welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Random News Stories of Note
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 734, 735, 736 ... 815, 816, 817  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17175
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
mouse wrote:
from here:
Quote:
NBC News' Pete Williams noted that many people are authorized to carry firearms at Navy Yard.

oh and:
Quote:
Survellance video shows the gunman entered the NAVSEA building, at 1336 Isaac Hull Ave., with a shotgun, law enforcement officials told News4's Jackie Bensen.

He shot a security officer in the head, killing him, and took his 9 mm pistol and a magazine of ammunition.


so he started by going to the one person that anyone would have expected to be carrying a gun. yes, this guy was definitely deterred by the prospect of facing armed opponents!


None of that contradicts what CTrees said.


actually, they explicitly contradict what CTrees said. here, let me show you:

CTrees wrote:
You realize that stateside military bases are gun-free zones, right? The gates have armed guards, as do brigs, armories, etc., and training exercises may involve guns, but otherwise they are strictly banned?

Quote:
NBC News' Pete Williams noted that many people are authorized to carry firearms at Navy Yard.


so clearly the place wasn't a gun-free zone.

and
CTrees wrote:
What this guy and Nidal Hassan did were essentially shooting up office buildings. There victims are disarmed....So yes, this is another example of "these kinds of shootings never happen in places where the gunman knows there might be people with weapons around."


is refuted by:

Quote:
He shot a security officer in the head, killing him, and took his 9 mm pistol and a magazine of ammunition.


so he didn't avoid armed people, he started by seeking out and shooting an armed person.

see how that works?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17175
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:

CA has some of the most onerous licensing requirements in the country, not to protect people, but to scoop up as much revenue as possible while ensuring that politically connected business owners are protected from 'unfair competition.' These laws tend also to cause no small amount of harm to the poor and to minorities, but I'm sure that's more the fault of all the Republicans running things in the Golden State.


you mean the one who steadfastly refused to allow any sort of tax increase, so the only way the state could increase revenues was to raise fees? you are probably right.


Oh, right. Poor California. Strapped with only between $100 and $120 billion of other people's money each year for the last five years to work with. How could anyone survive on such a pittance?


when you are trying to pay off about $1 trillion in debt, due in part to a poor law on property taxes (and declining tax returns in general) - "pittance" turns out to be pretty apt. (it's a pretty large state, you know - i realize you east-coast types have trouble with that, but we have over 10% of the US population living here - they all add up.)
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TIAB



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 683

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moor wrote:
My theory for the reason we're unhappy? We've grown up with everyone trying to convince us of stuff using this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gha2PXm_ip4
And when they realized we were catching on, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqEjnUkbB-Y
And every "I know you know I know you know..." thing that this wonderful trend has blossomed into (I'm specifically looking at the "Daft Punk 'Cancels' on Colbert" ad-in-the-middle-of-the-program, if just because I was actually watching for that).


I blame the BS "get a college degree and you'll get a good job" spoken at the same time as slashing benefits and pensions. Once pensions were cut, employee loyalty was lost, yielding higher turnover. Higher turnover means more spent on hiring new employees, less benefits offered because of the added costs. Less benefits, less loyalty and now employers stop paying for training, which means that even the entry level positions require experience. Which sucks for anyone trying to start a career, but what about the employees already in the workforce? Those in their 60's that were expecting to retire by now are still working because their benefits are gone and they need the income, but the employer they've been with for the last ten or twenty years can't afford to pay for their seniority any more, so they are given the "opportunity" of applying for a lower position, which they get because they have the experience and even though it pays less than their experience is worth, they need the money. Which means that the person passed up for that position ends up doing the same, taking a job that they are over qualified for because they need the income and whatever benefits they can get, so you get a domino effect down the ladder, each rung now filled up with overqualified, underpaid employees and thousands of people trying to reach the bottom rung.

So when Gen Y gets out of college and can't get an entry level position with the degree they just sold their soul for, perhaps they have a valid reason for being unhappy that goes a bit above and beyond "No one else thinks I'm special".

What a fuckknuckle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10363
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to mention the fact we've had all kinds of shitty legislation passed, like how husbands and wives can't consolidate student debt as readily, I think you need like $75,000+ or more to consolidate, if it's even possible. So you have people forced out of necessity to take whatever comes along soonest.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17175
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok, on reading further news stories on the navy yard shooting, it appears he did start shooting at unarmed people, and shot the security guard later.

it also looks like he may have been delusional

so i'm not convinced that you can take the argument "he chose a place where he knew people wouldn't shoot back" too far when you are talking about someone who believes he is being followed by people who are trying to keep him awake by sending vibrations into his body via microwave machine.

the 1st story notes that virginia state law prevented him from buying an AK-15, but selling him a shotgun and ball-bearing-like ammo was OK (this is the one he used to kill most of the people with).

but one is still left with questions like: how was it OK for him to buy any gun? how did he get a security clearance? and when are we going to start thinking maybe it would be better to make it harder rather than easier for anyone and everyone to get a gun?

this story seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle....but it does make one wonder if it is really realistic to expect that regular people will be able to stop someone in a situation like the navy yard...
_________________
aka: neverscared!


Last edited by mouse on Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1832
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
actually, they explicitly contradict what CTrees said. here, let me show you:

CTrees wrote:
You realize that stateside military bases are gun-free zones, right? The gates have armed guards, as do brigs, armories, etc., and training exercises may involve guns, but otherwise they are strictly banned?

Quote:
NBC News' Pete Williams noted that many people are authorized to carry firearms at Navy Yard.


so clearly the place wasn't a gun-free zone.


NBC News' Pete Williams noted that many people are authorized to carry firearms at Navy Yard. Do you believe that everyone who was authorized to carry firearms on that facility was present on that facility at the time of the shooting and was also carrying the firearms they were so authorized?



Please say yes.

Quote:
and
CTrees wrote:
What this guy and Nidal Hassan did were essentially shooting up office buildings. There victims are disarmed....So yes, this is another example of "these kinds of shootings never happen in places where the gunman knows there might be people with weapons around."


is refuted by:

Quote:
He shot a security officer in the head, killing him, and took his 9 mm pistol and a magazine of ammunition.


so he didn't avoid armed people, he started by seeking out and shooting an armed person.

see how that works?


He went to the one guy who he knew had a weapon (it wasn't his first day on the job, so he knew how many armed people were on duty and where that person would be) and eliminated him. Abhorrent, but tactically sound. Knowing that he had taken out the lone nearby threat, he then essentially shot up a bunch of offices.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1832
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:

CA has some of the most onerous licensing requirements in the country, not to protect people, but to scoop up as much revenue as possible while ensuring that politically connected business owners are protected from 'unfair competition.' These laws tend also to cause no small amount of harm to the poor and to minorities, but I'm sure that's more the fault of all the Republicans running things in the Golden State.


you mean the one who steadfastly refused to allow any sort of tax increase, so the only way the state could increase revenues was to raise fees? you are probably right.


Oh, right. Poor California. Strapped with only between $100 and $120 billion of other people's money each year for the last five years to work with. How could anyone survive on such a pittance?


when you are trying to pay off about $1 trillion in debt, due in part to a poor law on property taxes (and declining tax returns in general) - "pittance" turns out to be pretty apt. (it's a pretty large state, you know - i realize you east-coast types have trouble with that, but we have over 10% of the US population living here - they all add up.)


Break out the tiny violin. Never enough of other peoples' money to spend, is there? Especially after losing about 5% of the state's total number of businesses between Dec. 2011-Dec. 2012.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're never going to live in your libertarian dream paradise you know.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17175
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:

He went to the one guy who he knew had a weapon (it wasn't his first day on the job, so he knew how many armed people were on duty and where that person would be) and eliminated him. Abhorrent, but tactically sound. Knowing that he had taken out the lone nearby threat, he then essentially shot up a bunch of offices.


tactically sound, yes - but completely opposed to the argument that such shooters only go to places where they know no one will shoot them. if you know someone may possibly shoot you, but you go there anyway, you haven't been dissuaded by the presence of armed people who may shoot you.


Mindslicer wrote:
Do you believe that everyone who was authorized to carry firearms on that facility was present on that facility at the time of the shooting

yes, Mindslicer. i totally believe that every single person who works at that facility was there at same time Rolling Eyes

it doesn't matter even not one single person who was authorized to carry a weapon on the premises was there at the time. CTrees was saying that all military installations are gun-free zones, i.e., that no one (other than the guards at the gate) is authorized to carry guns there. if even one person can carry a gun inside the base, then it isn't a gun-free zone. because, you know, people are authorized to carry guns there. if it's a gun-free zone, no one is authorized to carry guns.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17175
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:

CA has some of the most onerous licensing requirements in the country, not to protect people, but to scoop up as much revenue as possible while ensuring that politically connected business owners are protected from 'unfair competition.' These laws tend also to cause no small amount of harm to the poor and to minorities, but I'm sure that's more the fault of all the Republicans running things in the Golden State.


you mean the one who steadfastly refused to allow any sort of tax increase, so the only way the state could increase revenues was to raise fees? you are probably right.


Oh, right. Poor California. Strapped with only between $100 and $120 billion of other people's money each year for the last five years to work with. How could anyone survive on such a pittance?


when you are trying to pay off about $1 trillion in debt, due in part to a poor law on property taxes (and declining tax returns in general) - "pittance" turns out to be pretty apt. (it's a pretty large state, you know - i realize you east-coast types have trouble with that, but we have over 10% of the US population living here - they all add up.)


Break out the tiny violin. Never enough of other peoples' money to spend, is there? Especially after losing about 5% of the state's total number of businesses between Dec. 2011-Dec. 2012.


did you even read that article?

Quote:
To put that in perspective, Massachusetts lost 5,200 businesses, the second-highest amount, and Kansas had 3.1 percent fewer businesses in 2012 than in 2011, the second-highest loss rate.


Quote:
What gives? “It’s more likely the disappearance of a number of businesses than it is businesses leaving California,” says Kevin Klowden, an economist at the Milken Institute’s California Center. The state was hard hit by the Great Recession, Klowden continues, and businesses may still be shuttering in a hangover from tougher economic times. It could also be the case of an improving job market luring entrepreneurs of necessity away from their businesses, a trend that’s shown up in national data on new business starts.


by the way, i checked your (clearly unbiased!) source for those 'onorous' CA licenses. i'm kinda wondering about some of the things they say:
Quote:
Few states emulate California's onerous licensing of construction trades. California imposes four years of education and experience requirements with attendant fees and examinations on would-be workers.


you gotta admit, it's pretty impressive that all the illegals that have worked in construction all these years have met those standards!

Quote:
Of the 13 states that license pharmacy technicians, only four -- California included -- have an education and experience requirement. California, Arizona and Illinois each require two years of training. Of the 46 states that license teachers' assistants, only 10 have an education and training requirement. California's -- at two years -- is the longest, tied with five other states.


i don't know about you - but i'm kinda happy that my state requires pharmacy technicians to have an education. i also think it's a good thing that teacher's assistants have some education and training, since they are in there helping educate the next generation. probably just me, though.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good lord that NYT article was terrible about anything relating to firearms. Virginia does require residency to purchase centerfire weapons, but as usual, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle (my range actually has an M16, one of the versions that really is an assault rifle, and they are seriously hard for a civilian to obtain). The Remington 870 is one of the two most common pump shotguns in the country (along with the Mossberg 500). It looks like this. "Law-enforcement-style" is absurd. The writer continues, "he used shotgun shells that had roughly a dozen large ball-bearing-like shots in them, increasing their lethal nature." So... normal buckshot. Just like you might use for hunting (the "buck" part is referencing male deer). As to the (unnamed) official talking about shotgun patterning, here is a look at the spread of an equivalent shotgun, using a variety of different buckshot loads, and various distances, with pictures. At 20yrds (the closest range tested to what Aaron Alexis was probably doing with the shooting down into the cafeteria), the spread is about a foot, give or take due to different brands/styles. Basically, most of a man's chest - not some extreme cone of death like the article makes it out to be.

I'm sorry, but it takes a minimal amount of effort to get these things right, so if a publication the size of the New York Times contains blatant errors and misleading statements, especially on a story of this high a profile? It seems like they are intentionally trying to make the weapons used seem scarier, as anti-gun propaganda.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17175
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wow - i guess since they got all that stuff wrong about the gun and all, nobody really got killed, right?

because 'only' taking a man's chest out - that's nothing.

dude....the point is, he could still buy something that let him take out a mess of people, even though it was illegal for him to buy something _else_ that would have let him take out a mess of people.

do you understand that, whatever the NYTimes got right or wrong about the actual weapons, PEOPLE ARE DEAD?

how does your post change that basic fact? how does your post help us figure out ways to keep that from happening again, and again, and again?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10363
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Children children, I think we need to settle on some definitions.

I'm not sure how it works with the rest of the federal Government, but I do know how it works to some degree with federally owned buildings, from having worked in and around federal parks.

I asked one of the Park Rangers (federal employees) why there were so many gun prohibition signs on all the buildings (including the bathrooms). He explained that by default, ALL FEDERAL BUILDINGS are gun-free zones, BUT you can carry one if you have a special certification AND are on duty (so even if you have the cert, not on duty= you in deep doodie). He said even if someone were to go into a single stall bathroom (there were four of these in the one park; the entire "building" was a single person bathroom stall) with a firearm, even if they normally would be allowed to elsewhere (with say a state issued concealed carry permit) they could still be brought up on federal charges. Considering this conversation took place in an area set aside for camping, this wasn't really that uncommon of an issue, I saw lots of people carrying firearms when I worked for the canoe livery.

tl;dr "gun-free" is a misnomer since there are always exceptions.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1832
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:

He went to the one guy who he knew had a weapon (it wasn't his first day on the job, so he knew how many armed people were on duty and where that person would be) and eliminated him. Abhorrent, but tactically sound. Knowing that he had taken out the lone nearby threat, he then essentially shot up a bunch of offices.


tactically sound, yes - but completely opposed to the argument that such shooters only go to places where they know no one will shoot them. if you know someone may possibly shoot you, but you go there anyway, you haven't been dissuaded by the presence of armed people who may shoot you.


Mindslicer wrote:
Do you believe that everyone who was authorized to carry firearms on that facility was present on that facility at the time of the shooting

yes, Mindslicer. i totally believe that every single person who works at that facility was there at same time Rolling Eyes

it doesn't matter even not one single person who was authorized to carry a weapon on the premises was there at the time. CTrees was saying that all military installations are gun-free zones, i.e., that no one (other than the guards at the gate) is authorized to carry guns there. if even one person can carry a gun inside the base, then it isn't a gun-free zone. because, you know, people are authorized to carry guns there. if it's a gun-free zone, no one is authorized to carry guns.


Oh, well then no place in America is really a gun-free zone, since the police can always carry their service weapons into them while on duty. Guess you're right after all, derpedy doo!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10363
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
CTrees wrote:
As more information about the shooter's arrests comes out, I'm really wondering how this guy got/kept a security clearance. Given how minor some of the stuff we've had people lose clearances over is, I would have thought he'd be excluded, no question. This is beyond "why was he still able to buy a gun" - the fact that he could still work on Secret contracts is disconcerting.

Yeah, I wanna say the root is less about gun control and more about failing of the criminal justice institutions for not properly recognizing the potential need for this guy to receive mental healthcare treatment.

SO looks like I was right, the U.S. generally shitty track record of dealing with serious mental issues was at the core of this:

U.S. Navy was warned that Washington shooter 'heard voices'

Quote:
Police in Newport, Rhode Island, were so concerned about Alexis' behavior on a business trip there in August that they alerted Navy police. Alexis told police he believed people were following him and "sending vibrations into his body," according to a Newport police report. He told police that he had twice moved hotels to avoid the noise he heard coming through the floor and the ceiling of his rooms, and that the people following him were using "some sort of microwave machine" to prevent him from sleeping.

"Based on the naval base implications and the claim that the involved subject, one (Aaron Alexis) was 'hearing voices,' I made contact with the on-duty Naval Station police," a Newport police officer wrote, adding that he faxed his report of the incident to Navy police.

The Newport police report said Navy police had promised to check if Alexis was in fact a naval base contractor. Asked for comment, a spokesman said the Navy was looking into the matter, without confirming any details.

In addition, CNN reported that Alexis had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals recently and was believed to be seeking psychological help.

"Initial reports indicate that this is an individual who may have had some mental health problems," U.S. President Barack Obama told Spanish-language network Telemundo. "The fact that we do not have a firm enough background check system is something that makes us more vulnerable to these kinds of mass shootings."

The Navy gave Alexis an honorable discharge despite a series of eight to 10 misconduct charges, ranging from traffic offenses to disorderly conduct.

. . .

"The latest background check and security clearance confirmation were in late June of 2013 and revealed no issues other than one minor traffic violation," The Experts, an information technology company, said in a statement.

Alexis was arrested on September 4, 2010, in Fort Worth, Texas, on a misdemeanor charge of discharging a firearm. He was also arrested in Seattle in 2004 for shooting out a construction worker's car tires in an anger-fueled "blackout" triggered by perceived "disrespect," police said. In 2008, he was cited for disorderly conduct in DeKalb County, Georgia, when he was kicked out of a club for damaging furnishings and cursing.

In each case, the charges were dropped.


Full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-usa-navy-shooting-idUSBRE98F0DN20130918

Yeah, this was the result of a widespread and deeply entrenched failing of our system, both in dealing with and properly addressing people with mental health issues as well as having a reliable and trustworthy background check system.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 734, 735, 736 ... 815, 816, 817  Next
Page 735 of 817

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group