The Nineteenth Byte

aditsu

3:02 PM

@flawr omg wth

that's so creepy

hmm, France has a lot more guns than I expected

Fatalize

@aditsu Hunting guns and farmers

aditsu

HK is not on the list

Fatalize

Honk Kong is not a country... :p

aditsu

Romania is in the <1% club :)

@Fatalize it usually appears in every list of countries

it's a quasi-country

Fatalize

No -- Li Keqiang

aditsu

3:09 PM

I don't know who that guy/gal is and I don't care :p

quartata

@Lynn hehe

aditsu

HK has all the attributes of a country, except sovereignty

Fatalize

@aditsu "prime minister" of China

aditsu

@Fatalize in that case, fuck that guy!

Optimizer

3:27 PM

lets all move to Tunisia, its the safest country

or if we can trade off a bit, Singapore is a nice option

(maybe Asian country people don't need guns to commit same level crimes?)

El'endia Starman

Ta-da! A list of the number of guns per death:

      Honduras: 92.3
     Swaziland: 172.2
     Venezuela: 181.0
   El Salvador: 216.7
      Colombia: 227.4
       Jamaica: 263.7
     Guatemala: 384.2
        Brazil: 405.7
   Philippines: 528.1
    Kyrgyzstan: 891.1
  South Africa: 933.1
    Costa Rica: 1320.0
        Panama: 1436.1
     Argentina: 1603.8
     Nicaragua: 1645.3
        Mexico: 1963.4
      Paraguay: 2190.7
      Barbados: 2500.0
    Montenegro: 2592.6
       Uruguay: 2760.4
     Singapore: 3125.0
          Peru: 3399.6
       Estonia: 3445.7

quartata

Shit, let's all move to Qatar

Fatalize

@El'endiaStarman Seems weird, e.g. Japan with 10000 exactly right above US

Optimizer

so Qatar people have the worst aim?

Nathan Merrill

no, Qatar have the least-used guns

Optimizer

3:31 PM

where is that fact?

Nathan Merrill

honduras uses their guns the most

Fatalize

Qatari are stormtroopers

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize Japan: few guns, few deaths; USA: tons of guns, many deaths.

Optimizer

also, I am assuming that this guns per death number only includes death by guns..

there is not really a point in counting a heart attack death towards that number... unless the cause of heart attack was a gun pointed towards them.

Fatalize

^ can count the proportion of deaths that are directly caused by guns

El'endia Starman

3:33 PM

@Optimizer Yes. It does lump suicides and homicides together.

Optimizer

ok

now the more interesting question.. how do you know all this?? Were you personally involved in them ? :P

Nathan Merrill

maybe guns are radioactive and cause additional deaths simply by being near them

El'endia Starman

@Optimizer Haha, no, I just combined data from two Wikipedia tables.

Optimizer

of course.. you cannot die in all those countries

Nathan Merrill

alternatively, a more reasonable theory is that more frequent guns make people think about death more, and therefore are more likely to die

El'endia Starman

3:36 PM

It'd be even better if suicides and homicides could be separated, and they could, but the data is significantly messier in that respect.

@NathanMerrill But the point of my analysis was to normalize with respect to the frequency of guns.

Optimizer

you must be an american

to go to these extent to justify so many guns :P

El'endia Starman

Well, you know it's an extremely contentious issue in the USA, right...?

Optimizer

it sure is an issue when people are trying to justify that many guns

El'endia Starman

Another statistic I saw elsewhere is that only about a third of households have at least one gun. Since there are more guns than people, that means that a ton of households have many guns.

Well, personal ownership of guns is in part responsible for our independence from Britain, sooo...

Besides, I never advocated for or tried to justify having many guns.

Optimizer

@El'endiaStarman which i think is a very very old thing

@El'endiaStarman you kind of did up there

El'endia Starman

3:43 PM

I doubt I will ever own/buy a gun and keep it in my house, primarily for the reason that it's dangerous to my own children (and others' children when they come over).

Fatalize

For some reason a lot of Americans I hear seem to think that the 18th century constitution never changed and should not be touched

The "we need guns to defend from the government, remember the british" argument is worthless

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize I think that's pretty weird too. There's a certain sense to it though: there are a few principles and ideas contained within that should be kept (Bill of Rights), while discarding others (slavery).

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

but those british people are going to kill us if we don't have guns

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize Not exactly. The analogue of Britain today is our own government. Certain people believe that we should have guns to defend against any possible tyranny from our government.

Optimizer

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

3:46 PM

^ yes

Fatalize

@El'endiaStarman That's what I'm saying, it's stupid. What good does a handgun do if the military wants to bomb you?

Optimizer

I play gods of rome

@Fatalize of course you need a nuke at your home.

Fatalize

Also they overestimate their will, most people won't resist and risk their lives

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Fatalize bombs aren't the cleanest way of dealing with extermination

El'endia Starman

@Optimizer Well, my Facebook feed has been blowing up with political arguments about gun control due to the shooting in Orlando. I went looking for data on how problematic it actually is that we have so many guns, and the answer seems to be "sorta". Which is not what either side thinks it is.

Optimizer

3:47 PM

who you wanna call?

Ghost Busters

quartata

@Optimizer *gonna

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

Grammar Busters

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize I think the typical response to that (by Libertarians/some conservatives) is: "Well, citizens should be allowed to have bombs too." Which steps way over the line, for me.

Optimizer

@quartata its a free country. I am just giving a choice

quartata

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ More like "Misquote Busters"

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

3:50 PM

Accuracy Busters

Optimizer

Privacy Busters

Fatalize

@El'endiaStarman I mean if someone argues that, then he also would argue that citizens should be able to have nukes too... :p

Optimizer

oh.. I meant Piracy Busters

TimmyD

@El'endiaStarman There's obviously something wrong here in the US, since more people were killed in Orlando in a 24-hour period than all Coalition military casualties in Afghanistan in all of 2015 and 2016, combined.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

Sentry Busters

El'endia Starman

3:50 PM

That said, you know how badly the Vietnam War went for the USA, despite their technological and numerical advantage? Imagine how it'd be if we had another civil war.

Leaky Nun

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ +1 for tf2

Nathan Merrill

there's a difference between bombs and guns

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@LeakyNun danke ;D

Nathan Merrill

guns have practical life uses (hunting)

Optimizer

sentry chickens

@TimmyD well, it was a hate crime..

Nathan Merrill

3:51 PM

while bombs do (like mining), the average human doesn't really need one

Fatalize

@NathanMerrill the average human also doesn't need a gun

if you want to hunt you apply to get a hunting gun

Nathan Merrill

need may be the wrong word

Fatalize

you don't need an M16

Optimizer

average human also doesn't need bacon.

TimmyD

@Optimizer Pretty sure there's a good chunk of people that hate Coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, too ...

Optimizer

3:52 PM

@TimmyD as a community?

Nathan Merrill

@Fatalize right, but there are many who argue to remove all (maybe leaving a handgun or something)

Fatalize

@NathanMerrill Remove all but hunting guns

others aren't needed

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Fatalize perhaps the average human in america feels safer with a gun. Maybe there isn't any practical benefit, but there could a psychological benefit. (I don't support or not support guns)

Fatalize

and range shooting guns

Optimizer

hunt humans with hunting guns?

Nathan Merrill

3:53 PM

nah, you could still argue for a gun for defense

Fatalize

lol

Nathan Merrill

which leaves handguns

TimmyD

The scariest thing, to me, are the people advocating more guns as the solution, as if someone at the nightclub would have started a shootout and prevented all these deaths. I just don't understand that.

El'endia Starman

What about guns for self-defense? It does happen.

Optimizer

once you start arguing violence against violence , you can never get rid of guns

Fatalize

3:54 PM

@El'endiaStarman A lot less often than children killing someone with a gun

Nathan Merrill

@Fatalize you can argue the same thing with medicine

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize Yep. It is true that toddlers have killed more people than Muslim terrorists in the USA (well, perhaps excepting what just happened).

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@El'endiaStarman define toddlers??

(age range)

El'endia Starman

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ I think it was < 2 years old. IIRC most of the deaths were unintentional suicides.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

oh, okay.

Optimizer

3:55 PM

best is to improve the safety by having better laws/police system. rather than compartmentalizing safety to individual person..

Nathan Merrill

or unintentional homicides

Fatalize

I know I wouldn't feel safe having a gun on me and being surrounded by people with guns

El'endia Starman

There was a question on Skeptics.SE about it.

Fatalize

a lot less than knowing no one, me included, has a gun

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize But some people would, and do.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

3:56 PM

citing texas

Optimizer

@Fatalize even if those are to protect you and in hands of right people?

TimmyD

@Optimizer Indeed. However, I personally don't want to increase the prison population in the US more than it already is.

Optimizer

ok I am confused

Fatalize

@Optimizer People trained to use guns isn't the same, I'm not arguing that cops shouldn't have one

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

Cops aren't everywhere

Optimizer

3:57 PM

@Fatalize but my point was exactly that

Fatalize

I don't feel safe knowing that a fat untrained Joe next to me has a hand gun

Optimizer

@Fatalize he should not be having one is my argument

at least not legally

Fatalize

@El'endiaStarman In the US yes, but that's a cultural thing. When there was the terror attack here, no one asked for guns afterwards

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize Many people in the USA are trained to use guns. My perspective on gun control is that the best course of action is to require training for everyone.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

*everyone who uses guns

Fatalize

3:58 PM

@El'endiaStarman They aren't trained to neutralize someone in the midst of chaos

Optimizer

I think this is going nowhere

El'endia Starman

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ Yes. Much like training to drive cars.

Fatalize

Give guns to 10% of people in that Orlando thing, my guess is a few people get killed by accident

Nathan Merrill

the number of unintentional gun deaths is really low: 505

Optimizer

US people want to carry . their argument is that everyone should have a gun only if they have proper training.

Nathan Merrill

3:59 PM

so, while training will make a difference, its really only a drop in the bucket

TimmyD

(to plagiarize a tweet I can't remember exactly) -- 15 years later, we still have to take off our shoes at the airport, but we've not done anything about the mass shootings.

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize I think that deaths would go down because training would/should include emphasis on how important life is and the like.

Optimizer

so taking off shoes is equivalent to mass shooting?

Nathan Merrill

@El'endiaStarman if you do that, then the government needs to decide a stance on ethical issues

Fatalize

@El'endiaStarman In a country where it's legal to shoot trespassers in some states, I'm not sure that emphasis would have a lot of impact

Nathan Merrill

4:00 PM

aka, trolley problem

Leaky Nun

@TimmyD I don't want to start a debate, but calling it "scary" doesn't help resolve the conflict.

El'endia Starman

@NathanMerrill Not necessarily. You could leave it up to individual businesses. How to make sure that those businesses teach the right thing is another matter.

TimmyD

@Optimizer Sorry -- meaning that there was one instance of a failed shoe bomb and there was a resultant change in safety procedures everywhere since. We've had dozens of mass shootings, but nothing has been done.

Optimizer

@TimmyD oh. never knew.

TimmyD

2001 failed shoe bomb attempt

The 2001 failed shoe bomb attempt was a failed bombing attempt that occurred on December 22, 2001, on American Airlines Flight 63. The aircraft, a Boeing 767 with 197 passengers and crew aboard, was flying from Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France, to Miami International Airport in Miami, Florida, United States. The perpetrator, Richard Reid, was subdued by passengers after unsuccessfully attempting to detonate plastic explosives concealed within his shoes. The flight was diverted to Logan International Airport in Boston, under escort by American jet fighters, and safely landed without further...

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

4:03 PM

@NathanMerrill well, it's only an ethical issue if you're against people who think life isn't important. Which I'm sure that is a minority

Optimizer

why are we all end up blaming ethics/religion ? :D

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

where is religion?

TimmyD

@LeakyNun But I do find it scary that there are people advocating more guns as the solution. That, personally, frightens me.

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize

def e(n):
    s = str(n)
    #cannot contain 0
    if '0' in s:
        return False
    #generate each number
    a = [int('0'+s[1:])] + [int(s[:x]+s[x+1:]) for x in range(1,len(s))]
    #generate each digit
    b = [int(s[x]) for x in range(len(s))]
    #generate each remainder
    c = [a[x]%b[x] for x in range(len(s))]
    #check if they are all zero
    return not any(c)

def f(n):
    count = -1
    test = 1
    while True:
        if(e(test)):
            count += 1
        if count==n:
            return test

Nathan Merrill

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ no way. Killing a mass murderer is easy. What if a person is trippy (they aren't sure if they want to get involved)? or what if there are 20 people that want to kill a single other? do you kill all 20?

Fatalize

4:04 PM

@LeakyNun thanks

@NathanMerrill " Killing a mass murderer is easy" what?

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@NathanMerrill oh geez, this isn't the trolley problem. What I'm saying is that life isn't a thing that isn't important--that there is a value in life.

Nathan Merrill

@El'endiaStarman if the government enforces training of "importance of life", then they need to define that, which is absolutely an ethical issue

Leaky Nun

@TimmyD Right, and I'm one of those people.

Nathan Merrill

@Fatalize as an ethical question. Most people agree that if a mass murderer is killing a bunch of people, you should kill him

Optimizer

@Fatalize yes. science has proof. E = mc^2

El'endia Starman

4:06 PM

@NathanMerrill And that hasn't already been done by outlawing murder?

Nathan Merrill

@El'endiaStarman so you are saying that the "teaching" would simply be: "Don't kill people"?

El'endia Starman

@TimmyD I do agree it is quite ridiculous that the sale of guns goes up after a widely publicized mass shooting.

Fatalize

@NathanMerrill Neutralizing him is better, usually killing him is safer so they go for that but that doesn't mean it's the best option

Nathan Merrill

@Fatalize well, sure, but assuming you only have the choice of kill/don't kill.

Optimizer

law should decide if he should be hanged or not.

not ethics

El'endia Starman

4:07 PM

@NathanMerrill Perhaps "Don't shoot at people."?

Nathan Merrill

@El'endiaStarman sure :)

Leaky Nun

@El'endiaStarman Look, it's not like if you start giving everyone a gun, then everyone would just shoot at everyone.

El'endia Starman

But anyway, my point is that the government already legislates some moral matters. Murder, theft, etc., so why is this example of gun training different?

TimmyD

I mean, please don't get me wrong. I am very Libertarian-leaning, and do strongly believe that people should be able to legally own whatever weapon they want. If someone wants to own a cannon, or a tank, or whatever, fine. There should just be progressively harder hoops to jump through and background checks to resolve as the destructive power of the weapon increases.

El'endia Starman

@LeakyNun No, but the point is that training will hopefully reduce the number of people that do shoot at other people.

Fatalize

4:10 PM

@TimmyD Are you arguing that people should be able to own functioning tanks...?

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@El'endiaStarman *don't shoot at people without a good cause

Leaky Nun

I just believe that "removing guns from the good guys" is not the solution.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Fatalize people do

TimmyD

@Fatalize I interpret the 2nd Amendment with limits on who should have the weapons, not on what weapons are allowed.

Fatalize

@TimmyD Or you know, you could modify the second amendment because it's obsolete?

like how you removed slavery?

TimmyD

4:12 PM

So, yes, if someone wants a tank, has the money/funding for a tank, and can properly pass whatever X background checks required for (tank-class weapon), then yep, go ahead an own that tank.

Nathan Merrill

@El'endiaStarman I agree that the government takes a stance on ethical issues, but if they try to resolve the trolley problem or other highly-debated issues, then the gun control issue is going to become even more debated

Fatalize

@TimmyD So a citizen could own a nuke then

El'endia Starman

@TimmyD Speaking of the second Amendment, how is a "well-regulated militia" different from the military we have today? I've seen that kind of argument from liberals, that our military and police fulfill that purpose.

Optimizer

@TimmyD sure.. Hank Pymm had one

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Fatalize you assume that the background checks aren't that high

Fatalize

4:13 PM

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ If they are super-high this basically is equivalent to "citizens can't own weapons"

which is what it should be

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

s/weapons/nuke/, don't change the subject

TimmyD

@Fatalize It would be a pretty sizable barrier to entry (both in cost and in requisite checks), but sure.

Fatalize

@TimmyD That's retarded

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

oi, keep it nice

Nathan Merrill

the problem with high-barrier entries is that it is easier for a government to lower a barrier than a government to remove a ban

Optimizer

4:14 PM

@Fatalize not sure how it is retarded? illogical/stupid .. sure..

Leaky Nun

Look, of course it would be good if everyone doesn't have a gun. Why I do not advocate for gun control is that this just removes the gun from the good guys. The bad guys still have their guns anyway.

Fatalize

@LeakyNun The vast majority of people are not "good guys", they're just "guys"

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize s/good guys/regular citizens/

In fact, s/bad guys/perpetrators/

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

the regular citizens are the good guys

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize Haha, point. Nonetheless, why do you expect gun control laws to restrict criminals that break them anyway?

Fatalize

4:16 PM

@El'endiaStarman I don't

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize Which is why I advocate for more guns, however scary it seems.

Fatalize

Point is, regular citizens can get mad for any reason, and when they have easy access to guns they can kill anyone easily

see: the singer that got killed by a fan

Leaky Nun

"Judge, what good are your laws? Good guys don't need them; bad guys don't follow them"

Fatalize

no gun: can't do it

TimmyD

@El'endiaStarman From my understanding, and I'm not a Constitutional lawyer in the slightest, is that the militia was empowered by the states, while the military was empowered by the federal government.

Optimizer

4:17 PM

@LeakyNun I gun for more avocads.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@LeakyNun o.o

Fatalize

Criminals can have guns in any country anyway, so they are irrelevant here

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize You can't kill anyone easily if they also have guns.

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize What about a knife?

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@LeakyNun sure you can.

Fatalize

4:17 PM

@LeakyNun Lol of course you can, you just shoot first

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

which is why fps are fun to play

Fatalize

@El'endiaStarman You seriously think killing someone with a knife is nearly as easy as with a gun?

Optimizer

@Fatalize ummm.. yes .. if you are a ninja

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Fatalize I don't think he said that.

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize This works only if there are no people around.

Which is how mass defense works.

Fatalize

4:18 PM

@LeakyNun No, this also works if you're surrounded with cops

If you're prepared to kill someone

you kill them

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize Yes, exactly.

Fatalize

what happens next is irrelevant

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize Then you'll be killed. Instantly.

Fatalize

@LeakyNun You don't care, you were ready to kill someone, and you did

If you don't have a gun you can't kill the person easily

Optimizer

@Fatalize ummm he's not a psycho ?

Fatalize

4:20 PM

@Optimizer "Normal" people can do psycho-like things for multitudes of reasons

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

TimmyD

@LeakyNun The problem with this argument is that somehow the vast majority of the world seem to have figured this out. In the US here, we're missing something in the equation.

Optimizer

and then they are called psycho

Fatalize

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ No handwritten text, 0/10

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Fatalize well, it wouldn't be handwritten unless I scanned a picture of handwritten text

Fatalize

4:21 PM

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ no mousewritten text, 0/10

Optimizer

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ mouse or pen, you are still using a medium

so it's not handwritten even on paper

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Optimizer true, I need to scratch it into something

Optimizer

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ write it with your bloody fingers

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

but then blood is the medium

TimmyD

For example, Iceland has had one police killing since it became independent in 1944, and the entire country came together in solidarity and mourning. link ...

Optimizer

4:22 PM

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ but its from your hands ;)

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

true

Optimizer

@TimmyD US population is 1000 times more..

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

Optimizer

what does the green arrow mean?

Justice League?

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize Not really, no, though I do have friends with significant expertise with knives that could kill you with a knife more easily than with a gun. Guns are kinda hard to aim. Besides that, the "fan" who shot Christina Grimmie probably would've/could've attacked her with a knife. I've seen arguments numerous times that when you take away a weapon for murder, people will use other weapons, and the number of murders doesn't change that much.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

4:24 PM

good guy

TimmyD

@Optimizer Sure, but we've had a hell of a lot more police killings than 1000 since 1944 ...

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

^

Leaky Nun

@TimmyD Somehow the vast majority doesn't agree with an argument is not a problem with the argument.

@Fatalize Is there any statistics to back this claim up?

Fatalize

@El'endiaStarman it doesn't prevent super-motivated people, it prevents vulnerable people with bad mental health from doing stupid shit

Optimizer

@TimmyD true, but its also true that its easier to implement law and ethics in a smaller society

Fatalize

4:26 PM

@Optimizer Japan has 120 million people and barely any murder

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize How many of those "bad mental health" normal people exist, you reckon?

Optimizer

@Fatalize * using guns.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Fatalize lots of suicide, re the mass suicide into the volcano thing a while back

Optimizer

well, its due to culture, guns are western culture.

El'endia Starman

@Fatalize An issue that would, ostensibly, also be reduced by training and education.

Optimizer

4:28 PM

moreover, japan is not that transparent..

Fatalize

@LeakyNun Why does that matter? you can't call any number of murders "negligible"

Optimizer

no offence to any japanese here and please correct me

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize Well, they're easily eradicated from the population, for one thing.

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

o_______________________________________________o

Fatalize

@El'endiaStarman Obviously, from what I remember mental health services are crazy expensive in the US

TimmyD

4:29 PM

@LeakyNun I'm sorry, I don't understand your phrasing here. :-/

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

^

Fatalize

@LeakyNun So we should eradicate people with bad health?

lol

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

OH GEEZ HE'S BLEEDING--SHOOTHIMSHOOTHIMSHOOTHIM

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize No, normal people that suddenly kill people.

Fatalize

OH HE'S BLEEDING EVEN MORE NOW

Leaky Nun

4:30 PM

@TimmyD The fact that somehow the vast majority doesn't agree with an argument is not a problem with the argument.

Fatalize

@LeakyNun Most developed countries have banned the death penalty, for good reasons

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize True

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@Fatalize s/pp/p/

TimmyD

@LeakyNun Ah. OK, yes, I'll agree with your phrase here. My point was that somehow, a big chunk of the world seem to have figured out the equation so that (fewer guns) = (fewer 'good guys' with guns) + (fewer 'bad guys' with guns). The argument you're presenting is (fewer guns) = (fewer 'good guys' with guns) + (same amount 'bad guys' with guns). Obviously, there's something different between the two equations.

Fatalize

double letters make no sense in English

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

4:33 PM

@Fatalize I feel you

Optimizer

ddoouubbllee?

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

a lot of English makes no sense

Leaky Nun

@TimmyD No, I'm saying that (fewer guns) = (fewer 'good guys' with guns) + (but still there exists bad guys with guns that will just mass murder)

TimmyD

Jan 28 at 18:02, by TimmyD

In English, if the word ends in o and you want to make it plural, if it's consonant-then-o you add an es unless you don't.

Optimizer

true. so much English above.. it stopped making sense long back

Leaky Nun

4:34 PM

@TimmyD "In the land without guns, he who has gun is the king" (can't find the exact quote online)

TimmyD

@LeakyNun Ah, I see ... the draw-down interim stages.

Yeah, I'll admit I don't have an answer to that.

Leaky Nun

@TimmyD I don't understand this sentence.

TimmyD

If somehow we could wave a magic wand and get rid of 90% of all the guns in the US, we'd be in the first equation I wrote. You're pointing out the problem that we don't have a magic wand, so what happens between now and then?

Leaky Nun

@TimmyD (get rid of 90% of all the guns) = (only 10% of the citizens have guns) + (but still 10% of the bad guys have guns)

As long as the bad guys have guns, the good guys need to have guns.

Fatalize

@LeakyNun They're called the police

Leaky Nun

4:39 PM

@Fatalize I don't trust the police.

Fatalize

@LeakyNun I trust random untrained people way less

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize But you trust yourself.

TimmyD

If I'm confronted by Joe with a gun, I think I would feel more threatened if Joe was a police officer than just a random bloke.

Leaky Nun

^

TimmyD

Given the current state of the US.

Fatalize

4:41 PM

@TimmyD Then you have a problem with your police

which is something else entirely

TimmyD

Yes, the US does

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize 5000+ years of humanity have proven that we shouldn't trust the big guys.

Fatalize

@LeakyNun by that same argument you should trust no one, and live in a cave hidden by yourself

you trust that the food you eat is not poisoned

Optimizer

Marting is just waiting for the right spot to join in.

the one with at least 5 stars

Fatalize

similarly you should trust that the police will defend you instead of threatening you

Leaky Nun

4:43 PM

@Fatalize There's a difference between "a guy that can kill" and "a guy that has the legal right to kill"

I would trust the former more than the latter

TimmyD

The thing is, part of this whole debate is influenced by the prison culture and the "tough on crime" culture that's present in the US. We have like 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners. That undoubtedly influences the gun-control debates.

Leaky Nun

2

Fatalize

@LeakyNun Policemen have basically the same right to kill as normal citizens: in situations of self-defense or protecting someone else

the Police protecting policemen is a different problem

TimmyD

@Fatalize Ahahaha, no.

That's as may be in theory, but it's not how it is in practice.

Fatalize

@TimmyD In a normal country they do

Leaky Nun

4:44 PM

@Fatalize That's how it theoretically works.

Fatalize

Also I would argue that the US police "shoot first" attitude is partially caused by the fact that they know everyone could pull out a gun on them

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize Well, if you say so...

I don't have an answer to that.

@Fatalize Are you including the reference codes or not?

Fatalize

@LeakyNun I'll check them tomorrow, I also don't know what's the consensus on including a reference implementation

Leaky Nun

14

A: Pseudofactorial

Dyalog APL, 3 bytes ∧/⍳ APL beats Jelly‽ ⍳ 1 though argument ∧/ LCM across

How is that 3 bytes?

CMC: Given positive integer n, output the denominator of 1/1+1/2+1/3+...+1/n.

Hint: it is not the pseudofactorial (I believe)

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

@LeakyNun legacy character set etc :P

Leaky Nun

4:52 PM

@CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ What's the code page?

Cᴏɴᴏʀ O'Bʀɪᴇɴ

It has a legacy code page

Martin Ender

APL (codepage)

The APL code page is an EBCDIC-based code page used specifically to write programs written in the APL programming language. == Character set == Due to its origins on IBM Selectric Teleprinters, APL symbols have traditionally been represented on the wire using a unique, non-standard character set. In the beginning, there were few terminal devices which could reproduce them—the most popular ones being the Selectric fitted with a specific APL print head. Over time, with the universal use of high-quality graphic display, printing devices and Unicode support, the APL character font problem has largely...

Leaky Nun

For example, 1/1 + ... + 1/6 = 1764/720 = 49/20, while the pseudofactorial of 6 is 60.

Martin has slipped in without anyone even noticing.

Martin Ender

Mathematica, 26: Denominator@Tr[1/Range@#]&

Transcript for