Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 146

Wow, once again, you COMPLETELY FAIL TO GET THE POINT. I don't know if you are TRYING to be obtuse or if it just comes naturally.

I don't recall ever stating that the police should be disbanded.

When I say "safe for murderers and rapists," are you REALLY so dumb that you don't realize? Police generally come when (if) called, and they take time to get there. We have police, and over 11,000 homicides in 2014. Police CANNOT prevent homicide. They show up AFTER the murder and try to catch the criminal. If somebody tries to kill you, and you happen to have a cell phone on you, do you think that you could stay alive the 5 to 10 minutes for the police to arrive? Maybe, maybe not. Try your luck!

Criminals can run from the police. However, criminals ARE afraid of armed victims.

I'd also like to find out your source for determining that shoot-outs are somehow safer for a woman

Where is your proof that it isn't? Seriously, running away and calling the cops is always your FIRST option, but it should never be your ONLY option. What if you can't run away? What if the woman is at home on the 2nd story and can't get past the bad guy on the stairs? The woman is MUCH better off locking the door and aiming the gun at the door. Try to tell me otherwise and make yourself look like a fool.

If a woman goes up against a man in a purely physical confrontation, the woman is at a disadvantage. The average woman will be smaller and weaker. The average man will be larger, stronger, and quite possibly have a background in sports and other physical activity. There are corner cases (God help the man that tries to attack Ronda Rousey), but, in general, what I have said is true. However, if the woman is armed, she stands a MUCH BETTER chance against those that would try to hurt her. It only takes about four to six pounds of pressure to pull a trigger, and, statistically speaking, woman actually make better shots than guys. Women are among the best sharp-shooters out there.

Like I said, about two miles from my house was a case where a good GIRL with a gun stopped a would-be mass murderer.

Here is a case where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still waiting. However, her ex killed her while she was still waiting... Gun control killed her. Here chances would have been MUCH better if she was armed...

Studies have shows ... MILLION TIMES A YEAR
Well for starters, some sources would be good.

OK. Granted. Given the quality of your thinking so far, I am not surprised that you can't use Google. Let me help you. Here is one great link. Yes, it is Wikipedia, but they have links to the various studies, so you can read them for yourself. This is from the article :

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million incidents per year. Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[2][3]

So, yeah, like I said, lots of these studies are biased one way or another. Throw out the lowest and highest scores and average the rest. However, even the ones AGAINST guns still have "estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year." Get rid of guns, and get rid of those tens of thousands of cases of using them defensively. "Using" can be just showing that you are armed and scaring the perpetrator off -- it does not have to involve firing shots. Guns in the hands of an honest person scare criminals.

requires a gun as opposed to less lethal options like calling the damned cops

Bullets travel at least 800 feet per second (545 MPH) and will only have to travel 2 to 20 feet or so. Cops travel at most 65 MPH, and may have to travel 5 miles. You do the math. If somebody could harm you in 30 seconds, you are willing to wait five to ten minutes for help to arrive? Plus, even if you can 911, you have to talk to the operator for at least 15 seconds before they dispatch an officer, and the closest one might be on another call.

Of course, if you have the opportunity, you should call the police too. But explain to me how having the option of shooting at a would-be attacker is a bad thing...

(and preferably ones not sponsored by the NRA since you know, bit of a conflict of interest there.)

But I bet that you actually believe studies done by anti-gun groups. Yeah, most people have an agenda. That is why I said above about "defensive gun use" studies to throw out the high and low scores (get rid of the obviously biased ones) and average the rest. Unlike people like you, I try to get at the TRUTH and not just pick biased studies that "prove" my point.

Yep. Fact of life. But you can do things to reduce the amount of people who die without resorting to a black and white "if its not zero then we may as well not bother at all" anti-logic.

Exactly MY point. If you did somehow remove ALL guns, you save a few lives (not all, murderers will still use other weapons), but you also may have MORE victims, since the criminals have much less fear of their victims! People often spout "gun deaths" like removing all guns would stop all of those people from dying -- which is a lie. Most "gun deaths" are suicides, and a suicidal person has plenty of other options besides guns. Even gun homicides would mostly just turn to knife homicides.

Yeah, its such a shitty world when we have to only worry about the second most deadly weapon. If only they'd start shooting each other more often then we could stop worrying about knives! That's like saying we shouldn't bother curing cancer because then we'd just be worrying more about heart attacks

This is more about the mind-set and the attitude. Let's keep on taking away rights and criminalizing more stuff until a murderer cannot commit murder. That is simply NEVER going to happen, unless you want to cut down all trees so that a criminal can't get a stick or a board to beat somebody with. A **LOT** of people carry a knife at a tool and kill nobody, but people like YOU want to turn them into criminals. No thank you. Do you want to live in a world where Gordon Ramsay is evil because of his constant use of deadly weapons?

Nobody said we shouldn't do that as well. These things aren't mutually exclusive and in fact are complementary in a lot of ways.

Figuring out WHY people are violent (social issues) should be the #1 goal. Taking a weapon out of the hands of a murderer still leaves a murderer with a different weapon. Get rid of the criminal and you don't have to worry about how many guns there are. DUH!

Yep. I much prefer being mocked for worrying about knives than being legitimately worried about guns.

You much prefer a world where honest people can be arrested for carrying a common multi-tool? Why don't you just go to prison -- that sounds about perfect for you - the residents are all disarmed. Some people are not mature enough to handle freedom.

Let's be honest here -- you are a hypocrite. You say that you want to take away rights to make people safer, but YOU get to choose WHICH rights. You only want to take away the rights that YOU happen to not care about. I can prove it...

How about, instead of repealing the 2nd Amendment, we repeal the 4th? Make it legal for the police to search you on a hunch. Make "driving while black" be reasonable suspicion. Have random checkpoints where every citizen is searched. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you care, right? However, I bet that you would scream and cry if this happened, because you happen to CARE about the that particular right. So, you give yourself the right to pick and choose which civil rights actually matter, despite the potential to save a LOT of lives by ignoring the 4th Amendment.

For the record, I also love the 4th Amendment and would fight for that too, if morons decided that taking away that right was "for my own good."

Comment Re:So long as we're trying such elaborate measures (Score 1) 191

Another example of VERY flawed logic.

Suppose that I had a relative who was killed by a red car. I go on a crusade saying that all red cars are dangerous and get the laws changed -- red cars are now illegal. After 10 years, the number of red-car-involved deaths effectively drops to zero. So, I can now claim success and that taking red cars off of the streets has made the streets safer.

My forcing murderers to use different tools does not make them stop being murderers.

Other countries also have different amounts of racial diversity, different languages, different economies, different mental health care systems, and different languages. Clearly we can ignore all of those other differences and only focus on the one difference that proves your point.

I could play the same game. In Japan there are not privately-owned guns, and they have a LOT more suicides. If Japan had more guns, their suicide rate would go down. See how that works?

Comment Re:So long as we're trying such elaborate measures (Score 1) 191

I find it funny how some people blame Chicago's violence problems on other cities with more lax laws. The interesting thing is how other cities with more guns generally have LESS CRIME.

So, we have two cities: one with high crime, and one with low crime. Obviously, the solution is to take the laws of the failing city and force those on the city that is doing OK. Yeah, right. This is like taking a test and cheating off of the dumbest kid in the class. If I were running a business, I would want to take business advice from the company that is making money, not the one that is going bankrupt. However, this is exactly what people want when they say that the problem with Chicago is that their laws are not nation-wide.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 146

Wow. Soooo much fail in one post.

Let's assume that we DID get rid of all guns. What would be the result? Criminals tend to be young males. Victims can be anybody, including women, and the elderly. Statistically speaking, in a physical confrontation, elderly and women are at a disadvantage compared to men. So you are clearly in FAVOR of criminals having an advantage. How very nice of you to make the streets safe for murderers and rapists. What chance does a 100-pound woman have against a crazy-ex? If she armed herself, at least she would have a chance. How sad that people like you want the woman defenseless. If I had to choose, I would much rather see the woman alive and her stalker dead, rather than the way that you would prefer. OK, you might not prefer that the woman die, but if you refuse to allow her the tools to defend herself, you are not really giving her much of a choice.

Studies have shows that guns are used approximately a MILLION TIMES A YEAR to prevent or deter crime. There are a lot of studies on this subject, and many of them are done to prove a point (pro-freedom or anti-freedom), so the numbers vary wildly. However, the median (aka probably most accurate) number seems to be around 800,000 to 1,000,000 times per year (think Olympic scoring -- discard low and high numbers and average the rest). So, you actually think that it would be a great idea to NOT deter crime a million times a year? Wow, how can anybody be that stupid?

Plus, if you did get rid of the guns, you still have the criminals. People will STILL DIE, so with guns gone, you then have to move on to the next bogeyman -- evil, terrible knives! I wish that I were joking, read this Snopes article:

The fact that people have to ask "is this satire" and the answer is "sadly, no." should be telling. So, yeah, if you really want to get rid of violence, you can do two things:

* Figure out what causes violence (socioeconomic factors) and try to address that.


* Get rid of guns.

* Whoops, people are still killing each other. Get rid of knives.

* Darn, people are still killing each other. Require proof of athletic league membership to buy a baseball bat, and you had better be a professional carpenter before buying a hammer.

Sadly, you would choose path #2. Re-read that Snopes article and then try to tell me that course is what you would want for America. I carry a Leatherman Wave on my belt at all times. You would be surprised how many times a day I need a knife, scissors, or screwdriver. Do you think that I want to live in a country where carrying a simple, common multi-tool can get me arrested?

Also, getting rid of guns will also remove hunting. Hunting is NECESSARY -- simple fact. Apex predators are mostly gone (like wolves). Vegetarian animals generally survive by running away and breeding a lot. It is the breeding thing that causes problems. Animals like deer and elk will breed like crazy in the absence of predators, until their numbers lead to destruction of habitat, starvation, and disease. I know that if I were a deer, I would rather have a happy life and live with a 10% chance of being shot, rather than a 100% chance of starvation, and hope that I was one of the ones strong enough to survive. I live close to Rocky Mountain National Park, and the rangers are having to shoot elk to keep their numbers down! True -- look it up.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 146

Ahhhh, another person who elevates assumptions to the level of facts.

1) Yes, guns are more powerful. However, the VAST majority of murders are in ones and twos. Mass murders are actually hardly a blip on the statistics. So can a person kill another person with only a knife? YES. In fact, it is possible to commit MASS murder with a knife. A couple of years ago, a guy near a college campus killed several people. He killed just as many people WITHOUT a gun as he did WITH a gun. Also, the army faces ENEMIES who are also armed, not innocent victims. A guy with a knife against an unarmed person still has a powerful advantage.

2) They will turn into a criminal who can kill you from three feet away with little chance of defending yourself.

2a) If the victim is armed, they might stand a chance. If you disarm the victim and the criminal still has at least a knife, they are still pretty screwed.

3) Less guns for the criminal to get their hands on comes about by disarming the VICTIMS. Yeah, right. Explain to me how disarming me makes me any safer. I have killed zero people. I have shot zero people. I have stabbed zero people. Disarming me only makes things safer for criminals that would seek to harm me or my family.

So, yeah, thanks of proving my point AGAIN that the media can make assumptions that sane people will still disagree on.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 146

By the way, you are right about more gun deaths than knife deaths. However, it would be extremely foolish to think that by removing guns, that those killed by guns would still be alive. Most of those would just turn into knife deaths. And, once again, I point out that people killed by knives are JUST AS DEAD as those killed by guns. How many people were killed by a TRUCK in France last month? Do you think that all of those grieving relatives are happy that their loved ones were not killed by a gun? Shifting murder from one weapon to another does nothing.

Get rid of the guns, and you still have murderers who will use another tool. Get rid of the criminal, and there will be no murders, no matter what tools are available.

By the way, did you know that there is VERY LITTLE correlation between the availability of guns and the homicide rate? On the other hand, there is a VERY BIG correlation between poverty and violence. Chicago has the same gun laws throughout the city. However, some zip codes have no homicides each year, and some zip codes have quite a few! The difference is the poverty in each zip code. If you want to save lives, try doing something about the poverty. Provide jobs.

I should also point out that, yes, guns make it easier to kill many people -- like in France, where they have very strict gun laws, where the killers had guns. However, the odds of being the victim of a mass murder are approximately the same as being struck by lightning -- extremely rare and not a good enough reason to restrict the rights of MILLIONS of honest Americans who have hurt nobody.

Simply stated, there are people (like you) who want to tell everybody else how to live. There are people (like me) who just want to be left the hell alone to live my life without people like you poking your nose into my business.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 146

I did not INTEND this to be a gun thread. I was just pointing out how the media can make ASSUMPTIONS that are not actually true!

Facts for you, besides the ones showing that the homicide rate is DECREASING. Quick! The streets are safer every year. DO SOMETHING TO REVERSE THIS HORRIBLE TREND!

We tried an "assault weapons ban" for 10 years. No noticeable affect on crime.

Over 300 millions guns in the US. 8,124 gun homicides in 2014. That means that for every gun used in a murder, there are were 37,000 that killed nobody. Yes, that means 0.027% of all guns are the problems.

In general, reducing the total number of guns will affect very little. Taking guns away from HONEST people will accomplish exactly NOTHING, and may even make things worse, since the honest can no longer defend themselves. There have been studies on this. Defensive gun use numbers vary based on the politics of the person doing the study, but even low-ball numbers are in the hundreds of thousands of incidents each year. High end ranges in several million, but around a million times a year seems to be the media. Yes, a million times a year guns are used to prevent or deter crime.

Some of the most violent places have the most strict gun laws! You may say that the guns come from areas with looser gun laws, but I will respond that those areas with looser gun laws have LESS VIOLENT CRIME. The net effect is that with strict gun laws, only the criminals are armed. If you have two cities: one with horrible crime and one that is doing OK, the obvious solution is to take the laws from the city that is failing and forcing those laws on the city that is doing great. That is like saying that a business that is making money should copy the business that is going bankrupt.

And please don't tell me that honest people don't stop crime with guns. An attempted mass shooting happened about one mile from where I live right now, and a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy.

So, you have proven my point. Don't make Assumptions that are not proven.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 4, Interesting) 146

Facts are not unfair or biased. However, media can (and often does) choose which facts need to be reported.

As a quick example, homicides are down over 50% since their peak around 1992 or 1993. The last time homicides were this low was 1957 (facts, based on FBI statistics). However, I have actually seen articles about "What (insert candidate name here) is going to do about gun violence?" This already assumes several things, and it is possible that NONE of them are true:

1) Gun deaths are somehow worse than knife deaths

2) A criminal without a gun will suddenly stop being a criminal

3) That doing something will automatically make the public safer, instead of just disarming the honest people.

4) Gun laws will actually affect criminals, whose job actually involves breaking the law.

Each of those points could be a discussion by itself, and yet some "news" pretends that all assumptions are already decided.

That is now news, that is propaganda. It is actually shaping the discussion to stack the deck in your favor.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 146

Interesting point about the watchdogs. Who actually IS a watchdog these days?

When I was a kid, you could generally trust the media. However, since the repeal of the "fairness doctrine," every media outlet is biased, and is really more of a propaganda machine than simply news.

Comment Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! (Score 1) 131

They can't go back and pay for it -- they've already pirated it.

I am not sure that I agree with this -- it is a bit of a gray zone.

If you pirate a track or an album, and then later pay for it, then who is the victim? Who is out their money? One customer still equals one sale of one track/album. Where is the loss?

Comment Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! (Score 1) 131

How do you pay for an unauthorized track you've downloaded when you download it, much less "later"?

For fans that have to have music the same day, download it illegally, and then purchase that track/album when it becomes available. That is a "win/win." Fans get music ASAP, labels and artists get money.

And I would suggest you don't waste your time going to a Barenaked Ladies concert. You'll be horribly disappointed.

Thanks for the laugh. I could use one today.

Comment Re:They disrupeed our plans! We want blood! (Score 0) 131

Real fans WILL support the artist. I would expect that a real fan would download the track to get it first, and then pay for it later. Real fans don't want to rip off one of their favorite artists.

I actually saw 21 pilots a few years ago before they really became popular. It was a small venue that only held a couple hundred people. Funny, there were only two of them. I wonder where the other 19 were? (yes, that's a (not very good) joke)

Slashdot Top Deals

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak