Yeah, I couldn't believe he said that either. Apparently he's never seen Robin Hood. And besides, you can throw a knife.
I wasn't aware that Robin Hood carried a gun. Oh, and I wasn't aware that people in countries with stricter gun controls walked around with bows and arrows because they are the next best thing to guns.
Yes, you can throw a knife but you aren't going to hit much. With a gun you are pretty much guaranteed to hit something, and multiple time within a short space of time. It might not be what you wanted to hit but the net result is that someone has a much, much, much greater chance of being killed.
The knife has one thing going for it: it's silent. You fire a gun, your odds of your crime being noticed immediately are much higher.
They might have caught the guy who shot those people today, but someone has still died and many more may yet die. Personally, I don't think catching someone is worth people being dead.
Oh, and notice I said people - plural. How many people do you think he would have killed with a knife there?
It's strange that countries that don't allow firearms don't see people walking around with arrows, spears or killing people via throwing rocks.
Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
No I won't, even if I can verify that that is correct which I can't. Countries that have gun controls have knife crime. Countries that don't have adequate gun controls have knife crime plus gun crime, plus they have a lot more knife crime because killing people is more accepted.
In countries where guns have been outlawed criminals don't need guns. They can just beat you to death with an iron pipe.
You're less likely to get killed because doing that is harder than shooting, and the facts bare that out. Someone can be jumped on before they get anywhere near you.
Guns are a good defense from iron pipe, even knives.
This is completely upside down. If you have a gun to defend yourself then a criminal will have a bigger gun because if you can get them, he can. It just doesn't work the way that you wish.
How do you know? The strange thing is that in countries where we have gun controls and guns are largely taken out of society and aren't seen we have virtually no incidents like this.
If the fellow did not have a gun, he could have used a stolen cement mixer or truck to run over the politician.
Very, very strange logic. How many murders were committed where stolen cement mixers were used and the killer said "I would have used a gun but I didn't have one"? For people who should understand guns better than anyone Americans really have a warped sense of what they actually let you do.
...since the police have no responsibility nor obligation to do so.
As Dirty Harry said: "Then you end up executing your neighbour because his dog pisses on your lawn" as a reponse to vigilantes. When you meet an opposing force with force, the opposing force merely thinks that it has to get stronger. It never ends. Oh, and everyone ends up believing that they're right.
And since if I don't have a gun, because they are outlawed, you can damn sure bet the criminals will have them, leaving all law abiding citizens defenseless.
Newsflash: In countries that have adequate gun laws and where guns are taken out of society criminals have to work far, far harder to obtain guns. It also makes it far easier to spot something that is illegal. I'm afraid your warped logic isn't backed up by evidence from countries that have gun control that takes guns out of society as everyday objects.
Gun training doesn't solve anything. With the proliferation of guns all you're doing is ensuring that at some point someone will think "I hate that person, and I have an easy weapon with which to kill them".
, as we do for obtaining a driver's license: a car is arguably a more dangerous weapon than any handgun, given the fact that we mow each other down by the thousands every year.
I'm afraid no matter how hard you try you can't compare this to anything else. A gun is a weapon. End of. A car isn't. It's used to get around. People getting killed by cars is part of the risk of living and getting around. There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
For people who claim to know so much about guns the stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and sometimes they use guns to do it.
This is always a nice one to hide behind. Alas, countries with more lax gun controls and where guns are more widespread have a higher number of murders committed and guns are always involved the majority of the time. Why? If it's difficult to kill someone then you might think twice about it and cool off. When you have a weapon where you can stand off and detahc yourself from the physical act of killing it all becomes so much easier.
Guns are very highly illegal in Mexico
Not the greatest example in the world you could have come up with.
A word of advice to you gun haters: Don't like guns? That's fine. Don't own them.
I'm afraid that me not owning a gun will not save me from being shot and killed.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion.
Have you ever thought about visiting the planet Earth at any point?
Newsflash: We Brits left America over three hundred years ago, basically because we couldn't afford it. That's when the United States needed an armed militia. A home invasion is not likely I'm afraid, and you have this thing called the armed forces these days. Difficult to believe, I know.
You're also implying that without guns, people wouldn't find some other ways to kill each other. That's another fundamentally unsound assumption: guns make killing easier in some ways, but that's all.
I hear this bullshit all the time from Americans trying to justify widespread gun ownership and it's real crap. Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
If someone wants you dead, he doesn't need a gun.
That's the wrong logic. If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes. With a gun you can do it any time you want, and that increases the temptation.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
A large number of legally possessed firearms increases the number of illegal ones. I'm afraid that doesn't mean anything, but it's typical of the mental gymnastics that Americans typically perform to justify widespread gun ownership.
It's definitely not a fat finger issue. Android's messaging app at first sight appears to be very useful because you can simply reply to a messge thread without having to create a new message and tediously add the contact. However, yes occasionally it does decide to message the wrong person which usually results in volley of swear words at it because it's so damn illogical.
Just watch what you write because you can't trust it. If you want to be sure then create a new messge and select the contact manually. I can't fathom what stupid piece of logic within code would cause this.
They keep telling us that if we don't like them knowing what we are doing then maybe we shouldn't be doing it.
I'm afraid 'they' do. The phrase 'nothing to hide' is thrown around rather a lot to justify government organisation keeping tabs on citizens. It's no straw man at all, but of course some people would like it to be.
I wouldn't use VNC over anything that doesn't provide LAN speeds, which kind of defeats the object of a remote desktop in a way. Sorry. Normal people know VNC is slow. People might like to pretend that the open source world has something like RDP, but they don't.
You'll have to tell us what those 'optimal' products are, because as we should all know by now remote X is totally unusable over anything but a LAN and ditto for VNC.
If no one does anything with NX or the state of remote graphical protocols in the open source world then there is nothing that is comparable to RDP. I wouldn't reply really, but you see trolls repeating this stuff when they have not a clue.
Yes you are correct, but the point the article is making is that the situation has been made a hell of a lot worse. Microsoft refused to make a decent multi-user OS for years with abstraction between user and administrative functions, until they were forced into remedying the situation because they had to. Running scripts by default in a web client also wasn't the smartest of choices to have made.
I didn't say they were, but 'they' obviously see some benefit in trying to go after one organisation and then one man as they are doing. Either they are trying to get the whole thing to go away or they're trying to use it as a deterrent, or both, but the history of such things concerning the internet tells us it won't be successful.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I couldn't believe he said that either. Apparently he's never seen Robin Hood. And besides, you can throw a knife.
I wasn't aware that Robin Hood carried a gun. Oh, and I wasn't aware that people in countries with stricter gun controls walked around with bows and arrows because they are the next best thing to guns.
Yes, you can throw a knife but you aren't going to hit much. With a gun you are pretty much guaranteed to hit something, and multiple time within a short space of time. It might not be what you wanted to hit but the net result is that someone has a much, much, much greater chance of being killed.
Yeah, if you happen to be within a couple feet of your target. Beyond 10 feet, things start to change; you need more time to line up the shot...
As opposed to what, exactly? Spitting at them?
The knife has one thing going for it: it's silent. You fire a gun, your odds of your crime being noticed immediately are much higher.
They might have caught the guy who shot those people today, but someone has still died and many more may yet die. Personally, I don't think catching someone is worth people being dead.
Oh, and notice I said people - plural. How many people do you think he would have killed with a knife there?
Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock.
It's strange that countries that don't allow firearms don't see people walking around with arrows, spears or killing people via throwing rocks.
Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
No I won't, even if I can verify that that is correct which I can't. Countries that have gun controls have knife crime. Countries that don't have adequate gun controls have knife crime plus gun crime, plus they have a lot more knife crime because killing people is more accepted.
The constitution doesn't mention citizens carrying guns. It does talk about an armed militia that can be disarmed, however.
In countries where guns have been outlawed criminals don't need guns. They can just beat you to death with an iron pipe.
You're less likely to get killed because doing that is harder than shooting, and the facts bare that out. Someone can be jumped on before they get anywhere near you.
Guns are a good defense from iron pipe, even knives.
This is completely upside down. If you have a gun to defend yourself then a criminal will have a bigger gun because if you can get them, he can. It just doesn't work the way that you wish.
To you? No, it wouldn't.
How do you know? The strange thing is that in countries where we have gun controls and guns are largely taken out of society and aren't seen we have virtually no incidents like this.
If the fellow did not have a gun, he could have used a stolen cement mixer or truck to run over the politician.
Very, very strange logic. How many murders were committed where stolen cement mixers were used and the killer said "I would have used a gun but I didn't have one"? For people who should understand guns better than anyone Americans really have a warped sense of what they actually let you do.
...since the police have no responsibility nor obligation to do so.
As Dirty Harry said: "Then you end up executing your neighbour because his dog pisses on your lawn" as a reponse to vigilantes. When you meet an opposing force with force, the opposing force merely thinks that it has to get stronger. It never ends. Oh, and everyone ends up believing that they're right.
And since if I don't have a gun, because they are outlawed, you can damn sure bet the criminals will have them, leaving all law abiding citizens defenseless.
Newsflash: In countries that have adequate gun laws and where guns are taken out of society criminals have to work far, far harder to obtain guns. It also makes it far easier to spot something that is illegal. I'm afraid your warped logic isn't backed up by evidence from countries that have gun control that takes guns out of society as everyday objects.
Perhaps we should require gun training by law...
Gun training doesn't solve anything. With the proliferation of guns all you're doing is ensuring that at some point someone will think "I hate that person, and I have an easy weapon with which to kill them".
, as we do for obtaining a driver's license: a car is arguably a more dangerous weapon than any handgun, given the fact that we mow each other down by the thousands every year.
I'm afraid no matter how hard you try you can't compare this to anything else. A gun is a weapon. End of. A car isn't. It's used to get around. People getting killed by cars is part of the risk of living and getting around. There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and sometimes they use guns to do it.
This is always a nice one to hide behind. Alas, countries with more lax gun controls and where guns are more widespread have a higher number of murders committed and guns are always involved the majority of the time. Why? If it's difficult to kill someone then you might think twice about it and cool off. When you have a weapon where you can stand off and detahc yourself from the physical act of killing it all becomes so much easier.
Guns are very highly illegal in Mexico
Not the greatest example in the world you could have come up with.
A word of advice to you gun haters: Don't like guns? That's fine. Don't own them.
I'm afraid that me not owning a gun will not save me from being shot and killed.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion.
Have you ever thought about visiting the planet Earth at any point?
Newsflash: We Brits left America over three hundred years ago, basically because we couldn't afford it. That's when the United States needed an armed militia. A home invasion is not likely I'm afraid, and you have this thing called the armed forces these days. Difficult to believe, I know.
Comparing guns to cars......... Ahhhh, Americans. Got to love them..........
You're also implying that without guns, people wouldn't find some other ways to kill each other. That's another fundamentally unsound assumption: guns make killing easier in some ways, but that's all.
I hear this bullshit all the time from Americans trying to justify widespread gun ownership and it's real crap. Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
If someone wants you dead, he doesn't need a gun.
That's the wrong logic. If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes. With a gun you can do it any time you want, and that increases the temptation.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
A large number of legally possessed firearms increases the number of illegal ones. I'm afraid that doesn't mean anything, but it's typical of the mental gymnastics that Americans typically perform to justify widespread gun ownership.
Semi-automatic handguns are extremely useful -- why do you think police carry them? Because they're useful for self-defense.
When everybody starts using them for 'self-defence' that's where your logic falls apart.
It's definitely not a fat finger issue. Android's messaging app at first sight appears to be very useful because you can simply reply to a messge thread without having to create a new message and tediously add the contact. However, yes occasionally it does decide to message the wrong person which usually results in volley of swear words at it because it's so damn illogical.
Just watch what you write because you can't trust it. If you want to be sure then create a new messge and select the contact manually. I can't fathom what stupid piece of logic within code would cause this.
No. This has happened to me and it happens when you open a message thread with a particular contact and reply to it.
Wikileaks 'harming democracy' in Zimbabwe? That's up there with some of the daftest and idiotic things I've ever read
They keep telling us that if we don't like them knowing what we are doing then maybe we shouldn't be doing it.
I'm afraid 'they' do. The phrase 'nothing to hide' is thrown around rather a lot to justify government organisation keeping tabs on citizens. It's no straw man at all, but of course some people would like it to be.
I wouldn't use VNC over anything that doesn't provide LAN speeds, which kind of defeats the object of a remote desktop in a way. Sorry. Normal people know VNC is slow. People might like to pretend that the open source world has something like RDP, but they don't.
You'll have to tell us what those 'optimal' products are, because as we should all know by now remote X is totally unusable over anything but a LAN and ditto for VNC.
If no one does anything with NX or the state of remote graphical protocols in the open source world then there is nothing that is comparable to RDP. I wouldn't reply really, but you see trolls repeating this stuff when they have not a clue.
And in other news, Apple TV is selling like hot cakes
Selling a million devices versus the sum total of TVs sold is actually very disappointing.
Yes you are correct, but the point the article is making is that the situation has been made a hell of a lot worse. Microsoft refused to make a decent multi-user OS for years with abstraction between user and administrative functions, until they were forced into remedying the situation because they had to. Running scripts by default in a web client also wasn't the smartest of choices to have made.
I didn't say they were, but 'they' obviously see some benefit in trying to go after one organisation and then one man as they are doing. Either they are trying to get the whole thing to go away or they're trying to use it as a deterrent, or both, but the history of such things concerning the internet tells us it won't be successful.