stop pussy footing around Muslims. Tell them bluntly, they're entitled to their religion, but they're not entitled to force or enforce any of their beliefs and rules on anybody else. Religion is a personal choice. The minute their choice starts to impact others, they need to be warned. If they fail to heed the warning, put them in a cell.
I'm not looking for gun stats. Gun stats are easily available around the world. I want a citation for dave420's claim that the time taken to construct and deploy a weapon is directly proportional to it not being used. Seems like he's just making that claim up. People that want to do harm to others will do harm to others. Timothy McVeigh, Unabomber, and Bath School disaster are examples of people building bombs. Others choose guns, knives, fire, and more.
I was thinking more along the lines of Switzerland. After all, the 2nd amendment was about the people of the United States having the right to defend themselves against a possible repeat of government tyranny with the same weapons that would be used against them.
"to allow law-abiding and sane citizens to obtain guns more easily than criminals or insane people"
Last time I checked, criminals didn't have to do background checks or go through a waiting period before getting their guns....
And there are plenty of knife attacks that left double digit body counts that you're choosing to ignore. If you're going to make the comparison of gun attacks to knife attacks, how about we also include bomb attacks in the comparison? What was worse, the Sandy Hook attack or the Oklahoma City attack? It would seem to me that a gun rampage would be preferable to a bomb. Assume your wonderful gun ban works perfectly, and the next psycho can't get a gun. What's going to be his next weapon of choice, knife or bomb? My guess is they'll be choosing to build bombs. There's a big difference between China and America. It's much easier to get the information on how to make a bomb, as well as get the ingredients, in America. Now on the flip side, what if 20% of the population of America were required to have carry and conceal guns? How do you think this would have affected the Colorado and Connecticut rampages, and how would it affect future rampages?
because, more and more, slashdot has become a dumping ground of any news with a hint of science in it or related to it. It's about flooding content, so people spend more time daily reading stuff that doesn't really matters to them, because they don't want to miss something that does.
I think the main purpose of the cover is to protect the fragile paper within. The expression about not judging books by their covers refers to the fact that you can't actually get an accurate evaluation of the contents of a book by only looking at it's cover. As much as the publishers try to sell the book with an appealing cover, if their idea of appealing doesn't actually appeal to you, whereas the contents of the book would, well, you end up missing out if you judge solely on the appearance of the cover.
I don't think you understood my comment. I was replying to the AC who stated that parent poster lost all credibility by linking to a WND piece. Meaning, he judged the content of that link to be without merit and not worth reading simply because he didn't like or disagreed with the site hosting it. Personally, I think we should be monitoring those that are on these prescriptions much better than we are.
Maybe you have a comprehension problem. I hear that's a side effect of lead poisoning, you should get that checked out. It is quite clear what sjames was arguing. He clearly stated that society poisoned people, and then society punished those same people when the consequences of their poisoning led them to commit violent crime. That's exactly what he's arguing. Why you're referencing other posts in this thread is baffling. I am not referring to any posts other than what sjames wrote. Please reference the original post as well as the various posts in which I have quoted his exact words. It was that argument that I had a problem with. Correlation is not causation, you must know that if you are a regular to slashdot, and if you've read any of the other posters on this subject. I understand that the numbers match up extremely well. What is not understood is why the correlation exists. Does lead poisoning trigger violent behavior? Or does it result in poor decision making? Maybe it impairs an individual's ability to comprehend the long term results of their actions. For all we know, it could be a complex interaction of lead poisoning combined with other external influences, such as smoking, drug use, depression, or who knows what else. We don't know the answer, and for sjames to assume that lead poisoning is directly causing people to commit violent crime is clearly wrong. But that is what he did, and I disagreed with him. Do you agree or disagree with his statement?
I think maybe it's you that should READ what others are saying. sjames, the original poster to which I replied, claimed that "society poisoned those people and THEN punished them for the natural consequences of that poisoning". My post in response merely states that "society" did not actually poison "those people". Society itself was being poisoned, and not everyone that was "poisoned" resorted to violent crime. And trying to insult me by claiming I write like a twelve-year-old is pretty juvenile itself, don't you think? I understand about exposure levels. And I also understand that not everyone that gets poisoned by lead resorts to violent crime. Are you suggesting that there's an exposure level past which the subject is guaranteed to commit violent crime? That seems to be what sjames is arguing, and it is definitely false.
Yes, there is a controversy! You don't have a clue about lead in the environment! All you've done is read about a study that suggests a correlation between lead exposure and violent crime, and you jump to the conclusion that all the violent offenders were unjustly incarcerated because they were poisoned and it's not their fault! Lead was being added to gasoline since the 1920's, long before anyone knew about the hazards. It was being used in plumbing, it was being used to make paints, and it was used in many industrial applications. Not everyone exposed to lead resorts to violent crime! Lead wasn't phased out of gas until the 80's. Therefore, I was exposed to lead, as was anyone else born before 1980 and traveling by car on a daily basis. I haven't committed any violent crimes, nor have a large number of other people exposed to lead. Just because a correlation has been seen, it doesn't excuse the behavior of those who actually commit a violent crime. That's my problem with your posts. You're trying to absolve ALL VIOLENT CRIMINALS from their actions! You said "very real evidence that society poisoned those people and THEN punished them for the natural consequences of that poisoning". There are people who have been poisoned by lead to the point they die from it, yet they did not resort to violent crime. So please spare me your bullshit analogies to Chernobyl or Typhoid Mary. The fact remains that not everyone that is exposed to lead resorts to violent crime. Therefore, there is some personal responsibility involved, and those criminals were RIGHTLY incarcerated!
Are you being deliberately dense? Cars are everywhere. Leaded gas was everywhere. You can't tell me that the majority of the population of New York somehow managed to avoid exposure to the exhaust of the millions of cars on their streets! Just because there's a correlation found between levels of lead and violent crime doesn't mean you can excuse all of the violent offenders for their actions, which sjames is attempting to do! He's claiming that all the violent offenders were poisoned, the poisoning triggered their violent activity, and they were incarcerated, and the incarceration was unjust because it's not their fault! That's fucking bullshit, and you know it!
What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about adding lead to lollipops? You're trying to claim that "society" fed lead to people, those people then committed crimes because of the lead, and then society stuck them in prison. That's a hugely stupid assertion. The entire population of North America was exposed to exhaust from leaded gas combustion. You can't excuse those that committed crimes as being victims. Not everyone exposed committed crimes. Personal responsibility still matters.
No, you're missing the point. If factor X increases the probability of people doing action Y, and the entire population is exposed to factor X, then factor X can't be used as an excuse by the small portion of people that actually do action Y. The difference between those that do action Y and those that don't is personal responsibility!
are you kidding me? The entire western world used leaded gasoline for decades. Everyone was exposed to it. A small percentage of the population engaged in criminal activity and were punished for their criminal activity. You think you can excuse their behavior because there is found to be a correlation between lead and crime? Not a chance! There were plenty more people exposed to lead who didn't engage in criminal activity.
Slashdot Mirror
No, not everyone has to deal with hackers persistently trying to shut down their website because of the content they're posting.
stop pussy footing around Muslims. Tell them bluntly, they're entitled to their religion, but they're not entitled to force or enforce any of their beliefs and rules on anybody else. Religion is a personal choice. The minute their choice starts to impact others, they need to be warned. If they fail to heed the warning, put them in a cell.
I'm not looking for gun stats. Gun stats are easily available around the world. I want a citation for dave420's claim that the time taken to construct and deploy a weapon is directly proportional to it not being used. Seems like he's just making that claim up. People that want to do harm to others will do harm to others. Timothy McVeigh, Unabomber, and Bath School disaster are examples of people building bombs. Others choose guns, knives, fire, and more.
No, not the cold. Think demographics and alcohol.
Situation has already occurred.
Why? For the same reasons Regina, Saskatchewan has a high violent crime rate.
I was thinking more along the lines of Switzerland. After all, the 2nd amendment was about the people of the United States having the right to defend themselves against a possible repeat of government tyranny with the same weapons that would be used against them.
"to allow law-abiding and sane citizens to obtain guns more easily than criminals or insane people"
Last time I checked, criminals didn't have to do background checks or go through a waiting period before getting their guns....
citation please
And there are plenty of knife attacks that left double digit body counts that you're choosing to ignore. If you're going to make the comparison of gun attacks to knife attacks, how about we also include bomb attacks in the comparison? What was worse, the Sandy Hook attack or the Oklahoma City attack? It would seem to me that a gun rampage would be preferable to a bomb. Assume your wonderful gun ban works perfectly, and the next psycho can't get a gun. What's going to be his next weapon of choice, knife or bomb? My guess is they'll be choosing to build bombs. There's a big difference between China and America. It's much easier to get the information on how to make a bomb, as well as get the ingredients, in America. Now on the flip side, what if 20% of the population of America were required to have carry and conceal guns? How do you think this would have affected the Colorado and Connecticut rampages, and how would it affect future rampages?
I stand corrected.
so you've shifted from debating the actual subject to personal attacks. I'll take that as your concession. Have a great day AC.
apostrophe usage
because, more and more, slashdot has become a dumping ground of any news with a hint of science in it or related to it. It's about flooding content, so people spend more time daily reading stuff that doesn't really matters to them, because they don't want to miss something that does.
I think the main purpose of the cover is to protect the fragile paper within. The expression about not judging books by their covers refers to the fact that you can't actually get an accurate evaluation of the contents of a book by only looking at it's cover. As much as the publishers try to sell the book with an appealing cover, if their idea of appealing doesn't actually appeal to you, whereas the contents of the book would, well, you end up missing out if you judge solely on the appearance of the cover.
I don't think you understood my comment. I was replying to the AC who stated that parent poster lost all credibility by linking to a WND piece. Meaning, he judged the content of that link to be without merit and not worth reading simply because he didn't like or disagreed with the site hosting it. Personally, I think we should be monitoring those that are on these prescriptions much better than we are.
Maybe you have a comprehension problem. I hear that's a side effect of lead poisoning, you should get that checked out. It is quite clear what sjames was arguing. He clearly stated that society poisoned people, and then society punished those same people when the consequences of their poisoning led them to commit violent crime. That's exactly what he's arguing. Why you're referencing other posts in this thread is baffling. I am not referring to any posts other than what sjames wrote. Please reference the original post as well as the various posts in which I have quoted his exact words. It was that argument that I had a problem with. Correlation is not causation, you must know that if you are a regular to slashdot, and if you've read any of the other posters on this subject. I understand that the numbers match up extremely well. What is not understood is why the correlation exists. Does lead poisoning trigger violent behavior? Or does it result in poor decision making? Maybe it impairs an individual's ability to comprehend the long term results of their actions. For all we know, it could be a complex interaction of lead poisoning combined with other external influences, such as smoking, drug use, depression, or who knows what else. We don't know the answer, and for sjames to assume that lead poisoning is directly causing people to commit violent crime is clearly wrong. But that is what he did, and I disagreed with him. Do you agree or disagree with his statement?
I think maybe it's you that should READ what others are saying. sjames, the original poster to which I replied, claimed that "society poisoned those people and THEN punished them for the natural consequences of that poisoning". My post in response merely states that "society" did not actually poison "those people". Society itself was being poisoned, and not everyone that was "poisoned" resorted to violent crime. And trying to insult me by claiming I write like a twelve-year-old is pretty juvenile itself, don't you think? I understand about exposure levels. And I also understand that not everyone that gets poisoned by lead resorts to violent crime. Are you suggesting that there's an exposure level past which the subject is guaranteed to commit violent crime? That seems to be what sjames is arguing, and it is definitely false.
So you judge books by their covers, instead of reading them to see if they have any merit?
Yes, there is a controversy! You don't have a clue about lead in the environment! All you've done is read about a study that suggests a correlation between lead exposure and violent crime, and you jump to the conclusion that all the violent offenders were unjustly incarcerated because they were poisoned and it's not their fault! Lead was being added to gasoline since the 1920's, long before anyone knew about the hazards. It was being used in plumbing, it was being used to make paints, and it was used in many industrial applications. Not everyone exposed to lead resorts to violent crime! Lead wasn't phased out of gas until the 80's. Therefore, I was exposed to lead, as was anyone else born before 1980 and traveling by car on a daily basis. I haven't committed any violent crimes, nor have a large number of other people exposed to lead. Just because a correlation has been seen, it doesn't excuse the behavior of those who actually commit a violent crime. That's my problem with your posts. You're trying to absolve ALL VIOLENT CRIMINALS from their actions! You said "very real evidence that society poisoned those people and THEN punished them for the natural consequences of that poisoning". There are people who have been poisoned by lead to the point they die from it, yet they did not resort to violent crime. So please spare me your bullshit analogies to Chernobyl or Typhoid Mary. The fact remains that not everyone that is exposed to lead resorts to violent crime. Therefore, there is some personal responsibility involved, and those criminals were RIGHTLY incarcerated!
Are you being deliberately dense? Cars are everywhere. Leaded gas was everywhere. You can't tell me that the majority of the population of New York somehow managed to avoid exposure to the exhaust of the millions of cars on their streets! Just because there's a correlation found between levels of lead and violent crime doesn't mean you can excuse all of the violent offenders for their actions, which sjames is attempting to do! He's claiming that all the violent offenders were poisoned, the poisoning triggered their violent activity, and they were incarcerated, and the incarceration was unjust because it's not their fault! That's fucking bullshit, and you know it!
What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about adding lead to lollipops? You're trying to claim that "society" fed lead to people, those people then committed crimes because of the lead, and then society stuck them in prison. That's a hugely stupid assertion. The entire population of North America was exposed to exhaust from leaded gas combustion. You can't excuse those that committed crimes as being victims. Not everyone exposed committed crimes. Personal responsibility still matters.
No, you're missing the point. If factor X increases the probability of people doing action Y, and the entire population is exposed to factor X, then factor X can't be used as an excuse by the small portion of people that actually do action Y. The difference between those that do action Y and those that don't is personal responsibility!
are you kidding me? The entire western world used leaded gasoline for decades. Everyone was exposed to it. A small percentage of the population engaged in criminal activity and were punished for their criminal activity. You think you can excuse their behavior because there is found to be a correlation between lead and crime? Not a chance! There were plenty more people exposed to lead who didn't engage in criminal activity.
I'd mod you up if I had any points!