Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:100 more will die today (Score 1) 1719

I mentioned mass murders partially because it's the topic du jour, but if you look at figure 1 in the actual link I posted, you can actually see what happened with both the firearm and non-firearm homicide rate after the passing of the 1996 law. Both decreased.

In fact, the only areas where there was an immediate increase was the "non-firearm suicides" (though this later declined to below the 1995 levels) and the "unintentional firearm deaths" which as since developed a slight positive trend.

Comment Re:Dear "gun control" advocates (Score 1) 1013

I don't know what the hell you are talking about if you think that someone can run a hundred shells through a shotgun faster than a semi-automatic assault rifle. That's ten full magazines for a high capacity combat shotgun, and two to four for an assault rifle. On a "reload time per round" basis, I'm yet to see a shotgun that can be reloaded (.5 - 1 second per shell) as fast as an AR-15 (3-5 seconds for a 30 round magazine, that's 0.10 - 0.17 seconds per round - and higher capacity magazines are available).

A single no. 1 shot pellet can kill, but on an odds basis, the deer is more likely to survive.

And then there's the issue of weight. Someone can carry and uses a rifle effectively while carrying a couple hundred rifle shells. For shotguns, a couple dozen is about all that is practical.

Oh, and the pattern spread for a shotgun at 10 yards (no choke) is about 15 inches, so it is unlikely that a single shell is going to allow you to reliably hit more than one target at a time in close quarters (5 yards).

As for your final comment, if you are incompetent and inexperienced with the weapons you are using, then yes, you will suck. I agree with you on that one thing, at least.

Comment Re:100 more will die today (Score 1) 1719

Hey, I did a bit more research, and you are talking out of your ass.

Check this out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/

In 1996, Australia banned semi-automatic and pump-action long rifles and shotguns. In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass killings. In the 10 years since, zero. The firearm homicide rate dropped, as did the non-firearm homicide rate. (Check out figure 1.) There's other fun finding also, but I'll leave them for you to find.

Comment Re:PLCAA (Score 1) 1013

Eh. If I have "stuff" that I need holes in, I use a drill. Much more precise, frequently lighter, almost always cheaper, and I get to chose the hole size and depth. If I have stuff that I want dead or otherwise destroyed, a gun may be the tool of choice. The fact that a gun puts a hole in "stuff" is incidental to their actual purpose.

Guns are weapons that are designed to kill things. I've heard plenty of rationalizations in the last couple days about "some guns" are for target shooting, but that's really just a simulation of killing things. When someone brings that up, I like to point out that "some guns" are designed specifically for the purpose of killing people, to the detriment of other legitimate reasons for owning a gun, like killing animals for food.

Comment Re:100 more will die today (Score 5, Informative) 1719

Can you please cite some data?

I've only looked around for a minute or two, and here's what I've got:
  * The US had roughly 3 gun murders per 100 000 population in one year. (Data from 2008 - 2010)
  * The UK had 0.04 per 100 000 population (2011)
  * Australia had 0.09 per 100 000 (2008)

The (gun) murder rate in the US is 7.5 times larger than in the UK, and more than 3 times larger than in Australia. This would tend not to support your point. Since you mentioned crime, I did not cite the Suicide and Accidental Death numbers, but they make the US look even worse.

Incidentally, the country with the highest gun homicide rate in the EU (that I could find data for on short notice) was Luxemburg - 0.6 gun murders per 100 000 population (2009). The US gun homicide rate is 5 times larger . . .

Comment Re: Question (Score 1) 780

I'd stop throwing that 51% number around - it demonstrates a bit of ignorance on recent tax policy (Those numbers are partially a result of temoporary tax breaks enacted in 2009 and recently expired), demographics (Retired seniors and students frequently have extremely low income, and thus little or no income tax burden, so we EXPECT that about 40% of households will have no income tax burden), and reality (First, there are plenty of other taxes in play, even at the shallow end of the income pool; Second, poor people typically aren't subject to corporate taxes either).

This excerpt from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505 may help you out:

The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]

These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.

Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.

Moreover, even these figures greatly understatelow-income households’ totaltax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011.[7]

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.[8]

Comment Re:Privacy issue: DNA dragnets (Score 1) 513

That was hardly voluntary.

This is a small community where a lot of people know each other and knew who did go to collection point.

This probably falls in the category of peerpressure.

O. M. G. Not the peer pressure!

The police also had a list of people and people who didn't volunteer would be visited or called by the police to ask why.

Citation needed. I'd actually bet that they don't give a shit. Mostly because they figure that at least one of your relatives will volunteer a sample which will in all likelihood exonerate you.

Comment Re:Privacy issue: DNA dragnets (Score 2) 513

I'm sorry, "all the cool kids are doing it", or "I'm really disappointed with you for not doing this" is not the same as compulsion. As others have already mentioned, this was occurring in a fairly small town, so the odds of one of your family members contributing a sample and incrimination (or exonerating) you is fairly high, regardless of your decision.

Just to clarify one thing:

If you have to make a decision where choice 1 results for more (subjective) unpleasantness for you than choice 2, that doesn't mean that you are compelled to chose choice 2.

The world's full of trade-offs, and if keeping your DNA in your own pants is worth a little Q&A with the police, then be prepared to do that. If they come after you with a $5 wrench, I agree that it's moved in to coercion, but putting up with a little pointed questioning . . . put on your big girl panties and deal with it.

Comment Re:Prosecutor's Fallacy (Score 4, Insightful) 513

There are a few more details that make the Prosecutor's Fallacy less applicable to this situation. First, they are looking at a relatively small population, so the odds of two unrelated matches is lower than if you were scanning a database of millions of profiles. Second, they have a pretty complete picture of the population that they are searching, so duplicate matches can be investigated. Third, this is all just evidence at this point - the trial is yet to be carried out. Assuming that a miscarriage of justice is going to occur because large quantities of DNA evidence was used seems a bit harsh for this early in the game.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...