Idk man. I'm out looking in too, but my list of problems guns are a good solution for stops pretty short after "killing something you want dead". I mean, cars and knives can do that pretty good too, but I've not seen many getting to work or chopping vegetables with their automatic. Well, unless its an automatic transmission car, which I gather are quite popular state side. Gun, automatic gun I meant. Also I guess technically the vegetable chopping thing is _possible_ with a firearm. I digress.

When used as self defence I think they might sometimes have uses if you are prepared and have it ready. My problem is that the only person who knows for sure that they are going to be in a gun point robbery/rape/[insert crime] situation on any given day is the guy doing the robbing/raping/[insert crime]ing. I mean, is the aim to get the point where every man woman and child is so strapped to the nines that mutually assured destruction is guaranteed? Excuse me from taking it the logical extreme, but I don't think it's entirely fallacious.

They are fun? I've shot some guns. It was fun. I didn't need to own them mind. Hunting aint for me, but evidently some people enjoy it...but I guess I'm not sure how strident I would be in defence of my hobby if it involved the use of a machine that has been streamlined by war to be the most efficient man-portable tool for taking life that we can conceive.

So yeah, I certainly think your right that is more to gun violence than gun ownership. Clearly there are countries with relatively high levels of gun ownership with comparatively little gun violence. (altho the US still has almost twice as many guns per person than the next nearest...so yah). I just struggle to understand exactly what reason there is for having quite so many of them given that everybody else seems to be doing mostly ok without them. What exactly are these problems the Americans should be using their guns as a solution for? Can knives and cars, which according to gun advocates are at least as lethal, perhaps be leveraged in creative ways to be the solution to the problems for which apparently only guns can currently solve?

He talks so much sense my head hurts.

In my home country (Australia) we have some pretty good statistics on firearms (and knives, and just about everything actually). Yet they are routinely ignored in favour of the simple solution - to blindly further restrict law abiding citizen's access to firearms. It makes the government look as though they are tackling firearm crime (which in Australia is almost never committed by a licensed firearm owner) even though it has no appreciable effect on firearm crime.

This is happening again right now. After the Lindt place siege last year they held a lot of enquiries. The one on firearms concluded that no further restrictions needed to be made (the gunman had an illegal firearm as those who commit firearm crime almost always do, in this case a pump action shotgun) and that licensing and registration should be made easier. The first thing the government did? Put an import ban on perfectly legal lever action shotguns with magazine capacities of more than 5 rounds, calling them a "dangerous new technology". Firearms owners are expecting (from a historical trend) further restrictions at the National Firearms Agreement review next year.

Once a right is given away it rarely comes back, no matter how badly you want it. So I hope America chooses its path carefully. If I moved there I'd want the right to own firearms and to use them to defend myself (the first of which in Australia has nonsense restrictions, and the second of which is almost totally illegal . Word has it that self defence in the home by firearms will shortly be made totally illegal and if your firearms are stolen you may be charged with crimes committed by those firearms).

If you want to look at what the data says you also have to extend it everywhere (my preferred scenario). And in regards to others aspects of people's lives, I think people won't like the numbers and so will simply ignore the numbers.

Or you get people in America saying "hey look Australia solved its firearms problems by restricting them" - using it as a quasi-statistic. Except:
1. We never had a big firearms problem to start with.
2. We had a linearly diminishing rate of firearms deaths starting well before the restrictions that didn't change with the restrictions.
3. The majority of studies looking at the topic say the restrictions didn't work.

Australia is very similar to New Zealand in every way (and really are hardly like the US), and NZ allow access to all almost all the firearms we banned and yet they have a lower homicide rate by firearm, and a lower homicide rate overall. Basically if America wants a model that arguably works as a template, look at NZ. But probably more important than that, I'd be fixing America's health system, mental health system, and poverty rates first. I bet an analysis will show many incredible flow on effects in American society as a result of doing that.

The Hobbit - Blunt The Knives (Auralnauts Smash Mix) has been added as a related post - related requested by OverLord on that post.

This is obviously pansy high roller poker. As soon as the hand was revealed, chains and knives and pistols should have been produced by all the players. At the very least, the dealer should have a sawed off shotgun duct taped under the table.

Nobody knows how to make good TV anymore.

Pretty spot on! I remember playing CS when it must have been in beta... there were NO knives!

Now we're arguing semantics. Yummy.

racism:"noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement"
See, the keyword here is achievement. There are no achievements without any form of judgement. Think of it in the most simple terms, X Box or Steam achievements. Let's say you play Call Of Duty 18 and get the "Used a gun!" achievement for firing the very first shot in the game. You got this because the game's code made a judgement. Did the player fire a shot? Yes or no. Sure, it's easy to judge that, the facts are very clear and easy to read. Are you worthy of this achievement? Are you as much worth as I am, the guy who finished the game and got the achievement?
And what about the guy who never got that achievement because he played the entire game only using a knife? Think about it, playing any Call Of Duty single player campaign using only melee weapons and throwing knives. Who's worthy know? Who achieved more?
Achievement depends entirely on the definition and who's making them. The knife guy played the way harder game and got no recognition but the guy who got the "Used A Gun!" and the "1000 Headshots!" achievement is the one bragging online about his achievements and medals next to his name.
Who has achieved more, the ethnic group that developed many different technologies (like, say, guns) or the ethnic group that still runs naked through the jungle and considers knives high-tech? "Those naked dudes are clearly stupid and less developed than I am because I got guns!" said the white man in Africa.
One of the biggest racist prejudices black americans hear is that they are lazy because they achieve so much less than white folk. They guys with the titles and medals and guns.
Achievements are the acknowledgements that you gained skills, positions, posessions, knowledge or reputation. That can only be acknowledged becaused somebody judged you. Like the test or dissertation I have to write to become a Professor of Physics. This achievement will cause other to have prejudices about me, like "He's a professor, he must be smart!"
The definition of racism you posted says this:
"racism is the belief that depending on your race you can develop in a certain way or to a certain level"
This is a modern definition based on racist expirience. It says that racists think you can not achieve more than they can based on the achievements your ancestors had compared to theirs. "Once a slave, always a slave. If black people weren't so lazy, they wouldn't need a good whipping!" That train of thought.
All that of course underplays the emotional component of hatred, the driving force of racism in its worst forms.
Now my fingers hurt.

Adrenaline rushes aren't dangerous if they're done properly. Personally I'm going to make sure my little boy is exposed to plenty of 'scary' things as he grows up so he can learn about risk and how to assess/handle it properly.

I saw a great documentary about this with Danny MacAskill called Daredevils: Life On The Edge. It looked at adrenaline junkies and investigated why they do what they do. At the end of the program there's a really nice choreographed sequence with MacAskill and various others performing tricks as they descend down the step into an underground station in London, and through the station itself.

The sequence was directed by a hollywood stunt specialist who has worked with all the top guys in big blockbuster movies and he said that the stuntmen and women, far from what most people think, are the least likely people in the world to do something risky. There are two parts to this. Firstly they've learned how to be very good at assessing risk. They understand extremely well what makes something safe or risky. They've had a lot of experience and have learned from it.

Secondly they are very highly skilled. What would be very risky for us to do isn't for them because they have the training to perform safely. We only think what they're doing is dangerous because we ourselves would be very likely to be hurt doing it.

If you insulate a kid from risky experiences you deny them the chance to learn in a controlled environment. It's like teaching a kid to cook. If you look after them really well and provide everything they need and cook them fantastic nutritious meals every day until they leave home they'll love you immensely for it. Then they'll move out, try to look after themselves and end up burning the house down with a pan fire or cut the end of their finger off with a knife or shave the skin off their hand with a grater.

Teach a kid how to use a sharp knife safely and how to sharpen it and keep it keen and they'll be safe for the rest of their life. Kids should be able to use sharp knives, under strict supervision of course, to learn the safe way of doing it. They should be doing 'dangerous' things to learn to do them safely. Part of the learning process is probably going to hurt. They may well get a few cuts before they get their knife skills up to scratch, but if they're in a controlled environment these should be small compared to the injuries that happen when someone with no idea about knives forces a blunt one through something tough.

As for adrenaline sports, the more they fall over the better they learn to balance. If this kid goes on a bit of a bigger slide and gets thrown off in the corners it's going to hurt, but it's not going to kill him. He'll find his limits and respect them more.

I'd rather my kid makes his mistakes while I'm still around to clear up the mess

I saw this video last year and it motivated me to upgrade my old Sabatier knife set to a 8-piece Shun Premier knife set. The Shun Premier knives are beautiful and razor sharp but very delicate. I would only suggest those who have a lot of cooking experience and training buy Shun or any other expensive Japanese made knives. I still have my old Sabatier knife set for when we have guests over, lol.

These 3 points ftw.

A good knife is a thing of beauty. If you enjoy cooking (and I mean, cooking, not just eating ) then a few decent knives are a worthwhile investment. There is something deeply satisfying about cutting with a properly sharp knife.

Corollary to that, if you don't know how to use it and most importantly, if you don't look after it, all you have is a pretty bit of metal. Some people seem to think that once you buy an expensive knife, you don't need to sharpen it again.

That said, you don't need to spend hundreds to get a good knife. This video shows a $40 Victorinox stainless steel keeping up with a $300 Zwilling carbon steel knife.

My wife and I went from a hodge podge of dull knives (Ikea, Target, etc) to some Shun knives from our wedding.

I have to say it does make cooking easier and more enjoyable. Good technique is helpful with cheap or expensive knives.

If you take care of good knives they should last a lifetime.

I own about 15 kitchen knives, none of which cost more than roughly $10 individually -- and most under $5 or so. I don't have very well developed knife skills, so I am fairly hard on knives (as eluded to in the video). But, replacing a $5-$10 knife when I mistreat it won't break the bank.

I'm sure my slow, clumsy cutting would make any professional chef weep or facepalm, but I am not an overpriced restaurant worried about the judgements of strangers. And even my meager skills are plenty adequate enough to reduce any food item that I purchase into smaller, bite-sized pieces of food item. Plus I've never lopped off a finger or cut myself bad enough to require stitches or medical attention or anything.

So, I'm happy enough with my cheapo knives and subpar (but adequate) skills in using them. The video does provide good general advice though!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/School-of-Knives

The School for Knives has been added as a related post - related requested by MrFisk.

I don't really have a problem with a weaponized robot. It's no different to a tank or a fighter plane really. The question of "robots" is largely irrelevant. Robots are just another tool that has been weaponized, something that humans have done with everything.

We took knives and made swords.
We took cars and made tanks.
We took planes and made bombers.
And we've almost certainly got some killer satellites.
So putting a gun on a robot isn't really any different than giving one to a soldier, except it can be more easily repaired.

The question is about AI. Once you get an AI and put it in control of a machine, it can probably use that machine to kill you. OTOH, once you put a human in control of a machine, the human can probably use that machine to kill you.

But we're going to develop robots and we're going to develop AI and sooner or later, someone is going to put the two together. You can't ban innovation (well, you can, but it won't stop it). So I'd much rather we build and understand the technology. That's how we learn.

Fundamentally, it's how we use these weapons that will determine our fate, and right now, we're not using them very well.