Geohashing Meets an Angry Rancher With Firearms

katicli writes "Geohashing, an obscure xkcd pastime which involves going to random coordinates generated by md5 hashing, the date, and the opening status of the stock market, appears to have just gotten far more interesting. The official wiki reports a warning for other geohashers intending to go to the spot designated for June 14th in the San Francisco area, as several avid fans of xkcd were met by an angry rancher and firearms."

Overreactions

[BWJones (18351)]

My first reaction is that the geohashing folks overreacted. I might be a little concerned and take photos of license plates if a bunch of people suddenly showed up on my property somewhere out in the boonies.

As to the firearms, were they scared at the mere presence of firearms or did the ranchers actually point them at anyone? If they simply saw the guns in the truck, what possibly could have scared them? Ooooh, guns.... scary.

Re:Overreactions

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

To a lot of overprotected-live-in-the-parent's-basement technojock types, a gun is scary, if nothing else because of unfamiliarity. Besides, if the ranchers were taking pictures of license plates, odds are they were planning on involving law enforcement, not gunning anyone down.

Re:Overreactions

[Wog (58146)]

Yep.

"Two vehicles later drove on property, first truck with two rifles or shotguns in plain sight."

Egads, the ranchers had firearms mounted in their trucks! OH NOES, THEY MUST BE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF MURDERING US, THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION!

Please, PLEASE take note that nobody said that threats were ever made, or that firearms were ever presented in a menacing way. For anyone that works with livestock, having long guns mounted in vehicles and handguns on one's person is absolutely normal, routine, and safe.

If I were running a ranch and a bunch of 20-somethings showed up on my private property, I would be taking pictures and making sure I had a weapon at hand, too.

I'm a fan of XKCD and love the idea of Geohashing, but these folks really should make an effort to notify landowners and get permission before entering private property.

Re:Overreactions

[Secrity (742221)]

They need to do far more than make an attempt to contact the landowner, they need to get permission from the landowner.

Re:Overreactions

[by Anonymous Coward]

Um.. There's generally a distinction between a farm and a ranch too.

Just saying.

Re:Overreactions

[ya really (1257084)]

My family lives on a farm in rural Ohio and I was stuck waking up at the buttcrack of dawn for many years to feed the animals (gotta drive some cool equipment though along the way). Anyways, a farm to any farmer includes the raising of crops (soybeans, corn, wheat, alfalfa, etc). A ranch only has livestock. One that has both would be considered a farm, not a ranch. Texas has farms and it has ranches, since they do grow things such as wheat and cotton down there.

Some might go farther to say that there are also orchards and plantations (not to be confused with those of the Antebellum era in the United States). However, a "spade is a spade" and I tend go with farm=crops/crops+animals, ranch=only animals.

Re:Overreactions

[clang_jangle (975789)]

Just yesterday I had to run some people off my land. I have it posted "NO TRESPASSING" very clearly all around the perimeter, no way can anyone end up on my property and claim not to know (unless they don't read English, I guess). Though I don't grab my shotgun before setting off to confront stupid people like that, most of my neighbors do. I can't say I blame them. These geohashers (and anyone else who shows up unannounced on private property) are pretty much looking to become s statistic.

To you city folks who think this is wrong, how would you like to wake up and find me in your living room?

Re:Overreactions

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

To you city folks who think this is wrong, how would you like to wake up and find me in your living room?

Depends. Are you a seriously-hot blond nympho with huge tits who happens to have a thing for senior software engineers?

Re:Overreactions

[cp.tar (871488)]

To you city folks who think this is wrong, how would you like to wake up and find me in your living room?
Depends. Are you a seriously-hot blond nympho with huge tits who happens to have a thing for senior software engineers?

Even worse.

If I woke up and found some weird guy in my living (or any other) room, well, just kick him out. Yeah, I don't lock my door or anything, and there is little or nothing in the fridge, so it's not that big a deal.

However, if a busty blonde nympho suddenly turned up in the middle of the night, the busty brunette/redhead (depends on her mood) sleeping next to me might be inclined to expect an explanation.

And I would have none.

Re:Overreactions

[julesh (229690)]

These geohashers (and anyone else who shows up unannounced on private property) are pretty much looking to become s statistic.

Geohashers do not go onto private property. From the original description [xkcd.com]: "When any coordinates generated by the Geohashing algorithm fall within a dangerous area, are inaccessible, or would require illegal trespass, DO NOT attempt to reach them." (emphasis mine). The usual procedure (as was followed in this case, if you read the description) is to meet on the closest public road to the coordinates generated.

This land-owner was overreacting to the presence of a large group of people on the public road close to their property, not to trespassers.

..and meth cookers

[swb (14022)]

Rural areas have, in the recent past, had serious problems with meth cookers. Either stealing anhydrous ammonia or using abandoned or unused houses and buildings to cook meth. Since meth cookers are usually tweakers and tweakers are usually paranoid and borderline psychotic, they have a tendency to be dangerous. And then there's just thieves stealing cattle or farm equipment, who are also generally armed and dangerous.

I've heard this from BLM rangers in Arizona and landowners in North Dakota.

Even if geohashers aren't doing anything "wrong" and are trespassing in error, at a minimum ranchers/farmers know that a sheriff may be 30 minutes or more away and that confronting an unknown quantity in a rural location and unarmed is inherently dangerous. So you grab your rifle from the truck.

While this might get you in hot water in the city when the police show up, in the country it means when your wife's cousin's husband (ie, the sheriff or deputy) shows up he usually will ask the landowner what time the barbecue on Saturday is and does he want those people arrested or just escorted out of the county.

And getting arrested in a rural area sucks. They'll treat you nice, but the "punishment" means spending 2-3 days in jail until bail is set and someone can drive down to bail you out (they won't let you out to go to the bank to get money wired to you) and if you choose to fight it or have to go to trial, making several trips at inconvenient times, hiring a local attorney (whose rates tend to go up for outsiders) and then paying some fine.

Re:Overreactions

[Kidbro (80868)]

I'm not arguing against you, but this long discussion about trespassing made me want to post about Allemansrätten [wikipedia.org] (Swedish, lit. transl: everyman's right). It is pretty much legal to enter private property as long as you stay out of gardens and the absolute vicinity of houses (just a clarification, as English is not my native language; when I say "property" here I speak about land, not houses). Essentially the law (which is a part of the Swedish constitution) exists in order to ensure that people will always have access to the country's forests, fields and lakes.

In short, barring special circumstances or special permits, it is illegal for the owner to drive anybody off their property.

I'm certainly not saying you're wrong - I just thought that people may want to know that alternative views on the concept of private property exists, and just picked one of the first posts in the discussion about it to reply to.
Oh, and Sweden is not the only country that has this practice. The law exists in other Nordic countries, and to a lesser extent some other European countries.

Re:Overreactions

[clang_jangle (975789)]

I'm sure you have your own reasons for wanting those kids to get off your lawn, but we all live on this planet, why not share? Why not join them?

Great idea! Why don't you start by leaving your door open and welcoming whomever wants in. After all, who are you to deny shelter, kitchen, and bathroom privileges to the homeless?

But seriously, after over 30 years of living in major cities (San Francisco, L.A., Philadelphia, Seattle, Atlanta) I've had enough and when I get home I want peace and quiet and I wish to be left alone. If you want to buy land and open it up to the public, you've got that right. Personally, I want my little forest and my little pond to remain pristine and undisturbed. I worked my butt off for 30 years to get it. Now I keep bees in my off time, and I don't want to have to lock all my tools and other belongings up to keep them, so no trespassing on my land. Is that okay with you?

Re:Overreactions

[bugnuts (94678)]

They have major problems with reintroduced wolves.

Wrong.

Also, mountain lions and coyotes are responsible for a lot of livestock deaths.

Mountain lions are protected in virtually every state. If you shoot one, you are committing a felony, even if it's killing your dogs or livestock.

Wolves are also protected, and they only needed reintroduction because of asshats like you spreading lies about them. There have been issues with them killing livestock, but not major problems as you state. In addition, welfare ranchers are raising their cattle on PUBLIC LAND which everyone pays for, then they have the GALL to act like they should have exclusive rights to it, even over what used to be a natural predator that lived there.

There are a few things about the old west that I really hate... one of them is the disrespect for the land. And wolves and mountain lions are part of the land here, just like the pines and rattlers.

Predation of livestock

[sjbe (173966)]

They have major problems with reintroduced wolves. Also, mountain lions and coyotes are responsible for a lot of livestock deaths.

"Major problems"? Please. The number of livestock killed by reintroduced wolves is miniscule. There are less than 2000 [wikipedia.org] reintroduced wolves in the lower 48 states. Even including Alaska the entire US has only about 9000 wolves. Ranchers fear wolves but they are not a serious problem in any way, shape or form. There simply are not enough of them to be a significant problem except for the occasional unlucky rancher.

Coyotes were responsible for significantly more [wikipedia.org] sheep deaths but even then it is a small portion of the population. A bit over 100,000 deaths were due to coyotes out of a population of 4.6 million. Coyotes often experience dramatic population restructuring in areas where wolves (which are bigger and stronger) are reintroduced. Coyotes however are also much better at living close to humans. I saw one in my backyard twice this year and I live 5 miles from one of the ten largest cities in the US.

Mountain lions have a total breeding population of around 50,000 spread across both of the americas. They are a threatened species and there are estimated to only be several thousand of them in the US most of them in and around the Rocky mountains with a few in south Florida. Like wolves, in most places their numbers simply aren't large enough to constitute a serious threat to most ranchers.

Re:Predation of livestock

[sjbe (173966)]

First, the mountain lion numbers are a lie. Have you ever tried to find a mountain lion that did not want to be found. It's impossible.

You're right that finding the animal itself would be a challenge. But they do leave evidence of their existence. Scat, carcasses, tracks, etc. It's hard to find a mountain lion but it's only impossible to find one that doesn't exist.

I live in Arkansas, and technically they don't exist, but ask some of my hunting buddies around here. We have a very large breeding population.

With all due respect to your hunting buddies I'm not impressed by extrapolations from anecdotal stories. Mountain lions have been known to appear in much of the US in small numbers. By your own arguments if there was a large breeding population the impact would be seen.

Also, coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions pose a serious threat to a ranchers livelihood.

There aren't enough wolves in the US to pose a serious threat to ranchers finances here. Coyotes are an issue but they also are not even close to endangered and ranchers are free to hunt them as needed.

Also, coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions pose a serious threat to a ranchers livelihood. Mountain lions kill at least one large herd animal a week. So that's 50,000 * 52= 2.6 million animals a year.

First off, mountain lions are generalist predators that will eat a wide variety of prey [wikipedia.org] ranging from deer to insects (yes insects) depending on what is locally available. Second the number is 50,000 SPREAD ACROSS TWO CONTINENTS. Your numbers sound impressive but the number of prey animals are FAR greater. For example the number of domestic sheep in the US alone at any given time is more than double that number and NO predator is even close to causing a decline. Once in a while a rancher has some bad luck but that's the way it goes with farming. Furthermore you are presuming that every animal a predator takes is a domestic animal which is clearly not even close to being the case.

Re:Overreactions

[Firethorn (177587)]

There's a difference between carrying a firearm and having one available in the truck. It doesn't even have to be visible, it might be in a gun case or sleeve for protection behind the seats. My grandfather, who traps, keeps a .22 revolver under his seat most of the time. For a rancher or farmer, a firearm is a tool, and often thought of about as much as a cordless drill.

There's enough gun weenies out there that it's often not worth the hassle if somebody panics when you're in town.

All this discounts concealed carry. Not to mention that they might have been carrying and you simply didn't realize it. I'm part of the firearms community that concerns itself with self defense. This includes both concealed and unconcealed carry. People who carry unconcealed have reported that an amazing amount of people never realize that they're carrying.

We're not normally talking about a chrome plated six shooter in a tooled leather harness with silver highlights, here. We're talking a flat black firearm in a black leather or synthetic holster. If they're carrying one of the smaller ones, perhaps with a shirt bloused a bit over the top, it can easily be mistaken for a blackberry or other such device.

Re:Bacon fixin's

[nomadic (141991)]

A farm near my parents had an incident where someone started shooting at a combine.

The combine probably deserved it.

Re:Overreactions

[bigtangringo (800328)]

I think I speak for a lot of us here when I say: What a punch of pussies.

Re:Overreactions

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

I think I speak for a lot of us here when I say: What a punch of pussies.

Ah, I believe you meant "punch of bussies".

Re:Overreactions

[SBrach (1073190)]

It's also generally not a good idea to bring a calculator to a gun fight.

Re:Overreactions

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

the amount of FPSism that abounds in certain sectors of the geek community, you'd think that they'd be desensitized to guns by now.

FPSes tell me that headshots are easy, and that all it takes is a moment of not listening for footsteps, or a moment's hesitation with my own gun, and I'm dead. And here I am without even a knife... You'd think FPSes would make geeks even more sensitive to guns.

They're just there for a math joke, but for all he knows they're trying to set up the next woodstock.

I somehow doubt woodstock would be his biggest fear. For that matter, if that's what they're doing, seems like a perfect opportunity to cash in on his previously-undervalued property.

Re:Overreactions

[RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424)]

No, that should just make them more sensitive to death. From watching "SAW IV" I discovered that its easy to get two people to rip each others guts out with meathooks. If anything that should make me more sensitive to meathooks, right?

If you saw meathooks in a non-meatlocker, meathandler, butcher kind of context, yes. It'd certainly make me suspicious.

Re:Overreactions

[Score Whore (32328)]

Re-read the "article." Sounds like the people who interacted with the farmer were told to stay off. And later a truck drove on the property that had visible guns. From what I can glean no one that the trespassers interacted with had a visible gun. Just that they saw a gun in a truck on the property.

The children need to grow up. I wonder how upset they each time the find new evidence that the real world isn't an amusement park there for their entertainment, sanitized and clean and all about hugging them.

Re:Overreactions

[Brian Gordon (987471)]

Yeah, I don't know why the xkcd folks think they can just get away with this.. you can't just drive out to a random spot; that's called trespassing unless it just happens to be on public land.

Re:Overreactions

[couchslug (175151)]

"The right to roam" may be fine in isolated instances of ethnically homogeneous countries with no appreciable rural crime rate.

The US is not that, and allowing it would be absurd and instantly exploited by criminals. There is ample historic support for protecting rural property from rustlers, theft, etc. Remember that the special conditions which apply in tiny areas like Scotland have no bearing on the rest of the world which faces MUCH different realities.

Re:Overreactions

[pipatron (966506)]

Pff, n00bs.

In Sweden you're allowed to camp for two days on random property, and pick mushroom and berries in the forests. The government can even forcibly remove fences if some land owner have put them up, if the fences prevents people from exercising their right to roam.

Re:Overreactions

[Omestes (471991)]

Trespassers will be SHOT, Survivors will be SHOT AGAIN.

Extreme much? Trespassers will be asked to remove themselves (depending on their number, and if they're causing damage), and if they resist shot (or have the authorities called). This is how things work in a SANE society.

If your land isn't posted at each entry, you really should be a decent human and operate under the assumption that they don't know that they are trespassing. And if is, you should be a decent person and ask nicely before killing people.

Generally killing people should be the last resort. If your not a sociopath.

Re:Overreactions

[andphi (899406)]

I agree. If I were a property owner (particularly with livestock) and suddenly a bunch of folks with GPS units showed up on my land and headed for a specific spot without so much as a 'by your leave' or 'Hi, we're here to do X. We'll do X quickly and be gone,' I'd be suspicious as well and likely to reach for the biggest gun I own. The geohashers could just as easily have been livestock rustlers.

I like XKCD as much as the next geek, but if they do this sort of thing without due consideration for the people whose land they're traipsing over, they should, well, STOP.

As it says on the Wiki...

[Maxo-Texas (864189)]

http://wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Known_Issues [xkcd.com]

"If someone says you are trespassing, it is probably best to heed them and turn back. Shotguns are a good indicator of trouble. See Template:Disclaimer."

Sounds like that other thing where you use GPS and leave a bowl with stuff in it.

The reaction scares me (and not the local's)

[Ferzerp (83619)]

If these people were scared by the mere presence of a few guns, this seriously worries me about the future of the 2nd amendment. I guess there is solace to be taken in knowing that the people who would read that comic and go to that place aren't a very good representative set of the people though.

Still it worries me.

The Real World

[uspsguy (541171)]

WOW! a bunch of people from San Francisco ventured out in to the real world and found that people have strange ideas like property rights and the right to bear arms. I'm glad they got an education.

Not quite "the real world"

[PCM2 (4486)]

It took a few moments to sink in. "In the San Francisco area" ... with guns mounted on trucks? Why, unless people are using one of those really broad definitions of San Francisco, that could be nowhere else but ... yup. Upon checking the address on Google Maps, it turns out to be none other than San Ramon, California -- about 15 minutes from where I grew up.

I know what you guys are thinking. "A bunch of uptight yuppies from San Francisco got in their cars and drove out to the wild wilderness and got a taste of the real world..." Yeah, right -- if by that you mean "took a pleasant drive out among the trees along the curves of Crow Canyon Road," just off the 580 Freeway kinda wilderness. Maybe they took the long way back and stopped off at Stoneridge Mall on their way home.

News flash for ya, folks. The exact location where these folks went is out a long, undeveloped road, sure. But San Ramon is a suburb, people. Yeah, if you're out there you'll find that 80 percent of the people are white. But that's not "white trash missin teeth an' drinkin moonshine" white, that's "53 percent of the people in this town are college educated and 17 percent have graduate degrees" white. It's "48 percent of the families in this town have median incomes higher than $100,000" white. Look it up. [san-ramon.ca.us]

Clearly, these "geohashers" must be even bigger peckerwoods than the people I grew up with (in neighboring Castro Valley) if that environment makes them uncomfortable. If white guys with guns mounted to pickup trucks makes them uncomfortable, I hope they had a speedy return to wherever they came from, completely bypassing Oakland, California, whose demographics are markedly different. And whatever they do, they should not wait for the bus on the streetcorner out in front of my local bar. It's gotten pretty hairy over there a couple times over the last few years.

Re:Not quite "the real world"

[nomadic (141991)]

News flash for ya, folks. The exact location where these folks went is out a long, undeveloped road, sure. But San Ramon is a suburb, people. Yeah, if you're out there you'll find that 80 percent of the people are white. But that's not "white trash missin teeth an' drinkin moonshine" white, that's "53 percent of the people in this town are college educated and 17 percent have graduate degrees" white. It's "48 percent of the families in this town have median incomes higher than $100,000" white. Look it up. [san-ramon.ca.us]

Come on, don't let facts get in the way of all the pro-gun slashdot rants. Let's take the average vocally pro-gun slashdot poster. They're geeks, so probably not especially physically imposing. Grew up into math and computers and science, and probably got picked on for it. When they grew up they picked a safe, sedentary job. The only way they can assert their masculinity is by boasting about gun ownership online, and denigrate people who treat guns with caution.

And so it goes...

[QuietLagoon (813062)]

... people with too much time on their hands, annoying the rest of the world, calling it fun, and blaming it on the Internet [xkcd.com].

Why Is This News?

[John Hasler (414242)]

So a bunch of citiots tried to go onto private property without permission to have a party and got warned off. Why is this news?

Hello internet

[Council (514577)]

Hey, Randall here (hey, my account still exists!)

Sometimes the coordinates fall on military bases. Sometimes they're in the ocean. Sometimes they're in the middle of Bill Gates's house (when that one happens, maybe we can work something out). So even if it weren't for the legality issues, there's a big common sense element.

The idea is that you get as close as you can to the point without going onto private property without permission. Most of the time, this means meeting on a road or cul-de-sac or whatnot. The point is just to get people close enough that they can all exchange high fives and then go to a nearby park or bar together.

I've met unfriendly people while out hiking (both for geohashing and for fun). I've also met some astonishingly friendly people, more than you'd expect. People on the whole are decent. But if you're wandering around in strange places in the real world, there are risks inherent to that, and you do have to use your judgment. If you treat the coordinates like commands and try to get at them no matter what, you're doing it wrong.

Ranchers, guns and good manners.

[Mi5ke561 (1002900)]

There are indeed reasons for that Rancher to be armed. First off, if you get into trouble, it can take 911 longer than the rest of your life to get there. Pretty much you're on your own. Secondly, I don't know if anybody's noticed or not, but it's spring and cows drop calves and sheep drop lambs this time of year, and Coyotes are everywhere. Worse still, coyotes have something in common with man-- they frequently kill for the hell of it. And the margins on running a ranch are close enough that you can't afford to lose livestock to random predation unless you want to go broke, so this time of year, if you see a coyote, out comes the SKS or whatever, (very popular as a ranch rifle) and the coyotes in question become fodder for vultures, magpies, ect. There are places where there is a tradition of free range. Most of Nevada outside of Clark or Washoe Counties for example, still let you roam around as long as you're not damaging anything. A lot of ranchers are looking at keep out signs though, because of idiots who do things like cut locks, cut fences and shoot at water troughs. (And in a desert, shooting a water trough is actually a crime that merits hanging, even though nobody does) and sometimes livestock. In order to prevent such things, if you're working a ranch, you pack a rifle. And it is considered good manners to ask, and if you're hunting and get lucky, a couple of cleaned birds on the way out is usually appreaciated. And I usually carry some stuff to take a few minutes to fix a downed section of fence if I find one. One makes friends that way. The bottom line is that those young idiots who seem to have gotten a case of the vapors over a rancher with a camera and guns that happen to be his working tools in the gun rack, were handled far more gently than they probably deserved and they should be thankful rather than complaining. And they do owe him an apology, so that little suggestion that was on their website is one that they should take to heart.

They were lucky.

[davmoo (63521)]

I live in a rural area in the Midwest. If a horde of people I didn't know suddenly descended on my property, and I don't see some badges or blue and red lights accompanying them, those people would see a gun too...and mine wouldn't be in a rack.

Oh boy

[jav1231 (539129)]

It sounds like typical media scare. Think of all of the stories you see in the paper or on the news about "man with a gun." It's as if the mere presence of a gun denotes wrong doing.

Trespassers will be shot

[serbanp (139486)]

... survivors will be shot again.

Someone's sig on slashdot.

Re:Culture

[couchslug (175151)]

Indeed. Guns are tools, and ranchers have ample use for them such as killing critters (feral dogs, etc) that threaten their livestock. Fuel and equipment thieves are another good reason for ranchers to be armed. Diesel theft from irrigation pumps can threaten their ability to make a living, and thieves may be armed. In isolated areas the police can't be there on the spot to help.

Remember kids:
If it isn't your land and you don't have permission to be there, stay the hell off. There is plenty of public land to play silly games on.

Country folk are often very good at looking out for their neighbors. If you don't belong there, expect to be checked out. I'd be delighted to have a neighbor who would observe and photograph any questionable visitors. Being visibly armed deters violence, and cameras preserve potential evidence.

Re:Culture --weird

[Ferzerp (83619)]

Hey, your irrational fear of firearms is showing. RTFA. There was no waving of anything. It says they were in plain view in his truck. In other words, he had a gun rack... Oh no. He had a gun rack with guns on it. RUN TO THE HILLS!

Re:Culture --weird

[Grey_14 (570901)]

I dunno why people always think a fear of firearms is irrational, it is a device made for the sole purpose of killing or wounding a living creature, it does so in an instant with the twitch of a finger. couple that with the general fact that people are idiots (the geohashers in this case seemed to be the idiots, but it's a fair general rule to live by, unless proven otherwise: people are idiots.). I'm afraid of firearms, I'd rather they never be anywhere near me. I'm not one to advocate that they all be taken away either because unfortunately the cat is out of the bag there, people have guns and getting them away from criminals AND legitimate owners would be pretty much impossible now.

Anyways, yeah they overreacted to someone just having guns in their truck, but I don't think being afraid of or uncomfortable around guns is all that irrational.

Re:Culture --weird

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Bad example - bittorrent *was* - the creator admitted it publicly.

Yes and the purpose of a gun is to kill. Your definition is like saying 'the purpose of a car is to rotate wheels at a specific speed'. It's meaningless.

Re:Culture --weird

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

You're absolutely right, but I'd say it's less a matter of fundamental hypocrisy as it is one of fear. And that's mostly from unfamiliarity ... people are afraid of the unknown. We're pretty much hardwired for that, and in this case I think the government does us a disservice by discouraging people from owning firearms or learning how to use them properly. I'd rather have someone who knows what he's doing with a gun holding one on me, rather than someone who's never fired one before and is terrified of it. That applies as much to criminals as it does to us law-abiding types.

It's a machine people. Yes, it's one that requires some knowledge and self-discipline to own and use safely, but that's all it is. Would that We the People spent as much time bitching about the poorly-trained drivers we have in this country as we do about gun owners. The untold millions of four-wheeled sociopaths on the road today are responsible for a hell of a lot more death, destruction and general mayhem than all gun owners combined. But that's okay, you see, because cars are technology that we all find comfortable and familiar, in spite of the fact that a car is just as much of a weapon as a .44 Magnum. If everyone carried a gun, but only a few drove automobiles, we'd all be irrationally afraid of cars.

Personally, I'm far more concerned about being killed on the way to work by some lobeless, cell-phone-wielding, SUV-driving thimblebrain than I am about being shot. If the Feds really (I'm mean, really) want to make our lives safer, they should force the states to implement some serious training requirements for obtaining a driver's license. That should mean a CV (Commercial Vehicle) license for anyone that wants to drive a big SUV. Do that, and leave gun owners alone, and they would save a lot more lives each year.

Re:Culture --weird

[Firethorn (177587)]

Additionally, most firearm murders* are criminal on criminal. If you're not a criminal, hanging out with criminals, you're as safe or safer in the United States than you are elsewhere. Personally, I blame the war on drugs.

*I'm excluding suicides because they'd just find another, and accidents because the real accident rate is insignificant.

Re:Culture --weird

[debatem1 (1087307)]

Why would somebody owning a gun be "scary" or "a lunatic"? I can understand the fear of guns empowering criminals (even if I don't agree with the conclusions some reach on that basis) but guns in the hands of the good guys should probably be reassuring, not alarming.

Re:Culture --weird

[by Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up, of particular amusement "Because someone picked up their gun, and showed it to an aggressor, thus ending the conflict before it ever becomes violent." - if drawing down on someone isn't an escalation in violence I have no idea what is. +5 informative my ass.

Re:Culture --weird

[Majik Sheff (930627)]

Removing knives from the hands of Brits will also cut down on the number of crimes committed in the kitchen.

My apologies to our British friends, this was a cheap shot at your cooking which has admittedly improved.