Octopus Overlords

I keep a profile so that other people can share funny images to it. I’m just a middleman.

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/9 ... 5973080064

Right-wing pundits have begun attacking survivors of the Parkland school shooting.

Here one is attacked for being associated with the FBI Deep State.

Creepy as hell.

noxiousdog wrote:We can argue cost benefit but for you to say "no benefit" makes me want to oppose you. If you can't be trusted to respect gun-owners point of view, how can you expect them to believe you're not coming for all their guns?

Why do I have to respect the paranoia of gun owners? The fetishization of guns and the "individual right" to guns are relatively new creations sold by the NRA.

I think it makes sense to drive these "lone gunmen" into militias who can be held legally responsible for the acts of their members. You want to hunt animals? Join a hunting group. Want to shoot at the range? Join others there. Government doesn't have to act as much when those with guns accept the cost of their ideals and self-police.

Holman wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:54 pm https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/9 ... 5973080064

Right-wing pundits have begun attacking survivors of the Parkland school shooting.

Here one is attacked for being associated with the FBI Deep State.

Creepy as hell.

Deplorable wasn't nearly a strong enough word.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:02 am

noxiousdog wrote:We can argue cost benefit but for you to say "no benefit" makes me want to oppose you. If you can't be trusted to respect gun-owners point of view, how can you expect them to believe you're not coming for all their guns?

Why do I have to respect the paranoia of gun owners? The fetishization of guns and the "individual right" to guns are relatively new creations sold by the NRA.

I think it makes sense to drive these "lone gunmen" into militias who can be held legally responsible for the acts of their members. You want to hunt animals? Join a hunting group. Want to shoot at the range? Join others there. Government doesn't have to act as much when those with guns accept the cost of their ideals and self-police.

It's not paranoia when you're involved. You've been pretty clear you want to outlaw all guns and drugs.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:23 am It's not paranoia when you're involved. You've been pretty clear you want to outlaw all guns and drugs.

Very thought provoking and adult response there ND. Congrats.

Sepiche wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:48 am

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:23 am It's not paranoia when you're involved. You've been pretty clear you want to outlaw all guns and drugs.

Very thought provoking and adult response there ND. Congrats.

I don't follow. That's exactly what he wants.

Why shouldn't we adopt the founder's intent regarding the right to bear arms in a militia?

Why do you get to be paranoid while at the same time insist that I would be irrational if I believed those guns would be used to kill me or my kids? There is more evidence of mass casualties than mass gun confiscation.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:51 am Why shouldn't we adopt the founder's intent regarding the right to bear arms in a militia?

Why do you get to be paranoid while at the same time insist that I would be irrational if I believed those guns would be used to kill me or my kids? There is more evidence of mass casualties than mass gun confiscation.

Before we further go down the rabbit hole, I want to make sure I have your position correct.

Are you for or against mass gun confiscation?

After Florida School Shooting, Russian ‘Bot’ Army Pounced

“This is pretty typical for them, to hop on breaking news like this,” said Jonathon Morgan, chief executive of New Knowledge, a company that tracks online disinformation campaigns. “The bots focus on anything that is divisive for Americans. Almost systematically.”

gameoverman wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:46 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:17 pm So while the fight over gun control/regulation continues to stalemate, why can't we at least agree to other solutions?

Why can't we secure school like we do courts and banks? I've seen estimates from $15 to $25 billion a year to put metal detectors, their operators, and sworn officers (cops) in all public schools. Not armed teachers, cops. Cops trained specifically for the nuances of the job.

This seems like a no brainier, even if we still ban Ar-15s and whatever else. Banning all firearms, let alone just a few types, won't make it impossible for someone to walk into a school and shoot kids. So why not afford kids the same protection we give our money and judges and air travel? By all means, take your side on the gun control debate but why not secure schools as well? Surely the best scenario is whatever proper gun control/regulation plus additional security.

It's already in place in war weary schools in NY and Chicago.

It's sad, that's why I think we haven't done it yet. When I first went to high school it was an open campus. At lunch you could walk out in any direction, we usually went to In N Out which was a couple of blocks away. Then when you came back, you could walk onto the campus completely unchallenged by anyone. By the time I had graduated, it was a closed campus due to a few incidents of the drive by shooting variety over the years I was there. The first time it happened the reaction was "OMG a drive by!" and the last time before I left was more like "Oh, another one?".

Losing the open campus was a sad day. I can't imagine how I'd feel if the school was like a prison, all concrete and brick with tiny thick glass windows high enough off the ground to be out of reach, and everyone had to pass through small guarded entrances. Good luck teaching anyone anything in that environment. One message that will get through to the kids is be afraid, be very afraid.

It is sad. But reality is that people are willing to go into schools and murder kids.

I had an open campus in high school too. I can long for those days but they're gone forever. We can maybe hope for an In N Out in the cafeteria food court or something for our kids. But no more wide open doors.

gameoverman wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:46 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:17 pm So while the fight over gun control/regulation continues to stalemate, why can't we at least agree to other solutions?

Why can't we secure school like we do courts and banks? I've seen estimates from $15 to $25 billion a year to put metal detectors, their operators, and sworn officers (cops) in all public schools. Not armed teachers, cops. Cops trained specifically for the nuances of the job.

This seems like a no brainier, even if we still ban Ar-15s and whatever else. Banning all firearms, let alone just a few types, won't make it impossible for someone to walk into a school and shoot kids. So why not afford kids the same protection we give our money and judges and air travel? By all means, take your side on the gun control debate but why not secure schools as well? Surely the best scenario is whatever proper gun control/regulation plus additional security.

It's already in place in war weary schools in NY and Chicago.

It's sad, that's why I think we haven't done it yet. When I first went to high school it was an open campus. At lunch you could walk out in any direction, we usually went to In N Out which was a couple of blocks away. Then when you came back, you could walk onto the campus completely unchallenged by anyone. By the time I had graduated, it was a closed campus due to a few incidents of the drive by shooting variety over the years I was there. The first time it happened the reaction was "OMG a drive by!" and the last time before I left was more like "Oh, another one?".

Losing the open campus was a sad day. I can't imagine how I'd feel if the school was like a prison, all concrete and brick with tiny thick glass windows high enough off the ground to be out of reach, and everyone had to pass through small guarded entrances. Good luck teaching anyone anything in that environment. One message that will get through to the kids is be afraid, be very afraid.

Not to mention the budget debacle. Who's going to pay for the cops? The states - which already have budget problems funding current schools and/or already treat education like an afterthought? The federal government - which doesn't get involved in funding for local police and where the Rs will scream "deficit!!!" every time you want to spend money on non military items?

Are you for or against mass shootings?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't have to confiscate cars. They pushed for strict rules for risky behavior so when drivers didn't follow the law, there were consequences before someone was killed. Guns should be no different as IMO the Constitution protects only a well regulated militia.

raydude wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:11 pm
Not to mention the budget debacle. Who's going to pay for the cops? The states - which already have budget problems funding current schools and/or already treat education like an afterthought? The federal government - which doesn't get involved in funding for local police and where the Rs will scream "deficit!!!" every time you want to spend money on non military items?

So the biggest obstacle is cost? What is more likely? The Rs will find some money to [say they want to] save kids or they will turn their backs on their NRA masters?

Good luck teaching anyone anything in that environment. One message that will get through to the kids is be afraid, be very afraid.

Kids aren't stupid. They know about these shootings. Sending them to a wide-open unprotected school would probably be more frightening.

Kids in Isreal go to these kinds of fortresses. Do they have learning issues? I honestly don't know.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:18 pm Are you for or against mass shootings?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't have to confiscate cars. They pushed for strict rules for risky behavior so when drivers didn't follow the law, there were consequences before someone was killed. Guns should be no different as IMO the Constitution protects only a well regulated militia.

Just answer the question. It's not hard.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:57 pm

Zarathud wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:18 pm Are you for or against mass shootings?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving didn't have to confiscate cars. They pushed for strict rules for risky behavior so when drivers didn't follow the law, there were consequences before someone was killed. Guns should be no different as IMO the Constitution protects only a well regulated militia.

Just answer the question. It's not hard.

I believe he has. He is calling for tight regulation similar to what MADD wrought, but they didn't take private car ownership away. Clear context clues seem to indicate he is not calling for a total gun ban, no?

It seems you two are sniping at each other for the sake of it at this point. Shrugs.

FWIW, I am absolutely for an all out ban similar to other countries.

When I was active in college debate I had a ban handguns case that never lost, I even picked up a big-time NRA supporting judge from USAFA in one finals. (And of course I had to debate on the other side against any forms of gun control to win tournaments) Back then, the debate was all about handguns and the spectre of assault rifles was just barely beginning to register. It's fascinating how the rise of school/mass shootings since then has flipped the debate on all sides. For the past few years as you all know, I've thrown in the towel on any bans and been bullish on treating it like a public health crisis, requiring insurance and ending the beyond stupid Dickey Amendment so we can actually research the problem and taking other similar steps. I still support all of this...

But I have to admit, over the past year or so I am starting to come around on the idea of banning assault rifles. Nearly every single mass-shooting event in this country uses one and they're damned effective. I understand the logistical issues and syntax confusion, but I can get behind the idea of reducing the supply of these sorts of weapons no matter how imprecise or uneven the initial results might be. Less assault rifles is starting to look really good about now. Some gun buyback programs could be good too. Anyone remember the impact of cash for clunkers on the used car market?

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:55 pm FWIW, I am absolutely for an all out ban similar to other countries.

Which country are you modeling?

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:16 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:55 pm FWIW, I am absolutely for an all out ban similar to other countries.

Which country are you modeling?

Canada, France, Germany, many others...pick one. Don't care which model it is, as long as they are highly regulated.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:16 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:55 pm FWIW, I am absolutely for an all out ban similar to other countries.

Which country are you modeling?

Did you indicate what model you endorse for reducing gun violence? Are you open to any bans? I'm not seeing it in the recent posts and am curious how your stance has evolved for what steps you are advocating. It's much easier to tear down ideas than to put up one of your own...

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:26 pm

Good luck teaching anyone anything in that environment. One message that will get through to the kids is be afraid, be very afraid.

Kids aren't stupid. They know about these shootings. Sending them to a wide-open unprotected school would probably be more frightening.

Kids in Isreal go to these kinds of fortresses. Do they have learning issues? I honestly don't know.

That's kind of the point though. In Israel they are living within the mentality of being under constant threat of destruction. That's how we want to raise our kids here in the US?

Once you throw in the towel, you can't take it back. If we turn everything into a bunker there's no going back from that. I can't control it, if that's what people want then that's how it'll be, but I think it's unnecessary. Banks and armored cars have had armed guards since forever yet they still get robbed. Look at it this way, a school that's a total fortress, yeah that's safe. But what happens when the school day is over and all the kids are let out to go home? Does every kid get bodyguards and an armored car ride home?

The environment around us obviously has an effect on us, even if it's subliminal. I bet most people try and raise their kids to not be afraid of monsters, because we don't want our kids to be constantly in fear of everything. That's no way to grow up.

Let's say we turn school into fortresses. High fences, checkpoints with armed guards and metal detectors, armed people (teachers?) roaming the halls. This is somewhere that kids are sent every day to learn and grow. What's the message that's sending them? It's possible it makes them feel safe, but I bet it's more likely to be "yes, there are monsters, and yes, you need to be afraid of them all the time." That kind of environment doesn't seem to me like the kind of place I want my kid going to school.

Here's a small piece of anecdata. Years ago, I was crossing the Canadian border. For reasons, I wound up spending some time sitting in both the Canadian and US side offices. The Canadian side was pretty typical government building. Beige, lots of windows and tile, some plants. I felt fine sitting in there. The US side was built like a bunker. Lots of stone, narrow windows, glass barriers in front of the customs officers. Sitting in there, I felt much more on edge, like they were anticipating some big attack, and I couldn't shake that nervous feeling the whole time. That was me as an adult, and was entirely a reaction to the environment. I don't want my kid going to school somewhere like the second place.

Not only that, where the hell is the money coming from? The town next to mine is trying to request money to renovate, and it's meeting MASSIVE opposition from the olds in the town. Now we're saying they need to build a bunch of extra fortifications, and buy equipment and hire guards? All while we're paying teachers so little that we can't attract and keep good ones? Cool, sounds great.

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:32 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:16 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:55 pm FWIW, I am absolutely for an all out ban similar to other countries.

Which country are you modeling?

Canada, France, Germany, many others...pick one. Don't care which model it is, as long as they are highly regulated.

None of those have an all out ban. They each have about 30 firearms per 100 people.

Enough, I really don't know. I'm open to many things. My only reservations are I want it to be meaningful and well thought out. I know the remediation for suicide, passion killings, accidents, and mass shootings are going to be different.

We have a pattern of deciding on a major issue and then making a bunch of ineffective laws that makes everyone feel better which not really fixing the problem. I'm opposed to that and I'm opposed to taking guns away from law abiding citizens. I do think it's reasonable to make gun owners register, have reasonable (more than a week less than six months) waiting periods, and have mandatory evaluations and/or safety classes. I am open to banning certain types of firearms (provided it can be defined by usage and not appearance) or at least making the licensing requirements on them much more strict. I like the idea of limiting ammunition, but I haven't seen any discussion of it, so I don't know about any drawbacks.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:56 pm I like the idea of limiting ammunition, but I haven't seen any discussion of it, so I don't know about any drawbacks.

The biggest issue is determining what that limit should be. 1,000 rounds sounds like a lot but that's maybe 4 or 5 solid sessions at the range. With ammo usually twice as expensive at the range, most people will stock up rather than buy at the range.

Plus you have a lot of people who do their own reloads. Do you limit all ammo components as well?





The more I think about it, I think the best solution is a lot of smaller solutions that nobody wants. One side will say a particular measure is too much, the other will say it's not enough. But since the alternative seems to be doing a whole lot of fuckall, I seriously think we need to accept something short of perfection.


We need to attack both the inputs (the "human" side) and the outputs (guns).

Mental illness, mental wellness, drugs (mostly of the prescription variety), security, criminals, training. Those are the input areas.

Firearm licensing, training, regulations, restrictions, those are the output areas.

President Donald Trump announced he has ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to take steps to ban bump stocks, the type of gun modification that enabled Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock to kill 58 people in October.

“Just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the attorney general to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns,” Trump said Tuesday while speaking at a medal of valor ceremony at the White House. “I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized ... very soon.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump ... 46879.html

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:19 pm The biggest issue is determining what that limit should be. 1,000 rounds sounds like a lot but that's maybe 4 or 5 solid sessions at the range. With ammo usually twice as expensive at the range, most people will stock up rather than buy at the range.

Range ammo would be exempt. You can buy what you need and use while you are there.

Plus you have a lot of people who do their own reloads. Do you limit all ammo components as well?

Make a license for it if necessary.

The reality is there's going to be deaths from guns regardless of how many laws there are. But some of these are relatively easy solutions that is going to exert downward pressure on the casualty count without significant sacrifice of non-murderous gun owners.

We need to attack both the inputs (the "human" side) and the outputs (guns).

Mental illness, mental wellness, drugs (mostly of the prescription variety), security, criminals, training. Those are the input areas.

Firearm licensing, training, regulations, restrictions, those are the output areas.

concur.

Rip wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:40 pm

President Donald Trump announced he has ordered Attorney General Jeff Sessions to take steps to ban bump stocks, the type of gun modification that enabled Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock to kill 58 people in October.

“Just a few moments ago, I signed a memorandum directing the attorney general to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns,” Trump said Tuesday while speaking at a medal of valor ceremony at the White House. “I expect that these critical regulations will be finalized ... very soon.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump ... 46879.html

This is great and so is the support for better background checks. A high school friend of mine of FB who works professionally in politics and is incredibly bright had a thought. Trump is entirely dispensable to Republicans, the NRA is not. Now that stories of Russians using the NRA to funnel money are starting to look real, the party is in one hell of a bind. Besides scuttling investigations into Russia, getting out some bumper-sticker gun control out could really help reduce the pressure. Could the Russian interference have inadvertently created a window for gun reform?

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:56 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:32 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:16 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:55 pm FWIW, I am absolutely for an all out ban similar to other countries.

Which country are you modeling?

Canada, France, Germany, many others...pick one. Don't care which model it is, as long as they are highly regulated.

None of those have an all out ban. They each have about 30 firearms per 100 people.

Enough, I really don't know. I'm open to many things. My only reservations are I want it to be meaningful and well thought out. I know the remediation for suicide, passion killings, accidents, and mass shootings are going to be different.

We have a pattern of deciding on a major issue and then making a bunch of ineffective laws that makes everyone feel better which not really fixing the problem. I'm opposed to that and I'm opposed to taking guns away from law abiding citizens. I do think it's reasonable to make gun owners register, have reasonable (more than a week less than six months) waiting periods, and have mandatory evaluations and/or safety classes. I am open to banning certain types of firearms (provided it can be defined by usage and not appearance) or at least making the licensing requirements on them much more strict. I like the idea of limiting ammunition, but I haven't seen any discussion of it, so I don't know about any drawbacks.

Thanks for this. We know any successful change is highly likely to be incremental and not of the paradigm shift variety. Part of the pattern you mention is unfortunately not unique to politics, it's sort of a human thing. With that understanding, I think we are more on the same page than not.

ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns,

This is far too vague to have any thoughts. Or it's exactly what he means. Taken literally it doesn't include bump stocks. One hopes he's just misspeaking. What about binary triggers, etc?

Will have to wait and see. It's just a directive to make a proposal. Long way from law.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:57 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:19 pm The biggest issue is determining what that limit should be. 1,000 rounds sounds like a lot but that's maybe 4 or 5 solid sessions at the range. With ammo usually twice as expensive at the range, most people will stock up rather than buy at the range.

Range ammo would be exempt. You can buy what you need and use while you are there.

That's a license for ranges to print money on the markup.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:57 pm

The reality is there's going to be deaths from guns regardless of how many laws there are. But some of these are relatively easy solutions that is going to exert downward pressure on the casualty count without significant sacrifice of non-murderous gun owners.

This is the ideal starting point.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:57 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:19 pm The biggest issue is determining what that limit should be. 1,000 rounds sounds like a lot but that's maybe 4 or 5 solid sessions at the range. With ammo usually twice as expensive at the range, most people will stock up rather than buy at the range.

Range ammo would be exempt. You can buy what you need and use while you are there.

That's a license for ranges to print money on the markup.

Incentive.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:16 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:57 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:19 pm The biggest issue is determining what that limit should be. 1,000 rounds sounds like a lot but that's maybe 4 or 5 solid sessions at the range. With ammo usually twice as expensive at the range, most people will stock up rather than buy at the range.

Range ammo would be exempt. You can buy what you need and use while you are there.

That's a license for ranges to print money on the markup.

Why wouldn't you just go to the range that has cheaper ammo?

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status ... 0178098176
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status ... 2321562625
Dinesh D'Souza is a piece of shit.

Came to post that. What a truly shitty human being.

That is disgusting though I had to laugh at a couple of the responses:

"These kids will be able to vote before you can."

"Jail 1, Dinesh 0"

But what an a**hole.

I'm really really trying to look at this many ways and be respectful.

However, there are some really truly disgusting human beings in this country.

Can't even begin to comprehend how someone can speak in reference to kids who's friends were just murdered in a condescending and apathetic way.

Worse yet, people finding nothing wrong with it.



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

The InfoWars-style conspiracy theory is that these were actors, the kids are sinister agents of the Deep State, etc. The slightly more mainstream version is that they are being coached/indoctrinated/used by leftist anti-gun forces.

Apparently it's hard for conservatives to believe that they could really feel the way they feel after watching their school invaded and their classmates gunned down.

Holman wrote: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:24 amApparently it's hard for conservatives to believe that they could really feel the way they feel after watching their school invaded and their classmates gunned down.

I think that sometimes the problem with the ultra-conservatives is a lack of empathy. They have no exposure to the people and problems that other people face. Whether it be gun violence or health care issues or many other problems. They take it as an attack on their 'way of life' versus people just trying to find solutions for those problems.