Thank you for your apology, and I do respect you for not waffling when I referred to you as elitist. I'm sorry that I don't have time for a lengthy reply, but I will respond to your point about the correlation between gun control and violence. To quote myself from a different, sibling thread, "I suspect that factors such as income distribution and age distribution play a role. If I had the time I would do some regression analysis on this." I was referring to the causes of violence in societies. I suspect that a large gap between rich and poor, as well as a generally younger populace, are correlated with violence. Moreover, violence data tends to be skewed by very violent cities or regions. Note how the murder rate per capita in Scotland skews the figure for the U.K. Similarly, U.S. cities with higher concentrations of gangs skew the violence rate for all of the U.S.
Hopefully our difference on this matter won't prevent good conversation in the future.
I was pleasantly surprised to read your apology, which I gladly accept. Perhaps such a thing is too uncommon on slashdot.
You are correct about the murder rates. I suppose the question then becomes, is this due to gun ownership or is there something that make different societies more or less violent? While saying that the U.S. murder rate is 5 times that of the U.K. certainly grabs one's attention, I wonder if there are not other factors. For example, the murder rates in several other countries far exceed that of the U.S. I suspect that factors such as income distribution and age distribution play a role. If I had the time I would do some regression analysis on this.
I was about to submit this, but saw something kind of interesting. If you believe Wikipedia, the U.K. murder rate is now 2.03 per 100,000 people and the U.S. murder rate is 5.7. So now the ratio is less than 3, not that a murder rate os 5.7 is something to be proud of. (Reference.)
I see you need some context. The post I was replying to suggested that the availability of guns led to a violent culture. I cited a culture that has few guns and described the violence I encountered there. I, too, would take my chances against a knife or bat over a gun, but my point was that violence isn't a result of guns.
And? That's a lot more common in the US than in Britian. So, because I have anecdotal evidence of someone speeding, there shouldn't be traffic laws?
WTF? I was showing that outlawing guns does not remove them from the hands of criminals. They were still available to people in England even though owning, manufacturing, or selling them is illegal. What are you on about?
You fail to address how making small arms legal now aids any hypotheical revolution.
I never suggested they should be made legal in places where they are not currently. I did suggest that countries with an armed populace have a check against government abuses.
As you admit, for such action to be successful, explosives will have to be illicitly manufactured.
No, I did not admit that. I only suggested explosives would likely be manufactured illicitly, not that they would be needed. It seems everyone has a different concept of what resistance against governments entails. But to say that guns only wouldn't be effective and thus we shouldn't have them is bizarre. Let's agree to disagree here. I'll keep my guns, you don't buy any. Then if a day comes that the populace must take up arms, I'll be sure not to help you defend yourself. M'kay?
I intend to, though it appears going with a tickless kernel isn't as significant a power saving move as proper drive management, turning off USB, etc. The laptop is a work laptop that I inherited from my predecessor, and it may be that the battery is getting a bit old. It has a Windows partition that I've booted into twice. I should see how long a full charge lasts with Windows booted, though I would need a shower afterwards;-)
That is a little disengenuous. A weapon is a weapon. A gun makes a great defensive weapon.
with a bit of planning you can avoid orders of magnitude more than without.
The first assault occurred in a decent neighborhood. I was sitting in a car at the time I saw the guy coming. The second time was in a less reputable neighborhood. Funny that the first time, people just came out into their gardens and watched. The second time people intervened. It's almost like people in the nice neighborhood live in ivory towers;-)
restricting guns is a step that can reduce violent crime rates, and...is successful on average... when numbers don't lie (only statistics do...) and the numbers do say that restricting access to guns tends to decrease violent crime rates.
I keep hearing this, but no one will provide a reference. Do you have a source? No. That's OK. I do. Here [pdf] is an amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court created by "CRIMINOLOGISTS, SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, OTHER DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS AND THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE" (emphasis as taken from the brief) regarding the Washington D.C. gun ban. Here are a couple of choice sentences. "There Is No Evidence that the District's Gun Prohibitions Have Produced Good Results." And, "Following the enactment of the District's handgun ban, the District has not been made safer--indeed, the District has only become an even more dangerous place to live."
You're right that some criminals will always have access to guns. But this is focussing on a small piece of the puzzle...
You see, this is why I believe you and I view the world so differently. If "some" criminals will have access to guns, wouldn't it stand to reason that they are the violent kind? How does only allowing violent criminals to have guns reduce violence? Yes, there are incidents of gun violence committed by people who have never been criminals. Those instances are far fewer (as in not a significant fraction) than the acts of violence committed by violent criminals. Certainly, they do not constitute a "small piece of the puzzle."
I rather doubt you have any experience in planning, organising or executing an insurgency
Then you are wrong. An insurgency is just one kind of military operation, and I do have knowledge of "planning, organising (and) executing" those.
the government in the US (and most Western countries) keeps an extremely tight grip on explosives
Might I suggest taking an O-Chem series. I lectured once about how to create an anti-personell bomb using homemade explosives. It isn't rocket science. In fact, one of the old reasons certain people cited to justify "filtering" the Internet was the easy access to information on creating drugs and explosives.
Do you seriously believe that any insurgency in any Western country has a serious chance of success? If you do, then we may as well argue that instead, because it is pretty obvious to me that the answer is no; it has zero chance of success
Again, please note the difference between a revolution and a power check against a police state. I doubt the masses could carry out an armed revolution, but I am quite certain the masses could keep an oppressive government at bay.
most of the serious gun users are also bred to be strongly nationalistic and jingoistic, and all it takes is a right-wing government to come to power to make them happy. I did say most.
Senator Obama, is that you? Probably not, but that kind of elitist speak is right out of his playbook. You seem a reasonable individual, despite our disparte views. I hope you are not as elitist as that makes you appear.
Hence the second amendment is worthless today for the purpose of keeping the government in check or preventing a police state.
I can see we see the world about as differently as two people could.
Do you really think that should the need arise for citizens to practice violence against their government, they would give a second thought to what is legal or not in their production of weapons? Then to make the leap that an insurgency only armed with firearms has "zero chance of success" and that the second amendment cannot keep the government in check is just silly. Your post reads as though you have no experience in any of these things.
I lived in England for a time, and I can assure you that the lack of guns does not decrease violent crime. Criminals still had access to guns, and much of the violence is carried out with knifes or bats. One friend of mine over there saw automatic weapons being dealt out of the trunk of a car. Another watched a man get bludgeoned to death with a cricket bat. I was physically assaulted twice (and near it a few other times). I should add that the first time I kicked the crap out of the guy, the second time several people showed up and stopped things before I could retaliate.
Forgive me for saying so, but everyone I've ever known that supports gun control is of the "ivory tower" type. They view crime statistics, but have no concept of how people live. They make silly assumptions about the criminal mind and muse about the how the world should be. They have typically lived comfortable lives. They dabble in politics as dilettants. Should I believe this doesn't describe you?
Before I clicked "Reply to This" I had a debate within myself, with the central question being, "Do I really want to get drawn into this?" I don't, but there must be something inside me that does because I obviously clicked the button. So now that I have, please consider the following
Insurgency or guerilla war cannot be as easily classified as you try to make it. Iraq: mortars, IEDs; Afghanistan (Soviet Era): RPGs, small arms; Vietnam (specifically, the Viet Cong): small arms, grenades used in booby traps; Colombia: small arms.
Symmetric battles don't occur often during insurgencies. One side will look and act like the local populace, the occupying force will side will stand out. Veteran insurgents know to hit and run (and disappear). Read Sun Tzu for more on this.
You may find the claim of firearm ownership dubious, but I doubt troops invading $TARGET_COUNTRY feel the same way.
Gun ownership and skill in bomb-making are not mutually exclusive.
I made no reference to "revolution"; there is a difference between revolution and prevention of a police state.
I am a former Marine. I don't say that to brag, only to show that I might have some knowledge of the things I say.
When I see screwy modding like this, I view it as evidence of my theory that some AI experiment at MIT or possible DoD has gone awry and that some program has actually managed to register a/. account. It is not yet advanced enough to know the nuances of human languages (especially English), so it moderates (when given mod points) as best it can.
Ooh! Ooh! I just came up with a corollary. The meta-mod system was developed by CmdrTaco to aid in training said AI program. It's a conspiracy!
What exactly does 3 offer me that makes it a better choice than 1 or 2?
1. The opportunity to work with a group with similar interests to your own.
2. A chance to better your skill by viewing others' approaches.
3. l33t h4X0r status (kidding).
Certainly, you and I are in the position of needing money more than the less tangible but very real benefits of working on FOSS. I acknowledge that. But I wish to reinforce my point that not everyone is motivated in the same way. Please don't make the mistake of assuming everyone is like you.
What motivates you is obviously different than what motivates FOSS developers. As you say,
My point is, a lot more developers would write OSS if they had financial incentive.
I urge you to download and listen to this interview with Dan Ariely from MIT wherein he describes his experiments into what motivates people. FOSS is discussed at length and his conclusions are very different from yours.
Nor was the one dropped on Nagasaki (Fat Man). In fact, an H-bomb has never been used in war. (For the pedantic, "used" doesn't mean proliferation during the cold war. It means intentionally killing people.)
Wouldn't that be the logical equivalent of chair != (discuss || frisbee), or for those who speak English, a chair is neither discus (n)or frisbee. Your version is the same: a chair is not a discus and a chair is not a frisbee.
Great. Now I'm going to have to call Red Hat and tell them their profits aren't real. I always hate to make that call. Just last week I had to tell Steve Ballmer that chair!=discus||frisbee. He was pissed.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely all you have to do is use an OS for which writing viruses are pointless.
I think one metric alone could call this election:
1. If |age of candidate1 - age of candidate2| > 20, younger candidate gets elected (yes, yes, Reagan was an old codger).
Thank you for your apology, and I do respect you for not waffling when I referred to you as elitist. I'm sorry that I don't have time for a lengthy reply, but I will respond to your point about the correlation between gun control and violence. To quote myself from a different, sibling thread, "I suspect that factors such as income distribution and age distribution play a role. If I had the time I would do some regression analysis on this." I was referring to the causes of violence in societies. I suspect that a large gap between rich and poor, as well as a generally younger populace, are correlated with violence. Moreover, violence data tends to be skewed by very violent cities or regions. Note how the murder rate per capita in Scotland skews the figure for the U.K. Similarly, U.S. cities with higher concentrations of gangs skew the violence rate for all of the U.S.
Hopefully our difference on this matter won't prevent good conversation in the future.
I was pleasantly surprised to read your apology, which I gladly accept. Perhaps such a thing is too uncommon on slashdot.
You are correct about the murder rates. I suppose the question then becomes, is this due to gun ownership or is there something that make different societies more or less violent? While saying that the U.S. murder rate is 5 times that of the U.K. certainly grabs one's attention, I wonder if there are not other factors. For example, the murder rates in several other countries far exceed that of the U.S. I suspect that factors such as income distribution and age distribution play a role. If I had the time I would do some regression analysis on this.
I was about to submit this, but saw something kind of interesting. If you believe Wikipedia, the U.K. murder rate is now 2.03 per 100,000 people and the U.S. murder rate is 5.7. So now the ratio is less than 3, not that a murder rate os 5.7 is something to be proud of. (Reference.)
You scare me a little, but I would put you in my "friends" list if I bothered with that sort of thing.
I suggest you look up the definition of "small arms." Yes, it includes assault rifles.
How do you get rootkits for it if it runs Ubuntu?
WTF? I was showing that outlawing guns does not remove them from the hands of criminals. They were still available to people in England even though owning, manufacturing, or selling them is illegal. What are you on about?
I never suggested they should be made legal in places where they are not currently. I did suggest that countries with an armed populace have a check against government abuses. No, I did not admit that. I only suggested explosives would likely be manufactured illicitly, not that they would be needed. It seems everyone has a different concept of what resistance against governments entails. But to say that guns only wouldn't be effective and thus we shouldn't have them is bizarre. Let's agree to disagree here. I'll keep my guns, you don't buy any. Then if a day comes that the populace must take up arms, I'll be sure not to help you defend yourself. M'kay?
I intend to, though it appears going with a tickless kernel isn't as significant a power saving move as proper drive management, turning off USB, etc. The laptop is a work laptop that I inherited from my predecessor, and it may be that the battery is getting a bit old. It has a Windows partition that I've booted into twice. I should see how long a full charge lasts with Windows booted, though I would need a shower afterwards ;-)
Do you really think that should the need arise for citizens to practice violence against their government, they would give a second thought to what is legal or not in their production of weapons? Then to make the leap that an insurgency only armed with firearms has "zero chance of success" and that the second amendment cannot keep the government in check is just silly. Your post reads as though you have no experience in any of these things.
I lived in England for a time, and I can assure you that the lack of guns does not decrease violent crime. Criminals still had access to guns, and much of the violence is carried out with knifes or bats. One friend of mine over there saw automatic weapons being dealt out of the trunk of a car. Another watched a man get bludgeoned to death with a cricket bat. I was physically assaulted twice (and near it a few other times). I should add that the first time I kicked the crap out of the guy, the second time several people showed up and stopped things before I could retaliate.
Forgive me for saying so, but everyone I've ever known that supports gun control is of the "ivory tower" type. They view crime statistics, but have no concept of how people live. They make silly assumptions about the criminal mind and muse about the how the world should be. They have typically lived comfortable lives. They dabble in politics as dilettants. Should I believe this doesn't describe you?
Totally inadequate.
Yes, it's like morning coffee for slashdotters.
When I see screwy modding like this, I view it as evidence of my theory that some AI experiment at MIT or possible DoD has gone awry and that some program has actually managed to register a /. account. It is not yet advanced enough to know the nuances of human languages (especially English), so it moderates (when given mod points) as best it can.
Ooh! Ooh! I just came up with a corollary. The meta-mod system was developed by CmdrTaco to aid in training said AI program. It's a conspiracy!
2. A chance to better your skill by viewing others' approaches.
3. l33t h4X0r status (kidding).
Certainly, you and I are in the position of needing money more than the less tangible but very real benefits of working on FOSS. I acknowledge that. But I wish to reinforce my point that not everyone is motivated in the same way. Please don't make the mistake of assuming everyone is like you.
Counterexamples: Doctors without borders (doctors), Pro Bono (lawyers), Jesus (carpenters) [sorry, couldn't resist].
Giving away something for free != holding the gift as valueless. I have rarely seen someone miss a concept as thoroughly as you have.
Nor was the one dropped on Nagasaki (Fat Man). In fact, an H-bomb has never been used in war. (For the pedantic, "used" doesn't mean proliferation during the cold war. It means intentionally killing people.)
Wouldn't that be the logical equivalent of chair != (discuss || frisbee), or for those who speak English, a chair is neither discus (n)or frisbee. Your version is the same: a chair is not a discus and a chair is not a frisbee.
Great. Now I'm going to have to call Red Hat and tell them their profits aren't real. I always hate to make that call. Just last week I had to tell Steve Ballmer that chair!=discus||frisbee. He was pissed.
Look, now you are just contradicting everything. He came here for an argument.