Stop giving them tons of media attention and "high scores".
This, this, this.
"There was a mass killing today, but we're not going to talk about the prick who did it. Why? Because he's a prick, and the last thing a responsible news agency would want to do is glorify an asshat like that... at least, outside election season."
How many gun nuts have been stopped in the last years by bystanders?
Zero, but that's merely by virtue of the fact that the people assholes like you like to marginalize with the label "gun nut" are not the type of people who go on rampages.
But by all means, don't let facts stop you from being an uptight prick.
The US Census Bureau determines what the legal qualifications for 'impoverished' are... something you should know, if you followed the link I provided.
Who does and doesn't get counted has nothing to do with this discussion, nor is it the only job of the Census Bureau.
Poverty isn't the people with low incomes living in trailer parks and low income housing, They are the people pushing shopping carts on the streets with children in tow.
So did the number of poor people suddenly rise in the 1980s and 1990s and fall back in the 2000s?
'Tis possible.. of course, a greater possibility is that whoever posited this theory is a fucking imbecile who fails to realize that correlation does not equal causation.
I'm never for lack of amazement at the number of highly educated people who, for all their worldly knowledge, still can't comprehend the concept that while ceteris paribus is fine for discussing abstract theories in the classroom, it does not apply to the real world.
30 years ago if poor people were bored they would go rob or kill someone
Wow. What a classy, first-world asshole thing to say.
For the record, prick, I spent the first 14 years of my life in abject poverty, and the next 4-6 not doing much better, and I never considered robbing or killing anyone for any reason, let alone fucking boredom, thereby proving your hypothesis to be utter bullshit.
Seriously, dude, if you honestly think poor people rob/kill because they're bored, or even that a disproportionate amount of poor people engage in these activities as opposed to the wealthy, you should go ahead and do the rest of society a favor by climbing to the tippy-top of that ivory tower you live in, and throw your own dumb ass over the edge.
I can only presume that the reason you keep ignoring my points and introducing new ones is because you cannot refute what I have stated. 'Twould be nice if you would man up, admit to fault, and grow as a person, rather than constantly re-arranging the goalposts, but perhaps that's asking too much?
Yes automatic weapons have been around for a very long time. School shootings have been around since there were guns as well. But what we haven't had is a instant media coverage combined with easy access to weapons--now it seems a few of those crazy enough to commit suicide are wanting to inflict as much carnage as possible before offing themselves.
So, what you're saying is, the problem is the 24-hour news cycle, not prevalence of firearms.
Well, I know that correlation != causation, but I can see how there could be some effect. Definitely an interesting aspect, worthy of study.
But you are touching on the biggest issue. Everyone agrees crazy people should not own guns. Every gun owner thinks they are sane. But if you buy a gun expecting the worst out of society--you are already crazy.
A matter of opinion; by definition, crazy (or rather, insanity, as "crazy" is an ill-defined, subjective term) is "repeating the same act over and over, expecting a different result."
Thus, everyone who votes regularly is technically insane.
As you have clearly illustrated with your thinking above--your thinking is not based in reality.
You must be right, 'cause obviously I'm the one living in a fantasy world where there is absolutely no need for private citizens to own firearms. On a related note, Freud would have a field day with you.
Meanwhile, violent crime is on the rise - the city I live in is experiencing its highest homicide rate in decades, not to mention the recent explosion of B&Es and aggravated assaults.
But you do make a great case that all gun owners should have mandatory psychiatric evaluations every year to determine if they are threat.
Your immature, petulant attempt to underhandedly marginalize my opinion aside, I agree with the idea, so long as the evaluations are administered by a non-government body (think private shooting clubs like in many European nations).
You are comparing the Oklahoma City bombing to a gallon of gasoline?
No, I posited two hypothetical situations to prove that a gallon of gasoline can be used just-as-if-not-more-effectively for killing people as a gun, in response to the statements you made previously, namely, "how stupid are you to make the guns versus gas argument?" The inclusion of the OKC and Bath incidents was intended to show you that you are incorrect in your assertion that guns exclusively allow for mass killings.
For the record, calling someone "stupid" because they don't agree with you is indicative of a lesser intellect, and if you're not even going to bother keeping up with your own side of the conversation, I'm not going to continue wasting time trying to help you learn.
Lots of schools have burned through the ages--it wasn't until recently that high capacity weapons became prolific.
Depends on your definition of "recent history" - if we're talking about recent in regards to the span of human existence, then yea, it's fairly new tech.
If by "recent history" you mean the time since, say, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, then you need to go back to school - automatic guns were invented in the 19th Century.
Familiar with the SSAR-15 bump stock? $300 kit that is perfectly legal. Very effective at getting around the automatic fire ban.
Still only a semi-auto - action is defined by trigger pull, and even with a bump stock you still squeeze the trigger once per round fired. The bump stock merely facilitates being able to repeat the action very quickly. So no, not effective at getting around the assault rifle ban (there is no such thing as an 'automatic fire ban' in the US).
Do you know it was zero loss of life? You're keeping track of all these Afghani informants?
Short answer: Pics or it didn't happen.
Seriously, man, I shouldn't have to point out the slippery slope when it comes to the government using "classified" information as evidence against someone in court, it's such obvious bullshit.
"You stand accused of causing the deaths of our agents!"
"What agents? Where?"
"Oh, we can't tell you that, just take our word for it - it was your fault."
So, since nothing happened, it wasn't a valid reason for concern? What kind of argument is that against him releasing what he did?
Uh, I never said it was an argument against Manning releasing the documents. I was implying that, since the release there has been absolutely zero loss of life as a result, the governments rationale (we're punishing him so severely because he endangered our agents) sounds more and more like bullshit every day.
Oh, wait, I didn't imply that - I straight up said it.
this goes to show that if you're going to release stolen/hacked documents, it's best you do it anonymously and don't brag about it.
Seriously? The submitter thinks that the thing to learn from this is that you need to do things anonymously and don't brag about it? My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore?
And yes, that's a rhetorical question.
Okay.... are you somehow confusing me with the submitter? I don't understand why you're directing this rant towards me, please elucidate.
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
Yea, about that...
It's been what, 2 years since Manning dumped those files, right? So, if there was any chance that said data would literally endanger the lives of agents in the field, as the government insists, surely said mortal danger would have occurred by now, or the agents would have been pulled, right?
OK, so where's the evidence that Manning's actions really did cause all this personal danger that the prosecution insists occurred? 'Cuz I haven't seen it, and as the months of nothing happening continue, I'm more and more inclined to call bullshit on the claims.
Also, the vast majority of them simply go back to stay with their parents during the winter months -- notice you only see them around in the spring and summer?
The reason you tend not to see homeless people in the winter is they hop a bus somewhere south for the winter and come back after. We get homeless people in Austin who live up north in the spring/summer.
Wow, that's luxury.
Here in MO, our homeless just deal with winter by either building large camps in the woods, or dying of exposure.
How many of the world's billionaires graduated from one of the aforementioned universities?
How many of the world's billionaires have actually contributed anything useful to society?
Hmm, which is more important to me, having so much money I can finally live my life the way I've always wanted, or spending my life as a pauper trying to change the world...
Seriously, though, I get where you're coming from, but it's naive to think that all or any of the people paying these outrageous tuition's are doing it for the sole purpose of making the world a better place. They want that skrilla, just like the rest of us.
Oh, cute, an ad hominem attack. I take it, then, that you fail to realize attacking the messenger instead of the message implies that your own argument holds no water.
He did attack the message. Try to pay attention.
No, he didn't - he attempted to refute the message, but instead ended up strengthening it due to his own ignorance regarding the definition of the terms "tyranny" and "democracy." Perhaps you are the one who is failing to keep pace?
I take it, then, that you fail to realize repeating platitudes instead of addressing the message implies that you're a moron.
You know, it's weird enough when you talk to yourself alone, but doing it in public just makes ya seem creepy...
Slashdot Mirror
Stop giving them tons of media attention and "high scores".
This, this, this.
To dream the impossible dream...
How many gun nuts have been stopped in the last years by bystanders?
Zero, but that's merely by virtue of the fact that the people assholes like you like to marginalize with the label "gun nut" are not the type of people who go on rampages.
But by all means, don't let facts stop you from being an uptight prick.
Maybe painting them pink would help reduce the number of gun fatalities ?
Pastels do tend to have a calming effect...
Maybe adorn them with butterflies and stylized dinosaurs, too? What could possibly go wrong?
What does the census have to do with anything?
The US Census Bureau determines what the legal qualifications for 'impoverished' are... something you should know, if you followed the link I provided.
Who does and doesn't get counted has nothing to do with this discussion, nor is it the only job of the Census Bureau.
Poverty isn't the people with low incomes living in trailer parks and low income housing, They are the people pushing shopping carts on the streets with children in tow.
Not true:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html
I know prices in Canada and US tend to be different, but really, they were under $50 in the 80s? Especially the early 80s?
At pawn shops they were, and pawn shops are still quite popular among those who populate the lower rungs of our economic ladder.
So did the number of poor people suddenly rise in the 1980s and 1990s and fall back in the 2000s?
'Tis possible.. of course, a greater possibility is that whoever posited this theory is a fucking imbecile who fails to realize that correlation does not equal causation.
I'm never for lack of amazement at the number of highly educated people who, for all their worldly knowledge, still can't comprehend the concept that while ceteris paribus is fine for discussing abstract theories in the classroom, it does not apply to the real world.
30 years ago if poor people were bored they would go rob or kill someone
Wow. What a classy, first-world asshole thing to say.
For the record, prick, I spent the first 14 years of my life in abject poverty, and the next 4-6 not doing much better, and I never considered robbing or killing anyone for any reason, let alone fucking boredom, thereby proving your hypothesis to be utter bullshit.
Seriously, dude, if you honestly think poor people rob/kill because they're bored, or even that a disproportionate amount of poor people engage in these activities as opposed to the wealthy, you should go ahead and do the rest of society a favor by climbing to the tippy-top of that ivory tower you live in, and throw your own dumb ass over the edge.
Sean Connery, Doctor Who, and the asshole who invented golf.
Boo-ya.
I thought I was just providing a little color commentary. :-)
That's racist, yo. :D
Side note - love the Pink Floyd reference, kudos.
Yes automatic weapons have been around for a very long time. School shootings have been around since there were guns as well. But what we haven't had is a instant media coverage combined with easy access to weapons--now it seems a few of those crazy enough to commit suicide are wanting to inflict as much carnage as possible before offing themselves.
So, what you're saying is, the problem is the 24-hour news cycle, not prevalence of firearms.
Well, I know that correlation != causation, but I can see how there could be some effect. Definitely an interesting aspect, worthy of study.
But you are touching on the biggest issue. Everyone agrees crazy people should not own guns. Every gun owner thinks they are sane. But if you buy a gun expecting the worst out of society--you are already crazy.
A matter of opinion; by definition, crazy (or rather, insanity, as "crazy" is an ill-defined, subjective term) is "repeating the same act over and over, expecting a different result."
Thus, everyone who votes regularly is technically insane.
As you have clearly illustrated with your thinking above--your thinking is not based in reality.
You must be right, 'cause obviously I'm the one living in a fantasy world where there is absolutely no need for private citizens to own firearms. On a related note, Freud would have a field day with you.
Meanwhile, violent crime is on the rise - the city I live in is experiencing its highest homicide rate in decades, not to mention the recent explosion of B&Es and aggravated assaults.
But you do make a great case that all gun owners should have mandatory psychiatric evaluations every year to determine if they are threat.
Your immature, petulant attempt to underhandedly marginalize my opinion aside, I agree with the idea, so long as the evaluations are administered by a non-government body (think private shooting clubs like in many European nations).
You are comparing the Oklahoma City bombing to a gallon of gasoline?
No, I posited two hypothetical situations to prove that a gallon of gasoline can be used just-as-if-not-more-effectively for killing people as a gun, in response to the statements you made previously, namely, "how stupid are you to make the guns versus gas argument?" The inclusion of the OKC and Bath incidents was intended to show you that you are incorrect in your assertion that guns exclusively allow for mass killings.
For the record, calling someone "stupid" because they don't agree with you is indicative of a lesser intellect, and if you're not even going to bother keeping up with your own side of the conversation, I'm not going to continue wasting time trying to help you learn.
Lots of schools have burned through the ages--it wasn't until recently that high capacity weapons became prolific.
Depends on your definition of "recent history" - if we're talking about recent in regards to the span of human existence, then yea, it's fairly new tech.
If by "recent history" you mean the time since, say, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, then you need to go back to school - automatic guns were invented in the 19th Century.
Familiar with the SSAR-15 bump stock? $300 kit that is perfectly legal. Very effective at getting around the automatic fire ban.
Still only a semi-auto - action is defined by trigger pull, and even with a bump stock you still squeeze the trigger once per round fired. The bump stock merely facilitates being able to repeat the action very quickly. So no, not effective at getting around the assault rifle ban (there is no such thing as an 'automatic fire ban' in the US).
Do you know it was zero loss of life? You're keeping track of all these Afghani informants?
Short answer: Pics or it didn't happen.
Seriously, man, I shouldn't have to point out the slippery slope when it comes to the government using "classified" information as evidence against someone in court, it's such obvious bullshit.
"You stand accused of causing the deaths of our agents!"
"What agents? Where?"
"Oh, we can't tell you that, just take our word for it - it was your fault."
Brave new world, war is peace, all that jazz.
So, since nothing happened, it wasn't a valid reason for concern? What kind of argument is that against him releasing what he did?
Uh, I never said it was an argument against Manning releasing the documents. I was implying that, since the release there has been absolutely zero loss of life as a result, the governments rationale (we're punishing him so severely because he endangered our agents) sounds more and more like bullshit every day.
Oh, wait, I didn't imply that - I straight up said it.
Seriously? The submitter thinks that the thing to learn from this is that you need to do things anonymously and don't brag about it? My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore? And yes, that's a rhetorical question.
Okay.... are you somehow confusing me with the submitter? I don't understand why you're directing this rant towards me, please elucidate.
Khaaaaaaaaaaan!
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
Yea, about that...
It's been what, 2 years since Manning dumped those files, right? So, if there was any chance that said data would literally endanger the lives of agents in the field, as the government insists, surely said mortal danger would have occurred by now, or the agents would have been pulled, right?
OK, so where's the evidence that Manning's actions really did cause all this personal danger that the prosecution insists occurred? 'Cuz I haven't seen it, and as the months of nothing happening continue, I'm more and more inclined to call bullshit on the claims.
but she likes video games.
Farmville != "video games"
Wonder how did "dad" get the in-game currency needed to hire 24/7 assassins.
Presumably, he has a job.
Also, the vast majority of them simply go back to stay with their parents during the winter months -- notice you only see them around in the spring and summer?
The reason you tend not to see homeless people in the winter is they hop a bus somewhere south for the winter and come back after. We get homeless people in Austin who live up north in the spring/summer.
Wow, that's luxury.
Here in MO, our homeless just deal with winter by either building large camps in the woods, or dying of exposure.
I think it's also helpful not too seem too intelligent.
23 years old, lives at home, and does nothing but play video games.
Yea, something tells me being seen as 'too intelligent' not a risk for this particular waste of space.
Not always - it's the curse of overqualified.
Bullshit - I know people with Psych Ph. D's who work at Steak N' Shake.
Fast food places do not give a singe fuck what your education is; all they care about is that you're willing to do shit work for shit pay.
Yes, finding a job when you don't have an address, money, food or means will be a snap!
The US street are littered with kids whose parent did that instead of actual get professional help.
.
At the age of 23, a person no longer qualifies for the "kid" category.
How many of the world's billionaires graduated from one of the aforementioned universities?
How many of the world's billionaires have actually contributed anything useful to society?
Hmm, which is more important to me, having so much money I can finally live my life the way I've always wanted, or spending my life as a pauper trying to change the world...
Seriously, though, I get where you're coming from, but it's naive to think that all or any of the people paying these outrageous tuition's are doing it for the sole purpose of making the world a better place. They want that skrilla, just like the rest of us.
Oh, cute, an ad hominem attack. I take it, then, that you fail to realize attacking the messenger instead of the message implies that your own argument holds no water.
He did attack the message. Try to pay attention.
No, he didn't - he attempted to refute the message, but instead ended up strengthening it due to his own ignorance regarding the definition of the terms "tyranny" and "democracy." Perhaps you are the one who is failing to keep pace?
I take it, then, that you fail to realize repeating platitudes instead of addressing the message implies that you're a moron.
You know, it's weird enough when you talk to yourself alone, but doing it in public just makes ya seem creepy...