"The 100-200 watt idle numbers are wasteful, lets get this down to 10-20 watts."
Sorry dude, there are a lot of brilliant minds in the semiconductor industry working on this, but it's a perpetual challenge. The problem you described with the static power dissipation is the natural result of shrinking device geometries. As you scale down the physical sizes of the devices, they dissipate more power just by means of being turned on (i.e. whether they are switching or not).
It would take a major innovation in device fabrication or power management to get tens of millions of transistors manufactured in a 65nm (or smaller) process down to 10-20 Watts of static power consumption. You could probably make a few million $ and possibly win a Nobel prize if you can figure that one out.
"Human beings kill themselves, for a variety of reasons. What that article demonstrates is nothing more than normal adolescent social interaction. That this kid couldn't handle it is not a problem for the rest of us, but it was obviously a problem for him."
I'm not calling for laws to address cyber-bullying, just pointing out why it could be seen as a problem. What I'd really like to see is a more comprehensive effort to address bullying in general.
I respect your opinion, but what happens when one of these corner cases decides to kill himself and take his tormentors along with him? Next time there is Columbine type incident, you know that certain people are going to start with the typical BS, demanding gun control and blaming video games and heavy metal music. When that happens, I expect you to be in the forefront, describing how the kids were simply corner cases that couldn't handle "normal adolescent social interaction", and that the rest of society doesn't need to change any laws or regulations in response. Deal?
I did RTFA, or more like "skimmed through it" before my comment.
With a more careful read however, I noticed that they explicitly called this a "prototype". Not many universities have their own wafer fabs, so it makes sense. More importantly, they didn't give all of the specs on the processors used. If they're small enough, maybe this could be implemented on a single chip.
Looks to me like it's a "supercomputer" on a PCB? They wired a bunch of processors together on a circuit board(the size of a license plate). That isn't a "chip". How about SOB?
If it's just people calling each other names online from long distances, you're right, what's the big deal? I'd suggest that it gets "BAD" when we're talking about KIDS, and when the "cyber bullying" is combined with ritualistic verbal and physical abuse. Check out this link.
There may be "laws" in place to deal with "death threats", but I think that bullying is a serious problem that has been largely ignored in the nation's schools. Would you suggest that a 11-year old is a "pussy" and needs to grow some "thick skin" because a bunch of much older kids decide to bully him/her systematically over months or years? In a case like that, the cyber aspect of it is just "piling on" to an existing problem, and it could be the thing that pushes someone over the edge.
"You see, we could afford to build all that stuff . .."
Considering the fact that we haven't paid off any of the national debt we accumulated in those days, I think the question of whether or not we could afford it remains to be seen. It will be rather ironic if, after congratulating ourselves for 20 years about "winning" the cold war, we end up bankrupting ourselves due to debt financed military spending.
"I thought the US had abolished slavery. Why on earth does anyone put up with that??? Is the job market really that bad?"
I think this is usually a case of being interested and engrossed in what one is doing. It's not like they are serving burgers and fries, or screwing the caps on tubes of toothpaste. From an outsider's perspective, it certainly seems like Google has got some cool and exciting projects going on, and a fairly unique business climate. If you like where you work, enjoy what you're working on, and have a good salary and benefits(especially incentive ones), why NOT spend your time working? Working a long day on something that you find interesting beats the hell out of working a short day and then going home to numb your brain with sports and sit-coms.
" probably would have been" , means it's ambiguous. So you do see the ambiguity. You're guessing. That's ambiguous. See how easy that is?"
LOL. If you have trouble dissociating two separate ideas in a single post, please delete the last sentence that I wrote and then try to come up with a sensible response. I was absolutely clear in asserting that the 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous and that I don't see any ambiguity in the meaning given the historical context in which it was written.
Suggesting that the wording "probably would have been" different if the Founding Fathers had known about nuclear weapons is my personal conjecture. Although it's obviously not something I can "prove", I don't even consider that statement (the full sentence, not the 4 words you took out of it) to be "ambiguous".
I agree that MS, and any other game company is well within their rights to sell the game with whatever platform/OS support they desire. If the game software actually requires Vista, so be it.
Are you also suggesting that the hackers who figured out a way to install and use this game on a different OS should not be allowed to do so? What laws govern this? Do you think such a prohibition depends entirely on the terms of the EULA? i.e. It's OK to make the game run on another OS as long as the EULA doesn't specifically state that you cannot?
A clause in a license agreement which states "You may only play this game if you have also purchased Windows Vista" should be illegal. If there are no technical limitations on playing this game on another OS, or if someone figures out how to overcome the limitations and run it on Windows '95, why should MS care? It can only serve to increase game sales. If they were a 3rd party game company, they would applaud the fact that somebody figured out a way to open up the market for their game without any additional expense to the company.
If MS wants to use their games to drive Vista sales, they should include a Vista upgrade with the game and charge an appropriate retail price.
". ..all someone needs to do is come up with a solution . . . for turning the bulk CO2 of the Venusian atmosphere into something else(perhaps hydrocarbons, carbon nanotubes . ..diamonds"
You mean that "all" we have to do is figure out how to turn CO2 gas into diamonds?
Sorry, I don't see the ambiguity you're referring to when this is placed in the proper historical context.
"It's obvious that the founding fathers did not envision us having personal nuclear warheads."
They didn't even envision the EXISTENCE of nuclear warheads, so that debate is completely irrelevant in terms of the wording or intent of the Second Amendment.
"the entire question is where is the line... when there IS NO LINE that is unambiguous in the amendment"
You're thinking in terms on a technological continuum that goes from, say a stone tipped spear to an ICBM. That continuum did not exist when the Second Amendment was written. I don't think there is any ambiguity in the fact that the INTENT of the Founding Fathers was for We, The People to have full access to state of the art military weapons (at the time, that meant muskets and cannons). So, in the historical context, there was no "LINE".
If nuclear weapons had been around in the 1700s, the Amendment probably would have been worded differently.
I'm probably going to feel dumb when I finally catch on, but I still don't see the incentive for Intel and HP to actively support this.
"Intel, HP, . ..want the PC/game console to take root in the livingroom"
Yes, I understand, but exactly how does this proposal advance that agenda?
FTA: ". . . amendment to the current copy protection license... would... prevent DVD playback without the DVD disk being present inside the drive."
Therefore, you are NOT allowed to copy all of the DVDs you own onto a computer hard drive for easy playback. This seems like a major dis-incevtive to using a PC as your home entertainment system. If you have to search through the shelves for the DVD you want to watch, then physically insert it into a machine anyway, what's the advantage of a PC vs. an ordinary DVD player? Certainly not expense.
I can see why the content providers, and companies like Pioneer who make regular DVD players are all for this. But, why would Intel, HP and companies that make PC-related hardware want to endorse something that restricts the use of computers for DVD view/playback?
"Sure. He's not breaking any laws. But it's perfectly legitimate to judge him."
"It is totally legitimate to look at Bryn and say "what a hypocritical putz." And in no way whatsoever is the system to blame."
Did I understand that correctly? You're claiming that the system is not to blame in ANY way whatsoever? If you really believe that, I think you should take a closer look at "the system". The MS case is the perfect example. The "system" is such that if you have money, the elected officials get their cut, or you suffer the consequences. No sane business person can ignore the threat that the government poses to their operations. I don't blame Google one bit! The ROOT of the blame is with those eligible voters that either refuse to vote, or continue to vote for Republicans and Democrats.
I don't blame Google one bit, but this whole story is a sickening testament to the blatant corruption afflicting this government.
"As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress."
When PAYING for access to elected officials is treated as business as usual by the press, without the slightest hint of disdain or outrage, it's a clear sign that the nation is in trouble. It's obvious that Google can and MUST (as a matter of business) rectify that situation by greasing a few palms and dropping some strategic campaign donations.
I suspected this all along, but it's equally appalling to know that it was Microsoft's failure to pay "protection money" that prompted the government anti-trust crackdown. Apparently, the message from DC is "play the big money politics game or suffer the consequences".
It's interesting that the mafia is always portrayed as evil for extorting protection money and running numbers games, when the government does the same damned thing in the guise of "campaign contributions" and "lotteries".
The way to end this cycle of corruption is to extract the money and the power from Washington. If this government was ~20% of its current size and focused on the core mission outlined in The Constitution, many of the issues related to big-money influence in DC would take care of themselves.
I don't see how you can use a "What If . .." scenario based on a past event, make some blind guesses about how other people might have responded in this hypothetical situation, and then contort your fantasy into an argument against the idea of law abiding citizens carrying firearms.
I accept your possible(but improbable) scenario as a suggestion that it would have been extremely bad judgment on the part of the ID theft victim to pull a gun in this particular situation. After that, your argument just devolves into foolishness.
Every time the question of liberalizing concealed weapons laws comes up, gun control nuts use these fantasies "Oh heavens, our streets will become like the wild West!" "Minor traffic accidents will end up as gun battles!" etc. etc. and they're proven wrong every time. Many former gun-control states have passed "Shall Issue" laws compelling the state governments to implement a permit system for concealed carry. One of the more notable ones was Florida in 1987.
"In Florida, for example, a murder rate that was 36% above the national average when carry reform went into effect in 1987, fell by 1991 to 4% below the national average."
No blood in the streets. No western movie shootouts. Just more evidence of the well documented deterrent effect of law abiding citizens empowered to defend themselves.
"Thankfully, many people don't see it that way, and have recognized the benefits of freedom, free access to information, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so on . .."
It's too bad that those people don't get together and create a sovereign nation where all of the citizens could enjoy those benefits.
I agree with your point about the firearm being an effective tool for killing, but the weapon is ONLY a tool. It is the ruthless intent and disrespect for human life of the person wielding it that makes it deadly.
" . . . guns are direcly responsible for, say, 80%-90% of the deaths in mass shootings."
Do you honestly BELIEVE that? Read those words a few times and really think about it for a minute. Guns are inanimate objects without free will or autonymous motives. Associating them with the concept of "responsibility" makes absolutely no sense. The person or people using the guns are responsible for 100% of the deaths in mass shootings. This isn't "glossing over" anything, it's a statement of fact.
Your translation is pretty much correct. This a logistical failure, not a privacy issue. We don't need to give up any more freedoms in the name of preventing another VA Tech.
Anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution is prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm. The key word is "involuntarily". In Cho's case, this was ordered by a judge. The court proceeding is already a matter of PUBLIC record. NPR's web site had a scanned copy of the documents 24 hours after the incident. There is no need to dig further. No need to disclose his personal history or invade the doctor(therapist?)-patient relationship.
The question is: Why wasn't this publicly available information entered into the NICS(National Instant Checks System) database? The only information required would be the person's name, with a checkmark in the box for "Involuntarily committed to a mental institution". Again, this information is already public, so I don't see why we need to modify any privacy laws.
" . ..because since everybody has a gun, the amount of burglars and rapists has so suddenly decreased."
You say that with sarcasm, but it's absolutely true, at least in the general vicinity. Invading the home of a potentially armed occupant is basically a suicide attempt. Pursuing a career as a mugger or rapist in a place where anyone could be carrying a weapon at any moment isn't exactly a recipe for success either.
" . . . your gun won't be much help when the burglar sneaks up on you at night"
Well, if that ever happens, I'd still prefer to be armed.
". ..maybe he'll shoot you through your window, or kill you in your car. With that in mind, sweet dreams."
So let me get this straight. A would-be burglar is going to buy a firearm and some night vision equipment, sneak onto the property, fire the weapon through the window attempting to kill everyone in my house, then break in and steal my stuff? In the other scenario, the premise is that some criminal is going to sneak up on me in my vehicle, shoot me(presumably while I'm parked so that it doesn't go crashing off the road when my body goes limp), drag my dead corpse out of the driver's seat, and then make off with my credit cards and a 2000 Subaru full of blood and bone fragments? Damn! I'm not going to sleep for a week worrying about that!
"Someone who is drunk and has a gun in his pocket, has a higher probability of shooting someone in a fight."
Agreed. A person with a firearm is more likely to discharge a firearm than a person that does not have a firearm.
" . ..average thugs and drunks who wouldn't be able to get a gun if it wasn't for the useless gun laws."
Being drunk isn't a crime, and legislation against material objects has proven to be practically useless. Do you REALLY think that a thug who is willing to commit a murder and risk extreme punishment is somehow going to be deterred by a gun control law?
I think that's the only one of your points that I agree with.
"you may argue that . . . criminals will always get guns anyway . . . That is all completely bullshit"
Drugs like cocaine, heroin and marijuana have been illegal for decades but that hasn't prevented millions of kilograms of these substances from being smuggled into the United States. If criminals can get illegal drugs, they can certainly get illegal firearms.
"I feel much safer walking down the street knowing that nobody around me is carrying any guns . .."
I'm sure that the would-be mugger, burglar or rapist shares your sense of security, knowing that all would-be victims are defenseless.
You mean like a law prohibiting a person that has been involuntarily committed to a mental health program from legally purchasing a firearm?
Exploiting this tragedy as an example of why we need more gun control is just ridiculous when we already have laws on the books which, if properly enforced, would have prevented it.
"It doesn't matter who uses the technique first: if you acknowledge it as valid against them, then it's valid against you."
Bullshit! I am a CITIZEN of this nation endowed with certain inalienable rights. The cops are agents of the GOVERNMENT which has only those powers explicitly granted to it.
Slashdot Mirror
"The 100-200 watt idle numbers are wasteful, lets get this down to 10-20 watts."
Sorry dude, there are a lot of brilliant minds in the semiconductor industry working on this, but it's a perpetual challenge. The problem you described with the static power dissipation is the natural result of shrinking device geometries. As you scale down the physical sizes of the devices, they dissipate more power just by means of being turned on (i.e. whether they are switching or not).
It would take a major innovation in device fabrication or power management to get tens of millions of transistors manufactured in a 65nm (or smaller) process down to 10-20 Watts of static power consumption. You could probably make a few million $ and possibly win a Nobel prize if you can figure that one out.
"Human beings kill themselves, for a variety of reasons. What that article demonstrates is nothing more than normal adolescent social interaction. That this kid couldn't handle it is not a problem for the rest of us, but it was obviously a problem for him."
I'm not calling for laws to address cyber-bullying, just pointing out why it could be seen as a problem. What I'd really like to see is a more comprehensive effort to address bullying in general.
I respect your opinion, but what happens when one of these corner cases decides to kill himself and take his tormentors along with him? Next time there is Columbine type incident, you know that certain people are going to start with the typical BS, demanding gun control and blaming video games and heavy metal music. When that happens, I expect you to be in the forefront, describing how the kids were simply corner cases that couldn't handle "normal adolescent social interaction", and that the rest of society doesn't need to change any laws or regulations in response. Deal?
I did RTFA, or more like "skimmed through it" before my comment.
With a more careful read however, I noticed that they explicitly called this a "prototype". Not many universities have their own wafer fabs, so it makes sense. More importantly, they didn't give all of the specs on the processors used. If they're small enough, maybe this could be implemented on a single chip.
Huh???
Looks to me like it's a "supercomputer" on a PCB? They wired a bunch of processors together on a circuit board(the size of a license plate). That isn't a "chip". How about SOB?
If it's just people calling each other names online from long distances, you're right, what's the big deal? I'd suggest that it gets "BAD" when we're talking about KIDS, and when the "cyber bullying" is combined with ritualistic verbal and physical abuse. Check out this link.
n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Patrick_Halliga
There may be "laws" in place to deal with "death threats", but I think that bullying is a serious problem that has been largely ignored in the nation's schools. Would you suggest that a 11-year old is a "pussy" and needs to grow some "thick skin" because a bunch of much older kids decide to bully him/her systematically over months or years? In a case like that, the cyber aspect of it is just "piling on" to an existing problem, and it could be the thing that pushes someone over the edge.
"You see, we could afford to build all that stuff . . ."
Considering the fact that we haven't paid off any of the national debt we accumulated in those days, I think the question of whether or not we could afford it remains to be seen. It will be rather ironic if, after congratulating ourselves for 20 years about "winning" the cold war, we end up bankrupting ourselves due to debt financed military spending.
"I thought the US had abolished slavery. Why on earth does anyone put up with that??? Is the job market really that bad?"
I think this is usually a case of being interested and engrossed in what one is doing. It's not like they are serving burgers and fries, or screwing the caps on tubes of toothpaste. From an outsider's perspective, it certainly seems like Google has got some cool and exciting projects going on, and a fairly unique business climate. If you like where you work, enjoy what you're working on, and have a good salary and benefits(especially incentive ones), why NOT spend your time working? Working a long day on something that you find interesting beats the hell out of working a short day and then going home to numb your brain with sports and sit-coms.
" probably would have been" , means it's ambiguous. So you do see the ambiguity. You're guessing. That's ambiguous. See how easy that is?"
LOL. If you have trouble dissociating two separate ideas in a single post, please delete the last sentence that I wrote and then try to come up with a sensible response. I was absolutely clear in asserting that the 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous and that I don't see any ambiguity in the meaning given the historical context in which it was written.
Suggesting that the wording "probably would have been" different if the Founding Fathers had known about nuclear weapons is my personal conjecture. Although it's obviously not something I can "prove", I don't even consider that statement (the full sentence, not the 4 words you took out of it) to be "ambiguous".
I agree that MS, and any other game company is well within their rights to sell the game with whatever platform/OS support they desire. If the game software actually requires Vista, so be it.
Are you also suggesting that the hackers who figured out a way to install and use this game on a different OS should not be allowed to do so? What laws govern this? Do you think such a prohibition depends entirely on the terms of the EULA? i.e. It's OK to make the game run on another OS as long as the EULA doesn't specifically state that you cannot?
A clause in a license agreement which states "You may only play this game if you have also purchased Windows Vista" should be illegal. If there are no technical limitations on playing this game on another OS, or if someone figures out how to overcome the limitations and run it on Windows '95, why should MS care? It can only serve to increase game sales. If they were a 3rd party game company, they would applaud the fact that somebody figured out a way to open up the market for their game without any additional expense to the company.
If MS wants to use their games to drive Vista sales, they should include a Vista upgrade with the game and charge an appropriate retail price.
". . .all someone needs to do is come up with a solution . . . for turning the bulk CO2 of the Venusian atmosphere into something else(perhaps hydrocarbons, carbon nanotubes . . .diamonds"
;-)
You mean that "all" we have to do is figure out how to turn CO2 gas into diamonds?
The phrase "Earth First" comes to mind.
Sorry, I don't see the ambiguity you're referring to when this is placed in the proper historical context.
"It's obvious that the founding fathers did not envision us having personal nuclear warheads."
They didn't even envision the EXISTENCE of nuclear warheads, so that debate is completely irrelevant in terms of the wording or intent of the Second Amendment.
"the entire question is where is the line... when there IS NO LINE that is unambiguous in the amendment"
You're thinking in terms on a technological continuum that goes from, say a stone tipped spear to an ICBM. That continuum did not exist when the Second Amendment was written. I don't think there is any ambiguity in the fact that the INTENT of the Founding Fathers was for We, The People to have full access to state of the art military weapons (at the time, that meant muskets and cannons). So, in the historical context, there was no "LINE".
If nuclear weapons had been around in the 1700s, the Amendment probably would have been worded differently.
" . . . repair a frozen refrigerator . . ."
Thaw it out?
I'm probably going to feel dumb when I finally catch on, but I still don't see the incentive for Intel and HP to actively support this.
.want the PC/game console to take root in the livingroom"
... would ... prevent DVD playback without the DVD disk being present inside the drive."
"Intel, HP, . .
Yes, I understand, but exactly how does this proposal advance that agenda?
FTA: ". . . amendment to the current copy protection license
Therefore, you are NOT allowed to copy all of the DVDs you own onto a computer hard drive for easy playback. This seems like a major dis-incevtive to using a PC as your home entertainment system. If you have to search through the shelves for the DVD you want to watch, then physically insert it into a machine anyway, what's the advantage of a PC vs. an ordinary DVD player? Certainly not expense.
"I pay for every single movie I have and I have yet to encounter a situation where I would need to use a "backed up" a movie"
Have you ever had a situation where you would need to use a backed up b movie?
Am I missing something?
I can see why the content providers, and companies like Pioneer who make regular DVD players are all for this. But, why would Intel, HP and companies that make PC-related hardware want to endorse something that restricts the use of computers for DVD view/playback?
"Sure. He's not breaking any laws. But it's perfectly legitimate to judge him."
"It is totally legitimate to look at Bryn and say "what a hypocritical putz." And in no way whatsoever is the system to blame."
Did I understand that correctly? You're claiming that the system is not to blame in ANY way whatsoever? If you really believe that, I think you should take a closer look at "the system". The MS case is the perfect example. The "system" is such that if you have money, the elected officials get their cut, or you suffer the consequences. No sane business person can ignore the threat that the government poses to their operations. I don't blame Google one bit! The ROOT of the blame is with those eligible voters that either refuse to vote, or continue to vote for Republicans and Democrats.
I don't blame Google one bit, but this whole story is a sickening testament to the blatant corruption afflicting this government.
"As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress."
When PAYING for access to elected officials is treated as business as usual by the press, without the slightest hint of disdain or outrage, it's a clear sign that the nation is in trouble. It's obvious that Google can and MUST (as a matter of business) rectify that situation by greasing a few palms and dropping some strategic campaign donations.
I suspected this all along, but it's equally appalling to know that it was Microsoft's failure to pay "protection money" that prompted the government anti-trust crackdown. Apparently, the message from DC is "play the big money politics game or suffer the consequences".
It's interesting that the mafia is always portrayed as evil for extorting protection money and running numbers games, when the government does the same damned thing in the guise of "campaign contributions" and "lotteries".
The way to end this cycle of corruption is to extract the money and the power from Washington. If this government was ~20% of its current size and focused on the core mission outlined in The Constitution, many of the issues related to big-money influence in DC would take care of themselves.
I don't see how you can use a "What If . . ." scenario based on a past event, make some blind guesses about how other people might have responded in this hypothetical situation, and then contort your fantasy into an argument against the idea of law abiding citizens carrying firearms.
t ml
I accept your possible(but improbable) scenario as a suggestion that it would have been extremely bad judgment on the part of the ID theft victim to pull a gun in this particular situation. After that, your argument just devolves into foolishness.
Every time the question of liberalizing concealed weapons laws comes up, gun control nuts use these fantasies "Oh heavens, our streets will become like the wild West!" "Minor traffic accidents will end up as gun battles!" etc. etc. and they're proven wrong every time. Many former gun-control states have passed "Shall Issue" laws compelling the state governments to implement a permit system for concealed carry. One of the more notable ones was Florida in 1987.
"In Florida, for example, a murder rate that was 36% above the national average when carry reform went into effect in 1987, fell by 1991 to 4% below the national average."
http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.h
No blood in the streets. No western movie shootouts. Just more evidence of the well documented deterrent effect of law abiding citizens empowered to defend themselves.
"Thankfully, many people don't see it that way, and have recognized the benefits of freedom, free access to information, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so on . . ."
It's too bad that those people don't get together and create a sovereign nation where all of the citizens could enjoy those benefits.
I agree with your point about the firearm being an effective tool for killing, but the weapon is ONLY a tool. It is the ruthless intent and disrespect for human life of the person wielding it that makes it deadly.
" . . . guns are direcly responsible for, say, 80%-90% of the deaths in mass shootings."
Do you honestly BELIEVE that? Read those words a few times and really think about it for a minute. Guns are inanimate objects without free will or autonymous motives. Associating them with the concept of "responsibility" makes absolutely no sense. The person or people using the guns are responsible for 100% of the deaths in mass shootings. This isn't "glossing over" anything, it's a statement of fact.
Your translation is pretty much correct. This a logistical failure, not a privacy issue. We don't need to give up any more freedoms in the name of preventing another VA Tech.
Anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution is prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm. The key word is "involuntarily". In Cho's case, this was ordered by a judge. The court proceeding is already a matter of PUBLIC record. NPR's web site had a scanned copy of the documents 24 hours after the incident. There is no need to dig further. No need to disclose his personal history or invade the doctor(therapist?)-patient relationship.
The question is: Why wasn't this publicly available information entered into the NICS(National Instant Checks System) database? The only information required would be the person's name, with a checkmark in the box for "Involuntarily committed to a mental institution". Again, this information is already public, so I don't see why we need to modify any privacy laws.
" . . .because since everybody has a gun, the amount of burglars and rapists has so suddenly decreased."
.maybe he'll shoot you through your window, or kill you in your car. With that in mind, sweet dreams."
.average thugs and drunks who wouldn't be able to get a gun if it wasn't for the useless gun laws."
You say that with sarcasm, but it's absolutely true, at least in the general vicinity. Invading the home of a potentially armed occupant is basically a suicide attempt. Pursuing a career as a mugger or rapist in a place where anyone could be carrying a weapon at any moment isn't exactly a recipe for success either.
" . . . your gun won't be much help when the burglar sneaks up on you at night"
Well, if that ever happens, I'd still prefer to be armed.
". .
So let me get this straight. A would-be burglar is going to buy a firearm and some night vision equipment, sneak onto the property, fire the weapon through the window attempting to kill everyone in my house, then break in and steal my stuff? In the other scenario, the premise is that some criminal is going to sneak up on me in my vehicle, shoot me(presumably while I'm parked so that it doesn't go crashing off the road when my body goes limp), drag my dead corpse out of the driver's seat, and then make off with my credit cards and a 2000 Subaru full of blood and bone fragments? Damn! I'm not going to sleep for a week worrying about that!
"Someone who is drunk and has a gun in his pocket, has a higher probability of shooting someone in a fight."
Agreed. A person with a firearm is more likely to discharge a firearm than a person that does not have a firearm.
" . .
Being drunk isn't a crime, and legislation against material objects has proven to be practically useless. Do you REALLY think that a thug who is willing to commit a murder and risk extreme punishment is somehow going to be deterred by a gun control law?
"I'm glad I'm not American."
."
I think that's the only one of your points that I agree with.
"you may argue that . . . criminals will always get guns anyway . . . That is all completely bullshit"
Drugs like cocaine, heroin and marijuana have been illegal for decades but that hasn't prevented millions of kilograms of these substances from being smuggled into the United States. If criminals can get illegal drugs, they can certainly get illegal firearms.
"I feel much safer walking down the street knowing that nobody around me is carrying any guns . .
I'm sure that the would-be mugger, burglar or rapist shares your sense of security, knowing that all would-be victims are defenseless.
"countries that have sane gun laws"
You mean like a law prohibiting a person that has been involuntarily committed to a mental health program from legally purchasing a firearm?
Exploiting this tragedy as an example of why we need more gun control is just ridiculous when we already have laws on the books which, if properly enforced, would have prevented it.
"It doesn't matter who uses the technique first: if you acknowledge it as valid against them, then it's valid against you."
Bullshit! I am a CITIZEN of this nation endowed with certain inalienable rights. The cops are agents of the GOVERNMENT which has only those powers explicitly granted to it.