[QUOTE=wombatman;500181]And while we're on the topic of "good guys with guns", let's remember that when the police roll up, they have to decide which of the people with guns are the ones that should be able to have them. If they choose rashly or incorrectly, this happens:

[URL]https://wgntv.com/2018/11/12/officer-responds-to-gunfire-fatally-shoots-security-guard-at-robbins-bar/[/URL]

The idea that we need more guns around is laughable on its face and fails when put up against any reasonable data set.[/QUOTE]
Waah! What happened to "An armed society is a polite society.?" Contrary to the NRA's claims, it seems that an armed society is hazardous to one's health. Stories like these lead to the conclusion that an armed society has a large Batsh!t contingent, who have the means to act out their Batsh!tiness in Technicolor®.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;500176]I don't know who quotes that as a statistic.[/QUOTE]It's commonly used by American gun control advocates to inflate the numbers as a way of alarming people, by conflating suicide, justifiable homicide, accident, and even organized crime. Such advocates have even dishonestly included the elder Tsarnaev brother in a list of "gun violence victims" being read off at an event, despite the fact the autopsy revealed what killed him was his younger brother running him over with a stolen SUV while fleeing their gun and IED battle with police, after killing 4 and maiming numerous others with pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, and subsequent criminal activity including killing an officer and hijacking a car.

If I had a choice between eliminating all firearms death, all death by motor vehicle, or 10% of heart disease or 10% of cancer, I'd probably take the biggest number of lives saved. 10% of heart disease, 63526. [URL]https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html[/URL]
Firearms does not make the top ten list of causes overall. It would be more productive for people to give more attention to safe driving and healthy lifestyle, than worrying about firearms.

Some of the statistics that are rarely discussed are appalling. American parents murder their own young children by the hundreds annually (more than the total of Americans of all ages not in military combat killed by rifles of any kind), more often than not it's the mother that does it, and it's mostly boys that are killed.

[QUOTE]I also don't count all people who suicide by gun as "bad guys with guns."[/QUOTE]Nor do I. Nor do I think the number among that over 20,000 who had considered misuse against others is zero. Probably low, but not zero, when someone gets to that dark a state of mind.

[QUOTE]
More pertinent IMO is that (Holmes) attacked a theater which disregarded fire exits being propped open. Theaters used to have the ushers monitor them during movies (and many today have alarms on these doors) in order to prevent ticket holders from letting their friends in for free. Holmes actually left the theater by a fire exit to "gear up," and prevented the door from closing by itself. If someone had simply shut that door before he tried to re-enter, the attack wouldn't have happened at all. I also wonder whether the body count would have been much higher if other people with guns started firing in the darkened theater. The potential for "friendly fire" casualties in a dark, crowded room shouldn't be dismissed lightly.[/QUOTE]Like I said, not a guarantee of no harm. A last resort when those bent on evil bring theirs. You are correct that even the cops are not perfect. But America is full enough of lawyers to give any reasonable person motivation to act judiciously. Typical numbers for mass murder attempts in self defense available areas are not dozens, it's 2 or 3 dead per incident. First shot or two, there's denial, then focus, then people quickly figure out someone's shooting multiple people, see who, then act. Whoever fires is responsible for the result of each round, both civilly and criminally. There was a concealed carrier at the Gabby Gifford incident, who held his fire because of concern of hitting the wrong person.

Re the Las Vegas concert:[QUOTE]The attacker didn't enter the venue. He blazed away at an automatic-weapons rate of fire, from a 32[sup]nd[/sup] floor window. For anyone in the venue to hit the attacker -- especially with a pistol -- would have been a phenomenal shot.[/QUOTE]They are not common, but there are people that can and have made such a shot at more than twice the distance, with a handgun. Return fire might also have given the murderer pause, or incentive to end earlier. Opposition is usually when they turn a weapon on themselves. You've also excluded the possibility that off-duty cops there with their friends would take enough exception to being shot at, to close the distance and help hotel security deal with the situation before the LVPD muster and roll in from a distance. At even a normal rate of fire, minutes, even seconds delay mean more death. A more typical self defense situation is a matter of seconds. I think it's absolutely shameful, criminally so, that the concert organizers created such a high density of defenseless very exposed people beneath multiple high rises and did not have appropriate security in place for a population of over 20,000, larger than a lot of municipalities which would have more than a dozen officers well equipped. It's very strange that it took over 80 minutes from first shots fired to forced entry into the hotel room.

[QUOTE]Yes, "de-institutionalization" has not been a roaring success. I'm not sure how much of a factor it is in mass shootings, but it certainly [I]is[/I] a factor in the problem of deranged people committing crimes (including shootings); and the nuisances, health risks, and criminal behavior of homeless people, of whom, I have read, about a third are suffering from chronic mental problems. One result has been, an awful lot of mentally ill people wind up in jails and prisons, which are generally not suited to treating them.[/QUOTE]Prison can be a very unhealthy place for anyone. Even a normally furnished room can be a pretty unhealthy place for a person in a strong schizophrenic episode; usual treatment is a pretty bare room, restraints for the patient's safety as needed, and drugs and frequent checks (15-minute charting, for example). I learned about some of this by being a guardian for someone so afflicted.
In the case of Jared Loughner (attacker of Gabby Gifford et al), his father tried to stop him, and tried to get the authorities involved. He may have been part of getting "red flag" laws passed in several states. Most mentally ill are pretty harmless, more at risk themselves than a threat to others.

A recurring theme in the above has to do with "economic efficiency" (cutting corners to save money). In the state where I live, statutes capped civil damages for a quick death at $500,000. They've literally put a price on life. Slow and painful costs more.

[QUOTE=kriesel;500189]Re the Las Vegas concert:They are not common, but there are people that can and have made such a shot at more than twice the distance, with a handgun. Return fire might also have given the murderer pause, or incentive to end earlier. [/QUOTE]

Are you seriously advocating that civilians with pistols should have been taking potshots at an OCCUPIED HOTEL from 30+ stories below and hundreds of feet away?

Do you not see how patently ludicrous that sounds?

I also note that you have nothing to say about the 100 round drums and bump stocks the guy used that facilitated both a high rate and high volume of bullets. As for why it took so long for the police to breach the room, maybe read up here: [url]https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/us/las-vegas-shooting-response/index.html[/url]

That's in addition to the fact that he was shooting out a window from 32 stories up. How readily do you think that was pinpointed?

[QUOTE=retina;500178]So the problem boils down to the belief of the "guns for protection" nonsense.[/QUOTE]
If it were nonsense, John Lott's county by county study of the entire US (well, parish by parish in Louisiana) showing more guns, less crime, correlating with date of concealed carry enactment specific to the various jurisdictions, would have been refuted, but those who tried to refute it failed badly.
Bellesiles, on the other hand, who made claims in "research" that were beneficial to gun control proponents, also claimed to have accessed records destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake before he was borne, was discredited, lost tenure, lost his job, his published "research" was retracted, since it was demonstrably falsified, etc.
If guns had more contribution to criminality than defense or deterrence, the slope in the attachment would be upward to the right. But it is not. Data from ~2010. Far upper left: DC, basically illegal to own a functional firearm. Far right: Wyoming. It's complicated; density and demographics and other factors are probably in the mix along with ownership rate. Wisconsin and Illinois are adjacent, both have large urban areas and other similarities but different firearms control approaches, and the gun murder rate is more than double in more restrictive Illinois.
People used to "know" the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth or various other mistaken theories. What's viewed as truth vs nonsense is often flat wrong.

Excess death rate from gun bans international data
 

[url]https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/[/url]

[QUOTE=wombatman;500191]Are you seriously advocating that civilians with pistols should have been taking potshots at an OCCUPIED HOTEL from 30+ stories below and hundreds of feet away?

Do you not see how patently ludicrous that sounds?

I also note that you have nothing to say about the 100 round drums and bump stocks the guy used that facilitated both a high rate and high volume of bullets. As for why it took so long for the police to breach the room, maybe read up here: [URL]https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/us/las-vegas-shooting-response/index.html[/URL]

That's in addition to the fact that he was shooting out a window from 32 stories up. How readily do you think that was pinpointed?[/QUOTE]I'd expect to be able to pinpoint the location of the shooter rather quickly by the broken windows, constant gunshots and frequent muzzle flash visible at 10pm. There are few people that could reliably make that shot, but there are people that can hit a vitals-sized area at up to _1000 yards_ with a handgun. They know who they are. The rest should know they are not. (The actual aim point is well above the 32nd floor.) And you too are misquoting me and ignoring the possibility of the _qualified off duty police in the crowd_ responding immediately, if only they had not been disarmed too as a condition of entry to the event, some of whom were eventually wounded and at least one killed. Rapid response is essential in a mass shooter event. Off duty cop friends who had already worked together went to a concert together. They would not have had to drive 9 miles, they were already there! The old playbook of stage and surround and wait for SWAT has long since been thrown out most places in favor of early entry to save lives overall. Assuming the LVPD drove at 90mph, that 9 miles is six minutes more for the mass shooter to spew bullets on the crowd. (Actually longer delay, because first they would have to be notified. The cops on scene already saw for themselves, no phone time required.) And as you refer to, the shooter had planned and brought gear that allowed him to fire at a high rate for a long time. That makes earlier response more vital.
Timeline: [url]https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/us/las-vegas-shooting-lawsuit/index.html[/url]

[QUOTE=kriesel;500194][url]https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/[/url][/QUOTE]Beautyfull usage of statistics !
One could draw other conclusions from the graphs presented about England and Wales : increasing the police service strength increases the incidence of firearm homicide.

Of course the organisation presenting those statistics is completely neutral. The "world-recognized expert on guns and crime", John Lott, owner of the site, has an interesting article in the English language Wikipedia, but not in any other.

Jacob

[QUOTE=kriesel;500189]I think it's absolutely shameful, criminally so, that the concert organizers created such a high density of defenseless very exposed people beneath multiple high rises and did not have appropriate security in place for a population of over 20,000, larger than a lot of municipalities which would have more than a dozen officers well equipped. It's very strange that it took over 80 minutes from first shots fired to forced entry into the hotel room.[/quote]Who are you to be dictating what would have been "appropriate" security, after the fact of an attack that was unprecedented, and could not reasonably have been anticipated? "Criminally shameful?" That doesn't even make sense.

I can only imagine the response if you took your notions of "appropriate" security to the organizers of events in open-air venues "beneath multiple high rises." If they're in a good mood, they might ask, "And who's gonna pay for this -- [i]you?"[/i]

You might also try going to the people who actually [i]attend[/i] such events, and tell them they're idiots for putting themselves in such terrible danger. But only if you are very fleet of foot...

Your basic premise here seems to be, one should [i]expect[/i] an armed attacker bent on killing as many people as possible, at any and every large gathering of people. In other words, you think such attacks should be considered "normal." If that's the case, I guess in your mind, the terrorists have won.

[QUOTE=kriesel;500192]If it were nonsense, John Lott's county by county study of the entire US (well, parish by parish in Louisiana) showing more guns, less crime, correlating with date of concealed carry enactment specific to the various jurisdictions, would have been refuted, but those who tried to refute it failed badly.
Bellesiles, on the other hand, who made claims in "research" that were beneficial to gun control proponents, also claimed to have accessed records destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake before he was borne, was discredited, lost tenure, lost his job, his published "research" was retracted, since it was demonstrably falsified, etc.
If guns had more contribution to criminality than defense or deterrence, the slope in the attachment would be upward to the right. But it is not. Data from ~2010. Far upper left: DC, basically illegal to own a functional firearm. Far right: Wyoming. It's complicated; density and demographics and other factors are probably in the mix along with ownership rate. Wisconsin and Illinois are adjacent, both have large urban areas and other similarities but different firearms control approaches, and the gun murder rate is more than double in more restrictive Illinois.
People used to "know" the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth or various other mistaken theories. What's viewed as truth vs nonsense is often flat wrong.[/QUOTE]

Take out the one aberrant data point and you could draw a straight line through that dataset, indicating that gun murder rate is not tied to gun ownership at all. As for Illinois, do you even bother to consider that people can purchase guns in neighboring states where gun laws are less restrictive and, say, bring them into the state (which is legal)? Of course not. Same for all your John Lott "data". This defense is laughable.

[QUOTE=kladner;500186]Waah! What happened to "An armed society is a polite society.?" Contrary to the NRA's claims, it seems that an armed society is hazardous to one's health. Stories like these lead to the conclusion that an armed society has a large Batsh!t contingent, who have the means to act out their Batsh!tiness in Technicolor®.[/QUOTE]
The "armed society" quotation comes from Robert Heinlein's book, [u]Beyond This Horizon[/u]. Here's a more extended quotation:[quote]Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That’s a personal evaluation only. But gunfighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things to kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both. It’s a good thing.[/quote]

One thing not mentioned in the quotation is, that in the society depicted in the book, there were unarmed citizens, proclaimed by their wearing of the "brassards-of-peace." These might be the old or infirm, who wouldn't stand a chance in a gunfight. Or, they might be pacifists. In any case, they were second-class citizens, bound by rules of conduct demanding obsequiousness toward armed citizens.

Now of course we all know that, having the right to keep and bear arms has made us US-ers renowned the world over for our politeness. Especially [i]Il Duce[/i].

I am not surprised that it is Heinlein. I've almost certainly read the book, but something like 50 years ago. The line did not pop out as Heinlein, but it certainly fits.

[QUOTE=kriesel;500189]It's commonly used [color=red][the figure of 33,000 gun [b]homicides[/b]][/color] by American gun control advocates to inflate the numbers as a way of alarming people, by conflating suicide, justifiable homicide, accident, and even organized crime. <snip>[/QUOTE]Could you please cite a reference? I usually don't have much trouble tracking things like this down, but in the present case the only person I could find online actually saying this was Jiang Zemin, talking to Bill Clinton in 1993(*). It's requoted in a few places, with attribution, but no gun-control advocacy sites turned up asserting it as fact. I found a few statements like "33,000 gun [i]deaths[/i]" and "33,000 gun homicides or suicides," though.

(*) In [url=https://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2010/07/long-view-from-china.html]The long view from China[/url], for example, we find [quote] "Look," Jiang told him. "It's wonderful that you have all this freedom, and all this money, but what do you do with it? You have 33,000 homicides by guns. Your cities are uninhabitable. Your schools don't work. You have rampant drug use, and you can't control your population. Who is to say that your freedom is worth it?[/quote]

[COLOR=red]"[the figure of 33,000 gun [B]homicides[/B]]" [/COLOR]Oops, looks like I accidentally conflated homicide (one causing another's death) with suicide (one causing one's own death) myself there. I'm usually more precise than that. The combination is usually expressed as gun deaths. (Meaning deaths of humans caused by humans using firearms as the instruments.) I think these figures exclude combat deaths of or those caused by US military personnel, but inlclude law enforcement activity. The CDC recent (2016) figures give about 22,900 for firearms suicide, and 14,400 for firearms homicide including the full spectrum from accident through criminal activity for profit or profession to self defense or defense of others to law enforcement stopping active mass shooters or presumably the rare court ordered execution. Second table; [URL]https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html[/URL]

The numbers are going down or up depending on the sampling period. (Down overall over the past 50 years.) The total population is going up.

Finding references to 33000 gun deaths is duck simple, literally.[URL]https://duckduckgo.com/?q=33000+gun+deaths&t=ffnt&ia=web[/URL]
This one came up as fourth: [URL]https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-33000-americans-die-each-year/[/URL]
Discrediting the number, an article by Breitbart, was third. [URL]https://www.breitbart.com/live/third-presidential-debate-fact-check-livewire/fact-check-no-33000-not-killed-guns-year/[/URL]

Note that all the CDC numbers omit and gun control numbers pale in comparison to the annual death toll due to abortions. Various sources put that number between a half million and a million in the US annually currently, or nearly 50 to 100 times as many as firearm homicides.

"you can't control your population." I'm not sure if he was referring to population total or restrictions on individual behavior, but in either sense, it seems to me that's a feature, not a bug (in most cases).

[QUOTE=wombatman;500209]Take out the one aberrant data point and you could draw a straight line through that dataset, indicating that gun murder rate is not tied to gun ownership at all. As for Illinois, do you even bother to consider that people can purchase guns in neighboring states where gun laws are less restrictive and, say, bring them into the state (which is legal)? Of course not. Same for all your John Lott "data". This defense is laughable.[/QUOTE]Cherry pick another data point to delete (Hawaii, lower left, very atypical because it has a huge moat and extreme ownership restrictions among other factors) and the program generated regression fit shifts in the opposite direction, toward even higher reduction in gun murder rate with increasing ownership. But I rejected all cherry picking and gave the results for fit to all the data then available to me. Seems you don't like the results of the data.
Illinois has a rate considerably higher than some adjacent states. It's dominated by Chicago and its criminals with little to fear from the locals. A large part of its murder rate is criminals shooting at other criminals. I'd expect Illinois to be lower not higher than its neighbors if restricting general availability of the instrument was effective. The data set is from 2010, before Heller vs. DC or McDonald vs. Chicago struck down some rather comprehensive bans in certain locations, so driving to another state to bring them home would have been breaking the law. Funny how you dismiss Lott's careful research, peer reviewed and revised to address the minor procedural objections that was all the opposition could justify, and anyone else who is guided by the data. Note Lott was initially in favor of gun control, until he did the research and what he found changed his mind. Comparing US to UK or AU etc is worse than useless. US citizens don't change into Aussies by adopting laws like the Aussies have. What matters is what can be changed while other things are fixed or relatively fixed (like population, culture, personalities, urban density, established large crime organizations), and whether the proposed change is helpful, ineffective, or harmful. The CDC did some similar research, during the Clinton administration. It did not get published or even disclosed, because it didn't support their anti-gun political position. Kopel found the data recently while looking for something else.

Since you proposed it, I subtracted out the DC data. The regression fit for the 50 states still is negative; more guns less crime, not flat or positive. Note I did not have access to the data for the highly restrictive US territories, so they have been omitted.
Also, for IL and its immediate neighbors, plus MI, similar holds. (Without MI, also.) Iowa is an outlier in the group. What's special about it? Not few guns per capita. Density and demographics.
Each state's statistics are blends of low density, high gun ownership rural and suburban areas and high density high crime low ownership urban areas. If we could separate them out, the difference becomes more stark. That's what looking county by county did.

Kennesaw Georgia conducted an interesting experiment, passing an ordinance requiring homeowners to own firearms, absent a religious or conscientious objection. Criminals took note and crime dropped in Kennesaw, perhaps displacing somewhat to other areas.

I come from a research university and engineering training. Data, and conclusions drawn from it, often don't match a priori theories or expectations. Perfection is not available. There are always tradeoffs. Consider the possibilities in all directions. The death rate and the ownership rate are poorly correlated (an 8.5 to one variation in gun murder rate per gun owner across IL and neighboring states). Much of the death is created by a small fraction of the population that is violent and criminal and does not obey restrictions or bans. Even in nations that essentially ban private firearms ownership, they smuggle them in or steal them from police or military, or have someone in those groups participating. Eliminating firearms access by criminals at large is not practical. Taking them off the street for extended periods as a result of their proven crimes is effective. Releasing them early can be deadly to unsuspecting citizens.
You seem to be advocating doubling down again on what has been shown to not work very well (disarming the intended target population that criminals prey on).
I like though that you classified DC as an aberration, because it is in general. What does DC produce that's useful?

Homicide is a human causing a human's death. Suicide is a subset, as is manslaughter, murder, or dispensing the wrong medication.

[QUOTE=wombatman;500209]Take out the one aberrant data point and you could draw a straight line through that dataset, indicating that gun murder rate is not tied to gun ownership at all.[/QUOTE]There was already a straight line fit through the data, created by Open Office Calc's built in regression fit capability. I think you might mean horizontal line. But take out DC, and it's still got the same sign of slope.
And if it had been level, "not tied to gun ownership at all" makes a better case for leaving people their constitutional rights than depriving them.
I happen to believe, based on nontrivial study, that how many guns are in the hands of people too moral to misuse them has positive effect, as a deterrent to those who would misuse them otherwise.
Local law enforcement results over many years supports the stance that leaving noncriminals alone and dealing with the criminals is very effective.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;500606]Homicide is a human causing a human's death. Suicide is a subset, as is manslaughter, murder, or dispensing the wrong medication.[/QUOTE]I looked it up in a reputable dictionary, before posting what I did, and that source (Merriam Webster) separated them as I did; suicide not included in homicide, by definition. For your convenience, [URL="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide"]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide [/URL]
[URL="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide"]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suicide[/URL]

Making guns illegal won't stop people possessing guns, but it will make identifying the bad actors with guns really easy.

I looked it up in several dictionaries (at Onelook.com) and you are correct. I had always understood it to be the broadest case (death of a human directly caused by an act of a human) without regard to the causative agent and the acted upon agent. My understanding was that it included suicide, but because it was such a special case that it was almost always accounted for differently, and usually not included. But say at an autopsy and in the death report, homicide included the possibility of suicide, until the later was specifically proven.

This is predicated on the latin roots. Homo meaning mankind.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;500204]Who are you to be dictating what would have been "appropriate" security, after the fact of an attack that was unprecedented, and could not reasonably have been anticipated? "Criminally shameful?" That doesn't even make sense.

I can only imagine the response if you took your notions of "appropriate" security to the organizers of events in open-air venues "beneath multiple high rises." If they're in a good mood, they might ask, "And who's gonna pay for this -- [I]you?"[/I]

You might also try going to the people who actually [I]attend[/I] such events, and tell them they're idiots for putting themselves in such terrible danger. But only if you are very fleet of foot...

Your basic premise here seems to be, one should [I]expect[/I] an armed attacker bent on killing as many people as possible, at any and every large gathering of people. In other words, you think such attacks should be considered "normal." If that's the case, I guess in your mind, the terrorists have won.[/QUOTE]
A tendency to commit violent crime seems to be inconveniently common in our species. I wish it were not so, but we know otherwise. A prudent response is to be to some measure aware of and prepared for it to surface unpredictably. Get enough people together in one event or municipality, and the averages and statistical variations will emerge. The probability is what it is, and many people feel it's higher than they'd like. Some people understand the probability is lower than many other ways of dying, including driving there or back. All of that's reality. Let's deal with reality.

The nearest village to my home has a population about half that of the Harvest 91 concert attendance and a law enforcement roster of dozens. You can bet some go about well equipped at any given time. As far as I've read, such as the previously posted 60 Minutes material, no one responded from the LV concert venue. Hotel security responded solo and got shot in the hallway. Further response waited for LVPD to arrive from 9 miles away. What does that tell you about the concert venue's preparedness or lack of?
In this area, it's routine for events to have sheriff's deputies or village or city police roaming through even much smaller events in uniform and armed, some occasionally on horseback, bike, etc. I think they may view it more as departmental PR than hazardous duty, but if something starts, they're already there and can call in more immediately. Some are ex military and can handle and already have handled a wide range of situations. Such staff could and would respond effectively and briskly.
Also the organizers do not prohibit lawful concealed carry in such events as [URL]http://www.mononafestival.com/rules/[/URL] although others may.
They've also successfully managed much larger events (~300,000 attendance) in this area and without security checks at a perimeter for disarmament of attendees.

In general the attendees pay for the security, through ticket or concession purchases.

It's illogical to decry the numbers of deaths at the concert and a number of other occasions on the one hand and claim it can't be predicted as a possibility on the other.
It's not the first time someone used a tower as a sniper nest on civilians or officials. Whitman, 1966 in Texas as I recall. Kennedy assassination, 1963. Perhaps others I don't recall.

[URL]https://www.buildings.com/news/industry-news/articleid/21739/title/route-91-harvest-festival-security[/URL]

I think a lot would change, for the better, if event organizers and venues knew that making people helpless, they assumed personal responsibility for them, and could be sued or charged for creating more death. Such businesses would look differently at protecting their customers and guests. I view them as accessories to mass murder for creating killing field scenarios from which the would be mass murderers can choose from a menu of locations. As Paddock did. As Holmes did. Instead such venues have ticket purchase include a waiver of liability, which their owners attorneys and insurance companies love.

There are other things one can do to help. Israeli bandages are inexpensive. Having some in the parking lot already in your own vehicle could save someone if you share. Someone there will have the knowledge and nerve to use them. May they be never needed. But there's no problem of having too many supplies on scene, while temporary local shortages could be fatal for someone.

The 61 page after-action report indicates some of the preparations were inadequate even for a more common scale, not record setting, mass casualty event. [URL]https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=814668[/URL]
A pertinent point was the closest officers were separated from their equipment by hundreds of yards when the event came under fire. Another was an officer spotted the sniper platform but was unable to communicate its location to others.

There are four mutually disjoint legal classifications of "manner of death" -- suicide, homicide, accident, and natural causes.

The term "justifiable homicide" includes killing someone in self-defense, which means you "reasonably" believed you (or another person) was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm at the hands of the person you killed. It also includes legal executions, in which the homicide of the condemned person is legally justified in that it is pursuant to a sentence imposed by a court of law, and court order setting the time at which that sentence is carried out (executed).

It also seems that, in many cases, especially when the killer is a peace officer, the victim having been black is deemed sufficient justification -- either by no charges being pressed, or by a trial jury reaching a verdict of "Not Guilty," even if the victim was repeatedly shot in the back from a distance of 20 feet or more.

Abortion statistics are not germane to US death statistics, because -- in the eyes of the law -- unborn fetuses are not persons. Frozen embryos being stored in a lab are generally considered to be property. Someone who rips a fetus from a pregnant woman and causes its death can't be charged with homicide for killing that fetus, but rather "Unlawful termination of a pregnancy." Of course, if the woman dies from the attack, [i]that[/i]'s a homicide.

There have been efforts to write a definition of human life as beginning at conception into the constitutions of various states, via referendum. These so-called "person-hood amendments" have not fared well at the ballot-box. It would be difficult to overstate the legal nightmare that could ensue from such a definition. For example, many zygotes are aborted spontaneously. If the aborted zygote is detected (now this might be done is more than I can say), would there be an investigation to determine whether it died of natural causes, or was the victim of a homicide? If a pregnant woman suffers an injury that causes her to abort, would that require an investigation to determine whether it was an accident or murder? And what about identical twins? Did their lives [i]both[/i] begin with the single zygote of which they are clones?

As to "controlling the population" in terms of numbers, the population of the USA might be decreasing, were it not for immigration.

But this is getting away from the topic of guns. So, perhaps we have to provide fetuses with guns, so they can defend themselves against abortionists.

[QUOTE=retina;500614]Making guns illegal won't stop people possessing guns, but it will make identifying the bad actors with guns really easy.[/QUOTE]
It will make the baddies more brazen and deadly, and make it easier for officers to mistake plainclothes cops, off-duty cops, security guards, PIs, etc. for baddies. It's behavior that matters, not property.
Taking the "stop people possessing guns" to mean all civilians, all type firearms, game management switches from a profit center for the state and tourist draw and economic boon for business and source of protein for the working class, to a net cost and increased cause of traffic deaths. My former neighbor lost a niece to collision with a deer flung into her car by another car. It's a low rate occurrence overall, of order 2-3 ppm annually, but for her niece it was 100%, and occurrence would increase with animal numbers.

Most law enforcement go as much by a contact's behavior upon contact as anything. If you're empty handed and compliant, you're good. If you follow commands and answer questions, you're probably ok. If you run etc you're not. Similar applies to encounters with unfamiliar civilians; people quickly assess threatening or not. The first officer to the scene of the end of the chase from Sutherland Springs said put down your weapon and come out slowly to the shooter. When Willeford (who had confronted the shooter) proceeded to put down his rifle, previously aimed at the suspect's vehicle, the officer reportedly said "Not you, sir". Willeford was not a problem, he was his backup.

But yes, it does seem less unsafe to be empty handed when the officers roll up to a shooting scene. Some can be jumpy or outright PTSD afflicted.

I remember a traffic stop long ago and not thinking about it, put both hands in the front pockets of my shorts. I was directed to remove them slowly. I think my smile and almost laugh at the absurdity of me being perceived a potential threat to the officer was as reassuring as empty hands slowly emerging. Or maybe he'd already run my plate and saw a clean record, and he'd seen I was acting like the car owner, not a car thief, not a problem. That officer was just being prudent.

What if...
 

What if there was a breakthrough in treating certain mental illnesses, or understanding their mechanism or the operation of the brain, that was transformative, comparable in impact to the discovery of penicillin and the developments that followed? Or the advent of the germ theory of infectious disease? Or development of effective vaccinations?

It may be coming, from a direction described in this 2015 article. [url]https://getpocket.com/explore/item/a-vaccine-for-depression-1136204885[/url]

What if 2
 

What if some mental illness is somehow linked to beneficial abilities like high creativity?
[url]https://getpocket.com/explore/item/secrets-of-the-creative-brain-651487502[/url]

[QUOTE=kriesel;500625]I remember a traffic stop long ago and not thinking about it, put both hands in the front pockets of my shorts. I was directed to remove them slowly. I think my smile and almost laugh at the absurdity of me being perceived a potential threat to the officer was as reassuring as empty hands slowly emerging. Or maybe he'd already run my plate and saw a clean record, and he'd seen I was acting like the car owner, not a car thief, not a problem. That officer was just being prudent.[/QUOTE]The society is deeply broken when everyone is viewed as a potential threat first, and only believed to be harmless once they act sufficiently subservient and obedient. :loco:

[QUOTE=retina;500628]The society is deeply broken when everyone is viewed as a potential threat first, and only believed to be harmless once they act sufficiently subservient and obedient. :loco:[/QUOTE]
Nope; not broken. It only takes a few bad actors to make it dangerous. Law enforcement is just a riskier occupation than some. I don't blame officers for being cautious or alert. I want them to go home at night whole too, along with those they encounter who are up to no harm. Not like my friend's husband (Grant County Sheriff's Deputy Tom Reuter), who caught a shotgun blast from a teenager he'd stopped to help, leaving her (my eventual friend) to raise 5 children alone. Or Trevor Casper, who helped stop a bank robber/murderer after already being wounded by him on his first solo WI State Patrol day.

In the case of the Harvest 91 concert it was one bad actor and thousands responding to help others including at risk to themselves.

"sufficiently subservient and obedient" What an odd choice of words for friendly or decent or nonviolent. Maybe get out more, away from being surrounded by the minions.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;500622]
It also seems that, in many cases, especially when the killer is a peace officer, the victim having been black is deemed sufficient justification -- either by no charges being pressed, or by a trial jury reaching a verdict of "Not Guilty," even if the victim was repeatedly shot in the back from a distance of 20 feet or more.
...
in the eyes of the law -- unborn fetuses are not persons. Frozen embryos being stored in a lab are generally considered to be property. Someone who rips a fetus from a pregnant woman and causes its death can't be charged with homicide for killing that fetus, but rather "Unlawful termination of a pregnancy." Of course, if the woman dies from the attack, [I]that[/I]'s a homicide.

As to "controlling the population" in terms of numbers, the population of the USA might be decreasing, were it not for immigration.
[/QUOTE]
Please provide a reference or two for that first one. I know there have been some egregious uses of force in the news, and others that were claimed but contradicted by the facts. And "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".

Fetuses are subject to protection under law or not, depending on whether their would-be killer(s) are their mother or her doctor or someone else and various specifics.
Fetal homicide is a crime in 38 US states and under federal law, excepting abortion, per [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide[/URL] Opinions vary as to whether that exception's right. And there was a recent successful prosecution and 22 year sentence for _attempted_ abortion by a man spiking his girlfriend's drink. [URL]https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2018/10/09/judge-imposes-22-year-sentence-case-involving-abortion-inducing-drug/1567018002/[/URL]

Subtract immigration, and subtract abortion, and the US would be numerically similar to the population status quo.


[QUOTE]But this is getting away from the topic of guns. So, perhaps we have to provide fetuses with guns, so they can defend themselves against abortionists.[/QUOTE]Surely you realize they can't meet the current age or training requirements for carrying concealed, or afford the many costs, rack the slide, work the trigger, etc. Seems like it could also be hazardous to the obstetrician. No, their protection is up to others.

[LEFT][QUOTE]Surely you realize they can't meet the current age or training requirements for carrying concealed, or afford the many costs, rack the slide, work the trigger, etc. Seems like it could also be hazardous to the obstetrician. No, their protection is up to others. [/QUOTE][/LEFT]
Shirley! You need to recalibrate your irony detector. :razz:

[QUOTE=kriesel;500630]Surely you realize they can't meet the current age or training requirements for carrying concealed, or afford the many costs, rack the slide, work the trigger, etc. [b]Seems like it could also be hazardous to the obstetrician[/b].[/QUOTE]So you are saying that guns are dangerous to those that are just trying to help. Say it ain't so.

:loco:

[QUOTE=kriesel;500630]Please provide a reference or two for that first one. I know there have been some egregious uses of force in the news, and others that were claimed but contradicted by the facts. And "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".[/QUOTE]
My memory was a little foggy on the most egregious case that had come to mind: The state murder trial of Michael Slager ended in a hung jury, not a verdict -- even though video showed him drawing a bead on the fleeing Walter Scott from almost 20 feet away, and shooting him in the back multiple times -- and then, placing his stun gun next to the body, apparently in an attempt to back up his fabricated "self defense" story. Slager did eventually plead Guilty to excessive force, and received a stiff sentence for Federal civil-rights violations.

The shooting of Daniel Shaver in Mesa, AZ fits the bill reasonably well. He was unarmed, crawling on the ground, begging for his life, when a police officer shot him, saying he thought the man was reaching for a gun. The officer was tried and acquitted.

In the Slager case, it was only a bystander's video of the incident that prevented a police coverup. And even with video showing him deliberately shooting the man in the back, and staging the scene afterwards, the jury hung.

In the murder of Lacquan McDonald, authorities sat on the incriminating police video for well over a year, and only after its release blew the officer's account of a life-and-death struggle out of the water, and showed him shooting the guy in the back as he walked away, did they move to file charges. The case was so clearcut, the jury found the officer Guilty of killing McDonald, but Not Guilty of official misconduct -- despite the absolutely damning evidence that he had falsified his report.

The paucity of cases in which officers are tried and acquitted is due in part to the rarity of cases in which charges are even filed. With the advent of police dash- and body cams, and bystanders making their own videos, this may be changing.

In US law, there is no verdict of "Innocent." A verdict of "Not Guilty" means that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It could mean that the jury seriously doubted the defendant did the crime, but it could also mean they thought the defendant had done it, but that the prosecution had failed to prove it. And, of course, it could [i]also[/i] mean that the jury decided that the law did not adequately provide for the particular circumstances, and nullified (e.g. the victim was black).

But a verdict of "Not Guilty" is the same as "Innocent" in one respect: the defendant "walks."

[QUOTE=kriesel;500620] <snip>
It's illogical to decry the numbers of deaths at the concert and a number of other occasions on the one hand and claim it can't be predicted as a possibility on the other.
It's not the first time someone used a tower as a sniper nest on civilians or officials. Whitman, 1966 in Texas as I recall. Kennedy assassination, 1963. Perhaps others I don't recall. <snip>[/QUOTE]
It is not logical, on the one hand to dismiss gun deaths as "not in the top ten causes" and state that it would be better to work on safe driving and healthy living; and, on the other, to call it "criminally shameful" to fail to provide security for an open-air concert that's on a par with protecting the President from assassination.

So, let's see. You've come up with two instances of a sniper shooting people in the USA from a high vantage point, prior to 2017. In fact, both were over 50 years before. Neither was a concert venue. I will say, though, that with the assassination of JFK, the fact that that vantage point wasn't covered by the Secret Service or local LEO was a shameful failure of security. This [i]was[/i] supposed to be protecting the President, after all.

You need to be more careful with statistics. After all, you've already had to walk back your assertion that 33,000 gun homicides a year was an "oft-quoted statistic." it isn't.

The phrase "predict as a possibility" is nonsense. A [i]possibility[/i] is something that [i]can[/i] or [i]might[/i] happen. It may even be something that inevitably [i]will[/i] happen, but may not happen very often, and is not predictable in the sense of there being no way of saying [i]when[/i] it will happen. A [i]prediction[/i] is a statement that something [i]will[/i] happen, usually in a specific period, sometimes with an precise time frame. Times of sunrise and sunset; rising and setting of the moon, stars, and planets; lunar and solar eclipses; tomorrow's weather -- these are [i]predictions[/i]. Earthquake forecasts are a lot iffier about when. There is an x per cent chance that this fault will move in the next y years.

In any winter, there is a [i]possibility[/i] that it will snow in places like Atlana GA, Miami FL, and Tupelo, MS. But it doesn't snow very often in these places, so they may not have fleets of snow plows and stockpiles of salt and sand for those rare occasions. I think the security for outdoor concerts takes a similar view of mass shootings. They've got much more likely hazards to deal with. Hot weather. Cold weather. Thunderstorms. Rowdy drunks. People getting into fights. Drug overdoses. Crowds panicking or otherwise frantic to get from A to B, and stampeding. The latter one hasn't happened at a US open-air concert recently AFAIK, but it did happen at a Who concert in Cincinnati in 1979, killing 11 people.

I see people comparing gun death stats from one US state to another US state and coming to conclusions based upon differing laws between the states. But this is the wrong approach IMO. Do a much different comparison. Compare one country to another. Let's say we compare any of the other "four eyes" countries (where gun laws are much more sane) to the USA. We find that gun deaths in the USA are similar to the road deaths. But in the other four countries gun deaths are much lower than road deaths. That is a much fairer comparison.

If you make guns illegal for everyone then ...[list][*]It is easy to spot bad actors with guns since there won't be any "good guys" with guns[*]The price and availability of black market guns puts them out of reach for most people (black market prices for guns are very high and not easy to find)[*]The police don't act like dicks at simple traffic stops (telling you to remove your hands from your pockets slowly) because the expectation of violence is very different[*]The citizens are not forced to be all obedient and subservient and kowtow to police for fear of being shot because of a misunderstanding about what is in their pockets[*]You can walk around the streets without having to worry about some random crazy idiot deciding to shoot you (and, no, black market gun purchasers won't be random crazy idiots, they are decidedly non-random and won't be interested in you unless you have direct dealings with them)[*]People [i]earn[/i] respect, rather than demand it with a gun pointed at you.[/list]
There is no way to defend the argument that somehow, magically, more guns would make everyone safer and we'd have less violence and fewer deaths. The comparisons across countries shows the figures; fewer guns overall leads to fewer deaths overall. Seems quite clear to me.

@retina: Well Said, Sir. :tu:

[QUOTE=retina;500694]I see people comparing gun death stats from one US state to another US state and coming to conclusions based upon differing laws between the states. But this is the wrong approach IMO. Do a much different comparison. Compare one country to another. Let's say we compare any of the other "four eyes" countries (where gun laws are much more sane) to the USA. We find that gun deaths in the USA are similar to the road deaths. But in the other four countries gun deaths are much lower than road deaths. That is a much fairer comparison. <snip>[/QUOTE]Comparing traffic deaths depends on the yardstick. Figures are listed at this [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate]Wikipedia page[/url]. Of course, absolute numbers of deaths depend on how many people there are, and how many are driving.

If you go by deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, the US rate is highest. If you go by "per billion vehicle-km" ("vehicle miles") the USA is second to New Zealand among Five-Eyes allies.

However, in the other four of the Five-Eyes allies, the "vehicle-mile" rate is [i]higher[/i] than the "per 100,000 inhabitants" rate, while in the US, it's [i]lower[/i]. Perhaps people in the US tend to drive longer distances than in the other four countries. And driving on controlled-access highways is generally safer than in town.

By far, the traffic death toll is greatest in China and India, but other countries also have absolutely appalling carnage on the road. Alas, the "vehicle-mile" rate is not available for most of them. But in China and India, the per 100,000 inhabitants figures are 60%-80% higher than for the USA, and the per 100,000 vehicles figures are 8-10 [i]times[/i] higher.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;500741]Comparing traffic deaths depends on the yardstick. Figures are listed at this [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate]Wikipedia page[/url]. Of course, absolute numbers of deaths depend on how many people there are, and how many are driving.

If you go by deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, the US rate is highest. If you go by "per billion vehicle-km" ("vehicle miles") the USA is second to New Zealand among Five-Eyes allies.

However, in the other four of the Five-Eyes allies, the "vehicle-mile" rate is [i]higher[/i] than the "per 100,000 inhabitants" rate, while in the US, it's [i]lower[/i]. Perhaps people in the US tend to drive longer distances than in the other four countries. And driving on controlled-access highways is generally safer than in town.

By far, the traffic death toll is greatest in China and India, but other countries also have absolutely appalling carnage on the road. Alas, the "vehicle-mile" rate is not available for most of them. But in China and India, the per 100,000 inhabitants figures are 60%-80% higher than for the USA, and the per 100,000 vehicles figures are 8-10 [i]times[/i] higher.[/QUOTE]I was comparing gun deaths to driving deaths within each country. I wasn't trying to compare driving deaths between countries. But anyhow, thanks for the comparative analysis of driving deaths.

[QUOTE=retina;500757]I was comparing gun deaths to driving deaths within each country. I wasn't trying to compare driving deaths between countries. But anyhow, thanks for the comparative analysis of driving deaths.[/QUOTE]
I just wanted to make sure the US road death figures weren't seriously out of whack with those of the other 4 countries. The greatest discrepancy is between the US and the UK, where the rates by whichever yardstick differ by a factor of nearly 2. But that's nowhere near the difference between gun death rates. This seems to me to validate comparing gun deaths to traffic deaths.

[URL="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46314065"]Suffer the children[/URL]

[QUOTE=xilman;500819][URL="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46314065"]Suffer the children[/URL][/QUOTE]
Wow. I would love to hear someone explain how more people with guns would help prevent such a crime :whistle:

That story had a link to another story I hadn't heard about. Made my blood boil, it did:

[url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46186510]#ThisIsOurLane: Doctors hit back at pro-gun group NRA[/url][quote]The National Rifle Association's tweet on Wednesday sparked anger.
It came just hours before a gunman killed 12 people in a California bar.
"Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane," the NRA tweeted.[/quote]
This also reminded me of a book I bought many years ago. It was done by photographer Eugene Richards who had, with permission of physicians and staff of the ER at Denver General Hospital, taken photographs to help tell stories of what went on there. The name given this ER by locals is the book's title: [u]The Knife and Gun Club[/u].

It takes a good guy with a gun... Oh, wait...
 

So, it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a [strike]bad[/strike] [i]good[/i] guy with a gun.

Fun and games at the Thanksgiving mall shooting in Alabama!

[url=https://www.apnews.com/aa04383a33604752950c7d3404501f44]Alabama police say black man’s gun ‘heightened’ threat[/url] Like the guy said in [i]Lethal Weapon II[/i]: "Because -- you're black!"
[quote]HOOVER, Ala. (AP) — Police in Alabama offered sympathy Monday to the family of a black man fatally shot by an officer responding to gunfire at a shopping mall, but said the man’s decision to pull out a weapon “heightened the sense of threat” to police in an already chaotic scene.

Hoover Police initially described its officer as “heroic” for bringing down Emantic “EJ” Bradford Jr. after two people were wounded at the Riverchase Galleria mall outside Birmingham Thanksgiving night. Then they retracted the statement, saying he was likely not the gunman responsible for the initial shooting, who remains at large.

Bradford’s father said his 21-year-old son had a permit to carry the handgun. The family’s lawyer said witnesses told them Bradford was trying to help by waving people to safety, and was shot “within milliseconds” by an officer who didn’t say a word to him.

“It doesn’t matter if you’re a good guy with a gun, if you’re black the police shoot and kill you and ask questions later,” attorney Ben Crump said Monday on CNN, one of several national media appearances with Bradford’s parents.[/quote]

The bad guy with a gun is still at large. Beautiful!

[QUOTE=retina;500636]So you are saying that guns are dangerous to those that are just trying to help. Say it ain't so.

:loco:[/QUOTE]
In the hands of the too-young, grossly irresponsible, insane, or violently criminal, yes. I was responding in an absurd way to Dr. Sardonicus' absurd statement about arming the "so-young-our-society-treats-them-as-disposable-tissue" unborn/infants. Those so young you would not trust them around matches or stove controls or forks near electrical outlets also need our protection from getting their hands or other body parts on sharp things, flame, and things that may go bang, as well as prevented from doing headstands in water containers or operating the family car or mower in any way and a number of other modern hazards. I don't know how many forum participants have children, but it is amazing how many ways they find to jeopardize themselves and sometimes others too.

[QUOTE=retina;500694]I see people comparing gun death stats from one US state to another US state and coming to conclusions based upon differing laws between the states. But this is the wrong approach IMO. Do a much different comparison. Compare one country to another. Let's say we compare any of the other "four eyes" countries (where gun laws are much more sane) to the USA. We find that gun deaths in the USA are similar to the road deaths. But in the other four countries gun deaths are much lower than road deaths. That is a much fairer comparison.

If you make guns illegal for everyone then ...[LIST][*]It is easy to spot bad actors with guns since there won't be any "good guys" with guns[*]The price and availability of black market guns puts them out of reach for most people (black market prices for guns are very high and not easy to find)[*]The police don't act like dicks at simple traffic stops (telling you to remove your hands from your pockets slowly) because the expectation of violence is very different[*]The citizens are not forced to be all obedient and subservient and kowtow to police for fear of being shot because of a misunderstanding about what is in their pockets[*]You can walk around the streets without having to worry about some random crazy idiot deciding to shoot you (and, no, black market gun purchasers won't be random crazy idiots, they are decidedly non-random and won't be interested in you unless you have direct dealings with them)[*]People [I]earn[/I] respect, rather than demand it with a gun pointed at you.[/LIST] There is no way to defend the argument that somehow, magically, more guns would make everyone safer and we'd have less violence and fewer deaths. The comparisons across countries shows the figures; fewer guns overall leads to fewer deaths overall. Seems quite clear to me.[/QUOTE]
There is no way to defend the argument we'll all be safer if we just finish disarming the ordinary citizens and ask the predators in our society to please be nice to us now, for a change; that's magical thinking. Less deterrence means less restraint on the part of the criminally violent who are frequently impulsive.

The comparisons across countries with vast differences in demographics, culture, history, economics, etc. are worse than useless, they are misleading. One does not have a viable way of reducing the impact of criminal violence (which is most of gun death and injury after subtracting out suicides) by remaking the US into Japan in every respect. There aren't enough Japanese to repopulate the US after removing Americans, or even maintain Japan's population. There is not currently the political will to allocate the resources, or medically effective approach in the US to identify, capture, remove, incarcerate, treat effectively, etc. enough of the criminally violent. The criminally violent Americans will not suddenly begin acting like some other nationality or personality type after passage of yet another law requiring it in some way. Things like Project Exile work. Consequences, and if it fails to deter, imprisonment after a crime interferes with the opportunity to commit more crime among the public.
The correct way to study the effect of permissive or restrictive change in gun policy is longitudinal studies; THIS population, THIS territory, THIS culture, made THIS change, and did violent crime increase or decrease? (Holding demographics, culture, history, economics, etc as constant as possible by studying the same area over time, changing the one variable that's being studied, policy change.) That is what Lott did. That is what you choose to ignore because it contradicts your position.

Much of south and central america contradicts your alleged benefits. Highly restrictive nations there are some of the most violent in the world. The drug cartels and others have no problem obtaining illegal weapons in nations like Mexico. Drugs, money, people, and weapons are smuggled across national borders in large quantities routinely. The police there routinely go around in large groups with serious weaponry, because although firearms ownership by citizens there is essentially illegal, the police are routinely outgunned. I recall passing slowly and politely through a checkpoint at a rural crossroads on vacation in Mexico with the GF years ago, seeing 4 men with full auto rifles in hand in a jeep. Even marches of thousands of avowed border violators televised internationally for weeks continue, apparently with organized ASSISTANCE!

You've also ignored my previous point about plainclothes police getting presumed to be bad guys. "It is easy to spot bad actors with guns since there won't be any 'good guys' with guns" How do you propose to spot them; metal detectors everywhere? And once you do, you're ill equipped to do anything about it "since there won't be any 'good guys' with guns". Presumably that means mall and hotel security, small business owners, customers, travelers, homeowners, etc are disarmed. It's about as useful as outlawing vaccinations.
Your last bullet point sounds like you don't believe people deserve a reasonable initial starting point of respect. "Earn respect", like they start from zero. In my life, people I meet start somewhere in the middle of the respect and courtesy scale and then it gets adjusted up or down according to their behavior.

You seem to have a fixed idea of a police state existing in "citizen has right to be armed" areas, that could not possibly exist in "citizen is disarmed by regulations" areas, which is in practice backwards, the opposite of how the psychology works. Rural areas are typically well armed and policed by deputies of a sheriff, an elected official with usually a good understanding of who his real bosses are (the voters), and their/our inherent rights, and generally a good respect for them and their rights. Urban areas are policed by underlings of a police chief, generally hired or appointed by some politician or group of them, too frequently a condescending snob about guns; a philosophy of "fine for me but none for thee". Madison WI had a problem some time ago with almost daily shots fired. They worked the problem, identified and apprehended the 7 criminals responsible, and the area, with a population of hundreds of thousands, was quiet for several months. Same problem developed, with different handful of individuals, same approach worked. Screwing with the rights of the other 300,000 people in the area was not necessary and would have been a waste of time better spent finding and dealing with the few problem individuals. Typically it is a group of criminals with a dispute with another group of criminals. Those that survive the mutual hostilities get dealt with by law enforcement.

A friend of mine was a policeman in a nearby community in the 1980s. It made no difference that concealed carry was illegal not only in this state, but in nearly all the nation at the time. He still had to be aware of the possibility and ready to deal with it. (On one occasion he was dealing with several people, as sole officer at the scene, in a bar parking lot, and one whispered in his ear that another was illegally carrying concealed.)

In the UK, the rank and file officers were upset with their leadership's directives after further gun restrictions were put in place. The leadership understood that the resulting rising crime statistics were making them and their policies look bad, so were pressuring the street officers to lower the severity or charge count per encounter systematically, to make it look as if the gun restriction was helping reduce crime, when it was actually predicate to increasing crime. In other words, the rank and file bristled at being ordered to cook the books. And despite that effort to fudge the stats in favor of gun control, the charts _STILL_ show increased violence there.
In the US, the people who actually have to do the law enforcement in contact with the public overwhelmingly support a responsible armed citizenry. (Numbers like 86 and 91% in polls) [URL]https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/[/URL] "What checks the sociopath from completing his act is fear. Fear of the unknown or known gun carrier who is going to punch his ticket to hell right then and right there. This has an immediate effect on reducing violent criminal activity." Often crimes are prevented by the mere showing of a weapon, or even the manner of the carrier, not intimidated by the criminal's opening gambit.

Some (WI) police and other law enforcement act like dicks. Most don't, because that's not who they are. I repeat, I was not offended or alarmed by the request to remove my hands from my pockets slowly in that long ago encounter. I was surprised, amused, and sympathetic. What I was was friendly, and compliant with a clearly expressed request by an officer with a civil manner just doing his job, not "obedient, subservient, kowtowing" to a dickish officer. The shift toward Gestapo attitudes in law enforcement seems to go with gun restriction and prohibition. Contempt for the rights of citizens seems to trickle down from the legislature to the beat cop.

I'm amazed at how many people are so afraid, of being fully an adult responsible for their own safety (and perhaps of others they care about), that they want to deny it's possible or the moral thing to do, and want to push off all the responsibility onto some uniformed stranger, who is VERY unlikely to be in the neighborhood or aware of the need when it arises. One of the challenges all law enforcement face in almost all encounters is they're called in when there's already trouble afoot and are forced to quickly try to determine who/what the problem is (or it's already over and their role is like a reporter; "tell me what happened"). The persons there from the start already know if they were paying attention. Too often, there is not time or opportunity to get an officer there in the moments he or she's most needed.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;500832]Wow. I would love to hear someone explain how more people with guns would help prevent such a crime :whistle:
[/QUOTE]
[LIST][*]It sometimes happens that such a man knows or suspects his contemplated target or her new SO are able to repel an attack and he decides not to use violence.[*]It sometimes happens that a woman successfully defends herself from such a person. (These women tend to be armed and familiar with use.)[*]It sometimes happens that a woman is killed by such a person while waiting weeks or months for a gun permit to be issued as a preparation for self defense from someone, often an ex, that she has reason to believe is dangerous, or after her application to the restrictive state she lives in for permission to acquire the means to protect herself is denied.[*]It sometimes happens that people obtain and depend on restraining orders. The police are not liable for failure to enforce such restraining orders after issuance and request for enforcement, even when it results in the death of all the children of the person who obtained it, or the person who obtained it.[*]It sometimes happens that a person chooses to rely on the police to respond in time, and they don't, and bad things happen. (Search Brittany Zimmerman. The 911 dispatcher hung up on that promising young medical student, during a home invasion, did not send help, did not call back, and Brittany's body was found in their home by her fiance hours later. Years later, her murderer has never been identified publicly or charged. Or read about the case Warren vs. DC. The police have no duty, absent a special relationship, to protect any individual citizen, and have immunity from liability if they fail to protect or even respond, even when help has been promised, repeatedly, and the ongoing reported crime spree continues on for many hours.)[*]It often happens that people go about their lives nonviolently. I like that one the best.[/LIST] But it only takes one bad actor to throw a monkey wrench in that last one. Then, which of the other scenarios will become more likely depends on certain choices, which may have been made long before. For most individuals, violent crime will target them sometime in their lives. I recall reading DOJ Bureau of Crime Statistics stats from a while back, for US females, 74%; US males, 89%. They've gone down some, during the period of increased gun ownership and increase of legal concealed carry.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;500668]My memory was a little foggy on the most egregious case that had come to mind[/QUOTE]
(list of egregious cases omitted for brevity) There are some that truly are egregious, and others that are claimed to be based on verbal reports/claims of alleged witnesses that get contradicted by video and physical evidence.
[QUOTE] With the advent of police dash- and body cams, and bystanders making their own videos, this may be changing.[/QUOTE]That's clearly a good thing. Justice is supposed to be for all.
[QUOTE]
In US law, there is no verdict of "Innocent." [/QUOTE]Depends on the jurisdiction and situation, per [url]https://www.quora.com/Is-there-ever-such-a-verdict-of-innocent-rather-than-not-guilty-in-American-criminal-courts[/url]

I think it supports your overall point, while your statement of no innocent verdict is a bit too broad.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;500690]It is not logical, on the one hand to dismiss gun deaths as "not in the top ten causes" and state that it would be better to work on safe driving and healthy living; and, on the other, to call it "criminally shameful" to fail to provide security for an open-air concert that's on a par with protecting the President from assassination.

So, let's see. You've come up with two instances of a sniper shooting people in the USA from a high vantage point, prior to 2017. In fact, both were over 50 years before. Neither was a concert venue. I will say, though, that with the assassination of JFK, the fact that that vantage point wasn't covered by the Secret Service or local LEO was a shameful failure of security. This [I]was[/I] supposed to be protecting the President, after all.

You need to be more careful with statistics. After all, you've already had to walk back your assertion that 33,000 gun homicides a year was an "oft-quoted statistic." it isn't.

The phrase "predict as a possibility" is nonsense. A [I]possibility[/I] is something that [I]can[/I] or [I]might[/I] happen. It may even be something that inevitably [I]will[/I] happen, but may not happen very often, and is not predictable in the sense of there being no way of saying [I]when[/I] it will happen. A [I]prediction[/I] is a statement that something [I]will[/I] happen, usually in a specific period, sometimes with an precise time frame. Times of sunrise and sunset; rising and setting of the moon, stars, and planets; lunar and solar eclipses; tomorrow's weather -- these are [I]predictions[/I]. Earthquake forecasts are a lot iffier about when. There is an x per cent chance that this fault will move in the next y years.

In any winter, there is a [I]possibility[/I] that it will snow in places like Atlana GA, Miami FL, and Tupelo, MS. But it doesn't snow very often in these places, so they may not have fleets of snow plows and stockpiles of salt and sand for those rare occasions. I think the security for outdoor concerts takes a similar view of mass shootings. They've got much more likely hazards to deal with. Hot weather. Cold weather. Thunderstorms. Rowdy drunks. People getting into fights. Drug overdoses. Crowds panicking or otherwise frantic to get from A to B, and stampeding. The latter one hasn't happened at a US open-air concert recently AFAIK, but it did happen at a Who concert in Cincinnati in 1979, killing 11 people.[/QUOTE]
I didn't do a search for sniper nest occurrences, except in my own recall. There might have been more, in the US or elsewhere.
The after-action report which I provided a link to identified some ways in which the authorities evaluated the preparation for ordinary likely occurrences at such a concert were inadequate. One example: 7 cots for a population of tens of thousands.

Whenever I plan something, I make predictions or estimates about foreseeable possible events and outcomes. Wow you spent a lot of verbiage picking at my word choice. People make plans for low probability high consequence events all the time. Examples: life insurance, auto, home, health, liability, choosing to be armed, owning a fire extinguisher or 3, putting a backup cell phone in the vehicle. The question in my mind is why wasn't the equivalent of a full SWAT truck there already at the Harvest 91? What I read sounds like the nearest village to my residence is considerably better protected than that concert population of twice the size. (Officers separated from their gear by hundreds of yards, in a huge dense crowd, for appearance's sake, sheesh.)
Re stampede, the 1993 Camp Randall crush is considerably more recent. [URL]https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/remembering-camp-randall-stadium-crush-years-after-terrifying-stampede/collection_92dc8083-0af6-5226-80c7-5f741eac8cdc.html[/URL]
Lots injured, no dead, the football team rushed over and helped pull live bodies off the pile rapidly while those near the bottom were suffocating.

One can pretty reliably predict that there will be another mass shooting somewhere, but not where, when, or by whom, but it will most likely (>90% historicallly) be where numerous people are gathered in a nominally "gun free" zone. Death toll in an attempt in such a zone is around a dozen higher on average than elsewhere.
Sniper style attack was a known issue before Harvest 91, per this article:
"Authorities have long discussed the threat of terrorism by a sniper in a crowded area and the reality that there are relatively few tools to prevent or quickly stop such an attack.
Los Angeles police have tried different tactics, including placing sharpshooters on rooftops during the Academy Awards. Earlier this year and for the first time, the LAPD had a police officer in a helicopter shoot a suspect who was firing from the top of a hill." [URL]https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-sniper-tactics-police-20171005-story.html[/URL]
There's something in that article for a variety of points of view.

[QUOTE=kriesel;501256]In the hands of the too-young, grossly irresponsible, insane, [STRIKE]or violently criminal[/STRIKE], yes.[/QUOTE]
This discussion is very interesting and we are watching it. We do not have an opinion, as we don't live there and we don't know which way is better. We were educated in guns and quite good with them in the army, which was centuries ago, but we were never attracted by guns, and never owned a gun, and we don't know anybody who owns one beside army guys or police officers, this side of the world... Generally, arguments on both sides seem reasonable to us when we read them. Most of them. We just want to point out that criminals don't need guns to kill people, we could kill you in \(2^{2^{127}-1}-1\) (which most probably is not a prime number) ways without a gun, and could also procure a gun to kill you if we were a violently criminal and using a gun would be the only solution, even if the guns were forbidden. The main issue here is access to guns for irresponsible people, insane, children, etc., as you said. Of course, such people should have no access to guns. But how do you tell, and where do you draw the line... this we have no freaking idea how to answer...

"On this day in history" reminds us that on December 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman murdered John Lennon by shooting him five times.

His lawyers originally wanted to try an insanity defense, but he decided it was the Will of God to plead Guilty. He was sentenced to 20-to-life, and provided mental health care in prison.

He became eligible for parole in 2000, but has been denied parole 10 times and is still incarcerated.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;502072]"On this day in history" reminds us that on December 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman murdered John Lennon by shooting him five times.

His lawyers originally wanted to try an insanity defense, but he decided it was the Will of God to plead Guilty. He was sentenced to 20-to-life, and provided mental health care in prison.

He became eligible for parole in 2000, but has been denied parole 10 times and is still incarcerated.[/QUOTE]
RIP John. :sad:

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;500832]Wow. I would love to hear someone explain how more people with guns would help prevent such a crime :whistle:

That story had a link to another story I hadn't heard about. Made my blood boil, it did:

[url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46186510]#ThisIsOurLane: Doctors hit back at pro-gun group NRA[/url]
This also reminded me of a book I bought many years ago. It was done by photographer Eugene Richards who had, with permission of physicians and staff of the ER at Denver General Hospital, taken photographs to help tell stories of what went on there. The name given this ER by locals is the book's title: [u]The Knife and Gun Club[/u].[/QUOTE]Still no response to this request, AFAICT.

Anyone wish to contribute? Kriesel, are you up to it?

[QUOTE=kriesel;501268] <snip>
Depends on the jurisdiction and situation, per [url]https://www.quora.com/Is-there-ever-such-a-verdict-of-innocent-rather-than-not-guilty-in-American-criminal-courts[/url]

I think it supports your overall point, while your statement of no innocent verdict is a bit too broad.[/QUOTE]
I was, of course, referring to verdicts in ordinary criminal trials, not post-trial proceedings. The closest thing in the context of a criminal triaI I am aware of, is granting a motion for a [i]directed verdict of acquittal[/i], which means the Court instructs the jury that, [i]as a matter of law[/i], the prosecution failed to present enough evidence to prove necessary elements of its case.

In reviewing this, I ran into a related legal determination, granting a motion for a [i]judgement notwithstanding the verdict,[/i] in which the Court has denied a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, but grants a motion to set aside the jury's verdict in favor of a judgement that would have followed a directed verdict of acquittal, had that motion been granted.

An appeals finding of "actual innocence" is most likely to result in the original trial and verdict being "vacated," or set aside -- so that, in the eyes of the law, the trial "never happened." This permits the prosecution to retry the case, so is [i]not[/i] the same as a verdict of acquittal.

However, if a post-trial motion to vacate a conviction (particularly if it is stated to be "in the interest of justice") is filed by the [i]prosecution[/i] in the case, that's about as close as it gets to the State proclaiming the convicted person never should have been convicted.

I have a vague memory of the case of a man in New York who was framed for murder by a vengeful prosecutor, because he'd refused to perjure himself to help the prosecutor win a case, in exchange for the prosecutor's assistance to the man in a previous matter. The man was convicted and sentenced to death, but the sentence was reduced shortly before his scheduled electrocution, and he lived long enough to have the appalling facts of the case come to light. His conviction was set aside, he was released from prison, and, due to the circumstances, a special law was enacted which allowed the man to sue the State of New York for wrongful imprisonment. He was awarded (IIRC) ten million dollars, but didn't live long enough to enjoy it much.

[url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/13/us-gun-deaths-levels-cdc-2017]Gun deaths in US rise to highest level in 20 years, data shows[/url][quote]A steady rise in suicides involving firearms has pushed the rate of gun deaths in the US to its highest rate in more than 20 years, with almost 40,000 people killed in shootings in 2017, according to new figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s Wonder database shows that in 2017, 39,773 people in the US lost their lives at the point of a gun, marking the onward march of firearm fatalities in a country renowned for its lax approach to gun controls. When adjusted for age fluctuations, that represents a total of 12 deaths per 100,000 people – up from 10.1 in 2010 and the highest rate since 1996.

What that bare statistic represents in terms of human tragedy is most starkly reflected when set alongside those of other countries. According to a recent study from the Jama Network, it compares with rates of 0.2 deaths per 100,000 people in Japan, 0.3 in the UK, 0.9 in Germany and 2.1 in Canada.[/quote][quote]Research by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence underlines that the tragedy of gun violence and suicides is not spread randomly across the country, but is concentrated precisely in those places where gun ownership is most prevalent and gun laws at their loosest. When the fund analysed the new CDC statistics, it discovered the highest rates of gun suicides occurred in three states which also have the greatest gun ownership – Montana (19.4 gun suicides per 100,000), Wyoming (16.6) and Alaska (16.0).

Alaska has the highest rate of gun ownership in the US, with 61.7% distribution. Wyoming (53.8%) and Montana (52.3%) are also at the top of the league table.

The statistics speak to a brutally simple truth. Studies have shownd[sup][sic][/sup] that suicide attempts often take place in a moment of hopelessness that can last barely minutes – which means that easy access to a firearm can in itself exponentially increase the risk of self-harm.

“People often think with suicides involving firearms that there’s nothing we can do to prevent this,” said the Education Fund’s policy analyst, Dakota Jablon. “But looking at these numbers it’s clear that simply having a lot of guns around increases the danger.”

Jablon pointed out that access to a gun in the home increases the odds of suicide more than threefold.[/quote]So more guns equates to more deaths. :shock: That should not be a surprise to anyone except the gun lovers that want to ignore the figures and pretend they are safer with more guns around. :loco:

[QUOTE=retina;502583][url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/13/us-gun-deaths-levels-cdc-2017]Gun deaths in US rise to highest level in 20 years, data shows[/url]So more guns equates to more deaths. :shock: That should not be a surprise to anyone except the gun lovers that want to ignore the figures and pretend they are safer with more guns around. :loco:[/QUOTE]According to the [url=https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/s1129-US-life-expectancy.html]CDC Director’s Media Statement on U.S. Life Expectancy[/url] [quote]“The latest CDC data show that the U.S. life expectancy has declined over the past few years. Tragically, this troubling trend is largely driven by deaths from drug overdose and suicide. Life expectancy gives us a snapshot of the Nation’s overall health and these sobering statistics are a wakeup call that we are losing too many Americans, too early and too often, to conditions that are preventable. CDC is committed to putting science into action to protect U.S. health, but we must all work together to reverse this trend and help ensure that all Americans live longer and healthier lives.”

— Robert R. Redfield, M.D., CDC Director[/quote]So... [travesty of gun-lover][i]So what if most suicides are gun suicides? Suicides are barely a blip on the radar compared to accidental drug overdoses. So obviously it's more important to get [i]drugs[/i] out of the home. Besides -- the data show that one really major contributing factor to suicides is "country living." The suicide rate in rural areas is about 80% higher than in urban areas. So obviously the thing to do to reduce suicides is to get people out of the boonies and into town.[/i][/travesty of gun-lover]

More seriously, according to [url=https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicideTechnicalPackage.pdf]Preventing Suicide: A Technical Package of Policy, Programs, and Practices[/url] (my emphasis), [quote]Means of suicide such as firearms, hanging/ suffocation, or jumping from heights provide little opportunity for rescue and, as such, have high case fatality rates (e.g., about 85% of people who use a firearm in a suicide attempt die from their injury). Research also indicates that: 1) the interval between deciding to act and attempting suicide can be as short as 5 or 10 minutes, and 2) [b]people tend not to substitute a different method when a highly lethal method is unavailable or difficult to access.[/b][/quote]This also says that locking up your scrip meds can help.

[QUOTE=kriesel;501267][LIST][*]It sometimes happens that such a man knows or suspects his contemplated target or her new SO are able to repel an attack and he decides not to use violence.[*]It sometimes happens that a woman successfully defends herself from such a person. (These women tend to be armed and familiar with use.)[*]It sometimes happens that a woman is killed by such a person while waiting weeks or months for a gun permit to be issued as a preparation for self defense from someone, often an ex, that she has reason to believe is dangerous, or after her application to the restrictive state she lives in for permission to acquire the means to protect herself is denied.[*]It sometimes happens that people obtain and depend on restraining orders. The police are not liable for failure to enforce such restraining orders after issuance and request for enforcement, even when it results in the death of all the children of the person who obtained it, or the person who obtained it.[*]It sometimes happens that a person chooses to rely on the police to respond in time, and they don't, and bad things happen. (Search Brittany Zimmerman. The 911 dispatcher hung up on that promising young medical student, during a home invasion, did not send help, did not call back, and Brittany's body was found in their home by her fiance hours later. Years later, her murderer has never been identified publicly or charged. Or read about the case Warren vs. DC. The police have no duty, absent a special relationship, to protect any individual citizen, and have immunity from liability if they fail to protect or even respond, even when help has been promised, repeatedly, and the ongoing reported crime spree continues on for many hours.)[*]It often happens that people go about their lives nonviolently. I like that one the best.[/LIST][/QUOTE]So you're basically saying, when it comes to domestic abuse/violence, law enforcement is useless, and we all need to become armed vigilantes.

In the case I mentioned, the perp was out in the street, and the victim was inside the house. Are you saying people with abusive SO's need to conduct 'round the clock surveillance of the area around their houses?

I would point out that one reason law enforcement is unable to act in these situations is, very often, the abused person is "uncooperative." That is, they refuse to file charges against the person who just beat them up; or, having initially made a complaint, change their story and say they want their abuser back. Where there's life there's hope. But if the abused person [i]then[/i] files for a restraining order, that is likely to enrage the abuser, and there isn't anything thing the cops can do until the abuser acts, because the victim has tied their hands.

I would say that, if an abused person is going to file for a restraining order after refusing to prefer criminal charges, they'd better have a plan to get the heck out of Dodge.

I can hear it now. "We need to have manufacturing employees armed on the job, so workers can protect themselves from unhappy cow orkers!"

[url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-abn-aurora-police-st-0217-story.html]5 dead, 5 cops wounded in Aurora attack; suspect killed in shootout with police[/url]

[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

It seems our latest Hero is an employee coming to work on the day he was being fired. So, this can be dealt with by making sure no employees know they're being fired until security shows up at their work station and escorts them off the premises. If memory serves, Henry Ford's thug-in-chief Harry Bennett like to do this sort of thing, but more brutally.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;508864][COLOR="White"].[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
For cancer patients, etc. I give platelets. It is what they need. I have offered to provide direct donations to 2 friends in the last 4 months.
[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;508876]So, this can be dealt with by making sure no employees know they're being fired until security shows up at their work station and escorts them off the premises.[/QUOTE]In almost all of the USA, public employees are afforded 'due process' in their terminations if it is 'for cause' (not probationary and not an 'at will' job.) They can see the train coming for sometime before it arrives. Senior employees that have done things that are illegal are often afforded the chance to retire forthwith. This allows them to keep their benefits and avoids all of the trouble of the hearings etc. Generally if they take the retirement, they are no prosecuted.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;508878]In almost all of the USA, public employees are afforded 'due process' in their terminations if it is 'for cause' (not probationary and not an 'at will' job.) [/QUOTE]

I have only ever worked in the private sector. But I was always trained that if I was ever going to "let someone go" it is best to revoke all their privileges at about midnight, including their access to the building(s). Any personal possessions they might have at their desks would be delivered to them, and any severance owed would be paid promptly.

But, I have never worked in the (Great?) US of A. Projectile weapons weren't generally available to my employees....

[url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-met-aurora-shooting-lawsuit-vincente-juarez-20190320-story.html]Wrongful death lawsuit against Illinois State Police filed by family of Aurora mass shooting victim[/url][quote]The family of a man slain in last month’s [url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-tribune-coverage-aurora-mass-shooting-gallery-20190216-storygallery.html]mass shooting in Aurora[/url] has filed a lawsuit against the Illinois State Police for issuing a firearm license to the convicted felon who opened fire in the plant during a termination hearing.
<snip>
Records show the Mississippi conviction was never entered into the national databases, which were designed to make sure criminal histories are accessible to law enforcement agencies across the country.[/quote]

This brings up the issue of "sovereign immunity." The Eleventh Amendment clearly states that Federal jurisdiction does not extend to citizens of [i]one[/i] state suing [i]another[/i] state, but apparently the Supremes have held that they can't sue their [i]own[/i] state, either. At least, not in Federal court. They [i]can[/i], however, sue state [i]agencies,[/i] which they are doing in this case (the Illinois State Police). They might now go after whatever Mississippi state agency was supposed to put the felony conviction into the federal database...

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;511400][url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-met-aurora-shooting-lawsuit-vincente-juarez-20190320-story.html]Wrongful death lawsuit against Illinois State Police filed by family of Aurora mass shooting victim[/url][/QUOTE]So what now? Employers are scared to fire anyone for fear of being killed. Which naturally extends to being scared to hire anyone in case they need to be fired later. Which leads to society breakdown and everyone goes back to being hunter gatherers. Hmm, might not be such a bad thing after all. :tu:

[QUOTE=retina;511404]So what now? Employers are scared to fire anyone for fear of being killed. Which naturally extends to being scared to hire anyone in case they need to be fired later. Which leads to society breakdown and everyone goes back to being hunter gatherers. Hmm, might not be such a bad thing after all. :tu:[/QUOTE]I dare say, not everyone. I don't know offhand the largest human population that could persist as hunter-gatherers, but I am quite sure it is a small fraction of the current human population. The knowledge of how to live that way is also not very common.

I am reminded of a line from Cyril Kornbluth's SF story [i]The Marching Morons:[/i][quote]Five billion corpses mean about five hundred million tons of rotting flesh.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;511409]I dare say, not everyone. I don't know offhand the largest human population that could persist as hunter-gatherers, but I am quite sure it is a small fraction of the current human population. The knowledge of how to live that way is also not very common.

I am reminded of a line from Cyril Kornbluth's SF story [i]The Marching Morons:[/i][/QUOTE]
[quote]Five billion corpses mean about five hundred million tons of rotting flesh.[/quote]
Only a temporary problem.

There are many trillions of organisms which would rejoice at such an increase in their food supply if they had the intellect to do so.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;511409]I dare say, not everyone. I don't know offhand the largest human population that could persist as hunter-gatherers, but I am quite sure it is a small fraction of the current human population. The knowledge of how to live that way is also not very common.[/QUOTE]It wouldn't affect the entire human population, just the gun-toting USA. Everyone else (i.e. the majority of the world) will still be okay in their gun-less modern society.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news:
[url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/31/georgia-teen-omarian-banks-killed-wrong-door/3326204002/[/url] [quote]Police say 19 year old Omarian Banks was shot and killed after he accidentally went to the wrong apartment door in his complex in SW Atlanta.[/quote]
:loco:

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/us/unlicensed-gun-dealers-law-invs/[/url]

[url=https://www.cpr.org/news/story/denver-metro-schools-closed-wednesday-as-massive-manhunt-for-sol-pais-is-underway]FBI Says Community Threat Is Over, Confirms Sol Pais Found Dead[/url][quote]Denver-area public schools, as well as schools in Northern Colorado, were closed Wednesday as the FBI hunted for an armed young Florida woman who was allegedly "infatuated" with Columbine and threatened violence just days ahead of the 20th anniversary of the attack. All classes and extracurricular activities for about a half-million students were canceled as a precaution.

Sol Pais, an 18-year-old Miami Beach high school student, flew to Colorado Monday night and bought a pump-action shotgun and ammunition, authorities said.

The FBI said late Wednesday morning there was "no longer a threat to the community" and later confirmed that Sol Pais was dead. In a morning news conference, Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Shrader said she was found near the base of Mount Evans with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.[/quote]
Looks like she knew the game was up -- she was known to be on the prowl, every LEO around was hunting for her, and her intended targets had been taken out of harm's way.

Still -- it's kind of disconcerting to think she was able to fly from Florida to Colorado, then buy a shotgun and ammo.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;511409]I dare say, not everyone. I don't know offhand the largest human population that could persist as hunter-gatherers, but I am quite sure it is a small fraction of the current human population. The knowledge of how to live that way is also not very common.

I am reminded of a line from Cyril Kornbluth's SF story [I]The Marching Morons:[/I][/QUOTE]
Figures I've been able to find online for human population prior to development of agriculture are of order 1 million to 50 million, quite a contrast to our current ~7.6 billion plus and climbing. The survivors long term are below the level of rounding of the current count. That means a lot of rotting corpses in short order initially, which means likelihood of pandemics (the large scale version of dysentery and other disease that sets in in refugee camps with inadequate public health and sanitation measures). The early winners are probably those who are armed and prepped and keep a low profile in the early going. Shelter, access to clean water, protective clothing, some nonperishable food stocks, hand tools, seed, and long shelf life medicine are probably more important than big stocks of ammo for survival prospects. Other species would be significantly affected, and not all for the better; housecats would lose their food subsidy and might be exploited as food source by both the remaining humans, and a variety of canids. Deer, especially the American whitetail, would drop in numbers drastically, both from hunting pressure, and from loss of the food-rich farm fields they currently rely on heavily, foraging for missed soybeans, alfalfa, and corn kernels from harvest until spring brings forbs to graze on. It could also be a hardship for the Norway rat, a variety of mice, and other species. Domesticated chickens and most other livestock in particular. It's not practical to sustain much in the way of technology with such a small human population. Over a period of many generations, the means of hunting would devolve to what one or a few people can make without much in the way of metallurgy or chemistry or energy expenditure or beyond readily accessible materials like wood, bone, or stone. Most mineral deposits readily accessible have already been exploited. Landfills and recydling businesses could constitute local exploitable resources of additional materials. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population[/url]

[QUOTE=kriesel;514131]It's not practical to sustain much in the way of technology with such a small human population.[/QUOTE]It depends entirely on how such a small human population came into being. One possible scenario is that AIs could very easily maintain the technology necessary for their survival and reproduction, regardless of the size of the human population.
[QUOTE=kriesel;514131] Landfills and recydling businesses could constitute local exploitable resources of additional materials.[/QUOTE]With the possible exception of helium we are not running out of mineral resources. We are just redistributing them into artefacts and waste repositories. (Amusingly, Roman spoil heaps from their lead mines have long been exploited as what are now regarded as high-concentration ores of a number of metals including Pb and Ag). Helium is the exception because it is readily lost from the atmosphere. If we want more, we either breed it by alpha decay or mine it from elsewhere in the solar system.

[QUOTE=xilman;514137]It depends entirely on how such a small human population came into being. One possible scenario is that AIs could very easily maintain the technology necessary for their survival and reproduction, regardless of the size of the human population.[/QUOTE]Yes. That depends on AI having already reached a self sustaining critical mass/ecosystem. As things are now, every AI depends on a great deal of human involvement for mining, energy, manufacturing, maintenance of the electrical grid, etc. There's a case to be made for designing in an off-switch on AI, accessible to qualified humans, in case the AI decides that humans are in the way of achieving the goal given the AI by humans. There won't be much AI or anything running in scenarios like major EMP or CME hit (Carrington event or worse) [URL]http://www.onesecondafter.com/[/URL]

[QUOTE]With the possible exception of helium we are not running out of mineral resources. We are just redistributing them into artefacts and waste repositories. (Amusingly, Roman spoil heaps from their lead mines have long been exploited as what are now regarded as high-concentration ores of a number of metals including Pb and Ag). Helium is the exception because it is readily lost from the atmosphere. If we want more, we either breed it by alpha decay or mine it from elsewhere in the solar system.[/QUOTE] There are limits to extraction, imposed by the total inventory, economics, and feasibility. The feasibility of creating the equivalent of an 8000 foot deep mine like the Homestake gold mine or the 6800 foot deep Sudbury nickel mine drops way off if the population no longer has access to cheap abundant energy and manufacturing throughput. Our technologies enabling 7.6 billion humans to live are a huge pyramid built upon each other. Not one of us knows how to build a computer mouse from scratch. (Get the oil to make the plastic parts from. Oh, need drill bits to cut through rock. Oh, need to be able to braze or fasten tungsten carbide onto the cutting head. How to make the carbide the right shape? How to get the tungsten ore out of the ground, and convert it to carbide? It's highly recursive. Need hydraulic pumps and fracking fluid too, chemical plant to convert the crude into something useful, etc. etc. Similar for making the integrated circuits, LED, etc. Some things just become prohibitively involved.)
Earth's inventory of any given element or compound or mineral or other solid resource becomes mostly out of reach, when the system no longer supports either deep mining or global trade. There are numerous materials that could be considered mission-critical that are inconveniently nonuniformly distributed on the planet's surface. (DOD has people that worry about such things full time.)
Hunter-gatherer means low energy expenditure, limited transportation options.

[QUOTE=kriesel;514145]There won't be much AI or anything running in scenarios like major EMP or CME hit (Carrington event or worse) [URL]http://www.onesecondafter.com/[/URL][/quote]
You are demonstrating your naivety here. An AI need be no more sensitive to EMP than we are. There are many possibilities. An AI could be running on wetware closely similar to what we use. An AI could be using photonic circuitry instead of (or as well as) electronics. An AI could protect its delicate portions inside a Faraday cage in much the same way as we use a skull to protect from mechanical shocks. An AI could have its computronium widely replicated and multiply redundant in the same way that we can withstand a stroke. An AI could be be sufficiently far away that a CME sails past it several astronomical units away. An AI could ...
[QUOTE=kriesel;514145] There are limits to extraction, imposed by the total inventory, economics, and feasibility.[/QUOTE]Why dig several kilometres down when almost all the nickel ever extracted by humanity is now within a hundred metres or so of the surface?

[QUOTE=kriesel;514131]Landfills and recydling businesses could constitute local exploitable resources of additional materials.[/QUOTE]
It already happens:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_mining[/url]

[QUOTE=xilman;514150]You are demonstrating your naivety here. An AI need be no more sensitive to EMP than we are. There are many possibilities. An AI could be running on wetware closely similar to what we use. An AI could be using photonic circuitry instead of (or as well as) electronics. An AI could protect its delicate portions inside a Faraday cage in much the same way as we use a skull to protect from mechanical shocks. An AI could have its computronium widely replicated and multiply redundant in the same way that we can withstand a stroke. An AI could be sufficiently far away that a CME sails past it several astronomical units away. An AI could ...
Why dig several kilometres down when almost all the nickel ever extracted by humanity is now within a hundred metres or so of the surface?[/QUOTE]Now you're talking science fiction, and irrelevancy. I'm viewing it from an engineering perspective. AI as it currently exists, or will in the near future, runs in silicon, and requires electricity. Most of the electronics in existence is not EMP-hardened. It needs to be close enough to humanity to be of benefit to us, in the scenario you originally hypothesized. If the grid breaks, due to EMP damage, with large transformers for long range transmission of electricity not replaceable for years due to factory capacity limits and long delivery times even in ordinary circumstances, and most of the world's capacity to build them is in China, replacement takes years. If China needs transformer replacements and America needs transformer replacements, who will Chinese factories fill orders for first? Especially if the EMP over America or Europe or the UK was from Chinese or a Chinese-allied country's warheads. How much electronics that you own is EMP hardened or stored in a Faraday cage? What will power it or your refrigerator after the line's down? How long before fuel for the neighborhood's generator and well pump goes bad or the generator not designed for continuous use fails? (Months probably) Death by dehydration takes a week, sometimes less. Read "One Second After".
"[SIZE=3][FONT=serif]The U.S. [/FONT][FONT=serif]military has taken E1 HEMP very seriously[/FONT][FONT=serif] for a long time, including hardening and [/FONT][FONT=serif]testing efforts. On the civilian side, the pr[/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=serif][SIZE=3]oblems have not really been addressed." [URL]https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/reliability/cybersecurity/ferc_meta-r-320.pdf[/URL][/SIZE]
[/FONT]
I think we're in vigorous agreement on deep mining. Surface scavenging would be feasible, deep mining or drilling would not. A drastic reduction in population would reduce amount needed.
Various "renewable" energy sources will become unavailable rather quickly after the industrial infrastructure to maintain them fails for some reason. Solar panels, modern windmills, and modern hydropower have maintenance requirements that hunter-gatherer can't support. Early in the industrial age, there were dutch style frame and cloth windmills and water wheels made of wood, and ships moved by sail/wind or oars or currents. Even these required metal saws to build. Even simple things we take for granted become costly if available at all, such as nails and screws.

As time passes after failure of the grid or other infrastructure, metal tools become scarce, and metal stockpiles in landfills revert by corrosion to compounds requiring reprocessing to produce the metallic form. Iron-age, and bronze-age technology was beyond hunter-gatherer capability, much less electrolysis in molten salts to produce metallic aluminum, or the high tech process of creating carbon fiber reinforced plastic windmill blades longer than an ordinary 18-wheel semi truck or towers hundreds of feet high or portland cement for foundations or copper wire for transmission lines. Making aluminum castings by melting cans with a charcoal fire and fabric bellows is feasible. Reducing the surface area per unit mass of the cans would slow the corrosion rate.

[QUOTE=kriesel;514307]Now you're talking science fiction, and irrelevancy. I'm viewing it from an engineering perspective. AI as it currently exists, or will in the near future, runs in silicon, and requires electricity.[/QUOTE]In my view AI does not presently exist. I'm thinking of something with at least near-human intelligence and that still lies in the future. I agree that the first such entities will likely be running on silicon but even so they are likely to take steps (or have steps taken for them if they are owned by the military) to protect themselves and their species, including off-planet backups, brains inside Faraday cages and off-grid power supplies.

If the postulated massive human population crash occurs it could well be as a consequence of a significantly large population of AIs.

[QUOTE=xilman;514313]In my view AI does not presently exist. I'm thinking of something with at least near-human intelligence and that still lies in the future. I agree that the first such entities will likely be running on silicon but even so they are likely to take steps (or have steps taken for them if they are owned by the military) to protect themselves and their species, including off-planet backups, brains inside Faraday cages and off-grid power supplies.

If the postulated massive human population crash occurs it could well be as a consequence of a significantly large population of AIs.[/QUOTE]
So in your view, Cyc or Watson don't qualify as AI, nor do other systems that arrive at conclusions humans can't in some specialized area. I remember long ago hearing the Cyc project characterized as teaching a computer what a 10 year old human knows, with a team of dozens of grad students and a ten year schedule. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc[/URL]

One of the scenarios for drastic human depopulation is genetic engineering for radical ideological terrorist purposes. (Imagine a virus intended for only eradicating a selected ethnic group, that is wrongly designed, or mutates into a general pandemic agent regardless of ethnicity, by infecting someone who has another virus already present and who happens to be multiethnic.) In WWII the Japanese reportedly used germ warfare on the Chinese, and it cost the Japanese a lot of soldiers.

[QUOTE=xilman;514313]In my view AI does not presently exist.[/QUOTE]

IMHO, you are incorrect. AI does demonstrably already exist, while GAI doesn't yet. Give it a little bit of time, and it will be here. And better than us.

Would you like to play a game of Go?

[QUOTE=xilman;514313] I'm thinking of something with at least near-human intelligence and that still lies in the future. I agree that the first such entities will likely be running on silicon but even so they are likely to take steps (or have steps taken for them if they are owned by the military) to protect themselves and their species, including off-planet backups, brains inside Faraday cages and off-grid power supplies.[/QUOTE]

What is more likely going to happen is the companies will create the GAIs because they have to try to beat every other company, and because they can. Then they get out of control, with no "stop button".

[QUOTE=xilman;514313]If the postulated massive human population crash occurs it could well be as a consequence of a significantly large population of AIs.[/QUOTE]

People don't like me saying this, but I actually look forward to the AIs replacing the humans. In my opinion, it's a natural and inevitable evolution...

[QUOTE=kriesel;514307]Reducing the surface area per unit mass of the cans would slow the corrosion rate.[/QUOTE]

Just to make sure I'm being an equal ass... Doesn't that mean maximizing the diameter of the cables?

Electrons repel, so they tend to run outside of the cable.

Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

[QUOTE=chalsall;514343]Would you like to play a game of Go?[/QUOTE]Not especially, whether against a human or a machine. I barely know the rules or how to score a position.

Much the same goes for chess. There I do know the rules but most everyone beats me a the game.

I'll play tic-tac-toe against a human or a machine.

IMO the ability to play such games is a component of intelligence perhaps but an insignificanlly small one. Rather more interesting would be [I]Diplomacy[/I] or [I]Nomic[/I] or [I]D&D[/I] which may well require any successful AI player to be able to pass a Turing test.

Watson is undoubtedly very interesting development. Something like it will also be a component in a true AI.

[QUOTE=kriesel;514337]So in your view, Cyc or Watson don't qualify as AI, nor do other systems that arrive at conclusions humans can't in some specialized area. I remember long ago hearing the Cyc project characterized as teaching a computer what a 10 year old human knows, with a team of dozens of grad students and a ten year schedule. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc[/URL][/QUOTE]Both are very interesting steps in the process of creating true AI.

The initial proof of the 4-colour theorem came to a conclusion that humans couldn't in some specialized area. Was that an example of AI in your view?

[QUOTE=xilman;514370]Not especially, whether against a human or a machine. I barely know the rules or how to score a position.[/QUOTE]

The point I was /trying/ to make is the example of DeepMind's "AlphaGo", which beat the best human Go player at a game which was generally considered unassailable by AI because the tree-branching is too large to solve by brute-force.

Then came AlphaZero, which taught itself how to play games by itself, better than any human.

[QUOTE=xilman;514370]IMO the ability to play such games is a component of intelligence perhaps but an insignificanlly small one. Rather more interesting would be [I]Diplomacy[/I] or [I]Nomic[/I] or [I]D&D[/I] which may well require any successful AI player to be able to pass a Turing test.[/QUOTE]

I've never played it (I don't play video games), but what about the [URL="https://www.forbes.com/sites/samshead/2019/01/25/deepmind-ai-beats-professional-human-starcraft-ii-players/"]recent annihilation of professional Human StarCraft II players by an AI[/URL]?

And, in my opinion, the Turing test will soon fall, if it hasn't already.

[QUOTE=chalsall;514407]I've never played it (I don't play video games)[/QUOTE]They (not "it" as I named three) are not video games; all are multi-player games and generally between human participants. All require skills which non-human software finds exceedingly difficult. AFAIK, only [I]Diplomacy[/I] has been attempted by so-called AI and the (again AFAIK) performance has been dreadful.

Software can certainly manage the mechanics of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)"]Diplomacy[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic"]Nomic[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons"]D&D[/URL] but not (once more AFAIK) take part in the negotiation (and role-playing in the case of D&D) aspects with any notable success.

[QUOTE=xilman;514683]Software can certainly manage the mechanics of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)"]Diplomacy[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic"]Nomic[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons"]D&D[/URL] but not (once more AFAIK) take part in the negotiation (and role-playing in the case of D&D) aspects with any notable success.[/QUOTE]

OK. Thank you for that. Very interesting.

Natural language and nuance is difficult for deterministic compute.

Perhaps "wetware" will last a few more years... :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;514687]Perhaps "wetware" will last a few more years... :smile:[/QUOTE]
As well as 'wet work'. :stirpot:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;514690]As well as 'wet work'. :stirpot:[/QUOTE]

ROFL... In some spaces wet work involves knives and other nasty stuff.

In other spaces it simply involves people being rather wet while doing their job.

First the appetizer... [url=https://apnews.com/efad587688314e9b96c81b91bda0fc28]NRA sues longtime ad agency over requests for bill details[/url]

Then the [i]Pièce de coup de gras![/i]

[url=https://apnews.com/a4b597b392d440c79ae2d3f12f1548d6]Infighting erupts at NRA convention, threatening leadership[/url]

[url=https://www.apnews.com/d5d90ab1596f478c8f20d4dbe3f73979]Oliver North out as NRA president after leadership dispute[/url]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;514945]Then the [i]Pièce de coup de gras![/i][/QUOTE]Sorry, I'm not very good at French. Please explain because I don't see what a lawnmower has to do with the story.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;514945]Then the [I]Pièce de coup de gras![/I]
[/QUOTE]
I love it! It is the "stroke of fat"! :tu:


[SPOILER]( Coup de gras appears to exist - their poster reminds of the Spinal Tap's "Smell the glove" album cover, ...but is a bit too much to keep here. LMGTFY. )[/SPOILER]

[QUOTE=Batalov;514959]...will remind some of us of the Spinal Tap.
"What's wrong with being sexy?"[/QUOTE]

It reminded me of [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvMoRVrqx_I"]Talk Talk's Life's what you make it.[/URL].

[url]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48081535[/url]

[QUOTE=xilman;514990][url]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48081535[/url][/QUOTE]The link to "America's gun culture in 10 charts" in the story is wrong -- it's the same as the link to the [url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46007707]shooting in Pittsburgh[/url] just above. The correct link to "America's gun culture in 10 charts" is [url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081]here[/url].

[QUOTE=xilman;514990][url]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48081535[/url][/QUOTE]I was within 1km of that location in January. I have some friends that have dealt with the organization.

... I live within a few miles. I drove (to a mountain hike) on that road on that Saturday (not on that block, we didn't know until later). Sad and shocking events!

One literally cannot say - "hey that's just on the news, that's not my life", nope.

I haven't had the "privilege" of having been very near the site of a mass shooting around the time it happened. At least not yet. I suppose that, sooner or later, I will have the honor conveyed on me.

A couple of years ago, I lost a good neighbor. He was driving on a 2-lane 2-way, and a drunk driver going the other way crossed the center line. I'd seen a news account of the wreck soon after, but didn't know who was involved until the man's wife, suddenly widowed, and obviously in a state of shock, called me to say a State Trooper had come to her door...

Happens all the time, but, when it's someone you knew and talked to many times who's suddenly [i]gone[/i], and a car [i]you'd ridden in[/i] that is now a mass of twisted wreckage, it's not the same as just hearing about it on the news.

It may give one pause to think that, be it a fatal car wreck, a run-of-the-mill shooting, a drive-by, or a mass shooting, when you hear on the news that people have died suddenly and violently, it's that "close to home" for [i]somebody[/i].

Just over a month ago, the Sandy Hook mass shooting claimed another victim. The father of one of the murdered children apparently took his own life.

[url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/27/politics/nra-new-york-investigation/index.html]New York Attorney General investigating NRA finances amid group's internal dispute[/url]
[quote](CNN)The New York attorney general's office has launched an investigation into the National Rifle Association.

"As part of this investigation, the Attorney General has issued subpoenas," a spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement to CNN. "We will not have further comment at this time."

The spokesperson would not confirm what the investigation was regarding.

However, the gun-safety group, Everytown for Gun Safety, said it filed a complaint about the NRA's tax-exempt status with the IRS.

The group said it was prompted by a recent report by The Trace, in conjunction with the New Yorker, alleging that a small group of executives, contractors and vendors affiliated with the NRA "have extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from non-profit's budget."

"In light of the recent, credible allegations of excessive invoicing and personal enrichment by insiders, it's encouraging that the New York Attorney General is looking into the NRA, and we renew our call for other state and federal authorities to do the same," said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.[/quote]

Well, I [U]am[/U] very near of the sites of mass shooting. I mean, from Thailand to US (and the rest of the world) I still believe I am too close...

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/us/massive-seizure-of-guns-la-trnd/index.html[/url]

[YOUTUBE]y88Jb8aBBvc[/YOUTUBE]


machines to take the place of horses? neee....

So another [url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48481814]eleven glorious martyrs[/url] to that 2[sup]nd[/sup] thing.

I'm glad those thoughts and prayers were delivered promptly. They will make a fine replacement for those martyrs.

However this is day 151 and that is only the 150[sup]th[/sup] mass shooting this year.[quote="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48481814"]According to US tracking website Gun Violence Archive, the incident is the 150th mass shooting in the US so far in 2019.[/quote]So the average is a smidgen below 1.0 per day.

[url]https://phys.org/news/2019-06-good-guy-gun-deadly-american.html[/url] [quote]A reality check

Most gun enthusiasts don't measure up to the fictional ideal of the steady, righteous and sure shot.

In fact, research has shown that gun-toting independence unleashes much more chaos and carnage than heroism. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research study revealed that right-to-carry laws increase, rather than decrease, violent crime. Higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates. Gun possession is correlated with increased road rage.

There have been times when a civilian with a gun successfully intervened in a shooting, but these instances are rare. Those who carry guns often have their own guns used against them. And a civilian with a gun is more likely to be killed than to kill an attacker.

Even in instances where a person is paid to stand guard with a gun, there's no guarantee that he'll fulfill this duty.[/quote]Who is adding facts into the discussion? Please stop with the reality. We should continue the fantasy that somehow more guns makes everyone safer.

[QUOTE=retina;518805][url]https://phys.org/news/2019-06-good-guy-gun-deadly-american.html[/url] Who is adding facts into the discussion? Please stop with the reality. We should continue the fantasy that somehow more guns makes everyone safer.[/QUOTE][quote]There is a bird in a poem by T. S. Eliot who says that mankind cannot bear very much reality; but the bird is mistaken. A man can endure the entire weight of the universe for eighty years. It is unreality that he cannot bear.[/quote]-- [u]The Lathe of Heaven[/u] (Chapter 11) by Ursula K. Le Guin