I'm not qualified to have much of an opinion about these things, but I will be watching with the utmost curiosity where AT&T will wind up now that they have lost their exclusivity with the Apple crowd. Any predictions out there? Methinks it looks bad for AT&T...
Why would you say that? Put it this way: Android phones are outselling iPhones by an incredible margin. In terms of marketshare to a carrier, the particular brand of smartphone isn't all that relevant. Remember, what they want to do is sell expensive data plans that (ideally) users don't actually use very much so they can oversell their bandwidth like every other ISP. Now, sure, the iPhone broke some new ground in terms of what people do with mobile data access, but there's really nothing that an iPhone does that a decent Android handset doesn't. In fact, for many things Android does them better: you have to look at your own needs to decide which OS will best serve you. The market has changed significantly since the iPhone first came out: you don't need an iPhone to get powerful smartphone capabilities anymore, so I don't think the loss of exclusivity will make much difference to AT&T's bottom line. I think it will be very good for Apple's bottom line, and may actually allow the iPhone to compete more successfully with the likes of Android, which has never been carrier or manufacturer exclusive.
It's all hype anyways. Verizon and AT&T jabber on about "unlimited this" and "unlimited that" but neither of them really mean it. They lie before breakfast, just for the practice. Now, I have a HTC G2 on T-Mobile, and while the plan is "unlimited" they're very clear on what that actually means. My plan has a 5 Gb/month limit on data transfer, but that only applies to HSUPA speeds. If I go over, I just lose the 4G and have to live with less speed for a while until my next billing date. That's a comparatively reasonable policy for a cellular provider (I track my usage and never gone above 1.5 gigs, so it works well for me.) I'm guaranteed continuous connectivity, which is more important than whether I get 2 mbit/sec or 14 mbit/sec.
A friend of mine who lives in Germany finds it entertaining how T-Mobile (which is, for those who don't know, Deutsche Telekom's U.S. division) is one of the friendliest providers in the U.S., but is the entrenched monopolist (with all that implies in terms of poor service and general obnoxiousness) in their home country. But that's the essence of competition: T-Mobile is the underdog here, and if they want marketshare they have to be willing to compete on the merits.
It's also insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a gun accident at home.
Pray it never happens to you - because if it does, you'll wish you never had a trigger to pull.
Cute. But you know what? You could say the same thing about your power saw, or that nail gun. Learn to use the tools safely and you'll do okay. The fact that some people don't isn't the tool's fault, and pretending that it is is disingenuous at best.
Do you have so little faith in the human race that you believe someone will come along into your house and decide it's a grand idea to kill you all?
Yes. The only question is what are the probabilities of that happening, because there are certainly people that are both willing and able to do just that. Where I live the chances are very low, which is why I don't own a gun. If, at any point, I decide that I need to shift the odds in my favor I can and will obtain one.
Ask yourself this: if you find an armed intruder in your home, are you going to assume that:
a. he just wants some milk and cookies.
b. doesn't want to miss the game on TV.
c. is intending to do harm to you and yours.
If the answer is anything but "c", you are dangerously naive, and your family would be ill-advised to depend upon you in a crisis.
Its insane just to think that you actually need a weapon at home.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion.
Pray it never happens to you, because if it does, you'll wish you had a trigger to pull.
Because killing someone in order to protect your stuff from being stole is perfectly reasonable?
If an armed intruder wants to take my big screen TV, he can have it. I have insurance for that. On the other hand, if he wants to rape my wife and daughter, I'm going to blow him away.
Yeah, the "organized militia" rationale expired long ago, but I think that by "home invasion" ScrewMaster was refering to garden-variety criminals invading one's home rather than organized armed forces.
Very interesting. Neither I myself or anyone I know has ever had any use for a gun to defend ourselves. But then I live in Sweden where the cult of the gun never really has taken off.
Where do you get your information about the United States from? Incredible. "Cult of the gun." Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
It's the first EFFICIENT killing weapon...
Not even that. Firearms are just one in a long line of very efficient killing machines that the human race has proven very efficient at devising.
Besides, what ignorant types like the GP, and those like him, are forgetting is one simple fact: where there's a demand, there will be a supply. Doesn't matter what it is: booze, drugs, medicine, guns... if people want it, and are willing to pay enough for it, someone will take the risk of providing it. Like it or not, millions of us want firearms, for a variety of reasons, most of which are perfectly legitimate and have absolutely nothing to do with committing murder or any other crime.
Consequently, there is not, and can never be, any such thing as a gun ban: all you can do is raise the bar on the difficulty of acquiring one. A bar that, I might add, criminals have no problem hurdling at will. So the idea that we will become safer, as a society, because the criminals will be disarmed is a lie.
However, by our various governments, with the willing complicity of the gun-control crowd, society itself is being slowly and inexorably disarmed. Not just the criminal element, but the ordinary people of this country. I think that some of you might want to ask yourself why that is (and please don't tell me "it's for our own good", there's too much paternalism already in this country.) The problem with gun control is that it considers the law abiding majority to be no different than that comparatively tiny criminal sector... and that's just wrong. No different, in that sense, than the RIAA considering everyone with an iPod to be a "pirate."
Face facts here, people (and yes, Segedunum, I'm talking about you.) Banning guns is a shortsighted effort by lawmakers who have no other means at their disposal to deal with a manufactured "problem." The anti-firearm movement ultimately devolves from people who live in fear of a machine, a tool, an artifact, and being incapable of handling that fear, expect their leaders to deal with it in their stead. That means forcing the consequences of their emotional disturbance upon the rest of us. I, for one, resent that, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking alcohol, cigarettes, drugs... or guns. As a responsible adult and a U.S. citizen, I will say this: if government wants to tell me that I cannot own something, they had better have a very, very good reason for that. So far, I've not heard a single good reason as to why firearms should be kept out of the hands of ordinary citizens.
Besides, bans are rarely as successful as people think they will be. Prohibition should have taught us that, and the current War on Drugs is repeating that lesson.
Just for the record, I don't currently own a gun... but I reserve the (Constitutionally-protected) right to do so if I deem it necessary.
And that applies to my country... how? I truly wish the rest of you from other countries would stop generalizing from your own experience (it's especially irritating because you get sooooo torqued off if we do the same thing to you. Hypocrites.) It's a big world out there, and the dynamics of what works in one part of it do not necessarily apply in an another. So take your in-built sense of superiority and stuff it.
I wasn't aware that Robin Hood carried a gun. Oh, and I wasn't aware that people in countries with stricter gun controls walked around with bows and arrows because they are the next best thing to guns.
Dude, I made my point and left it at that. Why don't you troll somewhere else, and let other people express their opinions (whether you agree with them or not) without interrupting? Learning a little civility wouldn't hurt you either, especially if you'd like others to take you more seriously.
This is not as simple an issue as you would like to make it out to be, and the fact that you cannot recognize that fact makes your conclusions suspect.
I'm so sick of you, so sick of me....love the new cake song...makes me reminded of all you European snobs and Middle Eastern folk blaming us for all your problems.
The USA Is huge...many many many areas are very very safe. Hate to break that to you.
Segedunum is a troll, and an ignorant one at that. Don't waste your time, there are a number of more rational, interesting people in this thread.
"It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate."
Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock.
"If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes."
Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
The knife has one thing going for it: it's silent. You fire a gun, your odds of your crime being noticed immediately are much higher.
We are talking about Europeans here (see the comment I replied to), a category in which both Germans and Polish fall. People you are culturally and geographically close to (as you yourself point out) can be described as your own.
You should carefully consider the sordid history of US wars and interventions (installing friendly tyrants to do your genocides for you), as well as the high horse you're on.
I know exactly what you meant, and I'm sorry you took my reply as "high horse" but it wasn't. Maybe you should read it again, I don't know. But here's the thing: I don't consider the act of making war to be morally superior just because you're attacking a neighboring country, versus a nation that's halfway across the globe.
Have you ever thought about visiting the planet Earth at any point?
Are you even on it? Holy cow. You Brits have been trained to believe that the government can protect you from anything, I guess. I feel sorry for you. Fact is, we both need defense from our respective governments. Whether that be political or physical only time will tell.
Now, regarding a home invasion (or any other situation where you are being threatened by another) you have to face a few more facts. I shouldn't need to spell this out, but you sound like someone who has never faced a violent situation.
Here's the thing: a cop can rarely defend you from the bad guys, unless he happens to be right there when the bad guy pulls a gun on you. Bad guys are pretty good at making sure that said cop is not right there (difficult to believe, I know.) For the most part, defending you is actually not a cop's job: his job is to come in afterwards and pick up the pieces and figure out who to arrest, so that justice can be served. The law knows that perfectly well, which is why it's perfectly legal to defend yourself in most places on this planet. Not that outlawing it would make much difference: most normal humans will fight to survive and deal with the legal consequences later. So the question is this: if the excrement hits the air circulation device, are you capable of mounting an adequate defense?
Maybe for you a home invasion is "not likely", but for many millions of people that's just not true. It just isn't. I have relatives who live in the U.S. not too far from the Mexican border, and I'll tell you this: a home invasion (or some other act of violence) is anything but unlikely. In fact I want them to move for that reason alone.
Get back to reality. The world is a dangerous place, and like it or not, firearms make a damned good defense.
I wonder when such investigations will occur in areas where Americans aren't affected?
How is the behaviour of companies such as Exxon in the Niger delta being tracked, oh wait it isn't.
Still that doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect fat American business men!
That's just silly. If a foreign corporation is allowed to do business in your country, it is your government that should perform due diligence and make sure that said corporation is obeying local regulations. If it doesn't, then it should take appropriate action, whatever that might be.
It took 2 world wars, but now Europe has learned its lesson.
You keep saying that, but I have yet to see any evidence of it being true. European Imperialism isn't dead, it's just on leave. Besides, the old Weimar Republic had a very modern gun-control law. It didn't stop the Third Reich, in fact that law was used to disarm everyone that the up-and-coming Nazi regime didn't like.
Guns are tools for killing people, no more and no less. If you want the use of such tools to be less of a problem, you have to fix the people. That's a much more difficult problem, unfortunately, and lawmakers have only one weapon at their disposal... laws. So they make more of them, but you can't change how a person thinks by simply passing a law that says he can't have or do something.
Europe kills it's own, the US goes abroad to kill other people. I don't know which one is more civilized.
So, when Germany invaded Poland, and France, and dropped V-2's on the Brits that was "killing it's own"? Look, once you drive your tanks across a border into another sovereign state, guess what: you went abroad. Doesn't matter whether it was one mile or ten thousand, you are the aggressor, you committed an act of war. Hell, it's worse if they happen to be a people that you once called friends and with whom you maintained economic and cultural ties.
We just bomb complete strangers for the most part, so from the standpoint of who is more civilized in this regard, I'm going to say that we win on points. In either case, I don't suppose it matters much to the victims.
What genocide has taken place in Europe post-WWII in any location other than former Yugoslavia? You Americans are crazy in love with your guns. That's why when one of you goes over the edge, he's always got a gun nearby to get the job done. The sooner you face that, the sooner you might do something about your horrible crime and violence problem.
Honestly, this is the most bigoted and ignorant comment I've yet seen (this week) on Slashdot. I know a lot of people who tell me (because they, too, are ignorant of actual fact about gun ownership) that we should "ban all guns." Our horrible crime and violence problem is, if you would bother to research it, not what you think it is, nor is gun control anything even resembling an answer.
Slashdot Mirror
I call bullshit. We should all know the marketing definition of "unlimited" by now.
Yes. Limited.
I'm not qualified to have much of an opinion about these things, but I will be watching with the utmost curiosity where AT&T will wind up now that they have lost their exclusivity with the Apple crowd. Any predictions out there? Methinks it looks bad for AT&T...
Why would you say that? Put it this way: Android phones are outselling iPhones by an incredible margin. In terms of marketshare to a carrier, the particular brand of smartphone isn't all that relevant. Remember, what they want to do is sell expensive data plans that (ideally) users don't actually use very much so they can oversell their bandwidth like every other ISP. Now, sure, the iPhone broke some new ground in terms of what people do with mobile data access, but there's really nothing that an iPhone does that a decent Android handset doesn't. In fact, for many things Android does them better: you have to look at your own needs to decide which OS will best serve you. The market has changed significantly since the iPhone first came out: you don't need an iPhone to get powerful smartphone capabilities anymore, so I don't think the loss of exclusivity will make much difference to AT&T's bottom line. I think it will be very good for Apple's bottom line, and may actually allow the iPhone to compete more successfully with the likes of Android, which has never been carrier or manufacturer exclusive.
It's all hype anyways. Verizon and AT&T jabber on about "unlimited this" and "unlimited that" but neither of them really mean it. They lie before breakfast, just for the practice. Now, I have a HTC G2 on T-Mobile, and while the plan is "unlimited" they're very clear on what that actually means. My plan has a 5 Gb/month limit on data transfer, but that only applies to HSUPA speeds. If I go over, I just lose the 4G and have to live with less speed for a while until my next billing date. That's a comparatively reasonable policy for a cellular provider (I track my usage and never gone above 1.5 gigs, so it works well for me.) I'm guaranteed continuous connectivity, which is more important than whether I get 2 mbit/sec or 14 mbit/sec.
A friend of mine who lives in Germany finds it entertaining how T-Mobile (which is, for those who don't know, Deutsche Telekom's U.S. division) is one of the friendliest providers in the U.S., but is the entrenched monopolist (with all that implies in terms of poor service and general obnoxiousness) in their home country. But that's the essence of competition: T-Mobile is the underdog here, and if they want marketshare they have to be willing to compete on the merits.
It's also insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a gun accident at home. Pray it never happens to you - because if it does, you'll wish you never had a trigger to pull.
Cute. But you know what? You could say the same thing about your power saw, or that nail gun. Learn to use the tools safely and you'll do okay. The fact that some people don't isn't the tool's fault, and pretending that it is is disingenuous at best.
Frankly, if I had to choose a weapon for home defense, a handgun would not be my first choice.
Yes. A shotgun that has sufficient stopping power, but won't penetrate drywall would be a good choice, I think.
Do you have so little faith in the human race that you believe someone will come along into your house and decide it's a grand idea to kill you all?
Yes. The only question is what are the probabilities of that happening, because there are certainly people that are both willing and able to do just that. Where I live the chances are very low, which is why I don't own a gun. If, at any point, I decide that I need to shift the odds in my favor I can and will obtain one.
Ask yourself this: if you find an armed intruder in your home, are you going to assume that:
a. he just wants some milk and cookies.
b. doesn't want to miss the game on TV.
c. is intending to do harm to you and yours.
If the answer is anything but "c", you are dangerously naive, and your family would be ill-advised to depend upon you in a crisis.
If there were no weapons at home would cops need guns?
Wrong question. If there were no weapons at home ... can we trust the cops, and the leaders who control them?
And yes, cops will always needs guns because a good part of their job is crowd control, and some people only respect force, or the threat of it.
Its insane just to think that you actually need a weapon at home.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion. Pray it never happens to you, because if it does, you'll wish you had a trigger to pull.
Because killing someone in order to protect your stuff from being stole is perfectly reasonable?
If an armed intruder wants to take my big screen TV, he can have it. I have insurance for that. On the other hand, if he wants to rape my wife and daughter, I'm going to blow him away.
See the difference?
Yeah, the "organized militia" rationale expired long ago, but I think that by "home invasion" ScrewMaster was refering to garden-variety criminals invading one's home rather than organized armed forces.
You are correct, sir.
Very interesting. Neither I myself or anyone I know has ever had any use for a gun to defend ourselves. But then I live in Sweden where the cult of the gun never really has taken off.
Where do you get your information about the United States from? Incredible. "Cult of the gun." Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
It's the first EFFICIENT killing weapon...
Not even that. Firearms are just one in a long line of very efficient killing machines that the human race has proven very efficient at devising.
... if people want it, and are willing to pay enough for it, someone will take the risk of providing it. Like it or not, millions of us want firearms, for a variety of reasons, most of which are perfectly legitimate and have absolutely nothing to do with committing murder or any other crime.
... and that's just wrong. No different, in that sense, than the RIAA considering everyone with an iPod to be a "pirate."
... or guns. As a responsible adult and a U.S. citizen, I will say this: if government wants to tell me that I cannot own something, they had better have a very, very good reason for that. So far, I've not heard a single good reason as to why firearms should be kept out of the hands of ordinary citizens.
... but I reserve the (Constitutionally-protected) right to do so if I deem it necessary.
Besides, what ignorant types like the GP, and those like him, are forgetting is one simple fact: where there's a demand, there will be a supply. Doesn't matter what it is: booze, drugs, medicine, guns
Consequently, there is not, and can never be, any such thing as a gun ban: all you can do is raise the bar on the difficulty of acquiring one. A bar that, I might add, criminals have no problem hurdling at will. So the idea that we will become safer, as a society, because the criminals will be disarmed is a lie.
However, by our various governments, with the willing complicity of the gun-control crowd, society itself is being slowly and inexorably disarmed. Not just the criminal element, but the ordinary people of this country. I think that some of you might want to ask yourself why that is (and please don't tell me "it's for our own good", there's too much paternalism already in this country.) The problem with gun control is that it considers the law abiding majority to be no different than that comparatively tiny criminal sector
Face facts here, people (and yes, Segedunum, I'm talking about you.) Banning guns is a shortsighted effort by lawmakers who have no other means at their disposal to deal with a manufactured "problem." The anti-firearm movement ultimately devolves from people who live in fear of a machine, a tool, an artifact, and being incapable of handling that fear, expect their leaders to deal with it in their stead. That means forcing the consequences of their emotional disturbance upon the rest of us. I, for one, resent that, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking alcohol, cigarettes, drugs
Besides, bans are rarely as successful as people think they will be. Prohibition should have taught us that, and the current War on Drugs is repeating that lesson.
Just for the record, I don't currently own a gun
Are you kidding? AHHHHH no, american..... sorry.
Oooh, nasty.
It's just not worth it for most criminals here.
And that applies to my country ... how? I truly wish the rest of you from other countries would stop generalizing from your own experience (it's especially irritating because you get sooooo torqued off if we do the same thing to you. Hypocrites.) It's a big world out there, and the dynamics of what works in one part of it do not necessarily apply in an another. So take your in-built sense of superiority and stuff it.
Yes, you can throw a knife but you aren't going to hit much.
That depends largely on the thrower. If, for example, I were to throw a knife at you, your career as a Slashdot troll would be over.
I wasn't aware that Robin Hood carried a gun. Oh, and I wasn't aware that people in countries with stricter gun controls walked around with bows and arrows because they are the next best thing to guns.
Dude, I made my point and left it at that. Why don't you troll somewhere else, and let other people express their opinions (whether you agree with them or not) without interrupting? Learning a little civility wouldn't hurt you either, especially if you'd like others to take you more seriously.
This is not as simple an issue as you would like to make it out to be, and the fact that you cannot recognize that fact makes your conclusions suspect.
American psyche.
I'm so sick of you, so sick of me....love the new cake song...makes me reminded of all you European snobs and Middle Eastern folk blaming us for all your problems. The USA Is huge...many many many areas are very very safe. Hate to break that to you.
Segedunum is a troll, and an ignorant one at that. Don't waste your time, there are a number of more rational, interesting people in this thread.
You don't?
There's obviously no point in arguing with you. You're not going to let facts get in the way of outlandish hyperbole.
Segedunum is a troll, pure and simple, and not a particularly good one. I've stopped responding to him: he has no room for any views but his own.
It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_and_arrow [wikipedia.org]
Yeah, I couldn't believe he said that either. Apparently he's never seen Robin Hood. And besides, you can throw a knife.
There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
All I can say is, you're far too trusting, and whatever "safe" part of the world you live in, I strongly urge you to stay there.
"It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate." Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock. "If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes." Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
The knife has one thing going for it: it's silent. You fire a gun, your odds of your crime being noticed immediately are much higher.
We are talking about Europeans here (see the comment I replied to), a category in which both Germans and Polish fall. People you are culturally and geographically close to (as you yourself point out) can be described as your own.
You should carefully consider the sordid history of US wars and interventions (installing friendly tyrants to do your genocides for you), as well as the high horse you're on.
I know exactly what you meant, and I'm sorry you took my reply as "high horse" but it wasn't. Maybe you should read it again, I don't know. But here's the thing: I don't consider the act of making war to be morally superior just because you're attacking a neighboring country, versus a nation that's halfway across the globe.
Have you ever thought about visiting the planet Earth at any point?
Are you even on it? Holy cow. You Brits have been trained to believe that the government can protect you from anything, I guess. I feel sorry for you. Fact is, we both need defense from our respective governments. Whether that be political or physical only time will tell.
Now, regarding a home invasion (or any other situation where you are being threatened by another) you have to face a few more facts. I shouldn't need to spell this out, but you sound like someone who has never faced a violent situation.
Here's the thing: a cop can rarely defend you from the bad guys, unless he happens to be right there when the bad guy pulls a gun on you. Bad guys are pretty good at making sure that said cop is not right there (difficult to believe, I know.) For the most part, defending you is actually not a cop's job: his job is to come in afterwards and pick up the pieces and figure out who to arrest, so that justice can be served. The law knows that perfectly well, which is why it's perfectly legal to defend yourself in most places on this planet. Not that outlawing it would make much difference: most normal humans will fight to survive and deal with the legal consequences later. So the question is this: if the excrement hits the air circulation device, are you capable of mounting an adequate defense?
Maybe for you a home invasion is "not likely", but for many millions of people that's just not true. It just isn't. I have relatives who live in the U.S. not too far from the Mexican border, and I'll tell you this: a home invasion (or some other act of violence) is anything but unlikely. In fact I want them to move for that reason alone.
Get back to reality. The world is a dangerous place, and like it or not, firearms make a damned good defense.
I wonder when such investigations will occur in areas where Americans aren't affected? How is the behaviour of companies such as Exxon in the Niger delta being tracked, oh wait it isn't. Still that doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect fat American business men!
That's just silly. If a foreign corporation is allowed to do business in your country, it is your government that should perform due diligence and make sure that said corporation is obeying local regulations. If it doesn't, then it should take appropriate action, whatever that might be.
It took 2 world wars, but now Europe has learned its lesson.
You keep saying that, but I have yet to see any evidence of it being true. European Imperialism isn't dead, it's just on leave. Besides, the old Weimar Republic had a very modern gun-control law. It didn't stop the Third Reich, in fact that law was used to disarm everyone that the up-and-coming Nazi regime didn't like.
... laws. So they make more of them, but you can't change how a person thinks by simply passing a law that says he can't have or do something.
Guns are tools for killing people, no more and no less. If you want the use of such tools to be less of a problem, you have to fix the people. That's a much more difficult problem, unfortunately, and lawmakers have only one weapon at their disposal
In case you have problems with Math, HOW would ONE Person kill 12 people with an Axe/Knife or Crossbow?
That's easy. Use twelve crossbows.
Europe kills it's own, the US goes abroad to kill other people. I don't know which one is more civilized.
So, when Germany invaded Poland, and France, and dropped V-2's on the Brits that was "killing it's own"? Look, once you drive your tanks across a border into another sovereign state, guess what: you went abroad. Doesn't matter whether it was one mile or ten thousand, you are the aggressor, you committed an act of war. Hell, it's worse if they happen to be a people that you once called friends and with whom you maintained economic and cultural ties.
We just bomb complete strangers for the most part, so from the standpoint of who is more civilized in this regard, I'm going to say that we win on points. In either case, I don't suppose it matters much to the victims.
What genocide has taken place in Europe post-WWII in any location other than former Yugoslavia? You Americans are crazy in love with your guns. That's why when one of you goes over the edge, he's always got a gun nearby to get the job done. The sooner you face that, the sooner you might do something about your horrible crime and violence problem.
Honestly, this is the most bigoted and ignorant comment I've yet seen (this week) on Slashdot. I know a lot of people who tell me (because they, too, are ignorant of actual fact about gun ownership) that we should "ban all guns." Our horrible crime and violence problem is, if you would bother to research it, not what you think it is, nor is gun control anything even resembling an answer.