Jump to content

atomheartbevo

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    53760
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    147

Posts posted by atomheartbevo

  1. 2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

    I'd like to see something like Banished in the Fallout universe.

    EA released a disasterous city builder back in 2013. 

  2. 15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I completely agree.  It's not "normal".  It just doesn't mean that such a person would likely be diagnosed as psychotic, schizophrenic, or even depressed or bipolar.  White, male, and angry seem to be the most common characteristics, and until we lump "angry" in with "mental illness" we should be careful with language and policy.

    Most people get angry everyday, and don't kill anybody, up to and including the source of their anger.  Mack Brown was able to walk freely around Campus after 5-7.

    Let me ask you this: If you have somebody who has come into contact with the mental health system, and the professionals have said "this person is a danger to themselves or others", do you really have a problem with restricting their use or acquisition of firearms?  

  3. 3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I'm gonna say this one more time for now, because you seem unwilling to go do your homework:  "sane people do not shoot up schools" is a complete red herring.  "Insane" means something.  Stop with the convenient broad brush.

    And I'll say this one more time, because you seem unwilling to study the history of these shootings: too many of these shooters were in touch with the mental health system, were known to have set off red flags, and had far too easy access to firearms.

     The guy who shot up the movie theater in Colorado?  Had school mental health professionals who felt he was homicidal, and even told the police.  He still acquired firearms legally after that.  Virginia Tech shooter?  Same thing - mental health issues, had contact with mental health professionals who thought he was dangerous.  18 months before he killed 32 students/teachers, he was detained in a mental health facility.    He legally bought his firearms well after that.  

    Hell, the Parkland guy is the very poster child of this crap - just like the others, he legally purchased a firearm well after he had been in contact with the mental health system, and had mental health professionals saying he was dangerous.

    These people should not have been able to acquire firearms.    They gave off plenty of warning signs to actual mental health professionals.

  4. 38 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    It's VASTLY more difficult to define and diagnose what mental health issues we are going to justify banning constitutional right over than those that commit felonies.  Define "mental health issues" to begin with?  ADHD?  Bipolar disorder?  Depression?  Now correlate how this makes you a threat to others to the extent that their rights are taken away?  Surely you see where this could lead.

    The alternative is we do what the GOP is currently doing - jack shit, or we turn our schools into prisons or we do stupid shit like introduce more guns into schools (surely they will never be accidentally left somewhere or a student wouldn't try and take it) or we pile up the kids at checkpoints, making for tempting targets.

    When we get a live-streamed shooting and millions of people watch kids die in real-time, whether it's a year, 5 years , or 10 years from now, we will see gun control that affects everybody, not just those with mental health issues.   And if you think it won't stand up to judicial scrutiny, the AWB would like to have a word with you.  

  5. 13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    This is part of the problem.  You are pre-supposing the cause.  I'm not necessarily against efforts to identify potential problems a priori, but we have to be careful.  

    It's entirely possible that a kid who would not be diagnosed as "mentally ill" will still go on one of these rampages.  The current thinking indicates this is mostly true.  "Mental illness" is a convenient buzzword to fall back on, but it's important to determine if what you say is ACTUALLY true.

    Sane people do not shoot up schools, and too many of these shooters were known to the system already, or were giving off signs that they should have been checked out.  At the very least, there was enough there that the families should have done a little more to secure their firearms.

     

  6. 5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

    The press ain't free anymore. Maybe it never was. 

    It is bought and paid for by someone with money. They control the narrative. 

    Pulitzer vs. Hearst put the notion of who controls the narrative to rest.

    But then you go back decades earlier and see what Southern newspapers were saying about Lincoln, and what Northern newspapers were saying about the South.  Or decades earlier about what various newspapers were saying about any and all politicians (today's newspapers can be quite tame compared to almost two centuries ago).

  7. 4 hours ago, Scholz said:

    Trump has lied over 3K times while in office (documented).  His propaganda ministers lie on a daily basis on his behalf.  He's a con man.  A grifter.  Probaby the greatest grifter in the country's history.  The free press should be calling him out on it as they are.

    The greatest grifter in the country should be worth a lot more than Trump is.

  8. 10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Yes, but with a caveat:  we really need to authorize sound, objective science-based research into the correlations (if any) between mental health and homicide, including mass shootings.  From what I can tell, there is at best a murky read on the issue.  Basing policy on something that "feels" right can be fraught with error.

    If you shoot up a school full of your classmates, you have some serious mental health issues.  

    That doesn't mean that every bipolar kid is a few days or weeks of missed medication away from shooting up his school, but we can start trying out rational policies based on what we've already seen with a lot of these kids having mental issues (and that carries up into the older shooters like Aurora and VT).  

    The alternative is that we will see policies based a mass shooting that we can't even comprehend (the live-streamed mass shooting that we all know is coming, whether it's a year, 5 years, or 10 years from now) and those policies will be drawn up by people who already hate guns to begin with.

  9. 15 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    This is punitive.  Not prohibitive.  It "might" help.  It might not.  I would say it "probably" would help, but to what extent?  And what are the criteria?  Wearing an offensive T-shirt?  Porn?  Sadistic movies/games?  A diagnosis?  Of what?  Are we profiling now?  Denying rights without due process?  Fine, but for how long?  Much like the opaque no-fly list:  how did I get on it, do I know I'm on it, and how do I get off?  And if the state lays out a clear and comprehensive list of steps needing to be taken to secure firearms.  And I follow these steps.  And a weapon is still stolen.  Then what?  Punishment anyways?

    As already posted, many of these shootings were facilitated via failures of the FBI and local LE.  These monsters were reported multiple times and nothing was done.  After securing the schools, how are we not starting here?  

    We don't have a problem keeping firearms away from felons, I don't see why we should have a problem keeping them away from people who have mental health issues.  Far too many of these shooters were known to the mental health system in some capacity, and more than a few required psychotropic medication.  

    I know it's fun to blame the FBI and local LEOs, and they certainly have their share of fuckups, but we've also heard far too many times that the kid was giving off warning signs and the family was choosing to ignore them.  I know that many parents simply don't want to deal with that shit or want to live in denial, but they bear a lot of the responsibility.  

  10. 3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    The bolded part is true...and it baffles me.  If one of my kids had real issues that put them at risk of self harm or harm to others....my guns would migrate to a friend or family member's house posthaste.

    Way too many of these parents pull the "I can't believe he would do that, that's not who he was" and then you dig deeper and find out that was exactly who he was, completely with wearing a "Born to Kill" t-shirt.

    Earlier in the thread, I was pushing that we should hold parents/family members criminally responsible for kids doing stupid shit with guns.  They usually already get plenty of civil lawsuits filed and to me, it's not that far of a step from the many states that see people prosecuted for having dangerous dogs that get lose and wreak havoc.

    But I guarantee the NRA and GOP would fight it tooth-and-nail.  

    So it goes right back to preventing access in the first place.

  11. 4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    This is a silly argument.  We already have restrictions on gun ownership.  The debate is about where to draw the line.

    We already restrict felons from owning firearms, and by proxy, we restrict those in their household from owning, since roommates/family members can find themselves in deep shit if they have firearms in the house with a felon and can't prove they had those firearms completely secured from said felon.

    States are starting to flag potential problems a lot more - folks who do shit that doesn't rise to a felony (yet), but that are clearly on that path.  Some mental health issues get flagged.

    We should be able to take it a step further - way too many of these shooters had already been in contact with some form of mental healthcare, way too many had access to firearms from family members.  It should not be that hard to restrict those people from having access to firearms in the home through an improved background check that would flag households of those who have mental health issues.  

    I know, the NRA fans will lose their shit and say we are penalizing family members who don't have issues, but the NRA is not about trying to fix the problem, they are in fact profiting off of it.  And I know plenty of people will probably refuse to get their kids treated so that they can keep their guns, but it's a discussion that needs to be had.

  12. 2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

    Correctomundo. 

    Also, the schools needing to harden up slightly, at the very least, was driven home today when I went to my kindergarteners “graduation” (I know, there’s a thread for that too). Wife and I entered amongst the crowd, handed a sticker, and joined another few hundred people in a cafeteria with 100 students in it.  It didn’t dawn on me until the booth and women working it were gone, but no ID?  Just walk up and smile and have access to the school. I know it’s typivally to be buzzed into the front, ID, on the list blah blah. But these special events are soft soft soft. 

    When I go up to my 5 year-old's school, if it's after 8am and before dismissal, I have to be buzzed in, and I have to identify myself.  That's perfectly fine for me.

    Trying to implement anything beyond that at special events or in the mornings creates a security nightmare.  A would-be shooter would love nothing more than to know exactly where there are chokepoints of several dozen kids (if not more) waiting to go through some kind of TSA-style checkpoint.  Those kids would be easy targets.

    Harden the doors of the classrooms, have a cop (who isn't a chickenshit coward) at the school in a central location, somebody who is in decent shape and can actually move/respond quickly.  That would have stopped or lessened most of these shootings substantially.

  13. Is the average amount per gun owner going up?  Is that in any of those fancy polls above?  Because that's one thing I have definitely noticed among many of my friends who have firearms.  20 years ago, most of us seemed to have a sidearm or two, a shotgun or two, a rifle or two, and it wasn't uncommon for one or more of those to have either been inherited or bought for hunting.  Now a lot of them have quite a few firearms and they spend quite a bit on accessories.

  14. 1 hour ago, Mo Horn said:

    Must have had to take an extra shit this morning and couldn't figure out what else to tweet about. Crowd size is always a good fallback. 

    The only people who bitch that somebody doesn’t “get” them are angsty teens. 

    • Like 1
  15. 7 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    Liked the first. Liked the show.  Will probably like this one. 

    It’s either going to be really good, or really shitty.  It doesn’t feel like there will be any middle ground. The effects/CGI are definitely available to do it right. 

    And hey, he’s not partnered up with a former Boston Red Sox pitcher. 

  16. 4 hours ago, 52-80 said:

    all of the recent SW movies are bringing in better returns than the avengers franchise... legacy and story aside, isnt it blockbusters for the financiers/investors?

    The last 4-6 Disney/Marvel movies have performed at or above expectations ( Spidey is Sony). 

    Disney wanted TLJ and Solo to put up Black Panther and Infinity War numbers.  It’s not happening. 

    And for better or for worse, many fans and critics keep saying Kathleen is the problem with the franchise.  TLJ in particular.  And this is against the backdrop of Dave Filoni finding a lot of successs with the animated side of Star Wars. 

  17. http://variety.com/2018/film/news/jamie-foxx-todd-mcfarlanes-spawn-blumhouse-1202824324/

    Quote

    Jamie Foxx is set to star in the latest “Spawn” from Todd McFarlane and Blumhouse Productions, sources confirm to Variety.

    McFarlane, who created the original comic, is on board to write and direct the pic. He will also produce with Jason Blum.

    The Spawn character first appeared in print in 1992, and gained popularity in the comics community almost instantly. In 1997, New Line adapted the character into a feature film starring Michael Jai White. HBO also took a crack at the antihero in an animated series that lasted for three seasons, each with six episodes, and earned two Emmy Awards.

    Did not see this coming. Foxx or Todd. 

  18. http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23644419/conference-usa-basketball-schedule-altered-match-best-teams-late

    Quote

    IRVING, Texas -- Conference USA has adopted a men's basketball schedule format that will have the league's top teams playing each other at the end of the regular season in hopes of getting more postseason berths.

    The league said Tuesday that the 14 teams will play each other once with a second game for travel partners in the first seven weeks of C-USA play. After those 14 games, the league standings will determine the matchups for the rest of the regular season.

    The teams will be divided into two groups of five (first through fifth place; and sixth through 10th place) and a group of four (11th through 14th place). The last four C-USA games for each team will be played within those respective groups.

    The last time C-USA had more than one team in the NCAA tournament was 2012.

    Nice. 

  19. 55 minutes ago, F250 said:

    I suspect we will start seeing more countries ban social media as a means to "protect" their citizens. I also think the Papa New Guinea Facebook alternative will look like a 1990s Geocities website.

    I would have chosen "1990s BBS", but close enough.

    I think we will see a lot more countries (and many Muslim countries already have some serious restrictions in place).  Russia, China, etc. all try to ban various services as it is.  It drives governments crazy, the thought that citizens can be talking about the government and potentially even conspiring against the government.

    And they will use the same reasons - porn and spam.

  20. On 5/28/2018 at 2:43 AM, scottsins said:

    What if, as a “compromise”, whichever weapons are subject to a new prohibition...are covered by a registration/grandfather clause.  IOW, there is a time period where someone can register their “about to be banned” weapon (if it is not already registered to them).  After the law goes into effect, possession by those to who the weapon is not registered becomes a crime.

    Some gun control folks won’t approve because there are still a LOT of these weapons at large.  Some gun rights folks will dig in and state that the registration requirement is an onerous restriction of their rights.

    To me, the disapproval by the more outer segments of the issue is basically evidence that it’s a decent, reasonable compromise.

    *  I’m not addressing the other questions of whether this would “work to stop all of the shootings”, etc.  I just always wonder how people feel about the idea.

    The "compromise" still isn't much of one though, it's one side getting their way.  Plus, the people who register will not be the ones you need to worry about - the criminal element is still going to do their thing.  

    The "compromise" I'd like to see is that we start off with everybody recognizing that the GOP/NRA uses the threat of gun control to raise money, and that the Dems use the threat of gun violence to raise money.  This is partly the elephant in the room that we are all talking around.  

    Most of the politicians on either side don't care too much about solving the issue, but care more about using it to raise money.  I know this, because if the NRA was all about protecting gun owners, they would be more supportive of measures that could lower things like these school shootings, because we will eventually get that school shooting that will change the political landscape drastically.  It's not "if" but "when".  The left would need to shut up their members that want to ban everything as well.

    Next up, both sides sit down and talk about the mental health stuff and access to firearms (penalizing parents who don't secure their firearms, keeping firearms out of homes that have people with mental health issues).  A serious talk about it.  I'm fairly certain the NRA has the resources to make the GOP have that conversation. 

  21. 20 minutes ago, drewcifer said:

    Or maybe they can kick off Roseanne, bring in Sandy Duncan, and they just change it to The Connor Family.

    Hmmm..She's only 6 years older than Goodman.

  22. 1 minute ago, Mdhorn said:

    It takes a special kind of brilliance to go from having nothing going on, to having a hit show, to getting everybody canned with a tweet.  As of today, she may be the Republican front runner for 2020 should Trump be unable to leave his cell. 

    I love the fake outrage from Disney.  

    That little tweet that got her fired is pretty much who she has been for a while now.

×
×
  • Create New...