It seems a lot of the recent NSA activity is about metadata mining. Is it possible to trash the metadata? I have experimented with randon searches, for example, to see the effect on targeted advertising. Would random searches, and phone calls, for example, make the metadata less useful? Imagine I am a frequent visitor to whitehouse.gov, but each time I visit, I also visit gop.com, and click a few random things.
Democrat, rebpublican, libertarian, green, social justice, reddit, facebook, my little pony, new your times.
I understand the way you do things, but no, I did not, I work and my obamacare was put on told by the president for a year, exactly that the house proposed and the senate denied when they choose to shut down the government.
Who even noticed that anything government was shut down? If you work for the government, I do not count you, you alway got paid in the past when this has happened, and if you do not like it you have a choice, don't work for the government, you chose to work for an employer who is vindictive, arbitratry, petty, dishonest, etc. Seriously, who really even noticed in their daily lives? The elected, and the bureaucrats will try very hard to shut things you will notice. I am sick and tired of people who claim to be serving US, when they do not get their way, will threaten and try to hurt US. The governmet hates this because it shows how really irrelevent they are in our daily lives.
Any good developer would have taken into consideration "the depth of their hatred of the working poor" and built a system that could handle it. This is just another example of the quality of government products. Please take your inflamitory hate speach, name calling and retoric else where, if I want to hear that I can turn on the tv.
At the very least it got you all talking about government and the roll of government. First, I pretty much ignore the comments that have phrases like "hostage taker", "gun to the head", or "budget", there is no budget. Second, the country is divided, as has been posted, our elections are very close, the parties are only a few percentage points apart. Third, about half the country works for the government, which party do you think they tend to vote for? Fourth, If you work, you pay about half what you earn in taxes, and "fees", federal, state, and local combined, Ask youself what do we get for that? Fifth, big government is the same thing as big oil, big industry, big corporation, what ever, except big government is the biggest of all and if you think government ismore benevolent, trustworth, just, or beneficial, I think you are mistaken. Six, no one not working for government really will even notice this "shutdown". Seven, the rebublican party does better when they stand up like they did on this issue, I hope they will make some gains in congress on the next election, it is not good to have one party in control for to long, it has a corrupting influence on most any one involved. Anyone that had a vote on this did so because they won their election, a republic is not winner take all system, the government is working as it is was designed, in this, the House is supposed to be the voice of the people.
I applaud both parties for taking a stand and making this possible, and encourage them to do more of the same.
Do this. One day your employer will call me and complain the network is slow, I will remove the thousands of ips from your firewall and be a hero. ker ching. Seriously brute force protections is a good thing, just remember your list has a short shelf life and you want to keep it small. Oh, and I have seen these lists that have done reverse lookups, and add names to the file rather then ips. Result? What I said in my first sentence x 10.
Yes, thank you. Turn off wireless networking. I think turning off "location sharing" should stop broadcasting gps data. Air plane mode should keep gps data from being broadcast, as well as powering down, but this is not ideal for a communication device. I had hoped an "open" software would resolve some of these issues, if I can reliably disable the saving and transmitting of location data on my android phone, I would like to know how. The bottom line for me is I am the only person that can be responsible for my personal information, if I give it to someone else, by definition, it is no longer private.
Pay cash for a no contract phone. Don't keep sensitive information on the phone. Don't transmit sensitive information. Assume that any carrier or service provider cannot protect your information.
Let's not do even Federal gun control, then we will not need to add new infrastructure. In fact, it the Federal government can stop doing a lot of other things and we will save even more money. The government belongs to us, we do not belong to them. Write your representatives.
Every home and school already has armed guards, the question is what arms they have available. The "cost" to provide firearms and training, for these armed guards is insignificant. Last year I decided to obtain a licence to carry a concealed weapon in my state, and 2 handguns suitable for self defence. The handguns are some of the most popular models used by U.S. and European police, and cost about $1000, the license cost about $125, required 8-10 hours training was about $100. I paid for some additional training, and spent a few hundred dollars on practice ammunition this year because I wanted to feel I was at least competent, if not proficient, with these firearms. Just to compare, cost in dollars was less then, my cell prone contract, or a year's auto insurance, It is a question of priorities, not absolute dollar cost. And the real cost is really only the ammunition and training, the firearms I can sell at any time, and recoop that cost. I enjoyed the shooting practice, I like to learn a new skill. I plan to never ever remove my firearm from it's concealed holster. It's weight is a constant reminder to me to avoid the company of violent felons, dangerous places, and dangerous situations. I do not carry a gun to kill people, I carry a gun to stop a violent attack against me or the people I love. I have learned most gunshot wounds are not fatal. Probably over 40% of homes in the U.S already have firearms. All but 3 or 4 states, issue concealed weapons licenses. In my state about 5% of the citizens have concealed weapons licenses. If 5% of the teachers in our schools are not willing, or competent, or are not able to pass a background check, then we have a teacher problem not a gun problem. None of the teachers I know, will ask for additional pay to protect the children in their class rooms (I have only heard this argument made by non-teachers). And before you talk to me about the inherent danger of guns, do your research, the danger is from violent felons, careless/reckless individuals, nuts, and drunks with guns, these are a tiny percentage of our population.
The point of this story is about the desire for government to 1) Increase taxes 2) Disarm law abiding citizens, "And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin' ". Make no mistake there are a small number of people that are working hard to take your rights, your money and your ability to defend yourself (it is easier to take your money). In general I think our country and government are probably the best in the world. It is our job to keep it that way and turn things around when we are going in the wrong direction.
"Since the mid-1980s, a proliferation of vague and overlapping federal criminal statutes has given federal prosecutors the ability to indict, and convict, virtually anyone unfortunate enough to come within their sights. And sentencing guidelines confer yet additional power on prosecutors, who have the discretion to pick and choose from statutes covering the same behavior."
This is not justice. The legislature, the judiciary, and the executive are to blame for allowing this practice. When the government is able to "indict, and convict, virtually anyone unfortunate enough to come within their sights" we no longer have liberty.
I will be the first to admit, I know nothing about child pornography. But if you are correct, that probably is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. I say probably, I am not an attorney, So as a constitutionalist, I will not ask the government to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The constitution is a simple and elegant document that limits the powers of our government, I accept that as the rules I have agreed to live under.
Does this mean I am helpless to try and stop child pornography, or anything else I object to? I think not. If the only solution I can see, to address a problem, is to ask my government to pass a law, and enforce it, then I believe I am not meeting my responsibilities a human being. I am free to use my honor, my wealth, my time, and my life to work to end child pornography (for example), I believe I should not ask someone else to do it for me, but I can recruit other like minded individuals, I believe this is what the writers of the constitution intended, they understood that the capacity of individuals, unrestricted by government, to make the world a better place, was the correct choice, I think their experiment has more success then failure so far, and I am willing to continue to follow their example.
Look to the article that began this discussion, this is an example of a government out of control, the people of California, have ceded so much of their responsibility to the government as to make this discussion even necessary. 30-50% if my income is claimed by my governments in various form of taxes. Too many hours of my life are devoted to monitoring, and trying to suggest solutions to, my elected representatives. I am willing to pledge my honor, treasure, time and my life to try to change this, in the hope that at a time in the future, I will not have to live under this burden of government, nor will the people that come after me.
I'm also an outsider. The first amendment says pretty clearly that "Congress shall make no law [..] abridging the freedom of speech", but I'm also aware that it's fairly well-established in law that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute, and can have reasonable limits imposed.
Yes, there are reasonable limits imposed on the use of speech. There are also reasonable limits imposed on the use of arms. The use is limited, not the possession, or right to bear.
Some of us conservatives are against gun control, too.
The conservatives tend to agree with me more often then the liberals, but on support of the second amendment you and I can agree. I think the majority on both sides of the isle agree. I wonder what else we can agree on? I'd like to see my total taxes closer to 25% then 50%, for example.
The point here is we can all find statics/studies to support our argument(s) In this case http://www.gunfacts.info/ presents argument and counter argument for most of the "facts", we hear in the "gun control" debate. None of this is decisive, and it will not be, it is all, tired, old and waste of time.
If we want to reduce violent crime, I believe it is possible. We should agree to do it without violating the constitution. What methods do you propose, that do not include additional restrictions on gun ownership? If you want to disarm citizens, for what ever reason, lets talk about changing the constitution,
The government cannot be trusted to maintain confidentiality of the data.
I agree here. My state is one of those that still has handgun registration, legislation to abolish registration failed to pass last year. In all the discussion and debate, I never was able to determine what useful purpose registration served. Save the taxpayers some money, and relieve the State of the burden of maintaining and protecting this type information. Win, Win.
New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in in the USA, exactly how does one get a permit/license? How many people on that list are publicly on record as supporting "gun control"?
I do not want to see the addresses published, it is a very different thing to go to a government office, present identification, and ask for a copy of the list, then to be able to anonymously access the information.
For every anecdote of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another anecdote of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake.
For every real number of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another real number of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake.
I have read the FBI, and DOJ reports/data, and many other documents relating to this issue. I think one of the best resources is at gunfacts.info It presents arguments and counter arguments. What I take from this is, that taken as a whole, the "real numbers" do not present a decisive argument for either the pro or anti firearm positions.
What I believe, is that there are more law abiding, sane people in our society then there are violent criminals and violently insane people. Guns make people more equal, with regard to self defense. People comit crimes with firearms, and people defend themselves with firearms.
If my being armed can help to stop a crime, as a responsible citizen, I am willing to do that. My hope is that as more and more criminals and mad men are unsuccessful in perpetrating their crimes, crime will become less attractive, and less common. At some point in the future, when the likely hood of crime is so low as to be statistically zero, I will cease to feel the need to be armed.
I will offer one "real number" to consider. In the United States, most states allow people to apply for "concealed weapons licenses" that allow then to carry concealed firearms. On average, something over 5% of these populations, that are allowed, have obtained the license. (there are restrictions, typically felons, mental health issues, domestic violence, age restrictions, and illegal drug users, but check your state laws for a complete list) So consider, in most states, about 1 in 20 people you encounter in the course of your day, are licensed to carry a firearm. If this alarms you, please take some time to consider why it did not alarm you, before you knew the facts, perhaps, these people legally carrying arms are not a danger to you.
Lastly, I will say, I like the firearms discussions on/. There is a long history, of hacking. modding, and home building of firearms. Firearms are an interesting technology, and worthy of study.
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
This "statistic" used to bother me, I have lived my entire life in homes with firearms. A little research found "stastics" indicating that the majority of gun crime is commited by repeat violent felons. The lesson here is do not have violent felons in your home, and you greatly reduce that the odds that you will be shot. Oh, and do not be suicidal, or take drugs that have side effects like "increased risk of suicide".
The most secure place I can think for my firearm, is legally concealed on my person. The firearm(s) I am not carrying can be secured. In my state, you can legally carry a concealed firearm, if you meet the requirements www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html Most states are similar, some notable exceptions are CA,IL.NY. where the only requirement is that you "know the right people".
If a person takes reasonable precautions to secure their firearms, I believe they are no more responsible if they are stolen and used to commit a crime, then if the same was done with an automobile, knife, baseball bat, hammer, alcohol, drugs, computer, whatever.
Thanks. So it turns out the "bystander with a gun" was actually an off-duty cop himself. To me this says even a person with extensive training can make that mistake, and it seems likely that a civilian in the same situation would be even more apt to make that mistake.
Are you assuming a mistake was made? I do not see that in the article, the article seems to indicate it is not known who the shooter was. I appreciate linking the article, but lets talk about what the article presents as facts, and not read more into it.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems a lot of the recent NSA activity is about metadata mining. Is it possible to trash the metadata?
I have experimented with randon searches, for example, to see the effect on targeted advertising.
Would random searches, and phone calls, for example, make the metadata less useful?
Imagine I am a frequent visitor to whitehouse.gov, but each time I visit, I also visit gop.com, and click a few random things.
Democrat, rebpublican, libertarian, green, social justice, reddit, facebook, my little pony, new your times.
I understand the way you do things, but no, I did not, I work and my obamacare was put on told by the president for a year, exactly that the house proposed and the senate denied when they choose to shut down the government.
well, we are a repuublic, not a democracy.
Making the government smaller, reduces the oppertunities for the rich to abuse the government to get richer.
Who even noticed that anything government was shut down? If you work for the government, I do not count you, you alway got paid in the past when this has happened, and if you do not like it you have a choice, don't work for the government, you chose to work for an employer who is vindictive, arbitratry, petty, dishonest, etc.
Seriously, who really even noticed in their daily lives? The elected, and the bureaucrats will try very hard to shut things you will notice. I am sick and tired of people who claim to be serving US, when they do not get their way, will threaten and try to hurt US.
The governmet hates this because it shows how really irrelevent they are in our daily lives.
Any good developer would have taken into consideration "the depth of their hatred of the working poor" and built a system that could handle it.
This is just another example of the quality of government products.
Please take your inflamitory hate speach, name calling and retoric else where, if I want to hear that I can turn on the tv.
At the very least it got you all talking about government and the roll of government.
First, I pretty much ignore the comments that have phrases like "hostage taker", "gun to the head", or "budget", there is no budget.
Second, the country is divided, as has been posted, our elections are very close, the parties are only a few percentage points apart.
Third, about half the country works for the government, which party do you think they tend to vote for?
Fourth, If you work, you pay about half what you earn in taxes, and "fees", federal, state, and local combined, Ask youself what do we get for that?
Fifth, big government is the same thing as big oil, big industry, big corporation, what ever, except big government is the biggest of all and if you think government ismore benevolent, trustworth, just, or beneficial, I think you are mistaken.
Six, no one not working for government really will even notice this "shutdown".
Seven, the rebublican party does better when they stand up like they did on this issue, I hope they will make some gains in congress on the next election, it is not good to have one party in control for to long, it has a corrupting influence on most any one involved.
Anyone that had a vote on this did so because they won their election, a republic is not winner take all system, the government is working as it is was designed, in this, the House is supposed to be the voice of the people.
I applaud both parties for taking a stand and making this possible, and encourage them to do more of the same.
Do this. One day your employer will call me and complain the network is slow, I will remove the thousands of ips from your firewall and be a hero.
ker ching.
Seriously brute force protections is a good thing, just remember your list has a short shelf life and you want to keep it small.
Oh, and I have seen these lists that have done reverse lookups, and add names to the file rather then ips. Result? What I said in my first sentence x 10.
For years I have watched U.S. cities, small and large try to set up one wireless internet system after another, they have never made it work.
Yes, thank you. Turn off wireless networking. I think turning off "location sharing" should stop broadcasting gps data. Air plane mode should keep gps data from being broadcast, as well as powering down, but this is not ideal for a communication device.
I had hoped an "open" software would resolve some of these issues, if I can reliably disable the saving and transmitting of location data on my android phone, I would like to know how.
The bottom line for me is I am the only person that can be responsible for my personal information, if I give it to someone else, by definition, it is no longer private.
Pay cash for a no contract phone. Don't keep sensitive information on the phone. Don't transmit sensitive information. Assume that any carrier or service provider cannot protect your information.
An iPhone is prone to overheat during normal use and has had trouble sending a radio signal though your hand.
You are holding it wrong
Let's not do even Federal gun control, then we will not need to add new infrastructure.
In fact, it the Federal government can stop doing a lot of other things and we will save even more money. The government belongs to us, we do not belong to them. Write your representatives.
Every home and school already has armed guards, the question is what arms they have available.
The "cost" to provide firearms and training, for these armed guards is insignificant.
Last year I decided to obtain a licence to carry a concealed weapon in my state, and 2 handguns suitable for self defence. The handguns are some of the most popular models used by U.S. and European police, and cost about $1000, the license cost about $125, required 8-10 hours training was about $100. I paid for some additional training, and spent a few hundred dollars on practice ammunition this year because I wanted to feel I was at least competent, if not proficient, with these firearms.
Just to compare, cost in dollars was less then, my cell prone contract, or a year's auto insurance, It is a question of priorities, not absolute dollar cost. And the real cost is really only the ammunition and training, the firearms I can sell at any time, and recoop that cost. I enjoyed the shooting practice, I like to learn a new skill.
I plan to never ever remove my firearm from it's concealed holster. It's weight is a constant reminder to me to avoid the company of violent felons, dangerous places, and dangerous situations. I do not carry a gun to kill people, I carry a gun to stop a violent attack against me or the people I love. I have learned most gunshot wounds are not fatal.
Probably over 40% of homes in the U.S already have firearms. All but 3 or 4 states, issue concealed weapons licenses. In my state about 5% of the citizens have concealed weapons licenses.
If 5% of the teachers in our schools are not willing, or competent, or are not able to pass a background check, then we have a teacher problem not a gun problem. None of the teachers I know, will ask for additional pay to protect the children in their class rooms (I have only heard this argument made by non-teachers). And before you talk to me about the inherent danger of guns, do your research, the danger is from violent felons, careless/reckless individuals, nuts, and drunks with guns, these are a tiny percentage of our population.
The point of this story is about the desire for government to 1) Increase taxes 2) Disarm law abiding citizens, "And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin' ". Make no mistake there are a small number of people that are working hard to take your rights, your money and your ability to defend yourself (it is easier to take your money). In general I think our country and government are probably the best in the world. It is our job to keep it that way and turn things around when we are going in the wrong direction.
It is even worse, from the article :
"Since the mid-1980s, a proliferation of vague and overlapping federal criminal statutes has given federal prosecutors the ability to indict, and convict, virtually anyone unfortunate enough to come within their sights. And sentencing guidelines confer yet additional power on prosecutors, who have the discretion to pick and choose from statutes covering the same behavior."
This is not justice. The legislature, the judiciary, and the executive are to blame for allowing this practice. When the government is able to "indict, and convict, virtually anyone unfortunate enough to come within their sights" we no longer have liberty.
I will be the first to admit, I know nothing about child pornography. But if you are correct, that probably is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. I say probably, I am not an attorney,
So as a constitutionalist, I will not ask the government to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The constitution is a simple and elegant document that limits the powers of our government, I accept that as the rules I have agreed to live under.
Does this mean I am helpless to try and stop child pornography, or anything else I object to? I think not. If the only solution I can see, to address a problem, is to ask my government to pass a law, and enforce it, then I believe I am not meeting my responsibilities a human being. I am free to use my honor, my wealth, my time, and my life to work to end child pornography (for example), I believe I should not ask someone else to do it for me, but I can recruit other like minded individuals, I believe this is what the writers of the constitution intended, they understood that the capacity of individuals, unrestricted by government, to make the world a better place, was the correct choice, I think their experiment has more success then failure so far, and I am willing to continue to follow their example.
Look to the article that began this discussion, this is an example of a government out of control, the people of California, have ceded so much of their responsibility to the government as to make this discussion even necessary. 30-50% if my income is claimed by my governments in various form of taxes. Too many hours of my life are devoted to monitoring, and trying to suggest solutions to, my elected representatives.
I am willing to pledge my honor, treasure, time and my life to try to change this, in the hope that at a time in the future, I will not have to live under this burden of government, nor will the people that come after me.
I'm also an outsider. The first amendment says pretty clearly that "Congress shall make no law [..] abridging the freedom of speech", but I'm also aware that it's fairly well-established in law that the right to freedom of speech is not absolute, and can have reasonable limits imposed.
Yes, there are reasonable limits imposed on the use of speech.
There are also reasonable limits imposed on the use of arms.
The use is limited, not the possession, or right to bear.
Some of us conservatives are against gun control, too.
The conservatives tend to agree with me more often then the liberals, but on support of the second amendment you and I can agree. I think the majority on both sides of the isle agree.
I wonder what else we can agree on? I'd like to see my total taxes closer to 25% then 50%, for example.
not true http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
The point here is we can all find statics/studies to support our argument(s) In this case http://www.gunfacts.info/ presents argument and counter argument for most of the "facts", we hear in the "gun control" debate.
None of this is decisive, and it will not be, it is all, tired, old and waste of time.
If we want to reduce violent crime, I believe it is possible. We should agree to do it without violating the constitution. What methods do you propose, that do not include additional restrictions on gun ownership?
If you want to disarm citizens, for what ever reason, lets talk about changing the constitution,
The government cannot be trusted to maintain confidentiality of the data.
I agree here. My state is one of those that still has handgun registration, legislation to abolish registration failed to pass last year.
In all the discussion and debate, I never was able to determine what useful purpose registration served.
Save the taxpayers some money, and relieve the State of the burden of maintaining and protecting this type information. Win, Win.
New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in in the USA, exactly how does one get a permit/license?
How many people on that list are publicly on record as supporting "gun control"?
I do not want to see the addresses published, it is a very different thing to go to a government office, present
identification, and ask for a copy of the list, then to be able to anonymously access the information.
For every anecdote of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another anecdote of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake.
For every real number of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another real number of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake.
I have read the FBI, and DOJ reports/data, and many other documents relating to this issue. I think one of the best resources is at gunfacts.info It presents arguments and counter arguments. What I take from this is, that taken as a whole, the "real numbers" do not present a decisive argument for either the pro or anti firearm positions.
What I believe, is that there are more law abiding, sane people in our society then there are violent criminals and violently insane people. Guns make people more equal, with regard to self defense. People comit crimes with firearms, and people defend themselves with firearms.
If my being armed can help to stop a crime, as a responsible citizen, I am willing to do that. My hope is that as more and more criminals and mad men are unsuccessful in perpetrating their crimes, crime will become less attractive, and less common. At some point in the future, when the likely hood of crime is so low as to be statistically zero, I will cease to feel the need to be armed.
I will offer one "real number" to consider. In the United States, most states allow people to apply for "concealed weapons licenses" that allow then to carry concealed firearms. On average, something over 5% of these populations, that are allowed, have obtained the license. (there are restrictions, typically felons, mental health issues, domestic violence, age restrictions, and illegal drug users, but check your state laws for a complete list) So consider, in most states, about 1 in 20 people you encounter in the course of your day, are licensed to carry a firearm. If this alarms you, please take some time to consider why it did not alarm you, before you knew the facts, perhaps, these people legally carrying arms are not a danger to you.
Lastly, I will say, I like the firearms discussions on /. There is a long history, of hacking. modding, and home building of firearms. Firearms are an interesting technology, and worthy of study.
10 time 0 is zero, no I am not concerned. If I were concerned that I would commit suicide, I would seek help.
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).
The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
This "statistic" used to bother me, I have lived my entire life in homes with firearms. A little research found "stastics" indicating that the majority of gun crime is commited by repeat violent felons.
The lesson here is do not have violent felons in your home, and you greatly reduce that the odds that you will be shot.
Oh, and do not be suicidal, or take drugs that have side effects like "increased risk of suicide".
The most secure place I can think for my firearm, is legally concealed on my person. The firearm(s) I am not carrying can be secured.
In my state, you can legally carry a concealed firearm, if you meet the requirements
www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html
Most states are similar, some notable exceptions are CA,IL.NY. where the only requirement is that you "know the right people".
If a person takes reasonable precautions to secure their firearms, I believe they are no more responsible if they are stolen and used to commit a crime, then if the same was done with an automobile, knife, baseball bat, hammer, alcohol, drugs, computer, whatever.
My bad, I did not see the followup article.
Thanks. So it turns out the "bystander with a gun" was actually an off-duty cop himself. To me this says even a person with extensive training can make that mistake, and it seems likely that a civilian in the same situation would be even more apt to make that mistake.
Are you assuming a mistake was made? I do not see that in the article, the article seems to indicate it is not known who the shooter was.
I appreciate linking the article, but lets talk about what the article presents as facts, and not read more into it.