Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:frist post (Score 2) 567

There is no distinction between SIG MCX, and any other semi-automatic rifle. They all let you " easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second", and most of them accept detachable magazines of essentially unlimited capacity.

Ruger Mini-14 is not an "assault rifle" (at least not by any existing definitions), yet it could do everything MCX did.

If you don't have a problem with people owning Mini-14s, then there's no objective reason why they shouldn't be able to own MCX.

If you do have a problem with people owning either, then you want a full ban on semi-autos. Which is fine, but then please don't confuse the issue by using the term "assault weapon".

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1715

I guess what I'm really saying is that you'd get a lot more people to listen if you said "let's improve the licensing and background check system like in Czech Republic", instead of "let's enact an assault weapon ban, or ban all semi-autos outright, like in Australia". The latter elicits an immediate knee-jerk reaction, and for a good reason.

And it really doesn't help when prominent Democrat politicians - Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Pelosi etc - all cite Australia as the role model. It basically validates all the NRA tinfoil hat rants about how the gubmint is coming for their guns, because, well, Australian system has gun confiscation ("mandatory buyback" - but that's just a PR-friendly label for the same exact thing) at its core. It's exactly what they did in 1996.

I agree that NRA is nutty and there's little logic there. But mainstream gun control proposals coming from the left are also largely devoid of reason, or constitutionally suspect (such as that whole terrorist watchlist thing - and don't take my word for it, see what ACLU has to say).

So it becomes a shouting match with little place for logic and facts. And in the meantime, those of us who would prefer some reasonable legislation are left without a place to go. I dropped my NRA membership 4 years ago because I couldn't associate with that organization in good conscience; but when I see the usually reasonable Sanders go on a rant about "assault weapons", I can only facepalm.

The other thing is, existing gun laws have many places that are badly in the need of reform, and this could be done in a quid pro quo basis to satisfy both sides. For example, silencers are currently heavily regulated, with a $200 tax for manufacture and then every transfer, fingerprinting, and a waiting period of several months for ATF to process it all. Does it need to be that way? UK - you know, that place with some of the most draconian gun laws in Europe - lets you buy silencers easily, and they don't have any problems with that. And it cuts down on noise - good for people who shoot, to avoid hearing damage, and good for those who happen to be in the vicinity, for the same reason and to minimize nuisance aspects. So, why not just treat them same as any other firearm, and drop all the special restrictions? And package it in a bill that does so, and introduces universal background checks on federal level for all gun transactions. I bet you could get quite a few Republicans in Congress to vote for such a thing.

Similar stuff can be done with legislation around short-barreled rifles, and quite a few other things.

The problem is that it requires people who actually know what they're talking about to come together and discuss it from both sides. And there's a distinct lack of such. On the left, most people who want gun control - including politicians who actually write laws - have literally no clue. On the right, it's not really all that much better - you have those Republican politicians frying bacon on their ARs as a publicity stunt, but they still have no idea how that AR works, or what laws regulate it.

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1715

"It you can carry it, you can own it" doesn't sound like such a great idea.

It's the literal definition of "arms" as applied to weapons. Though I do stand corrected - it's more like "if you can use it while holding it". So scratch mortars off that list - but RPGs stay ;)

As far as checks go, look at what Czech do. It's a European country that, in terms of their gun laws and culture, is probably the closest to US - they have no "assault weapon" bans, no magazine capacity limits, and shall-issue concealed carry; and plenty of civilian-owned firearms. And one mass shooting incident in 20 years of having such an arrangement (and another one that was stopped before it became "mass"). But, they have a fairly extensive licensing and background check system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:Guns (Score 1) 1715

There aren't many. Unlike most gun control laws, the prohibition on mixing guns and drinking dates way back to 19th century, and similar laws for other weapons existed before then. Basically, it is something that was born of repeated experience with the kind of fuckery that happens when you let young males carry weapons, get drunk, and start a fight.

Consequently, unlike the more recent legislation (a good chunk of it dates to Jim Crow, ironically; have a look at this map as of 1986 - the states that are red prohibited both open and concealed carry of firearms - notice any geographic patterns?), the idea of repealing those laws didn't exactly have much popular support, even among NRA etc.

Nevertheless, here's a recent example to the contrary. More will probably follow in the usual places where you'd expect them.

Personally, I have no problem with ban on carry in establishments where people get drunk, provided that the appropriate signs are mandated by law, so that no-one could do that by mistake (and yes, I do carry).

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1715

You know, I wouldn't be opposed to the notion that one has to sign up for militia service (complete with a couple weeks of basic training, and then regular annual call-ups for exercises and refresher training, like they do it in Switzerland) in order to own an assault rifle. But if we do it, then we should go all the way, and let people who are in the program own the full spectrum of man-portable military arms, as per Miller SCOTUS decision. Which means full auto firearms (including belt-fed machine guns), RPGs, mortars, body armor etc. That would actually be pretty close to what the original intent was.

Everyone else gets access to handguns for personal protection (maybe even with mag cap limits - it's not like you would seriously need more than 10 rounds in any remotely realistic self-defense scenario), and bolt and lever action rifles and shotguns for hunting. No semi-autos.

Sounds good to you?

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1715

Yes, it is very twisted. And we should keep it that way. The more twisted it is, the easier it is to get rid of it later.

Whereas, if we do ban guns to people on the list, later on, when it comes up for repeal, you can bet that plenty of Democrats will vote to keep it because "otherwise bad people will have guns". And so it will stay.

Comment Re:And Googles moral responsibility is. (Score 2) 304

So there is just no way that returning multiple pictures of arrested children is in any way representative of reality.

Google is not meant to be representative of reality. It's an Internet search engine - its purpose is to be representative of the Internet.

And if it so happens that most online photos that can be described as "three black teenagers" are mugshots, then that's exactly what Google should be showing.

As far as fixing this, the onus is on all the websites that publish those images (I'd imagine it's mostly news sites).

Slashdot Top Deals

"What people have been reduced to are mere 3-D representations of their own data." -- Arthur Miller

Working...