Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Krigloch the Furious]

heh, nice

 

[viewerfromnihil]

More than you think

 

[Mort Divine]

and most pro-gun people are just that, idiots.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

and most pro-gun people are just that, idiots.

Oh and I forgot to add people in debates who make retarded response like this^

Internet is serious business guys.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

lol. mort is a good guy.

 

[Mort Divine]

Oh and I forgot to add people in debates who make retarded response like this^

Internet is serious business guys.

who would take a response with that big a fucking blazing generalization seriously?

 

[Dak]

So you want dismiss my use of statistical rarities, but allow for yours when you talk about how gun ownership would prevent one of the 10 or less crazy maniacs who goes on a killing spree each year? Interesting.

I can guarantee you, the odds of one being a hero (more like an hero, amirite?) are a lot less than the odds of something bad happening.

I must have missed your use of statistical rarity. Regardless, 10crazies a year killing a total of maybe 100 people is hardly a reason for gun control considering how many people in the US own guns and how many guns they own (many people who own a gun own more than one). So even if more people owning guns won't stop those ten crazies, restricting them isn't going to do any better of a job keeping the crazies from getting them.

Obviously statistics aren't always accurate and don't always paint a complete picture, but comparing multiple ranges of stats you can draw fairly accurate conclusions, one of which being guns =/= violence. So why do they get all this unwarrented attention and attempted restrictive legislation? To make a law there needs to be damn good reasons and there isn't one for gun control other than certain peoples feelings.

I also love how statistics (not that I have never been guilty of this) always get dismissed when it doesn't add up with your original opinion.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Pro-gun advocates can argue every reason why guns aren't bad yet the people who are against guns will never listen and vice versa. In good hands, guns aren't dangerous. In an idiots hands, they're extremely dangerous, we know this, we all know this.

I agree, but still.

 

[Dak]

At least V5 said he thinks a gun should be allowed in my hands

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I am for much better policies regarding gun sales and distribution and I don't believe in abject denial of gun rights. Being able to sell them online unchecked should be a federal offense worthy of a fine and long imprisonment of the people involved (webmaster, distributor, designer, etc.), because this kind of shitty behavior and bad business policy caused the VA Tech killer to obtain his guns, combined with lax law-checking by the people he bought things from in person. I don't really know what to do to be honest, but I am for guns for people who have no history of mental illness, etc. That said, I don't at all believe guns are necessary. But, America is America and it's free and all that so...guns should be allowed.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

You cant get a gun online. Sure you can pay for it, but you have to have it sent to an FFL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License
I bought my 1911 from Budsgunshop.com, had it sent to a gun shop and had to wait 3 days after the gunshop received it for the Illinois background check.

It's not a matter of going to a website and ordering a gun like you would a CD or something from Amazon.

And we need to seriously do something about mentally fucked up people.

 

[Vimana]

Turn them into burgers.

 

[Dak]

And we need to seriously do something about mentally fucked up people.

The problem with limiting them to the "mentally fucked up", is who gets to determine who and what is considered "mentally fucked up".

Going back to previous comments like "being able to just buy guns online" or talking about how there is "no need to hunt" etc etc, just shows many people can be anti-gun to some degree due to lack of correct information. Considering people are bombarded with incorrect information concerning guns, this isn't entirely their fault.

As far as licensed dealers slacking on following this existing laws, we should enforce the laws we have better before trying to pass new ones.

 

[Zoidfarb]

Yeah, but Guns are more fun than dildos.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The problem with limiting them to the "mentally fucked up", is who gets to determine who and what is considered "mentally fucked up".

Only thing I can think of is through mental illness diagnoses. Not all illnesses, of course, but at least the ones have been common in previous killers. This of course leads to a problem of people avoiding psychologists out of fear for losing their right to own a gun, but it's a necessary drawback.

They can always lighten the 'sentence' by allowing the mentally ill to rent guns at shooting ranges and such, but not be allowed to leave the range with the gun. They might also eventually get the diagnosis removed if they show signs of recovery.

 

[skeptik]

I don't think merely those who are mentally ill should be barred from owning guns. At least, I guess that depends on how you classify "mentally ill." I don't support banning basic firearms (I haven't thought much about more brutal weapons, like, I don't know, a rocket launcher or something), but what I would like to see is a more universal, more comprehensive, and more strict evaluation system for background checks, while at the same time removing excess bureaucracy from said system in the hopes of both increasing its thoroughness and its efficiency.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I can agree with that, obviously more strict for rocket launchers though

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't think merely those who are mentally ill should be barred from owning guns. At least, I guess that depends on how you classify "mentally ill."

That's why I said mental illnesses that are shown to be common among past murderers. I know we'd still have to define "common", but somewhere around 5% to 10% might work (just as a completely baseless guess).

I don't support banning basic firearms (I haven't thought much about more brutal weapons, like, I don't know, a rocket launcher or something), but what I would like to see is a more universal, more comprehensive, and more strict evaluation system for background checks, while at the same time removing excess bureaucracy from said system in the hopes of both increasing its thoroughness and its efficiency.

What do you mean by more strict?

 

[skeptik]

I don't know, and won't pretend to know. Or rather I won't pretend to know what specifics would be required during background checks to most accurately assure that the person(s) using the gun is a responsible person.

 

[Xcommunicated]

Is it already 20 years since Tim Berners-Lee authored "Information Management: A proposal" and set the technology world on fire?

Back in 1989, Berners-Lee was a software consultant working at the European Organization for Nuclear Research outside of Geneva, Switzerland. On March 13 of that year, he submitted a plan to management on how to better monitor the flow of research at the labs. People were coming and going at such a clip that an increasingly frustrated Berners-Lee complained that CERN was losing track of valuable project information because of the rapid turnover of personnel. It did not help matters that the place was chockablock with incompatible computers people brought with them to the office.

"When two years is a typical length of stay, information is constantly being lost. The introduction of the new people demands a fair amount of their time and that of others before they have any idea of what goes on. The technical details of past projects are sometimes lost forever, or only recovered after a detective investigation in an emergency. Often, the information has been recorded, it just cannot be found."

So he got to work on a document, which is amazing to read with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. But it would take Berners-Lee another couple of years before he could demo his idea. Even then, the realization of his theory had to wait until the middle of the 1990s when Jim Clark and Marc Andreessen popularized the notion of commercial Web browsing with Netscape.

And as prescient as the CERN document was, not even Berners-Lee could imagine where his basic design was about to lead. To wit, part of his very modest conclusions:

"We should work toward a universal linked information system, in which generality and portability are more important than fancy graphics techniques and complex extra facilities."

"The aim would be to allow a place to be found for any information or reference which one felt was important, and a way of finding it afterwards. The result should be sufficiently attractive to use that it the information contained would grow past a critical threshold, so that the usefulness the scheme would in turn encourage its increased use."

So it is that on Friday, Berners-Lee and other personages involved in the development of the Web will congregate at the particle physics lab to celebrate. I can't make the event, but from one side of the pond to the other, here's a virtual toast to Sir Tim Berners-Lee on a job very well done.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-10195512-60.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

I admit that the computer would've been pretty boring if it hadn't been for the power of the internet that has had me hooked onto it for so long. A good thing is that I've been able to keep in touch with my long lost friends because of this internet.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Internet.