The real damage will come when the crash rates for self-driving cars are so much less, and the costs of insurance drop. That'll destroy the insurance industry.
Between that and single-payer national health care, we could end up with no insurance, but better coverage.
It's a very narrow customer loyalty program that was copied by someone else. It's not the act of saying "thank you" that's at issue, but naming a customer loyalty program with a confusingly similar name to another customer loyalty program.
I set you up with a perfect "I didn't say anything anti-gun", and you had a chance to quote anything I said that was anti-gun, to show me to be wrong. You couldn't. So off on 1,000,000 tangets, to kill us with the Chewbacca Defense.
All you have are your lies. You claimed I was posting anti-gun crap by challenging your lies, which was, itself a lie. Murders will keep increasing because the gun-nuts would rather have dead people than an honest conversation about the causes of murder.
Nope. The law didn't "expire" as you imply. The effect of the law did. The law (incuding all the definitions) is still valid. The "ban" was sunsetted, not the law.
You should learn the basics before displaying that you don't know what you are talking about.
France is a great example of a country with a strict gun ban and more mas shootings and mas shooting deaths per-capita than the US. How trendy!
A standard statistical tool is is to exclude the largest and smallest values, to eliminate statistical outliers. France has one very significant stastical outlier. That's all. When you "correct" for that, they are once again, way way ahead of the USA. You might as well include 9/11 as a "mass shooting" in the US for the same statistical valididty as the numbers you refer to.
Commonwealth states are very much independent sovereign nations, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria and so on. They maintain links to the Queen in ceremony only, she and those around here hold absolutely no actual political power over these sovereign nations whatsoever.
Correct for Nigeria, but not Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. But I'm sure that you'll find a way to make your wong statement my error again.
You know you can just post "Sorry Xest, it looks like you're right" yeah?
I'm sorry Zest, but it looks like you are a fucking idiot. "Although held by individuals, all Canadian passports remain property of the Queen of Canada (the Government of Canada), as stated on the inside front cover of the booklet." The Queen *is* the government, and the sole authority given for the issuance of Canadian passports is The Queen. Same (or similar) for Australian and New Zealand passports.
So, to remove statistical outliers, remove the single largest and smallest from each and re-calculate. Also, why "public" mass shootings and not "all" mass shootings? Looks like statistical cheery-picking to get the answer you want, not a sum of all "mass shootings" and letting the numbers speak for themselves.
Wikipedia also lists the term "assault weapon" used before then (though much more recently), though it did get much more popular with the Brady Bill and the debate around that.
What he said (and which is undeniably true) is that strict gun laws don't do anything to make people safer; simply because no matter how many laws you pass, the ONLY people who will OBEY them are the same ones that will NEVER BE SHOOTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Now it's you being deliberately obtuse. In most mass shootings, the shooters got the gun legally (and often after having planned the attack). If the guns were hard to get, many wouldn't have happened. The legal guns are used for mass shootings, so limit the availability of legal guns and you'll eliminate those. Yes, I know, you'll assert that if you make guns illegal, more people will have them, which is insane. Almost all "illegal" guns were legal, until they were stolen. So eliminate legal guns, and you eliminate illegal guns.
That solves the problem.
Can you even IMAGINE how many people wished they could have had a gun materialize in their hands at that point, and HOW MANY LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED?!?
Like was said earlier, those with guns were killed first. Anyone who could conjure a gun would have died sooner. Mass shootings are almost never stopped by an armed civilian.
Don't forget that, though it's high in the list, suicide is under-reported. A drug overdose with suicide note is a drug OD, rarely, if ever, a suicide. A one-vehicle car crash with suicide note is *never* suicide, and almost always "speed related" and "alcohol involved". Many of the accidental drownings are suicide as well. Drugs (including alcohol) in a bathtub, followed by an OD or near-OD that results in drowning is much more likely to be ruled "accidental drowning" than "suicide". And last I checked, assisted suicide is still a medical complication (more rarely, a homicide).
Because churches disown suicides, and insurance often won't pay out, the US standard is to avoid ruling suicide.
That the statistics are deliberately tampered with by those collecting them doesn't make them very reliable. But the large amount of deaths from firearms would be lower without guns, even if people would try different ways of killing themselves or others without guns, those other means are less lethal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 7-Eleven is a US company. The owners changed in the '90s when Southland went bankrupt, but the HQ is, and has always been in the US (unless you count the holding company, who changed their name to match).
For high value targets that might have motivated attackers, relying on really, really obscure probably is a really, really bad idea. But as one layer in an otherwise tough, multilayered security scheme?
It's no better than going from DES to double DES. 56 key length equivalent to 57 key length equivalent. Is it better? Yes. But it's not even worth the trouble of implementing it. I know more than one person that keeps their keys in their car, and the car unlocked, because nobody would expect that.
So if you want to persuade me that guns are causing violence,
No true statistic. If you don't like the implications, you attack it. Reality is getting in the way of your opinion.
Here [crimeresearch.org] is a report with data that strongly suggests that mass murderers prefer gun-free zones.
Again, more "no true statistic". over half of all mass shootings are not in gun free zones, but when you exclude homes, the number changes. Why exclude homes? Because that gives the answer you want. The excuses/justifications are just there to make yourself feel better.
Well, how could anyone argue with an analysis like that!
Well you obviously couldn't. You just used the wookie defense. There was nothing in there that addressed the facts. Lead in the environment is decreasing. The attack on poor has decreased since the lies of "crack babies" were used to destroy many lives. Are you disputing the facts? Ir just go off on another sarcastic rant to avoid the facts?
No, there aren't. Steganography may be better. You won't know to look unless you know to look, but that's not going to keep it safe if anyone bothers to look. Same as a key under a rock.
Slashdot Mirror
The real damage will come when the crash rates for self-driving cars are so much less, and the costs of insurance drop. That'll destroy the insurance industry.
Between that and single-payer national health care, we could end up with no insurance, but better coverage.
It's a very narrow customer loyalty program that was copied by someone else. It's not the act of saying "thank you" that's at issue, but naming a customer loyalty program with a confusingly similar name to another customer loyalty program.
You're not being honest, though;
I set you up with a perfect "I didn't say anything anti-gun", and you had a chance to quote anything I said that was anti-gun, to show me to be wrong. You couldn't. So off on 1,000,000 tangets, to kill us with the Chewbacca Defense.
All you have are your lies. You claimed I was posting anti-gun crap by challenging your lies, which was, itself a lie. Murders will keep increasing because the gun-nuts would rather have dead people than an honest conversation about the causes of murder.
Really? you're still trying to deny it in the face of 3 copies of your direct quote.
You are the one denying your own quote.
You can keep pretending I ever denied SOME Commonwealth countries have the Queen as a monarch, but you'll still be wrong, because I never did.
3 of 4 of your examples did. Did you even read your own words?
I never posted anything "anti-gun". Being honest gets me accused of being "anti" this and "pro" that, often at the same time.
Pro honesty is anti-gun. If that's what you think, then you are sabotaging your own cause.
Yup.The truth is unaffected by your prejudice.
You are happy with dead people, so long as you get to play with your toys. Facts and reality don't matter.
Nope. The law didn't "expire" as you imply. The effect of the law did. The law (incuding all the definitions) is still valid. The "ban" was sunsetted, not the law.
You should learn the basics before displaying that you don't know what you are talking about.
France is a great example of a country with a strict gun ban and more mas shootings and mas shooting deaths per-capita than the US. How trendy!
A standard statistical tool is is to exclude the largest and smallest values, to eliminate statistical outliers. France has one very significant stastical outlier. That's all. When you "correct" for that, they are once again, way way ahead of the USA. You might as well include 9/11 as a "mass shooting" in the US for the same statistical valididty as the numbers you refer to.
The trend is the important thing, not the absolute. Try to think logically, rather than worshiping a god named Gun. You fanaticism is showing.
The ban on assault weapons may have ended, but not the name.
Are you unfamiliar with a concept called "books"?
Commonwealth states are very much independent sovereign nations, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria and so on. They maintain links to the Queen in ceremony only, she and those around here hold absolutely no actual political power over these sovereign nations whatsoever.
Correct for Nigeria, but not Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. But I'm sure that you'll find a way to make your wong statement my error again.
You know you can just post "Sorry Xest, it looks like you're right" yeah?
I'm sorry Zest, but it looks like you are a fucking idiot. "Although held by individuals, all Canadian passports remain property of the Queen of Canada (the Government of Canada), as stated on the inside front cover of the booklet." The Queen *is* the government, and the sole authority given for the issuance of Canadian passports is The Queen. Same (or similar) for Australian and New Zealand passports.
You do realize that outlawing guns won't get rid of them, right?
You realize that your opinion is contradicted by reality, right?
So, to remove statistical outliers, remove the single largest and smallest from each and re-calculate. Also, why "public" mass shootings and not "all" mass shootings? Looks like statistical cheery-picking to get the answer you want, not a sum of all "mass shootings" and letting the numbers speak for themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wikipedia indicates "Assault Rifle" was named in WWII, well before 1992.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wikipedia also lists the term "assault weapon" used before then (though much more recently), though it did get much more popular with the Brady Bill and the debate around that.
It is an assault weapon, but not an assault rifle. You should learn the difference before you correct others.
What he said (and which is undeniably true) is that strict gun laws don't do anything to make people safer; simply because no matter how many laws you pass, the ONLY people who will OBEY them are the same ones that will NEVER BE SHOOTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Now it's you being deliberately obtuse. In most mass shootings, the shooters got the gun legally (and often after having planned the attack). If the guns were hard to get, many wouldn't have happened. The legal guns are used for mass shootings, so limit the availability of legal guns and you'll eliminate those. Yes, I know, you'll assert that if you make guns illegal, more people will have them, which is insane. Almost all "illegal" guns were legal, until they were stolen. So eliminate legal guns, and you eliminate illegal guns.
That solves the problem.
Can you even IMAGINE how many people wished they could have had a gun materialize in their hands at that point, and HOW MANY LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED?!?
Like was said earlier, those with guns were killed first. Anyone who could conjure a gun would have died sooner. Mass shootings are almost never stopped by an armed civilian.
Yeah, the subculture of "criminals" that's larger in the US than anywhere else. Convict everyone, then you can exclude them from the statistics.
And when an American born American Citizen kills someone, it's the fault of immigration, so the conservatives aren't any closer to the truth.
Don't forget that, though it's high in the list, suicide is under-reported. A drug overdose with suicide note is a drug OD, rarely, if ever, a suicide. A one-vehicle car crash with suicide note is *never* suicide, and almost always "speed related" and "alcohol involved". Many of the accidental drownings are suicide as well. Drugs (including alcohol) in a bathtub, followed by an OD or near-OD that results in drowning is much more likely to be ruled "accidental drowning" than "suicide". And last I checked, assisted suicide is still a medical complication (more rarely, a homicide).
Because churches disown suicides, and insurance often won't pay out, the US standard is to avoid ruling suicide.
That the statistics are deliberately tampered with by those collecting them doesn't make them very reliable. But the large amount of deaths from firearms would be lower without guns, even if people would try different ways of killing themselves or others without guns, those other means are less lethal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 7-Eleven is a US company. The owners changed in the '90s when Southland went bankrupt, but the HQ is, and has always been in the US (unless you count the holding company, who changed their name to match).
For high value targets that might have motivated attackers, relying on really, really obscure probably is a really, really bad idea. But as one layer in an otherwise tough, multilayered security scheme?
It's no better than going from DES to double DES. 56 key length equivalent to 57 key length equivalent. Is it better? Yes. But it's not even worth the trouble of implementing it. I know more than one person that keeps their keys in their car, and the car unlocked, because nobody would expect that.
So if you want to persuade me that guns are causing violence,
No true statistic. If you don't like the implications, you attack it. Reality is getting in the way of your opinion.
Here [crimeresearch.org] is a report with data that strongly suggests that mass murderers prefer gun-free zones.
Again, more "no true statistic". over half of all mass shootings are not in gun free zones, but when you exclude homes, the number changes. Why exclude homes? Because that gives the answer you want. The excuses/justifications are just there to make yourself feel better.
Well, how could anyone argue with an analysis like that!
Well you obviously couldn't. You just used the wookie defense. There was nothing in there that addressed the facts. Lead in the environment is decreasing. The attack on poor has decreased since the lies of "crack babies" were used to destroy many lives. Are you disputing the facts? Ir just go off on another sarcastic rant to avoid the facts?
No, there aren't. Steganography may be better. You won't know to look unless you know to look, but that's not going to keep it safe if anyone bothers to look. Same as a key under a rock.