[QUOTE=kriesel;523111]silver haloid or kodachrome chemical film exposure and developing versus silicon based CCD image capture.[/QUOTE]
To further this point, even CCDs are now mostly obsolete outside of special applications. Most cameras now use CMOS image sensors, even high-end professional digital cameras, not just cellphones.

[QUOTE=nomead;523112]To further this point, even CCDs are now mostly obsolete outside of special applications. Most cameras now use CMOS image sensors, even high-end professional digital cameras, not just cellphones.[/QUOTE]Astronomy is one of the special applications where CCDs still rule supreme. CMOS still can't match their low noise and linearity characteristics, though great improvement of CMOS sensors has taken place in the last few years.

[QUOTE=kriesel;523111]
At one time the seriously mentally ill were treated in institutions sized and funded to get the job done. Now they are much more likely to be given drugs and left to roam free, often homeless and going off their meds, to their own detriment and sometimes of those they encounter.

At one time the laws were enforced. Now politicians pressure the schools and police to downrate or ignore numerous offenses to produce improved crime statistics (cook the books).[/QUOTE]
Our Hero of Dayton (whose name I have eliminated from this post) would seem to illustrate this point:

[url=https://www.apnews.com/83e222c2be834d1fb3b472f9f77aabb2]Classmates: Ohio shooter kept a ‘hit list’ and a ‘rape list’[/url][quote]DAYTON, Ohio (AP) — High school classmates of the gunman who killed nine people early Sunday in Dayton, Ohio, say he was suspended for compiling a "hit list" of those he wanted to kill and a “rape list” of girls he wanted to sexually assault.

The accounts by two former classmates emerged after police said there was nothing in the background of 24-year-old :censored: that would have prevented him from purchasing the .223-caliber rifle with extended ammunition magazines that he used to open fire outside a crowded bar. Police on patrol in the entertainment district fatally shot him less than a minute later.
<snip>
The discovery of the hit list early in 2012 sparked a police investigation, and roughly one-third of Bellbrook students skipped school out of fear, according to an article in the Dayton Daily News.

It’s not clear what became of that investigation. Chief Michael Brown in Sugarcreek Township, which has jurisdiction over the Bellbrook school, did not return calls Sunday about whether his agency investigated the hit list.

Though :censored:, who was 17 at the time, was not named publicly by authorities at the time as the author of the list, the former classmates said it was common knowledge within the school he was the one suspended over the incident.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;523127]Our Hero of Dayton (whose name I have eliminated from this post) would seem to illustrate this point:

[URL="https://www.apnews.com/83e222c2be834d1fb3b472f9f77aabb2"]Classmates: Ohio shooter kept a ‘hit list’ and a ‘rape list’[/URL][/QUOTE]OHOD is too good an appellation. I suggest MAL#n (murderous (synonym for anus) loser) followed by the event sequence number. By some reports it's around 250 now. Total anonymity; deprive all such destructive individuals of the instant fame/infamy they seem to seek.
So, several years after he first appeared on the radar, 20 murders, and dozens of attempted murders too late, but eventually police who were already on scene because they were paid security for a bar administered enough projectiles to resolve his mental issues. This is not the preferred standard of treatment for mental illness, but it does seem to be an increasingly common one. Ammo costs less than haldol, and a one-hour or briefer course is often a permanent resolution.
There was a book review published in Scientific American in March 1991 regarding schizophrenia that sounded quite hopeful for advances in understanding the causes and improving treatment effectiveness. Nearly 30 years later it seems little has changed.
[URL]https://books.google.com/books/about/Schizophrenia_Genesis.html?id=BYxjQgAACAAJ[/URL]

[QUOTE=kriesel;523136]OHOD is too good an appellation. I suggest MAL#n (murderous (synonym for anus) loser) followed by the event sequence number. By some reports it's around 250 now. Total anonymity; deprive all such destructive individuals of the instant fame/infamy they seem to seek.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
To each his own. [i]De gustibus non est disputandum[/i].

It seems that Our Hero of Dayton's own sister was among his victims. Truly exceptional. (I hope!)

For perpetrators of mass shootings, perhaps something like "Our latest NRA poster child" or "Our latest Champion of the Second Amendment" would also be apropos.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;523140]
For perpetrators of mass shootings, perhaps something like "Our latest NRA poster child" or "Our latest Champion of the Second Amendment" would also be apropos.[/QUOTE]
No, both because the terms are too positive, and they do not represent anyone but themselves and their own twisted thinking and actions. NRA membership and second amendment support includes sheriffs, police, judges, statesmen, actors, and many other very responsible, moral, and accomplished people. Let's see you make a convincing case that the terrorist who determinedly ran down countless French and tourists in Nice with a large truck is a fair representative of the average blue collar European trucker or France as a whole, and that the occasional commercial pilot who intentionally runs a loaded large commercial jet into a mountain or ocean killing hundreds is representative of the many competent professional moral pilots or his nation as a whole. And that 19 individuals in September 2011 causing the deaths of 3000 Americans and others by punching planes into buildings or the dirt are representative of hundreds of millions of middle eastern residents or a particular ethnicity or religion. And that Niels Hogel is representative of medical professionals. [URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/world/europe/germany-nurse-killed-patients.html[/URL]

Call all these murderous individuals what they are: cautionary tales on the importance of mental health and morality, effective timely intervention, and community alertness.

It doesn't matter what you call them.

The REAL problem to be solved is not allowing them access to guns. And since no one can predict in advance who they are, then not allowing anyone to have guns is a REAL solution.

You won't need to "protect" yourself from others with guns if others don't have guns. So the "for-my-protection" argument disappears. And AFAICT tell there isn't any other argument being made.

It would also be easy to spot the criminals with guns since all people with guns would be criminals. No need to try and figure out who is the "good guy" vs the "bad guy". The selection is simple: Got a gun so therefore automatically a bad guy. Round up all the bad guys, they will be easy to spot, they are the ones with guns. Problem solved.

[QUOTE=retina;523146]
You won't need to "protect" yourself from others with guns if others don't have guns. So the "for-my-protection" argument disappears. And AFAICT tell there isn't any other argument being made.

It would also be easy to spot the criminals with guns since all people with guns would be criminals. No need to try and figure out who is the "good guy" vs the "bad guy". The selection is simple: Got a gun so therefore automatically a bad guy. Round up all the bad guys, they will be easy to spot, they are the ones with guns. Problem solved.[/QUOTE]Others will always have guns. Mexico makes it almost impossible for civilians to own guns. They've lost control of some of the country to the criminal cartels. Some of the police are members of the cartels and cooperate in the killings. Criminals will acquire firearms or make them, regardless. Some are even stolen from military or police sources. Do you propose to disarm them too? Who does that, and how do they then disarm or stop the violent criminals, run them down with a squad car?

You also neglect the concept of plain-clothes police.

You also ignore that a smallish person or disabled person or senior citizen is no match for a home invader or 3, with illegal weapons or with knives or clubs, or a street thug wanting her social security check, unless armed. Most self defense uses of firearms result in no shot fired, just scaring the criminal off. And it's not preferable to be stabbed or beaten to death.

The police WILL NOT be there in time, if she's able to contact them at all. And they have no duty to protect any individual citizen. Not even if there's a restraining order ostensibly requiring them to act. (See Warren vs. DC and other case law.)

Wildlife or a neighbor's pets gone out of control don't care that chomping on us is not allowed.

Game population management is performed economically by volunteers who often pay for the privilege. This generally involves firearms.

The basis for the Founders including the second amendment in the US bill of rights was to be able to back up with force, if redress of grievances via the first amendment failed, that there were certain things the government was not permitted by the citizens to do. Government of, by and for the people, not control and subjugation of the people. The idea was that an armed citizenry would far outnumber any army, and deter a coup. There's actually precedent for REQUIRING the citizens to own firearms and keep sufficient supply of consumables and practice regularly. Where people give up their arms, too often democide happens. Unilateral disarmament has repeatedly been tried, and it turns out badly for those populations that are disarmed. But it's very popular with people who are afraid of individual responsibility, or imagine they will be the ones to benefit or be in charge of the new socialist regime. [URL]https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM[/URL]

There is no scenario of zero risk. Only approaches to minimization of risk or maximizing liberty.

If the number of guns positively correlated to the number of murders, Wyoming would be the bloodiest part of America and places like Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington DC the safest. They're not. The correlation is inverse.

Mass shooters generally choose "gun-free" guaranteed disarmed victim zones. The excess number of deaths per mass shooting is on average 12 more dead in a "gun-free" zone. It's like posted "fire-extinguisher-free" zones would be attractive to arsonists. They recognize the restriction helps them do more damage. Larry Holmes drove past other Aurora CO theaters to do his worst at one that prohibited even off-duty cops from carrying.

Broad-brush gun restriction gets more people killed.

Seems to work just fine in other countries.

[QUOTE=retina;523151]Seems to work just fine in other countries.[/QUOTE]Right, like in 1930s Germany, [URL]http://jpfo.org/alerts2015/alert20150127.htm[/URL]
And various others; [URL]http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart[/URL]
The LOW end estimates add up to 74 MILLION people killed by their own governments in the 20th century because of who they were.

That's about 1-2% per century worldwide average, so let's say 0.02% annually. (This 0.02% is optimistically low, since world population was under 2 billion up to about 1927.). Current US population is ~340 million.
0.02% would be 68,000 annually.

The reported stats for the US are 39,000 deaths by firearm annually, but that contains over 22,000 suicides (volunteers), so compare the average governmental estimated rate of 68,000 to 39,000-22,000 = 17,000, some of which are justified self defense or defense of others. Ratio: optimistically based, governments are [B]4[/B] times more dangerous to their citizens on average, than are armed citizens to others.
There are of course great variations among governments and individuals. Representative democracies that respect the rights of individual citizens tend to produce more freedom and less death than socialist or other totalitarian regimes. A single school board member in Bath Michigan in 1927 killed 45 people and wounded 58, mostly with explosives, mostly on school grounds. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster[/url]



A similar ratio is obtained for concealed carry permittees; [B]several[/B] times LESS LIKELY to be convicted of crime than police officers are (despite the high barriers to charging or convicting an officer).. [url]https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/[/url]

[QUOTE=kriesel;523144] Let's see you make a convincing case that the terrorist who determinedly ran down countless French and tourists in Nice with a large truck is a fair representative of the average blue collar European trucker or France as a whole
<snip>
And that 19 individuals in September 2011 causing the deaths of 3000 Americans and others by punching planes into buildings or the dirt are representative of hundreds of millions of middle eastern residents or a particular ethnicity or religion.[/QUOTE]In the first place, I am under no obligation to be "fair" -- whatever that may mean to you -- any more than, say, an editorial writer or cartoonist.

In the second place, my citing the NRA and Second Amendment is entirely in line with the subject heading of this thread.

As to your last unreasonable demand: After the 9/11 attacks, Muslims all over the Middle East were -- literally -- dancing in the streets, and holding celebratory feasts. But of course, I'm sure it would be "unfair" to say that this activity indicated widespread approval of the destruction and carnage.

We have plenty of racists, nativists, etc here in the good ol' USA -- especially the one in the White House. But the El Paso massacre did [i]not[/i] prompt any widespread celebrations that I am aware of.