Knife Amnesty in UK, Some stuff they turned in Options

[Shrike30]

I seriously see banning knives as being on the same level as banning screwdrivers, hammers, and pieces of pipe. There's a point at which things become ridiculous, and a knife ban is already past that point.

I feel obligated to point out that pretty much any law-abiding citizen in the state of Washington can carry a gun should he apply for the permit, and we don't have roving bands of youths mugging people for money with sharpened screwdrivers...

[James McMurray]

Most bans for the sake of safety are silly if the object being banned can be gotten legally. If you ban knives in a country where every knife not owned by the government is illegal then you'll probably see a drastic reduction in the number of knifings. Bannign knives when you can walk to the department store and buy one won't change a thing except to increase the penalties for knife related crimes.

[hyzmarca]

[Kagetenshi]

I disagree.

~J

[James McMurray]

As usual, very eloquent. :)

[Kagetenshi]

He was no more eloquent—look at it, all he says is "let's make assault, murder, and robbery illegal instead of making the tools illegal". Nowhere does he back that up, or even explain why assault, murder, or robbery should be illegal in the first place.

~J

[James McMurray]

LOL. If you need an expanation for that you're in serious need of help.

[hyzmarca]

He does have a point. No evidence has been presented to suggest that the legal status of these activities has any impact on their prevalence. Massive amounts are spent investigating and punishing these crimes. There must by some justification for that expenditure of resources other than principal.

[James McMurray]

Robbery and murder by definition are criminal acts. If they were not illegal, they wouldn't be murder or robbery, they'd be killing and taking. Assault is different, but that's why we've (at least here in America) defined "criminal assault" as a seperate entity.

Luckily, since they already are crimes, I can leave it up to the detractors to prove something if they want to, saving me a rather lenghty explanation that will be picked apart at leisure because there's no such thing as a post about opinion that escapes at least one person's wrath on Dumpshock. :)

[John Campbell]

I say we legalize everything. The crime rate will drop to zero overnight!

[Deamon_Knight]

John Campbell, hero to the prolitariate crime watcher and bane of trial lawyers everywhere.

[Shrike30]

Oh good lord, James, they were kidding :P

[Lazerface]

For a bunch of guys role playing criminals who regularly kidnap, rob, and shoot people, we sure do care about what the laws should be defined as in order to keep the general public safe.

[/didn't read topic]

[Shrike30]

As a guy who carries a gun, I sure do care about the specifics of doing so, in order for me to not spend time in jail :P

[Eddie Furious]

[James McMurray]

[Kagetenshi]

I'm actually a big fan of dictionaries. I do, however, despise the corruption of words, particularly for emotional appeal. As such, regardless of what dictionaries happen to print, I deny the legitimacy of the modern popular meanings of certain words (in particular, "predator" and "hacker" rile me).

~J

[James McMurray]

You love dictionaries except when they disagree with you? LOL

The definition of predator that you disagree with isn't the modern definition, it's the ancient latin definition. Praeda predates predator by quite a while, and predator, even back into the 16th century, was used in more than animal contexts. You're well within your rights to have the opinion that the word is used wrong, but it isn't a new usage you're disagreeing with.

I'm not sure what your problem with hacker is, so can't comment on that.

[X-Kalibur]

[James McMurray]

There are a lot of definitions for hacker ranging from the criminal to the negligent to the skilled. You can be a hacker and break into things, a hacker because all of your code is "hacked together" (i.e. without design). You can be a hacker because your hack code out l33tly. The problem IMO withthe word hacker is that it isn't focused enough. But you can usually tell by the context what is meant (usually it's the criminal version).

[Kagetenshi]

[James McMurray]

Ah, I was misunderstanding your disagreement with predator. Feel free to disagree, but languages shift. This shift has already taken place. You can get annoyed by it or accept it.

You must have fits whenever the movie Hackers comes on TV. :)

Edit: Do you pummel players senseless when they want to play a Hacker? :)

[Kagetenshi]

[James McMurray]

Remind me not to try to make a character in your games. I prefer to avoid violence when possible. :)

[hyzmarca]

The characters in Hackers were actual hackers. However, they were also crackers. The latter has a more narrow definition than the former in the context of electronics.

While 'hacker' refers to any enthusiest who creates or modifies software or hardware 'cracker' specificly refers to individuals who gain unauthorized access to computer networks or unauthorized use of protected software. The definitions of 'hacker' and 'cracker' may be further limited by requiring a certain level of skill or competence. In these cases 'hackers' and 'crackers' can be differientiated from 'script kiddes' who use techniques and software released by others.

Due to the broad definition of 'hacker' and the narrow definition of 'cracker' it is preferable to use 'cracker' when refering to individuals who gain unauthorized access to a computer or defeat software protections. Excluding 'script kiddies', all 'crackers' are hackers but not all 'hackers' are 'crackers.'

We can see the effects of fallacious usage more clearly by applying it to another group-subgroup combination.

The subgroup 'murderers' is a part of the larger group 'humans'

Most people would agree with the statement that all 'murderers' should be imprisioned or executed. Few people would agree with the statement that all 'humans' should be imprisioned or executed.