Also, no, you did not address "screen-off" recording apps. They didn't exist for smartphones when they first came out, either, but they do now. What of those, when they begin appearing for Glass?
I did not know Glass provided audio as well when the screen was off, thank you for that information. You missed the boat on the rest of it, though. A light can tell me when a device with a light is recording, but it can not tell me when a device without a light (hundreds of millions of those out there) is recording, nor that the device doesn't have a light. An interlock is obvious; either you have one and it's enabled or you might be recording. Much easier to discern than "do they not have a light or are they not recording?", don't you think?
But with future, light-equipped, devices, you'll be able to tell even when the device is being held up.
How will I be able to tell if a device has a recording light? I won't. I can tell, easily, if a device either does not have a lockout or the lockout is disabled, though.
And nearly all camcorders and many if not essentially all cameras with video-taking features already do have recording lights.
None of mine do. None that I have owned since the early 2000s do, actually, and that's more than a handful. This used to be a standard feature, even in cameraphones, but it was even removed from those in the early 2000s because people were using them in low-light settings (e.g. anywhere that's not a lighting studio or outdoors on a sunny day) and the recording light caused undesirable effects. I'll keep my video quality, thank you very much.
Phones and portable cameras. There are hundreds of millions of phones and portable cameras without a "recording" light. You did just propose putting such a light on phones and portable cameras, did you not?
Because smoking sections were the perfect solution, right? Or are you saying doctors, who may be on call and have to have their phones on them in case someone is brought in to their hospital dying and needs their attention, should be segregated from the rest of the general population and unable to enjoy a "loud-guy-on-his-phone"-free meal like everyone else who can simply leave their phones in their cars?
The problem is not solved by adding a recording light to phones, because people can quite simply disable the light or keep using their old phone (there are hundreds of millions to of those out there, remember) for covert recording. Oh, and they complain that the light interferes with low-light recording, which is why Nokia removed the "feature" from their phones in the early 2000s.
It's not a problem of telling when it *is* recording, it's a problem of telling, for certain, when it is not. There are clear-cut instances where a smartphone can not possibly be recording you; e.g. when it has been set flat on a table or put away; for now, you can tell Glass is not recording because the screen is off, but as soon as people are allowed to write Glass apps, what do you think will be one of the first? You can keep yourself from saying or doing something you don't want recorded when you see a device that might be recording you, whether you know it is or not, but you don't have to if you can clearly see that those devices are locked-out.
Furthermore, if your Glass screen is off and you're going to keep it off so I know you're not recording, why don't you just take it off when asked, rather than letting yourself be removed from a place for being an ass? Is it possible that you, in fact, did intend to use the device, or that you have already hacked together a camera app that does not require the screen to be lit? In that case, a physical interlock is the only assurance the people around you have that you are, 100%, for certain, not recording them. Period.
Well, no... not really... you could just put the damned thing away. Like smartphone users do.
I'd prefer it were easy for me to identify the devices that can't possibly be recording me and the ones which might be, rather than the ones that definitely are and the ones that might be. A physical interlock makes it visibly obvious that the camera is disabled and a device without one may be recording at any time, whereas a "recording light" makes it obvious that a device is recording, while a device without one may still be recording at any time.
We're talking about people who what to know they're not being recorded, and a blinking light does not and can not accomplish that when there are already hundreds of millions of devices in the hands of the general public that do not have that light. I'd just keep using my current phone and my 3 current cameras and you'd keep wondering if I was recording you.
With a physical interlock, you *KNOW* you are not being recorded. If I leave the lens cap on my camera, you know I'm not photographing you, just like you know I'm not recording you with my phone in my pocket or set on the table facing downward. With Glass, you do NOT know you are not being recorded, because Glass users refuse to take the device off of their face and put it away.
Such a system would never work in a movie theater. A physical interlock is intended to make it obvious that the device can not possibly be recording, which can only work if the device is generally visible. In a movie theater setting, it would be trivial to use an older device, already existing on the market, with no interlock, or physically disable the interlock, and not be seen.
The physical interlock is intended as a reassurance to whoever the camera is pointed at that yes, this device is capable of recording photos and video, but that capability has been physically disabled for now. Kind of like setting your phone down so that its camera is aimed at either the table or the sky/ceiling, or putting it in your pocket; the people around you can be pretty sure you're not taking photos or video of them. Taking the damn Google Glass off your face would work just as well, but nobody wearing it ever wants to accept that solution.
It's obvious that you're not taking photos or video when your phone is camera-side down on the table, with the screen off, or when it's in your pocket, or when you're placing a call and holding the phone with your finger covering the lens.
All of these stories about people getting kicked out of places for wearing Glass seem to start with them being asked to remove the device and put it away, which would be just as sensible of a solution, except that they always seem to refuse. There is no reasonable way to tell that Glass is not recording, because it is always worn and has no physical interlock. If a smartphone were always worn, leaving both of the user's hands free, then I would agree that a similar solution was needed; but, as it is, it's already exceedingly simple to tell when a smartphone cannot possibly be taking photos or video of me, dead simple to tell when it can be, and relatively obvious to tell when it is.
It's not a problem with smartphones and, therefore, does not need to be solved for smartphones.
Smart phones aren't what's being discussed here; and people aren't being asked to leave places for having smartphones, so that's not a problem that needs to be solved.
I'm assuming, based on your response, that you are a Glass user. If that is the case, then I must ask you, would you prefer being barred from establishments because of Glass, or being allowed in, but with reduced functionality? Right now, without the shutter lock, you're stuck with the former, while a shutter lock would enable the latter. This is a good thing, overall, though it does mean you would have to buy a *new* new toy, since your current toy doesn't have the shutter lock. Plight of the early-adopter.
Har har har, that was so witty I can't even feel the pain I'm sure it caused deep in my soul. I love you so much, AC; if I didn't, I wouldn't bother feeding you.
This. Or, allow businesses to register their locations as "Glass-Free" and if Glass detects that it is at one of those locations (via GPS) it disables the camera automatically, with a physical (and visible) shutter. Audio recording should be allowed, as one may legitimately wish to record their own notes. Likewise, if Glass can't get a GPS signal, it should default to this state.
There should, of course, be an override, because not every location lacking a GPS signal is a location where Glass should not be allowed and there may be cases where the owner of an establishment wishes to allow Glass, even if they generally do not. The override should trigger a very conspicuous indicator light and notify Google so that they may send an SMS to the owner of the establishment, informing them that a Glass user has activated their override and may be filming or photographing in their establishment. At that point, the owner of the establishment would have an easy way to identify this person (the indicator light) and ask them to leave. Glass could also quarantine any photos, audio (which would not be quarantined normally -- another incentive to not enable the override if you are legitimately using the device to record your personal notes), or video taken during an override for a period of 24 hours, giving the owner of an establishment the opportunity to review the material and either allow it or disallow it; disallowed material would then be deleted.
How did I not let him speak on anything? I flat-out said I with more politicians would speak as openly as Romney does. I'm not cutting anyone any breaks based on their actions *or* words; look at it this way: someone with ill intent will occasionally say or do the right thing, but if it lacks sincerity (which you be discerned when their actions and their words consistently agree with each other), it should not be applauded.
How, exactly, was I not supporting the sentiment that people need jobs? I've been there; for a decade I supported my (at the time) fiancee and myself on less than $16k, then found myself unemployed for 6 months before finding a job that was worth a damn. It took me over a decade to find a job that was worth shit; trust me, I know how it is and I fully support the notion that things should not be the way they are. I'm not sure what his ability to make the Olympics profitable has to do with the general population's ability to find gainful employment, though. One is putting money in the pockets of the state and businesses operating within the state and the other is putting money in the pockets of the people; while it is true that businesses have to have money in order to pay people and states must have income from non-tax sources in order to allow people to keep more of their money, neither of those prerequisites ensures those outcomes. That's the part you're missing and Romney can't change that, as it's an institutional problem with the companies involved and the fact that the state, any state can always find a way to spend more money, rather than letting people keep it. I don't fault him for his inability to affect this degree of change, it is simply outside the abilities of any single person, but I also to not support him because I do not and can not support where his words and actions come from, regardless of whether the outcome of some of those actions may be favorable to me.
Here's a bigger hint, touched upon, briefly, above: Supplement looking at what they do by listening to what they say. Just because someone does something that ultimately benefits you does not mean they have your interests at hear, and their words may very well reveal this to you,
This isn't a Democrat vs Republican thing, this is about sincerity and who our politicians are actually working for.
In the context of general welfare programs funded at the federal level (Social Security and Medicare are not GENERAL welfare programs, and food stamps are funded at the state or local level), which is what he was talking about, he was absolutely correct in context. He never said 47% have never put anything into them, he said that 47% are not putting anything into them; since these programs are funded by Federal Income Tax, he is correct in context, as well.
The man is despicable and his position, in general, is indefensible, but he was absolutely, 100% correct in that quote. I just wish more of our politicians would speak their minds so openly; we might begin to see actual, meaningful change in our government if we encouraged more of this.
His comment was in reference to Federal Income Tax, which is how the programs to which he was referring are funded. Payroll tax, the only federal tax in your long list, is unlikely to be paid by the poor, as the poor tend to not own businesses with employees other than themselves. Sales tax is a state tax used to fund state programs and, on top of that, not every state has a sales tax. Bus fares pay for buses and many municipalities have privately-run bus lines; this is direct payment for a service at the time of use and is not, in any way, shape, or form, a tax. Property tax is often a local tax and, if not local, is a state tax.
The only tax that actually matters for the programs he was referring to is Federal Income Tax. Period.
Furthermore, you may wish to actually read the first article you linked; I did, before I made my first post in this thread; it supports Romney's 47% number, with numbers from the Tax Policy Center, including a breakdown of who, exactly, is not paying income tax, and your perception of this group is dead wrong. I'm not even going to bother with the New Republic article, as I've already reviewed the actual numbers involved, so the opinion of some biased publication (and this is including CBS and Fox) is of little value to me, as I'm perfectly capable of forming my own.
Again, Romney was factually correct in the context of the general welfare programs to which he was referring, whether or not you support where he's coming from which, for the record, I do not.
I don't know, because I don't know exactly what his rationale for complaining was. Perhaps ask one of his supporters if you sincerely want an answer. All I said was he was factually correct, which he was, and that I support his right to speak publicly about his beliefs regarding the nature of his job and wish more politicians would do the same, since that is information we can use to weed out the Romneys of the world.
To be clear, I don't support any person in office; I merely approve of or disapprove of their actions, typically on an action-by-action basis. Do I support what Romney said as fact? The available facts seem to align with it, so yes. Do I support his right to say what he said? It's a right I take very seriously and, without it, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation, or openly discussing politics at all, so yes. Do I support the sentiment behind his words? That's a firm "no".
The 47% number is nearly dead-on the 46.4% number for 2011, as stated by the Tax Policy Center. The numbers on that page now are for 2012 and it looks like 44.3% didn't pay income tax last year. Supposedly, according to a quote from the video attached to this article, they're looking to push that number down below 40% by the end of the decade. That article also contains some other numbers you may find interesting (including the 2011 numbers from the Tax Policy Center page I linked to).
Are you sure you're not confusing Medicare and Social Security with Income Tax? I paid those, too, for the entire decade that I was making $16k/yr, but those don't go into funding general welfare programs and, so, aren't relevant to the topic Romney was commenting on.
Even moreso, my understanding is that the transaction, upon which the contract was reliant, was cancelled by KlearGear, which would render the contract null and void, would it not?
The context was that 47% of Americans are taking out of a system they are not putting anything in to. That is not to say that they are expendable, as farhbot-bot implied (and in doing so, used the quote well out of context), just that they are a burden on the system in general, which is true. Romney further stated that it is his job to care about these people and, while I'm not a Romney supporter, I can't say that he is not doing his job, nor would I begrudge him his right to speak openly about exactly what he feels his job entails. In fact, we should expect this of all our politicians and openly encourage it, as it gives us some insight into their true intentions; insight which is vital to ensuring that we don't vote the Romneys of the world into power.
I'm not saying his sentiment was right, but the man was not wrong.
The fact is that guns ecost. Even if guns became illegal today, criminals would not turn over their guns, and I think you know this. When only the crimes and the cops have guns and the cops are only minutes away when a criminal decides to put two in your chest, you might reconsider your position. If guns didn't already exist in the hands of criminals, or there ware some way to make guns cease to exist at all, that would be just as well, too, but you have to recognize the reality of the situation, and that is that you can't just make guns illegal because the repercussions of that would be dire. Gun control can't work as long as guns exist and it can't work if they don't; it can't work, period.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, no, you did not address "screen-off" recording apps. They didn't exist for smartphones when they first came out, either, but they do now. What of those, when they begin appearing for Glass?
I did not know Glass provided audio as well when the screen was off, thank you for that information. You missed the boat on the rest of it, though. A light can tell me when a device with a light is recording, but it can not tell me when a device without a light (hundreds of millions of those out there) is recording, nor that the device doesn't have a light. An interlock is obvious; either you have one and it's enabled or you might be recording. Much easier to discern than "do they not have a light or are they not recording?", don't you think?
But with future, light-equipped, devices, you'll be able to tell even when the device is being held up.
How will I be able to tell if a device has a recording light? I won't. I can tell, easily, if a device either does not have a lockout or the lockout is disabled, though.
And nearly all camcorders and many if not essentially all cameras with video-taking features already do have recording lights.
None of mine do. None that I have owned since the early 2000s do, actually, and that's more than a handful. This used to be a standard feature, even in cameraphones, but it was even removed from those in the early 2000s because people were using them in low-light settings (e.g. anywhere that's not a lighting studio or outdoors on a sunny day) and the recording light caused undesirable effects. I'll keep my video quality, thank you very much.
Phones and portable cameras. There are hundreds of millions of phones and portable cameras without a "recording" light. You did just propose putting such a light on phones and portable cameras, did you not?
Because smoking sections were the perfect solution, right? Or are you saying doctors, who may be on call and have to have their phones on them in case someone is brought in to their hospital dying and needs their attention, should be segregated from the rest of the general population and unable to enjoy a "loud-guy-on-his-phone"-free meal like everyone else who can simply leave their phones in their cars?
Physical interlock. Easily visible. If you see the interlock disabled, you can assume you are being recorded. No enforcement needed. Period.
Care to enumerate on that laundry list of problems?
The problem is not solved by adding a recording light to phones, because people can quite simply disable the light or keep using their old phone (there are hundreds of millions to of those out there, remember) for covert recording. Oh, and they complain that the light interferes with low-light recording, which is why Nokia removed the "feature" from their phones in the early 2000s.
It's not a problem of telling when it *is* recording, it's a problem of telling, for certain, when it is not. There are clear-cut instances where a smartphone can not possibly be recording you; e.g. when it has been set flat on a table or put away; for now, you can tell Glass is not recording because the screen is off, but as soon as people are allowed to write Glass apps, what do you think will be one of the first? You can keep yourself from saying or doing something you don't want recorded when you see a device that might be recording you, whether you know it is or not, but you don't have to if you can clearly see that those devices are locked-out.
Furthermore, if your Glass screen is off and you're going to keep it off so I know you're not recording, why don't you just take it off when asked, rather than letting yourself be removed from a place for being an ass? Is it possible that you, in fact, did intend to use the device, or that you have already hacked together a camera app that does not require the screen to be lit? In that case, a physical interlock is the only assurance the people around you have that you are, 100%, for certain, not recording them. Period.
Well, no... not really... you could just put the damned thing away. Like smartphone users do.
I'd prefer it were easy for me to identify the devices that can't possibly be recording me and the ones which might be, rather than the ones that definitely are and the ones that might be. A physical interlock makes it visibly obvious that the camera is disabled and a device without one may be recording at any time, whereas a "recording light" makes it obvious that a device is recording, while a device without one may still be recording at any time.
We're talking about people who what to know they're not being recorded, and a blinking light does not and can not accomplish that when there are already hundreds of millions of devices in the hands of the general public that do not have that light. I'd just keep using my current phone and my 3 current cameras and you'd keep wondering if I was recording you.
With a physical interlock, you *KNOW* you are not being recorded. If I leave the lens cap on my camera, you know I'm not photographing you, just like you know I'm not recording you with my phone in my pocket or set on the table facing downward. With Glass, you do NOT know you are not being recorded, because Glass users refuse to take the device off of their face and put it away.
Such a system would never work in a movie theater. A physical interlock is intended to make it obvious that the device can not possibly be recording, which can only work if the device is generally visible. In a movie theater setting, it would be trivial to use an older device, already existing on the market, with no interlock, or physically disable the interlock, and not be seen.
The physical interlock is intended as a reassurance to whoever the camera is pointed at that yes, this device is capable of recording photos and video, but that capability has been physically disabled for now. Kind of like setting your phone down so that its camera is aimed at either the table or the sky/ceiling, or putting it in your pocket; the people around you can be pretty sure you're not taking photos or video of them. Taking the damn Google Glass off your face would work just as well, but nobody wearing it ever wants to accept that solution.
It's obvious that you're not taking photos or video when your phone is camera-side down on the table, with the screen off, or when it's in your pocket, or when you're placing a call and holding the phone with your finger covering the lens.
All of these stories about people getting kicked out of places for wearing Glass seem to start with them being asked to remove the device and put it away, which would be just as sensible of a solution, except that they always seem to refuse. There is no reasonable way to tell that Glass is not recording, because it is always worn and has no physical interlock. If a smartphone were always worn, leaving both of the user's hands free, then I would agree that a similar solution was needed; but, as it is, it's already exceedingly simple to tell when a smartphone cannot possibly be taking photos or video of me, dead simple to tell when it can be, and relatively obvious to tell when it is.
It's not a problem with smartphones and, therefore, does not need to be solved for smartphones.
Smart phones aren't what's being discussed here; and people aren't being asked to leave places for having smartphones, so that's not a problem that needs to be solved.
I'm assuming, based on your response, that you are a Glass user. If that is the case, then I must ask you, would you prefer being barred from establishments because of Glass, or being allowed in, but with reduced functionality? Right now, without the shutter lock, you're stuck with the former, while a shutter lock would enable the latter. This is a good thing, overall, though it does mean you would have to buy a *new* new toy, since your current toy doesn't have the shutter lock. Plight of the early-adopter.
Har har har, that was so witty I can't even feel the pain I'm sure it caused deep in my soul. I love you so much, AC; if I didn't, I wouldn't bother feeding you.
This. Or, allow businesses to register their locations as "Glass-Free" and if Glass detects that it is at one of those locations (via GPS) it disables the camera automatically, with a physical (and visible) shutter. Audio recording should be allowed, as one may legitimately wish to record their own notes. Likewise, if Glass can't get a GPS signal, it should default to this state.
There should, of course, be an override, because not every location lacking a GPS signal is a location where Glass should not be allowed and there may be cases where the owner of an establishment wishes to allow Glass, even if they generally do not. The override should trigger a very conspicuous indicator light and notify Google so that they may send an SMS to the owner of the establishment, informing them that a Glass user has activated their override and may be filming or photographing in their establishment. At that point, the owner of the establishment would have an easy way to identify this person (the indicator light) and ask them to leave. Glass could also quarantine any photos, audio (which would not be quarantined normally -- another incentive to not enable the override if you are legitimately using the device to record your personal notes), or video taken during an override for a period of 24 hours, giving the owner of an establishment the opportunity to review the material and either allow it or disallow it; disallowed material would then be deleted.
There, problem solved.
Agreed.
How did I not let him speak on anything? I flat-out said I with more politicians would speak as openly as Romney does. I'm not cutting anyone any breaks based on their actions *or* words; look at it this way: someone with ill intent will occasionally say or do the right thing, but if it lacks sincerity (which you be discerned when their actions and their words consistently agree with each other), it should not be applauded.
How, exactly, was I not supporting the sentiment that people need jobs? I've been there; for a decade I supported my (at the time) fiancee and myself on less than $16k, then found myself unemployed for 6 months before finding a job that was worth a damn. It took me over a decade to find a job that was worth shit; trust me, I know how it is and I fully support the notion that things should not be the way they are. I'm not sure what his ability to make the Olympics profitable has to do with the general population's ability to find gainful employment, though. One is putting money in the pockets of the state and businesses operating within the state and the other is putting money in the pockets of the people; while it is true that businesses have to have money in order to pay people and states must have income from non-tax sources in order to allow people to keep more of their money, neither of those prerequisites ensures those outcomes. That's the part you're missing and Romney can't change that, as it's an institutional problem with the companies involved and the fact that the state, any state can always find a way to spend more money, rather than letting people keep it. I don't fault him for his inability to affect this degree of change, it is simply outside the abilities of any single person, but I also to not support him because I do not and can not support where his words and actions come from, regardless of whether the outcome of some of those actions may be favorable to me.
Here's a bigger hint, touched upon, briefly, above: Supplement looking at what they do by listening to what they say. Just because someone does something that ultimately benefits you does not mean they have your interests at hear, and their words may very well reveal this to you,
This isn't a Democrat vs Republican thing, this is about sincerity and who our politicians are actually working for.
In the context of general welfare programs funded at the federal level (Social Security and Medicare are not GENERAL welfare programs, and food stamps are funded at the state or local level), which is what he was talking about, he was absolutely correct in context. He never said 47% have never put anything into them, he said that 47% are not putting anything into them; since these programs are funded by Federal Income Tax, he is correct in context, as well.
The man is despicable and his position, in general, is indefensible, but he was absolutely, 100% correct in that quote. I just wish more of our politicians would speak their minds so openly; we might begin to see actual, meaningful change in our government if we encouraged more of this.
His comment was in reference to Federal Income Tax, which is how the programs to which he was referring are funded. Payroll tax, the only federal tax in your long list, is unlikely to be paid by the poor, as the poor tend to not own businesses with employees other than themselves. Sales tax is a state tax used to fund state programs and, on top of that, not every state has a sales tax. Bus fares pay for buses and many municipalities have privately-run bus lines; this is direct payment for a service at the time of use and is not, in any way, shape, or form, a tax. Property tax is often a local tax and, if not local, is a state tax.
The only tax that actually matters for the programs he was referring to is Federal Income Tax. Period.
Furthermore, you may wish to actually read the first article you linked; I did, before I made my first post in this thread; it supports Romney's 47% number, with numbers from the Tax Policy Center, including a breakdown of who, exactly, is not paying income tax, and your perception of this group is dead wrong. I'm not even going to bother with the New Republic article, as I've already reviewed the actual numbers involved, so the opinion of some biased publication (and this is including CBS and Fox) is of little value to me, as I'm perfectly capable of forming my own.
Again, Romney was factually correct in the context of the general welfare programs to which he was referring, whether or not you support where he's coming from which, for the record, I do not.
I don't know, because I don't know exactly what his rationale for complaining was. Perhaps ask one of his supporters if you sincerely want an answer. All I said was he was factually correct, which he was, and that I support his right to speak publicly about his beliefs regarding the nature of his job and wish more politicians would do the same, since that is information we can use to weed out the Romneys of the world.
To be clear, I don't support any person in office; I merely approve of or disapprove of their actions, typically on an action-by-action basis. Do I support what Romney said as fact? The available facts seem to align with it, so yes. Do I support his right to say what he said? It's a right I take very seriously and, without it, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation, or openly discussing politics at all, so yes. Do I support the sentiment behind his words? That's a firm "no".
The 47% number is nearly dead-on the 46.4% number for 2011, as stated by the Tax Policy Center. The numbers on that page now are for 2012 and it looks like 44.3% didn't pay income tax last year. Supposedly, according to a quote from the video attached to this article, they're looking to push that number down below 40% by the end of the decade. That article also contains some other numbers you may find interesting (including the 2011 numbers from the Tax Policy Center page I linked to).
Are you sure you're not confusing Medicare and Social Security with Income Tax? I paid those, too, for the entire decade that I was making $16k/yr, but those don't go into funding general welfare programs and, so, aren't relevant to the topic Romney was commenting on.
Me? A Romney supporter?
Even moreso, my understanding is that the transaction, upon which the contract was reliant, was cancelled by KlearGear, which would render the contract null and void, would it not?
The context was that 47% of Americans are taking out of a system they are not putting anything in to. That is not to say that they are expendable, as farhbot-bot implied (and in doing so, used the quote well out of context), just that they are a burden on the system in general, which is true. Romney further stated that it is his job to care about these people and, while I'm not a Romney supporter, I can't say that he is not doing his job, nor would I begrudge him his right to speak openly about exactly what he feels his job entails. In fact, we should expect this of all our politicians and openly encourage it, as it gives us some insight into their true intentions; insight which is vital to ensuring that we don't vote the Romneys of the world into power.
I'm not saying his sentiment was right, but the man was not wrong.
And out of context?
Damn autocorrect... the fact is that guns exist, not that they ecost.
The fact is that guns ecost. Even if guns became illegal today, criminals would not turn over their guns, and I think you know this. When only the crimes and the cops have guns and the cops are only minutes away when a criminal decides to put two in your chest, you might reconsider your position. If guns didn't already exist in the hands of criminals, or there ware some way to make guns cease to exist at all, that would be just as well, too, but you have to recognize the reality of the situation, and that is that you can't just make guns illegal because the repercussions of that would be dire. Gun control can't work as long as guns exist and it can't work if they don't; it can't work, period.