Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 280

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 280

In a modern society arms are useless.

Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?

Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?

It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 280

What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.

The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak ... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.

Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 280

I did a check of firearms law in Canada. There are very, very few guns that are wholly illegal there:
Machine guns or any other fully-automatic firearm
Pistols with a barrel under four inches
Long guns with a modified barrel under 18 inches, or under 26 inches length overall
Handguns in .25 or .32 caliber
Various other weapons specifically prohibited

#1 is completely sensible. There is no practical use for automatic weapons outside of the military. Even police do not have an actual need for them. Now, the American model of civilian machine-gun ownership (register, inspect and tax the crap out of) seems to be working just fine, and I could even get behind a repeal of the Hughes Amendment, but on the whole, a blanket ban on automatic guns is not a problem.

#2 and #3 are debatable. The purpose is obvious - to prohibit guns that are used chiefly for criminal activity, which requires that they be readily concealable. Their limit on pistol sizes seems rather low - even some 1911s would not meet this, and those are pretty beefy handguns. And they did seem to recognize that carbines have practical use, so they sensibly banned only modified short-barreled rifles/shotguns. There's room to argue over the specific definitions, but this is at least a sensible law in pursuit of a sensible goal.

#4 seems very peculiar to me. Those are very weak pistol cartridges, not something I would use for self-defense. At the same time, I don't expect they would be very popular with criminals - although, perhaps their low power makes them easier to produce for cheap, and criminals tend to favor cheap guns. If you don't have to actually shoot someone (eg. a mugging), it doesn't matter how lethal it actually is. So I'm not going to judge this one either way until I can find out what the rationale behind it it.

#5 is eminently sensible. Whenever you have laws like this, covering technical aspects, you need to be able to both cover the cases you couldn't think of (like taser-dart projectiles), and hold back the law where it would overreach (US laws allow weapons to be exempted from NFA Title II restrictions, not sure if Canada has similar means). A quick glance at the list of guns banned by name did reveal some surprises (all Kalashnikov-pattern rifles?), but many of them were sensible (Barrett M82).

Also noteworthy are some guns that were specifically placed on the "Restricted" list instead of the "Prohibited" list. Namely, any semi-automatic variant of the AR-15 - which means, with a license that seems easier to obtain than a passport, you can own several guns that were banned in the United States, at least until the AWB expired.

There's also the Non-Restricted class, which contains most long guns, and AFAICT requires no license. Considering a shotgun is by far the best weapon for home defense, this seems like a pretty easy way to defend yourself legally with almost no hassle.

So in other words, it seems the government of Canada does indeed respect your right to bear arms. I actually found more to be concerned with in their laws on melee weapons, many of which were pointless or mystifying.

PS: With the rampant availability of guns just south of the border, I have a very hard time believing that criminals will have substantially better access once 3D printing becomes commonplace. I'm sure any serious crook who wants a gun has made a trip down south to buy one, then smuggled it in. And with the quality of current printed guns, by making 3D-printed guns plentiful you would probably take more stupid crooks off the street (and into the hospital) than you would enable to commit crimes.

Comment Re:Isn't the R for redundancy? (Score 1) 164

set a percentage of a wage and make everyone pay. That's the only fair way to do it. Those who make more will pay more.

A percentage on wage is grossly unfair, as all those executives and CXO's who get paid a salary of $1 but get millions worth of stock options would literally pay pennies in taxes. The only fair way would be a percentage of all income:wages, capital gains, disbursements from foundations/non-profits/corporations, etc.

Comment Re:Why you should care about 3D printed handguns (Score 1) 280

A handgun is an expensive machine, not something one can typically purchase on a whim.


Granted, those are crap guns and basically are new Saturday Night Specials, but are easily affordable and legal to purchase. With the right connections you could easily get a sub-$100 gun on the street illegally, or even legally on the internet/in person with patience and no scruples regarding quality or condition.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 4, Insightful) 280

You're missing the point. Rights exist, naturally. They are not "given to you" by a government. A society may indeed gather together and write a constitution that decides that they will, as a group, choose to infringe on certain liberties (say, the liberty to ship goods without being taxed) ... but that's the government infringing on rights (though with the approval of the legislature/citizens, as ratified in a constitution or other charter).

Whether or not there are conflicting interests doesn't change the fact that the rights don't originate with the government.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 4, Informative) 280

we will be at the point every robber in Canada will be armed with these and the government will have little choice but to give us the right to bear any arms

Governments don't give rights, they either protect them, or they infringe upon them. What you're looking for is the Canadian government ceasing to infringe on that right.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 3, Interesting) 280

Well, which parts are "important"?

For someone trying to make an all-3d-printed gun (perhaps to prove or improve the technology), it's the barrel, chamber, firing pin, and so on, the functional bits that are placed under the most stress. For them, using metal, particularly finely-machined metal parts, quite defeats the purpose. The only parts they might even consider making out of metal would be the ones plastic is literally unable to do, like the firing pin or springs - and even then, they'd try to make it out of some simple, readily-available part you can find at Home Depot.

For someone trying to bypass firearms laws, the important part is whichever one is legally deemed the "firearm", usually the receiver. You can buy barrels, recoil springs, magazines, grips, sights, and all sorts of other fiddly bits as spare parts, which are legally no different than a spare tire for your car. If you designed a 3d-printed receiver that worked with existing spare parts, you've worked around those pesky laws. (I personally find that law, at least, to be quite reasonable, but some people seem to want to work around it as a matter of principle).

And of course, to the person who's actually interested in shooting guns, rather than writing angry comments about them on the internet, the important part is whatever breaks most readily on your particular gun and needs replacement. I expect historical firearms shooters would be quite interested in being able to print parts once considered disposable, or which frequently are damaged, like clips. Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced. There are many, many guns in collections that can't be fired not because they are old or damaged, but because the ammunition is so scarce. (There are many more problems than just forming the brass, obviously, and I don't think 3D-printing is a particularly good solution for it, but maybe I'm wrong and 3D printing will eventually help).

Comment Re:Please Explain (Score 1) 126

" an example from the 1950s US Air Force where the "myth of the average resulted in a generation of planes that almost no pilots could reliably fly, and which killed as many as 17 pilots in a single day"

Did I miss the part of the story that explains HOW it managed to kill 17 pilots in one day?

Apparently it had something to do with cockpit dimensions. Basically an inexperienced lieutenant fresh out of college tried to be slick. While I have never served in the military, all of the memoirs and personal accounts I've read point to that being a rather common occurrence unfortunately.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.