Hunters Shot Down Google Fiber 1141
aesoteric writes "Google has revealed that aerial fiber links to its data center in Oregon were 'regularly' shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables underground. Hunters were reportedly trying to hit insulators on electricity distribution poles, which also hosted aerially-deployed fiber connected to Google's $600 million data center in The Dalles. 'I have yet to see them actually hit the insulator, but they regularly shoot down the fiber,' Google's network engineering manager Vijay Gill told a conference in Australia. 'Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the fiber will be shot down, so much so that we are now building an underground path [for it].'"
Immature? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly my first thought. If they can't hit an insulator, what are they hunting? Barns?
Unexpected (Score:4, Insightful)
Fucktards (Score:2, Insightful)
The word "fucktards" comes to mind. This is what you get when you have some kind of right to own a gun combined with a bunch of low-IQ fuckwits.
Take their guns away from them. They are too stupid to have them.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, I'm guessing they're thinking about all the shitty beer they just drank.
Actually, that answers the second question too.
Re:Immature? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, so an internet company should consider fuckwit withs guns as part of its normal operating procedure, eh? Are you from Oregon perhaps?
Or if you are no, but you are so disturbed by Google that you can't even read a story like this without ranting what bad guys they are then do the obvious thing: fuck off to the opt-out village.
Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
Hunters were reportedly trying to hit insulators on electricity distribution poles...
It's why non-Americans think the U.S. gun culture is so obviously insane. I remember talking to one person here on Slashdot who recommended that I read the Turner Diaries [wikipedia.org] (which is often sold at gun shows to gun enthusiasts) in order to understand the gun culture in America. The funny thing is he thought the Turner Diaries was a NORMAL and intellectually stimulating thing to read, just like the Bible.
For the rest of us (non-Americans), we think a love of guns and a feeling of necessity to own fire-arms by U.S. citizens is as fucked up as it is in the Middle East for ordinary citizens to own automatic military assault rifles. It's one thing to be Libertarian about gun ownership, and quite another to be fanatical about gun ideology and just plain Gun Happy, as most Americans seem to be.
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Because unless they are some dumbass redneck there is no way to argue that shooting at their equipment is a good response. In fact even the dumb hicks who did it would probably "argue" that they were just pissing around because they were wasted. It takes a real armchair nutjob like you to claim that they were in the right against some evil global multinational.
Re:so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, so a citizen trying to live freely should consider a global information aggregator as a harmless and healthy part of society, eh?
No, but a conscientious citizen shouldn't consider lunatics with guns a great thing either.
They're called *VANDALS* not hunters (Score:5, Insightful)
The article says that HUNTERS regularly TRIED to hit the insulators. That's like those jackasses that shoot up stop signs for fun. It's called VANDALISM, not HUNTING.
I'm guessing the animal rights nuts and anti-gun people are thinking that hunters go in the woods, get bored, and start shooting at random objects to pass the time..
That makes absolutely no sense. Regardless of what game you're going after, if you make any noise at all, any game in the vicinity will take off. If you fire off a shot, you can pretty much pack it up and go home. You're not getting anything that day.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
The Turner Diaries etc don't define US gun culture, which is quite diverse.
This guy is no closet Klansman waiting for the Apocalypse:
http://catb.org/esr/guns/ [catb.org]
Nor is she:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment [dailykos.com]
"For the rest of us (non-Americans), we think a love of guns and a feeling of necessity to own fire-arms by U.S. citizens is as fucked up as it is in the Middle East for ordinary citizens to own automatic military assault rifles. "
Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.
The Middle Eastern populace clearly needs them for self-defense, and even the Coalition forces in Iraq allow one per household. If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.
While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.
Americans killed their way to freedom in the Revolution, killed those who supported slavery until they surrendered at Appomattox, and if the government gets bad enough will vote with the bullet again. We tolerate quite a bit of corporate abuse, as do the rest of you, but woe betide the government that goes too far. Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.
Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them. We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.
Re:so what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Accepting vandalism does not lead to accepting suicide, murder, bombing (even if "no one is hurt"), etc. The fact that you managed to make the conclusion means that you probably need to seriously review your premises, as a lack of perspective of that magnitude could mean you end up causing considerable harm to yourself or others.
If you can't see how vandalism does harm to normal people, then it's you who needs perspective.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.
The funny thing is, the person (who recommended the Turner Diaries to me) stated the same themes as you are stating. I haven't read the book yet, but from what this person said the book has those themes that you are so proud of. I don't know why you are stating otherwise.
The Middle Eastern populace clearly needs them for self-defense, and even the Coalition forces in Iraq allow one per household. If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.
Clearly that is exactly the worldview that gun-enthusiasts in the U.S. have. You yourself have stated demonstrated this to me.
While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.
Another theme of the Turner Diaries. I'm still not sure why you are claiming that the Turner Diaries is not applicable to American gun-values.
Americans killed their way to freedom in the Revolution, killed those who supported slavery until they surrendered at Appomattox, and if the government gets bad enough will vote with the bullet again. We tolerate quite a bit of corporate abuse, as do the rest of you, but woe betide the government that goes too far. Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.
Again, this theme is in the Turner Diaries. I'm again confuzzled as to why you claim "The Turner Diaries etc don't define US gun culture".
Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them. We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.
Funny thing is, every U.S. gun enthusiast I've talked to has said the same thing. You'd think that everybody that didn't own a gun (in the U.S.) would be dead already.
If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.
You will probably never realize this, but you validated all me points (and there are only 2 "l"s in physically;)).
Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't, for just a second, consider that maybe the hunters shooting at the insulators are hunters who are done for the day? and on their way back they decide to take a couple of shots at the insulators. I know it used to happen a lot here in northern Sweden, and unlike hunters in the US getting a hunting license here isn't just a matter of signing your name on a piece of paper, waiting a couple of weeks and then getting your brand new rifle.
Also, there are plenty of hunters who prefer target practice out in the woods to hanging out at a range, there are plenty of old sandpits around here where you can find cartridge cases strewn about from various hunters either getting some target practice in or simply trying out a new rifle.
Re:Hunters and responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The hunters can't shoot the insulators... (Score:3, Insightful)
They aim at the insulators, and end up taking down the cables as collateral.
Pure "luck" hitting them, but with enough shots at the insulators the wires will by chance get hit eventually..
OK, cut the bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
OK, cut the bullshit. The trajectory of a 3006 bullet is about 15 minutes of arc at 1000yds. Windage will put you about 10 minutes off at 1000yds for every 2-5knots depending on bullet shape and gusting.
Then there's the non-identical nature of the bullets themselves. Unless you make your own loads and reject any loads less than 100% perfect, you will get a variation of a few minutes of arc at 1000yds. And the non-identical load of the powder, variation in burn rate and gas expansion and so on.
Then you have to check the rifling and clean the barrel before that shot.
Over a thousand yards, you can have a good couple of degrees drift overall in your aimpoint. Half of that in areas out of your control.
So, unless you're shooting bell wire from 0.3x57.3=17 inches, you are talking bullshit.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone seems to forget that there's this huge group of people who own firearms because they enjoy shooting. There's a lot of competitive shooting in the states. I used to compete when I was younger, pistol, rifle, shotgun. I still go out every once in a while to maintain my skills, though I'm not so serious about the competitions anymore. I've never killed anything with any of the firearms I own, I've never shot at anyone, I've never used my guns for protection. I just like to shoot. It can be a lot of fun, especially with friends. I just hate that everyone assumes that there are only insane gun nuts and people who hate guns.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even know a single person with a carrying permit.
this shit actually scares people.
Seems you've answered your own question. I'm willing to bet that you know lots of people with both guns AND carry permits, but they're well aware of your irrational fear of inanimate objects so they just don't tell you.
Re:The hunters can't shoot the insulators... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is amazing what you can hit while aiming at something else.
Also, cables cover a MUCH larger area than insulators - i.e. there is whole lot of cables to be hit while missing insulators.
And shooting with shot might not reach the insulators with enough force to do any damage, but just nicking the optic fibre might warrant servicing/replacement.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:1, Insightful)
Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them. We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.
Which, of course, completely explains why the violent crime rate is lower in the UK, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Germany, and a whole host of other countries where firearms are strictly regulated. Of the above, Canada is, by far, the most liberal about firearms, and we have a mandatory registration with restricted access to all handguns, and a (voluntary) registry of all long guns. (with a license required to purchase and own a long gun, as well, with all new weapons being registered). Some of the above countries, you can go to jail for even owning a gun, even if you don't have any ammunition for it.
And it's not a question of population density, either, as Japan has a *much* denser population than the US, and it's one of the countries where it's illegal to own a gun at all.
The problem is a cultural problem: in the US, there's a mentality that you need to get them before they get you. Coupled with the fact that there's a lot of households that have weapons, it means that the criminals are more likely to carry a weapon. And it's simple logic: if a criminal is more likely to have a weapon in the first place, he's more likely to use it.
The only time I have ever carried a firearm in my life was when I was in the military. At that time, I used and carried machine guns, assault rifles, pistols, shotguns, and have used explosives such as grenades, RPG's, and rocket launchers. I do speak from experience when I say that a weapon serves no purpose other than to kill. You're deluding yourself if you think it serves another purpose, and if you point a weapon at somebody, you damned well better be prepared to use it, and to accept the consequences of taking a life. If you aren't, then your weapon is a liability, and you should get rid of it: intimidation is well and good, but there will come a time when you're going to have to use that weapon, and you're going to have to live with the result.
I do firmly believe that access to weapons should be restricted. While I understand the need for a rifle or two on a farm, and while I think it would be more sporting to give the deer the rifle, I understand that they do get used for hunting as well. But if you never leave the city, then I think there should be strict licensing with psychological evaluations and periodic retesting to be allowed to own a firearm.
Re:Guns and chains... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Stupid people are everywhere. Darwin takes care of some...
It is unfortunate that to a large extent this only applies if they have not yet reproduced :-(
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments
So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes, break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive" to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?
preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either.
How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?
You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.
So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?
If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.
If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?
While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives
Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government", while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?
and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.
Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?
Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.
And what if the ones without guns are the ones being reasonable, while the ones with guns are being unreasonable? Couldn't those guns be used to prop up an oppressive regime, just as well they might be used to bring one down? How many US presidents or other high-ranking politicians have been assassinated, or faced an assassination-attempt?
Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them.
Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort. But I'm just an Euro-hippie, so what do I know. It must be like living in the jungle in USA?
We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.
I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied, where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on where you live. Down here in S. Florida I once worked in a small company where everyone owned at least a pistol. In my previous company I regularly went to the range with four or five co-workers. On my block at least six homes have firearms and the firearms per household ratio is higher than 1.0.
I see shooting in many ways to be like archery. It's not something I'd consider using for defense, but the peace and satisfaction it gives me is healthy. On shooting days I wake up at 5AM, don't drink coffee, don't have road rage, etc., because those things will affect how well I shoot. It's very calming to put a target 100 yards out and hit it (and yes, 100 yards is not very long but I'm happy). Some people may thousands a year for therapy or yoga or sensory deprivation electronics, I get my relaxation from a couple hours at the range.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a vicious circle:
If a lot of households have weapons, it means that the criminals are more likely to carry a weapon. If the criminals are likely to carry weapons, it means that even more households will acquire a gun, too. Stalemate.
How do you start disarmament?
Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. I see your point, but I still think my original point is valid. If you're wrecking property that isn't yours, the charge is going to be destruction of public or private property, not poaching. That means you'd be a vandal, not a hunter.
Re:An experiment in Social Engineering. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd say attach a sentry gun to the bullseye and don't skimp on the caliber or amount of ammo available.
Oh, and attach that camera anyway and upload directly to YouTube.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
gimme a country in anarchy where the populace don't have easy access to guns than the most politically stable country in the world (which the US is *not*) where they do.
And this was modded as insightful? If Slashdot had a terminally naive moderation this post would certainly deserve it.
If you want to rant about the United States, rant about the United states, no one is going to stop you from doing so (Not even the US). But framing this as a discussion about firearms is disingenuous. Don't pretend that you care about firearms when what you really want to do is bash on the United States.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"?
There's a broad variety of reasons to own guns. Some people own guns because the police are not there to protect you and in some areas you NEED protection. Some people own guns because no government fears an unarmed populace, and government only works in the interest of the people when the government fears the people and not the other way around. Some people own guns because to them it is an economically advantageous way to acquire food. All of these are valid reasons in my book.
I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied, where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?
That has little to nothing to do with relative safety, and everything to do with personal perception. You're never safe. People trip and hit their head and die every day. Similarly, people are the victims of violent crime and government oppression every day. Some of them could have protected themselves if they owned a firearm. Some of them own a firearm and successfully protect themselves. Some of them own a firearm and die anyway. Welcome to life.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
He was probably talking about the racism in the tuner diaries.
Not everyone who believes a well armed populace helps to keep a government in line also wants to wipe out all the jews,gays and blacks.
I have no guns, I don't want any guns but I can still see it's a fairly sensible point of view.
If you live in a nice safe walled community with security guards keeping a gun close to hand is probably foolish since you're far more likely to shoot a neighbour or a teenage family member sneaking back in late at night.
If you live in a shitty part of town, bellow a crack house and above another crack house not keeping a gun close to hand is even more foolish.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone seems to forget that there's this huge group of people who own firearms because they enjoy shooting.
We are some of those people. We have our firearms for home defense (we live in an apartment), and for going to the range. We both enjoy firing and talking about guns, but gun culture isn't something that interests us...we go to the range by ourselves, don't go to gun shows, and don't support the NRA.
If we've had a bad week though, off we go to the range to blow off some steam. It works wonders.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen perhaps 3 or 4 guns in private possession in my life.
As kindly as I can say this, maybe they think you're a burglary risk? Or your friends/coworkers live in a generally high crime area like the coasts?
Only criminals or the extremely poor have cheap guns. Guns are generally a very long term capital expense, unlike virtually all other hobbies discussed on Slashdot. Realize that my grandfathers .45 has had a vaguely constant value for a couple decades, unlike say, used PC video cards. That leads to "trading up" and "collecting" behavior, and after a couple decades and/or generations of inheritance, ending up with a gun safe worth as much as a car. Sure, you could sell and get the cash, but if you went hunting with grandpa for 20 great seasons, after he dies and you inherit his rifle you're not going to sell either yours or his, way too many good memories about growing up, etc.
Someone whom would discuss their collection of decent condition rare engraved inlaid over-under duck hunting shotguns with anyone they meet is about as intelligent as someone whom would discuss their extremely heavy gold coin collection with anyone they meet...
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
I think he meant that you are being oppressed more and more and that you will have to revolt soon.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
"Up until a few years before 9/11 you could have lectured the rest of the world on how to run a country. Now you're far more the problem than the solution."
And in that time the US government has taken far more power and individual rights have been eroded not expanded.
American citizens had their guns long before 9/11.
Which doesn't fall too neatly in line with your belief that it's the right to own guns and a weak government that's the problem but rather the opposite.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
"Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government."
Yet people in Europe don't feel oppressed, and have high levels of personal happiness (as well as other factors like health) whilst generally having better levels of literacy and numeracy. Most importantly, European "preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense" seems to allow us to have vastly lower crime rates than in the US, particularly much lower gun crime rates, and certainly vastly fewer accidental injuries and deaths from firearms.
"The Middle Eastern populace clearly needs them for self-defense, and even the Coalition forces in Iraq allow one per household. If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense."
Yes, and we've seen how well it works. I'm sure the 1000s of Iraqis that die each month are more than happy with the self-defence their AK-47 offered them. Worked really well when it was the other guy who pulled the trigger first, or blew him up on his way to the market with an IED or car bomb.
"While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space."
Which is why the US also has higher levels of robbery than most European countries that have heavy restrictions on firearm ownership? Yeah, great sovereignty over your own space there.
"Americans killed their way to freedom in the Revolution, killed those who supported slavery until they surrendered at Appomattox, and if the government gets bad enough will vote with the bullet again. We tolerate quite a bit of corporate abuse, as do the rest of you"
Yes, we can see how well it turned out too. A two party state where each party is extremely heavily influenced by corporations to an incredible degree, and where elections can be turned if your relative happens to work at a popular news channel in a key state. Still, if it makes you feel better to tell yourself everyone else suffers the same corporate abuse US citizens do then you do that. Meanwhile we'll enjoy our statutory 5+ weeks holiday, our guaranteed redundancy pay, our strong protections on working conditions, our free healthcare and so on, all whilst maintaining a bigger economy alongside those afformentioned higher levels of personal happiness, healthcare, etc. than the US to boot!
"Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them."
Really? That's pretty unfortunate. Here in Europe I've never been in such a situation where I'd have have had to do that, nor do I know anyone who has. Sounds like gun ownership helps ensure your country is a really nice place to live in.
I actually like shooting, it's a fun sport, but it's just that, a sport. You've got to be pretty insecure, or living in a pretty unfriendly country to think that a firearm is something you need to carry around with you everywhere you go, or necessarily to even keep one in your house. You can throw around terms like freedom, security, self-defence and so on as much as you want, but it doesn't change the cold hard fact that the US isn't really excelling in any important metric as a result of it's gun culture. If you have freedom why do corporations in the US have so much control both politically and personally? If you have guns as a deterrent to criminals, why is crime so high? If you feel safe, free, and secure as a result of gun ownership why do Americans report so much lower levels of personal happiness?
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
Hi, I'm posting anonymously. I remember talking to "Unspecified unverifiable person" the other day who told me to read the SCUM Manifesto [wikipedia.org](highly controversial book) Which is often sold at World Bank Protests (easily vilified target for opposing political belief) in order to better understand the progressive culture. The funny thing is this guy thought the SCUM Manifesto was a NORMAL and enlightening thing to read, just like Mao's little red book.
For the rest of us, we think that (exaggerated emotion to ridcule) of radicalism and a feeling of (exaggerated belief) to push our agenda is as fucked up as....
-----
So, did I get the format just about right? You, posting anonymously, claim to have spoken to 'some guy' that represents ALL of America and based on your obviously limited viewpoint on the subject, you have taken what are the absolute most extreme beliefs that could be associated with a group of people (who really don't fit into a single group in the first place, might as well just start making assumptions based on hair color), and used that to vilify all of us.
That's one mighty broad brush you have there. It would make a Texan proud.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd think so, but the US Military has bigger guns and bigger idiots, so revolt could never occur.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
GItmo's NOT a concentration camp. You throw that word around, I think, without thinking about what it means. Concentration camps were where they sent the Jews TO DIE.
You're thinking of, maybe, and internment camp? Very different thing, that. Less death.
Functionally, Gitmo is just a POW camp. I'm not suggesting the waterboarding was cool, and I'm not saying they're ALL guilty, but it's a POW camp. Unfortunately, the guys who are wrongfully picked up.. can't exactly go home all the time. Because if the great satan took them in and then turned them back out, well, they must be in cahoots with the great satan. yeah. funderful. But so far as "basic rights".. they really don't have any, they're foreign combatants, and they barely if at all even fall under anything in the Geneva convention. They certainly don't have the legal rights of a US citizen, although that's what everyone's clamoring for.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
I see you are unfamiliar, as are most people, with the concept of a vocal minority. Most gun owners in the US are quiet and responsible. People like you read a news story about irresponsible gun owners and suddenly, every American with a gun is crazy. You aren't going to hear a lot of stories about Bill next door who owns a gun and acts responsibly. I would think, by now, internet users would understand how journalism works.
Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters (Score:2, Insightful)
No true Scotsman...
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:1, Insightful)
"I do speak from experience when I say that a weapon serves no purpose other than to kill."
Then your experience is limited and very narrow in scope. I own several weapons which have provided me years of enjoyment without ever having killed anything. My shotgun lets me shoot skeet with friends every week. My pistols let me shoot IPSC and IDPA matches. My scary black AR-15 and other service rifles let me participate in service rifle marksmanship competitions. Guns provide me with innocent fun. No, I probably don't *need* a gun, but the fact that I *want* one is more than enough reason for me to own one. I mean, what kind of weird backward world would that be where a man was only "allowed" things he needed "according to his need" ;)
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically it's not a POW camp, seeing as a majority of the "detainees" weren't part of a military of any sort involved in a war with the US - a "war on terror" is meaningless, you can't send a formal declaration of war to "terror".
It's an internment camp, and by extension a concentration camp. Look up the definition of both internment camp and concentration camp. The OP did not mention "nazi concentration camp", just concentration camp.
So you are 100% wrong with your rejection of the term.
Hunters? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
Firearms Need Regulation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
If its a POW camp then you have to follow the Geneva convention, which the US is not doing. If they are criminals, they have to be granted a trial and convict beyond a reasonable doubt, which the US has not done. If you are holding them there because you consider them dangerous undesirables, then it is a concentration camp.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Firearms Need Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty darn close to that. The problem is that the boondocks are that... Boondocks.
When your base population is 1 person per square mile, there may only be 1 law enforcement officer for hundreds of square miles. How exactly do you propose to enforce those rules?
You can lose your gun, your vehicle, and all your gear for certain violations. You can go to jail for others. the problem is that you can't afford to police everything.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
"No guerilla force will survive for a week under those conditions"
WWII partisans beg to differ.
You can't even imagine what they suffered when they were detected.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hunters and responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Circular arguments galore.... (Score:3, Insightful)
> The only difference is you want to decide what people should want to do.
No. The difference is that _one_ of the examples you made involves hurting other sentient beings. This fact changes the "let people do what they want" situation into a "let people do what they want, but minimize negative impact on others" one.
Also, neither video games nor web sites per se are a need. Food is. By claiming that hunting is for food, people deliberately pull something from the realm of "want" into the realm of "need". When I call bullshit on that, claiming that "want" is "want" may be true, but is hardly a logical answer to what I said.
It's nothing personal, but I feel reminded of arguing with children or religious zealots, atm.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it *was* because there were a lot of people that thought they were going to lose access to ammo. There were numerous new reports at the time featuring interviews with shop owners and customers. It was quite eye opening at the time - I didn't realize that people were that nuts.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just state the plain, obvious, unpopular truth :
Why do you think Vietnam/Iraq became such nightmares?
every time an invading soldier hurts his toe on a wooden splinter (or worse), you pick out 100 Iraqi's from whatever family is rumored to have something to do with the attack, and include their neighbors for good measure. You shoot them one by one in the town square, or alternatively slowly cut their throats (as the enemy does).
Did this work for the Soviets in Afghanistan? No, of course not. It didn't work for the Germans in France either. More importantly, it will never work unless you keep a large military force in the country forever. The United States does not want to keep a large military force in the country forever. It wants a stable, relatively free country, since that seems to work out best for everyone, the US included. Barring that, the US wants a stable, unfree but not threatening country.
Insurgencies don't work the way that you seem to think. You cannot kill your way out of them, since as you kill people, you make more insurgents. The improvements in Iraq came because we were more careful, not more indiscriminate, in who we killed, while attending to the social and cultural factors that could make the country more stable and non-threatening (cf. Petraeus). Afghanistan is even worse because it's not really a country so much as a collection of tribes and warlords and an arbitrary boundary.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet people in Europe don't feel oppressed, and have high levels of personal happiness (as well as other factors like health) whilst generally having better levels of literacy and numeracy. Most importantly, European "preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense" seems to allow us to have vastly lower crime rates than in the US, particularly much lower gun crime rates, and certainly vastly fewer accidental injuries and deaths from firearms.
Maybe you just don't know that much about your own continent? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Norway, Austria, Serbia, Greece, Belgium, and many more all have very significant gun ownership rates, some coming close to the US. Those numbers do not correlate well with violent crime numbers, certainly not as well as other significant cultural factors (like wealth disparity) do.The idea that restricting gun ownership more than the US already does, would decrease deaths related to violent crime is not really supported by any studies I've seen.
"Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them."
Really? That's pretty unfortunate. Here in Europe I've never been in such a situation where I'd have have had to do that, nor do I know anyone who has. Sounds like gun ownership helps ensure your country is a really nice place to live in.
Get off your high horse. There are lots of places in Europe, especially eastern Europe and the UK where you have a significant chance of being the victim of violent crime. Not all of us are wealthy and can afford to live in safe places. For you to assert with no evidence and in fact contrary to existing scientific evidence that ownership rates of guns are causative in making an area unsafe is simply unfounded and irresponsible. Please do your research before burdening us with your opinions.
If you have freedom why do corporations in the US have so much control both politically and personally? If you have guns as a deterrent to criminals, why is crime so high?
Who says we have more freedom? In some ways the US tends to have more while in others it has less than the average EU country. It's a trade off. As for why is crime so high, for the same reasons it is in other countries. We have strict (not free) laws prohibiting recreational use of drugs and treat addiction as a crime instead of an illness, giving rise to huge culture or organized crime and violence. We have very high and rising wealth disparity, much more so than anywhere in Europe (except maybe Bosnia-Hertogovania). We don't have sufficient social safety nets for the ill, addicted, and destitute. There are other factors, but those are the really big ones. The political control by large corporations almost certainly leads to more crime (in a causative way) than gun ownership laws.
If you feel safe, free, and secure as a result of gun ownership why do Americans report so much lower levels of personal happiness?
Are you actually implying gun ownership is a significant factor in determining overall happiness? Gun ownership in the US is more about traditions, politics, and personal defense, than happiness. Yeah after you just shot the guy trying to beat your neighbor to death you might feel happy that both you and your neighbor are alive, but that's not overall happiness. Rather you're more likely to feel traumatized and depressed, although maybe less so than if your neighbor was beaten to death in front of you and you did nothing. Having a tool to survive violent crime might keep us alive, but getting rid of the causes of violent crime is a lot better. But it's not an either/or proposition; in Norway nearly as many households own guns (by percentage) as in the US, but the violent crime rate there is orders of magnitude lower. Heck just look at gun ownership and gun laws and violent crime and other factors in the US, Canada, the UK, and Norway and try to find a correlation. I dare you. Frankly, I think you have to be ignorant to think gun ownership rates have a correlative and potentially causative relationship with violent crime. It's called the scientific method, look into it.
Re:Hunters and responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
From my observations, though, for every 1 responsible hunter there seem to be 10 irresponsible.
I'm a hunter and while I might not agree with your numbers from my personal experience, I do agree that a great many irresponsible hunters exist. The causes of this are numerous, but in general, it doesn't matter too much. I'm a strong believer in freedom. I voted to keep dove hunting legal in my state, eve though I think 99.9% of people who hunt doves are complete and total jackasses. I think people have the right to be complete and total jackasses and make decisions I find appalling... provided those decisions are not infringing upon the safety and freedom of others. When hunters are unsafe, or destructive, that's where the law should step in, and realistically we have plenty of laws on the books to cover those cases(including most everything you list and I don't see anyone campaigning to change those laws), although they are often poorly enforced due to lack of manpower and concentration of man power on other things, like busting kids for smoking pot.
I will defend people's freedom to hunt, along with their freedom to marry people of the same sex, put pornography on the front of their house, dress as a nazi, worship Thor, and vote for Sarah Palin. That's because I think the freedom to do things I may or may not agree with is more important.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problem with the group, I just don't want all the mail that comes along with it. Like I said, we have zero interest in the culture.
If we lived in a state where firearms were a serious problem and we wanted laws to be changed, then I would likely become a member and support them...but where we live (Maryland), gun laws are more than sufficiently lax for our purposes.
"Revolt could never occur" (Score:4, Insightful)
>You'd think so, but the US Military has bigger guns and bigger idiots, so revolt could never occur.
I submit to you that the United States has been engaged in an unsuccessful bid to put down rebellions in at least two countries for the last 9 years and has been unable to do so, despite massively superior military power. I think everyone pretty much sees how this will turn out - we will eventually withdraw, just as the Soviets did, without having changed much of anything.
I also submit to you that this war is fought somewhere else and most US citizens just don't care. As one soldier put it, "The Marines are at war. America is at the mall." Also because of this, there is no damage to America's infrastructure. A rebellion at home would directly affect the citizens of this country and directly affect its infrastructure, causing massive economic fallout, massively eroding the tax base, thus hitting the government where it is most vulnerable - its wallet.
When the two DC Snipers went on their rampage shooting people at gas stations, the economic impact was in the millions of dollars just from people afraid to go put gasoline in their cars. Imagine the impact of outright civil war.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
We both enjoy firing and talking about guns, but gun culture isn't something that interests us...
While a lot of modern "gun culture" in the US is juvenile and mixed in with some of the more idiotic ideas floating around our society, both the olde time hunting culture and the marksmanship cultures share some very valuable cultural traits. Most importantly, a strict, almost ritualistic adherence to firearm safety rules, even when they don't understand the purpose behind them. It's a trait that seems to be slowly going away which is sad. Too often I hear people joke about pointing guns at others and knowing they aren't loaded and such, all of which misses the point. The idea of conditioning yourself with safe behaviors through repetition, so that you behave safely when you don't have time to think clearly is, frankly, beyond a lot of people. It's too bad more people don't have a grouchy grandfather or strict sergeant enforcing said conditioning and making sure they pass it on.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:1, Insightful)
it was because the message of $400 spent on 1000 bullets is heard much more clearly than any angry saying on a bumper sticker.
Hmmmmm...I never thought of the "Great Obama Panic" in that light before. I went to the first gun show in my area after Obama was elected and I was amazed at the shameless price gouging and the willingness of people to pay 20-50% more for something compared to the week before. The Panic has long since subsided and prices have returned to normal (and in some instances, dropped even lower. Oversupply?). It was real lesson in how easily manipulated the masses can be when there is a *perceived* fear.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
"Maybe you just don't know that much about your own continent? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Norway, Austria, Serbia, Greece, Belgium, and many more all have very significant gun ownership rates, some coming close to the US."
For a very obscure definition of close perhaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership [wikipedia.org]
Also, gun ownership per capita is not the same as attitudes towards gun ownership, and the restrictions on gun ownership including registration of weapons, licensing of weapons, purchasing of weapons, types of weapons, and so on.
"For you to assert with no evidence and in fact contrary to existing scientific evidence that ownership rates of guns are causative in making an area unsafe is simply unfounded and irresponsible. Please do your research before burdening us with your opinions."
Actually, my assertion was that the idea that gun ownership makes you more safe doesn't seem to be true, but unfortunately in your seemingly patriotic rush to the defence of the good name of your nation that flew right over the top of your head.
"Who says we have more freedom?"
Tea party folk, NRA members and the like mostly.
I think you've probably taken my post the wrong way, and that's possibly fair enough- perhaps my wording wasn't ideal. My fundamental point is that the idea that Europeans are somehow negatively effected by lack of gun ownership freedoms in general (please read the post I originally responded to to understand the context of my post) simply isn't true. The idea that unless you have the absolute right to bear arms, you are living under a tyrannical government- an idea that all too many Americans seem to try and sell is blatantly false, because European countries are, for the most part, doing better. Arguments against gun control are often countered with arguments about how crime will rise, about how liberty will decrease, about how governments will become more tyrannical if it weren't for gun ownership- but my point is this clearly isn't necessarily true. Just as you say, gun ownership doesn't necessarily lead to increased violent crime, laws against gun ownership clearly don't lead to an increase in gun crime either.
For what it's worth, my comments regarding happiness were mostly there to illustrate the point that claims of Europeans being under the thumb of tyrannical governments because of generally much stricter laws on gun ownership are largely irrelevant, because importantly, the population is generally much more happy- that is, absolute freedoms including the freedom to arm yourself to the teeth may make you think you're more free in theory, but if it doesn't buy you any additional happiness does it really matter?
I think that is an incorrect conclusion. (Score:3, Insightful)
>If a lot of households have weapons, it means that the criminals are more likely to carry a weapon. If the criminals are likely to carry weapons,
>it means that even more households will acquire a gun, too. Stalemate.
I would expect that if it were known that lots of households have weapons, a lot less criminals would rob households
And in fact, the FBI's Uniform Crime Records confirm again for 2009 that violent crime of all types, including firearm types, continue to decline, in spite of continuing record sales of firearms and ammunition
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, as a part of my concealed carry class, I was told that the best method was to keep it concealed at all times. Pay extra attention to who's looking at you, etc. Because, the lawyer teaching the class, stated: "All they have to do is tell the police you were waving it around and if they find the gun on you, you'll likely lose in court... even if you were not waving it and threatening others."
People are generally afraid of guns. There's a perception that only criminals and cops have them. "If you are not a cop, you are a criminal."
Demanding rights is "an addiction"???? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Actually, I think that does help to show just how close gun ownership is to an addiction. Gun owners actually can
>experience withdrawal symptoms if they lose access to their weapons. And like most addicts, they can get agitated
>and violent if they feel cut off from their high - just ask any smoker who quit cold turkey.
What a complete and utter crock of shit. People enjoy exercising their rights enumerated in the Constitution because people enjoy being FREE! I like being able to say what I want. I like being able to have equal protection under the law. And I like having the means to defend myself and my family.
I enjoy all these right not because of some fucking addiction, but because all people love freedom!
>When the Bill of Rights was framed, the writers still remembered warrantless searches and seizures by the British
>army before the war for independence, and since guns and ammo were naturally scarce they didn't consider the possibility
>of gluttonous gun consumption a serious concern. Coupled with how most of the western borders of the 13 original states really
>were the Wild West, with lots of dangerous wildlife, it was only natural then to declare gun ownership a right.
Let's be absolutely clear on their motivations here. Their motivations had nothing to do with the availability of firearms (which had existed in much the same form for at least 200 years before the founding of the United States). Nor did it have much to do with shooting bears.
The entire country was set up as a series of checks and balances, so as to prevent a concentration of power in any one branch of the government. This philosophy extended to military power. THAT is why they enumerated the People's right to keep and bear arms.
Re:An experiment in Social Engineering. (Score:4, Insightful)
A few of the towers my company owns get shot up each year. The damage is almost always to the antenna cables running up the tower within 10 feet above or below the tower lights. Occasionally they actually hit the light in the process, but not always.
And once every couple of years some douche shoots the hell out of the equipment shack. The record is 157 bullet holes in one 10x20 building.
We have a policy that there must be a vehicle parked visibly on-site if someone is working in the shack. Never drop off someone, then take the truck to another site.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the fact that the right to bear arms and the duty to keep a militia were mentioned in the same amendment is no coincidence. Why would the authors of the BoR have even mentioned militias in the first place?
That said, I think that having a trusty rifle or shotgun by your side can do wonders for your home security, particularly if the cops are slow, or worse, such as corrupted. Burglars get break shy if they think the homeowner might be armed.
All this talk about turning the other cheek while letting burglars rob you blind is sickening. Someone breaks into your house, you damn well have the right to use deadly force. Not necessarily to kill them, unless of course your life is threatened, but to apprehend them. It's like making a citizen's arrest in your own home.
And if they continue to resist even at gun point, it's probably safe to assume that either they're well armed themselves, or they're batshit insane. Either way, escalation is most likely justified. And someone reaching for your weapon and attempting to disarm you is most definitely dangerous.
The point is this: The second amendment isn't a blanket endorsement of keeping a gun whenever you want. Guns have appropriate uses. Hunting, self defense, defense of others, apprehension of criminals, and the like. Using a gun to commit a crime is obviously not a cool one.
But anyone thinking that the second gives us the right to overthrow the government is reaching and asking to get burned. Those who think that small arms are enough to do the job obviously have forgotten about "provide for the common defense", and I'll be damned if anyone's going to honestly think that the framers ever intended for a state militia to stand a fighting chance against a national army.
Responses to your questions. (Score:3, Insightful)
>So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes,
>break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do
>you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive"
>to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?
Quite simply, owning firearms gives me the power to choose whether to do all those things or not. Most firearm owners are peaceable, law-abiding citizens who believe in our way of government and believe it still responds to the will of the people. Firearms are simply an insurance policy in case this turns out to not be true one day.
>How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?
I would say that owning firearms is just like owning any other tool. It gives you other optional courses of action to follow.
>So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?
That is correct.
>If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?
It depends on what state you live in, but where I live I have the right to shoot the head off of people who I reasonably believe are a threat to myself or my family. If you slap me in the face, and I can be shown to reasonably believe that your intent is to cause grave harm to me, then yes, I can shoot your head off.
>Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government",
>while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?
I believe the OPs point is that should you start to be oppressed by your government and you are unarmed you have no choice but to go along.
>Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?
As the just-released crime date from the FBI shows, violent crime of all types continues to decline, in spite of record sales of firearms and ammunition.
>Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort.
Good for you.
>I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied,
>where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?
You are to pitied because you have no choice in the matter. You have been lucky enough to avoid violence, but you have no recourse should you be forced to confront it. That is a pity.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that there is always something to repair.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, there are plenty of examples in the last hundred years from Douglas McArthur preparing for riots to Kent State University in 1970 where US troops were prepared to use lethal force on US soil against US citizens. It's against pretty well everything the US armed forces are supposed to stand for but how much exactly has Rumsfeld in his attempt to "break the culture" and events since damaged the US armed forces?
Damn foolery... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet more evidence that there are a lot of damn fool gun owners who need to be regulated (NRA be damned).
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
What about democratically elected political leaders that were assasinated by crazed people? Was JFK a "tyrant"?
There is zero evidence either way that Lee Harvey Oswald even shot Kennedy. All we know is that he was in a physical position to do so and that he was murdered by Jack Ruby before we could find out more. To use JFK as an example of an assassination by "crazed people" is disingenuous at best. We will likely never know whether JFK was assassinated by a nutbag or by a competing faction within our own government.
Re:Hunting for food? We don't gather, either. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm fairly certain US troops would be somewhat squeamish about bombing our own land.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think the confrontations generally get to the point where the US military is seriously involved - usually just SWAT and stuff? I don't think the police are idiots, I'm glad they are around to help deal with lunatics and I'm grateful for their dedication. We need more people who are serious about maintaining sane and stable order, and fewer lunatics.
I don't think that armed attack on the US government is a good idea because we have a legitimate democratic republic with the rule of law. It is more effective and more moral to vote, demonstrate, etc. than to try to conduct a civil war. Even if a revolt were successful, the most it would achieve (like most such revolutions) would be to install the most ruthless people available at the time.
Follow me to the lowest level (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, I agree that US "internment camps" do not rise to anything like the level of inhumanity found in Nazi concentration camps.
So everyone can do any inhumane thing that occurs to them for any reason and it will be perfectly all right, as long as they don't do the worst thing that has ever been done.
"Sure I killed your grandma by dunking her in acid, but it's fine because I heard of a guy who dunks 'em even slower! I mean, THAT'S the guy you should be mad at."
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look at Afghanistan - and they are armed to the teeth even compared to the US gun nuts.
And look how long we've been bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq with little progress being made.
A heavily armed civilian population is a nightmare to deal with.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
Your last point is the MOST important one. In most US cities...for all intents and purposes, the police ARE non-existent, at least when a crime is going down.
In most cities, you can call and get a pizza ordered faster than the cops will respond to a crime call. And that's IF you can get up and call the phone with someone invading your house at the time.
If you are lucky and the cops are in the area and you can get ahold of them to get there in time, of course, they will try to help and protect you, but with most crimes, that simply does not happen. For the most part, the police are there to investigate AFTER a crime has taken place.
99% of the time, it is up to YOU to protect yourself during a criminal situation. If someone breaks into my house, I feel threatened, and I will likely not bother to pick up the phone to call the cops until at least my 2nd clip is emptied into the home invader. Then, I'll call the cops and let them investigate and drag the carcass out....
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet, you still don't understand how the Constitution was created, was changed, and will be changed in the future.
Re:Immature? (Score:5, Insightful)