The gun pictured above is a semi-automatic handgun. One shot each time you pull the trigger. Eight to maybe 12 shots in the magazine depending on the caliber and manufacturer. The pistol is lethal but in a whole different class from the Uzi submachine gun. Just pull the Uzi’s trigger and hold on as this full-automatic weapon fires 1,700 rounds per minute.
Google News has presented photos of armored personnel carriers labeled as “tanks,” hunting shotguns labeled “automatic weapon” and more. Does it matter? Do facts matter?
This sort of incompetence bodes badly for a company who wants you to trust them with all your applications and data.
This boy’s death should be prosecuted. There is such a thing as criminal negligence and this is it. So, too, the idiots at Fresh News and the equally stupid Google news bots responsible for repeating the error.
You’d think the public schools have dumbed America down enough without Google’s help.
UPDATE: My thanks to reader Dusan Maletic for his corrections. I now have the photo of the correct Uzi and its firing rate. I made my own dumb mistake by just reading the story posted by the Googlebot and not tracking the story back to the original article. My bad, and double bad on Google and Fresh News. Thanks Dusan.
#15 – Mr. Fusion,
I don’t believe comparing guns with swimming pools, driving, pharmaceutical drugs, or backyard trampolines is a good analogy. All of these activities have a useful function in society. Yet they also have a definite place too.
Actually I picked swimming pools rather than driving or pharmaceuticals precisely because they actually don’t really serve a function in most cases. Some people may swim laps. Most people, I think, use them as a play thing rather than as a functional item. Sitting by the pool drinking beer is hardly more useful than sitting watching football and drinking beer. I don’t do either.
Again. I am not a gun nut or a gun owner. However, on this issue, I do see both sides. I’m not going to argue either one very vehemently.
#18: “Self defense is a human right.”
Is it, really? Let’s think about that for a second. “Human rights” are derived from the Lockeian notion that there are “natural” or “immutable” rights that governments (or other people) should be unable to take away. For example, if I made a cake for my own consumption, no one should be able to come in and take my cake away from me (right to property.)
Those same Lockeian ideals gave us the idea of the social contract. The social contract between citizens and their governments essentially exists such that the citizens allow *some* measure of control for the *government* to protect them from others infringing on their right.
Some of the natural rights are the right to life, and the right to health. Both I think we can all agree are natural, human rights. Self-defense, I fear, is in direct contravention to both of these rights.
But, you argue, a person gives up their immutable rights once they violate *my* rights… well, that’s fallacious. *You*, as a citizen, have no right to take away someone else’s rights. You’ve given that right to the government (see the social contract, above). As such, while I agree there is something to the right to be free from other’s predations, I would argue that you don’t then have the (natural/human/immutable) right to hurt someone else either in like or because of or in prevention of said predation.
Regardless, self-defense is an affirmative defense in most United States jurisdictions. It isn’t a recognized “right”, constitutionally-speaking.
#19, Too much idiocy surrounds the issue of “gun control”. If they’d just enforce the damned laws that are on the books now, it would solve most of the problems right there.
Agreed.
#21 -
“Actually I picked swimming pools rather than driving or pharmaceuticals precisely because they actually don’t really serve a function in most cases. Some people may swim laps. Most people, I think, use them as a play thing rather than as a functional item. Sitting by the pool drinking beer is hardly more useful than sitting watching football and drinking beer.”
It seems to me that entertainment itself is form and function aplenty, and a legitimate one at that. Ever try spending a few days alone in a dark room with nothing to do? The human brain turns to mush pretty darn quickly in those circumstances. You’ve also identified fitness as a function of swimming pools, and I would tack on beatification to that list (some people prefer tans.)
Guns, however, are pretty specific in their intent – they are weapons, and lethal ones at that. (Not to say they will kill always, but rather that their function is to kill preferably, as opposed to a tazer, which is meant to subdue, preferably.) Their utility is thus, a little more limited. (Though to be fair and follow my logic to its conclusion, shooting at a target range could be entertainment or education; however the issue isn’t the presence of targeting ranges, it’s the presence of guns themselves. As I understand it, no one buys guns – nor are guns made – specifically to go to the shooting range, otherwise they could simply design them to be nonlethal. Perhaps the issue shouldn’t be guns, per se, as much as bullets?)
#22 – Alex
>>Self-defense, I fear, is in direct
>>contravention to both of these rights.
Huh? Whose rights? The right to life of the guy who’s in my house with a gun pointed at me, stealing my stuff? The right to health of the guy who’s in my bedroom, raping my wife? Sheesh.
>>…Regardless, self-defense is an
>>affirmative defense in most United States
>>jurisdictions.
Huh? The right to free speech is an affirmative defense. The right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure is an affirmative defense. Just because a right can be used as a defense against unlawful prosecution doesn’t take away the fact that is still a right.
Regardless, self-defense is an affirmative defense in most United States jurisdictions. It isn’t a recognized “right”, constitutionally-speaking.
And as such is reserved as a right for the people as per the 10th amendment.
Plus, the 2nd amendment implicitly gives the people that right by enforcing their right to bear arms, as recently upheld by the SC. It is a Civil Right.
You may not consider it a Natural Right, but it is, as all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.
“Huh? Whose rights? The right to life of the guy who’s in my house with a gun pointed at me, stealing my stuff? The right to health of the guy who’s in my bedroom, raping my wife? Sheesh.”
That’s exactly what I said. Simply because a person is committing a crime doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean they have given up all of their rights. That’s what the social contract is all about.
“Huh? The right to free speech is an affirmative defense. The right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure is an affirmative defense. Just because a right can be used as a defense against unlawful prosecution doesn’t take away the fact that is still a right.”
Sorry, but free speech isn’t an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is something that’s raised in court as a defense to a crime and has to be proven (or, in some jurisdictions, disproven). Rights go beyond affirmative defenses, they simply can’t be taken away.
“And as such is reserved as a right for the people as per the 10th amendment.”
That’s an interesting interpretation of the 10th amendment. It’s certainly true that the government could recognize such a right, and the Federal government can’t rule one way or the other (which is what the 10th amendment says), but to simply say (as you seem to imply) that “If its not in the Constitution it’s covered by the 10th amendment” is simply false. Just poke into any of the gay marriage threads around here to see that notion in disaction.
“Plus, the 2nd amendment implicitly gives the people that right by enforcing their right to bear arms, as recently upheld by the SC. It is a Civil Right.”
Not at all. The 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to keep and maintain a well armed militia will not be taken away. We can quibble and argue about what it means to have a well-regulated militia, but self defense isn’t directly implied by this (the militia, for example, wouldn’t show up to defend against someone raping your wife or taking your property – unless that “someone” is a government, foreign or otherwise.) That’s national defense, not personal.
“You may not consider it a Natural Right, but it is, as all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.”
Hmm, sorry, again I disagree and I fear I’ll have to challenge your contention that “all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.” It’s certainly true that most do, but I cannot for the life of me see how, say, the right to not quarter soldiers is derived from my natural rights. And, likewise, I see nowhere in the Constitution where it says you have a right to be left alone (and in fact a lot of evidence to the contrary), whereas many (including, to a degree, myself), would argue that *is* a Natural Right. One does not, you see, necessarily imply the other or vice versa.
Big on the news right now is that political person (Mayor? Govenor?–I didn’t catch it) who said his citizens should ARM themselves as the State can no longer provide adequate police protection.
Yaaaaaaaahooooooo!!!!! The Gun toting Goths have reached the barricades. Not long until the terrorists have won.
As to the post itself: While it is always good to be reminded that the early “news” reports need to be confirmed and interpreted, isn’t it a bit much to criticize the accuracy of the Googlebot by accepting whole hog an item reported by the Googlebot?
I would think somehow this item got posted by a googlebot from start to finish, but a hooman being takes responsibility.
Lets hope a lesson learned?
BTW–getting a prediction wrong is not getting the news wrong, thats getting a prediction wrong. Different thing entirely. I too have been involved in 3 headline stories. 2 got it significantly wrong. 1 was right on. Different subjects, different reporters.
I would take issue with either 1700 or 600 rounds per minute as the weapon’s capability. It is in a technical sense, but when used in this type of story it blurs the reality.
No magazine anywhere holds that many. After, at the very most, 30 shots the gun is empty and needs to be reloaded. With reloading and cocking the gun you would be lucky to get off 150 in a minute. That suggests just shooting it to shoot it, not to hit anything.
An mini or micro uzi is not an assault rifle, as an earlier post commented. Neither is a semi-auto pistol. That is neither assault or rifle.
Uzi’s do not use machine gun bullets, they almost entirely 9mm, which is a pretty standard size pistol round. They are not very accurate.
I would be all for eliminating guns if this were possible. Sadly, it is not. Get over it! America is the most heavily armed country that has a functioning civil society. This isn’t going to change….ever
Chris–getting rid of guns “might” be possible over a long term. Stopping the manufacturing and importing of them to begin with would be a start. Restricting ammo sales would help.
Sure it would be all driven underground but when your society is suffering from malaria, you don’t add moisquitoes to the swamp.
Over time, societal “attitude” might change that using a gun is really not macho.
You are right though that things don’t change if there is no change at all.
#27 – Alex
>>That’s exactly what I said. Simply because a
>>person is committing a crime doesn’t (or
>>shouldn’t) mean they have given up all of
>>their rights.
I never said they gave up all their rights. I said they temporarily gave up some rights, during the time they’re robbing me at gunpoint, or are raping my wife.
>>Sorry, but free speech isn’t an affirmative
>>defense. An affirmative defense is something
>>that’s raised in court as a defense to a
>>crime and has to be proven (or, in some
>>jurisdictions, disproven).
Sounds like an affirmative defense to me. People have been arrested since the First Amendment was first written, and proven in court that what they were doing (porno, internet stuff, etc.) was protected under the First Amendment, and gotten off.
Your splitting of semantic hairs notwithstanding, being punished for something that’s a right happens, until the relevance of that right to your crime is raised as an affirmative defense, and then you’re good to go.
#30 – Bobbo
>>Stopping the manufacturing and importing of
>>them to begin with would be a start.
Yeah. We’ve had such great luck banning the manufacturing and importing of illegal drugs. I’m sure that will work just peachy keen for guns. At least it will keep the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
With regard to the original topic, like most of Google’s software, it’s beta quality at best. However, as another poster said, there are flaws in most news stories… Google’s code has the unique ability to make those stories appear even worse.
#28 – Worshiper, that was from my birthplace, St. Louis. Due to the crime rate in that city, I wouldn’t factor it in to the more general gun rights conversation: Those fuckers are crazy.
#27,
“And as such is reserved as a right for the people as per the 10th amendment.”
That’s an interesting interpretation of the 10th amendment. It’s certainly true that the government could recognize such a right, and the Federal government can’t rule one way or the other (which is what the 10th amendment says), but to simply say (as you seem to imply) that “If its not in the Constitution it’s covered by the 10th amendment” is simply false.
That is exactly what it means. Let’s break it down:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The “powers not delegated means” if it isn’t written on that sheet of paper, then the government doesn’t control it and control belongs to the states or the people.
As the Constitution does not state, “It is the purpose of the Federal Government to protect you from robbers,” it is the job of the states or the people to do so.
Pretty simple.
Just poke into any of the gay marriage threads around here to see that notion in disaction.
This is a classic example of why the fed gov should not be involved. No where in the constitution does it say they have the right to dictate marriage laws. Therefore, it is a state issue, assuming the people want the state to handle it.
“Plus, the 2nd amendment implicitly gives the people that right by enforcing their right to bear arms, as recently upheld by the SC. It is a Civil Right.”
on militia
You left out the important clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Two clauses, two purposes – one is a militia, one is the individual. Regardless of the definition of militia, the definition of “the people” is well understood as to apply to individuals.
“You may not consider it a Natural Right, but it is, as all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.”
Hmm, sorry, again I disagree and I fear I’ll have to challenge your contention that “all Civil Rights derive from Natural Rights.” It’s certainly true that most do, but I cannot for the life of me see how, say, the right to not quarter soldiers is derived from my natural rights.
If you can’t see how forcing someone to live in your house against your will is a violation of a natural right to privacy and unlawful confiscation of goods, then I can’t help you with that one.
#34–Liberty==aren’t you making a basic error? The Constitution is “a living document” like it or not. As such, many issues not addressed at alaw in 1778 have been addressed over the years, like gay marriage under the concept of “comity” or one state having to recognize the laws of other states, or the commerce clause that can be interpreted as affecting every quantum vibration in the universe.
So, like a black hole, individual rights ultimately get sucked into Federal Jurisdiction.
Mustard==you make the same error as Liberty. You think in a snap shot taken today. I tried to stress the requirement of efforts taken over time and being a weight, not a spring lever, in the correct direction.
If you want fewer guns in society, “logic” (sic—hah) should you add more or prevent adding more? hmmmm? So, yea===law abiding citizens are first affected and THEN THE CRIMINALS. See how that works===or could work?
#35 – Bobbo
>>If you want fewer guns in society, “logic”
>>(sic—hah) should you add more or prevent
>>adding more?
This is not prevention of “adding more”, it’s taking away what’s already there.
If you want to lower cholesterol, should you take away? What if you only take away the good cholesterol, increasing the ratio of bad to good?
If you have an infection, should you take away bacteria? What if you only take away the beneficial bacteria in the GI tract?
If you have too much gun-related crime, should you take away guns? What happens when the only unarmed folks are the victims of the gun-related crime?
Multi-task, Bobbolina! Get definitional! Use some //logic//!! Guns are never going to go away, just like fire is never going to go away. You can’t undiscover it or uninvent it. Russia is still going to make AK-47s, Israel is still going to make Uzis and Desert Eagles, Glock is still going to make composite guns, Beretta is still going to make shotguns and pistols. You can shut down Smith & Wesson Colt and Remington and Savage Arms and Mossberg to no avail. Plenty of foreign-manufactured guns to go around.
Just like heroin and cocaine.
Well Mustard, I recognize your attempt at passing humor as insight and the minuscule legitimate kernel of misperception that exists.
Not multitasking but yes, keeping 5-6-7 ideas in mind at a time as you consider each one individually. If you can’t do it, what hope for most of us?
Of course you start taking away current guns==all guns not allowed by law. Thats done right now==just needs to be expanded.
How about no gun sales except thru authorized outlets==not retail in general like K-Mart?
How about full dna records kept on the owners?
How about full psychological testing to find out whats wrong with gun owners?—I’m sure there are defective genes that could be corrected==like requiring gun owners to mate with carrots. Not a correction today, but future generations would benefit.
It comes back to something basically very simple===if something is bad for society, don’t encourage it.
The counter by drug analogy is very powerful==lots of overlap there. Maybe a lot of the difference is that for the most part the private use of drugs doesn’t hurt anyone else–but neither does gun ownership. So then, the MISUSE OF DRUGS. How does that hurt anyone?==it doesn’t. Guns totally the opposite.
Of note, it is somewhat easier to grow maurijuana than it is to machine a gun.
So lots of differences between drugs and guns. Idiots will continue to fixate on the similar and continue to avoid the difference. As with most things that make plain simple common sense.
#37 – Bobbo
>>So then, the MISUSE OF DRUGS. How does that
>>hurt anyone?==it doesn’t. Guns totally the
>>opposite.
Sure MISUSE OF DRUGS hurts people. Not everyone who MISUSES DRUGS or USES ILLEGAL DRUGS is Kevin Eubanks, yukking it up about sparking up a doobie with Jay Leno. It can also destroy the families of the abusers, drunken drivers kill 50,000 people a year (compared to about 30,000/yr for all firearm-related deaths, including cops shooting crimnials, etc.), cause crime in neighborhoods where drug abusers congregate, blah blah blah.
I’m surprised that a Master Logician like yourself doesn’t see that your “solution” is akin to banning therapeutic DRUGS, while ignoring DRUGS that are being abused.
#38–Mustard. You are right. Misuse of drugs does harm other people. I was thinking less broadly and was out of context as we are discussing “social harm.”
Social Harm.
What causes more harm to society (ie==other people) — prohibition or freedom ((yes, skipping over the inbetween but faithful you will follow it.)) With 80% of incarcerations being “drug related” hopefully we don’t have to argue the RELATIVE RISKS AND HARMS and we won’t fold that back on the gun analogy?
Most of the worst problems of the misuse of drugs is in fact caused by their illegality. What of families who loose their sole bread winner who is completely functional in society because he gets busted?
So, add it up, put in a dose of moral philosophy, make the final bow tie out of practicability===and we all gain a more humanistically determined existentially directed universe.
Sweet.
Fusion, that statistically more likely is meaningless. It confuses causation with correlation. It’s like saying you are statistically more likely to die if you go to the hospital.