ROTFLMFAHS!!!!!!
Your organization (the police) has fought tooth and nail to keep those names and the numbers from being complied in a useable form, or viewable form. You know this well, and yet you dishonestly pretend that not having them somehow invalidates the numbers the DOJ compiled. They're hidden from the public by the police themselves, and there's only one reason for them to be 'hidden', police are embarrassed at the real numbers. Police kill >10 times the number of citizens compared to the number of people that kill police, yet police are constantly whining about how 'dangerous' their job is (not even in the top 10 most dangerous in America), and insisting on rules and equipment to allow them to kill more people with impunity while putting themselves at less risk. Most Americans don't think cops should have their own laws or loopholes, nor should they have any offensive equipment not available to the public, and there should be no purely defensive equipment outlawed.
Blacks aren't necessarily resisting arrest more often, they are definitely being attacked by police more often. 100% of dog bites on blacks is telling to anyone with a brain...but not to you. So is 85% of use of force being against blacks. Blacks have a reason to not want to be under police control, it never ends well for them, and often ends with them dead, it is never just a minor inconvienience.
How often are those reported 'black' suspects actually not black, pretty often.
Of over 500 innocent deaths per year in this law enforcement report, how many prosecutions? How many convictions? I bet close to 0...if not 0.
Hey Bill O, non-violent civilians are not actively fighting military, armed or not....so not a war zone.
Since 99+% of officer's crimes are not even reported, and of those that are 99% are not investigated, and of the 1% of 1% left, <1% are prosecuted, so it's a good bet they got away with the improper behavior.
Wow, you're really blind to racism, aren't you? One person in a position of power does not erase racism, sometimes it causes it (can you say Obama)...and racism happens within races as well. The report on New Orleans shows that even when the police closely resemble the populace, racism still happens, even from black officers against black citizens. You've said some fairly racist things in this thread alone...but you are so used to blatant racism that you can't see your own racism, ever.
Eric Holder told us, we don't need to tell him. Give me a fucking break!
Now Bill O...that's a fraud.

How is this not top 10? *promote

top 10 coming up.

Well, since I have points to spare and no shame, *promote *quality

@lucky760 Yeah, I remember you raving about Gone Girl on sift talk. I liked it a lot too -- if this were a top 20, it would have been there for sure, but sadly it didn't quite make the cut. There were a ton of movies that just narrowly missed out -- Ida, Snowpiercer, Fury, Oculus, INHERENT VICE (seriously, it breaks my heart that a new PTA movie isn't on my top 10, but I just couldn't squeeze it in).

@bareboards2 Thanks. And yep, I definitely like action a bit more than your average person (punchy/shooty action, at least -- explodey blockbuster action, not so much).

Speaking of which, where's @shuac? He'd love this list, I'm sure.

Nice work, @Sarzy! But...

How did Gone Girl not make your top 10?! That's a crime, and you are no longer to be trusted!

Oh man, there was some really cool and interesting stuff there.

And then .... Interstellar?? I'm with you on Nolan; I think he's great. I loved Inception, The Prestige, Insomnia, Memento. I even think The Dark Knight Rises is unfairly maligned (it's not as good as The Dark Knight, but it was never going to be).

But Interstellar was terrible... IMO his worst movie. It squanders a great premise and some amazing visuals on a story that's all over the place.

Put it this way, Prometheus was the closest I've ever come to walking out of a movie. Its stupidity was just offensive. By the end I was rooting for the alien, the rolling spaceship, anything to kill the main characters and end its god-awfulness. But by the end of Interstellar, I was just bored.

It's certainly not the worst movie of 2014, but it was the biggest disappointment for me.

Oh, and any top 10 of 2014 that doesn't include the Lego Movie is missing its soul

Bah and thanks. I couldn't find any embeddedable video to replace it with. http://cinemassacre.com/2010/07/01/top-10-sequels-that-arent-as-bad-as-everyone-says-2/ for the offiical one/1.

Definitely a top 10.
He must think it's white boy day!
Don't neglect the scene where Hopper tells Walken a 'story'. Beautiful!
RIP- Brittany Murphy
Full on *quality

Adam Hills is Australia's best comedian, or at least in the top 10, so *downunder

Your video, Top 10 Slow-mo Moments of All Time, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

Thought you might enjoy this. Was better then i expected. http://videosift.com/video/Top-10-Slow-mo-Moments-of-All-Time

Real reason? Reality shows are cheap to make, music videos are expensive to show. But before MTV stopped playing music, they went thru phases where each iteration did bring us only the top 10 or record label promotion paid them to play their new artists, then that was mixed with reality and finally they stopped pretending and just switched on full reality tv that they can sell. MTV could see it like this parody video on their end "people are watching less and less music" but it was exactly the cancellation of Headbangers Ball, Yo Raps, Alternative Nation etc. that lead to declining numbers.. I stopped watching wh en headbangers and Alt nation stopped as it was only top hits from that point on. Everything even remotely alternative or indie was gone, there were no one selecting new music as there were no more people to host the shows, VJs were gone, it was just automated playlist that plaid literally the same songs over and over. It was an attempt to get more profit from casual music listeners but even they turned it down: it seems like you need and want to hear music you don't like every now and then to make your favorites a lot more important.. Even i wouldn't watch a music station that plays only the things i like, i need to hear one or two really awful crap every now and then just to remind me that music can be truly awful and soulless product and not everyone is Radiohead.

And mind you, those alternative shows only aired at odd hours, headbangers ball was around midnight and really hard stuff like Into the Pit was aired around 2am, it still was top 20 during the day. But it did mix it up a little, one alternative or indie video per hour. You take that one exception away and it is boring no matter what your music taste is.

@Trancecoach - respectfully leaving this discussion based on the following:

"You are actually going a long way to make my point that those who are "believers" in climate change are missing the value and indeed necessity for ongoing skepticism"

I don't understand how you can say that after i was the person that investigated the source of the first link you gave out. You hadn't even bothered to look into it, so i did, and you can say with a straight face that i'm a "believer" who has lost his scepticism?

You didn't even check completely through the second lot of links you posted, because the one i did check (on YOUR ultimate recommendation) ended up being written by a guy who saw climate change as one of mankind's top 10 problems. You've shown yourself twice now to be using sources that you haven't even fucking looked at, evidenced by a half hour investigation by me! You didn't even put a half hour into it!?

I remain open to evidence that climate change is not a man-made concern, or that it is not a concern. I'm not going to sit here and relay exactly how each of us think the scientific community works. You can read how it works on the scientific method and scientific consensus pages i linked earlier, anyone can. It's not open for debate; there is an overwhelming majority of scientific evidence in favour and there is not enough and not significant enough scientific evidence against. It isn't a coincidence that ~99% of the research points in one direction, and it isn't some conspiracy.... that isn't how science works. It's not perfect, a lot of shit science gets through because it's so hard to read and so relatively few people want to trawl through shite, but that's why it's better to look at the consensus - what is the AVERAGE opinion of ALL the clever people? It's a community that i consider incorruptible - because even if you paid off 10 research centres, there's still millions of individual scientists, individual institutions, so many people dedicated to keeping it pure because we know that's the only way we get the most from it. And ... the science and maths speaks for itself, the models are not "just models" as the moron associated with your latest link says. They are the best representations we have and they do represent parts of physical reality, and by using carefully considered techniques we can extract information about things. The alternative is to consult a Ouija board!?

By the way, nice 240 page pdf document for me to refer to. I didn't ask for a single link, i asked for a single point about which we were in disagreement... usually papers are cited to reinforce a point. You don't just cite something and go "there you go, read all of that, whatever you see that agrees with me; that's what i'm talking about!"

" At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes."

Per year. You don't cite your source, but this is looks to me to be an underestimate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey there are half about half a million people claiming to be victim of a gun related crime over the course of a year. I remember being a victim of a gun crime in America (the perp was an British-born and educated woman) where the police said that they weren't going to follow things up because they were too busy with more serious crimes and they weren't confident of successful prosecution, they didn't even bother to look at the bullets or interview the perpetrator. I'd be surprised if it was even officially reported for crime statistic purposes.

"So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least."

You didn't discuss the confounding variables.

But nevertheless, nobody is saying that owning guns makes you intrinsically more criminal. The argument here seems to be that criminals or those with criminal intent will find it much easier to acquire firearms when there are hundreds of millions of them distributed in various degrees of security across the US.

And those that have firearms, who are basically normal and moral people, may find themselves in a situation where their firearm is used, even in error, and causes harm - a situation obviously avoided in the absence of firearms and something that isn't necessarily included in crime statistics.

"In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home"

Yes, but here's a fun fact. I've been burgled a few times, all but one of those times I was at home when it happened. You know what the burglar was armed with? Nothing. Do you know what happened when I confronted him with a wooden weapon? He pretended he knew someone that lived there and when that fell through he ran away. When the police apprehended him, there wasn't any consideration that he might be armed with a gun and the police merely put handcuffs on him and he walked to the police car. He swore and made some idle and non-specific threats, according to the police, but that's it. In any event, this isn't extraordinary. There are still too many burglaries that do involve violence, of course.
Many burglaries in Britain are actually vehicle crimes, with opportunity thrown in. That is: The primary purpose of the burglary is to acquire car keys (this is often the easiest way to steal modern vehicles), but they may grab whatever else is valuable and easy too.

"The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings."

What impact did it have on gun prevalence? Not really enough to stop the sentence 'guns are prevalent in the US' from being true....

" So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed."

I missed the part where you provided the reasoning that connects your evidence to this conclusion.

"Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. "

This is silly. Guns don't get manufactured and then 32% of them get stolen from the manufacturers warehouse. They get bought and some get subsequently stolen. If there were less guns made and sold there would be less guns available for felons to acquire them privately, less places to steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market, less opportunity for renting or purchasing from a retailer. Thus - less felons with guns.

If times got tough, and I thought robbing a convenience store was a way out of a situation I was in - I would not be able to acquire a firearm without putting myself in considerable danger that outweighs the benefits to the degree that pretending to have a gun is a better strategy. I have 'black market contacts' so I might be able to work my way to someone with a gun, but I really don't want to get into business with someone that deals guns because they are near universally bad news.

" states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate."

Almost all States have such laws, making the comparison pretty meaningless.

"In fact, it's {number of mass shootings} declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. "

I think 'most dead in one incident' is a poor measure. I think total dead over a reasonable time period is probably better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
The UK appears once. It is approx. 1/5 the population of the US. The US manages to have five incidents in the top 10.

Statistics can be fun, though, huh?

" In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens"

You've done a lot of hard work to show that most gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent. As such, the police won't go door to door, citizens will go to the police.

"How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns?"

The same way they remove contraband from other recalcitrants. I expect most of them will ask, demand, threaten and then use force - but as usual there will be examples where it won't be pretty.

"Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns?"

That's how it typically goes down here in the UK, yes.

"Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else?"

The military has had access to weapons the citizenry is not permitted to for some considerable time. Banning most handguns etc., would just be adding to the list.

"Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?"

No, but on the other hand, can the same unreliable, dishonest, immoral and unvirtuous government ensure that allowing general access to firearms will go exactly as planned?

You see, you talk the talk of sociological examination, but you seem to have neglected any form of critical reflection.

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary"

On the other hand, I've been mugged erm, 6 times? I've been violently assaulted without attempts to rob another half dozen or so. I don't tend to hang around in the sorts of places middle class WASPs would loiter, shall we say. I'm glad most of the people that cross my path are not armed, and have little to no idea how to get a gun.

You don't source this assertion as far as I saw - but you'll have to do better than 'it's interesting' in your analysis, I'm afraid.

No formatting, because too much typing already.

Your video, Top 10 Most Effective Movie Editing Moments of All Time, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.