Exactly... and even if they happened to create a perfect system on day one, the training required to get the average person to be able to use it would be herculean task.

It's hard enough convincing many of our parents not to type in their username & password to just everywhere "Look for the lock icon in the address bar" we used to say, until malicious sites started setting the icon of the site to a lock.

PKI is fantastic when it's largely automated and transparent... and I trust my parents web browser and OS's binary signature checking far more than I do their ability to learn how to actively participate in such a system.

We are talking about the same national government that couldn't rollout a website with major issues, on time or for a reasonable cost... why do you think a national PKI would be any easier or efficient to implement & rollout?

I don't understand why drivers are even needed any more.

For the same reason you still have plenty of humans working to build cars... the auto & rail labor unions are rather strong.

Now OS/2 I'll grant you, IBM fumbled hard on that one...

For the kids in the room you'll need to be more explicit, or I can.

One of it's biggest failings was claiming that it was "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows"... which is all fine and dandy except for it helps to remove the motivation to build much of anything specifically targeting for OS/2, rather than Windows... and being an 'also runs' OS doesn't get you much traction for adoption.

Because there are those who believe that voting today is just to gosh darn hard.

Too hard to find your polling place and go there during election hours.

Too hard to request an absentee ballot if you don't be able to make it on election day.

Too hard to come up with a photo id to prove you are who you say you are.

Here in Washington state we ignore all three of those and mail the ballot straight to your house and give you 3 weeks to return it to be counted. No possibility of fraud there!

Sometimes its not ser by the channel, but by the cable provider.

Up here near Seattle a few years back Frontier Communications acquired the Verizon FIOS they changed a few things, including the DRM settings for ALL channels they carried except for the must carry ones to the point that could only view a recording on the same PC that recorded it... So boycotting the channel isn't always feasible.

I don't know if this is still the case as a short time later I moved and now have the joy that is Comcast *rolls eyes *

Well then you aren't you lucky I provided a link to the research for you.

Actually... you didn't, I even referenced the sort of 'proof' I was expecting from folks like you as part of another convo.

None of the rest of your comment bears reading,

Really? So you admit defeat as you refuse to continue to engage? Good to know... but wait...

as its A) bullshit,

You realize that repeating the same claim over and over again doesn't make it true... right?

and B) all countered by research that you still havent yet, have you?

If you had bothered to read what I said and considered it, the falseness of your underling claims would be quite evident... but given your refusal to read what I said, is there a purpose to me saying much more?

I will finally say this... you and the other hoplophobes have lost not unlike those seeking to prevent same-sex marriage to be recognized legally in the US as the courts keep on upholding these individual rights, more so in fact in the case of the second amendment with Heller & McDonald which were rather broad, something that SSM supporters can only hope for from SCOTUS this summer... but again, why let facts get in the way of a good old fashion hate fest?

Blatant bullshit myth.

I look forward to seeing that evidence.

62 mass shootings over the past 30+ years, and not one location was chosen because it banned guns.

Wait... so every mass shooter over that time was interviewed after the fact and affirmatively said "Yeah, I didn't pick the school/mall/theater/etc because it was a gun free zone"? No? Then I call bullshit on your unsubstantiated claim.

These shooters aren't choosing locations based on whether guns are or aren't allowed.

We are still waiting for evidence of that from you.

Most are choosing locations because it's where they got pissed off, such as 20 workplace shootings.

'Most'... not... 'all'? Again, you fail with useful citations.

Remember the Aurora shooting? Funny thing, the shooter didn't decide to go shooting up his nearest theater, nor the second nearest nor even the third... he chose one which apparently 100% unrelated to you... prohibited guns. But that's just a coincidence... right?

Even at the schools where shootings occurred, only in 1 of the 12 school incidents did the shoot not have personal ties to the school.

So you again grasp for straws to try to argue against reality, I feel sorry for you.

Also let's consider that most of these shootings weren't just rampages, but Murder-Suicides.
These shooters were not people picking locations based on their chance of survival or retaliation.

You claim that... but again, reality doesn't well work for you.

It's quite rare that the shooter realizes they have one bullet left or killed everyone they wanted and decide to off themselves just for the heck of it... more often than not they only off themselves with faced with resistance, be it the swat team, a cop or an armed citizen.

The upshot of a gun freezone which you are conveniently ignoring for them is that they will likely have a longer period of time to carry out their rampage prior to the suicide part and fail to acknowledge that that may just come into the plans of the perpetrator.

Some reading so that you might become better informed:

Those of us who have looked into this issue do not give much credence to a political piece from a partisan site, instead academic studies on the subject are far more revealing, you really should read up on the work of John Lott... or offer a similarly well researched pieces.

What you say is very related.

While Chicago is well known for having a couple dozen shooting per weekend, they too are not evenly distributed through the city. Instead there are certain places where your chances of getting shot are much much higher than others.

That would be nice, though they are more likely to cite (not read) one of the articles which criticizes his work... and still not understand the qualitative differences between the two.

Oh I know. It's a slow day at work so I decided to play the part of a cat... while these people are playing the part of a ball of yarn.

Though it does help that it's a subject I'm well familiar with so it's not just a matter of me having fun with them.

You fail to mention that ~70% are due to suicide.

Let's imagine that back on New Years day all guns magically disappeared from the United States and no new ones could be constructed or imported, of the 21,000 people who would have statistically killed themselves with a gun... how many of those would find other successful ways vs would never attempt (or be successful at) killing themselves?

Now, how many lives do you think would be lost because they were not able to defend themselves against a home invader, carjacker or mugger on the street still armed with knives, clubs & broken bottles?

It's not as simple of math as you think, no matter how unfortunate.

I know people like to point to the lack of mass shootings following the gun law changes since the Port Arthur massacre, but rarely do they look at how many there were prior to it.

You should try it sometime, you might discover less of a trend of mass violence only ending afterwards and more of an anomaly.

Maybe you should have considered the possibility that guns are purchased legally in Plano, TX and sold illegally in Detroit or Chicago.

I'm fully aware, not just of that possibility but that reality, black markets often crop up to meet demand... but then how does that change things?

Is it more or less favorable to have more legally purchased guns?

Is it more or less favorable to have more illegally purchased guns?

We could get into a 'criminals prefer unarmed victims' and 'criminals don't follow laws anyway' style argument, however I'll just point go back to my point that if it were as simple as 'more guns == more deaths' as the OP seemed to be implying, then the fact that hard to get a legal gun cities having such high murder rates seems to contradict that and that there are likely other more contributive factors.

Most gun homicides involve people that are largely in a state of non-treatment of various mental illnesses.

Citation please.

Are you claiming that suicide == homicide?

I ask because something on the order of ~70% of gun deaths in this country are suicides... a good number of which I would expect have some untreated mental issues... I've not seen a stat that claims that of those committing a homicide via a firearm, that at least 51% of them have untreated mental issues which played some part in it.

Or are you claiming that the victim may also have untreated mental issues?