|
Rigel posted:So.... a prominent pro-life Republican in congress had an affair and then asked his mistress to get an abortion? the other part of this story is that the congressman is apparently such an rear end in a top hat that his chief of staff had to write a memo explaining how his "sustained inappropriate behavior and engagement... to and with staff [contributed to] an inability to hire and retain competent staff; abysmal office morale; overwhelming amount of redundant work products that you constantly reject." there's an entire six-page memo in the link that reads as a litany of erratic and irresponsible behavior.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
The casualties in Puerto Rico from Maria have gone from 16 to 34 now, I would be surprised if that was the final count but I think the administration was shamed into upping the resources sent there to stop the situation devolving further. I don't think guns need to be this huge deal. There are a bunch of politicians bought off, a powerful lobby for guns as well as grassroots trolls intentionally obfuscating good faith efforts to deal with gun violence but even with all this resistance Americans have come to a overwhelming consensus on some basic gun control measures. It's something were gonna have to come back to and keep struggling with but the idea that it should be abandoned because the political cost is so high is stupid. Might as well not do anything ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Can we just get a flow chart or a spread sheet or something that covers the back and forth on gun control every time we have a mass shooting? I really think that's doable, it's so routine and predictable at this point. If automation is going to destroy society the least it can do is condense the poo poo posting down to something more easily ignored.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm glad to see we're at that point in the discussion where people admit that they want to ban guns partly to spite gun owners for wrongthink. It's perfectly fair to poo poo on people who put a specific interpretation of an abstract concept with multiple interpretations above lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Yall just need to propose a sensible and constitutional gun control regime that Dead Reckoning already supports: cops gunning down anyone who looks like a gun owner without warning and being protected from consequences by their coworkers and the prosecutor they play cards with on Saturday afternoon, while internet authoritarians post nonstop that they must have deserved it or they wouldn't have been shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yall just need to propose a sensible and constitutional gun control regime that Dead Reckoning already supports: cops gunning down anyone who looks like a gun owner without warning and being protected from consequences by their coworkers and the prosecutor they play cards with on Saturday afternoon, while internet authoritarians post nonstop that they must have deserved it or they wouldn't have been shot. You forgot to work a paper sack in there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
You'd have to have a white dude with no political motivation and no mental issues kill something on the order of 300 schoolchildren on film with legally bought firearms in order to actually produce meaningful gun control legislation in the USA. That's the threshold. This is a factual and true statement. This one was kinda close actually!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/915317663789928448 Republican talking points:  
treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
quote:Also, we've had examples where concealed carry has allowed people to protect themselves and stop a mass shooting in its tracks, such as last month in a church in Texas America is beyond parody. And these talking points are embarrassingly simple minded and transparent - this is the best the White House can do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
I remember back in 2012 there were a lot of "I voted for you but now you want marginally more regulation of the guns which won't even affect me because mine will already be grandfathered?! THANKS OBAMA, now I'm GOP4lyfe" posts in TFR. There are a lot of single issue voters out there, and most of them don't even have the reading comprehension of your average goon. Also it's important to remember mass shootings are outliers as far as gun deaths go. They are just the most scary kind to white people. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/ yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
You're making a bad comparison because the case against alcohol prohibition has nothing to do with some constitutional "right to tie one on." The opposite is in fact the case: the constitution uniquely names alcohol as a commodity to which you explicitly have no constitutional right of access. And then it goes even farther and bars the federal government from using its commerce power to interfere with states who want to regulate or ban alcohol. The actual case against prohibition is based on the social, criminal, and enforcement problems that arise in our society in the context of a ban on consumable recreational drugs, which is particular to alcohol and other drugs and wholly inapplicable to firearms. But if you want to treat guns like alcohol anyway I am totally on board with a constitutional amendment reading "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of any firearm, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:19
|
|
This is some grade-A shading right here. The "specific set of feelings/state of mind" alcohol is meant to cause is "judgement impaired." The entire point of alcoholic beverages is to get you recreationally hosed up, it has no redeeming social value whatsoever. And your right to tie one on has a staggeringly high socal cost:
|
Those talking points are some serious generic unconvincing drivel. That's a NRA press release written in the 80's or something isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Wastid posted:Puerto Rico is suffering and people have/are dieing, some of it due to a slower response than there should have been. I think there is an expectation is that there are going to be significantly more deaths than have been reported so far and as much as the focus is on the deaths life is going to be very very hard for a long time for most people who lived or remain on the island. No offense but do you have a source? I know people from Puerto Rico who are saying this is all bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
gowb posted:Can someone explain or link me to something explaining the Puerto Rico situation? I glean my news from a diversity of sources and I'm having trouble because they're saying completely different things. My uncle knows a family on the southern coast who claim the US media is blowing it out of proportion to make trump look bad...but then you get the reports that make it sound like everyone inland is dying. If there is some sort of comprehensive evidence based reporting I'm missing, please point it out to me. I desperately want to believe we're doing right by these people. A big hurricane completely wrecked Puerto Rico, we sent maybe half as much aid as we sent to Texas and Florida, and the aid isn't very effective because the storm completely ruined basically all of the island's infrastructure and logistics. Hospitals are running out of fuel to run their generators. Supply distribution is going at a snail's pace because the ports are wrecked, the roads are blocked, and most people don't have access to working phones. The number of dead is so low because no one has had time to count the bodies; it will almost certainly continue to increase as infrastructure is restored and authorities gain access to previously-isolated areas. And naturally, there's tons of fake news out there, as alt-right media makes poo poo up out of whole cloth so they can insist that the president's doing great and that all the problems are liberal conspiracies to sabotage PR to make Trump look bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
gowb posted:No offense but do you have a source? I know people from Puerto Rico who are saying this is all bullshit. I'm sure your weird uncle that is saying that the media is blowing it out of proportion to make Trump look bad and who knows someone who knows someone that used to live on Puerto Rico is totally right and everything is fine on the island. Fame Douglas fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Wastid posted:Those talking points are some serious generic unconvincing drivel. That's a NRA press release written in the 80's or something isn't it? The NRA a few years ago blamed lovely early 2000s flashgames as why some shooters shoot the shooty sticks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
gowb posted:Can someone explain or link me to something explaining the Puerto Rico situation? I glean my news from a diversity of sources and I'm having trouble because they're saying completely different things. My uncle knows a family on the southern coast who claim the US media is blowing it out of proportion to make trump look bad...but then you get the reports that make it sound like everyone inland is dying. If there is some sort of comprehensive evidence based reporting I'm missing, please point it out to me. I desperately want to believe we're doing right by these people. gowb posted:No offense but do you have a source? I know people from Puerto Rico who are saying this is all bullshit. So which is it? Is it your uncle who knows people on PR, or is it you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
If there's one thing I've learned: Always believe in what uncles with weird political opinions are saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
It's like you people don't get all your political knowledge from your uncle at Nintendo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
tentative8e8op posted:https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/915317663789928448 gently caress Republicans and gently caress the NRA This is gross
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So which is it? Is it your uncle who knows people on PR, or is it you? do not humor gowb
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So which is it? Is it your uncle who knows people on PR, or is it you? Uncle Dickie introduced me to them. I mean, do you think they're lying? What's the purpose of that? They don't support trump otherwise
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
The only people who consider throwing away the lives of hundreds or more nonwhite people in order to make a white person look bad to be an even remotely plausible gambit are people who consider the lives of hundreds of nonwhite people to be worth less than the reputation of a single white person. This shouldn’t be all that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
gowb posted:Uncle Dickie introduced me to them. I mean, do you think they're lying? What's the purpose of that? They don't support trump otherwise we think you're lying idiot
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:do not humor gowb
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
duz posted:Look at this person that doesn't live & drive in deer country. Annoying fuckers, kill them all. loving well this. 3 guys at work have hit deer in the last two weeks on the same stretch of road, and I dodge them on the way to work every night. Delicious woods rats need to be in my freezer instead of on the drat road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
we're delving into thunderdome territory here, boys
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're making a bad comparison because the case against alcohol prohibition has nothing to do with some constitutional "right to tie one on." The opposite is in fact the case: the constitution uniquely names alcohol as a commodity to which you explicitly have no constitutional right of access. And then it goes even farther and bars the federal government from using its commerce power to interfere with states who want to regulate or ban alcohol. But the fact that you managed to argue that banning alcohol was massively unsuccessful, promoted violent crime and people got booze away, that banning drugs has continued to be massively unsuccessful and promotes violent crime and people get drugs anyway, but that prohibition of guns will definitely work for <unspecified reasons> suggests that you might be a little bit impaired. BrandorKP posted:It's perfectly fair to poo poo on people who put a specific interpretation of an abstract concept with multiple interpretations above lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Here, maybe I can help with some of this since I've been poor rural and city hunter before. My family grew up poor somewhat rural southern black in Oklahoma and Mississippi, and much of their food was gotten by farming, fishing, and hunting. We mostly used shotguns and bolt actions; they were kind of poo poo because when you didn't get a god hit/kill with the first hit, you'd have to hopefully chase them down forever to take them out and putting them out of their agony. Either slit their throats or handgun shot to the head for that. I used to go down south and visit them and learned how to hunt with them. After growing a little older, I went hunting with assault rifles, and being able to do multiple hits instead of one (when stocked with the correct caliber for hunting) helped with this and let me kill animals more "humanely." Suppressors are also good, especially for hunting and range shooting because it's less wear and tear on my ears. You obviously want to hear more while hunting, so you want to plug your ears less, which means suppressors are better. Definitely prefer them for the range. I go to the woods or the range to target shoot my assault rifle every now and then but don't really care any more outside of random whatevs fun, especially since my hunting/fishing experience and killing, gutting, and cleaning animals with my bare hands made me more empathetic towards them to the point of veganism. My last remaining gun just stays locked up, separate from the magazine and I forget i have it until someone goes on a murder spree. I think I keep it because I like the idea of minorities having guns because that is the fastest way to get gun control passed, historically. Still, many responsible hunters or target people or whatever that aren't just compensating for their dicks will be turned off by those kinds of arguments that want to ban their more preferred gun for no reason to them (handguns are far more dangerous than rifles, for multiple reasons, and most handguns are semiautomatic as well). And while less people probably hunt/fish as much as they did 40 years ago in more rural areas, they still do it. That's why I say it's better to go with a narrative of "let's train and license and register like we do cars, that way people can keep with their hobbies" as opposed to "lets get rid of everything but muskets and flintlocks" since you probably will start turning off the more moderate sport users that aren't in the "arsenal to protect everything" group that won't be as easily swayed. Darko fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But the fact that you managed to argue that banning alcohol was massively unsuccessful, promoted violent crime and people got booze away, that banning drugs has continued to be massively unsuccessful and promotes violent crime and people get drugs anyway, but that prohibition of guns will definitely work for <unspecified reasons> suggests that you might be a little bit impaired. This is demonstrably false: we know exactly what factors cause the problems that accompany drug and alcohol prohibition and those factors do not exist with guns. And this is not theoretical either because we have empirical proof from the rest of the industrialized world which have more effective gun regulation than we do, up to a to a near total ban except for strict licensing like in Australia and the social problems that accompany alcohol prohibition are not present in any of them. This argument is embarrassingly bad. E: Also there is no normative small-r right to drink alcohol (nor should there be), and the academic arguments against alcohol prohibition do not depend on any such right. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is demonstrably false: we know exactly what factors cause the problems that accompany drug and alcohol prohibition and those factors do not exist with guns. And this is not theoretical either because we have empirical proof from the rest of the industrialized world which have more effective gun regulation than we do, up to a to a near total ban except for strict licensing like in Australia and the social problems that accompany alcohol prohibition are not present in any of them. Why do you think we'd be Australia and not Mexico?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not sure what particular abstract concept you're referring to, but literally everyone does this. Would you give up your freedom of speech or right to privacy if I could show that it would save lives? I don't believe that you don't know which particular abstract concept I'm referring to. I think you want to dodge the implication. That's being a coward. And we definitely give up free speech and privacy in rather specific instances where it prevents the loss of life or could cause loss of life. These ideas are ours and are whatever we decide they are collectively. It's perfectly fine to draw boundaries around them, rather than acting like a monster casually writing off a mass shooting for a belief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Why do you think we'd be Australia and not Mexico?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mexico's problems are not caused by their gun laws, nor would repealing Mexico's gun laws do anything to fix the problem of the cartels. Yep, a culture involving violence as a solution for problems tied heavily into toxic masculinity. Just like the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Mexico's problems are not caused by their gun laws, nor would repealing Mexico's gun laws do anything to fix the problem of the cartels. That doesn't answer the question. We aren't a happy well adjusted nation that just happens to have lovely gun laws that make everyone go crazy and shoot everything up. We have deep rooted social problems across the board that guns exacerbate. Why do you assume that changing our laws turns us into Australia, where their laws seem to have actually worked, as opposed to our neighbor Mexico, where they do sweet gently caress all to make things better?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Darko posted:Here, maybe I can help with some of this since I've been poor rural and city hunter before. If there could ever be a reasonable policy on gun control in the United States I think it would look exactly like as you have described. Just mandating every gun owner must have a safe and keep his weapons in it when not in use would do far more for public health than any weird regulation on peripherals like suppressors. I can't help but think about the knock-on effects of mass weapons ownership. I believe one reason police are so likely to use lethal force in this country when it would have been avoided anywhere else is that they have to act as if everyone they interact with is potentially carrying deadly weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Mulva posted:That doesn't answer the question. We aren't a happy well adjusted nation that just happens to have lovely gun laws that make everyone go crazy and shoot everything up. We have deep rooted social problems across the board that guns exacerbate. Why do you assume that changing our laws turns us into Australia, where their laws seem to have actually worked, as opposed to our neighbor Mexico, where they do sweet gently caress all to make things better? I think I know what's going on. Your teacher gave you a homework assignment to compare/contrast Mexico and the USA, and you're trying to trick this thread into writing it for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
ponzicar posted:I think I know what's going on. Your teacher gave you a homework assignment to compare/contrast Mexico and the USA, and you're trying to trick this thread into writing it for you. Shows what you know stupid, it's on Australia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Mulva posted:That doesn't answer the question. We aren't a happy well adjusted nation that just happens to have lovely gun laws that make everyone go crazy and shoot everything up. We have deep rooted social problems across the board that guns exacerbate. Why do you assume that changing our laws turns us into Australia, where their laws seem to have actually worked, as opposed to our neighbor Mexico, where they do sweet gently caress all to make things better? DR's argument is that gun laws intrinsically create all the problems of alcohol prohibition. They do not. You seem to be making a different argument, which I'll engage as well. Mexico's problems with cartel violence comes partially from rising inequality (and specifically NAFTA devastating rural agricultural regions that can't compete with US subsidized agriculture), drug prohibition which leaves criminal enterprises as the only ones able to fill the demand for drugs, and a long porous border with a neighbor who is the largest gun manufacturer in the world and is awash in guns because of inadequate gun control. The first two are social causes that should be fixed anyway, and the third does not apply to the US by definition because we wouldn't have a huge gun manufacturer next door with weak gun laws that make it easy to smuggle guns into the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Squalid posted:If there could ever be a reasonable policy on gun control in the United States I think it would look exactly like as you have described. Just mandating every gun owner must have a safe and keep his weapons in it when not in use would do far more for public health than any weird regulation on peripherals like suppressors. This is absolutely true. The prevalence of handguns is directly tied to all the training LE gets that a gun can be pulled and fired by a suspect in approx half a second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:15
|
|