Don't be so sure. In addition to their inherent killing power, the other danger of gun possession is that it gives people confidence that they may not otherwise have. It's easy to be a "tough guy" with a gun, but that whole situation would have been very different had he tried to do it with a knife or bare handed. In all likelihood, he wouldn't have had the guts to do anything if he didn't have the gun.
We have some sensible gun laws, but not enough. We should at least have a central registry/background check system in place (that includes trade shows). This is sort of besides the point right now and I don't want to debate it in this thread, but "this mentality" is not the reason the NRA exists. The NRA exists to serve itself. Most members of the NRA itself don't agree with their "black and white" stance on the issue. There's actually a really good documentary about this, but I can't recall the game.
Yeah, I hear you. If you remember the Obama/McCain debate back during the 2008 campaign, Obama had one of the best responses about abortion that can be applied to this idea in general. At one point McCain referred to him as "pro abortion" and Obama interjected saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "Nobody is pro abortion. Nobody thinks that abortion is something that should be taken lightly. What we do think is that it's up to an individual to decide, with her family, friends, community and/or church, whether or not to go down that path. And they will live with those consequences, whatever they decided". Now, with guns, there actually are people that are flat-out "anti gun" -- though, to be fair, it's with good reason: every country (UK, Australia, Japan) that has banned guns has essentially zero gun violence. But let's forget that for a moment. There are a lot MORE people that do respect our right to own and even carry guns, but also think that we can do more to try to keep these weapons out of the hands of the wrong people. The laws have not kept up with the times. When the forefathers included in the Constitution that we have the right to bear arms, "arms" to them was a fucking musket that had a single shot, had to be reloaded through the barrel manually, and had incredibly poor accuracy. It's hard to imagine that they would have "written a blank check" on guns with knowledge of modern day weaponry.
There's no way to answer that or to even know if it would have prevented this specific instance. Policy changes like improved gun laws have a cumulative effect over time. Nobody is saying that if they make X gun law today that Y crime will end 100% tomorrow... But what we are saying is that X gun law can and will reduce the likelihood of Y crime more and more over time. At the very least, a universal system of background checks with NO exemptions should be in place.
I don't know your governors particular stance, but the gun issue can be more nuanced than either "pro gun" or "anti gun". It is time in this country to have a sensible debate about how to appropriately improve upon our gun laws. We have a problem with gun violence, we have had a problem with gun violence for decades. And nothing gets done about it because of organizations like the NRA making the issue black and white, when it can be addressed in a much more mature and responsible manner.
I feel like the fact that the media shows these videos sort of glorifies them and incentivizes the next lunatic who wants to do this. They all do this for attention, at the core, so I wish there was a way to just not give them the attention. But in the internet age it's pretty much impossible to contain something like this. But, christ, maybe at least MAJOR NEWS NETWORKS can have some couthe.
Did you watch Vietnam in HD on Netflix? It's really good and it shows how that war was the first time there was major media presence and how it affected (for better and worse) the perception of the American people. Total tangent.
I watched it, but I wish I hadn't. It's not graphic, but the fact that you see the reporter doing her job like normal, then hear shots, her screaming, the camera man falling over dead and the gunman's legs as he continues to walk and fire is all sorts of fucked up that I didn't need this morning. I am a very moderate person, I am not strongly for or against gun laws, but there needs to be something done in this country. Everyone takes these extreme positions like "guns don't kill people" or "guns are 100% the problem"... Well, how about this? "Guns in people's hands kill people". If the guy was carrying a banana, they would probably still be alive. If he had a knife, they probably would still be alive -- or, more likely, he would never had had the guts to even try that. I don't think guns need to be outlawed, like other countries. I understand their relevance in our culture. But we do need to "go to the drawing board" and make some touch decisions and regulations regarding the legality of various types of weapons and how they can be accessed. Yes, there are "pro gun" countries, like Canada, that don't have these problems. Well, the US isn't Canada and apparently we can't handle our gun freedoms responsibly as a society any more. Countries like the UK, Australia and Japan that have flat-out outlawed these weapons don't have these problems. There must be a middle ground somewhere, starting with the centralized ID/background check system being required for ALL legal sources of these weapons. And we also need to reconsider what practical purpose each type of gun can serve and whether it makes sense to be legal. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" -- Yea. Well, so be it. Last time I checked, we haven't had "outlaws" (i.e. career criminals) doing this bullshit. These are individual psychopaths that are doing this shit.
btrfs (and zfs) keep checksums of every file in your system and do real-time checksum validation when data is accessed. If a checksum error is detected, these file systems will make an attempt, based on your array set up, to correct the bad data (i.e., reconstruct the correct file via parity or retrieve it from a non-corrupted mirrored drive). That feature, alone, makes both of those file systems highly valuable. It essentially eliminates the risk of "bit rot" (when data is silently corrupted, usually via a memory error when it is being written). Though, to take full advantage, one should use ECC memory. I would imagine that's the feature that is desired in unRAID and the motivation for supporting btrfs. I am completely speaking off-the-cuff here though and am not really too familiar with unRAID. That's just my guess.
unRAID is an interesting project, but I haven't used it myself. I'm not a big fan of using parity drives at home, because I think the likelihood of having a failure during rebuild is too high. I just use mirrors. It costs me a little more, but I like having two complete copies of files.
Jesus christ, the new board code is fucking horrible. The quoting feature is all fucked up. Anyway.. What do you mean it uses BTRFS if you have a bunch of cache drives? unRAID is a bit different because it is sort of its own file system being overlayed on top of others. That may be why they are still using this old file systems underneath. Reiser? Jesus. Don't mistake my post about BTRFS as saying it's "bad" -- it's very good. It's still better than every other file system out there, except ZFS. If you have the opportunity to use it as the underlying FS for unRAID I'm not sure how much benefit you'd get, but I assume you'd at least get the checksumming that it and ZFS use to protect you against bit rot. Actually I just looked it up and looks like XFS is the preferred file system for unRAID. I guess it doesn't matter so much since unRAID is doing something on top of it. As a FS by itself though, XFS is not something your typical *nix user would use. I'd personally prefer ext4, UFS (may be BSD only?), BTRFS and, ultimately, ZFS.
XFS was a really great file system, particularly for larger files... 10+ years ago (I think it came out around the mid 90s and I personally used it through about 2007). It's kind of outdated now. What other file systems do they support?
"BTRFS is the future" has nothing to do with it. That's just politics. If ZFS were relicensed under the GPL, the entire BTRFS project would be dead in the water. And that's the funny part of it. Oracle bought Sun and instead of just updating the license, they actually would rather develop a whole different file system that will be playing "catch up" to ZFS for an indeterminate amount of time. Even when it reaches maturity, it's not likely to be as good as ZFS. Some distros, like OpenSUSE, do consider btrfs stable enough for their releases, and we even use it at work for basic things like home directories and what not, but it is only "stable" (and this term is being used loosely) for mirror and stripe arrays (raid 1 and 0, or raid 1+0), it still can't do parity well and if you care about your data you should NOT be using btrfs in anything but mirror mode. But, really, if you care about your data, you should be using ZFS. It's a fully mature, production-ready file system that is lightyears ahead of everything else. It's easy to set up and manage, the commands all just "make sense" (not so much for btrfs) and it protects data like nothing else. All of our very serious data, like trading systems, are all stored on ZFS file systems (Solaris). I am a big Linux fan, but that's why it's great to see how mature the ZFS On Linux project is. There's a reason why a project like ZFS On Linux (and OpenZFS) exists despite btrfs being around: because ZFS is, unequivocally, better right now. *Maybe* in 5-10 years btrfs might have a chance of being compared to ZFS, but not likely. There is one thing that btrfs does that I like that ZFS doesn't, though it's also one of those features that you really shouldn't ever need. It allows you to expand and even change the type of your arrays. So, for example, you can change a mirror to a raid-5 parity array. Though, then again, nothing but stripe and mirror are stable right now so you'd be a fool to use a btrfs raid 5 or 6 style array.