The reason it comes up is that in mass shootings, it's frequently when the shooter has to stop long enough to reload that unarmed citizens are able to tackle and disarm him. For example, a defender starting from 5 meters away could reasonably notice the shooter has stopped to reload (0.2 seconds, human reaction time), run the 5m (0.75 seconds, based on an average human running speed of 6.7 m/s), and do something to disrupt the shooter in the remaining 0.05 seconds.
This sounds like a nice scene in a movie. Has it ever happened in real life? I do know that people with concealed carry have stopped mass shooters, so I think we need more of those.
So you tell us again this won't fix the problem. Go ahead.
Perhaps it's because the media hasn't been able to glorify these mass shooting suicides like ours does? Just look at all the fame this guy is getting in the news. Is it any wonder someone else decides to copy that for their own 15 minutes of fame as they kill themselves. They want to go out with style.
You realize of course that violent rape by strangers is by far the rarest kind - as in it almost never happens. 99% of all sex crimes are committed by somebody the victim knew, and that's WITHOUT factoring in date rape !
What use is a gun against somebody you trusted ? You won't have it when you need it anyway.
Frankly a woman is better off with pepper spray for that scenario.
So the woman won't have a gun, but will magically have some pepper spray. I don't see the logic in that. If you have a self defense weapon with you, then you have it with you, whatever it is.
What you forget - above all - is that the gun MOST likely to kill anybody is statistically his OWN gun. And the person MOST likely to be pulling the trigger is HIMSELF,
I don't care about suicide. Those stats should be taken out of the equation as they don't count as a violent crime and if they want to kill themselves they can do it with a razor blade, a rope, pills, etc. There are many options there.
the SECOND most likely is a member of his direct family - a stranger is very, very distant third.
So first you tell me that 99% of sex crimes are committed by somebody they knew. Then you tell me that the second most likely death from a gun is to someone they know. Perhaps this is the proper use of the gun? Perhaps the woman was shooting the family member that was sexually abusing her? I see stats being padded here to push an agenda.
In the end it doesn't matter what the stats are. The only thing that brings equality to a violent situation is a gun. When the aggressor is much bigger and stronger, whether armed with guns, knives, bats, or just fists, then the only thing that gives the smaller and weaker person a chance is having a gun. Of course you need to know how to use it, and not be afraid to use it. I'd rather die trying to defend myself then die just being a victim. Most people are so used to being a victim in their daily lives that they don't want any responsibility for anything in their lives. Don't eat healthy, just take a pill or get surgery and chemo to pull the cancers out, don't learn or think anything, just rely on the companies to tell you what to do or buy, don't stand up for yourself, just let the TSA molesters feel you up take your nudie pics and steal your iPads, etc. I am not a victim, I'm sorry that you are.
If kids are going batshit crazy in school, like columbine...
For the record, Columbine had *armed guards*. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story...
The good story is that he did a lot to reduce the number of casualties in that incident. I was just reading it yesterday where his firefight with the shooters kept them distracted enough for many people to escape. But I guess that doesn't fit in with your imaginative views. And why is it any better for the police to have the guns to stop a killer? They have the same gun violence rate as the general population. So we should take the guns away from the police also, not give them the power to be the only legal gun carriers. We all know that police will not stop other police, they will protect them from prosecution.
Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the criminals are in it for MONEY - not violence, violence is just a means to an end and the very existence of a criminal justice system gives them a strong motivation to use as little of it as they can succeed with.
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that there are other criminals than robbers. When a rapist is trying to force his way upon the female members of your family, I'm sure they will be able to fend them off by giving him their MONEY.
But you idiots also have police, law and lawyers running the place as well, what the heck do you need millions of guns for as well? Why are you paying for both kinds of security?
Because the police are there to serve the rulers, not protect the people. The courts has ruled that there is no requirement for police to show up if you need them in an emergency. But you can be damn sure they will arrest you if you are hurting the profits of the rich and powerful.
I just posted this comment in the discussion of the gun laws passed in New York but it fits with this discussion verbatim.
I would have no problem with politicians pushing laws that turn out to be unconstitutional if there were some penalties for these actions. If someone sponsors a law that turns out to have been unconstitutional they should be executed. Just think of all the people harmed by one bad law that might be on the books for decades before it finally comes before the supreme court and gets overturned. Everyone who voted for the law should be barred from running for any office ever again. Seems a fair trade to me.
I would have no problem with politicians pushing laws that turn out to be unconstitutional if there were some penalties for these actions. If someone sponsors a law that turns out to have been unconstitutional they should be executed. Just think of all the people harmed by one bad law that might be on the books for decades before it finally comes before the supreme court and gets overturned. Everyone who voted for the law should be barred from running for any office ever again. Seems a fair trade to me.
Thats like deciding to do something about drunk driving by banning the expensive cognacs and top dollar bourbons.
Your comparison just looks silly. We all know they would ban the cheap stuff that poor people from the ghetto drink. Just compare crack cocaine to the powdered stuff.
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
If you don't like the freedoms we have in this country, you are free to leave it. Only gun-loving patriotic Americans need stick around. You can sit around during an emergency like a victim and hope the police show up on time to save your ass. I will do what I need to do to protect myself and my family. You are aware the courts have ruled that the police are not required to show up to protect you aren't you!
Have you ever reloaded a firearm with a magazine? It takes less than 10 seconds.
I takes way longer than 10 seconds to put 10 separate bullets into a magazine. I would put it closer to 30 seconds at least, but with fumbling for the bullets in your pocket and aligning them the right way before pushing them in against the strong spring it is probably even more than that. The only people who are going to be running around with a dozen pre-loaded magazines are the mass-shooters. The concealed carry people and even the officers will have much less ammunition on them. I would say this is a good reason to keep large capacity magazines legal.
If the "sameness" holds, presumably this pattern of clustered quasars should have similar relations in other parts of the sky.
(IANAPh)
My understanding of the concept of cosmological sameness is that you pick any patch of sky and the contents should be more or less the same- the same material content, the same patterns (or lack of patterns), etc./p>
And I would imagine that the fractal geometry we see in seashores and tree branches holds at the larger scale of the universe also. So the sameness holds not only for the different parts of the sky, but for different scales of the sky. So when a smaller section of the sky is looked at, we see clumps. People assumed that those would disappear when viewed at a larger scale, but I don't see why the clumpiness wouldn't hold at larger scales also. This only makes the universe more the same everywhere you look.
But in the tinfoil hat wearing world of slashdot, of course it means that they're being controlled by drugs through some government anti-youth and anti-gun conspiracy.
I wasn't saying or implying that. I was mearly bringing up in a somewhat snarky way the fact that these drugs may not be as safe as the manufacturers claim. I do understand that there are many people who ewly on them for help and that these people don't all go on shooting sprees. But if the witch hunters want to go after games, then I can play that also and find plenty of other targets. Perhaps it's the witch hunters themselves and we need to pile them up and destroy them. I guess it's worth a try.
I remember hearing the other day that almost all of the gun massacres are done by people on anti-depressants. Perhaps these should be outlawed. Some studies have shown that they may lead to suicide. And shooting spree suicide is just the latest fashion in suicide these days. The media attention they get can't help either, it just leads to copy cat shooting sprees.
What we need to do is remove the skull of football players and put more padding around the brain. There would be a new permanent skull-helmet placed over the brain-padding to protect from cuts and sharp edges. I'm sure all the football players will look rather strange with giant heads, but we would get used to it after a short while. On the plus side for the players, they will be very easy to recognize out in public, so their fame will go up even more.
Couldn't someone just cast their own lead bullets. I've seen it done in a movie and it didn't look too hard. My wife has done jewelry casting also, so it's not out of the range of doable. Especially for someone who is reloading their own casings. If the loose powder was also tracked with the glitter it would be traceable even for reloaders or even casters. Someone would need to make their own powder to be untraceable. But with forensics being able to determine who made a bomb by the components in it, even that may not be fool-proof.
or microcode on the firing pin, which stamps into the shell casing when its fired.
Wouldn't work for revolvers.
The first is bullet IDs -- you pack the propellant with very small ID tagged glitter. Bullet fires, glitter covers the ground. Crime scene people carry equipment to find and trace the ID numbers. This has been proof-of-concepted years ago.
This is an interesting idea. It does add some accountability to people with guns. Even though it would not directly stop the suicide killer, it may have led to the mother keeping the ammo locked up. I am pro-gun, but I could possibly be ok with tagged ammo. I am not happy about government regulations and in general they just screw things up though, so I will have to think on this one.
Rather than having guns that ware smart, we should have smart bullets that will only kill bad people. After being fired the smart bullet will immediately ascertain the worst person within range using a sophisticated algorithm weighing criminal history, internet searches, and music preference, and impact that person right in the face, piercing any face armor up to 2 inches of hardened steel, and igniting it's incendiary and high explosive payloads.
It is logically impossible that there is not at least one bad person nearby, because a room full of only good people would never fire a gun. It's logic.
The fact that the most likely target of a smart bullet is yourself, this will greatly reduce the number of shootings. The only trick is to get people to abandon regular bullets. I know, we could make people with regular bullets at the top priority of the smart bullet hit list algorithm! There will a violent but short war between the "smarties" and the "norms", but *then* there will be reduced shootings.
I like this idea! Especially if the smart bullet went after the real worst of the population, the police. They have evolved into a criminal mafia organization supported by the government.
Really? So, one can't buy a briefcase, calendar, or day planner anymore because they are obsolete, right? Oh, wait, they are still made and sold buy the hundreds of thousands.
Anyone can get along just fine without a cellphone, let alone "smartphone". Your dependence on technology makes you weak and short-sighted.
Perhaps my use of technology makes me more productive. Your paper calendar or planner will not give an audible alarm for work meetings, my smart phone will. It's fine if you want to live in the past, but I would not work at a place that had such onerous conditions. Just imagine how much your tech knowledge will degrade when you have worked there for a decade and no other employer will hire you due to being so out of the loop. "What? You don't know how to use a smart phone to manage your daily work tasks and meetings! Goodbye!"
I am not so sure the glow-in-the-dark is a terrific idea, but you have a good point. The headlamps also have trouble illuminating the road around a curve. So it could be useful out on country roads in the dark where there are no lights.
If you are worried that the taxes received from gas sales will go down, then just raise the taxes on gas. This will be very unpopular of course, but it does give the benefit of taxing the people who use more fossil fuels more and will push more people to use fuel efficient vehicles not less people like the per mile tax will do.
It proves that the military believe this link exists.
Actually, it doesn't even prove that. It proves that the military believes the games are useful for training in some way--which might be making trainees more willing to kill, or it might be improving their reflexes or their tactical awareness, or it might just be as a morale-boosting tool for a generation of recruits who grew up playing the games. Personally, having served as both an infantryman and a medic, and having become very familiar in the latter capacity with what the consequences of real-world violence look like, I'm deeply skeptical that even the most realistic modern video games will do much to "desensitize" anyone to actual killing.
I think this post is very insightful (good thing it is modded that way). I play the first person shooters. I remember thinking Soldier of Fortune was pretty gruesome when it came out. I have not been involved in real world killing or even any horrible accidents, but I have exposed myself to some of the real photos and videos of deaths and killings that you can find on the internet. The feelings I felt watching that american get slowly beheaded (Sorry, I don't remember his name and I am sure there are more than just the one.) were entirely different from playing a game. There was a real sick feeling in my stomach that has no relation to anything experienced from playing a game or watching a movie. I feel you would have to have no empathy or emotions to be able to do that to another person. But to blast them away in a game and then even go teabag them is different. It's more like playing paintball or tag. It's just about points and frags and capturing the flag or whatever. Everybody re-spawns or starts again in the next level so there is no harm done.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason it comes up is that in mass shootings, it's frequently when the shooter has to stop long enough to reload that unarmed citizens are able to tackle and disarm him. For example, a defender starting from 5 meters away could reasonably notice the shooter has stopped to reload (0.2 seconds, human reaction time), run the 5m (0.75 seconds, based on an average human running speed of 6.7 m/s), and do something to disrupt the shooter in the remaining 0.05 seconds.
This sounds like a nice scene in a movie. Has it ever happened in real life? I do know that people with concealed carry have stopped mass shooters, so I think we need more of those.
Since Australia enacted stricter gun control laws after a horrible mass shooting in 1996 there hasn't been one since:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws
So you tell us again this won't fix the problem. Go ahead.
Perhaps it's because the media hasn't been able to glorify these mass shooting suicides like ours does? Just look at all the fame this guy is getting in the news. Is it any wonder someone else decides to copy that for their own 15 minutes of fame as they kill themselves. They want to go out with style.
You realize of course that violent rape by strangers is by far the rarest kind - as in it almost never happens. 99% of all sex crimes are committed by somebody the victim knew, and that's WITHOUT factoring in date rape ! What use is a gun against somebody you trusted ? You won't have it when you need it anyway.
Frankly a woman is better off with pepper spray for that scenario.
So the woman won't have a gun, but will magically have some pepper spray. I don't see the logic in that. If you have a self defense weapon with you, then you have it with you, whatever it is.
What you forget - above all - is that the gun MOST likely to kill anybody is statistically his OWN gun. And the person MOST likely to be pulling the trigger is HIMSELF,
I don't care about suicide. Those stats should be taken out of the equation as they don't count as a violent crime and if they want to kill themselves they can do it with a razor blade, a rope, pills, etc. There are many options there.
the SECOND most likely is a member of his direct family - a stranger is very, very distant third.
So first you tell me that 99% of sex crimes are committed by somebody they knew. Then you tell me that the second most likely death from a gun is to someone they know. Perhaps this is the proper use of the gun? Perhaps the woman was shooting the family member that was sexually abusing her? I see stats being padded here to push an agenda.
In the end it doesn't matter what the stats are. The only thing that brings equality to a violent situation is a gun. When the aggressor is much bigger and stronger, whether armed with guns, knives, bats, or just fists, then the only thing that gives the smaller and weaker person a chance is having a gun. Of course you need to know how to use it, and not be afraid to use it. I'd rather die trying to defend myself then die just being a victim. Most people are so used to being a victim in their daily lives that they don't want any responsibility for anything in their lives. Don't eat healthy, just take a pill or get surgery and chemo to pull the cancers out, don't learn or think anything, just rely on the companies to tell you what to do or buy, don't stand up for yourself, just let the TSA molesters feel you up take your nudie pics and steal your iPads, etc. I am not a victim, I'm sorry that you are.
For the record, Columbine had *armed guards*. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story...
The good story is that he did a lot to reduce the number of casualties in that incident. I was just reading it yesterday where his firefight with the shooters kept them distracted enough for many people to escape. But I guess that doesn't fit in with your imaginative views. And why is it any better for the police to have the guns to stop a killer? They have the same gun violence rate as the general population. So we should take the guns away from the police also, not give them the power to be the only legal gun carriers. We all know that police will not stop other police, they will protect them from prosecution.
Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the criminals are in it for MONEY - not violence, violence is just a means to an end and the very existence of a criminal justice system gives them a strong motivation to use as little of it as they can succeed with.
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that there are other criminals than robbers. When a rapist is trying to force his way upon the female members of your family, I'm sure they will be able to fend them off by giving him their MONEY.
But you idiots also have police, law and lawyers running the place as well, what the heck do you need millions of guns for as well? Why are you paying for both kinds of security?
Because the police are there to serve the rulers, not protect the people. The courts has ruled that there is no requirement for police to show up if you need them in an emergency. But you can be damn sure they will arrest you if you are hurting the profits of the rich and powerful.
I just posted this comment in the discussion of the gun laws passed in New York but it fits with this discussion verbatim.
I would have no problem with politicians pushing laws that turn out to be unconstitutional if there were some penalties for these actions. If someone sponsors a law that turns out to have been unconstitutional they should be executed. Just think of all the people harmed by one bad law that might be on the books for decades before it finally comes before the supreme court and gets overturned. Everyone who voted for the law should be barred from running for any office ever again. Seems a fair trade to me.
It sounds like he needs to be promoted to management.
I would have no problem with politicians pushing laws that turn out to be unconstitutional if there were some penalties for these actions. If someone sponsors a law that turns out to have been unconstitutional they should be executed. Just think of all the people harmed by one bad law that might be on the books for decades before it finally comes before the supreme court and gets overturned. Everyone who voted for the law should be barred from running for any office ever again. Seems a fair trade to me.
Try using your reading skills. Read what I wrote.
Thats like deciding to do something about drunk driving by banning the expensive cognacs and top dollar bourbons.
Your comparison just looks silly. We all know they would ban the cheap stuff that poor people from the ghetto drink. Just compare crack cocaine to the powdered stuff.
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
If you don't like the freedoms we have in this country, you are free to leave it. Only gun-loving patriotic Americans need stick around. You can sit around during an emergency like a victim and hope the police show up on time to save your ass. I will do what I need to do to protect myself and my family. You are aware the courts have ruled that the police are not required to show up to protect you aren't you!
Have you ever reloaded a firearm with a magazine? It takes less than 10 seconds.
I takes way longer than 10 seconds to put 10 separate bullets into a magazine. I would put it closer to 30 seconds at least, but with fumbling for the bullets in your pocket and aligning them the right way before pushing them in against the strong spring it is probably even more than that. The only people who are going to be running around with a dozen pre-loaded magazines are the mass-shooters. The concealed carry people and even the officers will have much less ammunition on them. I would say this is a good reason to keep large capacity magazines legal.
My tasker puts my phone to silent mode for meetings in my calendar. I'm not sure why yours couldn't do it.
If the "sameness" holds, presumably this pattern of clustered quasars should have similar relations in other parts of the sky.
(IANAPh)
My understanding of the concept of cosmological sameness is that you pick any patch of sky and the contents should be more or less the same- the same material content, the same patterns (or lack of patterns), etc. /p>
And I would imagine that the fractal geometry we see in seashores and tree branches holds at the larger scale of the universe also. So the sameness holds not only for the different parts of the sky, but for different scales of the sky. So when a smaller section of the sky is looked at, we see clumps. People assumed that those would disappear when viewed at a larger scale, but I don't see why the clumpiness wouldn't hold at larger scales also. This only makes the universe more the same everywhere you look.
But in the tinfoil hat wearing world of slashdot, of course it means that they're being controlled by drugs through some government anti-youth and anti-gun conspiracy.
I wasn't saying or implying that. I was mearly bringing up in a somewhat snarky way the fact that these drugs may not be as safe as the manufacturers claim. I do understand that there are many people who ewly on them for help and that these people don't all go on shooting sprees. But if the witch hunters want to go after games, then I can play that also and find plenty of other targets. Perhaps it's the witch hunters themselves and we need to pile them up and destroy them. I guess it's worth a try.
I remember hearing the other day that almost all of the gun massacres are done by people on anti-depressants. Perhaps these should be outlawed. Some studies have shown that they may lead to suicide. And shooting spree suicide is just the latest fashion in suicide these days. The media attention they get can't help either, it just leads to copy cat shooting sprees.
What we need to do is remove the skull of football players and put more padding around the brain. There would be a new permanent skull-helmet placed over the brain-padding to protect from cuts and sharp edges. I'm sure all the football players will look rather strange with giant heads, but we would get used to it after a short while. On the plus side for the players, they will be very easy to recognize out in public, so their fame will go up even more.
Couldn't someone just cast their own lead bullets. I've seen it done in a movie and it didn't look too hard. My wife has done jewelry casting also, so it's not out of the range of doable. Especially for someone who is reloading their own casings. If the loose powder was also tracked with the glitter it would be traceable even for reloaders or even casters. Someone would need to make their own powder to be untraceable. But with forensics being able to determine who made a bomb by the components in it, even that may not be fool-proof.
or microcode on the firing pin, which stamps into the shell casing when its fired.
Wouldn't work for revolvers.
The first is bullet IDs -- you pack the propellant with very small ID tagged glitter. Bullet fires, glitter covers the ground. Crime scene people carry equipment to find and trace the ID numbers. This has been proof-of-concepted years ago.
This is an interesting idea. It does add some accountability to people with guns. Even though it would not directly stop the suicide killer, it may have led to the mother keeping the ammo locked up. I am pro-gun, but I could possibly be ok with tagged ammo. I am not happy about government regulations and in general they just screw things up though, so I will have to think on this one.
Rather than having guns that ware smart, we should have smart bullets that will only kill bad people. After being fired the smart bullet will immediately ascertain the worst person within range using a sophisticated algorithm weighing criminal history, internet searches, and music preference, and impact that person right in the face, piercing any face armor up to 2 inches of hardened steel, and igniting it's incendiary and high explosive payloads.
It is logically impossible that there is not at least one bad person nearby, because a room full of only good people would never fire a gun. It's logic.
The fact that the most likely target of a smart bullet is yourself, this will greatly reduce the number of shootings. The only trick is to get people to abandon regular bullets. I know, we could make people with regular bullets at the top priority of the smart bullet hit list algorithm! There will a violent but short war between the "smarties" and the "norms", but *then* there will be reduced shootings.
I like this idea! Especially if the smart bullet went after the real worst of the population, the police. They have evolved into a criminal mafia organization supported by the government.
Really? So, one can't buy a briefcase, calendar, or day planner anymore because they are obsolete, right? Oh, wait, they are still made and sold buy the hundreds of thousands.
Anyone can get along just fine without a cellphone, let alone "smartphone". Your dependence on technology makes you weak and short-sighted.
Perhaps my use of technology makes me more productive. Your paper calendar or planner will not give an audible alarm for work meetings, my smart phone will. It's fine if you want to live in the past, but I would not work at a place that had such onerous conditions. Just imagine how much your tech knowledge will degrade when you have worked there for a decade and no other employer will hire you due to being so out of the loop. "What? You don't know how to use a smart phone to manage your daily work tasks and meetings! Goodbye!"
I am not so sure the glow-in-the-dark is a terrific idea, but you have a good point. The headlamps also have trouble illuminating the road around a curve. So it could be useful out on country roads in the dark where there are no lights.
If you are worried that the taxes received from gas sales will go down, then just raise the taxes on gas. This will be very unpopular of course, but it does give the benefit of taxing the people who use more fossil fuels more and will push more people to use fuel efficient vehicles not less people like the per mile tax will do.
It proves that the military believe this link exists.
Actually, it doesn't even prove that. It proves that the military believes the games are useful for training in some way--which might be making trainees more willing to kill, or it might be improving their reflexes or their tactical awareness, or it might just be as a morale-boosting tool for a generation of recruits who grew up playing the games. Personally, having served as both an infantryman and a medic, and having become very familiar in the latter capacity with what the consequences of real-world violence look like, I'm deeply skeptical that even the most realistic modern video games will do much to "desensitize" anyone to actual killing.
I think this post is very insightful (good thing it is modded that way). I play the first person shooters. I remember thinking Soldier of Fortune was pretty gruesome when it came out. I have not been involved in real world killing or even any horrible accidents, but I have exposed myself to some of the real photos and videos of deaths and killings that you can find on the internet. The feelings I felt watching that american get slowly beheaded (Sorry, I don't remember his name and I am sure there are more than just the one.) were entirely different from playing a game. There was a real sick feeling in my stomach that has no relation to anything experienced from playing a game or watching a movie. I feel you would have to have no empathy or emotions to be able to do that to another person. But to blast them away in a game and then even go teabag them is different. It's more like playing paintball or tag. It's just about points and frags and capturing the flag or whatever. Everybody re-spawns or starts again in the next level so there is no harm done.