AutoHotkey Community

While I'm with Tank on his views on guns, I really like hanging out on the forum here and not talking politics...

Gun down the politics before we get Hiroshima over here.

@nnnik

I am just curious. When you say "modern warfare equipment", what are you referring to?

just me wrote:

tank wrote:but guns don't kill people. People do.

Atomic bombs don't kill people. People do.

... Yes. That is accurate. The people who chose to set off the bomb are responsible for any deaths. How is this confusing?

Well I think a Pistol would suffice. I don't think selling a rifle to everybody is a good idea.

dmg wrote:... Yes. That is accurate. The people who chose to set off the bomb are responsible for any deaths. How is this confusing?

Atomic bombs and also guns are designed to kill people. If nobody would intent to use them, they actually would be a dispensible and expensive nonsense.
On the other hand, if someone sells a gun to someone who might use it to kill people, who's responsible if he actually does?

just me wrote:

tank wrote:but guns don't kill people. People do.

Atomic bombs don't kill people. People do.

so very true i hope you dont think that counters my point. i could say the same thing about lots of other man made objects as well

goodmorning, nothing you're about to see is odd...

My argument is that if people wish to kill each other they will. They will find a way. the wrong question is "How do we control guns?". It should be why do so many people from certain regions including the US want to kill each other and how to work that problem?

@nnnik

Interesting! Most arguments I hear take the opposite position, that pistols should be less accessible and that rifles and shotguns are fine. This may primarily be a difference in national culture. Here in the US nearly ALL gun related deaths are from pistols. Rifles are used for hunting and target shooting, and are less heavily regulated in general because they are not seen as a problem.

@just me

if someone sells a gun to someone who might use it to kill people, who's responsible if he actually does?

The person who shoots people is responsible for shooting people. The person who sold the gun is only responsible for their actions. If they broke the law in selling to a specific person then they should be prosecuted for that, and only that. Nobody is responsible for the choices of OTHER people. (Yes, there are laws that say otherwise. These laws are wrong, in the ethical sense.)

@all

About those death statistics tank was upset about: As far as I can find out, they are mostly accurate... So what? People are killed every day. During war far more people are killed than during peace, but the time of peace between wars is (hopefully) greater than the duration of those wars. These statistics present the fact that a large number of people have died from being shot in the US over a LONG period of time. That it then compares that to the number of deaths in war for the same time period is interesting, but not useful. The article makes the comparison, not because it is relevant to real world policy, but because it is relevant to their goal of engendering an emotional response from the reader. They want to frighten and outrage people because emotion is all they can use to influence us. I have never heard an anti gun argument that was based primarily on reason and provable facts. They tend to boil down to 'think of all the poor victims!'. There is nothing wrong with appealing to emotion as a means to influence, as long as we understand that is what's happening.

One thing these statistics oddly leave out is that while the number of deaths is large, it is a small percentage of the population. The number of people shot is dwarfed by the number of people NOT shot during the same time period. People have always been FAR more likely to die of other causes. Some people focus on guns not because guns are a significant issue in the US, but because these people find guns both more frightening and potentially more addressable than other issues. Again, it often comes down to how people FEEL, not what the facts SHOW.

Although valid points are made everywhere... I understand it's important to look at the facts and be objective, however ethics and morals essentially come down to emotions. This is where it becomes a philosophical problem. There's always a sense of rationality vs emotion. What kind of ethics do you apply, why? how? Bentham's Utilitarianism? Hans Jonas' Ethics of Responsibility? Hume's Ethics of Sentimentalism? Do we put ourselves first, do we put others first? The 10 commandments should or should not be respected? Ethics is a complex world of its own, adding a layer on top of that? the Law? super-super-super-set of human emotion itself? the very basis of all main religious beliefs of what is right and wrong? Love? an emotion. On top of that, right and good are not hand in hand. nor is bad with wrong. One can be "wrongfully good" and "rightfully bad", this can dependent on many factors say your morals, ethics, history, experience, emotions, etc.

Im not sure where im going with this... either way, let's not talk politics, not here at least. Please

Quite right that this is not the place for this particular discussion, however I choose to be childish and point out that I didn't start it

Loool

Gun laws and control isn't a discussion you can start without things heating up tbh

sorry , I just presented a 'link' ..... maybe more something about science / technic / hobby / programming / culture etc ....

"And Now For Something Completely Different"
John Cleese's famous line from opening sketch of the Monty Python film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU
---------------------------------------------------------------
and now something different ... about programming , EXCEL :
CSV import to EXCEL

http://georgemauer.net/2017/10/07/csv-injection.html

2,2017-07-25,Important Client,"=2+5+cmd|' /C calc'!A0", 240

What’s going to happen when we open up in Excel?
Yup, that’s right, the system calculator opens right on up.

---------------------------------------------------------------
@xzombie
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/9/1644 ... ne-is-dead
I have a windows phone ... works fine , otherwise I'm an idiot just use this ( not suitable in noisy environments) :
http://www.pearl.ch/ch-a-CHA3914-1010.shtml

Oh damn... the exploits :O

Damn

Now that I see the Excel exploit, I'm surprised no one figured out that csv injection before.

Speaking of vulnerabilities...

WPA2 shown to be vulnerable to key reinstallation attacks
ughh

:D :lol: https://www.howtogeek.com/180514/the-%E ... with-them/