So you're saying that things were not on the decline until spring, 2001? Seems to me that 2000 wasn't all that hot, either. Explain how you blame that on Bush.
CS is a branch of IT. So one segment of the IT job market is covered here. I agree that the title is misleading, but this is Slashdot, where there are more fact-checkers than any other site by the same name. Or maybe it's tied.
Don't forget about inflation. Even if you find a job that pays 4.1% more than it would have a year go, you're still taking a hit if inflation is over 4.1%.
Then they should change the slogan to "we obey local governments and make money".
That's kind of the point. You obey the laws of the jurisdictions where you do business. Doing business in China avails Google of the protections of Chinese law (whatever those may be), so it is Google's duty to obey Chinese law on Chinese soil.
Business is about making money. You make more money when you don't break every local law and custom around the world. Google is a business. You do the math.
Those companies have ISP's, as well. The problem is as the uncle comment to this one states: how many people actually have ISP's available that support IPv6? And how many people will really switch to a more expensive ISP just for IPv6 when they don't even know what it is? It simply won't convince any ISP's to do anything but raise their prices for IPv6 service.
I tried that once, only to find that several of the printers I hit were actually connected to my machine through the same hole and the bastards had shared 'em out locally, as well!
Linux version numbers are a.b.c; a is the major version number, b is even for production kernels and odd for development kernels, and c is an incremental revision number.
For even b, the development kernel whose new features will make it into a.b is numbered a.(b-1).
What version will the development kernel for 3.0 be? 3.-1.c or 2.9.c (or possible 2.7.c if they go from 2.6 to 3.0)?
PS: As Slashdot has started randomizing the order of my comments on this story, forgive me if I stop responding. That's how I keep track of a conversation, and this one is at some kind of time limit.;)
I didn't mean vitriol on your part, but rather vitriol of anti-gun propoganda artists that you've absorbed as the normal truth and base many of your points on. I can't take that away from you - I can only hope that you take it upon yourself to research the US "assault weapon ban" that just expired, the crime rate in the parts of the US where it is easier to legally own a gun compared to the parts where it's not, and the crime rate around the world.
You're in the country that had to ban swords because, when the criminals couldn't get guns, they turned to swords. People have been killing each other for many years longer than they've had guns to do it with. They're not going to stop just because you take away a tool or two - humans are more creative and motivated than that, and when the motivation is violent in nature the creativity will be brutal in effect.
Here's an example that may help underscore my point about civilians defending themselves. Washington, D.C., is the murder capital of the world. Its leaders rejoice every 5 years or so when it briefly makes it down to the #2 spot. The rate is currently around 56 per 100,000. Arlington, Virginia, is essentially an extension of D.C. They are separated only by the Potomac River. Yet, the murder rate in Arlington is 1.5 per 100,000.
D.C. is very restrictive of gun rights. Even hunting rifles and shotguns cannot be kept in your own home without being disassembled and unloaded. Pistol permits haven't been issued since 1978. Virginia, on the other hand, is very gun-friendly. It's a shall-issue state for concealed carry permits (meaning that there's no discrimination - if you quality for the permit (meaning you're a U.S. citizen, no felonies, etc.), you will be issued one), and open-carry is permitted almost everywhere (university campuses are a notable exception).
I advocate everyone who can applying for and receiving a concealed weapon permit. There are minimum training standards that keep permit-holders and their neighbors safe, there is knowledge of the law required so you know when you are legally permitted to use force in self-defense, and of course the advantage of being able to carry a weapon to defend yourself without drawing attention to yourself.
Instant messaging exists as a communication tool. It is more interactive than e-mail but more convenient and less expensive than the phone. Trying to gussy it up with 3D garbage and requiring you to use the mouse a lot to communicate makes the whole process less efficient and more expensive.
Why not just let me communicate? This is the same reason I don't have games, text messaging, a pepper mill, or a camera in my cell phone - none of these things would make it a more effective tool for verbal communication or an efficient tool for non-verbal.
I'm not going to even deal with most of what you said, as it's full of vitriol and downright lies that there's no way I can dissociate from your perception of reality.
But I will say this: the main thing you're missing is that police respond to crime. If a burglar broke into your house, armed with a kitchen knife, which would seem like a more likely way to come out alive and without loss of property:
1. Tell him to leave your house or you'll shoot, and shoot if he does not desist
2. Call 911, explain the nature of your emergency, and wait 30 minutes for a cop to show up
Why is it that you don't see law-abiding citizens owning guns as a neutral thing? Most gun owners own guns for recreation and self defense. Very few use them to harm others. And you can't take away every gun, because hunting is a very important means of game conservation. The only murder in my hometown in the past decade was done with a hunting rifle in a bar.
Do you really believe that your neighbors, if they had guns, would come kill you? Do you really trust the police to protect you against all things evil?
As to protection from an oppressive government - on a small scale there is little help. However, on a large scale, the citizens would prevail. Look at Iraq - it's a small country and the "insurgents" (exsurgents?) are still holding off the US military in some cities. In America, more people own guns, there is more territory to cover, and the military would be launching massive attacks on American citizens on American soil. Morale doesn't get lower than shooting your friends and neighbors because the government told you to.
Terrorism is another reason for civilians to carry guns. Terrorists are attacking civilians - not the government. John Kerry wants people to believe that terrorists will fly to America, go to a gun show, buy an AR-15, and take on the world. This is just insane - most terrorists come from countries where you can buy a [i]real[/i] AK-47 or M16, fully-automatic, for $100-150 (or less depending on whom you plan to shoot). Why would they spend $1200 on a plane ticket to come here and buy a gun for $900 that does less? If they do - shouldn't I be able to shoot back? Terrorists are more likely to be shot with an AR-15 on American soil than to shoot anyone with one.
You're doing it again with "assault weapons" and bunching them in with "machine pistols". The guns that American liberals want to ban as "assault weapons" are semi-automatic. Machineguns of all shapes and sizes have been banned here since 1934.
You know what? You're right: Legal gun ownership certainly isn't neutral - it's slanted against those who would bring harm to others.
I thought I replied to your other reply - check for siblings.
Simply put, people have been killing each other since long before the invention of the rifle, much less the semi-automatic small-caliber carbine (AR-15). Do you really believe that people would stop killing each other on account of not having guns, even if you could completely take guns away from the criminals?
Are you really afraid of law-abiding people with guns? Can you articulate a fear that your neighbor will come in the dead of the night to murder you because he has a gun but is prevented from doing so because he doesn't?
I honestly do not understand the grounds for concern, here. The kind of person who would kill you already has a felonious mindset - what's to stop him, in his own mind, from violating gun laws to effect the crime he already intends?
Basically, what I'm asking is this: can you make an argument against citizen ownership of any class of guns? What support for your argument is there? Lay it all out, because I wanna know.
The.223 is in no way a "magnum" cartridge, military ammo doesn't use expanding bullets (per the Geneva Convention) but hunting ammo does, and I'd rather you not shoot me with anything; but if you did threaten my life with deadly force, I'd rather be able to shoot back with an effective round. This argument is preposterous, and shows how very little you really do know about guns. As to your specific numbered points:
1. Why Americans lack of faith in the democratic process, instead turning to force
- We don't lack faith in the democratic process at all. We are very suspicious of government, and rightly so, but not faithless. We only turn to force as a last resort; but we'd rather not have our last resort disarmed years before it comes to that. We don't want to make the same mistake others in the past have made. (vide Theodore Haas)
2. How civilians armed with M16s will take out tanks
- The Second Amendment doesn't stop at guns. But that's an entirely different topic. If you think that I can go to the corner store now and buy an M16, you are vastly mistaken about American gun laws.
3. My point on governments that fear the populace
- You didn't understand mine - I said "fear" as in the sense that someone is a "God-fearing Christian" who does what God wants out of respect and admiration; not someone who does what God wants to avoid being smitten. The government is here to serve the populace, not the other way around.
4. Why you really need assualt weapons
- "Assault weapon" is a made-up term that is used to incite emotional responses to specific guns and gradually move the line further back. One state has actually considered adding pump-action rifles to the definition of their "assault weapon" ban. Before I answer, what definition do you use?
Regardless of that, though - why does need have anything to do with a freedom? Why do you need to post on Slashdot? Why do you need to read news about foreign countries? Need has nothing to do with it - and that is a fundamental difference between your philosophy and mine.
That movie was very slanted, as I'm sure a thinking man like yourself could tell.
As to freedom from fear in Canada - you haven't been there, have you? There are parts of Winnipeg, a city of 600,000 people, where it is unsafe to go because of frequent knifings. If you take away guns, murderous people will find other ways. The crossbow attack in Australia that made news last week because the man's cell phone stopped the bolt; a robbery by pitchfork in South Carolina a week or two ago; etc.
Canadians are not free from fear - they are just less powered to do something about it.
You do realize that the AR-15 is a.223-caliber weapon, and that I hunt deer with a.308-caliber rifle?
Please explain how Canadians are freer than Americans. Maybe I missed something by growing up within an hour of the border, having many Canadian friends, and dating several Canadian women.
What you're really failing to understand is that criminals don't care about gun laws. That's the underlying problem - criminals tend to put fake license plates on their stolen cars, drive with fake licenses, and so forth. Why would they be any more forthright when it comes to guns?
Also, to say that because a criminal could use something more effectively in a crime is reason to prohibit law-abiding citizens from having it is preposterous. If you want to kill a group of people, it is far more effective to drive an SUV into that group of people than to shoot them. Or poison their food (using rat poison, for example). Or any number of other methods that don't involve guns.
I think it's more a societal thing - I look at the differences in Canadian law versus American law for an example. The history is that Americans took up arms to throw off an oppressive motherland. Canada just became a bore to Britain and was kicked out of the house like a 30-year-old son living in the basement.
As a result, Canadians are more apt to give up their rights to their government - after all, they trust their government. Americans traditionally do not trust government, and I think that's best. When it comes to government of a populace, trust and fear are not altogether different (fear in the sense that I'm a God-fearing man, not in the sense that I'm afraid of snakes; I do what God wants). A populace that fears the government is repressed. A government that fears the populace cannot repress.
For me, it's that simple, and there are many rights that I can have that will instill fear in the government. Freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly, and so on are all important to this end; but so is the right to keep and bear arms. Not only that, but when I carry a gun, the government's legitimate job (protecting the people) becomes easier, because there doesn't have to be a cop at every bank robbery for there to be guns pointed at the robbers. And when terrorists or others attack, armed citizens can shoot back before the government even knows what's going on.
As to the public policy comparison to driver's licensing - I would rather have mandatory training but no licensing in both cases. The other side of that coin, though, is that in America we don't have national driver's licenses. Each state provides its own system for this, and as a strong proponent of states' rights (an issue you should also learn more about to understand America - our Civil War was about states' rights, not about slavery), I agree with that; and that's why I'm fine with having to apply for and receive a concealed weapon permit to carry concealed in the states that allow that (except for one, which allows you to without a permit).
I wish that every junior high school would, like mine did, require at least hunter safety, which includes the basics of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, never point a gun at something you do not intend to shoot, always unload your guns (but still treat them as if loaded), etc.). With every right comes responsibility - I'd rather teach responsibility than take away rights.
I'm very tired, as I just got back from the library and it's past 1AM, but I will respond on one point for now:
Why aren't you out there fighting for freedom of speech and association? I would think both are more important freedoms, and both are under assualt in the US at the moment. Why aren't you fighting to stop people being arrested and jailed without trial?
I am repulsed by the PATRIOT Act, which does establish certain very useful means of watching for money laundering by terrorists and other criminals, but here on Slashdot we discuss the really bad aspects, such as arrest and imprisonment without a trial. I can't see that John Kerry has any more freedom in mind - and he scares me in other ways, too - so I'm forced to vote Libertarian this year and hope that Bush (who will win my home state's electoral votes) wins the election. I won't vote for Caligula to spite Octavian.
To answer your question as to why I'm not out fighting these things: I am. I am a law student right now, because I feel I can do more good for my country and for the world by "hacking" the legal system than by hacking computers. After all, there are millions of programmers capable of making computers operate who are dedicated to the same things in computers that I am, but there is not such an overwhelming majority of lawyers in the world who are dedicated to individual freedom as I am. I don't know if I can make a difference, but I will go down fighting.
On the side, I note that you are only required to submit to a driving test in order to drive on public roads - those owned by the people who test you. It's a reasonable requirement. Requiring me to register guns or take a test to own guns that will be kept on my own property is not analogous except to the negative: it's unreasonable.
There is no right that I would give up altogether without one hell of a fight. I may post more on this for you later, but right now I am far too tired to organize my research into an on-point discussion of gun laws, pro and con, or to get into what makes guns dangerous.
But the short version on that is that all guns are equally dangerous in any one person's hands. I believe that any gun I hand to you will be more dangerous in your hands than in mine, just because I grew up with guns in hand from the age of 4 and you most likely did not. I have taken hunter safety and a concealed weapon qualification course (with another of those on the way as I've moved to a state that has no reciprocity with my home state). Do I think that these should be required to own a gun? No. Do I think that parents and shools should make these opportunities to learn safety available to their children? Definitely. After all, I've had guns in my hands since the age of 4, and haven't even come close to hurting anyone with one.
Take a look at what the Assault Weapon Ban in the US actually covered sometime - you'll see that they were truly cosmetic things that weren't even popular before the ban, as most of them cause a decrease in accuracy, but which caused pre-ban guns to jump in demand and perceived value for the past decade. Most people will continue to buy post-ban-configuration guns just because they perform better, after the initial accessory spree wears off wherein everyone puts a telescoping stock and bayonet lug on their AR-15's. (Seriously, have you ever heard of a store being held up at bayonet-point?)
That you find "assault weapons" more dangerous than other guns shows that you know very little about guns in a general sense. There's no real need to continue this discussion - the facts and history are out there, and the common sense is, too. If you add them up to a different conclusion, that's your prerogative, and a lot of that comes from me growing up in a part of the USA where most of our freedoms sitll mean something.
People in most urbanized areas tend to want to sacrifice a lot of freedom for safety - after 9/11, who'd blame New York for wanting stricter checks on all airline flights and such?
I stand firmly with Ben Franklin on this: those who would sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve either one.
Quotations About Guns
The following quotes show either support for your individual right to have and use guns, or show how those who claim to want only your safety really want all your guns.
Contemporary Anti-Gun Quotes Mussolini On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. Hitler The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. Mao Tse Tung The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party. Sen. Diane Feinstein If I could have banned them all,... I would have!
Contemporary Pro-Gun Quotes Gandhi Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. Adm. Yamamoto You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass. Sen. Orrin Hatch If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing up long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying... establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. Sen. Hubert Humphrey Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... [T]he right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible. John F. Kennedy Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are... prepared to take arms. George Orwell That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. The Dalai Lama If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. John Ashcroft Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers. Gen. Shlomo Aharonisky (Israeli police inspector) There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them. Theodore Roosevelt We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes... The first step [in preserving peace in the world]... is to teach men to shoot! James Earl Jones The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose. Sen. Malcolm Wallop The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. [H]aving left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake. David Prosser (Wisconsin Supreme Court justice) If the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business. Daniel Schmutter (Lawyer for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend them
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that things were not on the decline until spring, 2001? Seems to me that 2000 wasn't all that hot, either. Explain how you blame that on Bush.
CS is a branch of IT. So one segment of the IT job market is covered here. I agree that the title is misleading, but this is Slashdot, where there are more fact-checkers than any other site by the same name. Or maybe it's tied.
Don't forget about inflation. Even if you find a job that pays 4.1% more than it would have a year go, you're still taking a hit if inflation is over 4.1%.
Why is it Bush's fault when salaries go down, but a magical coincidence when they go up?
Then they should change the slogan to "we obey local governments and make money".
That's kind of the point. You obey the laws of the jurisdictions where you do business. Doing business in China avails Google of the protections of Chinese law (whatever those may be), so it is Google's duty to obey Chinese law on Chinese soil.
Business is about making money. You make more money when you don't break every local law and custom around the world. Google is a business. You do the math.
Those companies have ISP's, as well. The problem is as the uncle comment to this one states: how many people actually have ISP's available that support IPv6? And how many people will really switch to a more expensive ISP just for IPv6 when they don't even know what it is? It simply won't convince any ISP's to do anything but raise their prices for IPv6 service.
I thought that the definite odd-b-is-development-and-even-b-is-stable came about with 2.3.
I tried that once, only to find that several of the printers I hit were actually connected to my machine through the same hole and the bastards had shared 'em out locally, as well!
This raised a question in my mind, as well...
Linux version numbers are a.b.c; a is the major version number, b is even for production kernels and odd for development kernels, and c is an incremental revision number.
For even b, the development kernel whose new features will make it into a.b is numbered a.(b-1).
What version will the development kernel for 3.0 be? 3.-1.c or 2.9.c (or possible 2.7.c if they go from 2.6 to 3.0)?
PS: As Slashdot has started randomizing the order of my comments on this story, forgive me if I stop responding. That's how I keep track of a conversation, and this one is at some kind of time limit. ;)
I didn't mean vitriol on your part, but rather vitriol of anti-gun propoganda artists that you've absorbed as the normal truth and base many of your points on. I can't take that away from you - I can only hope that you take it upon yourself to research the US "assault weapon ban" that just expired, the crime rate in the parts of the US where it is easier to legally own a gun compared to the parts where it's not, and the crime rate around the world.
You're in the country that had to ban swords because, when the criminals couldn't get guns, they turned to swords. People have been killing each other for many years longer than they've had guns to do it with. They're not going to stop just because you take away a tool or two - humans are more creative and motivated than that, and when the motivation is violent in nature the creativity will be brutal in effect.
Here's an example that may help underscore my point about civilians defending themselves. Washington, D.C., is the murder capital of the world. Its leaders rejoice every 5 years or so when it briefly makes it down to the #2 spot. The rate is currently around 56 per 100,000. Arlington, Virginia, is essentially an extension of D.C. They are separated only by the Potomac River. Yet, the murder rate in Arlington is 1.5 per 100,000.
D.C. is very restrictive of gun rights. Even hunting rifles and shotguns cannot be kept in your own home without being disassembled and unloaded. Pistol permits haven't been issued since 1978. Virginia, on the other hand, is very gun-friendly. It's a shall-issue state for concealed carry permits (meaning that there's no discrimination - if you quality for the permit (meaning you're a U.S. citizen, no felonies, etc.), you will be issued one), and open-carry is permitted almost everywhere (university campuses are a notable exception).
I advocate everyone who can applying for and receiving a concealed weapon permit. There are minimum training standards that keep permit-holders and their neighbors safe, there is knowledge of the law required so you know when you are legally permitted to use force in self-defense, and of course the advantage of being able to carry a weapon to defend yourself without drawing attention to yourself.
I'm incompetent with cameras - my pictures are worth less than 1/7th of a word each.
Instant messaging exists as a communication tool. It is more interactive than e-mail but more convenient and less expensive than the phone. Trying to gussy it up with 3D garbage and requiring you to use the mouse a lot to communicate makes the whole process less efficient and more expensive.
Why not just let me communicate? This is the same reason I don't have games, text messaging, a pepper mill, or a camera in my cell phone - none of these things would make it a more effective tool for verbal communication or an efficient tool for non-verbal.
I'm not going to even deal with most of what you said, as it's full of vitriol and downright lies that there's no way I can dissociate from your perception of reality.
But I will say this: the main thing you're missing is that police respond to crime. If a burglar broke into your house, armed with a kitchen knife, which would seem like a more likely way to come out alive and without loss of property:
1. Tell him to leave your house or you'll shoot, and shoot if he does not desist
2. Call 911, explain the nature of your emergency, and wait 30 minutes for a cop to show up
Why is it that you don't see law-abiding citizens owning guns as a neutral thing? Most gun owners own guns for recreation and self defense. Very few use them to harm others. And you can't take away every gun, because hunting is a very important means of game conservation. The only murder in my hometown in the past decade was done with a hunting rifle in a bar.
Do you really believe that your neighbors, if they had guns, would come kill you? Do you really trust the police to protect you against all things evil?
As to protection from an oppressive government - on a small scale there is little help. However, on a large scale, the citizens would prevail. Look at Iraq - it's a small country and the "insurgents" (exsurgents?) are still holding off the US military in some cities. In America, more people own guns, there is more territory to cover, and the military would be launching massive attacks on American citizens on American soil. Morale doesn't get lower than shooting your friends and neighbors because the government told you to.
Terrorism is another reason for civilians to carry guns. Terrorists are attacking civilians - not the government. John Kerry wants people to believe that terrorists will fly to America, go to a gun show, buy an AR-15, and take on the world. This is just insane - most terrorists come from countries where you can buy a [i]real[/i] AK-47 or M16, fully-automatic, for $100-150 (or less depending on whom you plan to shoot). Why would they spend $1200 on a plane ticket to come here and buy a gun for $900 that does less? If they do - shouldn't I be able to shoot back? Terrorists are more likely to be shot with an AR-15 on American soil than to shoot anyone with one.
You're doing it again with "assault weapons" and bunching them in with "machine pistols". The guns that American liberals want to ban as "assault weapons" are semi-automatic. Machineguns of all shapes and sizes have been banned here since 1934.
You know what? You're right: Legal gun ownership certainly isn't neutral - it's slanted against those who would bring harm to others.
I thought I replied to your other reply - check for siblings.
Simply put, people have been killing each other since long before the invention of the rifle, much less the semi-automatic small-caliber carbine (AR-15). Do you really believe that people would stop killing each other on account of not having guns, even if you could completely take guns away from the criminals?
Are you really afraid of law-abiding people with guns? Can you articulate a fear that your neighbor will come in the dead of the night to murder you because he has a gun but is prevented from doing so because he doesn't?
I honestly do not understand the grounds for concern, here. The kind of person who would kill you already has a felonious mindset - what's to stop him, in his own mind, from violating gun laws to effect the crime he already intends?
Basically, what I'm asking is this: can you make an argument against citizen ownership of any class of guns? What support for your argument is there? Lay it all out, because I wanna know.
The .223 is in no way a "magnum" cartridge, military ammo doesn't use expanding bullets (per the Geneva Convention) but hunting ammo does, and I'd rather you not shoot me with anything; but if you did threaten my life with deadly force, I'd rather be able to shoot back with an effective round. This argument is preposterous, and shows how very little you really do know about guns. As to your specific numbered points:
1. Why Americans lack of faith in the democratic process, instead turning to force
- We don't lack faith in the democratic process at all. We are very suspicious of government, and rightly so, but not faithless. We only turn to force as a last resort; but we'd rather not have our last resort disarmed years before it comes to that. We don't want to make the same mistake others in the past have made. (vide Theodore Haas)
2. How civilians armed with M16s will take out tanks
- The Second Amendment doesn't stop at guns. But that's an entirely different topic. If you think that I can go to the corner store now and buy an M16, you are vastly mistaken about American gun laws.
3. My point on governments that fear the populace
- You didn't understand mine - I said "fear" as in the sense that someone is a "God-fearing Christian" who does what God wants out of respect and admiration; not someone who does what God wants to avoid being smitten. The government is here to serve the populace, not the other way around.
4. Why you really need assualt weapons
- "Assault weapon" is a made-up term that is used to incite emotional responses to specific guns and gradually move the line further back. One state has actually considered adding pump-action rifles to the definition of their "assault weapon" ban. Before I answer, what definition do you use?
Regardless of that, though - why does need have anything to do with a freedom? Why do you need to post on Slashdot? Why do you need to read news about foreign countries? Need has nothing to do with it - and that is a fundamental difference between your philosophy and mine.
That movie was very slanted, as I'm sure a thinking man like yourself could tell.
As to freedom from fear in Canada - you haven't been there, have you? There are parts of Winnipeg, a city of 600,000 people, where it is unsafe to go because of frequent knifings. If you take away guns, murderous people will find other ways. The crossbow attack in Australia that made news last week because the man's cell phone stopped the bolt; a robbery by pitchfork in South Carolina a week or two ago; etc.
Canadians are not free from fear - they are just less powered to do something about it.
Just on a side note: Elderly woman shoots burglar
You do realize that the AR-15 is a .223-caliber weapon, and that I hunt deer with a .308-caliber rifle?
Please explain how Canadians are freer than Americans. Maybe I missed something by growing up within an hour of the border, having many Canadian friends, and dating several Canadian women.
What you're really failing to understand is that criminals don't care about gun laws. That's the underlying problem - criminals tend to put fake license plates on their stolen cars, drive with fake licenses, and so forth. Why would they be any more forthright when it comes to guns?
Also, to say that because a criminal could use something more effectively in a crime is reason to prohibit law-abiding citizens from having it is preposterous. If you want to kill a group of people, it is far more effective to drive an SUV into that group of people than to shoot them. Or poison their food (using rat poison, for example). Or any number of other methods that don't involve guns.
I think it's more a societal thing - I look at the differences in Canadian law versus American law for an example. The history is that Americans took up arms to throw off an oppressive motherland. Canada just became a bore to Britain and was kicked out of the house like a 30-year-old son living in the basement.
As a result, Canadians are more apt to give up their rights to their government - after all, they trust their government. Americans traditionally do not trust government, and I think that's best. When it comes to government of a populace, trust and fear are not altogether different (fear in the sense that I'm a God-fearing man, not in the sense that I'm afraid of snakes; I do what God wants). A populace that fears the government is repressed. A government that fears the populace cannot repress.
For me, it's that simple, and there are many rights that I can have that will instill fear in the government. Freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly, and so on are all important to this end; but so is the right to keep and bear arms. Not only that, but when I carry a gun, the government's legitimate job (protecting the people) becomes easier, because there doesn't have to be a cop at every bank robbery for there to be guns pointed at the robbers. And when terrorists or others attack, armed citizens can shoot back before the government even knows what's going on.
As to the public policy comparison to driver's licensing - I would rather have mandatory training but no licensing in both cases. The other side of that coin, though, is that in America we don't have national driver's licenses. Each state provides its own system for this, and as a strong proponent of states' rights (an issue you should also learn more about to understand America - our Civil War was about states' rights, not about slavery), I agree with that; and that's why I'm fine with having to apply for and receive a concealed weapon permit to carry concealed in the states that allow that (except for one, which allows you to without a permit).
I wish that every junior high school would, like mine did, require at least hunter safety, which includes the basics of gun safety (treat every gun as if it's loaded, never point a gun at something you do not intend to shoot, always unload your guns (but still treat them as if loaded), etc.). With every right comes responsibility - I'd rather teach responsibility than take away rights.
To answer your question as to why I'm not out fighting these things: I am. I am a law student right now, because I feel I can do more good for my country and for the world by "hacking" the legal system than by hacking computers. After all, there are millions of programmers capable of making computers operate who are dedicated to the same things in computers that I am, but there is not such an overwhelming majority of lawyers in the world who are dedicated to individual freedom as I am. I don't know if I can make a difference, but I will go down fighting.
On the side, I note that you are only required to submit to a driving test in order to drive on public roads - those owned by the people who test you. It's a reasonable requirement. Requiring me to register guns or take a test to own guns that will be kept on my own property is not analogous except to the negative: it's unreasonable.
There is no right that I would give up altogether without one hell of a fight. I may post more on this for you later, but right now I am far too tired to organize my research into an on-point discussion of gun laws, pro and con, or to get into what makes guns dangerous.
But the short version on that is that all guns are equally dangerous in any one person's hands. I believe that any gun I hand to you will be more dangerous in your hands than in mine, just because I grew up with guns in hand from the age of 4 and you most likely did not. I have taken hunter safety and a concealed weapon qualification course (with another of those on the way as I've moved to a state that has no reciprocity with my home state). Do I think that these should be required to own a gun? No. Do I think that parents and shools should make these opportunities to learn safety available to their children? Definitely. After all, I've had guns in my hands since the age of 4, and haven't even come close to hurting anyone with one.
Take a look at what the Assault Weapon Ban in the US actually covered sometime - you'll see that they were truly cosmetic things that weren't even popular before the ban, as most of them cause a decrease in accuracy, but which caused pre-ban guns to jump in demand and perceived value for the past decade. Most people will continue to buy post-ban-configuration guns just because they perform better, after the initial accessory spree wears off wherein everyone puts a telescoping stock and bayonet lug on their AR-15's. (Seriously, have you ever heard of a store being held up at bayonet-point?)
That you find "assault weapons" more dangerous than other guns shows that you know very little about guns in a general sense. There's no real need to continue this discussion - the facts and history are out there, and the common sense is, too. If you add them up to a different conclusion, that's your prerogative, and a lot of that comes from me growing up in a part of the USA where most of our freedoms sitll mean something.
People in most urbanized areas tend to want to sacrifice a lot of freedom for safety - after 9/11, who'd blame New York for wanting stricter checks on all airline flights and such?
I stand firmly with Ben Franklin on this: those who would sacrifice liberty for security don't deserve either one.
Quotations About Guns
... I would have!
... establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. ... [T]he right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible. ... prepared to take arms. ... The first step [in preserving peace in the world] ... is to teach men to shoot!
The following quotes show either support for your individual right to have and use guns, or show how those who claim to want only your safety really want all your guns.
Contemporary Anti-Gun Quotes
Mussolini On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind.
Hitler The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.
Mao Tse Tung The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.
Sen. Diane Feinstein If I could have banned them all,
Contemporary Pro-Gun Quotes
Gandhi Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Adm. Yamamoto You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.
Sen. Orrin Hatch If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing up long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying
Sen. Hubert Humphrey Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
John F. Kennedy Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are
George Orwell That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
The Dalai Lama If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
John Ashcroft Just as the First and Fourth Amendment secure individual rights of speech and security respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This view of the text comports with the all but unanimous understanding of the Founding Fathers.
Gen. Shlomo Aharonisky (Israeli police inspector) There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.
Theodore Roosevelt We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes
James Earl Jones The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.
Sen. Malcolm Wallop The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. [H]aving left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.
David Prosser (Wisconsin Supreme Court justice) If the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is to mean anything, it must, as a general matter, permit a person to possess, carry and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of his private residence or privately operated business.
Daniel Schmutter (Lawyer for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend them