Yet again someone misinterprets the meaning of "Friendly Fire".
A hitchhiker researching a book on "The Kindness of America" is currently recovering in hospital after a gun-toting truck driver gave him a small donation of some searing hot lead. Ray Dolin, was hitching on Highway 2 in Montana on Saturday as part of a project to produce a memoir on the great things about the open road in the …
Well what do you expect, Amerikan special forces in 'nam adopted a version of Arnaud Amalric's (died 1225, a Cistercian church leader) infamous statement "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" (Kill them all. God will know His own) or if you prefer the modern version "Kill'em all, and let God sort'em out".
Or maybe the perp is playing too much GTA
It's been said so many times it has lost all meaning, sadly.
The kind of people obsessed with guns are the kind of people who absolutely should have access restricted in every conceivable way. A nation with a fixation on weapons, for reasons they can never, ever justify [120 million people do not go hunting], usually an unhealthy fixation on god as well.
I suppose this guy was probably a democrat, if they can make a effigy of Obama hanging with a pride flag those nutty religious republicans can do anything.
"A nation with a fixation on weapons, for reasons they can never, ever justify [120 million people do not go hunting], usually an unhealthy fixation on god as well."
Can you actually support this statement, or is it, like most of what you write, just something that you pulled out of your ass to fit the occasion?
It's one of those cognitive bias thingies.
Handgun owners think they are safer because they own a gun "for protection", and fail to take into account that while it's so easy for them to own and carry a gun, it's also very easy for everyone else to also own and carry a gun.
They also apparently fail to take into account that old adage "shit happens", because more likely than not, the gun that they bought "for protection" will (a) be used by themselves to shoot at / kill someone they know (b) someone they know will use it to shoot at / kill them (c) accidentally shoot / kill either themselves or someone they know. The intended purpose, that of intimidating / shooting at any potential intruders or troublemakers comes way, way down on the list of ACTUAL, REAL-LIFE use of firearms purchased "for protection"
The author of the study you are quoting was found guilty of falsifying his data and lost his professorship years ago. The true statistics are that people with guns protect not only themselves, but their gun-less neighbors as well, and by a far greater numbers than even the crime stats show.
The Civil War was EXACTLY what they had in mind when they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution. In particular, the slave-owners of the South wanted to insure the federal government would not interfere in their precious States' Rights even after the other pro-slavery clauses of the Constitution had expired (in 1808).
Unfortunately for the Second Amendment, that great REPUBLICAN President Abe Lincoln decided he had to overrule the Second Amendment. Rather a bloody mess, what.
In retrospect, I think that perhaps the most amazing thing is that they did not repeal the Second Amendment de jure after they had the long war to overrule it de facto. In other words, they just kicked that question down the road. Now I find myself wondering whether repealing the Second Amendment might have been in Lincoln's plans if he hadn't been assassinated? Of course as of that time, they had never repealed any constitutional amendment, but merely two minor amendments before 1865...
I guess we should be grateful that the actual author of the Second Amendment didn't have enough imagination to anticipate future weapon systems. If he had, I'm rather confident he would have specified individuals should be allowed to own "all weapons invented in the future", too.
Plenty of 'criminals' got sent to the area currently known as the US. They took the option of indentured servitude in the 'colonies' over punishment here in the UK. It is said some committed crimes (ie feeding themselves) in order to access what many saw as their only chance at a decent life. What you mean is that there were no organised penal colonies like there were in Australia and that is true, but that doesn't mean no criminals were not sent there. The process included the area currently known as Canada too. The former colony that was not a penal destination you are thinking of is New Zealand, one thing Kiwis will never tire of reminding Aussies of is that they are all descended from criminals, whereas we are not ;-)
If he'd wanted to kill the guy and hadn't had a gun he could have run him over with the pick up truck.
In fact therefore probably just as well he did have a gun.
Homicidal psychopaths are homicidal psychopaths. They will kill with a plastic spoon if nothing else come to hand. End of.
If he'd wanted to kill the guy and hadn't had a gun he could have run him over with the pick up truck.
In fact therefore probably just as well he did have a gun.
No not really. He'd potentially damage his truck which could be expensive to fix and very easy to track down. A gun makes it far easier for a loon to act on the craziness inside.
"If he'd wanted to kill the guy and hadn't had a gun he could have run him over with the pick up truck.
In fact therefore probably just as well he did have a gun.
No not really. He'd potentially damage his truck which could be expensive to fix and very easy to track down. A gun makes it far easier for a loon to act on the craziness inside."
And you know what, he'd probabaly get away with a fine or very small prison sentence even if he had killed him, as he could claim it was just an accident.
No, and yes.
Hitting the hithchiker with the pickup truck would be unlikely to do serious damage to the truck. This is probably the reason for cars being the most commonly used murder weapon in the US. As you mentioned; one can say it was just an accident. So long as one isn't drunk while killing somebody with a car in the US (and in Montana I doubt being drunk would make a difference) one will almost certainly get off with at the most a small fine. Doesn't matter how obvious it is that the deed was done on purpose.
"120 million people do not go hunting"
Don't be silly, regardless of what the NRA and others like to spout; there's only two reasons to have a well armed populace and one of them is rather outdated.
Allowing the citizenry to maintain a respectable level of force provides a defense against substantial corruption and overreach on the part of the government. If needs be, when the government gets too uppity and controlling, it can always be replaced by force... again. Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA, but allowing an armed populace provides that option if it's ever again needed.
The second reason is far less meaningful when you already have a huge military and a militia to go with it. But, having an armed populace does allow a country to produce a modicum of defense against an invading country.
None of the reasons provided by the gun fanatics can really account for why more than maybe 10-20% of the population should want a gun. Most people in complacent or "civilized" societies aren't interested in hunting. Defense against armed criminals only requires one or two armed defenders to be effective. Defense against unarmed criminals usually doesn't require the level of force that a gun provides. There are other ways to provide peace of mind at home than having a gun in the closet. Yes, some people do have a legitimate use for guns, even in relatively safe Western countries, but they are in the minority.
"Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA..."
If you ask anyone outside of the United States of America, the chances are they'll opine that you should have replaced your government by force about forty years ago. And if not then, you definitely should have had a go 10 years ago.
"Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA, but allowing an armed populace provides that option if it's ever again needed."
I can only remember one time when citizens of the U.S. made a dedicated attempt to replace the federal government, and that happened between 1861-1865. How did that work out for them?
Face it--even with all the civilians and all the guns they possess, the US federal government is simply too powerful to be stopped--it has already become so corrupt that it has engaged in two illegal wars, their criminals in the government that caused the current global recession are practically untouchable, and their laws are considered the laws of the world. If all of the US citizens somehow formed a likemindedness to remove the government by force, all the government would have to do is dispatch a few drones, kill a few strategic people in strategic places, and the sheep with guns will gladly go back to being just sheep. When that happens, the US will officially be a dictatorship.
"They all have guns [...]"
Yes, as a part of "well-regulated militia". In a way, all able-bodied male Swiss are in the Army, but are on an extended leave, and keep the personal firearm at home.
Not exactly the same thing as the American gun mania...
I'm actually a big fan of the compulsory military service. When you are forced to play with guns and military manoeuvers in your youth, most sane people get enough of it, and have little desire to obsess about firearms later. The best pro-peace education there is! It's just too bad that country after country in Europe is dropping this tradition, in favour of all-professional armies. There will be consequences...
Switzerland has a stratospherically hig gun ownership because they have military conscription, and all the conscripts get issued with a military weapon (small semiauto or auto rifle) which they then keep at home after the service has ended. So firearm ownership is extremely high BUT (a) only a tiny amount of these are hanguns that can be easily carried about and/or concealed on the person, and (b) the arms are owned by people who have had extensive training in their use, not just any numpty who can walk into a gun shop with a wad of cash
Switzerland however does have the highest rate of firearm homicide in the EU and an equally high rate of male suicide by military rifle. That they do not have US style level of firearms violence doesn't mean it's all rosy in the Alps. When a firearm is present and available in the home, where emotions can run high, the opportunity does lead to their being used. There are reasons why Scotland has a knife problem, they are much more available than guns. If nobody had knifes it would be cudgels or clubs to the head. Plenty of people get glassed as well, again its opportunity. An old scrote once threatened me with a bottle, didn't have the bottle to go through with it after I squared up and loomed at him though. I never took my eyes off his bottle though, just in case.
"Allowing the citizenry to maintain a respectable level of force provides a defense against substantial corruption and overreach on the part of the government. If needs be, when the government gets too uppity and controlling, it can always be replaced by force... again. Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA, but allowing an armed populace provides that option if it's ever again needed."
And yet, strangely, when you look at the political landscape in this country you see that the folks who are most obsessed with having guns to help fight off Big Gummint are also the folks most keen on restricting other people's rights...'specially if those other people happen to be women, non-Christian, or (God help them) both.
If the day comes when the government does get serious about crushing the rights of the citizens, it will be the Guns 'n' God squad who are standing on the streets cheering, not fighting the government off.
"Allowing the citizenry to maintain a respectable level of force provides a defense against substantial corruption and overreach on the part of the government."
Clearly, it doesn't. Or hasn't, rather.
The whole idea of the US population rising up to throw off a government is preposterous these days. Look at the levels your human rights have been torn to shred because a tiny sliver of people [AKA terrorists] took up arms against the US internally. The US gov would ruthlessly crush any would-be revolution with a mixture of harsh legislation, propaganda and overwhelming firepower. The idea of the right to bear arms being a viable way to express unhappiness with the government is outmoded in the extreme.
As to defence against invaders... well, that isn't honestly viable, either. Nobody is about to invade the US, and semi-automatic rifles don't really do much good against MBTs anyway. The US is essentially an island nation with a blue water navy that dwarfs any other. Any latter-day armada isn't going to reach the coastline.
I really don't see either of those reasons as worth the number of firearm-related deaths in the US each year. Maybe half of them or more would happen anyway; but that's still a steep cost in human lives, for no real reason.
If needs be, when the government gets too uppity and controlling, it can always be replaced by force... again. Fortunately, it's been a long time since we've needed to replace a government by force in the USA, but allowing an armed populace provides that option if it's ever again needed.
The second reason is far less meaningful when you already have a huge military and a militia to go with it. But, having an armed populace does allow a country to produce a modicum of defense against an invading country
the guns aren't about hunting alone. they are about preventing those that think they have the authority to "restrict" the rights (as long as those rights don't violate someone else's rights) of free citizens that are not generally known to be of unsound mind or career criminals. where those lines are drawn is debatable. the burden of proof lies with those claiming authority. why you think that someone who owns multiple guns or who carries a gun must be obsessed with guns is beyond me. I can guarantee that there is at least one gun in 9 out of 10 houses on my street and i suspect that their guns occupy a very low priority in their conscienceness overall as there is only one neighbor who engages in target practice somewhat regularly. To equate gun owners with someone who wants to kill or mame random living creatures is simply an expression of your ignorance of the matter or willing douchebaggery!!!!
For all the anti-gun ownership talk from your side of the pond, my wife is alive and well today because I legally carried a gun and stopped someone committing a crime in their tracks before ANYONE was injured.
I'm glad that the UK is so wonderful without guns, you have every right to do it the way you want to on your side of the pond. However, I'm also glad we don't have to follow your path in the US, and I'm really not sure why you are so offended that an entire country full of people thousands of miles away from you has a different opinion on gun ownership.
Also, the legal gun owners are not the ones causing the problems. As usual, that little bit seems to get overlooked.
Tell that to the wife, relatives of the three people shot and killed by a nutter with a hit list here in the Vancouver area. The police gave him back the rifle after taking it away. While most of our recent years' spate of gun deaths have been drug gang related hits with illegal weapons, this one clearly was not.
"Also, the legal gun owners are not the ones causing the problems. As usual, that little bit seems to get overlooked."
According to this article the truck driver is now facing charges of: "felony assault with a weapon and driving under the influence" but /NOT/ the illegal possession of a gun.
"Also, the legal gun owners are not the ones causing the problems. As usual, that little bit seems to get overlooked."
There wouldn't be as many illegal ones, if legal ones weren't so common, though. Most of the illegal firearms start out as legal ones. You're not even required to keep them under lock and key, or in a safe state.
I think also that the legal firearms owners *are* the problem when you look at accidental deaths.
I don't have a huge issue with firearm ownership. I have an issue with over-prevalent firearm ownership, overly-easy firearm access, and unsafe storage (especially with children in the home).
The facts contradict your opinon:
You'll note he has the connector to the current data sets on his web page, but accidental injuries total are about half of what the number of murders is. When you further restrict it to accidental death, there's just no comparison.
Its always the same -
- "I need a gun to protect my self because x,y,z might have a gun"
- "Russia have a really big bomb see we need a bigger bomb to stop them using their bomb"
If no one had guns you wouldn't need guns to protect against guns - Yes the UK has strict laws on guns so knife crime is really high - but no knife/golf club/ bat welding nut job has ever gone into a school or street and killed 10-100s of people. You can also run away from some one with a bat or knife not so much with a gun.
So tell me, what country is safer, the one where almost everyone can freely own a gun or the one where a tinny % can and are heavily controlled. If the USA had a gun amnesty type thing and had similar laws to the UK - violent crime deaths would drop by 90% over night.
Down voted you as the UK does NOT have a significant knife crime rate.
You like most of the retards in the country, you seem to think that because you read about it a few times a year it must be terrible, but that is for the whole country.
But with a population of ~60 million, the chances of you ever being a victim are probably less than being struck by lightning. The exception being if you or a close family member are part of a gang, in which case it is almost a certanty.
"I'm really not sure why you are so offended that an entire country full of people thousands of miles away from you has a different opinion on gun ownership."
Perhaps because that same country often sends entire armies at your doorstep, if it doesn't like the way you're minding your own business.
It isn't that most people are raging nutters, the problem is that the system allows the raging nutters easy access to guns and makes it difficult to distinguish the nutters from the non-nutters.
The question is whether I put my interest in having a gun ahead of the interest of those shot due to lack of gun controls. Given the homicidal tendencies of Americans, compared say, to Canadians, should I insist on my rights to hold a gun, knowing that others will die because of it? No-one is saying you shouldn't be able to go out and hunt for your dinner, but perhaps slowing the rate of fire by allowing only long bows wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Legalising gun ownership won't undo what was done to them. It won't reduce the number of future victims either; quite the opposite. What's your point?
The numbers seem to disagree with you.
For example, you can carry a gun at 18 in Vermont with no special permit, and you can't even have one in Chicago. I've never heard about the huge amounts of violent crimes in Vermont, but I know for a fact Chicago is a dangerous place. You get the same violent crime comparison even if you go per-capita, so don't bother trying to point out that there are more people in Chicago than in Vermont.
Sure looks like legal ownership DOES reduce the number of victims. Sorry to pollute your opinion with facts.
Perhaps all the gun toting criminals in Chicago bought their guns in Vermont? Or just stole them.
A criminal is hardly going to use a gun which they bought and registered in their own name are they?
Having different rules on ownership in different states / cities doesn't work unless you have airport-style controls on all the borders - something that would be near impossible to implement.
However if handgun ownership were made illegal (or tightly controlled - e.g. they have to be stored at the gun club and only used there) nationwide then this reduces the available guns for the scum to steal and use illegally.
Gun Ownership is NOT a deterrent, if a burglar is in a neighbourhood where he knows 9/10 of the house owners are armed, he'll just arm himself and go in anyway, and the house owner is that much more likely to be killed.
In a country where there are (virtually) no guns, if a burglar is disturbed he will run. In a country with guns - he'll shoot first to make sure HE doesn't get shot - it's simple.
Take a look at the Firearm Related Death rate and compare the US to England / Wales. There's a reason for the rate being 10 Times higher in the US - and its the availability of weapons.
Having said all that it's pointless arguing the point - Americans are addicted to guns, and there's nothing anyone can do to reverse that - unless someone invents a star trek style stun gun (not a stupid 1-2 shot Tazer), THEN it will be interesting to see what excuse they can come up with to keep them.
Right. That is why SE DC, with the tightest gun control laws in the US, use to be the best place to go to buy fully automatic weapons in an open air market.
Hoplophobes have been hawking your malarkey for ages. But when the US citizens get to vote, and vote in favor of better access to guns, crime rates go down.
Agree chicago does have a LOT of gun related crime(and every other form), hell its so bad people getting shot don't even make the news anymore unless it was a white guy shooting a black teen(cause that's racism opposite isn't true)
Guess what those crimes are committed with unregistered guns illegally acquired(trust me I hear automatics being fired quite a bit at work). Getting guns illegally is not hard at all, and even if guns were flat out banned the illegal guns used in crimes would still be there solving nothing at all, and might actually make things worst seeing then they KNOW no one can defend themselves.
For the tree hugging hippies if you somehow magically remove every gun from the country the criminals will then go to tasers, knifes, etc... If you magically remove those,and ban them you all ways have broken glass, 2X4's with nails, lead pipes, baseball bats, ice picks, anything else you can pick up, bare hands, etc... So if someone REALLY REALLY wants to kill someone there is no way in hell to prevent it.
IMO Guns are not contributing at all to the crime problem its the idiotic politicians that have screwed the country, city, and state up to the point more, and more people are turning to a life of crime to survive.
"For the tree hugging hippies if you somehow magically remove every gun from the country the criminals will then go to tasers, knifes, etc... If you magically remove those,and ban them you all ways have broken glass, 2X4's with nails, lead pipes, baseball bats, ice picks, anything else you can pick up, bare hands, etc... So if someone REALLY REALLY wants to kill someone there is no way in hell to prevent it."
You tase someone, they will probably live. You shoot someone, they often die. Surprise: the one with the tasers but no guns has a lower murder rate.
So, it turns out you prove your opponent's point, but don't notice it.
@Kevin6 - Homicide rates everywhere else in the Western world are lesser than the US by an order of magnitude. So either (a) what you're saying about gun ownership is totally not true, and having less guns DOES reduce violence or (b) as you say, it's not the weapons it's the people, but in this case that would mean that USAians are, by an order of magnitude, more violent, psycopathic and paranoid than people from other first-world countries.
Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe you're right it IS the people, not the guns!
@ John A Blackley
Like many knee-jerkers here you don't seem to understand that all the instances you mentioned were by ILEGAL possession of firearms.
In the UK the incidents involving legally held firearms are extremely rare, and the us of a gun was just a tool that would have been substituted by any one of a hundred alternatives. Most often the substitutes are clubs, poisons and cars, all of which are easily acquired.
In the UK there have only been a few significant events involving legally owned firearms in the past 30 years, far, far fewer than incidents involving other devices (like cars). The most recent notable event in Scotland (1987) should have been averted (or at least altered to use a different type of weapon/tool) had the local firearms inspectors and specifically the local police inspector who refused to accept the advice of the firearms inspectors and done their duty and revoked the certificates of the man.
After the complete ban of hand guns in the UK in 1987, the actual number of illegal uses of guns in the rose significantly. Mainly due to the low brow retards in our society that will do something for no other reason than “it is illegal”, in some perverse macho/gang mindsets.
As for the availability of illegal guns; Guns are not magical devices, they are very simple machines that anyone with a little experience in metal work and machining could make from scratch (guns have been around for over 600 years). The difficult bit is making them shoot accurately, reliably, and safely, things criminals usually don't care about as they are the yob equivalent of iThings.
Plus they can be made very cheaply and stopping imports from eastern Europe and Asia is as difficult as stopping the drugs trade. Making them illegal just means other criminals can make more money selling them here.
Shut the fuck up, seriously, just shut the fuck up!
One nutjob shoots some dumbass hitchhiker and "ohhhh, everyone in the USA is crazy and all guns need to be gotten rid of".
You know what? bad things happen, it doesn't matter if someone has a gun or not. The chances go up when you put yourself into situations to meet crazy people, aka, hitchhiking!
Everytime something happens with a gun, some pussy such as yourself has got to say "oh, get rid of the gunssss......... (in a pussy voice too)
Why don't you go look up how many times a gun has saved somebodies ass before whining about something you have no idea about.
"One nutjob shoots some dumbass hitchhiker and "ohhhh, everyone in the USA is crazy and all guns need to be gotten rid of"."
Dumbass hitch-hiker? A little judgemental, perhaps?
And it's not the event that triggers the line of thought. The opinion on the matter pre-exists and the event merely acts as a renewed catalyst for discussion.
And apparently anyone who opposes firearm ownership is a 'pussy'? Well, you've convinced me that you are a stable and mature enough person to own a lethal weapon!
How many times has a firearm saved somebody's ass in American in the last year, then? 10,000? 20,000? Because if the number is larger than the number they've killed, your logic is whack. Obviously you have the number at hand, having slagged off a poster for not having it.
@ Taylor 1
Wow taylor, angry much?
So tell us "Taylor", why don't you, with your clearly superior understanding of events, go look up in this magical book of yours and tell us; "how many times a gun has saved somebodies ass"? (It's actually somebody's, but i digress)
If more than 10'000 people per year have their "asses" saved by a gun then you've balanced out all the homicides, suicides and accidental killings by guns in the US and all is well.
If, as I suspect, your magical reference source doesn't exist, please STFU and stop commenting on something YOU clearly have no idea about.
Now run along you pathetic little child.
Bill Hicks had it right;
No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the ******* word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there
El Reg is a little idiosyncratic in the stories it carries. I would have expected something about the governments plans to force websites to identify trolls (hows that working out then ?). That's todays news
There was also a story of a council laptop with council taxpayers bank details being stolen (in Glasgow IIRC). No mention here.
It's lagged behind Digital Spy's General Discussion on a few occasions that's a forum with an unfortunately large proportion of Daily Fail reading pillocks. It's strangely addictive though. Thread titles like 'Is getting drunk the most overrated thing in the world to do?' and 'Do i eat manure when i'm asleep?' have a certain fascination :)
I'm a Liberal, A Democrat, An Obama supporter, and an atheist. I dress like an old "hippie" 99% of the time. I drove an old, old Beetle, and yes I even pick up hitch-hikers. And I carry a .45 automatic everywhere I go.
So please, the old gun owner=neanderthal knuckle dragger neo-con thing? Its just like any other stereotype. Easier than thinking.
> So please, the old gun owner=neanderthal knuckle dragger neo-con thing? Its just like any other stereotype. Easier than thinking.
True. If the neanderthals had been armed, homo sapiens would never have wiped them out. How's that for a history lesson?
Anyway, I see this as kindness in action. "I say old chap, kindly accept this small token of fellowship." Blam!
I'm a disillusioned Republican, gun owning, Obama supporter, closet agnostic, and still pick up hitchhikers. I used to be a dyed in the wool, dirty, happy hippie.
These anti-gun people will never frikkin understand gun ownership so it's not even worth trying to talk with them.
It's NOT THE GUN, IT'S THE IDIOT WITH THE FINGER ON THE TRIGGER YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT!
Frankly, when I used to hitch everywhere back in the 70's, I always had more to fear from the bible toting nutjobs than the gun toting ones. I hitched from Fort Collins Colorado to Niagara Falls NY in 76 and had two bible thumpers threaten my life. Fortunately, I was able to talk them both down. One was suicidal and wanted to drive over a cliff (and take me with him). The other one did'nt like hippies. (So why did he pick me up?) Random shit happens just like this poor guy that got shot.
It's been my personal experience that most people in this world (98.5%) are essentially good and are no cause for concern.
However, you may need to be able to kill the remaining 1.5% before they kill you, therefore we carry or at least own guns.
Too bad this fellow ran into one of the 1.5% and was unarmed. At least they caught the SOB and he will likely be prosecuted severely seeing how the Law in the Western US does not give many second chances.
You have my condolences. Come visit Buffalo, New York as we don't just shoot people here.
>However, you may need to be able to kill the remaining 1.5% before they kill you, therefore we carry or at least own guns
If the 1.5% don't have guns then I am willing not to have a gun either ;-) That sums up the difference between the US and folks in most other Western countries.
If the 1.5% don't have guns then I am willing not to have a gun either ;-) That sums up the difference between the US and folks in most other Western countries.
I think guns are great equalizers. If nobody had one, then a 5'1" 110lb woman would be at a severe disadvantage to a 6'4" 280lb rapist in hand to hand combat. Give them both guns, and the odds are much less in favor of the rapist. Rapist chosen as an example, pick whatever bad guy you like.
Criminals are smart enough to be wary or just move along when their victims have a chance of fighting back.
"Criminals are smart enough to be wary or just move along when their victims have a chance of fighting back."
Or it could swing the other way and the criminal would cut straight to the hideous beating: especially in crimes like rape or armed robbery where jail terms are already pretty steep, so adding in assault with a deadly weapon isn't going to really matter much, and an ambush gives the criminal confidence the victim won't fight back, as it's hard for the dazed or unconscious to pull a trigger.
"True. If the neanderthals had been armed, homo sapiens would never have wiped them out. How's that for a history lesson?"
The Neanderthals were armed, with spears : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neandertala_homo,_modelo_en_Neand-muzeo.JPG
The real truth is that it is relatively unknown what happened to the Neanderthals and it becoming increasingly evident that they were not actually completely eradicated but may have actually interbred with Homo Sapiens.
Although most of the hypotheses are contested, it has been scientifically observed that some modern humans carry Neanderthal genes, giving some credit in the direction of interbreeding, but also does not rule out events such as genocide or natural disasters.
>>I think guns are great equalizers.
Well, your (rather deliberate) emotional example assumes that the intention is to "equalise", imagine someone is pointing a gun at you, how do you equalise this situation? point your gun? will the criminal wait for you to "equalise"? or just put some holes in you?
I have absolutely no doubt that there are people/families alive today because they had guns, there's probably dozens of (would have died otherwise) examples, but I also have absolutely no doubt there are MORE people dead/robbed/injured because of guns. In the US the vocal majority want gun ownership, this is absolutely fine, even if you don't truely understand what you're subscribing you and the rest of your society to, it's fine, it's democracy (of a sort).
Canada have similar demographics, similar levels of gun ownership, similar gun laws*, but nowhere near the level of gun crime, so it really isn't as simple as saying "guns are a problem", the US has a problem because of the US, basically they can't be trusted to act responsibly, and yet they are - the laws are for a more mature society (like Canada).
Posting as AC because I'm English, and own several guns, I operate within the law, shoot clays and vermin, my air rifle is 30lb so technically a firearm and registered as such (I have a coterminous licence), I have regular inspections and chats with my local firearms officer, I'm perfectly happy with this because I have met people that wouldn't be allowed guns in the UK.
*Note, the US has stupid laws like "you can only carry a gun if it's on your hip" which means people walking round schools and parks with loaded weapons, and the fact that (in some states) you can walk into a gun fair and walk out (no waiting time) with an assault rifle using nothing more than cash and a driving licence.
*That* is why gun controls are such a positive in society. It's not so much about saying who can have one, and who can't (although that's inevitably a part of it, in the same way we determine who can be trusted to drive a car, or an HGV etc and who cannot).
If you take anything from the "gun control" argument take this quote from the above AC -
"I operate within the law, shoot clays and vermin, my air rifle is 30lb so technically a firearm and registered as such (I have a coterminous licence), I have regular inspections and chats with my local firearms officer"
If you want a s.1 (firearm) or s.12 (shotgun) license you get visits from the boys in blue, both before they give you one, and during the time you hold one. They check your security etc, as well as getting a rough idea of whether you are an obvious raging loon or not. It's almost always the same guy/gal from my experience. You get to know them a bit, have a chat on etc.
The result is that the people that (legally) possess firearms and shotguns have a relationship with the police, and generally get along. That's a good thing. When you start letting people with a complete hatred or distrust of the police etc possess guns you start to get problems.
"I think guns are great equalizers."
Please, Figgus, your average citizen is NOT ready and willing to pull out a gun and just use it on someone.
The entire point of army training is to overcome your personality and make you capable of murdering someone. And still, many soldiers freeze in a real firefight. Yet you say that a soccer mom is just as ready to use gun as is a criminal attacking her.
I'm a queer atheist in a country full of religious loonies, and hardened criminals. Is that a good start?
And I'd like my GF and I to live to grow old together. In my neighborhood its not safe to even walk the dog after midnight. I don't want to be a prisoner in my own apartment. And I like being safe going out at night.
But again. I can't possibly exist. As you can read above, by existing I break too many treasured stereotypes. since I can't exist I must be a secret conservative republican.
This thread just proves what I said. Stereotypes are MUCH MUCH easier than thinking.
How does having a gun make it safe for you to go out at night? If you go out and someone shoots you, you're highly unlikely to be in a fit state to retaliate; in any case you'll already have been shot (so not terribly safe.)
You're good at calling other people names and questioning their sanity, but I'm unimpressed with your own logic and clarity of thought...
That's assuming the shot HITS. If the random assailant MISSES, then the intended victim would be fit and would likely have a sound fix on the shooter, meaning the shooter becomes a potential target. That's the reason for "personal protection". It was like that in the Wild West, too. You didn't do any funny business because you always had to be wary that the intended victim might be able to retaliate. Nothing like the threat of getting what you give to keep some people honest.
RE: "It was like that in the Wild West, too"
Now that makes me pause. Its been my understanding, from reading some historian or other (cite not currently available), that gun use and ownership in the days of the actual wild west was vastly overrated since ammunition was so expensive that no one could actually afford it, so no one bothered with fucking guns. Or if they had guns they couldn't shoot them since they had nothing to shoot from them. Am I wrong in my thinkings?
Where I live in the US there are plenty of gun-totin' LGBT liberals. Nothing weird about that. What _would_ break the stereotype is if you were a big supporter of the current GOP lineup too!
I'm a supporter of the GOP lineup AND the LGBT crusade. I'm also straight and an atheist.
Why do fiscal responsibility and human rights have to be treated as diametrically opposed viewpoints?
Pink pistols is an LGBT group in California that teach marksmanship. You want to know why I carry a, it's because in America you have groups of people that think being transgender is some you should be hurt for. Even in California I have cops that snicker at me. if you are transgender and some hurts you don't exdpect the cops to help you. You have idiots that might find me attractive but then find out I'm Trans. Then they are like I'm no fag so I got to go beat that fag up to prove my manhood. When you have people out there that think you should be eradicated, hunted down and killed like vermin, tossed in to mental wards and kept away from kids you might see things differently. I don't carry a gun to feel safe. I carry one so if some puts me in a position that I will be harmed or killed I can get out of it. Before you say I'm over reacting, I had friend that some put a bomb on her drive way.
>>I'm a queer atheist in a country full of religious loonies, and hardened criminals. Is that a good start?
Well, given the homophobic nature of religions you start of by being a stereotype (gay and, shock! an atheist), by implication of your last line a democrat (again with the stereotype), at a stretch you work in IT (given the nature of this website) again a stereotype, all you need now for a full house is to be butch and have a fem GF.
>>by existing I break too many treasured stereotypes
I remember a hillarious conversation I had with a self professed "Emo", claiming to be so different by being the same as every other "Emo".
The key thing here is that stereotypes define what is common, it's not bad or wrong, if you are genuinely stereotype smashing then either you're proving the stereotype by being the exception or you're the new stereotype if everybody is like you.
Cars have more uses than guns - you can't use a gun to travel to work.
Perhaps we'd just suggest that training, a test and a licence should be necessary before allowing someone to operate a motor vehicle.
Oddly enough, the law already says that.
Yet in many US states carrying a gun in public is easier than driving a car.
"Stereotypes, part 2"
I live in a disabled building, I help neighbors and friends constantly, despite having nothing. Anything from fixing their computers to runs to the hospital, to making sure they get to the bank in a safe and un-mugged fashion. "the disabled are seen as easy targets for criminals the world round" Kindness is an individual thing. It is never a culture.
I was in England about seven years ago. I spent a week in London and was treated with a level of discourtesy and nastiness I have not received outside of Los Angeles. On the other hand I spent a week in Barnsley, and everyone I met treated me like an old family friend, and I have NEVER felt more welcome anywhere in my life.
So do I get to make comments about "British kindness"? And if so, in which direction? There is no monolithic cultural identity, just people, good and bad.
Honestly I have lived in some of the reddest states in the US and when I was young even hunted in the Midwest (now the yuppies have ruined that) and the only time you ever seen guns in public or hear gunshots is in the densest poorest crappiest slums of major cities which usually are not inhabited by many white people. You are much more likely to be shot in say Dallas, Oakland or Newark (yes blue state cities too) than you are in BFE Montana. And it wasn't in America that a wacko shot 77 youth on an island when the police didn't come for over an hour by the way.
I'm rather puzzled why you're bringing Breivik into this. As he's clearly an extreme right wacko, which rather goes against your rhetoric. If I was to make any comparison between his terrorist shootings and something that happened in the USA, the Oklahoma bombings would be the first thing that spring to mind.
Bombing, singular - Mr McVeigh used one vehicle on the building I helped remove bodies from (the Murrah building). Although he managed to cause substantial damage in the area, it was one bombing not multiple.
I think his point was that being a "Wacko" did not necessarily have to do with ones nationality (or for that matter religious or political bent).
I am just saying people can get off their high horses about their supposedly Utopian society being so peaceful and so much better. America is not some wild west full of cowboys from Tombstone shooting up the place is all I am saying. Yeah our gun violence rates look real bad but in nation of 350 million it means a majority of people have not only never had gun violence happen to their family they don't even know anyone it has happened too.
Thing is, most gun incidents are typically measured proportionally: typically per some number of the population like 100,000. So it's possible to compare nations by simply using the same proportions. If America's gun violence rate is so much per 100,000 people, what about other countries?
I'm afraid it is.
The saloons may have been transformed into gleaming towers of glass, and the cowboys may now look more like an eclectic mix of basketball players and lawyers, but the mercenary "kill or be killed" attitude remains the same. The American Dream® is just a never-ending rerun of Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, but unlike within the reality distortion field of Hollywood, the bad guys always win.
Having a gun owning culture didn't do much to stop the Columbine school massacre either did it.
The fact is if someone wants to do something like this enough there is very little we can do to stop it. However the reason that Breivik stands out is that it is so unusual for a society like Norway to suffer such a tragedy, while in the gun-lovin states there seems to a new event every couple of years and public institutions such as schools have to be more like armed camps than place of learning, with armed security, metal detectors, sniffer dogs etc.
The fact is gun ownership is not the only cause of these tragedies. As previous posters have said other countries have a liberal gun ownership and do not suffer the same issues(Switzerland, Canada, etc). However what is a problem is a toxic mix of general fascination with gun culture, acceptance that it is perfectly right to use guns to defend yourself and carry guns in public(i.e stand your ground laws) and large scale inequality in the society which alienates a large part of it.
The school was designated a gun free zone, sort of like Chicago, NY, and DC try to do. And yeah, that was a problem. There were at least two teachers there who are licenses for concealed carry, but because it was a gun free zone, had to leave their handguns locked in their cars where they were useless.
Actually, except for boring films which put me to sleep, I usually blubber at end of movies, both happy and sad. I remember putting on my sunglasses before I left 'How To Train Your Dragon.' It didn't fool anyone. My nose was running and my chin was wet.
Then there are films like "Never Let Me Go." Still too sad to talk about.
I find movies more real than real life. They wouldn't dream of making a movie about a guy who ate another guy's face. Nobody would believe it.
Hey at least Obama didn't leave his daughter in a pub, ouch ...
Now get back to your wife beater, and while your at it why don't you brush your teeth for a change.
Oh and look out for all those knicker puking lager louts on your way home. Or maybe you just ride past them in your Bentley with the windows rolled up like some pompous member of your 'royal' family. Oh dear. Oh please no, let's drop another couple billion quid on the old lady while the rest of your crumbling empire shrinks down to utter meaningless where you riot for days burning down each other homes.
But, no guns! And very one's just no nice ;-)
The next time your head is being beaten in by a bunch of hoodie-wearing thugs, the next time you get caught in the crossfire between two groups of yardies, the next time you get stabbed by some drug-crazed loon, write here afterwards and tell us your views on gun ownership.
yeah too bad the bad guys unfortunately almost always get the drop on you as most of us don't go around assuming we are in a war zone. You are far more likely to have a loved one shot with your gun than it saving one. Still responsible gun ownership is the law of the land and personally I'm fine with that but the personal security argument has always been a load of shit.
This article is about as unbiased as I could find and does a good job of showing both sides of the argument but even it is clear:
"When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death. Homicide rates among the US population between 15 and 24 years of age are 14 times higher than those in most other industrialized nations. Children from 5 to 14 years old are 11 times more likely to be killed in an accidental shooting. Within the US, areas with high gun ownership have higher rates of these problems"
"Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense."
Again not arguing for gun control as the benefits of things like hunting and target practice can be enjoyable. Like all things a risk vs benefits decision must be made with the understanding especially with owning a handgun you are increasing your risks. This BS guns make people safer is coincidentally usually spouted off by the same people that believe the earth is 5000 years old, that Ronald Reagan was fiscally conservative (blatant lie) , and that global warming is a giant conspiracy by the left.
John A Blackley:
"The next time your head is being beaten in by a bunch of hoodie-wearing thugs, the next time you get caught in the crossfire between two groups of yardies, the next time you get stabbed by some drug-crazed loon, write here afterwards and tell us your views on gun ownership."
The reason the US has more gun crime than most countries isn't because it has more guns, it's because the population generally buys into the above line of reasoning. They'd rather live in an armed camp, than risk going out unarmed. They'd rather live in the stone age than take a chance on civilization.
They fail to see what a wussie, cowardly attitude this is. (And I say this purely as a statement of fact.) There's no courage in carrying a honking great firearm. Not even peace of mind. Only fear. You can see the same attitude playing out to an extreme degree on the world stage. The US has a bigger military than the rest of the world combined, yet still lives in fear.
And of course, that's the reason the US attitude is wrong. It takes real courage to live in a civilized world, to go unarmed even when you know there's always a non-zero risk that some heavily-armed loonie out there will be less civilized than you. It takes guts to go through an airport without police-state security, even if it means that once in a while (a very, very long while, actually) a few of you will inevitably get blown up by some foreign fanatic.
Gandhi knew it. Non-violence is all about courage. The courage to put your weapons down first. Americans lack that courage, and we're all less safe for that reason. They should stop and think: when I carry a gun, maybe I'M somebody else's "heavily-armed loonie"...
Trouble with that is that courage (or what some might call blissful ignorance) doesn't protect you when the tonker DOES come along, especially when the tonker can do more than just shoot you. Look at 9/11. Yesterday it was a few airliners. Tomorrow? A contation spreading via an immigrant in JFK perhaps. They say eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, or perhaps more succinctly, "Be Prepared." Some fear is good for the system; helps to keep you alert. And besides, if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will carry them, and when you have arms plants and military bases all over the map, not to mention various borders where illicit arms can come through (look at it like this--some of the US's notorious crimes occurred with AK-47's, which last I checked, no legit American firm makes or sells), it might be best seen as the stick against the avalanche.
How about this for courage? Having a gun around you but having the restraint and presence of mind NOT to use it unless you have to? Living without the means to defend yourself is one thing, but what about having the means AND having the wisdom to know when it's morally justified?
That off chance one in a hundred million THAT WILL DEFINITELY BE USED TO DRAW AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE.
Imagine if it was your kid.
Imagine if someone had garotted the f*ck out of your wife.
Imagine is someone had beaten your parents with a sack of doorknobs.
That will be used to justify an utterly moronic statement. John A Blackley wins the award.
I'm just saying
And I guess I'd rather be shot then beat over the head to death by a curry maddened gang for holligans
oh and seems you Brits didn't seem to mind our guns when our fathers and grandfathers were dropping their intestines for you ...
rubbish, pure rubbish ...
"... you Brits didn't seem to mind our guns when our fathers and grandfathers were dropping their intestines for YOU ..."
I think you are confusing us with the French - the battle of Britain was over by the time you joined in. Europe certainly owes the US a great deal of thanks for their involvement and sacrifice, but try not to forget exactly who it was that you helped liberate. I do accept that Britain may have succumbed at some point in the future if the Nazis had not been defeated - so you did help prevent that.
As for US war-mongering, etc. If an USAians want to know what most of the rest of the world currently thinks is representative of America (rightly or wrongly) then they should watch 'Iron Sky'. Even though it is tongue-in-cheek It is not a good image to have, and only real Americans can correct this.
From a personal perspective I've liked all Americans I've met (and I worked with hundred) - but none of them were NRA-supporting/bible bashing red-necks.
>>oh and seems you Brits didn't seem to mind our guns when our fathers and grandfathers were dropping their intestines for you ...
Do you mean WW2? when America only joined in because Japan bombed them, when America charged for every bullet (and we have only just paid back the last $ recently), when Americans were getting fat off the war between the UK and Germany by buying and selling German bonds, goods and machinery (and IBM supplying things like the counting machines for the Jewish hollocaust?) - where did the Bush family get their money? you do know that the US never declared war on Germany? you do know that the American eugenics movement was the inspiration for his cleansing? and what happened when the war ended? where did all the WMD scientists go? the Nazis and war criminals?
No, your grandfathers died to make the US rich and safe, the fact that it involved helping out Europe was merely an inconvienience which we paid for, the US was a self centred hired gun, nothing else.
Well perhaps if the Brits and especially the butt hurt French hadn't tried so hard to ruin Germany after WW1 there would have been no Hitler and no WW2. The French were sure vengeful when this was one of the rare wars they were on winning side (hardly due to their own efforts). I guess after being owned by everyone including even Mexico they only knew how to be a sore winner.
lol - you really have no clue of history do you?
WW1 was an invasion of Iraq (started in Basra 1914), ivory, rubber, and most importantly the new gold - oil and of course that had nothing to do with what happened to Germany? Look up the history of the Orient Express, or not - self education is a choice, ignorance is bliss as they say.
>WW1 was an invasion of Iraq (started in Basra 1914), ivory, rubber, and most importantly the new gold - oil and of course that had nothing to do with what happened to Germany?
What are babbling about ? I didn't say anything about WW1 itself. I talked about the aftermath of WW1 and the Brits and French war repatriation punishment ultimately crushing the Wiemar Republic and allowing Hitler to gain power in the vacuum. Do try to keep up.
>you do know that the US never declared war on Germany?
Wrong. You might mean Germany declared war on the US first but a formal declaration was made.
>On December 11, 1941, the United States Congress declared war upon Germany, in response to that nation's declaration of war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
> where did all the WMD scientists go? the Nazis and war criminals?
Well perhaps if Winston wasn't a total pussy wimp and let Stalin have half of Europe we could have hung more of the evil f__ks instead of sparing them for the coming cold war. Roosevelt at least has an excuse he was dying rapidly during the negotiations.
>>Wrong. You might mean Germany declared war on the US first but a formal declaration was made.
You're missing the point - Germany declared war on the USA, then the US got stuck in - they were already at war, declaring war against a country that is at war with you doesn't count!
>>Well perhaps if Winston wasn't a total pussy wimp and let Stalin have half of Europe we could have hung more of the evil f__ks instead of sparing them for the coming cold war. Roosevelt at least has an excuse he was dying rapidly during the negotiations.
No, wrong - the German WMD scientists (ex nuclear and rocket) were mopped up by the USA in project paperclip, brought to the US and worked in places like NASA, this included Nazis and War Criminals, totally illegal of course, but project paperclip made up histories for these people, hell! some of these people were even charged with War Crimes and had to leave the US or be caught. This is of course in opposition to the Russian "brain drain" where all captured scientists were repatriated and were never allowed to directly work on any nuclear or rocket program - which of course is ironic as paperclip was specifically put in place to make sure the Russians didn't get any good scientists.
Leaving aside the usual internet troll reponses - nutters will alwys find a way to kill you if they want to. This is obviously true but as a justification for gun ownership it's pretty feeble - let's face if you are carrying a gun you are likely to use it. Gun crime in the UK is still remarkably rare, there are headline grabbing events but these are unusual and are not in any way a reason for the general arming of the populace - can you imagine the Saturday night drunks piling out of bars and clubs with guns?
I'd rather risk the occasional mugger, thanks.
Every American I've met has been very polite, friendly and a joy to talk to.
To most Brits, the portrayal of America in the media is of a mad, scary, war mongering and unpredictable populace that seem to shoot each other at the drop of a hat. This is mostly due to the TV shows aired over here and new items that show hyper US military personnel shouting and screaming like Joe from Family guy, I guess.
It seems to me the guy in this story was just unlucky. If they bloke driving the truck didn't have a gun, but still wanted to cause harm, as said before, would just run the guy down.
I personally have no real view of American gun control. It's up to them, nothing to do with me (until I turn up on your shores again of course. I've only felt unsafe once when we walked from the strip down to Fremont Street in Vegas, but that could have happened in any major city, anywhere in the world).
Two other points.
1) I absolutely loved blasting away with handguns, rifles and the SAW at 'The Gun Store' in Vegas, was a real treat for me having never even handled anything more than a 12 gauge before.
2) Being a proud Yorkshireman, I'm glad Dana W enjoyed her time in Barnsley (I'm hoping she's talking about the Yorkshire town) . :)
I once had the thoroughly disconcerting experience of being held at gunpoint by armed and jumpy cops. I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time: exiting a USA DoE facility with a research reactor on site, a few seconds after they'd had an alert that someone else had just shot at his ex-girlfriend. I matched the suspect's height, race, etc. and was driving the same model car.
It was very scary. The fact that the cops were armed quite definitely did not make me feel safer.
Yes, I can see the other side of the coin. There was an armed crazy on the loose, and unarmed police would have been far more reluctant to get close to him. But I'm still of the view that life is a lot better where the crazies rarely manage to get firearms in the first place, and the armed police are a separate division who are called up only when needed.
"2) Being a proud Yorkshireman, I'm glad Dana W enjoyed her time in Barnsley (I'm hoping she's talking about the Yorkshire town) . :)"
The trouble is that pretty much anywhere in the Uk is going to fare favourably in the friendliness stakes when compared to London these days. Not saying it isn't friendly oop norf of course because it is, just as long as you don't move there and take their jobs/wives etc. :P
"The trouble is that pretty much anywhere in the Uk is going to fare favourably in the friendliness stakes when compared to London these days. Not saying it isn't friendly oop norf of course because it is, just as long as you don't move there and take their jobs/wives etc. :P"
Yep, I have friends in London I visit regularly. I love them, hate the city. Trying to use the tube with a suit case is a nightmare. I've missed more stops because people were more interested in getting my seat than getting out of the way.
@ Nigel 11
“It was very scary. The fact that the cops were armed quite definitely did not make me feel safer.”
I once lived round the corner from an ex-minister for Ireland (In Barnsley), who had a permanent armed police presence and patrolled our block when they got bored. I was surprised how quickly I got used to them wandering around with MP5’s and side arms and got to be surprised by other people’s reaction to armed coppers. Didn’t reduce the number of break ins though pffft...
Tackling gun ownership in the USA is a non-starter. Anyway guns themselves are not the problem, guns never hurt anyone (except for the odd pistol whipping) it's the ammunition that causes the injury so how about controlling the sale of ammunition. Make it free for use in gun clubs and target ranges but around $50 per bullet otherwise. This would allow people the weapons they think they need to “protect” themselves and would also allow ample target and club use but would make people think twice about randomly firing their guns if it would cost a lot each time they did. You’d also need some change to the law to give draconian punishments for anybody removing ammo from clubs or ranges, along the lines of confiscation of all weapons and a $10,000 per bullet fine would seem about right.
When it comes to protecting one's life and property, price usually becomes second priority. Besides, the gun shops have to pay for the bullets to keep in stock, and although they're mostly lead they still cost some money (your basic box of 50 9mms runs about $25, or about $1 a pair), so if you offer free ammo in the range, who pays the gun shops' bill, not to mention the labor and recycling costs for all the used lead and spent casings? Plus there are already more-expensive special rounds for use in home defense (softer bullets that are more effective on people and not as likely to penetrate walls).
As for enforcing any such law, forget it. You'd just encourage the black market, who would care less about whether or not you have a record, so long as you can meet their prices. And gun use is already considered an aggravating factor in most crimes which means more jail time.
You can own all the guns you like, but they must all be fitted with "undo" buttons.
And once a year, to prove the "undo" functionality, you must allow a weapons inspector to shoot you once, then undo the shooting, with each of your guns in turn.
Who could possibly object to such a scheme?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019