I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?
What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?
Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?
That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.
One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?
After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.
There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.
When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone
That's no-one's idea of a classic RISC instruction.
You're right. It's not. That, sir, is an x86 instruction, which the x86 translation layer takes as input and passes to a RISC core. Intel, at least, has been doing this since the Core series was released.
Your comment jumps the rails right there, with your first remark, and only gets farther and farther off course from there.
You make a whole lot of assumptions. The Supreme Court struck down those laws because they were unconstitutional. They were in violation of an amendment to The Constitution that is still very much in effect. The Supreme Court did the right thing; that's why the laws were struck down even though they (appeared to) work.
I do find it curious that my questions about Oakland are consistently being ignored, though, in every thread in which I've asked them. Are the answers just too uncomfortable of a truth for you?
It really is sad. I mean the common argument for the de-portification of the MacBook Pro is that not everyone needs the ports. Know what? That's who the MacBook and MacBook Air are for. The MacBook Pro is for the Pro user to be able to pick up (with nothing else*) and go and know they can plug in to the projector for their presentation, or connect to the secure no-wi-fi network, or hook in to the audio system, or whatever they need to do.
* With nothing else: The MacBook Pro was touted as the ideal laptop for the professional in part due to its battery life, which meant you could leave your charger at your desk. That "benefit" means a lot less if you have to bring an ethernet adapter, an HDMI adapter, a DAC, and a memory card reader with you to do all the things your old laptop could do that you, as a professional, may need to do in whatever line of work you happen to be in. At that point, you're better off with a laptop with a shorter battery life and all the ports you need built in, because then you only need to carry your charger; you know you've got everything else you need, because it's built in.
Imagine a scenario where Pulse had plainclothes armed security. Same deal. The issue here is that gun free zones are soft targets for people with guns, coupled with the fact that we have people who want to kill. As long as guns exist, that will be a fact.
Modern x86 is nothing more than an x86 translation layer around a RISC chip, any way. We're already all using RISC processors, so there's not a whole lot to be gained by "switching" to them. Not in terms or performance and security, at least.
If that is indeed true (and I've seen no evidence that it is; if it were, I would assume smuggling guns into the country would be much less profitable and almost never done, which is not the case), that speaks to a need for laws regarding the storage and safe keeping of guns, not the removal thereof. We have such laws for firearms dealers and, as a result, guns are stolen from law enforcement more frequently than they're stolen from gun shops.
The notch would have been fine if it were reserved for system use only. You wouldn't have had to update your apps and you even would have gained some vertical space in landscape mode because notifications could have stayed in the notch, nullifying the need for a notification bar. That's where apple screwed up.
Personally, I like the look of the iPhone X and it would have been my next phone (instead of the S9 Plus I upgraded to) if they'd implemented it that way; but it just gets in the way for watching videos or viewing photos, which are two things I do a lot of on my phone, which is what killed the iPX for me.
Simple. They could have reserved the notch for system use (notifications, clock, etc) rather than letting applications use that space, a decision which means many applications that put interactable items in the middle of the left or right edge now have two orientations in which they can't be used without some rework.
LG's solution keeps applications out of the "notch-side" display area, so they don't have to be aware of it. 0 applications broke due to LG's design, more than 0 applications broke due to Apple's design; ergo, Apple screwed up their design.
Less people shot, of course, doesn't correlate to less people killed. Knives, vehicles, and bombs still account for some pretty large numbers in mass-killing attacks, especially in places where guns are less prevalent. See here for my take on why that might not necessarily be a good thing.
Indeed. Guns are the least scary of the mass-assault options. A knife is silent, you might not know someone is stabbing people in a crowd until they stab you. A bomb is instant, you don't get to hear the first shot fired and take cover, nor can you kill, incapacitate, or restrain the bomber to prevent detonation. Vehicles are so commonplace, nobody thinks twice about one approaching a cordoned-off area (they may just be parking, or looking for room to turn around) and by the time you realize they're gonna plow through the crowd you're part of, well, it's too late to get out of the way... because you're in a crowd and, well, you can't run through people (like the vehicle can); further, even if someone does realize the vehicle is gonna drive through that crowd, what can they do? Shoot the driver? The vehicle doesn't magically stop when the driver becomes incapacitated and there's a fair chance they'll mash the gas pedal as they seize.
At least with a gun, if the first shot doesn't hit you (and there's a good chance it won't if you're in a crowd), you can take cover and protect yourself. If you're also armed, you can even stop the shooter, because you know they're there and they're making enough noise to easily locate them.
Nobody's proposing ending gun violence with more gun violence. Care to try again?
Here, I'll do it for you, then I'll respond to that as well; it'll save us both a post.
Yes because somehow car accidents can't be solved by more cars they same way gun violence can.
The problem isn't gun violence, it's violence and you don't solve it by taking away guns, because there are plenty of other ways to enact violence and the violent types will use them. Similarly, you don't solve humans being inattentive, or irresponsible, or simply being human and making mistakes, by taking away cars, because there are plenty of other ways in which humans are inattentive, irresponsible, or simply human and make mistakes.
I haven't heard a single person advocate for more guns, that's just a strawman your kind put up because you know nobody will defend it, because you're the one who said it in the first place. Go argue with yourself elsewhere, you're the reason we can't have reasonable gun laws in the first place and, as long as you keep at it, we'll never have gun laws that actually work.
Why limit it to black families? After all, it isn't just black families who do a shit job of raising their kids; and, in fact, many black families do a better job raising their kids than white families of the same class, despite what the stereotypes say. The issue is one of responsibility, not race, just as with guns, cars, knives, pressure cookers, or any other standard object.
When we're discussing responsibility, can we please not muddy the waters by making it about race, gender, or any other factor other than responsibility? In this country, when you are irresponsible with your rights, you have them restricted; when you are irresponsible with your privileges, you have them removed. At least, that what we're told, but all this making it about race, gender, sexual orientation, and what the fuck ever else, makes it near impossible to properly deal with certain classes of bad actors without massive public backlash.
And that's why it seems like things are getting worse.
There basically is no place in the world where is as easy to legally get a gun as in the US
Fixed that for you. Due to smuggling, it's basically equally easy to get a gun in illegally in any industrialized nation. If it weren't, we should expect there to be literally zero gun crime in countries where it is difficult or impossible to legally obtain a gun, but there is no place in the world with zero gun crime. Funny how that works out.
Why does someone outside of Chicago have any say over Chicago's laws? Aside from the obvious "state and federal laws apply" answer, of course.
I don't live in Chicago, or even in Illinois; it's not that I'm an idiot or that I can't remember, it's that it wasn't relevant to me until this very moment so why would I know it?
Slashdot Mirror
I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?
What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?
Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?
That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.
One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?
After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.
There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.
When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone
add segment_register:[disp + r32_A + r32_B*n], r32_C
That's no-one's idea of a classic RISC instruction.
You're right. It's not. That, sir, is an x86 instruction, which the x86 translation layer takes as input and passes to a RISC core. Intel, at least, has been doing this since the Core series was released.
Your comment jumps the rails right there, with your first remark, and only gets farther and farther off course from there.
You make a whole lot of assumptions. The Supreme Court struck down those laws because they were unconstitutional. They were in violation of an amendment to The Constitution that is still very much in effect. The Supreme Court did the right thing; that's why the laws were struck down even though they (appeared to) work.
I do find it curious that my questions about Oakland are consistently being ignored, though, in every thread in which I've asked them. Are the answers just too uncomfortable of a truth for you?
It really is sad. I mean the common argument for the de-portification of the MacBook Pro is that not everyone needs the ports. Know what? That's who the MacBook and MacBook Air are for. The MacBook Pro is for the Pro user to be able to pick up (with nothing else*) and go and know they can plug in to the projector for their presentation, or connect to the secure no-wi-fi network, or hook in to the audio system, or whatever they need to do.
* With nothing else: The MacBook Pro was touted as the ideal laptop for the professional in part due to its battery life, which meant you could leave your charger at your desk. That "benefit" means a lot less if you have to bring an ethernet adapter, an HDMI adapter, a DAC, and a memory card reader with you to do all the things your old laptop could do that you, as a professional, may need to do in whatever line of work you happen to be in. At that point, you're better off with a laptop with a shorter battery life and all the ports you need built in, because then you only need to carry your charger; you know you've got everything else you need, because it's built in.
But they're (outwardly, at least) anti-gun...
Imagine a scenario where Pulse had plainclothes armed security. Same deal. The issue here is that gun free zones are soft targets for people with guns, coupled with the fact that we have people who want to kill. As long as guns exist, that will be a fact.
Modern x86 is nothing more than an x86 translation layer around a RISC chip, any way. We're already all using RISC processors, so there's not a whole lot to be gained by "switching" to them. Not in terms or performance and security, at least.
So the Mac Pro is going to go 6 years without a refresh?
Yes, Apple very clearly cares about professional users.
If that is indeed true (and I've seen no evidence that it is; if it were, I would assume smuggling guns into the country would be much less profitable and almost never done, which is not the case), that speaks to a need for laws regarding the storage and safe keeping of guns, not the removal thereof. We have such laws for firearms dealers and, as a result, guns are stolen from law enforcement more frequently than they're stolen from gun shops.
Somebody mod this man up.
The notch would have been fine if it were reserved for system use only. You wouldn't have had to update your apps and you even would have gained some vertical space in landscape mode because notifications could have stayed in the notch, nullifying the need for a notification bar. That's where apple screwed up.
Personally, I like the look of the iPhone X and it would have been my next phone (instead of the S9 Plus I upgraded to) if they'd implemented it that way; but it just gets in the way for watching videos or viewing photos, which are two things I do a lot of on my phone, which is what killed the iPX for me.
Simple. They could have reserved the notch for system use (notifications, clock, etc) rather than letting applications use that space, a decision which means many applications that put interactable items in the middle of the left or right edge now have two orientations in which they can't be used without some rework.
LG's solution keeps applications out of the "notch-side" display area, so they don't have to be aware of it. 0 applications broke due to LG's design, more than 0 applications broke due to Apple's design; ergo, Apple screwed up their design.
Less people shot, of course, doesn't correlate to less people killed. Knives, vehicles, and bombs still account for some pretty large numbers in mass-killing attacks, especially in places where guns are less prevalent. See here for my take on why that might not necessarily be a good thing.
And the irony is that this was done by an SJW type and not a "gun nut".
And that's how you destroy an AC troll. Good show!
Indeed. Guns are the least scary of the mass-assault options. A knife is silent, you might not know someone is stabbing people in a crowd until they stab you. A bomb is instant, you don't get to hear the first shot fired and take cover, nor can you kill, incapacitate, or restrain the bomber to prevent detonation. Vehicles are so commonplace, nobody thinks twice about one approaching a cordoned-off area (they may just be parking, or looking for room to turn around) and by the time you realize they're gonna plow through the crowd you're part of, well, it's too late to get out of the way... because you're in a crowd and, well, you can't run through people (like the vehicle can); further, even if someone does realize the vehicle is gonna drive through that crowd, what can they do? Shoot the driver? The vehicle doesn't magically stop when the driver becomes incapacitated and there's a fair chance they'll mash the gas pedal as they seize.
At least with a gun, if the first shot doesn't hit you (and there's a good chance it won't if you're in a crowd), you can take cover and protect yourself. If you're also armed, you can even stop the shooter, because you know they're there and they're making enough noise to easily locate them.
Screwing over loyal creators is worthy if a shooting.
I don't think I'd go quite that far, but I do find the timing of this to be delightfully ironic.
Prove it, the statistics are available. And I mean to say this to both you and the poster to whom you are replying.
Here, I'll do it for you, then I'll respond to that as well; it'll save us both a post.
Yes because somehow car accidents can't be solved by more cars they same way gun violence can.
The problem isn't gun violence, it's violence and you don't solve it by taking away guns, because there are plenty of other ways to enact violence and the violent types will use them. Similarly, you don't solve humans being inattentive, or irresponsible, or simply being human and making mistakes, by taking away cars, because there are plenty of other ways in which humans are inattentive, irresponsible, or simply human and make mistakes.
I haven't heard a single person advocate for more guns, that's just a strawman your kind put up because you know nobody will defend it, because you're the one who said it in the first place. Go argue with yourself elsewhere, you're the reason we can't have reasonable gun laws in the first place and, as long as you keep at it, we'll never have gun laws that actually work.
Why limit it to black families? After all, it isn't just black families who do a shit job of raising their kids; and, in fact, many black families do a better job raising their kids than white families of the same class, despite what the stereotypes say. The issue is one of responsibility, not race, just as with guns, cars, knives, pressure cookers, or any other standard object.
When we're discussing responsibility, can we please not muddy the waters by making it about race, gender, or any other factor other than responsibility? In this country, when you are irresponsible with your rights, you have them restricted; when you are irresponsible with your privileges, you have them removed. At least, that what we're told, but all this making it about race, gender, sexual orientation, and what the fuck ever else, makes it near impossible to properly deal with certain classes of bad actors without massive public backlash.
And that's why it seems like things are getting worse.
There basically is no place in the world where is as easy to legally get a gun as in the US
Fixed that for you. Due to smuggling, it's basically equally easy to get a gun in illegally in any industrialized nation. If it weren't, we should expect there to be literally zero gun crime in countries where it is difficult or impossible to legally obtain a gun, but there is no place in the world with zero gun crime. Funny how that works out.
I believe they're off by default. If they're on, you can tell her it's her fault LOL
Is owning a gun for sporting purposes unhealthy?
Why does someone outside of Chicago have any say over Chicago's laws? Aside from the obvious "state and federal laws apply" answer, of course.
I don't live in Chicago, or even in Illinois; it's not that I'm an idiot or that I can't remember, it's that it wasn't relevant to me until this very moment so why would I know it?
Well, yeah, but it'll start out concentrated around the borders, since that's where the guns will land first. You're right though, it will spread.