Slashdot Mirror
Gunman Shoots 4 at Middleton Software Company; Dies in Shootout With Police (madison.com)
Several Slashdot readers shared this report overnight: A gunman shot four people, none fatally, at his Middleton, Wisconsin workplace Wednesday morning before he was killed in a shootout with police, Middleton Police Chief Charles Foulke said. Authorities had not released the man's name or age, but police said he was from Madison and worked at WTS Paradigm, a software company at 1850 Deming Way where the shooting occurred. Police said a motive for the shooting was not yet known. Foulke said the shooter had been in the building before he began shooting at fellow employees around 10:29 a.m. One of the four people injured was just grazed by a bullet police say was fired from a handgun. Citing UW Health, a local NBC affiliate reported that two victims are in serious condition and one is in critical condition. "In a situation like this, you learn how great a community really is," WTS Marketing Manager Ryan Mayrand said. "We cannot thank the Middleton Police Department, the Dane County Sheriff's Office and other emergency personnel enough for their amazing response."
What does this have to do with tech news?
What was WTS Paradigm's policy on carrying while at work? I'll venture a guess that this is one of these 'gun free' zones.
Have gnu, will travel.
Vi is better than Emacs. There will not be any more arguments about this...
There's likely to be a ton of towns called Middleton in the US and the main story links to local paper and even TFA doesn't say which Middleton. It was only looking at the banner of the TFA that I saw it was Wisconsin.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
so there was no one to hate today ....
The gun made him do it.
We say gunperson now, you sexist pig.
Women can shoot up places, just ask YouTube.
Captcha: concede
One of the standard employee contract clause is banning guns at company property. It's there to limit liability to the company in events like this and doesn't deter possession unless the carrier is an idiot. I've been carrying Glock 43 for years and non of my co-workers are non the wiser. You are personally responsible for your own safety. Society and laws are there to remediate after the crime has been committed. Police catch criminals after the fact and aren't there to protect you.
SO THAT'S WHAT IN MEANS!
Actually, could we get a cheat sheet with 10 easy to remember rules? Write it in stone too, so people know they're not up for negotiation. I'd split it into 2 tablets to make it easier to carry down the mountain.
Lastly, we'll need a sacrifical lamb, of sorts. He'd have to be a really good guy. Someone who wants to help but says things not politically correct. If we could then figuratively crucify him in the court of public opinion, maybe then we could wake up as a society.
Not sure if this has ever been tried before, but it might work.
The shooting will put a damper on the company's four-day conference for next week.
So, if four people were stabbed, would you want fewer knives in this country? No, I am not being sarcastic. In England, they have "sane" gun laws, but now they are cracking down on knife ownership. You can't make this stuff up!
https://www.met.police.uk/Stop...
So, you go after the weapon, and the criminals choose another weapon. In France, they had a HIGHER death toll that America's worst mass shooting using just a TRUCK! If only they had sane truck laws, with mandatory training and licensing, that would not happen, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Our office, 15-20 people midwest, we have the OWNER that carries and probably 4-5 people that carry. We are all 2nd amendment promoters and believe everyone that is responsible and has the legal right to carry, should be permitted to do so. These "gun free" zones are just like dangling a worm on a hook, near a fish.
If it happened because of the existence of guns, or because non state agents have some, you would have some kind of point.
Since it didn't, it's just you politicizing a murder.
Since you're like the 5th person making fun of some sort of "code of conduct"... what the fuck is this? Do we now need to be told how to behave at work? So far we got along with simple courtesy just fine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ahh, so San Bernardino, Orlando, Rothschild, San Francisco, Fort Lauderdale, the Bronx, Antioch, and many more were all angry white alt-right guys? Thanks! Wasn't aware of that... Maybe I should ask you about the dozens of mass shootings in Chicago every year, alt-right angry white guys too?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
More likely his project was canceled.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Well, one person died. The guy who just ended his project with a suicide-by-cop standoff.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yeah, that's why there's so many more mass shootings in Israel.
Oh... wait a second...
Don't worry, with the appointment of Kavanaugh the 2nd Amendment will be safe for one and maybe even two generations. Hopefully enough time to educate people that you don't blame properly functioning tools for the problems the users create.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Or life just became too drab to bear, and he ran out of Middleton dreams.
The office door closed early
The hidden bottle came out
The salesman turned to close the blinds
A little slow now, a little stout
But he's still heading down those tracks
Any day now for sure
Another day as drab as today
Is more than a man can endure
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
BTW: Where the f*cc is Middleton?
Wisconsin. It is a suburb of Madison, and about 5 km from the University of Wisconsin.
Shameful comparison. It looks like you forget the 500+ injured persons in 2017 Las Vegas shooting.
Again, comparing death tolls like you do is a total lack of respect towards the victims IMHO.
It is somewhat more difficult to stab someone to death, not to mention drive a truck in an office building.
In the UK, 1.2 people out of 100,999 die due to an intentional act of homicide. In the USA, that rate is 5.35 per 100,000.
No matter how much you whine about knives in the UK, the fact remains that our homicide rate is over 400% of theirs.
Criminals may be choosing another weapon due to the lack of guns, but people can defend themselves against those other weapons far better than they can defend themselves against a criminal with a gun.
Yes, but there is MORE of a difference between the two countries than JUST gun laws.
Using your logic, Japan has no guns, but a much higher suicide rate. Clearly, if they had easier access to guns, suicides would drop, right? England also has a different economy, different culture, and different health care system. I guess that none of that matters, right?
Back when they had easier access to guns, they STILL had a lower homicide rate. Simply stated, if you look at the big picture instead of cherry-picking a few numbers, the data doesn't back you up.
In America, you are as safe as the safest parts of Europe, as long as you avoid the "wrong" neighborhoods. Most areas of the US are very safe, as most of the crime is concentrated into a few, small areas.
If you avoid areas with a high population density and high poverty, you will be OK.
Check out this headline: "Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders"
https://crimeresearch.org/2017...
If you want to reduce violence, then improving the economy would be a big step in the right direction.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Well they found peace, didn't they ? RIP
Please explain to me how somebody stabbed to death or killed with a truck is less dead than somebody shot to death.
I will wait.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
If taking away weapons does not name it safer, why is the US so against North Korea having some weapons?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Nope. He is a Linux contributer who just realized the LMKL is about to get a lot more stupid now that Linus is talking about not calling out incompetence.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Do you normally carry a gun to work?
If yes perhaps you could also tell us the line of work.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I can keep from getting stabbed by staying slightly more than arms-length away a potential attacker. .
No, you need to stay at slightly more than arm AND knife length and have space to actually run away, which in an office is far from being the case.
Knifes can't as easily be grabbed by someone rushing the attacker.
Knifes have unlimited ammo.
Knifes don't jam.
Knifes are silent which gives the attacker more time before people are alerted and have a chance to run away.
Getting stabbed in the leg and many other spots can exsanguinate someone much faster than a regular bullet wound.
In an enclosed and/or crowded space knifes can be just as deadly as many mass stabbing incidents have already shown.
Captcha: sanely
Cherry picking. The overall murder rates in both countries are lower than the US, you are just selecting individual incidents.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I love that I got modded down to 0, Troll. There is clearly nothing Trollish about my post; no insults, harassment, or any other quality one associates with trolls. All I do is point out an easily verifiable fact in the context of showing that guns don't make us any safer.
It's really just a massive show of weakness on the part of those modding me down.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
If it wasn't a gun-free zone, the shooting might have been much worse. Imagine people blasting away at each other across cubicles, not knowing who the shooter is or where he is.
Remember that gun-free zone is not the same thing as security-free zone. Schools, malls, etc. still have armed security.
It's one of Madison, Wisconsin's three big "white flight" suburbs that have really expanded as Madison's demographics have shifted over the past twenty years (the two others are Fitchburg and Sun Prairie). The shooting happened at a string of offices just outside Madison city limits. Oddly enough, Middleton is the most techie of the three suburbs (odd because it's absolutely the farthest of any of them from the airport).
I think we must immediately begin once again, calling for the ban on AR-15 and other scary looking rifles, and banning standard 30 round capacity magazines!!!
I mean, this is usually what the anti-gunners start yelling after a shooting, right....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Funny. I've been around guns for decades.
I've had exactly zero shootings.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
They're reporting "at least" three dead.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Which is counter to normal firearm safety practices.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It is easier to pull the fire alarm and drive the truck through the crowds in the parking lot. Even easier to pull the fire alarm and shoot at everyone outside. Most shooters are targeting specific people they knew or had interactions with. The problem is social support and the lack of respect for other people, not gun availability. That group of kids watching a guy drown and taking pictures of him instead of calling for help is the problem.
A stabbing attack can be more effective with a little training since if you do it right no one will hear anything. You could hide in a room and kill everyone who enters. But again, a little practice/training goes a long way. Most of the killers don't bother. They aren't trying to kill as many people as possible. They are trying to vent their frustration was as much power behind it as they can.
Yup, four shot. Horrible. If four people had been stabbed, or four run over with a truck, that is OK somehow.
It's a lot harder to mass murder someone in one go with a knife or a truck than with a gun. You risk immediate injury to yourself and are more likely to fail. Guns are much better murder weapons- that's why people don't warn you about taking a gun to a knife fight.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
As a nerd, I don't find this newsworthy. Did Elon Musk take the day off or something?
He was the shooter.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So, if four people were stabbed, would you want fewer knives in this country? No, I am not being sarcastic.
Yes I would, and no I'm not being sarcastic either. The vast majority of stabbings are done with specific knives used for a specific purpose i.e. being concealed on the body in a way that doesn't cut the holder. Guess what, many sane countries have restricted the carrying of these too.
Would I want kitchen knives reduced? No and that wouldn't make sense either since the vast majority of children* don't carry kitchen knives as weapons.
*Children in this case used to describe the people who think they need to carry knives / guns for "protection."
But against unarmed victims, they all work great. Nice, France: 86 killed with a truck. Manchester, England: 20 killed with a homemade bomb.
But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?
London is cracking down on KNIFE ownership. You ban the guns but still allow criminals to walk the streets? They don't join a quilting circle: they use a different weapon. The homicide rate in London recently topped that of New York City. So, clearly they need to ban another weapon instead of actually doing anything about the criminals.
Get rid of the weapon, and you still have dangerous criminals.
Get rid of the criminals, and the weapons don't matter.
https://www.met.police.uk/Stop...
Funny how the most armed country in the world still has a relatively low homicide rate. There are plenty of countries with very strict gun laws that have a much higher homicide rate. Even in this country, try doing a scatter plot of gun ownership percentage compared to homicide rate. Yeah, there is not much of a correlation, but the general (weak) trend is more guns == less murder. The most likely explanation is that, as the homicide rate rises, more gun laws are enacted that prove ineffective, thus lowering the gun ownership rate, but doing nothing to save lives.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
So the Secret Service officers are children, since they carry guns for protection? That says everything that I need to know about you.
I have friends that have had to draw their guns to deter crime -- no shots fired, just showing that you are armed will often cause criminals to choose a different victim. Are you saying that they would be better off as a victim? I will ask one of my buddies if he would prefer to have been beaten or robbed. I will get back to you and let you know if he regrets not being victimized.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Why is someone who you disagree with a "nut"?
How is it a strawman? Dead is dead.
He's not arguing against gun control. Gun Control is a dead issue.
Anyone pushing revision of the 2nd Amendment has their career destroyed.
Additionally, we have the ability to 3d print firearms. Sure, they're primitive and mostly useless.
But their very existence is the death knell of the Gun Control issue.
And sorry if the availability of legal firearms offends you.
It has exactly JACK SHIT to do with most shootings, which are overwhelmingly committed with illegally obtained firearms.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Oh, by the way. Less than two miles from my house is a place where a good girl with a gun stopped a criminal intent on becoming a mass murderer.
But according to you, the criminal should have been the only one armed. That woman probably saved a dozen lives, but you would rather the shooter be safe from his victims. Are you planning on killing a bunch of people some day, and you want as much time as possible to kill people before the police arrive?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Try taking a course in self defense where they teach knife fighting.
I think you'll find it MUCH harder to stay away from some crazy with a knife than you'd ever imagine.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Let me come at you with a prop knife or a baseball bat. Then tell me how easily you can stay away from me.
Let me chase you down the street in a car. Then tell me how easily you can stay away from me.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Having a strong economy doesn't necessarily correlate with a low amount of poverty. Mass shootings represent a tiny portion of the firearms related homicides in the USA, and as such aren't worth really focusing on.
I don't particularly care if you have heroin so long as you aren't pushing it on children, and use it responsibly. I also don't care if you have a radio jammer of any type, so long as you don't use it illegally.
Nuclear weapons are a bit more of an issue because a single bomb can pose an ongoing constant risk to possibly millions of people at any given moment. They also require constant maintenance from very specialized technicians to ensure they don't become a more unstable risk. All that said you can still kind of posses a nuclear weapon if you really want to and have the money. You would have to setup a company to produce and maintain such weapons for some government though.
Actually, the percentage of US households owning guns has actually dropped significantly since the 1970s, largely reflecting a historic decline in hunting. Overall the rate of gun homicide has also dropped since the 1970s. But the size of gun collections has skyrocketed, particularly after Obama was elected, so now there's more guns in America than people. Half those guns are owned by 3% of the population.
Like many real-world scenarios, when you look into it the American gun situation is complex, far more complex than the rhetoric from either side of the gun control debate admits. Both sides implicitly agree that the biggest factor in the rate of shootings is the number of guns on the street, they just disagree on the direction of the effect. In fact there is little evidence to support either position.
Given that, I am inclined to regard the sheer number of guns Americans own as neither here nor there, although the size, nature, and sometimes insecure storage of personal arsenals probably has had an effect on the rise of mass shootings on a horrific scale. That's not in the least mathematically inconsistent with the overall rate of shootings dropping.
In any case, I am doubtful that this particular mass shootings has anything definitive to say about the gun control debate or the state of American society as a whole. The scale of the shooting is feasible with the kinds of weapons people typically owned fifty years ago, and the gunman has no criminal record, so no state has any kind of gun control laws that would have prevented it. Possibly a cooling off law if the guns were purchased for the occasion, but nobody could be sure even then.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They're reporting "at least" three dead.
From TFS: A gunman shot four people, none fatally, at his Middleton, Wisconsin workplace Wednesday morning before he was killed in a shootout with police, Middleton Police Chief Charles Foulke said.
But against unarmed victims, they all work great. Nice, France: 86 killed with a truck. Manchester, England: 20 killed with a homemade bomb.
But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?
Oh, hello Mr. Strawman! Why, what a load of crap you are! I don't know who told you that it is legal to kill people with knives or trucks, but you're pretty gullible if you believe them.
Regarding "they all work good".
You point a gun at an unarmed person- you have very little resistance and a very high chance of killing your victim.
You try to stab someone with a knife- you stand a reasonable chance of failing, being disposed of your knife, and suffering wounds yourself. And if you do make contact- it's hard to make a quick kill and move on to the next victim.
Same with a vehicle- yeah the potential is there to get a lot of people at once- but you essentially get one shot- and then your "Weapon" is disabled.
There's a reason why our soldiers are equipped with guns as their primary weapons and not knives or trucks. Driving trucks at the opposition in war wouldn't work very well- and our knife wielding soldiers would be quickly shot down.
Guns are much more efficient killing weapons... in fact that is their primary purpose. It's a lot harder to ban knives or trucks because they serve a purpose other than killing- in fact, killing isn't what they're primarily designed to do.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The ones that survived 'draw mohommad' were likely pretty sensible. Not 'alt-right' but not stupid lefties either.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I don't know why they worry. The government has thousands of nukes, I've only got three.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
American is doing great. Though, it would be even better if more responsible people were armed instead of just criminals.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
Baseball bat and car is easy. Knife not so much ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
PopeRatzo posted a fact that can be looked up! I bet its not true, he usually refuses to post objective facts because he has to lie to make his points. Lets have some fun!
Dallas violent crime rate = 7.67 per 1000
Chicago violent crime rate = 11.15 per 1000
Dallas has less than 70% the violent crime rate of Chicago per capita. Which to PopeRatzo is THE SAME!
Yes folks. There you have it, PopeRatzo the idiot lies again. When you see his posts, just assume it is a lie because it likely is. The rare times it is a fact you can look up, go ahead and you can see yourself. I had no idea if they were the same, but just assumed PopeRatzo lied like normal and was not disappointed.
Nothing wrong at removing weapons of war from the hands of people who shouldn't have them. More kids will stay alive because of this.
Do you want shootings? Because that's how you get shootings.
No, the US is the place where everybody calls meetings. This must have been one meeting too many.
Here you go:
https://www.bestplaces.net/com...
Chicago's violent crime rate is almost exactly the same as Dallas', and Dallas actually has a higher rate of property crime.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Oh I'm glad being a gun owner now makes you a child fucker seeing as one weirdo did some weirdo shit. How do you one up yourself on stupidity daily. Or are you projecting that you think this wacko in the artilce is a liberal and trying to deflect ASAP?
Just what are you afraid of AC?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
CoCs kill.
Only if they're really big and you choke on them.
So sorry....not gonna happen..
Yep, so sorry ALL THESE FUCKING LITTLE CHILDREN ARE DEAD because, well, changes are "not gonna happen."
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/da...
Goddammit America, every other developed country on the world has figured out how to greatly reduce gun deaths.
You can put a man on the moon but you're unwilling to protect your own people? That's messed up, man.
From your quote and your Username....I take it you're not from or in the US.
So, its really NONE of your freakin' business, now...is it?
You have more a chance of winning the Powerball lottery twice in a month than to get killed by an AR shooter....you likely can get struck by lightening a few times more than you have the odds on you getting shot and killed.
If you're in Canada...stay there and enjoy it, leave us the fuck alone please.
You have NO say in it whatsoever.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
He hired a prostitute through an online service who provided ID to prove she was 18. It sounds more like a government setup, like Assange, than a pedophile.
Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
So, its really NONE of your freakin' business, now...is it?
Of course it is. I'm a human with empathy who lives on planet earth.
I have an emotional response when a nation says "Meh, we're fine with preventable gun deaths. Because FREEDOM."
It's no different than the criticism I label at Saudi Arabia when they say women shouldn't go outside alone.
Freedom IS the most important thing.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
When killing helpless children trapped and cowering in a room, any firearm short of a muzzle loader would suffice. There was no tactical advantage to using a gun with feature X, Y or Z because the psycho who committed this atrocity never engaged in a gunfight with anyone.
Besides black on black and gang related killing, which is an entirely different topic, the primary cause for tragedies like Sandy Hook is a complete failure in the treatment and management of people with severe mental disorders.
Better known as 318230.
And yet in countries across the world where almost no one owns handguns except for criminals, there were zero shootings in the workplace yesterday. I doubt that responsibly armed people will be effective here. I think this idea is often proposed as a backdoor to loosening gun control rather as a serious solution to a serious problem.
And who is to decide who is responsible or not? I don't want an untrained trigger happy junior militia type eager to shoot back in the direction he thought the shots came from.
You may think differently, but the constitution is not so clear on this otherwise it wouldn't be a big debate in the courts.
Why?
We give up tons of freedoms all the time merely to live on the planet with other people. We cannot just wander around doing whatever we want at any time without consequences.
Yes, LynnwoodRooster, Hispanics can count as whites
So Trump is racist because he wants to build a wall to keep fellow caucasians out?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Stabbing requires proximity, guns do not.
Then what about all of the "alt left" and democrat gun enthusiasts? Let me guess, they're just misinformed. I like many read slashdork daily, we see your bullshit. Sometimes its deep enough that others should be warned. I sexually identify as an extreme centrist.. So fuck all of your fringe side .. .. hell I don't even know what to call you people.
so your solution would be for everyone to be armed and carrying in case a criminal has a gun? Great progress in civilising society.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Auto accidents are just that ACCIDENTS - someone carrying a gun is intent on using it at some point, that is not an accident (unless they shoot their kid/partner or foot by accident which happens)
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I dunno. How easy it is to stay away from the explosion of a truck bomb?
And if you wind up dead, regardless, do you actually give a shit HOW?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
No, but everyone should have the choice if they want to carry a gun....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Hmm...I don't recall any time before in the US where you can or cannot own property because of need.
Do I need a Porsche, well, probably not, but I want one and as long as I operate it properly, I should be able to own and use one.
Beyond that, are my constitutional rights based on my NEED of them at the time?
A semi-auto rifle can be an excellent self defense weapon by the way. Remember, and AR 15 is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle...it just happens to be "scary looking" and black, but it functions just the same as other semi-auto rifles...or even semi-auto pistols for that matter. Hell, the round in an AR is a very small caliber....are you more scared of a small .556 round from the AR 15, or a semi-auto rifle chambered in .308? I'll give you a hint, the latter is a MUCH more powerful.
And...there are other semi-auto rifles that will shoot each round I listed above that are in less scary looking configurations as the common "AR" looking rifle...but are just as effective. Are you wanting to ban all semi-auto weapons.
And finally...where in the constitution does it stipulate what the use of the weapon a citizen is required? Nothing in there about hunting, etc.
Frankly, if you go back and look at the founding fathers, much of what they wrote there was with reference to having weapons in case the government became tyrannical, as that they had just come off a war with Great Britain , and they know even a home grown government might some day become too overbearing.
If nothing else, I love having my guns for shooting targets, if nothing else, that is a use for them, although I shouldn't need to have a "use" for them to own them.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You're joking, right? Look up the "21 foot rule" for law enforcement. Knives are more lethal at close range than firearms (believe it or not). Law enforcement personnel are -terrified- of knives.
Also, you are welcome to take whatever chance you like, but know risk before you commit to taking it. I don't know if you have a family/children, but they probably rely on your assessment of risk. Please base your decisions in reality, not your perception of reality.
If you want to reduce violence, then improving the economy would be a big step in the right direction.
This is a very easy conclusion to draw, but it's not accurate. I'd contend that improving the attitude of the people in an area is one or two steps before improving the economy. No matter how great the economy is, if it's run by people who are scammy and selfish/self-centered, it'll fail. A poor economy won't cause non-violent people to be violent (look at how people of Japanese culture behave during disasters)...however, people being non-violent is one attribute of a culture that will enable (I don't mean cause) an environment for a good economy.
In short, people have to have the attitude of "I'll produce more than I need, not be grumpy about it, not spend more than I take home, and not take someone else's".
Remarkable that it is entirely assumed, in the title and body of the article.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Maryland is among the most restrictive gun-rights states in the USA. How can this happen? Didn't the killer know that it's against Maryland Law to use a gun in this manner or to, shutter, even kill people? Something has gone terribly wrong when the Law doesn't protect innocent people! When seconds count, the police are minutes away!
There were still murders in those countries. Knifes, screwdrivers, lumber, pipe, other "blunt objects", ropes, wire, imprisonment, starving, drowning, drugging, automobiles/trucks/busses, horses, pigs, other livestock, rats, electricity, trains, meat hooks, jacks, lifts, tire irons, nail guns, hammers, pliers, pipe wrenches, crescent wrenches, spanners, gears, balls, bearings, air pressure tools, hose, twine, fists, feet, bodies, liquor, other adult beverages, bottles, cans. Lots of things are used for murdering people -- lots more than guns. When murder is planned, there is great creativity concerning the weapon used.
In the workplace, and at the same rate as in the US?
If taking away weapons does not name it safer, why is the US so against North Korea having some weapons?
Can you really not see the difference between a gun and a nuke? Because they are different.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The call for this is because those types of rifles have very little purpose for hunting or self defense.
Not only is this wrong (they are perfectly useful for self-defense, just ask property owners who guarded their businesses during the LA riots) but it's fractally wrong, because the second amendment is only somewhat about self defense and not even slightly about hunting.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As for stabbing, the wound profile of a kitchen knife is more damaging than most bullets. Large-diameter soft-material rounds can cause more severe wounds, but they also require larger-bore firearms to use and take much more energy to fire (rough recoil).
Not just that, but you have to have a much larger round to make a substantial difference. Penetration and wound outcomes are similar between 9mm and .45 ACP, for example. You basically need a pistol so powerful it hurts to shoot it before you will do better than 9mm, let alone 9mm +P.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But against unarmed victims, they all work great. Nice, France: 86 killed with a truck. Manchester, England: 20 killed with a homemade bomb.
But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?
Oh, hello Mr. Strawman! Why, what a load of crap you are! I don't know who told you that it is legal to kill people with knives or trucks, but you're pretty gullible if you believe them.
You don't get to claim straw man while making your own. Nobody claimed it was OK. They pointed out that you can kill people without guns, but nobody is calling for bans on all the other things you can kill someone with. In fact, it's usually easier to kill more people with something other than a gun. A propane tank bomb, or a fertilizer bomb, or even just a fire, for example. Guns are most useful for killing a small number of people.
If you're in favor of banning guns because they are dangerous, you should be in favor of banning trucks and propane tanks for the same reason. And also cleaners with chlorine or ammonia, etc etc.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You know that you can buy AR's in Canada right?
Yes I do, Anonymous Coward. It's one of the reasons I think America should adopt Canada's gun control mechanism - Because guns are regulated but "law-abiding gun owners" can still get AR-15s.
The only other thing I think America would need to "borrow" would be Australia's gun buyback program to get some of the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation off the street.
As long as you _only_ consider "mass" shootings, then you can use all kinds of sleight of hand and piss-poor logic to defend idiotic stances. That's one reason why Republicans and NRA lobbyists like talking about mass shootings--they are esentially anecdotes.
90 people a day die from gunshots in America. 60% are suicides so the other 40% are murders.
36 people/day murdered by guns, mostly women and children dying at the hands of an angry ex. Maybe three people a day killed with knives.
You don't get to claim straw man while making your own. Nobody claimed it was OK.
I made no strawman. He said "But those are OK because nobody used a gun, right?" claiming that I (and people who are against guns) are only against gun crime- which is ridiculous. Murder is murder no matter what the weapon used. Claiming otherwise IS a strawman and a pretty ridiculous unsubstantiatable one at that.
They pointed out that you can kill people without guns, but nobody is calling for bans on all the other things you can kill someone with. In fact, it's usually easier to kill more people with something other than a gun. A propane tank bomb, or a fertilizer bomb, or even just a fire, for example.
And you know what, that's another strawman? Bombs ARE illegal- it's irrelevant to use bombs as a defence of guns. I'm not in favour of making bombs legal either. The FBI will quickly visit your house if they suspect you of building one. But to follow your strawman, how many people are killed by fertilizer bombs in the US each year? Most years 0. If you average over the history of the US it is probably less than 1 a year.
Guns are most useful for killing a small number of people.
If you're in favor of banning guns because they are dangerous, you should be in favor of banning trucks and propane tanks for the same reason. And also cleaners with chlorine or ammonia, etc etc.
Guns are used to murder more people than any other device. You probably have more people killed with a gun in a day than you do with a truck in a year. Also a truck serves a purpose, it has a value to mankind. There is no other purpose to a gun, other than to kill other people, things, or pose a threat to do so.
A gun is useless to society. A truck is highly valuable to society. There's a huge difference, and surely you can see that.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Do you normally carry a gun to work?
Yes.
If yes perhaps you could also tell us the line of work.
Engineer for a local electric company. Lots of bears and mountain lions.
Have gnu, will travel.
How it is possible to shoot some innocent people? Why somebody become that blood sucker ? It is beyond my imagination.