"There's no other legal tool available to the public capable of mass murders with so little effort."

I disagree. Petrol and cars/trucks. Both are legal and easily used to commit mass murder (and have been). I'll add swords (long knives) into this with a caveat - you need to be a highly trained swordsman to commit such an atrocity.

Cars are so dangerous that they have killed more people in the US in the last 50 years by accident than guns have on purpose. It took 50 years of concerted effort by subsequent US administrations to get the yearly death toll by cars lower than that of firearms (the curve for cars only recently dipped below that of firearms).

Knives can cause as much or more vascular damage than a typical firearm wound. The difference is that knives require the smallest interpersonal confrontation distance (it is hand to hand combat - people don't like this), and to consistently achieve high levels of vascular damage requires a higher degree of training.

The right of non-restricted people to own firearms has little affect on murder rates. E.g. Australia has a higher rate of firearm ownership now than before its lauded firearms laws came into effect in 1997. The majority of studies done on this topic conclude that the restrictions had no effect (or no measurable effect) on the continued reduction in firearm fatalities.

I think the greatest issue in the US is that some people see the use of firearms as a solution to some problems where it is not a good solution. I.e. it is a cultural issue.

True, but that's not all it says....
The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

As the fatal accident was the central point of the video and not incidental, and the video may or may not be considered lengthy and or news, I thought it a reasonable question to pose to the community.
To clarify, it was intended as a question not an accusation.

According to the FAQ, snuff is defined as the depiction of loss of human life for the purposes of entertainment. Human fatalities alone do not define "snuff".

Spoke too soon?

http://abc7.com/la-man-arrested-in-connection-to-fatal-kansas-swatting-incident/2840369/

"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!

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.

You’re right. Cars and trucks are deadly in the wrong hands.

Which is why we regulate them. You need a licence to drive one. You are tested to see if you are a competent driver. People with serious mental health issues are restricted from driving and there are MASSIVE industry regulations that attempt to make these vehicles safer.

There’s also entire departments dedicated to studying road fatalities.

None of which is true of guns. The CDC can’t even STUDY gun violence.

In open warfare of govt vs people, drones don't matter, just like jets don't matter. I already covered this above.



Nowhere is an oppressive dictatorship - until it is.
[redacted]
I feel like people are too distracted with instagram and other B.S. to bother learning about how the world works.
History is long. The current peace is an anomaly. When things go bad, there is little warning. If you're lucky, a year or so of build up. If you're not lucky, weeks or days. Shit likes to spiral.
In bad times, you have only what you have on hand.


Most western countries with [regardless of gun ownership] don't have a population that's F'd in the head.
Nothing stops a German gun owner from taking his AR15 and shooting up a concert.
Storing his guns in a safe that he can open doesn't mean anything.
Paying for a new license card for every few guns doesn't alter the guns.

Gun laws, as proposed, are fluff. Nothing that makes people safer, nothing that prevents ownership, but plenty to crap on collectors.
* 10 round limit = 2 second pause to reload
* Gun show loophole is a misnomer.
* (re. above) Only private sales (gun show or not) don't require checks - but you still end up in court if the buyer does something bad.
* Assault weapons ban only bans pistol grips and threaded barrels. Cosmetics. Just google "California compliant AR15" (they already have a de-facto AWB).
* There's already laws against straw purchase.
* There's already laws against crazy people buying (already part of the background check)
* Registration is pointless as gun control. Doesn't alter the guns or who has them (background check already tells gov who, when, and where bought a gun).

(I'd sooner vote for mandatory roll cage and 6 point harness in every car. Could eliminate 90+% of car fatalities in one rule - if people cared enough.)


By the way, gun owners hate people like the Vegas shooter even more than anti-gunners hate people like him.
Precisely because assholes like that shooter make anti-gunners turn on their frustration on innocent gun owners.

The call to "do something" is the phrase that perfectly describes the sentiments that led to actions, that in turn became described by either "famous last words" or "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".





We had shit health insurance before Obama. We had shit insurance during Obama (only you're required by law to buy it, even if it's not a good value), we continue to have shit health insurance during Trump, and no matter what trump does, it will still be shit.
Problem is that the insurance company lobbyists draft the language of the law (no matter the party in charge), and it's not for our benefit.





Re. Minorities, most are living normal lives. The white eutopia that the few vocal people complain about, doesn't exist. At least I have yet to see it. Don't let a few thousand people in a nation of millions guide your thoughts about overall social norms.

I'm happy to see them protest. Frankly, I wish white people had the same solidarity that black people have. When a black gets shot by a cop, they come together. When a white is shot by a cop, other whites say "he probably deserved it". I wish the black community good luck and success.





Yes, I wish we weren't jailing more people than anywhere else on the planet, over things that harm nobody.
I wish we had the drug laws of Portugal (decriminalization)
I wish we had the legal system of Sweden (no jail before conviction).

Know how I said that most countries don't have as many people that are F'd in the head? Same applies for people in government.
None of this shit will get fixes.
Republicans are bible thumping retards that funnel money to defense contractors and campaign donors.
Democrats are buck-passing censors that funnel money to insurance companies and campaign donors.
And people just pick a team and bark at the other team, while each gets fleeced by their very own side.

-scheherazade

Also going to take it out of general circulation (off the front page) and send it to sift talk till removed. *discuss

"The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

Lifting your visor is a sign to the track marshals that you aren't seriously injured so that's all to the good, but it seems to me he lifted it a little too soon. I'd be inclined to keep it down until the debris has stopped flying around and my car has stopped sliding across the track.

Anyways, it's a good thing that in the 60's and 70's they averaged one fatality for every two races or so, and these days it's a big deal when someone is seriously hurt (like Bourdais in qualifying), and a huge deal when someone is killed--like name cars and turns and stuff after them kind of a big deal.

When I was yea high 'til I was three
I suffered from petit mal epilepsy
Any excitement gave me a fit
But there were drugs to cure me of it

Weird diseases
I get weird diseases
Whenever Krishna sneezes
I get weird diseases

So at the least sign of emotion
I got a tranquilizing potion
Thus from the time I was a young boy
I could feel neither anger nor joy

Weird diseases
Random weird diseases
Once from eating recalled cheeses
I got weird diseases

Nearly fatal renal cysts
Maybe Asperger's if that exists
Pityriasis rosea
Two separate times giardia

Weird diseases
I get weird diseases
Wafting on the toxic breezes
I get weird diseases

Debilitating spider bites
Hiccups for three days and nights
A thousand earaches, one deformed eardrum
Hyperacusis, what's that from?

It's from weird diseases
I get weird diseases
Whenever baby Jesus pleases
He gives me weird diseases

Chronic fatigue
COPD
Petit mal epilepsy
Two big holes inside my brain
Migraine aura sans migraine

Weird diseases
I get weird diseases
Weird diseases
I get weird diseases

One thing they didn't mention that I'm really not convinced about is how impairing weed is, for how long, and how much it contributes to auto accidents. In recent years there's been a big spike in the proportion of drivers involved in fatal accidents who tested positive for marijuana :

https://www.merryjane.com/news/weed-related-car-accidents-increase-raising-more-questions-about-legal-limit

Of course that doesn't mean it caused the accidents, if people are just smoking twice as much nowadays, even a random sample would show a big increase. But it seems like the research on this is lacking. Does anyone know of any government that has science based guidelines for a sensible blood-pot content limit?

I disagree. Police are not supposed to be our masters, we are not supposed to bow and scrape before them in the hopes we don't get sent to the stocks (or worse). Police are simply supposed to enforce the laws that we, as a society, have decided that we all should follow.

The problem is, we have allowed the police to become more than that through our own lack of care and mismanagement. A policeman should have to undergo more rigorous training and background checks, mental and physical, than any other service we provide to ourselves. Instead we pay them about the same as teachers and we let bullies into the system. We also allow people with significant evidence that they should never have positions of authority due to mental issues to become police. We do not rigorously punish the bad cops, nor prevent them from seeking work elsewhere, leading to the same type of thing that led to catholic molesters being shuffled about to molest again.

As far as police fearing others, can we finally say that the number of police fatalities are far less than the the ones inflicted by police? Yes, we have many guns in the USA, but the few times I recall of a police person being killed by one seem to revolve around them experiencing a retaliation style attack when you would least expect it (and not on a call), or when they are alone and on a remote call location. Yet most of these controversial police shootings of suspects seem to happen when they are in a group of officers with weapons drawn, which I would consider far less of a jumpy situation than being alone on a highway. If I am an officer, with multiple other officers nearby, I have weapons on the suspect (taser or otherwise), why am I more worried than if I am alone with a suspect? It simply doesn't make sense.

Finally, referring back to your resisting comment, have we not seen lately that you can still be shot while doing absolutely no resisting? One man was laying on the ground, hands in the air, while telling a mentally ill patient of his not to do anything that would get him shot, and the man on the ground got shot. Here in Austin we had a mentally ill man running naked in the street and he was shot and killed versus being tasered or taken down. The use of force, and the extremity of it, have not been shown to be merited. So if you can be shot and killed for not resisting, or simply not understanding the commands in the short time you are given to do so, what can we do? Should we carry a pair of handcuffs and a taser so we can pre-apply these items and give the cops less to fear?

Solution, no. Semi-mitigation....possibly if it could be done, but there would be tradeoffs, it wouldn't be a simple 'now it's only CO2' solution....as if that was a solution, there's still too much CO2 too.

I'm intrigued by the engineered bacteria idea...at this point it couldn't be much worse than just releasing all the methane (OK, it could), but it's like that one time I went to the lake to bone my girlfriend, but the mosquitos were going crazy and she said there is no way. By the time people decided it was worth the risk and started developing them, it would be too late anyway, but we might mitigate the extinction event for the insects....who knows?

Um....uninhabitable for 100 years? How do you figure? It's likely that when the ocean temps rise enough, and are acidic enough, most sea life dies, sinks, rots, and releases massive amounts of hydrogen sulfide killing anything that's left.
(WIKI-Kump, Pavlov and Arthur (2005) have proposed that during the Permian–Triassic extinction event the warming also upset the oceanic balance between photosynthesising plankton and deep-water sulfate-reducing bacteria, causing massive emissions of hydrogen sulfide which poisoned life on both land and sea and severely weakened the ozone layer, exposing much of the life that still remained to fatal levels of UV radiation.)
Along with all the other damages of climate change, and the apocalypse that >7 billion people will cause on the way out, it's going to be way longer than 100 years before humans can live off nature if ever....way way longer.

We are hard to kill, but we aren't extremophiles. We'll die, or become mole people, but some other life will continue.