Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy

Recommended Posts

Are you sh*ting me? Another one? 

 

Why are you even surprised? This is what, the 6th school shooting this year? The - heck, I can't even count them - 250th or 300th mass shooting this year? The state of the union includes frequent mass shootings and frequent school shootings, and honestly, the way things are, there's no political will to make any changes, so that's not going to stop any time soon.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and on a more positive note, you're all going to be replaced by machines. Have a nice weekend, meatbags.

 

Well, OK, maybe not, but we are making progress into digitizing memories. For those suffering from traumatic brain injury, this is big news, but the implications go far beyond that, particularly because another recent study indicated that memories considered to be "lost" are often actually still stored in the brain, just inaccessible. In theory, they can be retrieved and made accessible again - they have already demonstrtaed this in mice.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and on a more positive note, you're all going to be replaced by machines. Have a nice weekend, meatbags.

 

Well, OK, maybe not, but we are making progress into digitizing memories. For those suffering from traumatic brain injury, this is big news, but the implications go far beyond that, particularly because another recent study indicated that memories considered to be "lost" are often actually still stored in the brain, just inaccessible. In theory, they can be retrieved and made accessible again - they have already demonstrtaed this in mice.

 

cheers, Mark

 

No doubt the NSA will demand backdoors be installed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you even surprised? This is what, the 6th school shooting this year? The - heck, I can't even count them - 250th or 300th mass shooting this year? The state of the union includes frequent mass shootings and frequent school shootings, and honestly, the way things are, there's no political will to make any changes, so that's not going to stop any time soon.

 

cheers, Mark

Angry rather than Surprised. And that one is close to my folks and brother's family 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Mintz Ladies and Gentleman. 

 

From now on, I would like our media to refer to any mass murderer as Tinydick Shrivelballs.

This guy took five shots when he tackled the Mr Shriveldballs.

 

From the article:

 

 

“I will not give him the credit he probably sought,” Hanlin said of the killer. “You will never hear me use his name.”

 

On the right track,  here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it isn't possible to test the ideas there because you can't get the actual statistics on gun ownership and gun-related crime counts. Studies of that sort explicitly cannot receive federal dollars.

Yeah. That's one of the two "tells" for this Congress. First, any research into gun violence may not be federally funded. Second, while lots of lip service is given to "just enforce the laws we already have on the books", in point of fact the BATF is deliberately underfunded by the current and last Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Unfortunately, it isn't possible to test the ideas there because you can't get the actual statistics on gun ownership and gun-related crime counts. Studies of that sort explicitly cannot receive federal dollars.

 

 

Yeah. That's one of the two "tells" for this Congress. First, any research into gun violence may not be federally funded. Second, while lots of lip service is given to "just enforce the laws we already have on the books", in point of fact the BATF is deliberately underfunded by the current and last Congress.

anecdotal but here we go.

 

https://medium.com/@michaelluo/a-personal-footnote-on-oregon-s-gun-laws-83056fe84d8c

 

so what research was done, thank you North Carolina, showed that a small (but not insignificant) sampling of registered gun owners committed crimes which in itself isn't alarming or surprising. But the sentence: 

 

Perhaps more disturbingly, I found that the authorities had failed to revoke the permits of many of those who had been convicted of felonies.

 

which is a bit disconcerting. And while I revoking permits, like revoking drivers licenses  does not prevent one from obtaining their now prohibited tool of choice, it does give prosecutors more to punish them with. Assuming of course the violator doesn't suffer from Affluenza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect bickering and hairsplitting on wedge issues like this, so that doesn't cause me more than passing irritation. That one is effectively prohibited from gathering unbiased data needed to prove whether some potential remedy has a positive effect ... that really bothers me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've SEEN the Russian naval base in question, not so many years ago. I know it features prominently in discussions between armchair strategists online, but I don't think that it has the slightest interest to Putin or the Russian military at all, except as a propaganda piece. It's a tiny harbour with a few rusting corrugated iron sheds, with two cranes, one of which has rusted out, and fallen over into the harbour. When I saw it, the floating piers were derelict and there was a rusted sunken ship at one wharf. It was, in a word, desolate. The Russians are entirely smart enough to know that a small, useless harbour in an area where they cannot reliably project airpower is not a military asset on the global stage, but a liability, which is exactly why they've left it to decay. Promises to rebuild it so that it could host aircraft carriers or cruisers have so far produced bupkiss, and the current Russian buildup isn't even in the area of the port. Edit: and the Russians are actually using their access to the much better port at Limmasol in Cyprus rather more than their Syrian option anyway. I don't know what the status is now, but prior to the war, their "naval base" had a staff of 4.

 

No, Putin's interest and his whole foreign policy - which has been pretty consistent for the last decade and a half - is built around one thing: maintaining Russia's ability to intervene in global energy markets. That's it, period, finito. Every action he has taken in the past has been consistent with that goal in mind, including his intervention in Ukraine and now his intervention in Syria. Putin is irrevocably marked by the collapse of the USSR and the USSR collapsed because - like today's Russia - it was critically dependant on energy revenues for foreign exchange. When OPEC pulled the plug on oil prices in the '80s, that was all she wrote for the USSR. Putin - in his own ham-handed way - is trying to ensure there is no rerun, and for that, he wants a seat at the table in the Middle East. Syria - and the Assad regime - is the last proxy the Russians have left in the area, although they are attempting to cuddle up to Egypt again. The last thing he wants is a new government that is supported by the US or Saudi Arabia becoming dominant in Syria. And that's why the Russians are not hitting ISIS right now, instead hitting the more moderate rebels pressing the regime forces. It suits Putin just fine to have unrest in the Middle East, and ISIS is, quite frankly, useful to him at the moment. As long as they are not strong enough to tople Assad, the worst he is likely to send their way is harsh words. It's also why the Russians moved into Syria at right this moment, as soon as Turkey and other NATO members started taking a more active role.

 

cheers, Mark

seems to be trying to rebuild the Russian Empire, to me.   I am surprised he has not yet declared himself Czar or PResident for life...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anecdotal but here we go.

 

https://medium.com/@michaelluo/a-personal-footnote-on-oregon-s-gun-laws-83056fe84d8c

 

so what research was done, thank you North Carolina, showed that a small (but not insignificant) sampling of registered gun owners committed crimes which in itself isn't alarming or surprising. But the sentence: 

 

Perhaps more disturbingly, I found that the authorities had failed to revoke the permits of many of those who had been convicted of felonies.

 

which is a bit disconcerting. And while I revoking permits, like revoking drivers licenses  does not prevent one from obtaining their now prohibited tool of choice, it does give prosecutors more to punish them with. Assuming of course the violator doesn't suffer from Affluenza.

Not like there seems to be much drive by the Feds in particular to enforce the laws making it a mandatory 5 year prison term for a Felon to even TOUCH a firearm.   IIRC ammo also, but I am not absolutely certain.   

 

The Supreme court Ruled that Felons cannot be prosecuted for lying on a form 4473, as it would be self incriminating to fill it out correctly...    That and the one that police had no "DUTY to Protect" individuals used to be my "Shake my head

examples from the Courts.   I can see the rationale, but...   

 

Then came CItizens United..    

 

 

However, even if they are immune to prosecution for the lie on the form, it is still illegal for them to even touch a firearm, so that could be used.   If we just start with background check blockages, (a significant number of them are false positives and should have gone through) 

 

In 2012

""Of approximately 80,000 in 2012 that were denied (a gun) because of a background check … only 44 people were prosecuted for that," Ayotte said during the February 19 meeting."

 from http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/

 

Seems to me, this is NOT just a matter of not being well funded.   Seems like a deliberate policy.   

 

A program that apparently WORKED and was NRA SUPPORTED  was "Project Exile."

From WIkipedia

"Project Exile was a federal program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. Project Exile shifted the prosecution of illegal technical gun possession offenses to federal court, where they carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, rather than in state court. Note that federal law (18 U.S.C. sec. 922 & 924) provides for a penalty of ten years in federal prison for being a "prohibited person" i.e. a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, as well as for falsifying information in order to obtain one, or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon.

The program has since been copied by several other cities, sometimes under other names. In Atlanta, for example, the program was known as FACE 5 (Firearms in Atlanta Can Equal 5 years in federal prison)."

 

Seems I was wrong, it is not just 5 years.  A felon in possession is subject to a 10 year Federal penalty.   Furnishing a gun to a convicted felon faces same penalty.   

 

How many are prosecuted that way?

 

 

 

EDIT:   DOJ paper on weapon violations.    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect bickering and hairsplitting on wedge issues like this, so that doesn't cause me more than passing irritation. That one is effectively prohibited from gathering unbiased data needed to prove whether some potential remedy has a positive effect ... that really bothers me.

I remember when it was forced through.   As I recall, the claim was that the proposed studies were aimed at predetermined conclusions.   My memory has failed me before, and YMMV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...