Slashdot Mirror
Update: Possible Active Shooter Reported at YouTube HQ (theverge.com)
Police have responded to multiple 911 calls at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. From a report: Vadim Lavrusik, a product manager at the company, tweeted that there is an active shooter on campus. The San Bruno Police Department instructed people to stay away from 901 Cherry Avenue, where the company is located. Multiple 911 calls have been received from inside the building, according to a report from local news station KRON. In a Twitter thread, YouTube product manager Todd Sherman said that employees first thought there had been an earthquake. People began running out of their meetings, he said, but before reaching the exit, they got word that someone had a gun. Sherman said he saw blood on the floor and the stairs. He also said the shooter may have committed suicide. Vadim Lavrusik, who works at YouTube's products team, tweeted, "Active shooter at YouTube HQ. Heard shots and saw people running while at my desk. Now barricaded inside a room with coworkers."
Update 20:30 GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number. Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
Update 20:30 GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number. Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
YouTube would remove such a video, you'll have to check LiveLeak.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Maybe someone finally really showed looking up for their "Internet money". (South Park reference that I'm too lazy to attach.)
Only available to YouTube Red members.
Live coverage as of about 1:30pm PDT.
Didn't California ban active shooters in the state?
California has pretty strict gun laws. How could anyone get a gun to YouTube HQ?
Yeah, that's literally the only possible explanation here. Fuck you.
Isn't going into YouTube HQ with a loaded gun and shooting people a violation of the terms of service?
Does this gunman not understand that this will almost certainly result in a strike against his account?
Talk about reckless!
There's literally more guns than population in the USA.
Wake the fuck up, PLEASE.
Apparently a woman in some sort of black head covering... but who knows the media always get this stuff wrong as they leap to be the first to provide info.
Didn't California ban active shooters in the state?
Nope.
According to Diane Feinstein:
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it's legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
Link above was mangled, here's the real link:
Feinstein quotes
In the US, people can freely cross borders between states. That's why Chicago has such terrible gun violence despite having strict(er) gun laws than neighboring states/cities.
Then why does Texas have so much less? Or New Hampshire?
Imagine your job is to review cat videos.
All day, every day.
Cats sleeping, cats jumping, cats getting scared, cats attacking, cats fighting, cats hunting birds, etc.
Now, wouldn't that make you crazy and want to shoot the place up?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Well that, or some random just went crazy. Possibly among the companies own personal.
One thing for certain though: this will go political in about 5 fucking minutes.
False flag nonsense is exactly that. Nonsense. How you were modded up is beyond me.
I'll buy the possibility of someone angry at YouTube over recent policy who decided to go shoot up the place, but they'd have to get past security to even get at people. It's far more likely that it's a disgruntled employee.
Was she selling snacks by any chance?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
No, but they do need to have a label indicating that they've been found to cause cancer in the state of California.
Because their hoodlums go out of state to but weapons?
Sounds like they have a problem with Hoodlums.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
Fuck you. That's never a justification for violence. Ever.
Asshole.
I don't respond to AC's.
California also has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Yeah, more laws should do the trick.
Nonsense. If that were true the level of gun violence in those neighboring areas would be much higher.
Right -- You can't trust a fellow employee to remember their own user name, or small basics like not stuffing paper towels down a toilet, so it totally makes sense that you see no problem with having every untrained, undocumented idiot brandish a firearm in the cubicle next to you.
Police were seen laying down evidence markers near the seating area of the cafe.
I've seen epic McDonald's fights over the lack of bacon on an Egg McMuffin. No telling what can happen if they put mustard on a burger when you said, "No Mustard"
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The shooter must have glimpsed briefly at the YouTube video comments.
And what did Slashdot do that was wrong here?
Yes, you directly compared murdering people with guns to antagonizing people with terms of service.
It's just stupidity all around. People shouldn't shoot up offices and schools, and corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
I don't respond to AC's.
In the US, people can freely cross borders between states. That's why Chicago has such terrible gun violence despite having strict(er) gun laws than neighboring states/cities.
So, the criminals get their guns from the surrounding places where the gun laws are lax and everybody has and sells guns. They take these guns into Chicago and commit violent offenses with them, and Chicago's crime rate soars, even though Chicago has the tough gun laws. QUESTION: Why is the crime rate LOW in those adjacent territories where the gun laws are lax and all the guns are in the first place?
Guess not. They should get on that. Right after they put Prop 65 warnings on coffee cups.
I wonder who pissed her off?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
His statement does seem to be an indictment of the citizens of Chicago.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Sadly, they wouldn't be completely wrong.
You need to reevaluate your life.
I didn't want to say anything until we were sure but yes it seems likely.
sbpd: we came as quick as we got the call. So you guys are saying your abundant coverage of Videogames has caused a violent shooting?
Youtube: what? no thats not whats happening at --
sbpd: So video games themselves have started shooting people? or the people inside are playing some kind of video game that makes you shoot people?
Youtube: we never mentioned video games at all guys, this is a real --
sbpd: I get it. some kind of twitch stream where the pokemans are in augmented reality...it was only a matter of time.
Youtube: thats nonsense...none of that makes any sense...
Homeland Security: so due to legislative prioritization we dont really have any ability to stop whats going on except with thoughts and prayers. Also we're technically not allowed to be here unless its some kind of copyright infringement.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Why is the crime rate LOW in those adjacent territories where the gun laws are lax and all the guns are in the first place?
Typically, isolated cities like this start out as places where the crime rate (and violent crime rate) soars, and they try to curb it by enacting gun laws. In other words: everyone has the same gun laws; then the city has high crime; then the city enacts gun laws; the crime doesn't go away.
People come along and say, "Hey, look! The places without gun laws have low crime, and the strong gun law places have high crime!" Sometimes they leave it dangling; frequently they try to assert something about disarmament only disarming the citizenry so the criminals know they're easy--essentially narrating that the gun laws came first and brought crime.
Nobody seems to ask why the crime increased in the first place.
Nobody seems to ask why the approach of locking people up for long sentences (that's what these tough gun laws do) doesn't suppress the crime.
Then: Republicans start using words like "Truth in Sentencing", which follow the same reasoning as these gun laws whereby maybe if we lock people up more and longer people will stop doing bad things and the crime will go away.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Didn't California ban active shooters in the state?
Nope, too bad one of those "good guys with a gun" wasn't nearby and able to save the day...
The 23rd infantry of the U.S. Marines, which is about a block away, has been put on lockdown.
I stole this Sig
As one of the most snarky people on Slashdot, and having even first-posted a Youtube joke here, I would like to in all seriousness express my sadness that people were attacked, injured, and I hope they all survive and recover. This is a tragedy, both for the individuals involved and their families, and for our society. I am sure that I can speak for many people, with many opinions about the societal implications and wildly differing views on the etiology of these kinds of attacks, when I say here that we give our condolences to the victims and their loved ones.
I wanted there to be at least one non-political non-asshole comment to this effect on Slashdot.
This is in Commiefornia...er...California, with some of the most restrictive gun laws around.
How could this have possibly happened?
I thought regulating the shit out of law abiding citizens would prevent such tragedies?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
.. indeed, mostly worthless.
The level of snark and folly is too great. Try to treat things a bit more seriously, like you do code design.
please don't be an AR
please don't be an AR....
OH wait, I don't think they allow regular ARs in CA anymore, right?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Then: Republicans start using words like "Truth in Sentencing", which follow the same reasoning as these gun laws whereby maybe if we lock people up more and longer people will stop doing bad things and the crime will go away.
The 3 strikes laws were due to Bill Clinton. You know what the Clintons arent? Republicans.
"His name was James Damore."
By the way, it is ALREADY ILLEGAL to hunt humans. That is called "murder" and can result in the 2nd most severe punishment of any crime (only copyright violation gets harsher punishments).
But of course making it MORE illegal will surely work.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I suspect it's someone fed up with the strangling of the independent media channels & simultaneous with the promotion of useless traditional media YT channels (which are done now for any thinking individual) what got someone that upset.
If that's the case I only hope they got the person/s responsible for it and failed to hit those who work there & have to suffer in silence.
Err...well, if you want to get a CC (Carry Concealed) license in most states, you have to first take training classes, learn the laws, and show a proficiency with you firearm before you can get said carry license.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So... never, then.
Great plan.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Don't have links or citations, I'm watching local TV and radio news here in California. As with early reports of a breaking story, many or all of these details could be wrong. Take with a grain of salt.
- Shooter is described as a white female, wearing a dark headscarf.
- One witness says she shot her boyfriend, 10 times.
- Coroner has been called, so at least one person is dead
- Suspect also reported dead possibly from a self-inflicted wound
- At least 4 bystanders were hit by gunfire
You can apply the same logic to illegal immigrants flowing into the self proclaimed " Sanctuary State ".
Which is exactly why the rest of the US has problems with CA's stance on it because we know they're just going to end up everywhere else due to CA's high cost of living.
Don't get me wrong, I love me some .45....
But I hope that's not the ONLY gun you have in the house loaded and ready...?
I have multiple guns in pretty much every room of my house, I'm never more than a few steps away from one.
And with each room, I'm only feet away from a handgun that will help me get to a shotgun....or in one room, the AR pistol with a can on it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Possibly the best way to prevent unwanted homicides is executions.. Most of the crimes in cities like that are by what Hillary got in so much trouble for labeling super predators. This is a very small percentage of the population. It isn't like any significant percentage of black Americans in Chicago are going around killing people. What a significant percentage of black Americans in Chicago are doing though is dying from violence by the same people over and over again. Those same people also tend to have many children which is problematic given the established genetic link to violent criminality. Why not simply execute them on their first offense?
Ban all AR-15's
Ban all semi-auto rifles (same as above).
Ban all guns....
Think of the children!!
Wait....it's a chick that did the shooting?
#MeToo
Ban all bad boyfriends, they deserve what they get....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That does not seem to be true. The specifics depend on your definition of "gun", but if assuming you mean handgun, then google suggests you can definitely own that in Australia. Not in the US "I need this... because.. I just do, ok, gief all the guns!" fashion, but as an active member of a club you can apply for a permit. If "gun" includes rifles and shotguns, then you can own those in England too, as far as I can tell.
From where I sit, regulation seems to be the crucial factor, with bans applying only to categories of firearms. Along with regulation you seem to get a culture where guns are treated with proper respect as opposed to as throwaway items anyone can possess without question or training and toss loaded into their nightstand drawers.
I don't believe there's a single solution that will work for every nation, there are so many factors at play, but it seems fairly self-evident that a good start is to do something different from what the US has been doing.
Even California has relatively weak controls compared to most counties and compared to what people are asking for.
Consider that whoever did this is almost certainly mentally ill. One of the common demands of those calling for stricter controls is to not allow people with mental health issues to have guns.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Arm yourself — police have no obligation to defend you and even if they choose to do it, you may not be their top priority.
Self-defense is an inalienable human right — which also happens to be recorded in America's 2nd Constitutional Amendment.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Easy answer: It requires a Constitutional Amendment.
Simply get Congress to sign off on it ( which will get them all voted out of office ) then get 75% of all States to do the same ( which will also get them voted out ) and you can make it happen.
Have fun.
Err...well, if you want to get a CC (Carry Concealed) license in most states, you have to first take training classes, learn the laws, and show a proficiency with you firearm before you can get said carry license.
Haha... pull the other one.
Cheap storage VM.
Err...well, if you want to get a CC (Carry Concealed) license in most states, you have to first take training classes, learn the laws, and show a proficiency with you firearm before you can get said carry license.
I'm pretty sure members of the "herp-a-derp untrained idiots" thoughtcamp are just projecting their own self-loathing on the rest of the world.
That, or they're too stupid to see the forest for the trees, but I prefer to give folks a little more credit than that.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Substitute "don't ban" with the essentially synonymous "allow": "As long as companies allow guns on their property, this will continue to happen."
...and the responses are arguing against firearms in the workplace, which is pretty much what was said in the first place.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
That's the worst argument ever. I can save more than one life by tomorrow if I ban cars and liquor.
Apparently a woman shooter.
I wonder who pissed her off?
From what I have read elsewhere, she shot her boyfriend, and then herself. Other injuries may be due to panic and lack of information dissemination.
It's Leftist culture that creates those citizens.
Disgusting.
Cheap storage VM.
Except for the employees who were reading Slashdot at their desks.
#DeleteChrome
California also has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Yeah, more laws should do the trick.
It did the trick in Australia, where gun violence has plummeted after the restrictions.
And it even does the trick in California. Despite episodes like this, the amount of gun crimes per capita is lower than many other places in the US with more liberal laws.
So why can't we use the same argument when it comes to stopping illegal immigrants?
How about lowering the speed limit to 55 nation-wide?
We could also use this as a justification for repealing the 4th amendment while we are at it. Let cops pull people over on a hunch. After all, if it saves one innocent life, it'll be worth it.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
America has an anger issue, or maybe a psycho issue.
Guns are the tool used, because they're effective and yes, they facilitate a murderer's agenda, but they're not the actual source of the problem. Removing or "controlling" guns (whatever that means exactly) isn't like having your cat declawed, because whack people are whack but often smart, and they will find other ways to commit mass murder because they want to kill, be it via improvised explosives, vehicular assault, mass poison or gas, firebombs/arson (I think I'd rather get shot than burn to death, personally), or just going stab and slash happy with a bladed weapon, which can be frighteningly effective against unarmed people in an enclosed area if the perp has skills.
Human bodies are fragile organisms, we're not that terribly hard to kill.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Because their hoodlums go out of state to but weapons?
People who whine about "guns from out of state" obviously don't understand the concept of scale.
Say all guns get banned in every state; criminals will still get guns, because Mexico exists.
Then the whiners will piss and moan about "guns from out of country," but our government has no jurisdiction there. Q.E.D.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The amount of gun violence per gun owner is the same. "Tough" gun laws do not do a better job at sorting out people who shouldn't have guns. Liberal Massachusetts also has a low per-capita gun crime rate, but the per-gunowner gun crime rate is actually higher than the national average.
... pet rocks.
A Pennsylvania school district has a different solution for tackling intruders: rocks.
Buckets full of river stones have been placed in all classrooms at the Blue Mountain School District in Schuylkill County, Superintendent David Helsel said.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Ok..so, lets get rid of all semi-automatic weapons (after all that is ALL the AR-15 is, it is nothing more).
Even though millions of people own them and responsibly own them, just because a few idiots go off, we have to take away everyones ability to own them?
This is more a people problem than gun problem.
It wasn't that long ago (think 60's-70's) when you could easily buy a gun (pistol or rifle or shotgun) with no background check, at the local hardware store, or even mail order, no problem.
Hell, in High School in the late 70's early 80's, I remember tons of folks parking in the student parking lot with gun racks in their truck, with loaded rifles in them....no problem.
So, with easier access, we had no real problem with mass shootings, and I never heard of one in schools then.
And if you want to go extreme...machine guns.
You know you CAN today own one legally, right?
All you have to do is fill out some ATF forms, pay your $200 tax stamp and you can own and shoot your own machine gun.
The only thing today is, as a civilian, you can only buy ones made before 1986. IN 1986, they snuck in a law (see the Hughes amendment) that said civilians couldn't own full auto weapons (which an AR-15 is not) made before 1986.
Prior to the Hughes amendment in 1986, you could freely buy a brand new machine gun easily. Just pay a tax stamp and fill out a form.
But tell me....can you list a bunch of machine gun crimes during that time period of the 50's and 60's?
Ok, I'll give you the roaring 20's with Al Capone, but there were also there circumstances going on then too.
So, it wasn't that long ago, that we have MUCH easier access to fire arms, even fully automatic ones, yet, we didn't have the problems with mass shootings we have now, in schools, etc.
And even with these.... gun violence overall in the US has been declining over the past years..
So, over all, things have gotten better, and yet...we're wanting to have law abiding Americans, the VAST majority of gun owners in the US, millions of them...give up their rights, to cater to the lowest denominator of a few whack-o's...right?
And we're wanting to do this and make things harder on the vast majority legal law abiding citizens, even though so many of the laws already on the books are NOT being enforced...?
Hmm....I just don't buy that argument. We do not need to start treating the law abiding more and criminals and deprive them of their rights and property, and the privilege of protecting themselves and their homes.
I won't even get into reasons pertaining to the founding fathers wanting us armed, against tyranny of government that could happen.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The amount of gun violence per gun owner is the same.
Which is another way of saying that if you reduce gun ownership, you also reduce gun violence. *Nod*
The government has no reason to know what property I own, and a gun is nothing more than property, a tool.
There is no good reason for registration other than for potential confiscation.
I don't think they need to know if you want to smoke pot either, none of their fscking business.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We did that once before..Please God, don't give them any ideas to bring that POS idea back again...ugh!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Her Victims.
The shooter was apparently a woman.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Probably trolling. Then again, Cayenne8 may actually be Lance Thomas, the L.A. watch maker that learned to be a gun slinger in order to defend his store.
so you have issues with vehicle registration as well?
What? Troll?
I thought is was more along the lines of "Good Natured Sarcasm".....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
But they heard it on Fox & Friends - so it has to be true!
#DeleteChrome
Even California has relatively weak controls compared to most counties and compared to what people are asking for.
Noooooooooooope.
California has some of the most restrictive and nonsensical rules regarding guns, and loooooooves denying or just ignoring valid permit applications for no reason.
Unless you're a certain congress woman, then you get to pack heat while telling everyone else they can't.
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
Nope. The fact is people who are afraid of guns have an irrational phobia. And that is a mental issue.
You are why Trump won.
Don't worry, Trump will die in prison either way.
Why do you wish him well ? The orangutan deserves to have his brains shot out by a Republitard carrying an AR-15.
Now that would be divine justice.
Look kids, it's the Spring thaw! See all the little snowflakes melting?
No, it's another way of saying that if you want to reduce gun ownership, you're sweeping your own incompetence at background checks and law enforcement under the rug and scapegoating the 99.99% of people who own guns without causing trouble to anyone.
corporations should refrain from antagonizing people.
Fuck you. That's never a justification for violence. Ever.
Asshole.
Who said it was a justification for anything?
Corporations should indeed refrain from antagonizing people.
Right -- You can't trust a fellow employee to remember their own user name, or small basics like not stuffing paper towels down a toilet, so it totally makes sense that you see no problem with having every untrained, undocumented idiot brandish a firearm in the cubicle next to you.
Maybe if you stopped hiring retards and instead hire people who have a brain because they're the best choice for the job you wouldn't have that issue.
But you ignored the other examples. Only a small percentage of people every year are the subject of a search warrant or probable cause. Therefore, we shouldn't bother with such things, right?
The whole "if it saves even one life" can be used to justify a LOT of things...
Gun control has even CAUSED deaths. One case that I know of in New Jersey where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still in process when she was killed. Gun control killed her. If she did not have to get a permit, then it could have saved her life. Why is her REAL life not as important as a hypothetical "even one life?"
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to protect the "convenient" rights or the rights of "most" people. It is there to protect ALL rights for EVERYBODY. The 1st amendment even allows horrid groups like the KKK to speak. While we COULD infringe in their rights, the unpopular speech is the one that needs the most protecting.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I don't have any issues, I just have a lot of guns.
They are are mostly of various calibers and types. I like to collect and shoot them, mostly as a hobby.
But as long as I have them, why not spread them around the house?
I live in a safe neighborhood, but, not long back and not far away enough for me....there were a couple of home invasions.
Well, I don't guess any set of invaders, (and you do see home invasions with groups of 2 or more) are going to be polite enough to kick the door in when you are near your gun safe and give you time to open it, and load a weapon.
But again, that's not the primary reasons I have them around, but I figure since I have a lot, why not?
It doesn't hurt anything, and God forbid something did happen, well, at least I have options.
Now...what of the denotes need of a medical professional?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Apparently a woman in some sort of black head covering
We should not jump to conclusions here, but given that description it is likely that she was a Catholic Nun.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Well, honestly, I don't see the need for it really.
It is there mainly as a means of tracking tax revenue IMHO...
However, if you buy a car and don't drive it on public roads, you don't need to register it.
So, as long as I don't use or shoot my guns illegally in public where restricted (analagous to not driving on public roads)....the govt. has no reason to know what or how many I have.
They don't require me to register my knives or hammers in my household, yet those are tools too...and they can even be used to harm or even kill people.
The gun is nothing more than an inanimate tool. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and shooting someone or something by themselves.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
What makes you think this? Most gun owners I know own their firearms for sporting purposes; are you saying there's something wrong with sporting activities?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I'm betting she'll be treated with gloves by the coroner. She's dead.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
We tried banning liquor. It didn't work out. We tried banning drugs, and that's not working out either. Read a history book.
No, a gun is purposely built and designed to fire a projectile. A slingshot is designed to do the same thing, so is a BB gun, so is a potato gun.
Now, whether you commit a crime and use a gun to kill someone, that's what turns a tool into a deadly object in a criminal use.
It can be used to legally kill some things, like when hunting. But then again, you also can do this with bow and arrow, a crossbow, a slighshot....even a fishing pole.
So, unless it is used illegally, it is not purpose built to kill. (the exception being if you are using one in combat/war, and even then, they don't use the same weapons we civilians commonly use. The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it is not fully automatic and is not used by the military).
I can attest that none of my weapons have come to life and spontaneously gone out and shot something or someone. I myself, have only used them for target shooting.
Well, car registraton, etc...seems to me to be primarily for taxation and tracking it so they can make you keep paying for it (property tax, etc)....
However, if you buy a car and do not drive it on public roads (keep to private property, etc), you do not have to register it, you do not have to have a drivers license.
IN analogy to that, I don't not shoot my gun in public areas where it is prohibited, only in sanction areas (gun range) or private land...therefore it is pretty much regulated as tightly as a car.
If, in fact I want to carry a gun concealed in most public areas, I DO have to take training, learn the laws and show proficiency in shooting it in order to complete the class and apply for a carry conceal license.
I think that pretty much makes the car analogy, no?
One last thing, I don't know of anywhere in the US (at least no state I"ve lived in) that requires any form of training in order to drive a car or get a license.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
They already said it was a girlfriend wearing a hijab that was screaming allahu akbar. Why try to blame an employee? Do you hate YouTube more than you love facts? Also, you blame videos. Do you also blame violent games?
OH wait, I don't think they allow regular ARs in CA anymore, right?
California romanticizes smuggling of ARs. See "The Sons of Anarchy" for details.
If you make something illegal in the US . . . you can be sure that it will be available through . . . "informal channels".
Anyway, a pro wouldn't use an AR in a YouTube office attack. A Heckler & Koch MP7 would have been much more effective.
When I saw a German soldier demonstrate the weapon, he stated:
"This weapon should never be in civilian hands!"
Well, weapons have improved, but I don't think that is the problem. Back in the 70's, when I attended High School in scenic New Jersey, bat-shit crazy folks like myself smoked weed and listened to "Yes" and "Pink Floyd" albums. We never considered shooting up the school.
The folks in America have changed. The Founding Fathers were a bunch of very intelligent optimistic folks. They saw the "Right to Bear Arms" as a necessity to defend the good people against tyranny.
Ask any American today what the "Boston Tea Party" was about . . . they probably won't know.
Guns are not the problem, but compared to back then . . . too many folks cannot be trusted with weapons.
. . . or maybe force them to smoke weed and listen to "Yes" and "Pink Floyd" albums.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Wrong. Gun violence in Chicago is primarily caused by organized crime and the opioid epidemic. Its people from Chicago shooting other people from Chicago over drugs and money. But if you actually have been to Chicago you would know that despite the numbers its still a pretty safe city as long as you don't go to the wrong areas.
If a city has "wrong areas" you need to avoid, your city isn't safe.
Hell, in High School in the late 70's early 80's, I remember tons of folks parking in the student parking lot with gun racks in their truck, with loaded rifles in them....no problem.
Then you weren't paying attention. Texas State and Virginia Tech?
Breitbart would know since this is across the street from where a friend of mine is forced to work for Walmart eCommerce. Their kind is so violent and stupid that they probably wanted to do their thing at Walmart since that is the way of their kind.
Sadly, you're probably right. Odds are that some wacko who read one too many Breitbart/Infowars/etc articles slamming Google and their political leanings decided to make themselves infamous by shooting up YouTube's HQ.
I really wish that people would find productive ways of showing their outrage instead of resorting to violence. Instead of killing innocent people over something as lame as Google's content rules, why not start a conservative alternative?
She had applied for a gun permit, but was still in process when she was killed. Gun control killed her. If she did not have to get a permit, then it could have saved her life. Why is her REAL life not as important as a hypothetical "even one life?"
It's a shitty situation all around, but statistically speaking, it's far more likely that she would have been killed with her own shiny new handgun than succeed in defending herself.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Maybe when California finally invents a border force field preventing guns entering from the rest of the fucking country this will finally be solved.
Such a force field might interfere with the flow of sacred illegal aliens* into California. Can't have that.
* Don't call them "immigrants." An immigrant is someone who passes through a country's designated immigration system.
He's trolling you, dumbass.
I agree, I know that era...and no, no shoot-em-up problems then.
Hell, most of the trucks in the HS parking lot had gun racks in them WITH loaded rifles, especially during gun season, and again....while Floyd, Zeppelin and the Stones blared out, no one got shot, no one worried about it.
It is definitely a people problem, thing is..do we take away the rights of the vast majority in order to cater to the lowest common denominator which are a minority few nut jobs?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The sad fact is that most people who want to own a gun by definition have mental health issues.
Nope. The fact is people who are afraid of guns have an irrational phobia. And that is a mental issue.
Nope. The fact is you're both full of it.
Neither ownership of a gun, nor a fear of guns, is a sign of mental illness.
It's possible to debate a topic without claiming the other side only holds their position due to a mental defect.
I stole this Sig
Even if you don't feel anything, you're expected to fake it. Like a politician.
Well, the LA Times said:
Brent Andrew, a spokesman for Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, said the hospital had "received several patients" and was expecting more.
. . . so if you want any juicy information about the victims . . . you can buy it from Facebook . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
You're such a bad troll.
In most countries you can't even get a permit unless you have a really, really good reason. Compared to most developed countries even California is relatively permissive, just not relative to the rest of the US.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That's exactly what the OP did when he dismissed the reality of this tragic event. In a way it's worse - in the case of calling someone human garbage, he at least acknowledged the OP as a human being. Calling this a false flag is literal dehumanized someone who lost his life, and just to score some political points. Spare me the sanctimony, Anonymous Coward.
Those are high schools then, are they?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It is amazing they've survived this long. Their meltdown started a year and a half ago.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Yes, but not on Utube. They banned Gun videos remember?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Statistically speaking, this woman had a RESTRAINING ORDER against somebody who had threatened her, which kind of skews the numbers. Shouldn't it have been up to her to make that choice about the relative risks, instead of having the government make her safe while allowing her murder?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
You realize that the NRA isn't some independent, maniacal entity that magically appeared from nowhere and just runs rampant on its own in the US right?
It is made up of US citizens, it is funded by US citizens to help represent them and their views. It lobbies on behalf of a large number of US citizens to help protect their gun rights.
I hope the government of the US never falls into tyranny, but just in case it does, do look at history and an armed guerrilla has often fought many a government to at least a standstill....and in the US, it would be a lot of people over a large area.
I hope it never happens, it likely will never happen, but with even a smidgen of possibility, I'd like have the armed citizenry would be a bit of a deterrent.
Also, if you have a criminal breaking in, a home invasion, they are likely armed. I'd like to have the option to also be armed,
These days, more and more you're seeing 2-4 criminals doing invasions as groups.
In the heat of fire, panic, I"d like to have the ability to fire at least 30 shots before having to reload. IN that situation, you will have a hard time hitting with single shots.
Hell, even trained, veteran cops, often are emptying their guns on criminals, look at the news, you see 4 to 1 cops to criminal, and they're all emptying their 13-17 round capacity magazines at one guy and often most of THOSE shots miss, so, just saying, I'd like to have my options.
I may not win, they may kill me, but I'd like to have my chance be better than if all I can do is yell at them and throw furniture their way.
If you don't want to own weapons, please, do NOT.
But no one should violate MY right to defend myself, and own weapons as long as I am a law abiding citizen, which the VAST VAST majority of gun owning Americans are.
We're not the rest of the world....with so many places out there that lost their rights, isn't it nice to be one place where it still exists?
And as you see in other parts of the world, once you give up your rights, they are GONE forever....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You really need to get your facts from places other than "Pass it on" emails.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
All chicks go crazy at times (anecdotal experience)...
Not buying that you know all chicks.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
High point of life. Taking my 4 year old nephew to the rifle range for the first time. Knew there was going to be idiots protesting that day.
The boy says to lead asshole: 'I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.' Proudly holding his AIR-15.
Could have heard a pin drop, then I busted out laughing, couldn't stop for a solid minute.
You'll never see the day.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The lack of a land registry is a big part of why Greece can't collect taxes. Granting 'not developed' in any meaningful sense.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Look who clearly has sock puppet accounts so they can mod themselves up. DogDude clearly does.
"His name was James Damore."
Some are.
Let me guess: "the Jews"? Or did you mean some other group of people who you have a final solution in mind for?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And if you want to use stats on gun violence...take out the damned suicide numbers. If people want to off themselves, they will.
If you remove suicides, you have gun deaths (last I looked) lower than car accidents, and you don't see people wanting to ban cars.
And, if you look closer at the statistics, most gun deaths are by handgun AND out of those, most are gang related, them killing themselves. It isn't the law abiding gun owner that is the problem, it is...criminals.
I don't think they called it the Bill of Privileges, or the "Bill of Needs"...it is the Bill of Rights in the US constitution.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck about the rest of the world. If I wanted to live under those type of rules, I'd move there.
Also, if I buy a car and don't drive it on public roads, but only on private property, etc...I don't have to register it.
With my guns, I do not shoot them in public places, only on private property like a gun range, or I have friends with lots of land where we can go shoot all we want.
So, as long as I legally own and use my weapons, no...the government has no need to know about them any more than it needs to know my ownership of knives, hammers or crossbows, etc...which also can be missed and kill people.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I see you stopped reading before "Massachusetts also has a low per-capita gun crime rate, but the per-gunowner gun crime rate is actually higher than the national average."
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Has there ever been a mass shooting that wasn't in a gun free zone? I can think of only one, that assassination attempt against a senator with a lot of collateral damage.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Illegal gun traffic goes the other way - from the US to Mexico. Which makes sense - the guns are made in the US, not Mexico.
That's just, like, your opinion man.
You are welcome on my lawn.
As long as companies don't ban guns on their property, this will continue to happen.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I can buy a car, and if I do not drive in on public roads, I don't not have to register it or have a drivers license.
I do not shoot my guns in public spaces, only on private land, either a gun range, or I have friends with private property outside the city limits, or in areas where it is legal to hunt, again, usually not in places where people live.
So, there's your car analogy.
If I DO want to carry my weapons and use them in public areas, I have to take classes, learn the laws and show a proficiency in using my weapon before I can apply for a Carry Concealed permit to carry a gun on me out in public.
Oh yea as part of that CC license, you get fingerprinted, and a picture ID, just like your drivers license.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm pretty sure members of the "herp-a-derp untrained idiots" thoughtcamp are just projecting their own self-loathing on the rest of the world.
Someone that doesnt take the time to be good at anything other than vomiting logical fallacies cant imagine that its actually common for other people to be good at everything they put their mind to.
I regularly play poker with a raging gun control nazi. Their poker game hasnt gotten better over time. Its gotten worse. But their skill at rationalizing bad ideas with logical fallacies had reached master level.
"His name was James Damore."
Then the whiners will piss and moan about "guns from out of country," but our government has no jurisdiction there. Q.E.D.
Uhhh... we have jurisdiction over our border. Mexican guns aren't much cause for concern as long as they stay in Mexico.
Breakfast served all day!
We tried banning liquor. It didn't work out. We tried banning drugs, and that's not working out either. Read a history book.
I so wish I could moderate up your post.
Banning alcohol didn't reduce crime, quite the opposite. I don't know why people believe a gun ban of any kind would be any more effective.
But we just want to ban the "assault weapons"! Hiram Maxim figured out how to turn a lever action rifle into a machine gun in the 1880s, and he wrote down how to do it. Repeating that feat today with internet access and modern power tools is near trivial. What are they going to do next? Ban every lever action rifle? The Gatling Gun was patented in 1861. Replicating that today with modern tools would be trivial as well. Back in 1861 there were no cordless power drills, so it had a crank. What would that Gatling gun look like with an electric motor and a lithium ion battery?
The government can ban something but that won't make it go away. Sometimes it's just better to NOT BAN STUFF.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
don't ban guns on their property, this will continue to happen.
Cute... Make it illegal and nobody will dare do it. Right...
I would imagine that it's illegal to carry your firearm into a post office and shoot up the place... But that didn't stop people from going postal.
Where I work, firearms are defiantly not allowed and we get trained on this regularly just to make sure everybody knows and remembers the rules. That's great, but there is literally nothing to keep a disgruntled employee from breaking the rules. Therefore we do annual "active shooter" training as part of the site safety training.
Why do I bring all this up? Because, you cannot stop weapons from showing up in places you don't want them by just passing laws or making rules. You have to take positive measures to keep them out of places (metal detectors, pat downs and such) and even then it's not 100% effective (we still have weapons in prisons, though we strip search inmates and go though their stuff regularly).
No law or rule fixes this.... Then there is the 2nd amendment to deal with, which pretty much guarantees you cannot keep firearms out of public hands, which limits the laws you can even have.... No, other solutions are going to be required..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Most of the people willing to do such a thing were already voted out. The Democrats have gotten both federally and locally slaughtered since Obama. Not that the media reports it....
State Houses by party control:
Republicans: 32
Democrats: 14
Split: 4
Governorships by party:
Republicans: 33
Democrats: 16
Other: 1
As you see at the State level the Republican advantage has grown to over 2:1 thanks to Obama and the Clintons. The Democrats used to own the States but in the past decade their bullshit has cost them everything (and thats in spite of constant never ending media help to beat Republicans)
"His name was James Damore."
Common sense would say that regular employees (not members of the security staff) carrying guns inside of companies is useless, absurd and insane.
Maybe, maybe not...
Common sense tells me that in the situation where you don't know for sure who may be armed and intending a crime, having law abiding citizens who are armed and can confront the criminally minded is a good idea.
Armed security is great, but most mass shootings are over in about 3 min. Dealing with mass shooters involves two goals. First, limiting the number of targets they see by training people how to evade, hide and locking doors. Second, is to confront the shooter somehow sooner rather than later, because most shooters will stop and flee or commit suicide when confronted. In this case, having law abiding citizens with arms spread about seems to be a good idea to me.
Of course, if you want to provide armed guards who can respond in mere seconds, that's helpful too, but I doubt you can afford enough of them in any reasonable sized facility to have response times that will be all that helpful given the relatively short lengths of mass shootings.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Not everybody sees that as a downside.
Can you? OK, cars are now banned, and of course you're going to have to ban all motor vehicles in order to avoid loopholes. Now that rapid transportation no longer exists, everyone in your area will quickly realize that food cannot get to them fast enough to keep them alive. There will be riots and looting for food, and since you have banned alcohol, people will be really uptight about it. Citizens will start using guns to defend what little food they have. Now look at what you have done.
Because the only solution to guns is more guns of course. It's not like that could ever go wrong.
It's not perfect, but yes. Guns in the hands of the law abiding often DO help in the case of a mass shooting incident or during violent crimes.
Let's not toss out workable solutions because there are risks or it's not perfect. "Perfect is the enemy of good" in this case.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Or maybe it is better to understand that sacrificing freedoms and liberties for what seems to be good intentions can have horrible unintended consequences in the long term, and should always be avoided.
Women shooters are so very rare that I wonder if this was a transgender woman.
And if you want to use stats on gun violence...take out the damned suicide numbers. If people want to off themselves, they will.
They actually won't. The higher you make the barriers to someone offing themselves, the less likely they are to do it. Suicidal person walks out onto a bridge to discover there's a high barrier preventing them from jumping off? They're not terribly likely to walk to another bridge and try again.
For better or worse, most suicides are spur of the moment things. It's not like in the movies where someone leaves behind a note and does all this pre-planning, it's just a moment of poor judgment and tragedy. Having a firearm easily accessible greatly increases the probability that the person attempting suicide will succeed in their endeavour.
To complain otherwise just shows that you've swallowed the tripe pedaled by the NRA and their ilk.
A gun death is a gun death, whether it's self inflicted, accidental, or intentional.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Hunting humans is not illegal. *KILLING* them is! We teach kids to hunt humans with a game called hide-and-seek.
Since you seem so hung up on "1) if a gun is used a crime police can see who it belongs to", maybe you can explain how that works? Do the police catch the criminal and then check to see who the gun belongs to? Or do you think criminals discard their guns at the scene of the crime?
In the US, people can freely cross borders between states. That's why Chicago has such terrible gun violence despite having strict(er) gun laws than neighboring states/cities.
Chicago's problem is social and economic. The rampant proliferation of ILLEGAL weapons is but a symptom. I contend that allowing LEGAL firearms into the place would help the innocent survive as would prosecuting firearm violations (such as position by felons, or use in a crime) which isn't really done by Chicago could help.... But Again, the real issue in Chicago is not illegal weapons, it's just a symptom of the social and economic crisis of the people who live in parts of it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The prohibition of armed forces acting on domestic soil applies only to the US Army and US Air Force. This prohibition does not apply to the Coast Guard, National Guard, or the US Marine Corps. Also, this prohibition does not apply to the enforcement of federal law. I'm pretty sure attempted murder is prohibited under federal law, perhaps I'm mistaken.
I remember talking to a guy that lived out by DC. He talked of a military base that had a major highway going through it and USMC military police enforced traffic law there. They will stop people that speed and issue tickets, anyone in uniform had their commanders notified of the ticket as well. Speeding on a military base is a violation of federal law, and members of the military will enforce that law.
The use of Marines to enforce federal law is relatively routine. Did you ever notice that the security detail around the President of the United States is full of Marines? That's because using members of either the Army and Air Force could be considered a violation of the prohibitions laid out in the Constitution of having a standing Army. Perhaps a minor point if the guy is in a Marine uniform instead of an Army one but this is what the law says.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The boy says to lead asshole: 'I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.' Proudly holding his AIR-15.
Here is the thing you don't get, despite your vitriolic towards anti-gun activists, I honestly and sincerely hope that nobody EVER takes a gun from your nephew 's cold dead hands. I hope that you and your nephew never becomes on of the thousands of Americans killed or injured in firearms accidents that occur each year. Hell, I hope the two of you celebrate your 100th birthday together.
I get that you enjoy owning and firing guns and the feeling of control it gives you, but you or he only need to make one mistake. Is it really worth it?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I find it macabre that these shootings are so common that we feel immediately comfortable joking about tragedies involving human suffering and death.
In the good old days, we at least pretended to care and waited a suitable length of time before making jokes of questionable empathy, initially whispered only in private company.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Thankfully, I already have severe depression, so I've stopped giving a fuck.
No one at Google is ever going to see these comments
Plenty of Google employees read /.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Never question, just accept the narrative exactly as it is laid out for you, else you are human garbage. I see you've been taught well.
How many homicides are there per 1M hammers and per 1M firearms in the US?
Ezekiel 23:20
Look guns deaths have been dropping in the US over the past years.
And so have many other deaths. But with the current EPA leadership, who knows...maybe they'll push for leaded gasoline again.
Ezekiel 23:20
Maybe Reykjavik? just guessing...
Ezekiel 23:20
Typically gun bullet marks are registered, so police can identify the gun. It doesn't work perfectly, but it helps a lot.
Yes. That's the point.
There's nothing in the constituttion about gun registration not being allowed either, though, or is it?
The stated (by the authors, in case the 2A text isn't clear enough for you) purpose is to reserve the power to potentially overthrow the government. So allowing the government to maintain a list of who has all the guns and where they are would seem to tend to defeat the purpose. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is hard to understand?
So over the past few years we've seen article upon article about "white toxic masculinity" causing people to go postal with guns.
While I feel like a ghastly person for doing it, fuck those people who've done this over the years, shaming people for who they are.
Is it time for a 'toxic femininity' article? I doubt it.
Probably made more sense back when cars had terrible suspensions, no crumple zones, no safety glass, no seat belts, and tires as wide as sled runners.
> in High School in the late 70's early 80's, I remember tons of folks parking in the student parking lot with gun racks in their truck, with loaded rifles in them....no problem.
In the same era, my school even had marksmanship classes for PE credit. We all got in a bus and they drove us to the police firing range and handed us .22 rifles.
Keeping a list of something does not infringe anything, except maybe convenience.
Ezekiel 23:20
The second problem problem is one of culture. The culture in Australia is apparently not one where suicide attacks are thinkable.
I'm not so sure it's about the suicide pact. I certainly think that culture played a big part and I don't think that it would be possible to do in the US what was done in Australia.
Culturally, Australia doesn't (and didn't, before the ban) have the same reverence, fascination and obsession with guns that the US does (painting with a _very_ broad brush). People from the country tend to view them as a tool, same for hunters. People living in the suburbs or cities who owned guns were uncommon and seen as more than a little odd and 'American'.
Lower overall gun ownership means and meant that only the most violent of criminals used them, and then usually only among themselves (still true, today, just to a smaller extent). There were fewer people affected by the ban, less attachment in general and banning and/or restricting guns was framed in much the same way that banning or restricting any tool is/was. There just wasn't the legal or historic context for it to be anything else.
While being an island sounds good on paper, if there was a market we'd see imports the same way we see drugs enter the country and the same way the small number of guns still arrive. There's just too much coastline to really keep anything out. Distance is a bigger factor. We've a fraction of the population in an area about the same as the US (albeit not evenly distributed) which, again, if there was a will would make it impossible for the police to locate caches of guns in out-of-the-way locations.
The rocks are for stonings!
Good solid biblical education!
Also useful if they find a woman who has laid with a man who is not her husband..
Or eaten shellfish..
Or using the name of Jeho.... oh dear..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are no federal 3 strikes laws
From H.R.3355 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994:
(8 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting after ``commission of'' the following:
``three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or''; and...
Federal law. Stop being lying fucks. Just stop. Stop fucking lying. Seriously. Just fucking stop lying. The liberals are going to lose everything if you extremists in the camp dont fucking stop. Just fucking stop.
"His name was James Damore."
that's sorta the problem with having a patch work approach. Oh, and the gun show loop hole. So much for your strict laws.
I hate to make this a car analogy, but we should be regulating guns like cars.
BTW, any one care to hazard a guys why the constitution doesn't just say "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"? Why the part about the well regulated militia. IIRC anything after the preamble is meant to be legal text, e.g. not just for show. All I ever find googling it is vague arguments on both sides.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
when it's not a 90 minute drive to somebody to murder. Population density is a factor.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The gun is nothing more than an inanimate tool. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and shooting someone or something by themselves.
Bullshit! Yea, well nukes are nothing more than an inanimate tools as well. I have never once had a problem with any of them spontaneously coming to life and nuking someone or something by themselves. Yet I don't see anyone arguing that it should be okay for anyone to walk around with one.
since there's been a nation wide moratorium on researching gun violence since the early 2000s. If I had to make a guess I'd say economy. Chicago's economic base when kaput when manufacturing moved to Mexico. Texas still has oil jobs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You may want the option. You may even want to be armed. But you definitely do not want the home invader to realise you are armed unless you strongly expect that lives are being threatened.
Think about it. If only the invader is armed, he is in control and you don't represent much of a threat to him. He can take your wallet, or whatever property he is after, and go on his way. If you are armed as well, and he knows it, then he is threatened and much more likely to pull the trigger. This is why law enforcement recommends that you cooperate. It reduces the risk that you will be harmed. Only when reasonably sure that the invader wants to do you harm, rather than just obtain property, does it make sense to bring another firearm into the situation.
And as a member of the rest of the world, living in a country where we still have gun rights, but have to be trained, tested, and licensed to possess a firearm, I certainly don't envy Americans' on the gun issue. More like pity.
off the road. And the reason you don't need to register if you're not driving on public roads is that it's assumed you're not really using it.
I suppose we could do the same thing. You can have your guns without regulation, but as soon as you take it in public it gets confiscated (carrying a gun is equivalent to using it, since as folks like to point out it's a deterrent). This would also mean you can't shoot unregistered guns at a range.
We don't register knives because they're not as dangerous. Same reason we don't register bikes. I crash into you on my road bike you've got a broken leg worst case (barring the occasional freak mishap). I'm alive today because a woman who ran a light while I was in a cross walk clipped the tire of the bike I was carrying instead of hitting me. That's the kind of difference we're talking about here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
CA wants those immigrants for the cheap labor. And the immigrants want to stay because the higher wages mean more money to send back home. Plus as soon as they leave the sanctuary cities they're at a greater risk of deportation.
Not saying what CA is doing is right. But your points aren't accurate.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
is objectively small. You're not going to fight a revolution with them. Those days are over. Our standing military is too powerful now After all, the point of the Second Amendment was a check on the standing army. But a modern and well provisioned military is beyond the ability of any citizenry to fight. Forget drones, you won't be able to keep up with their supply lines.
As for protection, you're much more likely to shoot yourself. A far better means of protection would be proper drug treatment, mental health care services and free housing to end homelessness. Make a world where you don't live in constant fear of some nut job breaking into your home.
All that said the "If it saves one life" argument is too extreme. I don't begrudge you your hobby (I do begrudge you thinking you can fight the US Military, since that line of thought leads to political laziness when you think you can fix politics with a gun). But guns are dangerous. Regulate them like cars.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
now are you willing to raise your taxes to solve that people problem? Or barring that are you willing to round up folks who are potentially unbalanced and dispose of them cheaply?
I keep hearing the argument that the problem is mental health but nobody seems willing to either pony up the cash or do the really nasty and oppressive stuff needed if you're not gonna pony up the cash. What I'm saying is, put up or shut up. Lets see single payer health care (including mental health), free housing for the homeless (nothing fancy, but a room to sleep in, a land line with answering machine and a communal place to cook/wash) and legalize drugs with proper treatment for addicts. Do those 3 things and we'll stop banging on about your assault rifles.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
By the same reasoning, requiring you to document every utterance and register it with the govt doesn't infringe anything, except maybe convenience. We promise we won't go after you for inappropriate speech.
Or paper targets. or clay pigeons. or display (some are quite fancy). Guns designed for strictly those purposes can get quite pricey in fact. Can't say that any gun I ever owned has every pierced flesh. take that back--I had a finger in the wrong spot, and the slide did pierce flesh. Stupid mistake on my part. By the way, a box cutter took out nearly 3000 people back in the early 2000's-you may have heard about it. How many others have been killed with acetone and peroxide? It ain't what it's designed for, it's how it's used.
Look up "Home Invasion". They don't care if you're armed or not, they're going to take you out, maybe kill you. Sometimes being armed is your only chance. Multiple examples , google is your friend.
Well, car registration, etc...seems to me to be primarily for taxation and tracking it so they can make you keep paying for it (property tax, etc)....
Car registration is used partly for providing & maintaining infrastructure that supports using a car on public land. Number plates are useful for when a vehicle is used improperly.
However, if you buy a car and do not drive it on public roads (keep to private property, etc), you do not have to register it, you do not have to have a drivers license.
Yup, this is how a fair few people learn how to drive.
One last thing, I don't know of anywhere in the US (at least no state I"ve lived in) that requires any form of training in order to drive a car or get a license.
You most definitely need to pass a test that shows you are capable of handling a vehicle in order to obtain a drivers licence and drive a vehicle on public roads. In many places, you also need to provide a log book with a specified number of hours spent driving under supervision before you can drive by yourself. Training itself - as you say - does not seem to be a specific requirement.
Jesus Christ. Just...just...hold on. Let me set down my drink.
No, a gun is purposely built and designed to fire a projectile. A slingshot is designed to do the same thing, so is a BB gun, so is a potato gun.
A drill is purposely built to twist things, but I so happen to make bookcases with one. Guns so happen to kill people. Kind of what they're good at. Next.
I can attest that none of my weapons have come to life and spontaneously gone out and shot something or someone.
That's great, but not everyone is as responsible with their firearms as you are. Nor can you guarantee they will be just because you stand by your philosophy.
The AR-15 is not a military weapon, it is not fully automatic and is not used by the military
Then what is it, exactly? You go hunting with that thing?
One last thing, I don't know of anywhere in the US (at least no state I"ve lived in) that requires any form of training in order to drive a car or get a license.
I'm not sure where you've lived, but everywhere I've been, they don't let you behind a wheel without having gone through Driver's Ed.
Your gun to car analogy has issues. Cars are a necessity for most Americans, whereas guns are recreational or defense tools for those who live in high-crime areas with little confidence in the response time for police. Or people who just think that maybe, at some point in time, they might be.
We should ban life, then nobody will ever die.
I suspect you could probably cut that number by half if you got rid of guns.
I suspect you could cut that number in half with gun handling classes as part of high school.
Mexico imports guns from America.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If that's the case, are you more concerned about your friend, or that someone made a cat video joke on some jerkwater blog? If your friend was hiding in a broom closet, were they likely to be looking at Slashdot with an active shooter around?
Maybe someone finally really showed looking up for their "Internet money". (South Park reference that I'm too lazy to attach.)
It's super spooky that the Frist Prost on Slashdot got the motive correct...
I suspect you could probably cut that number by half if you got rid of guns.
I suspect you could cut that number in half with gun handling classes as part of high school.
Maybe you could cut the number of accidental deaths, but if your policy also leads to more guns in the hands of teenagers than both accidental deaths and suicides will be way up.
I stole this Sig
I'd hope the training includes storing in a case with a trigger lock and no ammo.
A gun might be easier for suicide, but it's the tool not the cause.
Keeping a list of something does not infringe anything, except maybe convenience.
Clearly you will not be leading the revolution LOL
Typically gun bullet marks are registered, so police can identify the gun. It doesn't work perfectly, but it helps a lot.
Yeah works great!
http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...
https://gunowners.org/fs0203.h...
I definitely agree with your last sentence, but at the same time I believe a desire to own a gun is "rational" whereas a fear of guns is "irrational" (as are most phobias eg spiders).
I'd hope the training includes storing in a case with a trigger lock and no ammo.
I'm not sure what kind of training you're going to perform without bullets or working triggers.
Either way, your high school training will increase the popularity of guns (as you surely intend). Making guns more popular means more accidents and suicides, especially if teenagers are the target audience.
A gun might be easier for suicide, but it's the tool not the cause.
Consider how easy it would be to kill yourself it you truly wanted to. Now consider the existence of suicide attempts.
Suicide is actually what difficult, that's why people have to try over and over, our brains have a lot of programming to stop us from doing things that look reliably fatal.
That's why guns are so dangerous, because they make something that should be really hard really easy.
I stole this Sig
Nobody accuse gun of the violence. The people are always the source of the violence. BUT the point is that you can take steps to lower the access of guns to some people, and lower the amount of accidents done with it. Heck if the law only allow in the end to reduce the amount of fatal gun violence among 12 year d kids (yes there are kids as low as 4 year old which die every year - not many but enough to be incredibly sad) that would be progress. But NAAAAAAN guns must be freeeeee man. Second amendment babbbby. Nothing should stop anybody to have a gun and store it in any condition. Evaaaar. No you will excuse my sarcasm but your strawman earned it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I definitely agree with your last sentence, but at the same time I believe a desire to own a gun is "rational"
If the purpose of the gun is self-defence then for most people they're more likely to be hurt by the gun though accident, domestic conflict, or suicide, than be protected by it.
So if their only motive is self-defense then strictly speaking for them that desire to own the gun is irrational.
Of course, that doesn't mean mental illness and we do a lot of irrational things, and many people may find the false sense of security to be more valuable than the increase in actual risk. And if they have recreational or cultural motives then gun ownership is completely rational for them.
whereas a fear of guns is "irrational" (as are most phobias eg spiders).
Well a gun in your house does create a real risk of harm, it's small in most cases, but it's not illusory. As long as it's not excessive I'm not sure how I'd classify it as "irrational".
I stole this Sig
Irrational phobia would be to run screaming when one see the PICTURE of a gun. To view gun as a dangerous instrument which should not be owned by the general public (general public which I remind everybody obey a gaussian law when it comes to pretty much everything related to intelligence , safety) is actually not a phobia, it is pretty much the rule in most of the western world. The US is an aberration when it comes to that. Albeit I will admit that the lack of rules (even California is weak compared to the standard in western Europe) is not the only factor. I have suspected for a long time that societal factor like the lack of care for mental illness, and the lack of societal net to avoid you falling down the crack in debt and despair, are also 2 gigantic factors.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
A drill is purposely built to twist things, but I so happen to make bookcases with one. Guns so happen to kill people. Kind of what they're good at. Next.
Cars killed as many people as guns. So, is that what they are good for?
That's great, but not everyone is as responsible with their firearms as you are. Nor can you guarantee they will be just because you stand by your philosophy.
Let's ban cars because a handful of negligent and outright murderous people kill others with them. 100 million guns owner hurt no one today, so we take their guns? That's painting with a broad brush.
Then what is it, exactly? You go hunting with that thing?
Lots of people hunt game with an AR-15. It's also popular with competition shooting. I'll hear the claim that "weapons built for war" don't belong in civilian hands. Well, show me a firearm that was not used in some war at some time. The very popular Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle was used as a sniper rifle since it's creation in 1966. The military uses it in a number of variants they call the M24, M40, or M2010, depending on caliber and other options.
The M16 was adopted by the US military about the same time as the M40. Most every firearm is a "military weapon", it just depends on the military and the time period. Does it matter if it was the military of today versus one of a previous generation?
Your gun to car analogy has issues. Cars are a necessity for most Americans, whereas guns are recreational or defense tools for those who live in high-crime areas with little confidence in the response time for police. Or people who just think that maybe, at some point in time, they might be.
I need to justify my "need" for something to the government to keep it? Do you "need" anything really? I don't need a slice of ham right now, but I'm eating one right now. People will tell me that meat is murder and I could just eat peanut butter instead. Does anyone "need" a car? If we are going to rely on the government for everything then should I have the government drive me everywhere I "need" to go? Maybe what I really "need" is a bicycle and a bus pass. Maybe I don't want to rely on the government to keep the buses running.
The fire department puts out fires. Does that mean I don't "need" a fir extinguisher at home? I just bought a bunch of them, should I turn those over to the government too? Or can I keep them because I'm in a "high fire risk" area? Who gets to decide my risk of fire? Shouldn't that be up to me to decide? What if the government decides that no one has a fire risk sufficient to own a fire extinguisher? What happens if I don't turn in my fire extinguisher? Is the government going to search my house for them?
But a fire extinguisher is not a lethal weapon. Not having it could be lethal though. Just like not having a gun when I need it could be lethal should someone invade my home tonight. I'll sleep much better knowing I have one of those "weapons of war" under my bed. That would be the Remington M870 I have, a pump action shotgun that's used by the military. A friend of mine carried a M870 in combat. He called it a "master key" since it had this ability to open locked doors.
I recall a wise man that said a government that can provide every need can also take everything you have. When I first heard that I thought it meant that I'd merely be taxed into owning nothing. Now I realize that the government could just justify some alternative, regardless of the absurdity of it, so it can take what it wants from me. If the government deems a cast iron skillet something I don't "need" because I could use it to whack someone over the head with it then all it must do is justify an alternative, like a glass skillet. Never mind that it's worthless to fry an egg. The government will just tell me I can cook my eggs in the pan with a microwave oven. Just so long as I don'
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The training would include actual guns and shooting eventually.
Either way, your high school training will increase the popularity of guns (as you surely intend).
I see nothing wrong with wanting to head to the range or forest for some gun play, and no I don't intend that. I don't own any guns, I do know how to safely handle them though, and I don't care if you/anyone else wants or doesn't want to own guns.
I'd rather work on getting people to not want to commit suicide, then banning or restricting a tool to do so.
Wait???
This is in Commiefornia...er...California, with some of the most restrictive gun laws around.
How could this have possibly happened?
I thought regulating the shit out of law abiding citizens would prevent such tragedies?
Just from the last two events to be mentioned in the news:
restrictive gun laws => shooter has a handgun => 3 injuries and the only death was the shooter
permissive gun laws => shooter has an AR15 => 17 kids dead, more injured.
This is basically what the gun control crowd is campaigning for.
Get rid of the big war weapons and at the very least a shooter is going to have a hard time killing so many people.
Just for the sake of the argument: There is a difference between registration and licensing. We can argue that licensing (i.e. needing to obtain permission for ownership) is against the constitution, but registration (i.e. notification of ownership) is not. I don't disagree with your assessment of the purpose of 2A btw. Not necessarily agree with 2A itself, but it is what it is.
We are working on it. We would be there if the other political party would not hinder us.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I agree. If a huge lump of metal causes death, injury or damage and then departs at high velocity who's business is it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't think coming to the conclusion, based on things like murder rates in the rest of the world, that having fewer guns means everyone is safer equates to fear.
How old are you, nine?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Same as skimpy clothes are not justification for rape.
Which still doesn't mean taking a stroll through the slums in a miniskirt at night is a laudable idea.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
In UK it was totally successful. Almost all murderers have switched to knives. The number of murders and other violent crimes is about the same, or higher than before, but hey guns are no longer involved! Goal achieved, gun violence down!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Clearly a lot, which is why the murder rate in the UK is roughly four times as high as in the US.
Oh, wait...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No developed country in the world does not register things like land and automobile ownership.
Being very pedantic, in the UK that's only to do with roads. You can own and operate unregistered vehicles on private land. They're also not covered by any of the safety or emissions regulations and can run legally on red (untaxed) fuel.
Airport vehicles are generally in this category, and this even applies to tiny little airfields which have ancient old jeeps with a propane conversion (speaking frome experience).
But yes as soon as people aren't opting in to be around your high velocity metal death machine, you have to register it.
I think the right to drive is honestly not regulated enough. I think retesting should be a thing, and it should be easier to get short driving bans.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You illustrate the very point I was making, that in the US you don't need any reason to own a gun, and you don't need to show that you are responsible enough to do so. If you don't think that's a problem, that's fine. You can't vote in my country, so it has no effect on me. For the sake of the people of the US, I just hope that you one day will be in the minority. There seems to finally be some movement in that direction, so there's hope.
No, it does, this one explicitly violates privacy. But there's a lot of difference between "you have right to bear arms" and "you have right to bear arms with zero paperwork". I can only find evidence of the former in your constitution.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm certainly no "gun confiscationist", but even if I were, joke would be on you because my country abolished slavery around the year 1200, and when it comes to the US, guns surely didn't help your slaves a lot in the 19th century.
Ezekiel 23:20
It worked in Australia.
However, Americans are inherently more violent than people in other countries, they are inherently blood-lusty and that's why more gun regulations couldn't possibly work in the US. They would strangle other people to death with toilet paper, and you can't prohibit toilet paper.
Well, I have no problem with a death penalty. I do have problems with our justice system. I find his pandering to bigots disgusting.
Cheap storage VM.
Oh, sure. There's similar going on with gun control laws in Maryland, which was why there's a lead from one to the other ("following the same reasoning as these gun laws").
"Truth in Sentencing" is a common Conservative thread about how sentences should be harsh and permanent--you need to actually serve the long sentence, not get out on parole. It works about as well as 5-year mandatory minimum sentencing for having an illegal firearm--that is: not at all.
I like to point out where both sides are rebranding the same ideals as different and both attempts are failing. I'm trying to twist the Democratic party's arm into straightening out; the Republicans have unsalvageable ideals.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I used to argue that executions work as a deterrent in low-crime, low-poverty areas where people are immediately fearful of execution, and not at all in high-crime areas where part of your day-to-day criminal life is the threat of death from everyone but the state (i.e. a state execution is the least-likely way you're going to die, so why would you care?).
The second argument there is probably correct. The first one has a flaw: most people are decent people anyway, and are hesitant to commit capital offense for their own internal reasons.
It turns out we can readily reduce crime with strong behavioral health programs and more attempts to stop the cycle of institutionalization--that committing a crime destroys your life such that you are unable to thrive and so are actively pressured to commit more crimes thanks to our criminal justice system's own actions against you--which takes things in the opposite direction. I've started collecting those things we need for the purpose.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"Guns so happen to kill people."
That vast majority never kill anyone. None of mine have. None of the guns owned by my family have killed anyone. Many Deer and rabbits and various game birds yes, no people. They have also poked holes in many paper targets, but never a person. The vast majority of gun owners can and will say the exact same thing.
AR-15:
"Then what is it, exactly? You go hunting with that thing?"
Yes, deer, varmints, wild hogs and many other game species are hunted with AR's. Best of all they are fun to plink with. Oh and thanks to modern advances like the collapsible stock, everyone in my family from my 8 year old on up can adjust the gun quickly so it fits them comfortably for easier more accurate shooting.
To get a divers license you have to prove so many hours of practice, and pass a written and practical test. No certification of having attended drivers Ed is required in most states.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Gee... I wonder what we could use gun registration to pay for...
It's not cheap to treat gunshot victims.
Cheap storage VM.
Well your opinion is not based in fact. The Gun industry has it's own lobby, the NSSF. The NRA is the millions of American Citizens who are members. Yes they get some money from the industry, mostly in the form of advertising in their publications.
But they speak for the people. The industry doesn't need the NRA. Also the NRA is global leader in real firearm training and firearm safety training. Go to any gun range and ask the Range Safeties who they are certified by. NRA. Ask the most instructors who certified them: NRA. Look at most youth organizations that have shooting activities, who's firearms safety and handling rules do they follow: the NRA.
No organization does more for firearm safety than the NRA. Nobody comes anywhere close.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
They actually do. When Australia imposed their ban and confiscation in 1997, the suicide by firearm rate dropped substantially (like to virtually nil) But the overall Suicide rate didn't drop. In fact it spiked dramatically the following year (I haven't seen a reason for that) but if you ignore that it returned to the long term average rate.
Their suicide rate didn't drop significantly until 2003 after they legally redefined the criteria for calling a death a suicide, moving many suicides to be classified as accidents instead.
Guns don't cause suicides, take away the guns and the suicides still happen. The firearm is a method to the end, if a particular method is not available, those seeking to end this life just find another method to use.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
And...if you want o carry a concealed weapon out in public, THEN, you do have to take classes, learn the laws, pass a test and show proficiency in firing the weapon, before you can apply for the CC license.
Same thing...so, what are you arguing about?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If someone breaks into my house, I'll be grabbing my closest guns and trying my best to shoot them first before they have a chance to shoot at me.
I will not stop shooting till they are either down on the floor (hopefully dead), or out the door....trailing blood hopefully.
That gun I was talking about hoping to have for self defense, isn't there to just try to scare someone off, it is to be used and if shot, it is to kill, period.
If they know a home is armed beforehand....criminals are actually more likely to try to find a softer target that is NOT armed.
If you want to welcome armed invaders into your house with nothing more that you hope of their good nature and decent intentions, have fun with that.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A registration is useful ONLY for potential confiscation.
Look, a gun is a tool, like other tools.
Should I be required to register all tools I have? Hammers? Crossbows? Knives? (lots of folks killed with knives)....etc.
The list gets ridiculous.
What good does registration do? I can think of many harms, but not many things good it would do.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Oh, sorry, school shootings only count when its high school. Got it.
No they are not. You can't take a sample casing and expect it to match one from a few hundred rounds later from a different manufacturer. Especially if the cartridges were carried loose allowing them to scratch each other randomly. So a sample casing collected at manufacture or time of sale will not long match it's scratches and nicks to those made by the gun. And micro-stamping has never been made to work.
The other method of matching a gun, bullet rifling is done with a seized or found weapon to match it back to the rifling on a bullet. Not the other way around. Again common use can introduce new scratches over time (miss-using a cleaning rod for example) that will change the profile sufficiently to cause doubt as to the match.
Please stop relying on the movies and CSI TV shows for your firearm education.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Look...you take that number and subtract the suicides (they don't really fit, we're talking about gun violence, one person on other people)....you do that and the number of gun deaths drops below car accident rates.
You look at that remaining number, if is mostly gang violence..thug on thug. So, it is criminal use, and if the existing laws were enforced on those, then the rates would drop even further.
But often those caught criminally possessing, or attempting to posses, are not prosecuted.
Look, start fully enforcing the laws currently on the books and lets see what happens, before we start placing even more burdens on those law abiding citizens which are the VAST majority of gun owners.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The number of murders and other violent crimes is about the same, or higher than before
No, it isn't.
The murder rate was at its highest around 2002-2004, with around 15 murders per million population (excluding the 172 victim count of Dr. Shipman in 2003 which skews figures). The last 3-4 years, it has been under 10 murders per million population. That's down, not up.
Gun murders have gone down, while knife murders have not gone up. The ratio of knife murders to other murders in the UK has been pretty much the same since the 60s.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplep...
More than with AR-15s from what I've heard.
No, a gun is purposely built and designed to fire a projectile. A slingshot is designed to do the same thing, so is a BB gun, so is a potato gun... So, unless it is used illegally, it is not purpose built to kill.
This is just silly, and makes it seem as though you are being intentionally obtuse. Firearm technology was invented and exists for the sake of causing injury to people or animals. More advanced firearms can cause more injury, faster, and with greater precision and consistency. The same can be said of swords, bow and arrow, or any of the other weapons you describe. The primary utility of any of these is killing something - a bow and arrow that couldn't kill a deer would be a failure for the hunter using it. The utility of a gun for self defense or hunting is directly measured by its lethality - otherwise you could defend your home with a slingshot, right? This is distinct from a technology like a car - a car that sucks at killing is a better car, a gun that sucks at killing isn't a very effective gun.
By your logic, a guillotine isn't purpose built to kill unless used illegally. After all, a guillotine can be used to slice watermelons! The ACTUAL USAGE of a tool IN NO WAY modifies what the tool is designed to do. If I use a hammer to murder somebody, that doesn't change the intent of the hammer builder.
One last thing, I don't know of anywhere in the US (at least no state I"ve lived in) that requires any form of training in order to drive a car or get a license.
Are you serious, or just trolling?
https://dmv.dc.gov/service/obt...
Here's the summary of requirements to get licensed:
Application
Documentation
Vision Screening
Knowledge Test
Road Test
Photograph
Fees
And what exactly is a passive shooter?
They actually won't. The higher you make the barriers to someone offing themselves, the less likely they are to do it. Suicidal person walks out onto a bridge to discover there's a high barrier preventing them from jumping off? They're not terribly likely to walk to another bridge and try again.
But why do you care so much about suicide? Let's analyze your bridge example a bit more. Most people don't try to jump off a bridge for some non-suicidal reason (very few base jumpers as a percent of population, for instance), so putting barriers up doesn't affect them. But imagine if we said, people are jumping off bridges so let's just ban bridges entirely! Now you're impacting a large number of people who use the bridge, to save a small number of people from suicide. Nobody would support that. People don't care that much about suicide.
Having a firearm easily accessible greatly increases the probability that the person attempting suicide will succeed in their endeavour.
Doesn't seem to stop the Japanese https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
A gun death is a gun death, whether it's self inflicted, accidental, or intentional.
Well you just divided them into meaningful subcategories, so no.
But even if you were right, why not extend it and say a death is a death, and not get so worked up about the subcategory of gun deaths?
That's what people usually mean by the phrase, where "mass shooting" is the more general case. Of course, when I was in high school we had a shooting every year, but it wasn't newsworthy - low income inner-city school and all.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Protest against violence, die by violence is the lesson to be learned here.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Uh, that mythical right winger is on the other end of the barrel, shooting you.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
My point was that the US government does not have authority to ban guns in Mexico.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Illegal gun traffic goes the other way - from the US to Mexico. Which makes sense - the guns are made in the US, not Mexico.
Do any of the guns make their way back?
The answer, BTW, is "yes, yes they do, and sometimes those 'walked back' guns are used to kill American citizens."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
a gun range isn't private property if it's a business. As soon as you open it to the public it is no longer private. That's what it means to open it to the public. That's why you can't put up a 'No Coloreds' sign at your gun range.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
that these aren't 'arms' covered by the right to bare arms.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Where do we find a trusted source for these facts? Ballotpedia? https://ballotpedia.org/Gubern...
IIRC, over half of shooters do not have a diagnosable mental health condition. I'm willing to agree that they have something mentally wrong with them, but that in itself doesn't help.
There's a lot of mentally ill people around, most of them as harmless as anyone else. Denying them guns will do little good, and will encourage people not to seek treatment. Given a depressive person with a gun, I'd rather the person was getting drug, talk, and cognitive therapy.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If your house is invaded by 2-4 armed criminals, your best chance of survival is almost certainly to not be armed.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And maybe it's better to meet gun control advocates and talk with them rather than slinging insults at school shooting survivors. Gun advocates as a group are doing themselves no favors.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd say her ex killed her.
Saying that gun control killed her is saying that, had she had a permit, she would have lived. There's a whole lot of assumptions tied up in that. Most people are not going to be able to pull a gun out of their purse fast and, without hesitation, hit an incoming attacker. Holding a gun marks you as a prime target for incoming fire.
I take it that, if I come up with a case of someone who was killed by a gun that could have been controlled, you'll drop your argument about that one woman?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And Republicans are pressing their advantages everywhere they can to create a one-party state using voter suppression and flagrant gerrymandering, not to mention refusing to hold legally mandated special elections.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Well, she would have stood a much BETTER chance of living if she had been armed. Men are generally physically stronger, and experience with sports often makes them more agile than women. So with a sheer physical confrontation, men usually have a significant advantage. With a gun, she would have at least had a fighting chance.
After a shooting, the reaction is to always want to take away guns. DURING a shooting, people usually just wish that they had a gun of their own.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Keeping many weapons in perfect working order requires a lot of time and skills, so I am surprised to learn that this hard work could be taken as a hobby. Most of the people that collect weapons are just looking for "their chosen one". They are looking for a single weapon that they could handle and use correctly if the situation arises. That is the reason why many gun owners are constantly looking for new guns.
This could help, in some way: "The connection between nutrition and depression" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Because kids being exploited for their special victimhood status and then used as human shields to deflect criticism is such a productive means to establish dialog, too.
Don't even try to pretend that "gun control advocates" are interested in honest, reasonable discussion for an acceptable compromise, when they can't even acknowledge what "regulated" actually meant in the context of which it was written.
Look...you take that number and subtract the suicides (they don't really fit, we're talking about gun violence, one person on other people)....
Sure they fit, violence directed against oneself is still violence.
There's a valid question of how many suicides by gun would still happen without guns, but I see no justification for ignoring the suicides entirely, they're still dead.
You look at that remaining number, if is mostly gang violence..thug on thug. So, it is criminal use, and if the existing laws were enforced on those, then the rates would drop even further.
But often those caught criminally possessing, or attempting to posses, are not prosecuted.
Do you have evidence that there's large scale instances of gang members violating gun laws and not being punished?
I stole this Sig
That's not why. Fuel was in short supply at the time, owing to reduced oil output (some of which was deliberately caused by OPEC, the rest was caused by wars in the middle east, especially Iranian revolution and Iran-Iraq war.) That era was marked by very long lines at the pump, thanks to a fuel price cap. The 55 speed limit was intended as a way to make everybody conserve fuel, and it also resulted in the death of the muscle car, and increased fatal accidents, which reduced as the speed limits went back up.
Pro tip: the higher the speed limit, the fewer the accidents. We saw this again in Wyoming after they implemented speed limits in areas that previously had no speed limit; and fatality accidents increased quite a bit. It turns out that the reason for this is that when people drive faster, they are more alert and they pay more attention to the road, as opposed to relaxing and getting highway fatigue. Also, there's been some research that shows that people will have their own (almost subconscious) ideas about how safe it is to drive on a particular stretch of road. One example they gave was that on a particular stretch of road, the limit was 55, but the drivers were always doing 68. So the city raised the speed limit to 65, and people were still driving 68. Often if you give somebody a straight highway where you can see very far out into the distance on a clear day, with no place for cops to hide, they'll drive around 85mph, and they'll go slower in bad weather.
Violent people are a lot more likely than non-violent people to pull the trigger. The non-violent ones are also more likely to misjudge the range where they have to shoot if they're going to. Having a gun handy might have saved her, but it's hardly a sure thing. You have to balance this against what happens if gun permits are easier to get, because that's likely to cost lives also.
Has there been research into what people in the middle of shootings actually want? I doubt that most people wish they, themselves, have guns. I think they probably wish for the shooting to stop somehow. Having a gun during a shooting marks one as a target, and it's hard to use in what the shooter considers a target-rich environment. There was at least one person carrying a gun at the Giffords shooting, but he couldn't get a clear shot.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thank you for an excellent demonstration of what I was saying. Just keep up that attitude, and gun control will be designed and implemented by people who don't quite know what they're doing, but are going to err on the side of getting rid of more guns and more carrying.
I'm seeing kids who have been in a school shooting who want to take action, and the "criticism" you speak of is very often accusations of being crisis actors, at fault for the shooting, and being told to shut up. There's likely to be intelligent and informed criticism of what they want to do, but it gets lost in the noise, so nobody's going to notice it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You are making a false assumption -- that a criminal will not be able to obtain a gun illegally.
Broadly speaking, people can be put into two categories: those who intend to break the law and those who don't.
People who DON'T intend to break the law are no threat to anybody, no matter what type of gun they own.
People who DO intend to break the law don't mind getting a gun illegally. Keep in mind that we ALREADY HAVE background checks to buy guns. What MORE should be done besides that? If a person has BROKEN NO LAW and has not been mentally institutionalized, what else do you require before you treat them as an honest citizen?
Let me ask YOU a question... Imagine that you are in a classroom at a local community college. You hear gun shots. You have two choices -- which one would you prefer?
1) Nobody is armed. You lock the door and pray that the police (the racist, trigger-happy police that BLM hates) show up in time.
2) You lock the door. One guy pulls out a pistol and says that he can shoot any criminal that breaks down the door.
I know which one I would prefer...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I'm aware that criminals often get guns illegally. In many cases, it's illegal for them to have a gun in the first place. However, having more handguns around is likely to lead to more accidents. There are responsible gun owners who know what they're doing and keep their guns safely. There's no reason to believe that giving someone a gun will transform them into a responsible gun owner.
By arming that one woman, we're arming lots of them, since there's no way to predict in advance who will be seriously threatened. By arming lots of people, we increase the chance of a gun being used in the heat of passion, or someone panicking and shooting someone who wasn't in fact a serious threat. I've known a non-criminal or two who I thought dangerous.
FWIW, I know people who have been in hospitals because of mental health issues, and I'd trust some of them with guns as much as I'd trust anybody I hang around with.
Right now, I'm not proposing a solution. I really don't know enough for that. What I do know is that we've got a problem, and it would be nice to get everyone agreed that we have a problem that can likely be partially solved. I've noticed people going to forums just to shoot down anyone's suggestions, which strikes me as very unproductive and divisive.
Your gedankenexperiment doesn't even support your claim. There's a difference between wishing I were armed and wishing someone else were. Neither of us has empirical evidence. We differ on what the answer is likely to be.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I did notice one of those kids who got on a national stage to declare "give us an inch we'll take a mile." That modicum of honesty was actually refreshing. Obviously they're young, and their handlers need to give them more coaching.
In the age of "punching nazis" and "orange hitler" and the amount of ad hom labeling that goes on, it's rich to be told that the noise to signal ratio is too high. So much distrust and lack of intellectual honesty; one could spend hours pondering all the reasons why.
You do have a point though. In any attempt to reform 2nd amendment rights, intelligent and informed criticism will fall on deaf ears. It's better that it never reaches that point.
i wonder if Facebook might be next. Suckerberg could lose what little mind he has at any moment and just start shooting :-)