Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:You don't own common sense (Score 1) 909

the side that goes along with the overwhelming amount of research (not to mention common sense) that suggests more guns = more gun accidents (and of course, more gun violence.)

Then I'm sure you can cite some of this research? The actual fact is that in recent decades, firearms accidents and murders by firearm have both decreased while the number of guns in private hands has increased.

Now, if you don't like guns, that's fine; like abortions, if you don't like one, don't have one. But if you're going to talk about an "overwhelming amount of research" about crime, you'd better be able to cite some criminology papers.

Comment Re:I think the difference is (Score 1) 909

your odds of surviving a knife attack are orders of magnitude better than surviving a shooting.

Not if the attacker has decided to kill you, no. Knife attacks are sometimes done specifically to wound or mutilate rather than kill.

The fact that despite the easy availability of black-market firearms 30% of US murders are committed without a firearm ought to clue you in that it's not "orders of magnitude" easier to survive an attack by other means.

The ancient world killed people with blades quite effectively. The armies of Alexander didn't have guns. Nor did the Romans, the folks who gave us the word "decimate".

But the phrase "Guns don't kill people" is verifiable bullshit.

No, assigning intent to inanimate objects is verifiable bullshit. Hammers don't build buildings. Scalpels don't perform surgeries. Guitars don't play music. Gasoline cans and matches don't burn down buildings. Shoes don't kick people. In all of those situations we understand that it is a person, not an object, which is responsible. But many people have an irrational emotional response to firearms due to their status as a cultural shibboleth, and so lose track of this principle.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 909

A gun is a weapon, and has a single purpose. It kills. It kills well.

A gun is a tool, which fires small pellets at a high velocity. Pellets can be fired at a variety of targets for a variety of reasons. Among those reasons are both self-defense and aggressive violence against other human beings. They are neither the easiest not most efficient way to murder human beings, efficient mass murderers use fire while poison is easier for killing one at a time. Your local Home Depot is more dangerous than your local gun store. Firearms are, however, the best means of self- and community-defense yet developed. As the cliche says, God made man, but Samuel Colt made man equal.

The U.S.'s murder rate is linked much more to its prevalence of economic injustice and history of racism than to the legal status of firearms. (There is no correlation between a state's murder rate and it's gun laws, but there is one between it GINI score and its murder rate.) Criminologists are pretty clear that gun control laws have little effect on violent crime, and may increase it by decreasing the ability to citizens to defend themselves.

Comment Re:/. editors: why do you maintain this shit hole? (Score 2) 909

Donald Trump broke this place.

Not really, no. /. used to be mostly liberal/libertarian with a large slice of middle-of-the-road. Rightwing nutjobs, facists, and Nazis-in-all-but-name used to be downmodded into oblivion within minutes of posting.

Then Gamergate happened.

Within a few months, /. culture was almost completely inverted - and the rightwing nutjobs, facists, and Nazis-in-all-but-name gained ascendance. Things have only gotten worse since then.

Comment Re:And you should learn to read before replying. (Score 1) 142

I guess you missed where he clearly stated that it was the post office (specifically, Deutsche Post) which was responsible for the manner in which the packages were taped together, not the sendor *or* the recipient.

I guess you missed the part where the sender did a crappy job of packaging - and the Deutsche Post had to do the best they could with the pile of shit he dropped on their counter.

Comment Re:First amendment ? WTH ? (Score 1) 115

The problem with their logic is, of course, that the police aren't forcing anyone to buy an Alexa device.

o.0 That's not a problem with their logic - that's something utterly irrelevant that you've pulled out of thin air.
 

If I choose to purchase a device that, by design, records everything I say, then I've voluntarily sacrificed my right to privacy in exchange for the benefits afforded by the device.

That's an assertion on your part, not a fact.
 

It's not the police's fault that I've done so, and they're entirely within their rights to seek a warrant for the information that I've served up on a platter.

Yes... and no. The police certainly are within their rights to seek a warrant to obtain information so long as is it relative to the case. They may not however use warrants to conduct fishing expeditions on the off-chance that information might be found that might be relevant to the case. Though they phrase it in First Amendment terms, that's the heart of Amazon's argument - they police have not established that the recordings are material to the case, and thus have no legal right to make a blanket request for private information.

Comment Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score 1) 320

The same experiment has been done for 100 years, and consistently reproduces the same results. Take a sealed, transparent tank of air. Shine sunlight on it. Take the temperature. Increase the percentage of CO2 in the tank. Shine sunlight. Take the temperature. The CO2-richer air has a higher temperature.

Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 4, Insightful) 512

A poor person gets stuck with a public defender, a rich person gets an amazing lawyer. That means an innocent person without money is more likely to go to prison than an innocent rich person. Or do you seriously think OJ would have gotten off if he was poor and Johnnie Cochran and his team were replaced with a court-appointed public defender? Because if you don't think that's the case, you agree with the person you condemned and owe them an apology.

Comment Re:Theory too (Score 1) 512

Common sense is frequently not reasonable and rational, just like your meandering post. Hint: When you are condemning something, condemn that one thing - don't start off vaguely criticising it and then wander off and attack the next scary thing that pops in your head. That makes you look unfocused, and your argument pallid.

Comment Re:Equality of Opportunity, not of Results (Score 2) 512

If you are prosperous, the government won't tax you down to the level of a welfare recipient, and conversely if you are a welfare recipient the government won't subsidise you to the level of a prosperous entrepreneur. Your explanation is so black and white it's lost all value, as reality lies somewhere in between, which your argument ignores entirely.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce

Working...