Restricting the comparison to only "rifle murders" is appropriate if arguing against a "assault weapon" or "rifle" ban.
Sure. That's why I gave 3 points not just one. The other two points debunk the rifle claim. The point that there are other guns besides rifles was worth making too though.
If someone wants to ban all rifles to "save lives", why not restrict blunt objects (including hammers)?
As I said, rocks are blunt objects. As are hundreds of normal household objects. So no, it's not the same magnitude of problem. Indeed it's not a problem at all. Eliminating objects who's entire purpose is killing people rapidly is not equivalent to ridding the world of objects that could be used to kill people slowly.
The extent to which gun-nuts will come up with stupid arguments never ceases to amaze.
If it's purely a webview encapsulated in an app, then of course it's worthless. But most web apps aren't that. They have more functionality than a web page.
There are examples of simple webview apps on iOS, but it's a tiny proportion.
There are roughly the same number of road deaths as gun deaths in the USA each year. Yet road transport has has practical, important use for most people every single day.
The only excuses for guns are the hobbies of hunting and target shooting. It's not worth it.
When are you going to go after the hammer nuts? After all, more people were killed in 2011 with hammers than were killed with rifles.
Another gun-nut factoid that isn't actually true.
1) They claim it comes from FBI figures. In fact the FBI don't publish figures on homicide by hammer. They have figures on homicide by blunt objects, for which they give examples as (hammers, clubs, etc.) So if I kill someone by hitting them over the head with a candlestick, lead pipe, chair, rock, ashtray, club or whatever, that too will be included in the figures the gun-nuts are claiming is "hammers".
2) Every single type of murder involving any type of blunt object when added together comes to slightly more than the number of homicides by rifle. Of course add in all the other varieties of gun, and you're up to about 35 times the numebr of blunt object murders.
3) In fact the number of rifle murder themselves may outnumber the number of blunt object murders. They have "Other guns or type not stated" stats of 1684. Many of those may well be rifles.
All of us who shoot really want to go out some day in a blaze of glory shooting preschoolers with grenade launchers, leaving nothing but a thin red mist of former preschoolers in our wake.
Not all of you. But some of you do. And that's what makes it worthwhile to control your guns. Because innocent people's lives are more important than a hobby.
The point being made by 3d printing a 30 round mag is that such enforcement is impossible.
And the point being made by my suggestion of making it a terrorist organisation and pursuing and prosecuting it's members is that enforcement *is* possible.
If it's all about need (I must have missed the memo) nobody needs computers, TVs, hand-held phones, heck, printing presses; we can go back to hunter-gatherer societies secure in the knowledge that nobody has anything they don't need.
Your irrational definition of need is noted.
You are welcome to give up your own freedom. You are not welcome to give up mine.
No one needs your permission. The NRA is a powerful lobby, but they still represent a minority. The democratic majority want more gun control.
I suggest "Defense Distributed" is classified as a terrorist organisation, and it's members appropriately pursued and prosecuted. If there's a law which limits magazine size, and these guys are not only circumventing it, but encouraging and enabling others to do so, that's enough justification.
1 -- they learned chess mostly/exclusively by playing against a machine rather than against human opponents. Then their strategy would mostly be informed by or similar to the type of gameplay which they have observed kicking their own ass as they learned to play. Thus they might "play like a computer" because they have internalized the computer's algorithms as they learned to play chess.
Not possible. The cheater made exactly the same moves as the chess program Houdini 2.0c. Not "play like a computer", but play identical to a specific version of an actual computer program. With the exception of the opening moves, which of course are just a random choice from the usual standard openings.
But how does the remote computer know what move the cheater's opponent made? You must also describe a mechanism whereby the cheating chess player is able to transmit the opponent's move back to the remote computer.
Dead simple. The moves were broadcast in real time on the internet by the game organisers. This is apparently a common practice for chess tournaments, just as it is for sports. And we can be pretty sure that that's the way that this part of the cheating was done, because in the penultimate game they switched off the internet broadcast, and that was one of the two games which the cheat lost.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no evidence for that. And indeed looking around the world, in countries that are not war zones, one doesn't see that at all.
taking us one more step down the same pathway as Hitler and Stalin did for their people
Hitler and Stalin did not presage their massacres with gun control. Quite the contrary.
What was it about that fact that there are no published "hammer homicide rate" figures that you didn't understand.
Restricting the comparison to only "rifle murders" is appropriate if arguing against a "assault weapon" or "rifle" ban.
Sure. That's why I gave 3 points not just one. The other two points debunk the rifle claim. The point that there are other guns besides rifles was worth making too though.
If someone wants to ban all rifles to "save lives", why not restrict blunt objects (including hammers)?
As I said, rocks are blunt objects. As are hundreds of normal household objects. So no, it's not the same magnitude of problem. Indeed it's not a problem at all. Eliminating objects who's entire purpose is killing people rapidly is not equivalent to ridding the world of objects that could be used to kill people slowly.
The extent to which gun-nuts will come up with stupid arguments never ceases to amaze.
If it's purely a webview encapsulated in an app, then of course it's worthless. But most web apps aren't that. They have more functionality than a web page.
There are examples of simple webview apps on iOS, but it's a tiny proportion.
And how is this question relevant here vs. every other app store boasting the same 1:1,000 ratio of good to worthless apps?
Well for a start, it would mean that Blackberry has 15 good apps, vs 700+ good apps on iOS and Android.
No, I believe it should be a law, just as it was between 1994-2004. It's nothing to do with dislike of people, it's behaviour, just as I already said.
I mean you can say I dislike burglars too. But the reason I want them prosecuted is because of their behaviour.
But YOU wanting to control OUR guns is bullshit.
Lets be clear, I want to eliminate your guns.
Thats like me wanting to control your driving.
There are roughly the same number of road deaths as gun deaths in the USA each year. Yet road transport has has practical, important use for most people every single day.
The only excuses for guns are the hobbies of hunting and target shooting. It's not worth it.
The founding fathers were men, not gods.
And this isn't about disliking someone. This is about disliking a behaviour - as is all just law.
Being a member of a terrorist organisation.
When are you going to go after the hammer nuts? After all, more people were killed in 2011 with hammers than were killed with rifles.
Another gun-nut factoid that isn't actually true.
1) They claim it comes from FBI figures. In fact the FBI don't publish figures on homicide by hammer. They have figures on homicide by blunt objects, for which they give examples as (hammers, clubs, etc.) So if I kill someone by hitting them over the head with a candlestick, lead pipe, chair, rock, ashtray, club or whatever, that too will be included in the figures the gun-nuts are claiming is "hammers".
2) Every single type of murder involving any type of blunt object when added together comes to slightly more than the number of homicides by rifle. Of course add in all the other varieties of gun, and you're up to about 35 times the numebr of blunt object murders.
3) In fact the number of rifle murder themselves may outnumber the number of blunt object murders. They have "Other guns or type not stated" stats of 1684. Many of those may well be rifles.
All of us who shoot really want to go out some day in a blaze of glory shooting preschoolers with grenade launchers, leaving nothing but a thin red mist of former preschoolers in our wake.
Not all of you. But some of you do. And that's what makes it worthwhile to control your guns. Because innocent people's lives are more important than a hobby.
I like the 'Breaking Bad' approach. Get the morons trying to make Ricin. That almost always results in dead psychos.
Last I saw Walt and Jesse were still alive.
The point being made by 3d printing a 30 round mag is that such enforcement is impossible.
And the point being made by my suggestion of making it a terrorist organisation and pursuing and prosecuting it's members is that enforcement *is* possible.
It's a method of circumventing gun control laws. Gun control laws are about saving lives.
Just an extension of the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" bullshit. No one but gun nuts themselves are taken in by such nonsense.
If it's all about need (I must have missed the memo) nobody needs computers, TVs, hand-held phones, heck, printing presses; we can go back to hunter-gatherer societies secure in the knowledge that nobody has anything they don't need.
Your irrational definition of need is noted.
You are welcome to give up your own freedom. You are not welcome to give up mine.
No one needs your permission. The NRA is a powerful lobby, but they still represent a minority. The democratic majority want more gun control.
The Virginia Tech shooter only had 10-round magazines and he did plenty of damage before killing himself.
No shit. No one's saying 10 round magazines aren't lethal. Just that 30 round magazines are more lethal.
So no, these rules would have zero effect on killers but would serve to disarm lawful gun owners.
Logic failure on your part.
Statistically that means mass shootings don't even happen.
Your lack of care is noted. I care even less for your gun hobby. It's not worth the lives it costs.
(a) not a single one of the new regulations being proposed would have stopped any of these mass shootings
It'd slow them up. Meaning less people shot by the time law enforcement turn up and end it.
For sure, if it isn't illegal already. There are plenty of other things which are illegal to manufacture at home. Such as various forms of drug.
I suggest "Defense Distributed" is classified as a terrorist organisation, and it's members appropriately pursued and prosecuted. If there's a law which limits magazine size, and these guys are not only circumventing it, but encouraging and enabling others to do so, that's enough justification.
Media piracy doesn't kill people.
(As opposed to seafaring piracy.)
1 -- they learned chess mostly/exclusively by playing against a machine rather than against human opponents. Then their strategy would mostly be informed by or similar to the type of gameplay which they have observed kicking their own ass as they learned to play. Thus they might "play like a computer" because they have internalized the computer's algorithms as they learned to play chess.
Not possible. The cheater made exactly the same moves as the chess program Houdini 2.0c. Not "play like a computer", but play identical to a specific version of an actual computer program. With the exception of the opening moves, which of course are just a random choice from the usual standard openings.
Of course it doesn't. You don't imagine the illuminati give away their secrets do you?
I've got a bridge to sell you. It's a very nice bridge. A Neo-Bridge in fact. And today I can give you a special offer on the price.
But how does the remote computer know what move the cheater's opponent made? You must also describe a mechanism whereby the cheating chess player is able to transmit the opponent's move back to the remote computer.
Dead simple. The moves were broadcast in real time on the internet by the game organisers. This is apparently a common practice for chess tournaments, just as it is for sports. And we can be pretty sure that that's the way that this part of the cheating was done, because in the penultimate game they switched off the internet broadcast, and that was one of the two games which the cheat lost.