permanent use and resale licenses to changeable information (software, art, literature, music, movies) which can be traded securely, without loss or duplication, in a public market, is a form of currency.
Ah, but there is a *major* difference between a hundred dollar bill (in or out of the bank) and hundred dollars worth of software: Money has no use except as currency. (You could usa a coin as a primitive screwdriver, but that's about it...) Software, music and other forms of "IP currency" are useful in them selves (even Britney Spears and PowerPoint, just to save you from the obvious reply:-)
If everyone multiplies their bank account by 100, the value of those accounts is instantly divided by 100. If everyone multiplies their music collection by 100, everyone gets a hundred times more music.
Getting, and keeping, the high-productivity criminals off the street is very effective
True. Most efforts to do so have also been very, very unconstitutional. (pretty much any constitution, not US-specific)
My uncle is a small town cop. He and his collegues generally knows/exactly/ who is behind most car thefts and break-ins. Nevertheless they must prove the 100'th offence as careful as the first. That is called equality in front of the law and is IMHO a good thing.
Yes, it sucks not to be able to catch the guy you *know* did it. It sucks even more to get sent to jail because someone "knew" you did something you didn't.
So while I agree with you in general (focus on a few "high-productivity criminals" being effective), achieving that focus with legal means is not that easy. Especially if the "targets" are aware of their rights.
Re:Freedom without responsibility?
on
CFP 2000 Wrapup
·
· Score: 3
There are some legitimate reasons why we cannot add responsibility. Take, for example, an online forum dedicated to helping people recover from rape/molestation. It's an unmoderated forum (for legal reasons) and an anonymous one (for psychological reasons). It's anonymous for a damn good reason, actually - it's to *prevent* people from disclosing their identities.
Yes take that forum. Remove responsibility. Then *someone* is bound not to respect anonymity and disclose someone elses identity. (I'm sure my friends recognize my real identity even when I use an alias, especially if I talk about personal things) *Someone* is bound to post false charges on the forum, effectively destroying someones life...
I'm sure the original poster did not mean responsibility forced upon you by technical measures and law, but *moral* responsibilities.
However, nothing short of providing methods to uncover the identity of all involved parties will provide/any/ responsibility. Yet, the freedom is there. As is the potential for abuse.
An alias provides some responsibility. An alert moderator/administrator as well.
One [freedom/responsibility] can exist without the other. Ask any teenager.
"I won't get caught" is *not* the same as "I am not responsible"
I have to pay taxes every year.. for stuff I'll never use.
You pay taxes every year... for the *freedom* for anyone to use that stuff (Lets take the discussion about govenmet efficiency some other day OK?)
I'm a mouse-click away from posting this anonymously. Will my clicking that box affect your judgement of me?
"Signal 11" carries a bit more weight then "Anonymous Coward" dont you say? If you had clicked that box it would have influenced my judgement of the post. Not primarily because it would no longer be from Signal 11 but because I generally rank AC posts lower than signed posts, as long as there is not an obvious reason for the anonymity. If you had clicked that box it would *not* have influenced my judgement of you, since I wouldn't know it was you. Since you did *not* click it, my judgement of you is influenced (either way). Merely marginally, since you have a track record, but somehow influenced.
In the Real World, speaking your mind can get you slapped with a lawsuit.
In the online world, I'm virtually powerless against slander. Today someone cracks CSS and distribute it so the action can never be undone. Tomorrow someone cracks NN's encrypted mail, where she talks about how she was molestated and distributes *that* the same way.
"A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular"
Let me rephrase: "A free society is one in which the unpopular does not need to hide"
There are very real problems concerning the freedom we currently enjoy on the net. Some people even think that those problems outweigh the advandages of the freedom. I do not agree, neither do you (I guess), but refusing to admit there are problems instead of adressing them will only make *their* case stronger. Therefore this rant.
One thing I've noticed over the past couple years is that just as in the "Real World", both women and girls online are rediculously compulsive chatters.
Pretty much like your average slashdotter:-) (slashdaughter? Hey at least that is a better word than chickclicker...)
Seriously: Call it a discussion among peers, casual talk, chat or simply gossip. That is what most people, sex aside, has used the web for since... well at least the ten years I've been online.
Where I live, lethal force is legal against someone merely trying to enter my residence.
Remind me never to pay you a surprise visit:-)
Actually I was speaking morally, not legally. I put right to life over right to property any day. I respect your right to defend your property, but *not* to the extent of taking another human beings life. If your life, or that a third party is in danger I see the cause for possibly lethal force. Only then. (and "He *might* have killed me, I heard about this other burglar on CBS who..." does not cut it)
As I said (at least I think I said it in this thread, if not: my shame) I do not believe any restrictive gun-control sceme will work in the US. (for the record I'm not american) I am certain that the majority of american gun owners are very aware of the responsibility that comes with the freedom to bear arms. I certainly realize that a "real" criminal (as opposed to a casual thief) will not be affected by any law. (carrying a gun w/o licence is peanuts compared to robbery, at the very best it gives a police officer something to book him for)
The reason for my thoughts about a licencing sceme is that I was wondering about how to target the not insignificant minority that are not hardened criminals, but fail to take their responsibility seriously. Perhaps the implications would be overbroad, perhaps too narrow. It is still more constructive than digging trenches.
general licensing schemes don't solve the high-profile shootings by people who just snap
Not all of them, but perhaps some. Unfortunately we never hear of the incidents that *don't* happen
It's obvious safety training only addresses accidents
Why the bold "only"? It is also obvious that there is a large grey zone in the statistics you refer to, since it (probably) only contains accidents that resulted in personal injury (and where the victim saw a doctor)
Actually, I had a "hidden agenda" concerning safety training. Mandatory safety training is something that the average law abiding citizen might agree to. Therefore it is a form of licensing that might actually be accepted. It does not affect your *right* to buy a gun, it just throws some inertia into the system. It makes you stop to think for a moment. And that might do more good besides simply reducing the number of accidents.
Oh and I know what an AK74 is. And I can tell the difference btw AK47, AKM and AK74. Guess I should have included a smiley:-) Dammit assault rifles (or automatic carbines) are really fun shooting. Don't get me started or I'll lose all credibility as a pro-control guy...
[Alarm system]
I *did* say best, not "the most cost effective"
And finally the scenario.
What I was getting at was that all cases are not simple matters of "Obvious homocidal robber vs Law abiding citizen" The cops finds person A with a smoking gun over the dead body of person B. No witnesses. Homocide or self defence?
Someone pulls a gun at you because he just escaped a mugger who somehow resembled you and (in panic) honestly think you want him dead. Regardless of who kills who, he could probably claim self defence.
A foreigner who does not understand when the texan shouts "freeze" grabs inside his coat for a phrase book...
You always shoot to kill because that gives you the best chances to stop an attacker. Unfortunately, this is a sad fact of life, and stopping an attacker is always the ultimate goal of self-defense
Is the ultimate goal of self defence not to escape or minimize any harm intended for you? A dead person in your house can cause you far more harm than some lost property.
That is why *I* don't believe in guns for self defence. I respect your opinion. I don't want to take *your* gun (if your judgement is as good as your writing) I just want people to think before making a desicion.
But that is a problem with specific skinned apps, not with skinning as a concept.
No. That *is* a problem with skinning as a implementation, but *not* with customizable UI as a concept.
Sure a skin can make my desktop look more "mine" but that is only skin deep (pun intended). Skins give me no chance of configuring what I really want to change, like keyboard shortcuts, tab order, defaults etc.
Those things are not as easy to configure as a simple bitmap and what's worse: A skinned application makes it harder to really configure anything, since the visual aid (skin) might not be compatible with the altered functionality. (if a button says "Play..." but it's keyboard equivalent is "L" for example)
Yes, by all means, customize your *own* computer anyway you like. Just...
Leave the standard interface as default!!!
On a windows machine: let your apps work like windows programs out of the box On a mac: let them work like mac apps On a Linux box: Well pick *some* standard.
Why? because someone will have to learn how to use that app and I bet they would rather spend their time getting to know the real functionality (including any customization) then learning what to click on.
Dont make a hammer with racing stripes and a horn, make a vanilla hammer with racing stripe and horn add-ons!
Some driver might prefer to have the acccelerator to the left in their car. OK so change it. I think you would agree that a car manufacturer should stick to the standard.
Some aspects of the Win GUI suck big time, but if you cannot do *substantially* better, then stick to the standard. Want chrome? Get an add-on. Tired of the whole environment? Get another OS...
And while you're at it, check out the interface hall of shame to read more.
While tragic, the instances you cite are statistically very very rare
Rare, yes, but they get a lot of attention. If you are pro-gun, a licensing scheme might target high-profile gun abuse without really affecting legitimate use. That is, lessen the pressure for even harder gun control laws.
one thing is lost: the millions of acts of self-defense using a gun that occur each year in America.
No. I did not say anything about forbidding guns for self defence. (I don't believe in them myself, but that is beside the point) I suggested a *licence* for self-defence guns. First prove that you can handle the gun properly and most important: That you understand the consequences should you ever fire the gun at another human being.
citizens have absolutely no reason to expect the police to protect them
But they *should* have. The risk of getting caught *should* be enough to discourage all but the really desperate. Unfortunately that is not the case
how do you propose that people protect themselves...
Actually, the best defence would probably be a decent alarm system. (And a police with decent response time) You might succeed in scaring a mugger off with your gun, but if he is *not* scared? If he calmly says "You don't have the guts to fire, and if you do me and my friend here will swear that we were just asking you what time it was when you pulled a gun on us."
What do you do in that scenario? Shoot? To kill?
Given the choise between losing your wallet and face a manslaughter charge (or at least assault with a deadly weapon or something similar) do you really think that the latter is a better option?
OK I posted the idea, so I'll try to give some answers. *My* ideas, not intended to be a perfect solution.
I can possess and drive a car on my own property without any license, so long as I don't take it onto a public street. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
No.
I can drive a car through downtown DC if I have a license issued in Idaho. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
Probably, Yes. Why not?
Just about anyone with sufficient motor coordination, eyesight, and sanity to be able to function without assistance can routinely expect pass a driver's license test. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
Not as you put it. However I don't want impossible tests, just a sanity check and a delay.
The same license covers the driving of cars ranging from a Yugo to an Alfa Romeo (special licenses kicking in for full-sized trucks). Would this be the case with your proposed gun license (anything from.22 pistols to semi-auto rifles covered by a standard license, special licenses kicking in for machine guns)?
Some license classes would be neccesary. See my original post.
You prepare for a revolution if you want, but before you start, think about how much good it did in russia.
...and France, and America, and England...:-)
... and China, and Cuba, and Iraq, and Cambodia...:-(
The french revolution was bad news indeed for the aristocrats, but IIRC most of the victims were regular people whose snitching neighbours carried a grudge. And I seriously doubt that Napoleon was more benign than Louis XVI (albeit less clueless)
Admitted, a revolution now and then might shake some pieces into place. Far too often the end result is a new nomenklatura. Most often the cause is a weak formal ruler in a tradition of strong governments and a strong informal leader.
The new leader might be smarter, but not neccesarily better for the people. Power and corruption, same old story.
Your post (and the AC austalian you replied to) was the most sensible on/. today.
There are no quick fixes to social problems. No laws will stop "career criminals". Disasters happen, one incident does *not* create a pattern. Guns are effective, therefor dangerous, tools. I dont want a gun in the hands of anyone whom I wouldn't trust with my sysadmin password. That is *my* stance. I cant tell *you* what to do.
Killing is wrong. Yes, killing a "criminal" is also wrong. You prepare fo a revolution if you want, but before you start, think about how much good it did in russia.
Arms races happen for a reason: once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
Guns are *not* all or nothing. You can stop the supply even if there is a huge pool out there.
Do you want only the government and criminals to have guns? What does that solve? Yes, fewer accidental shootings. So the kids at columbine would have taken everyone out with pipe bombs (as I recall the ones that they used miraculously didn't go off, so in the future people will know to check out a few bombs before using them). Wow. huge improvement.
If cops and hardened criminals are the only ones with easy access to guns, one thing is gained: The "normal citizen" who goes nuts one day, will *not* simply have to walk by the nearest gun shop before gunning down his coworkers (or classmates)
Preparing pipe bombs takes some time. Getting a gun when there is a waiting period or a required license takes *time* Time during which you might get back to your senses.
Oh, and the constitution does guarantee the right of people to bear arms. It sites specifically that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
You don't suppose something might have happened since then? Or are the americans still a bunch of revolutionaries fighting against colonists? I get your point about how states change for the wors, but lets stick to the situation *today*
So how do you propose to disarm the law-abiding populace of America and yet allow them to maintain their freedom against those who would take it away from them?
Licenses. You want a gun for sports shooting? Take a test for a sports shooting licence. Show that you can handle the weapon type in question in a proper way. *Then* you can have a gun. Hunting? Prove that you can handle the rifle (and hunt in a responsible way, ie hit to kill not to maim) *Then* you can have that hunting rifle (and an ak74 is *not* a hunting rifle ) You really need a gun for self defence? Get a license. Requirements: Safe gun handling *and* understanding of the responsabilities. Killing a burglar is *not* self defence. If you can't prove that he was a lethal threat, you will probably be facing at least a manslaughter charge. You want to be part of that militia, neccesary in that free country? Organise a militia, coordinated with (not governed by) the regular forces. Let officers of that militia issue licenses *and* be responsible for them. (criminal neglect or whatever the legal term might be)
Oh, and what about if I die because you drive drunk, tired, with screaming kids in your car who distract you, etc? Should you have a car?
Cars come with a drivers licence. If you are caught drunk driving, you should have your licence revoked. Not everyone is caught before it is too late, but *some* are.
If you are openly prejudiced against blacks, women or jews you will get in serious trouble today. (In the western world)
That does not mean that the xenofobia is gone. Prejudice against arabs is "OK" (see any news report)
If you kick Jews out of your store, you are out of business and into the courtroom faster than you can say swastika If you kick out gypsies (that the nazis sent to the gas chambers even quicker than the jews), few people care.
Yes, the "normal" people outnumber the screaming bigots. Unfortunately, the latter come in clusters.
I believe that the role of a government is to solve (or at least limit the damage of) any problem that does not solve itself.
The day that people start acting in everybodies best intrest, including (but *not* limited to) their own, no formal government is neccesary.
Until then, as you say, sometimes *someone* must keep the hotheads in their corners. Someone must say "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you" or "Just because *You* want it, you cannot force it upon everyone else"
Sometimes individuals sort these things out. When they don't I prefer a battle with clear rules and an umpire to no-rules-ultimate-combat.
You are quite right about not mixing up the issues. In any argument, inside or outside of court, when you are deep down in the trenches on the major points, any minor point scored (however irrelevant) helps tilting the scale.
As I see it this case is a match between two "divine" rights: Freedom of speech vs Right to property.
Now that is a hevyweight match indeed. Both sides have massive support, but nobody (I hope) wants any side to get knocked out.
So the key is to shift the attention to the other arenas, preferably one where your side has more support. "We" prefer focus on the "Little guy vs megacorp" match, the MPAA tries to point the cameras on "Law abiding citizen vs evil pirate"
The MPAA has the resources to spread the fight over many rings, we need to avoid losing fights.
(and when I say "we" I mean "I and those who agree with me")
I'll say it again just to be sure. I believe that a private entity has the right to do or not do business with whomsoever it sees fit. (For the record, I'm against all anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity laws too.)
Agin for the record, I'm oppsosed to most anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws, but I'm certainly not opposed to anti-discrimination and equal opportunity.
Unfortunately the right to choose whom I do business with is too often a cover up for discrimination and bigottery. The market does not punish those who discriminate according to popular prejudice. How many stores in southern USA was "punished by the market" for their "No niggers" policy?
I know that the real issue is that dangerous precedent, not this ISP who is acting accordingly. However there is a worrying trend of censorship throug proxy. The government can not censor since there are strong feelings about state censorship. Instead they make ISP liable for content, and the censorship is carried though "volontarily"
if Alice asks Bob where to buy cocaine and Bob tells her to go to Cathy and Cathy really is a coke dealer, then Alice has committed a crime (unless maybe if Bob was an investigative reporter or a cop and Alice was providing the information under the understanding that Bob wasn't actually looking to buy coke).
If I put up a sign in my window saying "There lives a coke dealer in the appartment across the street" Is that a crime? I don't tell a specific drug user how to get his stuff, I tell everyone including reporters and police.
(In reality I would have a hard time. If the drug dealer's goons don't get me, the Coca-Cola companys lawyers will:-)
Slashdot Mirror
If everyone multiplies their bank account by 100, the value of those accounts is instantly divided by 100.
I meant: ...the value of each dollar on those accounts is instantly divided by 100.
So the value of the account is constant.
Ah, but there is a *major* difference between a hundred dollar bill (in or out of the bank) and hundred dollars worth of software: :-)
Money has no use except as currency. (You could usa a coin as a primitive screwdriver, but that's about it...)
Software, music and other forms of "IP currency" are useful in them selves (even Britney Spears and PowerPoint, just to save you from the obvious reply
If everyone multiplies their bank account by 100, the value of those accounts is instantly divided by 100. If everyone multiplies their music collection by 100, everyone gets a hundred times more music.
True. Most efforts to do so have also been very, very unconstitutional. (pretty much any constitution, not US-specific)
My uncle is a small town cop. He and his collegues generally knows /exactly/ who is behind most car thefts and break-ins. Nevertheless they must prove the 100'th offence as careful as the first. That is called equality in front of the law and is IMHO a good thing.
Yes, it sucks not to be able to catch the guy you *know* did it.
It sucks even more to get sent to jail because someone "knew" you did something you didn't.
So while I agree with you in general (focus on a few "high-productivity criminals" being effective), achieving that focus with legal means is not that easy. Especially if the "targets" are aware of their rights.
Yes take that forum. Remove responsibility. Then *someone* is bound not to respect anonymity and disclose someone elses identity. (I'm sure my friends recognize my real identity even when I use an alias, especially if I talk about personal things)
*Someone* is bound to post false charges on the forum, effectively destroying someones life...
I'm sure the original poster did not mean responsibility forced upon you by technical measures and law, but *moral* responsibilities.
However, nothing short of providing methods to uncover the identity of all involved parties will provide /any/ responsibility. Yet, the freedom is there. As is the potential for abuse.
An alias provides some responsibility. An alert moderator/administrator as well.
One [freedom/responsibility] can exist without the other. Ask any teenager.
"I won't get caught" is *not* the same as "I am not responsible"
I have to pay taxes every year.. for stuff I'll never use.
You pay taxes every year... for the *freedom* for anyone to use that stuff (Lets take the discussion about govenmet efficiency some other day OK?)
I'm a mouse-click away from posting this anonymously. Will my clicking that box affect your judgement of me?
"Signal 11" carries a bit more weight then "Anonymous Coward" dont you say?
If you had clicked that box it would have influenced my judgement of the post. Not primarily because it would no longer be from Signal 11 but because I generally rank AC posts lower than signed posts, as long as there is not an obvious reason for the anonymity.
If you had clicked that box it would *not* have influenced my judgement of you, since I wouldn't know it was you.
Since you did *not* click it, my judgement of you is influenced (either way). Merely marginally, since you have a track record, but somehow influenced.
In the Real World, speaking your mind can get you slapped with a lawsuit.
In the online world, I'm virtually powerless against slander. Today someone cracks CSS and distribute it so the action can never be undone. Tomorrow someone cracks NN's encrypted mail, where she talks about how she was molestated and distributes *that* the same way.
"A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular"
Let me rephrase: "A free society is one in which the unpopular does not need to hide"
There are very real problems concerning the freedom we currently enjoy on the net. Some people even think that those problems outweigh the advandages of the freedom.
I do not agree, neither do you (I guess), but refusing to admit there are problems instead of adressing them will only make *their* case stronger. Therefore this rant.
Oh no I opened myself for a Cheap shot, So change "The web" into "Internet" in my post and go on with your life.
Pretty much like your average slashdotter :-)
(slashdaughter? Hey at least that is a better word than chickclicker...)
Seriously: Call it a discussion among peers, casual talk, chat or simply gossip. That is what most people, sex aside, has used the web for since... well at least the ten years I've been online.
Ditto
Remind me never to pay you a surprise visit :-)
Actually I was speaking morally, not legally. I put right to life over right to property any day.
I respect your right to defend your property, but *not* to the extent of taking another human beings life.
If your life, or that a third party is in danger I see the cause for possibly lethal force. Only then. (and "He *might* have killed me, I heard about this other burglar on CBS who..." does not cut it)
I do not believe any restrictive gun-control sceme will work in the US. (for the record I'm not american) I am certain that the majority of american gun owners are very aware of the responsibility that comes with the freedom to bear arms. I certainly realize that a "real" criminal (as opposed to a casual thief) will not be affected by any law. (carrying a gun w/o licence is peanuts compared to robbery, at the very best it gives a police officer something to book him for)
The reason for my thoughts about a licencing sceme is that I was wondering about how to target the not insignificant minority that are not hardened criminals, but fail to take their responsibility seriously. Perhaps the implications would be overbroad, perhaps too narrow. It is still more constructive than digging trenches.
general licensing schemes don't solve the high-profile shootings by people who just snap
Not all of them, but perhaps some. Unfortunately we never hear of the incidents that *don't* happen
It's obvious safety training only addresses accidents
Why the bold "only"? It is also obvious that there is a large grey zone in the statistics you refer to, since it (probably) only contains accidents that resulted in personal injury (and where the victim saw a doctor)
Actually, I had a "hidden agenda" concerning safety training. Mandatory safety training is something that the average law abiding citizen might agree to. Therefore it is a form of licensing that might actually be accepted. It does not affect your *right* to buy a gun, it just throws some inertia into the system. It makes you stop to think for a moment. And that might do more good besides simply reducing the number of accidents.
Oh and I know what an AK74 is. And I can tell the difference btw AK47, AKM and AK74. Guess I should have included a smiley :-) Dammit assault rifles (or automatic carbines) are really fun shooting. Don't get me started or I'll lose all credibility as a pro-control guy...
[Alarm system]
I *did* say best, not "the most cost effective"
And finally the scenario.
What I was getting at was that all cases are not simple matters of "Obvious homocidal robber vs Law abiding citizen"
The cops finds person A with a smoking gun over the dead body of person B. No witnesses. Homocide or self defence?
Someone pulls a gun at you because he just escaped a mugger who somehow resembled you and (in panic) honestly think you want him dead. Regardless of who kills who, he could probably claim self defence.
A foreigner who does not understand when the texan shouts "freeze" grabs inside his coat for a phrase book...
You always shoot to kill because that gives you the best chances to stop an attacker. Unfortunately, this is a sad fact of life, and stopping an attacker is always the ultimate goal of self-defense
Is the ultimate goal of self defence not to escape or minimize any harm intended for you?
A dead person in your house can cause you far more harm than some lost property.
That is why *I* don't believe in guns for self defence. I respect your opinion. I don't want to take *your* gun (if your judgement is as good as your writing) I just want people to think before making a desicion.
Regards
No.
That *is* a problem with skinning as a implementation, but *not* with customizable UI as a concept.
Sure a skin can make my desktop look more "mine" but that is only skin deep (pun intended). Skins give me no chance of configuring what I really want to change, like keyboard shortcuts, tab order, defaults etc.
Those things are not as easy to configure as a simple bitmap and what's worse: A skinned application makes it harder to really configure anything, since the visual aid (skin) might not be compatible with the altered functionality. (if a button says "Play..." but it's keyboard equivalent is "L" for example)
Skins are a fun add-on. Let's keep it at that.
If the above is not a link this time either, I guess /. has a bug.
Leave the standard interface as default!!!
On a windows machine: let your apps work like windows programs out of the box
On a mac: let them work like mac apps
On a Linux box: Well pick *some* standard.
Why? because someone will have to learn how to use that app and I bet they would rather spend their time getting to know the real functionality (including any customization) then learning what to click on.
Dont make a hammer with racing stripes and a horn, make a vanilla hammer with racing stripe and horn add-ons!
Some driver might prefer to have the acccelerator to the left in their car. OK so change it. I think you would agree that a car manufacturer should stick to the standard.
Some aspects of the Win GUI suck big time, but if you cannot do *substantially* better, then stick to the standard. Want chrome? Get an add-on. Tired of the whole environment? Get another OS...
And while you're at it, check out the interface hall of shame to read more.
Rare, yes, but they get a lot of attention. If you are pro-gun, a licensing scheme might target high-profile gun abuse without really affecting legitimate use. That is, lessen the pressure for even harder gun control laws.
one thing is lost: the millions of acts of self-defense using a gun that occur each year in America.
No.
I did not say anything about forbidding guns for self defence. (I don't believe in them myself, but that is beside the point) I suggested a *licence* for self-defence guns. First prove that you can handle the gun properly and most important: That you understand the consequences should you ever fire the gun at another human being.
citizens have absolutely no reason to expect the police to protect them
But they *should* have. The risk of getting caught *should* be enough to discourage all but the really desperate. Unfortunately that is not the case
how do you propose that people protect themselves...
Actually, the best defence would probably be a decent alarm system. (And a police with decent response time)
You might succeed in scaring a mugger off with your gun, but if he is *not* scared? If he calmly says "You don't have the guts to fire, and if you do me and my friend here will swear that we were just asking you what time it was when you pulled a gun on us."
What do you do in that scenario?
Shoot?
To kill?
Given the choise between losing your wallet and face a manslaughter charge (or at least assault with a deadly weapon or something similar) do you really think that the latter is a better option?
I can possess and drive a car on my own property without any license, so long as I don't take it onto a public street. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
No.
I can drive a car through downtown DC if I have a license issued in Idaho. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
Probably, Yes. Why not?
Just about anyone with sufficient motor coordination, eyesight, and sanity to be able to function without assistance can routinely expect pass a driver's license test. Would this be the case with your proposed gun license?
Not as you put it. However I don't want impossible tests, just a sanity check and a delay.
The same license covers the driving of cars ranging from a Yugo to an Alfa Romeo (special licenses kicking in for full-sized trucks). Would this be the case with your proposed gun license (anything from .22 pistols to semi-auto rifles covered by a standard license, special licenses kicking in for machine guns)?
Some license classes would be neccesary. See my original post.
As I said, I'm just trying to be constructive.
The french revolution was bad news indeed for the aristocrats, but IIRC most of the victims were regular people whose snitching neighbours carried a grudge. And I seriously doubt that Napoleon was more benign than Louis XVI (albeit less clueless)
Admitted, a revolution now and then might shake some pieces into place. Far too often the end result is a new nomenklatura. Most often the cause is a weak formal ruler in a tradition of strong governments and a strong informal leader.
The new leader might be smarter, but not neccesarily better for the people. Power and corruption, same old story.
There are no quick fixes to social problems.
No laws will stop "career criminals".
Disasters happen, one incident does *not* create a pattern.
Guns are effective, therefor dangerous, tools. I dont want a gun in the hands of anyone whom I wouldn't trust with my sysadmin password. That is *my* stance. I cant tell *you* what to do.
Killing is wrong.
Yes, killing a "criminal" is also wrong.
You prepare fo a revolution if you want, but before you start, think about how much good it did in russia.
Peace, please?
Guns are *not* all or nothing. You can stop the supply even if there is a huge pool out there.
Do you want only the government and criminals to have guns? What does that solve? Yes, fewer accidental shootings. So the kids at columbine would have taken everyone out with pipe bombs (as I recall the ones that they used miraculously didn't go off, so in the future people will know to check out a few bombs before using them). Wow. huge improvement.
If cops and hardened criminals are the only ones with easy access to guns, one thing is gained: The "normal citizen" who goes nuts one day, will *not* simply have to walk by the nearest gun shop before gunning down his coworkers (or classmates)
Preparing pipe bombs takes some time. Getting a gun when there is a waiting period or a required license takes *time* Time during which you might get back to your senses.
Oh, and the constitution does guarantee the right of people to bear arms. It sites specifically that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
You don't suppose something might have happened since then? Or are the americans still a bunch of revolutionaries fighting against colonists? I get your point about how states change for the wors, but lets stick to the situation *today*
So how do you propose to disarm the law-abiding populace of America and yet allow them to maintain their freedom against those who would take it away from them?
Licenses.
You want a gun for sports shooting? Take a test for a sports shooting licence. Show that you can handle the weapon type in question in a proper way. *Then* you can have a gun.
Hunting? Prove that you can handle the rifle (and hunt in a responsible way, ie hit to kill not to maim) *Then* you can have that hunting rifle (and an ak74 is *not* a hunting rifle )
You really need a gun for self defence? Get a license. Requirements: Safe gun handling *and* understanding of the responsabilities. Killing a burglar is *not* self defence. If you can't prove that he was a lethal threat, you will probably be facing at least a manslaughter charge.
You want to be part of that militia, neccesary in that free country? Organise a militia, coordinated with (not governed by) the regular forces. Let officers of that militia issue licenses *and* be responsible for them. (criminal neglect or whatever the legal term might be)
Oh, and what about if I die because you drive drunk, tired, with screaming kids in your car who distract you, etc? Should you have a car?
Cars come with a drivers licence. If you are caught drunk driving, you should have your licence revoked. Not everyone is caught before it is too late, but *some* are.
That does not mean that the xenofobia is gone. Prejudice against arabs is "OK" (see any news report)
If you kick Jews out of your store, you are out of business and into the courtroom faster than you can say swastika
If you kick out gypsies (that the nazis sent to the gas chambers even quicker than the jews), few people care.
Yes, the "normal" people outnumber the screaming bigots. Unfortunately, the latter come in clusters.
The day that people start acting in everybodies best intrest, including (but *not* limited to) their own, no formal government is neccesary.
Until then, as you say, sometimes *someone* must keep the hotheads in their corners. Someone must say "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you" or "Just because *You* want it, you cannot force it upon everyone else"
Sometimes individuals sort these things out. When they don't I prefer a battle with clear rules and an umpire to no-rules-ultimate-combat.
*sigh* wouldn't a perfect worl be nice?
In the case of Yugoslavia, nobody removed the symptoms nor the prejudice, they merely supressed them.
Legislation is a very blunt tool. Unfortunately there isn't any better one.
And Hey, we *do* have the governments we deserve.
Isn't the point of Open Source that someone else can turn A Good Start into KillerApp 7.2?
If [program X] is Open and [standard Y] is open... well what is keeping you (or someone else) from releasing Y-enabled X?
Curing prejudice with legislation is not an easy task. At the very best, we can remove the symptoms hoping that time will do the rest.
As I see it this case is a match between two "divine" rights: Freedom of speech vs Right to property.
Now that is a hevyweight match indeed. Both sides have massive support, but nobody (I hope) wants any side to get knocked out.
So the key is to shift the attention to the other arenas, preferably one where your side has more support. "We" prefer focus on the "Little guy vs megacorp" match, the MPAA tries to point the cameras on "Law abiding citizen vs evil pirate"
The MPAA has the resources to spread the fight over many rings, we need to avoid losing fights.
(and when I say "we" I mean "I and those who agree with me")
Agin for the record, I'm oppsosed to most anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws, but I'm certainly not opposed to anti-discrimination and equal opportunity.
Unfortunately the right to choose whom I do business with is too often a cover up for discrimination and bigottery. The market does not punish those who discriminate according to popular prejudice. How many stores in southern USA was "punished by the market" for their "No niggers" policy?
I know that the real issue is that dangerous precedent, not this ISP who is acting accordingly.
However there is a worrying trend of censorship throug proxy. The government can not censor since there are strong feelings about state censorship. Instead they make ISP liable for content, and the censorship is carried though "volontarily"
I'm worried
if Alice asks Bob where to buy cocaine and Bob tells her to go to Cathy and Cathy really is a coke dealer, then Alice has committed a crime (unless maybe if Bob was an investigative reporter or a cop and Alice was providing the information under the understanding that Bob wasn't actually looking to buy coke).
If I put up a sign in my window saying "There lives a coke dealer in the appartment across the street" Is that a crime? I don't tell a specific drug user how to get his stuff, I tell everyone including reporters and police.
(In reality I would have a hard time. If the drug dealer's goons don't get me, the Coca-Cola companys lawyers will :-)