Except the cops *are* trained. Oh, so you think that *supports* your argument?
Yes, I do. It seems logical to assume that increased awareness and abilities comes with training.
if it was widely known that a teacher was armed (even if they fancied themselves like Sledge Hammer), do you think any punk in their right mind would chose that classroom to start something?
That might apply in a high school, or a very small college, but on a campus as large as VT, the average student is going to know absolutely nothing about a large percentage of the professors.
You were modded down because you were whining that you would probably be modded down. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Okay, then why did the GP, who made a perfectly reasonable point, get modded into obliteration, while somebody else who replied with "just give all of the students guns" got modded up as insightful?
Speaking ill of a legend like Miyamoto is not something I would do, and I think the guy at Bungie comes off a little arrogant for doing so.
It's not like this is a startling comment from Miyamoto. He's said similar things in the past, although perhaps not about a specific game. He's always been more of a proponent of "games the whole family can enjoy", and not a big fan of first person shooters. He's welcome to his opinions, as far as I'm concerned...they've served him well enough in the past.
The ones that aren't responsible and upstanding don't care about the law, by definition. Therefore, they will carry concealed weapons anyway!
It's quite possible to be irresponsible, but still abide by the law. For instance, if guns are allowed into public schools, a perfectly upstanding teacher might carry his.44 Magnum to school in order to protect his students. Makes perfect sense, except he isn't a particularly good shot (although he likes to think he is), and isn't trained to safely fire a gun in a crowded area, as is the case with police. He went to a shooting range once when he was a teenager, but hasn't been back since. He likes to carry a big gun, so people see it and know not to mess with him, but it's not a great choice when dealing with a crowd, because the.44 has a lot of penetrating power. One day, a student walks in with a realistic looking toy gun, says "bang bang, you're dead"...not a wise decision, but kids do stupid things...the teacher quickly draws and fires, killing the student, and the completely innocent student who just walked in the door behind him. He had the best of intentions, but does it sound *responsible* to you?
We let them navigate large masses of steel at high speeds (yes, there's registration -- won't touch that one for now), we let them purchase other dangerous substances (compressed gases, chemicals, poisons, etc.) w/o any oversight, and we even let them *breed* unchecked.
We don't let them do any of the above in courthouses or schools, though;-)
You trying to tie this to some political issue is insane.
I haven't tried to tie it to a political issue. Legislators in Texas have done that for me, by proposing that guns be allowed in public spaces. I'm just refuting the idea, and responding to a comment that had to do with it.
While many would see the logical conclusion to arming *everyone* as a recipe for anarchy and accidents waiting to happen, those of us on the other side of the issue believe that it is wrong (and downright silly) to place law-abiding people at an inherent disadvantage by default for simply following the law.
Oops...I hit submit too soon...Anyway, the problem with the idea of allowing anybody to carry a concealed weapon, as has been proposed in Texas, is that the assumption is made that all gun-owners are responsible, upstanding citizens. That's clearly not the case. Not to cast dispersion on gun-owners, but no group of citizens is made up completely of responsible people who should be trusted with toting a concealed deadly weapon into sensitive public spaces.
Right now, it's easy to keep criminals with guns out of courtrooms. You check everybody for guns at the door. But if you start allowing anybody to carry a gun into a courtroom, that means criminals can get in, too. Sure, the chances that a mass-killing would occur would be much smaller, because the gunman would be shot quickly, but it only takes one shot to kill, for instance, a judge. Such a killing in a courtroom would have repercussions much farther than that individual person who happens to be a judge. It would signal a breakdown in law and order. I think it's makes much more sense to have armed, trained, background-checked, guards in courtrooms, which is what we already have. There are also generally tons of armed police in the average courthouse. It seems to me that having untrained, unchecked civilians carrying guns is more of a liability than anything.
I won't mod you down for having a difference of opinion, though. That's just lame -- discourse is a cornerstone of any civilized community.
I agree that it's lame. My comment has already been modded down from a 2 to a 0, though...unfortunately, for some reason, any comment that I've made here regarding gun-rights gets modded down, no matter how politely I phrase my opinions. Even if I state that I do support gun rights, although along with certain restrictions of those rights. Sadly, it would seem that many gun-toting people are somewhat uncomfortable with discourse, which, I guess is part of the problem.
I'm guessing the "give all students guns and Virginia Tech wouldn't have happened" crowd won't be commenting on this story..
Oh, I'm guessing they will. They will very likely mod my comment here down as well for agreeing with you. I've found it interesting that, even though both the Columbine and VT events, along with this most recent staged event in Tennessee, happened in "red states", where guns are more prevalent, and more a part of daily life, people in those states seem to want more guns, not less. Like Texas, where legislators are arguing that guns should be allowed in schools and courtrooms. That logic makes no sense to me...
Cue the "2nd amendment means everybody should have an armory" folks now...
Isn't this the same company whose name is virtually synonymous with music piracy? AFAIK these are the guys who invented the DRM-free MP3 format which is now a major enabling factor for music piracy in the US.
Just because they made a DRM-free format doesn't make them enablers of music piracy. There are many other DRM-free audio formats. It's not up to file-format makers to police the world. They made a format that works well, and it became popular because of it.
However, there's a fair number of people who believe that the current 100 year copyrights last way too long, and that there should be copyright reform.
Maybe, but I can't help but think that those who want copyright reform haven't noticed that whenever our government "reforms" anything, they generally tend to make it worse.
I was wondering the same thing. Even in the open-source community, I don't think there are all that many people who want to completely do away with copyright. If I make something, why shouldn't I have the right to choose whether to make it freely available or not? Seems perfectly logical to me...
What is WoW even doing on this list? In what way is WoW on the "web"? On the internet, yes, but I've yet to see somebody playing WoW on a web page of some sort. Do we really have to start calling every internet technology the "web"? Maybe this is explained in the article, but I'm tired of loading page after page of advertisements just to find out...
Oh, you just mean naming conventions are inconsistent? I thought you were saying that, for instance, code written in one version of PHP doesn't work in a later version. That's a problem I haven't had. Upgrades have generally been pretty painless for me. And I've found PHP performance to be pretty good. My primary comparisons are with Perl and ColdFusion though, so maybe ASP is a lot quicker, and I just don't know it...
It interests me that so many people have become all up in arms wailing that we should have prevented something that has never happened before in history.
You've somehow forgotten about Columbine?
When you get done creating your 'security state' I have a little secret for you...
When referring to me, how's about we stick with things that I've actually said.
Oh I dunno, perhaps because there IS such a grand scale movement?
There may be a movement, but calling it "grand scale" seems a bit sensationalist. The chances of a total gun-ban ever gaining the support of 50% or more of the public seems slim at best.
There were only two things certain when the VT shooting story broke
What, that Jack Thompson and Dr. Phil were racing to the nearest TV camera to blame violent video games?
After all, the pen IS mightier than the sword... or the gun
It is very difficult to kill someone with a pen. A gun, on the other hand...
I trust my neighbor with a ballot so I have no problem with trusting him with a gun cabinet. And then there is the vision of the gun control gang.
I have no problem trusting my neighbor with a gun cabinet, either. But not every adult is as trustworthy as our neighbors. Do you really want mentally-ill violent ex-cons able to buy guns legally? If not, then those who aren't mentally-ill or ex-cons will have to agree to submit to certain checks to ascertain which group they belong to.
Put another way. Take a personal liberty away in one swoop and people will complain. Slowly erode it over a period of decades and the 'shortsighted' among us will say "it is just a little cut, get over it".
Okay, then why are the folks who are so worried about the erosion of the 2nd amendment often the ones who are willing to let the 1st amendment be eroded?
Slashdot Mirror
Except the cops *are* trained. Oh, so you think that *supports* your argument?
Yes, I do. It seems logical to assume that increased awareness and abilities comes with training.
if it was widely known that a teacher was armed (even if they fancied themselves like Sledge Hammer), do you think any punk in their right mind would chose that classroom to start something?
That might apply in a high school, or a very small college, but on a campus as large as VT, the average student is going to know absolutely nothing about a large percentage of the professors.
You were modded down because you were whining that you would probably be modded down. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Okay, then why did the GP, who made a perfectly reasonable point, get modded into obliteration, while somebody else who replied with "just give all of the students guns" got modded up as insightful?
Be glad you don't work in pro audio. My office/studio has more flashing lights than the space shuttle cockpit. 'course, I kinda like it.
Speaking ill of a legend like Miyamoto is not something I would do, and I think the guy at Bungie comes off a little arrogant for doing so.
It's not like this is a startling comment from Miyamoto. He's said similar things in the past, although perhaps not about a specific game. He's always been more of a proponent of "games the whole family can enjoy", and not a big fan of first person shooters. He's welcome to his opinions, as far as I'm concerned...they've served him well enough in the past.
The ones that aren't responsible and upstanding don't care about the law, by definition. Therefore, they will carry concealed weapons anyway!
.44 Magnum to school in order to protect his students. Makes perfect sense, except he isn't a particularly good shot (although he likes to think he is), and isn't trained to safely fire a gun in a crowded area, as is the case with police. He went to a shooting range once when he was a teenager, but hasn't been back since. He likes to carry a big gun, so people see it and know not to mess with him, but it's not a great choice when dealing with a crowd, because the .44 has a lot of penetrating power. One day, a student walks in with a realistic looking toy gun, says "bang bang, you're dead"...not a wise decision, but kids do stupid things...the teacher quickly draws and fires, killing the student, and the completely innocent student who just walked in the door behind him. He had the best of intentions, but does it sound *responsible* to you?
It's quite possible to be irresponsible, but still abide by the law. For instance, if guns are allowed into public schools, a perfectly upstanding teacher might carry his
We let them navigate large masses of steel at high speeds (yes, there's registration -- won't touch that one for now), we let them purchase other dangerous substances (compressed gases, chemicals, poisons, etc.) w/o any oversight, and we even let them *breed* unchecked.
;-)
We don't let them do any of the above in courthouses or schools, though
You trying to tie this to some political issue is insane.
I haven't tried to tie it to a political issue. Legislators in Texas have done that for me, by proposing that guns be allowed in public spaces. I'm just refuting the idea, and responding to a comment that had to do with it.
While many would see the logical conclusion to arming *everyone* as a recipe for anarchy and accidents waiting to happen, those of us on the other side of the issue believe that it is wrong (and downright silly) to place law-abiding people at an inherent disadvantage by default for simply following the law.
Oops...I hit submit too soon...Anyway, the problem with the idea of allowing anybody to carry a concealed weapon, as has been proposed in Texas, is that the assumption is made that all gun-owners are responsible, upstanding citizens. That's clearly not the case. Not to cast dispersion on gun-owners, but no group of citizens is made up completely of responsible people who should be trusted with toting a concealed deadly weapon into sensitive public spaces.
Right now, it's easy to keep criminals with guns out of courtrooms. You check everybody for guns at the door. But if you start allowing anybody to carry a gun into a courtroom, that means criminals can get in, too. Sure, the chances that a mass-killing would occur would be much smaller, because the gunman would be shot quickly, but it only takes one shot to kill, for instance, a judge. Such a killing in a courtroom would have repercussions much farther than that individual person who happens to be a judge. It would signal a breakdown in law and order. I think it's makes much more sense to have armed, trained, background-checked, guards in courtrooms, which is what we already have. There are also generally tons of armed police in the average courthouse. It seems to me that having untrained, unchecked civilians carrying guns is more of a liability than anything.
I won't mod you down for having a difference of opinion, though. That's just lame -- discourse is a cornerstone of any civilized community.
I agree that it's lame. My comment has already been modded down from a 2 to a 0, though...unfortunately, for some reason, any comment that I've made here regarding gun-rights gets modded down, no matter how politely I phrase my opinions. Even if I state that I do support gun rights, although along with certain restrictions of those rights. Sadly, it would seem that many gun-toting people are somewhat uncomfortable with discourse, which, I guess is part of the problem.
I'm guessing the "give all students guns and Virginia Tech wouldn't have happened" crowd won't be commenting on this story..
Oh, I'm guessing they will. They will very likely mod my comment here down as well for agreeing with you. I've found it interesting that, even though both the Columbine and VT events, along with this most recent staged event in Tennessee, happened in "red states", where guns are more prevalent, and more a part of daily life, people in those states seem to want more guns, not less. Like Texas, where legislators are arguing that guns should be allowed in schools and courtrooms. That logic makes no sense to me...
Cue the "2nd amendment means everybody should have an armory" folks now...
Isn't this the same company whose name is virtually synonymous with music piracy? AFAIK these are the guys who invented the DRM-free MP3 format which is now a major enabling factor for music piracy in the US.
Just because they made a DRM-free format doesn't make them enablers of music piracy. There are many other DRM-free audio formats. It's not up to file-format makers to police the world. They made a format that works well, and it became popular because of it.
Hmmm...my car is also fueled by "non-fusion reactions"...
Is it helpful for non USA citizens to also voice their disquiet?
;-)
It'll probably get you added to a terrorist watch list or something...
However, there's a fair number of people who believe that the current 100 year copyrights last way too long, and that there should be copyright reform.
Maybe, but I can't help but think that those who want copyright reform haven't noticed that whenever our government "reforms" anything, they generally tend to make it worse.
I was wondering the same thing. Even in the open-source community, I don't think there are all that many people who want to completely do away with copyright. If I make something, why shouldn't I have the right to choose whether to make it freely available or not? Seems perfectly logical to me...
It wasn't the first IM software. To my knowledge, that was ICQ (later bought by AOL and integrated with AIM).
I think the first IM system was IRC...
What is WoW even doing on this list? In what way is WoW on the "web"? On the internet, yes, but I've yet to see somebody playing WoW on a web page of some sort. Do we really have to start calling every internet technology the "web"? Maybe this is explained in the article, but I'm tired of loading page after page of advertisements just to find out...
Oh, you just mean naming conventions are inconsistent? I thought you were saying that, for instance, code written in one version of PHP doesn't work in a later version. That's a problem I haven't had. Upgrades have generally been pretty painless for me. And I've found PHP performance to be pretty good. My primary comparisons are with Perl and ColdFusion though, so maybe ASP is a lot quicker, and I just don't know it...
Now if only could PHP also fix their performance and inconsistencies..
Care to provide examples of either?
I live in Chicago
It interests me that so many people have become all up in arms wailing that we should have prevented something that has never happened before in history.
You've somehow forgotten about Columbine?
When you get done creating your 'security state' I have a little secret for you...
When referring to me, how's about we stick with things that I've actually said.
In my experience, the type who strongly support the First Amendment, but would willingly give up the Second are MUCH more prevalent.
Can't say I've met one.
Oh I dunno, perhaps because there IS such a grand scale movement?
There may be a movement, but calling it "grand scale" seems a bit sensationalist. The chances of a total gun-ban ever gaining the support of 50% or more of the public seems slim at best.
There were only two things certain when the VT shooting story broke
What, that Jack Thompson and Dr. Phil were racing to the nearest TV camera to blame violent video games?
After all, the pen IS mightier than the sword... or the gun
It is very difficult to kill someone with a pen. A gun, on the other hand...
I trust my neighbor with a ballot so I have no problem with trusting him with a gun cabinet. And then there is the vision of the gun control gang.
I have no problem trusting my neighbor with a gun cabinet, either. But not every adult is as trustworthy as our neighbors. Do you really want mentally-ill violent ex-cons able to buy guns legally? If not, then those who aren't mentally-ill or ex-cons will have to agree to submit to certain checks to ascertain which group they belong to.
Maybe it is because there is.
I said "grand-scale" for a reason. The odd congressman saying something along those lines is a huge step away from any sort of conspiracy.
Put another way. Take a personal liberty away in one swoop and people will complain. Slowly erode it over a period of decades and the 'shortsighted' among us will say "it is just a little cut, get over it".
Okay, then why are the folks who are so worried about the erosion of the 2nd amendment often the ones who are willing to let the 1st amendment be eroded?