just a few bottles of household bleach and suddenly you can blow up buildings, that's all crap,
Maybe not blow up a building, but bleach can easily be used in conjunction with ammonia to make deadly chlorine gas.
the defence of the home/person against thieves who could turn violent is a lead to the basic level of gun protection in many homes. (So the thieves themselves have to carry guns, et al mini-firearms race begins.
If this "mini-firearms race" you speak of really exists, I'd like to see some articles about street muggers holding people up with bazookas.
I've been reading a lot of disturbing stuff on slashdot today, there are many posters that either believe the movies are real and you can kill many with a pocket knife.. or that it's just a trivial matter to fashion an improvided explosive out of chewing gum and toothpicks.
Strawman. I never said anything about making explosives with chewing gum or toothpicks.
Also unilateral gun restriction of the jewish is unrelated to gun laws that effect everyone.
I'd like very much to see a reasoned explanation of why you feel it's unrelated.
Guns aren't going to keep you safe from a corrupt government.. they're certainly not working right now.
Agreed. Guns won't protect you from all levels of corruption in government. That said, it really depends on what kind of corruption we're talking about. If you're just talking about bribes, under the table deals, pork-barrel spending, or even fake foreign wars for personal profit, individual ownership of firearms would probably have no perceptible influence in such matters. The one area where it might make a difference is when said government reaches such a level of corruption that it begins to consider the cost-benefit of going door-to-door and exterminating large segments of its' citizens. The goal here is to make the cost sufficiently high as to nullify any possible benefit to such an organization (Incidentally this is why the reference to the Jewish Holocaust above is relevant).
There are less guns in public there than in small towns in Texas and Virginia.
It's not common for people to be carrying out in the open in the U.S., either. However, I think that someone carrying a full-auto military-style rifle slung on their back in a grocery store would probably generate some 911 calls in either Texas or Virginia, though people don't appear particularly alarmed in this photo from Switzerland.
There is this wide belief that removing guns will somehow make the community more susceptible to external gun attacks. (This is FUD, and extensively disproven in other countries.)
Link to at least one of the many the extensive studies that disprove this, please? Certainly the Jewish community in Germany of the 1930's and 40's suffered under all kinds of external attack after they were forbidden to own firearms.
which aren't required to hunt deer for example.
Who cares about deer hunting? Worrying about "hunting rights" (whatever that is) did nothing to protect these 33 students. This is about the right to self defense without being forced to depend on an ineffective, and/or inept police department.
The strongest upside to this is that you can't massacre a crowd with a knife in the same way that you can a semi-automatic weapon.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Petty thieves aren't the ones carrying out massacres, anyway. Someone bent on killing a large quantity of people obviously wouldn't choose a knife. You can't, however, pass enough legislation to outlaw all possible combinations of household chemicals that could conceivably be used to make Improvised Explosive Devices. The killer at VT committed suicide afterwards, anyway. He could have just as easily strapped a few IED's to his body and blown up a few floors of building instead of shooting off firearms -- the result would be the same.
This contrasts to a situation where excessive weaponry is freely commerced, where an enraged person has easy access to a high-end weapon, which allows them to quickly carry out a massacre.
Sorry, but your argument completely falls apart when one considers the gun politics of Switzerland, where large quantities of people have ready access to *full-auto* weapons, and yet the kind of carnage you allude to is not common. Clearly there is something else wrong with current American culture other than availability of firearms.
The solution isn't to have MORE guns, but to have LESS. Instead, have MORE SECURITY at these buildings.
Weapon detectors,
This would have changed nothing. His weapon needed no detection. That he had it out firing already made the fact that he was armed obvious.
security officers,
Agreed. More people present that were trained in security would have made a difference -- something like, say, more trained Concealed Carry Permit holders.
people KNOWN to be safe with guns.
CCP holders have to pass rigorous training very akin to the kind of training undergone by "security officers".
What do you mean prohibition is not effective?... Killing people is lifestyle choice in your country.
The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in the U.S. are a direct result of the never-ending drug war (a.k.a. prohibition). Outside of known gang controlled "war zones" such things are actually quite rare.
if there were metal detectors situated in every dorm and class building, as well as security cameras everywhere, and mandatory check-in locations, that might have prevented the situation.
How exactly would a metal detector stop someone like this? He could have just as easily shot his way through the detection area. Detecting that he had a gun was not an issue. The fact that he had it out firing it already made that apparent. Somehow I doubt this guy would have stopped shooting long enough for anyone to wand him.
Could anybody enlighten me as to why people want to carry guns at all?
Sure. So that stories like this could end like this, instead.
Why do the police "want to carry guns at all?" Maybe they think they can use them for their own protection. If guns are really useless for protecting oneself, then surely police and military would stop using them immediately. What you're really doing when calling the police to help you is essentially outsourcing/delegating your personal security to someone else. Some people simply feel that this is a function that they are capable of providing for themselves in a more effective way. Many civilians with Concealed Carry Permits are ex-police, btw. In order to obtain a CCP one has to pass rigorous training and many retrain frequently at local ranges. The police are not necessarily better trained, nor more trustworthy, anyway.
If you take anything away from this tragedy, maybe it should be that you can't trust others to defend your security with the same enthusiasm with which they defend their own. The police were completely ineffective throughout this debacle even though they apparently had around 2 hours warning before the majority of the of the carnage occurred.
which is why Baghdad is one of the safest places on Earth, as opposed tho those crazy gun-control places like Sweden.
Likely there are other, more significant, cultural factors influencing the large disparity of safety between Baghdad and Sweden. It's possible, for example, that local religious attitudes and a certain foreign occupying force might be having some slight influence. Were this not so, how could one explain a peaceful, yet heavily armed, society like Switzerland, where carrying full-auto weapons in a grocery store won't elicit even the slightest surprise?
Don't forget that it includes PVP DRM, meaning Microsoft can compell your monitor not to show video unless it's sure that you've bought a comercial video disc.
I just can't believe how brazen they've become. All these new "features" are really bugs. DRM, Trusted computing, first-born demanding EULA's, annoying swirling, flashing, transparent interfaces -- I don't want any of that! They seem to be relying entirely on their marketing department this go around.
Then the last thing left that MS had promised for Vista just got cut. After cutting WinFS, Monad, IE7 (not exclusive to Vista, anyway), etc. the only thing left that it had going for it was supposedly going to be the tighter security. Well, I guess you still have a flashy (read: annoying) new gui to look forward to.
When these systems are vulnerable, it's just as easy for ANYONE to take advantage of that fact. Not one party or one political stripe.
When these systems are vulnerable, it's the most easy for whatever sufficiently-motivated group has the most resources and funding to take advantage of that fact. Not one party or one political stripe.
Re:one time at computer camp...
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 1
real nerds dont code html by hand, they write a script to code the html for them
*REAL* nerds code their own C compiler in assembly, with which they compile their own operating system, on which they code and compile their own scripting language, with which they write a script to code html for them.
I've thought about this a bit, and I think "free software" in English should change its' name to "Freedomware". It satisfies the need to keep freedom in the name (unlike "open source") and removes the confusion over the dual meaning of "free". Incidentally, there is no problem in other languages like Spanish where "software libre" is instantly understood.
Some people (including many in the church I attend) will argue that children raised in a two-parent heterosexual home are more psychologically healthy than those who are not.
I see. So you're saying that the typical American home in which domestic violence runs rampany is the best place to raise a child.
This is an obvious strawman. The OP never said anything of the kind. He clearly said "some people" and further specified that this includes "many in the church I attend". He never said he, himself, felt this way. Even if he did, stating a preference for 2-parent heterosexual couples does not necessarily imply a preference for the abusive ones. That he would prefer abuse from a heterosexual couple to a caring homosexual one was entirely your invention. This would be like saying: "Since you are an atheist, you're obviously saying that Pol Pot's extermination of Buddhist monks, westerners, and people wearing glasses was the best thing since sliced bread."
The number one problem we have today that gets in the way of world peace is religion.
Because anti-religious regimes of the past have had so much success with achieving lasting peace. Keep looking. The solution to human violence is orthogonal to religion.
Slashdot Mirror
You think? Try linking to some hard examples, next time. Unbacked thoughts are cheap.
Wrong. It is quite real.
Maybe not blow up a building, but bleach can easily be used in conjunction with ammonia to make deadly chlorine gas.
If this "mini-firearms race" you speak of really exists, I'd like to see some articles about street muggers holding people up with bazookas.
Strawman. I never said anything about making explosives with chewing gum or toothpicks.
I'd like very much to see a reasoned explanation of why you feel it's unrelated.
Agreed. Guns won't protect you from all levels of corruption in government. That said, it really depends on what kind of corruption we're talking about. If you're just talking about bribes, under the table deals, pork-barrel spending, or even fake foreign wars for personal profit, individual ownership of firearms would probably have no perceptible influence in such matters. The one area where it might make a difference is when said government reaches such a level of corruption that it begins to consider the cost-benefit of going door-to-door and exterminating large segments of its' citizens. The goal here is to make the cost sufficiently high as to nullify any possible benefit to such an organization (Incidentally this is why the reference to the Jewish Holocaust above is relevant).
It's not common for people to be carrying out in the open in the U.S., either. However, I think that someone carrying a full-auto military-style rifle slung on their back in a grocery store would probably generate some 911 calls in either Texas or Virginia, though people don't appear particularly alarmed in this photo from Switzerland.
Link to at least one of the many the extensive studies that disprove this, please? Certainly the Jewish community in Germany of the 1930's and 40's suffered under all kinds of external attack after they were forbidden to own firearms.
Who cares about deer hunting? Worrying about "hunting rights" (whatever that is) did nothing to protect these 33 students. This is about the right to self defense without being forced to depend on an ineffective, and/or inept police department.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Petty thieves aren't the ones carrying out massacres, anyway. Someone bent on killing a large quantity of people obviously wouldn't choose a knife. You can't, however, pass enough legislation to outlaw all possible combinations of household chemicals that could conceivably be used to make Improvised Explosive Devices. The killer at VT committed suicide afterwards, anyway. He could have just as easily strapped a few IED's to his body and blown up a few floors of building instead of shooting off firearms -- the result would be the same.
Sorry, but your argument completely falls apart when one considers the gun politics of Switzerland, where large quantities of people have ready access to *full-auto* weapons, and yet the kind of carnage you allude to is not common. Clearly there is something else wrong with current American culture other than availability of firearms.
You mean places known for extreme violence like Switzerland?
Link to relevant data, please? Don't preach to me about availability of weapons, because Switzerland already provides counter-example.
This would have changed nothing. His weapon needed no detection. That he had it out firing already made the fact that he was armed obvious.
Agreed. More people present that were trained in security would have made a difference -- something like, say, more trained Concealed Carry Permit holders.
CCP holders have to pass rigorous training very akin to the kind of training undergone by "security officers".
The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in the U.S. are a direct result of the never-ending drug war (a.k.a. prohibition). Outside of known gang controlled "war zones" such things are actually quite rare.
Guess again.
How exactly would a metal detector stop someone like this? He could have just as easily shot his way through the detection area. Detecting that he had a gun was not an issue. The fact that he had it out firing it already made that apparent. Somehow I doubt this guy would have stopped shooting long enough for anyone to wand him.
Sure. So that stories like this could end like this, instead.
Why do the police "want to carry guns at all?" Maybe they think they can use them for their own protection. If guns are really useless for protecting oneself, then surely police and military would stop using them immediately. What you're really doing when calling the police to help you is essentially outsourcing/delegating your personal security to someone else. Some people simply feel that this is a function that they are capable of providing for themselves in a more effective way. Many civilians with Concealed Carry Permits are ex-police, btw. In order to obtain a CCP one has to pass rigorous training and many retrain frequently at local ranges. The police are not necessarily better trained, nor more trustworthy, anyway.
If you take anything away from this tragedy, maybe it should be that you can't trust others to defend your security with the same enthusiasm with which they defend their own. The police were completely ineffective throughout this debacle even though they apparently had around 2 hours warning before the majority of the of the carnage occurred.
Likely there are other, more significant, cultural factors influencing the large disparity of safety between Baghdad and Sweden. It's possible, for example, that local religious attitudes and a certain foreign occupying force might be having some slight influence. Were this not so, how could one explain a peaceful, yet heavily armed, society like Switzerland, where carrying full-auto weapons in a grocery store won't elicit even the slightest surprise?
Paying to see to it that your competition is destroyed is not a waste of money.
I just can't believe how brazen they've become. All these new "features" are really bugs. DRM, Trusted computing, first-born demanding EULA's, annoying swirling, flashing, transparent interfaces -- I don't want any of that! They seem to be relying entirely on their marketing department this go around.
Then the last thing left that MS had promised for Vista just got cut. After cutting WinFS, Monad, IE7 (not exclusive to Vista, anyway), etc. the only thing left that it had going for it was supposedly going to be the tighter security. Well, I guess you still have a flashy (read: annoying) new gui to look forward to.
housing bubble.
For those of you that don't think this can affect the economy across the board, just remember the tech bubble from a few years ago.
When these systems are vulnerable, it's the most easy for whatever sufficiently-motivated group has the most resources and funding to take advantage of that fact. Not one party or one political stripe.
Fixed that for ya.
</paperclip>
*REAL* nerds code their own C compiler in assembly, with which they compile their own operating system, on which they code and compile their own scripting language, with which they write a script to code html for them.
I've thought about this a bit, and I think "free software" in English should change its' name to "Freedomware". It satisfies the need to keep freedom in the name (unlike "open source") and removes the confusion over the dual meaning of "free". Incidentally, there is no problem in other languages like Spanish where "software libre" is instantly understood.
I know you're joking, but maybe that's actually not such a bad idea.
OS X is *nix.
Hey! Some here resemble that remark. :-)
This is an obvious strawman. The OP never said anything of the kind. He clearly said "some people" and further specified that this includes "many in the church I attend". He never said he, himself, felt this way. Even if he did, stating a preference for 2-parent heterosexual couples does not necessarily imply a preference for the abusive ones. That he would prefer abuse from a heterosexual couple to a caring homosexual one was entirely your invention. This would be like saying: "Since you are an atheist, you're obviously saying that Pol Pot's extermination of Buddhist monks, westerners, and people wearing glasses was the best thing since sliced bread."
Because anti-religious regimes of the past have had so much success with achieving lasting peace. Keep looking. The solution to human violence is orthogonal to religion.
About a year and a half ago, actually. Both articles talk about the same University of Utah study. Somehow it's still news, apparently.