UCSD Lecturer Releases Geotagging Application For "Dangerous Guns and Owners"

NF6X writes "UCSD Lecturer Brett Stallbaum has released an Android app called Gun Geo Marker to allow people to 'Geolocate Dangerous Guns and Owners.' The app description states: 'The Gun Geo Marker operates very simply, letting parents and community members mark, or geolocate, sites associated with potentially unsafe guns and gun owners. These locations are typically the homes or businesses of suspected unsafe gun owners, but might also be public lands or other locations where guns are not handled safely, or situations where proper rights to own or use any particular type of firearm may not exist.' I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party."

Comments

1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Nimey]

This article will have mature and reasonable discussion, let me tell you.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

I can certainly see that some of the threads will be reasonable.

With the reoccurring school shootings I would rather see schools with a strict "no guns at home" policy pop up.
You seldom see a random gun nut shoot at his neighbors. It is way more common that a person that is way too young to understand the full implications of death gets hold of a gun. Most of the time nothing bad happens but I would prefer to put my kids at a school where all parents agree to not have guns at home just too minimize the risk that some kid finds it and takes it to school.
Everyone thinks that "my child would never do that" or "my kid would never look through my bedroom drawer while I'm at work" but that is pretty delusional.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

By your own statement, "You seldom see a random gun nut shoot at his neighbors," it actually makes more sense for responsible adults to have access to guns at home and at school. Also, why don't we ever see mass-shootings at inner-city schools? Is it because there is a better chance the shooter would likely be facing return fire?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Penguinisto]

Why isn't the argument basis for geotagging potentially violent people of any stripe, no matter what their weapon of choice? Ah, it's the ideology. Bound to stir up some flamage.

You know? Yesterday, there was a bit of a protest as the local longshoremen decided to clog up our building and get noisy for a bit (the business they were protesting occupies a floor in the building). After seeing one of the protesters walking in with a sign nailed to a baseball bat (and a rather agitated look on his face), not to mention the rather battle-ready attitude of most the strikers (and then seeing this article today)? I kind of wonder why everyone fixates on weapons, when the problem is people... I mean, if the argument was about dangerous weapons, then maybe someone ought to geotag all the farmers who live next to truck stops, since a mixture of diesel fuel and fertilizer is way the hell more dangerous than a gun could ever be.

Given all of that, the argument is, IMHO, nothing more than a way to agitate for an ideology centered around what the guy considers to be a scary weapon... and nothing more. It's a means to put a stigma on gun owners that someone, somewhere thinks to be 'dangerous' (whatever that may mean) - much like one would geotag sex offenders or other 'undesireables' (in that person's mind).

Well, fair enough I guess, if that's what floats his ideological boat. Then again, I hope he can afford the potential lawsuit that would come from someone being incorrectly 'tagged'...

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Because the idea itself is so reasonable and mature. GIGO doesn't apply only to code algorithms.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Certhas]

False dichotomy: The problem isn't either people or weapons, with one excluding the other.

And false analogy:
There are benign objects that have potentially deadly applications. For example baseball bats. Or just run an SUV into a crowd, you're bound to do a lot of damage.

There are benign objects that are not really dangerous in any conceivable circumstances, but they get banned because people are paranoid like shit about them. Like little magnetic balls.

Then there are objects built for the purpose to kill, and nothing else.

The point is not that the last category is alone in being able to cause death. It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose.

That means you get accidental deaths. And that also means that when we fail at the people end of things the damage is that much more catastrophic.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose"

Causing death is not ipso facto bad, if the person on the receiving end was performing or threatening violent assault, and thus triggered lawful self-defense. Context matters.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Penguinisto]

Err, dunno how to say this, but that wasn't an analogy** - there was an actual dude agitating quite angrily while waving around a thinly disguised weapon. I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about him doing someone else harm than I would some ordinary guy plinking targets at a gravel pit.

Either way, I made no absolutes, merely questions. ;)

** Here's a bit of video from that event. Note that it's the 'clean' version, likely taken by one of the strikers.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't we ever see mass-shootings at inner-city schools?

Because they happen so often, they don't make the news.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[bickerdyke]

I kind of wonder why everyone fixates on weapons, when the problem is people...

Because there's not much you can do against people. (Unless it's to late)

Gun control at least tries to keep getting an angry guy to become a guy with a deadly assault rifle. Which may be a really big difference when he is running towards you.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

"while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose"... hunting and sport shooting... there, 2 redeeming legitimate purposes.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[youngatheart]

Stigma? My first thought was "I better tag my house" because even though I don't actually have a gun, I would like any potential thieves to think I do. Plus, where I come from (yes, Texas) gun ownership is seen as a good thing. People use their concealed carry permits as their preferred bragging type of state issued ID around here.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[drakaan]

...That means you get accidental deaths. And that also means that when we fail at the people end of things the damage is that much more catastrophic.

And this is less true of an SUV than it is of a gun? I don't think your distinction between items you categorize as "causes death only" and ones you categorize as "not built primarily for killing" is the most important one here.

The person you replied to made a valid, logical point about the person operating the killing device being the deciding factor in whether it causes a death. That's just as true for a driver running over her estranged lover repeatedly or plowing through a crowd at a mall in her SUV as it is for a shooter trying to see how many first graders he can kill.

That doesn't mean it's *only* the people at fault, just that they are a bigger factor than their chosen implement of destruction. Claiming "false dichotomy" is convenient and could be viewed as correct for a certain interpretation of the statements you replied to, but misses the point.

To paraphrase a fictional character from a popular movie, "A *person* is reasonable. *People* are dumb, stupid, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.", the weapon used, whether purpose-built or not, is a distant second to the wielder, in terms of what constitutes a danger.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[jellomizer]

I am not a Gun Owner, but if I were, I don't want to be on a public list to say I am one of "those people".
The biggest problem I see is a lack of Gun Education, and proper handling of a firearm. For the most part (Yes they are exceptions) the Kids who grew up with parents with a Gun and were taught how to use a gun, actually tend not to be involved in Gun crimes. Because things like "Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person", "Take the Ammo out when you're done", "Put the gun in a safe place when not in use". After training these things become such a habit, that the idea of using a gun for violence is unthinkable. But Kid often grow up in area and are not taught gun safety, and politics tell people these things are bad, and you are bad if you have on or your parents does. So once the Kid grows up a bit, he sees this gun as a source of power over other people, and not a tool that needs to be respected so he will be far more willing to point it at people and shoot people he is angry at, as he doesn't have the habit of gun safety.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Stuarticus]

Excessive attempts to excercise self-defense can easily escalate. You were shouting in my face so I pushed you, you pushed me so I hit you, you hit me so I shot you. All self defence?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"All self defence?"

Good luck with that in court. But your hypothetical in no way invalidates the thousands of genuine instances of self-defense, including armed ones.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Cenan]

Right, I'm sure one of the considerations of the deranged minds who take a gun to school is "uh, could I possibly be shot back at?". What you're saying sounds like a thinly veiled NRA talk point, like the idiotic meme that "a hero with a gun could have avoided [whatever]".

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[interval1066]

Your opinion implies a laudible goal; the removal of guns from society. But there is a glaring error in the arguments that you and your crowd continually ignore that I would like you to address. Guns are here, that particular geinie is out of the box. You want everyone to nod in agreement that corking a tidal wave is a good idea. Just as communism attempts to remove an aspect of human nature from the equation of economics (if everyone has what they need to live a comfortable life the profit motive should be moot), your suggesting that if no one has guns, then violence will be a thing of the past. Or are you limiting your argument to gun violence? If so that suggests other types of violence are OK to you.

People often crave power over others to induce them to do something that would be beneficial to the one seeking power. Some one's always going to decide that a gun will be nessessary, and they will obtain one. And they will. I don't see simply villifying gun ownership keeping the status quo.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[just_a_monkey]

I am not a Gun Owner, but if I were, I don't want to be on a public list to say I am one of "those people".

I don't own any guns but I could probably stand being on a list of houses that it is potentially life-threatening to break into because the owners are dangerous gun-owning lunatics. (Also note how none of my neighbours are on that list, crooks.)

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[sycodon]

I would prefer to put my children in a school where all parents educate their children on firearms and are active in firearm sports. That way, kids a less likely to go rooting through bedroom drawers.

Ignorance of danger doesn't make the danger go away.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[nschubach]

I grew up with real guns and I was even told not to point toy guns at people. "What if a piece of plastic flies out of that and hits your eye?" was the common go to phrase. We now have nerf guns at work and I get anxious when someone points one of those at me fearing plastic shrapnel.

It's not that I'm afraid of guns now (I own several) but it is an example of a kid growing up with guns all around and being properly educated/aware of the dangers. I think those that have no awareness are the ones that cause real danger.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[sycodon]

Funny, I've never heard of a mass shooting at a rifle range.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because killing someone for punching you is likely to be disproportionate response, and would not be covered under most self-defense laws. Minutes of research would tell you this, and there is no reason to bring guns into this hypothetical.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[executioner]

after it being out only a couple days there was a uninstall/comment that her mother was tagged as owning a SKS (she didn't) Lots of room for incorrect tags on this add to it the potential for criminal abuse (theft) hope he has a 5 star legal defense team.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Cenan]

Who the hell are you to decide when an action is grounds for the death penalty? Self defense comes in many different forms, and effective self defense does not have anything to do with guns, and does not have to be lethal to be effective. Pushing the gun agenda under the banner of self defense is primitive and simplistic, it puts the judge and jury duty into the hands of unqualified people, for no other reason than fear mongering.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[sycodon]

umm..nope. None of that is self defence.

It's two assholes behaving like assholes.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[CastrTroy]

I've heard that a lot of the reason for such a high homicide rate in the US is that it has an unusually high level of second degree murder. That's defined as murder that is unplanned and happens in the heat of the moment. If you don't even own a gun, there's a smaller chance you're going to murder someone with a gun, because by the time you get around to buying one, you've had some time to cool off a bit and think about what you're doing. Same goes for a gun that's locked away at home in a gun safe. By the time you drive home, unlock the safe, go to the other safe with the bullets, unlock that, and drive back to where the person was, assuming they haven't left, you've had some time go cool down and think it over. But if you carry one in a holster, you can literally pull out the gun and kill someone in seconds. I think about all the bar fights i've seen in my younger years, and if those people had guns, I'm sure the gun could have come in a couple of those instances.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Internal Modem]

I've read about several murders at them. "In the ongoing gun control debate, the same argument often comes up: nobody gets shot at the gun range. Here are five incidents of deaths, both accidental and intentional, at gun ranges across the U.S."

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Internal Modem]

"A former Navy SEAL known for claiming a record number of sniper killings in Iraq was one of two men shot dead at a Texas gun range, allegedly at the hands of a fellow military veteran, officials say."

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"Who the hell are you to decide when an action is grounds for the death penalty?"

Just to be crystal clear, are you saying that self-defense with a weapon is never appropriate? If so, you may wish to hold forth as to why the police should be armed, or exactly what posture someone being beaten to death should take to be most noble in your eyes. Is that the fetal position, or some sort of supplication toward the east?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Stuarticus]

Tell it to Trayvon.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Aranykai]

Except pushing someone isn't self defense, its assault. The instant you lay a hand on them, you justify their violence. Thankfully, nearly all concealed weapon carriers know that distinction, so we don't have lawful gun owners go on illegal shooting sprees.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Muad'Dave]

Then there are objects built for the purpose to kill, and nothing else.

Don't pontificate from a position of ignorance - you clearly have no experience with firearms and their myriad of uses. I have fired well over 20,000 rounds through various firearms, and NOT ONCE has a single person been injured, much less been killed, from it.

I did have a mighty enjoyable time poking holes in defenseless paper, however.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there are objects built for the purpose to kill, and nothing else.

The point is not that the last category is alone in being able to cause death. It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose.

They aren't built with a sole purpose to kill, they are also built with the purpose of protecting life from those who would seek to harm it. That is a redeeming legitimate purpose.

True Analogy: Our law enforcement officers do not use assault rifles with the intent to kill people with them, they carry them in case it becomes necessary to use them to prevent people from causing harm to others.

They have other purposes, most people are just so blind in their own ideology that they refuse to see them. To say that they are only meant to kill shows that you value the aggressor's and the defender's life the same, since even in defense you may be taking a life. This then boils it down to exactly what the OP was talking about, its a people problem. The fact that we have more people willing to take other peoples life is what we need to combat, not the tool they use to achieve the outcome.

You can try to remove guns from the equation, but all you are doing is removing the equality they bring. If you compare a 220 lb attacker vs a 110 lb defender, both with knifes; the attacker clearly has the advantage even though the instrument is the same. Guns are the only thing that that comes close to evening the odds. This also is assuming that the aggressor even abides by the law and doesn't bring a gun to your knife fight. At that point this map may be useful to you though, since you will know which neighbor to run to for help.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Stuarticus]

That's why no-one ever gets shot in America?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[JesseMcDonald]

You were shouting in my face so I pushed you, you pushed me so I hit you, you hit me so I shot you. All self defence?

If you're escalating the situation then you're not practicing self-defense. That said, there is a difference between "he hit me so I shot him" and "he was about to kill or irreparably injure me so I shot him". The situation may be exactly the same, but the former reasoning is escalation, whereas the latter is (preemptive) defense.

To counter an imminent threat of irreversible harm, preemptive defense may be both necessary and justified. However, that path carries significant risks should others happen to disagree with your threat assessment.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[jez9999]

"Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person"

Isn't that a bit like teaching someone they should never drive their car on or near a public road?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Jeremi]

you clearly have no experience with firearms and their myriad of uses

Myriad means 10,000. So far we have:

1. Killing people
2. Pretending to kill people

9,998 to go....

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[ganjadude]

if you pushed him first no its not. That is kind of the argument in the immerman trial right now who attacked who first.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Muad'Dave]

If only I had mod points - you hit the nail on the head. Lack of firearm safety EDUCATION is the biggest cause of accidental firearm deaths. Most gun illiterate people don't know they're gun illiterate - they think they know all they need to from watching TV (where some of the most egregious firearm-handling mistakes are taught to our youth).

It's disgraceful that the general public is so eager to watch (and let their kids watch) gun violence on TV, but is so unwilling to actually teach gun safety to it's youth.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[egamma]

So, one person is now a mass shooting?
I applaud the reality that gun violence has decreased so much in the past 30 years that we now count a single person as a mass shooting! Our society has made great strides.
What does 30 years have to do with it? 1973 is when the US started to phase out leaded gasoline.
See, what anti-gun activists don't seem to realize is that they are fighting against the wrong kind of lead poisoning.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[sycodon]

If you remove guns, then you would have a sword problem.
If you remove sword, then you'd have spear problem.
If you remove spears, then you'd have a rock problem.
Get rid of rocks and it would simply be the biggest guy wins.

The "gun problem" is merely another face of a violence problem.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone who is stronger than you is pinning you to the ground and throwing punches, what is a justified response? Wait for your attacker to get tired after you've endured black eyes, concussion, and skull fractures?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Lord Kano]

There are shooting incidents at inner city schools but not mass shootings.

A gang has a problem with a member of a rival gang or two drug dealers have a problem and someone gets shot. There aren't mass shootings because inner city schools are built with security in mind and often have an armed police presence.

LK

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Having your head slammed into the pavement repeatedly is enough to kill you, and people are actually killed this way in reality. Unless you have a special condition or are up against a boxer, getting punched doesn't regularly kill people. The hypothetical situation you posited is not equivalent to the one Trayvon was killed in.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Internal Modem]

You can't count or read. You didn't even need to follow the link to find that it was more than one. You are not intelligent enough to debate.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[CrimsonAvenger]

But if you carry one in a holster, you can literally pull out the gun and kill someone in seconds.

And yet, as the number of Concealed Carry license holders increased in recent decades, the murder rate has declined.

Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but it's hard to see how "higher carry rates" + "lower murder rates" matches up with what I quoted above....

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[godefroi]

I enjoy target shooting. Is that a legitimate purpose? If not, should we ban snowboards, since they have no legitimate purpose, and injure people all the time?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[jedidiah]

Mass shootings don't occur in the inner city. Gang shootings do. The conditions that lead to such shootings also make it very unlikely that any attempt at a mass shooting would succeed.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[CrimsonAvenger]

Wow! FIVE across the USA.

That must've, what, tripled the US homicde rate?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The biggest problem I see is a lack of Gun Education, and proper handling of a firearm.

This a thousand times. I really wish more non firearm owners were like you who don't have the crazy fear or hatred of firearms. There does seem to be a lack of training and respect for firearms among the general population and thus firearms really are very dangerous when not handled properly because they don't have a clue what they are doing. I own firearms and keep them properly stored (large fireproof safe bolted to the concrete floor in my basement), always handle them correctly (follow all the rules from all of the various safety courses I have ever had), and show them proper respect (it isn't something to show how tough I am and isn't an extension of my cock). I also don't believe in accidental shooting as every one I have ever read about that is called accidental is really negligent or outright reckless. Now granted I could probably contrive a case that I would consider an accidental shooting but there is probably a better chance of getting struck by lightning.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[femtobyte]

When my father was a kid, he and his family were all NRA members. But, this was NRA before Charlton Heston: the NRA focused on gun safety and responsible use for sport/hunting, not "OMG TEH BLACK MUZLIMZ R CUMING 2 TAKE UR GUNZORS!". The subsequent takeover of the NRA by the far-right (around the time Charlton Heston came in), converting it from a group focused on responsibility to a right-wing propaganda fear-mongering machine, was a tragic loss for safe and responsible gun ownership. The NRA today stands in complete opposition to the responsible gun use values that my parents'/grandparents' generation NRA supported.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[jedidiah]

Most people who get shot in America are ultimately the victim of the illegal drug trade which is fueled by primarily economic factors.

If you are some white,clueless,middle-class spooner, then you have about as much chance of being shot as some Eurotrash.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[egamma]

You can't count or read. You didn't even need to follow the link to find that it was more than one. You are not intelligent enough to debate.

So, two people is now a mass shooting?

No. The FBI defines mass murder as four or more murders with no cooling-off period.

I applaud the reality that gun violence has decreased so much in the past 30 years that we now count two people as a mass shooting! Our society has made great strides.

What does 30 years have to do with it? 1973 is when the US started to phase out leaded gasoline.

See, what anti-gun activists don't seem to realize is that they are fighting against the wrong kind of lead poisoning.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[jedidiah]

Nope.

You don't point a weapon at something unless you are prepared to destroy that something.It's something that should be basic common sense but a lot of people are really stupid. They need to be told these things.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[TheCarp]

I hadn't actually thought of it that way, as terrible as the incident would still be, I would be quite amused by the gun debate after a headline "Would be mass shooter dies in hail of bullets; 1 victim; 3 dead from stray gunfire" ...
"I got him"
"No I got him"
"You are all under arrest"

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[chihowa]

I'm pretty sure that they'd advocate for the removal of knifes also ...and everything else including pointy sticks.

The position that they're operating from is that nobody has the right to defend themselves from an assailant. You can call on the state to come and defend you and if they don't make it there in time, well... so be it. They'd see your needless death as a tragic loss, no doubt, but it would be a much better outcome than the transfer of power from the state (where all power belongs and is parceled out from) to the individual. It's a pretty typical authoritarian viewpoint.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Internal Modem]

The GP said never. There was an additional link posted with another incident as well...

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Jiro]

In places where it's difficult to get a permit to carry, you may be legally forced to leave the gun at home, in which case there's also a greater chance of being burgled when you're not home.

In some places it can also expose you to stigma. Imagine not getting a job (and not being told why) because you're on one of these lists.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[danomac]

And if people get seriously pissed off all logic goes out the window. Shootings would be far less otherwise.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

If I push you first during an argument and then you take to beating me to death with your fists or a rock as a response, I would be well within my rights to use lethal force to stop you, even if I started the argument.

There tests that must be weighed. It's not as simple as "he started it" or "he hit me first"

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Erbo]

You know, Col. Jeff Cooper's basic four rules of firearm safety aren't that complicated:

1. All guns are always loaded. Period.
2. Never point the muzzle at anything you're not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are lined up on the target.
4. Be sure of your target, and what's behind it.

I know people with ten-year-old kids that have mastered those rules. They just need to be taught. Ideally, they should be taught in schools, but good luck getting that past the hoplophobes and gun-grabbers...

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[MobSwatter]

One is about a million times more likely to be shot by a steroid juiced cop than an a typical gun owner let alone one with a CCW. So, mark all police stations on the new app?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[femtobyte]

But a sword problem is less deadly than a gun problem, and a rock problem is less deadly than a sword problem. Yes, a dedicated psycho murderator can kill people with rocks. But, guns make it so much easier --- even a toddler can accidentally blow their (or a family member's) head off. Guns escalate violence, so, e.g., a drunken brawl that would result in a black eye or two turns into a multiple homocide when guns are available. While addressing the underlying violence problem itself is fundamental, fixing the gun problem at least significantly ameliorates the symptoms of the underlying disease.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[TrancePhreak]

There are more baseball bat homicides than gun homicides in the US. Should we then regulate baseball bats?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Psychopath]

"Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person"

Isn't that a bit like teaching someone they should never drive their car on or near a public road?

You've demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the millions of people who use firearms recreationally. For those, who are the overwhelming majority, basic gun safety principals dictate never pointing a firearm at a person.

One of the reasons gun control proponents have a hard time moving their agenda forward is because they're demonstrably uninformed.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Rhacman]

Perhaps, but what about the slightly less hypothetical "he realized I was carrying a gun and reached for it but I grabbed it first and shot him"? I suppose we'll be finding out shortly.

Re: 1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

These instances tend to be suicides or murder/suicides. A means to carryout a premeditated action

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

You were shouting in my face so I pushed you, you pushed me so I hit you, you hit me so I shot you. All self defence?

the problem is that this is normal behavior for anti-gun liberals, so they assume everyone acts like this. only irresponsible, immature man-children act like this.

i carry a gun every day.
i don't shout in people's faces.
if you were shouting in my face, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation.
if you pushed me, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation.
if you hit me, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation.
if you continued assaulting me to the point where i felt i was in danger of serious harm or death, yes, i'd shoot you.
and it'd be 100% self defense.

the vast majority of gun owners that make the decision to carry a firearm (legally) are responsible people and will take every possible measure to avoid escalating situations to violence because they know what it can lead to.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

I would prefer to put my children in a school where all parents educate their children on firearms and are active in firearm sports. That way, kids a less likely to go rooting through bedroom drawers.

Ignorance of danger doesn't make the danger go away.

Exactly. That is why we need to get people like you to understand that you just can't teach children about firearms that way.
Go and have a look at any information regarding raising children. Take a look at how to inform your child of the passing of a grandparent.
You will find that child psychology has advance way beyond the point where they are "adults but smaller."
An undeveloped brain can simply not grasp abstract concepts like life and death in the sense that you and I think of them. For a pre-teen or early teenager death isn't necessarily perceived as something permanent or tangible.
You can teach them how to handle the gun and to never eat candy before dinner but you can't guarantee that your child won't experiment when you aren't around.
This is exactly why it as good idea to have a school where the parents agree on not having guns at home. The parents who really wants to have guns at home could still have it and put their children in a gun-friendly school and hope that all other parents there are responsible adults.
Personally I don't see how a parent could have a gun at home and be considered responsible unless they keep it locked in a safe. Children are naturally curious and thinking that you can educate that curiosity away (Or that it even is a good idea to do so.) is delusional. I don't mind if you want to do that but I would prefer to put my children in another school than yours.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

. It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose.

It's revealing of your mindset that you think it's necessary for an object to require Redemption. You have done nothing to support the implied idea that an object should be illegal unless there's a non-lethal application for it.
It's also revealing that you don't make a distinction between death of a human and death of an animal.

You are also incorrect, target shooting is a sport in which nothing gets killed, and they can be used for hunting. There are also various forms of non-lethal ammunition which can be used, such as pepperballs, rubber bullets, tear gas, and more. There's a show in TV about some Canadians who harvest icebergs, they use a hunting rifle to cause pieces of the bergs to fracture off for retrieval, just as another example.

The biggest problem I have with people like you, is that you are essentially claiming that it's OK for something which kills a lot of people as long as there is some kind of benefit. Take privately owned cars for example- they kill far more people each year, or rather the shitty drivers do, but you are OK with that because it's too much of a bother to find a different way to get groceries from the store.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[crakbone]

I have no idea where they get ideas like that. Oh maybe situations like this? http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx or http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-08-28/story/customer-kills-gunman-during-jacksonville-robbery-attempt or http://archive.lewrockwell.com/spl4/heroic-armed-citizen.html or http://mountainview.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/armed-attempted-robbery-thwarted-by-brave-victim-wtih-bb-gun#photo-4081472

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[ColdWetDog]

Given how many rounds are expended and how many people are involved, you could probably make a point that a rifle range is one of the safest places to be. No human endeavor is entirely safe. Hell, I spent this weekend pulling fish hooks out of various aspects of peoples anatomy and I've flown people to Seattle with fish hooks embedded in the eye.

Careful out there, something is liable to get you.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[g0bshiTe]

Still two assholes behaving like assholes, where's your point?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[kaatochacha]

I will say it again.
I have owned guns for years, and... hey, surprise, I've never killed anyone. Not even close. Not even a wounding, or a firing in the general direction thereof.
I tire of the whole "but but but it's the intention that counts! Your device was intended to kill everyone!"

By your justification, swords, crossbows, bows and arrows, clubs, hell, even those guys who re-enact medieval times should be banned.
Armor was built to go to war! there's no other purpose!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

the vast majority of people that get shot are criminals shot by other criminals, usually during some sort of criminal transaction.

most of the rest are criminals shot in self defense or by the police.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, people often have more than one gun too. People can get a carry permit for a handgun, but not a rifle or shotgun. Those have to stay at home. Unfortunately for the criminals, my wife and I share a car, so they can never be certain when one of us is home with the shotgun.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

It's closer to "don't take your foot off the brake when there's a crowd of orphans crossing in the intersection"

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[crakbone]

People are no the only reason to have weapons. The majority of reasons of my having to pull my gun from its holster are because of animals. I know most people here are living in cities but some people live in rural areas. With bears, wolves, mountain cats, and coyotes. One rabid animal is really all that is necessary to ruin your day or week. HOWEVER - When a persons actions show an immediate threat to me, my wife, our sons and daughters I decided when the action is grounds for the death penalty. I do not make a choice to be a victim. I do not request people to invade my house, I do not request people to randomly attempt to stab or shoot me. I do not request to be mugged or murdered at random. When a person judges my life or my loved ones to be less than their immediate need for monetary gain I deem them no longer fit to live in my immediate local. You however may have a different opinion. You may feel it is perfectly adequate to wait 45 mins to 2 hours for a police response to a call about a person that feels your life is nothing compared to the new flat panel you have in your cabin. Or you may feel it is perfectly fine to wait for police to arrive as a mad man stabs every person that leaves a super market. Or that it is fine to allow a person to tie you to a chair and rape your family in front of you, after all you don't feel you have the right to make him stop.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Cenan]

If so, you may wish to hold forth as to why the police should be armed

Remind me again what the argument for armed police is? Anyways, there are plenty of non lethal alternatives to carrying a gun, ones that don't apply the death penealty before the jury has even heard the case. Police officers aren't exactly on record for being a level headed bunch of chaps.

exactly what posture someone being beaten to death should take to be most noble in your eyes. Is that the fetal position, or some sort of supplication toward the east?

I don't know, whatever is more comfortable to him. How would a gun make a difference here? Do you think the situation would be different if guns were ubiquitous, and if so, why is that? If you have a gun to avoid the assault, he has a gun to avoid yours - whe the fuck do you think you are, Lucky Luke? Are going to bring up the home invasion boogeyman next? That's always amusing.

And, just to be crystal clear, are you saying that people in the east (east of what?) have less guns, or less gun control, or just don't care about guns, more than people in the west (again, west of what?)

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[operagost]

If he's running toward me with a baseball bat, it's a big issue. If he's running toward me with a box cutter, it's a big issue. If he's running toward me with no weapons, but I'm an elderly person in a wheelchair, it's a big issue.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[gfxguy]

They'd see your needless death as a tragic loss...

... and blame society for failing the perpetrator.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[operagost]

I already used up all my mod points. Sorry!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard or read somewhere about a comparison of guns with shovels. Because after all, they're both tools.

You know what? If I didn't have a shovel, I wouldn't dig a big ditch, I'd dig a smaller one, or none at all.

PS
Don't forget though, if you DO buy a gun, then you must buy a shovel also. If you don't get why, then you shouldn't buy a gun in the first place.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[CastrTroy]

The rate of all crimes are going down. The question is, did the murder rate go down as much as the rate of all crime, or did it decline less or more. I realize that there's no clear evidence either way, as to which causes which, but the US is one of the few countries that allows concealed carry by regular citizens, and it also has a very high rate of second degree murders. If nobody was carrying guns, it's likely that many of them could be avoided.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[operagost]

Putting a gun in the hands of a toddler is a straw man. You could put any dangerous thing in the hands of a toddler; that does not mean that thing should be prohibited.

Police officers also have children.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[DexterIsADog]

Mod parent as flamebait, or maybe troll. Here's the truth; http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

For those who won't bother to click, it's Firearms: 67.8%, Blunt Objects: 3.9%. As Snopes says, even if *every* blunt object homicide it by baseball bat, the parent's assertion is not just wrong, it's overwhelmingly wrong.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[operagost]

I handle that issue by keeping the gun on my person. Oops, leftists rail the most against the carrying of firearms.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, No, you are wrong. When one idiot is in the act of punching the other, self defense is to provide a physical response to make them stop, so the second idiot is defending themself, legally. When the idiot shot the other idiot, becuase he/she was being punched, that is NOT self defense unless a court of his/her peers deems he/she was actually in fear of their life at that time.

At least in most of the USA, using lethal response to non-lethal threat is not considered self defense.

But hey, you don't give a damn what the actual law is, you are just trying to win a stupid argument, so go on, tell me I am wrong. Bring into play my 'anon' status, perhaps my parentage or my voting habits, parties I may or may not support or any other red herring.

Re: 1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to clarify that from "a gun at home" to "an unsecured gun at home". Either way it would be I enforceable without national registration and with over 290,000,000 guns in circulation your chances of getting even a fraction of the registered are approximately 0%.

What we actually need is for do get all of the information rather than selective information. There is one glaring stat regarding gun violence in the US that is politically unpopular because it involves a particular demographic which makes up about 12% of the population and accounts for nearly half the gun violence.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

I have met morons like this before. They claim that the dead victim is morally superior to the live criminal who killed them. They also claim that the live murderous criminal is never to have their life taken from them because that is so heinous that no crime can vindicate it.

I differ in my opinion. I believe killing these monsters is best. Killing murderous villains is good.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[noh8rz9]

yup, it sounds to me like trayvon was acting in self defense by "standing your ground" against a threatening person who was stalking and confronting him. probably with weapon drawn. we'll never know the trooth, because the victim is dead and can't testify in his own murder. the only person who knows what happens in those final moments is the murderor. we do know that police told him to stay in his car and he decided to confront trayvon instead. this action lead to the death of a kid carrying skittles. open/shut.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

3. old time cowboys hammering nails

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like you haven't watched the trial at all and are basing your opinion on the slanted news propaganda from the past year.

Re: 1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

"Easy and efficient to cause death". I hate to break it to you, many products you buy or services you pay for use easy and efficient ways to cause death and death is the value.

- Poisons (rat, insecticide[indiscriminant])
- Meat (butcher shop)
- Euthanize (poor Fido is too sick to live)
- Guns (hunting, self defense, military)
 

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Em Adespoton]

"Who the hell are you to decide when an action is grounds for the death penalty?"

Just to be crystal clear, are you saying that self-defense with a weapon is never appropriate? If so, you may wish to hold forth as to why the police should be armed, or exactly what posture someone being beaten to death should take to be most noble in your eyes. Is that the fetal position, or some sort of supplication toward the east?

He's saying that shoot to kill is not the only self-defense with a weapon, and should not be the first line of defense. Personally, I'd rather go for dislocating someone's arm (for minor agression), momentarily blinding or deafening the person or paralyzing them from the waist down or rendering them comatose (for extreme cases) to killing them outright.

Now, Guns aren't just for killing; they're also for maiming. But they're notoriously inaccurate for both unless used by a well-trained person -- plus, you don't know what the victim's response to the maiming will be. Do something to dislocate their right arm, and you know they can't use their right arm very well. Blind them with a flashbang and you know they can't see. Hit them hard in the knees with anything, and they aren't going to be ambulatory any time soon.

Amazingly, it is legal to carry and use a firearm in many places where some of my examples above would be illegal for the common person to use. I really wonder how the "right to bear arms" became the "right to carry a gun" -- it's not really that guns should be outlawed, but that they're just so inappropriate for so many situations, but people (on both sides of the fence) have come to place inappropriate expectations on what they can accomplish.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[BergZ]

I completely agree and it is beyond frustrating how gun nuts fail to understand the obvious.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[HornWumpus]

Your thinking of cops. On average citizens are better shots.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Em Adespoton]

...That means you get accidental deaths. And that also means that when we fail at the people end of things the damage is that much more catastrophic.

And this is less true of an SUV than it is of a gun? I don't think your distinction between items you categorize as "causes death only" and ones you categorize as "not built primarily for killing" is the most important one here.

The person you replied to made a valid, logical point about the person operating the killing device being the deciding factor in whether it causes a death. That's just as true for a driver running over her estranged lover repeatedly or plowing through a crowd at a mall in her SUV as it is for a shooter trying to see how many first graders he can kill.

That doesn't mean it's *only* the people at fault, just that they are a bigger factor than their chosen implement of destruction. Claiming "false dichotomy" is convenient and could be viewed as correct for a certain interpretation of the statements you replied to, but misses the point.

To paraphrase a fictional character from a popular movie, "A *person* is reasonable. *People* are dumb, stupid, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.", the weapon used, whether purpose-built or not, is a distant second to the wielder, in terms of what constitutes a danger.

Well, we've already got an SUV registry...
Just sayin'.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[ron_ivi]

One rabid animal is really all that is necessary to ruin your day or week

So you're mostly pulling your gun on bats?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Quoting Wikipedia:"in the US ... incidents of rabies in humans are very rare. A total of 49 cases of the disease were reported in the country in 1995-2011; of these, 11 are thought to have been acquired abroad. Almost all domestically acquired cases are attributed to bat bites."

Unless you're in Africa or India, you've got a far better chance to win the lottery than get rabies from "bears, wolves, mountain cats, and coyotes" combined.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Em Adespoton]

Oh; and I'd love to have an app that told me where all the dangerous SUVs were; that'd probably save more lives in the long run.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns can be removed from a society. Ask Australia. The genie can be put back in the bottle, or at least partially. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Think harm reduction.

We don't need to eliminate all guns, but we should ask from an evidence-based perspective are we better off trying to make them illegal or putting restrictions on them, or are you satisfied with the status quo? Stop falling into your own ideological trappings. How does America compare to the rest of the world in terms of deaths due to guns? Last I checked, it was pretty deplorable. It's fine to say that you want to keep your guns to be able to overthrow your government or defend yourself. That's a choice that you can make. But recognize and acknowledge that there are safer alternatives that you are choosing not to make. There are real costs (in terms of dead humans) for keeping your gun rights, and there are other methods of overthrowing governments or defending oneself. The alternatives need not be hypothetical experiments in your mind. There are plenty of other countries to look to. Evidence-based.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[RavenousRhesus]

That way, kids [are] less likely to go rooting through bedroom drawers.

That's asinine. Since when do educated kids not snoop around for things to play with and get into trouble?

Also, the parent keeping a gun in a bedroom drawer and not locked in a safe with a child in the house is doing it absolutely wrong.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[femtobyte]

Yes, you could put anything dangerous in the hands of a toddler; I'm also opposed to the proliferation of any other devices providing similar or higher levels of easy lethality to guns (such items should also be regulated, and handled according to appropriate safety protocols). At least many other dangerous things have significant uses besides escalating the arms race of who can kill who faster.

Note that police officers are required to undergo extensive training, and adhere to strict usage policies with respect to their service firearms that are not mandatory for the general gun-owning public. Does Joe Blow have to undergo background and psychological tests, and fill out paperwork for every bullet fired outside a designated shooting range? Requiring every gun owner to adhere to the same level of regulation as gun-carrying government employees would likely significantly reduce harm caused by guns --- unfortunately, the pro-gun lobby is vehemently opposed to any attempt whatsoever to assure more responsible patterns of gun ownership.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[chuckugly]

There *ARE* more homicides with "hand and other", or blunt weapons, or knives (or, not and) than with rifles of all types, including so-called Assault Weapons (Assault Rifles are not freely available in the USA); it's the people intent of defending their meth territory or knocking over a C-store (as examples) that are the bulk of the violence and those people won't generally want to shell out $1500+ for a Bushmaster and then try to figure out how to carry it concealed to the site of the intended crime. They get a pistol and put it in their pocket. Guess what things like capacity laws do? Encourage the production and sale of small concealable pistols just big enough to be easily concealed and still carry 10 in the mag and one in the pipe. Talk about an unintended consequence.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[ducomputergeek]

When we passed concealed carry here in Missouri, the Post Dispatch cried that the streets would run red with blood from conceal carry holders shooting everyone for every little offense.

A year or two later they ran a piece basically saying the paper's editors were wrong. Basically nothing changed. Crime rates didn't decrease overall nor were the streets running red with blood.

I keep an eye on the stories locally. I've read a few cases of where someone with a CCW was being robbed, pull the gun, and the robber ran away as they reported to the police. One case that sticks out in my mind was a group of 70 year olds who were mugged by an armed robber. They gave the robber their cash and he went on his way, but then turned and pointed the gun in their direction. That's when one of the men pulled out his revolver and shots went down range. Didn't hit the mugger, but the mugger didn't stick around either.

This is why I carry a $100 bill in my wallet. Most muggers are looking for a quick buck for a fix and will happily take the $100 and run.

But I also have a Walther PPS right above the wallet in case they don't.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[RevDisk]

Cute, but when gun owner lists were leaked. And that data was used by criminals to target homes for firearms. Some folks argue this is justification to not allow government entities to gather such information in the first place. All it takes is one activist to leak it.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/journal-news-gun-map-might-have-caused-burglary.html http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/second-home-identified-on-journal-news-gun-map-is-burglarized-vandals-steal-gun-safe/ http://pastebin.com/DjU5Km6q

Problem with crowdsourcing is lack of accountability. Suppose I dislike a person and want their house broken into. What would stop me from tagging them as a "dangerous gun owner", that is gone from 7:30AM to 5:30 Monday through Friday, SSN is 123-45-6789, driving such and such a car, no alarm system or dogs, and is regularly visited by XYZ Pool Company which would not raise suspicion? Would UCSD Lecturer Brett Stallbaum mind if he was added to his own list with that sort of information?

This is obviously not about dangerous objects or their owners. It's entirely ideological, and intent on pressuring folks opposed to Mr Stallbaum's opinion on a particular issue. It is interesting that pro firearms activists have not released a responding app for homes of anti firearm activists, which would obviously be easy marks for criminals. Either anti firearm activists would be easily robbed, or embarrassed in public if they used firearms to embarrass themselves. While an easy, effective tactic, it's still obviously wrong, hasn't been done and likely would be denounced by pro firearm owners. Says volumes about the moralities involved, I suppose.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, let me explain this to you. What you describe is not self-defense. The person shouting in your face was rude, but not criminal. The moment you laid hands on the person shouting in your face and pushed said person, you broke the law and committed battery. What you are describing is actually manslaughter or possibly second degree murder.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[AmiMoJo]

Stats show clearly that armed self defence is worse than just running for it. Not manly or macho, but if you want to live then run. Pulling a gun dramatically increases your chances of being shot and severely injured or dying.

I'm sure you can think of some unlikely scenario where you are backed into a corner with no way out and the only possible way to survive is with a gun, but 99.99% of the time that isn't the case.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[AmiMoJo]

How do you separate the irresponsible man-children from the real men? It sounds like you need some controls on who can own guns.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[AmiMoJo]

Europe suggests this is not true. I think you also have to accept that you are much less likely to die if attacked with bear hands or knife than if attacked with a gun. Statistics tend to back that up.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Muad'Dave]

Then I've already given 2 myriareasons - 20k unique and special little holes drilled accurately and safely into paper.

Myria was a metric prefix meaning 10,000 for a while - it has since fallen into desuetude. It also can mean 'countless'.

myria-
combining form
indicating a very great number myriapod
[from Greek murios countless]

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[jellomizer]

No. Not at all, your analogy is horribly flawed. 5 points taken away from your house.

A car and roads have been made to work with each other, they are complements of each other.

A gun doesn't need to shoot a person, for you should hope your gun never does. If you are at a shooting range, the rule is if someone crosses the line everyone stops shooting. Even if the person isn't near your target, but the fact that they are near where you are shooting, you stop.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[AmiMoJo]

Straw man, you lose.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"Stats show clearly .... 99.99% of the time"

This is absurd enough not even to merit a [citation needed].

Re: 1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Your link does not speak to the word mass in any way shape or form. Therefore your post is idiotic to the extreme.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[jez9999]

If you're using the thing recreationally you can store them on a gun club's premesis. The only vaguely decent argument about having them in your house is the self-defence one. Face it; the real reason "recreational" gun users want the things in their homes is so they can stroke them as if it's their penis.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Stats show clearly that armed self defence is worse than just running for it. Not manly or macho, but if you want to live then run.

it's funny how stats can clearly show anything when you don't present any evidence or quote any source.

rates of injury by victim's method of protection

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"He's saying that shoot to kill is not the only self-defense with a weapon, and should not be the first line of defense."

No, you are saying that, and of course everyone agrees with you.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

most of them are career criminals that end up dead or in prison.

the rest are afraid of what they'd do if they had a gun and thus don't own one.

since they cannot trust themselves with a gun, they don't trust anyone else and are for gun control as well.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's yet another example of "I'm not necessarily against guns, but good god do gun nuts make it tough to want to stand in their corner."

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[0xdeadbeef]

while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose

Fun is a legitimate purpose, and shooting things is fun.

Or, in other words, there is a reason many sports involve the launching of projectiles, by human power or chemical, and that the simulation of this activity is the most common mechanic of video games. When you deny this, you deny your own instincts. You deny your evolution like a creationist.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is that this is normal behavior for anti-gun liberals, so they assume everyone acts like this. only irresponsible, immature man-children act like this.

Oh fuck right off with this bullshit. You want to try to claim the moral high ground? Start by not resorting to an ad hominem stereotype (that doesn't even make sense -- peace-loving violence escalating liberals) in your first goddamn sentence.

Jesus. Partisan dipshits like you are who give gun nuts a bad name.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[scot4875]

If a sword is as dangerous as a gun, then go ahead and carry a sword. I'm 100% behind you on that.

If a spear is as dangerous as a sword, then carry the spear instead.

If rocks are as dangerous as spears, then don't bother carrying anything, because rocks are plentiful and you can grab one anywhere.

If you're a big guy and big guys are as dangerous as rocks, then you don't need any weapon because you'd just win.

If none of those things are true, then your entire post is an idiotic false equivalence.

--Jeremy

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Ian A. Shill]

With the tendency of the deranged minds who take a gun to school to eat a bullet at the first hint that armed first responders have arrived on scene, makes me think that they *have* thought about it ahead of time.

Right, I'm sure one of the considerations of the deranged minds who take a gun to school is "uh, could I possibly be shot back at?". What you're saying sounds like a thinly veiled NRA talk point, like the idiotic meme that "a hero with a gun could have avoided [whatever]".

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[stdarg]

That seems pretty clearly self defense, isn't it? Pulling a gun on someone (doubly if you steal someone's gun and pull it on them) is certainly a deadly attack.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Psychopath]

If you're using the thing recreationally you can store them on a gun club's premesis. The only vaguely decent argument about having them in your house is the self-defence one. Face it; the real reason "recreational" gun users want the things in their homes is so they can stroke them as if it's their penis.

I'm sorry, but you keep saying things that demonstrate your lack of understanding. You should take more time to examine your arguments, as they appear to be based entirely on your emotions and not at all on facts. Obviously there's nothing to discuss with your penis-stroking opinion. Great job on continuing the cycle of non-dialog. You're sure to be part of the solution.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[stdarg]

If by "kid" you mean a thug with gold teeth who had been doing drugs close to the time of the event.. yeah.

I agree with the claim that Trayvon was standing his ground, just like Zimmerman did... there is no guilty party here either way. Certainly nobody was murdered. Two guys stood their ground and one died. End of story. If we weren't such a PC, litigious society, charges wouldn't have been filed.. just like they weren't initially. Not every death is a "murder" that needs to be prosecuted!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[stenvar]

and it also has a very high rate of second degree murders

Yet, the rate of murders is highest among the population with the lowest gun ownership rates: African American males. And we aren't talking marginally higher, we are talking ten times higher. Furthermore, if you remove African American males from the statistic, the US murder rate drops to European levels. That clearly tells you that the high US murder rate is not due to average high gun ownership rates. Another data point is that Mexico has a much lower gun ownership rate than the US, yet also several times the murder rate. And if you look at comparable groups of nations in Europe, the OECD, or across the world, there simply is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rate. Altogether, the idea that gun ownership correlates positively with murder rates is not supported by the data.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[meta-monkey]

Most people who get shot in America are ultimately the victim of the illegal drug trade which is fueled by primarily economic factors.

If you are some white,clueless,middle-class spooner, then you have about as much chance of being shot as some Eurotrash.

Exactly. And that also gives the white, clueless middle-class a reason to be fearful and distrustful of the lower classes, and the lower classes reason to be contemptuous of the middle class. Whatever keeps them from joining up against the upper class, which is actually responsible for said laws and economic factors.

Re: 1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's because the shooters are crazy, er, "non-ethnics" from the suburbs!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[meta-monkey]

Indeed. I have a concealed carry permit as I sometimes have to travel overnight through remote areas. When I took the required safety course, rather than just take the 30 minutes "don't shoot yourself in the foot" lecture, I opted for a more in-depth day long course that went into tactical situations and the legal ramifications.

We went through a bunch of "what if you're carrying and this happens" scenarios and my response to just about every single one of them was "I'd run away."

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Hillgiant]

If you remove the personal nuclear devices, then you would have gun problem.

If you remove guns, then you would have a sword problem.
If you remove sword, then you'd have spear problem.
If you remove spears, then you'd have a rock problem.
Get rid of rocks and it would simply be the biggest guy wins.

The "gun problem" is merely another face of a violence problem.

What? You mean it only works one direction? Pretty weak metaphor you got there...

Eliminating violence is not the objective. Limiting the damage is the objective.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is not that the last category is alone in being able to cause death. It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose.

You mean like spears, spear guns, swords, and bows and arrows?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Obfuscant]

It sounds like you need some controls on who can own guns.

We have controls on who can buy guns.

We have controls on who can own guns.

We have very little control on who steals guns, which is why the first two sets of controls do very little to stop anyone except honest, law abiding citizens from having guns.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[stdarg]

Yeah but he also said "mass shootings" which your link didn't address at all.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[publiclurker]

so, people do not have the right to not associate themselves with gun nuts?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing someone isn't a rational response to being pushed.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[chihowa]

How is that a straw man? The UK has banned the mere possession in public of knives without an approved reason. There was (is?) talk of banning the possession of knitting needles (pointy sticks) in public. I'm offering my interpretation of the unstated mindset that leads to such actions. If you're an authoritarian and my post bothers you, then please refrain from reading it. Calling on the state to render me the loser because I broke the rules is a bit extreme (ok, that was a stretch, but it was fun)!

Besides, this isn't a formal debate and I'm not offering a counter argument to any stated position (anywhere in this thread). I get to frame the discussion.

And "Straw man, you lose," is a pretty weak argument overall. I think I get the points.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[drakaan]

Absolutely. We'd all be much safer.

But then we'd have to know where the dangerous midsize sedans are, too...and the dangerous compact and subcompact cars, of course. :)

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Skynyrd]

While addressing the underlying violence problem itself is fundamental, fixing the gun problem at least significantly ameliorates the symptoms of the underlying disease.

Please define "fixing the gun problem".

The guns are out there, and keeping them out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't do a damn thing to stop crime.
Do you think a guy holding up a liquor store gives a shit about carrying an illegally large magazine? No.
Do you think he cares if his gun is registered? No.
Does he care if his gun is stolen? No.
Do you think he cares about an assault rifle law? No, because he's using a stolen handgun.

Pass all the gun laws you want, but only a fool will think there will be a measurable drop in crime, or a fix for the gun problem.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

The irresponsible man-children likely aren't carrying lawfully and will flee the scene after the incident. They're called criminals and they're responsible for most firearm deaths.

The "real men" are likely following the law while carrying and will be at the scene when the police arrive. Since they'll be held accountable for their actions, they'll be careful how they act. We refer to that as "responsibility".

A decent indicator as to whether someone will follow the law is whether that person typically follows the law. It seems obvious because it is. Convicted felons already can't own guns.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Skynyrd]

I enjoy target shooting. Is that a legitimate purpose? If not, should we ban snowboards, since they have no legitimate purpose, and injure people all the time?

Don't forget swimming pools!
Those things are deadly, and kill more innocent white kids (which is all the media pays attention to) than bullets.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[gnu-user]

George Zimmerman?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[hakann]

Actually, yes, it is. If you can't figure out a better way to deal with someone than to kill them, you should take a lesson in empathy.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[SolitaryMan]

The idiot on the road (thankfully) is pretty noticeable.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[SolitaryMan]

The problem in US is not guns per se, but the fact that gun control is extremely politically loaded concept. Mostly, because gun manufacturers own NRA, which owns half of congress. It is impossible to even raise the question without their brainwashing machine screaming that government will eat our babies.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Buelldozer]

"Gun control at least tries to keep getting an angry guy to become a guy with a deadly assault rifle."

Less than 3% of all gun crimes, that includes suicides, are committed with an "assault rifle".

Way to tackle an almost non-existent problem! Such Courage!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Buelldozer]

Please, link us to these "stats" you quote because they're wrong and I want to show you why.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[femtobyte]

Yes, keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens (which are very difficult to tell from the hands of law-breaking citizens, especially when you try to prevent background checks and waiting periods) will also make them harder to get in the hands of criminals. When you can pick up guns and ammo cheap at Wal*Mart, instead of paying inflated black-market prices, then more folks in precarious enough financial situations to consider knocking over a liquor store can get them. When there's little or no risk or penalty associated with owning/carrying a gun while not in the middle of committing a crime, criminals can breathe easy while carrying a gun and scouting out their next target. When the criminals have to assume that everyone else around them might be packing, they'll be more likely/willing to start shooting everyone in sight (just to be safe) if they feel things are going wrong.

Not to mention, a lot of gun deaths aren't just due to hardened criminals --- they're from negligent "law abiding" citizens who've been convinced they need a loaded gun under every pillow to keep the bad guys out. Then, a domestic dispute turns into a gun murder; or their kid's playmate finds a cool "toy" in the dresser drawer, or an over-zealous petty authoritarian goon "protects" his neighborhood from "suspicious" people with the wrong skin color; or, cops gun down a civilian reaching for their ID because they've been trained to assume everyone else has guns; or, a half-hearted suicide attempt by a depressed person (who would have survived and gotten help in most other cases) is made point-and-click easy.

Indeed, new regulations that leave the same current number of handguns floating around as before won't particularly decrease the deaths caused by those guns (though they will prevent increasing risk by introducing even more guns). You'll also want policies that reduce the number of cheap, easy-to-get guns floating around in the first place --- by mandating better stewardship practices by gun owners (firearm safes, trigger locks, restrictions on private transfers, etc.), by restricting access to ammunition, and by (voluntary) disarmament and destruction of weapons.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[SolitaryMan]

So... what exactly do you propose?

More education? Sounds great! Now, how do we implement that?

Idiots (who are the biggest problem) won't bother taking any sorts of classes (already freely available BTW). Once you make it a requirement though, you'll have full NRA's wrath upon you, because its "gun control".

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Buelldozer]

I get so tired of seeing this crap repeated as truism. The gun manufacturers don't "own the NRA". The NRA's 2.4 *MILLION* members do.

The reason further gun control has such trouble passing is that a majority of the people in our Republic don't _wan't_ it. Even Bloomberg and the millions upon millions he's spent can't sway public opinion enough.

If you were to combine all the members of every anti-gun group in the United States it still wouldn't be as high as the NRA, it's not even close.

Fun fact, you realize that Bloomberg spent more money trying to influence "gun control" in the United States last year than the entire gun lobby gave to the NRA?

Are you going to bitch him and his gun control agenda because he's spending millions and millions on it or is that cool because you happen to agree with his message?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Common Joe]

Most gun illiterate people don't know they're gun illiterate - they think they know all they need to from watching TV

That's why I recommend any John Woo film. The film goes in slow motion so you can learn everything you need to know about handling fire arms and safety. You can even watch from multiple angles.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[kimvette]

The second amendment guarantees that we never lose the first, fourth, and fifth amendments.

When I am settled in after I finish moving to NH, I'm buying an AR-10 - and yes I am actually going to use it for hunting. I have never gone hunting but I love venison, so. . .

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[interval1066]

Guns can be removed from a society. Ask Australia.

Ok, noted, but I would point out that while not a homogenious society like Japan or Iceland, it is like those two other countries remote enough to make it a bit more homogenized in its politics, at least more than the US. And you can't just "discount" those politics, guns aren't going to be outlawed by decree, its not going to happen. Again bringing us back to the reality that "guns are here". There also, it seems to me, is a prevalance of citizens trusting their government that doesn't exist here. People here, especially the under 50 crowd, by and large do not trust the federal or even the state government, wheres people in Europe and other Anglo countries appear to be more accepting of a large government. And you have to be pretty trusting to listen to a government that tells you to give up your guns.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Minor corrections:

'Laying a hand on someone' is battery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(tort)

Causing a person to think you're going to harm them is assault: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_(tort)

Physical contact is distinguishing feature between these two torts.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[interval1066]

But a sword problem is less deadly than a gun problem...

Good, then police should be happy to use swords in their work, right? Oh, no, that's a rediculous notion. Cops will keep their guns, and we'll encourage ordinary citizens to limit their violence tools to guns. Is that how it should work?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[interval1066]

to swords. Shit, sorry.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[N0Man74]

...That means you get accidental deaths. And that also means that when we fail at the people end of things the damage is that much more catastrophic.

And this is less true of an SUV than it is of a gun?

If you ask me, I think it's a bit of madness that in such a short slice of human history we've made it completely mundane for people with only minimal qualifications and training to drive around large masses of metal at high speeds... and we even let kids who are considered not mature enough to vote, drink alcohol, or consent to intimate relationships to do so.

I think driving (at least the vehicles we currently commonly have on the road) should be a lot more restricted than it is...

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

... the idea of using a gun for violence is unthinkable ...

Which movie teaches Americans that? Hollywood teaches us that gun violence is justified. Television teaches us that a badge excuses gun violence.

... gun as a source of power over other people ...

An earlier post points out the lack of harm caused by their firearms. But guns were built to kill people. It is the only purpose of hand-guns. The power of life or death is real.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Bobb Sledd]

I'm willing to bet you don't even know what an assault rifle is. Further, I'm also willing to bet that you're going to go look it up now and quickly realize the likelihood of being killed by someone with an assault rifle (unless you're an active criminal) is far smaller than with any other normal non-automatic weapon. Why the focus on an assault rifle? Or did you really just mean to say "any threatening-looking style of fire-arm"?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm happy with my PPS, too, but this part of your story bothers me:

That's when one of the men pulled out his revolver and shots went down range. Didn't hit the mugger, but the mugger didn't stick around either.

This old man did not practice effective gun control. He either needs to practice more or stop carrying. All of those unaccounted for bullets had the chance to end their trajectory in an innocent bystander. On top of that, by not actually hitting his target he had the chance to be shot dead by the mugger (if he hadn't run). We really need fewer people like this carrying. If you are going to carry, it's not optional that you train regularly and maintain competence. Your life and the life of others depend on it.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Tweezak]

I firmly believe that if you are carrying a weapon you have a responsibility to NOT escalate a situation if you can help it. If you can walk away and drop it, then do it. If you just throw fuel on the fire and make it worse and end up shooting the other person then expect to be reamed in court.

I guess the bottom line for me is that a gun should never be used in anger. Defense, yes...anger, no. It's a way to save your life, not settle an argument.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[ganjadude]

if you hit me first, and i "feel my life is in danger" i sure as hell can shoot you" end of story

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Dins]

it's funny how stats can clearly show anything when you don't present any evidence or quote any source.

Yep. In fact they say that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[drakaan]

Ok, that's all well and good (and for that matter, I think people should have to take a safety and competency course before being able to purchase a firearm legally), but we're talking about people intentionally using things to bring about deaths, not just whether there's a potential for danger.

What's the least dangerous man-made item that can be used to kill someone that should *not* be restricted? How do you draw the line? Why focus on the objects and not the general fitness of people operating or wielding a given type of item regardless of any discussion about objects designed as weapons specifically?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[psithurism]

the vast majority of gun owners that make the decision to carry a firearm (legally) are responsible people

Absolutely agreed, but you have to admit that there is a tiny minority who are scary as hell. And of course, many of those that make the decision to carry a firearm illegally are not responsible.

I live in a small town with immense natural beauty, but sometimes the public lands and meth dealers occupy the same locations and it's only through word of mouth, or a careful perusal of old news clippings that you learn: don't hang out at this public attraction, people get shot, don't be here if you are this race, don't go down there, it has a long history of pit-bull attics.

I don't know about this particular geo-tagging application, but something similar would be very exciting to me.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Skynyrd]

Yes, keeping them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens (which are very difficult to tell from the hands of law-breaking citizens, especially when you try to prevent background checks and waiting periods)

Yes, but we do have background checks and waiting periods.

When you can pick up guns and ammo cheap at Wal*Mart, instead of paying inflated black-market prices, then more folks in precarious enough financial situations to consider knocking over a liquor store can get them.

There is no such thing as cheap ammo any more. It's about a $1 a shot, except for .22, which doesn't mean much if you're robbing a liquor store, but is expensive for recreational shooters. Wal*Mart does not sell handguns (although there are rumored exceptions in places like Alaska) - the vast majority of killings by gun in the US are handguns. Killing by rifle and shotgun is about 350 people per year in the US.

Using WalMart as an example is a bad idea if you fact check.

When there's little or no risk or penalty associated with owning/carrying a gun while not in the middle of committing a crime, criminals can breathe easy while carrying a gun and scouting out their next target.

As a convicted felon, it's difficult to legally carry a gun in the US. In most cities, it's against the law to carry a loaded gun, unless you have a CCW - which includes a serious background check and training. Your logic isn't great here.

When the criminals have to assume that everyone else around them might be packing, they'll be more likely/willing to start shooting everyone in sight (just to be safe) if they feel things are going wrong.

This would explain why cities like SF, NY, Baltimore, DC and other places with very restrictive firearm laws and no CCW (unless you're a VIP) have lower crime than places with more lax gun laws? Oh, wait, that isn't the case.

Not to mention, a lot of gun deaths aren't just due to hardened criminals --- they're from negligent "law abiding" citizens who've been convinced they need a loaded gun under every pillow to keep the bad guys out. Then, a domestic dispute turns into a gun murder; or their kid's playmate finds a cool "toy" in the dresser drawer, or an over-zealous petty authoritarian goon "protects" his neighborhood from "suspicious" people with the wrong skin color; or, cops gun down a civilian reaching for their ID because they've been trained to assume everyone else has guns; or, a half-hearted suicide attempt by a depressed person (who would have survived and gotten help in most other cases) is made point-and-click easy.

Indeed, new regulations that leave the same current number of handguns floating around as before won't particularly decrease the deaths caused by those guns (though they will prevent increasing risk by introducing even more guns). You'll also want policies that reduce the number of cheap, easy-to-get guns floating around in the first place --- by mandating better stewardship practices by gun owners (firearm safes, trigger locks, restrictions on private transfers, etc.), by restricting access to ammunition, and by (voluntary) disarmament and destruction of weapons.

You have some valid point, and some anger issues.
1) Kids and guns.
I agree that too many kids get hurt with guns. Parents should teach their kids what to do when they find dangerous items, like guns. Do you remember when the NRA tried to introduce "gun curriculum" to public schools? The left went completely bonkers and claimed the NRA was trying to indoctrinate kids to be pro gun (just like the right goes bonkers and claims that Bert & Ernie are trying to indoctrinate kids to be gay). The program the NRA put together is for small kids and has 4 steps - Stop, Don't touch, Leave the area, Tell and adult. It became so politicized that many schools are afraid to use it, even though it could save lives. The left is ju

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. The ability to defend one's life, and the life of one's family and friends isn't a redeeming purpose? Or is it not legitimate?

So all these people we have carrying firearms are just innately dangerous to everyone around them, because there is no legitimate or redeeming purpose for the existence of a firearm?

Glad to know you think we're still British subjects, and that the cops are all evil bastards.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Better get those knives out of your kitchen. And don't let your kid play baseball, or hockey. And make *dang* sure he never interfaces with anything that isn't padded at least 4" thick.

Note that police officers are often *less* trained than your typical individual with a concealed carry permit. Many fire their gun just once or twice a year (for about a total of 50 - 100 rounds a year) when they do their required qualifications. Other than that, the gun sits in its holster or a safe. (I was surprised to learn that, too. From three different cops, no less. The one who first encouraged me to get my CCW, and the two who taught the class, one retired, one active.)

That's atypical of the average citizen who carries a weapon. That disparity is probably due to the fact that, when a firearm is used, a police officer is assumed to be in the right until proven otherwise, while non-police are assumed to be in the wrong until proven otherwise. That's not how it *should* be, but that's how it *is*.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[SolitaryMan]

The reason further gun control has such trouble passing is that a majority of the people in our Republic don't _wan't_ it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the statistics *don't* back that up. When people are attacked, the death rate between knife and gun is pretty similar.

On the other hand, when people are *defending* themselves from attacks, the death rate between those victims equipped with knives is significantly *higher* than the death rate of those victims equipped with guns.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Take a look at your typical 'cop show', or any other show where firearms are used by the *heroes*. Watch how quickly and easily their fingers go onto the trigger *all the freaking time*. Nobody who knows *anything* about gun safety would have their finger on the trigger in better than 90% of the instances shown on TV.

If you're not *actively* planning to shoot someone or something, your trigger finger stays up on the frame of the gun *away* from the trigger.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Tyndmyr]

How so? Did we not just have another mass stabbing in china? Twenty dead or some such? Drunken brawls are not safe. Promoting tolerance of such behavior is deeply irresponsible. Unlike how the movies portray the world, there really is no safe level of punching people in the head. Alcohol kills a LOT of people directly, and manages to ruin a lot more lives. We tried banning it, but it worked out pretty poorly. People still died, lives still got ruined. Jumping from identifying a problem to an attempted banning entirely skips the whole decision making process. How many alternatives were there to save lives from alcohol that never saw the light of day due to the fixation on prohibition? How many more reasonable ways to stop violence today? I submit that the focus on a single solution points to a solution in search of justification, not a genuine attempt at solving a problem.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Swordsmanus]

He probably meant "assault rifles", as from 1998-2011, there were consistently fewer homicides by rifle (of any kind) than blunt instruments or no weapons at all; in most years fewer than both combined [1] [2] [3] [4].

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Tyndmyr]

Good luck if you live in Detroit. They've just announced that their average response time for top priority 9-11 calls is....58 minutes.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[G00F]

I completely agree. The vast majority of people who decide to carry legally are more even headed and are involved in a lot less crime than those who don't. See the book "More guns, Less crime" for data, it also shows pretty good correlation that more guns means less crime and safer streets.

Because we are the type of person who want to be prepared for bad things, we are also the type to avoid bad things. Getting into a shoving match is the result of more than one bad choice.

Nearly half of the conceal class I took was more or less teaching how screwed you are in shooting someone, even if self defense.(see Zimmerman)

However, leaving or running away isn't always an option, when you have family who depend on you to keep them safe.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Tyndmyr]

I somehow doubt that random people using an app are going to check over your history at length before tagging you one way or the other. It's like expecting an erudite review from a youtube comment. Sure, it's possible in theory, but in practice, people on the internet who don't need to confront you can easily be assholes.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Tyndmyr]

And if I swerve in my car, I can also kill someone in seconds. However, in practice, most of us don't really want to kill people on a whim.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Tyndmyr]

It's partly a media issue. I've appeared in media pieces regarding firearms a dozen times or so, and I've yet to see a single mention of any safety precautions make it through editing. I did, however, have to veto at least two terminally unsafe proposals from media folks. One wanted a firearm pointed right at him for a more dramatic shot. Another wanted to borrow a firearm to take it through airport security as a demonstration. Obviously, such attitudes are doing little to promote an awareness of proper firearm safety. The NRA, on the other hand, spends the majority of it's budget on it.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Swordsmanus]

Have you actually studied the phenomenon at all? Law enforcement has. They found that in studying mass shootings in the past century, ~90% of mass shooters committed suicide when police arrived. The Newtown shooter did the same. These findings prompted law enforcement to change from sending in SWAT to sending in the nearest squad car over the past few years, and it's proved more effective at saving lives.

"Uh, could I possibly be shot back at?" really does factor in for the overwhelming majority of these killers.

Re: 1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[LF11]

I am sure all that empathy must have reduced the death toll at Sandy Hook.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

thats why slashdot is covering it and no one else is. Gotta send that kid to private school.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[femtobyte]

Oooh, a country with a billion person population had a rare 20-casualty event, that made world news because it was so uncommon. That's, like, 6 hours worth of gun deaths in the US?

Yes, drunken brawls are bad, and I agree there's no reason to accept and promote such violent behavior. However, adding ubiquitous guns to the situation only makes things worse.

Alcohol prohibition was deadly because people *really* like alcohol, and will do a lot to get buzzed. Gun ownership, however? Not so much --- a lot of people in the world are perfectly happy living in democratically determined gun-restricted areas. Given that the big motivators for gun ownership are living under fear and paranoia that you've gotta constantly be ready to kill or be killed, it's not something that people who've experienced less violent (and unequal) societies especially want.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Swordsmanus]

If this really plays out as you assert, then you should be able to use the Texas CHL statistics to back it up. Kindly pull up their conviction raw numbers and rates from 1996-2011, then take their active licensee and instructor counts from the same time period, and derive their murder rate per 100,000 population. Now compare that murder rate per 100,000 population with the FBI's pre-calculated rates for Texas and the US as a whole, and any other states you wish. Which population group has the lowest murder rate, and by how much?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting the shit beat out of you is not grounds for shooting them. He murdered the kid, plain and simple.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[DexterIsADog]

I'm well aware of the different stats for long rifles, including the dreaded assault rifle, as opposed to handguns. If he meant "assault rifles" he should have said so, but what he actually posted was demonstrably untrue, and probably contributed to ongoing ignorance.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[DexterIsADog]

I acknowledge the facts in your post are true, and I agree with your conclusion about unintended consequences. But he posted that more murders are committed with baseball bats than "guns". What he posted is untrue, so let's encourage him to say what he means, and not spread disinformation, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[CrimsonAvenger]

You were shouting in my face so I pushed you, you pushed me so I hit you, you hit me so I shot you. All self defence?

Nope. The only self-defense in your example is the other guy's actions - YOU started the violence, then ended it with a gunshot.

Murder. Jury probably wouldn't deliberate half an hour...

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[G00F]

Maybe you have a chance to man handle a 6'2" 250lb man who's spent 5 of the last 10 years in jail working out, but my wife will use a gun to keep her and kids safe.

You say that there are situations where other self defense should be used rather than a gun, implying that some other thing can stop them, and that you would get other chances. If your or ones you care about are under serious physical threat, then you do what you have to. The best way is to avoid situations like the yelling matches (please see "More Guns, Less Crime" for data on people who CCW are involved with less crime). But when they don't give you a choice, I hope you got a good plan B on your hip.

My wife vs the above man has a better chance when they are both armed, than both not. (50% both armed Guns are the great equalizer. Oh and my wife is a better shot than I am.

I care not about the attacker when it comes to keeping my wife and kids safe. Male/female, 16 or 46, the outcome of the attacker is forfeit. Only after I insure safety of mine, will I consider the safety of the bad guy.

The right to bear arms is the right to carry. Now please stop turning us into victims.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[CrimsonAvenger]

if you hit me first, and i "feel my life is in danger" i sure as hell can shoot you" end of story

Of course, in the example, the guy who hit first was the guy who ended up doing the shooting. In fact he escalated the violence three times (shove, hit, shoot).

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[RandomFactor]

Flaw - The list isn't a "stay away from here" list, it is a "break in and steal the easily portable high-resale value items" list.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[anthmichcara]

You are ignoring the fact that gun violence rates have been decreasing over the past 20 years. You also seem to want to use the object as a cause of the violence rates. If guns were removed from our society, under the current conditions, I am sure you would find that the sword problem would be just as deadly. When societies have no respect for one another or even for life itself, then it does not matter what weapon is used. A person bent on death and destruction will find any means to fulfill their wishes. Instead of prosecuting the object, try to figure out the causes of the violence and a way to prevent it before it starts.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[bickerdyke]

Yes. That's what I meant.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[anthmichcara]

The actual statistic that people state is that more people are killed by fists, hands feet, blunt objects, knives, etc. than by RIFLES. Also, when talking about people killed by firearms, you should separate out how many were justifiable homicides, suicides, accidents, and murder. These additional statistics matter.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[bickerdyke]

Whatever. Gun control could keep that angry guy with the baseball bat from becoming the angryguy with the whatfuckingever other type of gun is responsible for the other 97% of gun crimes.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[SnarfQuest]

You were shouting in my face so I pushed you, you pushed me so I hit you, you hit me so I ran over you with my prius

I see you would also like to ban hybrids too. More people are killed by cars every day, than are killed by guns every year. Shouldn't we eliminate the bigger killers first?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[anthmichcara]

I would like you to keep that same mindset if you, or your family was ever placed in a life threatening situation. If a man was holding a knife to your child's throat, what non-lethal method of self-defense would you use to protect your child? How would your method prevent that man from practically decapitating your child? Would you rather, in this instance, put that man in a grave or bury your child? People face these types of situations. Did you see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGXlHGWnZGQ ? Now, in this situation, if that man started attacking this child, how would that woman protect that child? You assume that all self-defense situations are equal.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[anthmichcara]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0bd7TYGPac - better link to the video I posted above.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Swordsmanus]

Blargh, meant that rifles + shotguns combined was less than blunt instruments or no weapons in most years. Oh well.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Now now. You counter his statement with an appeal to authority. That is a logical fallacy. I, being ex-military and raised in the rural South, have just as much experience with firearms as you claim to have and I know what a gun is for. It is to destroy things. So now there are 2 authorities claiming opposing views so absolutely nothing has been "proven." That is why it is a fallacy.

When using the target shooting excuse, (which btw has been a victim of rebranding cause it used to be called target 'practice') you know it, I know it, and everyone else knows that you are practicing in the highly unlikely event that you will indeed have to use the weapon for it's intended purpose- to destroy something. You may have gone your entire life so far without firing it as intended, and you may never have to, but all these years of just popping holes in targets has made you pretty good at it (I hope). When you go around telling everyone that you're just plinking cans, we all say in our heads that this is one of those nutjobs who's waiting for the next apocalypse/tyranny/alien invasion, but we just smile and nod at you and get the fuck out of your vicinity (which may be your intent). People who spend hours of recreational time practicing to destroy things, to me, are stuck in some kind of boyhood fantasy where you are gonna be the big hero and save the day. Hey, it's your free time so waste it how you want but don't get pissed at the rest of us for treating you differently because of it. We can smell your bullshit so you just keep telling us you enjoy punching holes in paper which is already dead so can't be killed thus negating the claim that it is only used to kill things. You know that is just a semantics games. Go ahead and tell me again what the purpose of a weapon is? Take your time, make sure you get all your definitions correct, irradicate the logical fallacies, and try again. I'm an AC with mod points- You feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Swordsmanus]

Then why didn't you point out the most likely cause of his mistake in the first place? It would have both saved face for him and further informed any onlookers.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[anthmichcara]

There are a few issues I have with your methods. First and foremost, where are normal citizens going to buy flashbangs? Also, in a close quarters situation, flashbangs work both ways. In wide open spaces, flashbangs lose their effectiveness. I also assume that if you, as a regular citizen, deploy a flashbang, you will most likely end up in handcuffs. Flashbangs are categorized as a destructive device that is for Military and Police use only. Not only would you be subject local prosecution, you could possibly fall under federal jurisdiction. As far as "dislocating someone's arm (for minor agression)" as well as paralyzing someone, or even rendering them comatose, you are asking for a major lawsuit, that you most likely will lose. And, in the case of minor aggression, dislocating someone's arm will most likely get you locked up as well. Maiming someone with a firearm can also backfire as well. Your statements also assume that you will have the physical ability to do all of those things. Are you some sort of Ninja? Do you think that self-defense situations in real life are like those portrayed in movies? Tell me how much of that you will be able to accomplish if I sneak up behind you and hit you with a crowbar? How is a small women supposed to render a large attacker comatose? What if there are multiple attackers? I do not condone the immediate discharge of a firearm for all self-defense situations, although there are situations where that is necessary. There are many instances of self-defense with a firearm, where that weapon was not even fired. You see, most criminals do not want to deal with an armed victim. They would rather prey on the weak and defenseless. And honestly, the best self-defense method is not to place yourself in a situation in which you may need to defend yourself.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[crakbone]

Quoting Wikipedia: "The most commonly infected terrestrial animals in the U.S.A. are raccoons, skunks, foxes, and coyotes. Any bites by such wild animals must be considered a possible exposure to the rabies virus."

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is because while number of guns owned has gone up, the number of people who own guns has gone down.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

But if all the parents do not own guns, what would rooting through bedroom drawers do?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

You are claiming he is ignorant to strengthen your arguing position but you know he is not. For safety at the range, yes they do preach not to point it at anyone. This is obviously because no one there is a bad guy, no one is self defending, so no one needs to get shot. But what you have failed to mention to the readers here that may not have ever attended the safety or CC courses is that this is just the disclaimer at the beginning of class. What do the instructors say after that? They tell you exactly when you SHOULD point it at someone. So one minute they say don't point it at anyone but then follow that up with unless this, this, and this occurs. It's ok, there are reasons for this and I agree, but you can't just go around claiming we are all ignorant when we can see everytime you say "we're just recreationally shooting" and then winking and nudging each other while chuckling. We know what you are doing. You are practicing to use a tool(the gun) for it's intended purpose (to destroy something). You may never have to destroy anything more valuable than a tin can but if the time should arise, you could. The only problem is that while you guys are waiting for the right time to use it, you get bored or too emotional, and just decide to say fuck it and pick the wrong time. Gun proponents like yourself are gonna have to deal with all the assholes, low lifes, idiots, and whatnot cause they are making you all look bad no matter how responsible of an owner you personally may be. I don't know how safe someone named Anonymouse Psychopath could really be but it's just a name on the internet right? RIGHT?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[JeffAtl]

But you would also have the problem of your house being targeted when you're not home since firearms are pretty valuable. That's why most gun owners don't want their addresses published.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter how responsible you are. It's all your immature and ignorant cohorts who believe that the gun is in fact a power imbuing device that is an extention of thier cock and they will use it to get what they want. Those folks are not gonna take your safety courses, not join your shooting clubs, and generally don't give 2 fucks about others in general. Yet their actions make the rest of you guys look bad and they know that you guys will take the fall when the legislation comes. They have a big ol Desert Eagle sized cock that can remove you from existence whenever they deem it so, and no stupid law is gonna stop that. You weren't wrong about education being the big thing. Education would solve damned near every problem we have. The age old problem is though, that some people just don't fucking want to learn what you have to teach. That is what we as a society have to overcome.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Em Adespoton]

Amazingly, it is legal to carry and use a firearm in many places where some of my examples above would be illegal for the common person to use. I really wonder how the "right to bear arms" became the "right to carry a gun" -- it's not really that guns should be outlawed, but that they're just so inappropriate for so many situations, but people (on both sides of the fence) have come to place inappropriate expectations on what they can accomplish.

Sounds like you pretty much agree with me, but didn't read my entire post before hit hit reply :)

As for your last sentence... that is truly the best advice, where possible.

I'd just rather live in a world where an attacker wouldn't be thinking "does she/doesn't she have a gun" but instead has to wonder "is she/isn't she armed?" or even better, doesn't even wonder, because the attacker considers attacking too risky/inappropriate by default.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting the shit beat out of you is not grounds for shooting them.

actually it is.

but hey, you're a lawyer right? lol.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Nimey]

I first read that as "pirate school".

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward here:

femtobyte is right on the money...anyone that thinks there is anything equivocal between a gun and a sword needs to go back and take a Freshman Logic class. The efficiency of guns to do harm is so far beyond a sword (not to mention a rock, or whatever) that anyone making this claim sounds silly...if all these kinds of weapons were "equal", then how come Army dudes don't carry around swords any more in battle?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is - in any reasonable society, that's an extremely rare scenario. I've lived more than 40 years, including some 7-8 in deprived city areas, and I've never yet been in a situation where I wished anyone present (myself included) had a gun.

To treat such scenarios as "normal" or "expected" - suggests that there are deep problems, which may be addressable as issues in their own right.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[interval1066]

"knives"

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to let him know how you feel...

Brett O Stalbaum

Home (619) 443-0097

1016 Stage Coach Trl

Julian, CA 92036-9317

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you got time to try and defend your target shooting, which failed miserably I believe cause it was a nitpick argument and everyone again sees what you're up to, but you couldn't come up with a good retort to my AC response below. There is but one use for a weapon. There is only one thing it is designed to do- destroy stuff which in your case is paper. I told you to take your time. As evidenced here, shooting from the hip is not your forte. I'm still waiting....

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

And we regulate the hell out of those, at least in my part of the country. You sir are insightful.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you carry one in a holster, you can literally pull out the gun and kill someone in seconds..

Welcome to freedom. It always comes with a little disclaimer: "you are solely responsible for your actions."

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Wave your hands some more, try to play the nitpicky semantics game, but you are still wrong. The only purpose of a weapon is to destroy things. Even when you claim it is to protect others, by which I am guessing you mean that they will be deterred and no one gets shot, ask yourself why would they be deterred? Oh yeah, that's right, because the attacker knows that that weapon can destroy them. What was its purpose again? Officers don't intend to shoot anyone? That is laughable! What do you guys always say? If you pull your weapon from it's holster and point it, then you must be ready to destroy it. So if a cops pulls his gun, he is intending on using it, but perhaps the situation will cool off and it doesn't come to that. He was still gonna kill you. This is right up the same alley as when they say that they "just wanna talk." Thier actions scream louder than thier words.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

First physical contact shows intent and will. As soon as you push me I'll end you.

I'd plant 3 rounds of 180 grain SXT into you so fast it would be unreal (yes, I'm prior military, and yes, I still train).

My story would be the only one told.

Liberals complain about asymmetric response, yet never complain about taking responsibility for their own goddamned actions.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

And I will say it again: The only purpose for a weapon is to destroy things. The only purpose for armor is to keep you from getting destroyed. Swords, crossbows, and many other non-firearms are highly regulated as to where you can carry them and what you can do with them. Go ahead, walk into court with any of those items you listed and see what happens. The guys re-enacting medieval times often have something different, what is that....oh a COSTUME. Go to many of those re-enactments and check out their gear. It wouldn't stand up to any fight involving anything tougher than a broomstick. You certainly will not claim that airsoft guns, paintball gun^H^H^H markers, or cap guns are actually firearms would you? You know the difference. Costumes are not armor or weapons either. You know the difference. Also just because you know how to handle your shit OBVIOUSLY doesn't mean your fellow gun owners do. As usual, the jackasses are fucking it up for everyone and now no one gets to have any fun. You should bitch at your buddies, not the rest of us who would like to not get shot.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey I noticed you ignored my AC post below and went after this guy I guess because he was an easy target and you couldn't shoot any holes in my bulletproof argument. I'm gonna drop this here because I come armed to my fights (did I prove you guys right? who knows!). I guess the only way to stop a stupid guy is with a smart guy. Myth #6 in particular do equate it to a penis problem: Over 50% higher use of guns by thier owners to escalate a problem. Sounds like some machismo to me. You should also find Myth 5 & 7 to be insightful.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Flere Imsaho]

"Just kill the one with the sword first."

"Ah," Reagan says, raising his waxed and penciled eyebrows, and cocking his pompadour in Shaftoe's direction. "Smarrrt--you target them because they're the officers, right?"

"No, fuckhead!" Shaftoe yells. "You kill 'em because they've got fucking swords! You ever had anyone running at you waving a fucking sword?”

  Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Another point to consider is, even if you aren't a Gun Owner, you may STILL end up on this list. It is not curated, reviewed, or under any editorial control or review. In fact, tell us your address, and you WILL be on the list.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[philip.paradis]

Since you keep making sweeping and ridiculous statements, you should probably cite case law to support your position. The problem here is simply that you are the one who doesn't give a damn what the actual law is in any given jurisdiction, and this actually varies substantially across the United States. Go ahead and cite your sources, and I'll gladly reply with plenty of cases where self defense using a gun against an unarmed assailant was considered justified. In short, you're trying to convince others that your fantasy world is reality. Grow up.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[blindseer]

Background checks to buy a gun and really any gun control law is now irrelevant when a person can now buy a machine that can print out a gun. Unless you want to see background checks on 3D printers then gun control cannot work.

That's assuming "cheap and easy-to-get" firearms are limited to mass production and 3D printers. There's videos floating around the internet of people making machine guns from scrap metal and hand tools. Gun laws are unenforceable. I suppose you could try but that would mean surprise inspections in your home from government agents to make sure you don't a weapon without first obtaining the proper permission from the government.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[shutdown -p now]

My first thought was "I better tag my house" because even though I don't actually have a gun, I would like any potential thieves to think I do.

You really don't. Knowing that you're armed would reduce the risk of being robbed in your house, yes, but it would also increase the risk of being burgled. Firearms are expensive enough per ounce of weight to make them very lucrative targets.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[shutdown -p now]

Trying to dislocate an arm of an attacker - who is likely to be physically stronger and/or bigger than you - is a fairly risky proposition. It requires one both to be in a good physical shape, and to be trained to do this kind of thing. Handguns, in contrast, are accessible to pretty much anyone regardless of their physique, require minimal training to be effectively used in close range self-defense, and are highly efficient in the intended goal (incapacitate the attacker) in most use cases.

So, why wouldn't you use a handgun in self-defense (to remind, we're talking about an actual assault here, not "someone shoved me"). In demanding other people to do so, you're effectively asking them to take on higher risk - significantly higher for most - for the sake of less harm to a person who just tried to inflict grievous harm on them. The only possible ethical rationalization for such a thing that I can think of is a religious belief in absolute, unconditional sanctity of human life, but I think it's reasonable to assume that most people don't share it.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[shutdown -p now]

One more aspect that I forgot to bring up: the nifty thing about guns is that they're often very efficient deescalation tools. A guy with a knife faced with a gun and a threat to shoot will likely retreat. The same guy threatened to have his arm dislocated will likely just laugh in your face. It's no coincidence that vast majority (IIRC, over 90%) of defensive gun use does not involve firing it.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[shutdown -p now]

Guns don't escalate violence, they escalate the capacity for violence. These two are not the same thing; quite often, when faced with a threat of escalated violence, a would-be attacker just backs off. MAD is an extreme example of that principle, but it applies elsewhere, as well.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Cenan]

Yes it does, but after the fact. The consideration that "I might die from this" does not stop the act.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Jane Q. Public]

"The point is not that the last category is alone in being able to cause death. It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose."

No, the point is that you're making straw-man arguments while pretending to be logical.

"It's that is it is the category of objects that makes it easy and efficient to cause death, while having no other redeeming legitimate purpose."

The problem with your argument is that these objects -- in the vast, vast majority of cases -- simply do not exist in the civilian populace.

AR-15? It is a most excellent hunting weapon for small-to-medium animals, and is actually legal in many states to use as a deer rifle. And it makes a VERY GOOD deer rifle. All that "assault weapon" bullshit is... well... bullshit.

So let's see... maybe you were referring to handguns? Ah, but wait... handguns are used to PREVENT violent crime, often simply by displaying the gun, or by wounding the would-be perpetrator, FAR MORE OFTEN than they are used to kill. (And even "far" is an understatement. Approximately 90% of gunshot victims in the U.S. survive, and that doesn't include the crimes that were stopped without a shot ever being fired.)

I'm so tired of hearing this "no legitimate purpose" nonsense. Because that's all it is. Nonsense. If you are in the U.S., your government's own crime statistics prove it. Maybe you should look them up.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[strikethree]

Guns escalate violence, so, e.g., a drunken brawl that would result in a black eye or two turns into a multiple homocide when guns are available. While addressing the underlying violence problem itself is fundamental, fixing the gun problem at least significantly ameliorates the symptoms of the underlying disease.

So nobody should be able to defend themselves in the name of preventing one person from being able to, more easily, kill many? I am not sure I understand your logic here. Okay fine, it is harder for one person to kill 50 people quickly. They will have to use bombs to do that now... but, now, nobody can defend themselves against someone who is physically bigger and stronger.

It seems to me that more people will suffer so that you can feel safer about being victimized in a mass shooting spree.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Jane Q. Public]

"Excessive attempts to excercise self-defense can easily escalate."

This is self-contradictory. If it's "excessive", then it's not self-defense. Pretty much by definition.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[mjwx]

...That means you get accidental deaths. And that also means that when we fail at the people end of things the damage is that much more catastrophic.

And this is less true of an SUV than it is of a gun? I don't think your distinction between items you categorize as "causes death only" and ones you categorize as "not built primarily for killing" is the most important one here.

Well actually it is. A cars primary purpose is transportation, a guns primary purpose is to kill. Just because a car can be used for killing does not make it a device designed to kill.

BTW, cars make pretty crappy killing devices, maiming yes, but in order to hit people you need to be slow enough to change direction as they do, in order to kill them, you need to be going fast. Also SUV is neither particularly fast (yep, 0-100 in 30 seconds) nor particularly manoeuvrable (20 metre turning circle) nor particularly well armoured (the same tin foil they make Yaris' out of) so a muscle car is a much better choice. To add to that, pedestrian malls tend to have a lot of things protruding out of the ground that stop cars.

But I digress, the purpose of the device cannot be removed because intent was also present, as the old saying goes "opportunity is 9/10 of the crime", not having an easy method to perform spree killings does reduce the number of people who perform them and yes, cars are not easy methods to perform single murders, let alone spree killings.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Cenan]

The key word about these situations is placed, they aren't designed to hold up under scrutiny, and gun supporters seem to forget this. They're designed to seed the desire to own a gun.
The video is a really poor example though, do you think that adding a gun would make any kind of difference there? At all? The woman seems quite unprepared, and I highly doubt she'd be any better off with a gun nearby, on the contrary, I assert that she and her daughter would be dead now, if there had been a gun in the house, especially if she attempted to use it. For a gun to improve that situation, she'd have to be sitting with it in her lap on the couch, waiting...

What bothers me in this debate is that common sense goes out the window at the first mention of gun control. Everyone seems to think that they're Lucky Luke and that encounters with a criminal will amount to a western style shootout. But unless you're the really paranoid crazy or a highly trained secret agent, the element of surprise is against you. You can imagine all sorts of scenarios, add a gun to it, and you can show that the situation gets worse by adding that gun, furthermore, most of those situations can be avoided by different means (lock the door?), or if you want to go all philosophical, creating a lower ROI on work than crime for the people who commit them, and the criminals will vanish. But there are strong interests in keeping you afraid of the mythical home invasion, or the kid held hostage situations. Interests that don't really care why crimes are committed or by whom, but only care about making you feel safer with a weapon around, because those interests also happen to profit from selling you that gun.

Crime isn't a mystical otherworldly being that nobody understands, the human mind is remarkably predictable, and faced with a choice, will always pick the optimal solution given the information available. Creating an environment where the optimal solution is not to hold up people on the street for petty cash will completely turn this upside down, but nobody cares - the answer is of course to add more guns, because guns kill criminals, and when they don't kill a criminal, it must be because someone mishandled it. It can't possibly be because the gun was there in the first place.

To add insult to injury, the debate also tends to completely ignore, that data from pretty much the rest of the world is telling us that owning/not-owning a gun has no correlation to crime statistics, no correlation to survivability of an incident. But there is a strong correlation between owning a gun and your own kid shooting her head off playing with it - or one of her friends. Or the horror scenario where she takes it to school, shoots a bunch of kids then kills herself when the cops show up.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to teach myself the skills to defend myself and others around me without carrying a device which could be taken and used against me. These skills are with me wherever I go and cannot be left behind, lost, or forgotten. The drawback is that I can't transfer them to someone nearby (though that person should also have gun training else you risk that person shooting you and themselves anyway). There's more options than having a gun or being killed.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[just_a_monkey]

In some places it can also expose you to stigma. Imagine not getting a job (and not being told why) because you're on one of these lists.

I am actually fine with that. People hiring should get to decide who they want to hire. If someone does not want to hire gun nuts (or any other category, real or imagined), he should be allowed not to. And if he doesn't want to say why, he shouldn't have to either.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[just_a_monkey]

Sure. It's both, of course. It is probably a good idea to lock items as dangerous and valuable as firearms in a safe or something similar at times when one cannot monitor them.

There is also the freedom of speech aspect to all this. We may not like it, it may be very inappropriate, it may be inconvenient or dangerous to many people, but the freedom of speech should not be abridged; private persons should be allowed to publish whatever they want. (This is the nutty libertarian view. I understand that very few people agree.)

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Disarming decent people only creates a world in which "might makes right" and violent thugs run things.

I'll keep my guns, and if you lay a hand on me, I'll kill you.

Re: 1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

The point you're glossing over is instigation. Who started it.

If you go out and start a fight with a random stranger, and that stranger kicks your ass... you don't suddenly gain the right to shoot the stranger.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that gun control exists in bars, right?

It is illegal to bring a gun into a bar, and you're proposing that we expand that to everywhere.

Since guns aren't able to "escalate violence, so, e. g., a drunken brawl that would result in a black eye or two turns into a multiple homocide" now, how exactly does making them illegal solve this problem?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fair_n_hite_451]

It's disgraceful that the general public is so eager to watch porn, but is so unwilling to actually teach sex education to it's youth.

FTFY

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[chihowa]

Yeah. I didn't see that until after I pressed submit and it has been bugging the crap out of be ever since then. I'm not quite sure how I even managed to type that. Grrr.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[drakaan]

Aim for a crowd and you mitigate most of those obvious deficiencies, but (again) that's not the point.

I understand that vehicles are not designed to kill people...that was a large part of my statement, along with an acknowledgment that the motivation of a gun owner or SUV owner is where the danger lies. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't give guns to our soldiers or law enforcement officers because of the obvious danger of the weapons they possess.

I stand by my earlier statement that your distinction between "designed to kill" and "not designed to kill" is not the most important one.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Swordsmanus]

I encourage you then to look into what percent of mass shootings have occurred in zones that are mandated as gun-free by law, and which have not, to see where the overwhelming majority lies.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It may actually shock you but I would suggest having mandatory firearm safety training for everyone, in school regardless if they individual ever want to get a firearm. This is what a number of states do for drivers education currently so why not do the same for firearm safety. This would probably also help to get some people over their irrational fear of firearms as well. There are a number of valid courses that would make effective training courses for the general population. The most intensive of which would be either BSA's rifle merit badge or BSA's shotgun merit badge, but even the standard firearm safety certification course or the various hunter education courses offered by some states. Personally I have been through 4 safety courses (rifle merit badge, shotgun merit badge, firearm safety, and the MN CCW permit) and the most detailed and in depth ones were the 2 boy scout merit badges. The least useful one from a safety and competency perspective was the MN CCW course but since I wanted to carry a loaded sidearm to protect against large predators (I have had close encounters with wolves, bear, and cougar) when walking to and from camp down the road I needed the carry permit. I was stalked by a wolf pack with one trying to drive my back into his friends, the bear I came across was trying to get into a hollow log with its ass hanging out, and the cougar walked under my deer stand like it owned the place. Those are the confirmed instances where I actually saw the animals but I have seen plenty of evidence for them like fresh bear prints, wolf print, and cougar prints (only recently) through out the area as well as seeing fresh bear claw marks on trees, and hearing the wolves at night just outside of camp (this is why we bring the dog)..

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Also how many stories do you see about someone safely using a firearm for something not illegal. I usually see one story a year in the local paper about it and it is always on the back of the sports section below the fold in a weekday edition about some phenomenal hunt someone did. Granted the only time you see news about vehicles is when they are involved in a crime but then most people see other people legally and relatively safely operating vehicles while the same isn't true with firearms. A good responsible hunter won't be noticed (except for the blaze orange) and once they are done hunting you would never have known they were there. This is most hunters but it only takes a few bad ones to get noticed like the ones who leave trash all over the woods, gut their deer on the trails, shoot a bunch of squirrels and birds when deer hunting, trespass, shoot signs, etc. I think what I hate most is that the media will say things like "the hunter was out poaching" which annoys me to no end since if they were out poaching they are a poacher not a hunter don't lump them in with me.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[crakbone]

And these personal skills will protect you from an upset bear or pack of coyotes or wolves how? As well how will they protect you from multiple attackers?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[EvilSS]

The GP also said mass shootings. Your link had 5 incidents, 6 deaths: Two homicides, three suicides, and one accident. In the other link, they were at a private range and they were the only people there. Even so, it was two homicides in that incident. Not what I would call a mass shooting.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality, by having a concealed carry permit and actually carrying a firearm for any legitimate purpose, one put themselves at far greater legal risk. In some state, simply showing the weapon, even by accident, becomes an actionable offense. So, anyone who is permitted to carry typically has training in how to handle themselves in confrontational situations and will only resort to drawing the weapon when they are truly in danger. Doing so otherwise would result in a felony charge in brandishing a weapon, at least in some states. Not even the police come under such strict rules.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Woodie]

since a mixture of diesel fuel and fertilizer is way the hell more dangerous than a gun could ever be.

Note that post Oklahoma City - large purchases of fertilizer and other unsophisticated bomb ingredients are, in fact tracked much more effectively than gun purchases.

We're currently entering a phase wherein the development of "big databases in the sky" (BDBS) are easier than ever. We've also entered a phase where contributing to the BDBS via portable hand-held electronics (smartphones) or wearables (Google Glass) is getting even easier. The crux of the problem here in the states revolves around issues of privacy (and the right thereto), bearing arms (and the right thereto), and free speech (...). Where does one right end and the other begin?

If it's private citizens participating in a BDBS - can your right to privacy said to have been violated? What about their right to free speech? And they have definitely not infringed on your right to bear arms (in the aforementioned case). If this were a government backed initiative - there would be problems galore, but it's not. Since you trotted out the straw man of the sex offenders - lets remember that's a government initiative, so that makes it different in means, if not the ends. One could certainly argue that such registries constitute cruel and unusual punishment (I'm not, but for the sake of argument). If we're afeared of sex offenders, why not have people convicted of DUI have a "scarlet letter" on their license plates?

I think we all see where this ends. If the government is engaged in this - it's automatically "bad". If private citizens build and offer such a service, is it automatically "bad"? In either case the ends are the same - there's now a publicly available database of information on you - which you don't have control over. How do you deal with misreported or erroneous data?

What about a Slashdot like system of moderation? Upmods and Downmods. Karma, etc.? Build a HUD into new cars, and you can autotag the dangerous drivers - and boom, up to the BDBS! Get cut-off, notice a speeder, or an erratic driver - and you could report it to the BDBS. That info would be available to your HUD, and automatically overlay onto the other drivers on the road in your field of view. You could steer clear, literally of bad drivers. But what to do about those who report everyone but themselves as bad drivers? Karma. The downside of this is we become our own surveillance state. The upside is that police could concentrate on real crime - you'd just get your tickets and auto insurance hikes in the mail.... enough of them and your drivers license gets auto-suspended.

The same sort of thing could be said about guns, and any number of other activities we engage in. I'm not sure that's a world I want to live in. But I'd also say a few reads of David Brin on privacy and how some aspects of how it's evolving might be food for thought regarding the privacy and/or transparency of things.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who the hell are you to decide when an action is grounds for the death penalty?"

Just to be crystal clear, are you saying that self-defense with a weapon is never appropriate?

Self defense does not equal right to kill. You can easily disable someone with a bullet, rather than kill.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what I was thinking although I do have many guns in the house.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Studies have shown that primitive societies have much higher murder rates than we do today. Most deaths in the surviving tribal societies are killings...

And the sword problem being less deadly is a bit of a strawman. The vast majority of gun killings are single person. Just like swords. Mass killing, despite their play in the media, are very rare and in most places done with explosives. The news media, for politics or racist, prefers to talk about places like Newton rather than Chicago. More people died this year in Chicago but they weren't rich white kids living near the NYC suburbs. Newton could of been done with a sword or an axe: someone tried it in China with a knife and was moderately successful.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the TSA just did again. After all, the stewardess unions and the US Air Marshall think we are all crazed killers, so its better to let people burn. They came close this time:
  http://www.thetruthaboutknives.com/2013/07/breaking-knife-story-asiana-passengers-almost-burned-to-death-waiting-for-box-cutters/

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Sword "problem" less deadly than "gun problem". Look at the modern crime statistics. Far more people are killed by "naked steel" than are killed by "hot lead". And even more are killed by blunt objects (ie "rocks"). Your insane hatred of guns blinds you to the fact that they are actually the least used weapons when it comes to violent crime.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[MiSaunaSnob]

ever stop to think most of the second degree murders are committed by people illegally carrying guns?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

>>"Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person"

>>Isn't that a bit like teaching someone they should never drive their car on or near a public road?

No, it's pretty much the second rule of gun safety. The rules come in various orders depending on who you learn them from, but if you are properly taught to use a gun you will learn some variation of these, the first rule is "Always treat a gun as if it is loaded."

Second, "Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot" - also known as "always point the gun in a safe direction"

Third - always know your target and what is beyond

Fourth - keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

I'm trying to figure out how this app would decide who was "unsafe" - in my state, we are just starting to have to register new purchases, but to buy a gun you have to already have passed a safety course. Neither bit of info is supposed to be released to the public, so how they could decide who in my state is a gun owner, let alone an "unsafe" one is a mystery to me.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote a phrase,
"An armed society is a polite society."

Why do you think southerners talk so softly (most of the time) ?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[cwsumner]

... In some places it can also expose you to stigma. Imagine not getting a job (and not being told why) because you're on one of these lists.

Imagine not getting a job becasuse someone lied and put you on that list, because they had a grudge against you about something else!
I don't see any way to check for that, so the list would get more and more garbage.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[cwsumner]

High schools used to teach safe gun handling and marksmanship, a long time ago. When the education establishment was first demonising gun ownership, some administrators were embarrised to find old shooting ranges in the school basements.
The current accident rate is at least partly due to the educational system's failure to teach children.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[cwsumner]

If the murder rate did not -Greatly Increase-, as was predicted, then the assertion is disproved.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[MichaelSprague]

AK47 + reasonable person != dangerous gun. AK47 + un-reasonable person = dangerous gun. The question is, does the unreasonable person need to be the gun owner in order to get the gun owner tagged? Usually, yes, but not necessarily. But I have a lot of faith in people, much of it misplaced. That said, this seems a reasonable response and defensible exercise of first amendment rights in the face of a constipated congress.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

and the possibility that you are assaulted to the point where you are incapacitated, then what?

This could happen faster than you may react, anywhere on your spectrum of extrication, then what?

fyi, I have a cc permit, I rarely use it. I'd never use it in public, I'm not prepared to whip out a gun in a violent confrontation (animal yes, person no). The type of people I encounter at the range or permitting class do not strike me, on average, as the types who could calmly react under pressure, understand when and how to apply the necessary type of force. There ARE some immature man-children. There ARE people holding serious grudges who profess a desire to escalate confrontation to force. There are far more who are simply incompetent gun owners. They don't train and the requirements to pass the cc test are a joke (in my state). And an even larger number who have zero experience in an escalated conflict. Yet you pretend that the"vast majority" of gun cc holders have all these skills and actively maintain them? That's fantasy thinking. No different than others who generalize about evil gun owners.

Should be 10x easier less training to get a CC permit than a drivers license? Seems kind of messed up to me.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[cwsumner]

"Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person"

Isn't that a bit like teaching someone they should never drive their car on or near a public road?

No, it's more like never drive your car at a person. As I was taught not to.
At that time it was considered funny, by some, to swerve your car at a person as a joke. A few accidents and it became less funny...

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

We are going to help him out by tagging every house or apartment in every city in the country. It will take time, but we can do it.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[kqs]

And yet, as the number of Concealed Carry license holders increased in recent decades, the murder rate has declined.

The murder rate has gone down both in places with high concealed-carry increases and in places where concealed-carry has not increased greatly. One possible conclusion is that guns have such magical anti-crime abilities that they reduce crime rates *hundreds of miles away*. Another possible conclusion is that the correlation between crime rates and concealed-carry rates is just that, a correlation whose causation breaks down when you look closely. Which do you think is true?

Australia put in heavy gun regulation some years ago. The murder rate went slightly higher for about two years after the regulations (about 5% growth), then dropped over 50% over the next decade. How that that fit in with the magical concealed-carry theory?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Police shouldn't be armed. I'd probably focus on avoiding situations, deescalating situations, and escaping violence.

The fact that you envision this "problem" of getting beaten to death reflects negatively on you.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to go back and look at the deadliest school event in history. It wasn't a shooting, it was a bombing and yes they had access to a gun. So the gun isn't the end all scary/deadly weapon available.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

am i right? When are these idiots going to just let me go about my business and practice my RPG at the range.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm creating my own GeoTagging app for Dangerous Guns and Gays.
And one for Dangerous Guns and Atheists.
And one for Dangerous Gays and Atheists!
If my apps can save one child from Guns, Gays, and Atheists then it will be worth it!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Cenan]

Ok, I have to call FUD on that.
The choice of venue is closely related to the motivation of the perp (well, d'uh right?), but that does not imply a causative link between choice of venue and whether or not the venue has stricter than normal gun control. In fact, if that was the case you would expect to see a lot more mass shootings in Europe than in the States, simply based on the much stricter weapon control policies in the former.

On the topic of motivation, just for you to have some actual research to look into, and to support my claim in the previous reply. The “Pseudocommando” Mass Murderer - from the abstract (emphasis mine):

The pseudocommando is a type of mass murderer who kills in public during the daytime, plans his offense well in advance, and comes prepared with a powerful arsenal of weapons. He has no escape planned and expects to be killed during the incident. Research suggests that the pseudocommando is driven by strong feelings of anger and resentment, flowing from beliefs about being persecuted or grossly mistreated. He views himself as carrying out a highly personal agenda of payback.

That is not to say that all mass shootings are motivated by forms of mental illness, far from it actually, but it does suggest that toting guns around won't actually solve any problems. The debate needs to separate belief from facts, because both sides are doing themselves and society a disservice by finding facts to support a given predetermined conclusion and rather than actually solving the problem.

Completely off topic note: why does the wiki entry for iPhone 5 show up fifth in Google's results, when the search term was "mass shootings ratio outside us". That both confuses and enlightens me greatly.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[athenaprime]

You were shouting in my face so I pushed you, you pushed me so I hit you, you hit me so I shot you. All self defence?

the problem is that this is normal behavior for anti-gun liberals, so they assume everyone acts like this. only irresponsible, immature man-children act like this.

Umm...way to generalize. "anti-gun" people and "liberals" are not the same, there are probably more armed "liberals" than your average Faux news host realizes, and fewer armed "conservatives" because rational people tend to make purchases of tools--even deadly ones--based on more significant needs for those tools than political affiliations. It's also neither "anti-gun" folk or "liberals" posting dumb pictures and videos of themselves being irresponsible, immature man-children with their firearms all over the internets and giving anti-gun people clear reason to fear for their safety.

i carry a gun every day. i don't shout in people's faces. if you were shouting in my face, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation. if you pushed me, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation. if you hit me, i'd attempt to extricate myself from the situation. if you continued assaulting me to the point where i felt i was in danger of serious harm or death, yes, i'd shoot you. and it'd be 100% self defense.

the vast majority of gun owners that make the decision to carry a firearm (legally) are responsible people and will take every possible measure to avoid escalating situations to violence because they know what it can lead to.

Regretfully, "vast majority" is fluid in its definition, given the police blotter reports of multitudes of accidents, mis-firings, and unnecessarily-escalated gun incidents that happen in the US every week. More regretfully, of those accidents and tragedies, there's another "vast majority" of the victims of those situations who are *not* gun owners, but just happened to be in the vicinity, and therefore in the line of fire.

As tempting as it would be to paint a target on anyone who points this out as an "anti-gun" person and believe that their next move is to show up with a posse to take all yer guns, it's no more true than believing every Christian's next move is to show up on your doorstep and take all yer ungodly things, or the RIAA to show up and take your stereo because you didn't pay them twice for listening to your music with both ears. The vast majority of people engaging in this ongoing conversation want understandable limits and regulations on the dangerous equipment, intended to minimize the accidents, the abuses, and the tragedies.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[MA179]

Even if the stat was correct, which I sincerely doubt, how would you like to be the 1 in 10000 that gets beat to death because they can't out run their attacker. I'm pretty sure some hopped-up drug addict could out run me. As for when it's appropriate to use deadly force, and that's the only kind there is with a gun, if I remember my training correctly (give me a break it was 25 years ago), minimum reaction distance, the distance required to properly draw aim and fire a handgun when an attacker is moving toward you, was 15ft. The instructor cited this as am FBI stat, but I never saw it in print. So if you're 15ft or less away and you are clearly a threat to my life or the lives of my family... well I'd rather face a jury than go to the funeral of a loved one. It's shameful that in today's world, because of the F-ed up system, I no longer feel I can step in and protect a stranger in the same manner. I guess if you (the hypothetical you) were clearly about to be stabbed by a knife wielding drug addict I'd just have to wait until he plunged the knife in before shooting him. As for the original topic, just wonderful (sarcasm). Picture this. I own a gun, an M1 Garand (a big scary Army gun..I mean "rifle"), my bleeding-heart neighbor doesn't like guns so he geotags my house, now every criminal out there that wants to steal a gun knows where to go, even though they really don't want a Garand. Just wonderful. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tagging anyone whose been convicted of a felony, violent, sexual, or otherwise (ya you white-collar criminals too). But this will just lead to more crime. On the other hand this would mean I can create an app to geotag everyone that someone thinks is 'scary'. And at $.99 per copy I bet it'll add up to some nice cash.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[athenaprime]

If only I had mod points - you hit the nail on the head. Lack of firearm safety EDUCATION is the biggest cause of accidental firearm deaths. Most gun illiterate people don't know they're gun illiterate - they think they know all they need to from watching TV (where some of the most egregious firearm-handling mistakes are taught to our youth).

It's disgraceful that the general public is so eager to watch (and let their kids watch) gun violence on TV, but is so unwilling to actually teach gun safety to it's youth.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if there were some sensible regulation, like, oh, say, mandatory classes taught by a licensed professional, followed by testing administered by a licensed representative, and the issuance of some sort of certificate confirming said classes and testing had been passed satisfactorily, and perhaps some insurance against the likelihood of misuse or accident...then maybe the accidental deaths might be reduced, the gunfail might plummet, and we wouldn't be burying so many small coffins. Just saying is all...

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[MA179]

Thank you, a reasonable person at last, my thoughts exactly. A friend of mine once told me "I can always tell when you're carrying", which was pretty much all the time unless a Bar, Beach, or Federal building was involved, because he said I was just a little bit quieter and reserved. I knew what my responsibility was and how far something could go. I take my right to carry a firearm very seriously. And I never mistake that right as somehow releasing me from my responsibility to the human race to treat others as I would have them treat me.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[noh8rz9]

this makes no sense. how can both guys act in self defense? "I was robbing this guy, and he took a swing at me, so in self defense I shot him."--criminal. "oh, ok"--florida. zimmerman provoked the incident and should be held responsible for the outcome.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said it's a death penalty? He's not shooting the guy as punishment. He's firing his gun to protect his own well being when he is legitimately threatened. You can let yourself be killed, or beaten until you have a severe stutter for the rest of your life, but that's your choice if you want to wait for batman to swoop in and save you.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[KapUSMC]

I thought the same thing. The single best use for app's like this would be for criminals to reduce threat when they are going after a house. I don't currently own a firearm, but I would tag myself on this app.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[JakeBurn]

My mature and reasonable response is go ahead and mark the entire state of Kentucky in the app. If that keeps people away who only believe criminals have guns, then we're better for it. We may have more than our fair share of issues of but we don't have muggings where I live. There are no murders, rapes or home invasions any where near where I live. We may only have 200,000 people within 100 miles but even at that, our crime stats are no where near what they are in places where people think owning a gun is wrong. We have only had one attempted car jacking and that was ten years ago. Guy pulled a gun and the grandmother driving the car shot the attacker point blank in the crotch. Problem solved.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I grew up with the same directive: "never point a gun, even a toy one, at another person or yourself."

End result, despite many years of hunting, target shooting, and firearm cleaning, no one in my family has ever been shot/shot anyone else. We respect a firearm as a tool to be used to put tasty meat on the table, and to have a little fun on occasion putting holes in paper.

Proper safety education is the key.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I am posting as Anonymous Coward because I 'm too lazy to sign up for this site. But first let me ask what the hell is the difference between the name you gave me (AC) and the one that is being used by other individuals on here? Aren't they all truly anonymous? But let's get to the purpose of this writing, I guess you have not heard that more people are killed by hammers each year than by guns. So why can I still buy a hammer? And you say that a sword is less deadly than a gun? You must not know much about the Samurai soldiers. Your argument about even a toddler can blow their head off, so could they hop into a car and drive off and kill someone. Is it the cars fault or the unreasonable expectation of parents being parents? The car would not have killed anyone if it wasn't for the person behind the wheel, as is the case with a gun. No gun has EVER shot itself, there was a person behind that gun. So let's go after the individual and not the gun itself. One last thing, you do understand that it is because of GUNS that you have the right to oppose someone owning a gun. Remember all those that have fought and died for this GREAT COUNTRY of OURS, and most of them used a gun!!!!! Waiting to see if they even post this!!!!!!!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[DexterIsADog]

Because I am not a mind reader, and not responsible for other people's mistakes, and certainly not responsible for saving face of people who write so carelessly. Hell, I'd probably get a sharp response for presumption if I claimed to know he meant something different than what he wrote. Again, he should have said what he meant, if he meant long guns. What he ACTUALLY wrote was overwhelmingly wrong, and adds to the FUD about the topic.

It boggles my mind that you can find any fault with me on this subject. I was more than reasonable. Oh, and also correct.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[DexterIsADog]

The actual statistic that the GGP stated was that more people are killed by "BASEBALL BATS" than "GUNS". So, try to keep up - I gave the link for the stats for HOMICIDES at 67.8% firearms, and 3.9% blunt objects.

It's the original poster you have a beef with, not me. He posted a vague and misleading generalization based on something he heard once, and I posted a link and the statistics that are based on real numbers, specifically for homicides. I love it that no one but me took the lazy poster to task for posting untruth, but seem to think I'm at fault somehow for posting truth.

Re: 1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[bobcote]

This will be great for helping burglars avoid people who might be able to kill them.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Swordsmanus]

It boggles my mind that you can find any fault with me on this subject.

Because I have a psychology and training background. You bemoaned ignorance, yet did an incomplete job of correcting it. Because of the way cognitive dissonance works, the person you corrected will be more likely to come off confused and offended, then spout off the same crap later, rather than understanding where and why he went wrong and changing his ways.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's like teaching 15-16 year olds that they should never drive their car directly toward pedestrians, or at least not accelerate. Teaching "never drive ... public road" would be equivalent to "put the gun in the safe and never take it out again."

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[DexterIsADog]

Okay, enough's enough. You're full of it "psychology and training background" dude. First off, it's not my JOB to "completely" correct people who spout ignorant "facts". In the second place, the link to the Snopes article that you didn't bother to click DOES break down homicides by handgun and other types of guns.

And I didn't bemoan; I upbraided the ignorant poster, while providing the correct information. Your 5 cent psychobabble is just your passive aggressive compensation for the fact your mother didn't breastfeed you enough, or breastfed you too long, or you saw daddy's willy at too young an age.

I provided a correction, and the actual facts; you provided nothing. Keep spouting nonsense about what you think you know, but I'm done.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Swordsmanus]

if that was the case you would expect to see a lot more mass shootings in Europe than in the States, simply based on the much stricter weapon control policies in the former.

The availability of means to gain an advantage in force (weapons, superior numbers, etc.) and environments of ensured disparate force interact, they don't exist separately in a vacuum. The history has borne this out time and time again in genocide, pogroms, lynchings, etc.

For posterity's sake, here's the full text of The Pseudocommando Mass Murderer: Part I, The Psychology of Revenge and Obliteration (PDF) in case you want to review it as I have.

just for you to have some actual research to look into

I really hope you're not implying the research I linked a few posts ago isn't actual research. It's proven very effective in saving lives, and doesn't face the severe conflicts of interest often found in academic papers, and sometimes entire journals on topics where agendas are involved. Whether it's the Joyce Foundation or the Cato Institute, the sources of funding can predetermine the conclusions and the quality of peer review, even to the point of misrepresenting sources cited. Law enforcement has no conflict of interest with finding real solutions on this topic as far as I can tell; quite the opposite.

The solutions mentioned in the Prevention section of The Pseudocommando Mass Murderer: Part II, The Language of Revenge (PDF) aren't exactly actionable in comparison.

That same section uses citation 38, which doesn't actually back up the claim it was cited for (source here). They had no issue citing the study on Australia's laws and the inferred changes, but with the US's ten times larger population sample they experience no cognitive dissonance in ignoring the number of school attacks in the 20 years preceding (9) and the 20 years following (93) the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 in the US, while the number of non-school mass shootings remained the same at 25 incidents in the same time horizon preceding and following its passing. The interaction between firearms laws and mass killings isn't as simple as they imply, and conveniently in either parts of the main paper the perceived odds of success at one's objectives before death didn't factor into the analysis of the killers' psychology.

it does suggest that toting guns around won't actually solve any problems.

Someone who is seconds away rather than minutes away with the power to stop a killer can make enough of a difference to prevent the incident from escalating to a "mass killing" (four or more dead in quick succession) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

Such outcomes are relatively rare because the population that actually carries that power and responsibility with them on a daily basis is currently about 3%, bu

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

If by "kid" you mean a thug with gold teeth who had been doing drugs close to the time of the event.. yeah.

I think by "kid" he meant non-adult. If you want to make 17-year olds full adults, fine, just make sure to lower the voting age, the age of consent, etc. As for "gold teeth"... For starters, my mother had gold teeth and fillings. It's superior to standard dental amalgam. Does that make my mother a thug? Then of course there's the fact that he didn't have gold teeth. Here's a clue for you, people who have pictures of themselves on the Internet wearing fake vampire fangs don't deserve to have stakes driven through their hearts. As for drugs, are you telling me that a teenager in the US was doing drugs? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

I don't know if you're just ignorant, or if you're actively false. It looks like what you're trying to do there is dehumanize a person by making them up into a stereotype. It's kind of sick, given the circumstances.

I agree with the claim that Trayvon was standing his ground, just like Zimmerman did... there is no guilty party here either way. Certainly nobody was murdered. Two guys stood their ground and one died. End of story. If we weren't such a PC, litigious society, charges wouldn't have been filed.. just like they weren't initially. Not every death is a "murder" that needs to be prosecuted!

I'm repeatedly stunned by discussion of this case by individuals, the media, and even legal professionals. For some reason everyone, when discussing this case, seems to completely forget about this little thing called manslaughter. It's a simple concept: do something in a bone-headedly incompetent way such that someone is killed and you've committed a crime. It's one of those things that covers edge cases and can be really unfair sometimes. A kid might run out into the street and be hit by a car and the driver is going one mile over the speed limit and they can go to jail. Some chemical company executives might make unsafe decisions about storage of toxic gas and it might escape, sweeping down a valley and over a town killing thousands of people and they can go to jail (Ha! Just kidding, everyone knows the high-level executives won't really go to jail just for killing thousands of people and especially if they're brown people in another country). The point is, maybe you think manslaughter is stupid and should never be prosecuted and you might be able to make a convincing case for it. But there's plenty of legal precedent for people going to jail for manslaughter and, if everything Zimmerman has said is 100% true, he's definitely guilty of manslaughter.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[uninformedLuddite]

I am sure the person you are replying to feels that if the attacker wasn't killed then he has the opportunity to be rehabilitated in a government facility and can then go on to become a productive member of society. Killing him to defend your loved ones robs him of that chance.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[uninformedLuddite]

You big brain. Me likey smart brain guy.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[noh8rz9]

I think you're a retard. call me ad hominem if you like, but I don't think you will, because you're retarded and don't know that word.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Drunken brawls must be a lot tamer where you live. People die every day that way, here in the real world.

And "when guns are available," guns make a 100 lb. elderly woman the EQUAL of the 200 lb. 20-something intruder who decides her jewelry looks better at the pawn shop. Pretty compelling, there. But do read on...

The REAL fact is that GUNS REDUCE CRIME. Read that report Obama ordered: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=1

I supposed you could call it an "inconvenient truth" for people who are so afraid of themselves owning a gun that they want to disarm everybody.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Cenan]

Sorry about the abstract only link, I got them mixed up.

I'm not disputing the fact that someone with a gun can aim and kill someone else with a gun, but whether or not it makes a difference to A) the mass murderer, B) the people already killed. You're very focused on statistics, and response times, but the topic of the discussion (at least the part I replied to) was whether the threat of death would be a show stopper for a mass murderer. The "research" you linked to shows clearly that that is not the case, I then went ahead and produced a link to a paper that describes the motivations of a subset of those killers, also very clearly stating that the threat of death is not a deterrent. So I guess in a sense we're on the same page on that one.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that research performed by law enforcement is no less biased than research performed by actual researchers. Remember, in the States, the decision makers of law enforcement are elected officials, and have a vested interest in making reality fit with their agenda, or at least fit enough that another term can be secured.

You seem to be under the impression that mass murderers in general are some kind of magic being that cannot be understood, and the only solution to the problem they pose is to arm a significant portion of the population, in order to kill the murderers once their spree begins, or shortly thereafter. You're also under the assumption that mass murderers choose their venue based on the availability of guns there, which is clearly not the case. Also, I would like to strongly object to your premise, that killing a would-be mass murderer before they hit the magic threshold of 4 people dead, is any kind of a solution. Again, statistics don't mean shit to the 3 other people who are already dead.

I can understand the line of thought though, because to solve a problem it is generally viewed as bad if the status quo cannot be maintained, in this case the right to own a gun, and the added license to carry it concealed. So of course in the minds of gun owners it becomes a problem of trying to maintain that right and avoid being killed by someone else with a gun. The obvious (and false) conclusion is then to arm enough people so that the chance that you are shot before the killer is, is minimized. As I pointed out previously, that does not solve the problem, and to reiterate what the problem is: you have a society that produces mass murderers at a ratio far exceeding what is to be expected if you ignore gun control policy (it is expected if you don't ignore it, but that is a conclusion that is too hard to swallow, and tons of papers on the subject have been produced to try and discredit that, or FUD it up enough to make the point blurry).

As I said earlier in a reply, bending statistics does not bend reality, only our perception of it. And that is the danger of it, especially in this case.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

The original argument specifically referenced the AR-15, sometimes using the inaccurate term "Assault Weapon". In that case the argument is correct. Since that time people, some of them liberals trying to distort the point, have morphed the argument into "firearms" or "guns" in general, in which case the argument is incorrect, as you have stated.

Some other points: Around 60% of gun deaths are suicide - few of whom try to batter themselves to death. Few gang-bangers use blunt objects, preferring stolen guns to kill each other - not exactly a great loss.

Try using the total number of gun related crimes and calculate the percentage of the total guns in the United States that are used in crimes in any given year.

Folks on both sides of this argument routinely distort the facts. It would appear that even Snopes does not rise above this.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Muad'Dave]

Your 'sensible' regulation has failed miserably for automobiles.

Your proposal reeks of a registration plan (how else do you keep track of all that bureaucratic clap-trap?) which would be unacceptable to many/most gun owners. You don't need to register to exercise your 1st Amendment rights, neither should we have to register to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights. Same goes for insurance - would you like to have mandated 1st Amendment insurance against libel/slander/perjury, etc?

I would love to see mandatory primary school education in gun safety, including how to safely check that any firearm is actually unloaded, safely store them, and safely handle them. This is taught in the home for other dangerous tools such as knives, saws, etc. Sadly this is not the case in the majority of households with respect to firearms. I was lucky enough to have firearm safety taught to me my my father from a young age and when I was in middle school - I think it was part of 'shop class' or perhaps 'health class'.

Ignoring the education issue makes the problem worse, not better, as we've learned from sex ed. Teaching them gun safety will not turn them into gun nuts just as sex ed doesn't turn girls into sluts. Confront the demon no matter how repulsive it is to your politics to keep your kids and others safe.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[computererds]

My anecdotal experience has shown me that most non-firearm owners are of the same opinion. You just never end up in a 'debate' with reasonable people, regardless of the topic.

Personally, I see the side that has launched the least logical fallacies in any debate the "winner."

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[computererds]

The link has one shooting that was more than one. A murder suicide of a mother killing her son and herself. The rest are all single accidents, suicide and one homicide. The point, although exaggerated is none of these are mass shootings.

You can play semantics and insult people, but it only lowers your own credibility.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[nobodie]

Ask Trayvon Martin about that shit, although George Zimmerman will say yes, justifiable homicide, he touched me.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"if everything Zimmerman has said is 100% true, he's definitely guilty of manslaughter."

No. Self-defense is a defense against a charge of manslaughter too.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Bobb Sledd]

What is the difference? They still shoot the same. They still have capability to kill. I have even seen some semi-auto rifles that are pink and have "Hello Kitty" on them. Does that make them less threatening, or less dangerous?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[stdarg]

I think by "kid" he meant non-adult. If you want to make 17-year olds full adults, fine, just make sure to lower the voting age, the age of consent, etc.

"Kid" isn't a legal term and it implies more than just "under 18." Another example would be the word "baby" which also applies to people under 18 and implies more than just "under 18"... and calling Trayvon Martin a baby since he's under 18 would be retarded right?

Not to mention the age of consent is already lower in many places -- though it depends what kind of consent you're talking about.

As for "gold teeth"... For starters, my mother had gold teeth and fillings. It's superior to standard dental amalgam. Does that make my mother a thug?

By itself, no.. and yes, when I posted my very short description of Trayvon Martin, I only included a few details. I'm not going to give a 1000 word description outlining his thuggish appearance when someone can do a quick image search. If someone said "Huh he had gold teeth, but my mom had gold teeth and she wasn't a thug, let me see what he really looked like" and then did a search and looked at the pics would say "Oh, yeah, I get it, he's a thug." So I really don't think I was distorting anything.

I mean really, what are you trying to argue? We're not talking in a vacuum here, we've both seen pics of Trayvon Martin (here, I did an image search for you) and we both know he looks like a thug. Everybody reading this thread knows he looked like a thug. I think you're being critical for no reason.

I don't know if you're just ignorant, or if you're actively false. It looks like what you're trying to do there is dehumanize a person by making them up into a stereotype.

That's ridiculous -- again, look at the pics of the older Trayvon Martin. If you think I'm stereotyping him based on his name or race or something, that's just utterly stupid. Given how he posed for the pictures found on his own cellphone, if anybody was stereotyping Trayvon Martin -- it was himself! He wanted to look like a stereotypical thug, and he did. And I then said he looked like a thug. Mission accomplished, Trayvon.

But there's plenty of legal precedent for people going to jail for manslaughter and, if everything Zimmerman has said is 100% true, he's definitely guilty of manslaughter.

If everything Zimmerman said is true then he acted in self defense and wouldn't be guilty of manslaughter. Otherwise I agree that the state should have pursued manslaughter charges, not murder. It would be a much more realistic case.

Of course now they've thrown on the charge of "child abuse" which is similarly ridiculous.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[athenaprime]

Your 'sensible' regulation has failed miserably for automobiles.

And yet, oddly, millions of people drive to and from their destinations for hundreds of thousands of miles without harming themselves or others. Seatbelt regulations have reduced the number of automobile fatalities, and the inability of an eight-year-old to operate a motor vehicle has kept hundreds of thousands of eight-year-olds from misusing automobiles with harmful or fatal consequences. Drivers who have AT LEAST had to take a vision test every few years to prove they can still SEE WHERE THEY'RE GOING prevent uncountable accidents and fatalities every year.

Your proposal reeks of a registration plan (how else do you keep track of all that bureaucratic clap-trap?) which would be unacceptable to many/most gun owners. You don't need to register to exercise your 1st Amendment rights, neither should we have to register to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.

*cough*You have to register to vote.*cough* You have to be a citizen to be guaranteed the rights in the Constitution. For vast quantities of us, this is an automatic thing, by virtue of birth, but without a social or a birth record to prove citizenship, you may have a bit of a time guaranteeing your rights.

And here's where the kneejerk comes in. The idea of--heaven forfend--registering your ability to safely use and operate dangerous equipment is accepted at all levels of society, from CDL licensing to heavy equipment operation, yet suggest it for a gun, and out comes the hissy fit, because someone has told you, over and over again, that if *they* know you have one, *they* will come for it some time in the middle of the night and take it from you...and then disappear you...and then eat all the potato chips in your house...and so on (large hint--that "someone" is highly motivated to ensure that many, many people continue to think that an Inconvenience of Commerce is an Infringement Upon Divinely-Bestowed Rights because it's expressly that commerce which is driving the discussion).

Same goes for insurance - would you like to have mandated 1st Amendment insurance against libel/slander/perjury, etc?

The difference here being your speech and existence as a citizen is a function of existence. Gun insurance is a function of owning a gun. Why would you not want to have a little protection in case your gun were stolen, or used in a fatality or a crime and potentially implicating you?

I would love to see mandatory primary school education in gun safety, including how to safely check that any firearm is actually unloaded, safely store them, and safely handle them. This is taught in the home for other dangerous tools such as knives, saws, etc. Sadly this is not the case in the majority of households with respect to firearms. I was lucky enough to have firearm safety taught to me my my father from a young age and when I was in middle school - I think it was part of 'shop class' or perhaps 'health class'.

Ignoring the education issue makes the problem worse, not better, as we've learned from sex ed. Teaching them gun safety will not turn them into gun nuts just as sex ed doesn't turn girls into sluts. Confront the demon no matter how repulsive it is to your politics to keep your kids and others safe.

I have no worries about my children becoming gun nuts--they have been exposed to guns and felt free to express their disinterest. The reason why gun safety is not mandatory is that gun ownership is not mandatory...unless that's where *you're* wanting to go, which is just as ridiculous a position as the one you seem to want to ascribe to people asking for some regulation--that is, the elimination of all guns. Back when guns were a necessary hip accessory, every kid did have firearms training. But it comes down to two simple facts: 1.) that not everyone needs to have a gun to feel safe, therefore not everyone should be made to have to accommodate those

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

People who carry guns that are not deputized by law enforcement or bonded security guards are weak, brutish and non empathetic people.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

Except self-defense doesn't really apply as a legal defense here. You can argue that they were both acting in self defense against each other at the time of the killing (although, frankly, I think the one actually being chased by an armed man has the stronger claim). Thing is, if you go back a bit, you have an armed man stalking a teenage boy against police advice because he didn't like the look of him. That's the grossly incompetent act that led to the confrontation that resulted in the boy's death and it precedes anything that could be considered justification for an act of self defense.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

"Kid" isn't a legal term and it implies more than just "under 18."

True. The context, however, was one person saying: "this action lead to the death of a kid carrying skittles", and another saying: "If by "kid" you mean a thug with gold teeth who had been doing drugs close to the time of the event.. yeah".

The fact is, by contemporary usage, he was a kid. There isn't a legal definition for kid, to be sure. In legal history, it probably just means "baby goat". The legal term would probably be "youth", or "juvenile", but it's fairly obvious to most people that those are largely the same thing as "kid".

In any case, saying that he's not a kid due to cosmetic issues or alleged use of illicit substances that it seems the majority of kids in this country make use of, is just an attempt to dehumanize him. It's terrible.

As for age of consent, I'm not just talking about consent for sexual relations, but also for signing contracts, or indeed to have any voice in society. The fact is, without the extraordinary step of legal emancipation, anyone under 18 in the USA is legally just an extension of their legal guardians, they have nebulous property rights, limited rights to travel, and even limited free speech rights. For example, it's not technically legal to publish interviews with anyone under eighteen without parental consent. If you've ever seen a child campaigning for anything, or seeking their civil rights (example: right not to be forced to say the pledge of allegiance in school), etc. you can be guaranteed that they either have full backing by their parents/guardians or they took extraordinary steps to petition a judge to allow them to do so.

By itself, no.. and yes, when I posted my very short description of Trayvon Martin, I only included a few details. I'm not going to give a 1000 word description outlining his thuggish appearance when someone can do a quick image search. If someone said "Huh he had gold teeth, but my mom had gold teeth and she wasn't a thug, let me see what he really looked like" and then did a search and looked at the pics would say "Oh, yeah, I get it, he's a thug." So I really don't think I was distorting anything.

I mean really, what are you trying to argue? We're not talking in a vacuum here, we've both seen pics of Trayvon Martin (here, I did an image search for you [cnn.com]) and we both know he looks like a thug. Everybody reading this thread knows he looked like a thug. I think you're being critical for no reason.

Once again, Martin did not have gold teeth. Having worn cosmetic tooth coverings in some photos doesn't make him a gold-toothed thug any more than wearing plastic fangs in some photos makes any other kid a vampire. As for the picture in the link you provided to demonstrate that he looked like a thug, all it shows is his bare chest, shoulders and face. He's wearing some sort of hat. All I see in that picture is a young man, apparently African-American, with a fairly neutral expression on his face. There's nothing else in the picture that says "thug". Heck, there's nothing else in the picture except the wall behind him. The only way anyone could get "thug" from that picture is if they were using the equivalence: young black man == thug. In other words, you may not think you are one, but you're kind of a racist.

That's ridiculous -- again, look at the pics of the older Trayvon Martin. If you think I'm stereotyping him based on his name or race or something, that's just utterly stupid. Given how he posed for the pictures found on his own cellphone, if anybody was stereotyping Trayvon Martin -- it was himself! He wanted to look like a stereotypical thug, and he did. And I then said he looked like a thug. Mission accomplished, Trayvon.

The critical difference you're missing here is that you said that he _was_ a thug, not just that he'd posed for pictures to look like a thug. Once again, I refer you to vampires. Just because someone wears plastic fangs d

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"That's the grossly incompetent act"
If there was something illegal about it (following someone from a distance), one can be sure Zimmerman would have been charged with it.

"it precedes anything that could be [...] self defense."
Thing is, that doesn't matter. The events that led up to the fight are relevant, but do not automatically invalidate a self-defense claim.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

If there was something illegal about it (following someone from a distance), one can be sure Zimmerman would have been charged with it.

Martin noticed him and ran from him in fear for his life, so it clearly wasn't much of a distance and was pretty threatening to boot. It doesn't necessarily meet the legal definition of stalking,but it clearly meets the dictionary one. In any case, it doesn't have to be a separate crime in and of itself, it just has to be "culpable negligence" leading to death.

Thing is, that doesn't matter. The events that led up to the fight are relevant, but do not automatically invalidate a self-defense claim.

They actually kind of do. Less so in Florida than nearly any other state, but still there as well. You don't get to start a fight, then kill the other person and call it self defense. Zimmerman started the fight by making Martin fear for his life. There's also the issue of excessive force. A fit, 29 year old former bouncer doesn't really have much of an excuse for needing a gun to settle hand to hand combat with an inexperienced kid he outweighs by at least thirty pounds.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you have a chance to man handle a 6'2" 250lb man who's spent 5 of the last 10 years in jail working out, but my wife will use a gun to keep her and kids safe.

You say that there are situations where other self defense should be used rather than a gun, implying that some other thing can stop them, and that you would get other chances. If your or ones you care about are under serious physical threat, then you do what you have to. The best way is to avoid situations like the yelling matches (please see "More Guns, Less Crime" for data on people who CCW are involved with less crime). But when they don't give you a choice, I hope you got a good plan B on your hip.

My wife vs the above man has a better chance when they are both armed, than both not. (50% both armed Guns are the great equalizer. Oh and my wife is a better shot than I am.

I care not about the attacker when it comes to keeping my wife and kids safe. Male/female, 16 or 46, the outcome of the attacker is forfeit. Only after I insure safety of mine, will I consider the safety of the bad guy.

The right to bear arms is the right to carry. Now please stop turning us into victims.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the constitution approves the right to bear arms with the purpose of allowing people to establish militias (in order to fight for the Free state or against the state if it's getting less free). It's not saying anything about fighting bad guys on your own, or about carrying concealed guns.

Fighting bad guys, keeping them in jail and rehabilitating them is what the Police and the Justice system are supposed to do.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Chrontius]

You're thinking of gun store commandos, not gangbangers.

One runs the latest black-clad Aimbot CompC5 milspec tactical operator optic, the other holds their pistols upside down and pulls the trigger with their pinkie.

I'd rather have a /k/ommando giving me fire support, but the gangbangers would be better than nothing in that situation.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Chrontius]

I really hate to say it, but this happened once. The teacher with a deer rifle in his trunk ran and fetched it, held the shooters at gunpoint, and I don't think anybody died. It certainly didn't rise to the level of a modern mass shooting, but that wasn't for a lack of trying.

I just found this account, which could have been the event I was thinking of.

Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck.

“I’ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened,” said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Chrontius]

It's a shame you're posting as Anonymous Coward, but you still might read this.

Most murder victims in America? Beaten to death.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Cenan]

As I replied to another poster in a sub-thread to this one, I'm not arguing that a person with a gun can aim that gun and kill another person who also has gun, but that the solution proposed always has at least one death (the shooter's first victim, or in extreme cases the shooter himself).

I'm also challenging the belief that the threat of death is a deterrent to would be mass murderers, it seems that whenever someone produces a link in this thread, it supports my assertion that this is not the case. That is my main point, more guns will not deter these incidents, and no amount of slicing the data is going to obfuscate the fact that a solution involving any amount of guns > 0 will result in death. This should be seen in contrast to a solution that involves no guns (for anyone), and actively trying to understand why these things happen (a preventative measure) instead of trying to fix the problem after it gets out of hand.

I realise that my solution cannot maintain the status quo of gun policy in the states, and I would like to point out that the second amendment does not necessarily have to be divine truth, some of those words were written in a much different time, and one could argue, place. A lot of posters here are up in arms about what they feel is a direct attack at their constitutional rights, and that is fine really, but we're taking the 200 year old words of a bunch of nobles over the welfare of society today - and I feel like I'm the only one who sees that as tantamount to fanatic religious belief.

Your own link seems to contradict what you're saying, although it's not directly on point (the incident was not avoided with guns, it was cut short). 2 students were shot and killed, 7 injured, before the shooter was held up at gun point. The fact that it happened, yet again proves my assertion, that even with an armed guard at the front door, this would have happened - the killer would just have to plan ahead (which they commonly do) to take him out first. Concealed firearms scattered around the premises will not deter it, it might cut the killing spree short, but it is still solving the problem after the fact.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid analogy. A child would wade through that analogy and destroy it complete with machine gun sound effects.

No sword or spear could come even close to the devastating ability of a high powered firearm when it comes to dismembering masses of children in a schoolroom. It appears to the rest of the world that the regular and ritual slaughter of innocents is a price most US citizens are prepared to pay in order to maintain lax gun controls. You consequently get the society your actions dictate.

Your analogy is simply another case of the cyclops in a ski mask.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"Martin noticed him and ran from him in fear for his life"

If that were all that happened, he would not now be dead. Martin apparently returned to violently confront his "dictionary stalker", at which point things went bad fast.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

where did the guy holding up his liquor store get the unregistered stolen gun - from the unregistered stolen gun manufacturers?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Reziac]

Polls are wonderful things... they can be skewed to show anything you wish. Take the same gun poll in, say, New York City and El Paso, Texas, and you'll get entirely contrary results.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Muad'Dave]

And yet, oddly, millions of people drive to and from their destinations for hundreds of thousands of miles without harming themselves or others.

Do you really believe that? Driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do - it's only because driving is so familiar to us that its death toll is ignored. Licensing is a joke in most places - hell, my parked car got sideswiped by a woman TAKING HER DRIVING TEST.

And here's where the kneejerk comes in. The idea of--heaven forfend--registering your ability to safely use and operate dangerous equipment is accepted at all levels of society, from CDL licensing to heavy equipment operation, yet suggest it for a gun, and out comes the hissy fit, because someone has told you, over and over again, that if *they* know you have one, *they* will come for it some time in the middle of the night...[blathering continues]

Do you really think that's the reason that every gun owner is against registration? You're the one that's consumed the conspiracy kool-aid. "Shall not Be Infringed" means just that - there is no valid obstacle that may be placed by the government between a citizen and "keeping and bearing arms". I don't see heavy equipment or CDLs mentioned as the 2nd most important thing our forefathers could address in our country's most important document.
I suppose you agree with the "freedom of speech zones"? That's an obvious (but currently legal) infringement to the 1st amendment.

The difference here being your speech and existence as a citizen is a function of existence. Gun insurance is a function of owning a gun.

I could say that speech is a choice and that you must have mandatory speech insurance if you choose to speak. We have mandatory health insurance now, and it's only contingent on my existence, so your argument has been weakened by creeping socialism. I'm not against there being gun insurance (that's between my insurance agent and myself). I'm against getting any government involved in the expression of ANY of our rights.

The reason why gun safety is not mandatory is that gun ownership is not mandatory...unless that's where *you're* wanting to go...[more conspiracy-fueled drivel]

Neither is diving a car, yet it's taught to every student in middle/high school. Sex ed is taught regardless of the student's desire or ability to engage in sex. Wouldn't it be safer for our kids to assume that at some point in their lives they'll be exposed to a firearm and teach them basic safety, if nothing more than DO NOT TOUCH IT?

And no, I absolutely would not support the idea of mandatory gun ownership. It is a RIGHT, not a requirement. Those that choose not to exercise that right, however, should not be permitted to interfere with those that do. In my mind it's the same as and as sacred as the 1st amendment. I may not agree with a word you say, but I will not attempt to prevent you from saying it. I would like the same respect with regard to both amendments.

[With regard to Obamacare - for the first time ever a citizen of the US is being required to purchase something as a condition of existence. Think about that - there is only one other situation that requires action (much less an on-going purchase) as a condition of mere existence - boys must register for the draft. Taxes only apply if you chose to work, etc]

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[SolitaryMan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

While addressing the underlying violence problem itself is fundamental, fixing the gun problem at least significantly ameliorates the symptoms of the underlying disease.

That is the primary point of gun advocates and the absence of reason of gun opponents.

There is no "gun fix." The very best that can be done is to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, who do not use them in a manner the legislation is trying to prevent. Then, only criminals have guns and law abiding citizens are far less able to defend themselves. Criminals will never surrender their guns and they will always have access to guns. Sure, there may be fewer guns, but the advantage of those who have them will be greatly multiplied.

Here is a 7 minute video that does a good job of explaining the perspective of gun rights proponents. If you are for guns, you should watch this to supplement your convictions. If you oppose gun ownership, watch the video to perhaps help you better defend your position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY

Finally, if you really want to stop gun crime, you need to punish criminals severely. Rob a store with a gun? Bad guy gets 30 years minimum sentence, non-negotiable. (Of course, they will then use another weapon.) Shoot 10 people in a mall? Bad guy is set on fire, doused with salt water, and tossed in a cage with starving rats. Is that too extreme? More extreme than slaughtering 10 people? I think it is just punishment.

Laws do not stop criminals. Bullets stop criminals.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

"Dictionary stalker". Cute. Replace the word "dictionary" with "literal" and you'd have it about right. What you're ignoring here is: where exactly was Martin between the time he ran from Zimmerman and their confrontation? He didn't go home. A little critical analysis should tell you that he wouldn't want to lead a creepy stalker back to where he lived. Most likely, he was hiding somewhere very nearby and concluded either that Zimmerman would eventually find him and that it was better to confront him out in the open or simply that it was beneath his dignity to cower away from some random nut.

You seem to blame Martin for not believing that it was his place to scurry away and hide the moment he drew capricious disapproval from someone. Perhaps you think he should know his place.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[noh8rz9]

danger will robinson! common sense statments on /. Flame on!

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

If you remove guns, you still have a ballistic nuclear warhead problem.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"Most likely, he was hiding somewhere very nearby and concluded [...] that it was better to confront him out in the open or simply that it was beneath his dignity to cower away from some random nut."

If so, his conclusion was tragically fallacious. It escalated the situation and was one of the last links in the causal chain to his demise.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

Wow, so you're concluding that you should blame the person who was terrified for his life rather than the person who persecuted him without cause who made him terrified for his life in the first place.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"... so you're concluding that you should blame the person who was terrified for his life ..."

Whatever evidence I've seen suggests that only one person was terrified for his life during the whole episode, and he's currently on trial. The other person may well have been concerned / annoyed, but people "terrified for their lives" don't usually go "ooh, cowering is beneath [my] dignity, so let's fight".

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[gzuckier]

well, that nice George Zimmerman didn't kill Trayvon, so maybe it's not people who kill people after all; maybe it is the gun.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

Whatever evidence I've seen suggests that only one person was terrified for his life during the whole episode, and he's currently on trial.

I'm curious, if you think that only Zimmerman was scared during the whole episode, why do you think Martin ran away from him?

people "terrified for their lives" don't usually go "ooh, cowering is beneath [my] dignity, so let's fight".

Actually, they do all the time. There's an instinctive response to danger commonly referred to as "fight or flight". When you're cornered, you fight. Zimmerman has claimed that Martin came at him from the bushes (although his claims on this have varied). If he did come out of the bushes, has it occurred to you at all to wonder why he was in the bushes? Could it be because he was hiding there? So, same question applies to the hiding as to the running: why did he do it? The obvious answer was that an unknown, hostile, creepy, armed man was chasing him. Continuing to hide either seemed to be a losing prospect due to Zimmerman's persistence, or Martin decided to just stand up for himself against a perceived aggressor. Either way, Zimmerman persecuted an innocent kid, made him fear for his life, then killed him when he tried to defend himself. Even if Zimmerman's actions weren't malicious or racially motivated, they were grossly incompetent. Since that incompetence resulted in a homicide, Zimmerman should have been found guilty of manslaughter at least.

I remember reading a story about some homeless people who were squatting in a warehouse and lit a fire to keep warm. There was an accident and the warehouse caught fire. During the blaze, some firefighters went inside and ended up dying. The homeless people who started the fire went to prison for manslaughter. I want to know what kind of excuse for a justice system exists in this country such that Zimmerman walks free and those homeless people both went to prison?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

" if you think that ..."

You're moving the goalposts. "terrified for his life" is different from "scared".

"has it occurred to you at all to wonder why he was in the bushes?"

Yes. It is possible that he was hiding out of fear. It is possible that he was counter-stalking.

"... then killed him when he tried to defend himself ..."

There appears to be no evidence that Zimmerman lay hands on Martin (before the gunshot); whereas there is evidence that Martin touched Zimmerman (eyewitnesses & injuries). That kind of "self-defense" will not stand up in court, and may get one killed.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

"Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person"

Isn't that a bit like teaching someone they should never drive their car on or near a public road?

It is like teaching somebody they should never drive their car through the playground at the local preschool. (Which might be a bit like teaching someone they should never drive their car on or neat a public road, for sufficiently loose definitions of 'bit.')

You do not point a gun at or near a person because it is a threat to shoot them. Unless you're willing to shoot that person, you should never do this. (It also means that they are perfectly justified in reacting like you threatened to shoot them, because, well, you did.)

The next lessons are "The gun is always loaded" (never bet there isn't a bullet left) and "Safeties aren't" (ever heard about the guy who blew his head off in front of his son trying to prove safeties work?)...

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

You're moving the goalposts. "terrified for his life" is different from "scared".

"Scared" is a spectrum in which "terrified for his life" is one small range. I do think Martin was terrified for his life. I wasn't moving the goalposts, you're just quibbling over semantics.

Yes. It is possible that he was hiding out of fear. It is possible that he was counter-stalking.

"Counter-stalking"? Sorry, what alternative reason other than being fearful for his life would he be doing that for? I can't think of any reason that isn't, ultimately, Zimmerman's fault.

There appears to be no evidence that Zimmerman lay hands on Martin (before the gunshot); whereas there is evidence that Martin touched Zimmerman (eyewitnesses & injuries). That kind of "self-defense" will not stand up in court, and may get one killed.

No eyewitness has reported seeing the start of the physical altercation. The injuries say nothing about the order of events. The only evidence that Martin physically assaulted Zimmerman first is Zimmerman's word. Considering that he killed Martin, there's ample cause to consider his word a little tainted. In any case, that's immaterial to charges of manslaughter. Zimmerman's own statements claim that, when Martin confronted him and demanded to know why he was following him, Zimmerman lied to him, then turned away from him while reaching for his cell phone. Zimmerman was lethally armed and, though he had a concealed carry permit, was not dressed in a way that would actually conceal his weapon. So, we have an obviously lethally armed older man, obviously stalking Martin, then lying to him about it instead of identifying himself. He turns away to conceal his movements, then reaches for something in his pocket. It's hard to know exactly what went through Martin's mind at that point, but if I were in that situation I'm pretty sure I would think that Zimmerman was some sort of psycho who was about to kill me. As it turns out, that pretty much turned out to be the case.

There's a chain of events that led to Martin's death at the hands of Zimmerman. It starts with Zimmerman spotting Martin and concluding that he was a criminal most likely based on either racial prejudice or age prejudice or both. His ridiculous theory that no-one would be walking in the rain if they weren't a criminal is exactly the sort of idiocy you'd expect from an armchair criminologist living in a gated community. Whatever happened in between, Zimmerman started it and he ended it. He may not have intended to kill anyone, but he set into motion events which led to him doing so. Any reasonable jury should have found him guilty of manslaughter.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"There's a chain of events ..."

The links of that chain are apprx. irrelevant until the point of the physical altercation. Your fantastic speculation about the timeline - that Martin confronted, correctly divined the presence of a gun, incorrectly divined the intent of its owner - indicts Martin only barely less than the more plausible story.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[Anonymous Coward]

Then tag every house on your block. A burglar would have to be crazy to want to be caught casing houses around you.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

The links of that chain are apprx. irrelevant until the point of the physical altercation.

The links of the chain leading to a homicide are not irrelevant. You're trying to pretend that Martin was some psychopath who randomly attacks innocent bystanders and that Zimmerman was just an innocent bystander. That's obviously not the case. You can't just start the timeline where you choose to make your favorite an innocent victim. The timeline for manslaughter starts and ends with Zimmerman's actions. My example about the homeless people convicted for killing fire-fighters because they accidentally burned down a building shows how causality is usually measured in manslaughter cases.

Your fantastic speculation about the timeline - that Martin confronted, correctly divined the presence of a gun, incorrectly divined the intent of its owner - indicts Martin only barely less than the more plausible story.

It's not fantastic speculation. It's based on Zimmerman's own story and photographs and video from the night in question. Zimmerman's clothing wouldn't have concealed a gun from anything other than the most casual of glances. Zimmerman has stated that Martin was trying to get his gun. What other evidence do you need that Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun? As for incorrectly divining the intent of the gun's owner, that may have had something to do with the fact that Zimmerman, according to his own story, was intentionally deceptive to Martin.

One of the jurors from the trial has given an interview. During the interview she said that Zimmerman was guilty of "not using good judgement.”. Someone must have messed up on the jury instructions somewhere because manslaughter was on the table. When you kill someone from bad judgement, it's manslaughter.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"The timeline for manslaughter starts and ends with Zimmerman's actions."

No. It starts with whoever threw the first legally unjustifiable attack.

"Zimmerman's clothing wouldn't have concealed a gun from anything other than the most casual of glances."

You're dreaming. It was dark & rainy. Martin isn't reported to have mentioned a weapon on the phone. Martin had minutes of no-visual-contact from Zimmerman, so even if the former divined the presence of a gun, he was in no danger after he got out of sight. Yet he came back.

"Zimmerman has stated that Martin was trying to get his gun. "

That was when he was already on the ground, being pounded, with clothes in a rather different configuration than normal.

"As for incorrectly divining the intent of the gun's owner, [...]"

Just goes to show the dangers of misinterpreting someone's evasiveness as an impending attack. Guess what, people who study armed self-defense are taught about not over-reacting to mere suspicion.

"When you kill someone from bad judgement, it's manslaughter."

No, it isn't. The bad judgement was related to following to closely, letting be jumped. A wiser & more attentive person may not have let Martin get that close. But he was, he apparently attacked, and gave the all-important "self-defense" out against manslaughter.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

No. It starts with whoever threw the first legally unjustifiable attack.

I said the time-line for manslaughter. In any case, given the fact that Martin would have reasonably feared for his life at that point, attacking Zimmerman would have been legally justifiable. Also, it bears mentioning every now and then that all of this is assuming that Zimmerman's version(s) of events is/are the full truth.

You're dreaming. It was dark & rainy. Martin isn't reported to have mentioned a weapon on the phone. Martin had minutes of no-visual-contact from Zimmerman, so even if the former divined the presence of a gun, he was in no danger after he got out of sight. Yet he came back.

This was a relatively dense suburb, it was rainy, but there would be lights from houses and street lamps. Any person without compromised night vision would be able to make out such details up close. The no visual contact is about one minute and thirty seconds and, if Zimmerman is to be believed, Martin may have spent that time hiding in the bushes. He also may probably didn't have Zimmerman in his line of sight either. So, when the confrontation happened, it's reasonable to believe that he might have believed that escape attempts had failed. Also, it may have escaped your notice that Florida has a stand your ground self-defense law.

That was when he was already on the ground, being pounded, with clothes in a rather different configuration than normal.

Hmmm. Actually, I just checked and, apparently I was wrong about where Zimmerman had his gun. It turns out it was in a holster on his back, inside his pants. So, that means that either Zimmerman lied about Martin trying to get the gun or that Martin must have seen it before they fought.

Just goes to show the dangers of misinterpreting someone's evasiveness as an impending attack. Guess what, people who study armed self-defense are taught about not over-reacting to mere suspicion.

Yeah, the people who study that sort of thing would be people like gun-owner, neighborhood watch member and criminal justice student George Zimmerman. People who can't reasonably be expected to study that are minors who don't own guns and probably haven't had any gun training or training in dealing with these situations and who don't presume to an authoritarian role where such things should be expected as due diligence. Yet, for some reason, Zimmerman interpreted Martin walking along the street as intent to commit a crime and over-reacted to mere suspicion. The inexperienced kid who was running and hiding in fear for his life has a pretty good excuse for being scared. Let's face it, self-fulfilling prophecy though it may have been, his life was definitely in danger from George Zimmerman.

No, it isn't. The bad judgement was related to following to closely, letting be jumped. A wiser & more attentive person may not have let Martin get that close. But he was, he apparently attacked, and gave the all-important "self-defense" out against manslaughter.

Yes it is. The bad judgment was related to following in the first place, getting out of the car and trying to deceive Martin about his identity and purpose. A wiser and more attentive person wouldn't have suspected Martin of anything in the first place since he wasn't doing anything wrong. They also wouldn't have gotten out of the car to follow him, and they would have, when confronted, said that they were with the neighborhood watch.

As for the all-important self-defense out for manslaughter, that's only the case in few states. Most states don't let you kill someone in a fist fight and claim self-defense. We are talking about Florida here, however, and it does have a "stand your ground" law. The problem there is that Martin was the one running and hiding and Zimmerman was the one chasing. Martin was the one standing his ground. Self-defense shouldn't defend Zimmerman against manslaught

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[fche]

"it bears mentioning every now and then that all of this is assuming that Zimmerman's version(s) of events is/are the full truth."

Nonsense, you're assuming whatever is convenient to your sentence of the moment, disregarding it or other evidence whenever you feel like it.

"People who can't reasonably be expected to study that are minors who don't own guns ..."

Indeed, were it not for the inconvenient findings on Martin's electronics ... a handgun, etc.

"they would have, when confronted, said that they were with the neighborhood watch"

Next time someone has sucker-punched you, has broken your nose, and is whacking your head against the concrete, please do your best to keep a calm consciousness to explain your purpose and good intentions.

"I was wrong about where Zimmerman had his gun."

Doesn't kind of throw a monkeywrench into your fantasy about Martin being afraid for his life all along because of his awareness of Zimmerman's gun?

"So, that means that either Zimmerman lied about Martin trying to get the gun or that Martin must have seen it before they fought."

No, other possibilities exist. It is also possible that during the fight, Zimmerman managed to roll onto his side enough to reach for his weapon, at which point Martin also caught sight of it.

Can you kind of start to see why jurors had no problem dismissing any such fantasy, such fallible logic; and accepting the most straightforward, logical, consistent explanation for it all?

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[tragedy]

Nonsense, you're assuming whatever is convenient to your sentence of the moment, disregarding it or other evidence whenever you feel like it.

I'm not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem or not. I was just mentioning that most of the published "facts" we're discussing are directly from Zimmerman's account and are therefore likely to be edited to display him in a favorable light if he has anything to hide. I know you don't like to answer questions but I'm still going to ask which evidence I am supposedly disregarding?

Indeed, were it not for the inconvenient findings on Martin's electronics ... a handgun, etc.

Oh yes. He had a picture of a handgun. How exactly does that show that he had any gun training or self defense training?

Next time someone has sucker-punched you, has broken your nose, and is whacking your head against the concrete, please do your best to keep a calm consciousness to explain your purpose and good intentions.

Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just a short memory, or are you trying to be dishonest/ Zimmerman's story is that Martin demanded to know what Zimmerman was doing and that he (Zimmerman) lied to Martin and did not identify himself as being with the neighborhood watch. The physical altercation started after he had that opportunity. This was Zimmerman's own story!

Doesn't kind of throw a monkeywrench into your fantasy about Martin being afraid for his life all along because of his awareness of Zimmerman's gun?

Reading comprehension again. It either means that Martin had to be aware of the gun before they ended up on the ground or it means that Zimmerman's story is a pack of lies. It's one or the other.

No, other possibilities exist. It is also possible that during the fight, Zimmerman managed to roll onto his side enough to reach for his weapon, at which point Martin also caught sight of it.

If that's the case, it makes Zimmerman a liar.

Can you kind of start to see why jurors had no problem dismissing any such fantasy, such fallible logic; and accepting the most straightforward, logical, consistent explanation for it all?

Saying it doesn't make it so. You haven't presented any scenario other than: deranged black youth savagely attacks innocent pedestrian for no reason and dies a much deserved death. Talk about fantasy and fallible logic.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[romons]

I thought that gun owners would be against this so that they could avoid the break-ins by people trying to GET their guns. Nobody is home all the time, and criminals clearly like guns, if only because they are small, compact, and expensive.

Re:1 2 3 4 I declare flame war

[couchslug]

Such schools also tend to be in areas whose demographics aren't prone to a high violent crime rate.

All guns are dangerous...

[Smivs]

aren't they?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

aren't they?

Not as dangerous as lecturers at public universities. I think I will write an app that allows you to geotag your local professors, track their license plates, and give you hints and tips on how to heckle them and ruin their lives for doing things that you may or may not agree with.

Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

aren't they?

I assume that(at least in theory, I assume that it will swiftly degenerate into some mixture of 'round up all the guns!' and '2nd-amendment-keyboard-warrior-trolls', leading to a rather useless dataset), the mention of 'parents' implies a concern about improperly secured guns, a favorite of dumb children, with some side functions for 'We are pretty sure that this guy has a foundation composed largely of dead hookers' and 'these are the woods were people get wasted and shoot at absolutely anything that moves like a mammal every fall'.

Given the author's bio(he appears to be part GIS-dev, part performance artist) the app seems like a pretty logical outcome; but not something of any use except to get people worked up(which can be useful, and entertaining; but this isn't god's gift to informative maps).

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[RaceProUK]

I found one that isn't :)

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Archangel Michael]

Only when democrats use them*

1. Ft Hood~~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim

2. Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.

3. Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff ~ Registered Democrat

4. Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign;
Occupy Wall Street participant; & progressive liberal.

5. Connecticut School Shooter- ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Archangel Michael]

Posted as a joke. Don't get your panties in a wad.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

aren't they?

Not as dangerous as lecturers at public universities.

Jittles - Nice jab at academia. So true. So true.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Today its guns...tomorrow?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with motive. Guns shoot themselves, didn't you know? Let's forget why people kill but rather the tools that they use to do it with is what we need to focus on. Just like we don't need to know what Snowden leaked, just that he leaked it.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[oh_my_080980980]

And the right winger who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.....

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[gandhi_2]

When guns are outlawed, only democrats will have guns.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[gstoddart]

Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.

And I'm sure the police and those laws were a great comfort to all of those victims of gun violence and rampage shootings, and 100% effectively prevented any deaths.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[RoccamOccam]

Perhaps you are being sarcastic, but (from Wikipedia, highlights mine):

Records show that Loughner was registered as an Independent and voted in 2006 and 2008, but not in 2010.[39][40] A YouTube channel under an account called "Classitup10" was linked to Loughner. (There have been numerous copies of 'impostor accounts' such as 'JaredLoughner' and 'Classitup1O'.)[41][42]

Loughner's high school friend Zach Osler said, "He did not watch TV; he disliked the news; he didn't listen to political radio; he didn't take sides; he wasn't on the Left; he wasn't on the Right."[17] But a former classmate, Caitie Parker, who attended high school and college with Loughner, described his political views prior to 2007 as "left wing, quite liberal,"[43] "radical."[44]

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tomorrow? Penises, cuz all men are rapists and pedophiles.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

[sarcasm]

And I'm sure the police and those laws were a great comfort to all of those victims of gun violence and rampage shootings, and 100% effectively prevented any deaths.

[/sarcasm]

Isn't this the same argument gun owners say why average people should own and carry guns?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the right winger who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.....

...uh, also a progressive Democrat. 0/6 on the 'it was a crazy right-wing gun nut!'

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[digitalaudiorock]

Not as dangerous as lecturers at public universities. I think I will write an app that allows you to geotag your local professors, track their license plates, and give you hints and tips on how to heckle them and ruin their lives for doing things that you may or may not agree with.

Exactly...and who's deciding who these "suspected" unsafe gun owners are? Sounds like nothing better than a malicious rumor mill app to me. Let's just start something similar for everyone we think is a closet alcoholic or the like...I mean FFS...

Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.

Exactly!...instead we have people with a clear anti-gun agenda taking a total vigilante approach to this...oh the irony.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[RudyHartmann]

Perhaps law abiding citizens who disagree with this academic busy body should picket his residence and place of work.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just about as dangerous as any other inanimate object which is inert and stable at normal temperature and pressure.

People, on the other hand, never seem to operate at simultaneously normal temperature and pressure.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure this app is going to change all of that.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[sl4shd0rk]

Yes, Guns are just as dangerous as matches, driving a car, running with scissors and swimming in a public pool.

All of these things kill people. In fact, (PDF link) fire, drowning and car accidents kill more people per year than anything else. Actually, that's not true. Matches, Cars and Swimming pools kill nobody if they are left just sitting there. It takes human interaction to actually make these objects dangerous.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pointy kitchen knives, if the UK is any indication.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Disingenuous.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Guppy06]

Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.

And yet the "you can just call the police" argument somehow becomes unacceptable when used to justify banning firearms outright.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Torvac]

not my full automatic 5.56 defense rifle, i totally need that one.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

lmao. your retort is to explain how the police and laws are ineffective.

wow. with anti-gun people like you, HELPING the NRA, what hope do you have?

too stupid to live. and you probably can't even buy a gun where you live to shoot yourself in the mouth.

fucking retard.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

You did found some cases where a multiple people were killed at once, so it was news, but those cases are not at all representitive of gun violence in general (which is typically domestic disputes, and gang related).

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and you were able to get +5 Insightful with false information. Awesome.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like those drunk driving laws are of great comfort to the victims of drunk driving. We need to take a 0 tolerance approach to the possession of alcohol.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Runaway1956]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In my area, we have waited for thirty minutes and more for emergency personnel to arrive where they are needed. I sat with three badly burned boys for half an hour, before a first responder arrived, followed soon after by a policeman.

Had someone not already called for police and ambulance services, I would have loaded those boys into my car, and driven to the hospital. Ignoring posted speed limit signs, I could have had those boys at the regional medical center in about 25 minutes, where they would have received trauma unit care immediately upon arrival.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

No.

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine a gun sitting on the floor in the middle of a room. Now, try to think of all the ways that gun could cause harm to someone, without their direct intervention (i.e., picking the gun up and pulling the trigger).

Let me know if you come up with anything better than, "someone might trip over it."

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ArhcAngel]

Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.

And I'm sure the police and those laws were a great comfort to all of those victims of gun violence and rampage shootings, and 100% effectively prevented any deaths.

Gun laws don't prevent gun violence as criminals are already breaking the law. However if one of the victims had been allowed to carry his weapon legally there might have been far fewer casualties.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.

And I'm sure the police and those laws were a great comfort to all of those victims of gun violence and rampage shootings, and 100% effectively prevented any deaths.

Oh I didn't realize this app was to help me avoid public shootings. Here I was thinking the point of this app was to demonize, harass, and annoy people who own guns. Right. Ok I will be sure to pull this app out next time I am worried about a school shooting.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

... the app seems like a pretty logical outcome; but not something of any use except to get people worked up.

I dunno, man, I can imagine the lawyers who specialize in libel will find it quite useful indeed...

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.

And yet the "you can just call the police" argument somehow becomes unacceptable when used to justify banning firearms outright.

Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you). If someone is shooting at you, neither the app nor the police are going to do you any good. You'll either have fled or been hurt long before either do you any good. And lets not forget that the police have no legal obligation to protect you or your property. The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners. I do not agree with that. I do not believe that I have any right to harass gun owners, gays, straights, or even politicians. And If anyone deserves to be harassed, its a politician.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Guppy06]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away

All the more reason to have a publicly-available list of dangerous gun-owners rather than rely on police enforcement of (lax) gun regulations, is it not? It would seem better to rely on avoidance and shunning of such dangerous people and situations than rely on calling police after the fact.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like an app that geo-tags everybody who is considered sexual deviant based on their internet activity? Would you be cool with that?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest... That doesn't make anyone look bad, but makes me... dare I say it... *like* them a bit more.

But maybe I'm just a natural selection guy, and like seeing selection not be done by the usual suspects against people I feel close to. :P

P.S.: Did I win the "most offensive while still technically not wrong" award? ;)

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted as a joke. Don't get your panties in a wad.

Everybody knows only republicans wear panties. Democrats are crazy loose pro-choice women who don't wear any!

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Guppy06]

Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you).

A bullet doesn't care if it was discharged intentionally or accidentally. If a firearm is being handled in an unsafe manner, someone can be maimed or killed.

And note that open carrying is perfectly legal in many states, so calling the police wouldn't accomplish anything there regardless.

The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners.

So empowering people to avoid showing up on this list isn't a "meaningful purpose?"

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Black Parrot]

You left out some rather important information in the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Expressed_views

Anti-government, with a particular irrational dislike of Giffords (but also GWB), 9/11 troofer, paranoid about New World Order.

But perhaps most importantly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Behavior_change

Became unhinged, with suspected roles of drugs and/or schizophrenia.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns take human interaction to actually make them dangerous too. I do wish more people would realize this. Inanimate objects are not dangerous... the people controlling them are. Get rid of the objects, and you still have the dangerous people. The only difference is that now the innocents can't protect themselves as effectively.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

or poison his database with a couple billion false entries....

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its all about response time. Someone possibly doing "unsafe things" with guns in their own place of residence is much different then "someone is in my house immediately trying to kill me".

I know that because of where I live, response times are in the 20+ minute range. I will not be waiting on the police to show up and start the homicide investigation on my death. I will be waiting for them to show up to drag the perp out of my house since he won't have any kneecaps to walk with.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

And FAA regulations are no comfort to the victims of a plane crash like the one in SFO this week. We need to just ban airplanes entirely.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[RoccamOccam]

I left that out, because it didn't add anything to my rebuttal of the GGP. The first sentence shows dislike of a Republican and Democrat (which suggests Independent, as already highlighted). Also, I don't know where "9/11 troofer and paranoid about New World Order" fit on the political scale.

The second sentence shows mental problems, which aren't related to political viewpoint.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal Logic:
> Police won't get to you to save you from a gun-wielding nut in time;
> Need a list to identify possible gun-wielding nuts;
> That'll keep me safe from gun-wielding nuts;

Liberal Logic:
> Police take too long to respond to my area;
> Buys a gun to defend himself from gun-wielding nuts identified by app;

Liberal Logic:
> If you know an area is unsafe, you can avoid it;
> It's your own fault you got raped - you were wearing a short dress;

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[PortHaven]

And you probably totally can't afford one. At least most average joes cannot. As the going rate on a transferable (pre-1986 built) fully automatic rifle is about $10K-$20K (& up)

http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[PortHaven]

You can get a semi-automatic, self-loading firearm. That shoots one bullet for every trigger pull. (Of course, double-action revolvers do that too.)

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[NeutronCowboy]

And yet, it is sitting at +5 Insightful. I don't know if that means that some people are playing a meta-joke game or if Republicans really do find lies insightful if they match their agenda, so I'll leave that decision to you.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Kremmy]

Of course, when you avoid and shun 'such dangerous people' ... aren't you the one making them dangerous?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[mapsjanhere]

Rich people like you who can afford a $20,000 fully automatic weapon probably need it.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do an app for religious freaks. Like Christian fundamentalists and mosques. And places that sell alcohol which does nothing except make people drive and kill innocents. Won't someone save the children?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice use of bold. Your quote also says he wasn't on the left or the right. Why is Parker right and Osler definitely wrong?

And before you yell at me for being a fasicst socialist obamaite, I don't think is political affiliation matters. He obviously had some mental illness and a violent hatred of Giffords. So you won't see me posting a fake list naming every shooter as a Republican/Democrat. It doesn't appear any of them did it out of political motives. For some reason we've started attributing our malice to them.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you).

A bullet doesn't care if it was discharged intentionally or accidentally. If a firearm is being handled in an unsafe manner, someone can be maimed or killed.

And note that open carrying is perfectly legal in many states, so calling the police wouldn't accomplish anything there regardless.

Ok lets start here. First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner. Secondly. A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances (when lawful for self-defense, at a properly zoned and designated firing range, etc). If it is in a case, a safe, a holster, or anything like that, the firing mechanism should be covered. So if someone is following the law (and therefore, in the eyes of their jurisdiction, a safe gun owner), then there is no need to worry about a discharge of any kind. Now if the gun owner tries to defend himself with that weapon, then you may have a problem. But if they are being unsafe, then they are more than likely violating the law and the police are the correct entities to handle the situation.

The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners.

So empowering people to avoid showing up on this list isn't a "meaningful purpose?"

The app does not empower anyone to avoid violence of any kind. Life is dangerous. The streets are dangerous. A few months ago there was a group of teenage boys in my city (about 5) that were going around beating random strangers with pipes. They didn't even rob the strangers. Just left them bleeding and unconscious in the street. No app can protect you from something like that, can it? So how can it protect you from an accidental discharge of a firearm by some jackass just passing through your neighborhood? Or some piece of crap teenager who decides you would be fun to beat with a pipe? It's just a silly premise to suggest that this app can do anything to provide any sort of meaningful safety to anyone.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Gun Laws don't prevent gun violence, then why aren't other countries suffering the same levels of violence?

Maybe you mean unenforced gun laws?

Perhaps if we'd been allowed to stop some people from having guns when they shouldn't, then there might have been far fewer examples of gun violence?

Also, google GunFail.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[lister king of smeg]

open carry is not consider hazardous in fact in my state there are law the specify that open carry is legal.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[gstoddart]

However if one of the victims had been allowed to carry his weapon legally there might have been far fewer casualties.

Yawn ... so you say.

Not everyone believes that having more people walking around with guns will reduce violence.

Most countries don't want their citizens walking around armed.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all.

I can set my biggest and scariest weapons fully loaded and ready to go on a table IN A DAYCARE CENTER and, as long as no one touches it, the only thing that will happen is the weapon will eventually turn into a pile of rust and decayed plastic parts. ( given enough time to sit there )

By themselves, guns are not dangerous. Only when you add the human variable into the equation does the firearm become a potential deadly instrument.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for not using their names.

Don't give them any publicity.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because avoidance works great when the people you are avoiding come to your house.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

All guns are dangerous aren't they?

No.
I wouldn't want an unsafe firearm. I want one that will reliably fire every time I want it to fire and only fire when I want it to. I don't want one that will have a barrel that might explode or shoots some place that I didn't point it. Being that all firearms made recently fit those requirements there really aren't any unsafe firearms. There are however lots of negligent and reckless owners of firearms and people who don't properly maintain their firearms which makes those individuals a danger to themselves and those around them.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not being a LEO or in a well-regulated Militia, I find my .458 SOCOM much more suitable. I really can't use select-fire, but resent the illegal regulations on those.
Suit yourself.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ArhcAngel]

However if one of the victims had been allowed to carry his weapon legally there might have been far fewer casualties.

Yawn ... so you say.

Actually I postulated and backed my postulation up with actual evidence to support it.

Most governments don't want their citizens walking around armed.

FTFY
It's much harder to control your citizens if they can fight back.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ArhcAngel]

Britain has more violent crime per capita than the US despite enacting a no gun policy in 1997.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[X0563511]

<joke> Well, they might see it and suffer a panic attack! </joke>

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward indeed.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[operagost]

I'm sure that being "shunned" will keep them from robbing or raping.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ScentCone]

First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner.

Maybe once. But if they keep calling them for no reason, they'll arrest the caller for wasting their time and harassing the legal gun owner. Most cops are very familiar with the habitual paranoids and whiners on their beats.

First of all, even if open carrying is legal, that does not mean that the police will not come and investigate and also express the concerns of the neighbors to the gun owner

A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon

This is, as they say, so wrong it's not even wrong.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

open carry is not consider hazardous in fact in my state there are law the specify that open carry is legal.

I'm not implying that open carry is hazardous, but it is often illegal, and the only way that this app could really be used anyway. If they aren't open carrying, then how could you possibly know they have fire arms? UNless you follow people home from gun-ranges, sporting goods store trips, etc?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[gstoddart]

Actually I postulated and backed my postulation up with actual evidence to support it.

No, you backed it up with other like minded people who believe the same thing.

That doesn't make it fact or evidence any more than one religious person citing that other people believe in religion as 'proof' of god. Yes, other people believe the same thing, but other people believing something doesn't make it a fact.

FTFY

Again, yawn. In most countries the citizens don't want other citizens walking around with guns either.

You Americans love your guns and your romanticized idea of the cowboy gunslinger, that much is true. But if you think of places where people are walking around armed as a general rule, those countries aren't safer as a result -- they're unsafe already. Afghanistan, Somalia ... generally places which are pretty lawless.

Name me one other 'civilized' Western country where the populace walks around armed that isn't in the middle of civil war, because I'm honestly hard pressed to think of one besides the US.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[operagost]

What lies? Those facts appear to be correct.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Question, do you drink alcohol? No, I'm not trying to imply that you are a drunkard. Since you obviously dislike guns, I'm trying to pick something that you actually care about, which can easily replace guns in your sentence and make just as much sense. Hopefully, it will make you realize just how silly your argument is, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're not, then what's the point?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

In most countries the citizens don't want other citizens walking around with guns either.

You are absolutely right, I don't want other citizens to be walking around with guns. Unfortunately for me, criminals tend to not care that their walking around with (and even owning) guns is illegal.

Also, you realize that your "yawns" just make you look like a pretentious douche with no real counter-argument, right?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[freezin fat guy]

Not as dangerous as lecturers at public universities. I think I will write an app that allows you to geotag your local professors, track their license plates, and give you hints and tips on how to heckle them and ruin their lives for doing things that you may or may not agree with.

The difference is that criminals have no use for lecturers but they DO have a use for an app which tells them where they can steal firearms.

This app will do exactly what every other "outing" of firearm owners has done - it will INCREASE the number of weapons held by dangerous criminals and directly ASSIST violent crime.

I'm all for increasing the public safety. And personally I believe updated gun ownership laws should be part of that equation. But regarding the public safety, these outings are such a massive fail THEY should be illegal.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon

This is, as they say, so wrong it's not even wrong.

How do you accidentally discharge a weapon that is properly holstered? Or in a safe? Or a gun carrying box? I implore you to show me. Because it just cannot happen. You might discharge it while it is in your hand, or if you drop it when it is not properly secured, but I don't see it going off in any other event. No. The gun will only go off it ifs in your hand (AKA you're brandishing it), or you drop it while brandishing it.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[BergZ]

"Man shoots own son in 'burglary'
A US man mistakenly shot dead his 15-year-old son while investigating what appeared to be an attempted burglary next door, police say." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19756499

If only his son was carrying a gun amirite!?!

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In my area, we have waited for thirty minutes and more for emergency personnel to arrive where they are needed.

Your city government really sucks, then. I've never waited more than five minutes for police or fire personnel (the ambulance shows up quite a bit later than the firemen). Even for a burglary the cops are there in less than five minutes here (Springfield, IL).

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

true though. Maybe we should ban democrats from having guns. Fenstien and obama can't object as it is a step towards their goal of banning gen ownership.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[mariox19]

In all seriousness, why stop at guns? Why not an app you can tag your "creepy" neighbors with—you know, for the sake of our children.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

"2nd-amendment-keyboard-warrior-trolls" sounds pretty damned trollish to me, as well as flamebait. I think the kicker is, though: are pretty sure that this guy has a foundation composed largely of dead hookers' and 'these are the woods were people get wasted and shoot at absolutely anything that moves like a mammal every fall

Moderators, this guy's trolling and his flamebait should be below zero.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrap it as a present for your 5 year old child?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ggraham412]

Maybe someday someone will invent an app that can deliver a self-satisfying glow of moral superiority to the user **without** any adverse side effects on everyone else.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[scot4875]

Might have been fewer casualties. Might not have. As long as we're calling hypotheticals informative, if a bunch of the victims had been carrying guns, they could just as easily have accidentally shot someone while they were trying to take out the shooter -- who becomes more difficult to identify when a bunch of people are waving guns around.

--Jeremy

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[scot4875]

A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances

Ahh, so what you're saying is that only criminals with no respect for laws will accidentally discharge bullets.

--Jeremy

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

Giving a child a gun for a present is not inherently dangerous; leaving a loaded gun where children can access it is.

Of course, both acts require a human to physically interact with the weapon, so... what part of "without direct intervention" are you having trouble comprehending?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Sycraft-fu]

No it is quite correct. If the weapon is made properly, and most are, the only way they can fire is if the trigger is pulled. The sear will hold the hammer in place. Since the hammer is held back, there's nothing to fire the bullet.

So, if the gun is sitting in a holster, where the trigger can't be pulled, then it can't go off. Yes, even if it is dropped. You have to understand that guns are meant to be reliable and predictable. If they aren't, well they not only are not likely to be popular, but the makers are likely to get sued.

Guns don't "just fire" they don't randomly decide to go off. They are actually rather simple mechanical devices.

If you want to see for yourself, go to a gun shop or gun range or something. They'll take one apart and show you how it works. They are not complex items.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[0xdeadbeef]

Your magic thinking will not stop copycats. It does, however, help the liberals hide the Truth from God-fearing Conservatives!

Nidal Malik Hasan

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

Seung-Hui Cho

James Holmes

Adam Lanza

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[gstoddart]

Also, you realize that your "yawns" just make you look like a pretentious douche with no real counter-argument, right?

Don't much care ... there's certain groups I have no interest in debating because it's pointless.

On certain points, people have Undying Faith in how right they are, and a rational counter-argument serves no purpose. Because they believe these things with a zeal that isn't open for change.

So you'll excuse me if I see no point in debating gun control who believes the world would be safer if everyone was walking around with guns. Because nothing at all I say is going to sway him, and he will cite the same arguments that I think are flawed and irrational. He will assert my reasoning is flawed and untenable, and probably go through another round of appeal to authority and other like minded sources.

The same applies to rabid believers in anything -- there's shockingly little room for discourse and counter-arguments on things that people inflexibly take as axiomatic.

Ever tried to make a counter argument to someone on the topic of god, economics, evolution, abortion, sports teams, operating systems, or music?

There are contexts where you can try to debate such things, but mostly it devolves into screeching. I have no interest in debating someone's entire epistemology here on Slashdot.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine an enraged spouse abuser sitting on the floor of an empty room next to a spouse and a spilled glass of milk. Try to think of all the ways the abuser can cause harm to the spouse.

Now give the abuser a gun and repeat the experiment

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

A bullet cannot be accidentally discharged unless you are brandishing the weapon, which is most certainly illegal except under certain circumstances

Ahh, so what you're saying is that only criminals with no respect for laws will accidentally discharge bullets.

--Jeremy

No, what I am saying is that, if you're brandishing a weapon in public you are either in imminent danger, at a range or other authorized location, or you are breaking the law. If you are in imminent danger, then the person using the app is likely in imminent danger. If you are breaking the law, the person will be much better served by calling the police with his phone, than by putting an update into this gun tracking website.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[rahvin112]

They haven't said, that I'm aware of, but I believe he fits the perfect profile of Schizophrenia. Onset typically occurs during or shortly after puberty (12-14 years old) with each year exhibiting more and more paranoia and irrational behavior (most families comment on how irrational their children are while in highschool and their obsession with conspiracies, usually around the age of 16). Full blown disease has set in usually by the time they reach 18 though it can be as late as about 24.

I should point out that the vast majority of Schizophrenia sufferers are NOT violent. Only in very rare circumstances does violent responses happen. There are very poor treatments for the disease and they often have very severe side effects. I'd wager that significant chunk of the homeless population has Schizophrenia of one form or another because they won't take the medications.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

The emphasis here is deterrent. Having laws in place are primarily to be able to lawfully punish criminals. If shoplifting wasn't illegal, anyone could do it and you couldn't do anything to them. However, saying "theft is illegal" isn't enough to successfully deter anyone from stealing (though you could lawfully persecute those in violation). Things like door scanners are made the way they are because they detect unprocessed merchandise AND they're very visible to everyone in the store.

Generally speaking, all the laws in place that protect crime (say, murder, homicide) can successfully be applied to gun crimes (gun-murder, gun-homicide, etc). However, they don't as themselves act as a deterrent. An increased police presence might act as a deterrent. The knowledge that everyone around you is armed might act as a deterrent, but the laws themselves won't necessarily lead to a drop in crime.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[SolitaryMan]

Which is also true for hand grenades, c4 and even nuclear warheads. There is still a reason not everyone is allowed to handle them.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

Which is also true for hand grenades, c4 and even nuclear warheads. There is still a reason not everyone is allowed to handle them.

Right, because a .22 pistol is exactly the same as a nuclear fucking weapon.

Nice false equivalence; however, it does lead to the question (at least in regards to grenades and c4), "what reason is that?"

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ScentCone]

Or if you drop it while loading it, or are stupid while cleaning it, etc. I didn't stipulate perfection in handling and experience, only pointed out that there are all sorts of situations where an AD can occur without anyone brandishing a weapon at somebody.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ArhcAngel]

You're a hilarious hypocrite. You didn't even look at my references, assumed I was a gun zealot (I don't own any guns), and hold to your pious position steadfastly.

The rabid believer here is you!

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[SolitaryMan]

I did not say they are equivalent. I only said that they work the same in your thought experiment. I'm glad that now you can see how silly it was.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Tyndmyr]

It seems like it'd be particularly easy to make other, similar apps to demonize other groups. Why, if this catches on, we'll soon be able to designate our local "godless communists", "racist rightwing nutjobs", and every other demographic imaginable! In a year or two, perhaps we can have an entire social network devoted to the people who despise you most describing you. Society will be vastly better once we are all unwillingly enrolled in Hatebook.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it has reached the point where many British subjects are petitioning to have their gun rights *restored*. They're sick to death of not being able to defend themselves against the criminals who still have (and use) *guns* along with other implements of destruction.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

I did not say they are equivalent.

That's the implication. Remember, dude, you're on Slashdot, where most of us actually use the neurons we've been blessed with. If you want to find someone to fall for such an obvious and weak tactic, take your commentary to Yahoo or Huffpo.

I only said that they work the same in your thought experiment.

No, they don't, because as soon as you change the key element (the gun), it becomes a completely different experiment. Can you substitute Arsenic for Carbon in an experiment? Of course not, because they are completely different elements... kind of like guns and explosives.

P.S. you never answered my question: what, exactly, is the reason that "not everyone is allowed to handle" c4 and hand grenades?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

Or if you drop it while loading it, or are stupid while cleaning it, etc. I didn't stipulate perfection in handling and experience, only pointed out that there are all sorts of situations where an AD can occur without anyone brandishing a weapon at somebody.

Fine. You're obviously taking brandish very literally. Some people would consider you holding a gun at all to be threatening and menacing. But you typically would not load, or clean the weapon in public. This is clearly to address public displays of a firearm, which again, most people would consider to be brandishing. If I am stupid while cleaning my weapon, no one is likely to even see it to report it on this app.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[RandomFactor]

Well, since we're talking about someone brilliant enough to leave a (loaded?) firearm lying around on the floor in the middle of a room...

Someone sees the gun laying in the center of the floor.
Lists the homeowner on a vigilante style 'dangerous gun owner here' app.
Homeowner is harassed by local anti-gun activists who throw a brick through his window.
Homeowner dies of Dengue fever spread by imported Asian Tiger mosquitoes that are now able to get into his house.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

...

Well played...

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Runaway1956]

City? What city? I live 40 miles from the nearest city, which is Texarkana. The towns in between here and Texarkana have no jurisdiction where I live. The county and the State police have jurisdiction, but they aren't always at my end of the county. They prefer the south end of the county, where they find a lot of speeders on their way to Texarkana.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[SolitaryMan]

I only said that they work the same in your thought experiment.

No, they don't, because as soon as you change the key element (the gun), it becomes a completely different experiment. Can you substitute Arsenic for Carbon in an experiment? Of course not, because they are completely different elements... kind of like guns and explosives.

Yes, they are.

Now, this time, try really-really hard to use those neurons you have been blessed with:

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine a [gun, hand grenade, flamethrower, mortar, nuclear warhead, baseball bat] sitting on the floor in the middle of a room. Now, try to think of all the ways that thing could cause harm to someone, without their direct intervention. Let me know if you come up with anything better than, "someone might trip over it."

So, please, take your bullshit "experiments" to Yahoo or Huffpo.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ScentCone]

You're obviously taking brandish very literally.

Right... because words have actual meanings, and we have entirely different words that mean "handling" or "loading" or "storing" or "testing" or "fumbling" or "cleaning," etc. Lack of precision in the language surrounding the nature and use of firearms is a non-trivial problem (see so-called journalists who interchangeably - and cluelessly - use "machine gun" and "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" and the like).

brandish [bran-dish]
verb (used with object)
1. to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish: Brandishing his sword, he rode into battle.

I don't know anybody who would refer to, say, handing someone else a gun (say, while out plinking cans in the woods) as "brandishing."

But you typically would not load, or clean the weapon in public.

You typically wouldn't be handling a gun in public pretty much ever. But around strangers? Say, at the range? Loading, cleaning, etc., happens all the time around other people. As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

The University of Alaska Anchorage recently had a debate over whether or not firearms should be allowed on campus. The school administration held the line that "having guns on campus will just lead to deaths" and would suspend/worse students who decided to carry. What I found most interesting about the situation is the chief of police for the University when asked about the subject commented something along the lines of "All I am going to say is that if I get a call that there is a shooting going on in the arts building (the far east side of campus), the quickest that campus police (located on the west side of campus) is 10-15 minutes".

As someone said earlier, the genie is out of the bottle, the dangers of the world are already outside of the box. The arming of the public is not an ideal solution, but it can be made a better solution through education.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Magius_AR]

Name me one other 'civilized' Western country where the populace walks around armed that isn't in the middle of civil war, because I'm honestly hard pressed to think of one besides the US.

You're joking, right? How about Switzerland? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

"The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world"

They may not be "Walking around with guns", but that populace sure as hell is loaded to bear. Oh, and Switzerland is very safe. From the same link: "The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world.[16] The annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52." If anything, it's more proof that gun education/training is what is direly needed, not gun control.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.

Name a common firearm without a drop safety.. Quickly.. as in now.

You're either incompetent or lying.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Now give the abuser a gun and repeat the experiment What if the spouse has a gun?

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

Right... because words have actual meanings, and we have entirely different words that mean "handling" or "loading" or "storing" or "testing" or "fumbling" or "cleaning," etc. Lack of precision in the language surrounding the nature and use of firearms is a non-trivial problem (see so-called journalists who interchangeably - and cluelessly - use "machine gun" and "assault rifle" and "semi-automatic" and the like). You typically wouldn't be handling a gun in public pretty much ever.

Thank you for being a pedantic asshole and making my very point for me. If you're handling a gun in public people are going to think you are brandishing it, no matter what you are doing. That's my point. I did not mean to say that you would actually have to wave it in a menacing manner. The gun itself will menace people. Just because the literal definition says "shake or wave" does not mean that you have to literally shake or wave the weapon for people to consider it brandishing. In fact, allow me refer you to California Penal Code 417 which considers any of the following to be "brandishing": drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon

But around strangers? Say, at the range? Loading, cleaning, etc., happens all the time around other people. As a range officer, I can assure you it happens all the time.

The app is theoretically to report instances of unsafe gun handling. If you're a range officer, and you allow unsafe handling in your range, you might want to look for a new job. I also highly doubt that this app is designed to report gun ranges, as they are usually clearly marked on the outside of the facility.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[stymy]

But a much lower murder rate.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you gave them proper medical care while waiting. There's a lot of things you can teach and do yourself that matter. But I'm glad you waited instead of crashing into someone else and killing 6 people including your boys. Yes they needed immediate medical care, but don't be stupid.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine a [gun, hand grenade, flamethrower, mortar, nuclear warhead, baseball bat] sitting on the floor in the middle of a room. Now, try to think of all the ways that thing could cause harm to someone, without their direct intervention.

Let me know if you come up with anything better than, "someone might trip over it."

Glad to know you finally see the light - the vast majority of inanimate objects are inherently harmless, until someone or something interacts with them and makes them harmful.

Why you have to be such a childish dick about it, the world may never know.

P.S. you still haven't answered my question: what, exactly, is the reason that "not everyone is allowed to handle" c4 and hand grenades?

I presume I will never get the straight answer I seek, judging by the ignorance and vitriol exhibited in your previous posts.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

Here's a gedankenexperiment for you: imagine an enraged spouse abuser sitting on the floor of an empty room next to a spouse and a spilled glass of milk. Try to think of all the ways the abuser can cause harm to the spouse.

Now give the abuser a gun and repeat the experiment

None of that has anything to do with the original supposition that guns are inherently dangerous all by themselves.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[CanHasDIY]

Might I add, it's quite entertaining to watch the intellectual midgets do their mental gymnastics trying to come up with some madman's nightmare of a circumstance where inanimate objects take on a life of their own and start harming people.

Honestly, I'm surprised none of them have mentioned Skynet...

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Guppy06]

Their walking around with a round in the chamber and the safety off makes them dangerous.

Their keeping a loaded gun on the kitchen table around children makes them dangerous.

Their shooting their gun into the air during a holiday celebration makes them dangerous.

Their pointing a gun they "know" is unloaded at anybody makes them dangerous.

Saying "mean things" about them doesn't make them dangerous, unless they feel the need to buy more guns to assuage their hurt feelings.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[someSnarkyBastard]

We need to take a 0 tolerance approach to the possession of alcohol.

Please tell me you forgot to add the [sarcasm] tag to that sentence, We tried zero-tolerance in regard to alcohol for ten years; it was a flaming failure. If anything, alcohol prohibition made alcohol easier to acquire and more widespread than ever before. It achieved the exact opposite of its stated goals.

Fast forward ninety years and you can see the same thing with drugs, especially cannabis.

Prohibition does not work. Period. Full stop.

The problem is not people drinking, it's people using alcohol as an excuse to abdicate themselves from responsibility.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Guppy06]

No, what I am saying is that, if you're brandishing a weapon in public you are... breaking the law. If you are breaking the law, the person will be much better served by calling the police with his phone, than by putting an update into this gun tracking website.

Except most (if not all) of the relevant laws do not result in that person no longer being allowed to own a gun, thanks in no small part to the gun lobby. Drunken shooter discharges his weapon in a residential area, the police come, the shooter pays a fine, and then the shooter is free to continue drinking and owning a gun. Short of a repeal of the Second Amendment, calling the police may accomplish something this time but will not prevent the situation from happening again in the future. The only solution left is to not be around if and when the shooter decides to go drunk shooting again, which is what this geotagging facilitates.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[LanMan04]

Scissors, cars, and matches have ENORMOUS social utility. Guns do not.

I'd argue that public pools don't either.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[ScentCone]

I also highly doubt that this app is designed to report gun ranges, as they are usually clearly marked on the outside of the facility.

The whole point is that it's designed to report whatever people feel like reporting. It's mean as a tool of intimidation, just like the interactive who-owns-guns maps designed to make legal owners feel increasingly threatened by theft, etc.

This whole string of responses relates to ADs. Not public "brandishing." Stick with one topic, or make it clear you're having more than one conversation.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[jittles]

The whole point is that it's designed to report whatever people feel like reporting. It's mean as a tool of intimidation, just like the interactive who-owns-guns maps designed to make legal owners feel increasingly threatened by theft, etc.

I understand the point of the app. Which is why I originally started this by saying I should make an app that allows you to intimidate university lecturers.

This whole string of responses relates to ADs. Not public "brandishing." Stick with one topic, or make it clear you're having more than one conversation.

Guppy06 said that the point of the app was to allow you to report when someone is publicly mishandling a gun. This way you knew to avoid areas with jackasses that are likely to have an AD. He then went on to claim that you could not call the police on someone who is mishandling a gun. My contention is that if you are in public then your weapon is properly stored in a holster, case, or something else, or you are brandishing it. If it is properly stored, there is no way for it to AD. If you have it in your hand in public, then you are either defending yourself or breaking the law. And that is true in the most conservative of jurisdictions. It is silly to include ADs that may happen in the privacy of ones home or business because there is no way for the app user to report those cases unless they are looking through your windows. So yes, brandishing does apply to this conversation because the police will respond to someone brandishing a firearm. In most places that is a felony which will result in the person losing their right to own a firearm if they are convicted.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, so you have a problem with something you don't like, but that seems to be constitutionally protected. hmm, where have I seen that before?

P.S. Don't worry, the irony is still safe, albeit crying from your abuse over there in the corner.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[athenaprime]

Gun laws don't prevent gun violence as criminals are already breaking the law. However if one of the victims had been allowed to carry his weapon legally there might have been far fewer casualties.

One point I never see being brought up is the difference between an armed criminal and a person with a gun. Put quite frankly, the criminal is already less invested in maintaining a peaceful situation because he is armed and engaging in a criminal act. However, a person with a gun is still invested in maintaining peace in the situation, at least slightly moreso than the criminal, because up to that point, he is still a law-abiding citizen with a gun. Once Person With A Gun pulls that gun with the intent to maim or kill, that person may meet the criminal head-on in investiture, but will still be a step behind because he hasn't yet abandoned the notion of peaceable society with respect to worrying about bystanders, safety, and other factors that come with the operation of a dangerous and deadly weapon in the presence of others. The armed criminal has already abandoned that concern and has no need to control aim or reduce threat to onlookers. So our would-be hero is operating a day late and a dollar short, so to speak, crippled by lack of response and multiple areas of concern, and that's not entirely a bad thing.

I don't know of a single, sane, CC permit-holder ready to rush in and play Rambo in a situation like that, because, presumably, they understand the gravity of the situation. The minute the ability or desire to fire the gun trumps the concern for the safety is when responsible gun owner becomes not-so-responsible.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[Reziac]

Let's try that with one of the items listed in the long-ago inciting post:

Giving a child a swimming pool for a present is not inherently dangerous; leaving a filled pool where children can access it is.

Re:All guns are dangerous...

[NeutronCowboy]

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-idea-that-recent-mass-shooters-are-mostly-registered-democrats-is-a-myth

Based on the most basic of research, I found the same results for the statements that are most easily verified (Hasan, Lanza, Cho). Furthermore, this appears to be nothing but a lame copy-paste job.

How does it feel to be so completely led around by the nose by your conservative manipulators? Does it feel good to be told nothing but what you want to believe? Of course it does. It still doesn't excuse it.

Geotag those military bases!

[magic maverick]

The most dangerous people in society with guns are the police and the military. The police kill far more civilians with guns than any other single group, other than the military.

So, geotag the bases and locations of known members of the biggest gangs around! The occupation is rough, let's make it rougher for them.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many police shootings have there been so far this year in the USA? Can you link to the stat? I know there have been around 219 murders and 1,000 shot in Chicago area alone so far this year... oh wait, those were not by police...and guns are banned there... Never mind.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[i kan reed]

I think you'll find the U.S. Military is actually really good about gun safety, on the level. Armories aren't easily accessed and reasonable safety precautions are taken for every live-fire exercise.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the police have special legal protections about concealing their home addresses.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's odd.... how could you have so many shootings in a city where guns are banned? Oh... wait!... Criminals don't follow laws.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[kilfarsnar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2013

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet they still manage to shoot a huge number of people per year.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[magic maverick]

And yet they still manage to shoot and kill civilians! Oh wait, those are "potential terrorists" and "collateral damage" (yeah, some guys were firing some weapons in the air, so we blew the shoot out of them, what do you mean that's how they celebrate weddings? what sort of fucked up culture celebrates weddings by having the shit blown out of them?).

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[rossdee]

"The police kill far more civilians with guns than any other single group"

Maybe its better not to have a gun then if you are a civilian

" other than the military."

The US A military tends to mostly kill non-US civilians. (Although many of them are shooting at the US military, so I think those should be fair game)
  One answer to that is to not have the US military in foreign countries , and at least Obama is doing that...

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Penguinisto]

Dunno about you, but having been in the military, and having done IPSC events as a civilian alongside cops?

I can tell you that I trust a typical soldier's sense of gun safety (and accuracy!) far more than I would trust a typical police officer's.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[TheCarp]

As part of gun safety, you are not supposed to ever point a gun, not even an unloaded one, at anyone who isn't a clear and present threat to your life or the lives of others.

When you invade someone elses country you are the threat, so that seems like a basic violation of gun safety right there.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[pepty]

They've also made it much harder to steal a main battle tank. Hasn't happened near me for quite some time.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most cops I know can't even properly field strip and clean their own weapon.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US A military tends to mostly kill non-US civilians.

And we all know that non-US people are worthless animals who can be killed for sport, right?

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[fustakrakich]

I think you'll find the U.S. Military is actually really good about gun safety...

Just don't get the hiccups...

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[NatasRevol]

That's ..... a freaking lot.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[CronoCloud]

The problem is, the rest of the state isn't as strict...so they can just head to Rockford or Peoria, etc etc. That's part of the frictions.

It's like how it doesn't matter that DC has strict laws since right across the Potomac is gun-crazed Virginia which is where the majority of firearms used in DC crimes come from.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere near complete - and it says so on top. The police in the US kill roughly 500 folks a year in reported justifiable homicide and around 100 more in accidental shootings or misidentifications.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[CronoCloud]

I can tell you that I trust a typical soldier's sense of gun safety (and accuracy!) far more than I would trust a typical police officer's.

I would agree, though I'm not overly fond of the "militarization" of police hiring practices.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[interkin3tic]

Well, the number of gun homicides in Chicago ARE going down. And the murder rate in Chicago per capita is below that of Memphis and many other cities which seem to have less restrictive gun control.

I'm not suggesting gun control is the cause of that, just pointing out that it's a purely manufactured crisis. Chicago isn't among the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world. New Orleans has four times the murders Chicago does. San Pedro Sula has TEN times as many murders. Chicago isn't as safe as, say, rural Japan, but it's not "dangerous" compared to most other places in the US. More people die of texting while driving than die by guns in Chicago.

Simple things like increasing or decreasing the number of guns isn't going to really affect crime rates unless you go to extremes. Successfully eliminate the vast majority of guns or arm everyone and then you'll see changes in crime, either for the better or worse I don't claim to know. Debating concealed carry laws or waiting periods is a waste of time. As you said, criminals don't follow laws. And both sides of gang wars are armed, yet it's not proving a deterrence to violence. Suggesting that more guns = lower crime assumes that criminals will act rationally. Kids in gangs certainly don't act rationally.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[drainbramage]

So, is that why gun crime is so much higher outside of the strict gun control DC?
Because there are so many more guns away from DC????
Does this include chicago too?
--
Please show your work as you solve this question.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic a-bit. History, Rodney King was badly beaten by the Los Angeles Police in the early 1990's. It was captured on home video and went all over the news (This is for the benefit of y'all to young to have lived through it). 4 police officers were charged with criminal use of excessive force and other charges. They were acquited, and major riots occurred. The National Guard was called out, but their deployment was was delayed about 24 hours. It seems the person with the keys to the armory wasn't around to get their ammo!

Follow up. The police officers involved were then charged Federally with violating Mr. King's civil rights, some (two?) were convicted.

Back to the California National Guard. Guess which Governor created a 24 hour rapid response team for the National Guard, including response to Civil unrest. They would be able to respond within 24 hours to any situation. The Governor after him ended the program as 'unneccessary?' Answer: Governor Jerry Brown, during his first terms in office in the 1970's. I put that in because it creates cognitive dissonance: a 1970's "Liberal" supporting such a law-and-order response?
Cognitive dissonance is good for you!

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Rockoon]

What was happening in April?

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

146 nationwide vs 219 in Chicago alone. I think that completely debunks magic maverick comment. The most dangerous people with guns in society are Chicagoans. Of course, there are gang members with guns. They fire indiscriminately and don't care who else dies.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[NatasRevol]

But 146 different officers killed people.

How many people were doing the killing of the 219?

If it's a handful of gangsters, then the comment still stands.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, it's stupid to argue that gun ownership directly affects crime.

What it does affect is the local economy, especially when you have a lot of poverty and crime. When you have a lawless area, if you can't arm yourself, you can't do business. Shops that are repeatedly robbed will simply close. When businesses and their employees can arm themselves, they tend to bring jobs and wealth.

When the economy expands, the legal market tends to displace the black market, and that affects crime.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[ganjadude]

We should also look at how much safer locations with lax gun laws are

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, just dig in to those. Look at how many stories end with 'unnamed male was shot after he allegedly pointed a gun at the officer, no gun was found.'

I'd bet any normal person would go to prison for a few decades when claiming self defense but having no proof.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[X0563511]

Clicking a few at random, they all seem relatively justified.

Suspect refuses to drop knife. Suspect gets up and approaches officers - suspect gets shot.
Suspect hiding in a drainage pipe. Suspect is belligerent, and aims gun at officers - suspect gets shot.
Suspect escapes from handcuffs and aims gun at officers - suspect gets shot.
Suspect drives car aggressively towards officers - suspect gets shot.

Notice a theme, here? Most of these involve the suspect threatening imminent harm or death to the officers, so they respond with force.

This proves nothing beyond the fact that the USA is a large and diverse country.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[interkin3tic]

When businesses and their employees can arm themselves, they tend to bring jobs and wealth.

Well, no, that's still simplistic. The South Side isn't the South Side simply because businesses can't do business there due to gun control. A more likely explanation is that the South Side is the way it is because corrupt politicians see an advantage to keeping it that way, or at least no advantage in cleaning it up. And neither do the citizens of the rest of Chicago for that matter. There's a sentiment among some that fixing the South Side will simply raise crime everywhere else in the city.

And honestly, the laziest way to fix the South Side would be to displace everyone who is there now to a new ghetto. So you can be sure that's exactly what would happen in Chicago rather than, say, improving schools, creating higher paying jobs in the area, or changing the culture of violence. Not that I know how one would do any of the better fixes anyway.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[X0563511]

Yep, they shoot into the air like fucking idiots, getting innocent people in the area killed by falling bullets.

Though they don't deserve to be shot for that, I don't have all that much sympathy for it.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[X0563511]

I think this points out the problems with alcohol, not with firearms...

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[X0563511]

Let me clue you in on something.

You're at a checkpoint. There's a guy in the crowd who is clearly got something bad planned. You can do nothing, because he is "not a threat."

The guy whips out a gun and sprays the checkpoint. Several of your guys get injured. You can do nothing, because he is in a crowd of innocents. He runs into a building and drops the gun. He then walks into the street. You can do nothing. Why? Because he is "not a threat" anymore.

Our rules of engagement are over-the-top in trying to protect against collateral damage. I'm no soldier myself, but I got to listen to three of them bemoaning about this situation - a corpsman, a SIGINT guy, and a guy who's position was unclear to me but was in charge of 20 infantry.

Yet you still have people like you, who think we mow down dozens of children at a time, just for giggles.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chicago isn't among the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world. New Orleans has four times the murders Chicago does."

Incorrect. Chicago had 431 murders in 2011 while New Orleans had 199 in the Wikipedia chart you linked. The chart is wrong.

As far as the murder rate dropping, there were 506 murders in 2012, an INCREASE of 17% over the prior year, which is plainly omitted in the MediaMatters article you linked .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed]

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[interkin3tic]

Well, obviously you need to correct for population or else LA and New York are far and away the most dangerous cities out there. In 2011, Chicago had a population of 2,703,713. New Orleans had a population of 346,974. Do the math. Or don't actually, one of the wiki articles I linked to already did. Per 100,000 residents, New Orleans had 57.6 murders, while Chicago had 15.9. The chart is correct.

Your other point is also a real failure to grasp numbers. 506 murders in 2012 is still down significantly from the nineties.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

One answer to that is to not have the US military in foreign countries , and at least Obama is doing that...

Really?

Obama approves Afghanistan troop increase
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/obama.troops/ .Obama Issues Order for More Troops in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/asia/01orders.html?_r=0

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[CronoCloud]

I don't know why people think the murder rate in Chicago is bad, it isn't even in the top 10! Neither is NYC, LA, or DC.

Our violent crime rate is actually similar to other nations...the problem is our gun ownership is higher so that the violence can often escalate into a fatality.

My best guess is that it's tied to economic despair. Some of the worst places are having a VERY hard time economically, St. Louis, Memphis, Birmingham, Oakland. So medium sized cities that don't get the national attention NYC, Chicago and LA get.

Though if you go by state, the southwest and south tends to be more violent, the upper midwest/upper great plains the least.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

New Orleans, Memphis, etc are are going to have a lot of murders even if they did have Chicago style gun control because they are largely populated by low-life scum. In fact, it may even go up as women and older people would not be able to have an effective deterrent against those individuals.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[rahvin112]

I believe the issue with Chicago that draws the attention is that the vast majority of the killings are in certain areas that have a predominate population of ethnic minorities. Where if you lower the counting to just those areas the murder rate is the highest in the country.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

The official justifications are not always truthful. They are entered into the system by the officers who of course have a strong motivation to cover up any wrongdoing on their part. A while back, a deaf native american woodcarver was shot on a sidewalk in Seattle for "refusing to drop his knife". The officer pulled up behind him in an unmarked car, did not identify himself as a police officer, and shot him after he did not react to his yelling. Of course, the knife was a perfectly legal (less than 3" blade) folding knife and was in a closed position. The man was walking away from the officer completely oblivious to him, and was shot when he finally heard his yells and turned around to see what was going on.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably you're being deliberately obtuse; but if you're not, the first quote is more correctly written:

"Police kill, using a firearm, more civilians than any other single group."

Whether they are 'justified shoots' is another question, but quite often the answer is yes.

Re:Geotag those military bases!

[uninformedLuddite]

The don't need to build a new ghetto. They just subsidise housing for these people and spread them out through the suburbs evenly. What could go wrong?

No Way This Can Be Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

This will obviously be 100% used for legitimate purposes.

Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't users who tag someone as a dangerous gun owner run up against potential libel laws?

Re:Libel

[Penguinisto]

Wouldn't users who tag someone as a dangerous gun owner run up against potential libel laws?

Laws, no. A lawsuit, maybe... depends on how the app is constructed, and what it 'says'. There's a difference between (note the contrast):
* "A gun owner lives here that scares me right out of my Birkenstocks"
* "OMFG THIS LUNATIC IZ TEH EVILZ AND HE EATS BABIES!!!11!!"

I know, way too blatant, but used to illustrate a point - you can only sue for libel/slander if what it says isn't true, and it is done in a malicious manner. While the prof does remove the first safety (by making a politically charged app that can be very easily construed as being used for malicious intent), the way it's worded still has to be used to project an untruth about the person who gets offended enough to sue over it.

Re:Libel

[jcrb]

Its worse than Libel, its endangerment.

Someone tags as dangerous an address (incorrectly) where there is no registered gun owner, police raid house looking for illegal guns, shoot family dog in the process.

Someone tags as dangerous an address (maliciously) where there is a registered gun owner, police raid house. shoot gun owner who pulls gun on intruders breaking down their door at 3am.

Someone tags as dangerous a business (incorrectly), which loses business due to customers (incorrectly) avoiding it, people loose jobs.

Someone tags (correctly) the whole of the South side of the City of Chicago, city sues everyone who tagged any location for harming the reputation of such a fine city.

Re:Libel

[CanHasDIY]

I know, way too blatant, but used to illustrate a point - you can only sue for libel/slander if what it says isn't true, and it is done in a malicious manner.

Not true - The plaintiff probably won't win if what you say is true, but there's nothing stopping them from using the civil court as a billy club against your financial security.

Voice of experience here.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

What world do you live in? Police don't just raid a house because of some tag on Google Earth. What nonsense. You think we have a fleet of detectives monitoring Facebook in case someone posts "committin' a crime right naw!" And we announce ourselves so the homeowner would have no doubt it's the police and not some "intruder breaking down their door at 3am."
Police! Search warrant!
Who could it be, honey?
Police! Search Warrant!
I don't know, dear, probably Libyan rebels! Shoot! Shoot! Shoot! Shoot! Oh, they have police badges and they say they're police. Lies! KGB assassins! Shoot! Shoot! Shoot! Oh, it's our neighbor Detective Friday. Noes! It's a flat-earther kill-squad! Shoot! Shoot! Shoot!

Re:Libel

[jcrb]

What world do you live in? Police don't just raid a house because of some tag on Google Earth. What nonsense. You think we have a fleet of detectives monitoring Facebook in case someone posts "committin' a crime right naw!" And we announce ourselves so the homeowner would have no doubt it's the police and not some "intruder breaking down their door at 3am."!

What world do you live in sir? Clearly not the same one the rest of us do.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/cops-kill-dog-handcuff-kids-in-wrong-house-raid/
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55875924-78/lake-salt-landvatter-police.html.csp
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complaints-rise-as-city-draws-on-drug-tips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.wave3.com/story/1495631/false-tip-leads-police-to-raid-house-of-sleeping-family?clienttype=printable

and just because you are wearing a badge and say you are the police doesn't mean that you are

http://www.khou.com/news/local/HPD-Police-impersonators-using-fake-raids-to-rob-illegal-game-rooms-135144963.html

And your suggestion that the police do not read online sources or respond to tips that might come from them is also quite absurd

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/25/the-saga-of-travis-corcoran

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh goodness, in what world is your hysterical idea of a business losing customers endangerment?

At least come close to reality with your fantasies.

Re:Libel

[jcrb]

Oh goodness, in what world is your hysterical idea of a business losing customers endangerment?

At least come close to reality with your fantasies.

Oh the wonders of the internet if someone says anything we don't like they are in a fantasy land? Seriously? You clearly can't read or make any judgements for yourself that you need me to specify that the first two are obvious endangerments, the next is malicious falsehood which may lead to reputational injury which is a damage to business property, which happens to be a crime in NY called.....

Reckless endangerment of property.
    A person is guilty of reckless endangerment of property when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of damage to the property of another person in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars.

So it would be pretty easy to cause a lost of business exceeding $250, thus endangerment.

The last one is what we who can separate reality from fantasy like to call sarcasm, but since you seem to have trouble I'll admit that I don't think it would represent endangerment of the reputation of the City of Chicago since they don't have any reputation left to endanger.

Re:Libel

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone tags as dangerous an address (incorrectly) where there is no registered gun owner, police raid house looking for illegal guns, shoot family dog in the process.

If the police raid a house, with guns drawn, on no more evidence than a "tag" on a publicly editable database, then that police department should be sued into oblivion.

oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

Start complaining... now.

And the rest of the world says

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans and their guns

Re:And the rest of the world says

[Anonymous Coward]

non-Americans say the darnedest things don't they?
Respect Middle Eastern cultural differences, let us not pass judgement!
Respect Asian cultural differences, let us not pass judgement!
Respect African cultural differences, let us not pass judgement!
America has no culture, even though they have a different way of life than us. Let us pass judgement freely!

Re:And the rest of the world says

[Barryke]

Why mod as troll? This actually IS what they say..

your nearest gun is here

[jamesh]

I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party.

It differs because a list of people belonging to a religion or political party doesn't help you if you need to find a gun in a hurry.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[dkleinsc]

It also differs because the people with lots of guns has the means to kill a lot of people. I'm not saying that people without a lot of guns couldn't kill a lot of other people, but the fact of the matter is that a nutjob with a knife is a lot easier to stop than a nutjob with lots of guns.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party.

It differs because a list of people belonging to a religion or political party doesn't help you if you need to find a gun in a hurry.

What about the list of members of the 1st Guns & Moses Reformed Church?

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party.

It differs because a list of people belonging to a religion or political party doesn't help you if you need to find a gun in a hurry.

That's an absolutely asinine statement. This app is targeted at marking "unsafe" gun owners, not illegal, and has nothing to do with "finding a gun in a hurry". In other words, all anti-gun users of this app will do is use it to mark all known gun owners. What is the criteria for determining "unsafe"?

Really, it's just a creepy stalker app. You could use it for hot girls. Creepy. Stalker. With the added benefit of letting anyone using it who ISN'T concerned about the alleged well-being of friends and relatives know where people own guns.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

It ain't just differ, it actually complements!

Let's say you have that app that geo tag religion + political + gun.
I think this could be pretty usefull to avoid dangerous areas...

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to review the law, particularly the law of unintended consequences, and you're probably overdue for a recalibration of your sense of humor.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[gandhi_2]

A nutjob with a knife in a Japanese school, it turns out, is hard to stop.

Especially in a gun-free society.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, people believed to belong to a particular political party can be easily checked against publicly available online records which can instantly confirm if a person has ever had affiliations with known political parties. Religious beliefs are just about as simple assuming you've ever been a member of a religious organization that had a "members" list or filled out a survey that asked for it. Hell, many religious people actively want you to know what religion they belong to.

The real question is why aren't guns as easily checkable as someone's political party or religion?

Re: your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

A nut job with a knife is only easily stopped by someone with a gun. Definition of ironic.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lots of guns doesn't translate to the ability to kill "lots of people". You can only shoot one at a time accurately, and you can only pull the trigger so many times a minute, so having lots of ammo doesn't translate either.

Just one frearm, a few full magazines, and a relaxed psychotic individual is enough to kill plenty of people.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[poity]

We end up with old dudes in suburbs getting tagged because somebody saw an antique rifle hanging on the wall during a dinner party and luckily could still start the app on their iPhone with their trembling hands, while gang-affiliated teens in urban neighborhoods go untagged because nobody cares about 5000+ black/latino teenagers getting shot every year, it's the 20+ white babies every year that we need to save.

Re: your nearest gun is here

[pepty]

Or a stick.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[poity]

oops, hope I don't get nitpicked for saying iPhone for an Android app

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Chas]

That's an absolutely asinine statement. This app is targeted at marking "unsafe" gun owners, not illegal, and has nothing to do with "finding a gun in a hurry".

Which could be viewed as a form of libel. Which most definitely *is* illegal.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing how America has no shortage of nutjobs that manage to harm people.

You'd think with all the guns we have, literally more guns than people, that crime here would be non-existent. But instead the facts show that we're one of the most violent and dangerous crime-ridden nations on earth.

But we're free... to live in terror of our neighbors.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

What about two nutjob islamic chechens with bombs?

Are we to judge a majority by actions of the minority?

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"Here's a map to businesses and households where your chance of getting shot while robbing them is lowest."

You have been warned. Don't think it won't happen. When Florida passed a CCW law, carjackers took to robbing tourist rentals. They had to change the license plate style on rentals so they weren't distinctive. (I assume they finally did this anyway.)

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, when it's poor people shooting each other (with handguns) it's no biggie. Bunch of white people get shot with a scary looking gun, and scary looking guns get banned in a bunch of states. For example, MD - 200+ are murdered in Bodymore every year, the vast majority with handguns, yet there's an "assault-style weapon" ban kicking in in October. Guarantee that there will be 200+ killed in Baltimore next year too.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[drainbramage]

People with a lot of pressure cookers "has the means to kill a lot of people"
People with a car bomb "has the means to kill a lot of people"
People that strap bombs to little children "has the means to kill a lot of people"
People that hijack planes "has the means to kill a lot of people"
People that make (insert favorite gas or poison) has the means to kill a lot of people"
--
When your 'nutjob with a knife' is slicing your daughter up, I trust you would not resort to a horrible gun to stop him and you would of course stop any armed police from interfering.
--
By the way, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people then 99.99 per cent of the guns in America.
And his punishment was re-election to the senate.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[CrimsonAvenger]

and has nothing to do with "finding a gun in a hurry".

Of course it does! If you need to steal a gun, what better way to find one than just looking up the location of the nearest gun owner with this app?

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

The nearest irresponsible gun owner, for example one who doesn't properly prevent third party access to his guns...

Re:your nearest gun is here

[dkleinsc]

When your 'nutjob with a knife' is slicing your daughter up, I trust you would not resort to a horrible gun to stop him and you would of course stop any armed police from interfering.

There are other weapons besides guns that are effective against knife-wielding maniacs: swords, walking sticks, broom handles, etc. And yes, I would also shoot if I had a gun handy.

My position is not "All guns are evil" but "Someone with a lot of guns is more likely to be a threat to me than someone with no guns". The guy with a concealed carry license and a pistol, or someone with a rifle they use to hunt with once a year, I'm not too worried about. The guy with 5 AR-15s, 3 AK-47s, an assortment of pistols, hand grenades, and buying large quantities of ingredients for bombs, I'm a bit concerned about. For example, I grew up not far from where this guy went on a rampage and killed 6 people over a tax bill.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[treeves]

What about someone armed with fresh fruit?

Re:your nearest gun is here

[samwichse]

Yes, a man in China stabbed 22 children in a spree, all of whom survived.

That Lanza douche shot 28 (not including his mother at home) and 2 survived.

A gun by itself doesn't cause violence, but it makes it super easy to escalate violent force into the deadly range.

To quote Farnsworth: "Who needs courage, when you have a gun!"

Sam

Re: your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a tazer.
Or a bean bag rifle.
Or mace.
Or CS-Gas.

Guns are not the only way to stop a madman with a weapon, indeed they are among the least effective means of stopping a violent attack due to collateral damages of accidentally shooting and killing innocent bystanders. Most innocent people will survive an accidental tazing, but gunshots tend to be far more fatal.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

The reasonable response is to log in with a manufactured id once a day and put a tag on a random person. Use a different id each day. 1000 people doing this for a month kills the usefulness of the program by burying it in spam.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Anonymous Coward]

... a nutjob with a knife is a lot easier to stop ...

The number of wankers who spouted this in 1997 was amazing. Know what also happened in 1997? Australia banned a lot more guns and the serious crime rate doubled.

Re:your nearest gun is here

[gandhi_2]

The Osaka School Massacre : 8 killed, 15 wounded.

This makes fascinating reading, actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_related_to_primary_schools

And those are just the "primary" schools!

Re:your nearest gun is here

[Izuzan]

just because someone has a lot of guns means nothing to their mental state. someone could own 200 so called "Assault rifles" and never shoot more than paper.
just as someone who owns no legal firearms couldn't go out and buy one off the street and kill everyone in a McDonald's.

The Number and type of firearms someone owns really is a moot point. the gunman from sandy hook (i refuse to give his name more air time) didn't own any guns himself. he blew his mothers face off getting her guns. she allowed him to take her guns to the range. but was also trying to get him mental help and kept getting denied. she really shouldn't have let him anywhere near them, but he would have gotten the guns he needed no matter what. it was just easier to kill his mother to get hers than to go and try and buy one on the black market. he could have just as easily gone to "visit" one of the people from the gun range and killed them for their guns.

the main issue here is mental health and gangs. if we could separate the numbers into gang related, suicide, legal gun owners, and police shootings. Im pretty sure suicide and gang crime firearm deaths would be far higher than legal gun owners.

Lets go after law abiding citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

But make sure not to do this for criminals, right?

Re:Lets go after law abiding citizens

[luis_a_espinal]

But make sure not to do this for criminals, right?

Both sides of the argument (pro-guns, anti-guns) are lead by venomous morons who got their arguments (and their problem statements) wrong in the name of ideology.

Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[Anonymous Coward]

"As a crowd sourced information tool, the information about dangerous gun sites comes from users." In other words, if I have a grudge against my neighbor, or just want to mess with somebody, can I just post that they are "dangerous" and their home/location appears in the app??

Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[Anonymous Coward]

Hhmm. Good idea.

Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[camperdave]

"As a crowd sourced information tool, the information about dangerous gun sites comes from users." In other words, if I have a grudge against my neighbor, or just want to mess with somebody, can I just post that they are "dangerous" and their home/location appears in the app??

In other words, this will last until the first politician gets tagged.

Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[Thud457]

no, you :
1. anonymously list them in the database as a "dangerous gun owner".
2. then you call in a domestic violence report to the police.
at the very least, his door gets kicked in, his dog gets shot and he gets zip-tied and thrown to the ground with a boot on the back of his neck.
If he IS a gun owner, he get shot dead.
3. Lawsuit!

Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[Kjella]

Yep, smells like a harassment/slander lawsuit in the making.

Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[gl4ss]

"As a crowd sourced information tool, the information about dangerous gun sites comes from users." In other words, if I have a grudge against my neighbor, or just want to mess with somebody, can I just post that they are "dangerous" and their home/location appears in the app??

pretty much yeah.
you could just script it to mark entirety of detroit and L.A too.
the prof just make a geotagging app and couldn't think of anything more useful. shit simple app to do, too. I doubt he was smart enough to build in deprecation of data(nutjobs occasionally move).

now if he only had done an actual favor and made an app that showed the map of homicides in the past 2 years.

otoh it might be that he made the app just to drive down real estate pricing in a district of his choosing.

Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's how your police operate I guess you can skip step 1.

Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling that some wanna be gang bangers will probably try to steal guns from people tagged.

Re:Who chooses the "dangerous" sites???

[Libertarian_Geek]

In all seriousness, shouldn't we use it to tag the politicians who use drone attacks?

Wrong strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

"I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party."

Should be comparing the geopositioning of dangerous guns and owners to sex offenders.

Re:Wrong strawman

[lxs]

This is worse. At least the latter were proven to be sex offenders in court (flawed as the process may be) according to the summary, no actual proof is needed to end up on the map.

Re:Wrong strawman

[Jaysyn]

This is worse. At least the latter were proven to be sex offenders in court (flawed as the process may be) according to the summary, no actual proof is needed to end up on the map.

Great point. So how long do you think it will take for the 5 million plus NRA members to make this dataset completely useless once they are aware of it as a group?

Re:Wrong strawman

[Trepidity]

This map doesn't have any force of law, though, unlike the sex offender registry. You are not required to register yourself on the map each time you move, for example.

Re:Wrong strawman

[TheCarp]

> At least the latter were proven to be sex offenders in court

How is this insightful in a country where 90% of convicts never even get a trial? Most people are not proven anything in court, most people are threatened with so many charges and years in jail that they will plead guilty whether they are actually or not rather than take a chance of ending up behind bars for a significant portion of their life.

Re:Wrong strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

A closer approximation would be DontDateHimGirl.com or DatingPsychos.com, where an anonymous person can, with no evidence, make a claim of abusive behavior about any person and have that information on the internet with no way to remove or challenge the information and no way to determine or prove who made the claim. And, this claim could effect more than just one person. It could effect real estate sales, property values, insurance rates, etc. of neighbors.
 
And it would do so with no evidence, just the word of an anonymous person.

Re:Wrong strawman

[CrimsonAvenger]

So how long do you think it will take for the 5 million plus NRA members to make this dataset completely useless once they are aware of it as a group?

Good point, indeed! We only have to add 30 or so addresses each, and the dataset will be done - everyone will be in it...

Re:Wrong strawman

[luis_a_espinal]

This map doesn't have any force of law, though, unlike the sex offender registry. You are not required to register yourself on the map each time you move, for example.

It has no force of law, and it has no measure or moderation of law either. It is quite easy to harass someone with it. I think the risk of harassing someone is pretty far fetch (which is why as a pragmatic gun owner I don't lose my sleep over such an app.)

With that said, the app is so silly and useless, and to think people might actually think it does something useful, it's just pathetic. It provides merely a sense of false safety on dubious "information awareness".

To you, the generic "you" that owns or things to own such an app - your app shows some people flagged around your neighborhood? How do you know the information is reliable? Can you objectively assume that a flagged person is truly dangerous or unsafe? Most importantly, what are you going to do, objectively speaking?

Here goes to the fatal flaw of such an approach. The app might give you data, data whose accuracy you cannot corroborate. Assuming the data is sufficiently accurate, data is not information. And information is not useful unless is is "actionable". Otherwise it is simply TBU (true but useless).

You got a home next to yours that is labeled as suspect of having a dangerous/unsafe firearm. What do you do? Do you stare at them through your window? Do yo cow yourself in terror? Do you tell your kids "be sure not to walk in front of the house of those dangerous people"?

What the fuck would you do other than either scaring yourself out of proportion, or giving yourself a feeling that you are actually doing something?

There is a mental-health/education/socioeconomic problem with violent characteristics that gun-safety advocates like to paint as a gun problem. OTH, that same mental-health/education/socioeconomic problem is being characterized in terms reminiscent of Lebensunwertes Leben, with gun owners being the only ones holding the liberty gates against the hordes of undesirables.

Obviously there should be some type of compromise that guarantee's law abiding citizens rights to own firearms while at the same time doing the utmost to prevent the criminal and the criminal insane from getting a hold of them.

But the entire discussion has fallen into the realms of the idiotic, and mindless. This app is just another reflection of that endemic failure from all parties involved in engaging in a constructive solution to the problem.

Re:Wrong strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

While that is true, if one doesn't move and doesn't have a gun how does one get removed from the app? What if the person labeling one's house a dangerous location is one's crazy neighbor who is mad at one for calling the police during a 0200 violent fight with his wife? What if the person is one's stalker or one's girlfriend's stalker?

Re:Wrong strawman

[Aranykai]

How can you be a "convict" without being tried? Not defending the practices of the DAs, but making that kind of claim makes you look ignorant. If they accept a plea bargain, they have refused their right to a trial.

Re:Wrong strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

It was insightful because the GP qualified it with "as flawed as the process may be".

Re:Wrong strawman

[taustin]

He's referring to the fact that most defendants jump at the chance to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. It isn't that 90% of defendents aren't allowed a trial, but rather, they choose not to have one, knowing they'll be found guilty (because they are), and that they'll spend more time in prison that way.

It's the sort of thing you hear from someone who took the plea bargain, but still insists they were innocent.

Re:Wrong strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree with tracking Sex Offenders either.

If you're not going to track any other forms of crime ( violent and otherwise ) why track just the Sex Offenders ?

And just fyi, in America these days it's stupidly easy to get a lifetime scarlet letter in the form of " Sex Offender ". Hell, all you have to do
is be a horny under-aged teenager and send the wrong thing to another horny under-aged teenager ( or, gasp, actually have sex ) and watch
the parents try to sue and / or bring criminal charges against the others kiddo.

Even IF you're not officially convicted, the mere accusation is more than enough to destroy your life and your career.

Re:Wrong strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you all those convicts had the option of a trial, and plea bargained out of it. The state offered them a reduced sentence and they took it. The only reason to take the deal is if your sure you would be convicted in a trial.

By all means, if you are charged, insist on a trial. You'll do less spamming of misleading information as a result of your incarceration.

Re:Wrong strawman

[Anonymous Coward]

... people are threatened with so many charges

"Give me liberty or give me death".

I know I am preaching from my armchair but if the US government had to fund the incarceration of every prisoner for 20 years, the blackmail and bureaucratic thuggery excused by a 'tough on crime' sound-byte would be a lot less. Then again, look at Georgia: They privatized their prisons and the punishment for misdemeanors tripled.

Re:Wrong strawman

[blindseer]

Look at Georgia again, a city there mandated home owners also be gun owners and crime went down.

Re:Wrong strawman

[athenaprime]

This is worse. At least the latter were proven to be sex offenders in court (flawed as the process may be) according to the summary, no actual proof is needed to end up on the map.

Great point. So how long do you think it will take for the 5 million plus NRA members to make this dataset completely useless once they are aware of it as a group?

Probably just long enough for someone to wave enough money in the NRA's face to sell their mailing list. The more I listen to this conversation, the more I realize that passionate people on both sides are being played, and if you follow the money, it's the ginned-up fear of both sides that has one thing in common--more gun sales. Good God, how the money rolls in....Cha-Ching!

Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[Anonymous Coward]

This has litigation written all over it, lible, invasion of privacy, etc. He won't begin to be able to afford the swarm of lawsuits if people start actually using the app.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[Anonymous Coward]

If the app uses publicly available information, how can it be privacy invasion?

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[NicBenjamin]

Uhh...

You do realize that in the US "Invasion of Privacy" is perfectly legal as long as the invaders aren't the government? The first amendment says that if I find something out about you legally you have no right to stop me from telling everyone else about it.

Libel could conceivably be an issue, but a) the safe harbor provision should protect him, and b) if the person saying it believes it to be true it's not libel. Since many, many Americans define unsafe gun ownership to mean any gun ownership it's gonna be mighty tricky to prove that they should have known that keeping the damn things unloaded in a gun safe is safe.

That last bit is also why the list won't be terribly useful. If people start using it it will basically be a map of suspected gun-owners, because most people who post to something like that don't know/care whether you've got the damn things locked up in a case or not.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[Frankie70]

Apps or App writers don't libel or invade privacy. Users of Apps do.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[Aaden42]

Newspapers don't libel or invade privacy, reporters/authors do. Ask the paper how that works out for them when some hack reporter submits something libelous that gets printed.

If there's basis for a tort against someone for posting via this app, I have zero doubt that the app creators will be named in the suit. They may or may not prevail in court, but it's going to cost them a bundle in lawyers fees either way.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[Rockoon]

You do realize that in the US "Invasion of Privacy" is perfectly legal as long as the invaders aren't the government?

You dont seem to understand his point, or even really what he said.

Lawsuits have nothing to do with legality, and the cost of lawsuits arent affected by outcome.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[Anonymous Coward]

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

===
Comment: The right to Privacy is not explicitly stated in the US (Federal) Constitution, but some Supreme Court rulings have mentioned an implied right by nature of all other rights. Actual application has varied widely.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[Aranykai]

The person not only has to believe what they are saying is true, they have to have reason or evidence that would lead an average person to believe it was true. IE, I suspect my neighbor is defrauding social security, but I cant give out flyers to the neighbors on mere suspicion.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[NicBenjamin]

So you're saying that it's possible to sue people in the US for Invasion of Privacy, and nothing else, and win?

Because if you try that they declare you a vexatious litigant. This means you can only sue people after a court-appointed officer approves the suit.

This guy will be exactly like Defense Distributed. Half the country will freak out, a couple lawsuits may be filed, but he'll win them all easily. The increase in notoriety for this guy;'s books and lectures alone will make up the cost.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[NicBenjamin]

Here's the thing:
SSI Fraud is an actual crime, with an actual legal definition. If you accuse somebody of it you are accusing them of something very specific, which is fairly simple to prove one way or the other in Court.

OTOH, "dangerous gun-owner" is relative. In the opinion of many Americans, the numerous other Americans who keep a gun in the nightstand with bullets in it are engaging in dangerous behavior. That makes them (by definition) dangerous gun-owners. But other Americans argue that the dangerous thing to do is not have a weapon in the nightstand where it's handy.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[rahvin112]

Dangerous gun-owner is not a relative. You are directly stating someone is dangerous, which literally means they are either so irresponsible they could harm someone or are deliberately engaged in activities that could cause harm to someone. There is no ambiguity and such an accusation could actually harm someone and I can think of hundreds of circumstances that would cause direct harm.

Protection from a claim of Defamation requires that the statement BE truthful, not that you think it is. If sued you would be forced to prove that your statement about this "dangerous gun owner" was in fact truthful (as decided by either the judge or jury depending on the state) and if it wasn't you are on the hook for damages and likely punitive damages as well. Anyone putting someone on that list is going to be sued for defamation. I'd wager there will be ambulance chasers monitoring it and offering services to anyone that's posted. Hell I can see the NRA funding a legal campaign against anyone that puts a name on the list. You'd be a fool to put any name on that list regardless of how egregious their conduct is.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh...

You do realize that in the US "Invasion of Privacy" is perfectly legal as long as the invaders aren't the government? The first amendment says that if I find something out about you legally you have no right to stop me from telling everyone else about it.

Libel could conceivably be an issue, but a) the safe harbor provision should protect him, and b) if the person saying it believes it to be true it's not libel. Since many, many Americans define unsafe gun ownership to mean any gun ownership it's gonna be mighty tricky to prove that they should have known that keeping the damn things unloaded in a gun safe is safe.

That last bit is also why the list won't be terribly useful. If people start using it it will basically be a map of suspected gun-owners, because most people who post to something like that don't know/care whether you've got the damn things locked up in a case or not.

The best thing to sue for is "public disclosure of private facts."

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[NicBenjamin]

"Dangerous gun-owner" certainly is relative.

I know lots of people who swear they are safe because they have a weapon in their nightstand at all times. They believe they are protected by that gun, and think it is safe because a) everyone in the house is trained on it, b) it is loaded, but the safety's on and no round is chambered, etc. I think that's dangerous. I know others who think just having a weapon in your home is risky, even if it's got the safety on, is not cocked, is kept unloaded in a gun safe, etc. "Dangerous gun-owner" is simply a phrase that has no objectively true definition.

As for the truth being a defense to a defamation claim, that has to mean the truth you believe in your head. Otherwise it would be impossible to print a copy of the Zionist Protocols and not go bankrupt.

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[redlemming]

The first amendment says that if I find something out about you legally you have no right to stop me from telling everyone else about it.

No, it doesn't. The 1st amendment specifically only limits Congress from passing certain types of laws. It says nothing about the state governments being unable to pass laws protecting a right to privacy. This is a common misconception. The 14th Amendment can, in some circumstances, extend the restrictions placed on Congress to also limit state government, but the text of the 14th amendment itself is not specific as to what those circumstances are.

Privacy rights can reasonably be asserted as arising under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) and the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people). A violation of privacy is, of course, a violation of these rights. It is thus wrongful conduct whether or not explicit laws exist to make it so. In fact, there is no need for Congress to pass a law recognizing a right to privacy and the 1st Amendment limitation of the ability of Congress to pass certain types of law doesn't come into play with respect to making a violation of privacy wrongful conduct.

In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy arising under the 9th Amendment, the details of which were left rather vague.

State laws that define blackmail and extortion as crimes can be viewed as one way in which the states historically have recognized a right to privacy that supersedes freedom of the press, but this does not preclude other (stronger) ways of protecting privacy from being developed in the future. These laws, of course, have always been accepted by the Supreme Court.

Historically, privacy was less of an issue in the past, so whether or when the 14th brings the 1st into play with respect to this right is not particularly well resolved, and the conflict between the 9th / 10th Amendment privacy rights and the 1st/14th Amendment press and speech rights has never been thoroughly addressed by any court I am familiar with.

There are many situations where the rights protected under the 1st Amendment are superseded by other rights. In fact, we can go further and state that the 1st Amendment is long overdue for revision, given how many laws there already are that can reasonably be viewed as contradicting it, such as laws on industrial espionage, military espionage, libel/slander (some privacy rights here), the do-not-call list (another privacy right), false advertising, and the laws regulating insider knowledge in public corporations. This creates a major mess and a big problem within US law, since contradictions in the legal system can reasonably be viewed as involving ethical conflict of interest on the part of the legal profession (such contradictions create an artificial demand for their services of legal professionals, hence the conflict of interest with respect to the presence of contradictions in the legal system). Similar problems exist with respect to the 2nd Amendment, and many other rights that can reasonably be asserted as arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments. It's a situation that badly needs to be resolved in a clean way.

Commercial press organizations have a powerful conflict of interest here, which means that any ruling providing overly broad freedom of the press at the expense of privacy rights could be considered ethically suspect (i.e. were the judges bribed to support the press at the expense of the public?) and hence invalid (legal ethics being another fundamental right). Hence, to the limited extent that existing precedents apply to this area and provide freedom of the press at the expense of privacy, those precedents are ethically problematic. Also, precedents that fail to recognize the role of the 9th Amendment right to privacy can be considered violations of the oaths the judges took to uphold the Bill of Rights.

In short, we can summarize the current situation with respect to privacy rights by saying "it's a mess".

Freedom of t

Re:Kind of Lawsuits a Lawyer will love

[NicBenjamin]

That was a long post based on a poor understanding of the First Amendment. "Congress shall pass no laws..restricting freedom of the press" means Congress can pass no laws. No laws means no Court has the statutory authority to intervene. The 14th applies this to the states as well. The Ninth could be relevant, but a) it's generally understood as a check on government power over the people, rather then granting the government power to regulate people's behavior, and b) only if somebody actually passed a statute.

Since they haven't passed a statute the app is legal, just like it was legal when a newspaper outed every handgun owner in two counties.

Fear Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

How about police stations? Will they be tagged?

Re:Fear Mongering

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How about police stations? Will they be tagged?

As a matter of practice, are cops dangerous gun owners, or are they mere dangerous gun users, with nominal ownership of the hardware lodged in some municipal entity?

Re:Fear Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

Most law enforcement people I know purchase their own sidearms and backup weapons, although at a discount. The shotguns and ARs in the cars are provided.

Re:Fear Mongering

[Anonymous Coward]

A few departments are moronic (usually ones based in DC) and require officers to leave their weapons at work. Most departments in the United States issue the sidearm to the officer and he holds onto it until it's swapped for another or he leaves employment. Retirees are often allowed to keep their service weapon or "buy" their service weapon for a nominal fee. Officers will often buy additional weapons at their own expense because they enjoy shooting, and because plenty of thugs have made threats against them and their families.

Reviews on Play are hilarious!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more than worth the effort to read through the reviews on Google Play for this thing. Not only is it telling that the community rating is so low it induces tears of sympathy, the reviews are funny as all hell! Nicely done.

Re:Reviews on Play are hilarious!

[fbumg]

OMG so true. Stop reading slashdot and read those reviews. Hilarious indeed!

Re:Reviews on Play are hilarious!

[Anonymous Coward]

David Schutz - July 7, 2013 - Samsung Galaxy S3
Incredible tool against gun violence.

"I almost wasn't going to download this app because I live in Chicago, which has the best gun laws in the country meaning nobody around here would ever own a gun. I did anyway on a lark, and yesterday a guy jumped out of the dark with what I can only assume was a high capacity Assault Glockamatic with armor piercing clipazines. I quickly pulled out my phone and threatened to tag him with this app. He then saw my Hillary 2016 sticker and Flying Spaghetti Monster tattoo and emblaced the glory of the Progressive Way, threw down his Fully Slaughtermatic Bushmaster AR-47 Childkiller and pledged his allegiance to Obama and Biden. Thanks, Gun Geo Marker!"

I've seen this before.

[Sponge Bath]

A long time ago, some people at UT Austin put signs in front of dorms listing "potential rapists" that had the names of all male residents. Indiscriminate and unsubstantiated accusations do not serve a useful purpose.

Re:I've seen this before.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did other people put up signs in front of the dorms with the names of all female residents, listing them as "potential false rape accusers"?

Re:I've seen this before.

[drinkypoo]

A long time ago, some people at UT Austin put signs in front of dorms listing "potential rapists" that had the names of all male residents. Indiscriminate and unsubstantiated accusations do not serve a useful purpose.

And that's what happens when stupid people meet stupid rhetoric. The fact is that women can rape as well. An honest list would contain the names of all students, faculty, police, janitorial staff, contractors... But it is equally a list of potential non-rapists. Too bad they chose to promote rape.

Re:I've seen this before.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

There was another group that published in the school paper a list of all male students with a similar label. IIRC, they got their ass handed to them in court for defamation.

Crowdsourcing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party.

Get ready, then, because those are coming too. If it's technically feasible in software, it will exist eventually, regardless of whether it's a good idea.

Re:Crowdsourcing!

[DickBreath]

How about an app for geotagging the lawns of older people who are unwelcoming of young people setting foot on their lawn? Call it the "get off my lawn" app.

Good intensions, bad idea.

[Deemus]

Criminals rejoice! No longer do you have to randomly break in to houses to see what there is to steal. There's now an app to tell you exactly which houses to rob.

Re:Good intensions, bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, they have handguns for the express purpose of "protecting them from intruders". I'm sure it will work out fine.

Re:Good intensions, bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm doing my part by tagging everyone in my vicinity.

Re:Good intensions, bad idea.

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm doing my part by tagging everyone in my vicinity.

Sounds like my neighborhood, mostly upper middle class folk. "You don't have a gun? Are you poor?" That's just the culture. We also have the among the lowest crime rates in the country here.

Re:Good intensions, bad idea.

[luis_a_espinal]

Don't worry, they have handguns for the express purpose of "protecting them from intruders". I'm sure it will work out fine.

Err, don't know if you are being sarcastic, but if so, what a great fail. For starters, no. That's not the express purpose. What happens to the person owning a hunting rifle, and nothing more (it is very common, more than what you think or wish to believe.) And even if you were to own one for home defense, that does not mean you carry it with you. Me for example, I own a concealed permit, but I rarely carry. Meaning, my firearms are at home (disassembled or with a trigger lock for safety.) If we are not home, then, those firearms, however locked they might be, they are home alone. Nothing that can prevent a robber from breaking in and steal them.

Guns are not the absolute line of personal defense. They are part of it in addition to other things. Gun owners who think they are 100% safe with them are idiots. Gun-safety advocates who think gun ownership make things absolutely unsafe are idiots as well.

It is not rocket science, but that doesn't prevent the ideological idiot (be it from the left or from the right) from reducing complex problems to the minimalistically absurd for the sake of rhetoric.

Re:Good intensions, bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

That assumes people always register their guns. Good thing I was smart enough not to. Criminals will set off my security system, and then they will be met with the end of any numerous firearms, and even a crossbow if I want to be creative.

Re:Good intensions, bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. Mixed race, middle class neighborhood with nearly zero crime. A mile or two in any direction and it's not as good. Not sure I'm going to go through tagging my neighbors, though.

Re:Good intensions, bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or which ones to avoid since the chances of becoming a fatality go WAAAAY up when you try and rob those who own and know how to use the weapons contained within. . . . . .

Probably won't last long

[eth1]

I predict this guy will be sued out of existence shortly.

By claiming the app marks "dangerous" gun owners, he's making claims that would probably be libellous in almost all cases (but IANAL).

Not to mention the first person to get burgled, then discover their house is marked in his app will probably sue, also. And also not to mention the victims/families if the guns stolen in such a case are used in a crime.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Xest]

"Not to mention the first person to get burgled"

That can't happen. As someone from a country where much gun ownership is banned I have been reliably informed by American NRA supporters that I should push for removal of said gun controls in my country because guns prevent crime, hence, if they have guns, they can't possibly get burgled. The guns prevent that.

Re:Probably won't last long

[NicBenjamin]

It can't be libel if the person saying it thinks it's true. That's the First Amendment. More importantly he's not responsible for the vast majority of taggings on his map because he's not the one doing the tagging. Under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA he's only responsible for the ones he does himself.

He could be in trouble if burglaries start being linked to his app, but even then what would you charge him with? The newspaper which just printed the name and address of every gun-owner in multiple counties of New York didn't start a rash of burglaries. It was accused of numerous and sundry crimes by gun enthusiasts no actual law enforcement personal bothered charging it with a crime.

As for victims if said burglaries ever happen, you've got issues tracing weapons. Sometimes you can trace weapons to a specific robbery, but most of the time that's impossible. The government knows that a weapon was sold to a specific dealer, the dealer has a record of who he sold it to, but after that there are no records. It's not common for the government to have any record of the unique barrel characteristics of a weapon until they get their hands on it. So in a surprisingly large number of cases the government has no idea when a weapon left the control of it's last official owner and entered the underworld. Which makes it very tricky to link this app to any given murder.

Even if you pull off the linkage, you have to keep in mind that there is virtually no liability for anybody in the gun industry for having weapons appear in the hands of criminals. The Bush administration passed a law about this, which was extremely broadly written, and I would not be surprised if they hadn't included a provision exempting groups that let criminals know a gun is in a house. Otherwise everyone with a sign saying "gun-owner lives here" sign on their house could be sued if their weapons were stolen.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Aaden42]

I don't think any (sane) person has ever tried to claim guns prevent crime. Guns are for protection of my family, not my property. If someone uses this app to break into my house and steal my guns while I'm at work, that's one thing. That's one of the reasons I have problems with disclosure of gun ownership like this or via gun registration records being public (I don't think they should be public records). If I buy a new TV, I tear up the box before I put it out with the trash so it's not completely obvious I have a new shiny to come steal. Same thing...

Where the gun comes in is if someone is unfortunate enough to try to break into my house while I'm in it. That's where the protection of a gun comes in. I can pretty much guarantee he's not going to be walking away from that one, and my family will not be victimized by him, beyond any unfortunate necessary cleanup...

Re:Probably won't last long

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA he's only responsible for the ones he does himself.

ORLY? The Digital Millenium Copyright Act creates a safe harbour against libel?

Re:Probably won't last long

[Aaden42]

IANAL, but I don't think DMCA safeharbor has anything to do with libel. It's about copyright infringement. It does not provide any protection whatsoever for libel, etc.

As far as what could you charge him with if burglaries start happening? "Here's a list of addresses where people have bought brand new 60" 3D televisions over the last month and don't keep their doors locked. Don't do anything bad with it." Facilitating would be a stretch, but not a big one. Certainly within the purview of a gun-positive D.A. somewhere to make the guy's life thoroughly miserable for a number of months or years.

Trying to link murders, etc. onto the app is indeed silly. Makes as much sense as trying to charge gun shops / manufacturers with murder. But the theft isn't that big of a stretch IMHO. It's perfectly reasonable to assert that there's an high likelihood that a particular theft would not have occurred had the owner not been listed in the app.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, if he used any University equipment in any fashion to write the app, then you are looking at really deep pockets. Maybe even a nation wide class action suit against the University of California!

Re:Probably won't last long

[Xest]

The question is whether you need a gun in the scenario when they break in when you're in it. In the cases this has happened in the UK in recent years the burglars have all attempted to flee, because it's natural instinct for them to do so when discovered in someone elses territory.

Some of them have still come off worse being stabbed to death with a kitchen knife by the home owner before they managed to escape (despite outnumbering the home owner 4 to 1) or being crippled by a cricket bat. See here for example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15211250

I think Americans are so used to having guns around that they fail to realise how little chance there is of their family coming to any harm whatsoever when guns are removed from the equation to the point that you're probably more safe having to resort to hand to hand combat than you are if there is a high risk that the criminal robbing you also has a gun.

I'd rather fancy my chances here in the UK knowing all the items in my house I could grab as a weapon on my way downstairs to confront a burglar than I would in America with a gun where the burglar upon hearing me may be waiting round the corner to shoot me first before I can shoot him. I stand more chance of defence in melee regardless of who gets the jump, than I do with a firearm when there is a chance that he has the jump. That is again of course assuming he doesn't just run when he realises he's awoken me because the knowledge a burglar has of the fact that he's in a building that's alien to him against someone who knows it inside out and has the drive to fight to defend his family alone is enough to send them packing.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Black Parrot]

I predict this guy will be sued out of existence shortly.

He probably won't be found guilty of anything, unless he also populates the database.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Lord Kano]

What would you charge him with?

How about facilitation or criminal solicitation?

LK

Re:Probably won't last long

[NicBenjamin]

If safe harbor doesn't protect internet companies from libelous statements posted on their servers Slashdot is totally fucked. I've been honest about my opinion of Republicans on this site more then once.

As for facilitation, the first stretch is getting jurisdiction. Gun-friendly DAs are not exactly common in SoCal, and I don't know who else would have jurisdiction. More importantly there are plenty of uses for this info that do not involve stealing guns. I know people, for example, who will not let their kids enter a house with firearms. IMO they're being a fucking paranoid, but everyone has a Constitutional right to be fucking paranoid.

More importantly I've lived in high-crime areas. I've dealt with actual criminals. They aren't the kind of people who go to a completely new neighborhood to hit a completely unfamiliar target just because an internet listicle said something interesting was in that house. They are the kind of people who steal from every single house in their own neighborhoods. That's where they know the police schedule, whose on vacation, etc.

Re:Probably won't last long

[NicBenjamin]

Re-read the law.

Facilitation only applies if there's no non-criminal use of the facilitating actions. It's intended for people who profit off of crime, and knew they were profiting off of crime, but managed to maneuver it so they didn't officially know about the crime. The same goes for solicitation. Otherwise everyone who printed a rich list would already be in prison.

If you ever get out of your pro-gun bubble you'll realize guns scare the shit out of a lot of people, and a lot of them will not want to go to your house if you're a gun-owner. This is cruel, and stupid; but it is perfectly legal.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Lord Kano]

Criminal facilitation only requires that you know(or should know) that the assistance you render is being used to commit a felony.

Even if a burglar uses this app to only target gunless homes, that's still criminal facilitation.

LK

Re:Probably won't last long

[NicBenjamin]

You're gonna have to quote the statute numbers for me to believe that.

Because if it was that simple then everyone who works for Ford would be guilty of facilitation because some guy used a Taurus as a getaway car. Everyone who works in the gun industry at all would be rotting in jail. Facilitation cannot be that simple.

If there's a non-criminal use to this list (and being an asshole to gun-owners is not criminal), then it is legal. Period.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Lord Kano]

Congress passed the protection of lawful commerce in arms act specifically to protect gun companies from this kind of charge.

I'm not going to do the searching on my phone, this evening I'll produce a link to either the statute or case law.

LK

Re:Probably won't last long

[Budgreen]

NY law prevents lists of lawful gun owners from being public record to protect their safety. the paper would have had to place a request for information on every seperate name on that list to be in compliance with the law, the only people who can see the full list are the DA and whomever does the licensing.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Lord Kano]

As I stated earlier, I'd produce a link.

It is here.

• 115.00 Criminal facilitation in the fourth degree.
          A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree when, believing it probable that he is rendering aid:
          1. to a person who intends to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which provides such person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aids such person to commit a felony; or
          2. to a person under sixteen years of age who intends to engage in conduct which would constitute a crime, he, being over eighteen years of age, engages in conduct which provides such person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aids such person to commit a crime.

This is New York law. So this would apply to someone using this app to commit a crime in New York but other states have similar requirements, I'm just not going to give links to the criminal codes of the other 49 states to prove my point.

LK

Re:Probably won't last long

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes fall back on the UK. Where the police sit around watching a man get brutally hacked to death on the street with their thumbs up their asses waiting for more cops to come so they can stop it. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/23/man-killed-in-reported-machete-attack-in-london/ . I'll take the us TYVM where we don't get hacked to death in the streets in front of everyone.

Re:Probably won't last long

[shutdown -p now]

where the burglar upon hearing me may be waiting round the corner to shoot me first before I can shoot him.

He probably won't, actually, because doing so would mean that he'd get charged with premeditated murder if caught (and eventually they're caught), which usually carries death penalty or life in prison.

Statistically, in vast majority of cases where firearms are defensively used in US, they're not fired - the assailant simply flees. It's the rational thing to do even for an armed one, since shooting them as they flee is illegal (no imminent danger at that point), while trying to fight carries both the risk of getting shot by the victim, and the risk of killing the victim and being tried for that if caught.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Xest]

Fox News LOL. You must like being wrong.

No you don't get hacked to death in front of everyone, you just get blown up at marathons, have your primary schools shot up, your universities shot up, your cinemas shot up and your face chewed on alive by drugged up schizophrenics in front of everyone. Much better, luckily you have those guns right?

Re:Probably won't last long

[NicBenjamin]

That's true today, because on Jan 18th the legislature passed a gun control bill which made gun permits private data. But as of Christmas every gun-owner in two counties had their names on a paper's website:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/new-york-journal-news-gun-owners-westchester-rockland-counties_n_2362530.html
They did take the list of names and addresses offline when the bill passed, but the map is still online, and despite gun-owners being convinced they're responsible for multiple burglaries there have been no legal consequences to the paper:
http://www.lohud.com/article/20121224/NEWS04/312240045/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood?nclick_check=1
The paper has pointed out that since the list was posted there have been almost 600 burglaries in the two counties:
http://www.lohud.com/article/20130617/NEWS02/306170027
They've only been blamed for three, either gun-ownership in the two counties is below 0.5% or gun-owners are being oparaboid when they claim a list of gun-owners will significantly change criminal behavior.

Re: Probably won't last long

[Anonymous Coward]

This was pre existing law. A similar list was published in NY in the 90s? Which caused the info to become private as a whole. You can search it but only by one name/address at a time

Re:Probably won't last long

[NicBenjamin]

"Probable that he is rendering aid?"

It's a pretty long stretch from "I reported this guy on the Dangerous Guns App because I thought he was owning guns dangerously and I wanted him to cut it out," to "I believed somebody would probably steal from him."

Keep in mind that the Dangerous Guns app is speech. It is people saying "This guy is dangerous." The Constitutional issues with arresting people for speech because you don't think they should say it is pretty dang high.

There's a reason the New York Newspaper whose gun-owner-list was linked to three burglaries by various pro-gun groups has not been prosecuted under this law.

Re:Probably won't last long

[Lord Kano]

Distribution of information is also conduct. Conduct isn't protected by the first amendment.

The reason those newspapers weren't prosecuted is because they have the ability to return favors to the politicians who didn't prosecute them. Don't think for one minute that if they couldn't be pressured for some quid pro quo, they would have been treated the same way.

LK

The Last Lonely Man ?

[Thud457]

All guns are dangerous...
aren't they?

that's point.

First Amendment > Second Amendment.
Welcome to another fun facet of living in a fully networked world (see: Snowden, Apple/Google user stalking, etc, etc, ad nauseum)

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[oh_my_080980980]

Might want to read the constitution again. Your understanding of the second amendment is lacking...

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Culture20]

First Amendment > Second Amendment.

Constitutional amendments are not arranged in a hierarchy.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Penguinisto]

First Amendment > Second Amendment.

Not to troll of anything, but since when was there an established priority in amendments? Perhaps I'm asking out of ignorance, but I always figured all amendments to have equal priority and enforcement, except where they collide (...which leaves the courts to sort out depending on circumstance, motive, etc.)

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, they actually kind of are, with the Supreme Court often more willing to read later in time amendments as partially displacing older ones (e.g. the 14th amendment can put limitations on 1st amendment freedom of speech, association, etc.) However, since the Bill of Rights was all passed at once, there is no hierarchical relationship between the 1st and second.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he was saying that the first amendment is more dangerous,and has the ability to cause much more damage than the second, but hey.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Deadstick]

OK, so we uphold both the 18th and the 21st, right?

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[martas]

+1 most inane comment of the day

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[operagost]

That's a chronology, not a hierarchy. The 21st explicitly repeals the 18th. This is not hard to understand.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[operagost]

There is no priority, other than a later amendment can be ratified to explicitly repeal an earlier one (or part thereof, or a part of the original Constitution). There is nothing magical about this; amendments become part of the Constitution and amendments are the only way to modify any part of the Constitution.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that the first amendment overrides anything in the constitution ahead of it that may be seen as in conflict? The same with the second, third, fourth etc.

Each amendment "amends" anything in the constitution that appears before it. In that sense, yes there is a priority - the most recent amendments carrying the most weight.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like setting variables in code. Later ones supersede older ones, only if you overwrite them.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Br00se]

If this were true the first amendment would make copyright void.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that first part that permitted the slave states to run their slave patrols free of federal interference in addition to the second part that allows people to own and carry firearms? That part?

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could certainly try to make that argument, but the 1st amendment and copyright don't conflict, so you wouldn't have much success with it.

Re:The Last Lonely Man ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yum, while they are not "arranged" in a hierarchy I think the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that there are admendments that are more important than others. For instance, the first admendment is a much more important and fundamental admendment than the second. I am a proud gun owner, but I would much prefer to have freedom of speech.

AlphaA

CUZ RELIGION AND POLITICS NEVER KILLED ANYONE !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only people with guns kill !! No gun, no harm, no foul, no GEO-TRACKING !!

Hypocrisy

[Muad'Dave]

And I suppose this UCSD Lecturer would also support an app "to allow people to 'Geolocate Dangerous Liberal Socialists'" that threaten the Constitution?

I didn't think so.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

or what about a Jew app that lets you mark out where the Jews have been hiding and what business are owned by Jews. There would be no potential for abuse of such well intentioned app.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Most dangerous to our way of life is the crushing price to attend universities. Perhaps people get a gun to kill themself after finding out how much they owe. Maybe that UCSD Lecturer is part of the problem, over-paid, under worked and full of it.

Re:Hypocrisy

[NicBenjamin]

You'd be surprised.

Us Liberal Socialists take that phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" pretty seriously.

Now if you guys started actually showing up at our houses we'd freak a bit, but simply giving you the ability to find out where our houses are does not scare us.

BTW, political terms are fascinating. When they were first created Liberals and Socialists hated each-other. Liberals were laissez-faire to the point that they let most of Ireland starve to death because clearly those idiots should have planned their agriculture better. If only they'd diversified their crops their kids would not be starving, and if their kids didn't starve they'd have no incentive to plan better next time. At the time conservatives were anti-Socialist in that they were Monarchist, and in favor of hereditary government, but they would not have let thousands of people starve to death on principle. Noblesse oblige.

State-side everybody was liberal, so nobody really used the term. It kinda went without saying.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised he hasn't been tagged in his own app repeatedly yet, as a dangerous gun owner. The best response to this app is for everyone to download it and tag his home and work addresses repeatedly from many separate app installations. Why not? Can he prove he's not a dangerous gun owner? If he removes himself from the list or whitelists himself, does that mean he's above the standard of zero proof he's setting for everyone else, or that he's a liberal elitist that the system obviously shouldn't apply to?

Re:Hypocrisy

[fustakrakich]

The U.S. has no liberals of any consequence.

Re:Hypocrisy

[drinkypoo]

Now if you guys started actually showing up at our houses we'd freak a bit, but simply giving you the ability to find out where our houses are does not scare us.

What purpose does creating such a list serve but enabling people to show up at houses? You have nothing to fear from people who store "dangerous" guns in their houses (I have news for you, all guns are dangerous) unless you intend to do something bad in their house.

These lists only serve two purposes, neither legitimate. They assist criminals who wish to steal guns, and they assist criminals who wish to avoid houses where they might get shot.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Muad'Dave]

Us Liberal Socialists take that phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" pretty seriously.

Are those the same Liberal Socialists that created the very concept of 'Politically Correct' speech?

I thought so.

Re:Hypocrisy

[NicBenjamin]

Legit purpose is easy to find.

I got a kid. I'm paranoid that if he goes to a gun-owning house he'll blow his own brains out. Therefore if you're on the map everybody's coming to my house, or we're all going to Chuck E Cheese. This is a legitimate use of the map.

Maybe I don't want to live next door to a guy who thinks Gun Safety is a Liberal conspiracy AND owns six weapons. This is a legitimate use of the map.

Frankly the least likely use of this map is for criminals to find targets. A criminal doesn't usually plan things out that way. He learns a neighborhood, and goes for targets of opportunity, figuring something sellable will be in every house. I actually lived on a block where a guy got out of prison, within six months every house but his had been broken into, and he hired one of his victims as his lawyer because he had no cash. These are not people who spend hours and hours on the internet trying to figure out whether to break into 1750 Drury Lane or 1745 Drury Lane.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Us [sic] Liberal Socialists take that phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" pretty seriously.

The phrase was unserious when Voltaire said it the first time. Unless you're a lawyer who has done pro bono work for the ACLU, you've never so much as lifted a finger to materially defend another's right to speech. Making promises you have absolutely no intention of keeping doesn't give you credibility.

Re:Hypocrisy

[CanHasDIY]

Sadly, you could probably get away with it if you made the app track Muslims instead of Jews.

Re:Hypocrisy

[NicBenjamin]

What interests me about conservatives is the huge double-standard they give.

Barrack Obama should be hated by all right-thinking Americans for saying small town residents (who have never actually been denied the right to vote) "cling to" their God and their guns. Trent Lott says flat-out he wishes the candidate who'd opposed black voting had won in 1948, and that's freedom of speech.

I agree there's room for debate on what speech should be interpreted as offensive, and thus condemned by everyone, but I do not agree that conservatives should get to define those limits unilaterally simply because they've come up with the cute catch-phrase "politically incorrect."

Re:Hypocrisy

[CAIMLAS]

You're not the typical "liberal socialist". The vast majority of self-ascribed "liberal socialists" aren't terribly liberal; they're totalitarians who have coopted the term "liberal" to mean something political which bellies the words' actual definition and to disguise the insidious nature of what they're intending. It's doublespeak, really. They want to ban things and, failing the political process, are not opposed to thuggish intimidation, public shaming, and things like blackmail to get what they want. We see this all the time in the US political system today, as it has been common in other societies before they fell into one form of totalitarianism or another.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mapsjanhere]

It's an open source app - very easy to reprogram for that purpose. Just like for "18 year olds who love to drink and get flirty" and "best meth house in the city", the uses are endless.

Re:Hypocrisy

[drinkypoo]

I got a kid. I'm paranoid that if he goes to a gun-owning house he'll blow his own brains out.

So you do your best to keep him away from cops, right? Because cops commit crimes at about the same rate as the general population, and they all have guns.

Maybe I don't want to live next door to a guy who thinks Gun Safety is a Liberal conspiracy AND owns six weapons.

Nobody thinks gun safety is a liberal conspiracy. Some people think that particular types of government interference in a constitutionally-guaranteed right are unconstitutional and not done in the best interest of The People, though.

Frankly the least likely use of this map is for criminals to find targets.

Right, the most likely is harassment, and the next most likely is for criminals to find targets. You only hear about stupid criminals.

Re:Hypocrisy

[NicBenjamin]

I don't think you understand the definition of totalitarian. Every ideology ever created wants everyone to agree with them, and is willing to use all kinds of levers to persuade people to do so, he wants every institution in the country (including private industry, religion, etc.) to be devoted to pushing his ideology. In a totalitarian state it's actually illegal for your boss to disagree with you because it's illegal for either of you to disagree with the government.

Liberals are no more interested in using the state to force people to actually agree with them then conservatives. For example, you'll find very few liberals who want the Catholic Church to be forced to recognize divorce or same-sex marriage by the government. They are interested in using state power to achieve their ideological goals, but so is everyone else. Conservatives like to make divorce harder, are currently fighting to actually ban same-sex marriage. You get the same thing on abortion. Liberals make everyone buy a health plan that covers abortions because that suits their ends, whereas conservatives make it illegal to operate a clinic that gives people abortion pills without a full ER because nobody can afford to attach an ER to a pharmacy. Neither side tries to have the other side arrested, but both sides argue vigorously that their use of state power is completely legit and the other sides is completely not legit.

Re:Hypocrisy

[NicBenjamin]

I think I was unclear. I don't personally avoid gun-owners. I was listing a legally legitimate use of the list, and I used the first-person because I was speaking as the guy who would do that. If there was an edit button I'd completely re-do that paragraph because it was incredibly confusing. People who avoid all guns all the time probably avoid cops, too, because in most states cops always carry.

As for Gun Safety, if you check out the recent rhetoric on the background checks legislation you'll find a lot of people very skeptical of anything labeled "gun safety." I've had enough internet conversations on gun rights to meet people who oppose gun-safes, ever for long guns, on principle. There aren't many of them, but they do exist; and if there was some way I could avoid ever interacting with people that crazy I'd do it.

As for the most likely use of the map, one man's "harassment" is another man's freedom of speech. You're not gonna get lectured by somebody every day (the legal definition of harassment), you'll have one conversation and then you'll never speak to them again. Not good for the gun-owner, but then being friends with somebody that judgmental about gun-ownership wasn't exactly good for the gun-owner either.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

So you do your best to keep him away from cops, right?

Erm... I think most people do do their best to stay away from cops, regardless of their stance on gun ownership

One extreme, you trust the system so you obey its rules. When you obey the system, the cops have no (rational) reason to come after you

Other extreme, you distrust the system so you don't trust the cops and avoid them.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Us Liberal Socialists take that phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" pretty seriously.

I agree there's room for debate on what speech should be interpreted as offensive, and thus condemned by everyone

Can these two things coexist without doublethink? 'You have to right to say anything you want, as long as it's within this restricted subset.'

Trent Lott says flat-out he wishes the candidate who'd opposed black voting had won in 1948, and that's freedom of speech.

I don't think speech like this should be illegal. Old Trent there has the freedom to speak his mind, and the rest of the population reserves the right to treat him like the butthole he probably is. If he says something like this, he gets a lot of feedback that this isn't okay with most people. If he is restricted from saying this, but still believes it, he'll get a lot less social reinforcement. In other words, I think loads of people (rightfully) shunning you for your opinion gets the message across a lot better than a simple 'this is illegal, don't do it.'

Re:Hypocrisy

[Muad'Dave]

I agree with the AC, below: NO speech should be "interpreted as offensive, and thus condemned by everyone". That's censorship, plain and simple. The expression of all speech should be equally protected (as in never illegal or forbidden), although there may be consequences that stem from that expression in limited cases (fire in a theater, etc). If I find someone's speech offensive, that's between me and them or society and them, not the government and them.

BTW, there wouldn't be a term 'politically-incorrect' if the New Left hadn't revived the phase politically-correct along about 1970 or so. Interestingly, the Socialists used that very term disparagingly against the communists back in the early to mid 20th century.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, there wouldn't be a term 'politically-incorrect' if the New Left hadn't revived the phase politically-correct along about 1970 or so. Interestingly, the Socialists used that very term disparagingly against the communists back in the early to mid 20th century.

What's so interesting about that? If one bothered to actually read the wiki, the New Left in the 70's used the term ironically to argue against regulation/censorship. From the wiki:

In her essay âoeToward a feminist Revolutionâ (1992) Ellen Willis said: "In the early eighties, when feminists used the term political correctness, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movementâ(TM)s efforts to define a âoefeminist sexuality"

So the New Left in the 70's are not dissimilar to 20th century. Both were using the term disparagingly.

If you read further, in the 1990's (up to today basically), it was actually neoconservatives who resurrected the label against liberals. So again, "PC" is used to mock.

So really, today's "political correctness" is not so much a concept by socialist liberals, but a pejorative label used by conservatives to pin on socialist liberals, to easier identify and harass liberals with.

In a way, the app in TFS/TFA is simply tit-for-tat. You call them PC, they call you dangerous gun nuts (or racists, or religious nutjobs, etc.)

Re:Hypocrisy

[Muad'Dave]

Liberals are no more interested in using the state to force people to actually agree with them then [sic] conservatives.

1) Gun Control
2) Banning large soda cups
3) Banning/regulating fast food
4) Requiring citizens to purchase insurance (Obamacare) ...

The list is endless of things that liberals attempt to force on the public in the name liberal progress. I'm not saying conservatives aren't as bad, but your statement is demonstrably false.

Re:Hypocrisy

[drinkypoo]

As for Gun Safety, if you check out the recent rhetoric on the background checks legislation you'll find a lot of people very skeptical of anything labeled "gun safety."

You've almost got it. It's skeptical of anything done by our government in the name of safety, which they clearly do not give one tenth of one fuck about.

I've had enough internet conversations on gun rights to meet people who oppose gun-safes, ever for long guns, on principle.

There are crazy people out there. However, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Bans on cheap handguns have already been struck down as unconstitutional, because they are biased against the poor. Instead of worrying about whether disadvantaged people will steal guns, why not worrying about whether people are disadvantaged? Oh, because the entire system is based on having people be disadvantaged? Which is part of what the guns are for to begin with.

As for the most likely use of the map, one man's "harassment" is another man's freedom of speech.

No, no it is not, and if you believe that then you don't understand freedom of speech.

Re:Hypocrisy

[NicBenjamin]

I said Liberals and Conservatives are equally interested in using state power to force people to agree with them, then you disagreed listing examples of Liberal over-reach. Then you say "conservatives are as bad." That was kinda my point. Both sides want to use state-power to force obedience, they just want to force different things.

It's fun when people accidentally agree with you.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Muad'Dave]

You are correct - I did 'accidentally' agree with you. I misread your sentence - sorry about that.

Re:Hypocrisy

[NicBenjamin]

In general I agree that speech should be allowed, but most of speech is actually criticism of other speech. The political correctness controversy, for example, is based a conservatism criticism of liberal criticism of conservative speech. This entire thread is actually a debate over whether liberal speech (in the form of the "Dangerous Guns" app) should be condemned.

That means to ban condemnation of speech is to ban pretty much all actual speech.

In the US there's plenty of speech that should be condemned. On the left a lot of criticisms of the US Government, and it's actions abroad, are incredibly naive. I'm not saying we're magical saints who always fight for the righteous, but there's a much stronger correlation between righteousness and being on our side then exists for any other major power. OTOH, given that we actually enslaved a large part of our population, and claimed that was freedom; have had multiple long periods where various groups were second or third-class citizens, etc. a lot of conservative nostalgia for the past is equally problematic.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Muad'Dave]

There's a world of difference between condemned and prohibited. Condemnation occurs in the court of public opinion; prohibition occurs in a court of law.

All speech, including that which condemns other speech, must never be prohibited. Well-thought-out arguments, refutations, etc should be encouraged as the more ideas are presented, the better the solution may be. Poor arguments should be discouraged (condemned?) as being noise.

We Need an App to GeoLocate Treasonous Jews

[Anonymous Coward]

We know who did 9/11. We know who is collapsing our country. We know who is turning America into a surveillance state.

Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it open source? If it is, someone fork it and turn it into its exact opposite, listing those who don't have them, and see how people react to that.

Geotagging non-gun owners

[BenJeremy]

OK, Slashdotters, who wants to help me make a geotagging app that crowdsources locations of people and businesses who are NOT gun owners so that legitimate users can use this as positive reinforcement of the anti-gun ideal?

It will allow users to personally thank those non-gun owners (and businesses) for their thoughtfulness toward others and their pacifist approach toward dealing with an increasingly dangerous and violent world.

I think Brett Stallbaum should be the first address in the database.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Jaysyn]

It will allow users to personally thank those non-gun owners (and businesses) for their thoughtfulness toward others and their pacifist approach toward dealing with an increasingly dangerous and violent world.

I understand your sentiment, but it's really a much less dangerous & violent world than compared to even 10 years ago.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is kind of amusing, when you consider that 10 years is almost exactly when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. I know, I know, correlation and causation. This probably isn't the cause of crime going down, but it certainly shows that it didn't go up.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[TheCarp]

I am with you man, really. However that isn't it either. Its been going down a lot longer than that. Really.... it was the end of the crack wars in the 90s and the slow diminishing of gang culture that has done it more than anything like that.

Guns, and assault weapons don't create crime. We know that, its pretty fucking obvious. The major source of violent crime for the past couple of generations has been bad drug policy. The policy that created the gangs and gave them valuable markets to fight over.

The drug war did nothing to the addiction rates (check it out, its basically fluctuates around a flat line) yet made addiction more damaging, and put all the money in the hands of the worst people out there.

Guns are a scapegoat issue that is little more than a way to deflect criticism away from policies which have created massive numbers of jobs for police departments and prisons....and driven the real violence problems.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

it's really a much less dangerous & violent world than compared to even 10 years ago

You know this how?

Oh, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion expressed as fact to add to the endless circle jerk of bullshit that goes on here. Got it.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[NicBenjamin]

Gun guys really do not understand people who are not gun guys.

As a non-gun-guy I don't give a shit whether you know that I have no gun. That's the entire point of not being a gun guy. I do not believe that personal weapons increase safety, therefore I do not believe not having one decreases my personal safety, therefore I do not care whether people know I don't have one. It's like putting out a list of people who do not have dowsing rods.

Feel free to message me for my address so I can be included on your list. Don't bother until you have a working app. I'm not here to reward laziness.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[bill_mcgonigle]

You know this how?

Probably because he's not uninformed. Go query the FBI crime statistics yourself instead of spouting off if you're unaware. You can plot the increase in concealed carry freedoms over the same period if you like and run the regression tests. Or read others who have done the same much more rigorously.

Oh, it's just an unsubstantiated opinion expressed as fact to add to the endless circle jerk of bullshit that goes on here. Got it.

No, that's your comment, damaging the signal to noise ratio here.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[pla]

The major source of violent crime for the past couple of generations has been bad drug policy.

Actually, try tetraethyl lead.

Bad drug policy certainly takes its share of blame for our exploding prison population thanks to massive incarceration of nonviolent "criminals", for destroying lives and families rather than promoting treatment, for costing billions at the same time it made virtually all local PDs dependent on the sweet, sweet teat of civil asset forfeiture. But actual violence? That has a much simpler explanation, known since Roman times.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[drinkypoo]

Problem is, who says he actually is unarmed? People lie about that all the time. Remember Ms. poor-trigger-discipline-herself Dianne Feinstein's concealed revolver that she carried to protect herself against "terrorists"? Yeah, Feinstein was way ahead of the curve on the war on terror. I wouldn't bet he walks his talk if my life depended on it.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not believe that personal weapons increase safety

You should be pissed off about all the guns that government officials buy for their bodyguards. Your tax money is being spent on dowsing rods!

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not mind, but criminals will certainly enjoy the data. In gun advocate states it would help them identify what houses to target because there won't be anyone home with a significant ability to defend themselves.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[CanHasDIY]

Gun guys really do not understand people who are not gun guys.

I would argue that people who generalize don't really understand much at all.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you're here to talk shit from your basement.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Arker]

"Probably because he's not uninformed. Go query the FBI crime statistics yourself instead of spouting off if you're unaware. You can plot the increase in concealed carry freedoms over the same period if you like and run the regression tests. Or read others who have done the same much more rigorously."

I wouldnt jump straight to 'not informed' that's a bit harsh really. It's quite possible to be *partially informed* and have the impression he expressed. Crime rates in one area can go up while in others they go down, and there are more dangers in the world than what is covered by crime rates as well.

It's quite possible that he lives in an area that has actually gotten more dangerous while the rest of the country in general went the wrong direction. It's also possible he is thinking of other dangers. It doesnt seem likely that he is correct in his assertion, but he may not be uninformed so much as partially informed or misinformed.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[TheCarp]

Yah except, we banned lead in gasoline in the 70s and got the decrease in violence. Are you suggesting a delayed effect that that somehow resulted in a major increase in the murder rate during the 80s (when the crack fueled gang wars started)?

There is a fair amount of drug market (not drug induced) violence, and a lot of it goes unreported. I have been a white middle class pot smoker for almost 2 decades now, and, at times that has meant dealing with people who sell drugs, and even getting to know them. Most of them, are no different from me, except, they don't have a job that can pay for their habbit without bankrupting them - I easily could have been one of them if not for becoming a Unix admin.

In those years, I can't think of many other people I know who have had guns shoved in their faces and been robbed. Several of them have been; they never report it.

- One friend was invited over someones house, being told this guy wanted to try a sample before buying a quantity, while in there his car was broken into and his stash stolen, and when he found out, he was surrounded by 3 big guys suggesting he just leave. (they also took other property of his, including his pool cue)
- Same guy, was robbed at knife point for some pot and money (different perp)
- Another had a gun shoved in his face at his house, and was robbed.
- Yet another just said he had been robbed, didn't give details
- Someone I didn't know but was a friend of friends, was stabbed to death and had pot dumped all over his body (yes, you probably heard about that one in relation to the boston bombings)

So yes, actual violence, or at least the threat of it....and these are just the ones that have come to me within 1-2 degrees of relation, off the top of my head, and ignores a few older ones that I don't remember well enough to really recall.

Of course, not all of it involves violence, After that first incident where my friend was robbed and not so subtly threatened, he tried to restock and keep going, but his upstream dealer wasn't someone he knew well, and decided to rob him too. However, he just did it by saying he should meet a friend of his to make the exchange, and got handed a sealed cardboard shipping box full of marshmellows.

None of these people were even gang members. This is just what happens amongst the white kids. That said, gang violence is still the major type of gun violence in this country (unless you count suicides as gun violence, but I find that very disingenuine)

Yes, Lead is a problem, but, the idea that its still lead or still mostly lead.... I question that.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you so certain, he doesn't have a gun?
There are rare those that practice what they preach.

I don't live in the USA, but in a country where guns are heavily restricted. But if I were to, regardless of my stance on guns, I'd still have one, with ready ammo and the training for it.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Mr. Stallbaum has said many times that he is a long-time gun owner. His problem with guns is the same concern that most NRA members are polled to hvae: irresponsible, untrained and/or dangerous gun owners. I am also a gun owner, BTW. As always, get the facts before you speak.

Re:Geotagging non-gun owners

[Wizworm]

I was thinking of tagging every gun free zone as being armed, so the criminals that reference this app will think twice before committing a crime there.

Quote got it right

[Anonymous Coward]

I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party

Exactly, they could be just as likely to threaten lives and kill people.

wowsers

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I also geotag people with packs of dogs? (Sorry - I think every dog individually might be lovable, but I don't trust them in groups.)
On the think of the children line, how about swimming pools, trampolines, or alcoholic parents?

But in the end someone is getting attention for being controversial. So meh to all my strawmans.

Gun nutz

[Rich_Lather]

Brett Stallbaum must be a closeted meta-prepper.

Someone post the apk!

[Anonymous Coward]

POST THE APK! my phone is registered 30 mins too far north :)

Re:Someone post the apk!

[mevets]

Geotagging is pointless; from any reasonable perspective, the entire USA is tagged with âoedangerous gun nutsâ.
No APK needed.

Gun radar

[gmclapp]

It seems to me this will promote more school/movie theater style shootings in no gun zones by dynamically showing a potential serial killer "no gun zones" on the fly.

Geotagging idiots

[wcrowe]

Great. Perhaps there should just be an app for geotagging idiots. After a few years there would be a tag on everyone. Because everyone is thought to be an idiot by someone.

Re:Geotagging idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Geotagging idiots? That is facebook.

Theres tags for all kinds of idiots on there. The best thing is that these can tag themselves, by "like"-ing idiot things.

There's quite a few places like that

[Anonymous Coward]

Oakland public transport seems dodgy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IAHjhtYZpX0

28.79295N 81.32965W
Is a known dangerous spot for gun crime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

I think anywhere there is a black man and a racist near each other, is likely to be a gun crime area, but how you can track moving targets like that I don't know.

its certainly something.

[nimbius]

Disclosure: I dont own a gun.
The app seems like its going to anger quite a few people who hold the second amendment dear. I can see instances in which the app is used by police to target dissenters before an organized protest on the guise they plan to start a riot. Or perhaps the map is used by criminals to identify homes without firearms. marking an entire neighborhood is bound to lower property value. However in many cases the recourse for average citizens to do anything about a mentally unstable neighbor that owns a gun or guns is pretty limited. The viet-nam vet who pipes michael savage throughout the porch and parades around the back yard in fatigues with an assault rifle literally was my neighbor for 4 years in suburban ohio. i cringed every time i saw a girl scout or jehovas witness approach the door. The neighborhood association did nothing and the local police, despite the fact the man had been banned from a local public festival and a wal-mart, simply acknowledged him to be an interesting character.

The site asks if I know anyone who does not use a gun lock, and considering as i live in a state that leads the nation in child firearm fatalities im inclined to use the app to report people who dont use them.

Re:its certainly something.

[shutdown -p now]

I have to ask... did your neighbor actually ever assaulted anyone?

Don't get me wrong, listening to Michael Savage is as sure sign of a mental disorder as there ever was, but not all mental disorders are violent.

I expect that there will be one huge blob

[Chrisq]

I expect that there will be one huge blob .. covering the whole of Texas

Re:I expect that there will be one huge blob

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect that there will be one huge blob .. covering the whole of Texas

minus austin, damn hippies

Re:I expect that there will be one huge blob

[Chas]

That's not a blob.

It's a bore hole of a giant gun!

Re:I expect that there will be one huge blob

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right!

I live in TX. and have multiple guns most of which are loaded. and none of which have locks. My two .308s are in a locked case and unloaded and the model 93 .45 colt Winchester is unloaded and in the box, but the AR, AK, 12ga, all three .45s, both .40s, the 9mm, .380, and .22 are all loaded.

Funny thing is the only threat I have ever posed is to sheets of paper with circles drawn on them.

Time to tag Brett Staulman's house then

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

I suspect

[Dereck1701]

I suspect there will be a few more "undesirable persons/situations" apps in the near future if this one catches on. An app for singling out the LGBT community, one for locating Muslims, I'm sure we'll get one for locating people with STDs. There's a reason why this kind of "spy on your neighbor" behavior has been looked down upon from the beginnings of civilization, it gets out of control real quick.

Who decides who is on this list?

[bradley13]

It must make him feel good to run his own personal little blacklist. And the data is "crowdsourced" - totally in keeping with the times: "see something, say something", otherwise known as minding your neighbor's business. How much do you have to piss someone off, to get added?

Of course, he will scrupulously check all additions for correctness, keep the data up-to-date when people move, and offer recourse to people who are added in error. And I have a bridge I want to sell you.

From California, what a surprise...

It's ok.

[Areyoukiddingme]

Hadn't you heard? After a persistent astroturfing campaign, more Americans think Edward Snowden is a traitor than otherwise. They're obviously fine with a surveillance state, so this app is perfectly acceptable.

Right?

I'd like to see the results of a survey that correlates opinions of Snowden with opinions about this database. Wanna bet there's a substantial overlap of people who can simultaneously believe Snowden is a traitor while believing this database and app are wrong? While being blissfully unaware of the contradiction.

Such is the power of the modern propaganda machine.

Re:It's ok.

[johnlcallaway]

A .. Snowden isn't a traitor, he is a cowardly traitor.

B .. I'm am very concerned about the increased amount of surveillance in the world, but feel there are less cowardly and traitorous ways to go about fighting it. A hero stays and fights instead of fleeing to countries that are even more abusive of the very thing he exposed. Sounds more like the actions of a hypocrite than a hero. So I'll agree there might be an overlap, but disagree on the 'substantial' just based on other conversations I've had with people who are quite capable of making up their own minds instead of listening to the propaganda being spread daily by Snowden now that he has some attention. (See how that works both ways???? Or is it only propaganda if you don't agree with it....)

C .. The app is no more 'wrong' than the app that lets people tag restaurants and other businesses that have 'no firearms allowed' signs up. Except that there are no measurable standards or other means of confirmation, so it will have the same degree of accuracy as internet hotel and restaurant reviews. At least someone can confirm the presence or absence of a sign. I'm free to use whichever one I want, as is anyone else.

Re:It's ok.

[CrimsonAvenger]

A .. Snowden isn't a traitor, he is a cowardly traitor.

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3.

Learn it, love it, live it.

Re:It's ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: you disagree with the majority of poll respondents, therefore the majority must be brainwashed or duped, or maybe the polling results are suspect.

Right?

Re:It's ok.

[ducomputergeek]

And why can't snowmen be both/and instead of either/or? I know dualistic is lens most of the West uses, thanks Descartes, but this is a both/and. Snowden can very much be the hero for letting the public know about the various domestic and likely unconstitutional spy programs and a traitor for revealing certain details of foreign intelligence operations and at the same time.

Although at this point I'm pretty sure most people already knew or at least suspected that the government were doing such surveillance, we just didn't know the name of the program.

Furthermore I've yet to see anything really that damning that snowden released. We ease drop on the eu. File that udder shit they already knew. You really don't think the French try and acquire info on what kinds of deals Boeing is trying to make and give that info to Airbus?

It's amazing to watch just how quickly the story shifted from being the spy program to Snowden. It's been two weeks. Most people now are wondering, "oh yeah, what was that hubbaloo about spying or IRS targeting political group..."

Re:It's ok.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Hadn't you heard? After a persistent astroturfing campaign, more Americans think Edward Snowden is a traitor than otherwise.

Depends on how you ask the question.

Re:It's ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

feel there are less cowardly and traitorous ways to go about fighting it. A hero stays and fights

Fat lot of good it did for Manning.

fleeing to countries that are even more abusive of the very thing he exposed. Sounds more like the actions of a hypocrite than a hero.

As if hiding from an angry mob in a ditch constitutes an endorsement of ditch-living.

Snowden's first goal was to expose the NSA. His second is to remain alive and unimprisoned, and sadly his only options for that appear to be oppressive states. Some of Snowden's opponents love to say that if he was serious about blowing the whistle, he'd have stayed in the US and taken his lumps; that giving up his home and career and loved ones wasn't enough, and he ought to have surrendered his freedom and his life as well; that, essentially, only martyrs are allowed to be whistle-blowers.

This isn't about hypocrisy, it's about irony--that a man like Snowden should have to seek the protection of tyrants and dictators against the very democracies he's trying to protect. It says much more about the democracies than about the tyrants.

Re:It's ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden IS a traitor, that has to do with his actions, not astroturfing, though a lot of nutjobs support the traitor.

A whistleblower doesn't take a job to steal US government info, then run to the Chinese and Russians. That's the action of a traitor.

Re:It's ok.

[Areyoukiddingme]

Wrong. The majority of poll respondents pick either the Undecided option or the He's Ok option, and I don't disagree with either of those.

But keep on assuming I'm as stupid as you are.

Re:It's ok.

[Areyoukiddingme]

I have to admit, talking about US activities in spying on US allies seemed rather pointless. If he was revealing the use of spying for commercial advantage, he'd have something, but as far as I can tell, he doesn't have proof of that sort of misuse. Spying on foreign governments is exactly why intelligence services exist, and nothing in their creating laws exempts allies from their attentions. Nor would I expect them to. So that part was inappropriate, and could stray over the line into wrong. (I haven't actually seen what he said, so I don't know, and I don't trust ANY third hand report.)

It's amazing to watch just how quickly the story shifted from being the spy program to Snowden.

It's not at all amazing. It's fully, absolutely intentional, part of an orchestrated campaign to distract the mouth-breathing public from the real issue. When the powers that be get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they attack the messenger. Or at least, have their lapdogs in the commercial media attack the messenger.

He could be a one-armed one-eyed wifebeater and still reveal damning information about unconstitutional activities. But if he was, the story would have vanished a whole lot sooner. Lucky for him, he's young and at least not ugly. Reuters carried the story about the alleged Twitter marriage proposal by Anna Chapman, deported to Russia for alleged spying. Fortunately they put it in their Oddly Enough section, rather than the front page. Still. This is the story? I guess it's more interesting than watching the court case begin its glacial grinding progress towards the Supreme Court. Due to arrive in 2055...

Re:It's ok.

[Anubis IV]

Wanna bet there's a substantial overlap of people who can simultaneously believe Snowden is a traitor while believing this database and app are wrong? While being blissfully unaware of the contradiction.

Such is the power of the modern propaganda machine.

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:It's ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

And why can't snowmen be both/and instead of either/or? I know dualistic is lens most of the West uses, thanks Descartes, but this is a both/and.

Cartesian dualism has nothing to do with the difference between "inclusive or" ("vel" in Latin) and "exclusive or" ("aut" in Latin, two times "or" in English).

Please study Plato and Aristotle before writing about Descartes.

Re:It's ok.

[modecx]

Wanna bet there's a substantial overlap of people who can simultaneously believe Snowden is a traitor while believing this database and app are wrong?

I think you'd be surprised just how wrong you are about this idea, if you'd simply look into it. Among many such people, governments aren't trusted nearly as strongly as by other groups. The recent uncovering of nationwide spying? The non-privacy of internet activities long been assumed both at /. and various gun related forums; if not that these sites are at an elevated risk for such activities. It's not universal, but the sentiment many share in these places parallels your own.

As for Snowden, the legality and morality of the snooping and of the leaking, well, the common thought I've seen is this: some people are conflicted about it, but most think he has diamond encrusted testicles, most think he upheld his oath the only way he could, and that POTUS, both the current and former are a far greater threat to liberty and the American Way than a bunch of pissed off goat farmers 5000 miles yonder.

Also, I'll leave you a parting thought: I think the whole popularity of the zombie apocalypse meme and being prepared at some level for large scale disaster (pervasive in this community in particular) can be appropriately described as a subconscious cultural / political allegory. Given the context, I'll let you work out what it symbolizes.

Re:It's ok.

[rahvin112]

I don't believe there is a real conspiracy to drown out the issue here. Snowden did this himself. The issue was completely the NSA program, up until HE changed the topic and started revealing US foreign spy efforts. I supported Snowden up until that point. Foreign espionage is a legitimate operation of a nation-state. Foreign spying prevents war (it helps people understand each other, their interests and their limits, spying helped prevent several wars with the Soviets for example). It also helps nation-states prepare for and anticipate actions of their adversaries so they can protect their interests and avoid war. When he started revealing details of foreign espionage he lost his Hero status IMO.

If he had stuck to informing the American public about what their government is doing to them he would have my support. But he damaged legitimate foreign espionage efforts and IMO he deserves to got to jail for that.

Re:It's ok.

[Areyoukiddingme]

That's all well and good but I suspect the gun related forums you frequent are just as much of an outlier as Slashdot is. Neither are remotely close to the prevailing thought in the nation. (Such as it is.) They reflect just as little of the prevailing opinion around them as Slashdot does. Slashdot supports Snowden by a vast margin, as evidenced both by comments and subsequent moderation of those comments. Support is so broad that the shills are unusually obvious. (And unusually lazy, for some reason. They aren't even bothering to register accounts. They're just posting anonymously.)

So where is this 38% condemnation? It's too much to hope that the polls aren't merely biased, but wholly bogus. Everybody likes to think they're beautiful and unique snowflakes while being right smack in the middle of the mainstream, but Slashdot, and evidently the other forums you frequent, are definitely a minority, and a small minority at that, or the world would be a substantially different place. These people do exist. Somebody has to be watching the Kardashians, or they wouldn't keep showing that drivel. And those people have been well trained to hold two contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time. Unborn life is sacred, but the death penalty is just fine. And other examples too numerous to mention. Hence my comment.

I think the whole popularity of the zombie apocalypse meme and being prepared at some level for large scale disaster (pervasive in this community in particular) can be appropriately described as a subconscious cultural / political allegory.

That's easy, and it doesn't even rise to the level of allegory. 1% of the population owns 85% of the wealth. Everything is settled. Everything is owned, and you ain't one of the owners. Apocalyptic thinking rises in inverse proportion to upward mobility. If people can't get ahead within the system, they start fantasizing about what happens if the system is upended, without anything so messy as an old-fashioned civil war.

It's gotten so bad that the propaganda machine that is Fox News tried to get out ahead of it, trying to claim that "the poor" (who are always somebody besides the listener) are rich because they have refrigerators and microwaves. I dunno about you, but I think that attempt betrayed a certain nervousness on the part of Fox's overlords. The apocalyptic fantasies are wearing a little thin.

Re:It's ok.

[modecx]

I'd never argue that /. and the various forums and boards I troll are anything but statistically insignificant outlying, niche places. You postulated that there would be a large overlap of people who think the idea of the app is wrong i.e. presumably mostly conservative gun owners who don't want to have their privacy violated vs. gun owners who don't want their privacy violated, who also think Snowden is a traitor.

The point was, in my experience that assumption is wrong. Sure, it's just anecdotal evidence, but if you're so bothered about it, you can go to any large forum and search out Snowden threads, and you might see that significantly more than the parroted national average support the guy. Drawing inference between this subset of people and the national mob? Are you straw-manning?

I tried tagging...

[luckytroll]

The entire USA, but it seems to want more specific coordinates.

But seriously, a name-and-shame app for people who are afraid of firearms seems a bit futile in the USA. It would be like a Jew in early 20th century Germany making an app to tag anti-Semitic individuals, institutions, and businesses....

Re:I tried tagging...

[CanHasDIY]

The entire USA, but it seems to want more specific coordinates.

But seriously, a name-and-shame app for people who are afraid of firearms seems a bit futile in the USA. It would be like a Jew in early 20th century Germany making an app to tag anti-Semitic individuals, institutions, and businesses....

Oop, sorry, you just Godwinned... by Teh Rulez Of Teh Internetz (2010 Edition), that automatically invalidates your argument.

Re:I tried tagging...

[Anonymous Coward]

Name and Shame for anything is pretty much futile in the US (unless youre a college kid still going through puberty) - simply because most people dont give a rats ass what other people think.

The whole Name and Shame meme is derived from immature kids who assume that adults are as concerned with what Other People Think as they themselves are. But they/we arent. We have gone through the insecurity of puberty, there is no reason to go back to it.

I dont own guns, but if I did and some moron neighbor got in my face about it, after I was done laughing at the imbecile I'd be very inclined to go out and buy more guns if for no other reason than to invalidate their choice of tactic.

If youre around people who all make fun of your pants being baggy, thats when you get even more baggy pants. If they make fun of you for being a stoner, thats when you smoke even more pot. If they make fun of your accent, thats when you speak it even more thickly. The one thing you Do Not Do is give those types of people what they want. Ever.

Oh that

[Cosgrach]

will never be abused.

Geotag gun-free homes

[Anonymous Coward]

Add police response times as mouse-hover balloons.

Re:Geotag gun-free homes

[Black Parrot]

You need an app that shows how long since a home has been burgled, so you can farm them more efficiently.

Harrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like a tool to harrass people participating in constitutionally protected activities. Typical liberal tactic: embarrass people who are doing nothing wrong.

Re:Harrassment

[Black Parrot]

Yes, only liberals do that.

Geotagging as an Invasion of Privacy

[careysub]

Geotagging law-abiding lindividuals in anything other than an opt-in/easy-opt-out arrangement should be considered a straight-up invasion of privacy. We do have privacy laws, and privacy standards in legal precedents and this would seem to already run afoul of them. If not, then some speedy legislation to clarify that it is should be enacted.

Even for people with criminal records though, there needs to be limits on geo-tagging. With the world's highest percentage of incarcerated people. the U.S. needs to be able to allow former criminals to reintegrate productively in society. This must be handled case-by-case of course, but former criminals have rights as well.

Move to Europe.

[Barryke]

Move to Europe. Not kidding.

We agreed upon that years ago. If you have a weapon here, you better have a good reason and comply with some stringent safety measures.
The only school shootouts we've seen here, where inspired by US shootouts.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, we have more than two political parties. Actual democracy.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only school shootouts we've seen here, where inspired by US shootouts.

"And when our gun laws don't work, it's because of the US." You're a fucking riot.

Re:Move to Europe.

[tmosley]

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

If you have a central bank, you don't have democracy. You have elected officials who govern the small folk, and a cabal of central bankers who make the real decisions.

Yes, that goes for America as well.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Runaway1956]

So - you DO have school shootings. All the propaganda that tells us that Europe is gun-free and safe is bullshit at the end of the day then. Rationalize it how you will, spin like crazy, you do hae school shootings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe

I will note that the death tolls are lower than the US - is that due to ineptitude on the part of the shooters, or better police response, or some other element at play?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903

        Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that true?

        Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

        You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.

        Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?

        If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.

        Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?

        I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.

        People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a single bad thing that occurred, not one.

        We changed the law, and we started having these public-school shootings. So I don’t think they got the intended result that they were hoping for with that type of ban. Right now, [some jurisdictions] allow you to carry concealed-permit guns in the schools. There are not a lot of them. But there are no problems that have occurred with any of those states, either.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ehm, Europe != EMU.

Re: Move to Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imbecile, that is all.

Re:Move to Europe.

[TheCarp]

Funny thing is.... your gun death rates just are not that impressive compared to ours though. Oh yes, what is it 1/2 or 1/3rd? Somewhere around there? 2 in 100 000 to like 6 in 100 000? You do realize that .000002 vs .000006....doesn't seem so big anymore.

Gun violence here, and especially school shootings, is way overblown and sensationalized. Realize that we have 100,000 schools, and that children in school are, by my own back of the envelope calculation from the numbers I looked up, much safer in school in terms of gun deaths than the entire rest of the population.

But hey.... lets compare those directly and individually to smaller countries with working social welfare that don't have a massive gang problem caused by the combination of black markets, poverty, and selective enforcement that has decimated many lower income neighborhoods....total apples to apples.

Re: Move to Europe.

[dave3548]

Except for that guy who shot up those kids at a summer camp a few years back, and was only sorry it wasn't worse, or that guy with the moustache who put millions into death camps. Europeans have their own, unique brand of mass murderers, don't get too satisfied with yourself.

Re:Move to Europe.

[jedidiah]

This has nothing to do with recent history. Peasants have had no rights pretty much forever in Europe. That is why people have fled to the other side of the pond. They wanted to get away from being owned by a King or a local robber baron.

Being systematically disarmed is just part of that.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Curunir_wolf]

Can the mods please bury this. It's full of unapproved opinion and inconvenient facts.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Runaway1956]

ROFLMAO - I read your post as sarcasm, but obviously the mods took your request seriously. "Unapproved opinion and inconvenient facts". That's doublegood newspeak!

Re: Move to Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the largest minority rules

Re:Move to Europe.

[LaughingRadish]

Somehow I accidentally moderated you down. I hope this post fixes that.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, when comparing apples to apples, Americans should understand one very basic fact:
Europe. Is. Not. A. Country.
If you DO wish to make a comparison, then leave out the countries where gun ownership is heavily restricted.

Re:Move to Europe.

[PurplePhase]

Naive question perhaps, but: what are the alternatives to a central bank? Past, fiction, theoretical, etc. example apprecitiated!

Re:Move to Europe.

[meta-monkey]

I did the same calculations after Sandy Hook, because I would see so many people screaming ridiculous things like "ban all guns!" or "arm school teachers!" And I looked up the stats from the department of education, and you're right, there are 100,000 schools. With an average of 180 days in a school year, and an average of two acts of gun violence at American K-12 schools per year since 2000, that basically means that 17,999,998 out of 18,000,000 school days each year, nothing bad happens.

Americans have a control fetish, where they think they can FIX AND CONTROL ALL PROBLEMS without incurring any other ill effects. If you "ban all guns," you will never find them all, and there will be law abiding citizens who would have used a weapon in self defense, who will instead be dead. So maybe you stopped a school shooting, but some shopkeeper died because he couldn't defend himself against a robber with a baseball bat. If you arm the teachers, fine, maybe those schoolmarms will instantly morph into SEAL Team 6 when some nut shows up at the school with a gun and take him out. But there will be another 1 in a million day when a teacher flies off the handle and shoots somebody, or fails to lock up the weapon safely and a kid gets a hold of it and kills himself or some kid on the playground.

The law of intended consequences always bites you in the ass. When the statistic is down to 2 in 18,000,000, you can't really do anything to fix those last two without causing something else awful to happen, instead. The answer isn't to turn schools into fortresses or to snatch every gun in America. The correct response to a school shooting is to weep, hugs your kids tighter, ask everyone to keep an eye out for friends or family who might be having mental problems and try to help them, mourn the dead, never forget them, and move on with life.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you "ban all guns," you will never find them all, and there will be law abiding citizens who would have used a weapon in self defense, who will instead be dead.

I don't see how this is different than the "think of the children" argument posed by anti-gun nuts. Instead of thinking children who might be killed, you're appealing to shop owners and other law abiding citizens who might be killed.

The truth is, in BOTH schools and shops, the overall crime and murder rates are declining. If only 2 out of 18 million days have something bad happen at schools, then it's probably the same outside of schools, maybe even higher since there are a lot more shops than there are schools.

It's one thing to show how silly it is to appeal to deaths that statistically rarely happen. It's another to then present one of your own.

Re:Move to Europe.

[micahraleigh]

The Fed was created by democrats, btw. Some republicans were okay with it and had ideas, but they were shot down.

Re:Move to Europe.

[TheCarp]

Hence why I said

> lets compare those directly and individually to smaller countries with working social welfare....

Where I acknowledge directly that this is often what is done.

Re:Move to Europe.

[meta-monkey]

Uh, no, because "think of the children" arguments are in favor of some action (generally expensive, invasive, and of dubious enforceability and effectiveness). You would be correct if I were advocating the mandatory arming of all shopkeepers...but I'm not.

"Ban all guns! Think of the children!" -> The messy, expensive, impossible, action of rounding up the hundreds of millions of guns in America to stop 2 school shootings a year will still not stop school shootings (or violence) because bad people will find a way, and you'll have new deaths that would have otherwise not occurred, like the shopkeeper. And that's not a hysterical claim. In a nation of 300 million people, over the span of a year lethal violence will definitely occur against someone who otherwise would have been able to defend themselves with a gun. Just like it's not a hysterical claim that there will be another school shooting, because it's impossible to control the actions of crazy people at this scale.

"Arm all teachers! Think of the children!" -> The messy, expensive, impossible action of establishing a rule and requirement system for armed teachers and training all the kindergarten teachers to pack heat will not stop school violence, because bad people will find a way, and you'll have new deaths that otherwise would not have occurred, because some teacher will get fired and shoot up the teacher's lounge or a kid will get his hands on the teacher's gun at some point. And that's not a hysterical claim, because with 18,000,000 school days a year, and 100 teachers at each with a gun each, it's bound to happen. At these kinds of numbers, the improbable becomes inevitable.

People want to take drastic and expensive measures to prevent things that have a miniscule chance of happening. I'm just pointing out that even if they succeed in preventing those ultra low probability occurrences, there will be new ultra low probability occurrences to take their place, that otherwise wouldn't have. You cannot escape the law of unintended consequences.

Re:Move to Europe.

[scubamage]

Well, considering modern banking didn't exist until the Rothschild family, I'd say there's about 14,000 years of examples you can choose from, and at least another 18k before that which is poorly documented.

Re: Move to Europe.

[LF11]

Or died on the Titanic, which marked the end of any serious resistance to the Fed

Re:Move to Europe.

[Darinbob]

You only surmising that the European gun shootings were US copycats. Maybe some of the US shootings were just copycats of European shootings? I followed some of these shootings because they occured in places I personally knew and were very close to friends. And what I saw were essentially disgruntled and disaffected students with access to guns. I see nothing that indicates this sort of mass shooting is less rare in Europe. I agree that the random gang vs gang style shootings are much more rare in Europe and gun control can help with that, but that's a different issue than school shootings.

Re:Move to Europe.

[mjwx]

So - you DO have school shootings. All the propaganda that tells us that Europe is gun-free and safe is bullshit at the end of the day then. Rationalize it how you will, spin like crazy, you do hae school shootings.

When was the last US mass shooting?

How many do you have per year?

The US needs it's own list of school shootings because it's too long to include with the rest of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

The last school shooting in Europe was in 2012, the US has had 13 this year. The last one was 2 days ago FFS, killing three more people than the shooting in Toulouse.

Your examples of mass shootings in Europe have to go back years to be statistically significant.

So you were saying.

Re:Move to Europe.

[Runaway1956]

Either you don't believe Dr. Lott, or you're illiterate. He answered that already.

" If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other."

I know it's not cool to RTFA, or even to RTFS, but you could RTFP.

Re:Move to Europe.

[MiSaunaSnob]

The lower death tolls could be due to less crowded classrooms, or smaller schools in general?

Re:Move to Europe.

[TheCarp]

> training all the kindergarten teachers to pack heat will not stop school violence, because bad people
> will find a way, and you'll have new deaths that otherwise would not have occurred, because some
> teacher will get fired and shoot up the teacher's lounge or a kid will get his hands on the teacher's
> gun at some point.

actually, I want to preface this comment with the fact that I am more playing Devil's Advocate than proposing a serious solution. I agree entirely that this is a rare event with a minuscule chance of happening (a definite chance of happening somewhere at some time with a long enough time horizon, but, that is besides the point)

So, I don't think arming teachers HAS to mean giving them guns. Guns are great for self defence - #1 choice if you have to choose. However, they are not the be all and end all of every situation.

Imagine this, which would be cheaper and require less training: Shields and Batons, placed in emergency access enclosures that alarm the central office when opened. Place several of them in various classrooms throughout the school.

Would I want to face off against a gun toting assailent with a shield and baton? Hell No! Would I want to do it if I had other people assisting? Nope. However, if the choice is between that and being totally unarmed.... I will take the shield and baton every single time. I would rather not face off against an armed assailant at all, even with a gun, but, if he is going to take that choice away....

Training? Not really needed. The point is not making the school a hard point, the point is giving people a chance and giving them the ability to take away the shooters control of the situation; which, listening to criminal profilers talk about Sandy Hook makes me think may be helpful, as control of the situation seems to be a strong part of these shooters motivation. This was pointed out in response to how the shooter saw police, ran into a room, and shot himself rather than lose control of the situation.

In fact, I think a lot of the situation (and others) could be helped if Physical education was replaced wholesale with Martial arts training. In addition to all of the benefits (I haven't studied in years but I still appreciate the benefits I gained in terms of balance and general physical body awareness and control) it would lead to a less vulnerable society. Most of why these attacks are so successful is that people's first response is to run from danger and cower....which feeds right into the mentality of a portion of the people who do this sort of thing.

Re:Move to Europe.

[lsatenstein]

I did the same calculations after Sandy Hook, because I would see so many people screaming ridiculous things like "ban all guns!" or "arm school teachers!" And I looked up the stats from the department of education, and you're right, there are 100,000 schools. With an average of 180 days in a school year, and an average of two acts of gun violence at American K-12 schools per year since 2000, that basically means that 17,999,998 out of 18,000,000 school days each year, nothing bad happens.

Americans have a control fetish, where they think they can FIX AND CONTROL ALL PROBLEMS without incurring any other ill effects. If you "ban all guns," you will never find them all, and there will be law abiding citizens who would have used a weapon in self defense, who will instead be dead. So maybe you stopped a school shooting, but some shopkeeper died because he couldn't defend himself against a robber with a baseball bat. If you arm the teachers, fine, maybe those schoolmarms will instantly morph into SEAL Team 6 when some nut shows up at the school with a gun and take him out. But there will be another 1 in a million day when a teacher flies off the handle and shoots somebody, or fails to lock up the weapon safely and a kid gets a hold of it and kills himself or some kid on the playground.

The law of intended consequences always bites you in the ass. When the statistic is down to 2 in 18,000,000, you can't really do anything to fix those last two without causing something else awful to happen, instead. The answer isn't to turn schools into fortresses or to snatch every gun in America. The correct response to a school shooting is to weep, hugs your kids tighter, ask everyone to keep an eye out for friends or family who might be having mental problems and try to help them, mourn the dead, never forget them, and move on with life.

Arming yourself or others with concealed weapons is not going to make anyone safer. You have a trial going on with Zimmerman who was allowed to have a gun. The result, a youth is dead.

More you have guns, more depressed or crazed individuals will have an opportunity to seize and use one. Fewer guns means better protection. Only police or security guards, licensed and trained in weaponry should be allowed to have guns, and with latching holsters.

Re:Move to Europe.

[meta-monkey]

Arming yourself or others with concealed weapons is not going to make anyone safer. You have a trial going on with Zimmerman who was allowed to have a gun. The result, a youth is dead.

More you have guns, more depressed or crazed individuals will have an opportunity to seize and use one. Fewer guns means better protection. Only police or security guards, licensed and trained in weaponry should be allowed to have guns, and with latching holsters.

Irrelevant.

First, we do not live a magicland, where you can snap your fingers and instantly make all guns disappear. Just from a practical standpoint, it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Second, I have a fundamental human right to self-defense, and the handgun is the reasonable and highly effective tool for exercising that right. You may not take my tool of self-defense any more than you may take my printing press because you believe the world would be a better place if I shut up.

Re:Move to Europe.

[meta-monkey]

I don't know. If you acknowledge that the problem is likely enough to do something about, then installing riot gear in every school seems like a halfhearted measure.

While I do not favor mandatory arming of teachers, I think that a teacher who has earned a concealed carry permit should be allowed to carry on school grounds, just like anywhere else. Obviously they should maintain control of their weapon, including a trigger lock, and be held criminally responsible for misuse. But the "declaring a school a gun-free zone" is stupid. Making such a declaration doesn't create a magic forcefield that won't let a gun inside, children are already not allowed to carry weapons, and we've simply announced to people who, like you say, desire control, that if they have a weapon they will have control here.

Additionally, when I was a kid, my high school campus also housed a police substation, so we had armed police on campus. I'm fine with that. Put a cop at each school, and let them actually serve the public by protecting their kids. That's a reasonable function of government. Adults who wish to avail themselves of their rights to self-defense may get a concealed carry permit, but children may not (and should not), and the State has an interest and an authority to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

So, to sum up:

1) Allow people who have undergone the background checks, processing, training and licensing to carry a weapon to do so, even at a school.
2) Put a cop at each school to serve and protect those who cannot protect themselves: children.
3) Realize it's not worth arguing about, because you can't control 2 in 18 million chances.

Re:Move to Europe.

[lsatenstein]

Arming yourself or others with concealed weapons is not going to make anyone safer. You have a trial going on with Zimmerman who was allowed to have a gun. The result, a youth is dead.

More you have guns, more depressed or crazed individuals will have an opportunity to seize and use one. Fewer guns means better protection. Only police or security guards, licensed and trained in weaponry should be allowed to have guns, and with latching holsters.

Irrelevant.

First, we do not live a magicland, where you can snap your fingers and instantly make all guns disappear. Just from a practical standpoint, it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

Second, I have a fundamental human right to self-defense, and the handgun is the reasonable and highly effective tool for exercising that right. You may not take my tool of self-defense any more than you may take my printing press because you believe the world would be a better place if I shut up.

I live in a civilized country. We are not allowed to carry guns unless we have special needs (carrying drugs, or as a courrier). The guns cannot be concealed. We need special permits to carry guns.

We have already had policewomen killed because a guy was fearing his life, and fired with a high powered handgun though is front door. All he got was a manslaughter charge, because he did not plan murder.

Because you live in a gun country, you go ahead and exercise your right to continue to arm yourself. Can you protect yourself if you are fired upon? If you were attacked, it may be your kid trying to get into the house because he forgot his key, and did not want to wake you.
I defend your right and wish you all the safety you can mentally and physically garner up.

Re:Move to Europe.

[RockDoctor]

Scores since World War 2 : Canada 26 deaths in 11 events ; Europe 104 deaths in 19 events ; Oceania & South America 86 deaths in 17 events ; Africa 51 deaths in 2 events ; America has 253 deaths in 127 events ( only going back as far as the 1980s, because the data isn't conveniently laid out and I can't be bothered going back any further).

Looks like all those armed vigilantes are being really effective. Every thing in America is so much bigger and better than here in the dowdy outside world. (This is "sarcasm", in case you haven't heard of it.)

Re: Move to Europe.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our gun loving country stopped two world wars and suppressed a communist Behemoth while facilitating democracy for half the world...We arent afraid of force

Re:Move to Europe.

[Chrontius]

There are approximately a million concealed weapon permit holders in Florida, and one George Zimmerman. Granted the Stand Your Ground laws are applied in a depressingly biased manner and Treyvon probably had a valid Stand Your Ground case against Zimmerman, but people willing to put themselves through fingerprinting, background checks, and fairly hefty fees probably weeds out most of the obvious bad actors.

Re: Move to Europe.

[lsatenstein]

Our gun loving country stopped two world wars and suppressed a communist Behemoth while facilitating democracy for half the world...We arent afraid of force

And it is killing more civilians than all the other countries combined. Even disallowing criminal to criminal killings, or including them

The USA was last to enter the 2nd world war, because it was making a fortune selling arms to the British and their allies.
The Japs attacked Perl Harbour because the USA was selling arms to the enemies of Japan. USA worships the dollar, and does not who is right or wrong. Should we talk about Korea, Irac and agent orange, and the banana plantation killings

Good intentions, poor implementation

[Bearhouse]

So...

..."These locations are typically the homes or businesses of suspected unsafe gun owners"

Suspected?

I'm all for crowdsourcing; it's fine for things like OpenStreetMap, for example.
Here, though, it's clearly open to dangerous abuse.
If you just look at the example on the linked site, "new neighbour leave guns unsecured around kids", well, the bad guys will be dropping round to collect those asap, right? How about if someone labels me as such, for a "joke" or worse, and then the same bad guys come round to my place when my wife is there alone?
And beat the crap out of her since she cannot produce the guns, because there are none?

If you have reasonable suspicion that someone is behaving badly with guns, your duty is to call the cops, not update some damn stupid app.

Re:Good intentions, poor implementation

[Trailer Trash]

There are no good intentions associated with this idea.

Re:Good intentions, poor implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not attribute to malice what can adequately be described as incompetence.

(Also, do not state as fact that which is obviously a personal opinion.)

Re:Good intentions, poor implementation

[rhook]

This app was written with malicious intent. The author will claim it is simply "performance art" while he laughs.

It's only fair ...

[johnlcallaway]

I have an app that tells me what businesses are not gun-friendly and won't let me carry my legal firearm into them, so I either don't visit those businesses if there are other options, or make sure I leave my gun in my car and not have to walk back when I get to the door and see the sign. (Yes .. I carry all the time. Those around me don't know it. And in the last 15 years, I have shot no one. Get over your irrational fears, my ex-boss is just as deadly as I am and she doesn't need to carry a gun.)

But at least there is a measurable standard for the marking, a sign on the door that says 'no firearms allowed'. What measurable standard is the app going to use?? Someone's opinion? It's almost useless if there isn't a measurable standard.

Kind of like hotel and restaurant reviews on the internet.

Re:It's only fair ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What app? is it Android? Me Want!

Seriously?

[sargon666777]

This is completely different from a map that marks members of a political party. For one thing guns get stolen... and then used in crimes once stolen (sometimes).. This is actually incredibly irresponsible of the creators. You might as well just hand the potential thieves a map of where to get guns.. Its ironic that those who keep pushing for gun control laws are the first to put things like this in place that makes those same laws less effective..

Criminal use

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the criminals know where to find the local neighborhood ar15. Smart.....real smart....we can hope the owners aren't afraid to use the weapons to find off said criminals...

Because it's a safety concern?

[Anonymous Coward]

This should answer your question.

Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment

[SirGarlon]

On the one hand, I think gun owners would be justified in fearing real-world repercussions from being listed in this database. (Some might see it as a benefit, deterring burglary etc.) In fact, it's not only gun owners who ought to worry, since as others have pointed out, the data in the app can be based on imagination or lies.

On the other hand, it's hard to see how anyone could *stop* people writing apps like this and uploading data to them.

This is a great example of why I think privacy is a right. Maybe that was the whole point.

In case it's not obvious from the tone and content of my post, I Am Not a Lawyer.

Re:Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear the real world-repercussions of morons around me owning guns. I don't trust most people to use their turn signals properly, let alone operate a deadly weapon. This is just an entrepreneurial, crowd-sourced effort to create something the government has failed to do. (Create a mandatory national firearm registry and licensing regime) Libertarians should be all over this.

With the popularity of "Stand your ground" laws (Aka cowards law) I now have to fear any moron that "feels threatened" may feel justified in shooting me. Thanks, but I feel inclined to support "gun control" efforts as a matter of personal safety more than anything else.

Re:Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment

[CanHasDIY]

With the popularity of "Stand your ground" laws (Aka cowards law)

You know, that's really funny coming from an Anonymous Coward whose entire post is essentially a list of the nonexistent boogeymen they irrationally fear.

Re:Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Well as to stopping others from using the app...

We could SHOOT them you know. /really violence is the ultimate argument settler. Dont believe me....history of man says otherwise.

Re:Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment

[ducomputergeek]

Oh I can think of a way of stopping them: libel lawsuits.

Re:Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

From Expertlaw

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Looks like this application satisfies 1,2 & 3 with 4 being pretty easy to prove.

Re:Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right. You CAN'T stop someone from writing an app such as this, just like you cannot stop someone from shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
What you DO have, however, are laws that punish people for doing the wrong thing.
Write an app that accuses your neighbor of being an unsafe firearm handler and you'd better make sure it can be proven in court. Otherwise, your neighbor will own any revenue you've generated from the app (as well as most of your income and other belongings).

There are laws that punish for inciting a riot (shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater) as well as improperly or maliciously using a firearm.

in other words: Punish the 'bad guys', not the law-abiding citizens.

Re:Second Amendment, Meet First Amendment

[Agent0013]

Then it should be fine if we also hack their system to figure out who posted each person to the app database. Then the people who put others on the list can be on a list of their own. We'll see how fast they start needing to rely on guns then. Probably just involving calling the cops as they are being beaten to death, but still!

I answer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I answer that it is unlikely that I would be killed maimed in the vacinity of a poorly managed religion or political party.

Re:I answer...

[cfsops]

Right. But you might be tortured, burned at the stake or have your vestigial head removed from your body by a "properly managed" religion.

Re:I answer...

[miltonw]

So you think the app is a good idea?

I am perfect for that list!

[Lumpy]

Because I am highly dangerous to anyone trying to geotag me, and I have a LOT of guns, high power guns ....SCARY military looking guns, some are even black!!!! #OHTHEHORROR

I have guns that can shoot through an engine block. #OMGTERRORIST

And I have the unhealthy idea that my privacy is important and therefore hate anyone that tries to violate it by being a complete scumbag, like this professor.

Anyone have an app that Geotags dangerous Professors that are insane like this one?

Re:I am perfect for that list!

[CanHasDIY]

Anyone have an app that Geotags dangerous Professors that are insane like this one?

Consequently, I was considering downloading the app so I could mark the UCSD campus as a dangerous location, due to "self-absorbed elitist professors who show a blatant disregard for civil liberties and the safety of American citizens."

Of course, I had to bail after about 2 minutes on the site as my eyes started to bleed, thanks to what has to be the loudest and most obnoxious background color ever selected.

Re:I am perfect for that list!

[rhook]

He is not a professor, he is merely a lecturer. Big difference.

Tag all guns and owner

[Murdoch5]

If you own a gun you should be tagged and tracked period!

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who thinks lawful gun owners should be tagged and track should be tagged and tracked. NSA's got your number, buddy.

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[Anonymous Psychopath]

If you own a gun you should be tagged and tracked period!

I was so moved by your thoughtful and well-reasoned argument that I am responding in kind. You are a poo-poo head.

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[Murdoch5]

People do not need guns, name three things that people NEED guns for, by NEED I mean they can't do by other means. I'm having an extremely difficult time coming up with a list.

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[Anonymous Psychopath]

People do not need guns, name three things that people NEED guns for, by NEED I mean they can't do by other means. I'm having an extremely difficult time coming up with a list.

There's a very, very long list of things we likely both have that neither of us needs. I don't understand your point.

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[Murdoch5]

But how many of the things I don't need can so easily be used to kill? if you own a gun you have the power to easily tkae the life of a human, so you should be tracked to make sure you never use that ability. Guns have no reason purpose in today's society, in fact the only real reason for owning one is to give yourself the ability to take life.

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[Anonymous Psychopath]

But how many of the things I don't need can so easily be used to kill? if you own a gun you have the power to easily tkae the life of a human, so you should be tracked to make sure you never use that ability. Guns have no reason purpose in today's society, in fact the only real reason for owning one is to give yourself the ability to take life.

That's a very myopic and narrow-minded view of gun ownership. There are multiple Olympic events involving firearms. Unless you believe the Olympics is a training program for murderers, you must concede there are recreational and sporting aspects to shooting.

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[rhook]

Are you saying that we should have to wear a symbol that identifies us? Perhaps a yellow star?

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[rhook]

Car, hose, rope, socks, neck tie, hammer, shovel, axe, ice pick, log, plastic bag, beer bottle, isopropyl alcohol, screwdriver, mallet, tire iron, shoe string, pen, pencil... Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[shutdown -p now]

And if you resist, then you should be shot!

Oh, wait...

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[Murdoch5]

Or just don't own a gun, I've spoke out against my thoughts about the uselessness of guns many times on this site and I still maintain my feelings towards them. Everyone can have there own feelings about them but personally until I'm in a situation that can't be dealt with any other way I'm going to hold out.

Re:Tag all guns and owner

[dragon-file]

+1 I agree whole heatedly. That person is a poo-poo head.

If guns and gun owners were actually as...

[Anonymous Coward]

...dangerous as all you anti-gunners claim, then there wouldn't be any more anti-gunners.

more insidious than that

[luis_a_espinal]

aren't they?

You beat me to it. I guess people are smart enough to write ZOMG think of the children apps but aren't smart enough to remove redundant adjectives.

On another note, something more insidious from either this app or this article's title is the following: Dangerous Guns and Owners. What is "dangerous" being applied to here? Is just describing guns as dangerous (which is idiotically redundant) or does it stand for "dangerous guns and dangerous owners"?

More importantly, what about this:

These locations are typically the homes or businesses of suspected unsafe gun owners,

How do you determine if a home or business contains an unsafe gun (or unsafe gun owner, whatever the fuck that means)? How do they become suspect? What warrants people to be tracked over a mere suspicion? Funny how the right to privacy is shunned equally by the left and the right (and every punk in between) wherever it turns to be ideologically convenient.

I for one don't care if someone were to track me and label me unsafe.

Bolt action rifle with good enough caliber to take anything in the North American continent? Check, locked and with the bolt disassembled.

Revolver? Check, with a trigger combination lock.

Ammo? Check, plenty of it, locked and secured.

But hey, don't let that stop you (the generic you) from suspecting me of being dangerous or unsafe or whatever adjective that makes you feel safe and progressive and in charge of doing something positive for society or some shit like that. Once I add a 12ga scatter gun and a 1911 to my collection, that Android app is going to go beep-pause-beep-pause-beep-beep-beep-beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep like Ripley's tracking device back on LV-426.

Re:more insidious than that

[ganjadude]

I wonder if one could sue for libel if they are on this list and not dangerous

Re:more insidious than that

[rahvin112]

Anyone that gets listed has a legitimate claim of defamation IMO. The very title is defamatory.

Slanderous

[gerardrj]

I see a slander suit in his future. Someone puts me on a list of "dangerous guns or owners" and I'll sue. Neither my gun nor I are any more dangerous than any other object or person.
In fact, you are infinitely more likely to be run over by a dangerous car or driver while you geotag my residence.

A will be sued for the data about who made the geotag and he will be sued as a co-conspiritor to spread slander. This app has a very short life. All simply due to the wording chosen to describe the functionality.

Libel suits?

[intermodal]

This sounds like a perfect opportunity for people to get sued for false report.

Inappropriate reporting method

[jcrb]

The app lists 13 "Marking Categories" that the app user can select from, of those, depending on the jurisdiction, as many as 5 are items which should be reported directly to law enforcement as they are not "issues of concern" but "violations of law", these include;

“Possible unlocked/loaded/unsafe storage”
“Possible insufficient training”
“Documented/frequent unlawful discharge”
“Possible illegal weapons on premises”
“Possible prohibited persons”

So using the app to tag these locations rather than properly report them will decrease local safety not increase it. Of course how the tagger is supposed to know of some of the "possibles" without actually knowing one way or the other is another question entirely. Either you have seen guns left around the house unlocked/loaded or you haven't, or you are tagging based on not having direct information in which case you are very likely opening yourself up to a libel suit.

Re:Inappropriate reporting method

[rhook]

Having loaded/unlocked firearms in the home is not a crime. In fact SCOTUS has ruled (DC v. Heller) that you cannot require locked storage of firearms in the home.

Re:Inappropriate reporting method

[jcrb]

You expect local legislatures and police to respect SCOTUS rulings? How quaint a notion. Well after they arrest you and convict you perhaps on appeal they will see the error of their ways.

Re:Inappropriate reporting method

[rhook]

In my county they do.

Re:Inappropriate reporting method

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns left around unlocked & loaded are only an issue if someone under 18 takes them into a public place; otherwise there's no law on gun storage (at least not in California) that doesn't contain the tortured language that I just mentioned.

They will never see it coming

[mattr]

The police would be the people most interested in using such a database.
It will mean that if police ever have a reason to visit a tagged property they will be far more likely to use overwhelming force at the slightest provocation.
Since the gun owner will not know he or she is tagged, they will not even know they should tone it down.
This app is going to get someone hurt.

Re: A mind

[drainbramage]

And sometimes; a mind is a terrible thing, too loose.

JEwish

[malv]

A Jew!. Surprise surprise.

Foolish Earthlings

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now you have a board with a nail in it. But you won't stop there. Soon you will make bigger boards with bigger nails until you make a board with a nail in it so big it will destroy you all!

Excellent plan, but one thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, Slashdotters, who wants to help me make a geotagging app that crowdsources locations of people and businesses who are NOT gun owners so that legitimate users can use this as positive reinforcement of the anti-gun ideal?

It will allow users to personally thank those non-gun owners (and businesses) for their thoughtfulness toward others and their pacifist approach toward dealing with an increasingly dangerous and violent world.

May I propose a name for your app? How does iHomeInvasionster sound? I think it has a ring to it.

I think it really should have social features, so that people could leave ratings and feedback:
"Home was exactly as described: pacifistic and unarmed occupants offered zero resistance, even to brutal violence! A++++, would invade again!"

Obvious, no?

[J'raxis]

I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party.

There's one obvious difference: This kind of paranoia and bigotry is popular among left-leaning types, so it's all good.

Re:Obvious, no?

[Anonymous Coward]

True. I want an app to locate anti-gun people in my neighborhood so I know who to NOT help out with my guns when they're in the process of being brutally raped and murdered.

The most dangerous people in society...

[malv]

Are the Jews. There is no other group that has done more to destroy our civil liberties.

Incompetence will trump malice

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the bigger danger is that hoplophobes really have no idea what is safe and what is not. A few days ago a friend came over while I had my Barrett stripped down on the kitchen table for cleaning. For people who aren't knowledgeable about guns, it's over 4 feet long and has a picatinny rail, as well as a muzzle brake the size of my fist. This gives it a "scary killing machine" look, from a Feinsteinian perspective.

So I'm running swabs through the barrel while talking, and at one point look directly down the barrel to see how dry it is. My buddy freaks and yells: "You should NEVER look down the barrel of a gun! You'll get killed!" Back the horses up there, skipper. That thing lying over there on the kitchen table is called a "bolt". The other big chunk of metal is the trigger assembly. Chances of a discharge right now are quite slim, especially since I'm see daylight though the barrel.

But of course his story will be about how reckless people are with guns. I think the rule should be that you don't get to have an opinion about guns unless you know how they work. It's sad that I have to post this as AC just because I don't want people to know I have guns. And forget registration. Idiots like this professor are exactly the reason us "gun nuts" vehemently oppose any ideas you in the general public come up with, no matter how reasonable.

Glad to know I'm at least some kind of threat

[junk]

"Similarly, you should not be concerned merely because your neighbors are a member of any national gun advocacy organization. The actual threat â" just to cite the best known org â" that the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its kin present to you and your children is political."

use it

[Anonymous Coward]

just geotag liberal civil rights infringers with this app,

public danger perhaps?

[Anonymous Coward]

" I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party."

Public danger of a deadly nature, perhaps? I fail to see where being republican/democrat or hindu/sikh/muslim/jew is a direct threat to anyone else. A dangerous gun owner very well may be. One thing gun fanatics fail to account for is that their fetish is for objects that are intended fundamentally to kill vertebrate organisms.

Says Firefly!

[Trimaxion]

A space cowboy once told me "you got the right same as anyone to... live and try to kill people." Words to live by.

Re:Says Firefly!

[g0bshiTe]

"someone tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back".

Good cowboy.

Make it worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't own a gun - and I still think this is not wise.
If this app catches fire (which I doubt it will), the easiest solution is to download it, and tag every location you visit during the day.

If enough businesses find themselves tagged as dangerous locations, I am certain the app will get pulled.

That's easy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party."

We all know that the motivation is, actually, to tag the homes of people espousing a particular political ideology - conservative / libertarian types who exercise their right to own a gun. That way we can ostracize them, and threaten them until they leave our "safe" neighborhoods.

But you better not geotag the areas where *actual* gun crime happens constantly - the inner city! Those areas are heavily populated by minorities, and any attempt to point out that the areas where they live are rampant with drug-related (and other) gun crimes is racism.

Also, enjoy your law of unintended consequences: if I'm a criminal, I'm going to grab this, and target the homes & neighborhoods where there aren't any guns - the worst that happens is I get arrested for burglary in those neighborhoods... don't have to worry about being shot!

Okay, everybody--

[Chris Mattern]

...be sure to tag Brett Stallbaum's home and office as sites with an unsafe gun owner!

Re:Okay, everybody--

[RenderSeven]

Yes, certainly. And the test will be whether the tag is removed or not. They claim they will have no editorial control over the database, and specifically will not remove misplaced tags. I'd like to see if that arguably reckless policy applies to themselves.

Re:Okay, everybody--

[Chris Mattern]

They claim they will have no editorial control over the database, and specifically will not remove misplaced tags.

Really?? Time to write a bot that creates an "unsafe gun" site every ten feet in all directions, everywhere.

Re:Okay, everybody--

[RenderSeven]

Time to write a bot that creates an "unsafe gun" site every ten feet in all directions, everywhere.

Yep, that too. Im not sure doing so even violates the spirit of the app, since declaring the entire country dangerous is something the authors probably agree to. The problem they will certainly run into and IMHO should have foreseen is that without exercising any editorial control the real value of the data is low. And generating good data with real value is a lot of work. So assuming Stallbaum is a smart guy (assuming), and he knew all this in advance, the only rational conclusion is that its a cheap publicity stunt for expressing a political view. Tagging his home and office as 'Possible Terrorist Antigovernment Location", and if it gets removed against their stated policy then proves the point, and (IANAL) potentially makes them liable for the content of the entire database.

tag all of Chicago

[night_flyer]

1,043 shooting victims in 2013 already... and it's supposed to be a "gun free" zone

Re:tag all of Chicago

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right the south side would be one big red spot with all the tags...But what pinko lib would actually go into the South Side to do the tagging?

My prediction: this app will die from apathy

[Anonymous Coward]

In order for this app to get anywhere, or have any usefullness, it will need a lot of people adding people and places to the list. I just don't see a lot of people motivated enough to bother. Anti-gun (this isn't necessarily an anti-gun thing..) people have a tiny % of the passion over the issue that gun rights people do.

Ironic Consequences

[sahuxley]

After Sandy Hook, I remember some states were attempting to create a public listing of gun owners showing who they are and where they live. Some former burglars pointed out that this list could be used to help them target houses that do not own guns. In an ironic twist, this listing would have incentivized people who don't own guns to purchase one and make sure the listing shows that they own it, for their own safety.

Re:Ironic Consequences

[Megane]

It could also be used to help them target houses that DO own guns... if you know the folks are out, break in and steal their guns! And as a bonus, it even lets you list the ones that (supposedly, at least) don't have them properly locked away, so you can just go after the easier to steal guns!

civilian

[Anonymous Coward]

The opposite of police is not "civilian". The actual definition of the term civilian is "any person who is not a member of the armed forces." Thus police are civilians also, as they are not military. Don't fall into helping with militarization of the police, it is already problem enough. Some may be veterans, but being longer in the service, they too are civilians.

There's an app for that...

[bluescrn]

Want to steal firearms, for use in your criminal endeavours? - here's a handy app to show you where to find them...

I hope he tagged 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ...

[Anonymous Coward]

because that's the address from which orders for drones to be used to
kill people, without judicial review.

Political abuse aside ...

[PPH]

... how will we identify these "dangerous owners"? Once they run out onto the front porch with a pistol screaming to confront the SWAT team, its all over. But prior to that, I've known of some people who have had a bug up their ass about something for literally decades. And it isn't until the Big Breakdown that they gain visibility of the legal and/or mental health system.

Any system of prior restraint, pre-crime intervention is just going to cue up the "In Soviet Russia..." comments. As it should.

What's stupid about open carry?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never get why people want to concealed carry instead of open carry. If you conceal your weapon a criminal might think you're unarmed and mug you. If you open carry they'll think twice about it (they still might do it. Studies have shown criminals don't think about bad outcomes only getting what they want).

And there are meaningful purposes beside "harassing gun owners." There are some places, especially in the west like Colorado and Utah, where people go shoot in remote public places. Problem is, there might be hikers or ATVers or bikers in the area. My father-in-law has a house in rural Colorado. All the homes around him are on 30+ acre plots. Hunters (illegally) come on his property to hunt and others in the area shoot on their property. An app like this can tell people that the area they go to sometimes has shooters on it. You may not care, but I know that if I were hiking I'd like to know if someone was going to start up a shooting range near my route. Not that they are trying to hit people; however, there is little more embarrassing for a shooter than pulling the trigger and the gun goes off just a half second later than you thought. You flinch and the bullet hits the edge of the paper or the target hanger. You then remember sometimes you miss. Badly.

I agree with you for the most part, though. I just can see a little valid reason for it. But the danger is using the app just to harass people. I'm a cop. Off duty I will either carry concealed or open. I can see someone tagging me as "unsafe" because I have one. I can't imagine it would cause me professional harm, but you never know.

Re: A mind

[danomac]

Or maybe the head isn't screwed on all the way... :-)

YES

[Anonymous Coward]

> download app
> thugs, criminals stay away from your house
10/10

Capital idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely need an app that locates all abortion providers, then some facial recognition software that IDs everyone going in to have an abortion, then pushes that out to their social network....

/. talked about an equivalent thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Way back when, /. talked about schools that had something where students could anonymously turn in other students (has a gun/drugs/bully/etc). Result was students turning in anyone they had a grudge against.

Power

[xdor]

The man with a gun in a world of rock-throwers is King.

Re:Power

[femtobyte]

Until some plucky anarchists whack him with a rock barrage from behind. What society needs is more plucky anarchists --- people who fight against the concentration of power in fewer hands --- rather than more guns. The solution to "oh noes, one person has a gun and everyone else doesn't" shouldn't be "everyone else get guns, too!"; rather, "everyone else stone that one violent asshat trying to oppress the masses with superior firepower!"

Re:Power

[DexterIsADog]

"plucky anarchists... ...with a rock barrage"?

"Okay people, on 3. 1, 2..."
"Wait, why do *you* get to count it off? I want to count it off..."
"Well, I don't want either of you counting down for me. I'm just going to throw."

In the meantime the gun wielder has reloaded...

Re:Power

[femtobyte]

You seem to be confusing an anarchist rock-throwing mob with a well-regulated militia. I'm guessing plenty would be throwing on their own schedule, rather than arguing over who organizes the countdown. Since when have mobs of any political persuasion had problems with showing too much self-restraint?

Re:Power

[xdor]

Compared with a modern military "citizens with guns" are really nothing more than rock-throwers. (And you're right, this can be effective: Afghanistan is a great example of organized rock-throwers prevailing in the long-run)

It seems to me, the idea of the United States ensuring its citizens retained weapons was to achieve what you're describing: equality, and equality between the people and the people chosen to govern; not allowing the appointed governors' access to fire-power make them superior to the people. This arrangement is a last resort of sorts to ensure the governors were acting with mutual interest in the nation, instead of launching out to oppress individuals because of the power of their position

I disagree that attempting unilateral disarmament is going to help. Enforcing an artificial constraint on what constitutes appropriate arms is asking people to lie to themselves: for example that a literal rock with enough people is effective in keeping the governors with BlackHawks and cruise missiles from making oppressive choices.

We are barely adequate to this end. If anything we need more power equity, not less.

Re:Power

[femtobyte]

There are two approaches to achieving power equity.

One is an arms race: everyone tries to arm up as fast as possible to keep pace with the folks at the top. In practice, however, this is futile: the folks "on top" always have the resources (stolen from the labor of everyone lower in the social chain) to far outgun everyone else. Society ends up wasting massive resources making the world an ever more dangerous place. Arms dealers and the powerful benefit; everyone else loses. Real power equity slips further and further from reality, since the most powerful will always have the resources to race ahead fastest.

The other is a disarmament race. Whoever is farthest ahead in violence capability and accumulated power receives severe approbation and resistance from everyone around them. Instead of cheering on the US Military's ever-increasing superiority, the citizenry demands a weaker military with fewer resources (instead of stocking up on bigger guns at home "just in case"). Communities demand that police officers do routine patrol work unarmed (which has been very effective in many places, since criminals don't feel like their only options are kill or be killed when a cop shows up). When you knock down the violent scumbags on top, you actually do get closer to real power equity.

Re:Power

[DexterIsADog]

Dude, it was a fucking joke about anarchists. Lighten up. Or not... lecture me some more about militias and anarchists. I won't respond, but rest assured I'm drinking in your wisdom.

Re:Power

[blindseer]

One big problem with your idea. How do you force violent thugs to give up their weapons except by force?

Unarmed police are a very bad idea. Where it has been tried we end up with more people getting stabbed, including the police, than before. Sure, fewer people get shot but more people end up raped, assaulted, and killed.

This reminds me, I really need to read that copy of "More Guns, Less Crime" I bought. Perhaps I can send it to you to read when I'm done?

Re:Power

[xdor]

The arms race faces the fact that evil exists in the world and requires force to dissuade or repel.

The disarmament race assumes everyone, even one's worst enemy will constantly cooperate with one's value-system: idealism bordering on the delusional.

UCSD co-conspirator?

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed on their Facebook page that UCSD provided the resources: "Company Overview The walkingtools laboratory is a small Android shop at UCSD" https://www.facebook.com/GunGeoMarker/info I bet they have deeper pockets than this guy.

He will get sued

[ggraham412]

Eventually, a criminal will use the information provided by the app to profile a victim, or an innocent party will get slandered by the app. I hope the good professor is ready to lawyer up.

I don't care what the EULA says or the disclaimers - you can't make a contract to break the law or likewise hide behind a EULA to innoculate yourself against recklessly produced products.

Great idea, but dont stop there

[nurb432]

Great idea, so next we need to list all adult males, as they potentially could be a pedophile. Anyone that purchases alcohol, as they might be a drunk that is going to get in their car.. Or a woman that buys Midol, well, just because..

What idiots. What an invasion of privacy.

sez you

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't subscribe, but a lot of scholars of our laws draw parallels of the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments, and they seem to think that the order denotes hierarchy, the first five having mystical powers, et cetera.
Look it up.

Will we be tagging people for...

[Anubis IV]

...speaking "dangerously" next? If I make a remark that is misunderstood as racist or bigoted by someone who only catches half the conversation, should I get tagged for advocating hate speech?

...adhering to a "dangerous" religion next? If I'm a Muslim, does that mean I should get tagged because some ignorant alarmist sees me praying and assumes it must mean I'm about to blow something up?

...joining "dangerous" groups next? If I join a political group that promotes the disassembling of much of the military structure, should I be tagged because we're endangering national defense?

...engaging in "dangerous" actions next? If I refuse to allow my house to be searched without a warrant, should I be tagged because it's obvious that I must be hiding something dangerous?

Apps like this are designed to publicly shame people for using their rights. If someone is abusing their right, whether that be yelling "FIRE!" in a theater or using a gun in a manner that is clearly dangerous, the proper response is not to geotag them, but to get the authorities involved. Simple as that. The rest is just fearmongering.

Do they have one for profs and schools?

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Because UCSD would be a great target. Friends who went there claim - repeatedly and independently - that virtually every department is a political hackfest where grades and grading curves are set to target individuals they either like or don't like.

Where profs steal ideas from their students as if the students were their employees.

Where profs practice a "sage on the stage" style of lecturing left over from the 18th century and generally conduct themselves as though they're prima-donnas.

Where TAs do all the real course work, and reset it. And act like they resent it. And see their students as a waste of their time time that could have been spent on their own ascension into the priesthood, er I mean professorship.

Where administrators use huge sums of public money to refurbish their offices and buildings *so their daughters can get married in the palace which results.*

Where the school requires all incoming students to sign a pledge that anything they create while they're at UCSD using any resources of UCSD is UCSD's private intellectual property.

Where access to *real* resources are guarded by virtue of their being controlled by "private guest institutes and organizations" who are "partnering" with UCSD but not actually "a part" of UCSD so students have no natural right to access those resources and never see them, despite UCSD claiming authorship and credit for activities involving those resources.

If I were to count the number of people hurt by some schlocky guy with a gun and compare that to the number of people who enroll at UCSD year over year and wish to god they hadn't, I'll bet UCSD would pretty much top any honest accounting of damaged lives

I used to live in socal and knew people who went to San Diego for their undergraduate. When they returned to L.A. in the summer they'd bitch up a storm about what was going on there for undergrads (they had , you know, ambition beyond getting drunk ) and what a fucking shithole ofb skullduggery the place was .

I admit don't actually remember the entire litany of complaints, and the fleshy details are not worth reciting but these general things stuck out in my mind. Basically the impression they gave was that it was a fucking mill and the best thing to do was to keep your head down, don't try to do anything beyond coursework and just STFU about anything you didn't like.

So really. Perhaps what we need is an asshole professor detector and a scam school locator. I mean , if you're going to spend the next 30 years choking on 80k + interest in debt, you ought to get something for your money.

At UCLA I have to say it was NOT like that, the profs were engage and accessible the grading was fair and overall the people were fairly friendly, so the experience of my *ambitious* friends who went south for college strongly contrasted with mine.

The harder schools to get into aren't always better for the student's learning ESPECIALLY for undergrads, who are likely to get nothing but a pinch of reflected glory for all their hard work.

One word

[Anonymous Coward]

stalking

Good luck finding the dangerous owners

[fascismforthepeople]

Hell last year we had some dipshit who was a sheriff's deputy leave his loaded and unlocked gun sitting around, and a kid picked it up and killed a woman with it. Would anyone have tagged him as a dangerous owner before?

I see your geolocation and raise...

[Applehu Akbar]

Let's start a geolocation for assistant associate adjunct professors with nannyist political agendas. Knowing where they are might allow public meetings in your community to be held at times and places that will not attract their pestilential presence. My town is still recovering from the time it let anti-radiowave conspiracy theorists into a City Council meeting on those newfangled remote-reading electric meters.

Mob Rule

[Jason Levine]

Does the app also tell you the nearest places to buy pitchforks and torches? I'm a big fan of (sensible) gun control legislation and even I think this app is a bad idea. Who is going to be determining what constitutes "dangerous"? Is that concealed carry permit holder dangerous because he has tattoos and piercings? (Never mind that he teaches gun safety classes at night.) Is the old bitter guy up the block who is constantly cleaning his shotgun on the porch dangerous? (Never mind that it's never loaded or that he always treats it as if it was.) Or is the normal looking guy the dangerous one? The guy who doesn't stand out at all. The guy who - unbeknownst to everyone else - likes to frequent websites of groups with extremist views.

Something tells me the first two people would get entered in the app and Mr. Normal would be left out. People would push for the guns to be taken away from the former and the latter would be the most likely to shoot up a crowd of people.

What a great idea!

[sootman]

And next, I'll make a geotagged database of houses where NO guns are owned. Then you will know where all your like-minded, safe friends are.

Sure, criminals might also like a nice list of defenseless houses, but hey, if it's good for the goose...

Retribution app

[LoRdTAW]

Before you know it people will retaliate and tag anyone and everyone they can think of as a gun owner.Even if they don't own a gun. Before long the app will be pretty useless as no one will ever know which tags are genuine vs fabricated. People will tag annoying neighbors, bosses, ex's, teachers etc.

Reading the google play page reveals a comment which read:
Some idiot went and marked my granny's grave. I mean, how in the world did they know that I had ol' granny cremated so I could use the grave to hide all my weapons? That was a total secret.

(sarcasm) So yea, totally accurate. No One could ever abuse this. (/sarcasm)

And it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch the gun nuts cry because "oh no that person knows I have a gun now, THEY ARE GOING TO BREAK IN TO MY HOUSE AND STEAL IT FROM ME"

Hey, fucknut, USE YOUR GUN.

Guns Vs. Bibles

[RavenousRhesus]

I question how the motivation behind developing this app differs from, say, developing an app to allow others to publicly geotag homes of people believed to belong to a particular religion or political party.

How is it different? The public is legitimately concerned with its safety when firearms are involved. While someone wielding a Bible or campaign pin could technically kill you, it's VASTLY easier for someone wielding a gun to kill you.

Hoplophobic crank or trolling for hoplophobes

[LaughingRadish]

It looks like people are already putting garbage into his database so as to render it useless. At the top of the page is "know something about the project before you comment". In the FAQ and Guidelines, it seems that the author might know what he's talking about. I'm still not clear if he's a hoplophobic crank or playing a joke on hoplophobes. If he's the former, then he made a tremendous blunder by not realizing that lots of people would put garbage into the database.

Plans

[b4upoo]

You need not worry any longer. In honor of George Zimmerman we are forming a new neighborhood patrol that we will call the waltzing Zimmermans.
                        We will simply waltz with an invisible partner all about the community in the evenings.

Re:Plans

[Anonymous Coward]

and at the end of the night, pick a fight with someone then when youre getting your fat white trash ass kicked, shoot them.

horrible idea

[AxemRed]

Identifying gun owners not only screws those gun owners, it screws the non-gun owners as well (if the list is comprehensive.)

By identifying gun owners, you give criminals who want illegal guns a definite target. Maybe they know that the risk would be great by breaking into the house when someone is home, but it gives them the information they need to have a better chance at a payoff if they wait around and watch the house until everyone is gone before breaking in. This by itself puts everyone at risk by making it easier for criminals to know where to steal guns.

The other problem is that if a comprehensive list is available, they would also know who doesn't have a gun. This could make non-armed households greater targets for criminals who don't want to waste their time staking out a house first and would rather just break in steal when they can carry, and assault whoever gets in their way.

Suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Look your stats up again or clarify your statement. Most shootings are self-inflicted in the US. If you are some white, clueless, middle class spooner you should probably not own a gun as the likelyhood you'll use it to kill yourself is much higher than the likelyhood you'll ever get shot by someone else.

I could not find statistics to back up your claim

[Marrow]

I did find that most gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Wow, you are good. You sold me!

[Marrow]

Lets remove the guns. Swords are a much cooler and far more honorable weapon. Honor begins and ends with two men facing each other on a level field with equal arms in a fight to the death. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

Civic Duty!

[Budgreen]

as americans, it is our civic duty to go out and add as much noise to this useless illegal app as possible. most states (NY included) it is illegal to maintain a list of lawful gun owners. we all need to download this and tag as many places as possible, churches, schools, police stations, whole streets. the more noise the better.

We use it to list Dangerous Leftist

[bricko]

Can also be used to put in addresses of dangerous Leftist in the Professorial community. Can then be used by the dangerous gun owners.....heh

Here in Harlan County KY we've has this for years

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the phone book.

go get him

[stenvar]

I vote for Brett Stallbaum being listed as a "dangerous gun owner". He may not actually list a gun, but he certainly is a dangerous fool, and he can get a gun any time he pleases.

Despicable..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absolutely fucking terrible. The author is a god damn fascist.

Fail

[sycodon]

I said mass shootings.

Anti-gun nuts are always throwing suicides in as part of the statistics of gun deaths. While the death did come via a firearm it is no more a gun death as is commonly discussed, as someone running their car into a wall intentially is a traffic accident.

And if 5 is all you can come up with, I'd say the gun range is a pretty safe place to be.

Look I hate to break it to you

[Sycraft-fu]

But the reason people take plea deals all the time is they are guilty. In general, law enforcement does a pretty good job of not bringing innocent people to trial. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it is fairly rare. It isn't the "all the time" sort of thing some on Slashdot seem to assume.

I'm friends with a number of defense attorneys, private and public, and they'll tell you that almost all their clients are guilty. They did what they are accused of doing. When they can get them off, it is generally because of a mistake made by law enforcement, not because there was never a case in the first place.

So what happens most of the time is a person has been brought up on charges for something they did. The evidence against them is good. Their lawyer looks at it and says "They've got you, you aren't going to get off. You should take the plea."

If the state's case isn't solid? Then they generally take it to trial. My friend is doing that right now with a DUI case. The state screwed up badly, their evidence is basically invalid. However they won't drop the case. So my friend is taking it to trial. He's very likely to win too (he has good instincts and is a good trial lawyer). He recommends trial if he thinks he can win. However, often as not, there's no chance. They have the person dead to rights, so a plea is the smart thing.

Re:Look I hate to break it to you

[TheCarp]

> But the reason people take plea deals all the time is they are guilty

Ok fine, then they should be able to prove that at trial and there should be no need whatsoever in threatening them massive amounts of jail time in order to coerce them into waiving their right to a trial. seems if they really are guilty, then prosecutors should do their job and make a case before a jury.

Re:Look I hate to break it to you

[Sycraft-fu]

And they will, if the defendant asks for a trial. However trials cost money, as such prosecutors are heavily pressured to offer plea deals to lesser charges and lesser time. They don't HAVE to, but if they regularly push things to trial and refuse to plead people out, they are likely to wind up fired. Defense lawyers take the pleas because they are a good deal, better than the law specifies. Their client might actually be guilty of a class 6 felony, but the plea deal is for a misdemeanor, that kind of thing.

You need to look in to how this all works a little more, I think. You can argue against harsh sentencing, the US has a real problem with that, and so on but the plea system is not something set up to screw defendants. It is set up to give defendants a better deal with they'd normally get under the law in exchange for reduced costs by not having a trial.

If the concern is that the sentences for crimes are too much, then that is the issue, not the plea system.

Re:Look I hate to break it to you

[TheCarp]

When more than half the people in prison are in for non-violent drug "crimes" (aka violation of their right to pursue happiness) I think the system is totally sick. I understand how we got here, I know all about the cost movtive, and I can think of no more of a corrupting influence. The justice system was never intended to be a meat grinder. It shouldn't be so efficient as to process so many cases.

At this point, I would argue we should do away with the plea entirely and remove the ability to waive ones right to a jury at all, because this is an absolutely terrible way to "fix" the system.

you're funny

[publiclurker]

if you think any grownup believes that. there have been a few studies that show that gun nuts tend to elevate things vocally, since they think their mechanical enhancement makes them more important than they really are, and then when the shit hits the fan, the cowardice that causes them to carry the gun comes out and we have more dead people as the result.

Re:you're funny

[Mike Van Pelt]

Cites, please.

Re:you're funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Lazy ass. Google "Do gun owners tend to escalate encounters" and the first hit claims this (but it's from a book so I can't read it all) but if you go down to the Motherjones.com link "10 pro-gun myths, shot down" you will see in Myth 6 a link to one such study. More than 50% higher is thier claim. Go ahead, ignore all that stuff that they cite since they are one of those liberal hippy sites that speak them inconvienient truths we all hate.

too bad

[publiclurker]

the truth is that you are much more likely to kill yourself or a family member than actually defend yourself against any bogyman., despite your Dunning-Kruger incompetent delusions of adequacy.

OK, you were there then?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have turned up as a witness, then.

Oh, you weren't there? So how do you know that?

Oh, he's a nigger, got it.

No it is not a legitimate purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is not a legitimate purpose for carrying a gun.

You only need it in the target range. NOWHERE ELSE is justified by your "I enjoy target shooting".

Turnabout is fair play...

[RedBear]

Two can play at this game.

Someone needs to immediately release an app that allows us to begin geotagging "radicalized fearmongering enemies of freedom". First on the list to be tagged: Brett Stallbaum.

Watch how loudly the ideologues squeal about invasion of privacy, reckless endangerment and defamation of character when the shoe is on the other foot.

Retarded Merkin...

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK has a different definition of violent crime than the US.

Ignorant fuckwit.

Re:Retarded Merkin...

[ArhcAngel]

Which is why I didn't site the 4 times number associated with the flawed study. However adjusted for actual violent crimes Britain still has nearly double the violent crimes rate.

If that's where the gun can only be

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's where the gun can only be, on the floor, NEVER touched by ANYONE, then WHY THE FUCK DO YOU HAVE A GUN?????

Seriously, here's a gedanken experiment: what circumstance is your scenario likely to be the case in the USA at any moment in one day?

Libtards

[vickmichele]

They want a violent reaction.Its their fuel. Just sue the living shit out of him.

What is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a horribly stupid idea. How will it be governed? Who will look into the claims to see if they have merit or if it is being abused by people? Why does anyone have the right to decide that a person is an unsafe gun owner? How is it helpful? I don't understand what good this will do. It will, no matter what anyone says, have a large number of completely false info (I think I might go list a few dozen people for the hell of it, even though I don't know if they have guns), and it will have a large number of people that are listed as "unsafe" that will never have any sort of accident or even that is worth mentioning, so why make the list?

Why limit it to guns? How about we make a list and geotagged map of all the people that we think my become a sexual predator? A list of all the people we think might become drunk drivers? Abusive spouses/significant others? School bullies? Never too early to start labeling people as "potentially" dangerous you know.

AlphaA

None of you buggers have thought it through

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're being serious, then you're admitting you are yourself a "self-absorbed $DISPARAGING_REMARK who show a blatant disregard for civil liberties and the safety of American citizens".

What do you think gun nuts will do with that info? That's right: fantasize about shooting this "librul perfesser" in the head while buttfucking his goldfish.

He's an American citizen too.

You're ALSO saying that his actions are entirely acceptable: you're doing it too. Making your "outrage" fallacious. I.e. "it's wrong when HE does it!".

If you're NOT being serious, then your statement is a fallacy by your own intent.

Re:None of you buggers have thought it through

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we do that. all of us sit at night caressing our guns and fantasize about it.

Ohh my precious, cant wait until we see some liberals in the wild my precious....

Note: use organic gun cleaning fluid, when you tongue the receiver to give your gun more love, the petroleum products cause mouth sores.

Let me fix that headline

[TripleE78]

UCSD Lecturer Releases Geotagging Application for "Places to Steal Guns"

Seriously, if this is using any kind of legitimate records, it's not going to register many people who might actually pose a threat. It's going to be the people who may or may not have their house secured, but are known to have guns. And probably a lot of false positives, just like sex offender registries and other items of this nature.

Completely ridiculous.

Too late, you already bought this horse

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imagine the lawyers who specialize in libel will find it quite useful indeed...

Libel? Look, you already let the idiots free when you allowed the legislature and SCOTUS to create retroactive public "registries" of "sex offenders", of untried "terrorists", when you allowed no-fly, no-buy and no travel lists to be created, maintained and inflicted with zero oversight and zero recourse; and that WITH the notable feature that such lists can be copied, referenced, and used for decision-making by any private or commercial entity out there.

The objections - quite legit - have been run up the flagpole and shot back down: Such lists, sayeth the judges and legislature, are "not punishment", and so you're going to have a very difficult time saying that a list of gun owners, or republicans, or jews, or hunters, or atheists, is somehow a problem. In this case, there's certainly no libel involved; it's a list of people who own guns; and to say that a gun is dangerous (or that a person wielding one is) -- well, duh.

I get it that you don't like it when it comes home to roost on your own shoulders; all I have to say to that is you should have paid considerably more attention to Pastor Niemöller when he said this. Assuming your education even included it (if it didn't, perhaps you could start a list of incompetent and dangerous teachers, eh?)

Re: A mind

[FutureDomain]

Or maybe the head isn't screwed on all the way... :-)

That would be the trolls

Firearms Safety

[rhook]

And yet here we have photo evidence of his wife firing a rifle in a negligent manner. Notice how she is not wearing any ear or eye protection and is shooting in what appears to be an unsafe direction (doesn't appear to be a backstop in that direction). I brought this hypocrisy to his attention on his Facebook page, and being as open to discussion as his is he simply deleted the post and banned my account from accessing his page.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/319298_2200582567925_8214836_n.jpg

Excellent idea - anonymous slagging...

[cdl]

Let's see - collect un-curated, anonymous accusations that someone is a "danger to society" and stick that on a map (of their house, for example). That could NEVER go wrong. It worked very well for decades - I believe the Stasi accepted anonymous tips about people presenting a "societal risk" in the GDR. It made that society SOO much safer. Even better, instead of informing the local constabulary who may be unfortunately constrained in their actions (pesky constitutional protections and all that), we're going to publicize it to the general public who happen to be the neighbors, friends, associates, and COMPLETE strangers. Much better for corrective action to be taken. I'm sure NO ONE with radical ideas would be incited to act based on these unsubstantiated, unverified labels. No one would tell their child to not sell cookies to the man down the street because someone randomly clicked a button on the phone, NO ONE would break into a house to acquire "unsafely stored" weapons (that may not even exist) because someone thought that a person with a ducks unlimited bumper sticker must harbor unsafe guns... Na, that could never happen. Guns-done, what's next, "Strange" parties, suspected "deviant" sexual practices, I know - suspected witches - excellent, we haven't burned, hung and drowned anonymously accused individuals in this country for centuries, oh wait, we have, lynch mobs. Many states have laws regarding how weapons should be stored, including this crackpot's state (California). If you have a REAL, substantiated concern, go to your local police, or, shudder the thought, the individual you are concerned about. However, you may actually have to make a case for your complaint and justify your statement. If that's too high a bar for you to bother with to enhance your "safety", then either you really aren't that concerned, or you don't really value your safety. If you feel strongly about something, stand up and take ownership, don't go off an anonymously start a whispering campaign. What's the REAL purpose of this app? It looks, to me like a public shaming, a public shaming for something that is unproven, and possibly/probably completely unjustified.

Defamation of Character lawsuit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not see how the marking and publishing of a law abiding person as being "dangerous" can be anything other than a defamation.

I do hope that all persons so marked will sue. Also I hope that any person living in a neighborhood with any marked person or business sue for reducing their property values. I am sure that there are others as well.

I would like to see all associated with the creation, distribution or promotion of this application are sued literally millions of times. I would like to see hundreds of judgments against them coming in every day and even if they live to be 200 that they are still facing hundreds of thousands of suits.

It would be nice if they are even given so much as "spare change" that someone would pop out around a corner and show a judgment and take it from them.

A gun can only kill you. The legal system can make your life so miserable that even the Christians' view of hell looks good by comparison.

One can only dream...

his info

[Anonymous Coward]

his home address is: 12741 Laurel St #80
Lakeside, CA 92040

It appears they also own a rental at:

1016 Stage Coach Trl
Julian, CA 92036

Re:his info

[rhook]

Phone Numbers and Email below.

Home (619) 443-0097
Work (858) 822-3883
bstalbaum@ucsd.edu

This is just irresponsible

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all it is just not right. But mainly unless the information is confirmed innocent people can be accused. This is more likely to incite violence and other harm. It's an ad hoc Megan's List. I don't like my neighbor so I claim he has an arsenal. Think 'Frankenstein'.

Report the app

[Anonymous Coward]

http://androidadvices.com/report-suspicious-bad-android-apps-google/

Re:Wow, you are good. You sold me!

[CrimsonAvenger]

Honor begins and ends with two men facing each other on a level field with equal arms in a fight to the death.

There's no "honor" in "a level field with equal arms" if one of the fighters is a professional and the other is a 50-something accountant (or a small woman).

Colonel Colt, on the other hand, did a lot to fix that type of inequality....

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

[LifesABeach]

Lets think about this, "victumize a person who is hostile and has a gun, buy a group of people that do not have guns."

How did you do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright Michael there is something going on here. I know, not 15 minutes ago that this post was under your other username Arcangel Michael (or whatever the fuck it is) cause it had my relationship with you (foe of a friend) highlighted. Somehow though you managed to get the username changed to ArhcAngel which I don't have a relationship with, and still keep the mod points. When did Slashdot start allowing you to edit posts? You're one of the editors aren't you!

Mr. Bigwords

[Anonymous Coward]

Hoplophobe? Really? You have been sitting here on slashdot for weeks trying to find a good time to use that term haven't you?

Star of David Badge App!

[Baldrson]

Clearly, the next app should be tagging the location of all Jews with a yellow Star of David badge, starting with one Brett Stallbaum.

Misappropriating terms

[Anonymous Coward]

As for Gun Safety, if you check out the recent rhetoric on the background checks legislation you'll find a lot of people very skeptical of anything labeled "gun safety."

Let's be honest: "gun safety" is the new politically correct term for gun control. It followed the same hackneyed PC marketing formula, "Uh oh! People finally figured out that we really meant $X when we said $Y, so let's refer to $X as $Z from now on!"

The attempted marketing of gun control as "gun safety" really took off after Sandy Hook. Before that, gun safety *solely* referred to securing firearms and training individuals in safe handling of firearms. Now it means "gun control", and that's why you're getting an allergic reaction from people interested in preserving their rights.

Pre-Sandy Hook if you asked any firearm owner if they were in favor of gun safety, they probably would have looked at you strangely and then said "of course I am in favor of proper firearm training and safe handling/operating procedures for firearms". If you had asked the same person, at the same time, if they were in favor of universal background checks, bans on standard capacity magazines, and bans on scary looking guns, then they would have very likely vehemently demurred. Nothing changed except the misappropriation of the term "gun safety".

Terms have meaning, and it's disingenuous to hijack a term to twist its meaning and then act like people are batshit crazy if they reject an innocent sounding term that is now infested with your revised semantics.

Just imagine if the anti-abortion advocates decided to try to refer to their push for abortion bans as "protection for the disabled". How could anyone be against protecting the disabled, you maniacal monster!

Creating more harm than good

[Anonymous Coward]

By marking the homes of gun owners, you will have them targeted for home invasions and theft. Criminals now know were to look for guns to steal. Criminals don't submit themselves to background checks, rather they steal their guns. And what is to become of the woman who has a gun to protect against an abusive ex-husband? Or someone trying to protect themselves from a staker? Or the retired police officer who put away a lot of criminals, who are now looking for revenge? Or someone who was a court witness to a crime? Or the small businessman be shaken-down by organized crime?
The gun geotagging app is going to get someone killed. Please folks, try to think of the outcome of this situation.

Let's geolocate all the safe places too...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.gungeomarker.com/

Remember: Not all Jews are automatically...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, not all Jews are automatically in violation of any specific ordinances that deal with Jewry.

For instance, you should not report on the location of Jews living in the same building as Aryans because you suspect there may be some sexual relations between individuals in those 2 groups.

Also, Jews who are decorated veterans of WW1 should not be location-tagged as they are exempt from nearly all Jewish ordinances (once we get rid of this protection in the future, tag away).

Etc., ...

No, this isn't political at all. I see no possible way to abuse this app. It certainly won't lead to guns being stolen and falling into the wrong hands.

Privacy is a really big deal and should be defended at all costs...unless you have non-PC opinions, exist in the wrong/improper areas of the political spectrum, etc.

Goelocation Of Dangerous Gun Owners - Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I laughed out loud reading that...what a crazy world we live in! Why not use the same system for owners of large dogs, or owners of knives, or cars, or baseball-bats? All of these can and do kill every single day! How about we use it to identify the locations of people who purchase unhealthy foods, or books you don't approve of? The rights and privacy of people in this country have become a joke due to the creators of garbage like this. We will never ghet rid of guns in this country, ever! Our right to bear arms is not given to us by the 2nd Amendment, it is inalienable, assured and insured by the 2nd Amendment, period. This liberal, gun-fearing (hating?) administration and all who support restrictions and confiscation should turn attention to criminals. How about we round up and deport 11 million illegal aliens (criminals by the very act of being here) instead of trying get rid of 11 million legally-purchased guns? How about we acknowledge that the parts of the US with the very worst crime statistics are the same parts with the most restrictive gun ownership laws? How about we admit a lot of things like this? Why don't we? Because these facts don't fit the progressive-liberal mindset or agenda. Please, mark my location on a web-based map. I hope it makes you feel better. Just make sure you do it legally, and hope that doing so doesn't make me a target. If your actions harm me or my family or property in anyway, you may come to wish that you had never stirred this pot.

hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Achtung,,,,,Juden!!!!

More Spies

[carys689]

Who needs the NSA to spy on you, when your neighbors can do it? Why not just trash the 2nd and 4th amendments and be done with it?

Only if they're registered or known to exist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since my arsenal was acquired from private parties, I guess I won't show up on that app until some poor fool tries to break into my house...

escort

[Anonymous Coward]

Erkeklerin güzel kadnlarla beraber olma istei genlerinde var olan bir durum olduu için erkekler her daim güzel bayanlarla iliki kurmak ister. Güzel kadnlarla iliki kuran erkein yaamnda da mutlu ve baarl olacan psikologlar ifade etmektedir. Kadn ve erkek ayrlmaz bir ikili olduklarndan bu iletiim sürekli yaanmaya devam edecektir. Önemli olan bir ikiliyi bir araya getirmek olacaktr. Erkek çok youn i temposundan ötürü bayanlarla birlikte olma frsatn yakalayamaz. Bu onun asosyal olmasndan kaynaklanmayp zaman ayramama gibi nedenlerle ilikilendirilir. Bu yüzden de erkek araylarn baka yöne kaydrr.istanbul escort kzlarbu arayn tam adresi olur. stanbul escort kzlar güzelliklerin kadar çekicilikleri ile de erkeklerin ban döndürür. Escort kzlar bu kadar güzel olunca erkek baka araylarn peine de dümez. Bir kadnda arad her eyi stanbul escort kzlarla bulacak olan erkek yaamn keyfini yeniden tatm ve yakalam olur. stanbul escort kzlar bu kadar meziyetinin yannda son derece eitimli ve kültürleri ile de sizi artacaktr. Son derece kültürlü olmas onunla sosyal etkinliklere katlmanz da salar. Oturmas ve kalkmasnn yannda hitap yetenei de arkadalarnzn armasna neden olacaktr. Katldnz etkinliin yldz olacak ve tüm erkeklerin imrenerek bakt biri haline geleceksiniz. Kadnlarn bile kskand bir güzel ile beraber olmak statünüzü de artracaktr.

escort kzlar ile gecenin sonuna kadar beraber mutluluu yakalayacanz gibi ksa zaman dilimi içinde bunu yaayabilirsiniz. stanbul escort kzlar sizin ihtiyacnz olan zaman içinde beraber olacak ve dolays ile tercih size braklacaktr. stanbul escort kzlar ksa soluklu birlikteliin yannda daha uzun soluklu da sizin yannz da yer alacaktr. stanbul escort kzlar bu nedenle sizin yaamnzn mutluluu olacaktr. Dünyada ki erkeklerin nerede ise tamam bir güzel bayanla tatil yapmann hayalini kurar. Bunu gerçekletirmek ise güzel bir kz bulamamaktan ötürü mümkün olmaz. teistanbul escort kzlarsize bunu yaatacak ve hayaliniz gerçee dönüecektir. Bu kadar güzel bir kzla tatil yapmak ise bir rüyann yaama geçmesi olacaktr. Bu nedenle hemen stanbul escort kzlar ile iletiim kurunuz

What a awesome burglary tool!

[shiloh.sharps]

I can just see it now: "That looks like a rich place....One second while I look it up. .......Oh shit that ()*^(&*^ shoots at anything, lets go next door. No guns there....." I'm putting me on that as soon as possible.

Here's the other side of the debate

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who are interested in the other side of the debate, there is an Android app that runs "True Stories of Self-Defense" where "Good Guys with Guns" were able to stop a crime or save a life through the lawful use of a firearm. All the stories are properly cited so you can research their authenticity.

It's called "Good Guys with Guns", give it a look.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.joelevi.site.sittingduckpolicy.goodguyswithguns

Trollers, they will be trollin'

[Bralgar]

Yeah like the pro gun controllers aren't going to just tag everyone they suspect has a gun... Because by their very nature all gun owners are unsafe *nauseating severe eye roll*... Give me a break, this is a troll app!

So.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we have an app enabling us to easily tag dangerous and hysterical lecturers?

really sensible and useful app !

[dschinn1001]

Now this app is really a step ahead for U.S.A. ! - who seriously wants on his/her own volition to hit his head with bullets of a Bushmaster or else ... ? - and there are enough people, who might use a weapon without to think deeper about the danger of that it mostly can kill or injure innocent people !?

Locations of Anti-Gun Fanatics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose the next step will be building an app to help locate Anti-Gun fanatics so that responsible gun owners will be able to protect themselves and their children?

Irresponsible and ignorant app

[Anonymous Coward]

This app is a clear violation of privacy. There is no national gun registry, you have no right to out people for having guns, and the developer personally holds liability for break ins of homes that apparently do not have weapons. It is an irresponsible application at best. I await the class action lawsuit that follows the release of this.

Sincerely,
A legally anonymous responsible gun owner.

I'll be famous!

[Anonymous Coward]

And when some criminal breaks into my home looking for my guns while I'm away, I'll sue the app maker for putting the virtual "steal guns here" sign on my lawn.

Dangerous guns and owners app

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing but a way for those who don't like guns to be able to label their neighbors ANONYMOUSLY. Just because two neighbors don't like each other and one knows the other has guns, they can get on an app and label them as a "dangerous gun owner!" There is no good reason for an app like this. Those who live in neighborhoods already know who is dangerous and who isn't! Let's get petty and make an app that has no one overseeing who gets added to the list! BRILLIANT! I applaud the stupidity!

Oh please oh please oh please!

[Gallomimia]

On the count of three, can we all use the app to tag the local police department? All I been seeing on my fb newsfeed lately is unsafe gun handling on the part of their membership. It's like they're asking us to do it!

Just marked Somalia, Syria, and Iraq.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this app. I just went in and marked all the places I know of in Somalia, in Syria, and in Iraq where I know there are irresponsible gun owners. I hope it saves your kids.

Re:Good intensions, bad idea. -- or not

[jeffkoch]

Conversely, would you rather have a sign in your front yard which says, "Attention Criminals - The people in this house have guns." or a sign which says, "Attention Criminals - Nobody in this house has a gun." ?

Fear based reasoning?

[Darionscard6616]

I gt the point of the app, what bugs me is we are assuming for all intensive purposes that somehow identifying these individuals is going to affect some degree of control on it , which isn't the case. Doyou NEED to know? No. Do you WANT to know? Yes. Does that want trump the need? Not really IMO. Just one more thing to make yourself scared of.

What does, "owns a gun" tell you about someone?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does having a gun actually tell you about someone?

If someone has a concealed handgun license, that person is probably not a criminal, is probably of good character, and is probably not mentally ill. Those are not bad characteristics for a neighbor or co-worker.

Conversely, if you don't have a concealed handgun license, should I be concerned as to why? Do you know that you can't pass a background check? Do you have a criminal past?. Perhaps you have a problem with your temper or mental state.

But what really happens when someone knows you own a gun? Here's an example: Federal law requires owners of Title 2 firearms to undergo an FBI background check, get the signature of the local sheriff or police chief, and pay $200 to register each one. In addition, the State of Virginia requires its own license and registration. And Arlington County requires that you allow the Sheriff to visit your home to inspect the safe where you will store it. So someone who has jumped through all those hoops is probably a pretty good character. Nonetheless, when my friend's wife went into premature labor, the paramedics refused to approach the house until the police arrived and swept the house. Apparently their house address was flagged in the 911 dispatcher's computer because the Sheriff, the State, and the Federal Government had vetted and approved him to own a gun.

   

Plans

[dragon-file]

I plan to spam the fuck out of this making it entirely useless for its intended purpose.

I hope

[DaveAtFraud]

I hope he provided a mechanism for people who feel or know that they have been wrongly tagged as possessing dangerous guns to remove the tag. Heaven forbid that some nefarious group like gun owners would stoop to tagging his home and office and classroom as being places where dangerous weapons and/or people can be found. But then again, a loose cannon who considers crowd sourced vigilante justice to be a good thing is far more dangerous than a gun in the possession of a law abiding citizen.

Cheers,
Dave

apparently google is trying to stigmatize gun owne

[Anonymous Coward]

however this attempt may have rather opposite outcome, which i hope for.
anyway, i made my judjement about google. thanx.

the "war on drugs" keeps someone rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. And that also gives the white, clueless middle-class a reason to be fearful and distrustful of the lower classes, and the lower classes reason to be contemptuous of the middle class. Whatever keeps them from joining up against the upper class, which is actually responsible for said laws and economic factors.

AND the upper class also makes money off both - all - sides: waging the "war on drugs" which keeps the drug market extremely profitable, investing in the "legal" sides of it and selling guns to all sides while ensuring that the lower class are busy killing each other. ruining other countries with those methods also keeps the flow of cheap, migrant day-laborers without any rihgts ("immigrants") steady which is used to keep labor cheap and, thus, the working class in control (of course, in the US there is no working/lower class, because they're all just millionaires with a tiny temporary deficit in funds liquidity.)
yeah, for soneone it's better they keep their fetishistic and dangerous killing-toys than they start taking what's theirs.

Re:the "war on drugs" keeps someone rich

[meta-monkey]

Yup, works at all levels. My favorite response to "think of the children" bullshit for keeping drugs illegal: "I am. I'm thinking of the Mexican kids who get their parents' heads in a box for standing up to the drug runners."

Gun Geo Marker App

[Anonymous Coward]

by EchoSierra

You don't need an app. You just have to be able to read the sign out front that says, "We don't call 911". Boom.

Why can't you all just be normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need to carry a gun? The world isn't actually that dangerous. If your town is, move your family somewhere safer. Your gun won't protect you 95% of the time.

You are all just paranoid and insecure. Maybe your bank account or your willy isn't as big as you'd like. Maybe your momma never gave you the attention you wanted. I bet you have a nice big boat too, or a big house. And if you don't, I bet you wish you did. So sad.

Here is your answer: live every day to its fullest. Cling to those you love, not to your cold steel security blanket. Be a real hero to your friends and family, not a pretend movie hero armed to the teeth.

Get out of your fantasy world and start living in the real world. You don't need a gun, it won't help you or protect your family. Chances are it will only hurt you or a member of your family, through momentary carelessness. That's what guns actually do in the real world.

Re:Why can't you all just be normal

[Anonymous Coward]

0/10 troll

I do live to the fullest. It's smart to carry a gun on you whether in a city or hiking in the forest. Only an idiot would go in a grizzly infested forest without a shotgun. The same scenario can be said carrying in a city, except the animals in the city are human criminals.

My bank account? Surprisingly large given I don't even have a degree or any certs, yet I build companies which get sold for millions.

Read the user reviews for the app! ROFL

[LeifOfLiberty]

:-)

Gun App

[Anonymous Coward]

The developer of the app did not take into consideration human nature - dishonesty, revenge, and other motives for hateful behavior. This is a bad, bad thing.

I so need to be on this

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I get geo tagged?

Re:Wow, you are good. You sold me!

[gzuckier]

Right. Because in a fight between a grandmother and a professional gunman both equipped with the same firearms, it's totally 50/50 who would win. That happens all the time. That's why we send so many grandmothers off to war.

Want to ruin someone's life?

[OrangeTide]

Tag their home. Maybe leave a note saying that they don't lock up their firearms and are often on hunting vacations. Then wait for some thieves to ransack their house.

Want to ruin your own life? Make your neighborhood the target for burglaries and see if your ass isn't hauled into civil court for instigating the whole thing.

Can we have a geo tagging system for twits?

[Karmashock]

If no one has a problem with geo tagging individual people and removing what little privacy they have... then why not carry this farther?

Can I geo tag the man that released this software?

Flood it with disinformation.

[couchslug]

Easy enough to flood such an app with lulzy disinformation and make it useless.