. It's not always the evil management forcing them to do it. This is what Agile can help fix if it's done right.
I never claimed that the only people who ever learned pointer arithmetic were formally trained. I didn't say it even say it was particularly hard. Just said that it tends to be something that formally trained people know that people who weren't formally trained don't.
I also made no claims about real world application. My career has been almost 30 years long at this point. For most of that time, pointer arithmetic was not even available in the language I was using. However, I was handed a project a few years ago that involved an embedded system. A mechanical engineer with a little bit of programming experience had attempted to tackle it first. He was trying to modify an example C program to do what he wanted but there were certain parts of it he just didn't grasp, - pointer arithmetic being one of them. That's why the project was given to me.
Do they not teach pointer arithmetic in CS programs anymore?
I didn't say that you need to know it in order to accomplish anything. I just said that that is one bit of knowledge that people with formal training tend to have and those without formal training tend not to. It's also much easier to grasp what's really going on with pointer arithmetic if you have a lower lever understanding of how computers execute software.
Java virtual machines and python interpreters aren't usually something you see in embedded systems for example. There's still a lot of coding done in straight C.
I'd think this would be true of any discipline. There are many reasons why those gaps in productivity exist and one of them very well be that some programmers have better training. Some are more experienced. Some manage their time better, - and yeah, some are just naturally better at it than others.
Some folks might be excellent programmers but terrible communicators or have the misfortune of being poorly managed.
The OP claims that most professional programmers are self taught. Certainly a lot are, - maybe even most. However I would bet that there are certain types of projects that are mostly handled by people with formal training.
I've worked with lots of programmers, both self taught and those with CS degrees. There are certain concepts that the self taught group aren't usually proficient with, - pointer arithmetic being one of them. But a lot of coding can be done without understanding that.
Programming is like any other skill. Some people have more of an aptitude for it than others. And like any other skill, there is more than one way to learn it. I have no formal training as a plumber but I managed to replace a ton of galvanized pipe in my home with copper about 15 years ago. That said, I don't have near the skill and knowledge a Master Plumber does.
I had an aptitude for programming. A lot of what I've learned over the years has been self taught. I also have a CS degree. Though I've always been interested in computers, those early programming classes I had back in high school (over 30 years ago) were valuable and I may have chosen a different career had I never had that exposure.
You may have stopped following this thread which is fine, I will as well. But in case you're still reading I think it is worth stating that I do agree that having both parents working 40+ hours a week in order to maintain a middle class income is neither good for the parents or their kids.
Further I think that starting out your working career $30,000 in debt from college costs while being told that you need to start saving for your retirement RIGHT NOW is a crazy system.
We can get nostalgic about the 50's, 60's, and 70's when a high school education was enough to earn a decent living, retirement was funded through pensions, and a single income was adequate for a family. There are a lot of reasons for why that isn't true anymore.
Many women now want and expect to be able to have careers outside the home. There is nothing wrong with that. More to the point of this thread is that part of reason there aren't more women in IT is because the work-life balance tends to suck. Back in the 90's my first hire as a supervisor in IT was a female programmer. She still works there even though I left 17 years ago. How did I manage to do what Google and so many other tech firms struggle to accomplish? Simple. The position was advertised as part time with flexible hours. Of course that was 17 years ago, and there were actually more women CS grads available than there is now, but I believe that work life balance is a key to getting more women in IT and to making it better for men as well.
Though I'm sure you wouldn't agree with this approach, we could look to the Scandinavians. Swedes are moving to a 6 hour work week and for a long time have enjoyed much more time away from work than Americans do.
We just need a different system and in my opinion government will HAVE to play a role in bringing that about.
Have you given up on the idea that women stayed at home 40 years ago because they needed to breastfeed?
By your definition are engineering firms also "state run" because their work is subject to inspection and their staff need to be licensed by the state? What about electrical contractors? Law firms? Food processing plants?
You do realize that affluent families throughout history have employed others to help raise their kids even though the mom "stayed at home", right? Nannies, boarding schools, maids, butlers, even slaves. Not so affluent families often used older siblings, grand parents, and other relatives.
But today is different right? Not so much. Only about 20% of children of employed mothers go to a day care center. About half them are taken care of by dad, grandparents, or some other relative.
And these are the kids of Moms that work. Not included are kids of stay at home moms which represent almost 1/3 of the population. It appears that the idea that the state is raising our kids is pretty much BS.
Since you are a student of history, I'm sure you'll be interested to learn that it's also a myth that 40 years ago the majority of moms in the US did not work outside the home. I was surprised myself. In fact, back in 1967 only about 49% of moms were stay at home moms. That number did decrease into the 90's down to about 23% but by 2012 it had risen to 29%.
California has every single law you asked for except an insurance requirement, and it still happened here.
Does Nevada? Arizona?
That's part of the problem. Local gun laws are easily circumvented because you can travel a short distance to a place where they simply don't apply.
When Minnesota had a drinking age of 21 while in Wisconsin it was 19, where do you think a lot of 20 year old Minnesotans went on a Saturday night?
Look, there are always going to be people who disregard the law. I don't for a minute expect that universal gun laws, similar to what I'm proposing would eliminate crimes involving guns, but I believe it would significantly reduce them, just like strengthening drunk driving laws has reduced (but has not eliminated) drunk driving fatalities.
Somebody who is hell bent on killing somebody doesn't care about the law anyway, but a lot of these kids who shot up schools and theaters were known to have mental health issues. They had access to guns that were legally obtained. That shouldn't happen. There should be laws aimed at preventing that. If there is a person in your household whose mental stability is in doubt, you shouldn't have a gun there. If you do, you should be held legally responsible for any crimes committed with that gun because keeping a gun in those circumstances is negligence. Unfortunately too many people see it as a right that even common sense shouldn't place limits on.
And yet no one freaks out that they have to register their vehicle with the government.
People are banned from operating motor vehicles on a regular basis for all sorts of reasons. Further, you need to be licensed and to get a license you need to demonstrate competency. Most states require you to carry insurance. You can be held liable for injury and damage even if your vehicle was driven by somebody else.
Your vehicle has to be registered and the title has to be transferred even in the event of a private sale.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in my 50's and remember the moon shots. They were awe inspiring at first but they became more routine (for the public) over time. I believe NASA and the public were ready for the next big thing. The shuttles were exciting at first too and it seemed we were on a track that could lead to ordinary people getting into space. Of course the shuttle program ended and manned space flight hasn't really broken any new ground for awhile.
43 years ago, we quit going to the moon and it didn't seem like a bad decision given the expense and that we'd already been there several times. But I don't think anyone believed that it would be 50 years or more before a person would set foot on another planetary body.
You don't cram more fiberglass into the walls. That will definitely not work. You use a material designed to be effective when densely packed. A two inch diameter hole is drilled in the space between each stud. The material is then blown in.
New doors, windows, and most importantly improve the insulation in your walls and attic, - also air seal. Insulation can be "dense packed" into walls without opening them up.
Not only does it make your home quieter, it makes it more energy efficient. It may not eliminate all outside noise, but at least bring it down to a less distracting level.
Pretty sure MS Front Page wasn't part of many CS curricula.
The trend in regards to sea-level rise is more like 0.12 inches per year; If their feet are getting wet it's not because of sea-level rise.
That's not the trend. That's the current rate of rise. If you look at the article you linked to, you'll note that the trend is that the rate is increasing. Further, the current rate also doesn't account for things that have not happened yet, - like the potential loss of major ice sheets like the Amundsen sea, which according to http://www.nature.com/news/ant... could lead to a sea level rise of 6 meters (though I think that has been recently revised downwards).
Further the sea level rise figure you quoted is a global average. The seas can and will rise faster in some places than in others.
I don't see heating and air conditioning or air travel as inherently unethical. However there is a lot of energy expended needlessly on inefficient systems, waste, and even on lazy and gluttonous behavior.
For example, there are lots of ways to heat a home and lots of ways to minimize the amount of energy required to do it.
Forgot to answer you other question. From an ethical standpoint I believe I should do the right thing. The fact that someone else may not act ethically doesn't change that.
Trends don't tell the complete story. I'm guessing you know that.
Imagine I weighed 700 pounds and last year I consumed an average of 5,000 calories a day. This year I cut that back to 4,800. The trend is down. My neighbor weighs 180 pounds and last year he consumed 2,700 calories a day. This year he consumed 2,800.
Yes, I'm heading in the right direction while my neighbor is not, but it's easy to see that I've got a much more serious problem than he does. The trend matters but what also matters is whether change is happening quick enough.
To answer your question, I think the US has made some strides but has a long way to go. In 40 or 50 years we are likely to still be be producing dangerous amounts of CO2. So, yes we will still be to blame, as will China and any number of other countries. Perhaps that won't be true.
I agree that taking responsibility is more effective than blame. As far as productive things to do go, a number of years ago I left my job and started working for an organization that does energy efficiency research.
What have you done?
In absolute numbers we are 2nd behind China. We are 3rd in per capita production.
Per capita production matters because if you want to reduce the production, you have to understand who is producing it.
I think the point of the article is that climate change has already started to have serious affects on some people and over time it will affect more. Why should millions of Americans care? You could argue that since we produce a disproportionate amount of CO2 we have a moral responsibility to those that are adversely affected by it.
Even if you don't feel we have any moral obligation I would argue this: Why is it that we have ships, soldiers, weapons, military advisors, spies deployed across the world at great expense? Why did we try so hard to broker a Middle East peace plan? What are we trying to achieve? Stability. We benefit from a stable world.
People across the world are quite willing to blame the West and Americans in particular for the crappy conditions in their own regions, - whether we really have any responsibility or not. What does instability look like? Syria. Somalia. We are already fearful of immigrants and terrorism. Imagine even more people displaced and rightfully angry.
Like I said we should be making decisions based on the best science we have. I'm sure it will be always easy to argue that the science is somehow tainted when it favors the opinion of people you generally disagree with.
I doubt anyone believes than anything can be reversed in time to help that particular country.
There's plenty of proof that human actions can dramatically alter our environment. Just look at the Aral sea for example.
Personally I believe we should be acting on the best scientific information we have. It's not perfect and we are learning more all the time, but institutions like NASA have sent probes to then ends of the solar system, have landed a rover on Mars, and returned people from space. I trust them more when it comes to understanding our atmosphere and what can have long term impacts on the climate than I do the Koch brothers.
Sorry, meant Scheme, not Schema, and Python has replaced it in a lot of institutions.
I should probably be clear what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a CS degree and not software engineering or some other degree that focuses on managing software projects and such. Though I would agree that those still qualify as formal training and in that sense I'm wrong. Then there is a whole host of 2 year curriculums or individual classes that will teach adults various programming skills.
As far as CS degrees go though, a quick survey of curriculums showed that they still teach operating system design and other courses that almost certainly would use C. Some course descriptions mentioned it specifically. You also have to remember that C is not just any language, it's an exceptionally important one. It's a step above assembly that many (most?) compilers, interpreters, run time environments, and even operating systems are written in. Things like micro controllers and embedded systems will often have one language choice other than assembly and that is C.
And yes, I realize that today's students are taught Java, Scala, Schema, or something else. When I graduated in 1987, the language of choice for various programming concepts was Pascal and that's what I was taught. However, I was also taught LISP, ADA, assembly, and probably a couple of others. There was no specific class on C, but we had to learn it for our more advanced coursework, as did most everybody else I would guess.
The thing is you will find people in any occupation that don't know everything that you would expect them to, - even plumbers, electricians, and cabinet makers. ;)
I'm glad you've found an occupation that you enjoy but sometimes happiness can be found just by switching employers rather than careers. Good IT departments do code reviews.
Something else I should add: it's extremely expensive to replace an employee and it's a risk to replace a good one. Nothing will wake a company up more than losing its best employees. So if things are bad, talk to management. Tell them you're considering leaving and tell them why. Of course you need to be prepared to leave if nothing changes, so don't make that threat without a plan.
For a group of what you would think are relatively smart people, it's surprising how many slashdot posters end up in crappy work environments. Here's what you should know. There is a certain amount of hassle in hiring an H-1B. As a company, unless you employee a lot of programmers and have an HR department equipped to deal with the red tape, it's just not worth it unless you have no alternative.
Something else you should know. The actual cost of an employee is 1.5 to 2 x their salary. This is because of benefits, vacation, training, space, equipment, etc. This is why many companies hire contractors or contract work out. They can pay a contractor more per hour than their actual employees and it will cost them much less in the long run. What this means is that if you're savvy and OK with a certain amount of risk, you can come out way ahead by being an independent contractor.
Having said that, as an IT directory is a smallish company, I'd rather have a full time staff person than utilize contractors, - other than to fulfill a short term need. HR agrees with me. There are good reasons for that which I won't outline here.
Finally, if you're in a bad situation, leave. And when looking for another job, consider more than just compensation. Early in my career I changed jobs every 3 years or so. Sometimes it was just taking an opening somewhere else in the same company. It never had to do with salary. There really is a demand for good programmers, so you can be somewhat selective about where you work. If that's not true where you live now, then consider moving. Also something that I eventually figured out is that programmers can be their own worst enemies. They will work ridiculous hours of their own accord because they made completely unrealistic estimates and didn't do enough early in the project. It's not always the evil management forcing them to do it. This is what Agile can help fix if it's done right.
I never claimed that the only people who ever learned pointer arithmetic were formally trained. I didn't say it even say it was particularly hard. Just said that it tends to be something that formally trained people know that people who weren't formally trained don't.
I also made no claims about real world application. My career has been almost 30 years long at this point. For most of that time, pointer arithmetic was not even available in the language I was using. However, I was handed a project a few years ago that involved an embedded system. A mechanical engineer with a little bit of programming experience had attempted to tackle it first. He was trying to modify an example C program to do what he wanted but there were certain parts of it he just didn't grasp, - pointer arithmetic being one of them. That's why the project was given to me.
Do they not teach pointer arithmetic in CS programs anymore?
I didn't say that you need to know it in order to accomplish anything. I just said that that is one bit of knowledge that people with formal training tend to have and those without formal training tend not to. It's also much easier to grasp what's really going on with pointer arithmetic if you have a lower lever understanding of how computers execute software.
Java virtual machines and python interpreters aren't usually something you see in embedded systems for example. There's still a lot of coding done in straight C.
I'd think this would be true of any discipline. There are many reasons why those gaps in productivity exist and one of them very well be that some programmers have better training. Some are more experienced. Some manage their time better, - and yeah, some are just naturally better at it than others.
Some folks might be excellent programmers but terrible communicators or have the misfortune of being poorly managed.
The OP claims that most professional programmers are self taught. Certainly a lot are, - maybe even most. However I would bet that there are certain types of projects that are mostly handled by people with formal training.
I've worked with lots of programmers, both self taught and those with CS degrees. There are certain concepts that the self taught group aren't usually proficient with, - pointer arithmetic being one of them. But a lot of coding can be done without understanding that.
Programming is like any other skill. Some people have more of an aptitude for it than others. And like any other skill, there is more than one way to learn it. I have no formal training as a plumber but I managed to replace a ton of galvanized pipe in my home with copper about 15 years ago. That said, I don't have near the skill and knowledge a Master Plumber does.
I had an aptitude for programming. A lot of what I've learned over the years has been self taught. I also have a CS degree. Though I've always been interested in computers, those early programming classes I had back in high school (over 30 years ago) were valuable and I may have chosen a different career had I never had that exposure.
You may have stopped following this thread which is fine, I will as well. But in case you're still reading I think it is worth stating that I do agree that having both parents working 40+ hours a week in order to maintain a middle class income is neither good for the parents or their kids.
Further I think that starting out your working career $30,000 in debt from college costs while being told that you need to start saving for your retirement RIGHT NOW is a crazy system.
We can get nostalgic about the 50's, 60's, and 70's when a high school education was enough to earn a decent living, retirement was funded through pensions, and a single income was adequate for a family. There are a lot of reasons for why that isn't true anymore.
Many women now want and expect to be able to have careers outside the home. There is nothing wrong with that. More to the point of this thread is that part of reason there aren't more women in IT is because the work-life balance tends to suck. Back in the 90's my first hire as a supervisor in IT was a female programmer. She still works there even though I left 17 years ago. How did I manage to do what Google and so many other tech firms struggle to accomplish? Simple. The position was advertised as part time with flexible hours. Of course that was 17 years ago, and there were actually more women CS grads available than there is now, but I believe that work life balance is a key to getting more women in IT and to making it better for men as well.
Though I'm sure you wouldn't agree with this approach, we could look to the Scandinavians. Swedes are moving to a 6 hour work week and for a long time have enjoyed much more time away from work than Americans do.
We just need a different system and in my opinion government will HAVE to play a role in bringing that about.
Have you given up on the idea that women stayed at home 40 years ago because they needed to breastfeed?
By your definition are engineering firms also "state run" because their work is subject to inspection and their staff need to be licensed by the state? What about electrical contractors? Law firms? Food processing plants?
You do realize that affluent families throughout history have employed others to help raise their kids even though the mom "stayed at home", right? Nannies, boarding schools, maids, butlers, even slaves. Not so affluent families often used older siblings, grand parents, and other relatives.
But today is different right? Not so much. Only about 20% of children of employed mothers go to a day care center. About half them are taken care of by dad, grandparents, or some other relative.
http://www.census.gov/data/tab...
And these are the kids of Moms that work. Not included are kids of stay at home moms which represent almost 1/3 of the population. It appears that the idea that the state is raising our kids is pretty much BS.
Since you are a student of history, I'm sure you'll be interested to learn that it's also a myth that 40 years ago the majority of moms in the US did not work outside the home. I was surprised myself. In fact, back in 1967 only about 49% of moms were stay at home moms. That number did decrease into the 90's down to about 23% but by 2012 it had risen to 29%.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/20...
So again, neither your view of history, nor your view of current parenting trends appear to be correct. Do with that information what you will.
California has every single law you asked for except an insurance requirement, and it still happened here.
Does Nevada? Arizona?
That's part of the problem. Local gun laws are easily circumvented because you can travel a short distance to a place where they simply don't apply. When Minnesota had a drinking age of 21 while in Wisconsin it was 19, where do you think a lot of 20 year old Minnesotans went on a Saturday night?
Look, there are always going to be people who disregard the law. I don't for a minute expect that universal gun laws, similar to what I'm proposing would eliminate crimes involving guns, but I believe it would significantly reduce them, just like strengthening drunk driving laws has reduced (but has not eliminated) drunk driving fatalities.
Somebody who is hell bent on killing somebody doesn't care about the law anyway, but a lot of these kids who shot up schools and theaters were known to have mental health issues. They had access to guns that were legally obtained. That shouldn't happen. There should be laws aimed at preventing that. If there is a person in your household whose mental stability is in doubt, you shouldn't have a gun there. If you do, you should be held legally responsible for any crimes committed with that gun because keeping a gun in those circumstances is negligence. Unfortunately too many people see it as a right that even common sense shouldn't place limits on.
And yet no one freaks out that they have to register their vehicle with the government.
People are banned from operating motor vehicles on a regular basis for all sorts of reasons. Further, you need to be licensed and to get a license you need to demonstrate competency. Most states require you to carry insurance. You can be held liable for injury and damage even if your vehicle was driven by somebody else.
Your vehicle has to be registered and the title has to be transferred even in the event of a private sale.