Right, because we both use the same terminology and sentence structure (oh, wait, we don't). And because sockpuppet accounts typically tend to have email addresses displayed publicly (oh, wait, they don't).
We actually have a history of butting heads on most topics, but that doesn't fit your narrative, so you never bothered to check. Seems we've found a common ground and...
Have you ever wondered why there's so much infighting and bullshit on Slashdot? Might it be because, whenever two people agree on something they're accused of being fanbois or sockpuppets?
You are everything that is wrong with Slashdot and you should leave, now.
This. I have friends and family in (and retired from) law enforcement, from the local level, all the way up to federal; every single one of them feels the same way. They're all just normal people with families to go home to at the end of the day. Civilians when they're off the clock.
Like was said earlier, those with guns were killed first.
In Orlando? There was one guy with a gun, an off-duty cop working security outside the club. He wasn't killed, he fled the scene when the shooting started.
Anyone who could conjure a gun would have died sooner.
You don't (and can't) know this, as you have no historical evdince upon which to base this assertion.
Mass shootings are almost never stopped by an armed civilian.
Might that be because they almost always occur in "gun-free" zones, where armed civilians simply don't exist. Pulse was a gun-free zone, the off-duty cop who fled the scene was patting people down to keep the guns out. That worked out well, didn't it?
You're not being honest, though; that's the point. France took away the "toys" and, yet, they still have the dead people. I'm not okay with dead people (well, as a natural part of the life cycle, actually, I am, but I digress), I just realize that removing easy access to commercially manufactured guns doesn't solve the problem. If it did, France would have fewer mass shootings per-capita than the US, not more. Given the same population (that's why the statistics are per-capita) we should be able to expect fewer mass shootings (not mas shooting deaths, but the shootings themselves) in France than the US, but that simply does not follow reality or facts, both of which actually do matter.
You want facts? You want to concentrate on the number of people killed? The 2015 stats aren't out yet, but here's 2010-2014. For the FBI's purposes, 1 death = 1 murder, so these numbers are the actual number of people killed, not simply the number of incidents.
We're talking about banning rifles, right? Let's analyze the data, then. I'll even throw in shotguns to make it fair.
Let's look at the most recent statistics first: 2014. There were a total of 11,961 murders reported in 2014, of which 8,124 involved guns. Sounds bad, right? It is, but it's not bad for rifles, which were used in only 248 of those. Add in the 262 shotgun murders and long guns (510) still haven't killed more people than hands, fists, and feet (660) or knives (1,567).
I know, I know, there's a huge number of "type not stated" firearm murders. Let's take a look at those, then. If we assume the same ratio of handguns to rifles to shotguns to other[1] (5562:248:262:93, or 90.22%, 4.02%, 4.25%, and 1.51% respectively), we can add 79 rifle murders and 83 shotgun murders. Still, neither killed more people than hands, fists, and feet, or knives. Combined (672), they're just barely more deadly than hands, fists, and feet; they still don't touch knives, though.
Do you want to ban handguns? Or do you want to jump on the "ban rifles" bandwagon and not affect any real change? I ask because, and here's the important part, these statistics hold true as far backas I can find it.
If you want to ban handguns, we can talk. I mean, they're the most useful guns for personal and home defense in typical situations, and they're the most prevalent and will be literally impossible to remove from circulation (or reduce in any meaningful number), due to how easy they are to hide or transport, but they do consistently account for more than 50% of murder weapons in the US (going back to 2001, there are only 3 years [2001, 2010, and 2013] where they only accounted for nearly half), so maybe that would be worth trying. We could spend billions on it like we've done with marijuana and prostitution, I'm sure it'll work this time.
But rifles? Consistently 2%, except for 2002 and 2007 where they weighed in at 3%. Hell, hands, fists, and feet consistently more than double that; and knives? Consistently at 12% or higher.
Want to affect real change? Make it harder to get, and easier to lose, your drivers license. That should cut down some of the 32,675 annual vehicle-related deaths, a number which absolutely dwarfs the murder rate (nearly triple!), weighing in at more than four times the rate of gun-related murder. Rifle and shotgun murders are rounding error, something I'd expect you to be familiar with given the way you attempted to school me in statistics earlier.
No, you've just been reading too much into my words since the very start.
That's the sort of men's rights shit I'm complaining about.
No, it's an equal rights statement. A woman made a false report to the police and you are saying it doesn't count as a false report. I'd like to know why. Instead of clarifying your point, you choose to spew vitriol. If I had to guess, it's because you actually can't qualify your own statement.
I'd expect, if I'd made a false report to the police against a woman, I'd be held accountable for that; the same should apply in the opposite direction in a just world where the genders are equal. You want to see men's rights shit go watch some of Thunderf00t's videos on Youtube. I watch them and laugh at both his arguments and the arguments he's attempting to counter; both sides are off-the-walls fucking loony.
I'm old enough to have been involved with IT when there were a lot of women in the field.
Good for you. My biggest client is a woman and most of her employees are women; from where I sit there are still a lot of women in tech.
It's little self-entitled shits like you that drove them out.
See above. Allow me too elaborate, she's a doctor who quit medicine to start a software company, probably one of the most intelligent people I know. Of course, I'm such a horrible woman-hating piece of scum that this can't possibly be true. Right? Don't care if you believe it or not, the checks I cash every month have her name on them and we spend an hour or so -- unbilled -- every month discussing these kinds of issues just for kicks; that's real enough for me.
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.
Are you sure you're doing the math right and getting a per-capita total? Even if you are, you're concentrating on mass shooting deaths per-capita when the relevant number is mass shootings per-capita, if you're trying to make the point that banning guns reduces the number of mass shootings.
Even when you remove the largest and smallest events from the list, France still has more mass shootings per-capita; if you take a bigger number and a smaller number, and you subtract two from both numbers, the bigger one is still bigger.
It doesn't really matter how many people dies in each one, there were more of then in France than in the US, per person. And yes, it's the sort of thing that should scale with population.
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.
Well, now, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists with boxcutters. An air marshal with a gun on each plane could have stopped it.
Eh, because CloudFlare can't take down material they're not hosting. They could stop acting as a proxy for that site, but the DMCA has no provision that requires it; the DMCA only requires that they take down content they're hosting. If CloudFlare shut down the account of "infringing" sites, those sites would just jump behind another proxy, or not use one at all, within minutes. Further, the DMCA doesn't say the entire site must be taken down, just the infringing content.
In short, the only site for which a DMCA notice served to CloudFlare would be considered valid is CloudFlare's own site. Period.
Such fanaticism from someone who doesn't even own a gun, right? How dare I!
You're absolutely correct, it's the trend that matters. 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!
No worries, I totally get the lack of caffeine. If you ever see me post something completely idiotic, it was probably posted on a weekday before 9AM PST, which is when I usually make a dent in my first cup. Pretty obvious detail, though, since it's iMessage on iOS and Messages (which utilizes iMessage and other protocols) on OS X.
Funny, I realized you were. Prove me wrong, explain how pepper spray would have ended the shooting in Orlando. I want a step-by-step rundown of how it would play out. At least make it semi-plausible.
Yeah, right. As opposed to doing nothing and getting shot. The thing with pepper spray is that in most states, it's legal to carry anywhere.
Let's see... Guy with a rifle, guy with pepper spray. Guy with rifle sees someone approaching him; whether or not he sees the pepper spray he's gonna shoot. Long before guy with pepper spray is in range to spray.
In many states, even a concealed weapon license won't let you carry a firearm in a bar.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. In Florida, the risk is 5 years in prison, 5 years probation, or a $5000 fine and, well, the weapon is concealed, nobody is going to know you have it unless you draw it to fire (because you're a responsible gun owner and don't go flashing it around or pulling it out unnecessarily), so that's really only a risk if you actually need to use it to save your life. 5 years in prison or 0 more years alive? That sounds like a tough decision to me; and there's not a jury in the country that would convict you for carrying in that bar if you stopped a mass shooting in progress as a result.
Pull force and reset, actually. If you want the maximum possible fire rate, you only release the trigger until it resets, then squeeze again. And the reset is going to vary at lest slightly between even two guns of the same model due to manufacturing tolerances, varying levels of wear (or wear-in if it's a new gun), and maintenance history, as well as any trigger customizations that may have been made. You'll get a wider variance between different models.
But, as I learned after I posted that, this guy went in and fired off an average of one shot every 2 minutes for 3 hours, he wasn't rapid-firing, so the point is moot in this case.
No, it's not. Show me a country that had widespread gun ownership, then outlawed guns, and now has none. You can't, because such a place does not exist.
Also, why "public" mass shootings and not "all" mass shootings?
Because it's easy to tell when 4 or more people were shot in the same event if it happens in public and all the bodies are right there. It's a bit more difficult, tending toward impossible, when the shootings happen in a private space and the bodies are disposed of. You can guess at it, if you find where the shootings happened and you find the blood of 4 or more people there, but it's just a guess; you could well have stumbled across the place they bring people to shoot them, but they may have only brought them there one at a time which would exclude a mass shooting. That's just one reason, at least.
In statistics, you don't count what you can't verify.
Actually, as macs4all pointed out to me earlier, it hasn't been an assault weapon since 2004 when the Brady Bill lapsed and the legal definition of assault weapon ceased to be law... except in California, where we have our own definition. But this happened in Florida where it was, in fact, not an assault weapon.
If cancer is autocorrect, it's very buggy and broken, as it most often doesn't correct the message until after it's already been sent. I could buy this idea if cancer killed most of its victims before they were able to procreate, but that's simply not the case.
Slashdot Mirror
All I have is lies? So all of the statistics I provided, with sources (the FBI, no less) are lies?
Are you high?
Right, because we both use the same terminology and sentence structure (oh, wait, we don't). And because sockpuppet accounts typically tend to have email addresses displayed publicly (oh, wait, they don't).
We actually have a history of butting heads on most topics, but that doesn't fit your narrative, so you never bothered to check. Seems we've found a common ground and...
Have you ever wondered why there's so much infighting and bullshit on Slashdot? Might it be because, whenever two people agree on something they're accused of being fanbois or sockpuppets?
You are everything that is wrong with Slashdot and you should leave, now.
*crickets*
This. I have friends and family in (and retired from) law enforcement, from the local level, all the way up to federal; every single one of them feels the same way. They're all just normal people with families to go home to at the end of the day. Civilians when they're off the clock.
Like was said earlier, those with guns were killed first.
In Orlando? There was one guy with a gun, an off-duty cop working security outside the club. He wasn't killed, he fled the scene when the shooting started.
Anyone who could conjure a gun would have died sooner.
You don't (and can't) know this, as you have no historical evdince upon which to base this assertion.
Mass shootings are almost never stopped by an armed civilian.
Might that be because they almost always occur in "gun-free" zones, where armed civilians simply don't exist. Pulse was a gun-free zone, the off-duty cop who fled the scene was patting people down to keep the guns out. That worked out well, didn't it?
You're not being honest, though; that's the point. France took away the "toys" and, yet, they still have the dead people. I'm not okay with dead people (well, as a natural part of the life cycle, actually, I am, but I digress), I just realize that removing easy access to commercially manufactured guns doesn't solve the problem. If it did, France would have fewer mass shootings per-capita than the US, not more. Given the same population (that's why the statistics are per-capita) we should be able to expect fewer mass shootings (not mas shooting deaths, but the shootings themselves) in France than the US, but that simply does not follow reality or facts, both of which actually do matter.
You want facts? You want to concentrate on the number of people killed? The 2015 stats aren't out yet, but here's 2010-2014. For the FBI's purposes, 1 death = 1 murder, so these numbers are the actual number of people killed, not simply the number of incidents.
We're talking about banning rifles, right? Let's analyze the data, then. I'll even throw in shotguns to make it fair.
Let's look at the most recent statistics first: 2014. There were a total of 11,961 murders reported in 2014, of which 8,124 involved guns. Sounds bad, right? It is, but it's not bad for rifles, which were used in only 248 of those. Add in the 262 shotgun murders and long guns (510) still haven't killed more people than hands, fists, and feet (660) or knives (1,567).
I know, I know, there's a huge number of "type not stated" firearm murders. Let's take a look at those, then. If we assume the same ratio of handguns to rifles to shotguns to other[1] (5562:248:262:93, or 90.22%, 4.02%, 4.25%, and 1.51% respectively), we can add 79 rifle murders and 83 shotgun murders. Still, neither killed more people than hands, fists, and feet, or knives. Combined (672), they're just barely more deadly than hands, fists, and feet; they still don't touch knives, though.
Do you want to ban handguns? Or do you want to jump on the "ban rifles" bandwagon and not affect any real change? I ask because, and here's the important part, these statistics hold true as far back as I can find it.
If you want to ban handguns, we can talk. I mean, they're the most useful guns for personal and home defense in typical situations, and they're the most prevalent and will be literally impossible to remove from circulation (or reduce in any meaningful number), due to how easy they are to hide or transport, but they do consistently account for more than 50% of murder weapons in the US (going back to 2001, there are only 3 years [2001, 2010, and 2013] where they only accounted for nearly half), so maybe that would be worth trying. We could spend billions on it like we've done with marijuana and prostitution, I'm sure it'll work this time.
But rifles? Consistently 2%, except for 2002 and 2007 where they weighed in at 3%. Hell, hands, fists, and feet consistently more than double that; and knives? Consistently at 12% or higher.
Want to affect real change? Make it harder to get, and easier to lose, your drivers license. That should cut down some of the 32,675 annual vehicle-related deaths, a number which absolutely dwarfs the murder rate (nearly triple!), weighing in at more than four times the rate of gun-related murder. Rifle and shotgun murders are rounding error, something I'd expect you to be familiar with given the way you attempted to school me in statistics earlier.
People
You are backtracking now
No, you've just been reading too much into my words since the very start.
That's the sort of men's rights shit I'm complaining about.
No, it's an equal rights statement. A woman made a false report to the police and you are saying it doesn't count as a false report. I'd like to know why. Instead of clarifying your point, you choose to spew vitriol. If I had to guess, it's because you actually can't qualify your own statement.
I'd expect, if I'd made a false report to the police against a woman, I'd be held accountable for that; the same should apply in the opposite direction in a just world where the genders are equal. You want to see men's rights shit go watch some of Thunderf00t's videos on Youtube. I watch them and laugh at both his arguments and the arguments he's attempting to counter; both sides are off-the-walls fucking loony.
I'm old enough to have been involved with IT when there were a lot of women in the field.
Good for you. My biggest client is a woman and most of her employees are women; from where I sit there are still a lot of women in tech.
It's little self-entitled shits like you that drove them out.
See above. Allow me too elaborate, she's a doctor who quit medicine to start a software company, probably one of the most intelligent people I know. Of course, I'm such a horrible woman-hating piece of scum that this can't possibly be true. Right? Don't care if you believe it or not, the checks I cash every month have her name on them and we spend an hour or so -- unbilled -- every month discussing these kinds of issues just for kicks; that's real enough for me.
This. You just made exactly the point I was trying to make.
Thank you for proving a much better wordsmith than myself.
You betcha, that's precisely why, as stated above, I don't even own a gun. Jackass.
The irony of "AK" Marc posting anti-gun crap. Of course you'd also say facts and reality don't matter; they disagree with your viewpoint.
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.
Are you sure you're doing the math right and getting a per-capita total? Even if you are, you're concentrating on mass shooting deaths per-capita when the relevant number is mass shootings per-capita, if you're trying to make the point that banning guns reduces the number of mass shootings.
Even when you remove the largest and smallest events from the list, France still has more mass shootings per-capita; if you take a bigger number and a smaller number, and you subtract two from both numbers, the bigger one is still bigger.
It doesn't really matter how many people dies in each one, there were more of then in France than in the US, per person. And yes, it's the sort of thing that should scale with population.
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.
Well, now, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists with boxcutters. An air marshal with a gun on each plane could have stopped it.
Eh, because CloudFlare can't take down material they're not hosting. They could stop acting as a proxy for that site, but the DMCA has no provision that requires it; the DMCA only requires that they take down content they're hosting. If CloudFlare shut down the account of "infringing" sites, those sites would just jump behind another proxy, or not use one at all, within minutes. Further, the DMCA doesn't say the entire site must be taken down, just the infringing content.
In short, the only site for which a DMCA notice served to CloudFlare would be considered valid is CloudFlare's own site. Period.
My autocorrect must be speaking spanish today... Mass shooting, not mas shooting.
Such fanaticism from someone who doesn't even own a gun, right? How dare I!
You're absolutely correct, it's the trend that matters. 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!
Assault weapon was defined by law, the law defining it ceased to exist.
No worries, I totally get the lack of caffeine. If you ever see me post something completely idiotic, it was probably posted on a weekday before 9AM PST, which is when I usually make a dent in my first cup. Pretty obvious detail, though, since it's iMessage on iOS and Messages (which utilizes iMessage and other protocols) on OS X.
Funny, I realized you were. Prove me wrong, explain how pepper spray would have ended the shooting in Orlando. I want a step-by-step rundown of how it would play out. At least make it semi-plausible.
Yeah, right. As opposed to doing nothing and getting shot. The thing with pepper spray is that in most states, it's legal to carry anywhere.
Let's see... Guy with a rifle, guy with pepper spray. Guy with rifle sees someone approaching him; whether or not he sees the pepper spray he's gonna shoot. Long before guy with pepper spray is in range to spray.
In many states, even a concealed weapon license won't let you carry a firearm in a bar.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. In Florida, the risk is 5 years in prison, 5 years probation, or a $5000 fine and, well, the weapon is concealed, nobody is going to know you have it unless you draw it to fire (because you're a responsible gun owner and don't go flashing it around or pulling it out unnecessarily), so that's really only a risk if you actually need to use it to save your life. 5 years in prison or 0 more years alive? That sounds like a tough decision to me; and there's not a jury in the country that would convict you for carrying in that bar if you stopped a mass shooting in progress as a result.
When did that change? iMessage on iOS is iMessage and SMS only.
Pull force and reset, actually. If you want the maximum possible fire rate, you only release the trigger until it resets, then squeeze again. And the reset is going to vary at lest slightly between even two guns of the same model due to manufacturing tolerances, varying levels of wear (or wear-in if it's a new gun), and maintenance history, as well as any trigger customizations that may have been made. You'll get a wider variance between different models.
But, as I learned after I posted that, this guy went in and fired off an average of one shot every 2 minutes for 3 hours, he wasn't rapid-firing, so the point is moot in this case.
Don't tell me, tell maestro485, who originally suggested that as Apple's solution; or tell yourself, as you supported his explanation.
u so cheeky, boy
No, it's not. Show me a country that had widespread gun ownership, then outlawed guns, and now has none. You can't, because such a place does not exist.
Also, why "public" mass shootings and not "all" mass shootings?
Because it's easy to tell when 4 or more people were shot in the same event if it happens in public and all the bodies are right there. It's a bit more difficult, tending toward impossible, when the shootings happen in a private space and the bodies are disposed of. You can guess at it, if you find where the shootings happened and you find the blood of 4 or more people there, but it's just a guess; you could well have stumbled across the place they bring people to shoot them, but they may have only brought them there one at a time which would exclude a mass shooting. That's just one reason, at least.
In statistics, you don't count what you can't verify.
Actually, as macs4all pointed out to me earlier, it hasn't been an assault weapon since 2004 when the Brady Bill lapsed and the legal definition of assault weapon ceased to be law... except in California, where we have our own definition. But this happened in Florida where it was, in fact, not an assault weapon.
If cancer is autocorrect, it's very buggy and broken, as it most often doesn't correct the message until after it's already been sent. I could buy this idea if cancer killed most of its victims before they were able to procreate, but that's simply not the case.