As if there isnt room to talk about both, especially since increased gun control strongly correlates with a safer population and thus seems like a viable solution. For opiates crisis, we don't have a ton of good real world examples of solutions that I can think of off the top of my head.
"The only prayer for them to survive was to have such a vast membership that they could mine them for data to sell and/or control the flow of people to movie theaters in such a way that they became the middle-men that theaters would have to partner with and give discounts towards."
That's only possible if theaters figure out a way to monetize whatever data they might get from them which is not a guarantee at all. Really they'd have to be able to make a shit ton of money off user data to make up for the necessarily large MoviePass user base that would be needed in this scenario and off the top of my head I don't see how that would work.
Because you're comparing a third world country to a first. It's practically a sociological fact that high poverty or wealth inequality breeds crime. This is why you never hear a reasonable person making the comparison you are trying to make here.
That's only true for small parts of Sub Saharan Africa ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and suggesting differences in ethnicity are on the same level as the differences between the two sexes is what's "silly" around here.
it would be a long drawn out solution but it would most certainly work in the end. Most guns not voluntarily turned in would turn up for police over time. Australia is a real world example of a country which relatively recently highly restricted gun ownership to a high degree of success.
In the short term it's possible it might hurt but it's stupid to keep doing something stupid because the solution would hurt for a while.
"Looking at the numbers, the elephant in the room as the biggest factor is race, not guns.
If you do a more fair comparison, the homicide rates of whites in the US to other developed countries, the difference is much less, but the US whites (males of course) have "only" double the homicide rate.""
No, it's not race it's poverty. Non-whites are far more likely to live in poverty in this country and the fact that poverty breeds crime is about as close as you get to a sociological fact. This is why you generally don't compare third world to first on crime statistics, the large poverty driven crime skew makes any comparison useless.
There is no magic "crime gene" that makes non-whites more crime prone in this country.
"Bear in mind that in all cases, random mass-killing by assault rifle, truck, or any weapon, make up only a tiny proportion of homicides. So the "vehicle attack" argument is almost irrelevant to the broader question of gun homicide."
"Yeah because the real problem here isn't the psychopathic asshole that wanted to hurt people just because he lost a videogame, its really all the fault of the tool he used. And making something illegal has already been proven to work so well to get rid of it."
First world countries with stricter gun control laws then us universally have homicide rates 4-5 times less than ours ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) so yes, in this case limiting the tool does seem to do an awful lot of good.
You conservative morons make me laugh. You refuse to look at real life things that work extremely well in almost every other first world nation like gun control or socialized medicine (as a country we pay twice or more percapita for our health care relative to any other country with socialized medicine) because it disagrees with your ideology.
Ha. After having been to that country about a half dozen times I feel like I can say I'm sure they were happy to see you go.
Also, the dismantling of a colonial empire to allow the formally subjugated to rule themselves is not a bad thing. In fact, a people's inherent natural right to self rule is why we revolted.
But with far less guns in the model of most other first world nations the shooter would most likely never have been able to get a gun and no one would have been killed at all... but as that doesn't align with the anti-gun control narrative you wish to project, you probably leave that out...
" Yes, the availability of guns in the US makes the likelihood of a gun as the weapon of choice go up, but the vehicle attacks that have happened all over the world demonstrate that someone sufficiently demented will find a way to kill and maim lots of people. "
If we had a similar homicide rate to other first world countries you'd have a good point. The problem is that we have a homicide rate several times higher then the next closest first world countries. Clearly people aren't finding other good ways to kill each other.
You're missing the point of a gun free zone. People are not retarded and think that it magically creates a place that guns can never enter (I'm fairly certain the above poster was being sarcastic and you didn't get the joke). Gun free zones exist so that the second a gun is noticed the cops can be called. There's no delays wondering about the person's motives are because they are breaking the law just by having a gun in that place.
It also creates an environment where people don't have to feel intimated by others (good business sense for a restaurant). Let me tell you from personal experience there's nothing like being in an open carry state, having a minor disagreement with some one and having them draw attention to the fact that they are carrying a gun in that context.
We have a regular old homicide rate multiple full percentage points higher then the next closest first world nation. I'm not sure where you got it in your head that we have a low homicide rate but that's not anywhere near true by first world standards.
Well if you RTFS it turns out a person shot a ton of other people. It pretty much sounds like almost every other mass shooting we've ever had. Sure, it might turn out to be terrorists or something but as of when this article went up on slashdot that was seeming pretty unlikely.
My point still stands. Our homicide rate is multiple full percentage points higher than the next closest first world nation that has stricter gun control laws and guess what? Our gun violence rate is through the roof too. It's great people have also used guns to defend themselves but that doesnt change the fact that they are a net drag on our nation's safety.
What a surprise, a right winger who the second gun control comes up starts slandering other people rather than having a civilized discussion on the topic.
And what better time is there to talk about gun control then after a mass shooting? If a bunch of people burn to death in a building fire should we not be able to talk about fire safety?
That's great. Now if we didnt have the highest homicide rate of any first world nation by a very sizeable margin I might think you have a good point. But we do so you don't.
"Attempting to disarm the public means discarding the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people. It also means that you disarm law-abiding citizens, while criminals can go right ahead and arm themselves (Anders Brevik, for example)."
Of course the very reason criminals can so easily get guns in this country is because we're awash in them. All you have to do is put your head up and look around at every other first world nation with stricter gun laws than ours. They all have lower homocide rates.
All of our guns are most certainly not making us safer in this country
Why does this company get so much media attention? The second I heard about what it was offering and at what prices I immediately began thinking "90's tech boom bullshit". Remember the company that wanted to make a business out of home delivery of pet food and even aired super bowl commercials? Movie Pass just seemed like more of that to me.
I mean, unlimited movies a month for the price of one movie of month? Guess who's going to sign up for that! People who see more than one movie a month or want to. Guess who isn't going to sign up for this? Everyone who doesn't or doesn't want to. The only way this was a money making enterprise is if they got a lot of people to sign up who didn't watch movies very often and most people just aren't that stupid.
Anybody who put money in any long term manner into such a ridiculously conceived business is too stupid to deserve the money they lost. They might as well have given it to a Nigerian prince.
I never got this show. At the urging of co-workers i made it through about 2.5 random episodes and just could not get into it. All the characters felt whiney and neurotic but not in a funny way (or even in a way I sympathize with) as I've seen other shows pull off, just pathetic and incredibly stupid. Really, I didn't find a single character likeable and the show didn't seem to be structured for "fun to hate".
"I don't know what your point is. My point is the study makes no distinction between full time workers and part time workers. It's dishonest."
My point is that it doesn't really matter because it's a massive difference either way. You pretty much admit as much in your next sentence.
"Of course even if you took just full time workers into account the CEO makes a lot more than the typical worker. So what? The CEO is running a company with 375,000 employees and franchises in 100 countries.
No one is complaining about "a lot more". $500k a year would be a lot more. $1 million a year is a lot more. $21.7m is massively more, especially in such a low paying industry.
"A typical employee might be making burgers and taking out the trash. It's just a pointless comparison."
Another way to look at it is that a typical employee might be trying to feed themselves and a family on those wages. Guess how well those kids are likely to turn out? Not only would the family very likely to be a social burden costing us all money at that wage level (even single people would) but the children would be much more likely to turn out as such as well with parents who would have no time for parenting while they work multiple jobs. Then there's the fact that at those wage levels the federal government is effectively subsidizing McDonald's because of this. I think there are a lot of points to be made on the subject of this comparison.
"Would anyone bother to compare the average NFL player salary against the average concession stand vendor? Or rock stars against the roadies? It's just meaningless."
People aren't making those comparisons because they are much smaller employers than fast food, not because there aren't massive differentiation's there as well.
Slashdot Mirror
As if there isnt room to talk about both, especially since increased gun control strongly correlates with a safer population and thus seems like a viable solution. For opiates crisis, we don't have a ton of good real world examples of solutions that I can think of off the top of my head.
"The only prayer for them to survive was to have such a vast membership that they could mine them for data to sell and/or control the flow of people to movie theaters in such a way that they became the middle-men that theaters would have to partner with and give discounts towards."
That's only possible if theaters figure out a way to monetize whatever data they might get from them which is not a guarantee at all. Really they'd have to be able to make a shit ton of money off user data to make up for the necessarily large MoviePass user base that would be needed in this scenario and off the top of my head I don't see how that would work.
Because you're comparing a third world country to a first. It's practically a sociological fact that high poverty or wealth inequality breeds crime. This is why you never hear a reasonable person making the comparison you are trying to make here.
That's only true for small parts of Sub Saharan Africa ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and suggesting differences in ethnicity are on the same level as the differences between the two sexes is what's "silly" around here.
it would be a long drawn out solution but it would most certainly work in the end. Most guns not voluntarily turned in would turn up for police over time. Australia is a real world example of a country which relatively recently highly restricted gun ownership to a high degree of success.
In the short term it's possible it might hurt but it's stupid to keep doing something stupid because the solution would hurt for a while.
"Looking at the numbers, the elephant in the room as the biggest factor is race, not guns.
If you do a more fair comparison, the homicide rates of whites in the US to other developed countries, the difference is much less, but the US whites (males of course) have "only" double the homicide rate.""
No, it's not race it's poverty. Non-whites are far more likely to live in poverty in this country and the fact that poverty breeds crime is about as close as you get to a sociological fact. This is why you generally don't compare third world to first on crime statistics, the large poverty driven crime skew makes any comparison useless.
There is no magic "crime gene" that makes non-whites more crime prone in this country.
"Bear in mind that in all cases, random mass-killing by assault rifle, truck, or any weapon, make up only a tiny proportion of homicides.
So the "vehicle attack" argument is almost irrelevant to the broader question of gun homicide."
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
Sick burn brah!
Hey, I'm just trying to get you to get your story straight.
"Yeah because the real problem here isn't the psychopathic asshole that wanted to hurt people just because he lost a videogame, its really all the fault of the tool he used.
And making something illegal has already been proven to work so well to get rid of it."
First world countries with stricter gun control laws then us universally have homicide rates 4-5 times less than ours ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) so yes, in this case limiting the tool does seem to do an awful lot of good.
You conservative morons make me laugh. You refuse to look at real life things that work extremely well in almost every other first world nation like gun control or socialized medicine (as a country we pay twice or more percapita for our health care relative to any other country with socialized medicine) because it disagrees with your ideology.
Ha. After having been to that country about a half dozen times I feel like I can say I'm sure they were happy to see you go.
Also, the dismantling of a colonial empire to allow the formally subjugated to rule themselves is not a bad thing. In fact, a people's inherent natural right to self rule is why we revolted.
But with far less guns in the model of most other first world nations the shooter would most likely never have been able to get a gun and no one would have been killed at all... but as that doesn't align with the anti-gun control narrative you wish to project, you probably leave that out...
" Yes, the availability of guns in the US makes the likelihood of a gun as the weapon of choice go up, but the vehicle attacks that have happened all over the world demonstrate that someone sufficiently demented will find a way to kill and maim lots of people. "
If we had a similar homicide rate to other first world countries you'd have a good point. The problem is that we have a homicide rate several times higher then the next closest first world countries. Clearly people aren't finding other good ways to kill each other.
You're missing the point of a gun free zone. People are not retarded and think that it magically creates a place that guns can never enter (I'm fairly certain the above poster was being sarcastic and you didn't get the joke). Gun free zones exist so that the second a gun is noticed the cops can be called. There's no delays wondering about the person's motives are because they are breaking the law just by having a gun in that place.
It also creates an environment where people don't have to feel intimated by others (good business sense for a restaurant). Let me tell you from personal experience there's nothing like being in an open carry state, having a minor disagreement with some one and having them draw attention to the fact that they are carrying a gun in that context.
No, I meant what I said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We have a regular old homicide rate multiple full percentage points higher then the next closest first world nation. I'm not sure where you got it in your head that we have a low homicide rate but that's not anywhere near true by first world standards.
Nice, can't beat'em so call them Russian. A sure sign of a strong intellect.
Well if you RTFS it turns out a person shot a ton of other people. It pretty much sounds like almost every other mass shooting we've ever had. Sure, it might turn out to be terrorists or something but as of when this article went up on slashdot that was seeming pretty unlikely.
"What's your next guess?"
My point still stands. Our homicide rate is multiple full percentage points higher than the next closest first world nation that has stricter gun control laws and guess what? Our gun violence rate is through the roof too. It's great people have also used guns to defend themselves but that doesnt change the fact that they are a net drag on our nation's safety.
What a surprise, a right winger who the second gun control comes up starts slandering other people rather than having a civilized discussion on the topic.
And what better time is there to talk about gun control then after a mass shooting? If a bunch of people burn to death in a building fire should we not be able to talk about fire safety?
That's great. Now if we didnt have the highest homicide rate of any first world nation by a very sizeable margin I might think you have a good point. But we do so you don't.
"Attempting to disarm the public means discarding the natural advantage of good people outnumbering bad people. It also means that you disarm law-abiding citizens, while criminals can go right ahead and arm themselves (Anders Brevik, for example)."
Of course the very reason criminals can so easily get guns in this country is because we're awash in them. All you have to do is put your head up and look around at every other first world nation with stricter gun laws than ours. They all have lower homocide rates.
All of our guns are most certainly not making us safer in this country
Why does this company get so much media attention? The second I heard about what it was offering and at what prices I immediately began thinking "90's tech boom bullshit". Remember the company that wanted to make a business out of home delivery of pet food and even aired super bowl commercials? Movie Pass just seemed like more of that to me.
I mean, unlimited movies a month for the price of one movie of month? Guess who's going to sign up for that! People who see more than one movie a month or want to. Guess who isn't going to sign up for this? Everyone who doesn't or doesn't want to. The only way this was a money making enterprise is if they got a lot of people to sign up who didn't watch movies very often and most people just aren't that stupid.
Anybody who put money in any long term manner into such a ridiculously conceived business is too stupid to deserve the money they lost. They might as well have given it to a Nigerian prince.
Sorry but I loved Seinfeld. The characters, while neurotic, weren't pathetically so.
I never got this show. At the urging of co-workers i made it through about 2.5 random episodes and just could not get into it. All the characters felt whiney and neurotic but not in a funny way (or even in a way I sympathize with) as I've seen other shows pull off, just pathetic and incredibly stupid. Really, I didn't find a single character likeable and the show didn't seem to be structured for "fun to hate".
No, the gold rush was about people mining gold. That's why they call it a gold rush. No gold, no gold rush.
The gold rush was then taken advantage of by president Polk who encouraging people to move there yadda, yadda, yadda...
"I don't know what your point is. My point is the study makes no distinction between full time workers and part time workers. It's dishonest."
My point is that it doesn't really matter because it's a massive difference either way. You pretty much admit as much in your next sentence.
"Of course even if you took just full time workers into account the CEO makes a lot more than the typical worker. So what? The CEO is running a company with 375,000 employees and franchises in 100 countries.
No one is complaining about "a lot more". $500k a year would be a lot more. $1 million a year is a lot more. $21.7m is massively more, especially in such a low paying industry.
"A typical employee might be making burgers and taking out the trash. It's just a pointless comparison."
Another way to look at it is that a typical employee might be trying to feed themselves and a family on those wages. Guess how well those kids are likely to turn out? Not only would the family very likely to be a social burden costing us all money at that wage level (even single people would) but the children would be much more likely to turn out as such as well with parents who would have no time for parenting while they work multiple jobs. Then there's the fact that at those wage levels the federal government is effectively subsidizing McDonald's because of this. I think there are a lot of points to be made on the subject of this comparison.
"Would anyone bother to compare the average NFL player salary against the average concession stand vendor? Or rock stars against the roadies?
It's just meaningless."
People aren't making those comparisons because they are much smaller employers than fast food, not because there aren't massive differentiation's there as well.