Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Glutamate linked to suicide? (Score 1, Interesting) 85

How does this account for all the people committing suicide in Finland? There aren't many cheap chinese food places there

Finns in general have an asian genetic admixture. So, their food is chinese :-) . They also culturally drink incredible amounts of coffee. And there are cultural differences, including a stoicism that may lead to people getting less help for emotional issues. But perhaps the biggest issue is:

It's dark there. For much of the winter. People are sensitive to light.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 0) 2987

You don't seriously think that you'd be the first person who had to go through having a gun taken under United States law. It happens every day, and be assured that the people whose weapons are confiscated are not paid for them.

I would protect that 12 year old by taking the guns from you and people like you. She is more at risk from people with guns than any other sort of assailant. 20 dead kids are sufficient proof of that.

The blood of 20 kids is on your hands and those of all of the other gun holders. But you won't take ownership for what you, and people like you, are responsible for. But I know, and lots of people like me know. It's you.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

Of course it's realistic. And it wouldn't cost $300 Billion, that's silly. It's a firearm, not a lottery ticket. You make sure it's permanently disabled, or you find yourself on a labor crew away from home and your family for a few years. In my state, that sort of prisoner gets to work in the backwoods fire crew instead of jail.

The second amendment is not a problem. You aren't part of any militia. Far from it. And if you are, we have some countries where you can serve until you're over that idea.

The point is, it's time to get tough with folks who think they can arm themselves at the expense of little kids. Don't expect sympathy.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

I am not providing a statistical argument because I don't need to. The only really workable gun control is no guns. You don't need statistics to explain that.

We will get rid of 300 million guns by criminalizing possession, buy-backs, and other strategies. It won't work perfectly, but it will be sufficiently effective to save lives.

My father had war trophies, including a German luger. He was sensible about guns, and thus would not allow one that could be fired in the house. So, he rendered his souvenirs unfireable.

Those trophies, however, were stolen when our home was robbed. Little of value other than that was taken. He was really glad he'd altered them.

That's what I think should be done to your collection. Fill the barrel with molten lead, and grind off the head of the firing pin. Have it done by someone who will certify it, or do it yourself and have it certified. Then, keep your collection. No problems with property rights.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

The 10th amendment is not a block to firearm regulation, since the constitution grants the various article 1 section 8 powers, which are sufficient for firearm regulation.

So how did it prevent the Ft. Hood shooting?

Hasan purchased the weapon off-base. Had the same rules existed off-base as on, his victims would be alive today.

Why should the 12-year-old not have had a firearm? Yes, she might have been harmed or killed. But 20 other children would be alive today if an effective firearm ban had been in place.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

Yes, they really would stop people from getting killed. There will still be deaths, from knives and other things. But fewer of them, and the assailant will less often have the stand-off power of a gun.

I think you're misusing the quote of Franklin. It's from a 1755 letter from the Pensylvania Assembly to the King's governor of Pensylvania, and the context is that it is a letter to a monarch's deputy about the defense of the frontiersmen against the natives (who, with all justice, were upset at having their home taken by invaders). It doesn't mean that carrying a weapon is an essential freedom, or that the safety gained from a gun prohibition would be temporary.

Here is Franklin's letter:

Our Assemblies have of late had so many Supply Bills, and of such different Kinds, rejected on various Pretences; some for not complying with obsolete occasional Instructions (tho' other Acts exactly of the same Tenor had been past since those Instructions, and received the Royal Assent;) some for being inconsistent with the supposed Spirit of an Act of Parliament, when the Act itsekf did not any Way affect us, being made expresly for other Colonies; some for being, as the Governor was pleased to say, "of an extraordinary Nature," without informing us, wherein that extraordinary Nature consisted; and others for disagreeing with new discovered Meanings, and forced Constructions of a Clause in the Proprietary Commission; that we are now really at a Loss to divine what Bill can possibly pass. The Proprietary Instructions are Secrets to us; and we may spend much Time, and much of the public Money, in preparing and framing Bills for Supply, which, after all, must, from those Instructions, prove abortive. If we are thus to be driven from Bill to Bill, without one solid Reason afforded us; and can raise no Money for the King's Service, and Relief or Security of our Country, till we fortunately hit on the only Bill the Governor is allowed to pass, or till we consent to make such as the Governor or Proprietaries direct us to make, we see litttle Use of Assemblies in this Particular; and think we might as well leave it to the Governor or Proprietaries to make for us what Supply Laws they please, and save ourselves and the Country the Expence and Trouble. All Debates and all Reasonings are vain, where Proprietary Instructions, just or unjust, right or wrong, must inviolably be observed. We have only to find out, if we can, what they are, and then submit and obey. But surely the Proprietaries Conduct, whether as Fathers of their Country, or Subjects to their King, must appear extraordinary, when it is considered that they have not only formally refused to bear any Part of our yearly heavy Expences in cultivating and maintaining Friendship with the Indians, tho' they reap such immense Advantages by that Friendship; but they now, by their Lieutenant, refuse to contribute any Part towards resisting an Invasion of the King's Colony, committed to their Care; or to submit their Claim of Exemption to the Decision of their Sovereign.

In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pensylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, DESERVE neither Liberty nor Safety.--Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assemly for the King's Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their further Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, "if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs," seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by ssattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties skulking Murderers:--But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.

If the Governor proceeds on his Journey, and takes a Quorum of his Council with him, we hope, since he retains our Bill, that it will be seriously and duly considered by them; and that the same Regard for the public Welfare which induced unanimously to advise his intended Journey, will induce them as unanimously to advise his Assent. We agree therefore to his keeping the Bill, earnastly requesting he would re-consider it attentively; and shall be ready at any Time to meet him for the Purpose of enacting it into a Law.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

By your logic, you have no right to free speech unless you can justify it as beneficial to the state.

No. It is the second amendment that is written to justify its purpose as its benefit to the state. Nowhere else in the constitution is there any mention of an inalienable right to carry firearms, and any such thing would be in contravention of the civil rights of the potential victims.

Yes, the US takes casualties, mainly from IEDs. But the U.S. military is limiting gun access to its own troops outside of combat situations because they are much too prone to inflict violence upon each other. Most military bases already prohibit anyone but MPs from routinely carrying weapons.

Your rights, yes, are the mutual agreement of the society you live in. There is a libertarian notion of living independently from society and enforcing your rights with your own firearm. But this is a romantic notion far from reality. Murder rates per locality back then were close to those of today, but with 1/100 the population. The net effect of firearms where there was no effective civil justice was that more innocent people were killed.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

I don't think you've justified at all that the right to bear arms is a net positive. You've just said there are a lot of them. I don't object to your defending yourself - but I would not have a firearm on either side of the exchange. Their defensive function is not a social benefit if removing them from most people's hands would in general remove the reason for using them defensively. The net result would be more survivors. And we can do something about criminals who are armed. Most criminals are well-known to the police before they commit murder. We can disarm them when they first enter the criminal justice system, and keep doing it.

I spend a good deal of time in places where police do not routinely carry guns. They are fine places to live. One thing that I notice is that the police are in general nicer there.There's none of the "you are alive only by my forbearance" attitude that cops have here. They do have gangs with guns, but the gangs have to make their own ammunition and it doesn't work well. The gangs are hacking starters pistols into firearms, and those don't work well either. Most people whom they shoot survive. I'd be quite happy if we could get that far here.

With all due respect I am sure that people can put together a pseudo-statistical argument like yours while being driven by illogic and emotion.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

Sure, plenty of people have a nervous breakdown or something once, but far fewer people go on shooting sprees.

Yes, but there is no shortage of murder and suicide among people not thought to be mentally ill - except for that moment.

And thank goodness for Obamacare, which will get help to more people.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

Have you not noticed you live in the United States of America, as opposed to the American colony of Britain?

Proponents of gun ownership as a deterrent to tyranny seem not to have noticed that things have changed since then. Tyrants and their armies, today, need never place themselves in range of your bullets to win.

Hand-held firearms are no longer an equalizing tool in warfare. Only in personal conflict.

And thus, firearm ownership no longer is justified by the second amendment. Owners don't constitute a well-armed militia and don't contribute to the security of the state.

Comment Re:Somebody's got to say it (Score 1) 2987

American popular taste in film, violent as it may be, doesn't translate to American taste in daily life. Most people do not want violence around them. Film is by definition escapist. And despite its management in film, sex is still quite popular :-)

Americans odd taste in film wouldn't keep us from achieving a handgun ban.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 2987

If you look at the list of Canada massacres, the very worst there is with a weapon obtained legally which nobody should have had the right to own.

I don't really buy the health checkup argument, because a lot of gun violence is done by the "temporarily insane". Mental health is no absolute, the most stable people have their moments. I'd prefer that they not be lethal moments.

Despite our discussion here, patience has just run out. Something will change.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell