No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference
So, you're not really for "gun control", you're for disarming the populace in favor of armed state, which is pretty much the reason the 2nd Amendment was enshrined in the first place.
OR let me ask a question this way, would you support a law that requires permitting for exercise of free speech?
Where did I say disarmament? See, you've proved a comment a made elsewhere on this thread: any comment in favor of gun control is automatically devolved to the base "take away all guns" argument. Did you even read the rest of my post where I argued for a government provided (and therefore free) class that covers basic firearm safety, storage, handling, and laws before getting a permit (a permit not to own, but simply to carry)? If you can't be bothered to sit down for a couple hour class for 1 day out of your busy schedule, then you simply aren't fit to carry around something that can easily kill. This doesn't stop you from owning a gun, or going to the range, or going hunting. But it does stop people who care so little about others that a couple hours is more important to them than the safety of others to walk around in public with a weapon.
And the police that returned fire shot at least twice that.
The responding police also were using handguns and shotguns at range and the perpetrators were wearing body armor. It wasn't until specially armed units showed up (IIRC this was pre-SWAT, but they did have some units with SMGs and AR-15s) and some cops on the ground basically raided a local sporting goods store that sold long rifles that they were able to effectively engage and take them down. It also helped that one of the robbers tried to hijack a truck that he couldn't figure out how to start, which slowed him down and allowed police to get in close.
Where did I say they did? I said "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" as an argument against gun control doesn't work with police as the good guy because even with gun control in the US police would remain armed. Unless you are arguing that the US would full on ban all guns and disarm most police at the same time, which any reasonable person would agree would not happen.
I personally would love the idea of needing to show proof of a mandated class to own a weapon, provided they're free/cheap and easily available.
Ideal would be a class that provides the basic instruction I outlined above, along with a yearly recurrent training that focuses primarily on anger management and deescalation techniques, along with a refresher on firearm safety and laws, ending with a basic demonstration of firearm maintenance (disassembly/cleaning) marksmanship. All provided for free through local or state law enforcement agencies and funded by the federal goverment (and really groups like the NRA should contribute funding as well, since their whole reason for being was nominally about promoting safe gun ownership-have them put their money where their mouth is).
You can even argue that this limitation is supported by the 2nd Amendment in the phrase "well regulated militia", as historically militia would always gather occasionally to drill/practice (although let's be honest, they probably really just marched around on the town square for an hour or 2, popped off a couple shots at a barrel or bale of hay, then spent the rest of the afternoon down at the local tavern).
2. Was a skinhead, tied to KKK group. KKK founded by Democrats to destroy Republican reconstruction efforts in the south. KKK = Democrats.
3. Dylan Roof prop of choice was Confederate flag. History lesson: Confederate flag = Democrats. Northern states (the Union) led by Republicans.
Mid 1800s Democrats=modern day Republicans in terms of political leanings. Your argument is disingenuous at best.
You should read more of the history of the right of guns in the US. It is a very rich and interesting history examples of regular people defending themselves from violent mobs, complicit governments, and violent governments. Taken the history, it is hard to see why anyone would want to restrict that right that has been used to uplift and free so many people from tyranny and oppression.
It is also full of examples where citizens have abused that right to oppress their fellow citizens.
Gun control or even outright banning guns still won't solve the problem. Criminals have always had easier access to guns than law abiding folk.
Of course it won't completely solve the problem. But reasonable gun control would solve enough of the problem to be worth it. My suggestion would reduce firearm accidents, reduce availability of firearms to criminals (by teaching proper storage) and provide a reasonable but not onerous barrier to entry for firearm possession. Combine that with proper and adequate mental health treatment and diagnosis in this country and a lot of shootings go away. But the NRA has made sure that it is practically impossible to start and discussion on reasonable gun control because they inevitably take any mention of gun control to the extreme "they want to take away all our guns" argument.
Which every sane person understood as a commentary on the power of the NRA, not as an invitation to assassination.
Anyone who would open fire on a bunch of innocent people is not exactly someone you would consider "sane", though. It's very easy for someone who is already mentally unstable to take a statement like that as a direct order or command to commit an act of violence. Hell, sometimes simply reading a book is enough to trigger mentally unstable people to kill.
Now that I have apologized for that, will the GOP all of the violent acts committed by their party?
What violent acts by the GOP in any form of recent history?
Even the Tea Party high levels of activity, were quite peaceful at rallies....
I seem to remember a recently elected Congressman from the Midwest pleading guilty to bodyslamming a reporter. Or by "recent" do you mean only within the last few days?
What we do know though... is that a couple of good guys with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun.
No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference. If there stronger gun control, the bad guy might not have had a gun but those police still would have. Of course, it will be spun exactly as you did in order to fight gun control. And I say this as a person who owns multiple firearms, including one that would be classified as an "assault weapon". We do need more gun control, even if it is nothing more than a mandatory, government funded and provided class before you can get a permit that covers gun safety, gun laws, and basic handling/marksmanship.
I am not sure it matters. Forests don't disappear because of a "lack of seeds", so just spraying seeds won't bring them back. What happened to the original forest?
Here in California, our live oak forests are slowly disappearing. It is not due to a lack of seeds, but a lack of wolves. The wolves were exterminated more than a century ago. Since then, the deer population has exploded, and they devour the oak seedlings, but don't eat the foul tasting invasive eucalyptus seedlings. In the presence of wolves, there are not only fewer deer, but they also stay on the high ground, and avoid streambeds where they can be cornered, thus allowing the oaks to flourish there.
We have big gnarly oaks that are hundreds of years old, a few tiny seedlings that will soon be eaten... and nothing in between.
So either expand bag limits and/or the dates of deer hunting season. From a quick google search, it appears hunters are only allowed 2 deer per season, only one of which can be a buck. So at best a hunter can only take 1 breeding pair per year. Allow more bucks to be taken and you will probably see a lot more hunters going out-because who doesn't like a good trophy-and will probably make a bigger dent in the population, since fewer males=less breeding. Or just allow more depredation hunts, or sanction some culls confined to specific areas and closely monitored by game warders.
...To fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?
A lot, because no one would watch it. Take into account the 24 hour news cycle and its inherent need for filler content, the ability for people to access multiple outlets of news in search of one that reflects their own beliefs or bias, and the fact that news outlets are competing with reality TV or entertainment mags or sporting events for eyeballs and entertainment, and you see that news outlets almost have to run news that is "exciting"-blood, bombs, disasters, suffering, etc. Face it, traditional journalism and reporting is boring. Important, but boring. And in this day and age, boring simply can't survive. Especially when the driving force behind operating a news outlet is income based on advertising. Which is why it would cost a lot, because a news outlet producing traditional journalism would require a benefactor with very big pockets to survive.
Trump's national security briefings include little text, many pictures and a box of crayons.
Still sounds more useful than Trump's circle jerk Cabinet meetings where all the Cabinet members prostrate themselves and praise him like they are a bunch of North Koreans seeing Kim Jong Un
Well, Trump seems to like spending time crafting executive order that get blocked by the courts, so why can't a Congressman come up with a bill that won't pass either?
You will be assimilated, or you'll have to wash your clothes with a 20 yr old machine.
And in a stroke of irony, that 20yr old machine will probably still last longer than a brand new IoT connected machine.
And that right there is the trick. Until IoT is legally mandated by the government (and I hope that is a long way off, but we all know some kind of connection will eventually be required on things like cars), stick to older cars and older appliances. Get yourself a Jeep, Subaru, Volvo, etc-a car that can run for decades, and barring any bad luck you can avoid a connected cars for years. Ditto for appliances-fridge, drip coffee maker, oven, microwave, etc; unless you have some desire to always have the latest and greatest, any of these should last you a long time as well (again, barring any bad luck)
Isnt that just semantics? If you are harming yourself just am much vaping as you were smoking, whats the big victory here?
Its like being proud you stopped smoking heroin because your mainlining it now. not really a win.
I believe the apt analogy here would be switching from heroin to methadone and eventually kicking your habit all together. From what people have told me, vaping is essentially the methadone of smoking.
'E-cigarrettes' are just a blatant drug delivery device (for nicotine, a highly addictive and poisonous substance), plain and simple, and that was blindingly obvious the first time I ever heard about them.
Tell that to the people I know who went from smoking 1-2 packs a day of cigarettes, to e-cigs/vaping, and now don't even smoke at all.
Just another sign that we ought to legalize _all_ drugs, not just marijuana.
Aside from the big three (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana) they ought to be available only from stores licensed by either the state or the Feds (like liquor stores in some states) but you should be able to get whatever drugs you want from those stores.
A lot of hard drugs, even when controlled for quality, are just too damaging to the body to be allowed to consume. Also, by heavily taxing and controlling them, you will still have people purchasing drugs illegally because it's cheaper. Better to decriminalize the possession of hard drugs, but still criminalize the production and distribution of them.
While drugs like fentanyl, meth, crack, and heroin shouldn't be freely purchasable at your corner store, drug addiction should be stigmatized and recognized as the disease it is. Offer people safe places to take the drugs with medical staff close at hand in case of adverse reactions, as well as providing things like clean needles. At the same time, offer treatment services for people looking to actually get help. Legalize marijuana, decriminalize possession of anything else, and anyone arrested goes not to prison but to treatment centers. Still go after those that produce, transport, and sell the drugs. All of this would keep people from dying in our streets,reduce a lot of the ancillary crime that goes along with drug use, and greatly reduce the prison population (and the added benefit of not turning repeat drug users into hardened criminals due to exposure to criminals while in prison and the damage a prison record can do to a person's employability once released). Oh, yes, and along with this also improve the mental health services, which can help with both the drug and homeless problems in this country (which tend to go hand in hand).
I would imagine this happens a lot during the death stage in lots of small businesses. From what I've seen, the difference between tech startups and your average small businesses is that some of the employees become brainwashed to some extent. They've been putting in 100 hour weeks for so long that nothing will convince them that it's time to get out.
I think part of it is simply that they are used to it. My wife used to work for a small business that did payroll processing for other small businesses. Very often those business would barely have enough money in their accounts to cover the payroll each week (if at all). Since small businesses are very susceptible to fluctuations in revenue, being short on a check could be a somewhat common occurrence. And when the job market is bad enough a job that sometimes pays late is still better than no job at all.
The video has not been nominated for an Oscar.
However, it *is* eligible to be nominated, which is a first for a video game trailer.
So it joins a very short and distinguished list such a the classic film Home for Purim and it's lead actor Victor Allen Miller who said "It's such an honor to be almost nominated".
Slashdot Mirror
No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference
So, you're not really for "gun control", you're for disarming the populace in favor of armed state, which is pretty much the reason the 2nd Amendment was enshrined in the first place.
OR let me ask a question this way, would you support a law that requires permitting for exercise of free speech?
Where did I say disarmament? See, you've proved a comment a made elsewhere on this thread: any comment in favor of gun control is automatically devolved to the base "take away all guns" argument. Did you even read the rest of my post where I argued for a government provided (and therefore free) class that covers basic firearm safety, storage, handling, and laws before getting a permit (a permit not to own, but simply to carry)? If you can't be bothered to sit down for a couple hour class for 1 day out of your busy schedule, then you simply aren't fit to carry around something that can easily kill. This doesn't stop you from owning a gun, or going to the range, or going hunting. But it does stop people who care so little about others that a couple hours is more important to them than the safety of others to walk around in public with a weapon.
And the police that returned fire shot at least twice that.
The responding police also were using handguns and shotguns at range and the perpetrators were wearing body armor. It wasn't until specially armed units showed up (IIRC this was pre-SWAT, but they did have some units with SMGs and AR-15s) and some cops on the ground basically raided a local sporting goods store that sold long rifles that they were able to effectively engage and take them down. It also helped that one of the robbers tried to hijack a truck that he couldn't figure out how to start, which slowed him down and allowed police to get in close.
when did police stop being people??
Where did I say they did? I said "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" as an argument against gun control doesn't work with police as the good guy because even with gun control in the US police would remain armed. Unless you are arguing that the US would full on ban all guns and disarm most police at the same time, which any reasonable person would agree would not happen.
I personally would love the idea of needing to show proof of a mandated class to own a weapon, provided they're free/cheap and easily available.
Ideal would be a class that provides the basic instruction I outlined above, along with a yearly recurrent training that focuses primarily on anger management and deescalation techniques, along with a refresher on firearm safety and laws, ending with a basic demonstration of firearm maintenance (disassembly/cleaning) marksmanship. All provided for free through local or state law enforcement agencies and funded by the federal goverment (and really groups like the NRA should contribute funding as well, since their whole reason for being was nominally about promoting safe gun ownership-have them put their money where their mouth is).
You can even argue that this limitation is supported by the 2nd Amendment in the phrase "well regulated militia", as historically militia would always gather occasionally to drill/practice (although let's be honest, they probably really just marched around on the town square for an hour or 2, popped off a couple shots at a barrel or bale of hay, then spent the rest of the afternoon down at the local tavern).
2. Was a skinhead, tied to KKK group. KKK founded by Democrats to destroy Republican reconstruction efforts in the south. KKK = Democrats. 3. Dylan Roof prop of choice was Confederate flag. History lesson: Confederate flag = Democrats. Northern states (the Union) led by Republicans.
Mid 1800s Democrats=modern day Republicans in terms of political leanings. Your argument is disingenuous at best.
You should read more of the history of the right of guns in the US. It is a very rich and interesting history examples of regular people defending themselves from violent mobs, complicit governments, and violent governments. Taken the history, it is hard to see why anyone would want to restrict that right that has been used to uplift and free so many people from tyranny and oppression.
It is also full of examples where citizens have abused that right to oppress their fellow citizens.
Gun control or even outright banning guns still won't solve the problem. Criminals have always had easier access to guns than law abiding folk.
Of course it won't completely solve the problem. But reasonable gun control would solve enough of the problem to be worth it. My suggestion would reduce firearm accidents, reduce availability of firearms to criminals (by teaching proper storage) and provide a reasonable but not onerous barrier to entry for firearm possession. Combine that with proper and adequate mental health treatment and diagnosis in this country and a lot of shootings go away. But the NRA has made sure that it is practically impossible to start and discussion on reasonable gun control because they inevitably take any mention of gun control to the extreme "they want to take away all our guns" argument.
Which every sane person understood as a commentary on the power of the NRA, not as an invitation to assassination.
Anyone who would open fire on a bunch of innocent people is not exactly someone you would consider "sane", though. It's very easy for someone who is already mentally unstable to take a statement like that as a direct order or command to commit an act of violence. Hell, sometimes simply reading a book is enough to trigger mentally unstable people to kill.
What violent acts by the GOP in any form of recent history?
Even the Tea Party high levels of activity, were quite peaceful at rallies....
I seem to remember a recently elected Congressman from the Midwest pleading guilty to bodyslamming a reporter. Or by "recent" do you mean only within the last few days?
What we do know though... is that a couple of good guys with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun.
No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference. If there stronger gun control, the bad guy might not have had a gun but those police still would have. Of course, it will be spun exactly as you did in order to fight gun control. And I say this as a person who owns multiple firearms, including one that would be classified as an "assault weapon". We do need more gun control, even if it is nothing more than a mandatory, government funded and provided class before you can get a permit that covers gun safety, gun laws, and basic handling/marksmanship.
I am not sure it matters. Forests don't disappear because of a "lack of seeds", so just spraying seeds won't bring them back. What happened to the original forest?
Here in California, our live oak forests are slowly disappearing. It is not due to a lack of seeds, but a lack of wolves. The wolves were exterminated more than a century ago. Since then, the deer population has exploded, and they devour the oak seedlings, but don't eat the foul tasting invasive eucalyptus seedlings. In the presence of wolves, there are not only fewer deer, but they also stay on the high ground, and avoid streambeds where they can be cornered, thus allowing the oaks to flourish there.
We have big gnarly oaks that are hundreds of years old, a few tiny seedlings that will soon be eaten ... and nothing in between.
So either expand bag limits and/or the dates of deer hunting season. From a quick google search, it appears hunters are only allowed 2 deer per season, only one of which can be a buck. So at best a hunter can only take 1 breeding pair per year. Allow more bucks to be taken and you will probably see a lot more hunters going out-because who doesn't like a good trophy-and will probably make a bigger dent in the population, since fewer males=less breeding. Or just allow more depredation hunts, or sanction some culls confined to specific areas and closely monitored by game warders.
...To fund proper investigative journalistic institutions, non-commercial like the BBC, that could identify, shame, and counter such efforts?
A lot, because no one would watch it. Take into account the 24 hour news cycle and its inherent need for filler content, the ability for people to access multiple outlets of news in search of one that reflects their own beliefs or bias, and the fact that news outlets are competing with reality TV or entertainment mags or sporting events for eyeballs and entertainment, and you see that news outlets almost have to run news that is "exciting"-blood, bombs, disasters, suffering, etc. Face it, traditional journalism and reporting is boring. Important, but boring. And in this day and age, boring simply can't survive. Especially when the driving force behind operating a news outlet is income based on advertising. Which is why it would cost a lot, because a news outlet producing traditional journalism would require a benefactor with very big pockets to survive.
Gotta fill up all those FEMA coffins from the Bush administration somehow
You don't have to kill them. Just a couple warning shots should get everyone out of your way pretty quick. No need to resort to violence
I would totally buy that, electric or not. No more gridlock traffic for me!
Trump's national security briefings include little text, many pictures and a box of crayons.
Still sounds more useful than Trump's circle jerk Cabinet meetings where all the Cabinet members prostrate themselves and praise him like they are a bunch of North Koreans seeing Kim Jong Un
Well, Trump seems to like spending time crafting executive order that get blocked by the courts, so why can't a Congressman come up with a bill that won't pass either?
You will be assimilated, or you'll have to wash your clothes with a 20 yr old machine.
And in a stroke of irony, that 20yr old machine will probably still last longer than a brand new IoT connected machine.
And that right there is the trick. Until IoT is legally mandated by the government (and I hope that is a long way off, but we all know some kind of connection will eventually be required on things like cars), stick to older cars and older appliances. Get yourself a Jeep, Subaru, Volvo, etc-a car that can run for decades, and barring any bad luck you can avoid a connected cars for years. Ditto for appliances-fridge, drip coffee maker, oven, microwave, etc; unless you have some desire to always have the latest and greatest, any of these should last you a long time as well (again, barring any bad luck)
Isnt that just semantics? If you are harming yourself just am much vaping as you were smoking, whats the big victory here? Its like being proud you stopped smoking heroin because your mainlining it now. not really a win.
I believe the apt analogy here would be switching from heroin to methadone and eventually kicking your habit all together. From what people have told me, vaping is essentially the methadone of smoking.
'E-cigarrettes' are just a blatant drug delivery device (for nicotine, a highly addictive and poisonous substance), plain and simple, and that was blindingly obvious the first time I ever heard about them.
Tell that to the people I know who went from smoking 1-2 packs a day of cigarettes, to e-cigs/vaping, and now don't even smoke at all.
Just another sign that we ought to legalize _all_ drugs, not just marijuana. Aside from the big three (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana) they ought to be available only from stores licensed by either the state or the Feds (like liquor stores in some states) but you should be able to get whatever drugs you want from those stores.
A lot of hard drugs, even when controlled for quality, are just too damaging to the body to be allowed to consume. Also, by heavily taxing and controlling them, you will still have people purchasing drugs illegally because it's cheaper. Better to decriminalize the possession of hard drugs, but still criminalize the production and distribution of them.
While drugs like fentanyl, meth, crack, and heroin shouldn't be freely purchasable at your corner store, drug addiction should be stigmatized and recognized as the disease it is. Offer people safe places to take the drugs with medical staff close at hand in case of adverse reactions, as well as providing things like clean needles. At the same time, offer treatment services for people looking to actually get help. Legalize marijuana, decriminalize possession of anything else, and anyone arrested goes not to prison but to treatment centers. Still go after those that produce, transport, and sell the drugs. All of this would keep people from dying in our streets,reduce a lot of the ancillary crime that goes along with drug use, and greatly reduce the prison population (and the added benefit of not turning repeat drug users into hardened criminals due to exposure to criminals while in prison and the damage a prison record can do to a person's employability once released). Oh, yes, and along with this also improve the mental health services, which can help with both the drug and homeless problems in this country (which tend to go hand in hand).
these are Nixon-style tactics!
We're millenials. Taking something that is decades old and declaring it hip and "new" is kind of our thing.
Disclaimer: I am a millenial in age only. I actually own a house, and married, and even have an actual full time job.
I would imagine this happens a lot during the death stage in lots of small businesses. From what I've seen, the difference between tech startups and your average small businesses is that some of the employees become brainwashed to some extent. They've been putting in 100 hour weeks for so long that nothing will convince them that it's time to get out.
I think part of it is simply that they are used to it. My wife used to work for a small business that did payroll processing for other small businesses. Very often those business would barely have enough money in their accounts to cover the payroll each week (if at all). Since small businesses are very susceptible to fluctuations in revenue, being short on a check could be a somewhat common occurrence. And when the job market is bad enough a job that sometimes pays late is still better than no job at all.
The video has not been nominated for an Oscar. However, it *is* eligible to be nominated, which is a first for a video game trailer.
So it joins a very short and distinguished list such a the classic film Home for Purim and it's lead actor Victor Allen Miller who said "It's such an honor to be almost nominated".