Slashdot Mirror
10 Confirmed Dead In Shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College
CNN and other sources report that an attacker, now in custody, shot and killed a
reported ten people, and wounded another 20, at Oregon's Umpqua Community College, about three hours south of Portland, and described by CNN as "technically a gun-free zone." Students are being evacuated to a nearby fairgrounds, and local authorities advise anyone to avoid the area of the college. Wikipedia editors are also quickly compiling information about the attack. More news on the attack is still breaking; expect updates here.
What does "technically a gun-free zone" mean?
Seems like it means "opposition-free zone"
What is the description of the shooter? Male? Female Black? Muslim? Mexican? Citizen? Legal Immigrant? Illegal Immigrant?
Anti gun lobbyists will say this is because of guns.
Pro gun lobbyists will say this is because there weren't enough guns
The rest of the world will look at America and wonder "what social/economic/cultural problem exists where there can be a few mass shootings a year?"
Everyone will argue for a month or so. John Oliver might say something about it. But after a month, everyone will forget this has happened. Then, several months later, there will be another mass shooting in the US and the cycle repeats itself.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
This has become a regular event in America. We can lay a lot of responsibility for this at the feet of the terrorist NRA and the corrupt legislators they pay off, with both these latter groups little more a bunch of bootlickers to the gun manufacturers. There are more than 300 MILLION guns in this crazy nation - so many that *anyone* who wants to get a gun can get one, one way or another. America is FOURTH in death by gun, after Thailand, Nigeria and Colombia; that's the company we keep. We have more murders by gun than any developed (and many undeveloped) nations. It's a national disgrace. More people have died by gunshot in America than were killed in all our wars! The NRA *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill persons, and on and on. It's a national disgrace. What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
The gun ban was treated as a mere technicality of no consequence it seems.
No matter where you go, there you are.
If the suspect is "in custody", this is usually what it means.
Expect to see interviews with the shooter's shocked friends/neighbors about how he was a quiet and/or nice guy.
am I not surprised?
All of the previous gunmen have been on mind altering homicide suicide pills from the doctor
I am guessing he wasn't a white, right winger or we would know already.
Gun violence is down across the board.
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
Well, perhaps if they had all been carrying guns, they would not all have been murdered. Just sayin....
Dan Hodges said it best:
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
This has become a regular event in America. We can lay a lot of responsibility for this at the feet of the terrorist NRA and the corrupt legislators they pay off, with both these latter groups little more a bunch of bootlickers to the gun manufacturers. There are more than 300 MILLION guns in this crazy nation - so many that *anyone* who wants to get a gun can get one, one way or another.
You say that Americans having lots of guns like it's bad thing.
300 million guns in civilian hands and gun deaths have steadily dropping for the past 20 years or so. The obvious correlation is that more guns means FEWER gun deaths.
Go check your meds, you may have forgotten a couple.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
This being the internet, and specifically Slashdot, I look forward to a well-mannered, reasonable discussion about the event and surrounding possibilities with absolutely no moderator bias intervention, political fervor, or anyone being referred to as a "fuckwad".
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
What about my right to keep and bear arms?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The solution is not banning guns, the solution is a proper public health system and a respect for mental health, and being willing to lock up the mentally ill for treatment.
I really don't care...
This is Slashdot news why?
that's the problem, he was a nice guy.
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down? Or do you think they'd stay the same, just with different methods?
Say, for example, that ten people are killed per year; five by gun, two by knife, two by baseball bat, and one by strangulation. On Dec 31st, the wizard casts his spell.
What do you think the stats will be one year later? Two by knife, two by baseball bat, and one by strangulation? I don't. I think they'd turn to four by knife, four by baseball bat, and two by strangulation.
Guns are a symptom, not a cause. Unless the root causes in American society are addressed, people will continue to die. The manner of their murder shouldn't even be a point of discussion.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
God helps them that themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin, "Poor Richard's Almanac"
WTF?
Oregon has some of the Nation’s most liberal gun laws Gun Laws in Oregon
I personally do not advocate the total abolition of guns, but in light of the repeated incidents of gun violence and mass shoots, it would seem to make sense to review what works and what doesn’t work in preventing these sad events.
For those that support total bans, this put those in areas where police protection or assistance is miles away at an awful disadvantage to criminals.
For those that resist even the most minimal of background checks and waiting periods, you are so devoted to your Gun ideology that you can’t see there is a middle ground that can save lives.
For those that scream we need to be able to stop authoritarian governments should things go wrong, that boat had sailed sometime in the early 20th Century. You aren’t going effect political change with guns – period. This group especially worries me, as they include some of the most rabid bigots you will ever run into, and are convinced the rise of minorities in America is a precursor to the end of times and a plot by the New World Order.
We need to do something better and I’m I’m tending to tighter controls not less.
Letter To Iran
This assumes that the people with the guns respond
Better some chance than none, which is what you have currently. I will always take small odds over no odds.
But with an increase in school shootings, if you allowed students to be armed the odds someone would respond would also increase - again, over the possibility of zero that exists today.
Your "assumptions" are foolish since there are many examples of people responding to help others, even if it puts themselves at risk - and again, even if any one of those assumptions were correct, it lowers the odds some but never down to zero, which you have now.
Gun Free Zones statistically are not any safer than Gun Accepted Zones.
Might want to re-check your statistics after today. We also know areas with stricter gun laws have worse gun crime, because criminals with guns are unopposed and take advantage of that fact.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This situation will never really be fixed until the US wakes up to the fact that it is the only modern nation in the world that doesn't have a proper public healthcare system with guaranteed access to all, regardless of ability to pay.
Those of you who know me, know that I'm a far-right conservative, "they can take my gun from me from my cold, dead hands" type.
That being said, it is time for a national single payer health care system for everyone from birth to death, with no signups, memberships, co-pays, or anything else. Take all the money from medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. and put it into a national health service.
We have police and fire paid for by taxes, we have roads and airports paid for by taxes, we have a military, public education, and a hundred other things paid for by taxes. We have LONG since past the time of small government, yet we don't provide for the health of our citizens.
I would repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a national single payer health system. That isn't a popular idea among far-right conservatives, but it is time to do it.
People who have mental health issues need to be able to seek treatment. That is the only thing that is going to stop this sort of thing, we have people who are unstable who roam the streets and are untreated. They do something like this and everyone screams about guns.
It isn't about guns, it is about mental health care and access to it.
1) Before you go around accusing the NRA of being terrorist, ask yourself, which one of them have actually committed a terrorist act?
2) There's not a chance in hell you'll ever ban guns. Even if you did, that would never get rid of them. So why not look for a practical solution instead of going after something that you'll never achieve with any measure of success? Politicians who promise to ban guns are the real corrupt ones because they know they can't, they just want votes.
3) Fun fact: Nearly all of the mass shooters in America have been left wing activists, and nearly all of them have been in urban areas, where firearm restriction is the tightest, rather than being in rural areas where almost everywhere you look it is perfectly legal to discharge a firearm.
It's not PC to say that, though. Especially here on Slashdot. You're going to get a lot of angry, offended basement-dwellers coming out of the woodwork.
ok, then explain countries that have less guns and even less gun crime?
Or how about NZ where even the police don't carry firearms routinely (although they have them in their patrol cars) and have even less gun crime.
If more guns means less gun crime then less guns should equal more gun crime..... but it doesn't.
> The obvious correlation is that more guns means FEWER gun deaths. If this were true, then there must be some number of guns in America above which NO gun crimes could happen. How many do you think that would be? 600 million guns? 900 million? Three guns for every man, woman, and child in America? Five? Tell the what the number is. I really want to know. At what point does it dawn on you that you're a sucker for another industry that doesn't give a shit whether the product sold to you actually provides the benefits you think you're getting from it?
Really? I think, on the same basis as you, that they'd go down to 1-1-1-1.
Why not? You're arguing by magic, which is about as useful as pissing uphill in a windstorm.
What does "technically a gun-free zone" mean?
It means the news media is trying to stretch the "gun-free is safer" anti-gun propaganda in the face of the public becoming aware that gun-free zones are an invitation to mass murder and virtually all mass murders (and much other victimization) now happen in them.
"Gun-free zones" disarm the law-abiding people in them (so they can't shoot back and limit the carnage - and deter it from starting in the first place, turning them into helpless victims, but don't stop the attackers. Legislation (or private decision) to make an area into such a zone makes it a magnet for both nacent mass-murders and other victimizers.
A better term for such zones might be "free-fire zone" or "victim-rich zone".
By prepending "technically a", to "gun-free zone", they can make it sound different from the "gun-free zone" of the legislation. They pay lip service to the laws' unenforceability on bad guys. They recast the zones' danger into an enforcement problem, rather than a fundamental flaw in the concept. This helps to slow the propagation of the understanding that such zones are inherently more dangerous than unrestricted areas, that "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.".
That helps the anti-gunners in their efforts to pass MORE restrictions, making MORE areas dangerous, and to give the police more power to search and otherwise oppress people in the name of solving the problem they created.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The answer is less guns, not more.
A right to guns does not even make sense, civilians would stand no chance against the US military. Besides, if people didn't rise up after the snowden revelations and rampant corruption, it's unlikely they are going to.
NO, the answer is health care. Plenty of other countries have more guns per capita than the US and don't suffer these issues. You know why? Because people are looked after and get the help they need, rather than some nonsense ridiculous purely free market approach.
The fact that in almost all of these incidents the shooters had mental issues should give you morons some type of hint....now, are you going to take it?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Dan Hodges said it best:
America decided that mental health care is Somebody Else's Problem.
Everybody knows who to call if you see someone with a broken leg.
They'll send a truck with flashing lights to pick the person up.
What do you do when somebody has a broken brain?
Everybody passes the buck. Not my problem, somebody else's problem.
Well, eventually the buck gets passed to a bunch of grade schoolers.
The grade schoolers can't make it somebody else's problem.
They pay the price.
While America believes that mental health care is Somebody Else's Problem, it will never be over.
They allow the angry or the otherwise mentally incapacitated to kill multiple people very quickly.
And i don't necessarily mean the shooter. If early reports prove accurate "The night before the attack, the alleged shooter appears to have had a conversation with others online about his intentions, the source said."
There's your problem right there. A person with issues made what might have been a final plea for help the night before and everyone just blew it off. Depending on what he said, at the very least he could have been held for making terroristic threats and possibly had a psych eval. Noooo. No one wants to get involved. It has f-all to do with guns. We'd rather lock up and ignore some guy with 1/2 oz of weed than commit and help the mentally ill. When the U.S. gets serious about mental health and people start getting involved instead of letting their friends self destruct, we'll see these events decrease.
In the meantime, I reserve the right to defend myself and my family. That doesn't mean playing hero. That means getting them out of harms way. If out of harms way means past an active shooter, then at least we have a chance.
You're actually saying that there aren't any Republicans--even sizable populations of them--in Oregon? You have to be some kind of an idiot.
Media should take responsibility for glorifying the crime and the perpetrator?
Almost all the mass shooters were psychiatric patients that were on medications or suffered deprivation of medications, antidepressants to be specific.
There will be a ton of people who will blame, as usual, the guns.
Here is my top 2 list.
1. Media. First amendment has limits. If you will start screaming "Fire", people will follow the instinct of the herd and there will be stampeded. CNN and the like should be sued until the are left without pants, for non-stop propagation and advertisement of the crime. This promotion is consumed by insane individuals who will do whatever the CNN is telling them to do in order to become famous.
2. Antidepressants. Blaming Big pharma is just the same as blaming manufacturers of the guns. It is just a tool. Medical community should take responsibility for putting so many people on antidepressants.
Guns enable people to kill each other without having to see it or be involved with it directly. If you replaced all the guns in the world with swords, there would be fewer wars, and murders, because people don't want to get blood, bile, and organ chunks vomited into their faces. That's why we use guns.
The sad thing is there is no reasonable discussion or compromise on either side of gun control. The NRA is one of the largest lobbyists in Washington, but not everything they argue for is good, but they fight everything because the gun-control lobby also will give no ground.
So both sides dig their heals in and give nothing.
This is sad and a mistake. One common argument is the "gun show loophole". It is misnamed, because gun dealers have to do background checks, even at gun shows. All it means is that private citizens can buy and sell guns without background checks within the same state, yet they can do this inside or outside of a gun show.
The fear of all gun transfers being "background checked" and thus having documentation is that sooner or later the US Government will pull an Australia and seize guns, and having records will make that much easier. Right or wrong, that is the fear from gun freedom groups.
A compromise might be, "amending the constitution to make clear that the ownership and possession of guns by private citizens is a natural god given right that may only be taken away in individual cases by a court of law that rules someone mentally incompetent." In return, all gun transfers get a background check.
I'm sure some people on both sides would not like even that compromise, but it would be a start. Both sides have to give something, or nothing will happen. We don't live in a nation where one side gets everything and the other side goes home empty handed. Or perhaps we do which is why nothing changes.
---
The other issue is that the government doesn't do very much to show that it respects the rights of citizens. Everything about guns is always about more bans, more restrictions. Want to impress the gun freedom side? Perhaps repealing the 1986 ban on select-fire weapons, in return for required background checks on every transfer might be something. It would show a give and take on the issue and that citizens do have rights.
Another thing they could give would be national concealed/open carry laws, respecting the right of the population to be armed, but in return, require training and safely classes for all gun owners.
---
These are ideas and attempts to find a reasonable middle ground, to offer something to both sides and to do something that would actually fix the problem, rather than paper it over with "guns are evil/guns are wonderful" arguments which accomplish nothing.
and what about the "well regulated Militia" part?
First, the right of the shooter to bear arms was not violated. Second, had all students had their guns with them they would have been able to shoot the shooter before he was able to shoot. America, what a great country.
Unfortunately, there is no mental hospital capable of housing 320 million people.
just because something that is initially effective gives diminishing returns the more it's used doesn't make it false.. it's a fact, just because YOU don't want it to be doesn't change that.
Explain Mexico. Guns are practically banned.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The obvious correlation is that more guns means FEWER gun deaths.
I know, right? The populations in every other developed country in the world are being DECIMATED by their lack of guns. If only there was some way to curb the violence & mass shootings :(
Australia did a gun ban, and they have no more mass shootings, and general firearm crime is a fraction of what it was. Venezuela enacted a gun ban and their gun crime is a fraction (some say 1/1000) of what it used to be.
The US needs to stop being like Somalia and start doing some sane provisions, be it limits on ammo capacity, limits on weapons made for hunting down and killing people, bans on all weapons in cities (that is what police are for -- NYC is extremely safe by removing handguns from residents), and registration laws.
In reality, the most reasonable gun law is "have a gun, and not military or police, go to prison", but it will take gradual and constant persuasion of lawmakers to achieve this. However, we have philanthropists like Soros and Bloomberg who have donated money to organizations like Everytown to help get weapons off the streets.
We're actually 15th for gun related homicide:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think Kim DotCom may have a comment on what happens on file downloads in NZ "New Zealand Police, in an armed raid on Dotcom's house involving 76 officers and two helicopters"
I think you're arguing two different things. SuiteSisterMary is arguing that if a person is going to go murder some people, they don't care what weapons they use as long as they kill some people, while you are arguing that without a gun the murderer will be less deadly and unable to kill as many as he could with a gun. You're both right. But we still have the fundamental problem...why are people doing this and why is it rampant in this country?
The problem here is that you're a fucking moron. NZ and the US have completely different cultures, and the US has a diversity of population NZ and Australia for that matter can't even fathom. Yes, I've been to both, yes, they both have immigrants, and no, the situation between the US and NZ is not even remotely the same.
Ceteris paribus... except is isn't.
On Dec 31st, the wizard casts his spell.
Bad analogy. The wizard would have been shot on Dec 30.
Crickets, of course. Just like every time we go through this circle-jerk. They talk about the 2nd, we mention well-regulated militia, and they shut the fuck up and leave.
The fact that suicide is listed as a homicide (The largest rate of gun violence in America is self inflicted), the rates would be shifted to other forms of violence. Do you think that suicides would magically cease because there were no guns? People wanting to die, is a sad problem, simplistic knee jerk nickelodeon responses like "make all guns disappear and we will all be friends" are naive at best, but more likely disingenuous and deliberately misinformed.
As an outsider looking in, seeing Ameria's gun crime stats it just seems insane the rules you have over there.
America seems to have its head in the sand and doesn't want to admit it has a problem.
"The right to bear arms" is always held up as the bastion of freedom, but its killing innocent people, that doesn't seem very free to me.
There are perfectly valid reasons to own a gun, especially for farmers, or as a hobby but the problem is hand guns and automatic semi-automatic weapons.
I live in a country (New Zealand) where almost nobody owns a handgun but where gun ownership rates are actually extremely high, mostly by farmers and for sport.
Our gun crime is basically non-existant, police don't even carry hand guns.
The thing is, if everybody doesn't have a gun, then you don't actually need guns to defend yourself with.
To own a gun in this country is a privilege, not a right, you have to have a license to purchase both firearms and ammo and getting a license requires police checks and a knowledge test.
Because of that, I couldn't feel safer. I don't have to worry about walking down the street and getting shot or some nutter walking into a school or theatre to kill me.
If someone breaks into my home its extremely unlikely they will be carrying so I don't feel the need to keep one in my house to defend myself.
The problem with guns is that the more that there are, the more that are needed to defend yourself so it becomes a vicious spiral of death.
Get over yourself America, you can be free without all needing guns to defend yourself from each other, in fact, in my books I'm a lot more free than you are because I'm free to walk down the street or go into a school without fear of being shot at.
> and what about the "well regulated Militia" part?
That's the reason they defined that right in the first place, but unless you want to amend the Constitution, the right exists whether or not anyone joins a militia.
Of course, that won't stop the courts from deciding that the words don't mean what they used to and changing things to suit them.
You left out WHITE... Most of these idiots are white.
You also left out Registered Democrat. Most of these idiots, it turns out, are either registered Democrats or left-wingers who didn't register, didn't register a party affiliation, registered with some left-wing minor party, or weren't old enough to register yet.
There are a few exceptions, such as Timothy McVeigh.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You fucking pussy morons just can't educate yourself on that part, can you? It's all out there if you'd take 2 seconds to do a tiny bit of research that doesn't involve moveon.org
I'm from the gun-averse camp, but I'm well aware that nothing can be done to silence the gun lobby in this country. It's in the Constitution, and we're too diverse a country to ever support taking it out. You could have daily mass shootings of 50+ people and the NRA would still defend gun rights, with millions of owners right behind them. Even background check laws will never be strengthened beyond what's there already because people are going to assume the government will be coming for their guns.
So, it seems to me that the next best thing would be to fix mental health care and make sure everyone has equal access to it. Who knows what happened, but it's most likely someone with an ax to grind who just happened to get triggered today. Right now, there's virtually no state-run inpatient mental health treatment beds outside of maybe the psychiatric ERs. You basically have to be Hannibal Lecter to get committed to an asylum now. There's also not that much support available in the community. Deinstitutionalization was supposed to get people out of the hospital -and- treat them on an outpatient basis, but they forgot the second part when states closed all the asylums.
Gun violence is down across the board.
Yeah, but deaths due to firearms have been steadily rising. Gun deaths declined quite rapidly starting in 1994, just coincidentally when the U.S. assault weapons ban was passed, sand they have been increasing steadily since it was repealed in 2004.
You know, facts and all that.
what part of the 18th amendment "After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors .... is hereby prohibited" don't you understand?
oh right...those pesky amendments aren't written in stone and can be changed...even ammended...if we decide they are no longer valid.
Correlation vs Causation?
Not all those guns are spread out evenly. There are many "mass" gun owners
You forgot the Number of Mass shootings is up.
Most of the 11,208 killed by guns in the US (2013) died in ones and twos.
What about my right to keep and bear arms?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The Constitution isn't some holy book handed down by an all-knowing, all-wise God. It's written by fallible humans. Sometimes it gets things wrongs (e.g. slavery, prior to the 13th Amendment). If the 2nd Amendment means more people are dying with it than without, maybe it's time to rethink it. Or at least ask ourselves whether whatever we gain from it is worth the costs in human lives.
Yes, it's well known that most anti-gun statistics (such as this one) throw suicides and accidents in for effect.
SCOTUS already affirmed that it's an individual right.
Do try to keep up.
The well regulated militia part was about private citizens being able to form their own armed groups for mutual defense.
It had nothing to do with the police, national guard, or anything government run.
Even the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
and what about the "well regulated Militia" part?
What about the "bear arms" part? I've got guns, but no bear arms. If only the people who wrote the Bill of Rights had written about the individual amendments, we might be able to understand more than just the exact words. Oh wait, they did write about them.
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down?
Yes, I do think that getting rid of the easiest at-a-distance point-and-click method of murder would result in lower murder rates.
Call me crazy...
Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yes, it's well known that most anti-gun statistics (such as this one) throw suicides and accidents in for effect.
"For effect"? Suicides and accidents are by far the largest cause of death by firearms, so concentrating only on homicides is utterly misleading. And in the U.S., death rate from firearms huge.
swords, or even knives, and bats, also take more skill to use.
1) Before you go around accusing the NRA of being terrorist, ask yourself, which one of them have actually committed a terrorist act?
Timothy McVeigh. Just answering your question.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
They have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and their loved ones, just like everyone else.
Many people just don't want the responsibility.
go study your etymology and your grammar, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
300 million guns in civilian hands and gun deaths have steadily dropping for the past 20 years or so.
Homicides have been dropping, along with an across-the-board decrease in crimes of all types. Gun deaths have been going up.
gun nuts are fucking retarded. Wow.
Interesting hypothetical question. I agree that US culture seems more crazy & murderprone, but I seriously doubt the murder rate would stay at the same level if guns magically disappeared. It's simply much easier (and clearly more fetishized in popular culture) to kill with a gun than by knife or strangulation, for example.
if only there was a court decision on the meaning of that...
The Left is pretty bloodthirsty as well. Looks at all these anti- just wishing death to those they disagree with...
Potentially for 1 on 1 murders the rates would remain unchanged. But mass killings are much easier with a firearm. So you would likely see a death toll drop there even if incident rates remained the same.
This has become a regular event in America. We can lay a lot of responsibility for this at the feet of the terrorist NRA and the corrupt legislators they pay off, with both these latter groups little more a bunch of bootlickers to the gun manufacturers.
There are more than 300 MILLION guns in this crazy nation - so many that *anyone* who wants to get a gun can get one, one way or another.
You say that Americans having lots of guns like it's bad thing.
300 million guns in civilian hands and gun deaths have steadily dropping for the past 20 years or so. The obvious correlation is that more guns means FEWER gun deaths.
Go check your meds, you may have forgotten a couple.
Which overlooks the obvious fact that murders have been dropping virtually everywhere.
Btw, did you look at just murders or accidents/suicides too? Because guns cause more death from suicide than murder.
I stole this Sig
The well regulated militia strikes again.
Yes there is. Unfortunately, the really dangerous ones are free to infect the rest of the planet with their insanity.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
"Regulated" as in well trained. Not as in governed by laws. A "well trained militia".
The 4th definition of "Regulated".
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
"Militia" = All able bodied males 18 to 34 years of age. Which is what makes the Selective Service and Draft legal.
With registration you can still have guns, so what is the purpose you refer to? The "A well regulated Militia the" part? We have a national defence agency that doesn't rely on guys with muskets any more. I don't see a no registration clause to the amendment in any event.
Letter To Iran
3) Fun fact: Nearly all of the mass shooters in America have been left wing activists.
Fun fact, you just made up a complete bit of bullshit.
Next you're going to tell us that John Wilkes Booth, Charles J. Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, and Lee Harvey Oswald were all connected to the Democratic Party of today?
You'd have a better argument with Kim Davis, but oh wait, wait, wait, she LEFT the party.
Not that she ever did anything substantial, her membership was nominal.
They did not have that many to begin with, but there were two unrelated mass-shootings in Australia in 2011 — in addition to massacres not involving a fire-arm. So much for "complete lack".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
and what about the "well regulated Militia" part?
What about it? You're mentioning it without any sort of context. The actual context: the people who wrote the Second Amendment said, essentially: "It turns out that we're going to have to have some sort of trained, standing military at one level or another. The need to have such organizations does NOT mean that the military has a monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: the government MAY NOT infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms, even though there will be well organized militia, as well."
So what about that phrase, exactly? What's your point?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Aww, c'mon, everybody knows the Founders didn't mean the first half. After all, they really weren't that clever and wouldn't ever have done something like put the most important part first, right?
You should read Heller.
1. The militia clause is *a* reason, not *the* reason for the second amendment.
2. Militia was defined at the time as all able-bodied men of fighting age. With the fourteenth amendment this would expand to include everyone, of majority age at least. This was not a government (even state-level) controlled body but the people themselves.
3. Well-regulated meant in working order, not under rules and regulations of a chain of command.
So, if you then replace the words "well-regulated" with "well-equipped", "militia" with "populace who can fight" and "the people" with "everyone" you get: "A well-equipped populace who can fight, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of everyone to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As is common in the anti-gun crowd stats, deaths and not homicides are generally used to show how evil guns are. Your own link has a link to FBI stats showing that while deaths began increasing, homicides continued decreasing. Why the discrepancy? Suicide stats show that at around the same time of the uptick suicide rates began to clime again and the primary method of choice for suicides in the US is of course, guns.
These same anti-gun stats groups also attempt to link access to guns to suicides but studies comparing suicide rates between countries with varying level of gun access show rates generally unaffected by gun access. Depressed or desperate people find a way.
The assault weapons ban was also generally a meaningless piece of legislation as there is no such thing as an assault weapon, or it's probably more accurate to say all weapons are by definition "assault weapons". Most of the restrictions in "assault weapons" laws target cosmetic components of guns are are easily bypassed with a few mods by the manufacturers. Grip and stock styles and choice in optional mounting brackets did not affect the behavior of the actual gun or change its lethality but looked great for politicians trying to get their faces on TV.
Passing real legislation to fund and improve validation systems which can properly link databases together so that mental health restrictions and other red flags are visible in a timely manner during background checks just isn't the same as being able to hold up an M16 lookalike on camera and talk about how your new law "pulls machine guns off the street" even though machine guns were never legally available in the first place (but what constituents don't know doesn't hurt you in the polls).
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
What about the 500,000 to ~3 million estimated uses of defensive gun uses in the US? Would you prefer an extra 500k to 3 million victims?
Who should they be? Innocent family members? Your's? Who's?
Nearly all (% wise) of the gunshot victims in the US are gang related or suicides.
This is a useful collection of gun citations and myths put to rest: http://www.gunfacts.info/
Note also that the worst gun violence example out there (Chicago) has some of the most extremely strict gun laws in the nation (only recently allowed licensed concealed carry) they also have one of the lowest rates of gun charges filed. Why?
The FBI's NICS system has denied 1,075,781 transactions according to their website. These were all people that were legally not allowed to buy a gun and were prevented from legally getting one. Where is the 1 million+ convictions that should arise from the felons lying on their 4473 forms? They don't pursue them, yet these are specifically the people that the laws are there to prevent from getting guns. So then they go and get them from illegal means and potentially commit further crimes. Why do we need more laws when they won't even enforce the ones we have now??
The one thing we've never really tried is teaching conflict resolution and non-violence.
As long as we're dumb enough to think that arming the population, like the wildwest, can somehow promote non-violence, which has been proven historically not to work, then we'll continue to spin in circles on this issue.
You are drinking the NRA's cool aid + your links were crap and had nothing to do with statistics of Gun homicides per capita: a real measure of the social impact of Guns.
Since you like the Washington Post, try this
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
or the BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
For civilized western countries, the USA gun homicide rate is 10 times that of comparable countries.
This is because
- You have freaking guns everywhere. Accessibility increases the homicide rate (kids find them, a bullet does more damage than a punch etc.etc)
- You have an African American problem. When a people group you beat on for hundreds of years get their freedom & guns: you've got a problem.
- The USA celebrates violence: You as a culture group are not mature enough to have guns as freely as you do.
It will take multiple generations to solve your gun violence problem. If you put in sensible gun reforms like Australia, you will have 20-30 years of criminals having a vast supply of weapons, while law abiding people don't: thus the laws will fail from the outcry of the innocents.
I'm afraid your goose is pretty much cooked.
46137
..further "well regulated" at the time meant in proper working order.
Mind sharing some statistics for that claim?
http://www.examiner.com/articl...
Sounds like you are regurgitating some hate-talk-radio host's flawed hateful email.
Actually, McVeigh quit the NRA. Sorry to show that you're a fucking liar but the truth is the truth.
story about a woman who left her gun in her car because the restaurant was a "gun free zone". Watched her parents get killed, along with many others, and it would have been quickly stopped if she chose to ignore the law like the shooter had.
I've met her, the story is real. She is one of the real victims. In the gun free zones you have to wait for the police to show up, the criminal doesn't.
Which prescription SSRI were they on *this time*?
There are many ways to kill someone. None are remotely as easy, instant, or (for the vast majority who aren't trained in other methods) reliable and effective, as pulling out a gun in a fit of rage. Given how many murders occur in a fit of rage or the heat of the moment, I dare say that the disappearance of guns would in fact lead to a large drop in the homicide rate.
A similar effect was observed in Great Britain when an old kind of stove/heater was phased out: The homicide rate dropped substantially and never rose again, because the new models couldn't be so trivially made to poison the house with carbon monoxide. By inadvertently raising the barrier even slightly, a large change was observed.
Furthermore, in the context of spree killers: virtually none of the alternatives to guns have the same "impossible to fight back" aspect. Everyone, including potential maniacs, knows that it won't be long before two young men realize "if we rush at the same time, one of us'll git 'im." But a gun? Going after someone with a gun if you don't have one is suicidally stupid.
Too bad you answered incorrectly.
Timothy McVeigh had quit the NRA years before committing his crime - he thought they did not go far enough in protecting gun rights.
Right then, we shall only infringe upon the rights of the mentally ill
My understanding is that yes, suicides would probably decrease, simply because other forms of suicide tend to be at least moderately harder to accomplish, and thus the suicidal individual is more likely to reconsider.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It was the only way they could defend themselves from being talked to death by a serial con-artist.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
while using the event to call for his pet-project of gun control before the bodies in the morgue are even cool. WATCH the video, and ask yourself if any other leader, or indeed any decent human being, would similarly smile in such a presser. I cannot figure out if he is giddy at the thought of more ammunition for his gun control efforts, or simply relieved to have something distract the media from his foreign policy meltdown.
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel (Obama administration Chief of Staff)
30K people a year die from drunk driving.... does Obama run to a mic and smile while calling for alcohol and/or car control?
Question#1 for left-wing gun control advocates:
How many mass shootings happened in the USA before the supreme court sided with Madalyn Murray O'Hair in 1963 and removed Christianity from the public schools?"
It MATTERS what people believe and think, and if you disagree then you apparently have no problem with NAZI-ism or any other set of beliefs since all beliefs are apparently equal (NOT a traditional American position).
Question#2 for left-wing gun control advocates:
How many mass shootings happened in the USA before the ACLU lawyers like Bruce J. Ennis convinced the courts that only 5% of the insane were actually dangerous and that the doors of the asylums should be flung open?
In 1975 the ACLU convinced the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, that persons cannot be put in asylum if they can survive on their own, or with help from relatives, on the outside and are not an immediate threat. Of course this was a stupid academic ruling, given that NOBODY can read the mind of another person and certainly not a crazy/evil person and therefore divine whether that person will murder in the future... Nearly every mass-shooting in the US since that time has been by a person with mental problems, often on (but sometimes failing to take) psych meds, and nearly always in a "gun-free zone".
and what about the "well regulated Militia" part?
"well regulated" meant "in good order" at the time, not "covered by many laws".
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
"militia" meant all male citizens of adult age.
Thus, a more modern phrasing of this Amendment would be:
Because it's necessary for a free country to have its citizens be competent with militia weapons, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
It was a gun free zone. Clearly it is impossible anyone could be shot there. Obviously this is a hoax.
You lefties have, for decades, used prohibition and its repeal as evidence of the lunacy of trying to ban stuff people want like booze and drugs.
With your immigration arguments, you lefties also assert that if 11 million people are in violation of a law then the law cannot be enforced.... so I guess we cannot and should not, enforce any gun control laws...
If you got your news, history, and opinions from sources other than Comedy Central, unionized school teachers (liberal Democrat activists), Daily Kos, Move-On, and the DNC, then you would know that the argument you raised was a poor one, easily countered, and that THINGS are not the problem, CRAZY PEOPLE you liberals convinced the courts to keep out of the nut-houses ARE the problem. No normal person should be deprived of his Constitutional Rights just to make it so crazy people can be strolling around in public dreaming of alternate ways to murder people.
Nearly every gun crime in the US is tied to [1] criminal drug trade [2] ethnic gang violence [3] crazy medicated person or [4] gun assisting in another crime like robbery. Many of those other countries treat their crazies differently (our courts let most of them out), have different drug trade issues, and have different ethincity issues. Just watch what happens 20 years from now in Europe when all those middle-eastern muslim immigrants have completely changed the ethic balances of those countries and they have ethnic gangs like ours in their cities... London, Paris, and Berlin will be worse than Chicago,
Most Americans live their entire lives without ever being around an act of gun violence. Most gun owners will never be involved in one, and most of those who are, and who are not the criminal instigators, will be defending themselves from robberies, home invasions, rapes, etc.
"stuff that matters"
Why didn't anyone shoot back?
Oh, that's right, it was a gun free zone.
Your right to bear arms isn't more important than any of those people who died today. Fuck you and your rights.
Or the "Life" part:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness
https://imgur.com/gallery/CLOx...
This covers most of what you'd want to know and look at regarding firearms statistics, both in the US and worldwide. Homicide vs gun ownership, gun assaults vs gun ownership, violent crime vs gun ownership; it compares the states within the US, all the OECD countries, and all countries. It shows what weapon is killing the most people and which people are the ones being killed. It even looks at mass shootings, including per capita rates, and overall number of deaths from mass shootings as a percentage of overall homicides.
Citations are included in most of everything, and numbers are usually taken from government bodies such as the FBI or CDC.
With registration you can still have guns, so what is the purpose you refer to? The "A well regulated Militia the" part? We have a national defence agency that doesn't rely on guys with muskets any more. I don't see a no registration clause to the amendment in any event.
Actually we do rely on the "militia" for national defense. The "unorganized" component of the federal militia basically consists of all able bodied men of military age. Its something entirely different from the national guard, the federal law defining it specifically says so. You are in it by being an american citizen that meets certain criteria. The is no enlistment, no signing up, you are born (or naturalized) into it. During times of national emergency you can be transferred from the federal militia to the army or navy reserve. In other words conscripted, drafted, into the military. Such conscription is a major option for national defense.
As for "muskets". The colonial militia members sometimes had state of the art firearms for the day, better than standard issue military firearms, i.e. rifles rather than muskets. Rifles having greater range and better accuracy.
As for "well regulated", the 18th century usage of the word was referring to being equipped and practiced sufficiently to be useful. Its not referring to government imposed restrictions regarding ownership. Note that "well regulated" does not necessarily mean showing up on the town commons for drills. Owning a rifle and using it for hunting was considered sufficient, hence the "unorganized" part of the federal militia that has absolutely no obligation to enlist, show up for practice or training, etc.
Basically this topic is far more complicated than most realize.
Of course under Obamacare, they're "children" until they're 27.
so if there's a gun for every man woman and child in this country, why is our gun fatality rate more than 4x higher than any other western nation?
why arent we the safest nation on earth?
In the 93 weeks since Sandy Hook, this is school/campus shooting #142.
We're batting an average of 1.5 per week.
Literally no other advanced nation in the world has such a fucked up statistic.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So, some places that have bans on guns do not have high rates of violence, that does not contradict his assertion that having high rates of violence imply the existence of bans on guns. I have no idea if it is a true implication, but when he says A implies B, A being false and B being true is not a counter example, it is allowed. The truth table for A->B is [1,1;0,0;0,1]. Having gotten to use boolean algebra today has made me happy.
What part of "the founders aren't perfect and gave us a document we can change (and have) for a reason" is so hard to understand?
Times change.
Society changes.
The constitution can too when we decide some particular aspect of it needs attention.
In the 93 weeks since Sandy Hook, this is school/campus shooting #142.
We're batting an average of 1.5 per week.
I'm willing to have another look at the 2nd Amendment and throw the bird to the gun nuts (and i like guns), and so are a growing number of people, as that statistic gets added to with each stupid, preventable, predictable incident every 4.6 days.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Or not. It's not the NRA's fault this guy decided to go out in a blaze of glory.
Epidemiological research shows that most who survive a first suicide attempt to not re-attempt suicide; this research also shows that the easy availability of guns make that first attempt FAR more deadly than by other methods. Thus, the sheer easy availability of guns makes for more successful (if you want to call it that) first suicide attempts. If some percentage of those first time gun suicide attempts had not had access to a gun they would have had a better chance of survival and (according to the research) gone on to survive long term.
But SCOTUS also said that municipalities have the right to make reasonable limits to access. Yes, do try to keep up!
FIRST among developed nations for gun-related homicide, and FOURTH among ALL nations for total death by gun.
okay to destroy human life in the womb, then stuff like this really doesn't matter.
Explosives would work, so would setting someplace on fire and chaining the doors closed. There have been mass knifings, though I don't think many people have died from them and no one died from the last gas attack. If someone is willing to die to hurt those that hurt him, he'll find a way to do it.
Tell me how taking my gun away from me would have prevented this nutjob from shooting up a classroom in Oregon?
I suspect homicidal nutjobs don't really intend to obey gun laws.
Grow up and start thinking for yourself.
Rwanda comes to mind.
oh, and its not about mental illness, not solely, and not largely.
makes a convenient excuse though.
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/1...
We do have statistics showing that the vast majority of people who commit acts of violence do not have a diagnosis of mental illness and, conversely, people who have mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.
We know that the stigma of people who suffer from mental illness as scary, dangerous potential murderers hurts people every single day — it costs people relationships and jobs, it scares people away from seeking help who need it, it brings shame and fear down on the heads of people who already have it bad enough.
But the media insists on trotting out “mental illness” and blaring out that phrase nonstop in the wake of any mass killing. I had to grit my teeth every time I personally debated someone defaulting to the mindless mantra of “The real issue is mental illness” over the Isla Vista shootings.
“The real issue is mental illness” is a goddamn cop-out. I almost never hear it from actual mental health professionals, or advocates working in the mental health sphere, or anyone who actually has any kind of informed opinion on mental health or serious policy proposals for how to improve our treatment of the mentally ill in this country.
What I hear from people who bleat on about “The real issue is mental illness,” when pressed for specific suggestions on how to deal with said “real issue,” is terrifying nonsense designed to throw the mentally ill under the bus. Elliot Rodger’s parents should’ve been able to force risperidone down his throat. Seung-Hui Cho should’ve been forcibly institutionalized. Anyone with a mental illness diagnosis should surrender all of their constitutional rights, right now, rather than at all compromise the right to bear arms of self-declared sane people.
What’s interesting is to watch who the mentally ill people are being thrown under the bus to defend. In the wake of Sandy Hook, the NRA tells us that creating a national registry of firearms owners would be giving the government dangerously unchecked tyrannical power, but a national registry of the mentally ill would not — even though a “sane” person holding a gun is intrinsically more dangerous than a “crazy” person, no matter how crazy, without a gun.
and
And the big splashy headliner atrocities tend to distract us from the ones that don’t make headline news. People are willing to call one white man emptying five magazines and murdering nine black people in a church and openly saying it was because of race a hate crime, even if they have to then cover it up with the fig leaf of individual “mental illness”–but a white man wearing a uniform who fires two magazines at two people in a car in a “bad neighborhood” in Cleveland? That just ends up a statistic in a DoJ report on systemic bias.
And hundreds of years of history in which an entire country’s economy was set up around chaining up millions of black people, forcing them to work and shooting them if they get out of line? That’s just history.
The reason a certain kind of person loves talking about “mental illness” is to draw attention to the big bold scary exceptional crimes and treat them as exceptions. It’s to distract from the fact that the worst crimes in history were committed by people just doing their jobs–cops enforcing the law, soldiers following orders, bureaucrats signing paperwork. That if we define “sanity” as going along to get along with what’s “normal” in the society around you, then for most of history the sane t
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Times change, but government's don't. The reasons for the second are still valid, these shootings not withstanding...
And frankly, banning guns won't fix the problem because the guns aren't the problem.
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down?
Yes, I do think that getting rid of the easiest at-a-distance point-and-click method of murder would result in lower murder rates.
Call me crazy...
Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
(You're forgetting that this hypothetical world contains one or more people capable of wielding reality-bending magic.)
The NMA (National Magic Association) was right all along; the banning of magic for self defense was just the beginning. People resorted to using guns and murder is still an issue. And now people like you want to ban guns, too? When will this madness end?!
The only thing that can stop a bad guy who memorized Fireball is a good guy who memorized Fireball.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
I guess the victims are only "technically" dead and wounded...
The people murdered by guns are just martyrs who died in the cause of your freedom. We should celebrate their deaths and not mourn their demise. Each one of them is greater for having died for our freedom than if they have lived without the second amendment protecting that freedom.
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv
&
How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY admit later there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security
...apk
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down?
Yes, I do think that getting rid of the easiest at-a-distance point-and-click method of murder would result in lower murder rates.
Call me crazy...
Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
In Rwanda they did rather nicely with machetes.
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv
&
How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY admit later there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security
...apk
We have more murders by abortion than any developed (and many undeveloped) nations. It's a national disgrace. More people have died by abortion in America than were killed in all our wars! Planned parenthood *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep children out of the hands of mentally capable persons, and on and on. It's a national disgrace. What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by abortion in America - what about them?
FTFY.
My understanding is that yes, suicides would probably decrease, simply because other forms of suicide tend to be at least moderately harder to accomplish, and thus the suicidal individual is more likely to reconsider.
Or private suicides decrease, and public suicides (by train, car, bus, bridge, etc.) increase.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I just wanted to point out that this was a case of a radical Atheist targeting Christians specifically. I point this out because Atheists are fond of saying that only "religious nut-jobs" go around killing people, but in reality every group has a crazy person.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/oregon-gunman-singled-out-christians-during-rampage/
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
since they actually know about guns and are not interested in feeding into the emulsions of a bunch of gun nuts and their desire to pretend that their strapons somehow make them special.
keep moving those goalposts. Let the world see how frightened you are of reality and how little your strapon helps you deal with it.
that so many gun nuts are known for. I'm surprised it took this long.
They can actually do better. On a Tuesday morning a few years back, a small team armed with small knives killed nearly 3,000 people.
See that "Preview" button?
it makes it easier to spot the more serious criminals. Of course, your average ammosexual feels that he doesn't have to follow the law either, but after a few of them get jailed, the rest will find another outlet for their fantasies.
I work with severely disabled kids and in that setting I get to see mentation in very simple terms. For example, I roll a ball to the child. The child catches the ball and throws it back to me. In the child the senses send data to the brain. In the brain current data and memory are processed at many different levels and the result is the brain sends signals to the muscles causing movement of the body, called motor activity. Games such as kids play at elementary and intermediate school recess are important learning activities in themselves. I am going to use this term later: Playing a game results in the construction of a game model. We know thatt the brain is intermediate between the senses and the motor actions of the body.
As a child grows up and matures into an adult I suggest to you that the fancy and refined activities of adulthood mostly still involve the brain sending signals to the muscles causing movement of the body. Even the greatest pianist making the most sublime music still presses piano keys.
Now regarding the shooter such as in this October 1st event, Some combination of memories and events happening in the present have been assembled to form a grief or a grievance. Grief is a very interesting emotion. I suggest that the substance underlying the grievance is very much the same as the experience of many other people. The thing about the persons who become shooters is they have become prisoners of a literal resolution of their grievance.
I am a little puzzled at this analysis. What does it mean that a person becomes "a prisoner of the literal resolution of their grievance"? A prisoner is a person who is subject to physical confinement. Hypothesis: the persons who become shooters have a game model that they learned somewhere in their lives. What is the likelihood that shooters are enacting a game model with their physical shooting activity?
In a very limited school situation, I once saw that the energy driving ethnic gang formation came from 7th grade boys who looked around class and saw that there were only three pretty ethnically matched girls in their class. It was like that when I was in 7th grade 50 years ago. The school appropriate resolution of that tension is social dance and carefully chaperoned after school dances so the rising blood of the young men can be democratically sated by the manners and implicit sharing of a social dance setting.
For the potential shooters, we need a parallel pathway of social resolution to their personal grief or grievance. All the kids need to learn it before they drop out from school. I have not figured this out, for the person who is stuck with the idea of using a gun on others what would be a way to "abstract" the grief to a higher and harmless level. Operas like Carmen use the curtain call to show the audience that the little seamstress didn't actually die. To my great relief, really. Kids baseball teams form a line and each team gives the other a high five.
For the deadly stampedes and fights after soccer matches, some games are being played with interleaved seating. Lets look for simple modest solutions for the shooter situation.
In Los Angeles in 1981 there was a social psychological self-help movement called "Co-counseling". With a framework of rules pairs of people in a co-counseling class opened a pathway to a saner and more balanced state of mind regarding themselves and their own personal griefs.
I know this is an unpopular opinion on this mostly US-centric userbase here, but I just have to say this.
The NRA's "more guns is the answer" is inherently flawed for this single, simple reason: Before any good samaritan carrying a firearm can even react to a murderer, one or more people have already been shot and/or killed. How will everyone owning a gun prevent this from happening? It won't. It cannot. You're trying to divide by zero, here.
Preventing the situation from ever happening is the only sane logic.
Some people may believe that everyone owning a gun will at least minimize the impact. While it is possible that not as many people will die in these situations if everyone were carrying a gun, I fucking gaurantee you will care if it is your loved one who was killed.
Death is absolute. A single death in the hands of a psycho is one too many. It needs to be prevented, not stopped part way through a killing-spree, after one or more people have died. Taking the shooter out will not bring his victims back from the dead. He has already acheived his satisfaction.
I like to believe there are some intelligent people here, but when the gun subject comes up on this site you all turn into backwoods hillbilly NRA-cocksucking drooling morons. /end rant
1) Before you go around accusing the NRA of being terrorist, ask yourself, which one of them have actually committed a terrorist act?
2) There's not a chance in hell you'll ever ban guns. Even if you did, that would never get rid of them. So why not look for a practical solution instead of going after something that you'll never achieve with any measure of success? Politicians who promise to ban guns are the real corrupt ones because they know they can't, they just want votes.
3) Fun fact: Nearly all of the mass shooters in America have been left wing activists, and nearly all of them have been in urban areas, where firearm restriction is the tightest, rather than being in rural areas where almost everywhere you look it is perfectly legal to discharge a firearm.
You want a constitutional solution?
Ban the sale of firearms and impose a punitive "transfer tax" on on anyone giving them away.
Ban the sale of ammunition.
You want a gun? Make it yourself, make your own ammo and clips.
The responsible owners can usually do that already, casting and jacketing their own rounds. It raises the cost for the ragers who want to buy a gun and punish the world for their failures.
Why don't these nuts ever go on a shooting spree in a shareholder meeting for a mass corporate polluter? Because they are in if for personal glory, not justice or a higher cause.
Wrong. Plenty of folks throughout history loved to hack and slash each other in warfare and other bloody sports, up close and personal. However, you were generally more successful if you were built like King Leonidas or had the fighting prowess of Archilles. Guns are simply the great equalizer, allowing the weak and dim-witted to partake in the carnage as well. The problem has never been knifes, swords, or guns, but people, and that won't change until the robot revolution makes it a moot point anyway.
No?
Of course not.
Crazy White man kills people = mentally challenged
Anyone else kills people = terrorist
Please continue with the hating.
Thank you
Two problems with that. Firstly, I'm guessing English is your second language. "A healthy breakfast being necessary to a fit lifestyle, the people's right to eat eggs and bacon in the morning shall not be infringed." Who has the right, the healthy breakfast or the people?
Also the militia is defined explicitly as all men aged 18+ as supported by dozens of supreme court rulings.
and what about the "well regulated Militia" part?
How can the pool of males of fighting age be expected to be trained in the use of firearms, if they don't have guns?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Sounds like you are regurgitating some hate-talk-radio host's flawed hateful email.Cascadia independence movement, a west-coast, left-wing, eco-freak, secession movement (though some authors are now trying to tie him to a similarly-named neo-NAZI operation far to the east of where he lived). (The conservative secession movement in the area is the "State of Jefferson" proposal - floated intermittently since a few years before WW II.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down?
The wizard would instantly cause multiple power vacuums, which will be immediately and violently exploited. Suddenly, the police, the army, security guards, and rival gangs would no longer have guns. Feeble people switch from "probably defenseless" to "definitely defenseless". Assuming the power vacuum resolves to a similar situation as we have now, the rate of homicide would increase because being robbed at knifepoint is far more dangerous than being robbed at gunpoint.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Sounds like you are regurgitating some hate-talk-radio host's flawed hateful email.
Nope.
My wife researched this some time before that article came out. She noticed that news media would spend days to weeks claiming various mass-murderers were right-wing, then have to retract it. So she dug into online data - from sources such as media even lefties would trust, or public records, and was amazed at the high percentage of Democrats and non-party-affiliated progressives, and the near total dearth of conservatives.
She welcomes you to do your own research, but assumes you will agree with her that signing out with "Peace out!" is not exactly a Republican or conservative trait.
Chris Harper Mercer is no exception. His facebook page was still up as of 5PM pacific time and was full of rants for the Cascadia independence movement, a west-coast, left-wing, eco-freak, secession movement (though some authors are now trying to tie him to a similarly-named neo-NAZI operation far to the east of where he lived). (The conservative secession movement in the area is the "State of Jefferson" proposal - floated intermittently since a few years before WW II.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It does not matter what I think, I happen to know it has happened. While typically these events are "less fatal" I don't think a 0-deaths attack should be considered better if victim counts remain high. Personally, I wonder why you prioritize guns, when nearly every previous mass shooting perpetrator has shown poor mental health? (It's still a little early in the reporting cycle for a solid analysis in this latest attack.) Since this is such a universal factor, even past the availability of firearms, I would say improving our treatment of mental health issues should take a higher priority in responding to mass attacks.
Do you like Japanese imports?
See subject: ihtoit took the 5th here R O T F L M A O http://slashdot.org/comments.p... doing a "Run, Forrest: RUN!!! & going silent, hahahaha - why?
He "Bit off a WEE bit more than he could chew" & his mouth was also FULL due to "eating his words", lmao - that, & his FOOT IN HIS MOUTH ramming them down, + lastly washing it ALL down with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat"... lmao!
(At least he has manners - he doesn't talk with his mouth full (of his words HE HAD TO EAT, lol!)).
Tell us, won't you (& don't take the 5th again, hahaha): How did they taste? You really ought to change your diet!
"EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself, you pitiful trolling dolt ignoramus - shouldn't start things with your betters in myself - lest you feel like more 'running' there, "Forrest", lol... apk
Either you "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" like you ihtoit ('Forrest', lol, about same IQ) http://slashdot.org/comments.p... or you "eat your words" - YOU MANAGED TO DO BOTH & go silent @ the same time - what a 'multitasker' (@ failing, lol)!
Why?
You "Bit off a WEE bit more than you could chew" & your mouth was also FULL due to "eating your words", lmao - that, & you put your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down, + lastly washing it ALL down with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat"... lmao!
(At least you has manners - you don't talk with your mouth full (of your words YOU HAD TO EAT, lol!)).
You really ought to change your diet - "EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION...
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself, you pitiful trolling dolt ignoramus - shouldn't start things with your betters in myself - lest you feel like more 'eating your words' & dying of the malnutrition their empty bs yields for you "Forrest", lol... apk
See subject: You disarmed yourself due to "eating your words" & then doing a "Run, Forrest: RUN!!! & going silent here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
"Gee - Why's that?"
(Oh, trust me - readers of it will know, hahahaha! )
Ole ihtoit "Bit off a WEE bit more than he could chew" & his mouth was FULL due to "eating his words", lmao - that, & he put his FOOT IN HIS MOUTH ramming them down, + lastly washing it ALL down with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat"... lmao!
(At least he has manners - he doesn't talk with his mouth full (of his words HE HAD TO EAT, lol!)).
ADVICE - You really ought to change your diet!
"EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself, you pitiful trolling dolt ignoramus - shouldn't start things with your betters in myself - lest you feel like more 'running' there, "Forrest" or "eating your words" some more, lol... apk
The side effects of large numbers should not jump the headlines.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
I think that the law should allow you to put a gun even on the backs of walking dogs, to protect the ladies strolling who forgot their purse at home.
Yes, it hits home and all that. From a European perspective: This is news, why? Ten times that many people die every day much closer in terror attacks, drowning in the mediterranean sea and so on. Ah yes, they are brown people, right?
No, I understand that if it's closer it's more important. Tribe mentality and all that, we are humans, our social brain is not built for this age. And yet, something strikes me morally wrong about this preference.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Firstly there is about 1.2 millions gun, a lot of them being riffle for hunting, for 6 million people. The US has 6 times as many weapon, and a far higher proportion of handgun versus riffle. Pretty much the same AFAIK with other countries in Europe with a lot of hunting, like Germany and France. Also in addition some of those countries require a license to have weapon, and a safety test before giving a license. So yeah the comparison is not even remotely doable.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Look you have a mass shooting in average every 60 days in the US since 2014. WHEN are you going to have start a discussion if there is a mass shooting very two months ? When the pig fly ? No the only way is to discuss it WHEN it happens.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Yes. Yes they can. That is what has happened in the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Liberals cannot admit that humans are evil, and guns are merely a tool that can be used for good or for evil. Most liberals I encounter are scared of guns, and so because they are scared, everyone else should be scared of guns and be forced not to have them. The desire to ban guns is rooted in cowardice and fear.
Finland has a big violence problem with the gipsy (a.k.a. rroma or tzigane) ethnic minority. Those dark skinned tribal people came to Europe after being expelled from northern India in the early medieval period and they are the last remnants of the once mighty aryans. One must wonder how the most elite race among humans sunk so low?
Finnish gipsy are only a few tens of thousands but they are not just notorious thiefs, they are heavily into blood revenge! It's their national sport and they don't care about prison sentences (especially since scandinavian prisons resemble wellness hotels rather than Gulag or a Bible-belt "correctional facility" tent camp).
What Finland trying to do is to take delinquent violent gipsy kids from their parents early and put them into correctional centers for youth, trying to re-carve those brutes into humans. The facilities are located over the Artic Circle, so escape is impossible: in the winter you freeze, in the summer brown bears would eat you. Thus, the subjects can be effectively confined despite EU regulations banning fenced off youth facilites.
So you don't want the government to regulate your gun ownership, but you are fine with it locking you up if it deems you to be mentally ill and possibly dangerous.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Its interesting that in the US Constitution, the right to bear arms came before the right for black people to not be treated as property. There's something fundamentally wrong with that, and yet the US Constitution is upheld as something the world should admire and strive to work toward...
> They have the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and their loved ones, just like everyone else.
What about the minors? What about the elderly? What about those whose hand shakes (more and more suffer from Parkinson or Alzheimer disease)? What about the handicapped? What about those with eye problems?
Do you really advocate pregnant women should carry an M1911 as well as the belly? No, but every chick should be like Mulan: bravely fire the RPG.
Also, gun-free zones are unconstitutional.
Didn't he use a bomb though? So much for gun control...
What about bombs? And airplanes?
I said mass murder. I'm not talking about one guy stabbing one or two people on the street because one of them owed the other drugs money.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
When you invent a time machine that correctly identifies whose rights need to be curtailed in advance, then you may curtail rights. Otherwise, you're just punishing a larger group for the actions of a few. If that group was a race or sex, that would be called racism or sexism.
People resorted to using guns and murder is still an issue.
Oh, now, did I say murders would drop to zero? Nope.
And now people like you want to ban guns, too?
I also quite deliberately did not say that I wanted to ban guns - mainly to see if anyone would automatically assume that I did.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I think America needs to think long and hard about what kind of Freedoms it wants to have. As there appears to be a choice between two evils here, one is gun control, and the other is media control.
If you can't take the guns away from the crazies, then you need to take away their glory. Ban anything but local press from reporting on it, and stop the presidential statements, I can only imagine that whipping the nation into furious debate only increases the appeal to these perpetrators. Perhaps that will mean that less crazies will get the idea to shoot up their school in the first place, and wont get the glory of getting their face on TV around the nation
Maybe the longer this continues the problem of the media will solve itself, as Obama is right, you've become numb to this
While typically these events are "less fatal"
Which is what I said, isn't it?
I don't think a 0-deaths attack should be considered better if victim counts [wikipedia.org] remain high.
I do. I absolutely do. I'll take "21 people injured" over "21 people killed" any day. What's wrong with your maths?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
What about them? It's been 14 years since the last mass murder with an airplane in the US, and after it happened something got done (okay, it culminated in body scanners and the TSA, but that's another discussion).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Well, most countries don't base their civil defense on 18th century ideas, and so they don't have these ridiculous situations to deal with. Most countries create a military, and then people who serve in the armed forces get all the training and equipment they need from them.
Are the reasons still valid, though? If the government is so despotic it needs removing, the question comes down to whether the US armed forces are going to protect the government or the citizens. If it protects the government, no amount of fat accountants & other assorted weekend warriors with no training or logistics support is going to change anything. If the armed forces protect the civilians by ousting the government, then whether the civilians are armed or not doesn't matter in the slightest.
If you'd said the 2nd amendment was valid in the time it was written, you'd be right, but clearly a lot has changed since then.
Times change, and the disparity between the firepower of the populace and the armed forces changes too. Ignoring that doesn't really help the discussion.
Yes, actually, they can. "murder on this scale"? Really? 10 people?
That could very easily be accomplished with a knife, machete, baseball bat, car, truck, bomb, etc.
300,000,000 firearms in the US. How many of those did not kill anyone yesterday? How many were used to SAVE lives yesterday?
If you're going to ban things, why not start with the source of these issues. Start banning PEOPLE*. After all, without people, there wouldn't be murder, right?
(*Yes, I know that analogy is extreme. It is just as extreme as your blaming millions of law abiding citizens for the actions of a few crazies)
This guys sums it up: http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8...
I don't give a fuck about your so called "right" to have a gun. I care more about my safety and my family's safety over the ability of whack jobs like you to get a gun.
If you actually read the whole amendment taking the context into account, it's pretty obvious the right to bear arms by citizens was the main intention.
Your right to bear arms was so important we had to put it in as an amendment.
An amendment that can be repealed, as we already did to the 18th amendment.
There's nothing holy or religious about the good ol' 2nd Amendment. It can be changed and / or completely remove, just like any other part of the Constitution.
Every country has guns. But that tells you nothing about gun regulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland#Regulation
It looks very much like gun regulation in Finland is quite a bit less lax than it is in may places in the US.
And there is this "In 2008, following the second of two massacres at schools in Finland, the responsible minister said that the law would be tightened further, especially with regard to licensing controls."
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/shootings.jpg&w=1484
(source: FBI)
What about my right to life? The solution is not banning guns, but heavy regulation. Mental health screenings and ending unregulated gun shows.
Your right to bear arms is non existant when opposing the right of others to be safe.
The second amendment is shit and should be called out for the shit it is.
The militias are well regulated... what is your complaint?
I could ask the same question of you—because from my perspective, the only difference between victims being injured or killed is a matter of luck. I consider it an error of the highest order to include that sort of randomness in the factors which drive public policy.
Do you like Japanese imports?
Perhaps unsurprisingly that sounds about exactly the same for Canada.
Bans are not necessary, you just need to make them harder to get a hold of. Also regulation such as making clips/magazines larger than 5 rounds/bullets illegal also makes such events more difficult. Canada also has a high gun/population ratio, however almost all fall into the shotgun or hunting rifle variety. Handguns are rare and regulated (literally) to the gun range.
You can never totally prevent this sort of thing, however making guns harder to get would certainly reduce it, and regulating what kinds of arms you can get could limit the severity of it. In the US where you can probably trip over guns, it is just too easy. When it is hard, you really have to plan and deliberate and follow through over a lengthy period, when it is easy, you go nuts or are mad and grab your nearest 8 guns and 200 rounds and go to town in the next 10 minutes.
About the only thing I would say about Canada in the same vein that needs some improvement, is that while there are mental health services and medication availability, Canada does have a homeless mental health issue, which I see every day. We really need to do more there in that regard.
Bombs. They would just start using bombs instead of guns.
I support the right to bear arms, but you're both wrong and also arguing the wrong point. Admit to yourself that more rights = more risk, and be ok with that. I am. If someone said "If we didn't have the fourth amendment right to privacy, it would be harder to catch pedophiles" you'd call them an idiot, because it's not only dead wrong but it's completely missing the point.
In your example, after the wizard casts his spell, instead of having 10 dead, you'd have 6 dead and 6 injured. Statistically, guns slightly reduce "violence" or crime, but increase death. So without guns, you'd have a couple people who got punched in the head instead of shot, but then you'd also have a couple people who previously would have scared off the burglar with their own gun get beat up and robbed instead of escaping unscathed.
More guns = more death. I've never seen anything show otherwise. More guns = less crime or less violence, yeah, maybe.
Freedom is dangerous, people, but it's worth the cost.
Every other post ITT is someone trying to minimize the deaths because "it happens in other countries sometimes" or "gun laws wouldn't work anyway because criminals". Gun fetishists are the worst people.
Domestic terrorism in the US is mostly perpetrated by white right wing males with guns or bombs. This is a fact.
I would go on to say that it's conservatism that is the real enemy. The liberals in all of the countries in the world want to cooperate with each other and build a society. Conservatives want to fight each other. Take Iran as an example. The liberals in the US and Iran wanted to stand down and create a working thriving peace. The Conservatives in both countries want war.
There is an unaddressed pathology at play in the conservative mind.
Actually, we highly prefer them to be mature, educated, and capable of independent and reasoned thought. Why? Because it's not a Good Thing when PVT Joe Snuffy misplaces an encrypted radio set, rolls a million dollar armored vehicle full of troops, or discharges his weapon at the wrong time. Naturally we still get a lot of knuckleheads and young or not, they are probably the most difficult to "mold" and most in need of doing exactly what they are told and nothing more.
Of course, you and those that modded you up are in no danger of finding yourselves anywhere close to a battlefield (or a multitude of infinitely less exciting places), so you wouldn't know that.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege to UPDATE vs. threats online:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv
&
How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY admit later there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security
...apk
"it patently clear no-one else agrees with your position" - by dave420 (699308) on Friday September 25, 2015 @04:44AM (#50595241)
Here's some that are QUITE contrary to yours from /. users + experts in the field:
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
&
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
---
* Let's see - a TOP antimalware company hosts AND RECOMMENDS my ware, & real users here like it - you're outnumbered, outthought, & OUTSMARTED, easily as usual, by "yours truly"...
APK
P.S.=> To top all THAT off? Better people that a "ne'er-do-well" MORON troll who's never accomplished a thing of good note in computing in yourself AGREE with me hosts are good security:
Quote of Aryeh Goretsky of NOD32/ESET doing so in fact -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
You UTTER blowhard do nothing "ne'er-do-well" troll... "eat your words" & tell us:
HOW DID THEY TASTE?
Flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" since your mouth wrote checks your dimwit brain can't cash? Rammed down YOUR THROAT since you stuck your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH too?? LMAO...
... apk
So, if guns were not generally available people would stop committing suicide and drunk rednecks would stop having accidents?
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Fun fact: Nearly all of the mass shooters in America have been left wing activists...
{{cite}}
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
the only difference between victims being injured or killed is a matter of luck. I consider it an error of the highest order to include that sort of randomness in the factors which drive public policy.
So you haven't heard of "statistics" either?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
But... but... but...
It's not terrorism if it's a white christian male.
Only them scary dark-skinned foreigners are terrorists. The white christian guys who kill lots of people are just mentally ill.
While that is all true, you might ask the Syrians how well all the firepower works for them...
There are plenty of cases in the 20th century where poorly armed civilians rose up against evil governments and outnumbered them.
Tanks and bombers are useful, but they can't be everywhere.
After all, while we crushed the Iraqi military in 2003, how well did the occupation go after that? How effective is all our military power in Afghanistan against people in pickup trucks armed with AK-47s?
Stealth bombers are great, when bombing large, specific targets. They are useless against 3 million angry civilians in NYC, unless of course you plan to blow up the whole city.
But even as WWII and Vietnam showed, bombing cities flat doesn't crush civilians either.
Our military is really, really good... at crushing other militaries... they are a really crappy police force...
The rights do not belong to the "well-regulated milita". They belong to the People.
Or should we argue that -- since you're not part of "the Press" that YOU have no freedom of speech?
So you don't want the government to regulate your gun ownership, but you are fine with it locking you up if it deems you to be mentally ill and possibly dangerous.
You need to be really clear on this...
I don't want the executive branch to regulate my gun ownership...
I do want the judicial branch to be able to lockup the mentally ill after a court hearing where the medical doctors are allowed to present their evidence for both sides and you're allowed a defense.
There is a mile of difference between those two...
This has become a regular event in America.
Gun violence, as well as violent crime in general, has dropped significantly in the last 2 decades or so
America is FOURTH in death by gun, after Thailand, Nigeria and Colombia; that's the company we keep.
Actually, America isn't even in the top ten.
We have more murders by gun than any developed (and many undeveloped) nations.
That's cherry-picking, unless you can explain why it makes sense to compare the US vs Sweden, but not the US vs Russia. Also, Turkey (considered a developed country depending on definition) has a higher murder rate than the US. And why would "murders by gun" matter more than just simply "murders"?
The NRA *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill persons, and on and on. It's a national disgrace.
The ACLU *actively* lobbies to defeat laws that will keep criminals and rapists on the streets. But instead of calling it a national disgrace, we refer to it as the inherent risks of essential liberty.
What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of people that have been murdered by gun in America - what about them?
What exactly about them? Safety and/or protection from criminals and madmen isn't exactly a right, and the supreme court has made it clear repeatedly that citizens have to expectation of police protection...
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
There were founding fathers who wanted to abolish slavery in the constitution from day one, but others had large businesses dependent on slavery.
It was a topic discussed at length at the time, but they couldn't reach a compromise.
The world was already slowly waking up to slavery being wrong, it just wasn't quite ready.
Today, in the 21st century, your average citizen still has the right to keep and bear arms, as it should be.
So you're saying this mass murder is evidence on how we need stronger gun laws... to prevent suicide?
I think that's why people concentrate on homicides: the gun restrictions are sold to us as homicide prevention
What about the federal law declaring me as part of the militia?
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
So the one NRA member you can think of that's committed a terrorist act... didn't use guns?
...huh
And he managed to kill more people than any active shooter incident?
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
They're dead so I'm pretty sure no law applies to them.
Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
Between knife attacks in China and intentionally set fires in Australia? Yes, yes I do...
Remember: the worst school attack in US history *wasn't* a shooting...
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
See subject: ihtoit took the 5th here R O T F L M A O http://slashdot.org/comments.p... doing a "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & going silent, hahahaha - why?
He "Bit off a WEE bit more than he could chew" & his mouth was also FULL due to "eating his words", lmao - that, & put his FOOT IN HIS MOUTH ramming them down, + lastly washing it ALL down with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat"... lmao!
(At least he has manners - he doesn't talk with his mouth full (of his words HE HAD TO EAT, lol!)).
You really ought to change your diet!
"EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself, you pitiful trolling dolt ignoramus - shouldn't start things with your betters in myself - lest you feel like more 'running' there, "Forrest", lol... apk
See subject: You disarmed yourself due to "eating your words" & then doing a "Run, Forrest: RUN!!! & going silent here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
"Gee - Why's that?"
(Oh, trust me - readers of it will know, hahahaha! )
Ole ihtoit "Bit off a WEE bit more than he could chew" & his mouth was FULL due to "eating his words", lmao - that, & he put his FOOT IN HIS MOUTH ramming them down, + lastly washing it ALL down with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat"... lmao!
(At least he has manners - he doesn't talk with his mouth full (of his words HE HAD TO EAT, lol!)).
ADVICE - You really ought to change your diet!
"EATING YOUR WORDS" != GOOD NUTRITION
APK
P.S.=> You brought it on yourself, you pitiful trolling dolt ignoramus - shouldn't start things with your betters in myself - lest you feel like more 'running' there, "Forrest" or "eating your words" some more, lol... apk
Let me give you a second example.
Rather than taking the effort to tally all the votes cast in an election, let's throw all the ballots into a giant pile, mix them about (maybe in a cement mixer) so they're completely random, and pull one out. Whoever is on that ballot wins the election. If you fully believe that randomness is not bad for public policy, then you must conclude that there is no drawback to this voting system, and the lower work required to determine the winner makes it superior to the systems in use today.
Do you like Japanese imports?
Since the constitution was ratified in 1788 we have lived with guns without this epidemic of anarchist mass shootings.
Maybe it is not the guns, but the society that has changed. Post counter culture, we no longer live in a communal, "we the people" society, but rather a narcissistic, individual, I'm going to get mine society.
Think about what has changed in the past 50 years. We have millions of kids growing up in single parent families, we have millions of people who have rejected community and religion (of all forms), and who have no feeling of respect for their fellow human being.
More guns, less guns, it wouldn't matter, because it isn't the problem. Our society is broken and we don't seem to be willing to admit it and address it.
How is that in any way analogous to statistically studying mass killings/injurings? I never suggested looking at one stabbing spree and one gun spree and forming policy based on the results.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yes, yes, Please take my gun and my rights because somebody else did something wrong. Take all the cars away while your at it, because some people drive drunk. Take all phones away too, as they are used by criminals to plan crimes. Get rid of all panes, because they were used for the 9/11 attack and could be used again. Take away Republicans right to vote, because they may elect Don Trump.
What I am claiming is that the difference between fatal and non-fatal injuries in a mass attack comes down to the same lottery luck as the election analogy. The (relative) skill of the attacker and defenders is more critical when determining the total number of victims, and less so when determining the extent of any particular injury.
Do you like Japanese imports?
I have a gun. Many guns. I've never fired at any Human Being. I'v e fired at lots of paper targets. I grew up with a deer hunting dad. Guns were things that would kill you. I choose to keep my gun. Because my gun had not hurt anybody. My gun will {WILL} protect my life from people that wish to take it. I'd rather have it and not need it. I am a peaceful soul. We cannot keep drugs and cell-phones from prisons and schools.What makes you think that we can keep guns out of the criminals hands? I beg you to be sincere. I'd like to protect my family from the elments that would take away my freedom that would do such.
I love you all....
> easiest at-a-distance point-and-click method
The vast majority of gun homicide are done with handguns. It's pretty clear you know nothing about guns, because it is very difficult to kill someone at a distance with one.
> Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
Airplanes and bombs have been popular for this in America too.
If and when a Militia is needed the citizens will have the guns they need because our right to guns was not infringed. If our rights are infringed the guns will not be available for a Militia so the guns stay.
If the Supreme Court can find abortion rights in the right to privacy and can restrict free expression of religion on public property by claiming not restricting it is a law they could surly find that only active Militia members can have guns. Of course if that were the case there would be 20 million active Militia members over night. I think they fear that more than few dozen school shootings a year.
that so many gun nuts are known for. I'm surprised it took this long.
How is this racist? You act as if everyone who has a different culture is magically a different subspecies of human, with their own genotype and phenotype to go along with it.
Being anti-multiculturalist is not being racist.
If the original post wasn't clear enough, let me spell it out for you: any multicultural society is going to experience more conflict, via the tools at hand (not necessarily guns), than any monocultural society. Europe is largely monocultural, and that's in the process of changing.
Mind sharing some statistics for that claim?
http://www.examiner.com/articl...
Sounds like you are regurgitating some hate-talk-radio host's flawed hateful email.
While there isn't a firm definition for "mass shooting" most seem to go by the 4 victims in a single event. This is based on the FBI definition of mass murder being 4 or more victims from a single assailant. HeyJackass,com compiles their own dataset via following sources: Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Homicide Watch Chicago, DNAInfo Chicago, Chicago Redeye Homicide Tracker(no longer updated), NBC5 Chicago, City of Chicago Data Portal and CPD CLEARMAP. To date within the city limits of Chicago there have been 17 events of 4 or more victims shot in a single event (http://heyjackass.com/2015-multi-victim-shootings/). Every instance has been black assailants with black casualties. (http://heyjackass.com/2015-multi-victim-shootings/) Chicago being my hometown, it is the only place I follow statistics closely and I cannot say that this trend holds true nationally. Also of note, within the city limits of Chicago, 78.7% of the victims of shootings are black with 68.8% of the assailants being black. (http://heyjackass.com/2015-race-of-victim/)
Although it should be noted that current US Federal law explicitly identifies all able bodied men in a pretty wide age range as being in the militia.
But yes, the 2nd amendment is worded that way meaning that in order to raise a militia you need an at least partially armed and experience populace.
https://i.imgur.com/9YQtetk.pn...
The solution is not banning guns, the solution is a proper public health system and a respect for mental health, and being willing to lock up the mentally ill for treatment.
I agree we need to address a bunch of factors: safety nets, mental help. universal healthcare in general, income inequality, social mobility, etc.. we rank poorly in all those areas compared to other modern countries.
However, look at Australia. They didn't ban guns, but they did make it more restrictive to get and own them. Like requiring by law locked storage, etc..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/port-arthur-massacre-shooting-spree-changed-australia-gun-laws-n396476
It is either luck, or the gun laws worked. Because they have had zero mass shootings since the laws changed. Which I think was about 20 years ago.
How many mass shootings did they have before that?
Regardless, you don't restrict people's rights because stuff happens that you don't like.
Shall we limit freedom of speech and toss out the first amendment because people say stuff we don't like?
The right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.
Most countries haven't given much thought to how their people will protect themselves against a future corruption of their government.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
If a wizard suddenly made it impossible for guns to exist in America; they could not pass across any border, the ones inside the country simply turned into nothingness, do you think the rates of assault and murder would instantly go down?
Yes, I do think that getting rid of the easiest at-a-distance point-and-click method of murder would result in lower murder rates.
Call me crazy...
Or do you think someone can commit mass murder on this scale with knives and baseball bats?
Okay, you are certifiably insane. Read the stats for any nation that has done this, after they have done so. Those rates do not go down. Other forms of homicide fill in. America has a homicide rate of 5.6 people killed per 100,000 population. Post gun ban Australia has 35.8 killed per 100,000.
Improving mental health is never a bad idea for anyone, anywhere, anytime.
So do you really think if everyone was mentally healthy, there wouldn't be any need for gun control? So the only reason to use a gun... is if you're crazy... ? That sounds like what you're saying. You almost make sense.
Whatever. I think random government harassment of gun owners is probably the recipe for getting the gun lobby to start taking responsibility for the shit their members do. The harassment should be in the form of inventory audits and safety tests and checks, also random on site drug tests for gun carriers, and making carrying guns like driving a car, so if you're caught intoxicated with a weapon you forfeit it and get the same thing as a DWI, you lose your license.
Also, make laws for hunting such that its either, or... either you are a hunter and live in the woods and off hunting your food and only live off that, or you are not a hunter and can shop for food and live like the rest of civilization. Hunters should be forced onto reservations.
Carrying an illegal weapon, or unregistered weapon, should carry 20 year manditory minimum sentences.
You shouldn't give up so easily, as one averse to guns. You shouldn't just lay down everything the gun lobby wants you to think and say. You should try to have a little more courage in your own beliefs. You are brave enough to realize you don't need a gun, but too shy to stand up to a lie?The Constitution says what it says, but it doesn't mean what the gun lobby wants it to mean. Don't don't make it so easy for them. Even if your team is losing, you still have to stand up and scream like an idiot at the opposing side. You just do.
There is, but the poms decided to use it as a prison instead.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What about King George being dead for 200 years now, and most of the surviving (Red) Indians being too busy running casinos to go round scalping people?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The freedom of speech is already limited, in a wide variety of ways, for good cause and reason.
Libel, Slander, Obscenity, Disturbing the Peace.
Reason is recognizing that rights are often in conflict.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.
Note: I like guns. Own several. But the constitution does not specify 'arms' very specifically. People, generally, cannot own weapons of mass destruction (nukes, cannons, explosives, etc.. ). The people that are allowed to own weapons with huge destructive capabilities have to go through a much more restrictive process of checks, licenses, fees, etc..
There is nothing in our constitution that would block our ability to regulate the level of "destructiveness" a person is able to own. We do it already to several classes of weapons. We could choose to apply stricter regulations, background checks, etc.. to lower levels of weapons.
Also... rights can change. Not often, but a right isn't set in stone.
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]
If we get sick and tired of school shootings every month, we could remove the right to keep arms if we wanted to as a society.
The constitution has been amended before, and it will be again. It isn't a religious scripture from god:)
I don't want people to walk into Walmart and buy a 50 caliber machine gun without some serious background inspections, licenses, mental health checks, etc..? Do you? If not, then what is the issue with applying stricter control to handguns? It isn't taking away your right to own the gun.
And I know fully well that 9/10 mass shooters in this country would pass background checks. And that is precisely the reason why I think we need stricter regulations than even the proposed increases in background checks. But we can't even pass minor increases in the background check laws.
Most of the conservatives in congress think that any increase in gun regulations is a slippery slope, which is quite literally allowing thousands of innocent people to die each year. When we have absolute proof from other countries that there are common sense laws that would help to save lives.
citations? because last I checked your avg gun owner..... does not have any problem following the law. Illegal shootings are at an all time low and going down....but yes lets throw out insults based in fiction
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Note: I like guns. Own several. But the constitution does not specify 'arms' very specifically. People, generally, cannot own weapons of mass destruction (nukes, cannons, explosives, etc.. ). The people that are allowed to own weapons with huge destructive capabilities have to go through a much more restrictive process of checks, licenses, fees, etc..
There is nothing in our constitution that would block our ability to regulate the level of "destructiveness" a person is able to own. We do it already to several classes of weapons. We could choose to apply stricter regulations, background checks, etc.. to lower levels of weapons.
My first response to this was going to be... less understanding...
However, after thinking about it, there is a fair point to be made there... clearly we aren't going to be selling nuclear weapons at Walmart, so the limit has to be somewhere between a BB gun and a nuclear weapon. The question then becomes, what is that limit?
My primary issue is that those "restrictions" are also set by the very same government that should fear its citizens, rather than the other way around.
I don't want people to walk into Walmart and buy a 50 caliber machine gun without some serious background inspections, licenses, mental health checks, etc..? Do you?
Ahh... yes and no... the problem is if you allow the government to have a list of everyone who has weapons, it becomes very easy for that same government to take them all away. Of course, the NFA is more than 80 years old now, so perhaps that ship has sailed.
I do think that select-fire weapons should be legal to purchase again, but you're right, they probably shouldn't be sold over the counter.
If not, then what is the issue with applying stricter control to handguns? It isn't taking away your right to own the gun.
Handguns are person defensive weapons, those along with shotguns and semi-automatic rifles should not have very many restrictions on them.
The other consideration is that plenty of places "allow" you to have a handgun if you're special. If you're not, tough luck.
Any permitting system should be on a "shall issue" basis. My gut response is against such systems, however I'd be willing to compromise on the issue, in return for a few things. Most notably I want national uniform laws that allow concealed carry, national "shall issue" laws to any permits required for guns, and I'd like the 2nd amendment updated to make it very clear that the right to buy and own guns and hold them in personal possession is clear and confusing.