Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the wit-and-info dept
This week our first place comment on the insightful side comes in response to Tim Cushing's post about the US's trajectory towards becoming a police state. That One Guy zeroed in one particular police comment and offered a fiery rebuttal:
"You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both."
Not only does that 'right' not exist, the 'choice' presented is a false dichotomy. Give up all the privacy possible with cameras in every room, every call intercepted and every email scanned, and you're still not guarantee a 'crime-free environment', because, and here's the kicker: those that break the laws tend not to care about the laws.
Cameras in every room? A would-be-criminal will plan out of range of them.
Every communication scanned? Speak in code.
There's also the tiny little detail that any crime not pre-planned could, at best, and assuming it's caught by the (currently mythical) all seeing and flawless privacy destroying system be stopped, not prevented.
They're not offering a trade of security in exchange for privacy, they're 'offering' a trade of something that they can't offer in exchange for something very real and important.
As for the 'woe is us, the police are so unfairly maligned' gist of the rest of the article, from the sound of it Trump's plan of solving that bonefire is to dump a bunch of gasoline on top of it. Pointing to the smoke while ignoring the fire it's coming from. If the public increasingly (rightly) doesn't trust the police, and/or feel that the police get special treatment going even more overboard in 'protecting' them from the mean old public is just going to fan the flames, increasing the divide and intensifying the animosity.
But hey, I suppose I could give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he's not being completely boneheaded here, because as the title notes, 'Do You Want A Police State? Because This Is How You Get A Police State'
For second place, we head to a discussion about security, where an interesting conversation broke out about what exactly the role is for biometrics. Pegr racked up enough votes to win the spot with a simple assertion, though (as we'll discuss in editor's choice) it's not the only way to look at it:
Biometrics are usernames, not passwords.
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we'll start out with a reply to that comment from Lawrence D’Oliveiro, who considers things in a bit more detail:
Unfortunately, no. Usernames are not confidential information, so there is no point in using biometrics for them.
A username is who you claim to be. But anybody can make that claim. You then have to accompany that claim with some kind of authentication protocol, to prove your claim. Which is where authentication comes in.
As Bruce Schneier has pointed out, there are three categories of ways to provide such authentication factors:
- Something you know (a password)
- Something you have (a physical key-type object, or other object that is easy to keep with you, such as a mobile phone)
- Something you are (biometrics).
What’s called “two-factor” authentication means using factors from two different categories.
Next, because it will lead into one of our winners on the funny side, we've got an excellent comment from sigalrm breaking out the many functions of some of the federal agencies impacted by Trump's recent gag order:
You may think you don't care about HHS. But consider that the operating divisions for HHS include, but are not limited to:
- Administration for Children and Families,
- Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality,
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
- Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC),
- Centers for Medicare & Medicade Services (CMS)
- Food & Drug Administration (FDA),
- National Institutes of Health (NIH), and more.
more here: https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/orgchart/
These all roll up under HHS, and are presumably all subject to this gag order, given HHS as the parent organization.
US Department of Commerce? Yeah. That includes:
- NOAA,
- NIST,
- The Patent and Trademark Office, and more.
Also all presumably under a gag order.
More here: https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/ media/files/2015/docorgchartfinal.pdf
One or two of those might be important.
I included that comment for the sake of detail, because over on the funny side, our first place winner is Thad responding to a commenter who questioned whether they'd "even notice if all of those agencies just disappeared from the face of the earth" with a blunter and more hilarious version of the same point:
That would depend on how quickly the contaminated food, water, air, and medications killed you.
For second place, we return to the police state post, where one commenter decided to push back by using some un-cited and highly questionable "facts" while accusing us of being inaccurate. Roger Strong nicely summed it up:
The anonymous source with anecdotal evidence from another anonymous source wants you to check your fact checkers. Go figure.
For editor's choice on the funny side, we'll start out with a fun piece of hyperbole anticipating law enforcement's reaction to the return of Lavabit:
This is an outrage! In the old days, all communications however sent could be recovered by journalists. When messages were written on paper, all manufacturers of sulphur matches could be required to provide technical means of reconstructing envelopes from ashes. Manufacturers of hammers, celts, or clubs could be required to provide tools to re-assemble broken cuneiform tablets. In a civilized society, Lavabit would be subject to the same requirements.
And finally, after a commenter took it upon themselves to blankly and repeatedly question what some of our posts about police and civil rights have to do with "tech", That One Guy delivered the best response I've ever seen to this question:
Well clearly it's tech related in the sense that TD has apparently figured out some magical coding for their pages that force you to read every single article whether you wanted to or not, and if so that's a wickedly impressive bit of tech I'd say.
That's all for this week, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Format
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Came Here To Mention That ...
... Peter Thiel has been a New Zealand citizen for some years, and was gratified to find I’d won another insightful comment of the week.
I think I could have phrased my contribution a little better, though. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first place comment in most insightful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
So tell me, how well did prohibition work? How well has the war on drugs worked? Prohibition gave rise to organized crime. Drugs can be bought on every street corner in the country.
The difference with alcohol and drugs are they mostly affect the person consuming them. Guns on the other hand, are used by the criminals to kill innocent citizens. If we disarm them, home invasions, carjacking and murder will go through the roof. In fact, every state has seen murders drop that has enacted concealed carry laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
How do you explain that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
Simple. America has more Americans than any other country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
"And yet the rate of violent crime"
http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
Your source, John Lott and his Crime Prevention Research Center, is well known for dishonestly manipulating statistics.
The graphs in your link are for homicides in general, not gun homicides. When 58 Chinese nationals suffocate in a lorry en route into the UK (classed as a homicide) it says nothing about gun bans.
Even the very first sentence in your link is an outright lie. Australia and several other countries that brought in gun control did indeed see lower gun crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-rese arch/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary
here see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population,” UPDATED numbers available here
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_352260. pdf). After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996.
Now you can play attack the messenger all you want:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime -research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary
It was the links in this article that were important... but go ahead and continue the character assassination.
Oh and while trying to read from your link
(http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.pdf)
"Error Code 403" Access forbidden. Yeah.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
https://guncarrier.com/ banning-guns-will-increase-crime-harvard-study-overview/
-
"lower gun crime" Crime is crime. The point nobody puts together is that GUN violence is down, violence in general is not.
EX:
For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
But a whole lot less gun violence.
Even then, when someone is killed by a gun in Canada, the gun is inevitably traced back to the US having been smuggled into Canada. This is what happens when you live next to the "gun in every school locker" culture.
Bank robbery is illegal in the US. Nevertheless the US still has bank robberies. No-one more intelligent than a house plant would argue against the idea that the law makes bank robberies less common.
Simply put, it's not about banning guns. It's about encouraging responsible behavior. People being shot by toddlers getting their hands on guns is a weekly even in America. Irresponsibility means that the safe feeling of gun protection is false one: Having a handgun in the home INCREASES people's chances of being killed by gun violence.
Think of the drunk driving laws enacted in the late '60s and early '70s. Drunk driving deaths were greatly reduced. But alcohol wasn't taken away. It's still freely available.
And it's about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, something the NRA and Republicans used to call for, but now scream about "gun grabbing" when anyone suggests it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Guess who doesn't have the right to own a firearm? If you want safety, then I suggest you move to Ottawa, I'll keep my rights.
*
Simply put, it's not about banning guns. It's about encouraging responsible behavior.
Think of the drunk driving laws enacted in the late '60s and early '70s. Drunk driving deaths were greatly reduced. But alcohol wasn't taken away. It's still freely available.
Drunk driving laws nevertheless greatly cut down on the number of drunk driving deaths. Laws demanding some basic responsibility regarding guns would do the same.
*
You might have a more productive conversation if you actually read what Roger's been writing. He's not calling for a ban on all guns, he's saying the push should be for responsible gun ownership. If you think you fall into that category then you've got nothing to worry about and there's no need to throw out such absurdities as 'If you don't like guns and rights, move.'
There are more than two options, 'Guns for everyone!' and 'Guns for no-one!', and the first step in a productive conversation is acknowledging this and not just lumping the other person into one of the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Push for what exactly? It's already against the law to sell a firearm to someone who is a felon, or mentally ill, drug addict, or who has a restraining order...etc. It's already required in some states to "secure" the fire arm so a "toddler" doesn't shoot someone.
"Fact: In 2007, there were only 54 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 12 times as many children died from drowning during the same period. 2
Fact: In 2007, there were 999 drowning victims and 137 firearm-related accidental deaths in age groups 1 through 19. This despite the fact that firearms outnumber pools by a factor of more than 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than dying from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500 times for children ages 0-5. 3"
"Federal Law. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”"
"Federal law does, however, make it unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer to sell or transfer any handgun unless the transferee is provided with a “secure gun storage or safety device”
State Laws Based on Negligent Storage
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Texas
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/consumer-child-safety/child-access-preventi on/
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf
http://www.gunfa cts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Presumably you're saying that those in Washington don't have the right to own a firearm. Because in Ottawa you can own a firearm.
Then there's the Quebec man who killed a cop and disabled another with his handgun in his home because he legitimately believed he was about to be killed by armed robbers. (No announce search warrant in the middle of the night). Found not guilty. Try that in America. They'd have given him the electric chair.
Sorry to contradict your little NRA fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
You mean like this?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
a) Quebec city isn't the Canadian capital.
b) The mass shooting is a very big deal because mass shootings are rare in Canada. In the US it's called "Thursday."
c) Even then, when someone is killed by a gun in Canada, the gun is inevitably traced back to the US having been smuggled into Canada. This is what happens when you live next to the "gun in every school locker" culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
What a load of bull. Typical anti-gun nut hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
"a) Quebec city isn't the Canadian capital."
It is not, but it is a good example that strict gun laws don't necessarily protect you against the maniacs.
"b) The mass shooting is a very big deal because mass shootings are rare in Canada. In the US it's called "Thursday."
See my point on A.
"c) Even then, when someone is killed by a gun in Canada, the gun is inevitably traced back to the US having been smuggled into Canada. This is what happens when you live next to the "gun in every school locker" culture."
I have no doubt that illegal guns are being smuggled into Canada from the U.S. Just as I have no doubt that illegal guns are being smuggled into/out of the U.S. from/to Mexico. Canada has a demand for firearms, and some Canadian citizens are willing to take the risk to purchase them. I'm not just talking about criminals either. A large segment of people buying illegal guns in Canada are collectors who otherwise are law abiding citizens. Regardless of the reason, simply passing gun control laws hasn't seemed to have stopped the dedicated criminals from getting them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/02/10/illegal-guns-in-canada_n_1269448.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Dramatics are in full swing with this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
This is the biggest straw-man ever built. Good job there Rodger. NATURALLY... you will get things crossing BORDERS of nations that... BORDER each other.
B), C) citation needed. A link that one guy smuggled some guns. Yup there ya go folks. Rodger Dodger just proved without a shadow of doubt that: "when someone is killed by a gun in Canada, the gun is inevitably traced back to the US"
"A Toronto man has been arrested after illegally crossing the U.S.-Canadian border into Quebec with a bag containing 24 handguns, the RCMP reports."
ROFL... good goin bruh.
Oh and this is great... Thanh Viet Pham. I am going to ASSume he is not a natural born citizen of the US or Canaduh.
So a Canadian comes here to illegally buy and smuggle handguns back to Canaduh and its OUR fault. I bet you tell a rape victim their skirt was too short or neckline too low huh bruh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
But screening will never be perfect, just like drunk driving laws don't stop people from drunk driving.
If you look at the number of accidental shootings, it is relatively low.
I can tell you one law that will save a million lives a year if you are actually interested in saving life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you look at the number of accidental shootings, it is relatively low.
In other words, if you buy a gun in the hope of protecting your loved ones, the odds are overwhelming (about 50:1) that it will end badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you look at the number of accidental shootings, it is relatively low.
There are many, many millions of guns in the US and billions of rounds of ammo. If there was a real gun problem in the US, we would know about it.
If you subtract out the gang and drug related homicides, your odds of being killed by a gun are extremely small.
But again, if saving life is your goal, I can tell you how to save 1 million per year.
http://ijr.com/2016/01/510415-10-charts-that-put-obamas-gun-violence-town-hall-in-perspective/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If you look at the number of accidental shootings, it is relatively low.
The FBI releases some stats (or at least used to.) Their numbers are a bit lower: one justifiable killing for every 38 murders, suicides or accidental deaths in 2012.
Just to be clear, America's gun lobby has been very successful in disappearing proper citations on this subject.
The Centers for Disease Control used to fund research into the causes of death in the United States. Gun safety was well within their mandate to cover injury (hence the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control) disability, food borne pathogens, environmental health, occupational safety and more.
But in 1996 after studies found that guns can be dangerous, they were punished.
First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. When that failed they pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget - the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year - and outlawed research on gun control.
Soviets would applaud.
Duly noted. I've rated your comment as funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If you look at the number of accidental shootings, it is relatively low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If you look at the number of accidental shootings, it is relatively low.
Putting on your tinfoil hat I see. Looks lovely from here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
You have some background checks. Which aren't hard to avoid if you want to.
Drunk driving laws nevertheless greatly cut down on the number of drunk driving deaths. Laws demanding some basic responsibility regarding guns would do the same.
If you look at the number of accidental shootings, it is insanely high.
Heck, people have run the numbers and found that toddlers shoot more than one person a week in America. Stories of pets shooting their owners aren't at all unusual.
Looking up that recent gun smuggling story above, I did a news search on "bag of guns." The insanity I found...
Like the NFL running back who shot himself dead lifting his duffel bag when the gun inside it fired. Jostling around while loaded, with no lock. Or the TSA discovering 3,391 firearms in carry-on bags in 2016, 2,815 of them loaded. With most owners so goddamned clueless that they simply forgot they had them. Let alone left loaded. Those numbers have been climbing steadily every year since 2005.
Do tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Consider this graph of when abortions are done. 99% are in the first 20 weeks. Synapses don't even begin forming until 17 weeks in. No brain, not a person.
If you're going to declare personhood, 17 to 20 weeks seems like a much more reasonable crossover point. Though keep in mind that that remaining 1% includes cases of rape and incest and where the mother's life is in danger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
You just got trolled bruh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Citation needed... yet again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Yet suggest that people who are acting like dicks should have their guns confiscated and it's the end of the f###king world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Drink[sic] driving laws don't stop anything. They merely provide penalties for the act. (Pick your source of choice: https://www.google.com/search?q=drunk+driving+laws+don%27t+stop+drunk+drive)
Acting like a dick is not against the law. Confiscating firearms is.
I hope that wasn't too subtle for you.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, something the NRA and Republicans
criminals and the mentally ill,... the NRA and Republicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Citation needed.
"Having a handgun in the home INCREASES people's chances of being killed by gun violence."
Citation needed.
"And it's about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, something the NRA and Republicans used to call for"
And got: HR2640
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQmZ0Oy_qE
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640/t ext
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
I had already provided the citation for toddlers shooting people in another post. 51 people shot by toddlers, and it was only mid-October. 58 shot by toddlers the year before.
As for your other citation request, the toddler shootings are just one example. Others compare the number of accidental shootings per year (500-600), ignore the 20,000+ gun suicides, and compare it to the number of defensive shootings. Accidental shootings win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Which they received via HR2640 which you failed to address.
"accidental shootings per year"
Do we include Cheney's accidental shooting? On a gun range?
"Accidental shootings win."
Lemme tell ya a little story, not about a man named fRed. I used to do plumbing in some of the worst areas in Phila. One day I come out to the truck to find 4 thugs trying to break in. My first reaction was put my hand in my pocket to secure my firearm. Then i yelled "Hey, what are you doing?" 4 to 1 so I guess they thought they would rush me. Until... my hand came from my pocket and they had a loaded gun pointed at them. Needless to say they ran off like scared rabbits.
So... one has to wonder how many of these go unreported. Mine wasn't reported and neither were the 2 other times in my life I had to draw my firearm.
That was the third time I had to pull a firearm in self defense. So at least for me, I never go anywhere without one.
-
Oh... and I like the way the Politico article omits any links to the actual events for context. That's a typical troll tactic.
-
If I remember correctly this was at like 2 am:
"Shortly after midnight on June 5, 2014, two friends left a party briefly. Upon returning they accidentally knocked on the wrong door. Believing burglars were breaking in, the frightened homeowner called the police, grabbed his gun and fired a single round, hitting one of the confused party-goers in the chest."
-
Oh and for all your gun hating friends:
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stop ped-by-good-guys-with-guns/
-
Oh and also, since you cite it; Does this sound right to you?
Wafer opened the door and, spotting a dark figure behind the screen, fired a single blast at the supposed intruder. The shot killed a 19-year-old girl who was knocking to ask for help after a car accident.
Opened the door but didn't put a porch/hall light on? And again unless Politico would have provided links to the WHOLE STORY, its just a cherry-picked set of he-said she-saids.
-
And for all the talk of "mass shootings" I just found out that the bar for it being considered "mass" is 4. ROFL. Gotta sensationalize somewhere.
-
So when you're hating on guns just remember stories like mine that do not get reported but do happen daily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
I chose to pull a firearm because I believed the contents of my truck was more valuable than a human life.
Just corrected that for you :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
LOL you slam Wikipedia - which itself provides proper citations - but then provide John Lott links? LOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
Gun control has actually worked in Australia. To my knowledge, you haven’t and a single mass shooting (killing of 5 or more people in a single incident) since Port Arthur in 1996, because of the gun-control legislation that was brought in after that.
More than just banning the guns, the Government also instituted a buy-back program to get them out of circulation. That was important to ensure they were not simply driven underground.
In short, gun control, properly done, has been a major success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
If they secure the borders, and then make it a requirement for the police to protect it's citizens, then ok... they can have the guns. SCOTUS has ruled, a few times if I recall, that protecting the citizens is not the job of the police. Until that changes, we'll keep our guns thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
You are welcome to give up YOUR rights and YOUR firearms and prance around in tights all day long, but you don't get to give away my rights or anyone else's rights or "the guns" as you so call them.
The right to bear arms including firearms is enshrined in the United States Constitution and I don't give a hoot what criteria you just pulled out of your backside based on which you're willing to undermine that.
Scoot.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
The kinds of weapons that are available illegally and used for such purposes is increasing. There are many who have no regard for whatever laws are put in place and they will and do find ways around them. We have our occasional capture of illegal weapons but this is just the tip of the iceberg.
As was intimated earlier, the nature of man needs to change and people need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of devolving that responsibility to others. You have one right only - to choose your course of action, the rest is responsibility and privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mass shootings was a extreme rarity anyway.
Australia was experiencing about one a year in the decade and a half prior to 1996. After Port Arthur in 1996, there were none.
Why? Because of the gun-control measures brought in after Port Arthur. They worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mass shootings was a extreme rarity anyway.
Glad they worked there, not happening here. You want safety? Then more to Austrailia and give up your right to own a gun. I'll keep my rights thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mass shootings was a extreme rarity anyway.
1971 10 dead/0 injured - one family
1976 2/4 random
1981 5/0 family
1984 5/0 family
1984 7/28 Bikie gang warfare
1987 5/0 random
1987 7/0 random
1987 5/0 family
1987 8/0 random - this specific event show the idiocy of Melbournians who wanted to get a gander at what was happening.
1988 6/0 family
1990 5/7 random
1991 7/0 random
1992 6/0 random
1993 5/0 random
1996 6/0 family
1996 35/24 Port Arthur
2002 2/5 random
2011 3/3 neighbours/police
2014 4/0 family
2014 3/0 neighbours
2014 2/0 drug dealers (family)
2104 3/4 random
2015 2/0 1 police/1 assailant
2016 3/0 family
2016 2/2 family
So by the records, we have had 9 since Port Arthur. Let alone all the gunshot attacks that have occurred over the years since Port Arthur. This doesn't take into account the various mass killing by arson, blunt trauma, gassing and knives that have also taken place over the same period. Nor have I included the various bombings thathave occurred or even the recent use of a car to kill and injure multiple people in Melbourne.
Now notably, about half are caused by problems within specific families or between neighbours or between rival criminal gangs. The other half are random (at least as far as we know).
Make your conclusions based on the above. Mine is that the gun control measures undertaken haven't worked and while there is an unfulfilled market then these weapons will find a way in.
And when we look at the real mass shooting in here, there is only the Port Arthur event that can be considered as a mass event. Put it in perspective with the Granville Train Disaster, where 84 died and 213 injured or the various bridge collapses - Westgate Bridge 35 dead and 18 injured, Tasman Bridge 12 Killed.
Much as guns can be used in ways that are detrimental to others, anyone who has a will to kill will not be stopped by the banning of guns. I know of people who are terrified of guns, they consider them to be evil incarnate and all from one incident (Port Arthur).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
Well if you are going to ignore the facts then you can claim anythig that you like.
However I can assure you that it does work. Everywhere it has been properly tried is better than in the US.
See the bar chart halfway down this page.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
It's why whistle blowing is such an anathema to those in charge - the real facts are just too damn dangerous (to those hiding them) to let the plebs know anything about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
The facts? Do you mean the official facts or the real ones
You may have your own "alternative facts" - but in this case the official facts are remarkably close to the real facts.
Look - I'll accept that there are many occasions when the "official" version of a story is something that has been made up to cover an embarassing reality (such as when Obama (and others) said that Islamic terrorism had"nothig to do with Islam")- but in the case of gun death statistics it is rather hard to enact the degree of cover up that would be needed to make your case even vaguely plausible. You argument is about on a par with the flat earthers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
It's an apple to oranges comparison. They were prepared to give up their rights for security. Our forefathers were very careful in protecting us from ourselves in that regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
U.S. has up to 11 or so million illegal immigrants, Australia has around 62K.
If we can't even stop people coming to this country illegally, we have literally no chance of stopping the guns. The only thing gun control would do would be to take the guns from the law abiding citizens. Not going to happen.
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-immigrants-cross-border-year-7698f7af689c7 eec
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/more-than-62000-people-living-illegally-in- australia-20141226-12dxod.html
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal- immigration-in-the-u-s/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
The border isn't the problem.
Guns come FROM the USA. Almost everywhere else has stricter laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
I was referring to if we made them illegal. IE just because we make something illegal, it doesn't' keep it from happening. Illegal immigration is illegal, but that doesn't keep 11 million of them from being here, what makes you think if we took the guns from the people, we could keep the illegal ones out?
We can't keep their people out, they can't keep our guns out. Perhaps building a wall will do both.
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/2000-illegal-weapons-cross-us-mexico-border-every-day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
See my response to our kiwi friend below regarding the ineffectiveness of the gun ban and buyback due to the Port Arthur massacre.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOVE IT
A camera in every corner, inside and out..?
Lets see..
Mask and 10 minutes..
SMART THIEF..
1. mask
2. 10 minutes
3. KNOWS what he wants and WHERE you have it, or just GRABS that $1000 TV..
Average time for police to GET THERE...10-15 minutes.
Number of COPS per capita? about 1 per 10,000...in small Towns, 1-10 in 5000...
HOW many cops LIVE in the LOCAL area? FEW TO NONE.. They dont know the people, dont help the people, DONT CARE about the people..
In RURAL farming...YOU KNOW who has the guns..you LEARN who to talk to and WHO to shoot at..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOVE IT
SMART THIEF.. .. just GRABS that $1000 TV..
...and gives himself a hernia trying to carry it away - you seen the size of $1000 TVs these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LOVE IT
My >$1000 65" tv is so light and thin it's held in place by a couple of picture hooks. You could tie a string and a few bows to it, and float it away as a kite...
For decent home security, you still can't beat man's best friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LOVE IT
Weight is not the point - size is the point - you have to get it through the door.
My >$1000 65" tv is so light and thin it's held in place by a couple of picture hooks
Name your TV - I can't find a 65" that weighs less that~50lbs - and some are much heavier.
It may seem light but that is because it is so big - and our intuitive sense of weight is strongly coupled to density.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOVE IT
Talking with a Police Officer he said, "Hell, everyone has a gun around here." It is an accepted fact for these guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concept Of The Week: “Conservative Free Market”
Came across this item which mentions a conservative lobby group which wants President Trump to rein in the FTC’s attempts to go after Qualcomm over its anti-competitive patent practices.
It claims that such attempts to stop monopolistic activities “undercut ... conservative free market principles”.
And here I thought there was basically onlye one kind of “free market”, the kind which encouraged competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Free market' is when I get to do whatever I want and you can't stop me
To be fair they did say 'conservative free market principles', so maybe their idea of 'conservative principles' includes the idea of 'companies should be allowed to do anything they want without negative outside interference'.
Gotta love the featured comment at the bottom of that page.
Quote: One writer behind the letter, Jim Edwards of the Inventors' Project, told Morning Consult he hopes the letter gets other administration officials to pressure the FTC into withdrawing the complaint.
So the Executive pressuring an independent agency is suddenly a good thing now (Conservative->FTC), when some months ago it was a horribly flawed, possible illegal thing (Obama->FCC)?
Funny that. -BINARYGOD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
criminals still have guns in other countries.
Re: criminals still have guns in other countries.
Health care for the less-well-off is also better in just about every other developed country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biometrics and security
Gotta respectfully disagree with that comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Biometrics and security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Biometrics and security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That1Guy
On this one... NAILED IT!!!111!!ONE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]