Sign In

Tyrphanax

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
2-Nov-2010
Last activity
21-Jun-2018
Posts
9353

Post History

Post
#1210465
Topic
<em>Solo: A Star Wars Story</em> — Official Review and Opinions Thread — <strong>SPOILERS</strong>
Time

Fantastic movie. Tonally perfect. Everyone delivered a great performance. Legacy characters felt right, new characters fit right in. References didn’t make me roll my eyes. Humor was great. Loved every minute. Left the theater feeling like a kid.

Perfect? No. Insanely fun? Very yes. Really needed this after TLJ.

So tired now, though. Maybe more detail later.

Post
#1208449
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

I think that mischaracterization comes from timing. Those in favor of gun regulation (or gun bans, etc) are always in favor of them. Those against them are always against them. But there’s this mass of people in the middle who could potentially be convinced. So every time there’s a massacre, people on both sides try to convince the people in the middle that their policies are best.

The pro-gun side sees this surge of effort from the anti-gun side after every massacre and thinks that the massacre caused the policy view, and it’s a gut response, but of course it’s not. The same thing could easily be said for the pro-gun side, who (usually much more successfully) relaxes gun laws every time there’s a massacre. You could say that’s a gut response too, but it’s not. It’s just pushing policies they’ve always believed, using timing for political leverage, that’s all.

Very much agreed. I can 100% attest to going right into defensive lockdown when something like this happens because I can feel the tide of “ban all guns” coming, and I’m sure it’s the same (but opposite) on the other end.

As a result, nothing conducive happens.

DominicCobb said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Cars are used every day by just about everyone to provide transportation for a variety of useful reasons.

Beyond the tiny minuscule fraction of times someone actually defends themselves or someone else with a gun (and probably overrun by times there’s an accident, though I admit I’m just guessing), what use is a gun? And I’m not counting entertainment, any more than I count entertainment with a car.

I honestly don’t really know why I engage other than it gets my blood up when people say things like “guns are disgusting and I hate them and because some people use them for bad reasons, they should all be taken away and melted down” because it feels to me like a knee-jerk emotionally-driven reactionary statement that overlooks all the nuance and complexity of the issue.

I’m sorry, but this is a massive mischaracterization of my argument. Guns are inherently disgusting. That isn’t my subjective opinion, that’s my objective observation. They’re killing machines. That’s literally what they are, no nuance necessary.

If I was speaking purely emotionally, I would say that guns are fucking cool as hell. I went to a gun range once and it was super fun. But I don’t think I should be making political arguments based on emotionally-driven reactions, so I put my enjoyment aside, and look at it logically. And the truth is that the entertainment is not worth it. At all.

Thanks for clarifying that, because I see what you’re saying now and you’re right. You kinda addressed this already with Jay, but I feel like “disgusting” is at its core a pretty charged word when describing almost anything. I guess that was my issue with what you said.

I also feel that guns are fucking cool as hell, but setting that emotional bias aside and looking at the issue logically, I still feel the truth is that, even disregarding the Bill of Rights, guns have a great many practical civilian applications that should not be infringed (by and large).

Post
#1208074
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

There’s a ton of people who claim they have a right to recreation with a killing machine. Dunno why, but they do.

I think there’s something about a document or something that guarantees rights like that. I dunno. It’s pretty obscure.

You know very well that lots of people talk about their God given right to have a gun, which is utter nonsense.

The Constitution is a different story, but you also know very well that there’s two arguments to what that actually means, and the Founding Fathers certainly weren’t referring to guns that can kill 100 people in a minute or two, which didn’t exist at the time.

I don’t subscribe to the “god-given” notion (the language is “endowed by our creator,” be that nature or evolution or god or whatever), but I do agree that the right to defense of self and property if threatened is important. Rights are an intangible notion we’ve made tangible in words in order to guarantee that they are not infringed by the government or other parties. The right to speak freely is very important, the right to be able to worship whatever deity you want is very important, the right to defend yourself and your country is very important. It’s all very important.

I know there are many ways people have interpreted the second amendment, but to me the language is clear and and any other interpretation has been foisted upon it in order to justify certain agendas. Of course, I’m also aware that the exact same argument is applied to my interpretation, so it ultimately all cancels out. That’s why moderation is important.

You say certainly, but the only certainty is its vague language, and that’s the beauty of the amendment in my opinion: It’s future proofed. It doesn’t give specifics. It doesn’t say “a man shall be allowed one (1) .50 caliber ball musket with a maximum of fifty (50) loads and one (1) cannon with a maximum of ten (10) but no less than five (5) round shot,” it just says arms, be they what they are at the time of reading.

Of course, you will patently and fiercely disagree with this, and that’s fine. The middle ground is where we need to be here, between you and me. Or really, I’m pretty middle ground I guess so between you and the NRA.

Post
#1208071
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Tyrphanax said:

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Cars are used every day by just about everyone to provide transportation for a variety of useful reasons.

Beyond the tiny minuscule fraction of times someone actually defends themselves or someone else with a gun (and probably overrun by times there’s an accident, though I admit I’m just guessing), what use is a gun? And I’m not counting entertainment, any more than I count entertainment with a car.

Let’s be honest here: your mind is made up on the issue (and mine for that matter), so nothing I say matters. I can say that entertainment is valid for both. I can say that hunting is a pastime for many people. I can say that defense of self and property is important. I can say the right is guaranteed. I can say that guns (and military-grade guns for that matter) in the hands of the everyman has been an incredibly crucial part of American history. But it’s kinda wasted breath because we just talk in circles every time.

I honestly don’t really know why I engage other than it gets my blood up when people say things like “guns are disgusting and I hate them and because some people use them for bad reasons, they should all be taken away and melted down” because it feels to me like a knee-jerk emotionally-driven reactionary statement that overlooks all the nuance and complexity of the issue.

I think what annoys me the most, and I’m super guilty of this as well, is how we just entrench in our sides harder and harder in response to any debate or discussion regarding the issue and every debate or discussion just devolves into screaming “you want people to be able to kill children” versus “you want to infringe my rights” at each other and no minds are ever changed and nobody is enlightened.

Post
#1208052
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Post
#1208049
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?

Nobody I ever talk to is interested in this. It’s just about putting band-aids on the issue or slowly making things harder and harder to get while side-stepping any actual causes.

Post
#1207823
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

It makes me super sad when people clamor to give up rights.

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night

Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many. The UK politicians, police etc are all working together to reduce it again by further restricting access to knives. That’s how you tackle a problem caused by dangerous weapons. Action, not inaction and prayer.

But what’s being done to address why people want to stab other people to death? I doubt that access to knives is the reason people stab one another.

Post
#1207794
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Banning scary looking rifles can’t hurt.

If I can buy a hunting rifle that’s functionally the same as the scary rifle, it’s a useless gesture.

Do we need a useless gesture that panders to angry voters and doesn’t solve the problem?

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The lack of gun control is the only reason that these school shootings happen so often in America.

Or society is sick. Machine guns were readily available many years ago — actual machine guns, not black plastic rifles that look like something out of a movie, but are functionally the same as a hunting rifle. Where were all the mass shootings back then?

Banning scary-looking rifles won’t solve the problem. I went shooting with family and friends a few weeks back for my dad’s birthday. I can tell you that someone packing a couple semi-automatic handguns and a few magazines can do a tremendous amount of damage in a short period of time.

Background checks and mental health checks would probably help. There’s something going on out there that goes beyond availability of firearms.

There were more people incarcerated in mental institutions decades ago, which is why I think there were less shootings then.

We still put many people with mental issues in jail. In fact, I’d guess we put more mentally ill people in jail today than we did back then. It’s easier to throw them away in prison than to tackle something as complex as mental illness.

Also, who said anything about rifles? I don’t even know if this shooter used rifles. I want almost all guns to be nearly inaccessible.

Never happen.

Well said.

For the record, what I’ve seen is that it was a shotgun and a .38 revolver.

Post
#1202782
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Weird little story about Paul Ryan trying to get rid of the chaplain of the House. The chaplain claims that Ryan’s chief of staff said, “maybe it’s time that we had a Chaplain that wasn’t Catholic.”

Violation of free exercise of religion?

There shouldn’t be any government employed Chaplain.

Ding ding ding.

The fact that there is even such a position is bad form in my opinion.

Post
#1202510
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

I just want to take a moment to talk about what an utterly bullshit waste of tax dollars this stupid RealID act is.

By 2020 if you plan to do any air travel or entering of federal buildings, you need to get a new ID card (which can also be a driver’s license) which serves the exact same purpose as your current state ID card/driver’s license. But it’s federal.

Another fantastic quasi-dystopian power grab by our federal government on the heels of 9/11 that is costing millions in tax dollars that will have literally no effect on our security or the betterment of the nation, but I am sure is heavily lining the pockets of some already-rich white dude.

Post
#1202206
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

CatBus said:

Yeah, that’s just it. Taking a well-designed, modern nuclear carrier and parking it offshore to power a remote town doesn’t actually sound like a half-bad idea, at least as some sort of stopgap. But this thing? They just launched it and it looks like a Soviet-era museum piece.

I hate to judge a book by its cover, but come on.

At least put some new paint on it.

Seriously, everything in Russia looks post-apocalyptic.

Post
#1201897
Topic
The Place to Go for Emotional Support
Time

LordZerome1080 said:

Possessed said:

I’ve kinda fallen off the wagon the last week or so. Nothing too bad, usually just literally one or two drinks a day, which isn’t really a problem and is practically nothing compared to the past of having 3 or 4 drinks before even going to work. But I should still probably get back on or at least force myself to start limiting it to a couple times a week. But the thing is I don’t want to. I’m miserable, it’s the only thing that helps, and I don’t care about myself anyway.

Here are the ways to help yourself: get therapy, ask a friend or family member for advice, get a dog or something so you will have to take care of something besides yourself and go to aa.

Nice post.