Slashdot Mirror


Ricin Tainted Letter Sent to Senator and Possibly the President

An anonymous reader writes "A letter addressed to Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) was tested and found to contain ricin, a highly toxic, inexpensive, and easily produced substance derived from castor beans. The letter was intercepted at the U.S. Capitol's off-site mail facility and nobody has been injured. The letter was postmarked Memphis, Tennessee, but listed no return address. Sen. Claire McCaskill told reporters that a suspect has been identified." And, this morning, a letter addressed to the President was discovered containing a suspicious substance. Update: 04/17 16:25 GMT by U L : And the substance is ricin. Apparently, air filters at another facility have also tested positive for ricin.

62 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. Pres letter does have Ricin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Pres letter does have Ricin. by rwa2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Oh Pollux" - says some Brit constellation.

  2. Profile of attacker already available.. by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its someone stupid enough to think a Senator opens his own mail. (Shamelessly stolen from Twitter)

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Profile of attacker already available.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also an odd set of choices. The senator, going by his interest group endorsements and voting record, is pretty much a stock Missisippi conservative. Apparently a trifle too fond of earmarks to be a real hit with team Tea Party; but solid numbers on pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax. The choice of him and the president(Obama's reputation for liberalism is only deserved in certain areas; but boy is it ever persistent...) just seems rather dissonant.

      As an expression of general distaste, you'd expect them to hit the president and, say, the majority and minority leaders, or the Appropriations Commitee. As an expression of a specific ideology, you'd expect targets that are all opposed to it...

    2. Re:Profile of attacker already available.. by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also... what exactly does skin contact with ricin do?

      According to this, nothing:

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/17/ricin-scare-in-washington-fast-facts-about-the-deadly-poison/

    3. Re:Profile of attacker already available.. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      As an expression of a specific ideology, you'd expect targets that are all opposed to it...

      If, for instance, it was another unhinged left-winger (they seem to be the majority of attackers), he could point to Obama and this GOP guy as both being far too right-wing.

      A right wing whacko could call the GOP guy a Rhino and hate Obama on principle.

      But ... mailed from Memphis and targeting an unfamous Mississipi Congressman? Right, there's no chance one of his disgruntled constituents got into the car for a bit "so they will never suspect" him.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. Here we go again by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounding a little too much like the 9-11 era all over again (which was punctuated by the anthrax mailings) just on a much smaller scale, overall. Though I think it's likely to be totally domestic this time (including the "main event"; in this case, the Boston marathon).

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:Here we go again by briancox2 · · Score: 2

      Yeah. And unfortunately those bombings are likely to lead to Bomb Control legistlation. Damnit. =/

      Just cuz that would have prevented these deaths, ya know.

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    2. Re:Here we go again by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any links to stormfront you want to share?
      Those are not exactly trustworthy nor impartial websites.

    3. Re:Here we go again by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      If we could create legislation that could keep unstable people from bombs, we would. Since we can with guns, we will.

      Really? The owner of the guns in the CT killings would have passed any of the newly proposed background checks. She owned the guns legally. They were stolen from her by someone not allowed to have the, who killed her before moving on to kill other people and himself. Which restraint on the 2nd being tossed around would have prevented that crazy guy from being crazy? Please be specific. Thanks.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it's obviously false flag. Or obviously Middle Eastern. Or obviously domestic. Or obviously FBI-inspired conspirators that they didn't stop in time. Or any other "obviously" thing. *eyeroll*

    5. Re:Here we go again by gman003 · · Score: 2

      How so?

      The ricin letters make for a terrible false flag. The security measures put in place after the anthrax letters are pretty much stopping them, and they already claim to have a suspect. Assuming the goal of the false-flag op was to garner support for increased security measures, it's a complete failure.

      A better false-flag op would have continued the bombings in more locations. Make it look like, without further reducing our liberties, the authorities will be completely unable to stop the attacks.

    6. Re:Here we go again by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm truly curious what background check will keep someone from stealing another person's legally obtained weapon?

      Are you suggesting that if you have a family member with issues (I wanted to type "crazy", but that's derogatory IMO) then you shouldn't be able to pass a background check? Where does this kind of logic end and what personal liberties are you willing to forgo to allow a database of this size to happen?

    7. Re:Here we go again by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Are you suggesting that if you have a family member with issues (I wanted to type "crazy", but that's derogatory IMO) then you shouldn't be able to pass a background check?

      Either that or you should be required to keep the firearms locked up in a safe, and that person should not be allowed to know how to unlock said safe. Same goes for anyone with children in the house who are under the age of ten or so.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Here we go again by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Keeping guns locked up is a good idea, and not having guns in a house with people with known mental instabilities is an even better idea. I'm just not sure we need to spend legislative effort on creating laws. We should enforce the current ones, although getting rid of the gun show loophole is a good idea.

    9. Re:Here we go again by unrtst · · Score: 2

      According to the state you don't have a right to drive a vehicle. BTW, if a license is required to do something it's not a right.

      Wrong on at least two counts.

      You need a license to drive a vehicle ON PUBLIC ROADS. That may seem like a trivial detail to you, but it makes all the difference when your framing this as a rights issue. Plenty of farms, for example, have underage (under legal driving age) people, and adults, driving vehicles all over their farm without a license.

      As others have pointed out, a licensing requirement does not mean something is not a right.

    10. Re:Here we go again by ubermiester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You miss the point of background checks. It is not to stop individual crimes. It is to make it harder - ON AVERAGE - for people with a history of violent and/or criminal behavior to acquire firearms. Think abusive spouses who don't like their ex's being with someone new. Or a stalker who wants to take their obsession to the next level. Or a thug with a record who wants to pick up the latest in thug technology. WIthout a federal background check, states that allow people to carry concealed weapons into bars and schools in the name of "freedom" would do nothing to stop such individuals from acquiring firearms.

      The 20 children killed in the Newtown massacre (say that out loud if you are unsure of why people want action) are a drop in the bucket when it comes to gun violence. THOUSANDS have been killed by guns since then, and many of those crimes would almost certainly not have occurred if the US had two things: 1) effective and universal gun regulations, 2) a less fanatical obsession with violence as a solution to people's problems (think "War on ___" or how every "action" movie poster includes someone holding a weapon). I am not one to shy away from criticizing the entertainment industry for their pandering, and hope the increasing number of large-scale public tragedies involving guns will begin to turn the tide against this long-standing trend.

      But i digress.

      The ridiculous meme that says something like: "Chicago has strict gun laws and they have lots of gun violence" completely ignores the fact that many if not all of the guns used in Chicago come from outside the city's jurisdiction. The same goes for NY, Washington DC, Miami, etc. These cities know what the problem is, but they cant do anything about it because neighboring states ignore it in the name of "freedom". Recent studies have shown that a large percentage of the guns used in NY-Metro area crimes originate as legit purchases in states like Virginia where the gun lobby has fear-mongered the local legislature away from even the most basic regulations.

      Consider what would happen if you couldn't go to a "gun show" in someone's backyard and pick up a bunch of handguns to sell on the black market in Chicago. Where would the average street thug get their weapons? Russian arms dealers? 3D printing? Granted there are plenty of weapons already out there, but is "it's hard so what's the point" really an excuse?

      And background checks do not address the problem of what you can buy once you pass. Why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds and a 30-round magazine?!? For that entire heard of delicious armor-plated deer you ran out of standard rounds trying to slaughter? To shoot at UN tanks when they invade Idaho?

      Please explain...

    11. Re:Here we go again by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Any links to stormfront you want to share?

      You could have done something useful like provide a link yourself, as it is trivially easy information to find, or a counter-point. Instead you go, predictably, to the smear. It would be great if you would make a positive contribution.

      Al Qaeda magazine on pressure cookers: ‘Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom’
      Boston Marathon bombs: al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine taught pressure cooker bomb-making techniques

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Here we go again by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      How fucking effective do you really believe your proposed laws would be? Good Lord, somebody WHO IS GOING TO SHOOT SOMEONE WOULDN'T FUCKING CARE THAT IT'S ALSO ILLEGAL TO NOT LOCK UP GUNS

      Uh... you're conflating two different people. The purpose of such laws would be to reduce the likelihood of theft of guns that can be used by someone else to shoot people.

      People are required to stop their cars at stop signs, too. They DON'T, and usually nothing happens to them.

      Most people do, and even the ones who don't stop generally come close enough to get the job done. And most people do it not because they might get caught, but because the existence of those signs is an indication that safety necessitates a stop at that particular intersection. Laws don't have to work perfectly 100% of the time to be effective at reducing harm. Therefore, those traffic laws do, in fact, work as intended. I can't see any valid argument why these would not work similarly well.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:Here we go again by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ridiculous meme that says something like: "Chicago has strict gun laws and they have lots of gun violence" completely ignores the fact that many if not all of the guns used in Chicago come from outside the city's jurisdiction. The same goes for NY, Washington DC, Miami, etc.

      Then why don't the cities around them have the same level of gun violence? The problem with these cities - and the entire country if the politicians have their way - is that honest people do not have guns to defend themselves against people that illegally obtain them.

      Your comment is the perfect example of "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

    14. Re:Here we go again by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 2

      I also can't remember a massive terror attack on Canada. There are a lot of things we can learn from the Canadians. Stay out of foreign affairs being the big one.

    15. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where to begin...

      Then why don't the cities around them have the same level of gun violence?

      First of all, your initial premise is completely false, which proves my point about the dangerous nature of such beliefs. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Richmond, VA. at 29 deaths per 100K people and Baltimore, MD. with 33 both have almost 6x (that's right 6 TIMES) the rate of NYC with 5 deaths per 100K. And in New Orleans, which is surrounded by Texas, OKC and Arkansas - states with non-existant regulations - boasts 70 deaths per 100K. That's more than 3 times the rate of Chicago (18/100K) and 10 times the rate of NYC.

      So please get that particular falsehood out of your head.

      honest people do not have guns to defend themselves against people that illegally obtain them

      And where exactly do you think the "dishonest" people get their guns? They get them from the black market, which is fed by the loophole infested legit market. If the legit market is reduced drastically, where exactly will the black market acquire all those weapons? From shady Russian arms dealers? Amazon?

      Again, please explain.

    16. Re:Here we go again by Obfuscant · · Score: 2
      And where exactly do you think the "dishonest" people get their pot? They get it from the black market, which is fed by the loophole infested legit market. If the legit market is reduced drastically, where exactly will the black market acquire all that pot? Ummm, wait, what "legit market"? I don't think the current medical pot market is where all the people get their pot. It seems there is a black market that finds ways of meeting the demand.

      And where exactly do you think the "dishonest" people get their liquor? They get it from the black market, which is fed by the loophole infested legit market. If the legit market is reduced drastically, where exactly will the black market acquire all that pot? Umm, during prohibition, there was no "legit market" to feed the demand, moonshiners and rum runners stepped in, along with bathtub gin makers and organized crime. Prohibited meant "costs more, riskier to get", not actually unavailable.

      And where exactly do you think the "dishonest" people get their methamphetamine? They get it from the black market, which is fed by the loophole infested legit market. If the legit market is reduced drastically, where exactly will the black market acquire all that methamphetamine? There is no legit market for meth, it's all from people who have stepped up to fill the demand.

      But please don't let history cloud the argument with examples of the failure of prohibition-type laws. Please do believe that simply making one more law will make you safe in your home at night. That's exactly what the criminals want you to think, and they thank you for your support.

      In recent memory, there is only one time a shooter wound up in a place that someone could actually legally carry a weapon to defend himself, and that was the shooter in the Clackamas Mall. All the other times they go to places where honest people are prohibited from carrying a gun to defend themselves. Why do you think that is? Why do you want to make it harder for people to defend themselves from the criminals who you cannot stop from getting and using guns?

      And, as for the Clackamas shooting, perhaps you'd like to know that Oregon has no gun show loophole, so he wasn't stopped by having "just one more law". Nor was the death of the girl in Oregon City prevented by the lack of a loophole.

    17. Re:Here we go again by djlowe · · Score: 2

      Umm driving a car isn't a right.

      Alas, if only we had an amendment in the Bill of Rights that clearly said the delineation of certain rights did not mean other rights were not equally valid ...

      Alas, if only that were the only Amendment to consider. The Tenth Amendment mentions something about rights not ennumerated, I think.

      People tend to dissect the Constitution to support their own beliefs, when in truth it needs to considered as a whole in order to fully appreciate it and apply it correctly.

      Regards,

      dj

    18. Re:Here we go again by flayzernax · · Score: 2

      But what you don't realize is many people are increasingly becoming convinced we need this branch to keep us safe. They can't fathom the idea of creating their own safety or just accepting that people have bad days. The direction our culture is heading is to be completely authoritarian and have a military organizational structure with the "perfect" soldiers having all the privileges and the imperfect ones serving the lowest classes if being allowed to continue to exist at all. It's the new form of racism without race. I hesitate to call it fascist. But it does seem to be a corporate agenda. Because it serves the most powerful the most and the least powerful the worst. And power in this country is determined solely by monetary wealth at this point.

  4. There is only one option. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Obviously we must ban all Assault Beans. Even though castor beans aren't even really legumes at all. All that matters is that word "bean" is used, which qualifies them as Assault Beans.

    Just because the Lima Bean ban back in the 1990's didn't reduce the number of assault bean attacks doesn't mean that a properly configured law - which we'll have to pass in order to find out what's really in it, of course - won't save "at least one life."

    Next, we'll have to focus on deaths related to soccer and other Assault Sports. I'm looking at you, Kayaking.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:There is only one option. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That... is really not true. A pretty decent chunk of business matters get handled via snail mail (not all or even most by any means, but enough to make it non-negligible). And also, people do still send personal mail (letters and such), as not everyone has internet nor wants to. Call them foolish if you want, but they are still using the service for non-spam reasons.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:There is only one option. by ScentCone · · Score: 3

      But ricin is a banned substance, right?

      Right, just like shooting people is a banned act.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  5. Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I imagine he gets these every single day. It goes with the job.

    Oh, wait, we have to take advantage of the bombings! We're still at war with Eastasia, remember!

    This whole every-aspect-of-our-lives-must-be-in-the-context-of-1984 conspiracy stuff has really gotten out of hand ...

    1. Re:Wow ... by cffrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I imagine he gets these every single day. It goes with the job.

      Oh, wait, we have to take advantage of the bombings! We're still at war with Eastasia, remember!

      This whole every-aspect-of-our-lives-must-be-in-the-context-of-1984 conspiracy stuff has really gotten out of hand ...

      Has it? I think the actual government-using-1984-as-an-instruction-manual stuff has gotten far more out of hand than your particular gripe.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    2. Re:Wow ... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      I imagine he gets these every single day. It goes with the job.

      Oh, wait, we have to take advantage of the bombings! We're still at war with Eastasia, remember!

      This whole every-aspect-of-our-lives-must-be-in-the-context-of-1984 conspiracy stuff has really gotten out of hand ...

      To true. There's clearly a lone nut out there who thinks they are doing something God wants or their personal politics dictate and killing people is how they accomplish their mission. I hope they are found and boxed up securely and as soon as possible.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Wow ... by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      To true. There's clearly a lone nut out there who thinks they are doing something God wants or their personal politics dictate and killing people is how they accomplish their mission. I hope they are found and boxed up securely and as soon as possible.

      Of course...but that doesn't mean they're not taking advantage of the bombings to blow this story out of proportion, followed by some sort of power grab.

      Me? I'm still reeling from the fact that he didn't have to go through Airport security to be able to do this. Does that mean the TSA is a sham, that terrorists aren't powerless if they can't get on an Aircraft? That would mean the whole "organized terrorist" thing is a lie, that they don't exist. Say it ain't so!

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Wow ... by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 2

      I hope they are found and strung up by the neck in the square for all to see. Yes IAARNS (I am a red neck southerner)

    5. Re:Wow ... by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, snap! I see what you did there. You compared one person wanting to imprison another person with one person murdering 3 people and injuring 170+- more. Clearly your perspective is the proper one.

      --
      Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
  6. So that's where the ricin went! by TechieRefugee · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've been wondering about that! Man, Walter trying to kill the president?! The finale of Breaking Bad is gonna kick ass!

  7. Half-wits know better than this by erroneus · · Score: 2

    If someone wanted to get a piece of [tainted] paper into physical contact with the president or other important US political figure, sending it using the mail system is not the way to do it and I should think it would be more than obvious to anyone. Even without specific knowledge of the fact, various sniffing technologies can and should naturally be presumed as part of the normal mail screening and sorting processes. And even without that, isn't it hard to imagine the president actually opening his own mail?! He must receive 50lbs or mail or more a day from all the concerned citizens and crackpots out there. No way HE goes through it all personally. In which case, even without sniffing and detection technologies, it would likely get to someone else first.

    So the perpetrator was either immeasurably stupid and thoughtless or this is something else.... more 'theater' for another cause supporting the loss of freedom and liberty.... or both.

    1. Re:Half-wits know better than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, this has to be theater. Guaranteed to fail in the objective of hurting someone, but guaranteed to succeed to ratchet up the public's fear level due to a scaremongering press.

    2. Re:Half-wits know better than this by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Because if it wasn't crude or primitive, the public fear would be that we have a sophisticated enemy rather than one we are all "better than."

      The Russians were a fearsome enemy because they were just about as advanced as we were... equals in many respects. Better enemies are the ones we feel superior to like the Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis and Afghanis.

    3. Re:Half-wits know better than this by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      If someone wanted to get a piece of [tainted] paper into physical contact with the president or other important US political figure, sending it using the mail system is not the way to do it and I should think it would be more than obvious to anyone. Even without specific knowledge of the fact, various sniffing technologies can and should naturally be presumed as part of the normal mail screening and sorting processes. And even without that, isn't it hard to imagine the president actually opening his own mail?! He must receive 50lbs or mail or more a day from all the concerned citizens and crackpots out there. No way HE goes through it all personally. In which case, even without sniffing and detection technologies, it would likely get to someone else first.

      So the perpetrator was either immeasurably stupid and thoughtless or this is something else.... more 'theater' for another cause supporting the loss of freedom and liberty.... or both.

      Never underestimate the stupidity of people.

    4. Re:Half-wits know better than this by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the perpetrator was either immeasurably stupid and thoughtless

      Do you really think that is implausible?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. How do they test for this? by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are we seriously testing all mail coming to members of Congress for poisons? How the hell is this accomplished in a reasonable amount of time, with reasonable accuracy, and how much is it costing us?

    How about we build a robot that opens the mail, scans the pages into digital form, and skip all that ludicrous bullshit?

  9. Re:So? by sycodon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have you noticed that whenever something bad happens in America, to normal people, the next day or the same day, a letter with a "suspicious substance" is sent to a politician in D.C.?

    They must have a special unit called "All About Us" that just sends these out as needed.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  10. The name of the suspect is... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Funny

    one Walter White, described as a mild-mannered, former High School Chemistry teacher.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  11. Re:You're An Idiot by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're a moron, ricin is listed ...

    And shooting people is already listed in a thousand different ways as illegal. Banning the objects to prevent what actions some few people might take is exactly what breathless politicians are screaming for. They know it's meaningless, and you know it's meaningless. Just like banning the objects from which ricin is made is meaningless.

    Take your failed attempts at political satire...

    The satire is all you, buddy. You just don't realize it.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  12. Idiot Status Reaffirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And shooting people is already listed in a thousand different ways as illegal. Banning the objects to prevent what actions some few people might take is exactly what breathless politicians are screaming for. They know it's meaningless, and you know it's meaningless. Just like banning the objects from which ricin is made is meaningless.

    You really are stupid, you know that? We're not proposing a ban on steel, we're proposing a ban on the ultimate object that makes pulling a trigger the difference between life and death. Just like castor beans aren't illegal to walk around with sacks of but it is illegal to walk around with sacks of ricin because it is the final product that allows that person to cause death quickly and without much effort.

    Are you saying that ricin, a schedule 1 substance, should be sold to whoever wants it because the act of using it to kill people is already illegal?

    The fact that I have to explain this to you really illustrates the frustration of this whole gun control debate. I bet the whole concept of "weaponized" is lost on you when we're talking about mustard and ricin, isn't it?

    1. Re:Idiot Status Reaffirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      we're proposing a ban on the ultimate object that makes pulling a trigger the difference between life and death.

      Ah, so you're proposing a ban on people. I approve!

  13. Re:Jessie! What have you done? by BluPhenix316 · · Score: 2

    I was thinking exactly the same thing. Someone has been watching too much Breaking Bad.

  14. Re:Castor Bean Control by cellocgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are pressure cookers used in the production of ricin from castor beans? Because when pressure cookers are outlawed, only outlaws will pressure cook!

    No need for that -- after the Boston Marathon incident, anyone even entering Acme Kitchen Supplies stores will go on the terrorist watch list.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  15. McAfee claims tons of ricin smuggled in by Mexico by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 2
    http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2013/01/07/john_mcafee_spymaster/

    John McAfee made some far-out claims a few months ago about Mexican cartels helping Muslim terrorists smuggle tons of ricin into the USA.

    Let's hope to all that's holy that he was just bat-shit crazy and the allegations are not true, because if they are then thousands of people could be killed by the alleged "tons of ricin"

  16. Meta Slashdot Crisis Post: by Hartree · · Score: 2

    It is blatantly obvious that if only we had $Politically_Impossible_Ineffective_Action_Advocated_for_Unrelated_Reasons, this tragedy would have been avoided.

    Those who are blaming $Different_Reason_For_Different_Unrelated_Reasons, are just cynically using the current crisis for their own political gain!

  17. John McAfee predicted it by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reminds me of this story: John McAfee predicted it a few months ago. Just like his software, he couldn't stop anything.

    McAfee is a bit crazy, but if he's right, then the corrupt Belize government along with Nicaragua helped Hezbollah and Iran commit terrorist attacks in the US with ricin. Yeah, it sounds crazy.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  18. Re:Let's ban! by moeinvt · · Score: 2

    Excellent point. One that I've been attempting to make repeatedly with my unresponsive elected asshatz and anyone else who will listen. Emotional anecdotes are a ridiculous basis for public policy. If some serial child rapist escapes justice because the police obtained evidence with an illegal search, that doesn't mean that we need to undermine the 4th Amendment so that no child rapist ever escapes justice.

    Yes, the murders and attempted murders in Boston clearly demonstrate that a person intent on violence and mass murder will find a way to do it, with or without firearms. In a free society, people can and will abuse their freedoms. Unfortunately, there are many people who would obviously prefer the "safety" of a total police state as opposed to endure the entirely minuscule risks associated with freedom.

    From your first paragraph, maybe the problem is the public schools not teaching people about the concept of probability or statistical likelihood?

  19. Re:Let's ban! by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    you're completely full of shit

    Really? Here's a typical Hollywood type on the subject:

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/actor-blames-boston-attack-on-gun-culture-2nd-amendment-must-go/

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  20. Re:Ricin by idontgno · · Score: 2

    I hear snu-snu isn't bad. Well, I mean it's bad, but in a good way.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  21. You're joking, but... by sconeu · · Score: 2

    I've seen FB posts saying essentially, "We MUST do something to make sure this can never happen again".

    Apparently, these people want a police state, since that's the only scenario where there's even a reasonable probability of that.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  22. B.S. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

    "Source."

    This is premature BS. This info is based on the first tests, which were not conclusive. That's why your "source" says they are "waiting for further tests results"!!!

  23. Tyrone Biggums by bradgoodman · · Score: 2

    Why do images of Tyrone Biggums opening Senator Daschel's mail come to mind. (Am I dating myself here?!)

  24. Re:Let's ban! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

    You know the statistics support gun control right? Wealthy countries with more gun control than the US have lower fatal homicide and suicide rates.

    Mass shootings are anecdotal, on both sides. There are real statistics, and they're not on your side.

  25. And that is how you fail by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    You miss the point of background checks.

    No we don't. It's for the government to track who has legal guns among people that will not commit crimes.

    It is to make it harder - ON AVERAGE - for people with a history of violent and/or criminal behavior to acquire firearms.

    Well then it's stupid on the face of it because "ON AVERAGE" all criminals simply buy or steal guns illegally anyway, since they don't want something that could be traced back to them. They are criminals after all.

    In the end all you are doing is tracking the people who will ON AVERAGE never commit a crime, and make it harder for them to buy guns than the criminals that may kill them.

    I can't believe that someone on Slashdot is taking the side of the jackboots, so soon after we all feared that civil rights would be further reduced after the Boston bombings. Look no further; reduction is underway. If you are at all about protecting rights you are against further gun regulations; if you are not against gun regulation well then you are just going to have to lay back and take whatever further noxious restrictions result from Boston. Registration when buying kitchen supplies? If gun regulation passes I will be in full support of it, because why go halfway?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:And that is how you fail by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      No. Its to filter out people who should not have guns in the first place.

      And since it cannot possibly help in that regard - fail.

      I'm sorry, but the rest of your post centers around this basic premise that is just plain wrong, I can't really argue past that since you will not recognize your core assertion is utterly flawed.

      And pulling a Goodwin is bullshit when you are in fact exhibiting fascist ideas.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. Re:Castor Bean Control by mythosaz · · Score: 2

    Amazon.

  27. Re:The real dissonance by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Premeditated murder does not mean one is insane.