csyphrett

Agent J: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
 
Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

the casting call was probably Need a gorilla for physical work.
CES 

It's Columbo night and our detective has to contend with a murderous conductor and another fake kidnapping. The second one ends with one of the better denouncements.
 
i don't understand how you're going to explain how this bullet came from the gun found in your niece's place.
CES  

The song was written and sung by a husband wife team. The problem is it was written in 44, and isn't a Christmas song
CES

You're one of us. That's what matters.
CES

I just liked the original better. Lorne Greene and Dirk Benedict were just way better in their roles as the patriarch and the Solo. Terry Carter actually commanded as an xo. I admit I didn't like the kid or the robot dog, but they were reminders of what the stakes were if the Viper pilots blew it.
 
I looked at the new Galatica and thought Voyager and Lost in Space (original and movie) did it better
CES    

Kevin Feige confirms Charlie Cox will return as Daredevil within Marvel Studios MCU, at some stage. 

The difference in tone was what turned me off from the remake. The original BSG was about hope, and wonder, courage and honor, and the bonds of family and comradeship. The remake was dominated by grief and loss, cynicism, distrust and betrayal, and the most extended dysfunctional family imaginable. The original often inspired me, despite how the quality sank over time. The remake might arguably boast superior quality in some areas, but it frequently depressed me, and that wasn't the experience I wanted. I tried at first, but I just couldn't bring myself to stick with it.

Thank you. And to your point, "sucks to be you" isn't exactly eloquent, I just didn't want to go into describing outcomes. I have a few minutes, so I'll do so with a couple of personal (not GSW) examples:
 
Back in 2010-2011, I had an abscess drained that left a narrow 10" (~25 cm) tunnel through muscle tissue. This kind of wound is about the best outcome someone is going to see if they get shot. My case was treated poorly and took a long time to heal, plus it was in the largest muscle in the human body. So, my healing time was longer than, say, someone getting shot in an extremity. However, even though I'm all healed up and have been for a while, that wound still aches from time to time, sometimes extremely so. Having a tract of scar tissue running through a muscle you use constantly just sucks. I also have about a quarter to half inch or so tear in a muscle directly behind my shoulder blade that I got being stupid and blowing it out back in 1989 or 1990. That also still hurts, almost constantly. 
 
Earlier this year, back in March, I had thoracic surgery by the best surgeon for such surgery in the area. There was no other significant tissue damage other than what was required to open me up, spread my ribs, and cut out a benign tumor. So, I have a much better outcome than a thoracic shooting victim, who may have damaged organs, shattered bones and other serious tissue trauma. The entire sheet of muscle around my back and side that was cut into still hurts, frequently contracts around the scar tissue, and the bottom of my rib cage still gives me serious spikes of pain. If I exert myself in the slightest, I end up walking around like a movie mummy for a couple days. Getting out of bed sucks. I randomly double up in pain at least every other day. And I wasn't shot.
 
So, if someone gets shot it's going to suck, even if it doesn't kill them. The vast majority of GSW injuries in the US are from handguns, and they tend to be of the first type, so relatively minor if they don't drill a hole in something important like an artery or organ. 
 
But that's all to support a side comment on the issue that was at hand: Intent. You don't use lethal force with the intent of killing an aggressor, you use it with the intent of stopping their attack. If you take up arms to defend yourself, you should be well-versed in their capabilities, and the levels of harm they can inflict. You should know your own limitations. You should act with the safety of your neighbors and the general public in mind. You should be cognizant of the range of reactions people will have both to being threatened with a firearm (ranging from, "I'm going to shove that thing up your ..." to "Oh crap! Ruuun!") and to being shot with a firearm (ranging from basically ignoring the wound and continuing the assault to running for the hills from a near miss). You should know that fights are chaotic and unpredictable in their outcomes. You should be aware that whatever the outcome, your life will be changed forever from the event.
 
 
This isn't possible to do with anything, whether it's weapons, vehicles, or spreading lies on the Internet.  I agree that it would be the most desirable result. That doesn't mean you ignore the issues, though. When I think about it, I start by considering two factors (from a US perspective):
 
People have the right to self defense. This is so fundamental, that it's natural law territory. In the US Constitution, this is encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. "Arms," are generally things that allow one to apply lethal or potentially lethal force. 
 
Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's nose. When a situation arises where the exercise of one's rights interferes or infringes on the rights or well-being of another person, then it's reasonable to enact laws that address the issue equitably.
 
Ideally, we balance the two concepts, and do so without denying large numbers of people their fundamental right. 
 
So, we could then start asking questions, like, "Do you need firearms to defend yourself?" or "What kind of firearms do you need to defend yourself?" or "If we allow people to have firearms to defend themselves, then should we limit what type of firearm is allowed to be taken to what location?" 
 
It's awkwardly phrased, but that last one is where my thoughts have been lately.
 
AR-15 style rifles are actually one of the best tools for defending yourself, if not the best. There are a number of reasons, and among them are ease of use and lethality. These also, not coincidentally, make the things great for offensive purposes. 
 
And when people read "lethality," their first thought will be, "Well, if the intent isn't to kill someone, why do you need one of those?" or "Well, clearly if you choose a high-lethality device for defense, your intent is to kill."  Prosecutors frequently ask the same questions.
 
The answer is that when you want to stop someone else from killing you, the time frame you want it done in is "as soon as possible." There's a large gap in power between the most powerful handgun rounds and the least powerful rifle rounds (which the 5.56 mostly falls under), barring a few uncommon examples. For commonly-used handgun rounds (which is to say, "service" calibers adopted originally for police/military use, not for hunting big game), the gap is even wider. So, the choice comes down to "might stop someone if you get lucky" or "likely to immediately stop hostilities." 
 
So, defense with a rifle round is reasonable. But how do we limit offense? What is the acceptable level of infringement into one's right to have the best tool available to defend themselves, that protects the general public from bad actors, unintended consequences, and irresponsible people?
 
I think it's reasonable to simply not allow weapons that chamber centerfire long gun calibers be carried in public, barring sporting use (hunting, mostly, which happens away from crowds) or transport in a locked container to and from other sporting activities.  
 
This makes it very simple to enforce: Police see a person walking around a riot with a long gun? Pick them up. They see someone walking around town with a long gun? Talk to them. Not just taking it to your vehicle to transport? Charge them. 
 
This leaves lots of issues on the table for both the "preserve rights" and "protect the public" sides of the equation:
 
On the one hand, you're not allowing people to carry the most effective tool possible for the job of self defense in public. I care less, honestly. Most people only arm up with long guns to go to demonstrations, or to try to "educate" the public on gun rights. They're a bunch of morons who don't need to be catered to. The mindset of a responsible gun owner is not to take on the role of the police in any situation, it's to protect your person and any family you may be with from an immediate threat. Handguns are the most commonly-faced such threat and very commonly used to stop such a threat. They're also a lot more discrete.
 
On the other hand, you can still harm neighbors if you miss indoors with a more powerful weapon that penetrates walls. In this case, the AR or the shotgun are actually better choices than a handgun for protecting neighbors from over penetration of building materials. While there is always some risk, it seems relatively low. 
 
This also doesn't address controlling handguns, but requiring training before allowing one to carry a handgun in public already has passed muster as constitutionally acceptable. I think even most gun rights advocates would accept a national concealed carry license, with a training requirement and extensive background check requirement, if it meant full transferability to all states. But it won't happen, because states want to reserve the right to regulate this for themselves. And that's not a horrible status quo from my perspective. 
 
This doesn't preclude someone from taking their lawfully-owned rifle, breaking it down, transporting it to a location, then committing an atrocity. Or doing the same with a lawfully-owned handgun they're not supposed to be carrying in the first place. 
 
So, that's the best I've come up with for a starting  point. There are probably countless minutiae to examine, even though I'm presenting this as a simple method of mitigation. I've already thought of several arguments for this being both insufficient and overly-restrictive. IMO, it'd be worth discussion and debate.
 
 
 
It happens. As you say, there's no great way to see data for events that nobody was charged in, outside of the news. I found an article about a local shooting in Seattle on September 3rd, where someone was shot and killed while attempting to rob someone at gun point, and that took a lot of digging through articles debating gun control to find. It never hit broadcast news here to my knowledge. Pointing out the number of criminals stopped by armed citizens isn't something a local government is going to go out of their way to do, either. It's simply bad publicity. 
 
At the end of the day, it will be difficult to address the matter of public safety vs the rights of the individual. These days, I'm leaning more toward public safety considerations having more weight. 
 
 
 
 

The trial of the Ahmaud Arbery murder ended in a conviction of his attackers
CES

The trial of the Ahmaud Arbery murder ended in a conviction of his attackers
CES

I don't know if this belongs here, the police brutality thread, or other news. So I am going to put it here. 
 
OK judge is named in appeal because it has come to light he was sexually involved with the prosecutor. It seems he had a habit of sexually harassing the female prosecutors in his court, so it's unclear if this was a mutual thing, or if he was blackmailing the prosecutor for sex
CES  

I'm waiting to see if I can switch shifts. Brian has been talking about leaving. I already told Todd I would switch to days. Things are cooling down. I think Dan was being enabled and his enabler has been off the last two days, so he has slowed down on his behavior.
CES

I find it odd that a man who kissed Trump's butt so hard would even try to say anything like this. That's like Lyndsey Graham saying he stayed the course, or Rand Paul saying his neighbor loves him.
CES

Someone has to
CES
 

Anti-vaxxers bribe doctors for “vaccination” with water, end up with the real vaccine

I am the only one at my job that got vaccinated. Everyone else is enraged that the government is trying to tell them what to do. I find it weird since we are delivery drivers and the government tells us what to do all the time. Things are made worst because they are mostly Trump guys
CES  

I am the only one at my job that got vaccinated. Everyone else is enraged that the government is trying to tell them what to do. I find it weird since we are delivery drivers and the government tells us what to do all the time. Things are made worst because they are mostly Trump guys
CES  

Makkari is also the basis for the golden age Hurricane and Mercury and was on Bloodstone's monster hunter team
CES

Makkari is also the basis for the golden age Hurricane and Mercury and was on Bloodstone's monster hunter team
CES

And the first trailers didn't help because it paints the characters as just standing around and doing nothing. The trailers should have focused more on the secret war going on. 
CES 

And the first trailers didn't help because it paints the characters as just standing around and doing nothing. The trailers should have focused more on the secret war going on. 
CES 

This comes to mind sadly
 
 

You know that feeling you get when you're about to see something bad happen to someone and you can't do anything about it?

I always liked Push
CES