If they could just figure a way to auto-load the bags...

That's a pretty cool "experiment" to perform on the song. However, a fully scientific experiment should attempt to minimize the amount of variables that are being changed -- ideally down to isolating the effects of a single one. This changed two:

1) Auto tune "correcting" the pitch of instruments and vocals AND
2) Changing the key of the song from minor (original is in F minor) to major

I think that the pitch shifting from auto tune to perfectly hit the scale notes actually has LESS impact than transcribing the song into major key. Would be interesting to hear the same thing, but keeping the key in F minor and just using auto tune to shift everything perfectly into scale notes in that key. I think it would still be noticeably ... weird ... compared to the original, but it wouldn't have the bland / banal / happy-poppy feel from the key change.

"How to kill music, with the click of a button"

The case against Auto Tune!

I googled electricity stroller and the only relevant link was to this video. I think somebody's auto correct kicked in or English is not their first language.

They need an auto release/open door.

While I agree with the broad strokes of your argument, positing that life is soooo much better in Japan completely overlooks the sky-high suicide rate there (consistently one of the top countries in the world).

Life may be less desperate, but obviously there are serious underlying issues.

The US government's blind support of massive corporations certainly is a factor. Allowing them to triple the cost of insulin over the past decade or so in spite of the fact that manufacturing costs are stable or even falling is part of what causes patients like the above to ration their supply.

I also found out recently that all financially motivated crime in the US (theft, auto crime, robbery etc.) as a total cost is less than half of the wage theft practiced by big corporations (short-changing vacation time and paychecks mostly). In fact the #1 type of wage theft is underpaying minimum-wage workers, which alone accounts for more than all of the typical "crimes" combined.

If that doesn't lead to homicidal rage, I don't know what does.

Wait...your take there is that Muslims are <1/4 as violent as Christians? Did you get whiplash turning around that fast?
What would I propose?
First, more assistance for the indigent, as economic status is far more important than race when determining a person's likelihood to use a gun on others. Remove the desperation, I expect you stop well over 1/2 of gun violence.
Second, recognizing that fighting the advanced military with semi auto rifles is futile, I would ban all full auto and mods, and extended mags with a buy back at market value (granted, a ban doesn't remove them, but stops more from being legally sold).
Don't pretend that, because that wouldn't stop all gun crime, it's useless. There is no silver bullet, that's no reason to take a moonlit walk on the moors during werewolf season. You can't stop all auto deaths, but we still stop people from jogging on the freeway

Edit: I agree with better mental health reporting/testing and better background checks (not necessarily longer, but remove the congressional roadblocks to making it near instant, nation wide, computerized, and more thorough)
Gun free zones are a failed experiment...ask DC. Unless you search everyone and everything entering the zone, it's worse than useless.

I mixed up your two fire rates (.2 and .12) still you said you can keep up 5rps for many minutes (10 for a short time) not 3...."My lazy firing rate has splits (time between shots) of approximately 0.2 seconds. I can do that for a long time (many minutes before I slow done). That is a rate of 300 rounds per minute. My fast splits are approximately 0.12 seconds. I can't do that for very long (probably one magazine). That is a rate of 600 rounds per minute." And that's only really 300rpm if you have a 300 round mag.

....wait...why am I wasting my time on this? It's clear you're not comparing Apple's to Apple's.
You didn't come close to convincing me that manual 120 shots per minute at 400 yards all well aimed is believable...even belt fed. Keep in mind he actually averaged hitting one moving person in the dark at 400 yards per second for 10 minutes. Your generous competition numbers have you double tapping at 45 targets per min (without a hit rate given, or range).

First you claimed .2 second split is 300 rpm, now you say it's 90rpm. I'm so over this. Have fun at the range.
Again, the target was the crowd. He got more lead on that target on auto. No aim needed.
I've been shooting (non competitively) for 40 years btw, after rifle marksmanship courses for 3 years starting at 7...but thanks for the suggestion.

America. I really don't know that they've made any meaningful changes to rentals, but I recall they made some. I don't rent semi trucks to know what. I do know they now surround crowds with dump trucks full of sand to block trucks. Those bollards, they're regulators too of a sort, regulating vehicular access to certain areas at certain times.

If systems were designed that way, sure public transport could do it all, but ours aren't....and to make that work outside of metropolitan areas gets prohibitively expensive.

Including all the negatives (economic detriment, need for protection from others that have them, injuries and deaths, property damage, lead pollution, mitigation programs, etc), I doubt guns are a net gain....all depends on what you value though. They are mostly considered essential to protect from other guns, without other guns it's really hard to make the case that they're essential if you don't hunt to eat.

Civilization could work fine without autos, but it would require a revamp of all transportation systems. Revamping police to deal with an unarmed populace seems far easier to me.

Sticks? You've heard of swords, right? ;-)

"You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol."

You are not making any sense. I see what I wrote but it is unclear what you are referring to. You are welcome to quote the part you are referring to.

As I wrote above, you can choose the length of time you are aiming your firearm for. I even gave a comparative set of aiming scenarios.

I love how you take the top end of my approximation as your "laughable" scenario and don't mention the rest of the range (i.e. 50 rounds per minute with mag changes). Could you shoot at one round per second aimed? I think with a little training you could.

Doing 0.2 second splits (i.e. you shoot twice at each target) and taking about a second on every target, using 30 round mags, you can do 90 round per minute without much trouble. Going a little slower, say 0.3 second splits, and taking 1.5 seconds per target you can do about 60 round per minute. I could go on. The point is, these are aimed shots with a higher chance to hit the target, and with just as much chance to accidentally hit another target on a miss. This has the result of more hits on target.

"you get more hits on target in full auto".

No, you don't. On target means a hit near the point you intended on a target. He was getting random hits - as is evidenced by the low fatality rate versus high injury rate. The only way you would be correct was if you argued that he intended non-fatal injuries as much as he intended fatalities (and you're welcome to make that argument - it has some merits depending on what this lunatic was trying to achieve).

"If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't."

The book is good because it shows military statistics with full-auto versus other fire modes. Books are often better than videos. It also outlines military teaching methodology, include marksmanship and how it evolved over time. Full auto is still used in military engagements but you'll find it is used very sparsely (here is a good thread of military and ex-mil talking about it's uses: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-militaries-use-assault-rifles-when-the-full-auto-feature-is-rarely-ever-used )

Short range targets are easier to hit. Are you trying to prove my point? Long range targets are harder to hit. Your rate of randomly hitting targets does not get better at longer ranges. But aiming does increase your chance of hitting a target at any range.

If you really wanted to do a comparison at that range then the targets would be a lot larger than balloons.

You're arguing against established marksmanship knowledge that is readily available over the internet or in firearms courses.

I think you owe it to yourself to prove yourself right or wrong by doing some rifle marksmanship courses. Approach it as a sport and you'll have a lot fun doing it!!!

I can't chat much longer - thanks for the good discussion!

Cars drive and kill. True. And all the regulations he mentioned didn't stop one crazy guy hopping in a truck and saying "fuck you" and mowing down a hundred people. This is an important point because he's talking about firearm regulation in the context of mass shootings, and that firearm regulation will lessen or prevent these mass shootings - which he then compares to mass murder by vehicle, and vehicle regulation - regulation which clearly failed to stop any sort of purposeful mass murder by vehicle. Vehicle regulation is to lessen the impact of accidents and provide the government with a revenue stream through taxes. If vehicle regulation was to stop mass murder by vehicle, and you were to use Australia's firearm laws as a blueprint, you wouldn't be driving to work tomorrow.

The scary thing is, cars have killed more people by accident over the last 50 years in the USA than firearms have on purpose. That's how truly dangerous they are. If people woke up and realised they are a fantastic killing machine, then you'd start to see an increase in the incidence of mass vehicle killings... oh wait.

The reality is, from a public health discourse, there are plenty of things that kill at higher rates than firearms. The difference is that firearms are sometimes used to murder people and as far as we know most medical malpractice, car crashes, etc. are accidental. They are emotively tackled very differently.

PS: I'm not arguing against some firearm regulations being introduced in America. I'd use a modified version of New Zealand legislation (which allows for semi-auto long arms, high capacity magazines, etc.). I'd add self defense as a reason to own, and add concealed carry permits for those willing to do a course (with the catch that they would become a form of quasi-deputy of the state - so there would be hurdles to jump to get this permit).

You said almost 3 times that speed, continuously for over 10 minutes....and not with a lightweight speed shorting pistol.

If someone wanted to kill with each shot on moving targets at 3-400 yards in the dark, yeah, 5 seconds+- per shot still seem reasonable, maybe half that for someone who practices on living, moving targets often. Your claim some people can continuously do that 120 times a minute including mag changes is just laughable. They might shoot that fast, but not hit anything accurately at that distance.

You have to prove it to convince me...better? If it's as common as you say, that should be easy to provide with a comparison video instead of a suggestion to buy and read a certain book. The videos I found are all short range small target, not at all the same as what we're debating. Show me a comparison of a field layered deep with 10000 balloons getting shot at from distance, that would be informative, short course accuracy target shooting isn't.

My claim is you will have more control at full auto than absolute maximum possible finger speed.
My other claim is you will put more lead down range with most full autos. In a crowd situation where missing is basically impossible and aiming wasted effort, like this one, more bullets means more damage. Once the crowd dispersed, aiming a high powered rifle would probably be more effective, but not before. Were this not the case, why would any military allow them, ever?

In this Turkey shoot situation, you get more hits on target in full auto. In target shooting, you won't. This was not a series of targets at 20 yards, it was a target zone at 3-400 yards in the dark.

Just about any competition shooter can keep up 0.3 splits for 10 minutes. Go to a three-gun competition near you and ask someone to show you.

Aiming is relative to what you want to achieve. From "spray and pray" to taking many minutes per shot in Palma and F-class. You might take 10-12 shots per minute with a semi-auto at this distance. Others will aim and shoot at 5 to 10 times that rate.

"Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic."

No. That's not how it works. I don't have to prove anything to you (as much as you have to prove anything to me). How about this though - first go read "On Killing" by Dave Grossman, which covers this topic, then go search on Youtube for the many videos (I checked just now and there are plenty) showing how full auto hits much less, (and the shots where you do hit are mainly sub-optimal) compared to aimed fast shots in semi-auto, then go join a gun club and try some competitive shooting. I'd be surprised if at the end of that you still imagine full-auto is what you think it is.

Also fun to watch are videos of guys like Jerry Miculek who can fire in semi-auto at insane rates of fire.

Now, lets be clear, I'm not saying full-auto doesn't have its uses, because it does. I'm taking umbrage with your claim that you have more control in full-auto (you do not) and that you get more hits on target with full auto across a series of targets (you do not).

I don't believe for one second that you could keep up that rate for a full minute, much less over 10. If you take the time it takes to aim a 300 yard shot accurately, you're talking 10-12 shots per minute.
Shooting with your finger at maximum speed is always far less accurate and slower than full auto with the same gun. You have to prove it to me that I'm wrong, because that's simple logic. Full auto is a more stable rate, so easier to adapt to, and doesn't require you to vibrate one hand, shaking the gun, dividing your attention, and tiring you out.
It's silly to imply the full auto functionality didn't exponentially raise the number both wounded and killed. Without the crowd, it might have made less difference. With the crowd, absolutely not imo.

I shoot regularly (often multiple times per week). My lazy firing rate has splits (time between shots) of approximately 0.2 seconds. I can do that for a long time (many minutes before I slow done). That is a rate of 300 rounds per minute. My fast splits are approximately 0.12 seconds. I can't do that for very long (probably one magazine). That is a rate of 600 rounds per minute.

An AR-15 on full auto fires at approximately 600 rounds per minute - twice what I can do on semi-auto. Using a competitive shooter as an example, and taking into account magazine changes (which with training are done much quicker than any of the operators in AR-15 to failure tests I've seen), and assuming lazy splits of 0.30 seconds, a competitive shooter can probably fire at a faster rate per minute than a novice can on full auto (i.e. well more than the approximately 150 rounds per minute a novice shooter achieves when taking into account magazine changes).

The thing is, it is well known in military and firearm enthusiast circles that the massive reduction in accuracy when shooting on full auto does not give the perceived payoff. You have much less control when firing a fully automatic firearm. You hit your target less often. Semi auto plus aiming = hits on target. At the range he was shooting (300 to 350 meters), the same lunatic deciding to aim his firearm would have resulted in less wounding and more fatalities.

Any ex-military here? Chime in.