...you need to think "louder" to concentrate on your own thoughts. I'm reminded of the expression "It's so loud in here that I can hardly hear myself think"...
TFA has me confused. My head's just full of perfectly normal, deafening, background screams. The psychic I went to started crying. It's OK as long as I don't start hearing voices, right?
No computation necessary. I have it from the highest authority that the ice caps are growing so much they're setting records. Anything else is FAKE NEWS.
There is a cooling, and there’s a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records. They’re at a record level!
I take it you don't know much about using a rifle.
You'd be right. I've fired, I'm guessing, a couple dozen firearms but do not own one nor am I an expert. I assumed that the shooter knew what he was doing and it seemed intuitive that, when firing into a dense crowd, the rate of fire would affect the victim count more than precision.
I might even agree with you, if you are willing to make 21 the age of adulthood, and restrict all adult activities to that age (Smoking, Drinking, Sex, Voting etc).
Why do you feel like these things should coincide? Driving? Working? Renting a car? Running for president?
So what your saying is that alcohol should be a schedule 1 controlled substance.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that where a drug lands on the Fed's "schedule" is unimportant to its relation to responsible gun use. That's not what the schedule is for. If habitual drunks are a bigger danger concerning guns than pot smokers (they are) then habitual alcohol abuse should be considered with more weight than pot smoking. I think I've said this more than once. Making alcohol Schedule 1 makes about as much sense as making weed Schedule 1 (none). I would be less resistant to defining alcoholism as a preclusive mental illness. Considering a drug's schedule when deciding on allowing a gun purchase makes little sense; considering a person's abuse (e.g. history of DUIs) makes a lot of sense. I'm sorry you're still confused, but I'm starting to think that's a permanent condition.
Buying a guy is already illegal in the US and has been for like 150 years (politicians excepted.) I understand that Nevada has places where you can rent one.
And you're making the point that once the word "controlled" is introduced, all common sense goes out the window. Thank you for being done. This has gotten annoying.
Is alcohol a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling? Is pot a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
Who cares? The word "controlled" is not magic. A history of DUIs should contribute MUCH more to being precluded from gun ownership than a history of pot smoking. Same with legal opioid abuse. I don't give a shit which drug is "controlled" or "scheduled". I care about which drug contributes most to irresponsible gun use.
What about "that means looking at more incidents than just the single most recent" made you think I was focused on guns? Guns have been all over the US for far longer than this barrage of mass shootings. Some gun limitations (I'm thinking Mandalay Bay bump stock) could reduce the level of success the shooters have, but as long as people are deciding to commit mass murder there will continue to be mass murders.
I'm saying that keeping guns out of the hands of drunks makes MUCH more sense than keeping it away from pot smokers. A history of DUIs should be weighted MUCH more heavily than having a medical marijuana patient card. Why does the definition of "controlled" change what's dangerous?
I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should?
No record worse than a couple of traffic tickets. See here.
If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?
Nothing will stop the next shooting; there will be another. But that doesn't mean that trying won't help. The Florida shooter did not use a bump stock (correct me if I'm wrong.) That was the last shooting. The Mandalay Bay shooter did use a bump stock. It seems likely that the damage he did would have been reduced if he hadn't had one. So, banning bump stocks has nothing to do with the last shooting, but seems like a reasonable idea. Nobody's hunting deer with a bump stock. I don't need a bump stock to defend my home from an intruder.
Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict.
Yes with a 'but'. I'm not allowed to own a gun because I'm a pot smoker. Still, handing a gun to me is a MUCH better idea than handing it to a deranged, violent teen.
Something changed in our culture and it wasn't the guns.
I'll agree with you there. It's not like guns are new to the US.
You're right. Why try? Let's start handing out pistols when kids get their driver's license and let them fend for themselves! NOTHING is going to prevent the next shooting, but handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.
It confuses me that some of our lawmakers are saying that laws are pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
...you need to think "louder" to concentrate on your own thoughts. I'm reminded of the expression "It's so loud in here that I can hardly hear myself think"...
TFA has me confused. My head's just full of perfectly normal, deafening, background screams. The psychic I went to started crying. It's OK as long as I don't start hearing voices, right?
What makes the iPhone Superior to... a GoPro or small video camera?
Snapchat filters. During the really intense scenes, the psycho-stalker has a puppy nose and floppy ears to cut the tension.
Kindly share your "quick computation."
No computation necessary. I have it from the highest authority that the ice caps are growing so much they're setting records. Anything else is FAKE NEWS.
There is a cooling, and there’s a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records. They’re at a record level!
I take it you don't know much about using a rifle.
You'd be right. I've fired, I'm guessing, a couple dozen firearms but do not own one nor am I an expert. I assumed that the shooter knew what he was doing and it seemed intuitive that, when firing into a dense crowd, the rate of fire would affect the victim count more than precision.
Thanks to an former Canadian PM, bare arms have been in the news too.
It is far easier to enforce "Don't sell this person a gun" than it is to enforce "Don't misuse that gun in your closet."
I might even agree with you, if you are willing to make 21 the age of adulthood, and restrict all adult activities to that age (Smoking, Drinking, Sex, Voting etc).
Why do you feel like these things should coincide? Driving? Working? Renting a car? Running for president?
People will enter the stores WITHOUT cell phones, accounts, or other means of charging them or tracking their identity.
If only there was a way to control who enters... If we can solve that problem, we can start charging people to ride the subway too.
...people will smash windows and raid the whole fucking place because they can.
Which is why every store is robbed every night when there's nobody there.
Damn it, I thought you said you were done...
So what your saying is that alcohol should be a schedule 1 controlled substance.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that where a drug lands on the Fed's "schedule" is unimportant to its relation to responsible gun use. That's not what the schedule is for. If habitual drunks are a bigger danger concerning guns than pot smokers (they are) then habitual alcohol abuse should be considered with more weight than pot smoking. I think I've said this more than once. Making alcohol Schedule 1 makes about as much sense as making weed Schedule 1 (none). I would be less resistant to defining alcoholism as a preclusive mental illness. Considering a drug's schedule when deciding on allowing a gun purchase makes little sense; considering a person's abuse (e.g. history of DUIs) makes a lot of sense. I'm sorry you're still confused, but I'm starting to think that's a permanent condition.
Buying a guy is already illegal in the US and has been for like 150 years (politicians excepted.) I understand that Nevada has places where you can rent one.
And you're making the point that once the word "controlled" is introduced, all common sense goes out the window. Thank you for being done. This has gotten annoying.
Is alcohol a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
Is pot a controlled substance and if so what is its scheduling?
Who cares? The word "controlled" is not magic. A history of DUIs should contribute MUCH more to being precluded from gun ownership than a history of pot smoking. Same with legal opioid abuse. I don't give a shit which drug is "controlled" or "scheduled". I care about which drug contributes most to irresponsible gun use.
...let's focus on an inanimate object instead.
What about "that means looking at more incidents than just the single most recent" made you think I was focused on guns? Guns have been all over the US for far longer than this barrage of mass shootings. Some gun limitations (I'm thinking Mandalay Bay bump stock) could reduce the level of success the shooters have, but as long as people are deciding to commit mass murder there will continue to be mass murders.
Let's start handing them semi-automatic pistols when they enrol in kindergarten.
Only 2 guns for the whole class. They need to learn sharing.
I'm saying that keeping guns out of the hands of drunks makes MUCH more sense than keeping it away from pot smokers. A history of DUIs should be weighted MUCH more heavily than having a medical marijuana patient card. Why does the definition of "controlled" change what's dangerous?
Obviously pot isn't the same as crack or cocaine but do you want a crack head to buy a gun?
Or an alcoholic?
I am going to guess you have a criminal record with pot is why you would bring that up. Go figure a criminal can't own a gun, are you saying they should?
No record worse than a couple of traffic tickets. See here.
Good thing that is already against the law.
Every media report I've seen said that the rifle was purchased legally. Are they mistaken? I don't claim to be an expert on gun law.
...passing legislation that fails to address the underlying issues.
American boys/men are going ape shit and murdering people. What IS the underlying issue?
If the proposed law wouldn't have stop the last shooting how would it have stopped the next shooting?
Nothing will stop the next shooting; there will be another. But that doesn't mean that trying won't help. The Florida shooter did not use a bump stock (correct me if I'm wrong.) That was the last shooting. The Mandalay Bay shooter did use a bump stock. It seems likely that the damage he did would have been reduced if he hadn't had one. So, banning bump stocks has nothing to do with the last shooting, but seems like a reasonable idea. Nobody's hunting deer with a bump stock. I don't need a bump stock to defend my home from an intruder.
Mass shootings from the mentally ill are rare and are damn near impossible to predict.
Yes with a 'but'. I'm not allowed to own a gun because I'm a pot smoker. Still, handing a gun to me is a MUCH better idea than handing it to a deranged, violent teen.
Something changed in our culture and it wasn't the guns.
I'll agree with you there. It's not like guns are new to the US.
You're right. Why try? Let's start handing out pistols when kids get their driver's license and let them fend for themselves! NOTHING is going to prevent the next shooting, but handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.
It confuses me that some of our lawmakers are saying that laws are pointless.
...the healthiest citizens...
That should have given it away.
Laws that wouldn't have stopped the last shooting.
I'm more interested in stopping the NEXT shooting. That means looking at more incidents than just the single most recent.
How are they going to determine similar content?
Any tweet with the phrase "no collusion" is going to be tossed out.
I'm having trouble picturing myself holding a tec-9 & trying to set it on fire. Sounds like a terrible idea. Throw rocks.
Careful. You might 'irritate' the robot.