Aestu wrote:
I find guns "revolting" because an obsession with the means of violence is base and depraved. Weapons have no place in civil society; civilized societies are not organized around the principle of armed peace or the balance of terror, they are built on security, order, and rule of law. In a civil society, individuals do not hold power of life and death over each other, they don't rely on fear to get along.
The vast majority of people in this country were all armed, once-upon-a-time. In fact...
George Washington:
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"...but it's not just famous generals that see/saw the practicality of arms in society, consider that even statesmen of other stripes agree...
Mahatma Gandhi:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."...I could go on and on and on, but I'll Godwin instead: Consider that in 1938, Germany established gun control...and consider what followed after. Gun control also preceded the Armenian genocide in Turkey and the Stalinist crack-downs in the Soviet Union. Perhaps I'm missing something since I use Google, or drive a forklift, or haven't finished college, but I'm of the opinion that colonial America was infinitely more civil than any of those three societies, and it was a culture that openly embraced weapons to the degree that the Father of the Country places them with "all things good (I have Baileys)."
Aestu wrote:
This doesn't mean you pull out the soap box and try to negotiate with an intruder. It means that you accept the limitations of personal violence as a problem solver. Gun ownership is a poor gurantor of security.
Published and peer-reviewed date indicates otherwise:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htmIn fact, not only are handguns useful in self-defense, according to the collected data, the majority of them did not need to be fired in the course of the act of defense. Merely displaying the weapon was enough to discourage an attacker.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2 ... ttachB.pdfTake note of paragraph five in the .pdf
Aestu wrote:
This is also why weapon ownership in countries like Canada or Switzerland is not problematic - the culture is different, they don't own them for personal defense.
Since I'm looking forward to an avalanche of "Nice google/wiki," let's keep rolling with...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_SwitzerlandWikipedia wrote:
The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personal weapons, at home. Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily. They usually receive initial training orders at the age of 18 for military conscription. About two-thirds of young Swiss men are found suitable for service, while alternative service exists for those found unsuitable.[3] Annually, approximately 20,000 persons are trained in basic training for a duration from 18 to 21 weeks.
Aestu wrote:
What I see in biometric systems is, yes, a mechanical or software failure could lead to an unresolvable lockout, but also, the system is based on what is ultimately an input peripheral. What if someone creates a dummy peripheral loaded with mined data and hooks it up? In that sense, I don't see the advantage over any other sort of physical or electronic key that can be forged.
Not sure how you'd creating a "dummy peripheral" would help you crack the safe when said peripheral is built directly and securely into said safe (you'd have to drill to access it). James Bond isn't likely to bust into Eternal's house and crack his safe with his Secret Squirrel password decoder box. If anyone is coming into your house with anything like you're suggesting, they're a wee bit further up the food chain than common criminals and you have bigger problems than someone stealing your silverware.
Your Pal,
Jubber
Not always a handgun, is my point.
