Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Shot in the back (Score 1) 308

by plalonde2 (#48247967) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline

Good conversation.

I agree about the arbitrariness of the classifications, particularly for "sexy" brands. I suspect that a chunk of that comes from the image of AK as an assault weapon rather than as a "useful" weapon, for example.

How much of the distinction in those cases is based on ease of conversion to full-auto? That puts me far outside of my knowledge space.

Regarding the "moot" between semi-auto hunting & military, I largely agree as well, though I see the five round (or some other small number with slowish reload) restriction as critical to the point of the civilian safety

Comment: Re:Shot in the back (Score 1) 308

by plalonde2 (#48245685) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline

I agree on the wackiness of the AR winding up strange - it's clearly politically motivated, rather than evidence-based; though the AR is particularly easy to convert from semi- to full-auto.

The general structure of unrestricted/restricted/prohibited works pretty well though: unrestricted is hunting weapons, restricted is civilian security forces and target shooting-only, and prohibited is "we don't want them on our soil - there's no civilian use". That setup seems to make sense, modulo the semi-autos that wind up restricted for no good reason.

Comment: Re:Shot in the back (Score 1) 308

by plalonde2 (#48239713) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline
What makes you think clueless? As written they enforce safe storage (which has shown a statistically significant reduction in accidental shootings and suicides), and limited "spree" shooting, while allowing legitimate uses such as hunting and target shooting.

What would you regulate differently?

Comment: Re:Shot in the back (Score 1) 308

by plalonde2 (#48229749) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline
Dude, have you any clues to rub together at all? You need to understand risk management much better. The chances of attack on a ceremonial guard in Ottawa are in the "crazy psychopath" realm, not "trained enemy action". Furthermore, a rifle is a purely offensive weapon - they have no defensive capability against a surprise. Let's start there and go through your points.

If our government finds tracking bullets to be an arduous task, perhaps they are not qualified to have them in the first place.

That's just vacuous. Tracking increases costs - tracking issues of an unusable, yet important-to-track resource makes issuing that resource a total waste. And on't think of just what happens when you sign out the clip. Think of what happens when one goes missing - that's where the costs then seriously escalate. Don't make the ceremonial guard take on the onerous load unless you absolutely must.

What if the gun got dropped and discharged?

Then it's a miserable piece of shit. Only shitty guns discharge when dropped. Spend the money to get them a decent fucking gun, especially if they're your honor guard. There's no honor in standing there with a shitty gun. (The gun imparts no particular honor IMO, but it should at least be decent.)

Do you use firearms much? In real situations? Like even out at the range or in the woods? A loaded firearm is *always* a hazard. One you mitigate with practice and experience, but nevertheless *always* a hazard.

As for the "honour" being diluted? The ceremonial guard weapons are typically of historical interest, and represent their purpose for ceremony - there is much honour in being the ceremonial guard with a ceremonial weapon.

What if you stopped for a picture and someone took your gun

Took your gun? Seriously? TOOK YOUR GUN? What the actual FUCK? You don't put the fucking thing down

And you keep the psychopath from grabbing it from your hands how? Seriously, this is a ceremonial position in a public square. Stop thinking like a Rambo.

Number one thing for you to learn is that accidents are much more common than enemy action when on ceremonial duty. So plan for the accidents, not for the armed assault.

I'm going to stop there as the next few points you make cast insults at the brave men and women who serve our armed forces. Grow up.

Comment: Re:Shot in the back (Score 1) 308

by plalonde2 (#48229609) Attached to: Days After Shooting, Canada Proposes New Restrictions On and Offline

Incorrect. The restriction to 5 rounds is for semi-automatic center-fire rifles or handguns. There is no restriction for non-semiautomatic center-fire rifles or handguns. Clarification at

The shooter's weapon has been reported as a Winchester .30-.30 model 94, lever action. It's capacity is 8 rounds, and is perfectly legal to own in Canada, given your Possession and Acquisition License.

The point remains the same however - our firearms restraints make it difficult to go on a broad shooting rampage. Reloading the model 94 is a royal PITA (I know, it was my go-to deer hunting rifle for several years). Even with practice I doubt the 30 second reload time widely quoted.

And as I'm forced to interject in any gun-control talk, the main threat from guns is not a wack-job shooter, though they get all the press. The main threat is accidental/unintentional discharge by minors. The most critical change the US could make to its gun laws is to force (and enforce) unloaded storage with ammunition kept separate.

Comment: Re:Can someone explain how multinationals work? (Score 1) 132

by plalonde2 (#42633617) Attached to: Google Invests $1 Billion To Build New London HQ
There is *certainly* a moral component. The money taxed is earned in part with tax-payer provided assets: roads, security infrastructure, various regulatory frameworks, a court system, and so on. Being part of a functioning western society and partaking of its infrastructural advantages costs sometime - we call that "taxes". Debating the level of taxes vs the benefits is certainly acceptable, but claiming there's no moral dimension is wrong.

Comment: Re:Can't America get its acts together ? (Score 1) 1059

by plalonde2 (#42523851) Attached to: Congressman Introduces Bill To Ban Minting of Trillion-Dollar Coin
Explain, in detail, how that works, please. I know no western taxation system in which the break to the next income level causes increased taxes at the level below. (Ok, I know a couple of cases involving claw-backs of benefits at the lowest tax bracket - those are errors that should be fixed, not the intent of the progressive taxation system).

Live free or die.