Buying laptops from a minor manufacturer is a luxury we don't all have. The last two laptops I have been involved in purchasing had pretty specific requrements. The first (mine) was a top of the line Thinkpad T41. I needed something that was very reliable, light, fast and with good battery life. No real choices there. Reliability meant a Thinkpad.
The other laptop needed to be a top of the line graphics workstation. I found only one laptop that met requirements after a pretty comprehensive search and that laptop was a Dell Precision M60.
Object orientation is a terribly inefficient way to program.
and
And as a side note, I don't like the fact that you have to type four lines of code to do what C++ could do with a simple cin >> var;
Care to resolve the differences between these remarks? I know it is possible to write non-OO code in C++, but it basically means you are writing C with a C++ compiler.
What is more the bloody Aussies expect people to pass tests and take driving lessons before they get to drive a car without an instructor. They have to gall to say it is for your own safety! How stupid is that!
Why the hell aren't you watching your kids? What the hell ever happened to active parenting? If you don't want your kids to see such content then keep them off the damn internet,or at least monitor what they do online
How? How is a non-technically oriented parent supposed to do this? When the kids are likely to get assignments that require them to use the internet? When the kids are better technically speaking and are able to circumvent what controls the non-techie parents put in place?
We all know commercial filters suck big time. What do you suggest?
I personally don't agree with the approach that this group is taking, but there is an issue here that isn't being addressed. The/. approach of saying "all parents fault" is not better than the approach of this group (govt. regulation).
An important point here - the primary party of The Coalition is the Liberal Party, not the liberal party.
Sorry to nitpick, but the Coalition is not the Liberal party (large L). The Coalition made up of is the Liberal party and the National party. The National party has a support base amoung farming communities, but in general holds similar policies to the Liberal party.
Just because that has worked for them to date doesn't mean that it will continue. Maybe they were just fortunate that in fact there was a way to capitalise on their undeniably cool technology.
What I don't understand is how Lucas could have made such a change without first consulting otis wildflower of Slashdot. Who the hell does he think he is?!?
I dunno, but I'd say that slashdot represents die hard star wars fans pretty well. There is a balance between exercising your creative urges and listening to your fans. If your fans don't like it may just be possible that you are in fact wrong. Maybe Lucas should listen to his fans a bit more.
Personally I couldn't care less. I think Star Wars is overrated. Mark Hammill is a joke. Of the three originals only The Empire Strikes Back is worth watching more than a couple of times and the prequals should have gone straight to video. Who calls a movie "Attack of the Clones"? All you need to do is add in the word Killer and you have a classic B grade movie title. In fact I think that they should have added Killer in just to warn people in video stores not to rent this movie.
Star wars is more interesting in the fact that it for some reason causes people to lose a sense of proportion.
It happens for me in the full Mozilla 1.7 package.
As far as I can tell what is happening is that Mozilla starts displaying a page before it has downloaded the full page. This is a little dangerous because with tables (for example) you don't really know what is happening until you have the full table. I think the problem is that it makes a bad guess at the render and doesn't correct it.
You'll notice that if you click back then forward again it works fine. This is because it has pulled the full page down.
I'm not going to even deal with most of what you said, as it's full of vitriol and downright lies that there's no way I can dissociate from your perception of reality.
Examining the past comments I have made in this thread that one seems to be milder than many of the other comments I have made. I am certainly not insulting you personally. I am attacking certain arguments you have made, and frankly I don't think I am attacking them particularly strongly. I don't see a justification for your comment.
I'll try to re-iterate my point that you may have taken the wrong way in other terms. Terrorists are not a valid reason for owning assault weapons because: 1. Your earlier arguments assume (or at the least say that this should be the case) equal acessability to weapons, hence terrorists have equal access to weapons, hence the assault weapon ban at least takes these weapons out of their hands. 2. Assuming that equal acessability is not the case, and terrorists need to buy them outside America, then they still need to get them into the country.
Either way I don't see terrorists as a valid reason for owning assault weapons.
In addition: 3. Not all weapons are equal (I'm sorry but from my perspective you have consistently dodged this issue)
But I will say this: the main thing you're missing is that police respond to crime.
All law is based on this. Punishment after the crime. Punishment before the crime is not justice. I've just had this argument WRT the US policy of pre-emptive strikes.
If a burglar broke into your house, armed with a kitchen knife, which would seem like a more likely way to come out alive and without loss of property
How often does this happen, in your country or mine? I can speak for mine and say not all that often. In our contry home invasions do not often end in deaths. Might it not also be good for the burglar to live? That could be my friend (however misguided he may be) you are shooting down. As I said in another post I have a friend who is currently serving time for weapons charges.
On another point, there seems to be a hole in your earlier arguments that you haven't addressed, namely the situation of those who are not trained in the use of guns. Your personal situation (using guns from age 4) may be unusual. What is wrong with a mandatory government enforcement of a minimum level of training? In your case your the training might be waived due to your experience.
One last thing, if you walk away from this argument simplying saying that I am lying/full of crap, you have lost the argument. I can accept that we can agree to disagree, but to say that I am lying without providing a supporting argument or evidence means you are losing the argument. To accuse me of being full of vitriol when there is nothing to suggest that is the case means you are losing the argument.
Maybe there is some cultural difference that is making my comments seem harsher than I intend, if so please point out where I have been offensive.
They aren't neutral: Martin Bryant. Before Port Arthur there was a similar massacre at Strathfield. Some weapons are not neutral. We can debate handguns at another time.
Do you really trust the police to protect you against all things evil?
No, but I trust them more than I trust myself and my neighbors. In this country we have excellent police, although there have been some notable exceptions to that rule.
Morale doesn't get lower than shooting your friends and neighbors because the government told you to.
Same goes for oppressing people without weapons.
Terrorism is another reason for civilians to carry guns.
In America? Give me a break.
John Kerry wants people to believe that terrorists will fly to America, go to a gun show, buy an AR-15, and take on the world. This is just insane - most terrorists come from countries where you can buy a [i]real[/i] AK-47 or M16, fully-automatic, for $100-150 (or less depending on whom you plan to shoot).
And how exactly are they going to get to America while caryying that gun? This is about gun ownership inside America.
If they do - shouldn't I be able to shoot back? Terrorists are more likely to be shot with an AR-15 on American soil than to shoot anyone with one.
Look, the entire time one of the bases of your argument has been that right now guns are available to all equally. You need guns because criminals have guns. With that argument in mind Kerry has a point, a terrorist can get hold of a gun as easily as a criminal, by buying it over the counter. Or even better, they can just steal one from someone who deosn't secure their weapon properly.
You're doing it again with "assault weapons" and bunching them in with "machine pistols". The guns that American liberals want to ban as "assault weapons" are semi-automatic. Machineguns of all shapes and sizes have been banned here since 1934.
The fact that these are weapons that are designed to kill people in large numbers suggests that this is a reasonable grouping to me.
On a technical note, a machine pistol is not a machine gun.
You are determined to lump all weapons into the same category. This is just not true.
The argument is not preposterous. I may not have the terminology perfectly accurate, but the point I am making is none the less true. A 223 to the hip is more damaging that a 22 to the hip. Expanding rounds are a side-track. You seem bent on saying that all weapons are equal. The are not equal.
1. Excuse me? I've studied the rise of Hitler. I love history, particularly 20th century history, That is an area of history I know pretty well, in fact I would say I know that period of history better than probably any other. Let me tell you that some of the history parallels pretty closely with recent US history. If you were serious about what you say you'd be marching on Washington right now, AR15 on your shoulder and 45 on your hip. Just remember that this time they aren't after the Jews and Communists first. Remember the quote from Niemoller. The've already started: Guantanamo bay. You may not be aware that Dachau (which is where the Holocaust survivor was incarcerated) was the first Nazi concentration camp opened. It was the prototype of others to come. I might suggest you read the interview you linked and keep in mind Guantanamo bay. Get your gun and get marching.
You might note that in the interview he mentions that some concentration camp survivors don't agree with the arming of American citizens. I disagree with some of his conclusions on how best to prevent the same thing happening again. Once again I re-iterate, gun ownership isn't much good against trained, well armed soldiers. Even his argument about the Warsaw ghetto doesn't hold much water, they held out for a month before being overwealmed. A more herioc fight is hard to imagine, but it did not keep the 56,000 Jews who remained alive after the fighting from being executed or sent to concentration camps. According to an article found using google the number of German soldiers in the action was under 10,000.
2. You haven't answered the question. Whether you cannot buy an M16 at a corner store is irrelevant. One of the major arguments I hear in favour of owning guns is to overthrow the government. I just don't see that as practical.
3. My apologies, thanks for the clarification. I certainly agree that the government is there to serve the populace. Service is at the heart of Christian leadership.
4. I think I may have defined it earlier, but here goes: semi-automatic or automatic, large magazine, long range. In the previous list pick any 2. I'd put machine pistols/submachine guns in another category. But I'd exclude them on the same grounds that I would exclude assualt weapons.
Regardless of that, though - why does need have anything to do with a freedom? Why do you need to post on Slashdot? Why do you need to read news about foreign countries? Need has nothing to do with it - and that is a fundamental difference between your philosophy and mine.
Well put. I haven't articulated my thinking on that point very well. Let me put it another way, is the exercise of that freedom to the general benefit of society? I also have not problem with a freedom being exercised if it is neutral. I just cannot see that being the case with assault weapons/machine pistols.
Sorry I might have missed your reply, thanks for pointing that out.
Simply put, people have been killing each other since long before the invention of the rifle..
I don't disagree. Not in the slightest. I think that by removing an effective killing tool from people's hands is a good thing.
Are you really afraid of law-abiding people with guns?
Yes I am. I am afraid for two reasons. 1. Under your suggestions there should be no mandatory training. I can be killed by someone merely because they are poorly trained. Your comments about family training are all valid and great, but for those who were not trained from birth, or lacked stable family situations miss out on that. 2. There are no law abiding people. I have a firm and abiding belief in fallen nature of mankind. This stems from my beliefs as a Christian, confirmed by the experiences of my 25 years. I don't trust people.
I have a friend who is currently serving out a 1 1/2 year sentence for weapons charges. Lovely guy. Really lovely guy. I am going to visit him on Sunday. He had a friend of his threated by a bunch of guys. So he and some mates got together, got hold of a handgun and stuck it in the guy's face. He could, under slightly different circumstances, have pulled the trigger. He has a very strong loyalty to his friends, something I have great respect for.
I'd prefer it if that weapon had been not available to him. It is also extremely unusual (for Australia) that it was available to him at all (he has some pretty shady friends).
My position on gun control was formed before I even knew the guy.
Basically, what I'm asking is this: can you make an argument against citizen ownership of any class of guns? What support for your argument is there? Lay it all out, because I wanna know.
I can see no case for assault weapons. I can see the logic of your arguments for protection. I don't totally agree, but I can see the logic when it is assumed that criminals have access to weapons. I cannot see a case for some classes of weapon and I'll list them: 1. Anything that is fully automatic 2. automatic shotguns 3. Long range weapons designed for human targets 4. assault weapons (according to my definition)
I cannot see how these can really be used for personal self defense. I cannot see you being attacked by 5+ people and needing an M60 or an mp5. Similar for automatic shotguns. I cannot see a sniper rifle being used for self defence, are you seriously telling me that you are going to be picking people off hundreds of meters away to defend yourself? What I said for automatic weapons also goes for assault weapons.
As far as I can see the only argument you have really proposed is self-defense. Under those grounds I think that it is not unfair to ban some weapons and to require training.
I think that would be a start. I think at that point you could start to address issues of criminals carrying guns.
I don't doubt that people will find other ways of murdering each other. However consider this, would a 223 shell from an AR15 have been stopped by a modile phone?
There are parts of Sydney (~5 million people), where I live, I wouldn't go. Sections of Redfern spring to mind. But I'll tell you this, I won't go into those areas because I may get robbed or beaten up, not killed. You have to question a society where you have to carry a gun to feel safe.
I tell you why I think Canadians are freer than Americans. They are freer from fear. I think Mike Moore had something in Bowling for Columbine on that topic. I am free to walk down the street without carrying a handgun for protection. I do not need to be constantly on guard against someone better armed than myself.
This fear has been exploited by your current administration.
You do realize that the AR-15 is a.223-caliber weapon, and that I hunt deer with a.308-caliber rifle?
Yep. I'm also aware that a FN is a.308 (or 7.62) weapon. However I know that there is a fair amount of powder behind a.223 (or 5.56) caliber weapon. While it may be only.003" bigger than a 22, it is a magnum round. Would you prefer me to put an expanding 223 round into your hip bone, or a 22 round?
Please explain how Canadians are freer than Americans. Maybe I missed something by growing up within an hour of the border, having many Canadian friends, and dating several Canadian women.
I don't hear any talk of free speach zones in Canada. I don't hear of people being arrested and held without trial. I don't hear of people being arrested for expressing views contrary to the president. I am amazed at how much America has given up its freedoms.
What you're really failing to understand is that criminals don't care about gun laws. That's the underlying problem - criminals tend to put fake license plates on their stolen cars, drive with fake licenses, and so forth. Why would they be any more forthright when it comes to guns?
I do understand that. It gives you something more to charge criminals with. Also if you remove certain guns from the system (assualt weapons, handguns not use for target shooting, pump action and automatic shotguns), then no-one has access to these weapons. You continue to assume that criminals have access to these weapons. Secondly you have strong charges for illegal use of arms. In Australia you can get 5 years for sticking a gun in someone's face.
In Australia the use of guns by criminals is pretty rare, guns themselves are pretty rare. Generally guns are used in two situations, hold ups and gangland killings.
If you want to kill a group of people, it is far more effective to drive an SUV into that group of people than to shoot them. Or poison their food (using rat poison, for example). Or any number of other methods that don't involve guns.
20 people in 15 seconds? Pretty good driving/synchronised poisoning. I'm sorry but if no AR15 was available to Martin Bryant, at least some of those 20 people would be alive.
You still haven't answered the following questions: 1. Why Americans lack of faith in the democratic process, instead turning to force 2. How civilians armed with M16s will take out tanks 3. My point on governments that fear the populace 4. Why you really need assualt weapons
I think you may have simplified the Canada-Britian thing a little, but I think you express the different attitudes well.
I think though that the Amercian mistrust of government is a bad thing. It suggests that governments can only be changed by force. It suggests a lack of faith in the democratic process.
I think you'll find that a government that fears the populace represses the populace even more strongly than one that doesn't fear the populace. They need to repress the populace to maintain control. Governments that do not fear the populace have no need to resort repression. Certainly this seems to be a pretty strong lesson from Souther America.
I still think that your weapons do not provide a strong defence against the government. I cannot see you overthrowing the government, when armed with M16s against tanks.
I have a question for you, if the Canadians are more willing to give up their freedoms, why are they freer that Americans?
As for licensing, I think it is a reasonable step to take to ensure accountability.
I have been thinking about an earlier point you made, I take to issue the point that all guns are equally dangerous in one person's hand. Take the massacre at Port Arthur in '96 that caused the changes to Australia's guns laws. The murders were committed largely using an AR15. 20 people were killed in an estimated 15 seconds. The gunman also took potshots at cars travelling on the road at range. Accurate enough potshots to wound people.
Without access to a weapon with a clip that size I cannot see the 20 people dying in 15 seconds. I can't see a person taking potshots at range using a say a 22, with the shots travelling through car bodywork.
I also do no believe that all guns are equally dangerous when it comes to the caliber of the weapns. I've heard it from a first hand account that someone with a solid bone hit from an FN is likely to die and that a solid hit in a limb means you generally lose that limb.
It is great to hear that you are a law student. I have a lot of respect for good, ethical lawyers. I'm sorry to be keeping you up.
Re driving on public roads. I fail to see how requiring that you keep your guns on your property is an unreasonable requirement. Put it this way, a gun is a lethal weapon, so is a car. Both have the capability to cause great harm, hence it is reasonable to ensure that people are trained in their use if they use them off their own property.
I'd agree with you that a gun is more dangerous in my hands than yours. I've used guns 4 times, once on targets and 3 times on pests. Why are the tests not mandatory? Do all people grow up in stable family situations where they can be trained in the use of guns?
I'd agree that they assault weapons ban was poorly written.
I have a theory that most people don't make decisions. Most people have made their decisions long ago (or have accepted a particular environment), now they just search for ways of justifying them. This may well be true for both you and I: you grew up with guns and little control, I grew up in a society where gun control is the norm.
If I am in fact wrong I am very keen to be corrected. After all I have a vested interest in getting things right.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm really sorry I missed the word primary. It comes from being tired and having just had a cup of coffee. Thanks for your gentle correction.
Buying laptops from a minor manufacturer is a luxury we don't all have. The last two laptops I have been involved in purchasing had pretty specific requrements. The first (mine) was a top of the line Thinkpad T41. I needed something that was very reliable, light, fast and with good battery life. No real choices there. Reliability meant a Thinkpad.
The other laptop needed to be a top of the line graphics workstation. I found only one laptop that met requirements after a pretty comprehensive search and that laptop was a Dell Precision M60.
Object orientation is a terribly inefficient way to program.
and
And as a side note, I don't like the fact that you have to type four lines of code to do what C++ could do with a simple cin >> var;
Care to resolve the differences between these remarks? I know it is possible to write non-OO code in C++, but it basically means you are writing C with a C++ compiler.
What is more the bloody Aussies expect people to pass tests and take driving lessons before they get to drive a car without an instructor. They have to gall to say it is for your own safety! How stupid is that!
(yes that is sarcasm)
Why the hell aren't you watching your kids? What the hell ever happened to active parenting? If you don't want your kids to see such content then keep them off the damn internet,or at least monitor what they do online
/. approach of saying "all parents fault" is not better than the approach of this group (govt. regulation).
How? How is a non-technically oriented parent supposed to do this? When the kids are likely to get assignments that require them to use the internet? When the kids are better technically speaking and are able to circumvent what controls the non-techie parents put in place?
We all know commercial filters suck big time. What do you suggest?
I personally don't agree with the approach that this group is taking, but there is an issue here that isn't being addressed. The
An important point here - the primary party of The Coalition is the Liberal Party, not the liberal party.
Sorry to nitpick, but the Coalition is not the Liberal party (large L). The Coalition made up of is the Liberal party and the National party. The National party has a support base amoung farming communities, but in general holds similar policies to the Liberal party.
Just because that has worked for them to date doesn't mean that it will continue. Maybe they were just fortunate that in fact there was a way to capitalise on their undeniably cool technology.
What I don't understand is how Lucas could have made such a change without first consulting otis wildflower of Slashdot. Who the hell does he think he is?!?
I dunno, but I'd say that slashdot represents die hard star wars fans pretty well. There is a balance between exercising your creative urges and listening to your fans. If your fans don't like it may just be possible that you are in fact wrong. Maybe Lucas should listen to his fans a bit more.
Personally I couldn't care less. I think Star Wars is overrated. Mark Hammill is a joke. Of the three originals only The Empire Strikes Back is worth watching more than a couple of times and the prequals should have gone straight to video. Who calls a movie "Attack of the Clones"? All you need to do is add in the word Killer and you have a classic B grade movie title. In fact I think that they should have added Killer in just to warn people in video stores not to rent this movie.
Star wars is more interesting in the fact that it for some reason causes people to lose a sense of proportion.
If I designed a flawed version of AutoCAD...
My experience is that people generally leave this to Autodesk. There hasn't been a stable release of AutoCAD since 2000.
The US has a history of invading countries and staging coups when it doesn't like the election results. I think I prefer the European model.
Check out my other comment on this.
The reason it may be a problem at work not at home may be due to connection speed or latency.
It happens for me in the full Mozilla 1.7 package.
As far as I can tell what is happening is that Mozilla starts displaying a page before it has downloaded the full page. This is a little dangerous because with tables (for example) you don't really know what is happening until you have the full table. I think the problem is that it makes a bad guess at the render and doesn't correct it.
You'll notice that if you click back then forward again it works fine. This is because it has pulled the full page down.
Xteq is also very nice. Useful as an interface for a collection of registry hacks.
... to Iraq
I'm not going to even deal with most of what you said, as it's full of vitriol and downright lies that there's no way I can dissociate from your perception of reality.
Examining the past comments I have made in this thread that one seems to be milder than many of the other comments I have made. I am certainly not insulting you personally. I am attacking certain arguments you have made, and frankly I don't think I am attacking them particularly strongly. I don't see a justification for your comment.
I'll try to re-iterate my point that you may have taken the wrong way in other terms. Terrorists are not a valid reason for owning assault weapons because:
1. Your earlier arguments assume (or at the least say that this should be the case) equal acessability to weapons, hence terrorists have equal access to weapons, hence the assault weapon ban at least takes these weapons out of their hands.
2. Assuming that equal acessability is not the case, and terrorists need to buy them outside America, then they still need to get them into the country.
Either way I don't see terrorists as a valid reason for owning assault weapons.
In addition:
3. Not all weapons are equal (I'm sorry but from my perspective you have consistently dodged this issue)
But I will say this: the main thing you're missing is that police respond to crime.
All law is based on this. Punishment after the crime. Punishment before the crime is not justice. I've just had this argument WRT the US policy of pre-emptive strikes.
If a burglar broke into your house, armed with a kitchen knife, which would seem like a more likely way to come out alive and without loss of property
How often does this happen, in your country or mine? I can speak for mine and say not all that often. In our contry home invasions do not often end in deaths. Might it not also be good for the burglar to live? That could be my friend (however misguided he may be) you are shooting down. As I said in another post I have a friend who is currently serving time for weapons charges.
On another point, there seems to be a hole in your earlier arguments that you haven't addressed, namely the situation of those who are not trained in the use of guns. Your personal situation (using guns from age 4) may be unusual. What is wrong with a mandatory government enforcement of a minimum level of training? In your case your the training might be waived due to your experience.
One last thing, if you walk away from this argument simplying saying that I am lying/full of crap, you have lost the argument. I can accept that we can agree to disagree, but to say that I am lying without providing a supporting argument or evidence means you are losing the argument. To accuse me of being full of vitriol when there is nothing to suggest that is the case means you are losing the argument.
Maybe there is some cultural difference that is making my comments seem harsher than I intend, if so please point out where I have been offensive.
They aren't neutral: Martin Bryant. Before Port Arthur there was a similar massacre at Strathfield. Some weapons are not neutral. We can debate handguns at another time.
Do you really trust the police to protect you against all things evil?
No, but I trust them more than I trust myself and my neighbors. In this country we have excellent police, although there have been some notable exceptions to that rule.
Morale doesn't get lower than shooting your friends and neighbors because the government told you to.
Same goes for oppressing people without weapons.
Terrorism is another reason for civilians to carry guns.
In America? Give me a break.
John Kerry wants people to believe that terrorists will fly to America, go to a gun show, buy an AR-15, and take on the world. This is just insane - most terrorists come from countries where you can buy a [i]real[/i] AK-47 or M16, fully-automatic, for $100-150 (or less depending on whom you plan to shoot).
And how exactly are they going to get to America while caryying that gun? This is about gun ownership inside America.
If they do - shouldn't I be able to shoot back? Terrorists are more likely to be shot with an AR-15 on American soil than to shoot anyone with one.
Look, the entire time one of the bases of your argument has been that right now guns are available to all equally. You need guns because criminals have guns. With that argument in mind Kerry has a point, a terrorist can get hold of a gun as easily as a criminal, by buying it over the counter. Or even better, they can just steal one from someone who deosn't secure their weapon properly.
You're doing it again with "assault weapons" and bunching them in with "machine pistols". The guns that American liberals want to ban as "assault weapons" are semi-automatic. Machineguns of all shapes and sizes have been banned here since 1934.
The fact that these are weapons that are designed to kill people in large numbers suggests that this is a reasonable grouping to me.
On a technical note, a machine pistol is not a machine gun.
You are determined to lump all weapons into the same category. This is just not true.
The argument is not preposterous. I may not have the terminology perfectly accurate, but the point I am making is none the less true. A 223 to the hip is more damaging that a 22 to the hip. Expanding rounds are a side-track. You seem bent on saying that all weapons are equal. The are not equal.
1. Excuse me? I've studied the rise of Hitler. I love history, particularly 20th century history, That is an area of history I know pretty well, in fact I would say I know that period of history better than probably any other. Let me tell you that some of the history parallels pretty closely with recent US history. If you were serious about what you say you'd be marching on Washington right now, AR15 on your shoulder and 45 on your hip. Just remember that this time they aren't after the Jews and Communists first. Remember the quote from Niemoller. The've already started: Guantanamo bay. You may not be aware that Dachau (which is where the Holocaust survivor was incarcerated) was the first Nazi concentration camp opened. It was the prototype of others to come. I might suggest you read the interview you linked and keep in mind Guantanamo bay. Get your gun and get marching.
You might note that in the interview he mentions that some concentration camp survivors don't agree with the arming of American citizens. I disagree with some of his conclusions on how best to prevent the same thing happening again. Once again I re-iterate, gun ownership isn't much good against trained, well armed soldiers. Even his argument about the Warsaw ghetto doesn't hold much water, they held out for a month before being overwealmed. A more herioc fight is hard to imagine, but it did not keep the 56,000 Jews who remained alive after the fighting from being executed or sent to concentration camps. According to an article found using google the number of German soldiers in the action was under 10,000.
2. You haven't answered the question. Whether you cannot buy an M16 at a corner store is irrelevant. One of the major arguments I hear in favour of owning guns is to overthrow the government. I just don't see that as practical.
3. My apologies, thanks for the clarification. I certainly agree that the government is there to serve the populace. Service is at the heart of Christian leadership.
4. I think I may have defined it earlier, but here goes: semi-automatic or automatic, large magazine, long range. In the previous list pick any 2. I'd put machine pistols/submachine guns in another category. But I'd exclude them on the same grounds that I would exclude assualt weapons.
Regardless of that, though - why does need have anything to do with a freedom? Why do you need to post on Slashdot? Why do you need to read news about foreign countries? Need has nothing to do with it - and that is a fundamental difference between your philosophy and mine.
Well put. I haven't articulated my thinking on that point very well. Let me put it another way, is the exercise of that freedom to the general benefit of society? I also have not problem with a freedom being exercised if it is neutral. I just cannot see that being the case with assault weapons/machine pistols.
Sorry I might have missed your reply, thanks for pointing that out.
Simply put, people have been killing each other since long before the invention of the rifle..
I don't disagree. Not in the slightest. I think that by removing an effective killing tool from people's hands is a good thing.
Are you really afraid of law-abiding people with guns?
Yes I am. I am afraid for two reasons.
1. Under your suggestions there should be no mandatory training. I can be killed by someone merely because they are poorly trained. Your comments about family training are all valid and great, but for those who were not trained from birth, or lacked stable family situations miss out on that.
2. There are no law abiding people. I have a firm and abiding belief in fallen nature of mankind. This stems from my beliefs as a Christian, confirmed by the experiences of my 25 years. I don't trust people.
I have a friend who is currently serving out a 1 1/2 year sentence for weapons charges. Lovely guy. Really lovely guy. I am going to visit him on Sunday. He had a friend of his threated by a bunch of guys. So he and some mates got together, got hold of a handgun and stuck it in the guy's face. He could, under slightly different circumstances, have pulled the trigger. He has a very strong loyalty to his friends, something I have great respect for.
I'd prefer it if that weapon had been not available to him. It is also extremely unusual (for Australia) that it was available to him at all (he has some pretty shady friends).
My position on gun control was formed before I even knew the guy.
Basically, what I'm asking is this: can you make an argument against citizen ownership of any class of guns? What support for your argument is there? Lay it all out, because I wanna know.
I can see no case for assault weapons. I can see the logic of your arguments for protection. I don't totally agree, but I can see the logic when it is assumed that criminals have access to weapons. I cannot see a case for some classes of weapon and I'll list them:
1. Anything that is fully automatic
2. automatic shotguns
3. Long range weapons designed for human targets
4. assault weapons (according to my definition)
I cannot see how these can really be used for personal self defense. I cannot see you being attacked by 5+ people and needing an M60 or an mp5. Similar for automatic shotguns. I cannot see a sniper rifle being used for self defence, are you seriously telling me that you are going to be picking people off hundreds of meters away to defend yourself? What I said for automatic weapons also goes for assault weapons.
As far as I can see the only argument you have really proposed is self-defense. Under those grounds I think that it is not unfair to ban some weapons and to require training.
I think that would be a start. I think at that point you could start to address issues of criminals carrying guns.
Speak for yourself. I personally don't surf the web for porn. I'm more interested in IT news, and using it as in information resource for programming.
I don't doubt that people will find other ways of murdering each other. However consider this, would a 223 shell from an AR15 have been stopped by a modile phone?
There are parts of Sydney (~5 million people), where I live, I wouldn't go. Sections of Redfern spring to mind. But I'll tell you this, I won't go into those areas because I may get robbed or beaten up, not killed. You have to question a society where you have to carry a gun to feel safe.
BTW you might have missed my other reply.
In addition:
I tell you why I think Canadians are freer than Americans. They are freer from fear. I think Mike Moore had something in Bowling for Columbine on that topic. I am free to walk down the street without carrying a handgun for protection. I do not need to be constantly on guard against someone better armed than myself.
This fear has been exploited by your current administration.
You do realize that the AR-15 is a .223-caliber weapon, and that I hunt deer with a .308-caliber rifle?
.308 (or 7.62) weapon. However I know that there is a fair amount of powder behind a .223 (or 5.56) caliber weapon. While it may be only .003" bigger than a 22, it is a magnum round. Would you prefer me to put an expanding 223 round into your hip bone, or a 22 round?
Yep. I'm also aware that a FN is a
Please explain how Canadians are freer than Americans. Maybe I missed something by growing up within an hour of the border, having many Canadian friends, and dating several Canadian women.
I don't hear any talk of free speach zones in Canada. I don't hear of people being arrested and held without trial. I don't hear of people being arrested for expressing views contrary to the president. I am amazed at how much America has given up its freedoms.
What you're really failing to understand is that criminals don't care about gun laws. That's the underlying problem - criminals tend to put fake license plates on their stolen cars, drive with fake licenses, and so forth. Why would they be any more forthright when it comes to guns?
I do understand that. It gives you something more to charge criminals with. Also if you remove certain guns from the system (assualt weapons, handguns not use for target shooting, pump action and automatic shotguns), then no-one has access to these weapons. You continue to assume that criminals have access to these weapons. Secondly you have strong charges for illegal use of arms. In Australia you can get 5 years for sticking a gun in someone's face.
In Australia the use of guns by criminals is pretty rare, guns themselves are pretty rare. Generally guns are used in two situations, hold ups and gangland killings.
If you want to kill a group of people, it is far more effective to drive an SUV into that group of people than to shoot them. Or poison their food (using rat poison, for example). Or any number of other methods that don't involve guns.
20 people in 15 seconds? Pretty good driving/synchronised poisoning. I'm sorry but if no AR15 was available to Martin Bryant, at least some of those 20 people would be alive.
You still haven't answered the following questions:
1. Why Americans lack of faith in the democratic process, instead turning to force
2. How civilians armed with M16s will take out tanks
3. My point on governments that fear the populace
4. Why you really need assualt weapons
You need two hands for that. ctrl+tab leaves the left hand to click links.
I think you may have simplified the Canada-Britian thing a little, but I think you express the different attitudes well.
I think though that the Amercian mistrust of government is a bad thing. It suggests that governments can only be changed by force. It suggests a lack of faith in the democratic process.
I think you'll find that a government that fears the populace represses the populace even more strongly than one that doesn't fear the populace. They need to repress the populace to maintain control. Governments that do not fear the populace have no need to resort repression. Certainly this seems to be a pretty strong lesson from Souther America.
I still think that your weapons do not provide a strong defence against the government. I cannot see you overthrowing the government, when armed with M16s against tanks.
I have a question for you, if the Canadians are more willing to give up their freedoms, why are they freer that Americans?
As for licensing, I think it is a reasonable step to take to ensure accountability.
I have been thinking about an earlier point you made, I take to issue the point that all guns are equally dangerous in one person's hand. Take the massacre at Port Arthur in '96 that caused the changes to Australia's guns laws. The murders were committed largely using an AR15. 20 people were killed in an estimated 15 seconds. The gunman also took potshots at cars travelling on the road at range. Accurate enough potshots to wound people.
Without access to a weapon with a clip that size I cannot see the 20 people dying in 15 seconds. I can't see a person taking potshots at range using a say a 22, with the shots travelling through car bodywork.
I also do no believe that all guns are equally dangerous when it comes to the caliber of the weapns. I've heard it from a first hand account that someone with a solid bone hit from an FN is likely to die and that a solid hit in a limb means you generally lose that limb.
It is great to hear that you are a law student. I have a lot of respect for good, ethical lawyers. I'm sorry to be keeping you up.
Re driving on public roads. I fail to see how requiring that you keep your guns on your property is an unreasonable requirement. Put it this way, a gun is a lethal weapon, so is a car. Both have the capability to cause great harm, hence it is reasonable to ensure that people are trained in their use if they use them off their own property.
I'd agree with you that a gun is more dangerous in my hands than yours. I've used guns 4 times, once on targets and 3 times on pests. Why are the tests not mandatory? Do all people grow up in stable family situations where they can be trained in the use of guns?
I'd agree that they assault weapons ban was poorly written.
I have a theory that most people don't make decisions. Most people have made their decisions long ago (or have accepted a particular environment), now they just search for ways of justifying them. This may well be true for both you and I: you grew up with guns and little control, I grew up in a society where gun control is the norm.
If I am in fact wrong I am very keen to be corrected. After all I have a vested interest in getting things right.