KidWicked

Why not just put the data online, but not the stories, pictures, and personal details? To a new jumper who wants to analyze the ratio of object strikes to totals, the data would still be there. A reporter would have far less incentive to link to a plain table of data though, because how interesting is that? If Nick's goal is to have the page up for educational value, then it's hard to argue against just presenting the data and having no superflous trappings. My 2 cents. - KW Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

That cracked me up. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

I have a feeling he has come into posession of a radar gun and is looking for things to do with it. It'd be unfortunate if his radar gun only worked in the dark - he'd never get to use it. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

because owning a gun is now a crime. Maybe that is why it has gone up. Very good point. Also I think that, in general, there will always be an upward trend in gun violence. Seeing the curve on that graph pointing upwards is really no surprise. If a more efficient way of killing people was invented, even if the use of it was made illegal, there are people who would spend the time and money to circumvent the law and obtain it. This is very similar to my own field: computer security. Computer security is about making the security sufficiently good such that most attackers can't break it. There will always be hackers who can break it, but protecting against those people is extremely expensive, and so you make a trade-off. Same with guns: banning them reduces the amount in circulation, and makes them become rare, and thus they become expensive for the average criminal to obtain (like precious metals in the traditional economy, for example). Given that fact, the important metric then becomes the *rate* at which the trend goes up. The chart showing "gun incidents increasing since the gun ban" really is no surprise. Gun incidents were hardly likely to suddenly drop to zero - because there are already a certain amount of guns in circulation. But my feeling is that the ban has kept that rate from rising faster than it has. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Then how do you explain how gun crime has gone up since handguns and semi-auto long guns were banned? (See attached chart) The statistics contradict your theory... You've got a chart with a line that goes up on it; I've lived in both countries. Why don't we both just get 'em out and measure them? Just so I'm clear though: you're saying that if gun laws in the UK were removed, citizens of the UK would have *less* chance of getting shot? Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

I'm not replying to any particular post, but - as an ex Brit who now lives in the US, all the statistics in this argument are moot to me. Growing up in a rough inner city in England, it was inconceivable to me and my peers that we would ever be shot, or encounter any situation with a gun. Stabbed or "glassed" with a broken glass? - sure. Shot? - not in a million years. In England, you can go out at night and you are very, VERY unlikely to be killed in a fight, robbery, whatever. I don't have any particular statistics to back that up, it's just a feeling that I think most people in England and the UK feel - ask people who've lived in both places. In the US, that feeling just doesn't exist. And if that feeling *didn't* exist, then people wouldn't carry guns for self defense. What's the crucial difference? There just aren't that many guns in England, comparitvely speaking. Less guns equals less chance you will be shot - that logic seems inescapable to me. Sure, someone could still kill you with a knife or a baseball bat or something, but it takes a lot more commitment to repeatedly knife someone or bash their skull in than to just pull a trigger, and a peice of wood doesn't have the "cool" factor that street punks and gangsters are attracted to. If the NRA drop loaded 500,000 guns into the UK I guarantee that the climate (that feeling of the unlikelyness that you'll be killed) would change radically. It would feel way more dangerous knowing that you couldn't fight someone off with your bare hands. The UK is clearly safer with a gun ban (or however you want to describe the legislation), based on my experience living in both countries for several years. My 2 cents... Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

With the Safari and Firefox browsers, when I go to a forum which has new posts in several threads, I click on one thread, then go back to the forum, and EVERY thread is marked as read. Never used to happen that way before. OS X version 10.3.7. Additionally... clicking on a thread that has multiple pages doesn't take me to the page which has the newest post, whereas IE on XP does. I know people with Mac's aren't the largest user population, but it'd be nice if someone could test this stuff on that platform. Thanks in advance! Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Ohh, and he did.. I'd reply back to him but I think I'm gonna be busy for awhile taking his advice that I should "Go f*** myself". lol.. It'll be the smartest thing you ever did. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

I assumed he had half a brain and could use a search engine. My mistake... Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

That passive aggressive thing is getting really tired. You ought to find some new way to make yourself look weak. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

When you said this: "Thank you for the atmosphere of sharing and education which you promote." (You might want to look up "passive aggressive" on Google too.) I reiterate: it is NOT my job to teach you how to open a web browser, go to google.com, type in "define RSS", and hit return. Christ, how do you survive as an adult when you expect everything to be laid out for you? Do I work for you? No. This is the suggestions and feedback forum for a web site, it stands to reason that it's going to have technical content and technical questions posted to it. You limped into a thread on a topic you knew nothing about, and complained that I didn't explain a technology to you. Do you want me to explain client/server computing as well? How about how to use a mouse? Try making that statement in the BASE forum and see what happens, and that is where 95% of my posts are made. There are good reasons to be anonymous, and the owner of this site seems to understand that. Frankly, I don't care if you give "credence" to my posts or not. I did not post in this forum seeking to have a conversation with you... I would have prefered it if you had not butted in when you did. 15 seconds on Google would have answered your question and we would have never had to get into all this. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Thank you for the atmosphere of sharing and education which you promote. You'd be better off learning to use Google, rather than feeling sorry for yourself. You can have that advice for free. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Not in the BASE forum, which is primarily my interest. I'd say 75% of regulars there are anonymous, for obvious reasons. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Great, isn't it? What would you do even if you did know who I was? Have your posse hunt me down? Ptthp! Hilarious! Show me where the forum rules say that I can't be anonymous. Then, learn how to use Google so that you can research simple concepts like RSS yourself. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

No, the subject does not say it all: it doesn't say what an "RSS feed" is... The subject says it all in terms of my request, which is the purpose of this particular forum. I'm not here to educate you on RSS or any other topic. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

And the world revolves around you, does it? Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Subject says it all. You know it's the future! Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Aww, I was trying to be nice Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Famous, infamous, notorious, what's the difference, eh? rl MUST...RESIST...URGE...TO...BE...PEDANTIC! Rhonda, you're my saviour. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

I never leave home without my shovel. And my rake. Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

No, you're wrong. His statement was as follows: "The one thing we learn is we never learn." You can't learn and not learn at the same time. Therefore, the statement is inherently contradictory and makes no logical sense. I understand exactly the sentiment of what he's saying, but the statement itself is not logical. Spock from StarTrek would agree with me... assuming he actually existed. Which he does! Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Would you say the same thing about society in general? Perhaps we shouldn't have any laws at all so that people can follow their "WAY"? Laws are there for a reason (in most cases, anyway!), which is to support societal goals. Why shouldn't a community agree on self-policing goals which benefit everyone? Do you follow the "call the locals" rule? Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

Very well said! Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

I guess you can equate nonsensical with ironic... Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

So do I, but the statement makes no logical sense as it is inherently self-contradictory ;-) Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."