Jeremy [Iowa]

Actually, the data shows that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was associated with a decrease in mass shooting deaths and the number of incidents

Correlation from causation aside, for this to have any real significance, there would need to be a drop in mass shooting counts.

That aside, your own citation shows any change in deaths is questionable at best - it looks as if the average may have even increased, by the included graph.

It also seems to pretend that _merely banning the sales of more “assault weapons” would have nullified the impact of existing assault weapons.

However, after the ban expired in 2004, there was an almost immediate and steep rise in mass shooting deaths.

Again, correlation from causation aside, for this to have any real meaning there would have to be only one changing factor… and the trend would have had to been consistent with a near-elimination of the count of events.

Can you truly think of no other changes? No, say, incredible spike in the media glorifying and sensationalizing such events, inadvertently promoting them as a means of getting violent retribution as one commits suicide?

It boils down to this: was there any direct scaling of such values with the actual count of owned “assault weapons”? Of course not.

It is important to note that many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups

Wow. So, you dilute the value of your own correlation by highlighting factors known to be common underlying issues, yet double-down on “suggest” and “decrease”.

It’s almost entirely that.

When you have nearly no-one who wishes to commit such atrocities as a violent suicide, it doesn’t matter what tools are available for the job.

Have you considered any of the underlying factors to such and how Canada might differ?

It’s also unlikely the US Military, being citizens of the United States themselves, would have a high degree of adherence to such orders to bomb and destroy their fellow man.

That anyone thinks such is realistic is indicative of the depth of delusion.

“decent” seems to be doing some heavy lifting here. A linguistic analysis of writings of the Framers cross-referenced against era culture and stats highlights the depth of your misunderstanding.

right there in the text

Ah - I see we’re not only cherry-picking, but we’re depending on a preamble e.g. a preparatory or introductory statement as somehow limiting of scope or indicative of audience to which a right was granted.

That, and obviously the proliferation of weapons has made mass murder accessible, and in the minds of some people as described above.

Are you under the impression such things were ever not accessible?

At what point did we start regularly testing and proving out water? When did we start ensuring school bake sale food must be store-bought? You seem incredibly short-sighted.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to as a “fetish” or an “unregulated” lobby. If you were referring to nonsense like the NRA and their fundraising efforts, you’d be obligated to highlight Everytown etc. and their blue-aligned fundraising. You can’t point out a wedge issue and one side without recognizing the other side and its equivalent benefit.

If one has a clean criminal history, is a legal adult, and - in most states - has undergone some additional scrutiny or proof of proficiency, then sure - they can buy a firearm.

Given how Afghanistan turned out, I’m not sure how you think the concept of resisting the armed forces of a government as a distributed and well-armed populace is somehow unthinkable.

It’s fair to say we’ve a cesspool of stupidity - but only due to our politicians continued neglect of actual underlying issues in favor of partisan wedge-driving and profiteering of the ad revenue of sensationalized violence.

Hyper-sensationalism of the violence and its impact gave those seeking revenge and suicide a convenient two-in-one option.

“Most” seems to be doing some incredibly generous work here.

Like about how that… doesn’t actually change anything that was said?

We went from a time where you had to rebuild your fucking kernel to get your graphics card to work and fucking around with Wine to get to a point where you nearly throw your PC out the window until you can get a little app to run to simply running apt install nvidia-driver-xxx and clicking on a button to make a Windows game run in Linux.

I have fond memories of getting World of Warcraft working on Linux back in ~2008 only to realize it had an OpenGL mode that ran better than the DirectX mode I was trying - and failing - to get working.

You aren’t wrong about kernel and driver shenanigans.

Right, so anyone adopting such a “buy for a month and binge watch” strategy can still pay ~75% more and not receive a ~75% increase in value.

Nothing is changed.

Well, when the price increases by ~75% and the value does not increase by ~75%, this sentiment isn’t exactly surprising.

Yarr intensifies

Yeah I can almost guarantee that the original plan was always for him to leave. He was going to be the scapegoat with a golden parachute, allowing the company to keep the unpopular changes while disbursing the bad publicity. It’s exactly what he did with EA too.

I hadn’t considered that… fair point. Pay someone handsomely to take the immense PR hit and move on.

You’re not wrong; I suppose my criticism is as much of that practice as it is of this individual specifically.

My only complaint is such maneuvers tend to come with golden parachutes - his mismanagement of Unity leading to the whole fee debacle and erosion of trust deserves no such soft landing.

You’re doing it again. That’s pretty awful behavior.

As we’ve covered, the same charge I look forward to the court clearing him of next month. If you’re still having trouble with the concept beyond this, I’m going to leave it to you to figure out.

The same charge pending judge review due to its inconsistency with having acted in self-defense?

Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said the conviction on the firearms charge is inconsistent with the law, given Colie’s acquittal on self-defense grounds. He asked the judge to set aside the conviction. A judge will hear arguments on the issue at a hearing next month.