Iron Man is now powered by Oracle

[MiffTheFox]

@blakeyrat said:

I love C# to death guys, but why does it have to look EXACTLY LIKE C?

The whole idea behind .NET languages is "let's take another language and make it .NET". C# is only so popular because it's based on the One True Language (C++), but there's also VB.NET, J# (Java), F# (OCaml), IronPython, IronRuby, etc..

[Weng]

@morbiuswilters said:

@Weng said:

Nothing that we have that supports fixed width in any way, even the stuff that supports full-up unicode (lets not take the time to think about what 'fixed width unicode' is supposed to mean) handles NUL in any way.

So you must only support UTF-8 then.

Our internally-built tooling supports UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32. The external tooling is not quite as specific. "Unicode support" is usually all you get on the specs, and we're too cheap for support plans. And still, even with UTF-32, you can build compound characters, making fixed-width unicode an apparent contradiction. Most likely they just count code points. If any of our data sources were ever clever enough to try anything but ASCII, EBCDIC and UTF-8, they'd probably count characters

[drurowin]

@blakeyrat said:

@MiffTheFox said:

So is programming applied math? I work in the accounting industry. The programs I write are bean-counting.

Wait.

You have a job!?

 

And actually works as a programmer, not answering phones at an outsourced call center for Nintendo of America like I gather you do.

 

[Severity_One]

@boomzilla said:

You know you're living in bizzaro world when clear language like "Congress shall make no law" has less force than penumbras and emanations.

You know you're living in a bizarro country if you have a constitutional right to own and carry weapns; that this right is listed before basic human rights like due process, fair trail, and protection from torture; and that a large swath of the population really believes it's a human right, too, equal to freedom of speech, despite the fact that no other country in the world has a similar constitutional provision.

 

[boomzilla]

@Severity One said:

@boomzilla said:

You know you're living in bizzaro world when clear language like "Congress shall make no law" has less force than penumbras and emanations.

You know you're living in a bizarro country if you have a constitutional right to own and carry weapns; that this right is listed before basic human rights like due process, fair trail, and protection from torture; and that a large swath of the population really believes it's a human right, too, equal to freedom of speech, despite the fact that no other country in the world has a similar constitutional provision.

So, because every other country thinks their daughters should be raped rather than be capable of defending themselves, I should too? I mean, I understand your lack of understanding of the American system of government, but I hope I never understand the desire to give up the right to defend yourself.

You have a strange definition of "human right." It doesn't appear to include a right to life. If you're not willing to defend your life, why should anyone else do so? And do you really want to be dependent on them? Yes, I know that Europe has generally answered that they do want to be dependent on others. That's worked for a while, I guess.

[Severity_One]

 Right to life? That's not a basic human right, at least not in the USA. Because you have the death penalty, whereas all of Europe (with the sorry exception of Belarus) does not.

I understand the American system of government quite well. And I think it sucks. So many checks and balances that you never get anything done. Did you fix the budget yet?

[error]

@Severity One said:

not a basic human right, at least not in the USA. Because you have the death penalty

Convicted felons lose a number of rights.

[boomzilla]

@Severity One said:

Right to life? That's not a basic human right, at least not in the USA. Because you have the death penalty, whereas all of Europe (with the sorry exception of Belarus) does not.

Now you're being stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is deliberate.

@Severity One said:

I understand the American system of government quite well. And I think it sucks.

Clearly, you don't understand it. The original point was to give the government power to do certain things. Unfortunately, much of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) reversed this, and are written as explicitly denying government certain powers. This has made many people confused, thinking that the government has the authority to do whatever, so long as the Constitution doesn't forbid it (which has and still is the way most governments are).

@Severity One said:

So many checks and balances that you never get anything done.

That's the whole point. Sadly, they don't always work. I guess you don't care, so long as the trains run on time.

@Severity One said:

Did you fix the budget yet?

Nope. There's another case of checks and balances not working. I thought you said we never get anything done. We sure get a lot of spending done. Does the cognitive dissonance hurt much?

[Sutherlands]

@Severity One said:

Did you fix the budget yet?

Because nobody in Europe is having a budget crisis?

[drurowin]

@Sutherlands said:

@Severity One said:

Did you fix the budget yet?

Because nobody in Europe is having a budget crisis?

 

IIRC there's a for sale sign at Italy's border.

[error]

@drurowin said:

@Sutherlands said:

@Severity One said:

Did you fix the budget yet?

Because nobody in Europe is having a budget crisis?

 

IIRC there's a for sale sign at Italy's border.

Dude, I just bought Italy. For a dollar.

[serguey123]

@boomzilla said:

other country thinks their daughters should be raped rather than be capable of defending themselves, I should too?

So the only way of defending is with a loaded gun? That seems civilized...
@boomzilla said:

I hope I never understand the desire to give up the right to defend yourself.

The problem is that guns are very shitty at defending, they are very good at killing though.
@boomzilla said:

If you're not willing to defend your life, why should anyone else do so?

This is homework for you, the title is: "How to be a better human being"

[Sutherlands]

@serguey123 said:

The problem is that guns are very shitty at defending, they are very good at killing though.

Actually, guns are great at defending.  Many times, simply them being around is enough to dissuade an attack.  The threat they might POSSIBLY be there dissuades attacks.  Mace and tasers, now those are crappy at defending.

[dkf]

@morbiuswilters said:

@Ben L. said:

@serguey123 said:

Well, logic is a branch of math

Is it? Or is math a branch of logic?

Symbolic logic is usually considered a branch of mathematics.

Only by mathematicians. Logicians know that their discipline is actually a branch of philosophy, and that mathematics is merely an application of it. They don't usually argue with the mathematicians about it, on the grounds that the mathematicians making their side of the argument are a bunch of stupid faggots.

(One doesn't like to accuse anyone of being an unintelligent meat dumpling lightly, you know. That's impolite.)

[MiffTheFox]

@dkf said:

Only by mathematicians. Logicians know that their discipline is actually a branch of philosophy, and that mathematics is merely an application of it. They don't usually argue with the mathematicians about it, on the grounds that the mathematicians making their side of the argument are a bunch of stupid faggots.

(One doesn't like to accuse anyone of being an unintelligent meat dumpling lightly, you know. That's impolite.)

It's like Wikipedia, everything comes down to philosophy.

[nosliwmas]

@dkf said:

the mathematicians making their side of the argument are a bunch of stupid faggots

Right, that's it. Me, you, in Piccadilly Gardens, calculators at dawn.

[boomzilla]

@serguey123 said:

@boomzilla said:

other country thinks their daughters should be raped rather than be capable of defending themselves, I should too?

So the only way of defending is with a loaded gun? That seems civilized...

I admit, a loaded gun can't defend against straw men.

@serguey123 said:

The problem is that guns are very shitty at defending, they are very good at killing though.

One of those things is true.

@serguey123 said:

@boomzilla said:

If you're not willing to defend your life, why should anyone else do so?

This is homework for you, the title is: "How to be a better human being"

This is just a non sequitur. Did you have a point?

[MiffTheFox]

Can we please get back to 0-based indexing? Or circlejerking about Go being shit? Or a VCS flamewar? Or asserting Microsoft has no product testing?

[Severity_One]

@boomzilla said:

@Severity One said:

Right to life? That's not a basic human right, at least not in the USA. Because you have the death penalty, whereas all of Europe (with the sorry exception of Belarus) does not.

Now you're being stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is deliberate.

Nah, it's a matter of me not doing my homework:

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Still, it's a bit of a stretch of explaining this into needing a gun (with which you can shoot and kill another person) to defend your "security of person". Because you violate the exact same article.

Also, it's typical of Americans not to trust their government, and wanting to have control (or at least, be under the illusion that they have) of their lives.

So let's look at statistics then. In terms of development, you can probably compare the whole of the USA with the whole of Europe, while noting that Europe would have an generally lower level of development. Still, if you compare murder figures between Europe and the USA, you'll see that the USA has a murder figure of around 4.8 per 100,000, eastern Europe (lots of poverty and lawlessness there) 6.5, northern Europe (lax gun laws) 1.5, southern Europe (generally poorer, includes the Balkans) 1.4, and western Europe (rich, highly developed, strict gun laws) 1.0.

I'm not saying to compare South Central to Kensington, or Ukraine to New Hampshire, but you can't explain that pretty huge difference by demographics alone. The lax gun laws and the inevitable proliferation of guns to those who are not honest, upstanding citizens, make your life less safe.

@boomzilla said:

@Severity One said:

I understand the American system of government quite well. And I think it sucks.

Clearly, you don't understand it. The original point was to give the government power to do certain things. Unfortunately, much of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) reversed this, and are written as explicitly denying government certain powers. This has made many people confused, thinking that the government has the authority to do whatever, so long as the Constitution doesn't forbid it (which has and still is the way most governments are).

I have to admit that I really have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

@boomzilla said:

@Severity One said:

So many checks and balances that you never get anything done.

That's the whole point. Sadly, they don't always work. I guess you don't care, so long as the trains run on time.

It's a bit sad that you resort to an 'ad hominem' attack, whereas you complain about a 'non sequitur' just a few messages later.

For your information, it's a common myth that Mussolini made the trains run on time. And if you were thinking of Germany, they still don't manage to have their trains run on time to the present day (although arguably not as bad as the Italians).

@boomzilla said:

@Severity One said:

Did you fix the budget yet?

Nope. There's another case of checks and balances not working. I thought you said we never get anything done. We sure get a lot of spending done. Does the cognitive dissonance hurt much?

I'll let that pass, because it doesn't quite invite to intelligent discussion.

[boomzilla]

@Severity One said:

Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Still, it's a bit of a stretch of explaining this into needing a gun (with which you can shoot and kill another person) to defend your "security of person". Because you violate the exact same article.

Alright, you really are that dumb. So what happens when someone decides to violate your life and / or security of person? Who secures that right? Can you tell the difference between initiating the use of force and using it to defend yourself? For that matter, is it also not acceptable for anyone else to use force to defend these rights? Parents defending children? Police defending anyone (not that this is normally what police do)?

If someone murders someone else, and you put them in prison, by your logic, this is an unacceptable violation of his right to liberty. Also, it was the murdered person's duty to the murderer to not interfere with the murder's life and security of person.

And if history (ancient and recent) teaches us anything, it's that governments are often the biggest violators of those rights.

@Severity One said:

Also, it's typical of Americans not to trust their government, and wanting to have control (or at least, be under the illusion that they have) of their lives.

So you don't want to be able to do anything for yourself? I guess it's typical of Europeans to want to not be responsible for anything.

@Severity One said:

So let's look at statistics then. In terms of development, you can probably compare the whole of the USA with the whole of Europe, while noting that Europe would have an generally lower level of development. Still, if you compare murder figures between Europe and the USA, you'll see that the USA has a murder figure of around 4.8 per 100,000, eastern Europe (lots of poverty and lawlessness there) 6.5, northern Europe (lax gun laws) 1.5, southern Europe (generally poorer, includes the Balkans) 1.4, and western Europe (rich, highly developed, strict gun laws) 1.0.

I'm not saying to compare South Central to Kensington, or Ukraine to New Hampshire, but you can't explain that pretty huge difference by demographics alone. The lax gun laws and the inevitable proliferation of guns to those who are not honest, upstanding citizens, make your life less safe.

Good lord. The murder rates in America have pretty much always been higher, including when other places had guns. Since legal gun ownership is increasing, and gun crime is going down, how does that work with your theory? Also, the places in the US with stricter gun laws tend to have more gun crime, not less.

@Severity One said:

For your information, it's a common myth that Mussolini made the trains run on time. And if you were thinking of Germany, they still don't manage to have their trains run on time to the present day (although arguably not as bad as the Italians).

THAT'S THE JOKE! Lenin supposedly said that you couldn't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. But after he broke the eggs, there were never any omelettes.

@Severity One said:

@boomzilla said:

@Severity One said:

Did you fix the budget yet?

Nope. There's another case of checks and balances not working. I thought you said we never get anything done. We sure get a lot of spending done. Does the cognitive dissonance hurt much?

I'll let that pass, because it doesn't quite invite to intelligent discussion.

If I wanted intelligent discussion, I wouldn't be engaging with people whose brains turn off when they see the word "gun."

[Severity_One]

@Sutherlands said:

@Severity One said:

Did you fix the budget yet?

Because nobody in Europe is having a budget crisis?

Because all over Europe, spending is cut and taxes are raised.

Whether it helps anything, that's another issue. I'm inclined to say "no, because they're the same bunch of incompetent morons as everywhere else".

[Severity_One]

@boomzilla said:

Alright, you really are that dumb. So what happens when someone decides to violate your life and / or security of person? Who secures that right? Can you tell the difference between initiating the use of force and using it to defend yourself? For that matter, is it also not acceptable for anyone else to use force to defend these rights? Parents defending children? Police defending anyone (not that this is normally what police do)?

Is this something typical American, that you need to start insulting people when trying to push a point?

You have the right to defend yourself in Europe. You just don't have the constitutional right to carry weapons. If someone threatens my child, and I grab a nearby brick and beat him to death, I'm guilty of the killing, but am very unlikely to be prosecuted. Under Dutch law at least (I don't know how it is in other countries), you may use disproportionate force if you are under great duress. Like, when someone threatens to murder your child, even with no weapon in evidence.

@boomzilla said:

If someone murders someone else, and you put them in prison, by your logic, this is an unacceptable violation of his right to liberty. Also, it was the murdered person's duty to the murderer to not interfere with the murder's life and security of person.

You need to learn to read. What I claimed at first was that "right to life" was not a basic human right, and later corrected that by quoting the relevant article from the UDHR. I was not arguing the point of the UDHR. For someone who complans about logical fallacies, you're making an awful lot of your own.

@boomzilla said:

And if history (ancient and recent) teaches us anything, it's that governments are often the biggest violators of those rights.

So... because we can't (or couldn't) trust certain governments, we can't trust any government?

@boomzilla said:

Good lord. The murder rates in America have pretty much always been higher, including when other places had guns. Since legal gun ownership is increasing, and gun crime is going down, how does that work with your theory? Also, the places in the US with stricter gun laws tend to have more gun crime, not less.

There are no strict gun laws in the USA. You have a constitutional right to them, after all. "Strict gun law" means that you cannot have a gun, period, unless you come up with a very good reason, get cleared by the police and/or security services, and get personal permission from the relevant minister, or something of the sort.

Please explain why the USA has such higher murder rates than Europe.

@boomzilla said:

If I wanted intelligent discussion, I wouldn't be engaging with people whose brains turn off when they see the word "gun."

Well, so far you've been the one resorting to personal attacks, referring to dictatorial regimes, and avoiding to answer questions. But I suppose that intelligent discussion is not required, because the guy with the gun is always right, isn't he?

 

[serguey123]

@Sutherlands said:

Actually, guns are great at defending.  Many times, simply them being around is
enough to dissuade an attack.  The threat they might POSSIBLY be there dissuades attacks. 

Then you don't need a gun, you just need something to disuade an attack
@boomzilla said:

I admit, a loaded gun can't defend against straw men.

Or baseless claims
@boomzilla said:

One of those things is true.

Yes, but which one?
@boomzilla said:

This is just a non sequitur. Did you have a point?

Yes, which you either get or don't get, both results are equally illuminating in their own way

[serguey123]

@boomzilla said:

what happens when someone decides to violate your life and / or security of person?

They either succeed or not@boomzilla said:

Who secures that right?

Society, for the most part.
@boomzilla said:

is it also not acceptable for anyone else to use force to defend these rights?

Depends on the ammount of force@boomzilla said:

If someone murders someone else, and you put them in prison, by your logic, this is an unacceptable violation of his right to liberty

It is a violation of his rights, society deems it acceptable that this individual loses this privilege using due process because of his/her actions threaten society itself@boomzilla said:

governments are often the biggest violators of those rights.

So anarchy then?@boomzilla said:

If I wanted intelligent discussion

Nobody ever wants this, the only thing we want is the confirmation that we are always right and the other side is wrong. If weapons were needed to stop crimes then countries without weapons would be full of crime, as this clearly is not the case, why have weapons at all? Occam razor and all of that

[TDWTF123]

@Severity One said:

@boomzilla said:

And if history (ancient and recent) teaches us anything, it's that governments are often the biggest violators of those rights.

So... because we can't (or couldn't) trust certain governments, we can't trust any government?

Yes. That's implicit in the meaning of 'trust'.

Here's something from today on the same subject. The details of the matter under discussion are irrelevant to us, but the point is that the only thing you can trust governments to do over the longer-term is to screw things up.

@Severity One said:

Please explain why the USA has such higher murder rates than Europe.

It really has very little to do with gun control laws, and everything to do with attitudes to guns. The US has an extremely unhealthy attitude to guns, on the whole, and the results are obvious. Some proportion treat the things properly - as dangerous tools - but most haven't a clue how or when to use a gun, but have some kind of fascination and love-affair anyway.

When it comes down to it, the problem in the US is that generally the gun-nuts are the last people who should own lots of guns. I'd prefer some public advisories rather than laws, at least in the first instance; that's something governments seem to have forgotten how to do.

[boomzilla]

@Severity One said:

Is this something typical American, that you need to start insulting people when trying to push a point?

No, it's just typical TDWTF. Are you new here?

@Severity One said:

@boomzilla said:

If someone murders someone else, and you put them in prison, by your logic, this is an unacceptable violation of his right to liberty. Also, it was the murdered person's duty to the murderer to not interfere with the murder's life and security of person.

You need to learn to read. What I claimed at first was that "right to life" was not a basic human right, and later corrected that by quoting the relevant article from the UDHR. I was not arguing the point of the UDHR. For someone who complans about logical fallacies, you're making an awful lot of your own.

OK, I'm glad that you agree with me, then.

@Severity One said:

You have the right to defend yourself in Europe. You just don't have the constitutional right to carry weapons. If someone threatens my child, and I grab a nearby brick and beat him to death, I'm guilty of the killing, but am very unlikely to be prosecuted. Under Dutch law at least (I don't know how it is in other countries), you may use disproportionate force if you are under great duress. Like, when someone threatens to murder your child, even with no weapon in evidence.

You still have to have the physical capability to defend yourself (or others). That's a problem. Personally, I'm a large male, so I probably could beat someone with a brick. A smaller woman probably could not. If she can possess a gun, she has the capability to defend herself. Like the old quote, "God made men. Sam Colt made them equal."

@Severity One said:

@boomzilla said:

And if history (ancient and recent) teaches us anything, it's that governments are often the biggest violators of those rights.

So... because we can't (or couldn't) trust certain governments, we can't trust any government?

About as far as you can throw them? There are multiple issues. Firstly, what evidence is there that government agents can provide for your physical safety ("when seconds count, the police are only minutes away")? I mean, by locking up bad guys, they obviously help in the long run, and that's great, but that doesn't help you when actually confronted by danger. Also, even fairly reasonable governments (which, by historical standards, most of Europe and the US have) abuse their powers from time to time.

@Severity One said:

There are no strict gun laws in the USA. You have a constitutional right to them, after all. "Strict gun law" means that you cannot have a gun, period, unless you come up with a very good reason, get cleared by the police and/or security services, and get personal permission from the relevant minister, or something of the sort.

And you said that you understood the government of the USA. It's true, the right is enshrined in the Constitution, and thankfully, the Supreme Court has slapped down some odious laws, but that doesn't mean there aren't places with strict laws.

Two places (subject to the aforementioned rulings) come immediately to mind: Washington, DC and Chicago. DC was ordered to start allowing legal gun ownership, though they still have what amounts to a ban with all of the hoops you have to go through. Chicago was recently ordered to start allowing ownership, but I don't think they've updated their law yet to do so. DC used to be known as the murder capital of the nation, and Chicago is a very violent city. So those seem to pass your criteria.

@Severity One said:

Please explain why the USA has such higher murder rates than Europe.

Since we know the disparity in guns isn't it, I can think of a few possible reasons. As a nation of immigrants, there's probably some self selection going on, vis-a-vis risk taking. Most of our gun crime seems to be drug related. It's part of our dreadful "War on Drugs." Then, of course, there is the mess we've made of the inner cities and the destruction of black families. I imagine all of these things and many others probably contribute.

@Severity One said:

@boomzilla said:

If I wanted intelligent discussion, I wouldn't be engaging with people whose brains turn off when they see the word "gun."

Well, so far you've been the one resorting to personal attacks, referring to dictatorial regimes, and avoiding to answer questions. But I suppose that intelligent discussion is not required, because the guy with the gun is always right, isn't he?

No, he's not always right. But the guy with the irrational fear of guns is definitely not right, either. Aren't you afraid of dictatorial regimes? There are still plenty of them around. People like to say things like, "It can't happen here," but it usually already has! For the US, look at what happened during WWI and the early thirties.

You haven't answered how someone not physically strong can be expected to defend himself. So you've decided, apparently, that getting rid of the gun boogeyman is a worthy trade off for keeping those people defenseless from stronger people. At least be honest enough to admit that. Most anti-gun people cannot or will not.

[boomzilla]

@serguey123 said:

@boomzilla said:

what happens when someone decides to violate your life and / or security of person?

They either succeed or not

That's deep.

@serguey123 said:

@boomzilla said:

governments are often the biggest violators of those rights.

So anarchy then?

You are on a roll with the straw men today!

@serguey123 said:

If weapons were needed to stop crimes then countries without weapons would be full of crime, as this clearly is not the case, why have weapons at all? Occam razor and all of that

This is way below your usual level of posting, where at least your straw men are witty. I'm going to go watch some super cooled liquid flow.

[Sutherlands]

Ok, well, I'm going to try and address the real points that people actually made.  I'm actually interested in having a discussion.

 @Severity One said:

I'm not saying to compare South Central to Kensington, or Ukraine to New Hampshire, but you can't explain that pretty huge difference by demographics alone. The lax gun laws and the inevitable proliferation of guns to those who are not honest, upstanding citizens, make your life less safe.

Well, you're certainly correct in that giving guns to bad people makes you less safe.  Also, taking them away from good people makes you less safe.  And anyway, as boomzilla stated above, this has nothing to do with the gun laws.  There are many reasons for our homicide rate (which is declining), the number one factor in my mind being the "War on Drugs."  If we legalized some drugs and treated them as a health issue instead of a criminal issue, it would do oh-so-much for our country and our prison population.

For statisitics and guns, you can't just say "this country has lax gun laws and much more murders than this other country."  You have to look at the effect the laws have had.  You also can't just look at "gun crime"... you have to look at all the crime.  If we got rid of all guns and completely eliminated gun murders, but our number of total murders doubled, it wasn't worth it.  So looking at the UK and Austrailia, 2 countries that basically completely banned guns... their crime rate went up. So they were each a safer country when they had guns.   Even within the US, you look at all the places that have high murder and crime rates, and they're generally places that have banned guns.

@serguey123 said:

@Sutherlands said:

Actually, guns are great at defending. Many times, simply them being around is enough to dissuade an attack. The threat they might POSSIBLY be there dissuades attacks.

Then you don't need a gun, you just need something to disuade an attack

Er... well, in that PARTICULAR instance you would need something to dissuade an attack... maybe.  But the reason a gun dissuades an attack is because it has the power to follow through on the threat, which is what is the dissuader.

[serguey123]

@boomzilla said:

That's deep.

It is what you asked
@boomzilla said:

You are on a roll with the straw men today!

So you don't trust goverments because apparently they are out to get you and the last line of defense is the handgun you are carrying around (are you insane btw?)? Is that how you see the world? As a place where the only thing that keep us in line is the gun in your pants?
@boomzilla said:

This is way below your usual level of posting, where at least your straw men are witty. I'm going to go watch some super cooled liquid flow.

So can you give me data that would back that countries with low crimes and no guns will be better off with guns?
@Sutherlands said:

I'm actually interested in having a discussion.

Why?@Sutherlands said:

giving guns to bad people makes you less safe.  Also, taking them away from good people makes you less safe. 

Not always@Sutherlands said:

But the reason a gun dissuades an attack is because it has the power to follow through on the threat, which is what is the dissuader.

And guns are the only disuader? Or even the best?

[boomzilla]

@serguey123 said:

So you don't trust goverments because apparently they are out to get you and the last line of defense is the handgun you are carrying around (are you insane btw?)? Is that how you see the world? As a place where the only thing that keep us in line is the gun in your pants?

Um, no?

I don't trust governments because there's no good reason to trust them. But obviously, if you have a gun, that's pretty much your last line of defense. This is trivially obvious, no? These straw men of yours are getting worse and worse. The "only thing that keep us in line?"

You didn't quite get there, but a common argument from anti-gun people is that it's foolish to think that resistance via small, civilian grade arms against the government could ever be useful. And if it really came to all out civil war, that's certainly true to a certain extent, though Iraq has shown that you don't need lots of super heavy weaponry to be effective. But more importantly, at least for a place like the US, is that the soldiers or police are citizens, too, and they might not want to be shooting their fellow citizens. It might be easy to go off and round up groups of people to put them into camps (we did that in WW2). But if those people are likely to put up armed resistance, the people doing the ordering and the people being ordered might decide otherwise.

Our government's legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed. And when that fails, the government has to rely on force, whether it's rounding up a bank robber or preventing states from seceding. That's not a light thing, and the exercise of that force shouldn't be, either. The governors and the governed should keep that in mind. I'm not arguing that we should or do have existential battles every day, but if you think this stuff isn't important, then you don't understand the American Revolution and its implications.

@serguey123 said:

So can you give me data that would back that countries with low crimes and no guns will be better off with guns?

I doubt it. What would such data look like? Anyways, I don't live in such a country, and they're free (AFAIC) to do whatever they want to do there. I'm more interested in data that shows that places I care about would be better without legal gun ownership, and so far, there is nothing compelling that I've seen. Of course, low crime is not the same as no crime, and people might still be able to defend themselves better, which would improve their lives, even if crime statistics aren't at "failed state" levels. It's quite likely that some of the places in the US with low crimes and lots of legal gun ownership would stay low crime if people didn't own so many guns.

@serguey123 said:

@Sutherlands said:

But the reason a gun dissuades an attack is because it has the power to follow through on the threat, which is what is the dissuader.

And guns are the only disuader? Or even the best?

Every situation is different, of course, but they seem to be pretty good, and that can work for the widest range of people.

[Sutherlands]

@serguey123 said:

So can you give me data that would back that countries with low crimes and no guns will be better off with guns?

Yes.  Look at the UK.  It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of the UK.  It has worse crime than Europe, America, Australia, Canada, and South Africa.@serguey123 said:

Not always

Clever response.@serguey123 said:

And guns are the only disuader? Or even the best?

No, and yes.  Was there a point, or are you just asking random questions at this time?

[morbiuswilters]

@Sutherlands said:

Look at the UK.  It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of the UK.

The UK: capital of the UK.

[Ben L.]

@morbiuswilters said:

@Sutherlands said:

Look at the UK.  It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of the UK.

The UK: capital of the UK.

Whoa, I never would have thought that most of the violent crime in the UK happened in the UK.

Next you'll be telling me that most New York Cities are in New York, or that most of the blowjobs morbiuswilters has participated in have included morbiuswilters as a participant.

[morbiuswilters]

@Ben L. said:

...most of the blowjobs morbiuswilters has participated in have included morbiuswilters as a participant.

Only if he's feeling generous.

Oh, wait, you didn't say "a recipient" you said "a participant". Damn, I've said too much.

[Sutherlands]

@morbiuswilters said:

@Sutherlands said:

Look at the UK.  It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of the UK.

The UK: capital of the UK.

Blah, blah, violent crime capital of EUROPE.

[serguey123]

@boomzilla said:

I don't trust governments because there's no good reason to trust them.

And I trust them, even when you think otherwise, I don't like them though
@boomzilla said:

These straw men of yours are getting worse and worse.

Because I get bored and tired, mostly from work, but I also don't like the way you debate so there is that
@boomzilla said:

I'm more interested in data that shows that places I care about would be better without legal gun ownership

I don't think such data exist, mostly because I don't think that premise to be true, however it would be interesting to read
@boomzilla said:

so far, there is nothing compelling that I've seen.

I agree@boomzilla said:

t's quite likely that some of the places in the US with low crimes and lots of legal gun ownership would stay low crime if people didn't own so many guns.

I also believe that, that is why I believe that they aren't needed. Of course if you have a legal gun, I'm ok with that, the chances of a legal gun in hand of the owner harming an innocent other than themselves is pretty low. The chances of that weapon stopping crime is pretty low as well.@boomzilla said:

Every situation is different, of course, but they seem to be pretty good, and that can work for the widest range of people.

That is your opinion I guess, I have a different one

[Sutherlands]

@serguey123 said:

Of course if you have a legal gun, I'm ok with that, the chances of a legal gun in hand of the owner harming an innocent other than themselves is pretty low. The chances of that weapon stopping crime [b]in progress[/b] is pretty low as well.

FTFY

[serguey123]

@Sutherlands said:

Yes.  Look at the UK.  It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of the UK.  It has worse crime than Europe, America, Australia, Canada, and South Africa.[

Interesting, I didn't know that, however a single datapoint is not enough. Nevertheless I will read on that.(I guess you meant Europe in the second)
@Sutherlands said:

Clever response

Indeed, I hate blanket statements (V) ( ; , , ; ) (V)
@Sutherlands said:

No, and yes. 

I agree with the first and disagree with the second
@Sutherlands said:

Was there a point, or are you just asking random questions at this time?

They are not mutually exclusive. Randomness by itself is a point. Why do you think this topic is debatable? I think that we see the world in a totally different ways and the fact that we can't agree and never will is regrettable but perfectly normal. You either trust humans and society or you don't.

[serguey123]

@Sutherlands said:

@serguey123 said:

Of course if you have a legal gun, I'm ok with that, the chances of a legal gun in hand of the owner harming an innocent other than themselves is pretty low. The chances of that weapon stopping crime in progress is pretty low as well.

FTFY

So guns can stop crimes in the past? Who knew? Or are you talking about the future? Because guns works both ways. A criminal can of course think: "Boomzilla might have a gun so I should not mess with him". Other alternatives are: "Boomzilla might have a gun so I should put a bullet in him first". Crimes occur and will keep occuring wether you have a gun or not, wether everybody has a gun or not. Saying that widepread usage of guns will prevent crime by itself is as stupid as saying that widepread usage of guns will produce crime by itself.

[Sutherlands]

Well let's just start from the stupid things you've said...

 @serguey123 said:

So guns can stop crimes in the past? Who knew?

No, they can't.  But they can stop a crime from having ever been committed without it being in progress.  Which you knew, so I'm not sure why you said this.

@serguey123 said:

A criminal can of course think: "Boomzilla might have a gun so I should not mess with him". Other alternatives are: "Boomzilla might have a gun so I should put a bullet in him first".

They can, of course, think both ways, but the latter requires the criminal to know who has the gun.  If I know that half the home-owners in a particular neighborhood have a gun in the house, I'm not going to risk it.  But if I know that none of the home-owners do, then I'll go there to commit whatever crime.  It's a fact that criminals are deterred by guns.

@http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html said:

Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982, 34% reported having been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."[60] From the criminals' standpoint, this experience was not rare.

@serguey123 said:

Crimes occur and will keep occuring wether you have a gun or not, wether everybody has a gun or not.

So since it will happen, we shouldn't care about how much it happens?  Stupid statement.

@serguey123 said:

Saying that widepread usage of guns will prevent crime by itself is as stupid as saying that widepread usage of guns will produce crime by itself.

No, it's not.  Just the fact of the possibility of someone having a gun prevents crime. 

[nosliwmas]

@Sutherlands said:

Look at the UK. It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of Europe

We are? Shit. Although there weren't many guns to ban in the first place & I'm certain that my odds of being the victim of a violent crime are so small that I'm not going to worry about it.

This whole debate is kind of pointless. If you're in a society with no (or very few) guns then you'd conclude quite rightly that having more guns would lead to more shootings. If you live in a society where lots of people have guns then the thought of voluntarily disarming obviously leaves you thinking you'll be unable to defend yourself against those retaining arms.

The stats that get quoted comparing the US and Europe are flawed in that the base rate of violence has always been higher in the US so you're not comparing like-with-like which invalidates arguments that guns increase violence. On the other hand, banning guns in one American city doesn't stop (the bad) people acquiring them if they're freely available nearby so you can't claim banning guns increases crime either.

So, you either ban all guns, or let all people carry guns. Either way works & you can't really move from one stance to the other once you've adopted it.

The only thing I would insist on is not marketing guns for kids: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-kentucky-boy-accidental-fatal-shooting-sister-20130501,0,2768797.story

[Sutherlands]

@nosliwmas said:

stuff

There's a lot of truth to what you say, but it's easy to say that guns should be outlawed when you're a male, particularly a big one.  When you're a small guy, or especially a small woman, that's when you get to be the victim of all the crime that's going on (that's not gang- or drug-related).

Also, with 3-D printers being able to create guns now, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals just got a lot harder.

[morbiuswilters]

@Sutherlands said:

Also, with 3-D printers being able to create guns now, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals just got a lot harder.

Any gun created with a 3-D printer is going to melt after two shots. That's assuming it doesn't blow up and kill you first. That said, maybe one day we'll be able to print all the guns we want.

Still, it's not hard to just manufacture a lower receiver for an AR-15 out of sheet metal (since that's the only part actually regulated under firearms laws) and buy the rest of the components online since they're not regulated.

[nosliwmas]

@Sutherlands said:

Also, with 3-D printers being able to create guns now, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals just got a lot harder.

When they can print the ammunition I'll start worrying.

[Sutherlands]

@morbiuswilters said:

@Sutherlands said:

Also, with 3-D printers being able to create guns now, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals just got a lot harder.

Any gun created with a 3-D printer is going to melt after two shots. That's assuming it doesn't blow up and kill you first. That said, maybe one day we'll be able to print all the guns we want.

Still, it's not hard to just manufacture a lower receiver for an AR-15 out of sheet metal (since that's the only part actually regulated under firearms laws) and buy the rest of the components online since they're not regulated.

 

Have you not heard of The Liberator?

[Sutherlands]

@nosliwmas said:

@Sutherlands said:

Also, with 3-D printers being able to create guns now, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals just got a lot harder.

When they can print the ammunition I'll start worrying.

 Ammo is easy to make.

[morbiuswilters]

@Sutherlands said:

Have you not heard of The Liberator?

I've heard of Defense Distributed, but I hadn't heard anything about their gun for a few months. I also didn't know the State Department ITAR'd them (although I could have guessed that would happen..) Still, last I heard, none of these printed guns have much durability--they're freakin' plastic.

[TDWTF123]

@Sutherlands said:

@morbiuswilters said:

@Sutherlands said:

Look at the UK.  It banned guns and violent crime has risen so much that it is now considered the violent crime capital of the UK.

The UK: capital of the UK.

Blah, blah, violent crime capital of EUROPE.

I'm impressed. You've managed to make your statement even stupider by correcting it. Not only is the UK not the 'violent crime capital of Europe', but, as should be obvious to anyone but a complete idiot or absolutely closed-minded fanatic, violent crime is the set of which gun crime is a member.

For what it's worth, I live in the UK, I'm a fairly ordinary professional office worker, and I could lay my hands on a seriously illegal automatic weapon in hours at most, probably not more than an hour for a basic handgun. I don't. Lack of availability is clearly not the problem.

Hell, it's relevant to the printed-gun stuff that I could build a basic zip-gun in twenty minutes including the time to get to the nearest hardware store and home again. For a few hundred pounds I can buy the equipment off ebay to start turning out pattern Sten guns by the dozen, or even a half-decent weapon instead. For a few thousand, I can buy all the equipment to start a small gun factory.

The most annoying thing about the whole whiny gun-control pretend-debate is the refusal of all parties to acknowledge that availability is not strongly correlated with anything, let alone there being any causative links established. It's pretty obvious that there is in fact no real debate on gun control. What we have instead is a much bigger issue using gun control as a proxy.

[TDWTF123]

@Sutherlands said:

 Ammo is easy to make.

Ammo is any solid object you can pack into your barrel. You may need some kind of wadding/sabot, but ammo is dead easy. Propellant is relatively hard, but it's what people are really talking about when they say ammo. Black powder isn't hard to make, but it's actually fairly hard to get hold of saltpetre these days - as I found out recently when I wanted some for pickling beef. Your best bet for an easily obtained propellant in the UK is butane, but it's not particularly powerful. It's hard to get hold of the ingredients for more explosive propellants legally, although probably not that hard with some relatively minor frauds (but I haven't tried).

[morbiuswilters]

@TDWTF123 said:

...but it's actually fairly hard to get hold of saltpetre these days - as I found out recently when I wanted some for pickling beef.

Really? It's not here..