Alleged Kalamazoo Shooter Picked Up Uber Fares During, After Killing Spree

theodp writes: Police allege that Uber driver Jason Dalton shot 8 people in three different locations, killing six people. But the story gets even crazier, Gizmodo reports, as Dalton allegedly not only picked up Uber passengers between shootings, he continued to drive people around after his last shooting at 10:24pm at a Cracker Barrel restaurant. One of his last passengers before Dalton was arrested even joked, "You're not the shooter, are you?" Uber Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan issued the following Statement on Kalamazoo: "We are horrified and heartbroken at the senseless violence in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Our hearts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this devastating crime and those recovering from injuries. We have reached out to the police to help with their investigation in any way that we can."

Comments

Here we go!

[Anonymous Coward]

With the WE NEED TO BAN (guns) (Uber) (???) speech

Re:Here we go!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure we need to ban anything, but it would be wise for Uber to implement a "No Shooting People While Working For Us" policy.

Re:Here we go!

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't work for Uber, they are simply contractors. Uber bears no responsibility for this massacre that was committed by their employee ... err .. associate ... umm ... acquaintance.

Re:Here we go!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, he didn't shoot any Uber riders, did he? Just as safe as any other transportation service.

Re:Here we go!

[14erCleaner]

Not sure we need to ban anything, but it would be wise for Uber to implement a "No Shooting People While Working For Us" policy.

I'm sure Lyft already has this policy.

Re:Here we go!

[Ol Olsoc]

With the WE NEED TO BAN (guns) (Uber) (???) speech

Here we go with the:

With the WE NEED TO BAN (guns) (Uber) (???) speech

Re:Here we go!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure we need to ban anything, but it would be wise for Uber to implement a "No Shooting People While Working For Us" policy.

I'm sure Lyft already has this policy.

Maybe they shouldn't have patented it.

Re:Here we go!

[Nidi62]

Not sure we need to ban anything, but it would be wise for Uber to implement a "No Shooting People While Working For Us" policy.

Uber's new slogan: "Ride with us. It will literally save your life!"

Re:Here we go!

[TsuruchiBrian]

Bullshit! He was essentially an employee and deserves healthcare and a 401K!

Re:Here we go!

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already banned murder, what more do you want from us?

Re:Here we go!

[Flea of Pain]

If that doesn't work, how about: "Uber: Ride Shotgun"

Too soon?

Hey... can't let hobbies interfere with the job.

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t - but captcha was congress...

Read this on CNN hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with /. reporting mainstream news hours after major news outlets. Not why I come here.

Re:Read this on CNN hours ago

[Noah Haders]

An improvement from several days later. Remember they're not a primary new source writing their own articles, so they have to wait until other articles are posted before they have something to link to.

Re:Read this on CNN hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

An improvement from several days later. Remember they're not a primary new source writing their own articles, so they have to wait until other articles are posted before they have something to link to.

You must be new here.

Who says /. isn't going to post the same story again in a few days?

Re:Read this on CNN hours ago

[Zontar The Mindless]

Whether a given story is "mainstream" or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's topical for Slashdot.

*This* story is actually fairly topical for Slashdot.

If you don't understand why it might be... well, there's other sites.

Not that I mean anything by that, just sayin'.

Re: Read this on CNN hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a discussion site. Notice how the articles aren't hosted here. There are zero reporters here.
If you wanted this here hours earlier than you should have submitted it much earlier instead of waiting for someone to do it for you.

Re:Read this on CNN hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

An improvement from several days later. Remember they're not a primary new source writing their own articles, so they have to wait until other articles are posted before they have something to link to.

You must be new here.

Who says /. isn't going to post the same story again in a few days?

Who says that they haven't already posted a duplicate of this story, tomorrow?

Re:Read this on CNN hours ago

[Jack9]

> If you don't understand why it might be

It's not news for nerds. It's not stuff that matters.

> *This* story is actually fairly topical for Slashdot.

Nope.

Re:Read this on CNN hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is actually fairly typical for Slashdot.

There, now it works.

Re: Read this on CNN hours ago

[Hognoxious]

There are zero reporters here.

But bizarrely they outnumber the editors.

how is that relevant?

[ooloorie]

If he had been a regular cab driver, he might have done the same, and an official taxi would have been even better camouflage. If he had been a stock trader, he might have continued to do trades. If he was selling crap on Ebay, he might have continued doing that too. How is his driving for Uber at all relevant?

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

it speaks to his mindset. I would say that is relevant.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the uber's guide to multitasking. I love how we are subjected to mindless individual atrocities by the media while the real murders are done in full view of the world by our leaders (cough) and we are supposed to gaf about some joker driving a cab.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's relevant because Uber maintains they need not abide by any regulations to keep their customers safe. They flout laws, and if it should be found out that this person had something in his past that would have disqualified him from a regular taxi job it's going to be VERY relevant.

Granted, some people can snap without warning and without history, but basically Uber opened itself up to this based on public corporate behavior. Nobody would care if they didn't constantly make a spectacle of themselves ignoring laws.

Re:how is that relevant?

[tehcyder]

If he had been a regular cab driver, he might have done the same, and an official taxi would have been even better camouflage. If he had been a stock trader, he might have continued to do trades. If he was selling crap on Ebay, he might have continued doing that too. How is his driving for Uber at all relevant?

At the very least it's a counter-example to all the Uber-shill stories about how they always get raped/murdered/ripped off when using conventional taxi services.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I had moderation points for boosting the parent here. The guy worked somewhere, and committed heinous crimes. One fact has nothing to do with the other.

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

Because someone who is a psychotic killer is far less likely to engage in a profession where they know who you are, and have all kinds of information on you including fingerprints. There is something to be said for using an industry where people know who the others are. Uber is next to anonymous, which is a perfect job for freaks. If the Uber rating system is so great, why did the riders feel the need to go to facebook about this guy? They should have given him a poor rating and been absolutely satisfied that the rating system would do its job.

Re:how is that relevant?

[hagnat]

it is relevant because that's what he has done. Had he done otherwise, the news would be different, focusing the service he choosed to use, and you would be asking that same question.

Re:how is that relevant?

[khallow]

If he had been a regular cab driver, he might have done the same, and an official taxi would have been even better camouflage. If he had been a stock trader, he might have continued to do trades. If he was selling crap on Ebay, he might have continued doing that too. How is his driving for Uber at all relevant?

It sounds like he was trying to fashion an alibi. It'll be interesting, should this come to trial, whether this attempt is what damned him. The police may be able to show that he wasn't taking rides when the various people were killed. Such gaps would be very suspicious.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Junta]

I agree with that stance, but currently the tone of the coverage is more 'curiosity' than 'he could've shot people'.

Maybe things will change if they investigate and uncover something that would have been a red flag in a background check, but for now no one's really doing anything but 'oh look, uber!'.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Junta]

Hey, it's not jush shilling. I myself have personally been murdered 3 or 4 times riding in a conventional taxi.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

They went to FB for attention. Once they realized this was a news story, he figured it was time for their 15 minutes. A normal bad driver you would use the ratings system. Something criminal, you call the police. If you're banking on getting some cash for a TV Movie or something, you go on FB.

Same as if he had encountered a killer in any other profession on the day of the killings.

I have no idea why people defend cab companies. This would have happened just as easily there. The guy had no record, he would have passed any cab company's background check. He just would have charged the riders twice as much, taken longer routes, and been slow to show up.

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

So Uber has been around for, what, 5 years? With 1/100th the number of drivers as the US Taxi industry. And this has happened already. I challenge you to find a corresponding number of proper registered taxi drivers who have killed people.

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

Oh, and they did go to Facebook about poor service. To my knowledge they didn't actually know he was killing people in between taking rides.

Re:how is that relevant?

[T.E.D.]

There is something to be said for using an industry where people know who the others are.

Uber has cab companies beat all to hell on that. I can look up the ratings on my Uber driver before I get in their car. When I call a cab company, I have no clue who's going to show up. In fact, I have no real clue who the company is. I once thought I'd be responsible and call around to different companies from the yellow pages get the best rate. I tried three different companies, and the same person picked up the phone for all off them.

There's far, far more accountability with an Uber driver.

Re:how is that relevant?

[110010001000]

Er, I'll bet there have been > 1 number of registered taxi drivers who have killed someone in the last 5 years. Also Uber has 162k active drivers.The taxi industry has 122k. You don't know what you are talking about.

Re:how is that relevant?

[110010001000]

Sorry I meant Uber has 162k and the taxi industry has 233k. Hardly 100x more.

Re: how is that relevant?

[bev_tech_rob]

It's relevant because Uber maintains they need not abide by any regulations to keep their customers safe. They flout laws, and if it should be found out that this person had something in his past that would have disqualified him from a regular taxi job it's going to be VERY relevant.

Granted, some people can snap without warning and without history, but basically Uber opened itself up to this based on public corporate behavior. Nobody would care if they didn't constantly make a spectacle of themselves ignoring laws.

Oh, horseshit.

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

162k in the US? Didn't know it was that much. So does the number of taxi drivers that have murdered people account for 1/4 more drivers + 45 more years of operation?

Re: how is that relevant?

[silentcoder]

This is the company who bragged about how their revenue spiked during the Sydney shooting - all the people calling Uber because they are desperate to get the hell out of the crossfire...

I get the feelingthat "giving a shit about people's lives" is even lower on their priority list than most corporations - which takes some doing.

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

Cab drivers hang out together. They are a community. What is it about people today they they think some internet construct like ratings beats a real community of people who look out for each other and support each other?? I blame Facebook. Its a sad sign of the times, and a real dismal outlook on human interpersonal relationships.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Locke2005]

He didn't have anything in his past, would have easily passed a background check to be a cabbie or to purchase a gun. Which is why everyone is still struggling to find a motive. Usually my response to the question "why?" is that they are batshit insane. I expect that reason applies here as well as to many other multiple murders, but I'm still curious about what set him off.

Re: how is that relevant?

[KGIII]

I've just opened the thread - I am curious if anyone will try to blame Über. I dislike 'em as much as the next person but they're (quite probably) not even remotely culpable but I'd not be surprised if people try to draw connections. Tenuous connections. Illogical, irrational, and just plain wrong connections... But connections! Wake up sheeple!

No, seriously, I'd not be surprised to find people trying to blame them. I'll find out as the thread progresses.

Re: how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

"I get the feelingthat "giving a shit about people's lives" is even lower on their priority list than most corporations - which takes some doing."

Best. Comment. Ever.

Re: how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

What you are failing to see is that background checks serve a dual purpose. Along with actively finding people with bad things in their past, they also passively keep people away. People who have 'mental issues' do not like background checks. They don't like others having information on them. Therefore, they are likely to stay away entirely. The people who participate in the process are only the ones with absolute confidence that they have nothing to hide, which are the people you should want to be alone in a car with.

Re: how is that relevant?

[KGIII]

> ...I'm still curious about what set him off.

If I had to guess without any actual information beyond what I've read (which is little) then I'd say, "Three out of the four voices in his head decided today was the day to paint the potato flying jellyfish." But, that's just a guess.

It's also important to wait when these things happen. We may find out tomorrow that he's a known whackjob. We may find out they picked up the wrong person. Not that either of those are particularly likely but that they're possibilities. It's not exactly often that the earliest news at these times is accurate. I caution waiting - every time. Strangely enough, with some squinting, I'm right every time.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, one person went to Facebook because the asshat was driving 80mph in a 45 and sideswiped another vehicle.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's relevant because he didn't kill his passengers, The only people killed were non-Uber-Users. See how much safer youn are as an Uber-User!

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it did happen- in 2010, in the UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Using his double-barreled shotgun, a taxi driver killed 12 people (twice as many as the Kalamazoo shooter).

Re: how is that relevant?

[0100010001010011]

What exact regulations would 'a driver snapped' have covered?

And don't worry, Uber is working as fast as they can to replace the drivers.

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

I know it happened once. Once, ever in the history of the modern taxi industry and not even in North America.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Junta]

I'd say they couldn't be blamed, by any stretch in this scenario. This scenario might uncover something troubling or not (if this guy had any red flags before). More broadly, I'd like to see a study of Uber driver background checks to see if they would have been somehow excluded from being a taxi driver by a 'traditional' cab company for non-BS reasons (e.g. scarity of medallions being an example of BS reason)

Re: how is that relevant?

[ooloorie]

When people of a single profession hang out together, they usually collude to screw their customers and protect themselves from prosecution. You see that with police, stock brokers, doctors (malpractice), lawyers (lobbying and regulation), publishers and authors (copyright lobbying), etc. It's a recipe for collusion and coverups. Destroying such collusion and replacing it with public reviews and statistics is a good thing.

Re: how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

So you don't trust doctors?

Re:how is that relevant?

[themeliorist]

Because someone who is a psychotic killer is far less likely to engage in a profession where they know who you are, and have all kinds of information on you including fingerprints. There is something to be said for using an industry where people know who the others are. Uber is next to anonymous, which is a perfect job for freaks. If the Uber rating system is so great, why did the riders feel the need to go to facebook about this guy? They should have given him a poor rating and been absolutely satisfied that the rating system would do its job.

Maybe they were afraid of being shot?

Re: how is that relevant?

[KGIII]

I read the thread and, sure enough, a couple of 'em seem to be reaching for it. No outright blame - yet. At least none that doesn't appear to be tongue-in-cheek. I do, now, wonder if my comment will color some of the replies and bias it against my supposition.

That said, even if they'd have not been filtered from a taxi service - that's probably still not justification for ignoring laws to operate a business. That's not civil disobedience, that's just being a criminal. That's my only issue with Uber.

So, as much as I might dislike 'em, Uber's not guilty of anything. Even if they'd not have been filtered out in a taxi application, there's no reason to be certain that they'd not have changed today. People snap, not always with a good clear warning. If they gave a good warning then society would be a lot nicer. They don't.

You almost always hear, "He was such a nice man. Nobody knew he had a basement full of puppies and a meat grinder!" You hardly ever hear, "Yeah, I was just waiting for that fucker to snap and kill the whole family with a hatchet Just the other day, in fact. I was telling my wife about how I figured it would be coming right up!"

It might make for an interesting conversation if they'd have been filtered out by regular taxi checks (or not). I'm not sure it'll actually be a good metric or even prevent problems in the future if they change policy. I am not a social scientist, however. While I'd like fairly decent precautionary steps taken - I do not actually expect complete safety.

Re: how is that relevant?

[operagost]

They flout laws, and if it should be found out that this person had something in his past that would have disqualified him from a regular taxi job it's going to be VERY relevant.

Only if the media thinks that the public is absolutely moronic, because he didn't kill Uber clients and essentially was just driving around picking victims, with his status as an Uber driver completely orthogonal.
Oh wait, the public is moronic.

Re:how is that relevant?

[ooloorie]

Because someone who is a psychotic killer is far less likely to engage in a profession where they know who you are, and have all kinds of information on you including fingerprints.

You're confusing a "psychotic killer" with a "rational individual". So stop being delusional and making things up like "far less likely".

Re: how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

and Uber does do background checks

Re: how is that relevant?

[ooloorie]

I listen to my doctor and take his advice into consideration, but only a fool would trust his doctor.

Re: how is that relevant?

[operagost]

Kind of like how the US government bragged about how many people were signing up for food stamps when the economy crashed.

Re: how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

Nice try wiggling out of that one. Acting on a doctor's diagnosis is the same as trusting them. Unless you are trying to make the case that Googling gives you as much medical expertise as he/she has.

Re: how is that relevant?

[ooloorie]

Acting on a doctor's diagnosis is the same as trusting them.

For anything important, I usually see several doctors. Guess what: they frequently disagree with one another, both on the diagnosis and on the treatments.

Unless you are trying to make the case that Googling gives you as much medical expertise as he/she has.

You didn't ask me whether you should trust your doctors; you seem to be enough of a fool that you don't have a choice. You asked me whether I trust my doctors, and I told you: I don't.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

it speaks to his mindset. I would say that is relevant.

Ah, I see now! Yes, this makes me feel sooooo much better about his mindset.

After all, I thought he was a cold-blooded murderer before. Now that I know he drives for Uber...

(I pray you can sense my sarcasm here. Relevant my ass.)

Re:how is that relevant?

[plague911]

Because "internet construct like ratings beats" the hell out of a "real community" At least when we are using them to "rate" this professions performance.

Traditional cabs smell funny, are late, are impolite, don't know how to efficiently get you places, are more dangerous, are inconvenient , and cost more

The cabbie "community" is an outright failure in policing itself, imho most of these self policing communities are outright failures.

Re: how is that relevant?

[ultranova]

People who have 'mental issues' do not like background checks. They don't like others having information on them.

To be fair, a lot of completely sane people don't like others having information on them either.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... uber requires fingerprints. moron.

Re: how is that relevant?

[cayenne8]

That said, even if they'd have not been filtered from a taxi service - that's probably still not justification for ignoring laws to operate a business. That's not civil disobedience, that's just being a criminal. That's my only issue with Uber.

So, as much as I might dislike 'em, Uber's not guilty of anything.

Geez, if we'd had this same type of support as we see for taxi cabs (outdated) vs the new kid on the block (Uber)....we'd still have a thriving, protected buggy whip consortium.

Uber is great...a new model, and frankly I see more services going this route, and breaking the existing monopolies...

Re: how is that relevant?

[vel-ex-tech]

Personally, my favorite part about reading the comments on this story is how many people are leaping to the conclusion that Uber was this guy's day job.

The guy was an insurance adjuster. If I were to speculate, I'd guess that he hadn't been turned away from any cab companies, since I doubt he was looking for full time work as a taxi driver.

Re: how is that relevant?

[ShanghaiBill]

What you are failing to see is that background checks serve a dual purpose.

According to several news sources, he WAS background checked. He passed. Why wouldn't he? Background checks check your background, they don't do brain scans.

Re: how is that relevant?

[ooloorie]

More generally, you tried to give doctors as an example of self-policing within a profession, but doctors are, if anything, a counterexample. Medical errors are widespread and so is a reluctance on the part of other doctors to come forward and criticize or testify against their colleagues. That's also why malpractice insurance is such a big deal in the medical system. A large percentage of patients get sick in hospital, either due to hospital acquired infections, incorrect treatments, or other medical errors. We are talking millions of cases a year. Wake up and stop being such a fool.

That doesn't mean one should condemn the entire medical profession or not go to the doctor. What it means is that one shouldn't trust doctors just for being doctors. Doctors frequently make mistakes, and they are frequently shielded from accountability because other doctors don't want to rock the boat.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Strangely enough, with some squinting, I'm right every time."

I see what you did there Fry. Are you from the present but live in the future because you got froze?

Re: how is that relevant?

[TigerPlish]

So you don't trust doctors?

Before they get swallowed by SuperMegaInsuranceBackedHospitalConglomerate? Yes.

After they get swallowed? Hell no. Let me rephrase, fuck no.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody ever polices the police.

Best example ever: Fifa and Sepp Blatter.

Re:how is that relevant?

[jittles]

Except that, to work for a cab company, your finger prints go on file. Whether or not that would have helped in this case? Who knows. But I am certainly in favor of having livery drivers go through extra scrutiny - they are in a position of trust. And if they do commit crimes and leave finger prints behind, they'll get caught if they leave a fingerprint behind. I believe there have been serial killers who have found their victims through work as a taxi driver, however.

Re: how is that relevant?

[dothasmurfysmurf]

I'm sure the taxi lobbies and medallion owners have no interest in 'suggesting' to the media that they take this story and run with it, making sure to mention the Uber connection. No, I'm sure this doesn't even occur to them at all.

Re: how is that relevant?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Kind of like how doctors without borders brags about how much medicine they give out during humanitarian crises.

Re:how is that relevant?

[vel-ex-tech]

How the hell did this get to +5 insightful? Why is the AC who provided the link to mLive still at 0?

From mLive:

Here's what we know about [the shooter]:

- The father of two children, Dalton has been married since 1995.
- Neighbors said Dalton was an insurance adjuster.
- There is no known criminal history or mental illness, authorities said.
- Dalton was an Uber driver, apparently taking fares between shootings.
- He was a "car-guy" who liked to tinker with old vehicles.

(Emphasis mine.)

Insurance adjuster, family man married for 21 years, no background to check, etc.

I was going to go for a car analogy, but the shooter's already provided me one! You might as well label car enthusiasts who like old vehicles as freaks!

I mean, I'm sure I could construct an equally tortured line of reasoning that no normal person would enjoy working on cars without computer controlled fuel injection, TCS, ABS, a CAN bus, emissions monitoring, or even an OBD system, etc--only freaks.

But no, it's all totally Uber's fault.

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

Please read what I wrote before you comment on it. Not once did I say it was Uber's fault. I merely said it is a consequence that more in depth checks prevent.

Re:how is that relevant?

[amRadioHed]

It's not relevant that he was an Uber driver, it's relevant that he continued to work in the middle of the shooting spree. It's at the very least unusual behaviour that is worth noting.

Re:how is that relevant?

[vel-ex-tech]

So these in depth checks aren't needed for insurance adjusters? What exactly would such in depth checks have possibly found on a family man married for 21 years? I'm not following you.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how Uber is any more anonymous than a cab company. I usually don't even get a driver's name or car description from a cab company when I call them. I've yet to have an unprofessional Uber driver, but I've had numerous problems with cab drivers playing offensive music, littering, etc. on my property. The best argument for using Uber is your typical cab driver for the conventional cab companies.

Re: how is that relevant?

[anonymous_echidna]

More like doctors bragging how much they could charge for medicine during a humanitarian crisis...

Re: how is that relevant?

[Type44Q]

...and been slow to show up

If/ he showed up.

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

If you are a person who is mentally ill or just plain hates the world, you will not want to be in a profession where they scrutinize who you are, and keep a whole bunch of information on you. You are likely to be more of a loner, and not want to participate in a community of people. A person like that isn't even going to get to a security check because they will likely be turned off of any position once they find out they have to do one and how much the company will know about them. Most people who start the process of a security check already know that there is nothing to find and that the information on them that is retained will never work against them in any way. That's the real benefit of a security check. Doing the actual check is just a formality. An uber style job will be more attractive to mentally ill people because they prefer to hide in the shadows. All they have to do with Uber is drive well, basically. If you're a taxi driver, the system gets your fingerprints and deep down you know if you commit a crime those can be used against you. If you're an Uber driver you don't have to care about that.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Qzukk]

Granted, some people can snap without warning and without history

Like this guy, who had no criminal history prior to driving around shooting people. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/...

Re:how is that relevant?

[vel-ex-tech]

I... still don't follow you. Help me out here.

If you are a person who is mentally ill or just plain hates the world, you will not want to be in a profession where they scrutinize who you are, and keep a whole bunch of information on you.

This may or may not be true, but it sounds plausible.

[A person who is mentally ill is] likely to be more of a loner, and not want to participate in a community of people.

Again, this is very plausible depending on the mental illness.

A person like that isn't even going to get to a security check because they will likely be turned off of any position once they find out they have to do one and how much the company will know about them.

An interesting theory, however Uber requires background checks so I'm not sure how this applies. What are you suggesting Uber do?

Most people who start the process of a security check already know that there is nothing to find and that the information on them that is retained will never work against them in any way.

This may or may not be true.

That's the real benefit of a security check. Doing the actual check is just a formality.

Ok, I'll take most of the statements above as the points supporting this argument. I'm not really contesting that this dynamic may exist.

What does all this have to do with an insurance adjuster who flips out one day?

You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the suspect is an insurance adjuster. I have no reason at this point to believe he hadn't left his day job Friday afternoon. I admit that it may be possible he was recently fired or somesuch.

An uber style job will be more attractive to mentally ill people because they prefer to hide in the shadows.

Uhh... maybe? You're mixing up all kinds of different mental illnesses in this strawman you're trying to argue we need to be protected from. Personally I don't think I could driver for Uber. It sounds too social. Two hours per day is about my upper limit.

How on earth does this statement apply to a man who has been married for 21 years and has two kids?

All they have to do with Uber is drive well, basically.

This is the only statement in your post I'm absolutely certain is true.

If you're a taxi driver, the system gets your fingerprints and deep down you know if you commit a crime those can be used against you. If you're an Uber driver you don't have to care about that.

Huh? Well, in a strict sense, I suppose that no, I haven't been able to confirm what others have said about Uber collecting prints. How exactly does Uber's service work if the cars aren't constantly being tracked? Wouldn't that be worth more than mere fingerprints? Surely, Uber at least logs pick up and drop off points? I mean, if the cops have the wrong guy here, I don't see how fingerprints will help. I do however see Uber being able to provide corroborating or exonerating evidence. I suspect they have evidence that the cops have the right guy.

I'm certain at this point you're just trolling, and I probably shouldn't respond further. But hey, slow news day and I'm just glad the people I know over there were too busy with Monster Hunter on Saturday to have been at risk.

The big question for me is what exactly pushes a middle aged insurance adjuster with a wife and children (and a hobby as a car enthusiast) to fall down in real life?

I think that's the number one answer we're all looking for at this point. You seem to be barking up the completely wrong tree. Perhaps you're the mentally ill one lurking in the shadows here! When was the last time you left your mother's basement?!

Re: how is that relevant?

[tnk1]

If you think a taxi driver would have necessarily had better vetting, I invite you to watch a classic of cinema:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

Re:how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

I'm not really interested in going down this rabbit hole with you. Uber was founded in March 2009 and they have 3/4 the drivers of the taxi industry. So they have been around for 7 years and have had one event like this. I understand that one event does not a trend make, but I am hypothesizing that it is the beginning of a trend if nothing changes. How long have taxi regulations been around? 50-60 years? Where are the 7-10 taxi drivers that have also flipped out and conducted mass shootings. You won't find them, because they are more socially connected then the Uber driver and they are registered with authorities. Communities and keeping people connected and known are a powerful thing and they keep people safer.

Re:how is that relevant?

[vel-ex-tech]

Bwahahaha! You're being funny today!

Re: how is that relevant?

[rockout]

A guy "has a feeling" that is backed up by no facts whatsoever, and you have a feeling that it's the "Best. Comment. Ever." with extra periods, because that makes your reading of it somehow more emphatic. Gotcha.

We're all fucked.

Re: how is that relevant?

[rockout]

This is the company who bragged about how their revenue spiked during the Sydney shooting

Bullshit. That never happened. Uber made news during that shooting because the spike in ride requests triggered computerized surge pricing, which human beings immediately stopped once they figured out it was a shooting that was happening, and in fact, made the rides free. You literally just made that drivel up, and somehow got modded up for it. Congratulations.

Re: how is that relevant?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Except that doctors don't get the money from medicine sales. Maybe you should change your example to Hospitals or pharmaceutical companies.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Man On Pink Corner]

"Why you wanna hack?"

"Can't sleep nights."

Re: how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

You comment, on the other hand, was absolutely terrible.

Re: how is that relevant?

[bug_hunter]

The truth is somewhere in the middle and much more subtle.
The humans most definitely did not stop the price surge "immediately" when they realised it was due to a shooting, here was Uber's original tweet

"We are all concerned with events in CBD. Fares have increased to encourage more drivers to come online and pick up passengers in the area."
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...

After a quick social media backlash, they changed their tune to this
"Uber Sydney trips from CBD will be free for riders. Higher rates are still in place to encourage drivers to get into the CBD."

So the algorithm upped the price, Uber was happy with that, everybody else wasn't, Uber then did the right thing.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's relevant because Uber maintains they need not abide by any regulations to keep their customers safe. They flout laws, and if it should be found out that this person had something in his past that would have disqualified him from a regular taxi job it's going to be VERY relevant.

Granted, some people can snap without warning and without history, but basically Uber opened itself up to this based on public corporate behavior. Nobody would care if they didn't constantly make a spectacle of themselves ignoring laws.

If only guns were regulated and murder was illegal this would have never happened /s

Re: how is that relevant?

[Balthisar]

In this case, though, the customers were safe. This guy attacked non-customers (or rather, people who weren't currently customers).

Re:how is that relevant?

[Jack Griffin]

If he had been a regular cab driver, he might have done the same

I think there is a movie about that.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Jack Griffin]

This is the company who bragged about how their revenue spiked during the Sydney shooting - all the people calling Uber because they are desperate to get the hell out of the crossfire...

There was no crossfire, and being there didn't see much desperation other than "sweet, I got half a day off work!"
Also worth noting that most of the deaths in that incident were at the hands of the Police, not the loser with the gun.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Jack Griffin]

So you invent some numbers then challenge us to do the research for you?
I challenge you to learn how 'Burden of Proof' works.

Re: how is that relevant?

[silentcoder]

So.... not at all like doctors without borders then

Re: how is that relevant?

[silentcoder]

Wrong. They bragged. On twitter. Look it up. They only ended the surge pricing when instead of the praise they hoped for tge tweet unleashed a backlash.

Re: how is that relevant?

[silentcoder]

Literally not a single word in that post is relevant to my point. Moreover its anecdotal and unverified (read: utterly useless) and entirely subjective in its assessment. I shall give it the respect it deserves by ignoring it forthwith.

Re: how is that relevant?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Depends on what you are referring to.

Re: how is that relevant?

[silentcoder]

There is a huge difference between assuring donors their money was well spent and proudly profiteering from death and humsn suffering.

Re:how is that relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was on BIG PHARMA drugs the side effects of which mess with your mind...This is always ignored on slashdot and on MSM as it would impact Big Pharma profits.

Re: how is that relevant?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes there is a difference, but that doesn't make them mutually exclusive. It's like saying there's a huge difference between teachers and bankers, but that doesn't mean that a person can't be a banker and a teacher (e.g. a professor at a business school, etc).

Also, I'm not the one who brought up profiteering in relation to doctors without borders. That was someone else. My comment was a suggestion to make that persons example more realistic.

Re: how is that relevant?

[Jack Griffin]

You'll ignore it apart from when you don't? Gold.
Listen up everyone, I am ignoring this! No wait I said I'm ignoring it! Can you hear me, I am ignoring this! Look at how I am ignoring this by replying to it!
You might want to go look up what that word means pea brain...

Re: how is that relevant?

[rockout]

No, it was a good example of calling out an idiot for his teenager-inspired response to drivel.

Re: how is that relevant?

[rockout]

I did look it up, and found nothing that approached bragging. Perhaps you'd care to share evidence of this so-called "bragging" that you're so sure happened. Or maybe you're just anti-uber because, well, fuck new technology, or something.

Re: how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

Well, if people like you care about it so much to comment on it, then it must be worth writing.

Re: how is that relevant?

[rockout]

Complete non sequitur. I only cared to tell you what an idiot you are. I don't what the "it" in your ridiculous statement referred to anyway, and neither do you, I suspect. You fucking moron.

Re: how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

You know what, its debatable whether I'm an idiot our not, but you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're an asshole. I'd much rather be an idiot, even if that is indeed true. Enough said.

Re: how is that relevant?

[rockout]

That's your opinion. But then again, when someone calls out an idiot for being an idiot, that idiot always thinks that person is an asshole. So for what it's worth, who cares?

Re: how is that relevant?

[fluffernutter]

I didn't call you an asshole for calling me an idiot. Your an asshole because you feel so strongly about it that you can't just leave it alone now that it's said.

Re: how is that relevant?

[rockout]

Well, if it's your opinion that someone that can't leave something alone is an asshole, I guess you're calling yourself an asshole.

I disagree, though. I still just think you're an idiot.

"You're not the shooter, are you?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Was his middle name Lucky?

Uber does not seem to be involved...

[sjbe]

Ok they keep mentioning the Uber thing as if it is somehow relevant. The guy killed some people then did some unrelated stuff and then was caught. Why do I give a shit that the unrelated stuff happened to be driving for Uber? I'm pretty sure some regular taxi drivers do some nefarious shit too sometimes. If he used Uber to find victims then that is relevant but I've heard no indication that is the case here. If Uber did background checks on this person then all it indicates is the general futility of most background checks. I know Uber is all the watercooler talk these days but this is just bad journalism.

I have no stance on Uber. Never used them and I have no firm opinion (positive or negative) regarding their company, products or services. I just don't see how they are relevant to this story.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[halivar]

Slashdot has a strange obsession with Uber. They post literally everything Uber related. I just don't get it.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[tehcyder]

Agreed, this story needed at least one of: 3D printed guns, Elon Musk or bitcoins to tick the required number of slashdot boxes.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[rmdingler]

Oh, they're involved all right... the victims' families have someone to sue.

Ask Tracy Morgan if Walmart was involved.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or graphene. Can't forget the daily articles about how graphene is saving starving babies in Africa and fixing the Flint water crisis.

Elon Musk was caught in Kalamazoo 3D printing graphene guns while accepting bitcoins as payment from Uber riders.

And what the fuck kind of name is Elon Musk anyway? That sounds like some sort of cover name you'd use at the urologist office for anonymity. "Mr Musk, your prosthetic penis is ready for pickup"

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[fluffernutter]

I saw these kinds of comments coming, and I googled on 'taxi driver shooters'. I found many Taxi drivers getting shot in the US but none actually doing any shootings. The taxi industry knows who they are, so it is far less likely someone who is on the edge will engage in an industry that takes their fingerprints before they can participate.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[oh_my_080980980]

Wow, way to rationalize the killing ass-hole.

Uber is relevant because Uber claims not to be a taxi service and thus do not have to follow any livery laws. The HUGE problem for Uber is ANYONE can drive for them. The other thing ass-hole is mass-killing like this tend to get reported. So if a taxi driver went on a killing spree it would happen or are you of the George Costanza mind that you typically lose a few fairs to killings....fucking ass-hole.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Thud457]

I know, strange, innit?
Elon Musk has nothing to do with Uber.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw these kinds of comments coming, and I googled on 'taxi driver shooters'. I found many Taxi drivers getting shot in the US but none actually doing any shootings. The taxi industry knows who they are, so it is far less likely someone who is on the edge will engage in an industry that takes their fingerprints before they can participate.

Unpleasant facts about Uber, Google or systemd will get you modded down fast around here. They're just the BEST, ok?!

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Freedom includes freedom to enter a profession of your choosing. Medallion systems and uselessly onerous regulations step on this.

Some prefer government carve up markets at the behest of entrenched business interests...because they hate businesses controlling government for its own benefit.

Wait. That can't be right.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[idontgno]

Does Uber uses systemd in their technological infrastructure? That might explain it.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Mal-2]

If anything, this serves as an example that Uber is not particularly risky for passengers. I mean, if someone who has already been out killing people has no interest in killing random passengers, then chances are nobody else will either unless there's another reason behind it (rape, robbery, resemblance to someone they hate, whatever).

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really it's not just the fact that ANYONE can drive for them, it's also the fact that pyschopaths who cannot be employed anywhere else will actively seek out Uber because it lends cover and legitimacey to them as they carry out their crimes against humanity.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Zocalo]

systemd uber alles?

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[fluffernutter]

Wow. Did you do that analysis all by yourself?

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Slashdot has a strange obsession with Uber. They post literally everything Uber related. I just don't get it.

People who travel for business a lot seem to really be into Uber. I therefore postulate that the editors of Slashdot must travel a lot for business.

This is very relevant subject to most Slashdot users, in fact. I myself am a frequent business traveler. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to "catch a flight" and travel upstairs to see what kind of progress my colleague "Mom" has made with the We Need More Pizza Rolls project.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Locke2005]

So, Ammon Bundy was fighting for Uber's constitutional right to it's business model, then?

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Locke2005]

Right... that's the same kind of reasoning that makes me always carry a bomb when I take an airplane, because the odds against their being 2 bombs on the same aircraft are phenomenal!

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Needs more nanotubes.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[SethJohnson]

I found many Taxi drivers getting shot in the US but none actually doing any shootings.

In addition to the famous documentary starring Robert Deniro and Jody Foster, I can also attest that a taxi driver in Austin, TX killed two of my coworkers in the year 2000. They had gone to a nearby bar after work to see a boxing match on PPV and took a taxi back to pick up their cars at the office. Midway back to the office, the driver got into an argument with his two passengers and pulled to the side of the road.They attempted to flee and he shot them in the back. He told police they had tried to rob him.

He worked for an independent, local cab company at the time of the murders.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[0100010001010011]

If they paid with bitcoin /. would have lost their shit.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[thegarbz]

I saw these kinds of comments coming, and I googled on 'taxi driver shooters'. I found many Taxi drivers getting shot in the US but none actually doing any shootings.

Yep because people who go on mass shooting sprees are concerned about the likelyhood of getting caught. Makes a lot of sense.

I have another take on your data: Maybe you couldn't find any information about taxi driver shooters because taxi driving is just a profession but unlike Uber it's not a controversial click attracting company which you can tag your story to for more drama!

The taxi industry knows who they are, so it is far less likely someone who is on the edge will engage in an industry that takes their fingerprints before they can participate.

Not sure about you but if I were going on shootings I'd put the effort into using a nondescript taxi rather than my personal car with personal plates. Notice he got pulled over after a matched description of the car? Who gives a crap about fingerprints?

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is very relevant subject to most Slashdot users

Why? The event will not change any existing technologies or policies, nor has it raised a new issue. It's just "this happened", with no side effect.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Pseudonymous Powers]

> This is very relevant subject to most Slashdot users

Why? The event will not change any existing technologies or policies, nor has it raised a new issue. It's just "this happened", with no side effect.

Uh... okay. I'm no longer surprised when people aren't willing to read three pages of setup to get to my punchlines, especially given the uneven quality of those punchlines. But I must say I did think they'd read at least one sentence past the sarcastic remark that made them mad, if for no other reason than to have more stuff to be outraged about.

Re: Uber does not seem to be involved...

[dothasmurfysmurf]

Brilliant lol

Re: Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy again. It's obvious from your posts that either a) you work for a taxi company or b) they took errrrr jerbzzzzzzz.

Most likely both.

Re: Uber does not seem to be involved...

[dothasmurfysmurf]

Elon Musk 3D printed guns that fire bitcoins, it was one of these guns that the Uber driver used. The story is being suppressed by the TPPTA until militarized law enforcement gets the drones to use surveillance of people through walls using gravity waves to make sure this tragedy doesn't happen again. After all, think of the children!

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two bombs and an airplane, that's a shocker!

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

The clickbait has to be it. Insurance adjuster goes on shooting rampage isn't something that the media can really sell.

The best I can guess at this point is that this guy was having a financial or marital problem of some kind and decided that a jail cell would be the best place to live out the rest of his years.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[vel-ex-tech]

The shooter appears to have been an insurance adjuster.

He very easily could have gone on the killing spree without Uber being involved at all. The only thing I can speculate from Uber's involvement is that perhaps he had financial problems.

You'll see more of this kind of thing the more the middle class gets squeezed. I can't see many other ways that a family man who's been married for 21 years decides one day to go kill a bunch of random people. It's not just jihadists (both Christian and Muslim brands) and mentally unstable butthurt guys who can't get laid any more.

Also, he wasn't really a good shot. I forget if the article I linked (there's plenty of them on mLive covering different aspects) mentioned it, but the guy fired 30 bullets all in all. This really looks to be a completely spur of the moment desperate lashing out until more details arrive.

I'd also speculate that he wanted to be convicted. Doesn't Uber track the location of their cars?

But then again, one of the things I love about flyover country is the background radiation of batshit crazy we have around here! I must have jinxed it when I openly wondered the other day why there hasn't been more violence in Michigan.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not every day has an Apple story, so they have to fill the page somehow...

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[painandgreed]

Slashdot has a strange obsession with Uber. They post literally everything Uber related. I just don't get it.

It's probably the same as it was with Apple articles, Drovak's articles, anything that people can complain about SJW, or anything that goes to Forbes: they all draw in lots of comments and therefore create the click counts that drive the website. If people just brushed past them without commenting, they'd probably stop getting posted. As long as that continues, they'll still keep giving the readers what it seems like they want. If you don't want to see them anymore, stop reading them and posting to them.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[HornWumpus]

Damn I miss the background crazies. Here in CA they are front and center, many in state and local government.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Jack Griffin]

Ok they keep mentioning the Uber thing as if it is somehow relevant.

But more importantly was he an Android or iPhone user?

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Jack Griffin]

I found many Taxi drivers getting shot in the US but none actually doing any shootings. The taxi industry knows who they are, so it is far less likely someone who is on the edge will engage in an industry that takes their fingerprints before they can participate.

Cool story. Now try googling "Taxi Driver Rape" and let us know how your faith in Taxi Driver screening standards is affected.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

He was on BIG PHARMA drugs the side effects of which mess with your mind...This is always ignored on slashdot and on MSM as it would impact Big Pharma profits.All the shooters are on these drugs but slash dotters never do research as it would impact big pharma profits and big phgarma has a very long reach.They can fire with a single phone call.

Re:Uber does not seem to be involved...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember this having worked for The Statesman at the time. Just to add they where pumped up and drunk after watching that Tyson PPV. The argument with the cab driver was over the fare and they were belligerent as hell, ready to fight.

Did not excuse the shooting though and cabbie was convicted. He lost a lot of weight in jail and died several months later of natural causes.

That story has stayed with me for years because of the senselessness of both parties invovled.

Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much point in trying to figure out what drives a person to go on a killing spree while going about their day job.
Media should be prohibited from publishing the names of the offenders and details of the crime in the news.
Lock them up. Throw away the key. Focus efforts in treating existing crazy, rather than inspiring it with the misdeeds of others.

Re:Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

The media should assign them a new name, something mocking. This way, instead of a monument being there forever displaying a killer's handiwork, with their name on it, it would not state their name, or call the killer something like Floppy Fanny, or Junk-less Jack.

Any manifestos should be barred from being published for at least 2-3 years. Last Memorial Day, the press paid attention to the last killer, far more than anything else. Lets not give these people attention. They need to be treated like streakers in bowl events -- completely ignored by the press.

Re:Crazy

[Locke2005]

Now if we can just figure out why cops go on killing sprees while going about their day job...

Re:Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

The media should assign them a new name, something mocking.

Sometimes these things are counter-intuitive.

For example, if you have a friend who is suicidal, the general advice is not to try to convince them not to do it - at least not by using shame and guilt and fear (i.e. how much they will hurt the people they care about) because that will just make them feel worse about themselves and more lonely and misunderstood. That's not to say that you can't appreciative and caring: "You're someone I genuinely like having around and I'm sorry that things are tough for you and I'd like to help."

And there's a good chance that someone who was considering becoming a shooter themselves would (already) identify with previous shooters. So rather than thinking "I'd better not become a shooter because then people will mock me" they will think "Wow, people are (already) mocking me and people like me. I hate them and want vengeance." So mocking previous shooters would actually motivate more shootings.

They need to be treated like streakers in bowl events -- completely ignored by the press.

Yes, but not their issues, per se. Let's say that some middle class white male is really feeling squeezed by the economy: like a slave that is constantly whipped to maximize his output. Well, if you can create an environment that recognizes that there are solutions and recognizes progress towards those solutions (e.g. there are other countries in the world that have been successful in fostering economic systems that don't squeeze ordinary people in their populations anywhere near as hard as the USA) - then your potential shooters can feel some hope for the future and feel that there's less of a need to end it all in a blaze of glorious vengeance,

Ban Uber!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously it can be used for illegal purposes!

So we need to make it MOAR ILLGULZ!!!

Rating

[puddingebola]

One star. Decent aim, but poor customer service.

Re:Rating

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Brutus is going to get paroled from the ninth layer of hell to make room for you. I'd kiss a few orphans today if I were you.

Irony

[PvtVoid]

The irony is that he had to have a license to drive his car, but to buy the handgun? Not so much.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is that he had to have a license to drive his car, but to buy the handgun? Not so much.

Riiiight.

Because telling someone that they need a license for a gun is going to matter to someone planning murder.

Something about that word "murder" tells me that the person might not care about the law. I dunno why.

Re:Irony

[ArchieBunker]

I'm glad those drivers licenses stop cars from running into people.

Re:Irony

[Locke2005]

Exactly, in the same way that restraining orders prevent murders, because obviously nobody intent on committing a capitol crime would dare to violate a restraining order!

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

But he did need to go through a background check and would have needed a license to carry legally.

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

There's no explicitly enumerated Constitutional right to drive a car. The right to bear arms is enumerated clearly.

But here's something to think about:. What problems were solved by requiring him to have a license to drive a car?

What problems do drivers licenses solve for anyone? Do they ensure that all licensed drivers are good drivers? Do they keep unlicensed drivers off the roads? Do criminals and other lawless people obey drivers license laws? If you lost your drivers license would you drive without one if a dire emergency required it?

We would be better off without the licensing requirement for drivers over 21. A court could still issue an order to prohibit a bad driver, or a drunk driver, or whomever else from driving. The only difference would be that courts provide a person with due process.

Licensing requirements for driving mostly provide the government with an excuse and a mechanism to bully and control and tax ordinary citizens.

And also note: there would be a lot fewer "driving while black" police stops without this excuse to bully people.

Re:Irony

[KGIII]

More people die due to car accidents than they do to shootings. I'm sure you had a point but it's not clear to me what you're trying to say.

Do you want to have a license to vote? No? Why should this right require a license, other than because you're afraid? Hell, you do far more societal damage with a vote than you do with a firearm.

Re:Irony

[ScentCone]

The irony is that he had to have a license to drive his car, but to buy the handgun?

Licensed drivers kill far more people than do murderers who use guns (whether obtained and possessed legally OR illegally). The irony here is that you think you're making some sort of constructive point, when you're actually undermining what appears to be your agenda.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is that he had to have a license to drive his car, but to buy the handgun? Not so much.

50,000 people a year are killed by cars.

Is that the irony you were trying to point out?

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, clearly getting licensed would've prevented this tragedy.

I mean, no one has ever killed anyone with a car. Certainly not while drunk. Or speeding. Or purposely attempting to cause harm. And, we have the licensing system to thank for that.

Re:Irony

[PvtVoid]

Licensed drivers kill far more people than do murderers who use guns (whether obtained and possessed legally OR illegally). The irony here is that you think you're making some sort of constructive point, when you're actually undermining what appears to be your agenda.

This has to be the stupidest thing I've read in a very long time, even on /.

Overall death rates involving motor vehicles and firearms are roughly equal, somewhat in excess of 30,000 per year in the U.S. (The motor vehicle death rate is comparable to other developed nations, while the firearm death rate is far higher.) If you want to talk only about "muderers who use guns", then the relevant comparison is firearm homicides (more than 8,000 in 2011according to the FBI), to vehicular homicides, which are so rare that it is difficult to even find statistics on them. A few hundred a year at most.

Re:Irony

[Slim_Jack]

Ironically, only a month earlier someone who had an unlicensed car murdered an innocent woman only a few miles away from the shooting: http://www.mlive.com/news/kala...

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad those drivers licenses stop cars from running into people.

And when a licensed driver does something reckless, they can have the use of a car revoked. But when someone does something reckless with a gun, they cannot have the use of a gun revoked (unless you have a felony conviction IIRC).

The fact that driving standards are so low in the US says more about the US then it does about the licensing system. While it's hard to compare different countries (because of other societal variables), there generally is a tendency for stricter gun control laws to correspond with lower fatality rates. This is true even with-in the US: with states that have stronger laws (MA, MD, HI, CA) generally have lower per capita firearms-related rates than those states with looser laws (AK, TX, IN).

While the 2A is in US law, I really don't see a practical use for it--not even the idea of "fighting of the government" scenario. But that's just me.

Re:Irony

[Xest]

"There's no explicitly enumerated Constitutional right to drive a car. The right to bear arms is enumerated clearly."

I'm not an American so I'll have to profess my ignorance of the details of your constitution, but I'm intrigued, does the constitution state the right to bear all or any arms? if it doesn't then the constitution could legally satisfied by defining a pillow as the only type of arms legally allowed - i.e. you have the right to bear arms, just not necessarily very good ones. If it does then doesn't that mean American citizens (including the crazies and terrorists) can and should be given access to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as well?

Or does it explicitly define which arms are allowed?

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

I'm not an American so I'll have to profess my ignorance of the details of your constitution, but I'm intrigued, does the constitution state the right to bear all or any arms? if it doesn't then the constitution could legally satisfied by defining a pillow as the only type of arms legally allowed - i.e. you have the right to bear arms, just not necessarily very good ones.

In general, legal protections don't work that way. If courts allow every trick anyone can think of to circumvent an enumerated right, then you effectively have no rights, all laws are essentially meaningless, and government power is absolute. Courts and lawyers have a professional interest in all laws not being essentially meaningless.

If it does then doesn't that mean American citizens (including the crazies and terrorists) can and should be given access to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as well?

Courts have ruled that the right extends to arms in "common use", based partly on the idea that the guys who wrote the Constitution probably meant that when they said "bear arms". Prohibitions on arms are being scrutinized using either strict or intermediate scrutiny. Nukes are controlled because they're not in common use among individuals and there's a really good argument for controlling them. (Read the scrutiny definitions for exact details on this.)

Re:Irony

[kbg]

There's no explicitly enumerated Constitutional right to drive a car. The right to bear arms is enumerated clearly.

Yes and that is stupid. Just like if it was a constitutional right to drive a car it would be stupid.

But here's something to think about:. What problems were solved by requiring him to have a license to drive a car?

It solves two problems. First it requires all cars to have identifications that the can be checked at any time. Second it means that the person has gone through the required training and background checks.

What problems do drivers licenses solve for anyone? Do they ensure that all licensed drivers are good drivers?

Not all but most. Just like a strict license for guns would do. And that is the point.

Do they keep unlicensed drivers off the roads? Do criminals and other lawless people obey drivers license laws? If you lost your drivers license would you drive without one if a dire emergency required it?

Yes it keeps unlicensed driver off the road to an extend. Yes criminals mostly obey drivers licence law because being caught witout on can get you in trouble. No I would drive without a license in an emergency and I would face the consequences but what has that to do with anything?

Licensing requirements for driving mostly provide the government with an excuse and a mechanism to bully and control and tax ordinary citizens.

Yes and that is a good thing. The government needs power to enforce regulations like policing and taxing.

And also note: there would be a lot fewer "driving while black" police stops without this excuse to bully people.

That is a completely different problem not related to drivers licenses.

Re:Irony

[HornWumpus]

Cite your statistics. Because your wrong. In the USA the dangerous places have strict gun laws and lots of gun crime. The safe places have loose gun laws.

Re:Irony

[HornWumpus]

'Arms' is a word and has a meaning. It had an even more explicit meaning in 1776.

'Arms' are the range of weapons that would be carried by an infantryman.

So nothing more deadly than a chemical weapons grenade. e.g. CS gas. Which is actually a bitch to find on the market.

It's been redefined by the gun grabbers to mean 'no full auto'. Fuckers.

Re:Irony

[cayenne8]

The fact that driving standards are so low in the US says more about the US then it does about the licensing system. While it's hard to compare different countries (because of other societal variables), there generally is a tendency for stricter gun control laws to correspond with lower fatality rates. This is true even with-in the US: with states that have stronger laws (MA, MD, HI, CA) generally have lower per capita firearms-related rates than those states with looser laws (AK, TX, IN).

While the 2A is in US law, I really don't see a practical use for it--not even the idea of "fighting of the government" scenario. But that's just me.

Well, if you are from a country other than the US, and like it like that there, fine. But, really...you have no real right or need to comment on how we deal with things here with driving or gun laws. That is purely OUR business, and has nothing to do with you or your country's laws.

You don't need to understand it....

And if you actually look at some meaningful stats, look to see in cities/states that have concealed firearms ability....crime goes down.

And to get a more true picture..they need to remove suicide from the gun stats....that isn't a crime, that's just someone taking themselves out of the gene pool, the tool they use is irrelavent.

Re:Irony

[HornWumpus]

When considering the risk of owning a gun, accidental rates 35,000 vs 500 is primary.

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

No I would drive without a license in an emergency and I would face the consequences but what has that to do with anything?

Why should there be consequences? Are you a criminal? Why should you be treated like one for acting like anyone else would in an emergency?

If you can drive without a license in an emergency, why not all the time? Are you a better driver in an emergency?

And also note: there would be a lot fewer "driving while black" police stops without this excuse to bully people.

That is a completely different problem not related to drivers licenses.

Government power gets used against people. Always. It's not a "different problem", it's the problem.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking about this over the weekend. This analogy doesn't work the way you want it to. He didn't have to have a license to buy the car, he had to have one to operate it in the public infrastructure. Without a license, he could still buy the car, have a truck haul it to his personal property. He could strip out every piece of safety equipment on the vehicle. He could drive it on his own property with no registration, no insurance, and even in a manner that endangers the lives of himself and his neighbors. The only time that license matters is if he touches public thoroughfares and the only time the government reaches into his property for that private operation is if his negligent driving causes harm to another party.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

While it has been hammered into our heads that a driving is a privilege and not a right I disagree. The constitution says nothing about the means of transportation and anything that inhibits ones ability to travel should be considered unconstitutional. There were no drivers licenses at the time of the constitution and nobody would have thought the dangers of driving a non-motor car somehow overturn the right of a person to travel freely. This narrow concept that it only means they can't stop you from travelling via ?some never clearly defined means? is non-sense. For all practical purposes they have ruined peoples abilities to travel where they please and inhibited ones right to travel. Most places one would want to go are not accessible by any means other than with a vehicle. It is even illegal to travel by other means in many cases (horse, etc).

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The shooter also passed whatever existing background checks he needed to get the firearm, passed the Uber background check, and even passed his customers' check of whether or not he was the shooter.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

> It solves two problems. First it requires all cars to have identifications that the can be checked at any time. Second it means that the person has gone through the required training and background checks.

Papers please? Drivers licenses are the equivalent of Soviet's internal passport. The government uses them to punish (for example: kids who are caught gratifying can't get a drivers license until a certain age) people and stop many from travelling that they don't like. It's not the only tool they use, but it is one of them. It's quite scary. Try being an activist sometime and you'll quickly find out all the different means they have to stop you. They don't arrest you for whatever the 'crime' you might be protesting is- they arrest you for something that you probably didn't do or every other person is also doing. You recorded a conversation during a protest rally? That's wire-tapping, resisting arrest, and disorderly conduct.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean to carry(operate) in public? The exact same thing that a drivers license does (as opposed to regulate buying or use on private property.)

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were statistical tools to tell us whether the stricter firearm laws in developed nations are predictive of implementing the same laws. If only those statistical tools told us a story consistent with the gun control narrative.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

It is great for people to have a reasoned opinion to control guns. It is a little saddening when they twist statistics to say things that are not entirely true. It is downright mindboggling to see someone say that it is stupid that people who were barred from having arms for the specific purpose of oppressing them would specifically protect that right in their founding documents when they broke away from their original government.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't ironic at all.

Every minute that you are behind the wheel of a car, you are putting other people's lives at risk. Every minute that your gun is sitting on a shelf, or in your holster, or in your hand but not ready to fire, you aren't putting anyone's life in danger. Unsurprisingly, cars are used (by accident) to kill tremendously more people than guns (both on purpose and by accident).

Cars are far more dangerous than guns. And also there is that bit about gun ownership being explicitly protected by the constitution, unlike the right to drive.

Re:Irony

[radarskiy]

"What problems do drivers licenses solve for anyone?

Obviously: Voter Identification.

Re:Irony

[JoeMerritt]

A driver's license teaches you the laws concerning driving, and ensures you have sufficient proficiency. Is your statement implying he didn't know murdering people was illegal? Or that his aim was too poor? How would a licensing system have prevented this? Background checks for FFL purchases are a federal level law that applies to all states.

Re:Irony

[Dunavant]

Pretty sure it was more than that, seeing as it was, and still is, legal to also own artillery (cannons). You see them all the time at really old homes, though they're usually painted over to keep from rusting, and are more like statues now. There are some still-in-use privately owned ones by clubs.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't looked at your statistics, but homicide, probably not what you think it means. Remember, all murders are homicides, most homicides aren't murders. A homicide is simply when one person kills another person, be it on purpose or by accident. Any car accident where someone other than the at fault driver dies is legally a homicide. The claim of only a few hundred a year as such is extremely unbelievable.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

To "bear arms" is a phrase that also had specific meaning back then: to wield weapons *as a soldier.* It is very clear the 2nd is referring to weapons kept by those in regulated militias (the states were very concerned Congress might disarm the state militias to wrest tighter control of the states). As noted by Jatice Stevens in the Heller dissent, earlier drafts of the 2nd had a conscientious objector clause attached, saying that anyone with religious objection to bearing arms could refuse so long as they paid enough for the government to hire another person to bear arms in their place. This makes zero sense if the meaning of "bear arms" is anything other than *wielding weapons as part of a government-regulated militia.*

Re:Irony

[JoeMerritt]

Eh, I think I get his point. "Deaths when these items are used as intended" would perhaps describe his approach. Yes a lot of people commit suicide with a firearm, and it is unfortunate, but when it is a intentional choice made by an adult (someone under 18 cannot legally purchase a firearm) I don't see it in the same category as "accidental death" or "murder". If we want to talk about reducing suicides that is a different conversation.

Comparing accidental firearm deaths with accidental car deaths we'd find cars are much higher.
Comparing murders with firearms to cars we'd find firearms are much higher.
Comparing suicide method use between firearms and cars we'd find firearms are much higher.

So why are we so accepting of automobile deaths? I posit it is because everyone finds great utility in cars, and think "that will not happen to me". Many people today live in such comfort and safety that they have never needed to touch a firearm and thus see them as something they will never need or want, and so they're easy to dismiss in a "go ahead and ban them, I have never needed them" sort of way. If you dig further in to the firearm deaths issue, it resolves as an inner city drug dealer/drug war/gang problem, not the general firearm homicide problem it is pitched as. But statistics appear racist to some people so we don't bring it up.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easier!
Paul Giametti, in some film.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who lost their license a few times during their years of misspent youth, I can assure you that eventually you'll be caught for driving un-licensed, locked up, fined, and soon see the light.

You want to have everyone driving paying for insurance, people's health and lives are on the line, along with their property and livelihood (paid for a car to get to work). I did not fully understand the implications of my behavior and I'm glad no one got hurt. I could have ruined someone's life and not been able to pay for damages.

A driver's license is not some Big Evil Government plan to beat people into submission, it's a response to issues that arose after we moved from the horse and buggy. That you were not born then is no excuse for your ignorance now.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about that. The fact that the framers didn't see fit to make any mention of a warship with a broadside of upwards of 20 cannons or military grade artillery not being the same thing as a muzzle loading musket indicates they didn't mean to draw any lines.

If the argument is that some modern weapons cross an unforeseen line the correct responce would be to amend the Constitution to clarify the distinction, as as written there's no defensibility to to idea that the 2nd amendment allows restriction of private ownership of any kind of armament.

Re:Irony

[kbg]

Why should there be consequences? Are you a criminal? Why should you be treated like one for acting like anyone else would in an emergency?

Since it is against the law it is possible there could be consequences but most likely the judge would dismiss it if it was a real emergency.

If you can drive without a license in an emergency, why not all the time? Are you a better driver in an emergency?

No but there is not emergency going on all the time for all people. This is about preventing accidents for the whole population in general not individual instances.

Government power gets used against people. Always. It's not a "different problem", it's the problem.

Then you have the wrong goverment. You should not vote those people into power.

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

No but there is not emergency going on all the time for all people. This is about preventing accidents for the whole population in general not individual instances.

All accidents are individual. Licenses do not convey driving ability upon people. Most adults have one, so most adults could clearly be trusted to drive (at least as much as they already are trusted) even if they didn't have one.

It hasn't been shown that a licensing scheme increases safety or prevents accidents. People who want to police everyone all the time will tell you it does, but they don't have any facts to back it up.

Then you have the wrong goverment. You should not vote those people into power.

Governments eventually become "the wrong government". Power gets abused. The only powers that don't eventually get abused are the powers a government doesn't have.

We would be wise to only give government power when there's a clear necessity, and then only with strong safeguards.

Re:Irony

[Agripa]

The closest that it gets to defining which arms are protected (The Bill of Rights recognizes existing rights and protects them. Other parts of the Constitution define what powers are "allowed" to the government.) is in the prefatory clause which presumably would protect arms suitable for a well regulated militia.

To me that means arms which a soldier would carry and it would certainly include anything which a law enforcement officer would carry. The 1939 United States v. Miller case supports that interpretation insofar as there was no adversarial process to present evidence of what arms were used by soldiers.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The recent Heller decision would protect "those in common use for lawful purposes" while allowing "prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons".

State courts have gone both ways as far as what is protected and US Supreme Court review is possible on what more precisely constitutes "arms".

Re:Irony

[mjwx]

What problems do drivers licenses solve for anyone? Do they ensure that all licensed drivers are good drivers? Do they keep unlicensed drivers off the roads?

Yes.

Contrary to your belief, this is exactly what they accomplish when combined with semi-competent law enforcement.

Why, because if you're caught driving without a license you risk jail in many countries. Because if you dont have a drivers license you cant work in many professions here in Australia. The risk of losing your license is enough to dissuade many, many people from doing the wrong thing.

Do you honestly want to argue that we'll have less people breaking the law if we didn't license drivers, that we'd have fewer bad drivers if they never had to sit a driving assessment?

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

Do you honestly want to argue that we'll have less people breaking the law if we didn't license drivers,

Obviously we will. When you repeal a law, no one breaks that law any more. A whole class on law breakers entirely disappears.

that we'd have fewer bad drivers if they never had to sit a driving assessment?

You'd have exactly the same number. The license doesn't turn a bad driver into a good driver. It's a piece of plastic and an entry into a database somewhere. Driving ability is unchanged.

And you already have a whole class of people driving on your roads who never had to take your assessment: foreign visitors. You have no idea how any of them were tested. But they can rent a car and drive legally with whatever passes for a license from their country. They've been doing it all along. Did it cause the end of civilization?

Anyway, you might be comfortable with throwing otherwise innocent, ordinary people in jail for merely driving without government permission. I'm not. I don't like the government bullying people based on vague fears with zero facts to back them up.

Re:Irony

[Xest]

The problem is though that humanity is on a constant path of miniaturisation, arms from 1776 held by an infantryman were far less deadly than arms now carried by an infantryman. A handheld rapid fire grenade launcher now like an RG-6 is more deadly than a massive single ship or fort mounted cannon was back in 1776. Am I correct in assuming that your definition also hence includes things like shoulder launched missiles such as Stingers?

So if the definition drops to those weapons carryable by infantry, then what happens as this path continues? How would technology such as an exo-suit fit in? Does the weapon have to be carryable under the person's own strength or does augmentation tech count?

I'll admit I don't really understand the logic of a piece of law like the constitution being treated as a never changing document because the world does change, but my intrigue was rather how people who do believe in the constitution cater to that change. To me it was rather telling that everyone that has answered has effectively argued that yes WMDs should be excluded from that right to bear arms, but that each person's argument is slightly different - it suggests that the constitution is ultimately already in a state of flux because barely anyone is willing to accept it's statements as absolutes (because that inherently means allowing private WMD stockpiles) but that because they wont accept absolutes they have to instead come up with their own arbitrary interpretation, at which point it's a question of whose interpretation is correct? That typically sounds like it's the people in government or manning the courts, but those people change, and so the defined interpretation of the constitution will change meaning the constitution isn't the static unchanging document it's professed to be. I see many arguments about politicians et. al. going against the constitution, but unless the constitution is treated as an absolute (which no one seems willing to do, again, because of what that implies - even in areas like free speech I understand the US has at least some restrictions - i.e. the classic shouting fire in a crowded theatre) then isn't that ultimately inevitable? Aren't politicians merely going against the constitution because almost everyone agrees that it's not practical to treat it as an absolute? Isn't the discussion therefore simply about how much the constitution should be ignored as an absolute with people commonly declaring their own personal interpretation of it as the correct interpretation when anything other than an absolute interpretation is ultimately going to be subjective?

Like I say I'm genuinely intrigued to better understand the thinking and discussions around the constitution as it's so different to what we have here - here if the law needs to change we just have a discussion about changing it and that's the end of it - there's no getting caught up in a pissing match about whose interpretation of a constitution is correct when neither sides view is objectively any more valid.

Re:Irony

[Xest]

Isn't that completely contradictory? In your first paragraph you seem to be suggesting laws can't use interpretation to restrict something like the constitution, and in your second paragraph you seem to be saying that that's effectively exactly what they do do. Surely it's rather binary, either the constitution is taken exactly as face value one way or the other - either it allows any arms, or it allows an arbitrarily restricted definition of arms, and if it's the latter (which it appears to be) then that restriction is merely decided by the people in power at a particular time, typically influenced by the current thinking of the electorate.

Given that, I don't see how the constitution is different to having no constitution but merely having politically or judicially determined laws.

Effectively I'm trying to understand what the constitution actually even adds to society if everyone agrees that it needs to be interpreted arbitrarily based on the norms of the time rather than as a timeless absolute.

Re:Irony

[dave420]

The tool is very relevant, though. The easier it is to commit suicide the more likely someone is. If someone eats a bottle of pills, there is a lot of time after ingestion to back out and get help. People who survive an attempt are very unlikely to try again.

This is a pretty good example of why ignoring the seemingly irrelevant is sometimes a terrible idea.

And anyone can discuss anything about any country. You trying to censor him for voicing his opinion is very bizarre indeed. You certainly don't hold back from criticizing other countries...

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

"Everything must be perfect or nothing matters at all" is an idea that's hard to argue against. You don't live your life that way. I don't know why you think societies should be organized that way.

We have the process we have. The Constitution isn't 50000 pages long with every possible detail and counterargument spelled out and refuted. It's not completely meaningless and useless to people because of this "flaw". Try to understand. Or don't, and continue to be surprised whenever anyone does anything. Your choice.

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

How would technology such as an exo-suit fit in?

Laws and the legal system don't have to satisfy "what about this thing I saw once in my comic books?" arguments. We have enough real problems, we don't have to worry about imaginary (or distant projected future) ones.

Re:Irony

[Xest]

"We have the process we have."

Right, but the mere existence of something doesn't make it automatically optimal, and that's really the point I'm getting at - is the constitution really optimal if it's this kind of thing you treat as absolute except not actually?

You say it's not meaningless but why isn't it meaningless if other countries do just as well without having it? It's not as if America is the pinnacle of freedom and democracy, many countries do a much better job on that front. This is really my question, it's not clear what it achieves when everyone accepts that it has to be routinely ignored all the time anyway and arguments about it seem to detract from the actual issue at hand - when someone is on the losing side of an argument, rather than trying to argue their case on merit they seem to declare their arbitrary interpretation of the constitution is king without explanation. It effectively lowers the quality of political discourse in American politics quite drastically - it switches between a thing to ignore when it suits, and a thing to beat people with when you don't have a reasoned political counter-argument but want to have your way anyway.

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

Right, but the mere existence of something doesn't make it automatically optimal

Almost nothing that actually exists is "optimal". Optimal is for storytellers. Laws and Constitutions and civilizations are for humans. Human situations don't optimize.

Historically, when powerful people have mistakenly thought human situations could be optimized, it led to tragic results. World War 2 is one of countless examples.

Re:Irony

[kbg]

All accidents are individual. Licenses do not convey driving ability upon people.

What? All accidents are individual? A single car crash can kill a lot of people. But I talking in general terms here. Yes accident will happen but there is a way to minimize them.

Most adults have one, so most adults could clearly be trusted to drive (at least as much as they already are trusted) even if they didn't have one.

What? I think your statement here is falling into the logical fallacy land. People have X which means they can do Y, so people can do Y even if they don't have X?

It hasn't been shown that a licensing scheme increases safety or prevents accidents. People who want to police everyone all the time will tell you it does, but they don't have any facts to back it up.

Are you really saying teaching people to drive doesn't increase safety in any way? Are you serious?

Re:Irony

[Xest]

Which is really all a load of nonsense because the fact that countries exist with greater freedom, and greater quality of political debate whilst maintaining greater successes in other areas such as education, personal happiness, health as is the case in most of the Scandinavian nations then we have the data points we need to prove that it's possible to have better political systems without going full on Hitler and godwinning the discussion as you seem to believe.

Your viewpoint is effectively full on conservativism - don't change anything ever, just in case it's not quite as good because we couldn't possibly change it back or find an alternative that is better if we change something, which is great, except we didn't get where we are by not changing anything ever, to suggest humanity needs to stop now is somewhat laughable. Were anything you said remotely true we'd all still be living in caves fighting sabre tooth tigers, you know, just in case changing anything makes us all Nazis.

Re:Irony

[Kohath]

Your viewpoint is effectively full on conservativism - don't change anything ever

See above where I said we should end the requirement for adults over 21 to have a license to drive. Because requiring such a license serves little purpose other than restricting individual freedom and giving governments a mechanism to bully, control, and tax otherwise innocent, ordinary citizens. Try again.

"Greater quality of political debate" starts with paying attention to ideas. Trying to shift the discussion to obviously false (and very silly) criticisms of me is the opposite. It's not about me. It's about policy and laws and how they affect people.

If you want to say we should "improve" things, then Ok, lets try to do that. Arguing seriously that governments and societies can be "optimized" is maniacal -- something a North Korean leader might say. What do you propose to do to people who refuse to act "optimally", in service to your "optimal" society?

Re:Irony

[Xest]

"If you want to say we should "improve" things, then Ok, lets try to do that. Arguing seriously that governments and societies can be "optimized" is maniacal"

What exactly do you think optimisation in such a condition is if not improvement towards a better state? You seem to have an incredibly odd definition of optimisation because you then go on to suggest optimisation is the exact opposite, of, well, optimisation by suggesting optimisation would mean heading towards failed state status like North Korea:

"Arguing seriously that governments and societies can be "optimized" is maniacal -- something a North Korean leader might say. What do you propose to do to people who refuse to act "optimally", in service to your "optimal" society?""

The type of society you're referring too has been proven time and time again to be about as far from optimal as possible. I'd like to think you'd therefore see why your whole argument is full of shit, but I wont count on it.

You basically just godwinned the argument, except substituting the Nazis for North Korea. Try growing up a bit before joining discussions in future, you wont learn anything if you're perpetually stuck in full on retard mode when you debate.

cause he couldn't get a job

[goombah99]

driving for the post office?

Right to life

[Anonymous Coward]

So glad the right to own a gun trumps people's right to live without being shot to death.

Re:Right to life

[GLMDesigns]

It's the right to self-defense. Why do you have a problem with that? Or do you think the police will always arrive in time to save your a$$. And, in case I'm not mistaken, there are many people who don't trust the police and don't call them. What do they do?

If anti-gun folks weren't lying about guns; the ease to get them; bs-ing about the lack of registration; arguing that people did not have the right to self-defense and gun owners weren't concerned about confiscation or about outing and harassment by a$$holes then maybe there would be more rational discussions on this topic.

Re:Right to life

[Locke2005]

Well, now I have to always carry a gun to protect me from batshit insane Uber drivers... (It may be time to change my signature.)

Re:Right to life

[Hognoxious]

If there weren't so many guns around you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself against them. You know, like pretty much the rest of the developed world.

Re:Right to life

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what so odd about the gun nuts' argument that everyone needs a gun for self-defense and if we make it harder to law-abiding people to own guns criminals will still get them. If that's the case, why is in developed countries without a gun fetish, why are overall crimes with guns lower and their murder rates are nearly nothing to compared to the US?

Re:Right to life

[operagost]

Well, I guess you could say the same for owning anything dangerous: gunpowder, gasoline, knives, bats, fertilizer and diesel fuel, pressure cookers, air compressors, automobiles... we should need government approval to have any of these. Because you could hurt anyone with any one of them at any time.

Or, we can treat adult humans like adults, create reasonable laws, then exact fair punishments for those who violate them.

Re:Right to life

[HornWumpus]

Because the kill each other with something else and liars only look at the gun crime statistics. Because they are less dead if pushed out of windows.

Re:Right to life

[Anonymous Coward]

So glad you think your right to not be shot trumps my elderly mother's right to not be beaten to death in her home. Why do you hate women? Why do you hate the elderly?

Re:Right to life

[TigerPlish]

If there weren't so many guns around you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself against them. You know, like pretty much the rest of the developed world.

Armed nutjobs are not the sole province of the USA. At least here in the USA, the right to keep and bear arms offers some defense against armed nutjobs.

Too bad Parisians and Californians aren't afforded that right. What, chuck a wine bottle at an armed nutjob? (Why yes, if that's all you have by all means chuck!)

Re:Right to life

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow these societies, which in any other conversation would be discussed how sub-par they are in funding for education, organization of safety nets, organization of health care, are suddenly the same as the US. The R-squared value of country-by-country data says that we can't make scientific predictions about how intentional homicide rates will change if the US were to match gun ownership rates with other developed nations.

Re:Right to life

[GLMDesigns]

Good. You take on 4 people with knives breaking into your home w/o a gun. I would prefer to be able to defend myself. We did not give up the right to self-defense when we formed this country.

Why do feel it's so important to be helpless? Do you truly believe that governments don't harm their subjects? I guess you never read about the German, Russian or Chinese Revolution then. (The German revolution is more commonly considered the rise of H!t3r.

Re:Right to life

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the gun homicide and overall homicide rates are incredibly high in the US, so that argument can go straight into the dumpster

We know a song about that

[Anonymous Coward]

Abcdefgh I got a gun, in Kalamazoo, zoo, zoo, zoo ...
Get in my cab or I'll shoot you too, too, too, too ....

Also, do Uber offer a discount if your driver is on a shooting spree?

where were you?

[Gravis Zero]

Jason Dalton shot 8 people in three different locations, killing six people

well where were all the good guys with guns?

we have a serious problem.

Re:where were you?

[fluffernutter]

Only in the movies do the good guys with guns do the right thing in the right place at the right time.

Re:where were you?

[DigiShaman]

We do! Stop hoarding guns and give a (wo)man a means by to protect themselves. Some people, sheesh!

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

well where were all the good guys with guns?

Is there anywhere other than the US where people feel that problems can be solved by putting more bullets in the air?

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

well where were all the good guys with guns?

Is there anywhere other than the US where people feel that problems can be solved by putting more bullets in the air?

Yes. Large areas of the Middle-East.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, most places. I mean, even that bastion of no guns, the UK, the officers still keep a shotgun in the back of their vehicles if I remember correctly. I know for sure Spain the officers open carry. I can't remember with Sweden, Germany and Italy. Didn't spend much time in those places. But none the less, places that arm their police force surely think problems can be solved by putting more bullets in the air. Otherwise they wouldn't arm their police.

Re:where were you?

[Zocalo]

I think you missed the sarcasm in the OP's post. One of the NRA's arguments against gun control is that if everyone had guns this kind of thing wouldn't happen because the good guys with the guns would either bring down the shooter almost immediately, or the knowledge of this would deter the shooter from drawing their gun(s) in the first place. The counter argument by those pro-gun control is that this never actually happens, even in states like Michigan where the gun laws are loose enough to make it possible that it might. The counter-counter argument is that shooters in such states tend to target places with restrictions on carrying guns... and round and round it goes with no progress in any direction.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the sarcasm in the OP's post.

... and round and round it goes with no progress in any direction.

I think you might have missed the sarcasm in that this is what P and OP are doing with their posts.

Re:where were you?

[KGIII]

That is not actually true. Google is your friend. It happens with surprising frequency, I was kind of surprised too. While I do carry, I have no intent to run in and save you in an active shooter situation. Not a chance. I am not Rambo and I don't like you that much.

Re:where were you?

[ScentCone]

Only in the movies do the good guys with guns do the right thing in the right place at the right time.

Firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times per year more often in the prevention of harm and interruption of crime and violence than they are used by criminals in the committing of murder. Your willful ignorance on the subject doesn't change the basic facts.

Re:where were you?

[KGIII]

Here are 10 cases where armed citizens took down active shooters:
http://www.personaldefenseworl...

Google will find more.

Re:where were you?

[ScentCone]

The good news is that there are actual facts on the ground to break up that round-and-round. Places like Florida saw a huge drop in violent crime as soon as they allowed concealed carry. Places with the most draconian laws preventing ownership/possession (say, Chicago) have some of the highest rates of violent crime.

The NRA has never said they think "everyone" should have/carry. They think non-criminals should have that choice.

Re:where were you?

[fluffernutter]

Sources?

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that shrill gungrabbers always demand sources for statements that contradict their prejudices, but never for their own statements?

Take a few minutes to google for local news. Every time a life is saved with a gun, the news never makes it out of the local newspaper. A crime committed with a gun makes national headlines.

Re:where were you?

[ScentCone]

See the research by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Then, if you think their methodology (or those in dozens of follow-up studies) were wrong, assume the worst, and say they over-reported defensive gun use by a factor of ten, just for argument's sake. That still leaves the incidence of defense use dwarfing the murder rate in crimes where guns were used.

Re:where were you?

[fluffernutter]

That's all kind of beside the point, when countries that don't allow guns in the first place such as Canada have far less instances of gun related homicides per capita.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

well where were all the good guys with guns?

Not living in a state that restricts your ability to purchase a gun?

According to State Law MCL 28.422 Section 2.1, a person must obtain a license to purchase a pistol PRIOR to purchasing the firearm. No individual is exempt from this law.

Re:where were you?

[ScentCone]

That's all kind of beside the point, when countries that don't allow guns in the first place such as Canada have far less instances of gun related homicides per capita.

If you remove three specific urban areas from the US stats, you'll find that the US murder rate is below that of 17 other modern nations. If your point is that the lack or presence of guns actually drives violence, how do you explain the vast majority of the US that has ready access to guns but a tiny, tiny fraction of the murder rate? The decision to kill somebody (which also happens routinely with bare hands, pipes, baseball bats, and knives - to say nothing of arson, poisoning, and other methods) varies from place to place without regard to the availability of legal OR illegal guns. Why is the murder rate in, say, Denver, lower than Chicago? Please be specific. It's OK to avoid worrying about political correctness - you can feel free to observe that the problem is with the local culture in places like Baltimore, Chicago, or St. Louis (because, well, that's the problem - I'm giving you permission to not feel bad by noting that).

The Swiss have ready access to high powered weapons and broad ownership from house to house. If your proposition is correct, then that place should be just swamped with murders involving firearms, right? No? Interesting, huh. Or what about Acapulco, Mexico? Guns are completely illegal there. But they have a sky-high murder rate (which frequently involve death by knife or machete). Is it possible that it's people, not weapons, that actually choose to kill people - and that local law enforcement (or the lack of it) has more to do with rampant street crime than the inanimate objects that criminals may pick up and use when they complete the killing they want to do?

So: please reconcile the Switzerland and Mexico issue for us before you continue with your proposition. It will be more coherent that way.

Re:where were you?

[HornWumpus]

We'd treat you as less of lying sack of shit if you argued overall homicides.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't use this argument. One of the biggest problem with self-defense statistics is that if I commit an undesirable action with a firearm it will almost always be reported to police and probably to the news. If I use my firearm correctly and successfully, it is almost never anything reportable.

Re:where were you?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, it's not helped by the national media's outright refusal to carry any positive story, leading to the conclusion by people who ought to know better that there ARE no positive stories. After all, when's the last time you heard of a successful civilian self defense? Never, right? And yet it happens all the time.

Re:where were you?

[DeansOffice]

Clearly you haven't looked for defensive gun use statistics. Also, there's this which was easilly found. http://www.personaldefenseworl... Ultimately it comes down to this question; Do you believe an individual should have the right to effective self defense?

Re:where were you?

[fluffernutter]

I believe individuals should live in places where they don't need a gun for self defense. If I lived in such a place, I would move for the sake of my family. And no I don't think anywhere is *totally* safe, but where I live the risk is so negligible it becomes pointless to carry.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

The good news is that there are actual facts on the ground to break up that round-and-round. Places like Florida saw a huge drop in violent crime as soon as they allowed concealed carry. Places with the most draconian laws preventing ownership/possession (say, Chicago) have some of the highest rates of violent crime.

Your example (Florida's shall-issue passed in 1987 I believe?) would be more pertinent if the whole country hadn't had a huge drop in violent crime in that period. Including Chicago. For example, their homicide rate is half what it was in the late eighties/early nineties, and this trend developed even before McDonald v. City of Chicago or D.C. vs Heller.

You may want to do a more rigorous analysis.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assumed "shrill gungrabbers" were those who reach for their gun before their brains grind into gear but it seems you mean the opposite. 30,000 men, women and lots of children killed in the US by guns every year. How many saved?

Re:where were you?

[bestweasel]

You don't remember correctly. Here are the UK stats for 2014. If you want the difference between armed police in the US and the UK, I draw your attention to the last line:

There were 5,875 police firearms’ officers as at 31 March 2014.
There were 14,864 police firearms’ operations in the year ending March 2014.
The police discharged firearms in 2 operations in the year ending March 2014; the figure has been six or less in each of the previous 5 years.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

The further you move from crime, the further you move from police. I'm much less likely to be robbed/assaulted/murdered/etc. where I live now, but it could take 30 minutes to an hour to get law enforcement to my door where previously I could get one there in 10 minutes tops but crime was rampant. I probably don't need a firearm now, but if I need a firearm then waiting on the police to bring one is a death sentence.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

So: please reconcile the Switzerland and Mexico issue for us before you continue with your proposition. It will be more coherent that way.

It's pretty easy. Switzerland is a rich left-wing utopia with a functional government and rigorous law-enforcement that keeps gun under control , while Mexico is a poor right-wing hellhole with a poor government structure and ineffective law-enforcement that cannot control guns.

Of course, you can argue who is a worse criminal, the peasant thug with a gun or the elite banker with a pen.

Re:where were you?

[ScentCone]

So, the guns are widely available to everybody in Switzerland, but the guns somehow don't cause people to murder with them there. Guns on the other hand are extremely illegal in Mexico, but the ones that do show up in the hands of Mexicans cause Mexicans to commit murder? Whereas the same guns readily at hand in Switzerland don't cause the Swiss to commit murder?

So what you're saying is that you think Mexican people are so mentally weak that if you put a gun in their hands they just can't stop themselves from killing people, whereas the Swiss person can have that and ten more guns in their closet at home, but they aren't subject to the same magic spell, and don't kill people?

How does this magic actually work? Please be specific. Explain what part of the brain is different between a Swiss person who has access to a gun, and a Mexican person who has access to a gun. How is that part of the brain caused, by the gun itself, to carry out the complex act of putting on pants, going out into the world, and murdering someone?

Oh, while you're at it: does this same process also explain why so many more Mexicans per capita are beaten and stabbed to death than their Swiss counterparts? Is it the illegal guns in Mexico that cause people to use machetes on each other, but because most Swiss people don't have machetes, the guns there make them try to use butter knives, which aren't as lethal? Please shed some light on that part.

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the guns are widely available to everybody in Switzerland, but the guns somehow don't cause people to murder with them there. Guns on the other hand are extremely illegal in Mexico, but the ones that do show up in the hands of Mexicans cause Mexicans to commit murder? Whereas the same guns readily at hand in Switzerland don't cause the Swiss to commit murder?

Widely available to everybody in Switzerland? No, I don't think that I would concur that is the case, as they do have a permitting process involved. Even the process of purchasing ammunition is limited. They are quite effective in regulation of firearms in their country. Are you unaware of this?

In Mexico, they do not have such effective regulation. Even when they do have appropriate laws, it's simply not enforced due to their aforementioned lack of a functional government.

It makes for quite a difference. There are also other significant factors that make for a difference between Mexico and Switzerland, including law enforcement, social support, and even education.

 

So what you're saying is that you think Mexican people are so mentally weak that if you put a gun in their hands they just can't stop themselves from killing people, whereas the Swiss person can have that and ten more guns in their closet at home, but they aren't subject to the same magic spell, and don't kill people?

Nope, I clearly referred to the government of Mexico and Switzerland, not the character of the respective individuals in the country's population.

Was this unclear to you? Would you like to read my post again?

Here it is:

It's pretty easy. Switzerland is a rich left-wing utopia with a functional government and rigorous law-enforcement that keeps gun under control , while Mexico is a poor right-wing hellhole with a poor government structure and ineffective law-enforcement that cannot control guns.

Of course, you can argue who is a worse criminal, the peasant thug with a gun or the elite banker with a pen.

What you're saying has no clear relation to what I did say. Nothing magical to it. Governments aren't magic.

Oh, while you're at it: does this same process also explain why so many more Mexicans per capita are beaten and stabbed to death than their Swiss counterparts? Is it the illegal guns in Mexico that cause people to use machetes on each other, but because most Swiss people don't have machetes, the guns there make them try to use butter knives, which aren't as lethal? Please shed some light on that part.

Again, you may want to read my post again. I'm talking about the character of their respective governments, and while I didn't specify it, yes, the lack of a functional government in Mexico also covers other incidents of violence, regardless of weapon used.

Now if you wanted to ask why Mexico lacks a functional government, while Switzerland has one, that would be a good question to examine. But most of your rhetoric seems focused in an odd direction. It's like you are talking with somebody else entirely, not responding to what I did actually say.

Did you have a problem understanding it? What did you fail to grasp? I really can't see where your comprehension went wrong, perhaps you can explain it.

Did you even understand my point about a peasant thug with a gun versus an elite banker with a pen?

Re:where were you?

[Areyoukiddingme]

The good news is that there are actual facts on the ground to break up that round-and-round. Places like Florida saw a huge drop in violent crime as soon as they allowed concealed carry.

Except when they don't. Missouri is a Shall Issue concealed carry state and St. Louis had the highest per capita murder rate among all US cities in 2014 and 2015. For all types of violent crime, St. Louis was fourth in 2014, behind Detroit, Memphis, and Oakland. Concealed carry did diddly shit to change anything. At the end of 2014, the law was changed such that all concealed carry permit holders are now able to open carry, overriding any county or city bans. Still nothing.

Re:where were you?

[mjwx]

Here are 10 cases where armed citizens took down active shooters:
http://www.personaldefenseworl...

Google will find more.

Google will find 100 times the amount of cases where the shooter took down an armed victim first... And another 10 times the amount where a person not under threat was shot with their own gun.

Allow me to use research, instead of an obviously biased site based on unverified news reports.
https://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

So it seems carrying a gun increases your risk of being shot and killed.

It should also be noted that the biggest risk from being shot and killed came from a family member, not a robbery.

Over three quarters (76.3 percent) of the homicide victims knew their assailant. Nearly one third (31.7 percent) of the homicides occurred during a family argument, 15.4 percent during a robbery, 4.1 percent during a drug deal, 0.2 percent during an abduction, and 44.1 percent for other unspecified reasons. In 4.5 percent of the homicides, multiple circumstances were reported.

Seems packing heat is a good way to kill the one you love.

Re:where were you?

[ScentCone]

Cut to the chase: are you actually admitting that it's local culture, and not the existence of metal objects of specific format, that influence people's rampant murder rates? That guns don't kill people, but people do?

Did you even understand my point about a peasant thug with a gun versus an elite banker with a pen?

I understand that you're trying to do some classic SJW change-the-subject bait and switch, yes. I understand exactly what you said and, perhaps annoyingly to you, I understand why you felt the need to try that little bit of juvenile theater. Let me guess, you also think that as long as there's anybody unhappy in the world, nobody should have birthday parties.

Re:where were you?

[KGIII]

Are you mentally handicapped? Serious question. Normally, I'd proceed based on a good-faith effort to assume you're not. In this case, I really don't know. If you're mentally handicapped then I'll know how to proceed.

I'll take a stab at it - but this might be beyond your ability to comprehend.

What's your point? Seriously, what's your point? What are you responding to? What are you trying to prove?

We can work on it, if you're just stupid. If you're mentally handicapped, I'll try extra hard to help you out. If you're willfully ignorant there's not a damned thing I can do to help you and we're both wasting our time as you're not the least bit concerned with logic, reason, or facts and are hell bent on remaining that way.

I hope, for your sake, that it's not the latter. If it's not then the questions apply. If it is the latter, don't bother.

Re:where were you?

[Kohath]

The presence of Canadians prevents gun crime over a certain threshold. So what? No other country can ever have as many Canadians per capita as Canada. It's hopeless.

On a more serious note, arguments like yours seem to presume that any population of people can easily decide to become identical to any other nation's population and immediately achieve whatever benefits are desired from that nation's traits. But this has never happened. Why do you think this is possible?

Re:where were you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut to the chase: are you actually admitting that it's local culture, and not the existence of metal objects of specific format, that influence people's rampant murder rates? That guns don't kill people, but people do?

Nope, I'm contending that the reconciliation you asked for would be addressed by examining the performance of the governments in question.

And jousting over whether "people kill people" or "guns kill people" would be as silly as arguing over whether "guns kill people" or "bullets kill people" which is to say, very silly indeed. It's just tediousness that drives such gambits.

I'd rather avoid it. Wouldn't you rather examine why Switzerland manages to have an effective government, while Mexico doesn't? That'd be interesting. We'd have something useful to talk about, not gabble that isn't even related to what either of us has said.

Did you even understand my point about a peasant thug with a gun versus an elite banker with a pen?

I understand that you're trying to do some classic SJW change-the-subject bait and switch, yes. I understand exactly what you said and, perhaps annoyingly to you, I understand why you felt the need to try that little bit of juvenile theater.

Hmm, that's not understanding what I said, that's ascribing a motivation to my actions. Since you can easily make such assertions without understanding me, I'm going to need some more effective demonstration of cognizance on your part.

Please, do consider what I meant when I said "you can argue who is a worse criminal, the peasant thug with a gun or the elite banker with a pen." and give me a demonstration to show your understanding.

Let me guess, you also think that as long as there's anybody unhappy in the world, nobody should have birthday parties.

That'd be a paradox, since birthday parties make me unhappy. It even bothers me when I have to tell people that I have no interest in them, since they seem to want to ascribe motivations towards that which tend to lead to further unhappiness. Can't I just not want anything to do with them? Is that not allowed?

But do you want to talk about that? It seems to be wandering far afield, unless you have some relation to the subject. The closest I can come is the people who fire shots into the air for such things, and I hardly think it's unreasonable to say that's detestable.

slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[Thud457]

The shooter snapped because, driving for Uber, he couldn't make a living wage in a high-rent city like Kalamazoo.

Re:slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[quetwo]

High-rent city like Kalamazoo? The Kalamazoo that you can easily rent a nice 800 ft^2 apartment for $400/month? It's the same city where the median house sells for $65,000.

Re:slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[rmdingler]

~I think he knew that we weren't talking Bay Area cost-of-living in Kalamazoo....

Re:slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[Hognoxious]

You're a googleclipper.

Re:slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[vel-ex-tech]

What's a googleclipper? GP's figures sound about right. Looking on Google Maps, the guy lived out in BFE.

Re:slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[Anonymous Coward]

From context, I'd say a googleclipper is someone who does minimum due diligence and actually googles for information before posting. I don't know for certain, because I didn't look it up because I'm afraid of being called a googleclipper.

Re:slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[Hognoxious]

It's someone who does a google search on a few key words without understanding the context or tone of the post they're replying to and pastes the first thing that comes up in a vain attempt to appear knowledgeable.

Like this flid: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOOSH

Re:slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat

[vel-ex-tech]

Ah, ok. Makes sense. Thanks!

Work-life balance

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said.

Or is that "work-death balance"?

Captcha: whoops

Pointless click bait - should not be here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why post this? It's not only irrelevant for this site, it's been done to death else where.

Another shooting

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious USA, you need to sort that shit out. While you're at it why not become a full-fledged first-world country by having universal healthcare that's free at point-of-service?

Re: Another shooting

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there is no such thing as free healthcare any more than there is such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is paying for it, and in the case of "free" healthcare, it's the taxpayers. Other nations may have been willing to sacrifice freedom and choice in exchange for reduced efficiency, but Americans aren't quite stupid enough to choose that, yet -- but don't worry, we're getting there.

As for mass killings, they obviously do happen in other what-you-would-consider first world nations as well, but you already know that. People correctly argue against giving up privacy and basic constitutional rights when it comes to fighting terror, with the argument that acts of terror -- although sad -- are fortunately rare. Those same people who are leftists won't apply the same logic to other mass killings if it gives them the opportunity to express anti-gun sentiments, even though you're even MORE likely to be killed in a terror attack than by some crazy person who has had enough with the world and decides to take some people down with him.

Re: Another shooting

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there is no such thing as free healthcare any more than there is such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is paying for it, and in the case of "free" healthcare, it's the taxpayers.

This argument is fucking retarded and you know it. What are you? 12?

Re: Another shooting

[Anonymous Coward]

Your second paragraph is so ridiculously wrong that I won't comment but here's some education about health-care spending.

This analysis draws upon data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other cross-national analyses to compare health care spending, supply, utilization, prices, and health outcomes across 13 high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These data predate the major insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In 2013, the U.S. spent far more on health care than these other countries. Higher spending appeared to be largely driven by greater use of medical technology and higher health care prices, rather than more frequent doctor visits or hospital admissions. In contrast, U.S. spending on social services made up a relatively small share of the economy relative to other countries. Despite spending more on health care, Americans had poor health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy and greater prevalence of chronic conditions.

Re: Another shooting

[EndlessNameless]

Other nations may have been willing to sacrifice freedom and choice in exchange for reduced efficiency, but Americans aren't quite stupid enough to choose that, yet

We have already chosen that.

Americans pay the most per capita for health insurance and yet we rank 31st in actual healthcare. (That assessment was pre-Obamacare, so those numbers may have changed. I am not aware of a post-Obamacare analysis.)

When someone decided to do the calculations, we ranked 37th in efficiency---behind a bunch of nations with public healthcare, and right above Slovenia. The WHO efficiency report is here for reference: www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

Oddly enough, even with its extremely open market economy, Singapore managed to snag sixth place. It is nestled in the top tier among those nations with public healthcare.

Oh wait---my mistake, Singapore actually has public healthcare in spite of the fact that it ranks as the second freest economy in the world. And before I hear a hint of bluster, the US is #10 in economic freedom. (Freedom rankings are courtesy of the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.)

So what were you saying about stupid decisions?

Why Uber is relevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Because Uber creates a relationship with its employees which is unsustainable and unhealthy for the employee, treating them as a disposable resource and ignoring the effect of the employment relationship on their well-being;

Individuals well integrated into their environment are less likely to harm that community, and those who have already committed harm (assuming they're no longer an immediate danger, in which case they need locking away, ofc.) are less likely to repeat if they are well supervised rather than left to their own devices.

2) Because Uber provides a service to the public which can put the public in a vulnerable position, but does not rigorously vet its employees;

3) Because Uber deliberately flouts regulations designed to deal with 2, claiming they're not necessary.

Re:Why Uber is relevant.

[fluffernutter]

Municipalities have gone through great lengths to integrate taxi services with communities. To make sure that the industry performs a function that people need in the way that all people need it. To ensure that we know who these people are, and the fact that they are scrutinized somewhat before driving means that they are trustworthy. Uber threatens to completely undo all that.

Re: Why Uber is relevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

^^^^ taxi driver

Dey tewk errrr jerbzzzzz

Re: Why Uber is relevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uber drivers are taxi drivers, ya dullard - Uber just doesn't doesn't feel the need to comply with the regulations that the tens of thousands of taxi companies across the world do comply with.

Cue Rockstar Games in 3..2...1

[Alumoi]

GTA: Uber
Drive a cab through realistic cities! Shoot people between rides!
Based on a true story!

Re:Cue Rockstar Games in 3..2...1

[Locke2005]

Needs more hookers and booze...

Re:Cue Rockstar Games in 3..2...1

[Alumoi]

That would be a separate DLC.

Re:Cue Rockstar Games in 3..2...1

[HornWumpus]

I can download hookers and booze now?

You don't think Locke2005 meant 'in game'?

Proposed K-12 CS Standards: Uber Driver Safety

[theodp]

Wonder if the Computer Science Teachers Association will modify their just-released proposed standards, which suggests teaching kids that tech has eliminated the need to worry about one's Uber Driver. From the 2016 CSTA K-12 CS Standards: "Compare the positive and negative impacts of computing on behavior and culture (e.g., Evolution to Uber: in 1970s OK to hitch-hike; 1980s dangerous to hitch-hike; 2015 OK to share ride with person met few minutes ago on app; airbnb - worldwide accommodation searches in homes, apts., etc.),"

I dislike Uber as much as anybody

[edtice1559]

And my posting history bears this out. But I don't think its appropriate to frame this as reflecting on Uber. Plenty of people with mental health problems (even pretty serious ones) manage to hold jobs. It's one thing if we think the working conditions are a *cause* (working at the postal office is very stressful, apparently), but if a perpetrator just happens to choose a line of work, I don't think this gives the haters any justification to hate.

Re:I dislike Uber as much as anybody

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty of people with mental health problems (even pretty serious ones) manage to hold jobs.

Especially amongst the politicians.

Re:I dislike Uber as much as anybody

[LordWabbit2]

Dude, this is /. you must be new here.

And I think the going postal thing is more about the tedium and crap pay than stress.

What's his religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that we have a problem in the US with radical ?

Elon, please help

[PopeRatzo]

This story demonstrates why we need self-driving cars and self-shooting guns,.

Re:Elon, please help

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite, so we can dispense of Uber drivers.

Re:Elon, please help

[Anonymous Coward]

...and self-shooting guns,.

For decades, we've heard the mantra that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," but that all changes today! Thanks to a new alliance with Tesla and Google, we introduce the new HK-01 autonomous murder engine! This stylish chassis will eagerly accept any HK model firearm, has an array of high-capacity lithium ion batteries for mobility and to operate the target selection firmware provided by Google. Now let's turn it on and greet our first production grade HK-01 self-driven shooter.

"Meatbag detected, G+ profile not found, resolving issue." *much weapons fire*

Re:Elon, please help

[PopeRatzo]

I had a slightly different idea for the self-shooting gun. I figure the best way to minimize gun violence is to design guns so that if you pick one up and point it at someone, the barrel swivels around and shoots you in the face.

Thus, the "self-shooting gun".

Re:Elon, please help

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the plasma rifle in a 40 watt range on the stock trim or is that an option?

Re:Elon, please help

[TigerPlish]

design guns so that if you pick one up and point it at someone, the barrel swivels around and shoots you in the face

in the US that's called a Saturday Night Special. More likely to kill the shooter than the target.

or be like pizza * no defending your self / no C&a

[Joe_Dragon]

or be like pizza * no defending your self / no C&C.

Even on a small order change for a $100 run.

deaths: cars vs guns

[Anonymous Coward]

More people die due to car accidents than they do to shootings.

You may want to re-check your numbers:

* http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/
* http://www.voanews.com/content/death-rate-for-guns-and-vehicles-is-same-in-us/3110089.html
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/

Driving has become safer over the decades. Guns... meh.

Re:deaths: cars vs guns

[HornWumpus]

That study basically compares suicide rate vs. automobile accident rate. It's nonsense.

A better comparison. Accidental deaths: Cars. 35,000 Guns: 500

The are nations with no guns but much higher suicide rate. e.g. Japan, anywhere north of the Arctic circle.

Of course if you are so generally incompetent you think not having a gun around will prevent you from killing yourself let me suggest a few more things not to keep around. BBQ grills, welding gas, samurai swords, large quantities of salt, cars, butter knives, PMSing women etc etc. All can be used for suicide.

Re:deaths: cars vs guns

[Anonymous Coward]

PMSing women

And here we see your class and maturity...

Subject for a new Scorcese film: Uber Driver

[Optic7]

A new take on his classic, Taxi Driver.

Foolish

[CauseBy]

The shooter is foolish. He should have formed a corporation, then conducted the killing spree under the protection of limited liability. "Oh, did some people die? Well, the corporation just liquidated after bankruptcy, so I guess that's the end of the legal proceedings."

Ban Lead

[ThatsNotPudding]

The right to bear arms is enumerated clearly.

But not bullets (or if you are not a hypocritical 'strict constructionist': musket balls).

This will be down-voted into oblivion by the mostly pro-NRA crowd on this site, but the EPA would be well within their rights to ban the use of lead (a proven toxin) in the production of civilian ammunition.

Lead shot has been banned for hunting use for a while now... unless you believe human lives are worth far less than wildlife.

Dalton's phone

[PPH]

The FBI will need help when they crack it. They WILL be reading his phone's contents, right?

That's a Dedicated UBER Driver

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said

Guns: Making America Safer since Columbus

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring on the hate.