gewing

13 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Is it ok for me to celebrate, or would that be too much?

I'm trying not to. He's got his final appeal, and I don't think he's going to like the judge's ruling.

This is actually the movie I have most been anticipating for many years.

Staged does not necessarily mean false. A staged photo is one that was set up in advance rather than one was mocked up afterwards with Photoshop. So if she knew that they were going to take silly pictures, and it was arranged in advance that is staged

edit; so much for definitions, sounds like the claim of the quote is completely fake which is a different issue.;

 I don't know the full truth in Franken's case, but he has apologized and called for an ethics investigation of himself.

Moore has multiple accusers with many many people backing up their statements. Even if I didn't consider Moore s whack job and rather despicable, I would think that that was grounds for him to be stepping down from the race.

One of the things that's interesting is the reconsideration of Clinton's actions in the past.

I was kind of hoping it would turn out that Tony's the heir of a super, probably villain...  chaos ensues

Not that they couldn't throw that in there...

On 11/16/2017 at 9:51 AM, Sociotard said:

I wish Markdoc was still here. not sure how far off this article is.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453748/research-replication-crisis-growing-problem

In Medicine, the Science Has Stopped Working
 

Well I would want to at least a second maybe a third opinion, because one little thing I caught in it was the statement that after using antibiotics to combat diseases for centuries... But we've only had them since the World War II era. Maybe I'm just too picky

21 hours ago, Cancer said:

Hm.  Smells like a military takeover in Zimbabwe, though the military itself is not calling it that.

I'm really surprised that at least appears they've done it without major violence. I always figured Mugabe would be in power until he died of whatever causes. I hope that the military does not turn out to be as bad as it often does but the people are already used to dealing with one dictator so maybe it will actually be an improvement for them

21 hours ago, Hermit said:

Threaten people with your power and position, be ready to have that position taken away

 

Of course, it makes me wonder how many people she's screwed over out of spite.

I fear that is a question that should be asked but probably will not. I wonder how much this kind of attitude has to do with the reports in the media the last couple weeks about a certain candidate?

16" would be better for use, imo...   but a pintle mount would handle the recoil better...

On 11/12/2017 at 10:24 AM, CrosshairCollie said:

In the interests of being fair ... if Moore was after teenagers, then technically that's ephebophilia, not pedophilia.  Still awful, still illegal, still disgusting, of course, and if true, he should get castrated via a pair of rusty hedge clippers for it, then his testicles shoved up his nose.

I remember a discussion amongst us 12  year olds (terrifying creatures we were)  when our mothers and sisters were terrified of the "south hill rapist" Kevin Coe.   it involved deep fryers, as I recall.  

On 11/9/2017 at 6:31 PM, Zeropoint said:

 

I've fired thousands of rounds in recreational contexts. I've been to several cowboy action shooting matches, where dozens of people come together to enjoy shooting firearms in friendly competition. While I've never actually attended one, there's a thriving "three-gun" scene in which people do the same type of thing but with modern firearms.

 

So, from my perspective, saying that "there are a few other uses for guns besides killing" is at best coming from a place of ignorance about how guns are actually used. Your choosing to compare recreational firearm usage to things like drag racing on public streets and surfing on hurricane swells seems a bit disingenuous, because you picked one example that is illegal and stupid and one that's legal but even more stupid. A much better comparison would have been, say, playing sports: people get injured playing sports all the time, but playing sports is not something generally recognized as foolish or stupid to do. I've spent more time at the range than I have at sporting events, but I've still seen more people injured through sports than with firearms. Should we ban football because the players often suffer brain trauma? If public safety is the central issue, why should I be allowed to scramble my brain on the football field but forbidden from enjoying a harmless afternoon of blasting steel in a gravel pit?

I grew up shooting competitively, from age 11, iirc.   I fired many thousands of rounds of .22lr in smallbore rifle  both indoor and outdoors, and some thousands of rounds of .308 in highpower  rifle competition.  later I did a little .22 pistol shooting.   I shot in matches in 6 states, including the nationals twice, as well as one match in Australia, though it was a casual match.   (Anzac day match outside Sydney.  This was probably the most fun I ever had at a match.  We performed a WWI style "walkdown" , and the only thing I have been involved in that was anything like it was the Military oriented "Infantry trophy" matches, also called "Rattle Battle" though they did not involve automatic fire. )   

I have never known of an injury other than sunburn, heat exhaustion, or a rolled ankle from matches. 

back in the late 70s and early 80s, shooters were almost like a family.   THere were no serious fears about theft, though we often had well over a thousand dollars (then year) of equipment left at our firing points.   

But then, school shootings were never discussed, afai remember, until the kid here in WA shot up his school.  

On 11/9/2017 at 2:34 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I see this as aberrant behavior, and I disagree with you as to where its roots lie. I do agree that this attitude is more prevalent in the US than in other places. If you think it's a problem in the general population, though, you're seriously mistaken IMO.

Glamorization of criminals:  murderers, drug dealers, pimps, etc...   is, imo, part of the problem.   and yes, I include popular media glorification of vigilante behavior.    Historically, there have been times when it was appropriate.   Normally it was just one group killing another group they disliked.  

On 11/8/2017 at 10:11 PM, Old Man said:

The deglamorization campaign is brilliant. 

sounds more like an extension of the demonizing propaganda that has been aimed at gun owners for years... 

the muzzle blast and report on that would be ...   uncomfortable.    barrels that short, not my preference for 5.56.   Now .300 blackout, or one of the pistol calibers...     7.62x25 might be fun... 

9 hours ago, Cancer said:

I'm at a private university in Seattle.  Marjuana is legal here in WA.  As an administrative rule on campus, marjuana possession and use is prohibited.  This is for the institution to remain in compliance with conditions present in federal grants and contracts which the university receives.  The university's policies, and the reasons for them, have been made clear to everyone paying any attention.  I have never been made to take a drug test by any employer (including my present one) or potential employer, or anyone else, unless that's part of my routine annual physical, and I don't think it is.  And my lifestyle is so pathetically boring ... that doesn't matter at all.

I have had to have a drug screen for my last several jobs... 

Insurance or banking support...

12 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Drunk driving may not get you fired, as long as you aren't driving professionally or embarrass the company when arrested.  You're just arrested. That's a legal issue.

 

In some states, marijuana is legal. People still get fired for using.  That isn't a legal issue. Its a liability thing. 

that and companies who operate in more than one state, particularly in certain fields, prefer to abide by Federal Law. 

Actually, I am surprised Trump and his AG jackass have not tried to go after the tax profits of the states that have allowed medicinal or recreational sales.        A lot of my former co workers are heartfelt supporters of marijuana usage...  won't admit there could ever be any problems from it...

Every time I see  "it is a natural plant"  I want to say "so is Deadly Nightshade, do  you want to smoke it?"  or else " well, 100 years ago, sure.  at current levels of THC content due to selective  breeding and hydroponics?   not so much. "

I have become a curmudgeon...  :-(

On 11/13/2017 at 9:41 AM, Cancer said:

Moving from politics to cleaner things ...

 

laser weapons for jet aircraft

IIRC General Atomics is trying to build a self contained laser weapons pod to mount on a high altitude drone.   IIRC it was 1-3k lbs. 

On 11/13/2017 at 3:28 AM, Christopher said:

Funny thing that Geneva Convention:
The use of Teargas in War? Fobidden!
The use of Teargas in Drills, Riot Control and Self Defense? Allowed!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_gas#Use

 

It is more legal to use that Chemical Weapon against your own Population and fellow Citizens then in Warfare.

It is also legal to use hollowpoint bullets in police and counterterrorism situations, though not in warfare against organized enemies behaving in accordance to the rules of land warfare.    so you can shoot your own people with them, but not enemy soldiers.   Though I understand the later Geneva conventions have basically stated everyone is to be treated as compliant with the laws of war, unless very limited situations hold true...

9 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

That sounds like a huge end run around due process, especially considering how 5150 holds work. Do you know the statute number/name?

No, they passed it a couple years ago, proclaiming it a great improvement...

23 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I honestly doubt the sincerity of the politicians involved, or at least large chunks of them. Every "solution" I hear from the left strikes me as political rhetoric to satisfy their base. Both the left and the right , IMO, play fast and loose with facts, and career politicians on either side can't be trusted to come up with any kind of workable solution.

 

What I hear from the media after these events is just plain ignorance. Not in the pejorative sense of the word, but the literal: They simply don't ever seem to know what they're talking about. For example, after Vegas repeatedly stating that the bump fire stocks allow a weapon to legally operate similarly to an "illegal" full auto weapon. Full auto isn't illegal. It's controlled. There's a difference. But it's not particularly hard for a non criminal to get a tax stamp and get an NFA item. The only prohibition is the cost of said item, especially fully automatic weapons since they're no longer allowed to be manufactured for the civilian market. But to the media, they're banned items, full stop. So, we'll never hear anyone suggest adding semi-auto centerfire rifles too the NFA, which would make them more difficult to obtain but let them remain legal. We hear nonsense like "who needs a military weapon for self defense." (Again, that's just spitballing a better solution to limiting access, which is the left's stated goal, than the left is. I don't personally think you should. I'm just offended that so many proposed "solutions" are half-hearted and useless.) Another example is perpetuating the myth that you can simply order firearms on the internet without a background check to push universal background checks. That's nonsense and not how online purchases work. You can either advertise for a local private sale (not crossing state lines) or you can order from an FFL to ship to a local FFL, where you do the exact same paperwork as you would if you bought something from stock.

 

The right also has its share of nonsense, including a lot of contradictions. We'll hear that we don't need to regulate firearms because outside of these unusual incidents violent crime is generally down. But we need to have weapons to protect ourselves from the rampant crime! (I've seen posters on pro-gun boards I belong to express both sentiments in practically the same breath in some cases.) Or declare the mass shootings a mental health issue, but balk at laws that even temporarily let the government restrict access to people who may have mental health issues. Yes, those types of laws can be abused. Yes, gun "safety" laws are frequently poorly-worded so as to allow loose interpretation. On the other hand, the contradictions in some positions are obvious and create weak points in your position.

 

I don't really have faith in either side's political entities, whether elected officials or lobbying organizations. They almost all strike me as snakes in the grass, spreading disinformation like it's going out of style.

 

 

 

 

I confess I felt the California was pretty strange by making it a loss of any firearms for five years on a 72-hour psychiatric watch, no matter what the result of the observation and evaluation was.  Guilty on suspicion...

Somehow it's notifying me of just about every posting anyone makes

I thought I said it to at most send me one message per week but...

4 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I think we've seen plenty of examples of foot shooters in the news. Concealed carriers who drop their weapon, or people like the lady who left her gun in her purse with her kid and got shot for it. On the other hand, you can find literally scores of videos of civilian defensive shootings where the concealed carrier put his or her bullets on target effectively. So, this is also a gross exaggeration.

 

The truth probably lies somewhere in between, IMO.

 

As far as mass shootings go, there does seem to be an interesting tendency of the shooters running off and committing suicide when faced with any kind of armed opposition, whether from civilian or law enforcement intervention. I find it kind of baffling, but then again I find the concept of gunning down a bunch of people equally baffling. What is it in their particular psychological make up that makes them insist on being the one to take themselves out rather than stand and fight? Kind of weird.

 

On the one hand, we have the incident in Texas and the one in the Oregon mall a while back where the shooter facing a civilian concealed carrier fled and shot themselves. (AFAICT from the TX one. Heard on the radio he died of self inflicted gunshot.) On the other hand, we have the concealed carrier in the Tacoma mall shooting who was paralyzed by the shooter and the case of the Sikh temple shooter who shot several defenders, though I think those were unarmed. So, it could go either way.

 

What the government (FBI?) has been teaching is to get out of the area ASAP as priority one, to take cover or concealment or hide as priority two, and if you can't do either effectively, to employ force in any way possible, including setting up ambushes. This seems to me to be the best policy, whether you're carrying a concealed weapon or not. I do think that if it comes down to the final option of applying force, I'd rather be armed.

 

The bigger question to me is what makes these people tick? I don't know that I'd personally want to get into their heads, but I think someone needs to.

 

In the meantime, we're going to have to find some other way to curtail their insanity. This inevitably leads to a whole lot of nonsense remarks from both sides of the gun control debate. IMO, the rhetoric on both sides is political in nature and doesn't even attempt to address the issue. I'll give just one example from each side, because this is getting long:

 

NRA/Pro-gun side: It's a mental health issue! OK, sure. You'd have to be somewhat disturbed or at least really angry to do something like this. That's a given. So, we should study this and other problems, right? As far as I know, no pro-gun organization has a fund set up to study the psychology of mass shooters. The gun lobby is notorious for blocking the CDC from studying gun violence. The CDC is seen by the pro-gun side as biased, and to hold a left wing political agenda. Fine, if you're not going to let that organization study the issue, why not call for, as a minimum, uniform crime reporting standards across the country? Then the FBI can have a better data set that can be studied by literally everybody and any body. (Note: The anti-gun lobby isn't doing this either. Just whining a lot about the restriction on the government studies. The obvious work around is better reporting and spending some of your budget on funding independent studies.)

 

Gun control side: Reinstate the assault weapon ban! No. Las Vegas and San Bernardino both demonstrate the flaw with the AWB: Specificity. Because it's not the shoulder thing that goes up that kills you. You need to go much broader in order reduce the capability of mass shooters. However, we have that pesky 2nd Amendment, which according to Heller does represent an individual right, to which self defense is a component. So, why do the "gun safety" lobby keep pointing to the ineffectual AWB and to examples like the UK and Australia which are two solutions that aren't workable here?  If you're going to control the tools used, you need to have the will to enact more stringent regulations without stepping over the line of hindering personal defense. You also have to have the will to take a generational approach. First, you draw up a broad category of banned weapon, one that isn't feature specific or overly technical. IOW, a category that can't easily be engineered around. Then you make production, sales and transfers of that category, including inheritance, illegal. You regulate transportation of the restricted items. Then you wait a generation. But nobody seems to have the will to do that. I'd define it as any centerfire long arms* with a magazine capacity over 5 or a detachable magazine. This would allow for five shot rifles and shotguns for home defense, including ARs with fixed magazines (which do have many merits for home defense). Sure, you'll still have a ton of high capacity, removable magazine fed weapons to contend with until their current owners kick the bucket, but confiscation is pretty untenable in the US, especially in the current political climate.

 

Eh, this is probably a bit too rambling. Sorry.

 

*I didn't go into handguns for space reasons. They're a bit trickier to boil down a simple regulation for that meets my personal criteria of both hindering mass shooters and allowing for personal defense.

More death of a Thousand Cuts huh? And how do you come up with 5 round magazines? And people wonder why we don't want to compromise

There is certainly no effective separation of church and state in that country.

I saw an article the other day about a suppreddor rated at -26db

Those all sound like federal charges, which it sounds like Trump could pardon to keep them quiet.

Teddy Roosevelt wept. *Sigh*

we need trustbuster Teddy!