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 ... 765, 766, 767 ... 822, 823, 824  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: 17309
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

unfortunately, some of us have no choice but to deal with them.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen wrote:
why the fuck do we let any asshole without a felony charge walk around with a gun like this is the wild west?


Well, first, it's quite possible to become a felon without actually being a violent person or a danger to aggressively cause harm on others.

Second, the people who do have violent, dangerous intentions generally aren't deterred by the thought of violating gun possession laws, and that's especially true if their plan for mayhem ends with, 'and then I'll fatally shoot myself.' They do seem to be deterred by the thought of getting gunned down before they can achieve whatever their other goals are, as evidenced by their choice of setting -- elementary school, university, movie theater.

Also, gun violence has been on the decline already, but whatever.

Quote:
Mindslicer wrote:
Maybe federal laws could be as effective as federal drug laws are at keeping drugs out of the hands of people.

You're right, it would be hard so let's just not do anything.


I didn't say anything about how hard or easy passing a law is, just about how effective doing so would be given the history of prohibition-style legislation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17309
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

you might want to read Dogen's comment a little more carefully - he asked why we let anyone WITHOUT a felony charge have a gun. i believe in many instances those with a felony conviction are restricted from owning guns.

i believe he is suggesting that just because someone doesn't have a history of criminal activity doesn't necessarily mean he can be trusted with a gun (viz: retired police captains who shoot people in theaters, for a start).

and there is a bit of difference between banning an addictive substance (like drugs and even alcohol) and banning ownership of an object (unless you are saying gun owners are addicts?)

i will leave it to someone else to dig out all the stuff that shows shooters actively select "safe" areas, rather that the areas they spend a lot of time in (like school); that making it more difficult to get a gun may in fact deter some people, and all the other thing you are still mindlessly repeating despite people rebutting them.

but for now: while gun violence may be down, mass shootings are up. and although our rates are going down, they are still way higher than other developed countries:


and in fact, a lot of the reason gun violence is down is because gun ownership is down (have some studies about this):

(figures from here, which has other useful info as well.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1103
Location: Hel

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/14/262454310/feds-cant-enforce-net-neutrality-what-this-means-for-you?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook
_________________
Greetings, fool mortals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
you might want to read Dogen's comment a little more carefully - he asked why we let anyone WITHOUT a felony charge have a gun. i believe in many instances those with a felony conviction are restricted from owning guns.

i believe he is suggesting that just because someone doesn't have a history of criminal activity doesn't necessarily mean he can be trusted with a gun (viz: retired police captains who shoot people in theaters, for a start).


Right, and I was pointing out that it's possible to become a felon, and thus automatically barred from owning a firearm, without actually being a violent person likely to be a danger to others. Isn't the point of gun control to keep guns out of the hands of 'bad' people, but let 'good' people be able to defend themselves if they so choose?

Quote:
and there is a bit of difference between banning an addictive substance (like drugs and even alcohol) and banning ownership of an object (unless you are saying gun owners are addicts?)


Not when it comes to laws against possession. It doesn't matter why you want X so long as your desire for X is greater than your fear of violating a law banning you from owning X.

Quote:
i will leave it to someone else to dig out all the stuff that shows shooters actively select "safe" areas, rather that the areas they spend a lot of time in (like school); that making it more difficult to get a gun may in fact deter some people, and all the other thing you are still mindlessly repeating despite people rebutting them.

but for now: while gun violence may be down, mass shootings are up.


Mass shootings are up when you carefully control what exactly constitutes a mass shooting, and then selectively violate your own definition.

Quote:
For example, the Mother Jones news organization, having assembled a database of public mass shootings from 1982 through 2012, has reported a recent surge in incidents and fatalities, including a spike and record number of casualties in the year 2012 (Follman, Pan, & Aronsen, 2013).

It is critical to note that Mother Jones did not include all mass shootings in their analysis but instead attempted to delineate those that were senseless, random, or at least public in nature. Mother Jones settled on several criteria for inclusion in its mass shootings database, specifically the following:

•• The shooter took the lives of at least four people;
•• The killings were carried out by a lone shooter;
•• The shootings happened during a single incident and in a public place; and
•• The murders were not related to armed robbery or gang activity.

By virtue of these selection rules, mass shootings involving family members were excluded, even though they too can involve large body counts. Other massive shootings were ignored because of their relation to gang activity or some criminal enterprise.

Not only is Mother Jones’s decision to disqualify cases based on certain criteria that are hard to defend but also the criteria themselves were not necessarily applied consistently (see Fox, 2013). The Columbine mass murder and the Westside Middle School massacre, for example, were included despite the fact that both were carried out by pairs of armed assailants. In response to criticism concerning the definitional concerns, Mother Jones emphasized two main themes: the need to focus more narrowly on “senseless” public shootings and the importance of investigating mass shootings beyond just the incident counts (Follman et al., 2013). Obviously, public shootings are worthy of discussion, but then so are mass killings in families or those that are designed to further some criminal enterprise. Widening the net by including mass shootings in all forms can only add to our understanding of extreme killing.

As it happens, Mother Jones’s claim concerning a rise in mass shootings doesn’t stand when considering the full range of cases. Figure 1 displays the number of mass shooting incidents and victims from 1976 through 2011, based on data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reporting (SHR) program (along with the missing Florida data for 1996-2011 drawn directly from the state’s homicide report records). These reflect all 672 mass shootings with at least four fatalities reported to local law enforcement authorities as part of the routine collection of crime statistics. Unlike the Mother Jones approach, these data do not exclude cases based on motive, location, or victim–offender relationship. They only exclude incidents in which fewer than four victims (other than the assailant) were killed, murders committed with a weapon other than a firearm, or isolated cases that may have occurred in jurisdictions that did not report homicide data to the FBI. In addition, only because of the usual time lag in crime reporting, the figures for 2012 were not yet available.


This study's graph looks like this:



Also, your saying that mass shootings are on the rise at the same time legal gun ownership is decreasing might not be helpful to your cause.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10588
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
unfortunately, some of us have no choice but to deal with them.


Istancow wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/01/14/262454310/feds-cant-enforce-net-neutrality-what-this-means-for-you?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook

An updated report said:

Quote:
Update at 2:58 p.m. ET: Comcast is one of the companies that will be playing by the Open Internet rules through 2018, despite Tuesday's ruling. The company made the agreement in order to get government approval for its acquisition of NBCUniversal "even if the rules were modified by the courts," according to a statement from David L. Cohen, Comcast's executive vice president.


I'm thinking ISP are going to become reclassified as utilities.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12263
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
I'm thinking ISP are going to become reclassified as utilities.

That would require an effective Congress or an FCC that isn't being headed by former Telco lobbyists, so I'm not holding my breath.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:

and in fact, a lot of the reason gun violence is down is because gun ownership is down


Saying "because" here is really hard to justify. Especially since the decline in gun ownership is not very large.

And if you compare the charts you linked you can see violence itself went up and then down during the same period that gun ownership just steadily declined. Which makes little sense if gun ownership is a major causal factor in the amount of violence.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17309
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, ok, correlation <> causation, i guess the studies that were cited were just correlative.

but i would guess it makes sense that general gun violence (using guns during things like robberies, rapes, road-rage incidents, family fights, etc.) would track with gun ownership - if you don't have a gun, or have a hard time getting a gun, you are less likely to get money by armed robbery (maybe going for muggings), you use a knife for your rapes, and family arguments end with more slammed doors and holes in walls than holes in people. availability of weapons is separate from underlying causes of violence. so the rising trend in the 60's and 70's may have less to do with the weapon available, and more to do with other things driving violent activity - differences in levels of gang activity/violence, different economic stresses, whatever. whatever the cause - you surely don't dispute that the u.s. is way above everyone else?

mass shootings, though - they seem to me different. and sure, you can quibble about what is or what isn't a mass shooting - but i would bet that, again, whatever your definition - we have more of them than other countries.

but let's look at it the other way - how would increasing the availability of guns help to change these trends around? what evidence can you present that it would change them?
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10807
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
Well, first, it's quite possible to become a felon without actually being a violent person or a danger to aggressively cause harm on others.

Yes, sometimes people become felons who are not a danger. This does not address the people who are dangers but who aren't felons.

Quote:
Second, the people who do have violent, dangerous intentions generally aren't deterred by the thought of violating gun possession laws, and that's especially true if their plan for mayhem ends with, 'and then I'll fatally shoot myself.' They do seem to be deterred by the thought of getting gunned down before they can achieve whatever their other goals are, as evidenced by their choice of setting -- elementary school, university, movie theater.

Yeah, I mean look at that retired police officer. He could have shot to death anyone who was text messaging, but clearly he chose to shoot a man to death in a movie theater because it was safe for him to do so. I'm glad we're talking about the same thing and you're not just throwing out random anti-gun-control bullet points that have nothing to do with the retired LEO who shot a man to death in a movie theater over nothing.

Quote:
Quote:
Mindslicer wrote:
Maybe federal laws could be as effective as federal drug laws are at keeping drugs out of the hands of people.

You're right, it would be hard so let's just not do anything.


I didn't say anything about how hard or easy passing a law is, just about how effective doing so would be given the history of prohibition-style legislation.

So what was your point, vis-a-vis the retired captain who shot a man to death? That it's just the price of doing business and we should all be cool that apparently no amount of training will keep people who carry guns from randomly killing other people over nothing? I mean, where was this comment going? Laws about other things have been ineffective in the past, so we should stop worrying about how to keep people from killing each other over nothing? I mean... you're whole post reads like an NRA handout. Say something relevant.

Quote:
Right, and I was pointing out that it's possible to become a felon, and thus automatically barred from owning a firearm, without actually being a violent person likely to be a danger to others. Isn't the point of gun control to keep guns out of the hands of 'bad' people, but let 'good' people be able to defend themselves if they so choose?

WTF? I post about a retired police captain who couldn't control himself and you start talking about how we might be unfairly barring non-violent felons from carrying handguns? If we can't use felon status to determine who will and won't kill someone over nothing, and we can't use years of training as an indicator for who will kill someone over nothing, then the problem might be that it's too god damn easy to kill people... right? If there's no reliable method for detecting who is safe to carry a gun and no level of training that makes people safe (i.e., they don't kill people over nothing) then how do we justify letting anyone at all carry a handgun?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1191
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The DEA Struck A Deal With Mexico's Most Notorious Drug Cartel
Quote:
An investigation by El Universal found that between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs while Sinaloa provided information on rival cartels.

Sinaloa, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.

There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered to be "the world’s most powerful drug trafficker," coordinates with American authorities.

But the El Universal investigation is the first to publish court documents that include corroborating testimony from a DEA agent and a Justice Department official.


Also, regarding the police captain who shot someone in the movie theater, the whole story reads to me less like a reason for gun control, and more like a wakeup call for us to be looking at who we let wear a badge.

Not that (reasonable) gun control isn't a good idea, but seriously the fact he was trained to use a gun doesn't exactly point out that people can't be trained to use guns in a safe and sporting manner. Cop firearm training is different than standard civilian range/hunting safety training.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3576
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Standard procedure for consolidation of power and control over undesirable events..

AKA, find the TOP DOG in charge of the most trafficking, befriend that organization, and then get them to rat out their rivals.

Once that phase is complete, it's simply a matter of infiltrating the only "lawful" organization with your own guys/bribees, and gaining control over the entire operation over a long period of time.

Basic thinktank bullshit strategy.



Same thing happened with mobsters really.


Prepare for a reality show called DRUG CARTEL WIFES
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1855
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen, I would say the article about the retired police captain might be an example of how people in positions of power can come to feel above the law.

Edit: And sorry if I missed your point. For some reason, I thought it was this:

Dogen wrote:
Which brings me back to my point: why the fuck do we let any asshole without a felony charge walk around with a gun like this is the wild west?


Another answer to that thing you say is your point is that most people realize that the number of individuals who keep and bear arms don't do so out of a desire to commit crimes. New Hampshire has one of the most liberal gun laws of any state, and bodies don't litter every street 'like this is the old west,' (which is an incorrect assumption anyhow.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10807
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
Dogen, I would say the article about the retired police captain might be an example of how people in positions of power can come to feel above the law.

Edit: And sorry if I missed your point. For some reason, I thought it was this:

Dogen wrote:
Which brings me back to my point: why the fuck do we let any asshole without a felony charge walk around with a gun like this is the wild west?


Another answer to that thing you say is your point is that most people realize that the number of individuals who keep and bear arms don't do so out of a desire to commit crimes. New Hampshire has one of the most liberal gun laws of any state, and bodies don't litter every street 'like this is the old west,' (which is an incorrect assumption anyhow.)

That was my point, which is why it was weird that you took my post about people without felonies and who have training and started talking about people with felonies and didn't speak at all to firearms training. It's like you read it and said, "What group is least like the group he's talking about?"

If you're trying to win style points by correcting the myth about widespread use of guns in the wild west I will direct you to your dictionary entry for "colloquialism." It's a rhetorical phrase intended to succinctly create an understanding of a point, and judging by your response you completely understood (perhaps the only thing in that post you seemed to understand)... which means I'm doing it right. Razz
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So this notion that people who will do violence with guns won't be stopped by mere laws confuses me. I mean, when people say that about pot, that people are going to smoke it anyway, they don't seem to be saying it should be totally unregulated - just that it should be legal. And that is for a victimless crime.

I don't see why guns which don't serve a general purpose (IE: machine guns vs hunting rifles) should not be regulated. Most people can drive cars if they are responsible, but does that mean they should be able to drive a panzer down the street loaded with ammunition.

I also think the argument, "I have to defend myself from the government" is laughable coming from white people. Since we've decided in the US that it is legal to harass, arrest and kill black and hispanic people for no other reason than their race, it seems to me that only POC (and any other relevant minorities) should be granted the right to defend themselves - y'know, since they actually are under attack.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 ... 765, 766, 767 ... 822, 823, 824  Next
Page 766 of 824

 
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