Yeah, and if Yahoo care an iota they can block trillian and pidgin trivially. All it takes is a few certificates; and 3rd party clients are rendered useless.
And then next to go will be there customers. Good luck with that strategy...
The thing about messaging is you are generally locked into a client; so it'll no longer be up to you whether or not you use a client that ignores it or not.
Except I don't know anyone that uses Yahoo for anything, so it won't be a problem. And if my IM provider tried such a thing, I'd simply change providers.
Been nice knowing you Yahoo, whatever it is you do these days...
That would be nice, not least because then it wouldn't matter that guns are easy to get.
It does because it's a combination of many things that gives the desired result.
I've heard various theories: we allow more bullying so folks feel more marginalized, we have greater wealth disparity so folks feel desperate and marginalized, we publicize the shooters so folks feel like a spree is a way to be famous, we stigmatize mental health issues so they don't get treated, lots of things. But whatever the cause (or causes) it doesn't look like we're handling it well at the moment, does it?
That we can agree on, and perhaps part of the issue is the oversimplification of the (possible) solution. All those things contribute I'm sure, but so does the gun culture that exists in the US that is unlike any other in the western hemisphere.
Goalpost shifting, eh? "Conclusive" to whom? You, the liar?
Conclusive to the actual link your posted you dummy. Did you even read it? Let me spell it out for the guy who is too fucking stupid to read their own reference:
"of course it’s impossible to tell whether..."
"While again it’s not certain whether..."
"We believe that it could have been..."
"it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone..."
"This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it..."
"It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people..."
"again not clear whether he would have killed more people..."
"though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear..."
"though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state..."
Every single example even admits that it is inconclusive but you are too stupid to read.
Innocent people don't shoot at cops, liar. Now go find some "conclusive examples".
Tamir Rice, Micheal Brown, Laquan McDonald
Hand in your nerd card, you're too stupid to be in here....
I think the theory goes like so:
There are two kinds of spree shooters
What about the option that society provides an environment that a person never feels the need to shoot up the place? You know like in a most other developed countries? What are they doing differently that this only happens in America?
Already linked it. Now get some integrity, and start doing your own research.
Your link has no conclusive examples of preventing mass shootings. Although it does show how weak your argument it is if that is as good as it gets.
I pulled incident reports from the link that you didn't read, liar. Criminals with arrest warrants who pull out guns to shoot at the cops are not innocent people getting shot, liar.
Yes over 1000 cases, did you read them all or just selectively chose one that suited your argument, then resort back to childish insults because it's not working out for you?
What makes you think the public had any chance to express an opinion about water bottles on planes?
Each time someone hands over a bottle at airport security they have the opportunity to express an opinion. Most choose not to, which is why it still in place.
Democracy doesn't always come with an invitation.
Indeed, now we're looking at a fair and accurate comparison. Another way of looking at these numbers is that getting rid of guns reduces homicides by an additional 8.6 percentage points beyond the 30 percentage point reduction we see from "basically doing nothing" . In other words, "basically doing nothing" is over three times as effective as going "gun-free" when it comes to reducing homicides.
You seem to have misunderstood the numbers.
1. The reduction was higher, meaning it's more effective. Doing nothing was 8.6% less effective than doing something
2. Australia is not now, nor has ever been gun free. People still own guns in Australia
3. Australia had gun regulations prior to 1997, these were made stricter in 1997 resulting in a greater decrease of homicide (more importantly a greater reduction in random mass shootings - from some to zero) compared to the US which did nothing and still has them every single day on average.
4. Australia's homicide rate is 3 times lower than the US. So whatever they are doing is working better
So yeah, just restricting guns won't solve the problem by itself, but a comparison of USA vs AUS shows that public policy should get more closely aligned to Australia, if you want similar results. This means improved gun laws, better social welfare, health, education, and dropping NFL and Baseball for Rugby and Cricket:)
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Full disclosure: I'm a gun owner that supports a repeal of the second amendment so that the federal government can have the legal authority to prohibit private ownership of chemical, biological, and nuclear arms.
Soldiers, policemen, heroes, etc. The person itself cannot benefit anymore of these 'nice' things but still they will do whatever they think is the right thing. Your statement subsequently cannot cover everyone and every action, and therefor your subsequent statement that people refuse to think seems a bit ironic.
The choice of sacrificing your life in a noble deed, or running away like a coward and living the rest of your life in shame is a no-brainer.
We all die eventually, the best exit you can hope for is a glorious one. Soldiers, Policemen and Heroes are the type of of people who recognise this.
Actually, a number of studies in the last decade have shown that this is not the case. Most people will balance self-interest with the interests of the people that they perceive as their tribal group
Which is also self interest, since promoting your group ensures greater security for yourself.
Running a large software company is a business. Running an education program is a business. Running a medical program is a business. Pretending to be James Bond isn't, nor is solving equations.
To be a successful physicist, you have to be very smart, have a deep understanding of various topics, good math skills, good memory, good deduction abilities and the ability to find useful information in a flood of incoming data. All of that seems to be good qualifications for politics.
If you seriously believe that then I can't help you. Science, Arts and Politics are the most most disparate fields as you can get in life. Business falls under politics, as anyone who has graduated past peon worker, or runs their own business can attest to.
I don't mind him helping education. I just wish he would be humble enough to not think he is a genius who knows how to do it right, because that kind of people, especially in education, are a dime a dozen.
This makes no sense. Do you even understand how the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation works? This is not some Dr Evil operation where Bill laughs maniacally while demanding one million dollars. The foundation hires people and organisations who are the experts in their field. The work on Malaria for example is done by real Doctors and Medical researchers, it's not Bill and Melinda in their basement creating their own medicine
For the past century or so, every generation of students had a new "best way" taught to them in university, and once they became teachers it turned out that best way isn't any better than the one before.
My wife is a teacher, and that is false. Newer techniques get better results which is why they get implemented. It why we're still not all sitting around in caves eating insects.
List Joe Blows who have killed innocent bystanders while trying to stop a mass shooter.
List the Joe Blows that have successfully prevented mass shootings with their concealed carry?
Human behavior is the same. A police office is just a Joe blow with special training, A Joe blow without training is not going to perform any better (or do you seriously believe this will be the case?)
Your use of "innocent people" is the exact opposite of the actual definition, liar.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
If you can't argue using reason, then just start calling names and see how that works out for you...
You know what genius? When you have a high tide and you get a massive down pour, where do you think that rain is going to go? In to the ocean that is already at it's highest level?
You think that a little rain makes sea levels rise?
Just finished arguing why Australia's gun laws are better than the US, and now I can do the same with prostitution. It's legal, it's regulated and it works.
Basically all mass shootings happen in gun free zones...
Except in a war when everyone has a gun you mean. And lots of people die. In fact more people die than outside of war zones where arms are limited.
Let's not omit that important scenario...
See GP - who used Australia as an example of eliminating guns works. And the population increases of the US means it still had a bigger drop in homicides as compared to a gun-free Australia.
Er you might need to check your maths.
Australia's population grew by 33% (from 18 mil + 6 mil), whereas US only grew 16% (274mil + 45mil)
So punch in the numbers:
Australia 1997, 18 mil, 364 homicides = 2.02 deaths per 100k
Australia 2012, 24 mil, 297 homicides = 1.24 deaths per 100k
A reduction of 38.6%
USA 1997, 274 mil, 18208 homicides = 6.65 deaths per 100k
USA 2012, 319 mil, 14827 homicides = 4.65 deaths per 100k
A reduction of 30%
So the US still has a homicide rate over 3x that of Australia.
Also worth noting, Australia isn't gun free. People still own guns, but regulations ensure the firepower is limited, and that the owners responsible people.
I as a regular Joe don't care if drug dealers are killing each other. I also don't care as much if some dysfunctional family member kills their immediate relations. Crimes of passion are something I can have some input into.
What I do care about is some random nutter killing me while I'm minding my own business.
So I'm not sure if those stats are measured, but I'm betting that random homicides, the type where the victim had no prior relationship with the offender, are a lot higher in the US than anywhere else.
In Australia, I believe the number of random mass shootings (4 or more victims) since 1997 is zero.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and if Yahoo care an iota they can block trillian and pidgin trivially. All it takes is a few certificates; and 3rd party clients are rendered useless.
And then next to go will be there customers. Good luck with that strategy...
The thing about messaging is you are generally locked into a client; so it'll no longer be up to you whether or not you use a client that ignores it or not.
Except I don't know anyone that uses Yahoo for anything, so it won't be a problem. And if my IM provider tried such a thing, I'd simply change providers.
Been nice knowing you Yahoo, whatever it is you do these days...
That would be nice, not least because then it wouldn't matter that guns are easy to get.
It does because it's a combination of many things that gives the desired result.
I've heard various theories: we allow more bullying so folks feel more marginalized, we have greater wealth disparity so folks feel desperate and marginalized, we publicize the shooters so folks feel like a spree is a way to be famous, we stigmatize mental health issues so they don't get treated, lots of things. But whatever the cause (or causes) it doesn't look like we're handling it well at the moment, does it?
That we can agree on, and perhaps part of the issue is the oversimplification of the (possible) solution. All those things contribute I'm sure, but so does the gun culture that exists in the US that is unlike any other in the western hemisphere.
Goalpost shifting, eh? "Conclusive" to whom? You, the liar?
Conclusive to the actual link your posted you dummy. Did you even read it? Let me spell it out for the guy who is too fucking stupid to read their own reference:
"of course it’s impossible to tell whether..."
"While again it’s not certain whether..."
"We believe that it could have been..."
"it’s possible that the criminal wasn’t planning on killing anyone..."
"This incident of course involves a member of the military, not a civilian, so some may discount it..."
"It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people..."
"again not clear whether he would have killed more people..."
"though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear..."
"though I couldn’t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state..."
Every single example even admits that it is inconclusive but you are too stupid to read.
Innocent people don't shoot at cops, liar. Now go find some "conclusive examples".
Tamir Rice, Micheal Brown, Laquan McDonald
Hand in your nerd card, you're too stupid to be in here....
I think the theory goes like so: There are two kinds of spree shooters
What about the option that society provides an environment that a person never feels the need to shoot up the place? You know like in a most other developed countries? What are they doing differently that this only happens in America?
Already linked it. Now get some integrity, and start doing your own research.
Your link has no conclusive examples of preventing mass shootings. Although it does show how weak your argument it is if that is as good as it gets.
I pulled incident reports from the link that you didn't read, liar. Criminals with arrest warrants who pull out guns to shoot at the cops are not innocent people getting shot, liar.
Yes over 1000 cases, did you read them all or just selectively chose one that suited your argument, then resort back to childish insults because it's not working out for you?
What makes you think the public had any chance to express an opinion about water bottles on planes?
Each time someone hands over a bottle at airport security they have the opportunity to express an opinion. Most choose not to, which is why it still in place.
Democracy doesn't always come with an invitation.
Indeed, now we're looking at a fair and accurate comparison. Another way of looking at these numbers is that getting rid of guns reduces homicides by an additional 8.6 percentage points beyond the 30 percentage point reduction we see from "basically doing nothing" . In other words, "basically doing nothing" is over three times as effective as going "gun-free" when it comes to reducing homicides.
You seem to have misunderstood the numbers.
:)
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Full disclosure: I'm a gun owner that supports a repeal of the second amendment so that the federal government can have the legal authority to prohibit private ownership of chemical, biological, and nuclear arms.
1. The reduction was higher, meaning it's more effective. Doing nothing was 8.6% less effective than doing something 2. Australia is not now, nor has ever been gun free. People still own guns in Australia
3. Australia had gun regulations prior to 1997, these were made stricter in 1997 resulting in a greater decrease of homicide (more importantly a greater reduction in random mass shootings - from some to zero) compared to the US which did nothing and still has them every single day on average.
4. Australia's homicide rate is 3 times lower than the US. So whatever they are doing is working better
So yeah, just restricting guns won't solve the problem by itself, but a comparison of USA vs AUS shows that public policy should get more closely aligned to Australia, if you want similar results. This means improved gun laws, better social welfare, health, education, and dropping NFL and Baseball for Rugby and Cricket
This is what the vast majority of gun crime in the US is. Take away gang members killing each other, and our stats look normal.
Well apart from the random mass shootings of innocent people every single day you mean?
Soldiers, policemen, heroes, etc. The person itself cannot benefit anymore of these 'nice' things but still they will do whatever they think is the right thing. Your statement subsequently cannot cover everyone and every action, and therefor your subsequent statement that people refuse to think seems a bit ironic.
The choice of sacrificing your life in a noble deed, or running away like a coward and living the rest of your life in shame is a no-brainer. We all die eventually, the best exit you can hope for is a glorious one. Soldiers, Policemen and Heroes are the type of of people who recognise this.
Actually, a number of studies in the last decade have shown that this is not the case. Most people will balance self-interest with the interests of the people that they perceive as their tribal group
Which is also self interest, since promoting your group ensures greater security for yourself.
Why? You make a claim with no evidence.
Running a large software company is a business. Running an education program is a business. Running a medical program is a business. Pretending to be James Bond isn't, nor is solving equations.
To be a successful physicist, you have to be very smart, have a deep understanding of various topics, good math skills, good memory, good deduction abilities and the ability to find useful information in a flood of incoming data. All of that seems to be good qualifications for politics.
If you seriously believe that then I can't help you. Science, Arts and Politics are the most most disparate fields as you can get in life. Business falls under politics, as anyone who has graduated past peon worker, or runs their own business can attest to.
I don't mind him helping education. I just wish he would be humble enough to not think he is a genius who knows how to do it right, because that kind of people, especially in education, are a dime a dozen.
This makes no sense. Do you even understand how the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation works? This is not some Dr Evil operation where Bill laughs maniacally while demanding one million dollars. The foundation hires people and organisations who are the experts in their field. The work on Malaria for example is done by real Doctors and Medical researchers, it's not Bill and Melinda in their basement creating their own medicine
For the past century or so, every generation of students had a new "best way" taught to them in university, and once they became teachers it turned out that best way isn't any better than the one before.
My wife is a teacher, and that is false. Newer techniques get better results which is why they get implemented. It why we're still not all sitting around in caves eating insects.
List Joe Blows who have killed innocent bystanders while trying to stop a mass shooter.
List the Joe Blows that have successfully prevented mass shootings with their concealed carry?
Human behavior is the same. A police office is just a Joe blow with special training, A Joe blow without training is not going to perform any better (or do you seriously believe this will be the case?)
Your use of "innocent people" is the exact opposite of the actual definition, liar.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/... If you can't argue using reason, then just start calling names and see how that works out for you...
You are aware that the "all actions are self interested" thing is pretty much a nonsense
Just saying so doesn't make it so...
List how many Joe Blows have killed innocent bystanders when attempting to take down a mass shooter.
You can't. This whole fear of well-meaning gun owners accidentally gunning down bystanders is unfounded.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-... If people who are specially trained can't avoid killing innocent people, then regular Joe has no chance.
Poland had a fully armed military and suffered the same fate. So much for that theory...
You know what genius? When you have a high tide and you get a massive down pour, where do you think that rain is going to go? In to the ocean that is already at it's highest level?
You think that a little rain makes sea levels rise?
Well God takes time out from killing babies in Africa to ensure some American sportsman wins a sports title, so really anything is possible.
Just finished arguing why Australia's gun laws are better than the US, and now I can do the same with prostitution. It's legal, it's regulated and it works.
It takes dedication to get a CCW, and Joe Blow will get sued for millions and become the Public Enemy of America if he screws up.
But will that stop them?
It takes dedication to be a professional sportsmen yet those guys are raping and assaulting people left, right and centre.
Or you live in any developed country other than the USA...
Basically all mass shootings happen in gun free zones...
Except in a war when everyone has a gun you mean. And lots of people die. In fact more people die than outside of war zones where arms are limited.
Let's not omit that important scenario...
San Bernardino is hardly inner city...
See GP - who used Australia as an example of eliminating guns works. And the population increases of the US means it still had a bigger drop in homicides as compared to a gun-free Australia.
Er you might need to check your maths.
Australia's population grew by 33% (from 18 mil + 6 mil), whereas US only grew 16% (274mil + 45mil)
So punch in the numbers:
Australia 1997, 18 mil, 364 homicides = 2.02 deaths per 100k
Australia 2012, 24 mil, 297 homicides = 1.24 deaths per 100k
A reduction of 38.6%
USA 1997, 274 mil, 18208 homicides = 6.65 deaths per 100k
USA 2012, 319 mil, 14827 homicides = 4.65 deaths per 100k
A reduction of 30%
So the US still has a homicide rate over 3x that of Australia.
Also worth noting, Australia isn't gun free. People still own guns, but regulations ensure the firepower is limited, and that the owners responsible people.
I as a regular Joe don't care if drug dealers are killing each other. I also don't care as much if some dysfunctional family member kills their immediate relations. Crimes of passion are something I can have some input into.
What I do care about is some random nutter killing me while I'm minding my own business.
So I'm not sure if those stats are measured, but I'm betting that random homicides, the type where the victim had no prior relationship with the offender, are a lot higher in the US than anywhere else.
In Australia, I believe the number of random mass shootings (4 or more victims) since 1997 is zero.