You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 06:46:27 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: What's in the news?  (Read 173042 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2300 on: December 03, 2015, 02:01:16 AM »
To be honest, I really don't know if its political agenda or stupidity on his part.

Hes a Politician so... attribute it to both.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2301 on: December 03, 2015, 02:18:30 AM »
Funny how the illegality of having explosive devices did not stop these two from leaving three bombs at the facility they attacked. Perhaps we need stronger bomb control laws now. Derp.... >.>

  Explosives killed 0 people in this incident, and to the best of my knowledge haven't been used to kill other people in another story from last week (or the week before, or the week before), whilst guns were. To me, it would seem logical to focus on them over the explosives, but who am I kidding. Let's have the newest edition of "only Western country with easy access to guns without no significant training required them and an unhealthy gun mentality has another shooting incident. Here's why it definitely wasn't to do with easy gun access".
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 02:21:47 AM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2302 on: December 03, 2015, 04:38:31 AM »
  Explosives killed 0 people in this incident, and to the best of my knowledge haven't been used to kill other people in another story from last week (or the week before, or the week before), whilst guns were.

Planting bombs and killing people with guns are both against the law and punishable with life ruining sentences. Did the law and threat of punishment stop the terrorists? No, it did not. Would making these laws more strict or harsh help in deterring terrorists like these? Hell no. They believe that Allah will give them immortality and more pussy than they can shake their dick at. Why would they care about our laws?

I agree with you on the idea of trying to solve the largest problem first, but I don't see how making guns more illegal, or more difficult to obtain would help in addressing this problem. These terrorists are probably getting the guns legally in order to reduce their chances of getting in trouble with the law before they can execute their plan. They are not going to just give up and walk away if they cannot get their guns legally.

If we banned guns, there would be a black market for guns.   We would not have a database of legal gun owners and would have no idea how many are in circulation.  Existing guns that people currently own would be worth a lot more money. People would sell them for high amounts of money, they would steal them ( possibly from cops and the US military), smuggle them in from other countries ( along with the cocaine and exotic Chinese drugs ), or make them.

An interesting thought - a gun was 3D printed successfully about a year or two ago. I think it was designed to be able to shoot a shot or two before it blew apart, but with this feat, the idea that electronic plans for guns can be traded over the internet and manufactured on the fly was made concrete.  Once 3D printing machines improve and become cheaper, it may be rather easy to manufacture any number of different guns or otherwise banned weapons. All that would be needed to produce them is a manufacturing machine and the raw materials. ( Again, the machines for doing this would need to be more sophisticated than they are right now )


Forbes - First 3D printed Gun
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhl45ediih/the-liberator/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-takedown-of-3d-printable-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/

As far as a black market for guns goes, we have roughly as many guns in the US as people - that's about 320 million give or take 10 or 20 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 04:47:20 AM by TaintedAndDelish »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2303 on: December 03, 2015, 06:31:09 AM »
Planting bombs and killing people with guns are both against the law and punishable with life ruining sentences. Did the law and threat of punishment stop the terrorists? No, it did not. Would making these laws more strict or harsh help in deterring terrorists like these? Hell no. They believe that Allah will give them immortality and more pussy than they can shake their dick at. Why would they care about our laws?

  Muslim extremest are a minority in mass shooting perpetrators (plus as you noted, it would inconvenient them, which is a good thing).

If we banned guns, there would be a black market for guns.   We would not have a database of legal gun owners and would have no idea how many are in circulation.  Existing guns that people currently own would be worth a lot more money. People would sell them for high amounts of money, they would steal them ( possibly from cops and the US military), smuggle them in from other countries ( along with the cocaine and exotic Chinese drugs ), or make them.

  So nothing available on the black market should be illegal, since if people can get it there they may as well be able to get it at Wall Mart? To me that sounds like the argument you are making, but I imagine you limit this sentiment to guns, and would be interested in hearing why.

An interesting thought - a gun was 3D printed successfully about a year or two ago. I think it was designed to be able to shoot a shot or two before it blew apart, but with this feat, the idea that electronic plans for guns can be traded over the internet and manufactured on the fly was made concrete.  Once 3D printing machines improve and become cheaper, it may be rather easy to manufacture any number of different guns or otherwise banned weapons. All that would be needed to produce them is a manufacturing machine and the raw materials. ( Again, the machines for doing this would need to be more sophisticated than they are right now )

  This is a relevant consideration for the future certainly, but I don't think its a reason to not try and improve on gun control now as we have no idea when 3-D printing would be at that level.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2304 on: December 03, 2015, 07:33:12 AM »
Quote
Quote
Quote from: TaintedAndDelish on Today at 05:38:31 AM

    If we banned guns, there would be a black market for guns.   We would not have a database of legal gun owners and would have no idea how many are in circulation.  Existing guns that people currently own would be worth a lot more money. People would sell them for high amounts of money, they would steal them ( possibly from cops and the US military), smuggle them in from other countries ( along with the cocaine and exotic Chinese drugs ), or make them.

  So nothing available on the black market should be illegal, since if people can get it there they may as well be able to get it at Wall Mart? To me that sounds like the argument you are making, but I imagine you limit this sentiment to guns, and would be interested in hearing why.

I'm not completely black and white on this. There are some grey areas. If you make dangerous drugs illegal then yes, on one hand, you make it harder for people to get them and perhaps prevent some people from getting hurt, but on the other hand, you create a black market for them and instead of getting these drugs in pristine form from a pharmacy, they get them from questionable sources where the quality is highly variable and the contents may not exactly be what one expects. This as I understand it is one of the major problems with these new, exotic drugs that are being shipped in from China. With the black market comes additional crime drug wars, warehousing dealers in prison, and all that jazz. In the end, I think we end up with mixed  results and not the clear win that one might expect. It's messy, so I'm not really sure which is better or worse in this case. A reasonable balance might be a better choice?

Regarding guns, not all of the US is urban. We have mostly remote areas like farmland, deserts and forest when you can't just call a cop and expect them to come in 5 minutes should you need immediate protection. We have some areas where there is dangerous wild life - like packs of wolves, Aligators and 800lb bears. In more remote areas like this where people typically hunt, people do need guns.

Part of the reason why we have a right to arms as I understand, is to create a balance of power in order to protect the country against tyranny.  While the current president might not pose a threat, down the line, we could end up with a leader who goes Bashar al-Assad on us and turns the military against us. This has happened in other countries, it could happen to us one day. In a case like that, either we can resist with the use of weapons, or we get obliterated or enslaved or whatever.

I think taking away guns altogether is bad in light of these points, and adding new laws to the ones we already have is ineffective.  It's easy to just blame the guns for everything, but a gun is a tool which cannot fire itself. These shootings are people problems, not gun problems. For the record, California has the strictest gun laws in the US. Paris is even more strict, and yet they got shot up.


Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2305 on: December 03, 2015, 07:55:02 AM »
I'm not completely black and white on this. There are some grey areas. If you make dangerous drugs illegal then yes, on one hand, you make it harder for people to get them and perhaps prevent some people from getting hurt, but on the other hand, you create a black market for them and instead of getting these drugs in pristine form from a pharmacy, they get them from questionable sources where the quality is highly variable and the contents may not exactly be what one expects. This as I understand it is one of the major problems with these new, exotic drugs that are being shipped in from China. With the black market comes additional crime drug wars, warehousing dealers in prison, and all that jazz. In the end, I think we end up with mixed  results and not the clear win that one might expect. It's messy, so I'm not really sure which is better or worse in this case. A reasonable balance might be a better choice?

  It undoubtedly is. But part of the problem is the mentality to guns. Even if no legislated is made in response to it, accepting that guns kill would be an important step towards that.

Regarding guns, not all of the US is urban. We have mostly remote areas like farmland, deserts and forest when you can't just call a cop and expect them to come in 5 minutes should you need immediate protection. We have some areas where there is dangerous wild life - like packs of wolves, Aligators and 800lb bears. In more remote areas like this where people typically hunt, people do need guns.

  Doesn't Canada manage to deal with such problems without needing the second Amendment? (Okay no alligators, but police are far away and wolves and bears)

Part of the reason why we have a right to arms as I understand, is to create a balance of power in order to protect the country against tyranny.  While the current president might not pose a threat, down the line, we could end up with a leader who goes Bashar al-Assad on us and turns the military against us. This has happened in other countries, it could happen to us one day. In a case like that, either we can resist with the use of weapons, or we get obliterated or enslaved or whatever.

  Two problems with this:

  1. This could happen in the future, people are dying now.

  2. The US has a military. Either they side with the government, and you will get slaughtered (Vietnam does not support a civilian victory because the political considerations that lead to the withdrawal of US forces would not be a factor in an revolution), or they side with the people against the government, and you don't need an armed population to topple them, the professional military does that.

I think taking away guns altogether is bad in light of these points, and adding new laws to the ones we already have is ineffective.

  So you want a balance, but you don't want new gun laws? How are things going to be balanced? By changing nothing?

It's easy to just blame the guns for everything, but a gun is a tool which cannot fire itself. These shootings are people problems, not gun problems.

  Yes, but people problems don't have as high a death count when the problematic people don't have such easy access to guns.

For the record, California has the strictest gun laws in the US.

  Not too relevant, no state is an island and authorities have limited control to prevent guns crossing a a state borders. Besides, strictest gun law in the US doesn't mean too much when it still needs to comply with the latest interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Paris is even more strict, and yet they got shot up.

  Twice (that I know of). This is the 350th mass shooting event in the US this year. Now I get that figure from an anti-gun page, so we can assume it have been inflated by some ridiculously broad definition of "mass shooting", but even assuming its been artificially boosted, the point remains that a mass shooting incident in Paris is a major event. For the US, someone in this thread responded "Not again".

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2306 on: December 03, 2015, 08:55:07 AM »
The technical definition of a mass shooting is one where at least 4 victims, not including the perpetrator, are killed.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2307 on: December 03, 2015, 09:06:13 AM »
The technical definition of a mass shooting is one where at least 4 victims, not including the perpetrator, are killed.

  Oh interest, seems they weren't beefing the numbers. I guess they don't need to. So yeah, 355 mass shootings in the US so far this year, bringing up Paris seems a little desperate.

Offline Avis habilis

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2308 on: December 03, 2015, 09:09:55 AM »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2309 on: December 03, 2015, 10:55:15 AM »
Okay - according to that article, wounding 4 is enough to make it onto the list. 

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2310 on: December 03, 2015, 11:51:47 AM »
Back here, the Constitutional Tribunal crisis becomes bigger and bigger:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3344680/Tussle-judges-turns-constitutional-crisis-Poland.html

Seriously, some people say this whole situation is, actually, a coup d'etat...  :-(

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2311 on: December 03, 2015, 12:18:30 PM »
Back here, the Constitutional Tribunal crisis becomes bigger and bigger:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3344680/Tussle-judges-turns-constitutional-crisis-Poland.html

Seriously, some people say this whole situation is, actually, a coup d'etat...  :-(

Just because the Daily Mail has a bit of a reputation as a tabloid, I double-checked and brought up the Reuters article directly:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/03/poland-constitution-idUSL8N13R2LD20151203

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2312 on: December 03, 2015, 02:19:54 PM »
Just because the Daily Mail has a bit of a reputation as a tabloid, I double-checked and brought up the Reuters article directly:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/03/poland-constitution-idUSL8N13R2LD20151203

Thanks.

I'm very saddened by everything's that happening here. I just read an interview with a law professor who pointed out that in the last two weeks, our president has breached the Constitution *three times*.

Offline Avis habilis

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2313 on: December 04, 2015, 08:03:57 AM »
Gun argument split to the gun rights thread.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2314 on: December 04, 2015, 04:41:12 PM »
So, in China they shrunk down Boyega's character and completely removed Oscar Isaac from the Star Wars Ep 7 posters.....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/%e2%80%98star-wars%e2%80%99-china-poster-sparks-controversy-after-shrinking-john-boyega%e2%80%99s-character/ar-AAg1HDf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

Not the first time ive heard of some questionable racial stuff from China. Have a sociology teacher who went to china to conduct studies on the gender politics there and the latino and African American in their group were constantly getting looks from people the entire time they were there, some out of curiosity others....less than friendly.

I almost wonder if this was done just to stir controversy.

Putting the poster down below incase you want a closeup.
 
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 04:44:24 PM by Lustful Bride »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2315 on: December 04, 2015, 04:59:45 PM »
I figured out which one was Oscar Isaac by process of elimination - the bizarre thing is that his costume makes it such that you can't even tell what ethnicity he is (unlike John Boyega, who is mask-less).

Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2316 on: December 04, 2015, 09:37:35 PM »
The family of the San Bernardino shooter hires a couple criminal defense lawyers.  The dynamic duo gets out in front of national TV and starts babbling theories about how maybe the shooting didn't really occur and how no one really knows how the dozen pipe bombs got into Farook's garage...

Quote
'it doesn't seem plausible to us that this petite woman [Malik] would be involved in this sort of hyper-caricatured, Bonnie and Clyde crazy scenario.

'There were a lot of questions drawn with Sandy Hook and whether or not that was a real incident or not.

'But I mean obviously these things were found there, how they got there we don't know.'

Seriously? 


Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2317 on: December 04, 2015, 10:09:26 PM »
While I understand that it's the lawyer's job to blatantly lie on behalf of his client, there was something about the obviousness of his lies that just made me want to slap the shit out of him. How stupid does this guy think people are?


Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2318 on: December 04, 2015, 10:27:51 PM »
The family of the San Bernardino shooter hires a couple criminal defense lawyers.  The dynamic duo gets out in front of national TV and starts babbling theories about how maybe the shooting didn't really occur and how no one really knows how the dozen pipe bombs got into Farook's garage...

Seriously?

I feel so bad for American muslims right now. This shit is gonna get so ugly... But if I were them id be making it public and calling the shooters family out on this shit. Showing their outright disapproval of this.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2319 on: December 04, 2015, 10:44:46 PM »
The family of the San Bernardino shooter hires a couple criminal defense lawyers.  The dynamic duo gets out in front of national TV and starts babbling theories about how maybe the shooting didn't really occur and how no one really knows how the dozen pipe bombs got into Farook's garage...

Quote
    'it doesn't seem plausible to us that this petite woman [Malik] would be involved in this sort of hyper-caricatured, Bonnie and Clyde crazy scenario.
    'There were a lot of questions drawn with Sandy Hook and whether or not that was a real incident or not.
    'But I mean obviously these things were found there, how they got there we don't know.'


Seriously?

Bonnie Parker was 4'10, 90 pounds.  Just sayin'.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2320 on: December 04, 2015, 11:00:26 PM »
The fact is, she did it*. She managed to use whatever weapons they had just fine, and then after this, he spews this horse shit about how she could not have possibly done it. In a different context, this kind of lie would be considered Gaslighting

* To be fair, it seems that the media is saying "they" did it, but  so far, I have not found any wording that specifically accuses her in particular of firing a weapon. It's hard to tell if "they" means "Both shot people" or "both were involved"





Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2321 on: December 06, 2015, 04:17:34 PM »
The San Bernadino shooter's father apparently gave an interview and said:

Quote
My son said that he shared [IS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadis ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel.

I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America dont want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics. But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed.

« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 04:20:54 PM by Cycle »

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2322 on: December 07, 2015, 12:06:37 AM »

It's no wonder they saw no warning signs. They're all crazy.

Offline Cycle

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2323 on: December 07, 2015, 10:07:21 AM »
One of the co-workers gave an interview:

Quote
[Harrison the co-worker] told the FBI that Farook "didn't want to be in the United States" because "being in this country just didn't fit his views."

Harrison said Farook was "passionate about his religion," and didn't feel that he could practice it the way he wanted to in America.

"He told me that him paying taxes was helping the United States support basically the war on Islam, the war on Muslims," Harrison said.


Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: What's in the news?
« Reply #2324 on: December 07, 2015, 03:59:52 PM »

From your article, "Farook also told Harrison he made plans to move to Dubai, but couldn't find a job."

Well, that's pretty telling. It sounds he just blamed the US for his problems and in the end, decided to escape the hardships of life and pressure of having to provide for his wife and newborn child via what we call "suicide by cop." Perhaps he had mixed motifs. Funny, that Chrevrolet Suburban that he got shot up in is a very expensive vehicle. They start at about $45,000 USD new for the most stripped down model. Not sure if that was a rental or if he owned it. Either way, it doesn't sound like he was doing all that bad financially.