Slashdot Mirror


Thanks To Apple's Influence, You're Not Getting A Rifle Emoji (buzzfeed.com)

Charlie Warzel, reporting for BuzzFeed News: Unicode, the technical organization in charge of selecting and overseeing emojis, debated and ultimately decided to remove a rifle from its list of new emoji candidates in 2016, according to multiple persons who attended its quarterly meeting last May. The decision was led and championed by one of tech's biggest companies: Apple. Apple is one of Unicode's largest member companies and not only has voting rights, but also holds considerable influence. Millions of people use emojis on Apple's software platforms. According to sources in the room, Apple started the discussion to remove the rifle emoji, which had already passed into the encoding process for the Unicode 9.0 release this June. Apple told the consortium it would not support a rifle on its platforms and asked for it not to be made into an emoji. "I heard Apple speak up about it and also Microsoft," one member present at the discussions told BuzzFeed News.

393 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. frist post by the_povinator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

    --
    The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    1. Re:frist post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

    2. Re:frist post by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In simpler terms: Apple saved us a bunch of bullshit like a student being expelled over a rifle emoji.

      Here's a fun fact about emoji: Emoji are artistically re-rendered usually per the brand of the device, resulting in different interpretations of how they're used vs. how they're intended. This has already landed people in hot water. There's an emoji of a someone laughing so hard they're in tears. There are quite a few people out there that see it as someone hysterically crying. On their device it may actually appear that way because of how the artist designed it. Imagine that little misinterpretation happening during a comment made about the recent shooting in Orlando!

      All I'm going to say is: Thank you, Apple.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:frist post by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting
      True... but shootings kill more people than force feeding another person does.

      So food emoji's can't really be perceived of as threats... at least not generally speaking, but a rifle pic could easily be seen as one, depending on the context.

    4. Re:frist post by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

      Cakes aren't designed with the express purpose of killing things.

      Bullshit argument indeed.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:frist post by KraxxxZ01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cake have many uses, sustaining life being one of them, most violent one is actually fun. Rifle has only one. Your argument is invalid.

    6. Re:frist post by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis...

      By that logic the only thing we should protest is heat death of the universe.

      Oh, and on a note that seems related but really isn't since noone here is claiming the emoji will incite violence: You're not ever going to go to the wrong part of town and be forced to eat junk food until you die of obesity. Understand that point before you run around criticizing other people's logic.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:frist post by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but a rifle pic could easily be seen as one, depending on the context

      So, if I were to use a rifle emoji on /., you'd feel threatened? Really?

      Or perhaps you'd only feel threatened if the guy in the next cubicle used one in an email? Seriously, I hope you know the guy in the next cubby well enough to know whether he'd want to shoot you. And if he did (want to shoot you), I'd hope he'd use a real gun rather than an emoji....

      C'mon, people, when you start finding a few characters in an email threatening, there's a problem. And the problem isn't the arrangement of the characters....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:frist post by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

      Boobs have never killed anybody, all that boobs have ever done is feed babies and put smiles on the lips of men all over the planet, the bigger and bouncier the boobs the bigger the smile. I say all of us slashdotters should unite and lobby Unicode for a set of boobs emojis in all cup-sizes...

    9. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      As a 46YO, 5'11" and 350-pound white male, I'm not going to eat my cellphone because someone sends me a cake emoji. How stupid can you be?

    10. Re:frist post by wardrich86 · · Score: 2

      This doesn't make sense considering there are also knife and pistol emoji characters.

    11. Re:frist post by DaHat · · Score: 1

      My brother was killed by a cake you insensitive clod, and every time someone sends me a cake emoji I have a near emotional breakdown and retreat to my safe space.

    12. Re:frist post by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In most countries, you'd be right to heap scorn on anyone feeling threatened by an emoji or an email.

      But this is the US, where guns are easy and cheap to get, and people get routinely shot over the dumbest shit. Dude might be a bit of scaredy cat, but he's certainly not insane.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    13. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I hope you know the guy in the next cubby well enough to know whether he'd want to shoot you. And if he did (want to shoot you), I'd hope he'd use a real gun rather than an emoji.

      Funny that you should mentioned that...

      http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/on-close-quarters
      http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/on-pink-slips
      http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/on-unemployment

    14. Re:frist post by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I can definitely see how a rifle emoji would be threatening, but a dagger, crossed swords, skull and crossbones, a bomb , or even a pistol clearly aren't.

      There's already a pistol emoji. There's no reason not to add a rifle emoji for completeness sake.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    15. Re:frist post by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat,

      no.

      Context. If I put a rifle emoji next to the shit emoji, I clearly want to shoot the shit. If I put it next to the cow emoji, I want a steak dinner.

      If I say "murder" in actual letters, it's unclear what my intent is. If I say "murder you", possibly I am making a threat, except in this case I put it in quotes as part of a sentence that changes it's meaning from a threat to an explanation.

      The only things that may be confused are the exceptionally stupid, or people eavesdropping with automated technology.

    16. Re:frist post by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Last time I trusted a promise of cake, I got burned alive.

    17. Re:frist post by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Pardon?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    18. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      My brother was killed by a cake you insensitive clod, and every time someone sends me a cake emoji I have a near emotional breakdown and retreat to my safe space.

      I hate to break the bad news to you. Your brother committed suicide. He ate the "Chocolate Lover's Suicide Cake" in one sitting. No one in his right mind does that. Not even fat people.

    19. Re:frist post by unrtst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cakes aren't designed with the express purpose of killing things.

      Neither are emoji's.
      How many apps/games/etc are there where guns, violence, etc are possible, if not the goal?

      "The usual road to (digital) slavery is that first they take away your gun (emoji's), then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it." -- James A. Donald

    20. Re:frist post by Comboman · · Score: 1
      o o A cup

      O O B cup

      (o)(o) C cup

      ( O ) ( O ) D cup

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    21. Re:frist post by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Uh...breast cancer?

    22. Re:frist post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is remarkably, comically and actually grotesquely obtuse.

    23. Re:frist post by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      so many millions of people died last century for want of a rifle... maybe they don't want to offend those who are still unable to obtain one?

      like showing a man dying of thirst an ice cold glass of water.

    24. Re:frist post by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ...a bomb...

      OMG, Apple supports terrorism!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    25. Re:frist post by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Last time I trusted a promise of cake, I got burned alive.

      Did you receive grief counseling?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    26. Re:frist post by guises · · Score: 1

      It also makes sense because a rifle isn't an emotion.

    27. Re:frist post by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Gee, I wonder why people are more concerned about people who blow off limbs and pieces other people with things we invented and don't need outside of war, and people who make the personal choice to eat too much of something we literally cannot live with out and have shorter life spans because of it? Yeah man, people are so illogical.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    28. Re:frist post by orlanz · · Score: 1

      You know we have a saying that says "Don't take _candy_ from a stranger".

    29. Re:frist post by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      By your logic, a car is not designed to move people from one location to another.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    30. Re:frist post by sexconker · · Score: 1

      True... but shootings kill more people than force feeding another person does.

      I doubt your statement is true if you ignore suicides (as they're self-inflicted) and hold parents accountable for their obese kids (just as you would hold gun owners accountable for accidents, kids getting at their guns, etc).

    31. Re:frist post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      this is the US, where guns are easy and cheap to get, and people get routinely shot over the dumbest shit

      Your argument is invalid. There is no linkage between email and guns in the US. And while it may be true that people get "routinely shot" (I don't know what you mean by that), this is not because guns are "cheap and easy to get". The US has more guns now than ever before, yet violent crime has been decreasing over the past decades. Look, here's some graphs.

      If the simple availability of legal guns really caused violence, then now that we have more guns than ever before, we ought to have more violence than ever before. Yet we don't.

      In fact, one could make an argument that the increase in the number of guns reduced the violence in the US. I don't make that argument because correlation does not prove causation. However, you are making a causation claim and there isn't even a correlation to back you up.

      I invite you to read the book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy which explores why different countries have different amounts of violence. Spoiler: it's more cultural factors than anything else.

    32. Re:frist post by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      Such bullshit. Why stop there, let's also ban the use of text that can be construed as threatening or violent - and let's have corporations decide what is permissible and what isn't. Great idea.

    33. Re:frist post by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In most countries, you'd be right to heap scorn on anyone feeling threatened by an emoji or an email.

      But this is the US, where guns are easy and cheap to get, and people get routinely shot over the dumbest shit. Dude might be a bit of scaredy cat, but he's certainly not insane.

      Gun violence is at an all time low
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
      http://www.cnsnews.com/comment...

      I know, pesky facts. Who cares about'em

    34. Re:frist post by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Cake or Death!

      (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

    35. Re:frist post by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      Whats the diff between a hunting and assault rifle?

    36. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know what stops mass shootings? Ironically, the same thing that allows them to happen in the first place: guns.

      If just one patron of that night club last week had a gun, they could have put one between the shooter's eyes when he first started shooting and fewer people would have died. If more people carried, more people would think twice about using guns to commit crimes.

      Sure, that wouldn't be the case if guns didn't exist but, oh, look at that. They do.

      More restrictions really don't help. Look at France; strict gun laws just ensure that, when gun crimes occur (and they will), they're more devastating than they would be if an armed citizen had been there to stop them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    37. Re:frist post by blackomegax · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know the guards were armed, right? Fat lot of good that did.

    38. Re:frist post by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I am threatened by all emojis equally. They should all be banned from entering the US.

    39. Re:frist post by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      or maybe the laws that make such assumptions about 'threatening' online posting are what's broken.

    40. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Eh? I'm pretty sure firing a cake (especially if frozen) from a cannon might cause instant death if the shot were placed correctly. So, then, the use of a cake as a cannon ball can cause instant death, no?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    41. Re:frist post by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gun violence is at an all time low

      Yeah...for the US. Let me put it this way: You might have cut off the crusts, but you're still eating a shit sandwich.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    42. Re:frist post by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      A cake falling on you from orbit would kill you.

    43. Re:frist post by msauve · · Score: 1

      One wonders why there wasn't even any pepper spray available/used.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    44. Re:frist post by slinches · · Score: 1

      An Assault Rifle has a large capacity magazine (often >25 rounds) and an automatic and/or burst fire mode. Hunting rifles are either bolt action or semi-auto and usually have smaller magazine capacities (1-5) and are often chambered for larger calibers.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    45. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Your sig... after that post... just...

      I don't know why but...

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    46. Re:frist post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No... just the lie.

    47. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      And nobody's gonna go shoot up a place with their phone because someone sent them a rifle emoji.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    48. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes... I'm feeling very [pistol emoji] today. Because a pistol is an emotion. Likewise with knife, crossed swords, and bomb. Oh, and apple. I think I might be feeling very apple later this evening.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    49. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If just one patron of that night club last week had a gun, they could have put one between the shooter's eyes when he first started shooting and fewer people would have died.

      That argument falls apart inside a crowded night club. Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead. The person with a concealed gun may already be dead. People starts running to the exits. The person with a concealed gun may already be the first one out the door. Shooter loads a new clip in. The person with a concealed gun may be standing on the far side of the room, drunk and stoned out of his/her mind, probably shoots four or five other people who were in the way without ever hitting the shooter. When the police rush in, the person with a concealed weapon will probably be mistaken as the shooter and gets shot dead.

    50. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I haven't read the detailed reports but it would make sense that the guards were the first targets. If random unidentified citizens had been armed, any one of them could have stepped in and put a stop to the event.

      "Let's see... hmm... there are two guards, I know they're armed, and nobody else is likely to be. Take out the two guards and I'm home free."
      -vs-
      "There are only two guards, but it's common for people to be armed. I probably won't get very far even if I take out the guards first."

      See how those situations might play out differently? In the latter, the shooting might never occur to begin with; and if it does, the shooter will find himself on the wrong side of a room full of barrels before he can select his second victim.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    51. Re:frist post by Toshito · · Score: 1

      Cakes aren't designed with the express purpose of killing things

      I see that you've never read Asterix and Cleopatra...

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
    52. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      Probably because the range on a rifle is much farther than the range of a can of pepper spray and you can still pull the trigger while blinded. Which, you know, works just as well when your aim is to put as many holes as possible in as many people as possible.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    53. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And nobody's gonna go shoot up a place with their phone because someone sent them a rifle emoji.

      Most cellphones have cameras to take pictures and videos. People can shoot up a place, upload to Instagram or YouTube, and call it a day.

    54. Re:frist post by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead.

      Waaay too much Hollywood there, pal. He had a firearm, not a death ray.

    55. Re:frist post by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      > because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat

      No, no it doesnt.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    56. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead.

      Yes, with an assault rifle, which would be fully automatic and not legally purchased by our shooter. What he had was an "assault rifle", in that it looked menacing, but was a single-fire semi-automatic weapon legally purchased days before the shooting. Had it been an actual assault rifle, gun bans would have done nothing to prevent the shooting anyway, as those are already illegal.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    57. Re:frist post by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      Yes but only the military uses select fire rifles. A select fire m16 is 2000+ dollars. Just about no one owns "assault rifles" so they are moot to bring up. Why would magazine size have anything to do with anything, thats not even dependant on rifle. Would you consider this a hunting or "assault rifle" http://www.perfectunion.com/vb...

    58. Re:frist post by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      That's because food has more uses other than causing obesity- for example, food can prevent starvation. People also make boneheaded arguments about how cars kill more people than guns, disregarding all the uses cars have other than just killing people in accidents. They can get you to work, to a hospital, to get food, etc. But a gun is useful for firing bullets, period. It's pretty easy to survive without one.

    59. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Someone mod this guy insightful; someone else mod him funny. I mean, he completely missed the point I was making, but I'm certain that was on purpose and, well...

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    60. Re: frist post by easyTree · · Score: 1

      He's certainly insane if he thinks US-American internal politics should decide whether the world gets a rifle emoji.

      What's wrong with you? This was the American gun lobby's opportunity to extend its influence. Now Americanism has been stifled. Are you a communist?

    61. Re:frist post by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gun violence is at an all time low.

      Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels.

    62. Re:frist post by Cruciform · · Score: 2

      Or, you know, sensible gun legislation could be in place like in Canada, the UK, Japan, Scandanavian countries, France, etc. and mass shootings would be aberrations instead of weekly occurrences.

      But hey, don't let reality get in the way of the Die Hard fantasy.

    63. Re:frist post by slinches · · Score: 1

      I think the useless term you're looking for is "assault weapon", which is essentially just a scary looking semi-auto rifle. And I'd call the Ruger mini 14 a semi-auto varmint/target rifle. At 5.56mm it's not really powerful enough for larger game, so I wouldn't consider it to be a hunting rifle.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    64. Re:frist post by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what stops mass shootings?

      Yes I do: Creating a culture where it is very difficult to get a gun. You know why there aren't mass shootings in Japan?

      Nutballs who want to kill a room full of people can't lay their hands on a gun.

    65. Re:frist post by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Dumbass school administrative types don't have mindlessly applied "zero tolerance" policies about fat people or the foods that they eat. Meanwhile, that same bunch of halfwits suspend students if, in the process of eating a pop tart, he bites it into an "L" shape that might, by some stretch of the imagination, vaguely be a similar shape to a gun.

      I have no trouble at all imagining a situation where some twat of a principal confiscates a student's phone on a whim, demands under various threats that it be unlocked... since we've oh so brilliantly decided as a nation that minors have zero "secure in their persons", probable cause, privacy, or consent rights whatsoever, even when the invader isn't even a parent or LEO... sees that at some point in the past the student used the gun emoji, or perhaps even simply notices that the emoji is present on the keyboard, and suspends the hapless student.

      Personally... I'd prefer to pack up every public school administrator, and anyone else who had any part whatsoever in formulating or implementing zero-tolerance policies, load them into the B-Ark, and shoot them off into space with the management consultants and public telephone sanitizers, never to be seen again. But since that's not yet a technologically possible option; I don't think it's unreasonable to take some nominal steps to protect students from the injudiciousness of that pack of clods.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    66. Re:frist post by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      In simpler terms: Apple saved us a bunch of bullshit like a student being expelled over a rifle emoji.

      Too late- a 12 year old girl posted a gun emoji on Instagram and was charged with making terroristic threats against her school.

      Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) Slashdot doesn't render emojis correctly, but here's a quote from the article:

      A grand jury in New York City recently had to decide whether ðY'® ðY" represented a true threat to police officers. A Michigan judge was asked to interpret the meaning of a face with a tongue sticking out: :P. Emoji even took a turn in the Supreme Court last year in a high-profile case over what constitutes a threat.

    67. Re: frist post by easyTree · · Score: 1

      You make a valid point. Everyone needs more guns to defend against mass shootings. Fortunately, due to your open and free society, mass shooters(?) have the opportunity to double-down on their gun-possession levels.
      It's looking good for the gun industry and the country as a whole. Politicians' foresight should be applauded. Weaker souls may have buckled under the demands to 'do the right thing' but through tireless back-room sponsorship, they've worked with the industry to push forwards to a good place. Bravo!!!

    68. Re:frist post by harperska · · Score: 1

      A slightly less obtuse definition would be that a rifle's purpose is to accurately put a hole in something from a significant distance. The trick is figuring out how to keep them out of the hands of people who want to use them to put holes in other people, while preserving the rights of those who just want to put holes in pieces of paper or game animals.

    69. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Your argument is invalid. There is no linkage between email and guns in the US.

      The important linkage is the one between guns and shootings. We have a lot of guns, so we have a lot of shootings.

      Violence is down because we've taken so much lead out of the environment. The gun lobby is doing their best to put it all back.

      I invite you to read the book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy which explores why different countries have different amounts of violence. Spoiler: it's more cultural factors than anything else.

      So, what you're saying is that the United States has a uniquely violent and fucked up culture, and that's why we have more gun massacres than other cultures? Isn't that a good reason to interdict in gun culture? If you knew someone (US culture) that was violent and fucked up, would you think the best approach would be to give them more guns?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    70. Re:frist post by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So, if I were to use a rifle emoji on /., you'd feel threatened? Really?

      No, because there's a high degree of anonymity on this platform and because you just provided context.

      Incidentally that is something that emojis do a great job of eliminating, context. We already have cases where people can't tell the difference between various photos, thinking they've offended someone because the smiley looks angry and failed to convey what a few words could have with much more clarity. So is it really surprising that a picture of a rifle can be perceived as threatening?

    71. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Odd, it's difficult to get a gun in France, as well... yet...

      Also, the 27,000 remaining licensed rifles beg to differ, along with all of the shotguns. Airguns, as well, but meh, nobody's shooting up a place with an airgun. And yes, I'm talking about Japan.

      There are plenty of guns in the hands of Japanese citizens, but the Japanese culture is also one based on respect. Perhaps that's why there are so few shootings.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    72. Re:frist post by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Cakes aren't designed with the express purpose of killing things.

      Bullshit argument indeed.

      While talking about bullshit, care to explain this emoji and why Apple also has the most realistic depiction of it?

    73. Re: frist post by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Wait. Don't go that way. I like the food emotions.

    74. Re:frist post by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      It's not like this is really a new thing either. I remember a whole bunch of people getting their pants in a bunch because they took the letters "NYC" in the Wingdings font to be a deliberate antisemitic statement some years back just because it renders as a sequence of Skull & Crossbones, Star of David, and Thumbs Up. The Wingdings font also includes a symbol for a bomb. This is really just another symptom of political correctness gone too far - the logical conclusion of zero tolerance policies that can get kids kicked out school just for making a gun shape with their hand, and the irony is particularly think given that of all the depictions of the pistol emoji one of the most realistic is Apple's.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    75. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Canada, most parts of the UK, Japan, and most Scandanavian countries are much more respectful cultures than most of the US. As for France, well, I think you're wrong about France.

      You're probably wrong about the UK, as well.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    76. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gun violence is at an all time low

      But still more than other developed countries by a lot. I mean a WHOLE lot.

      And mass shootings in the US are at an all-time high. No matter how you cut it, we are one violent and fucked up culture that loves guns.

      https://docs.google.com/spread...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    77. Re:frist post by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      A civilian SIG MCX may not be an "assault rifle", but it is damn close.

      It fits in every portion of the definition minus the automatic...
      I'd argue that it fits "rapid-fire" pretty damn well. You can very easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second with that weapon, and with a 30-round mag, that's 6 seconds to wipe out 20-30 people.
      Very fun gun to shoot. Really only good for feeling like you're playing real life counterstrike against targets... or people.

      I've owned firearms since I was a wee boy... but christ, are you really so intellectually dishonest as to argue that it's reasonable for every fucking person in the country to be toting these fucking things around?
      That gun doesn't just *look* menacing- as available online, it IS fucking menacing. The only self-defensive purpose that rifle will ever serve is self defense from a Swat raid that's coming to kill your ass because you've got hostages in a bank.

    78. Re:frist post by tranquilidad · · Score: 1

      If I knew someone who was violent and fucked up, I think the best approach would be to lock them the fuck up. Why would you force everyone else to give up tools that provide some utility to them in the hopes that that would result in fewer tools being available to the violent and fucked up person?

    79. Re:frist post by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma

      Cool, but there's a bomb emoji, and a pistol emoji. Apple is just being a little bitch.

      Also, language is plenty unclear about stuff anyway.

    80. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You do realize that outlawing guns won't get rid of them, right? They're already out there in the population and, while a few people might turn their guns in, most won't; and even if every (currently) law-abiding citizen turned their guns in overnight. you know who wouldn't? Criminals.

      And when criminals know they're the only ones with guns[1], what do you think criminals will do?

      [1] When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. It doesn't matter if police also have guns if they don't show up until the robbery has already been committed or the active shooter has already used up all of their ammo and left the scene.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    81. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      [...] a single-fire semi-automatic weapon [...]

      Which, according to the ex-military folks I worked with, can be quite deadly in close proximity even in single-fire mode.

    82. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Did I blame the victims? No. The shooter is still at fault for pulling the trigger. It cold have been prevented, though.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    83. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      But we DO have things like Philadelphia's "Sugar Tax" (and NYC's earlier one). So, it's not like "society" is completely oblivious to the dangers of obesity.

    84. Re:frist post by mark-t · · Score: 1

      So, if I were to use a rifle emoji on /., you'd feel threatened? Really?

      I didn't say I would be... but I am not incapable of seeing that someone who already has issues with firearms might be, I can't see how anyone would find an image of a slice of cake in a text message to them to be personally threatening, however... even if they are diabetic.

    85. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      He had a firearm, not a death ray.

      The shooter had a weapon of mass destruction, designed to kill people as efficiently as possible..

    86. Re:frist post by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Whats the diff between a hunting and assault rifle?

      That's easy. The hunting rifle has a wooden stock and the assault rifle has a black stock.

      That's an interesting perspective.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    87. Re:frist post by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's true for all emoji. The entire concept is a bucket of cunt.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    88. Re:frist post by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

      Yes, seriously. How could the parent is Insightful when it is obviously a fallacy -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- that attempts to associate 2 different events/statements as the same. Gotta love the logic surrounding this BULLSHIT argument.

    89. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1
      Since you're familiar with that particular weapon, can you tell me how likely it is for someone who bought one only days prior to be familiar enough with it to be able to cycle the trigger that fast?

      are you really so intellectually dishonest as to argue that it's reasonable for every fucking person in the country to be toting these fucking things around?

      Everyone? No. Rifles? No. Defensive carry of handguns should be more common, though.

      The only reason I don't carry is because I live in a shall-not-issue county in California where I'm so unlikely to get a permit unless it's for work as an armed guard that I haven't bothered applying. Well, that and I don't own a gun, but that mostly comes down to not being able to legally carry and having other means of home defense available.

      The gun range I frequent rents guns for range use. Yes, I've sent more than a handful of rounds down-range.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    90. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      But is not an assault weapon and, thus, shouldn't be referred to as one.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    91. Re: frist post by easyTree · · Score: 1

      And when criminals know they're the only ones with guns[1], what do you think criminals will do?

      Form a government?

    92. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      But is not an assault weapon and, thus, shouldn't be referred to as one.

      I live in California. We call them assault rifles.

    93. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Nah, nobody needs an assault rifle. Even for military use, they're not necessary. Of course, an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon and those are banned (existing fully automatic weapons are allowed and can even be sold and transferred, but must be registered -- nobody is using a registered weapon to commit a crime). What was used here was not an assault rifle, it was a rifle, just like any other rifle, functionally equivalent to any hunting rifle but with a design that looks a lot more like a military assault rifle.

      Let me tell you this: what a gun looks like doesn't make it any more or less deadly. Were I so inclined, I could go buy a rifle, like one you might consider using for hunting, right now, wait the obligatory 10 days (California, gotta love this place), go pick it up, and commit a mass shooting with it on my way home. I'm talking about a single-fire .22LR rifle like this one. Yes, just as deadly as the one used in the Orlando shooting.

      One, the media refers to (erroneously, as it is not fully automatic) as an "assault weapon". The other they refer to as something Dick Cheney might take with him on a hunting trip. Both are just as deadly.

      What's more deadly? Actual assault weapons. Go ahead and ban them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    94. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      You know what stops mass shootings? Ironically, the same thing that allows them to happen in the first place: guns.

      If just one patron of that night club last week had a gun, they could have put one between the shooter's eyes when he first started shooting and fewer people would have died. If more people carried, more people would think twice about using guns to commit crimes.

      Sure, that wouldn't be the case if guns didn't exist but, oh, look at that. They do.

      More restrictions really don't help. Look at France; strict gun laws just ensure that, when gun crimes occur (and they will), they're more devastating than they would be if an armed citizen had been there to stop them.

      Exactly! Mod this Up!!!!

      As I said to someone the other day, that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar (because presumably SOMEONE would have been armed). Truth is, the gunman probably wouldn't have even TRIED to shoot-up such a place.

      Just ONE person with a gun could have made that more like FIVE people shot instead of over ONE HUNDRED.

      Oh, and all the talking-heads that are squawking that "No one on a Terror Watch List should be able to even BUY a gun" CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the facts that

      1. The Orlando gunman WAS NOT ON ANY "WATCH LIST" (he was at one time, but then he was "cleared")

      2. These "Watch Lists" are EXTRA-JUDICIAL in nature. That is, they require exactly ZERO DUE PROCESS to be placed-on; the criteria (if there are any) are ENTIRELY opaque, and you play absolute HELL getting OFF of one. So, do you REALLY want a Government that has the POWER TO REMOVE YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS with ZERO DUE PROCESS? No Thankyouverymuch!

      First they came for...

    95. Re: frist post by thegameiam · · Score: 1

      Isn't there already a pistol emoji? And for that matter, a bomb emoji?

      Right; there we go: from an iPhone: ðY"ðY'£

      So what's the issue with a rifle?

      --
      Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
    96. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I also live in California, I don't care what the state legislature calls them. Assault weapons are well-defined and semi-automatic weapons do not fit the definition. There is no functional difference between a gun that looks like a military full-auto assault weapon and a gun that does not, unless the one that looks like the assault weapon actually is full-auto. They both fire bullets, one per trigger pull.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    97. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Hey, it worked for us back in the 1700's, didn't it?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    98. Re:frist post by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Why would I thank Apple when Microsoft did what I was asking?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    99. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar

      That's an exact quote of a youtuber I subscribe to, followed by two points they made in a recent video, almost verbatim. I'm not saying you stole it (and more power to you if you did, it's a good message, spread it), but... might you be that youtuber?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    100. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the detailed report

      But that didn't stop you from giving your expert opinion on the matter, did it?

      "There are only two guards, but it's common for people to be armed. I probably won't get very far even if I take out the guards first."

      So, people at a heavy metal concert or in a club should be blamed for their own murders because they didn't have guns? Way to blame the victims you piece of shit.

      I don't think that's what he was saying, or even implying. Don't be deliberately obtuse. Or are you just that way naturally?

      What he said (and which is undeniably true) is that strict gun laws don't do anything to make people safer; simply because no matter how many laws you pass, the ONLY people who will OBEY them are the same ones that will NEVER BE SHOOTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      Sorry; but until you can invent a device that SIMULTANEOUSLY disables ALL guns, Mutually-Assured-Destruction is the ONLY way. Handcuffing the innocents just turns them into fish-in-a-barrel.

      Which is EXACTLY what was demonstrated at Pulse.

      THREE FUCKING HOURS, FFS!!! Can you even IMAGINE how many people wished they could have had a gun materialize in their hands at that point, and HOW MANY LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED?!?

    101. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      One wonders why there wasn't even any pepper spray available/used.

      Somehow, "Stop or I'll Spray!" doesn't have the same impact...

    102. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 2

      That argument falls apart inside a crowded night club. Bar tender calls for final drinks, shooter opens fire with an assault rifle. The first 20 to 30 people in front of the shooter are already dead.

      That's Sig-Sauer rifle is a SEMI-automatic. One pull, one bullet. Sorry. He took THREE HOURS to shoot a little over 100 people. That's only TWO PER MINUTE (average).

      he person with a concealed gun may already be dead. People starts running to the exits. The person with a concealed gun may already be the first one out the door.

      "May" this, "May" that. But what WAS was Fish-In-A-Barrel.

      There is absolutely NO argument you can logically make that doesn't INCREASE the odds on the side of the "Fish", if they are armed. None.

    103. Re:frist post by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Did he just post the "take a life" emoji? Quick, somebody, call the cops!!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    104. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What he said (and which is undeniably true) is that strict gun laws don't do anything to make people safer

      Neither has the Second Amendment.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    105. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Only if you include African American homicides.

      Mass shootings in the US are a white phenomenon, statistically.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    106. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      that would have been a LOT different outcome at a Country 'n' Western or Biker Bar

      That's an exact quote of a youtuber I subscribe to, followed by two points they made in a recent video, almost verbatim. I'm not saying you stole it (and more power to you if you did, it's a good message, spread it), but... might you be that youtuber?

      No, sorry. I just came up with it talking with my roomate watching the TV coverage the other day.

      Great minds and all, ya know... ;-)

    107. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      What he said (and which is undeniably true) is that strict gun laws don't do anything to make people safer

      Neither has the Second Amendment.

      The Second Amendment was to protect us Citizens against the GOVERNMENT, and so far, it has (kinda) worked.

    108. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

      So is Apple going to filter out all mentions of the words "rifle", "gun", or "pistol" as well?

    109. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Whats the diff between a hunting and assault rifle?

      There are no such thing as either of those. It's a rifle. You can use an AR-15 Sporter to hunt squirrels just as easily as you can use a Remington to kill people in a bar.

      It's the APPLICATION, not the GUN.

    110. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 2

      An Assault Rifle has a large capacity magazine (often >25 rounds) and an automatic and/or burst fire mode. Hunting rifles are either bolt action or semi-auto and usually have smaller magazine capacities (1-5) and are often chambered for larger calibers.

      Bullshit arbitrary "classification".

    111. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      An assault rifle is a real thing. It's not what the media applies the label to, but it is a real thing. A fully automatic military rifle is an assault rifle. What was used in Orlando was not that.

      You don't correct incorrect usage of a term by not using the term yourself and allowing others to continue using it incorrectly; you correct it by using it correctly yourself and correcting others when you hear them use it incorrectly.

      I thought you, of all people, would be on board with that concept.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    112. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      An assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire. Requires an FFL to purchase and possess.

      captcha: eviller

      Then, by your definition, that Sig-Sauer rifle the Orlando gunman used was NOT "an Assault Rifle", right?

      Your definition, not mine.

    113. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah...for the US.

      No, it's down in many countries. Of course, by the kind of pretzel logic people like you employ, when gun violence falls in Australia, it's due to gun control, while when it falls in the US, it's because of lack of gun control. Or something.

      Let me put it this way: You might have cut off the crusts, but you're still eating a shit sandwich.

      The "shit sandwich" metaphor refers to the kind of lousy service governments that progressive governments give people, the same governments that tend to try to impose gun control. So, sorry, that metaphor doesn't work here.

    114. Re:frist post by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I thanked them for what they did right, and didn't when they did not.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    115. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Too late- a 12 year old girl posted a gun emoji on Instagram and was charged with making terroristic threats against her school. [washingtonpost.com]

      We're doomed.

    116. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels.

      Gun violence in the US is a problem of a small subculture. If you're not part of that subculture, gun violence in the US is lower than in many European nations.

    117. Re:frist post by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Since you're familiar with that particular weapon, can you tell me how likely it is for someone who bought one only days prior to be familiar enough with it to be able to cycle the trigger that fast?

      The shooter had police training and worked as an armed guard. In short, a failed cop. Amazing how dangerous those people can be when they fall short of their dreams.

    118. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So he'd have been able to buy a gun even if they were more restricted.

      Yes, let's add more restriction, then, because that would totally have prevented this.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    119. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      An assault rifle is a real thing. It's not what the media applies the label to, but it is a real thing. A fully automatic military rifle is an assault rifle. What was used in Orlando was not that.

      You don't correct incorrect usage of a term by not using the term yourself and allowing others to continue using it incorrectly; you correct it by using it correctly yourself and correcting others when you hear them use it incorrectly.

      I thought you, of all people, would be on board with that concept.

      The term "assault rifle" was created in 1992 (I believe) by the anti-gun crowd (you know, Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer and friends, the Brady Bill people) to attempt to categorize "scary-looking" guns with a "scary-sounding" name.

      It DID have a "legal definition", true; but that was for the purposes of the Brady Bill.

      But the term literally did not exist until that drumbeat started after James Brady got in the way of the bullet intended for Ronald Regan.

      Until then, there was NO SUCH THING as an "Assault Rifle", period. And there STILL isn't.

    120. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The Second Amendment was to protect us Citizens against the GOVERNMENT, and so far, it has (kinda) worked.

      You are delusional, Mr Cook. In what way has the Second Amendment protected "us citizens" against the GOVERNMENT? The last time a Second Amendment solution was used against the government was the 1860s, and the South got all shot to shit for their trouble and Atlanta was burned to the ground.

      Are you talking about the Bundy Ranch? Those guys had a Second Amendment solution and they're in prison now.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    121. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Mass shootings in the US are a white phenomenon, statistically.

      Well, and whaddayaknow, they happen at a lower rate in the US than in many European countries.

    122. Re:frist post by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Odd, it's difficult to get a gun in France, as well... yet...

      Exactly.

      It's difficult to get a gun in France so there are dramatically fewer mass-shootings per capita in France compared to the USA.

      Thanks for a good example that reinforces my point.

      Last year's Paris attacks killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States.

      Source:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

    123. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'm too lazy to research this one so I'll just go with it. I got my definition from the very youtuber I mentioned earlier, perhaps not the most reliable of sources.

      As an aside, have you noticed that my original comment shot up to +5 and now sits at 0? Gotta love argumentum per viam modum. Ah, well, I have karma to burn.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    124. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, sensible gun legislation could be in place like in Canada, the UK, Japan, Scandanavian countries, France, etc. and mass shootings would be aberrations instead of weekly occurrences.

      Mass shootings are frequent occurrences in the US because the US is big. Amazing, huh? Norway has about 1/60th the population of the US, so mass shootings should happen at 1/60th the rate.

      If you look at death rates from mass shootings, the US is at number 11 behind countries like Norway, France, Switzerland, Finland, and Belgium.

      http://crimeresearch.org/2015/...

      Gun control has never been shown to have any significant effect on either homicide rates or mass shootings.

    125. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Damnit, just when I was starting to like you again you make me spit coffee all over my laptop.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    126. Re:frist post by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      So, sorry, that metaphor doesn't work here.

      English not your first language, huh? You must be one of them immigrants Trump keeps saying's gonna vote for him.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    127. Re:frist post by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The thing is, most of the shit isn't from guns. CDC leading causes of death in the U.S., page 41. Skipping all the disease deaths we get:

      41,149 - suicide (21,175 of them by firearms, about 2/3 of all firearm deaths)
      38,861 - accidental poisonings and overdoses (passed traffic accidents recently)
      37,908 - (land) motor vehicle accidents (nearly 3/4 alcohol-related)
      30,208 - accidental falls (mostly among the elderly)
      16,904 - other accidents
      16,121 - homicide (11,208 by firearms)
      4,587 - Other undetermined events (281 by firearms)
      3,391 - accidental drowning
      2,768 - complications from medical and surgical care
      2,760 - accidental fire
      1,569 - water, air, space vehicle accidents
      1,000 - other land transport accidents
      516 - killings by law enforcement (usually by firearms)
      505 - accidental discharge of firearms
      15 - war

      Now, compare that list to what you see the press covering. Suicides, drug overdoses, motor vehicle deaths, falls, drownings, medical complications, are vastly underreported. Firearms (which I've put in bold), air transport accidents, killings by law enforcement, and war/terrorism deaths are vastly overreported. (IMHO fires are reported about the right amount - fires make good video).

      Roughly 2/3 of the firearm deaths are from suicide. But firearms account for roughly half of suicides. So you can make a pretty convincing argument that the people who shot themselves probably would've figured out some other way to successfully kill themselves if guns weren't available. So you shouldn't attribute these deaths on firearms.

      That leaves the 11,208 firearm homicide deaths up for debate. Which certainly is a topic worth debating. But its importance falls far behind suicide, drug overdoses, motor vehicle accidents (mostly drunk driving), falls (this one is debatable since it's mostly elderly who are killed this way), and other types of accidents. As a whole, these things are 11.7x more likely to kill you than homicide by firearm.

      In other words, firearms homicides comprise less than 8% of the shit in the shit sandwich. An objective, statistical approach to reducing the preventable non-disease death rate in this country would prioritize reducing these other causes higher than tackling firearms homicides. The overdose death rate in particular is very troubling, since it's roughly tripled in the past 15 years. This increase accounts for twice as many lives lost than would've been saved if we'd somehow managed to eliminate all firearms homicide deaths. Yet the press practically ignores this compared to firearms homicides.

    128. Re:frist post by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      There is absolutely NO argument you can logically make that doesn't INCREASE the odds on the side of the "Fish", if they are armed. None.

      Oh you're looking for a LOGICAL argument from an anti-gun liberal? Come on now, you know you're not going to get that. He's going to come up with a FANCIFUL argument, deny your LOGICAL one exists or is valid, and claim victory.

      And if he can't do that he'll just call you racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, and a bully, and then he'll take his ball and go home.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    129. Re:frist post by melted · · Score: 1

      No, there was only one person armed in that club: the police officer at the entrance. Moreover, he seemed to kinda suck at using his weapon. Inside, no one was armed (patrons are patted down at the entrance, and staff are not allowed to carry in this "gun free zone"), so the dude roamed the halls for almost 4 hours and shot everyone he could find. If staff was carrying at least a couple of guns, this would be over in 10 minutes tops, and far fewer people would have bled out on that dance floor.

    130. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      t's difficult to get a gun in France so there are dramatically fewer mass-shootings per capita in France compared to the USA.

      Really?

      UPDATE: February 4, 2016. If only by excellent police work and some luck, last November Paris was literally just three days away from several more mass public shootings planned for a nursery school, a shopping mall, and a police station.

      I think you're wrong.

      France takes 3rd place in per-capita gun deaths, at 0.347 per million, while the US takes 11th at 0.089 per million. Francs takes 11th place in frequency of mass shootings at 0.092 per million people, while the US takes 12th at 0.078 per million.

      Care to re-roll?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    131. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Eh... "Francs" was a typo, not a deliberate slur.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    132. Re:frist post by sootman · · Score: 1

      Yup. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." (Or 3 hours, if someone thinks they saw a bomb.)

      "In the three hours that followed, more than 100 law enforcement officers gathered near the club to assess the situation and wait. People were still inside, calling 911 from a bathroom, wanting to be rescued."

      http://www.orlandosentinel.com...

      Remember, it is not the police's job to save lives. Seriously. They do what they can, and most of them are good people, but contrary to what you see in movies, it is not their job to put themselves into harm's way to save you. They are not Bruce Willis or Kiefer Sutherland. If the situation looks bad, you're probably on your own.

      Re-read that quote. I want to bold the whole thing. ONE HUNDRED officers showed up... and waited. People were continually calling 911 and hoping to be rescued.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    133. Re:frist post by slinches · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but the federal government doesn't see it that way. They all but banned one for private ownership and the other is available for immediate purchase without registration.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    134. Re:frist post by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels

      I encourage you to stop into, say, a university or a research lab in Mexico and tell them that they aren't part of the developed world. Or most of Central and South America. Or nations in Africa where high tech factories, mobile devices, etc., are routine ... undeveloped! It's so fun when you get to call brown people undeveloped so you can rule them out of your statistics just like you do suicides, since that helps you to make your spurious, inaccurate non-point.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    135. Re:frist post by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      There's already a pistol emoji. There's no reason not to add a rifle emoji for completeness sake.

      And there's already an apple emoji, too. Why did they have to add the banana? Oh, I get it - because those aren't the same things. Just like the half a dozen types of trucks they show. Or multiple types of trees and flowers. Or however many dozens of different groups of multicultural heads with different hair colors. A person is a person, right? Right? No? I see.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    136. Re:frist post by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Cake have many uses, sustaining life being one of them, most violent one is actually fun. Rifle has only one. Your argument is invalid.

      I've used a rifle to provide a meal during which we also served cake. How are you that uninformed? I've also used a firearm to prevent someone from harming my wife and myself. Are you still foggy on the concept? No?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    137. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, and whaddayaknow, they happen at a lower rate in the US than in many European countries.

      Sadly, no. They happen with much greater frequency in the US than in any European country. What you're referring to are spurious statistics from John Lott's NRA-funded website "crimeresearch.org", which show that more people per 100,000 die in Norway and Finland, but that's only because of two large mass shootings by right-wing nutjobs that killed a lot of people in a country with small populations.

      If you look at the total number of mass shootings, you will see that they happen with much greater, and I mean MUCH greater frequency in the United States.

      If you'd like, I can post citations to back up my claim that John Lott's statistics are completely bogus.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    138. Re:frist post by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      This isn't a no-guns-anywhere vs. everyone-including-violent-criminals-and-the-clinically-insane-must-have-guns argument. Only a few atoms of common sense are needed to realise that there is a spectrum of possibilities, and that arguing for or against extremes is just talking to hear yourself talk.

      First, the American people need education. They need to know what guns are used for (other than mass murder), what types of guns are actually available and the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, and in my opinion I like the idea of required gun safety training. They also need to learn about mental instability, and understand the signs that someone might be a threat to them or others.

      It disgusts me that while posting this, I got an email from Joe Biden (mailing list) "calling on the government to ban AR-15-type assault weapons from civilian ownership". This is the second-in-command of the United States and he believes, incorrectly, that the AR-15 is an assault weapon.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    139. Re:frist post by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      You're right, when it comes down to little kids being gunned down in Sandy Hook, I should have really compared the USA to Somalia, not Japan. USA looks much better that way. My bad.

    140. Re:frist post by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      And yet, if I misuse the cake, I can easily kill you with it. Likewise, a petite female being threatened with rape by a large male could use an item "with the express purpose of killing things" to defend herself in a way that would otherwise be impossible.

      A gun is a tool. An inanimate collection of metal an plastic. Like any tool, like any inanimate ITEM, it can be used for good or ill. That does not make the tool culpable, anymore than cakes are culpable for your death if I smother you with one, or choke you on one. What's culpable is the HUMAN BEING performing the action.

      You anti-gun people seem to forget that a gun put an end to the Orlando shooter. Guns are not unbridled engines of evil and destruction. There are almost 300 million guns in America right this very minute. Yesterday, none of them were used in a mass killing. Nor the day before. And if you add up all the days they WEREN'T used as such, you find an almost infinitesimal number are used improperly, well under 1%, whereas the vast overwhelming majority are used for benign (sporting/hunting) or defensive purposes.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    141. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone could have stopped him sometime in the 3 hours it took him to shoot just over 100 people.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    142. Re:frist post by myid · · Score: 1

      Too late- a 12 year old girl posted a gun emoji on Instagram and was charged with making terroristic threats against her school. [washingtonpost.com]

      According to the article, she did more than post a gun emoji. The message contained the word "Killing", then a picture of a gun, then the words "meet me in the library Tuesday", then pictures of a gun, a knife, and a bomb. Maybe she meant it as a joke - I don't know. I do know that there are some subjects that you really shouldn't joke about.

    143. Re:frist post by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Or, you could have compared it to, say, Norway, which had a LOT more students recently killed by a guy who used a gun. Norway, Somalia, whatever.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    144. Re:frist post by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Or, you could have compared it to, say, Norway, which had a LOT more students recently killed by a guy who used a gun.

      Yep - Canada, Norway, all have had mass shootings. But compared to the USA, the number of gun deaths in those other countries are rounding errors compared to the USA. Plus, in those countries when kids are gunned down the nations' leadership takes action. In the USA the 'leaders' have thoughts. Oh yeah, and prayers too.

    145. Re:frist post by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Guns were invented to kill people.

      No, guns were invented to kill the enemy. They were a military invention first, designed to supplant other ranged weapons like bows. And if they could be kept in the hands of non-crazies and non-criminals then you'd have no reason to quarrel with their existence. Your prime objection is the "bad guys" can get guns, therefore having guns PERIOD is not worth the danger, therefore these guns should be banned.

      This brings up the big question: exactly how do you plan to keep criminals and crazies from STILL getting guns or keeping the ones they have?

      If you can answer this one simple in such a fashion that, for the rest of my life and the lives of all my descendants, they never find themselves in a situation where they are assailed by someone having a firearm while they're legally unable to have the same, then I'll support you. Until then, I'll keep my guns and oppose you and anyone else who thinks they're making the world "safer" by implementing bans and laws that have failed miserably on both large and small scales.

      The patrons in Pulse in Orlando subcontracted out their safety to the club and to the city police department, thinking those organizations along with blind chance would keep them safe. Their luck ran out, and the two places that were most intimately involved in keeping them safe (a) demanded they disarm before entering the club, (b) were incapable of responding to the club fast enough to prevent a hostage situation and subsequent killings. The patrons paid for their lax value of safety with their lives. You may be willing to make such a gamble with your life, but I will not. You can bet the fallen in Pulse wished they hadn't.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    146. Re:frist post by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you want to include suicides, and choose to consider the severe gang problem in specific areas of three or four specific cities that have some of the most harsh gun laws and which have been run at the legislative and executive level by liberal politicians for decades. If you took just Chicago out of the numbers, it would put countries like France and Germany and especially places like Russia WAY above the US in violence involving guns, and of course that's if you still choose to exclude all sorts of developed countries that it's convenient to call "undeveloped" because including them takes all the fun out of the stats being pushed.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    147. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      If venue staff had been armed they could have taken this guy down fairly easily. It's not like he was rapid-firing, he averaged a shot every 2 minutes for 3 hours. Likewise if patrons had been armed, even if only a few. But no, this was a "gun free zone". How well did that work out?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    148. Re:frist post by aevan · · Score: 1

      Except there are knife and hammer emoji, and according to the FBI, in 2013 twice as many people were murdered by hammers, and fives times as many were killed by knives. Hell, three times as many were bludgeoned to death, but there is a 'fist' emoji. This is just PR shit.

      source

    149. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you look at the total number of mass shootings, you will see that they happen with much greater, and I mean MUCH greater frequency in the United States.

      Of course they happen with much greater frequency in the US; the US is much, much bigger too.

      If you'd like, I can post citations to back up my claim that John Lott's statistics are completely bogus.

      You have shown time and again that you are incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction, so frankly, I wouldn't even bother following your links.

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

    150. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You must be one of them immigrants

      And you must be one of those racist and bigoted American low information voters that I have heard so much about.

      English not your first language, huh?

      No. I still speak it a lot better than you ever will, honey.

    151. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While talking about bullshit, care to explain this emoji and why Apple also has the most realistic depiction of it?

      Amusingly, I'd say it's Samsung that actually has the most realistic depiction. Much better grip.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    152. Re:frist post by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Mass shootings are frequent occurrences in the US because the US is big

      Amazing, huh? Norway has about 1/60th the population of the US, so mass shootings should happen at 1/60th the rate.

      The only thing amazing is that you wrote that not realizing how idiotic it makes you look.

      What you've done here called lying with statistics. For Norway, its basically a one off event; but it happened to be a big one, and it happened to fall into a narrow date range they were looking at. Its a statistical outlier, and it's plain dishonest to count it like that.

      For example, the US is about 10x the population of Canada. Therefore if 1 person per decade spontaneously combusts in the states, we'd expect it to happen 1 in 100 years in Canada everything else being assumed equal right?

      So... lets get some data...

      1905 - 1 in the US
      1916 - 1 in the US
      1924 - 1 in the US ...
      2002 - 1 in the US
      2015 - 1 in the US; and finally 1 in Canada

      Now lets make a chart looking at the last 10 years: 2006-2016 what do we see:

      1 in the US, and 1 in Canada

      OMG, the rate is the SAME! Holy shit balls... Canada has the same rate of human spontaneously exploding as the US! Now lets calculate that per capita...

      US : 1 in 300,000,000; Canada 1 in 30,000,000

      Amazing huh! Canada has 10x the rate of exploding peeps the US does!

      Now, tell me you do see the how absolutely retarded that argument is?

      That's the same argument you and that website just made about Norway.

      Norway is a statistical outlier, because it had exactly one mass shooting, but it was large; and it distorts the data, and that was amplified by selecting the date range it happened to occur in. For example, try expanding the date range from 2009-2013 to 1970-2013... how many mass shootings will Norway rack up if you do that? Meanwhhile the US just keeps piling them on.. 24 from 2000-2008 (adding another ~114 victims); 42 more mass shootings in the 90s adding another ~155 victims. 32 more mass shootings in the 80s...etc..

      The Norway figure isn't going to budge, while the US is going to steadily climb the ranks; as more data adds up.

      Gun control has never been shown to have any significant effect on either homicide rates or mass shootings.

      Well ... except in Australia.

      homicide rates

      "The chances of being murdered by a gun in Australia plunged to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 0.54 per 100,000 people in 1996, a decline of 72 percent, a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed."

      or mass shootings

      "It was the April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

      "The country has had no mass shootings since."

      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      Not saying Australia is a solid argument for gun control but you are going to have to pull your head out of your ass and make a cogent argument why it isn't instead of just pretending its not real.

    153. Re: frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      http://nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html

      An op-ed is not a source.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    154. Re: frist post by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      It was recently used in quite a serious assault. You could rename the AR-15 the Fluffy Bunny but it would kill just as efficiently.

    155. Re:frist post by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Then how come you don't know how metaphors work?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    156. Re:frist post by sir1963nz · · Score: 1

      last time I checked, no one has killed 50 people using a hamburger. Ans ONE bullet can be lethal, 1 hamburger , not so much.

    157. Re:frist post by bondsbw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But none of those things make a gun an "assault weapon", which is defined as "a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use". It is not automatic, which is defined as a single-pull-multiple-fire gun. It is semi-automatic, you must pull the trigger per shot. So are most pistols, including those pink ones designed to look so much less dangerous (but aren't).

      Suggested reading: https://medium.com/@jonst0kes/why-i-need-an-ar-15-832e05ae801c#.fql7xrb9x

      If the AR-15 were a weapon that’s suitable only for indiscriminate, spray-n-pray mass slaughter, then it wouldn’t be so popular with police. There is no conceivable circumstance in which a police officer—not even a SWAT team member—would need to mow down hordes of people.

      The AR-15 is less a model of rifle than it is an open-source, modular weapons platform that can be customized for a whole range of applications, from small pest control to taking out 500-pound feral hogs to urban combat. Everything about an individual AR-15 can be changed with aftermarket parts—the caliber of ammunition, recoil, range, weight, length, hold and grip, and on and on.

      People buy these because it's cheaper to buy one gun and change parts out for a few different needs, than to buy a few guns.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    158. Re: frist post by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Only one flaw in your logic: it can be applied simply to the word "rifle" - why don't we ban that from the language while we're at it?

    159. Re: frist post by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Where'd you get the idea that logic and reason have a place in this debate??

    160. Re:frist post by TheCycoONE · · Score: 1

      Somehow letting people in a nightclub carry doesn't seem like the best idea I've heard all day. (You've been to a nightclub right?)

    161. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Damnit, just when I was starting to like you again you make me spit coffee all over my laptop.

      Well, at least this time it was just a Windows laptop... (I kid!!!)

      LOL! At least we found something to agree on!!!

      Actually, it was a modification of the line I use when people say that you should just dial 911 if someone breaks into your house: "Stop or I'll DIAL!"

    162. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now explain how those "assault rifles" are evil, but the KelTec SU-16CA is not. The SU-16CA is 100% compliant with those "assault weapons" lists, but it:

      - Uses the same magazines (STANAG)

      - Uses the same caliber and rounds

      - Same reload operation/time

      - Same operation (semi-automatic)

      - Same barrel length (16")

      - Same terminal velocity and accuracy

      The AR-15 is banned by most "assault weapons" lists, but the SU-16CA passes with flying colors. The reality is that the list is simply made up from what some people consider "scary". It's cosmetic fluff worse than the TSA kabuki theater of security.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    163. Re:frist post by Trongy · · Score: 1

      Try re-reading that post with a view towards comprehension. Once you understand it, you will realise how stupid you sound.

    164. Re:frist post by The_Rook · · Score: 1

      41,149 - suicide (21,175 of them by firearms, about 2/3 of all firearm deaths)
      38,861 - accidental poisonings and overdoses (passed traffic accidents recently)
              packages of poisons (insecticide, weed killer, rat poison) and toxic materials like cleaning fluid are regulated.

      37,908 - (land) motor vehicle accidents (nearly 3/4 alcohol-related)
              motor vehicles have to be registered and drivers licensed and insured. drunk driving is illegal.

      30,208 - accidental falls (mostly among the elderly)
              slippery floors have to be marked. public areas have to beveled in non-slip materials.

      16,904 - other accidents
      16,121 - homicide (11,208 by firearms)
      4,587 - Other undetermined events (281 by firearms)
      3,391 - accidental drowning
                pools have to be fenced off and public pools and beaches have to have lifeguards

      2,768 - complications from medical and surgical care
              doctors and health care providers have to be insured.

      2,760 - accidental fire
              fire codes

      1,569 - water, air, space vehicle accidents
              solas for boats, FAA regulates air safety.

      1,000 - other land transport accidents
              NTSB

      516 - killings by law enforcement (usually by firearms)
      505 - accidental discharge of firearms

      basically, all the man-made potential causes of death are regulated for safety.some quite successfully (traffic deaths are way down from their peak). why should firearms be exempt from safety regulations when practically everything else is regulated for safety?

      --
      when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
    165. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but the federal government doesn't see it that way. They all but banned one for private ownership and the other is available for immediate purchase without registration.

      Actually, the Federal Government sees it EXACTLY that way. Or rather, SHOULD, under the Constitution and Statutory Law.

      The "assault weapons ban" (a/k/a "Brady Bill") was allowed to "sunset" during the Bush Administration (probably the only thing he ever got right).

      So no, the only place the term "assault weapon/rifle" has any meaning is in the (minuscule) minds of the anti-gun nuts and the media outlets that perpetuate their mindset.

    166. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      From your data, I see deaths up a factor of 2.33, woundings up a factor of 3.1, and shootings up a factor of 2.26. From what to what, you say? From President Bush to President Obama. Perhaps President Obama's deliberate use of "divide and conquer" to politics and the "us vs. them" rhetoric he spews is the reason that mass shootings have greatly accelerated during his Administration?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    167. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I'm too lazy to research this one so I'll just go with it. I got my definition from the very youtuber I mentioned earlier, perhaps not the most reliable of sources.

      You DO know the "assault weapons ban" (and with it, the bullshit arbitrary "definition" thereof) was allowed to EXPIRE in 2004. So, as of now, there is no such thing, legally, as an "assault" ANYTHING.

      As an aside, have you noticed that my original comment shot up to +5 and now sits at 0? Gotta love argumentum per viam modum. Ah, well, I have karma to burn.

      Welcome to MY world! I have had my Karma go from Excellent to Poor in one day, THREE TIMES since I joined /. in 2004.

    168. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      What kills me (hopefully not literally) is that every cop I talk to, even local cops in my city, tells me they wish more people would carry since they can't be everywhere to prevent crimes before the occur. My point about the local cops is that my county has a shall-not-grant policy on CCW permits, it is very difficult to legally carry where I live.

      "Stop or I'll shoot!" is precisely what cops want us to be able to say to criminals. At least, cops who have to interact with the public on a regular basis. Apparently a county sheriff doesn't feel the same way.

      Oh, and my MacBook was sitting next to me, it did catch some "shrapnel". You can feel bad now. :P

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    169. Re:frist post by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      There is no distinction between SIG MCX, and any other semi-automatic rifle. They all let you " easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second", and most of them accept detachable magazines of essentially unlimited capacity.

      Ruger Mini-14 is not an "assault rifle" (at least not by any existing definitions), yet it could do everything MCX did.

      If you don't have a problem with people owning Mini-14s, then there's no objective reason why they shouldn't be able to own MCX.

      If you do have a problem with people owning either, then you want a full ban on semi-autos. Which is fine, but then please don't confuse the issue by using the term "assault weapon".

    170. Re:frist post by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Assault weapon" is not well-defined. It is a term that didn't exist until the first AWB, and it was defined by the lawyers who wrote it.

      It is not the same as "assault rifle".

    171. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that you go all ape over the SIG "assault weapon", but there is such a thing as the KelTec SU-16CA which uses the same magazines, the same rounds, the same barrel length, the same semi-auto operation, the same lethality - and it's 100% compliant with any "assault weapons ban" ever passed in the US. It's a "safe" firearm according the nannies, but in reality it is the exact same thing - just in a "non threatening" package. It's all about looks, isn't it?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    172. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Welcome to MY world! I have had my Karma go from Excellent to Poor in one day, THREE TIMES since I joined /. in 2004.

      I had an APK sockpuppet army take me down from Excellent to Poor in an hour a few months back. I recovered in 2 days. Not gonna cry over it :)

      But I do blame you for this. Not because I think you had anything to do with actually modding me down, but because you suggested people mod me up.

      I'm only half joking. Sadly, the mere suggestion of how people should moderate often tends to make them do exactly the opposite. It's all good, though; I know you meant no harm.

      Or did you? ;)

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    173. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      If you had the tine, I'd recommend getting your local ACLU to take that Sheriff to court fir denying you a Fundamental Right under the U.S. Constitution. The "default" SHOULD be "Issue permit unless...", not the other way around.

    174. Re:frist post by macs4all · · Score: 1

      But I do blame you for this. Not because I think you had anything to do with actually modding me down, but because you suggested people mod me up.

      Jeez, talk about "No good deed goes unpunished!" Story of my life... ;-)

    175. Re:frist post by Spudboy2003 · · Score: 1

      Since they changed the definition of what a mass shooting is. Then numbers are up. Just move the ball to prove your point.

    176. Re:frist post by purplie · · Score: 1
      > There's already a pistol emoji. There's no reason not to add a rifle emoji for completeness sake.

      Yes there is: we don't need damned emojis for every object in the world.

    177. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Not letting them carry didn't exactly save any lives now, did it?

      Perhaps the proliferation of guns is less of an issue than the lack of respect for others in this country; even France has more gun deaths (and mass-shootings) per-capita than the US, despite it being exceedingly difficult to legally buy a gun in France. Contrast with Japan, where it's equally difficult to buy a gun and there's practically no gun crime. As evident by the situation in France, the gun laws are ineffective. The primary cultural difference between France and Japan is that Japan's culture places a very high value on respect.

      We don't have that here, and I doubt we ever will, criminals already have guns, and only non-criminals would ever give them up if "required" to, so a gun ban would make us worse off than France, while increased incidence of defensive carry of firearms might disincentivise much of the gun-related crime criminals currently view as low risk.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    178. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If violence is down, it is down.

      But mass shootings are up, starting coincidentally with the Heller decision.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    179. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Please tell me what you mean by "gun culture" and where you got your supporting evidence; also please tell me exactly how you propose to "inderdict", and then perhaps we can discuss it.

      Please send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope and $17 in US currency or Steam gift cards, and I will send you instructions on how to google information yourself.

      I invite you to read a good book on the gun culture of the USA.

      And I invite you to read about some up-to-date research showing that more guns = more crime.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Get back to me when you finish the article.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    180. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      People buy these because it's cheaper to buy one gun and change parts out for a few different needs

      Like adding a drum magazine when you want to go shoot stop signs or murder 50 people.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    181. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Now explain how those "assault rifles" are evil, but the KelTec SU-16CA [keltecweapons.com] is not.

      I agree with you completely. The SU-16CA should not be available to the general public either.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    182. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      From your data, I see deaths up a factor of 2.33, woundings up a factor of 3.1, and shootings up a factor of 2.26. From what to what, you say? From President Bush to President Obama. Perhaps President Obama's deliberate use of "divide and conquer" to politics and the "us vs. them" rhetoric he spews is the reason that mass shootings have greatly accelerated during his Administration?

      Look at the spreadsheet again. The rate of increase of mass shootings has not accelerated. It started immediately after the Heller decision during the Ronald Reagan administration and has been on a steady increase ever since. Both in the number of mass shootings and the lethality.

      Speaking of Reagan, here's a photo of him showing very poor trigger discipline, proving that he wasn't really a sportsman or gun enthusiast. He was just using the gun issue to crank up the yahoos. the same way he did with the welfare issue and the race issue.

      https://gunmart.files.wordpres...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    183. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Except it's not an assault rifle. Where would you draw the line? detachable magazine? Semi automatic operation?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    184. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Look at the spreadsheet again. The definition of mass shooting as 4 or more killed has been in place for the entire period covered by the data.

      Since the 1980s, the baseline of four fatalities has generally been used for studying mass murder, according to Professor James Alan Fox of Northeastern University, who has written multiple books on the subject.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    185. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I looked at the spreadsheet. 34 events under President Obama. 15 under President Bush. 17 under President Clinton. 8 under President Bush, and 6 under President Reagan. If anything it looks like mass shootings escalate under Democrat Administrations! Three per term for Reagan. Eight per term for both the Bushes and Clinton. Seventeen per term (so far) for Obama. Maybe it wasn't all Democrats, just ones who love to racially agitate and divide the nation.

      Oh, and about Heller? June 2008 is when it happened, that's a little past President Reagan... Kind of blows your whole "blame Reagan and Heller for the murders" line apart, ya think?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    186. Re:frist post by Drethon · · Score: 1

      And I've been heard that assassins love the .22LR pistols. Though I'm just repeating what someone told me.

    187. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Oh, and about Heller?

      You're absolutely right. I had that wrong. The individual right to own firearms didn't come along until 2008.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    188. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Except it's not an assault rifle. Where would you draw the line? detachable magazine? Semi automatic operation?

      No semi-auto long guns at all for people who don't know how to behave themselves. Universal background checks which include the terror watch list (once due process means to challenge inclusion on the terror watch list are put in place). Also, full gun registration for all civilian weapons. And remove liability protections for firearms manufacturers. Why should they be the only industry in the US that is free from liability even in the case of negligence. Also, unlike the NRA, I don't believe people who have been convicted of felonies should be allowed to own guns until they are given back their voting rights. Because in my opinion, the right to vote precedes the right to own a sexy military-style weapon. I don't care if it's just a matter of how it looks. The AR-15 was developed to be used by members of the military. If a gun buyer wants an AR-15 because it looks cool and deadly and gets the urban camo package and extra mags, they should be immediately be placed on the terror watch list, because what the fuck? Either it's for self-defense or it's not. It's not supposed to be a sex toy.

      That's where I draw the line.

      I've owned guns, both handguns and long guns, over four decades. I've qualified (in the past) as marksman and sharpshooter. I don't have a problem with gun ownership. I just don't think mopes should own guns, and I don't believe that the second amendment indicates an individual right to own firearms.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    189. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Tell me more about the Knife attacks. When guns are banned the knifing rates go up.

      Tell me about an individual going into a night club and killing 50 people with a pocket knife.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    190. Re:frist post by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Combine that with the skull and crossbones and you've got an obvious "Cake or Death?" threat. Who cares about rifles, this is the issue we really need to be addressing.

      Oh, and you! Guy in the corner. Your choice is "or Death".

    191. Re:frist post by Sibko · · Score: 1

      Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels.

      Well, here's how it all looks compared to the rest of the world:

      http://i.imgur.com/9BwH7Q1.png - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, OECD countries
      http://i.imgur.com/ugpsD0N.jpg - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, all countries
      http://i.imgur.com/AB399V8.png - Race and Gender of firearm homicides in the US
      http://i.imgur.com/uHo4EtB.jpg - Number of murder victims by weapon in the US

    192. Re:frist post by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a weapon of mass destruction, either.
      What's with the hyperbole?

    193. Re:frist post by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Like adding a drum magazine when you want to go shoot stop signs or murder 50 people.

      Or for military purposes.

      Which is another reason people like the gun. Military guns are thought to be proven and more reliable... which you want when you are defending yourself.

      You still have yet to show that this is an "assault weapon". Because it isn't. You just can't separate the Hollywood look of this gun from its function, and until you can do that, there's no use continuing this discussion.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    194. Re:frist post by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

      You said it. Right back atcha.

    195. Re:frist post by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      No semi-auto long guns at all for people who don't know how to behave themselves.

      So bolt-action weapons are ok? https://youtu.be/iiajgOeKOKU
      And he said he's an "inexperienced shooter" (presumably with the bolt-action, not firearms in general).

      Here's an idea I had for a firearm. Take the SMLE's action/design, rechamber it in 5.56mm and 7.62x39 (AK-47 round), use a high-speed tacticool stock with Picatinny rails for accessories. If that guy in the video above had a reliable weapon (due to modern machining), a single-point sling at the shoulder, a vertical foregrip, and a lower-powered round......the "terminal effects" would be pretty damn similar to what a typical semi-auto rifle delivers, barring longer reload times.

      If properly engineered, a bolt-action weapon isn't going to significantly hinder a malicious shooter.

      Another firearm idea I had: US militias lack heavy weapons. "Suppression is the key infantry task". Militias will never pose a serious threat to a tyrannical government if they cannot suppress government forces with direct fire in order to facilitate maneuver. They need a GPMG, but fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted. How about a tri-barrel gatling gun? Chamber it in 5.56mm (if you want a lighter, almost squad support weapon), 7.62 NATO, and 7.62x54 Russian. Maybe even .338 Magnum (expensive but impressive long-range ballistics, general dynamics is experimenting with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). You could sell these easily because, as a gatling gun, it is hand-cranked aka each shot is "manually operated", hence not covered by full-auto restrictions despite its high volume of fire. It should be cheap and rugged, like a gatling version of a Russian PKM. And come with a tripod....because anyone serious about employing an MG base of fire will need them. And if you are employing 2+ MGs (as you should, to establish "talking guns"), operator fatigue shouldn't be an issue either.

    196. Re:frist post by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      And I invite you to read about some up-to-date research showing that more guns = more crime.

      US private citizens own something like half of all the small arms on the entire planet, with over 300 million weapons already and ~10 million weapons produced annually. (production numbers: https://www.shootingindustry.c... )

      Yet we account for nowhere near half of the firearms-related deaths, and the US homicide rate is at a 50-year low: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

      If firearms and (violent) crime are positively correlated as you suggest, how do you account for MILLIONS of weapons being dumped into the population's hands every year yet murders decline?

    197. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      So which one of your rules or lines would have stopped Omar from getting his rifle? he had a background check, was a trained security armed guard and had gone through basic police academy traingin - so he was trained. His firearms were registered. So he could have gotten them according to your rules. It wouldn't stop that lone wolf. That's the problem with just passing laws - they don't work to prevent, only to penalize.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    198. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      how do you account for MILLIONS of weapons being dumped into the population's hands every year yet murders decline?

      The people who are at prime murdering age have been either a) exposed to less lead after the EPA was formed or b) incarcerated (US has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world).

      Plus, since the average gun owner now own 8.1 guns yet only has two hands, there bound to be diminishing murder returns per gun. Also (and this is true) the number of households that own guns has gone down. This decrease alone accounts almost precisely for the decrease in murders.

      Also, your premise is flawed. More guns = more murder.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      http://thinkprogress.org/justi...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    199. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Which is another reason people like the gun. Military guns are thought to be proven and more reliable... which you want when you are defending yourself.

      Do you also want a 100-round drum magazine when defending yourself? Who are you defending yourself from, the University of Texas marching band?

      Please explain to me why any civilian has a need for a 100-round magazine or why they should be sold.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    200. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      barring longer reload times.

      When your goal is to massacre as many people as possible before the police show up, reload times are very important.

      Militias will never pose a serious threat to a tyrannical government if they cannot suppress government forces with direct fire in order to facilitate maneuver. They need a GPMG, but fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted. How about a tri-barrel gatling gun? Chamber it in 5.56mm (if you want a lighter, almost squad support weapon), 7.62 NATO, and 7.62x54 Russian. Maybe even .338 Magnum

      You are planning to murder U.S. soldiers and law enforcement. You are a menace. Please turn yourself in right now.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    201. Re:frist post by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      The term "assault rifle" was created in 1992 (I believe) by the anti-gun crowd (you know, Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer and friends, the Brady Bill people) to attempt to categorize "scary-looking" guns with a "scary-sounding" name.

      But the term literally did not exist until that drumbeat started after James Brady got in the way of the bullet intended for Ronald Regan.

      Until then, there was NO SUCH THING as an "Assault Rifle", period. And there STILL isn't.

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

      It's name is literally Assault Rifle 1944. With the term attributed to Hitler, of all people (it was originally classified as a Machine Pistol aka Sub-Machine Gun).

    202. Re:frist post by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      What should we do about people who have the words "killing", "dead" and gun maker's name "sig" in their signatures? How do we handle them? Apart from humor, I got nothing.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    203. Re:frist post by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I will feel threatened that my unicode spurning /. is being taken away from me. Beware, I will extract revenge from you.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    204. Re:frist post by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Combine the populations of
      France
      UK
      Australia
      Germany
      Japan
      Switzerland
      Sweden
      Denmark

      and you get roughly the same population as that of the USA.

      All those countries combined average a yearly death by firearm total of 112.

      The USA manages an average of 32,000.

      You can spin statistics any way you want but it will take more than Donald Trump to turn those figures around and make them acceptable.

    205. Re: frist post by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I never made such a claim.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    206. Re:frist post by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was looking for a rifle emoji last weekend. One of my friends was celebrating his birthday. I think he's originally from Florida, I've lived in Florida, and have a friend in Orlando who almost went to the nightclub where the shooting occurred. So I made a crack about his birthday fireworks being provided by the Orlando shooter. I typed "rifle"....but no rifle emoji popped up for selection.

      Here's our (redacted) group chat on LINE, probably the most popular messaging app in Japan:

      Part 1: http://tinypic.com/r/k2isy1/9
      Part 2: http://tinypic.com/r/35jl1ty/9

    207. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So if you want to persuade me that guns are causing violence,

      No true statistic. If you don't like the implications, you attack it. Reality is getting in the way of your opinion.

      Here [crimeresearch.org] is a report with data that strongly suggests that mass murderers prefer gun-free zones.

      Again, more "no true statistic". over half of all mass shootings are not in gun free zones, but when you exclude homes, the number changes. Why exclude homes? Because that gives the answer you want. The excuses/justifications are just there to make yourself feel better.

      Well, how could anyone argue with an analysis like that!

      Well you obviously couldn't. You just used the wookie defense. There was nothing in there that addressed the facts. Lead in the environment is decreasing. The attack on poor has decreased since the lies of "crack babies" were used to destroy many lives. Are you disputing the facts? Ir just go off on another sarcastic rant to avoid the facts?

    208. Re:frist post by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      Boobs have never killed anybody

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

    209. Re:frist post by Noble713 · · Score: 2

      When your goal is to massacre as many people as possible before the police show up, reload times are very important.

      The Orlando shooter killed ~50, wounded 50, over 3 hours. About 1 per 2 minutes, although the bulk were probably shot in the first ~20 minutes (my guess). Reload times increasing from 2-3 seconds (someone who has practiced speed reloading detachable magazines) to 5-10 seconds will not cause a significant decline in casualties during a mass shooting in a target-rich, enclosed environment.

      You are planning to murder U.S. soldiers and law enforcement. You are a menace. Please turn yourself in right now.

      I'm a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, and I live in Japan. If you don't like the ideas I have for business products, feel free to make them illegal. For now, though, gatling guns and tactical bolt-action rifles are less of a menace than high fructose corn syrup or tobacco products.

    210. Re: frist post by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      If you plan to ignore the Bill of Rights to fix America's violent behavior I'd start with the First Amendment and banning violence in media. I'm pretty sure they have more to do with violence in America than certain tools being in the hands of millions of Americans. BTW, that's just my suggestion to you given the least of two evils. I respect the Bill of Rights enough to not want to infringe on any of them.

    211. Re: frist post by drfred79 · · Score: 1

      Because citizens are not given rights by the U.S. Federal government, they only have rights taken away. The best way for me to have you picture it is thus: I have all my marbles. I own them and they were mine to begin with. I don't need you to give them to me. In this example you're the U.S. Federal government. For some reason you say some of my marbles are unsafe so you take some of my marbles. This is the exact opposite of most countries. Other countries start with all the marbles and provide them to citizens at the government's discretion. This is why your question is wrong, because I don't have to explain to the U.S. Federal government why I need rights that are already my own.

    212. Re: frist post by drfred79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just some friendly advice. Every male in Switzerland has to perform military service and so gun ownership is big. Yet you just said their homicide rate by firearms was low. You're making the argument it's culture not quantity of firearms.

    213. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that, though it's high in the list, suicide is under-reported. A drug overdose with suicide note is a drug OD, rarely, if ever, a suicide. A one-vehicle car crash with suicide note is *never* suicide, and almost always "speed related" and "alcohol involved". Many of the accidental drownings are suicide as well. Drugs (including alcohol) in a bathtub, followed by an OD or near-OD that results in drowning is much more likely to be ruled "accidental drowning" than "suicide". And last I checked, assisted suicide is still a medical complication (more rarely, a homicide).

      Because churches disown suicides, and insurance often won't pay out, the US standard is to avoid ruling suicide.

      That the statistics are deliberately tampered with by those collecting them doesn't make them very reliable. But the large amount of deaths from firearms would be lower without guns, even if people would try different ways of killing themselves or others without guns, those other means are less lethal.

    214. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And when an American born American Citizen kills someone, it's the fault of immigration, so the conservatives aren't any closer to the truth.

    215. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the subculture of "criminals" that's larger in the US than anywhere else. Convict everyone, then you can exclude them from the statistics.

    216. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What he said (and which is undeniably true) is that strict gun laws don't do anything to make people safer; simply because no matter how many laws you pass, the ONLY people who will OBEY them are the same ones that will NEVER BE SHOOTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      Now it's you being deliberately obtuse. In most mass shootings, the shooters got the gun legally (and often after having planned the attack). If the guns were hard to get, many wouldn't have happened. The legal guns are used for mass shootings, so limit the availability of legal guns and you'll eliminate those. Yes, I know, you'll assert that if you make guns illegal, more people will have them, which is insane. Almost all "illegal" guns were legal, until they were stolen. So eliminate legal guns, and you eliminate illegal guns.

      That solves the problem.

      Can you even IMAGINE how many people wished they could have had a gun materialize in their hands at that point, and HOW MANY LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED?!?

      Like was said earlier, those with guns were killed first. Anyone who could conjure a gun would have died sooner. Mass shootings are almost never stopped by an armed civilian.

    217. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It is an assault weapon, but not an assault rifle. You should learn the difference before you correct others.

    218. Re:frist post by jsa95 · · Score: 1

      Gun violence is at an all time low

      So is the distance between our galaxy and Andromeda.

    219. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

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

      Wikipedia indicates "Assault Rifle" was named in WWII, well before 1992.

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

      Wikipedia also lists the term "assault weapon" used before then (though much more recently), though it did get much more popular with the Brady Bill and the debate around that.

    220. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, to remove statistical outliers, remove the single largest and smallest from each and re-calculate. Also, why "public" mass shootings and not "all" mass shootings? Looks like statistical cheery-picking to get the answer you want, not a sum of all "mass shootings" and letting the numbers speak for themselves.

    221. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You do realize that outlawing guns won't get rid of them, right?

      You realize that your opinion is contradicted by reality, right?

    222. Re:frist post by antdude · · Score: 1

      "The cake is a lie."

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    223. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So which one of your rules or lines would have stopped Omar from getting his rifle?

      This one: " And remove liability protections for firearms manufacturers. "

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    224. Re:frist post by Noble713 · · Score: 1

      Also, your premise is flawed. More guns = more murder. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Have you actually read the paper in your first link? Here's data from their Table 2:

      Gun ownership 1.009 (1.004, 1.014) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%
      Percentage Black 1.052 (1.037, 1.068) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%
      Gini coefficient 1.046 (1.003, 1.092) .037 For each 0.01 increase in Gini coefficient, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.6%
      Violent crime rate 1.048 (1.010, 1.087) .013 For each increase of 1/1000 in violent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.8%
      Nonviolent crime rate 1.008 (1.003, 1.013) .002 For each increase of 1/1000 in nonviolent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.8%

      Well, the proportion of households with firearms has been debated ( http://dailycaller.com/2015/03... ). That article suggests that the proportion of firearms owners has been either constant or increased. Which, according to the study you linked, SHOULD increase firearms deaths, all other things being equal. Of course, things are not equal. But consider the changes in America over the past ~10 years:

      -reduced economic security
      -persistent high unemployment
      -amplified racial tensions
      -increased use/abuse of prescription drugs
      All of these should ALSO contribute to higher firearms deaths. And yet the numbers have declined. How to do you reconcile this?

      Some studies suggest that ownership rates are declining, yet firearms continue to sell because existing owners are stockpiling. ( http://www.independent.co.uk/n... ) A doubling of firearms from 4 to 8 is a huge proportional increase, but we haven't seen a commensurate rise in violent deaths within this gun-owning demographic, which is disproportionately rural, middle-class, white men. ( http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... ) How do you explain this, given your assertion that more guns = more murder?

      Let's concede that in an absolutely literal sense, firearms and deaths are positively correlated....in the way that 0.00001 is technically a positive non-zero number.

      From the table above, income inequality has 5x as much of an impact on violent deaths as firearms proliferation. Same for the pre-existing violent crime rate.

      Taking steps to fix society's other ills will do more to reduce the violent death rate than purely controlling the number of firearms. Given that time and labor are limited resources, allocating them efficiently to solve problems is paramount. If the weapons proliferation alone is a small fraction of the cause of deaths in America as I've demonstrated above, then focusing our efforts here is a misallocation of our energy.

      And this doesn't even touch on the logistical difficulty/inefficiency of trying to collect 300 million+ weapons from a country the size of a continent. If the US's War on Drugs is anything to go by, expect an abject failure in a weapons crackdown.

    225. Re:frist post by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The irony of you posting an image from crooksandliars is demonstrated by linking to an actual gun manufacturer that builds and sells AR15 models: http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Ri...

      I don't see a scope, a tripod, a bipod, a drum magazine..

      I guess you also want to ban the sale of toyota pick-up trucks based on this image: http://www.g2mil.com/toyota-gu...

      After all, nothing says "personal transportation" like a 23mm anti-air cannon.

    226. Re:frist post by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You can quote statistics any way you want, but guess what? China just had a mass stabbing. Take the guns away, people will still find ways to hurt other people. And none of those dead people were armed to defend themselves. Meanwhile, those knife-wielding guys didn't seem to let "No Guns Allowed" laws stop their killing spree.

      Fact is, humans will kill humans. Quit being a fucking tool by banning tools, and start working on the societal aspects that allow such shit to rear its ugly head.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    227. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      After all, nothing says "personal transportation" like a 23mm anti-air cannon.

      If you don't have a 23mm anti-air cannon, how are you going to defend yourself from your tyrannical government?

      We've got dickwads above saying that they need to be able to own the same weapons as the military. ALL of the same weapons.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    228. Re:frist post by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Tell me about an individual going into a night club and killing 50 people with a pocket knife.

      If we substitute knife for petrol and bus for night club, will that do? (A knife or axe in that scenario comes in handy to stop and deter being bum rushed from the people who, understandably, aren't too keen on being burned.)

      After all, guns don't kill people, Americans with guns kill people. And in China it's petrol instead (and it's not an isolated incident). So, I'm not sure that reducing the access to guns in the US would make much of a difference.

      We have very strict gun legislation here in Sweden, and that hasn't stopped criminals from getting AK47's with which to shoot up their neighbourhoods. (In fact when I control for the number of gang members, Swedish and US gun violence looks very similar. We just don't have nearly as many gang members).

      So, whether you look at mass shootings or general level of violence, I agree you have a problem, but I'm unconvinced you have a gun problem per se. (And even if you banned the ownership of guns overnight, what would you do with the roughly one gun per person in the US that are already out there? They're not going to go away.)

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    229. Re:frist post by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The AR-15 was developed to be used by members of the military"

      Until ArmaLite fucked off and couldn't complete it, and then sold the design to Colt, who retooled it to create the M-16, and then made the AR-15 for CIVILIAN USE in the 1960s.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    230. Re:frist post by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Please explain to me why any civilian has a need for a 100-round magazine or why they should be sold."

      ITW Ramset gun.

      Wild Boar elimination.

      Illegal Immigrants at the border.

      Target shooting competitions.

      Old school remote mining (percussion-based explosives detonation from bullet impact.)

      Attempted homeland invasion.

      Attempted military coup.

      Religious nuts versus People with Common Sense.

      Because I can fucking own one.

      It's a goddamned spring-loaded storage box and useless without other tools to make it a weapon.

      Because people with more brains than you can figure out other uses for such a thing. Quite handy for storing glue sticks.

      Shall I continue?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    231. Re:frist post by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "When your goal is to massacre as many people as possible before the police show up, reload times are very important."

      Tell that to the guys that just slaughtered a bunch of people on a subway in China. They racked up their kill score with knives in a country with strict gun laws.

      So much for that bullshit argument.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    232. Re:frist post by Khyber · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't do anything, as you have no fucking clue where the true liability lies.

      Protip: There's still this thing called 'Personal Responsibility.' Did the gun manufacturer pull the trigger? Did the gun manufacturer sell direct to the gun user?

      NO. Someone else pulled the trigger. It was a gun RETAIL STORE that sold it (another protip: gun manufacturers BY LAW are not allowed to sell direct to the public, much like car manufacturers. They must sell through licensed dealers.)

      That essentially and ETHICALLY absolves them of responsibility.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    233. Re:frist post by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "But compared to the USA, the number of gun deaths in those other countries are rounding errors compared to the USA."

      That's because us fine Americans KNOW HOW TO AIM.

      Our police forces, not so much. Our civilians? We can pop the testicles off a moving fruit fly from 150 yards.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    234. Re:frist post by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Mass shootings are almost never stopped by an armed civilian."

      Guess what a fucking police officer is at the end of the day?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    235. Re:frist post by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Since you're familiar with that particular weapon, can you tell me how likely it is for someone who bought one only days prior to be familiar enough with it to be able to cycle the trigger that fast?"

      If they've ever handled a weapon before, very - they all have the same basic functionality and method of operation - pull the trigger, gun shoots. The biggest hindrance is the pull force required on the trigger, which is usually less than a pistol or revolver, and even then, a MAD person will just squeeze as hard and fast as possible.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    236. Re:frist post by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It actually makes sense not to have such an emoji, because it creates a dilemma whether someone using such an emoji in a message is making a threat, and whether the company, becoming aware of such a threat, has a duty to do something about it.

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

      I was very interested to learn that there are building, airplane, and explosion emojis. In the proper combination they could be much more offensive and threatening than a rifle. Or they could just be one of those off-color, "too soon" jokes that I can't help but send to everyone I know.

      But hey, lets ban them. It will certainly prevent me from getting on yet another government watch list.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    237. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      That's because food has more uses other than causing obesity- for example, food can prevent starvation. People also make boneheaded arguments about how cars kill more people than guns, disregarding all the uses cars have other than just killing people in accidents.

      That's not what this argument is about. The argument is that if you cared about people dying, you'd be as upset about a cake emoji as you are about a gun emoji... The argument is not that you should not be upset about the gun emoji. It's that you don't really give a fuck about people dying, you're just whipped up into a froth about guns. Why is that? Because you're not worried about diabetes, from your perspective you can just not eat that cake. But someone might shoot you. Since it affects you, you care.

      At least stop pretending you care about other people. If you did, you'd care about preventable food and car deaths more than you do about gun deaths. Yes, by all means, care about gun deaths. Realize, however, that these mass shootings are a minor portion of the gun deaths, and that gun crime is falling even as gun ownership continues to rise if you take suicides out of the equation. We can argue about the merits of preventing suicides all day, but calling them crime is disingenuous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    238. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Violence is down because we've taken so much lead out of the environment. The gun lobby is doing their best to put it all back.

      You know you can buy lead-free ammo, right?

      So, what you're saying is that the United States has a uniquely violent and fucked up culture, and that's why we have more gun massacres than other cultures?

      We have more gun massacres because we have more guns. If we had less guns, we might well not have less violence. We might not even have less murder. We know for certain, though, that we'd have more murder of certain disadvantaged minorities, because they're outnumbered.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    239. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They also need to learn about mental instability, and understand the signs that someone might be a threat to them or others.

      While that would prevent some of these crimes (in fact it might have prevented the latest major massacre) if we're waiting for people to have to figure out if someone they know is a threat, we're addressing the problem way too late.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    240. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No semi-auto long guns at all for people who don't know how to behave themselves.

      The law already permits prohibiting weapons ownership at all for people who are felons, let alone prohibiting owning certain classes of weapon.

      Universal background checks which include the terror watch list (once due process means to challenge inclusion on the terror watch list are put in place).

      Absolutely not. You are still supporting denying someone rights without due process. If it takes due process to get on the list, then okay. Otherwise, this is wrong.

      And remove liability protections for firearms manufacturers. Why should they be the only industry in the US that is free from liability even in the case of negligence.

      What do you mean, negligence? Gun makers are not providing weapons directly to criminals. First they have to go through the hands of an intermediary, like the US government who then sells them on to Mexico or some rebels or assholes or rebel assholes in some country in the middle east that we'd like to keep fighting internally.

      The AR-15 was developed to be used by members of the military. If a gun buyer wants an AR-15 because it looks cool and deadly and gets the urban camo package and extra mags, they should be immediately be placed on the terror watch list, because what the fuck?

      Sigh. Really? Fear of tacticool? That's the same as the fear of black guns.

      Either it's for self-defense or it's not. It's not supposed to be a sex toy.

      Right, and if someone puts a bumper sticker on their car, then they're obviously a deviant, because cars are for transportation. They're not rolling billboards.

      I've owned guns, both handguns and long guns, over four decades. I've qualified (in the past) as marksman and sharpshooter. I don't have a problem with gun ownership. I just don't think mopes should own guns, and I don't believe that the second amendment indicates an individual right to own firearms.

      The people who wrote and championed the 2a disagree with you. They wrote about it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    241. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We've got dickwads above saying that they need to be able to own the same weapons as the military. ALL of the same weapons.

      What we really need is for militaries to have less weapons, but that's not what's happening in the world. Our leaders chose to have a cold war instead of economic cooperation, and we "won" by funneling trillions to arms manufacturers and further alienating our "enemies" so that the whole thing would be kept going. Whee!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    242. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Guess what a fucking police officer is at the end of the day?

      A community college graduate who, if he is not a gun enthusiast, probably can not shoot for shit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    243. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      OMG, Apple supports terrorism!

      Yeah, using macs for real work in that era was pretty terrifying for just that reason.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    244. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So in this most recent shooting, how was SIG liable for the actions of Omar? (NOTE: it wasn't an AR-15; it was a SIG MCX).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    245. Re:frist post by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "Mass shootings are almost never stopped by an armed civilian."

      Guess what a fucking police officer is at the end of the day?

      I quoted this just so I would have the pleasure of reading it again whenever I look through my comments. Unfortunately I don't have the words or mod points to appropriately express my appreciation of your post. Thank you.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    246. Re:frist post by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Microsoft's is from another planet.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    247. Re:frist post by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There's been an animated "crazed shooter with assault rifle" emoticon in common use on various forums for years.

      Far as I know, it's never actually killed anyone.

      Maybe it needs more frames.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    248. Re:frist post by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Are we talking about real assault rifles, or the ones that are a legislative fiction? Well, let's talk about all three...

      A real assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle, a.k.a., a machine gun. These are already forbidden to the general public.
      A legislative or political assault rifle looks like a real assault rifle, and is often modeled after real assault rifles, (like the AR-15), but otherwise functions the same as any other semi-automatic weapon. That is, you pull the trigger and it fires one round, and reloads the chamber. You fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, just like a revolver, or a semi-automatic pistol, or many hunting rifles.
      A hunting rifle is any rifle you go hunting with. They may, or may not, look like an assault rifle.
      Some of the banned accessories, or those proposed to be banned in some legislation, are folding stocks, (which make the over-all length shorter), larger clips, flash suppressors, (which lengthen the barrel and disperse hot gases to reduce blinding), and certain types of grips. The legislative rational for prohibiting folding stocks and large clips seems clear - folding stocks can make it easier to conceal a rifle, and larger clips mean you don't have to change clips so often - but the other items simply make the weapon look scarier, or more military-looking, and do nothing to make them more deadly or dangerous. Since eighty-percent of the time mass shooters choose handguns for their work anyway, it's hard to see how these bans will have any effect upon them. Then again, they banned certain types of drugs, like marijuana and heroin, and that's been very effective, so who knows?

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    249. Re:frist post by sudon't · · Score: 1

      As a 46YO, 5'11" and 350-pound white male, I'm not going to eat my cellphone because someone sends me a cake emoji. How stupid can you be?

      Are you implying that you'd shoot your phone if someone sent you a rifle emoji?

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    250. Re:frist post by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that Saddam DID have WMD's!?

      Seriously though, I think you're obviously upset about this entire situation, just like everyone else that has a compassionate heart. But attacking the weapon won't cure the problem.

      Our best defense against the random, one-in-75-million crazy person is, oddly enough, you and other people just like you. What America needs more than anything else is for every person with strong anti-gun predilections to arm themselves. The more anti-gun your mindset, the more critical, circumspect, and reserved you will be with respect to guns and the choice to use that weapon.

      Who better to safeguard our population from within than those who abhor guns and the destruction they cause? If this were to happen, the only problem would be that it would be so completely successful in deterring crime that there would never be another chance to disarm the US population on a wave of national fear and disgust as a result of the violence that one armed person can commit when no one else has a weapon to stop them.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    251. Re:frist post by sudon't · · Score: 1

      If I put a rifle emoji next to the shit emoji, I clearly want to shoot the shit. If I put it next to the cow emoji, I want a steak dinner.

      Yes, and a rifle emoji next to a horse emoji means: shoot heroin.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    252. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing and selling an inherently dangerous product with a high expectation of causing harm.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    253. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    254. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The law already permits prohibiting weapons ownership at all for people who are felons, let alone prohibiting owning certain classes of weapon.

      Not if the NRA gets its way:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    255. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The first one I can kind of see - dangerous product. Cars are also dangerous, as are motorcycles, wood chippers and chainsaws. Which is why we restrict their purchase to those over the age of 18. High expectation of causing harm? How many of the SIC MCX firearms have caused harm? One so far - out of what, tens of thousands made? That's a high expectation of harm? The Kia Rio car has 149 confirmed deaths per 1 million owners - that's a higher rate of harm (death!) per vehicle. Should they also be sued for high expectation of harm?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    256. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The first one I can kind of see - dangerous product. Cars are also dangerous, as are motorcycles, wood chippers and chainsaws.

      Cars, wood chippers, motorcycles and chainsaws all have uses other than the destruction of life.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    257. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Actually, as macs4all pointed out to me earlier, it hasn't been an assault weapon since 2004 when the Brady Bill lapsed and the legal definition of assault weapon ceased to be law... except in California, where we have our own definition. But this happened in Florida where it was, in fact, not an assault weapon.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    258. Re:frist post by msauve · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. As opposed to doing nothing and getting shot. The thing with pepper spray is that in most states, it's legal to carry anywhere. In many states, even a concealed weapon license won't let you carry a firearm in a bar.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    259. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Also, why "public" mass shootings and not "all" mass shootings?

      Because it's easy to tell when 4 or more people were shot in the same event if it happens in public and all the bodies are right there. It's a bit more difficult, tending toward impossible, when the shootings happen in a private space and the bodies are disposed of. You can guess at it, if you find where the shootings happened and you find the blood of 4 or more people there, but it's just a guess; you could well have stumbled across the place they bring people to shoot them, but they may have only brought them there one at a time which would exclude a mass shooting. That's just one reason, at least.

      In statistics, you don't count what you can't verify.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    260. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Show me a country that had widespread gun ownership, then outlawed guns, and now has none. You can't, because such a place does not exist.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    261. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Pull force and reset, actually. If you want the maximum possible fire rate, you only release the trigger until it resets, then squeeze again. And the reset is going to vary at lest slightly between even two guns of the same model due to manufacturing tolerances, varying levels of wear (or wear-in if it's a new gun), and maintenance history, as well as any trigger customizations that may have been made. You'll get a wider variance between different models.

      But, as I learned after I posted that, this guy went in and fired off an average of one shot every 2 minutes for 3 hours, he wasn't rapid-firing, so the point is moot in this case.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    262. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right. As opposed to doing nothing and getting shot. The thing with pepper spray is that in most states, it's legal to carry anywhere.

      Let's see... Guy with a rifle, guy with pepper spray. Guy with rifle sees someone approaching him; whether or not he sees the pepper spray he's gonna shoot. Long before guy with pepper spray is in range to spray.

      In many states, even a concealed weapon license won't let you carry a firearm in a bar.

      Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. In Florida, the risk is 5 years in prison, 5 years probation, or a $5000 fine and, well, the weapon is concealed, nobody is going to know you have it unless you draw it to fire (because you're a responsible gun owner and don't go flashing it around or pulling it out unnecessarily), so that's really only a risk if you actually need to use it to save your life. 5 years in prison or 0 more years alive? That sounds like a tough decision to me; and there's not a jury in the country that would convict you for carrying in that bar if you stopped a mass shooting in progress as a result.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    263. Re:frist post by msauve · · Score: 1

      Never mind. I didn't realize you were an idiot before, so I made the mistake of replying.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    264. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Rifles do as well. But since that's probably not acceptable to you, there will be no common ground.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    265. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Funny, I realized you were. Prove me wrong, explain how pepper spray would have ended the shooting in Orlando. I want a step-by-step rundown of how it would play out. At least make it semi-plausible.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    266. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Rifles do as well. But since that's probably not acceptable to you, there will be no common ground.

      If you're talking about target shooting, that's right in my wheelhouse, since that's what I use guns for. Who needs a 100 round magazine for target shooting? In fact, there are completely non-lethal guns that work for target shooting.

      Let me ask you, besides target shooting and the destruction of life, what use does a gun have? I mean, maybe it's just coincidental that ads for guns like to mention, "stopping power", which is a gun industry marketing term for killing.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    267. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The ban on assault weapons may have ended, but not the name.

    268. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The trend is the important thing, not the absolute. Try to think logically, rather than worshiping a god named Gun. You fanaticism is showing.

    269. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Assault weapon was defined by law, the law defining it ceased to exist.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    270. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Such fanaticism from someone who doesn't even own a gun, right? How dare I!

      You're absolutely correct, it's the trend that matters. France is a great example of a country with a strict gun ban and more mas shootings and mas shooting deaths per-capita than the US. How trendy!

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    271. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      My autocorrect must be speaking spanish today... Mass shooting, not mas shooting.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    272. Re: frist post by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      An illegal alien with limited funds can travel from from Guadalajara, Mexico to Chicago, Illinois in less than 3 days, completely undetected by customs or border enforcement. Are you so naive to think that weapons won't be able to make that journey as well?

      It doesn't matter if you outlaw guns. It doesn't matter if you make laws that force people to hand them in. And even if you can shit out magical Gun Fairies that will disappear all of the civilian held firearms in the US overnight, it won't matter. If you want to ban guns in America you will first have to close the border. Otherwise only those with close ties to human and drug trafficking will have access to them.

      So to conclude, outlawing guns in the US will not get rid of them. It will just redistribute them exclusively to criminals.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    273. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      France is a great example of a country with a strict gun ban and more mas shootings and mas shooting deaths per-capita than the US. How trendy!

      A standard statistical tool is is to exclude the largest and smallest values, to eliminate statistical outliers. France has one very significant stastical outlier. That's all. When you "correct" for that, they are once again, way way ahead of the USA. You might as well include 9/11 as a "mass shooting" in the US for the same statistical valididty as the numbers you refer to.

    274. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope. The law didn't "expire" as you imply. The effect of the law did. The law (incuding all the definitions) is still valid. The "ban" was sunsetted, not the law.

      You should learn the basics before displaying that you don't know what you are talking about.

    275. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      A standard statistical tool is is to exclude the largest and smallest values, to eliminate statistical outliers. France has one very significant stastical outlier. That's all. When you "correct" for that, they are once again, way way ahead of the USA.

      Are you sure you're doing the math right and getting a per-capita total? Even if you are, you're concentrating on mass shooting deaths per-capita when the relevant number is mass shootings per-capita, if you're trying to make the point that banning guns reduces the number of mass shootings.

      Even when you remove the largest and smallest events from the list, France still has more mass shootings per-capita; if you take a bigger number and a smaller number, and you subtract two from both numbers, the bigger one is still bigger.

      It doesn't really matter how many people dies in each one, there were more of then in France than in the US, per person. And yes, it's the sort of thing that should scale with population.

      You might as well include 9/11 as a "mass shooting" in the US for the same statistical valididty as the numbers you refer to.

      Well, now, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists with boxcutters. An air marshal with a gun on each plane could have stopped it.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    276. Re:frist post by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hunting? Pretty much the same things you'd use a fishing rod for, or a bow and arrow...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    277. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are happy with dead people, so long as you get to play with your toys. Facts and reality don't matter.

    278. Re:frist post by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      a moving fruit

      too soon.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    279. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yup.The truth is unaffected by your prejudice.

    280. Re:frist post by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Pez package dispenser.

    281. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    282. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You betcha, that's precisely why, as stated above, I don't even own a gun. Jackass.

      The irony of "AK" Marc posting anti-gun crap. Of course you'd also say facts and reality don't matter; they disagree with your viewpoint.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    283. Re:frist post by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      But isn't there already a pistol emoji?

      --
      Eat the rich.
    284. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I never posted anything "anti-gun". Being honest gets me accused of being "anti" this and "pro" that, often at the same time.

      Pro honesty is anti-gun. If that's what you think, then you are sabotaging your own cause.

    285. Re:frist post by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If I knew someone who was violent and fucked up, I think the best approach would be to lock them the fuck up.

      Lock them up for what crime? They haven't (yet) shot anyone. Or were you thinking something like the old Soviet system of using asylums as political prisons?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    286. Re:frist post by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Claimng that something is not an "assault weapon" by saying it's good for "urban combat" is a bit odd.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    287. Re: frist post by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      An assault weapon must be fully automatic. That is by definition.

      Knives can be used for urban combat. So can fists. Are we going to call them all "assault knives" and "assault fists"?

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    288. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You're not being honest, though; that's the point. France took away the "toys" and, yet, they still have the dead people. I'm not okay with dead people (well, as a natural part of the life cycle, actually, I am, but I digress), I just realize that removing easy access to commercially manufactured guns doesn't solve the problem. If it did, France would have fewer mass shootings per-capita than the US, not more. Given the same population (that's why the statistics are per-capita) we should be able to expect fewer mass shootings (not mas shooting deaths, but the shootings themselves) in France than the US, but that simply does not follow reality or facts, both of which actually do matter.

      You want facts? You want to concentrate on the number of people killed? The 2015 stats aren't out yet, but here's 2010-2014. For the FBI's purposes, 1 death = 1 murder, so these numbers are the actual number of people killed, not simply the number of incidents.

      We're talking about banning rifles, right? Let's analyze the data, then. I'll even throw in shotguns to make it fair.

      Let's look at the most recent statistics first: 2014. There were a total of 11,961 murders reported in 2014, of which 8,124 involved guns. Sounds bad, right? It is, but it's not bad for rifles, which were used in only 248 of those. Add in the 262 shotgun murders and long guns (510) still haven't killed more people than hands, fists, and feet (660) or knives (1,567).

      I know, I know, there's a huge number of "type not stated" firearm murders. Let's take a look at those, then. If we assume the same ratio of handguns to rifles to shotguns to other[1] (5562:248:262:93, or 90.22%, 4.02%, 4.25%, and 1.51% respectively), we can add 79 rifle murders and 83 shotgun murders. Still, neither killed more people than hands, fists, and feet, or knives. Combined (672), they're just barely more deadly than hands, fists, and feet; they still don't touch knives, though.

      Do you want to ban handguns? Or do you want to jump on the "ban rifles" bandwagon and not affect any real change? I ask because, and here's the important part, these statistics hold true as far back as I can find it.

      If you want to ban handguns, we can talk. I mean, they're the most useful guns for personal and home defense in typical situations, and they're the most prevalent and will be literally impossible to remove from circulation (or reduce in any meaningful number), due to how easy they are to hide or transport, but they do consistently account for more than 50% of murder weapons in the US (going back to 2001, there are only 3 years [2001, 2010, and 2013] where they only accounted for nearly half), so maybe that would be worth trying. We could spend billions on it like we've done with marijuana and prostitution, I'm sure it'll work this time.

      But rifles? Consistently 2%, except for 2002 and 2007 where they weighed in at 3%. Hell, hands, fists, and feet consistently more than double that; and knives? Consistently at 12% or higher.

      Want to affect real change? Make it harder to get, and easier to lose, your drivers license. That should cut down some of the 32,675 annual vehicle-related deaths, a number which absolutely dwarfs the murder rate (nearly triple!), weighing in at more than four times the rate of gun-related murder. Rifle and shotgun murders are rounding error, something I'd expect you to be familiar with given the way you attempted to school me in statistics earlier.

      People

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    289. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Like was said earlier, those with guns were killed first.

      In Orlando? There was one guy with a gun, an off-duty cop working security outside the club. He wasn't killed, he fled the scene when the shooting started.

      Anyone who could conjure a gun would have died sooner.

      You don't (and can't) know this, as you have no historical evdince upon which to base this assertion.

      Mass shootings are almost never stopped by an armed civilian.

      Might that be because they almost always occur in "gun-free" zones, where armed civilians simply don't exist. Pulse was a gun-free zone, the off-duty cop who fled the scene was patting people down to keep the guns out. That worked out well, didn't it?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    290. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      This. I have friends and family in (and retired from) law enforcement, from the local level, all the way up to federal; every single one of them feels the same way. They're all just normal people with families to go home to at the end of the day. Civilians when they're off the clock.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    291. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      *crickets*

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    292. Re:frist post by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      What you've done here called lying with statistics.

      I didn't quote any statistics. What I was pointing out is that naive people like you may get the false impression that mass shootings are frequent in the US and infrequent elsewhere because the US is so much bigger and because if someone farts the wrong way in the US the US (and foreign media) wallow in it for weeks, whereas events elsewhere around the globe don't receive much attention in the US.

      Not saying Australia is a solid argument for gun control

      Australia is a solid argument against gun control because it accomplished nothing when it comes to homicide rates. As for mass shootings, there isn't enough data to say anything meaningful about any country, including Australia.

      but you are going to have to pull your head out of your ass and make a cogent argument why it isn't instead of just pretending its not real

      Lying with statistics is what you have done. And you need to pull your head out of your ass and stop making a fool of yourself by citing bogus statistics.

    293. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Right, because we both use the same terminology and sentence structure (oh, wait, we don't). And because sockpuppet accounts typically tend to have email addresses displayed publicly (oh, wait, they don't).

      We actually have a history of butting heads on most topics, but that doesn't fit your narrative, so you never bothered to check. Seems we've found a common ground and...

      Have you ever wondered why there's so much infighting and bullshit on Slashdot? Might it be because, whenever two people agree on something they're accused of being fanbois or sockpuppets?

      You are everything that is wrong with Slashdot and you should leave, now.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    294. Re:frist post by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      The non-gun murder rate in America is higher than the overall murder rate in France. By quite a lot.

    295. Re:frist post by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Because firearms almost never fail-deadly and murder is already illegal. I would be in favor of mandatory firearm safety training in K-12 though.

    296. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You're not being honest, though;

      I set you up with a perfect "I didn't say anything anti-gun", and you had a chance to quote anything I said that was anti-gun, to show me to be wrong. You couldn't. So off on 1,000,000 tangets, to kill us with the Chewbacca Defense.

      All you have are your lies. You claimed I was posting anti-gun crap by challenging your lies, which was, itself a lie. Murders will keep increasing because the gun-nuts would rather have dead people than an honest conversation about the causes of murder.

    297. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      All I have is lies? So all of the statistics I provided, with sources (the FBI, no less) are lies?

      Are you high?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    298. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Did I ever call for a ban on guns? No? Then your implication that I did is a lie. When you have proven yourself a liar, a single fact surrounded by lies might as well be a lie.

    299. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      First of all, i never said you said anything explicitly anti-gun, I was pointing out the anti-gun sentiment of your post. Are you honostly going to deny that? Second, you strongly implied a gun ban, even if you didn't outright call for it.

      I didn't support either of the claims you attacked becaise I didn't make either of those claims, they wetlre your own strawmen. Meanwhile, I don't see you being able to pick apart my points.

      Are you trolling or just dumb as a box of rocks?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    300. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Arguing with a lying gun nut will always look like an anti-gun sentiment. That your vision is slanted doesn't make my words slanted.

      Second, you strongly implied a gun ban, even if you didn't outright call for it.

      Then quote that. When telling me what I said, you never quote me back. That makes me think that you don't recall me having said it, but that I've said things that remind you of someone else who has said it, so you are certain that I've said it, but don't bother to check facts.

      Are you trolling or just dumb as a box of rocks?

      I'm not the liar lying about what "the other guy" said, when it's trivial to look back in the thread and see it wasn't said. If you aren't a lying troll, then quote me where I called for a gun bad, or implied a gun ban, or whatever it is that you are accusing me of. Go on, quote it. Stop telling me what you think I said, and quote me saying what you say I said.

      The only troll here is you.

    301. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Try to think logically, rather than worshiping a god named Gun.

      There's one anti-gun sentiment.

      You are happy with dead people, so long as you get to play with your toys.

      And another.

      Sir, I'm neither lying nor a gun nut; again, I don't even own a gun, so I'm not quite sure how you can call out my fanaticism or label me a gun nut. You, on the other hand, have yet to refute any of the facts I have posted, instead opting to refer to them as the "Chewbacca Defense". It was you who insisted on facts, so I gave them to you, only to be told I was going "off on 1,000,000 tangets" when they didn't fit your narrative.

      If you're not anti-gun, what are you? And if you're not calling for a gun ban, what do you suppose should be done, then? The ball's in your court; something tells me I can expect you to take it and go home long before you refute any of the facts I have presented.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    302. Re:frist post by tranquilidad · · Score: 1

      I didn't say potentially violent, I said violent. If the person has committed a violent crime then they should be locked the fuck up. If the person is mentally unstable and is a danger to others then they should be locked up.

      No one should be locked up because someone thinks they might be violent.

    303. Re: frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Logic and reason are the foundation of all debates. Unfortunately the gun grabbers are so terrified by the mere thought of a gun that they are incapable of rational thought. They believe that their feelings are reality and cherry-pick biased studies to support their false claims. They also make gigantic leaps of logic to come to their conclusions while ignoring any evidence against their beliefs.

    304. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Sure, lets just take all the guns away from the public and concentrate gun ownership in the hands of government and law enforcement. I'm sure those guns are the safest in the hands of the demonstrably most psychopathic segments of our society.

      I'm certain that those lacking empathy while displaying extreme violent tendencies are the best people in the world to have a complete monopoly on force.

    305. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Gun manufacturers do not have liability protections. You can't sue a gun manufacturer because someone shot you with a gun made by them the same damn way you can't sue a car manufacturer because someone used a car they produce to run you over.
      There is only one type of manufacturer in the US that has any liability protections at all. Vaccine manufactures have complete immunity from lawsuits for damages caused by their products. No other industry has this protection, only them.
      The more you attempt to spread your drivel the more I'm going to show others how full of shit you are.

    306. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yea, because it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the mental health industry pushing drugs with primary side effects of hallucinations, suicidal tendencies, and increased violence, now could it?

    307. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Swords and knives are not less lethal than guns. The difference is that you have the advantage of range with them. A sword or knife is just as effective, if not more so, than a gun on an unarmed victim. Your argument is is bullshit.

    308. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yea, because it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the mental health industry pushing drugs with primary side effects of hallucinations, suicidal tendencies, and increased violence, now could it?

      I agree with you that we need far stronger regulations on the pharmaceutical and medical industries. And the gun industry.

      You're not going to fix a sociopathic, violent, gun-loving culture with any one simple solution.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    309. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Gun manufacturers do not have liability protections. You can't sue a gun manufacturer because someone shot you with a gun made by them the same damn way you can't sue a car manufacturer because someone used a car they produce to run you over.

      You can sue a car manufacturer. You cannot sue a gun manufacturer. You've got that wrong. Gun manufacturers have a special immunity to lawsuits, from a law called the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was passed by the 109th congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2005. Prior to that law, individuals had been successfully suing the gun industry.

      Here's some background. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    310. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Funny how gun violence in the US is highest in the areas with the most restrictions on gun ownership. It's almost like criminals are quicker to use their guns when they know their victims are very unlikely to have their own gun on them.

    311. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      In Norway when someone commits a crime they go to jail and actually get rehabilitated. In the US you go to jail and get taught just how much your country values you when you find out you are now a slave. Oh, but slavery was abolished in the US wasn't it? No, it wasn't. Slavery is still very much legal in the US. It is perfectly legal as part of a criminal sentence. Not only that, but the inmates are not rehabilitated. Instead they are abused in order to increase the chances of of becoming a returning slave.

      Have you ever thought about what would happen if we actually tried to rehabilitate our prisoners instead of abuse them as slaves? If we did, we might get one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world like Norway does, but no, we have to make sure they suffer for their crimes. Especially if those crimes didn't harm anyone else, like smoking weed.

    312. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      That is a very important point. If you are in real danger the police are not going to help you. They are far more concerned with their own safety than they are with yours.
      The claim that the police are there to protect you is utter nonsense. The only protection you can rely on is yourself, and if you want to protect yourself from armed attackers you had better be armed yourself, preferably better armed.

    313. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      You're not going to fix a sociopathic, violent, gun-loving culture with any one simple solution.

      I agree, the government and police should not own guns. The rest of us, on the other hand, should have guns in order to keep said violent sociopaths in check.

    314. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      There had to be a law passed to prevent gun hating judges from allowing bullshit lawsuits from happening. Any manufacturer can be sued for death related to defects in their product, but for some reason gun manufacturers were being sued for deaths related to the misuse of their products, which is completely asinine. The law had to be implemented in order to stop judges who were using their position of power to push an agenda.

      When the makers of the Louisville slugger start getting sued successfully when someone gets killed with one of their products then you might have a valid point. This does not happen though, because it is well established in law that the producer is not responsible for the acts committed by an owner. Sadly, due to systemic corruption in the court systems of places like Chicago this had to be stated explicitly for gun manufacturers where as it is a given for any other product on the market.

      In summary, you are still completely full of shit.

    315. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry you live in such an intellectually dishonest shithole. Maybe you should move to Texas where they are at least honest about their irrational fears. It's still a shithole, but at least they are more honest with themselves.

    316. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Dude, .22LR is not as deadly as the .223 or 5.56 which is used in an AR-15.
      Stop spreading bullshit.

    317. Re: frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      What fucking alternate reality do you live in? Oh, I forgot, you believe the fantasy in your head is real.

    318. Re:frist post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Microsoft's is from another planet.

      It looks more like a vintage massager than a gun of any sort.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    319. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      They're the same damn caliber bullet, my friend. The difference is that the 223/556 round has a bigger powder charge and, thus, moves a fair clip faster. You'll get more penetration and, if using a hollow point, you'll get faster and potentially wider expansion of the slug, but they're the same caliber slug. The advantage to the faster round is penetration; yes, a 223/556 will pierce light body armor that a .22LR would not, but we're talking about people in a night club here, so body armor isn't an issue, and a round that bounces around inside the target is going to do more internal damage than one that simply passes through.

      Absent body armor, a well placed .22LR round will do more damage to the human body than a 223/556 round at the range he was shooting from in the club. this is because the .22LR has enough inertia at that range to enter the body and, upon striking bone, ricochet inside the body to hit other organs; it won't leave the body, it will remain inside and do more damage than the through shot you can expect from a 223/556 round. The notable exceptions being central nervous system shots and heart shots, where the shockwave of the faster round will have the "desired" effect; even at that, a .22LR slug bouncing around in your skull is no laughing matter, nor is getting one lodged in your heart.

      At longer distances, or when dealing with light body armor, yes, a 223/556 round is going to have the extra oomph to traverse the distance and piece the armor. In an active shooter scenario involving a sniper at long range, shooting from a high window of a building for example, I agree, .22LR would be a poor choice of round, the 223/556 would be much more effective. In your typical "walk into a building and shoot people" scenario, you might hit more people per round with the 223/556 if you're just going for injuries, but you'll kill more with the .22LR every time in that scenario.

      Unless, of course, you place your shots well; then it really doesn't matter as long as it reaches the target.

      Which was my point.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    320. Re:frist post by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Ya know, you're right...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    321. Re:frist post by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There had to be a law passed to prevent gun hating judges from allowing bullshit lawsuits from happening.

      The gun industry was losing those lawsuits in front of judges and juries.

      There "had to be a law passed" because the gun industry funnels money through Congress.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    322. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      You really need to learn a lot more about guns.
      The diameter of the bullet does play a part in the amount of damage the round can do, but it is far from the only factor. The .223/5.56 which are very similar rounds, but not quite the same, have a much heavier bullet and many times the amount of powder. The damage done is a factor of the impact and wound size. The impact deals with the weight of the bullet and the speed of the bullet at impact. Both of these are many times larger with the .223/5.56 than with the .22LR. Also, if you are using hollow point ammunition, which you should be, the .223/5.56 will have a significantly larger mushroom affect than a .22LR making the size of the wound vastly larger.
      As for your claim that a .22LR will ricochet, this is very rare. It does happen, but you would be a complete fool to rely on it.
      For your headshot claim, a .22LR is far more likely to ricochet off of your skull in the first place and never enter, much less bounce around inside your head.

      Seriously, do a little damn research before you make grandiose claims about ammunition you know next to nothing about.

    323. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      And you're still spouting bullshit.

    324. Re:frist post by harperska · · Score: 1

      How about you do your target shooting still, but with guns owned and maintained by strictly licensed shooting ranges? No? Well then it's not about target shooting is it.

      It would be equivalent to racing, but only with cars owned and maintained by the racetrack, or playing golf, but only with clubs owned and maintained by the golf course. A very large part of the allure of participating in a sport that requires equipment is in owning your own personal instance of the equipment in question.

    325. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You do realize that your entire argument boils down to the use of hollow point ammo, which I conceded to very early on in my post, right? Beyond that, weight and speed affect penetration, not wound size; these factor can affect the size of the exit wound, but that can be field dressed to stop blood loss and keep the victim alive long enough to receive proper treatment. That's not so with internal damage.

      You then go on to contradict yourself, saying that it is rare for a .22LR to ricochet off bone, then say it is more likely to ricochet off the skull (which is bone). Which is it? Also, note that I didn't say "ricochet", I said "bounce around"; while, perhaps, I should have said "fragment", the end result is the same. A slower-moving bullet that fragments inside the target is going to do more internal damage as the fragments bounce off of whatever the slug hit. A faster bullet will just go through with minimal fragmentation and all internal damage being constricted to a single straight line, the flight back of the bullet. Remember, when you stuff a t-shirt into the wound to stop (or at least slow) the bleeding, it's the internal damage that kills.

      So your .223 might go through 3 people and hit one organ in each, while your .22LR might hit 3 organs in one person. If all wounds are field dressed and bleeding is controlled, you're just as likely to kill one victim with the .223 as you are to kill one victim with the .22LR.

      Have you actually seen what you talk about, or did you just read it somewhere? I could guess, but I'd rather you say it here for all to see.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    326. Re:frist post by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      You are still ignoring the damage caused by impact.
      Your ricochet theory depends on the bullet being bounced off a bone into a more vital area, of which the likelihood is very small. I am talking about bouncing off a skull instead of penetrating through it. If you hit it dead on, it will likely penetrate, but if you do not, there is a high likelihood that it will simply bounce off leaving a mostly superficial wound, see impact in my previous post.

      To answer your question, yes I have seen .22LR bounce off of skulls, animal, not human, but there is not that much difference in thickness. Now you tell me which anus you pulled your bullshit from.

    327. Re:frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'll repeat: a skull is bone. Which is it? Is it rare for a bullet to ricochet off of bone, or is it common? You can't say it's common for a bullet to ricochet off of one bone and not another, save for a few of the smaller, thinner bones in the body.

      And you're still ignoring range. Firing on someone in a night club, they're not going to be that far away, .22LR is going to do the job. Impact won't come into play, as you'll have penetration at that close range; that might be why I'm ignoring it.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    328. Re:frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Swords and knives are not less lethal than guns.

      The best example of that was the school stabbing in China the week of Sandy Hook. Nobody dead from knives, lots dead from guns.

      Guns are more lethal than knives.

    329. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There's one anti-gun sentiment.

      It was an insult against the obvious bias of the speaker, not a comment on guns. Learn to read.

      And another.

      So any insult against a pro-gun nut is an anti-gun statement? Seek help. I don't think you can be that dumb and still know how to breath. So the other option is that you are mentally ill. That explains so much.

      The ball's in your court; something tells me I can expect you to take it and go home long before you refute any of the facts I have presented.

      Yes, tell you something, so you can attack it, and me. I'll just stay on the sidelines and point out your numerous errors. Regardless of the action (if any) taken, it should be based on facts. The real ones, not the biased ones you keep bringing up.

    330. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      FBI crime statistice are biased? Thats rich.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    331. Re:frist post by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Obesity kills far more humans than "rifles" ever will, and yet you see no artists blocking food emojis, and no companies worrying about what do to when someone posts a cake emoji.

      Gotta love the logic surrounding this bullshit argument.

      That’s because, quite unlike guns, food is NOT designed to kill people.

      Food does not kill people, gluttony does.

    332. Re: frist post by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is bias in collection, as they are collected not by the FBI, but by the local police, who hand them off to the FBI to summarize. And the analysis of them was far from impartial. The sum of little errors (all in the same direction) makes for a huge error. If you had a basic understanding of statistics, you'd understand that.

    333. Re: frist post by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I have more than a basic understanding of statistics; enough to know that data that exists trumps data that does not, flaws or otherwise. As you have not provided any data of your own, I can only assume such data does not exist and is, therefore, inferior to the data I have provided.

      All data will have a bias. While you seem to point to a potential source of bias in the FBI's data, I'd be willing to wager that you can't identify the actual bias; if you could, and had a basic understanding of statistics, you could correct for it.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  2. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Emoji are for idiots anyways. Intelligent people put on their big boy pants and use their grown up words to communicate.

    1. Re: Who cares? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The star emoji looks like it might have 5 of them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  3. yet they support... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    the fits emoji and knife emoji to help perpetuate violence... Look at their keynote... they use emoji signifying a desire to punch hindi people!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. Who knew newspeak would start with Emojis by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Funny

    The destruction of words is a beautiful thing comrade Cook. This years unicode has 100 fewer symbols than 2015 it's doubleplusgood.

  5. And just like that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The world was once again safe from bad people who murder innocents with emojis.

  6. Overreaction? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Seeing as how the proposed images are primarily hunting rifles(1 is in fact a target shooting rifle and the other appears to be a Winchester-type lever action rifle which has historical significance and connotations), which are generally legal even in cities and countries with very strict firearm legislation, isn't this a bit of an overreaction? It is important to note that it appears to be in a set of Olympic-themed emojis, of which target shooting has been a participating sport for over a century. And of course hunting with firearms has been a hobby if not vital means of survival for centuries as well.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Overreaction? by Altus · · Score: 1

      Everyone who implements emoji end up designing their own... it has to be a rifle if thats the spec but Googles drawing might differ from apple's or facebooks or microsofts. Any one of them might render it as an assault rife or a musket or some other thing that falls into the category of "rifle"

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    2. Re:Overreaction? by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Seeing as how the proposed images are primarily hunting rifles(1 is in fact a target shooting rifle and the other appears to be a Winchester-type lever action rifle which has historical significance and connotations), which are generally legal even in cities and countries with very strict firearm legislation, isn't this a bit of an overreaction? It is important to note that it appears to be in a set of Olympic-themed emojis, of which target shooting has been a participating sport for over a century. And of course hunting with firearms has been a hobby if not vital means of survival for centuries as well.

      I like how you innocently took a rational view of the matter. This is about the highly politicized and emotional gun control issue. For some reason, if you consider yourself a liberal, you must take a conservative position on gun laws. Conversely, if you call yourself a conservative, you must take a liberal view of gun ownership. Logic doesn't enter into it. All guns are either good, or bad, depending on your politics.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  7. When codepoints are outlawed... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...only outlaws will have codepoints.

    Okay, and anybody who understands how to look things up in a character set.

  8. Isn't there already a gun emoji? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's already a gun emoji. Windows sidesteps the issue a bit by displaying it a cartoon raygun:

    http://emojipedia.org/microsof...

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Isn't there already a gun emoji? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's already a gun emoji.

      On Apple iOS, no less. It's weird that they're ok with a pistol, but won't tolerate a rifle.

    2. Re:Isn't there already a gun emoji? by Junta · · Score: 2

      Well as long as the emoji's ammo capacity is limited, it should be safe enough....

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Isn't there already a gun emoji? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right. No assault emojis.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Slashdot should never support Unicode. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These fucking idiotic emojis are the best argument against Slashdot ever supporting Unicode in comments.

    The last thing an English-centric site like Slashdot needs is for comments that contain emojis or other fancy emoticons made using Unicode characters.

    Just look at how awful YouTube and Twitter comments tend to be, and a big part of this is due to emojis being used instead of real words.

    It's better for Slashdot not to support fancy quotes or other useful characters if it means keeping this site free from emojis.

    Emoticons using common ASCII characters are bad enough. Emojis would absolutely ruin the commenting here.

    If you can't express your idea using English words, then it probably isn't worth expressing here at Slashdot to being with!

    1. Re: Slashdot should never support Unicode. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      :-(

  10. Re:Not really multicultural by Altus · · Score: 1

    There are emoji with different skin tones, they were added a while ago... That the author/editor of the article went with only white ones might say something about them but not about emoji in general.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  11. Where's was the NRA to protect us by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1, Funny

    Another brutal attempt at gun control >:-)

    1. Re:Where's was the NRA to protect us by ausekilis · · Score: 2

      How am I supposed to have an emoji militia without rifles?

      I feel my e-2nd amendment rights have been trampled.

  12. One more reason to hate Apple by nwaack · · Score: 2

    And just when I thought it was impossible for me to hate Apple any more than I already do...they exceed my expectations and manage to make me hate them even more.

    1. Re:One more reason to hate Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lol... man feels hate over the censoring of a cellphone graphic... and people wonder why there is a call for tougher gun controls. Imagine what would happen to this guy if some person actually wronged him.

    2. Re:One more reason to hate Apple by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Seriously? The only part of the whole thing that made me like Apple slightly less was when they first started SUPPORTING emojis in the OS and made a big deal about it as a "new feature" worth upgrading for.

      As far as I'm concerned, emojis are generally just an annoyance. Reminds me of back in the BBS era where people could make flashing colored ANSI text and animated twirling cursors moving around and backspacing things that were on the screen.

      If you feel the need to send images to someone, great. Send a photo or even a video. But *why* go to a bunch of trouble to hunt down a little icon representing a replacement for a word or two in a sentence?

    3. Re:One more reason to hate Apple by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      But *why* go to a bunch of trouble to hunt down a little icon representing a replacement for a word or two in a sentence?

      Because some people find it fun.

      Some people also find that asking another human to pull one of their digits, and then releasing stored intestinal gasses is amusing as well.

      Some people juggle geese. *shrugs*

      Just as the little cartoon rifle wouldn't have killed anyone, emoji won't harm you, either. Just don't use them if you don't like them.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    4. Re:One more reason to hate Apple by nwaack · · Score: 1

      ...was when they first started SUPPORTING emojis in the OS and made a big deal about it as a "new feature" worth upgrading for...

      Exactly. First they shove emoji's down our throats, now they're trying to make social/political statements with them by choosing which one's they'll support. For this and so many other things, my hatred for Apple burns with the rage of a thousand suns.

  13. So what was it meant to be used for?!? by Megol · · Score: 1

    Really? "I feel like shooting something"? If you do then fucking _type_it_ instead of inserting a graphical symbol no one knows what it is supposed to represent and may look strange on the recipient(s) machine(s).

    So when should we expect the "I stubbed my toe and want to comfort myself with chocolate ice-cream with opium topping to be washed down with vodka" emoji to appear?

    1. Re:So what was it meant to be used for?!? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      [shyly raises hand]

      I don't know how to type. And I don't know any words.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is this something anyone should care about?

    i mean, its a thing, and apple is involved, but really. did anyone know of or care about the existence of a governing body for emojis

  15. Hopefully... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

    ...this will prevent further mass shootings in chat rooms.

  16. Re:Cowards Censor. Cars kill more then guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Censoring an ideogram just because a few retards misuse it is the height of stupidity and Cowardice

    tell us about your campaign to get the nazi swastika as a letter of the alphabet, how is it going?

  17. Re:Banning weapons and other unpleasantries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A gay Muslim Democrat shoots up a Gun Free Zone.

    It was obviously the fault of the straight kafirs who are pro-second amendment!

  18. What about the others? by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    How do we get rid of the rest of the emoji?

    1. Re:What about the others? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      How do we get rid of the rest of the emoji?

      Use your 2nd amendment rights? :-)

    2. Re:What about the others? by antdude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's go back to old school ASCII 1-liner arts! :-P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  19. Better get rid of the condom emoji by exabrial · · Score: 1

    I don't know whether or not someone is threatening me with... safe sex or not?

  20. Re:Cowards Censor. Cars kill more then guns. by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

    Cars kill more people then guns yet we don't "ban" the pictograph of cars.

    To be fair, cars don't kill people either. Whether it be guns, cars, or ham sandwiches, people are to blame for their accidental or intentional misuse that leads to the injury or demise of others. As long as we keep blaming inanimate objects for the damage caused, we will get NO WHERE. Gun deaths have been on a downward trend since the 70's, yet more guns are out there than ever, and many states have allowed concealed/open carry. Clearly, the lower number of deaths has nothing to do with removing guns from American's possession, so this needs to be explored as a social cause and see how we can reinforce it.

  21. Walkie-Talkies! by wikthemighty · · Score: 1

    Apple could have just replaced them with walkie-talkies on iOS. :p

    --
    "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
  22. Pretty please by easyTree · · Score: 2

    May we have a politician-being-bribed emoticon?

  23. Re:Cowards Censor. Cars kill more then guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no one is banning anything, they're simply not ratifying a standard around it. they aren't taking anything away, they're choosing not to give you something new, something you were fine not having until someone pointed out you don't have it

  24. Conflict of interest by boudie2 · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, Apple was lobbying for the "Vibrating Butt Plug" emoji.

  25. Re:Cringing fear in the home of the brave by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    And it wasn't the government, only Miami Vice.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. "This is my rifle, this is my gun; ..." by s3cr3to · · Score: 1

    "This is my rifle, this is my gun; this is for fighting this is for fun".

  27. But a bomb is ok by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    because bombing and killing 100,000 of thousands into democracy is ok. http://emojipedia.org/bomb/

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  28. Just stop already! by Alcoholic+Synonymous · · Score: 1

    How about they just stop putting all emjois in the damned character sets. I don't want 1GB of unused icons because someone somewhere thought it would be funny to have a choking-his-chicken emoji.

  29. What? No Vibrating Butt Plug Emoji? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    I guess the "designers" at Apple felt it would be redundant on their product.

  30. Right to bare arms by tepples · · Score: 1

    You have a right to bear arms (U+1F4AA). And bare arms. So join a boxing club and put your fists (U+1F44A) to good use.

  31. U+5350 by tepples · · Score: 1
  32. details by hsthompson69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) it's a bipod, not a tripod
    2) a scope is a perfectly reasonable attachment for any 5.56/.223 rifle - effective range can go out to 100 to 200m, and a good scope is helpful at those ranges
    3) whether or not it uses a drum magazine, or a simple double stack magazine, the weapon still functions like any other semi-automatic rifle -> one trigger pull, one shot.

    Now, you can choose to define an "assault weapon" as something black and scary looking, but nothing you've pointed out is any different than the much kinder, gentler looking mini 14 (http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/images/line-top.jpg). During the san bernardino terrorist attack, you can see LEOs using it: http://media.gettyimages.com/p... - it's functionally identical to the AR15 style weapons the terrorists were using, chambering the same round, firing at the same rate.

    A common sense definition of an "assault weapon" is a fully automatic (not semi-automatic) belt fed machine gun...something like the m60 (http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/guns/images/5/58/M60.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20070330224515)

    But you really weren't looking for the truth, now were you? :)

    1. Re: details by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Here, a proper tripod mount for a machine gun for you:

      http://www.zastava-arms.rs/sit...

    2. Re: details by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You don't need high power in a small room. In fact it's counter productive

      Oh? How so? Surely being able to penetrate one or more people and have the projectile still sufficiently powerful to cause damage maximises the effectiveness in a crowd?

      I guess the extra recoil is an issue.

    3. Re: details by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      .223 has very little recoil actually, but you're right in terms of power - while good guys don't want high-power in a small room, bad guys don't care about hitting people, so their behaviors are different. In particular, bad guys don't follow rule #4:

      1) treat every weapon as if it is loaded
      2) don't point at anything you aren't willing to destroy
      3) keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
      4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target

      For good guys, in a small room you'd want something like a silenced MP5, throwing 9mm hollowpoint that won't penetrate as much (typical for HRT). For bad guys, they don't care about hitting things they're not aiming at - in fact, it's a bonus.

      That all being said, AC poster has it right - we need to stop shooters, not guns.

  33. Ok, so SJW are also against alcohol Emoji, right by Texmaize · · Score: 1

    It's interesting. About twice as many people die from alcohol related issues than guns in the U.S. Per year, yet, the "socially responsible" people who have jumped in the anti-gun bad wagon do not utter one, single peep about this. They do not refuse to make emoji about the topic, and in fact, some seem to be there. Funny how that works. It almost as if there is a large group of people who want to appear to care about things, than really care. Almost...


    Before I forget, here are the links proving what I said: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fac...
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_...

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
  34. Who needs Emojii? by Drethon · · Score: 1

    http://chris.com/ascii/index.p...

    Not sure how to get consistent spacing or I'd post some here.

  35. They hate rifles, save for their Praetorian Guard by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Thankfully, one can put them in place of what does go in there.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  36. Re:Cowards Censor. Cars kill more then guns. by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    If you designed a car to kill people as its first priority, im pretty sure it would be illegal. Sure weapons are used to defend yourself, but if society has less weapons, then you will have less need to defend yourself with weapons.

    "inanimate object" simplifies the issue far too much. No one picks up a gun and points it at someone without the threat of imminent death. It's animate in meaning all right.

    Im just glad i live in a country where mandatory gun ownership is not necessary.

    --
    -
  37. emo by Tom · · Score: 1

    Waiting patiently at the side until this emoji hype dies down when the current teens decide that they're no longer cool and someone at the Unicode consortium comes to work not on drugs that day and asks himself "why the fuck we did this?"

    Can't wait to see the fireworks when we realize that it's not so easy to get rid of the shit.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  38. Re:Unicode jumped the shark by sudon't · · Score: 1

    where is the emoji for that?

    Here: U+1F988

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  39. superstition by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    It's the new form of superstition.

    "Guns are around bad things happening, therefore gun have evil spirits in them. Therefore if you have guns the evil spirits will get into you. So destroy all of the guns, and people that have touched them!!!"

    Yeah, real smart... 8-P

  40. When gun emojis are criminal... by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

    When gun emojis are criminal, only criminals will have them! We law-abiding citizens must have a way to defend ourselves from those marauding criminals who send us rifle emojis from criminal platforms! Oh the horrors!

    On the flipside, think of how many emoji-based mass slaughters that won't be happening...

    --
    This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
  41. apple being helpful by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Apple has helped us decide who to vote for by not supporting Trump's campaign.

    This helps because voters don't have to make their own choices and can't be misled.

    Now Apple is helping us decide what kind of emoji's we can use and how we should think about guns.

    These guys are just so helpful.

    What will the future hold for us? We will soon have the luxury of having our clothes picked out for us ... which jobs we shall have ... where we can live. Just like the USSR helped people make these choices not long ago.

    That the Russians/Soviets of old risked their lives to flee their collapsing country is, of course, highly irrelevant because there are some crucial technicialities they weren't following that makes the negative aspects unrelated to what is possible.

  42. Re:Understanding Statistics by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yes, if you want a sad example, look at infant mortality. Some places don't (or at least didn't, at some point) count deaths under 1 year as infant mortality, they are considered "stillborn" and so they have less infant mortality than other places, but more dead babies.