I’m really proud this thread isn’t a giant bitch session about how Discovery Changed Things Now It Sucks. We may be growing up as a forum.
checks the TLJ thread
Oh, never mind.
Didn’t Trek already change things enough times and disappoint enough times that STD doesn’t move the scale that much?
A local governor in Poland says a cow that escaped while being taken to a slaughterhouse is still avoiding capture even though the order to kill it has been canceled.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-runaway-cow-defends-its-freedom-in-poland-2018-2
Voyager is my favorite. I have no shame.
Manafort just got hit with a 32-count indictment: tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud. So now we finally see the sort of indictment Mueller hands out to people who are not cooperating with the investigation, and ouch. So Manafort gets the choice: flip, rot in the pen, or force a nasty constitutional endgame that makes Trump look guilty as hell right as the election season is heating up?
Knowing how much Trump cares about other human beings, and how much Kool-Aid Manafort’s drunk, my money’s on #2.
Manafort’s misdeeds took place 2006-2015. It’s a long way from having anything to do with Trump. To say he could flip assumes there is anything to flip on.
Supper tonight’s leg of lamb and soup. Blecch.
😢
Hope you’re holding up, Handman. I might be passing out early.
Cruz was throwing up every kind of red flag imaginable and nothing was done. The FBI was informed. Police and social workers were put on alert. He was expelled when he had bullets in his backpack. The family he lived with knew he had guns and was troubled (they were trying to get him therapy they say, but that doesn’t excuse all these signs). He tortured animals.
Whatever feelings you have on guns and gun control…this situation really calls out for a focus on mental health issues.
Resisting the urge to leap to judgment, but c’mon:
The school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, waited outside the school building as the shooting unfolded last week, officials said.
Scot Peterson never went in after taking a position on the west side of the building, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.
Peterson resigned after he was suspended without pay by Israel pending an internal investigation into his actions during the shooting that left 17 people dead, Israel said. Peterson was eligible for retirement.
Israel made the decision to suspend Peterson – who was armed and in uniform at the time of the shooting – after interviewing the deputy and reviewing footage and witness statements, he said.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html
Was there ever any statement or anything from Peterson as to why he didn’t go into the building?
Not yet.
I have grappled with the gun issue a while and see no reason not to implement intensive restrictions and ban assault rifles and such. I think I lean more towards the gun-control side of things as of right now and for those of you who agree, I am curious how you respond to the following argument from gun activists. I hear it often and don’t really have an adequate response and am curious what your thoughts are. The basic idea is the following:
“No matter what gun laws are put in place, it will not change the fact that criminals and people who wish to do harm will always be able to illegally acquire guns.”
It doesn’t really change my views all that much but it seems like a good point. Is there any form of gun control that would help make it more difficult for criminals to illegally attain guns?
Looking forward to some responses as it’s definitely an important discussion to be having as a country right now.
I think the response is that mass shootings might be stopped even if most other gun crimes still occur. A gang member might get a gun to kill rivals and the occasional bystander, but a teenager won’t be able to shoot up a school.
If we’re talking about imposing strict requirements for most gun ownership we may reduce certain gun crimes, such as occurs in domestic situations. It really depends on what one expects to accomplish and whether the proposal serves that end.
I think there is a dream of stopping almost all gun crime - which is obviously ideal - but requires enormous restrictions and unless we are actually going to try to confiscate the many millions of guns in the country it will take a very very long time to solve the problem of gun deaths.
Resisting the urge to leap to judgment, but c’mon:
The school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, waited outside the school building as the shooting unfolded last week, officials said.
Scot Peterson never went in after taking a position on the west side of the building, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.
Peterson resigned after he was suspended without pay by Israel pending an internal investigation into his actions during the shooting that left 17 people dead, Israel said. Peterson was eligible for retirement.
Israel made the decision to suspend Peterson – who was armed and in uniform at the time of the shooting – after interviewing the deputy and reviewing footage and witness statements, he said.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html
We may be at a turning point in our society when it comes to guns but if so it’s going to be a wide curve. Firearms used to be very common and useful tools (for hunting and self defense). Schools used to have shooting clubs. Many people still appreciate the practical uses, the tradition, and the sport. More and more people don’t. And like CatBus said some pages ago (on the topic of ‘free range’ kids), we are far more risk averse as a society today than we used to be. When you have an increasing number of people who have never used a firearm and have no appreciation for them, more extensive gun control becomes possible.
We have long accepted that anyone may have children and that parents have fundamental rights to determine what is right for those children. There is some pushback in modern times regarding how much say parents should have on many topics, but we still accept the basic arrangement.
A big part of it this is practical: procreation doesn’t take much work and is difficult to control. But what if we could? What if the government had greater power to determine who procreates and determine what is in the best interest of all children? As it stands many thousands of children suffer terrible abuse in this country every year at the hands of their parents. We could put an end to much abuse if we did away with the idea that parents have fundamental liberty interests in raising their children. I wager few people like this idea precisely because child-having is so common and we think there are less intrusive ways to deal with the bad apples.
It’s the next 5/6 pages that concern me.
I like how seriously you take the chess thread, it’s a bright spot in Off Topic.
I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.
What about police officers that are extremely well trained and especially for a school environment and whom had been extremely background checked?
https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157761427787777
Every time another one of these mass shootings happen - right when the Republicans start telling us that the answer is more guns, guns for everyone, guns for teachers, guns for students - I think about Chris Kyle.
https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964157915056803840
Chris Kyle was the American Sniper guy - a highly decorated Navy Seal sniper with 150 confirmed kills in the Iraq War. Whatever else is true about him, he definitely was very good at shooting guns and used to being in combat environments.
https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158367697723392
Kyle knew that the man he was with was dangerous. He knew he was armed - he armed him! To the degree that anyone could be forewarned and prepared for a situation, Kyle was. And yet the other guy shot two armed and trained men dead, got in a car and drove away.
https://twitter.com/markpopham/status/964158835043774470
Today a bunch of men are going to go to a gun store and they’re going to buy their third or 10th or 25th gun, because this scares them, and they think the gun is going to keep them safe.
You tell me in which scenario does a nut with gun have a better can at killing a lot of people.
- Going into a school where no one is armed.
- Going into a police station full of armed cops.
Or instead of hypotheticals, let’s use real numbers:
But that’s in hospitals. Maybe schools are different.
Maybe these security officers need better training and maybe they need holsters better designed to prevent a perp from doing that.
Honestly the way some of you are talking, it is a wonder you don’t post that you think cops should no longer carry guns. Maybe the military as well.
Yeah I’m not crazy about the fact that cops have the ability to kill people. That’s something that needs fixing.
First of all, I don’t believe in the death penalty, and that’s after due process. So I certainly don’t think a cop should have that power.
So you don’t think a cop should have the ability to defend himself/herself. Got it. ok. I am not going waste my time engaging you on such stupidity.
Putting aside your personal attack, I never said cops shouldn’t have the ability to defend themselves.
You think they shouldn’t carry guns, the kinda leaves them defenseless against bad guys. I could probably look up countless stories where if the cop didn’t have a gun, he’d be dead. There was story a couple years ago in Philly. Some nut just walks up to a cop car and tries to shoot the cop inside. The cop nearly died, and he would have if hadn’t had his gun to defend himself.
To equal cops defending themselves against bad guys to the death penalty is stupidity. One is self defense and defense of the innocent civilians(including children), the other is a form of punishment.
Defending yourself should not equal killing someone.
When a cop is charged by a criminal with a knife, I suppose it’s safest for the cop to do some Captain Kirk chops. Definitely won’t be risking his life or anything.
We live in the 21st Century.
Quoted for truth.
Frink has a point. Plus, that is a company ball you’re walking away with. Don’t take any of us that seriously, even those who engaged in heavy-handed but sincere attempts to modulate. Take a breather and see you soon.
Please take this personally but I’m not going to pay you any compliments about how great you are.
ender strikes me as earnest and sincere - also not intended as a compliment. There’s a thread for that stuff 😉
When I think someone is being dogged and I want to hit them with a newspaper, I try to let it drop. And if a person thinks they have won something because I let it drop, that’s pitiable. And don’t think I’m necessarily talking about you guys! Nothing wrong with wanting to make a point and resolve a conflict, but it’s too much stress for me.
Also,
#rotjpigmenforever
Had a dog like that, claimed he couldn’t understand a rolled up newspaper unless I defined all the words for him.
Depends on what you’re trying to do. NY enacted an extensive gun control law that has been upheld. California’s 10 waiting period has been upheld. If the goal is to outlaw a common type of gun that will obviously run into significant opposition, setting aside the NRA and the 2nd Amendment.
To be honest, I genuinely feel you’re not as enjoyable or nice as you used to be. Or maybe I’m just nicer than I used to be, leading me to sit on my high horse. 😛
I think you and Warb are just suffering faulty memory, but ok.
Im getting flashbacks of the Luke Skywalker debate. I think Frink is as delightful as ever 🐣
I think we should give the dead the respect they deserve in this thread and not get bogged down in petty internecine fights (definition provided for Dom’s benefit).
Have you not received your package yet?
WYRSHS (this is one of your posts “entirely missing words”)
Anybody who says they don’t listen to music is lying.
There’s music I like but let’s just say I don’t make a habit of it. I also don’t understand the joy people get out of dancing. I feel like a Martian watching people jumping around and throwing their appendages around to loud sounds. Not to say I haven’t done so myself.
That’s right. So the question is whether the law required 25% to come from the winner of this case or whether the law allows the judge to pick any amount up to 25% (as you noted 10% in this case).
How’s eternity treating you?
