Heard at the NRA headquarters
NetApp's Insight conference has been delayed a day after its venue, the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, was used by a terrorist to shoot and kill at least 58 people and hurt more than 527. Stephen Paddock, 64, opened fire from the 32nd floor of the hotel onto a country music festival packed with thousands of people below on Sunday …
The second amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I do wonder if the NRA would think differently if this happened at their convention. It would soon prove or disprove their view that you stop bad guys with guns with good guys with guns. That usually fails because you need a particular mind set to do the job properly especially when the perpetrator doesn't care because he is suicidal. So far as I can see the only good guys with guns are the police and the law.
My solution is to follow the letter of the law. All gun owners must be enrolled in the militia, any that fail to comply with the rules are then dealt with by military law. Failure to register or attend parade will become a criminal offence. Criminals and gang members are already breaking the law, so this won't affect their behaviour immediately. It would take time to percolate through society but with every small step a safer society would become more likely. The benefit to the US would be they have a ready made trained defence force and could reduce it's military spending and spend it on something useful like health, including mental health.
If in doubt, read "Another day in the death of America" written by Gary Younge.
I have lived in the US and I am ex-military.
> My solution is to follow the letter of the law. All gun owners must be enrolled in the militia, any that fail to comply with the rules are then dealt with by military law. Failure to register or attend parade will become a criminal offence
It's a nice idea, but there are no rules around militias. I could easily set one up that requires 'parade' just once a year, by videoconference from a local bar.
The only solution is a social one: owning a gun has to become anti-social in the same way that smoking and drink-driving has become anti-social. That is a very, very long way away, but no reason not to start.
> owning a gun has to become anti-social
That's kind of amusing, since the most social thing I've done is buy a gun... far more than any of my other activities.
"Doing computers" or being a "space geek" isn't very social, despite tons of fora like this one, because you never actually meet someone face-to-face and have a drink with them.
Riding motorcycles is inherently anti-social.
But buy a gun and you connect with dozens of local folk that share the same interest and have a sort of tribal us-vs-them close-knit-ness caused by the anti-gun people. And going to a gun range isn't the sort of thing you can do over Skype. And people at a gun range are very social... you'll have complete strangers wander over and go "oooh what kinda gun is that?" and "you want to try out my new red-dot I got? it's nice!"
So good luck to that.
(and the funny part is I bought a gun in case I got Alzheimer's...)
>> owning a gun has to become anti-social
> That's kind of amusing, since the most social thing I've done is buy a gun... far more than any of my other activities.
An hour or two at the university range was my main social activity / study break, where staff, faculty, and students all socialized as equals.
It was also the perfect meditative break from grinding through applied algebra proofs.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
My take on these well known words emphasises "free". They were penned not too long after the American revolution when the shackles of the occupying power were broken. Political and legal systems were not mature. "Militia" implies a measure of local command and control. In order to remain free of an overbearing government or imperial power local communities could turn out a well armed and effective military force.
Given US history, Manifest Destiny etc, tradition and politics the right to bear arms is seen as the final guarantee of freedom.
I am not an American, am I right or wrong?
Of course a local ad-hoc force could not effectively defeat a modern military. A measure of local control is retained in the National Guard. I do wonder if military hardware should be in the hands of amateurs.
"Of course a local ad-hoc force could not effectively defeat a modern military. A measure of local control is retained in the National Guard. I do wonder if military hardware should be in the hands of amateurs."
Don't be so sure. Look at Vietnam and the slogs that were Afghanistan and Iraq. There's something to be said about home field advantage in war.
> "Of course a local ad-hoc force could not effectively defeat a modern military. A measure of local control > is retained in the National Guard. I do wonder if military hardware should be in the hands of amateurs."
> Don't be so sure. Look at Vietnam and the slogs that were Afghanistan and Iraq. There's something to > > be said about home field advantage in war.
As I understand it, a major purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide recourse against tyranny. In an armed disagreement between some or all (most likely some) of the armed forces of the US, and the bulk of the citizenry, possibly supported by portions of the military, I know who I would bet on... and it would not be the military opting for oppression.
In analyses of the vulnerability of various countries to coups, resistance can be conferred by a number of cultural or structural factors. One of the main reasons a coup is almost impossible in the US is the existence of an armed, politically involved citizenry.
Note that most coups depend on subverting a small part of the military, carefully chosen, and temporarily neutrilizing the rest, often by technical means. A classic example is the coup in Portugal in 1974, the small part of the military in Portugal itself was subverted while the remainder, in Africa, was rendered irrelevant by disrupting air transport needed to bring them back in a timely manner.
But remember, America's military has big bomb, including nukes. There's something to be said about the willingness to wipe out a town or two from the air and then challenge, "Wanna be next?" Plus there's always the Terminator angle thanks to increasing numbers of drones.
"I do wonder if the NRA would think differently if this happened at their convention. It would soon prove or disprove their view that you stop bad guys with guns with good guys with guns."
They would argue back that the very reason psychos avoid the NRA is BECAUSE they'd be gunned down tout suite, and for proof of that, they'll cite the various instances of crooks rushing into a gun shop by mistake and getting their just desserts (true story AND was listed as one of 1,000 Ways to Die).
Under Nevada law, his act was one of terrorism regardless of motivation. I note the police are not calling it a terrorist act and that is most likely because the investigation would proceed in a slightly different manner such as determining which group, likely motivation, and ties to other groups. It appears he was a solo actor and little evidence toward motivation has been identified at this point so I suppose it makes sense to look at it in a different way.
Before anyone mentions gun control, let me remind everyone about two worse massacres perpetrated by natural-born Americans: Bath Township and Oklahoma City. Note that NEITHER involved guns and indeed are likely to have been impossible to prevent due to their circumstances. I'm not going to comment on the Las Vegas incident until further information is given.
"Guns would never have prevented either of these attacks."
Irrelevant. Removing guns from the options encourages the use of more effective techniques. A nutbar with a gun is inherently limited in the damage that they can do.
Someone as methodical as, and with the resources of, the Las Vegas shooter could do much more damage if they used something other than guns.
The biggest mass attack in US history, by an order of magnitude, was achieved with the aid of creative use of box-cutters, and available societal infrastructure.
Charles 9. What a truly weird comment. We already know the death count is higher than Bath township. The fact that there are more dangerous things than guns is utterly irrelevant to the question of gun law. There are 30,000 deaths a year in the USA due to firearms. To the rest of the world and plenty of Americans this is an extraordinary number. The NRA say this is the price of freedom, it's like the alcoholic who says their breakfast quart of vodka is the price of freedom, it simply denies the problem. The horrific events in Vegas also demonstrated one of the many ways the idea that the answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun is a fallacy.
I had originally thought Bath Township had 89 deaths (more than this), not 43. In any event, the point was that if someone wants to kill you, they'll find a way. For example, in response to lower gun violence in places like Europe (due to fewer guns), the usual answer is to look for violence by other means such as knives as well as to account for criminal-on-criminal (particularly gang-on-gang) violence (which accounts for a lot). Bath Township was committed by a farmer (meaning at the time it was legal for him to possess TNT, which he used in the massacre, as excavation charges), while IINM one of the three Oklahoma City perpetrators owned a farm (meaning he had justification for owning ammonium nitrate fertilizer--note, it had been denatured, but they found a way to REnature it).
@Charles 9 30,000 deaths pa does not all come from the person who is determined to kill people (they will be hard to stop if determined). A chunk are people with mental health problems killing themselves. First check everywhere (including private sales) should be does the buyer have a clean mental health (and criminal) record. Another chunk are escalation killings, where it has 'kicked off' and because those involved have free access to firearms the triggers are pulled before the brains are engaged. Right to carry is very dangerous. The saddest ones are the children who shoot themselves or their siblings/friends by accident. Unusually for a Brit I do believe in the right to bear arms, but IMO the system as it is in the US is badly broken. If you want to understand how broken look up what happened to Charles Vacca (clue, 9 year old with a machine gun).
Except when it comes to suicides, the US is strictly middle of the pack, and its per-capita suicide rate is pretty average. You want bad suicide rates? Go to Japan and especially South Korea: both countries, you should note, with strict gun policies. The three main methods of suicide in Japan? Throwing oneself in front of a vehicle, self-defenestration, and self-poisoning/overdosing. No guns involved. Indeed, given there are still plenty of non-gun suicides in America, it's hard to say that taking away guns will take away suicides (which account for plenty of the gun deaths in America). Guns to them are just low-hanging fruit. As Japan demonstrates, though, there are plenty of other ways.
Escalation violence can still be quite deadly without guns. Take them away and you still have knives, improvised clubs, and of course the old "ram their head against the wall/floor with your bare damn hands." And why aren't the brains engaged? Probably because most of the time both belligerents are drunk (which lowers inhibitions).
As for Charles Vacca, a similar thing could happen in a chemistry lab, a trade shop, or many other places where dangerous things are taught to youngsters. It was an accident. Crap happens.
PS. 30,000 pa in a country of 300+ million is, per capita, not as big as it looks. Furthermore, your reference of "people determined to kill people" is inaccurate because the #1 reason for gun deaths happens to BE people determined to kill people. Most gun deaths in America are attributed to criminal activity: specifically, criminal activity against other criminals (IOW, gang-on-gang violence, drug wars, and other violence BETWEEN criminal organizations).
If you look at murder rates (roughly 25% of the gun deaths in the US are homicides, most of the rest are suicides), and the number of guns, and the severity and restrictiveness of gun laws, across all countries, it is not the presence or absence of guns or the strictness or laxity of the gun regulations, but the economic and cultural nature of the environment that dominates in determining murder rates.
The US has a leaning towards violence in both history and mythology, embodying iconic events or images such as the American Revolution, the Indian Wars, the World Wars, and the 'Wild West'. Add to it the societal militarism, and the emphasis on punishment and permanent discrimination against criminals, over rehabilitation, and a mid level murder rate is not surprising.
There are countries with fewer guns and much higher murder rates, and countries with similar or greater availability of guns (greater means widespread distribution of automatic weapons, in this context - real assault rifles, not the faux 'assault weapons' touted in hyperbolic news reports) and much lower murder rates.
"If you look at murder rates (roughly 25% of the gun deaths in the US are homicides, most of the rest are suicides), and the number of guns, and the severity and restrictiveness of gun laws, across all countries, it is not the presence or absence of guns or the strictness or laxity of the gun regulations, but the economic and cultural nature of the environment that dominates in determining murder rates."
That was such a convoluted sentence/paragraph that I fear I may have misunderstood your intent. What does the statistic in parenthesis have to do with the murder rates? They aren't directly correlated, cited, nor likely correct. The US CDC lists firearms deaths as such: The two major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2014 were suicide (63.7%) and homicide (32.8%). (pg 12 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf)
Your opinions on cultural sources for violence is probably something I'm in agreement with. I have always found it strange that you could not show a bare ass or sex on television but easily see extremely violent scenes regularly on network TV during early hours. Shooting a suspect or blowing up stuff is apparently OK but the natural functions of procreation which almost all adults engage in (somewhat) regularly is taboo.
Well, it's hard to deal with suicide since removing one method simply makes them gravitate towards other methods. It's just easy for the suicidal to get to a gun in America, yet the per-capita rate leaves the US middle of the pack while gun-sparse countries like Japan and South Korea are much worse (Last I checked, South Korea is #2 in the world, INCLUDING third-world countries). As the other poster noted, societal pressures are the key factor to suicides (and it's hard to top Far East countries when it comes to societal pressure on the young).
And before considering the homicide angle, also consider the criminal presence in other countries: particularly the presence of hostile relationships between them (The main reason for so much violence in Mexico, for example? Gang wars. The US has that as a pretty good reason, too.).
As for the sexual thing, remember that a lot of the original immigrants to the US were Puritans: religious conservatives who maintain a strong presence in America today (like Liberty University in Virginia). Even as recently as the 1950's, a strong tenet that was followed to avoid Carrie-Nation-levels of bad press was "Don't even think about sex."
NetApp has confirmed it is closing down the standalone Advanced Technology Group (ATG) – an incubation unit that was part of the office of the CTO and once described as the "ideas factory".
ATG, which sources said was the closest thing NetApp had to an internal lab, has fallen foul of this week's expenses purge that will see 5 per cent of the 11,000-strong global workforce leave the organisation.
In a statement, NetApp said: "In our realignment of our resources at NetApp, we are changing our approach to advanced technology and our industry standards body participation. We're tightly aligning those functions to the business so that we can be more responsive to the rapidly changing demand of the market and customers.
NetApp boss George Kurian has confirmed a guidance-beating 5 per cent revenue jump for Q1 of its fiscal '21 – while also admitting to chopping the same percentage of staff in layoffs, as first revealed yesterday by The Register.
The CEO said cuts had been made in areas "not particularly aligned to our go-forward priorities" and confirmed staffers at scale-out, all-flash storage platform SolidFire were among those hit, noting a shift by the company to core enterprise usage.
"We are narrowing our focus with the SolidFire and HCI portfolio to the high-margin parts of the market," said Kurian.
Exclusive Perennial cloud-contender NetApp has pruned its workforce on the eve of its quarterly results.
“NetApp is realigning resources and investments to best capture these opportunities and position the company for long-term success,” the enterprise IT supplier told The Register in a statement.
“We continue to sharpen our focus on markets where we have both a significant presence and clear competitive advantage, specifically with our storage software and systems and cloud data services.”
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022