Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 09 2017, @12:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the stock-up-on-oj-now dept.

[Ed note: for up-to-date info, see also: NOAA National Hurricane Center, Mike's Weather Page, windy.com, NWS - Hourly Weather Forecast Graph - Tampa, and NWS - Hourly Weather Forecast Graph - Miami.]

At 8:28AM September 5, Zero Hedge reported

Irma is now the [strongest] hurricane [ever] in the Atlantic basin, outside of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, in [US National Hurricane Center] records.

[...] meteorologist Eric Holthaus writes that Hurricane Irma is now expected to *exceed* the theoretical maximum intensity for a storm in its environment, or as he puts it "Redefining the rules".

[...] Irma's current path--headed straight for Florida--has prompted the state to prepare for the "catastrophic" system.

Unlike Harvey, which caused widespread damage, power outages and flooding and taking almost a fifth of U.S. oil refining capacity offline, Irma is a bigger threat to agriculture, with orange juice futures surging.

[...] Florida is the world's largest producer of orange juice after Brazil. About two-thirds of the state's citrus crop is located in the lower two-thirds of the peninsula.

[...] Airlines have canceled flights across the Caribbean and are adding planes to evacuate tourists, while cruise-line stocks have tumbled.

[...] Only three Category 5 hurricanes have hit the contiguous 48 U.S. states, [said Bob Henson, a meteorologist with Weather Underground:] The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 that devastated the Florida Keys, Hurricane Camille in 1969, and Hurricane Andrew that cut across Florida in 1992. Andrew was originally classified as a Category 4 storm only to be upgraded years later after further analysis.

"It is obviously a rare breed", Henson said. "We are in rare territory."

At 12:37PM September 5, Heavy.com reported

The Florida governor has declared a state of emergency as Hurricane Irma reaches a Category 5 storm. The Florida Keys are currently in the hurricane's path, although the storm remains unpredictable.

[...] Irma has [...] maximum sustained winds [of] 185 mph. It was moving west at 14 mph and is about 270 miles east of Antigua. The Florida Keys are in the projected path of the hurricane, according to September 4 late evening forecasts.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by melikamp on Saturday September 09 2017, @01:53AM (41 children)

    by melikamp (1886) on Saturday September 09 2017, @01:53AM (#565443) Journal

    Are you being sarcastic?

    You are saying, there isn't right time for a peaceful, legitimate, lawful discussion about peaceful, legitimate, lawful ways to modify the US law, with the intention of reducing homicides by gun, both intentional and accidental. You are saying, the reason this discussion would be untimely is because a bunch of people will use guns to intimidate and/or murder people who peacefully advocate for a different approach to gun control. Let's assume you are correct (I don't think you are), and this is indeed what will happen. In that case, I think we can all agree, we should definitely have the "2nd amendment discussion" right now, because then we'll be able to cherry-pick these violent fucks you are talking about, and give them the maximum penalty they deserve by the standing law. Let's do this.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:02AM (15 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:02AM (#565448) Homepage Journal

    I'm saying there is no compromise to be had on this issue. People will die. Quite a lot of them.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:15AM (9 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:15AM (#565452)

      > People will die. Quite a lot of them.

      Precisely why some people believe it's worth talking about.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:19AM (8 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:19AM (#565455) Homepage Journal

        Oh, we can talk. You just can't say "we're going to take away your guns" or you're going to get the response "over my dead body".

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Touché) by dry on Saturday September 09 2017, @03:51AM (2 children)

          by dry (223) on Saturday September 09 2017, @03:51AM (#565489) Journal

          I thought all these people claimed to be law abiding.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:51AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:51AM (#565514)

            I doubt all of "these people" actually agree with that. There's nothing inherently good about being law-abiding; it depends on the law.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @09:12AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @09:12AM (#565556)

              Correct. The authors of the Bill of Rights, being a group of very intelligent men as well as veterans of a long and bloody revolution, made it clear that assuring the people the means of last resort to resist intolerable laws is essential to political freedom.

              There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that needs changing. We already have statutory proscription of errant behavior, cf. murder.

              Regulatory mechanisms may need some fine-tuning, but the second amendment itself stands as the last line of defense for the other nine.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:55AM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:55AM (#565500) Journal

          "Your proposal is acceptable." ;-)

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday September 09 2017, @06:48AM (3 children)

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday September 09 2017, @06:48AM (#565529) Journal

          Coming for your guns, Brousarrd! One of the prerequisites, after all, is a "well regulated militia". Now, you see, this is why we cannot have white supremacy, because nearly every one who believes in white supremacy (Check out the latest on the "Crying Nazi"! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpmWo8f7y2c [youtube.com] so sad!) is a fuching coward, much like our Buzzard here. Guns? Do you think guns determine politics? Have you possibly been indoctrinated by the US Miltiary? Oh, you poor sap! No wonder you have no problem with suppressing speech you disagree with! Free Aristarchus! You hypocritical bastard.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @09:27AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @09:27AM (#565559)

            "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -Mao Zedong

            • (Score: -1, Informative) by aristarchus on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:55AM (1 child)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:55AM (#565582) Journal

              "Grows" : it doesn't start there, it needs seeds of social justice!
              It is as Mencius [孟子] said:

              孟子曰:「人皆有不忍人之心。先王有不忍人之心,斯有不忍人之政矣。以不忍人之心,行不忍人之政,治天下可運之掌上。所以謂人皆有不忍人之心者,今人乍見孺子將入於井,皆有怵惕惻隱之心。非所以內交於孺子之父母也,非所以要譽於鄉黨朋友也,非惡其聲而然也。由是觀之,無惻隱之心,非人也;無羞惡之心,非人也;無辭讓之心,非人也;無是非之心,非人也。惻隱之心,仁之端也;羞惡之心,義之端也;辭讓之心,禮之端也;是非之心,智之端也。人之有是四端也,猶其有四體也。有是四端而自謂不能者,自賊者也;謂其君不能者,賊其君者也。凡有四端於我者,知皆擴而充之矣,若火之始然,泉之始達。苟能充之,足以保四海;苟不充之,不足以事父母。」

              http://ctext.org/mengzi/gong-sun-chou-i

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @02:19AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 10 2017, @02:19AM (#565846)

                Oooh! Looks like aristarchus has won the coveted -1 Informative mod! I wonder, which is more prestigious, the -1 Informative, or the +5 Troll?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by melikamp on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:21AM (1 child)

      by melikamp (1886) on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:21AM (#565458) Journal

      This can't be right. If a US Marshall knocked on your door with a court order to take your gun or take you, you would calmly give her your gun, called your lawyer, and sued the state or the fed. The type of people you must be alluding to would do just the same, except they can't call their lawyer, because they can't afford one, having spent all their cash on white people drugs and guns. I am saying "white people" because let's face it, black people in this country can't even carry their legally purchased guns outta Walmart without being shot at, so it really is a white-only amendment for most intents and purposes. I can only imagine what would happen if a peace officer broke down a wrong door by mistake and faced a black dude wearing a legally obtained gun, petting his german sheppard. Oh shit, there would be no end to apologies.

      Anyway, only hardened criminals and suicidal maniacs would make a stand at that point. We all know it's true, because 99% or more people are sheeple, and would sell their own mothers before angering the G-Man. So please elaborate. Please detail for us a scenario where anyone but criminally insane would shoot people over a lawful and democratic attempt to rein in the gun-related violence. Keep in mind that not even a state army can always hope to rebel successfully (look at Turkey), and these people have ALL the biggest and loudest weapons.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:49AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:49AM (#565578) Homepage Journal

        Bitch, please. There was a black feller open carrying at Wal-Mart yesterday evening whilst I was getting groceries. In Tennessee. Your imagined racism bullshit don't fucking fly down in the South where we all live together more or less peacefully.

        And no, you'll hear "shots fired" and "officer down" over the scanner if anyone shows up wanting to take anything that's mine; badge or no badge. You also might want to rethink your 99% statement. That might be true over in Europe where they're historically used to getting their necks stepped on but we as a nation tend to react violently to any perceived attempt to take our liberties by force.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:33PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:33PM (#565693)

      Unless you are in favor of federal inmates having guns in their cells, you are in favor of the federal government imposing some level of gun control. Maybe some day we can have a reasonable discussion on where that level should be drawn and why.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 09 2017, @11:20PM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday September 09 2017, @11:20PM (#565791) Homepage Journal

        I'd actually be fine with that. Solve a lot of funding issues for the penal system pretty quickly.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 10 2017, @07:55AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 10 2017, @07:55AM (#565896) Journal

        I'll take Buzzard's position on guns in the cells. The government shouldn't be in the business of warehousing people to start with. If a man is a danger to society, you put him down. If he's not a danger to society, and he's done something wrong, you fine him, and have him do some community service. Prison for profit is just a new twist on slavery. No, it's not exactly "slavery", but it's closely related. Give the prisoners guns, and clean up they system.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 09 2017, @03:47AM (16 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 09 2017, @03:47AM (#565488) Journal

    You are saying, there isn't right time for a peaceful, legitimate, lawful discussion about peaceful, legitimate, lawful ways to modify the US law, with the intention of reducing homicides by gun, both intentional and accidental.

    My view is a little different. Speech is fine, but you will need a hell of a lot more political support than currently exists to reverse the amendment via democratic means. I don't see that ever happening. I think the amendment will go about the same time the Constitution does.

    I notice here that there's a small number of people who will compromise freedom for the most trivial of edge cases. There's a "school massacre" every few years so we need to reverse the second amendment. There are neo-Nazis saying hateful things, so we need to reverse the First Amendment. A nurse wasn't helping a police officer draw blood from an innocent man in a coma (no consent, no reason to suspect a crime, no warrant, and no permission from hospital administration) so she deserved to be arrested for impeding a non-existent investigation - Fourth Amendment be damned (true story! [dailycaller.com]).

    That's a large part of why I think this is a waste of your time - second amendment-wise. You're not going to get anywhere legally, because you don't have the support and the other side has no reason to compromise.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by melikamp on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:23AM (15 children)

      by melikamp (1886) on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:23AM (#565494) Journal

      There are other approaches to gun control than reversing the 2nd amendment. One of them is defining more carefully what is meant by "bear" and "arms". Apparently "arms" does not include fully automatic weapons. Are there any people left who say, "you will have to take my tommy gun out of my cold dead hands"? No, they were all booze mafia, and they are all dead. Another approach is creating a more rigorous registry of weapons and commercial transactions, like closing the gun show loopholes, which does not infringe on the mere right to bear arms. Another one is restricting a kind of munition and/or magazine size, which also obviously does not infringe on the mere right to bear arms. Another one is being more selective in who can get the permit (no clinically insane people, please), and forcing people through a training and examination that would at least rival in rigor what we do to potential car drivers, which yet again does not in any way infringe on the people's right to bear guns.

      Stuffy philosophers call what you just did a strawman: I said nothing to indicate I am against the 2nd. If you need to know, I am personally for the 2nd. I believe people should have the right to download ANYTHING from the net non-commercially, and in full privacy. I also believe they should have the right to print anything they want with their free+libre 3d-printer. Put these 2 together and realize, I am for the world where anyone should be able to print at least a shitty gun. I fear for societies where guns are strictly illegal, as they will almost certainly go absolutely biblical on people's freedom to use free+libre software and/or safely communicate with each other, once 3d-printing is a bit more mainstream, which is like 20 years from now. But even in that crazy free-for-all info world I just described, where absolutely anyone can get a gun, I see absolutely no reason not to fine/jail people for illegal sales of weapons, illegal open carry, illegal concealed carry, illegal types of weapons, illegal munition, possession without a permit, you name it.

      So please stop pretending a "2nd amendment discussion" means "reversing the 2nd amendment". What it actually means is having a civil discussion about issues such as the ones I raised above, which have to do with clarifying how the 2nd should be interpreted. And yes, there will be people foaming at the mouth, demanding guns go away completely, as is their right, but I am for one will be just as critical of them as I am of the ammosexuals' trolling here @ soylent.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:53AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:53AM (#565515)

        OK, civil discussion.

        Bear arms: it means what it says. Carry weapons. Next?

        Arms: it's a settled question that there's a distinction between arms and ordnance (which was a well understood distinction at the time of the framing) and that items such as grenades, and fully automatic weapons fall under the not-arms category. It's even rational, if you line out the definition to say that machineguns, for instance, are essentially crew-served weapons owing to the need to keep them supplied with ammunition. Extending this for simplicity's sake to all fully automatic weapons might be annoying, but is legally consistent.

        Registry: serious practical and legal problems, not least of which being that a registry doesn't actually solve anything, but does burden people with additional paperwork (and probable trouble with the law because of said paperwork).

        The so-called "gun show loophole fix" is simply a restriction on private transations, which is a de facto infringement on the right to keep arms, for what you're doing is circumscribing and reducing the application of the concept of a bailment to arms - i.e. the rights of ownership. If you own it, you can keep it, trash it or sell it.

        Restrictions on magazines and ammunition absolutely do have an effective limit on the right to keep and bear arms, because one can that way render weapons ineffective, or minimally effective, for entirely legitimate purposes. This is not a good thing - it's overturning the whole idea through the back door.

        As for permitting, does this mean that we can finally get a national CCW or equivalent? So that law-abiding citizens aren't inadvertently converted into felons for driving down streets that happen to swing over a state line? Happens all the time in Kansas City.

        You know, since it's an element of interstate commerce and all that, it would actually be an entirely legitimate federal legislative exercise.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:55AM (#565518)

          Arms: it's a settled question that there's a distinction between arms and ordnance (which was a well understood distinction at the time of the framing) and that items such as grenades, and fully automatic weapons fall under the not-arms category.

          Where in the Constitution does it say the government has the power to limit what types of weapons people may possess? I am 100% against this.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:36PM (#565694)

          Arms: it's a settled question that there's a distinction between arms and ordnance (which was a well understood distinction at the time of the framing) and that items such as grenades, and fully automatic weapons fall under the not-arms category. It's even rational, if you line out the definition to say that machineguns, for instance, are essentially crew-served weapons owing to the need to keep them supplied with ammunition. Extending this for simplicity's sake to all fully automatic weapons might be annoying, but is legally consistent.

          Given that one of the values of an armed populace is to keep the government afraid of the governed, I'd don't see why this should be settled that the populace can't have weapons on par with the government they may have to overthrow.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:53AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:53AM (#565517)

        Are there any people left who say, "you will have to take my tommy gun out of my cold dead hands"?

        I do. The government has no constitutional authority to dictate what kinds of arms people may have unless and until there is a constitutional amendment allowing it to do so.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @09:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @09:31AM (#565561)

          Bingo. Let's hear it for the Fourth!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @11:16AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @11:16AM (#565590)

          No authority at all? Bring on the tactical nuclear warheads!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:27PM (#565710)

            Yep. That is exactly what the second amendment says. SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED
            And if you anti-gun nuts had any brains at all you would be arguing that way for real. The only way to get real gun control in the USA is to get the second amendment amended. If you don't like Billy-bob or Sharlene being able to have any guns they like, you should be arguing that the second amendment gives them the right to buy nukes.

            Have you learned nothing from Tae Kwon Do? You don't try to block a strong blow, you get out of the way, give a gentle assist, and let him crash into the wall behind you.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:42PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:42PM (#565714)

              Let the price decide who can get what. It will be interesting to see Silicon Valley after a feud between nuclear-armed CEOs of Google and Apple, and Seattle after Amazon picks a fight with Microsoft.

              I heard the Chinese are offering to provide discount rates on tactical nukes to US companies.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:55AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:55AM (#565581) Homepage Journal

        If you have to ask permissions to do something, it is being treated as a privilege not a right. A right is something that the government is enjoined by the constitution to keep their grubby dick beaters entirely off of.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 09 2017, @11:25AM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 09 2017, @11:25AM (#565596) Journal

        There are other approaches to gun control than reversing the 2nd amendment. One of them is defining more carefully what is meant by "bear" and "arms".

        Why does "care" need to be taken here? Can you think of an actual problem where this would make a difference?

        Another approach is creating a more rigorous registry of weapons and commercial transactions, like closing the gun show loopholes, which does not infringe on the mere right to bear arms.

        On the "mere right"? It's right after the First Amendment. Someone thought it was very important to put it in second place. And why do we need a more rigorous registry of weapons and commercial transactions? What problem does that fix?

        Another one is being more selective in who can get the permit (no clinically insane people, please), and forcing people through a training and examination that would at least rival in rigor what we do to potential car drivers, which yet again does not in any way infringe on the people's right to bear guns.

        All those things can be (and have been) used to illegally infringe on peoples' right to bear firearms. One of the key problems in this debate is the historical dishonesty of the gun control side over the past 40+ years. Many vague, incremental, and poorly justified restrictions have been exploited to violate the Second Amendment rights of firearm owners over that time.

        Stuffy philosophers call what you just did a strawman: I said nothing to indicate I am against the 2nd.

        Such as calling firearm ownership and usage a "mere right"? You have said something to indicate you are against the Second Amendment. Also, your initial weaselly sentence about implementing gun control by "defining more carefully what is meant by 'bear' and 'arms'". Semantics games where one redefines terms to change their meaning is another way to subvert or undo the Second Amendment. This is another indication you are against.

        So please stop pretending a "2nd amendment discussion" means "reversing the 2nd amendment".

        The thing is all the things you've mentioned have been attempted in the past as means to violate and infringe on Second Amendment rights. Let us also note that several of these controls are already in place. We are already selective [wikipedia.org] about who can own firearms. It is already illegal to handle firearms in an unsafe manner, much less murder people with them (with everyone allowed to respond with lethal force, if one tries the latter). Many of your supposed concerns are already regulated and have been for over half a century (sometimes far longer than that).

        My take is that we are already adequately regulated. Most firearm-related deaths are already due to suicide, accident, or the drug war, all which are preventable (without need for gun control laws) and/or none of our business.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday September 09 2017, @12:05PM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 09 2017, @12:05PM (#565610) Journal

          I said nothing to indicate I am against the 2nd.

          To continue, here's what else I see [soylentnews.org]:

          I am saying "white people" because let's face it, black people in this country can't even carry their legally purchased guns outta Walmart without being shot at, so it really is a white-only amendment for most intents and purposes.

          Let us note that some of the earliest gun control law [thoughtco.com] was precisely to prevent [wikipedia.org] blacks from owning firearms.

          So portraying the Second Amendment as ethnically selective (even though it isn't) while ignoring that gun control traditionally has been, is another indication that you are actually against the Second Amendment.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday September 09 2017, @07:04PM (2 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday September 09 2017, @07:04PM (#565739) Journal

            The obvious rejection is that all this discussion of ammosexual love for implements of lethal force really has no place in a discussion of a hurricane. Does everything have to be about guns?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:58PM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:58PM (#565785) Journal

              The obvious rejection is that all this discussion of ammosexual love for implements of lethal force really has no place in a discussion of a hurricane.

              Alas, we've tried and this appears to be a forbidden love. Perhaps a car analogy?

              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday September 11 2017, @08:09AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:09AM (#566160) Journal

                Ah, khallow, the love that cannot be spoken! OK, we will go with that, although it is kind of creepy.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 10 2017, @07:59AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 10 2017, @07:59AM (#565898) Journal

        In effect, you're saying that you know you can't get away with openly shitting on the constitution, so you want to redefine basic, simple words. If you can parse words long enough, no one will understand what the meaning of the word is is.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:28AM (7 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:28AM (#565495) Journal

    ... reducing homicides by gun ...

    This is really a disingenuous argument. The experience of the UK and Australia show that banning firearms had little effect on the murder rate (except for a short term bump up until recently falling back to only slightly higher than the level pre-ban (UK) and the same level (AU)). Obviously the gun-murder rate fell, but again, adding that modifier is extremely dishonest when the murder rates did not fall.

    UK (click graphic to see entire chart) -- gun ban 1997: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/20/ukcrime-criminal-justice#data [theguardian.com]
    Australia -- gun ban 1996: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html [aic.gov.au]

    Of course, the UK is now confiscating knives due to the frequency of their use in crime -- under 18 and you can't even buy a plastic knife. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-28/knife-murders-spiking-after-gun-ban-uk-urges-save-life-surrender-your-knife [zerohedge.com]

    • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:44AM (5 children)

      by melikamp (1886) on Saturday September 09 2017, @04:44AM (#565497) Journal

      This is really a disingenuous argument. The experience of the UK and Australia show that banning firearms...

      Well done, Sherlock, except that I never advocated banning guns. I happen to be strongly in favor of the 2nd. I am also strongly in favor of evidence-based approach to legislation. That "disingenuous argument" you are talking about must have been made by someone else.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:36AM (1 child)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday September 09 2017, @05:36AM (#565507) Journal

        Well done sherlock -- you sure made it sound like you want to repeal the 2nd via a constitutional convention or some other method of discussion. If that isn't your goal, might I suggest you clearly state it rather than talking about "gun murder".

        • (Score: 2) by melikamp on Saturday September 09 2017, @07:28AM

          by melikamp (1886) on Saturday September 09 2017, @07:28AM (#565535) Journal
          Hey, sorry for the tone :) Wasn't my intention anyway to hide anything, I was just talkin' to TMB :)
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:10AM (2 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday September 09 2017, @10:10AM (#565568) Journal

        I advocate banning The Mullety Bandsaw! It is probably the only thing that can save SoylentNews. Spam mods preferred. No guns. Climate change is real. khallow is a friend of mine.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:27PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 09 2017, @02:27PM (#565658)

          I advocate banning Anal Starkist, because nobody wants flaky tuna up their arse.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @08:24AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @08:24AM (#566165)

            I advocate banning the Runaway, because he is obsessed with pederastry and Catholic anti-abortion altar-boy sex just like Milo Youare-abishop-areyounot. Nothing to contribute, no actual knowledge or expertise to speak of, really, a waste of a soylentil. And, it is just gross. One star. Would not recommend.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 10 2017, @09:52AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 10 2017, @09:52AM (#565916) Journal

      Actually - the statistics mean little. Homicide rates go up and down, over time. One state passes a law, they see homicides go down, and they credit the new law. However, surrounding states experience a similar reduction in homicides, without passing a new law.

      And, "obviously" gun-murder rates mean absolutely NOTHING, unless all homicide rates are considered at the same time. Did the gross homicideds decline, or go up, or remain the same? Even IF a reduction in gun-murder rates is reflected in the gross figures, you can't say whether the new law caused this, or society has simply changed, and has become less violent.

      Disingenuous, you say? Yes, I'll agree with you on that. Gun control supporters are very disingenuous.