yoink

A couple of days ago a (possibly) mentally ill, unarmed black man was shot near here by police. This isn't a thread about that, or whether in light of what I'm about to say was somehow 'deserved'. It turns out that this guy was originally a legally recognized refugee from Uganda in 1991. He since got convicted of drug trafficking and of being a felon in possession of owning a firearm. This was not one of the good guys... Both times he was ordered to be deported but Uganda refused to issue travel documents to have him return to their country. I'm stumped. What do you do in this case? Fly a plane to Uganda and just toss him out of the door? Justifiable, but wouldn't look great on the international stage. But the other option of keeping him here is flat out crazy too. He shouldn't have been here to get shot, but what should be done if (for example) Mexico simply stops accepting buses carrying people being deported before crossing the border? Answers on a postcard, please.

When I say YOU fucked the place up, I'm talking about YOU Americans. This culture of indifference to mass murders is something you've cultivated. The inability to suggest any sort of compromise is a result of the fuckwits and parties YOU vote for. It's nothing to do with me, I'm just an immigrant. If you actually read my posts before beginning to froth at the mouth you'll see that not once, ANYWHERE, did I mention gun legislation. In fact I specifically stated that banning guns wasn't the answer. Like many pro-gun advocates the merest hint that someone might be suggesting guns are at fault sends you off the deep end. I'm not going to let you turn this into a pro/anti gun thread - Go and troll elsewhere. That isn't the point of it. It's a thread about culture. The fact that these types of killings are so commonplace that society is becoming denatured to them.

Why do I have to fix it? You're the fuckers who have created this problem. If me not taking ownership of your shit is a cop-out then so be it. I think I've made my point perfectly. This thread has proven that we can't even agree on the basic premise that multiple innocent people getting shot on a regular basis is an issue. The closest anyone has come in 2 pages is councilman's 'How do we do it?' post. That's a really bad reflection on us as human beings, IMO. Seriously - look back. I was asking for 1 simple thing: Consensus that mass shootings are something that should be addressed and you guys can't even do that. It's pathetic. Instead you'd rather bitch at each other about precise percentages about who's getting shot vs who's getting stabbed in what particular district at what particular time. The proposal is the same as I stated earlier (you might want to read between the lines). Start with building consensus that there IS a problem. If you jump straight to a solution then it'll be rushed and people will always find ways for nothing to happen. It'll take years, but get 60 or 70% of the population (regardless of political affiliation) saying that there's an issue and then there'll finally be impetus to force compromise toward investigating possible solutions. And for Cocheese - ask anyone who's lost someone they care about if the 'improvements' you're listing as some sort of achievement to be lauded are happening fast enough. I bet you a beer I know what their answer will be.

I don't know. It's going to take something we haven't thought of yet, but like you I'm convinced that banning everything not only isn't the answer, but would actually make things worse. It's also going to take decades, if not centuries; There is no quick fix. And human existence being what it is, we're always bad at planning for that type of timescale. There are so many guns in circulation that any measures would have to wait for the current generations to phase out, either by being lost, broken or turned in. At the moment I think people are too focused on what the specific solution is and looking for something they can implement in a particular election cycle, but that's not how ideas work - building a consensus that something should be done has to come first, slowly and carefully; Because even if a perfect solution was found, without that consensus nothing would ever be put in place. For me it's not inconceivable that if a need is identified some sort of as-yet unimplemented limiting technology could be developed - Maybe something like a base-station technology where guns are registered to a certain address and can only be fired in a radius of that location. You can protect you and yours, but you can't go and shoot up the local school... (before people jump in with the 'BUTs', this is just an example of a concept). All of that - the developing of a consensus, believing a new technology can be invented to fit the needs, that I can imagine. The bit I really struggle with is the idea that a large number of gun owners would see ANY compromise as equivalent to a total ban, and would respond with outright rejection. Any compromise is total capitulation... and that I don't know how to remedy.

I found it really frustrating to watch. What's the point of a debate if it's so poorly moderated? High school debates are better chaired than this nonsense. If you stray from directly answering the questions put to you you get given a warning, then you lose your turn to retort. Period. I don't think I saw one example where the candidates were forced to stick to the question, rather than go straight into their pre-planned jibes. Completely useless.

No one has suggested anything that would 1. Have a meaningful impact on gun related fatalities AND, 2. Not unreasonably limit the 2nd amendment rights of citizens. I am tired of the rallying cry, "We must do something!" How many do you know have been killed with a gun? How many people do you know have died skydiving? BASE jumping, driving, biking, on a motorcycle? Cell phone makers could save lives by preventing phones from receiving texts, emails, or phone calls when the phone is moving in a vehicle. But they don't and distracted driving related fatalities are on the rise. Think about that for a minute. Do you want to save lives or ban guns? Derek V Don't play that game with me. I'm not biting. It's not a case of doing one or the other. If there are problems with cars killing people then that should be addressed (and it is being with better brakes, seatbelts, airbags, stricter laws etc.It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing). If there are problems with phones killing people, that should be addressed also. The issue here is that you INSTANTLY went to the 'ban guns' position. Nobody in here other than you has mentioned the idea. I don't think banning guns will work. But that doesn't mean that something can't be done. Also, please define 'meaningful' impact so that we could have a more empathic discussion. To me, 'meaningful' would be reducing the liklihood of mass shootings, even by 1. I suspect to you that 'meaningful' is an all-or-nothing thing - we have to fix everything in 1 step or don't even try. It's sad that you're tired of the rallying cry... That's a pity because that's the ONLY way anything can start. It's like any mental illness - the first step is admitting that there is a problem, and if pro-gun rights people could do that then we'd have an avenue for progress. And I'm not talking about the problem of banning guns. I'm talking about America admitting that there is a problem with dozens of mass shootings occurring per year. Until that happens there is no chance of even talking about a reasonable compromise. Whatever that might be. The danger of becoming desensitized to these events is a real issue in my mind.

The fact that you say that sarcastically proves my point.

Maybe I missed the threads in here but Sept 8th: Man in care home kills 3 over poker gambling. - Perpetrator kills himself before arrest. Sept 24th: Burlington - 5 dead after shooting in mall. Suspect now apprehended. Sept 26th: Gunman opens fire at mall in Houston Gunman shot by police. There is a sickness in America. These types of shootings are so frequent that sometimes they don't even make the news anymore, and there's absolutely no point in discussing them in forums like this...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37374029 But in contrast to some of the previous incidents, I'm going to lay the blame on this one squarely on the parents. If your kid is dumb enough to a) run from the cops , then b) pull a BB gun out of their waistband then the outcome is predictable enough. Tragic, sure. But predictable.

And here's me thinking this was going to be a thread either about abortion or right-to-die issues. Slightly confusing topic title there, Turtle! For others, the story is about the government spraying insecticide for mosquitoes in South Carolina to try and prevent the spread of zika. They fucked up and forgot to notify local bee owners causing massive damage to the bees in the area (and presumably to a shit tonne of other native insects that aren't being farmed?) I'd assume the local bee keepers will sue for restitution.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/utah-girl-12-sparks-online-outrage-hunting-trip-photos-article-1.2756107 Who the fuck shoots Giraffes and Zebras? Is it just me that sees this as properly mentally sick? That someone thinks that travelling around the world to kill animals for fun is normal? There's no sport to it. You're in no danger. I don't get the appeal.

Animal instincts are not to be discounted, however, if this really were an "alpha dog" situation, I think Hillary probably could best Trump in a fist fight. I've long been of the opinion that Mr Trump has never been in a fight in his entire life. A couple of beatdowns growing up rather than the silver spoon up his arse that he had may have been good for him. Especially what with his tiny hands and all.

"I hope America understands that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers or candidates."... Yeah. But it kind of DOES doesn't it? Because you fucking picked him as your candidate. That's what being the nominee of your party means. It would mean something if he actually stood up and said "I cannot recommend people vote for Donald Trump" or something similar. This is media bytes. Nothing more.

[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36859305[/url] (as he's laying on the ground, with his hands raised, telling them he's unarmed). and I'm certain the police officer feels that speaking to to the arresting officers to clarify peaceful intent is somehow resisting arrest.... You know, at some point you have to ask is there isn't some deliberate intention to incite massive interracial violence going on. These are getting more and more ridiculous. Examples need to be made. FAST. Because if this one doesn't do it, they'll probably make sure it's an unarmed black pastor on the next one. That should do the job.

I'll try once more then move on. My post was less concerned with the content of the speech than a throw-away comment on the best way to tactically deal with the media latching onto the fact that she's nicked a couple of sentences from Michelle Obama. What they did was deny everything, which just makes it a bigger story. What she should have done was admit that it seems that she and the First Lady share some of the same opinions and that she thinks that shows hope for lessening the divide between the parties in the future, whether she really believes that or not. You see, that isn't a lie that can be fact-checked.... That would have been the better way to deal with the situation. A little bit of honesty combined with a little bullshit is much easier to swallow than just huge steaming piles of it.

ah. 2 different things. I'm talking less about the content than the sensationalism of her 'stealing' stuff from her opponents. I think it's fine that people on 2 different sides of a political divide can agree on (and actually be respectful of) their opponents positions on some things. And that should be what they mention, rather than trying to deny everything.

Bullshit - if the words she spoke weren't good enough for you to believe the first time around, then there's nothing she could ever say that would suffice. . . What an insufferable lot. Sorry. I genuinely don't understand. My point was that owning up to a mistake like this (it's not a serious one) can garner respect and heal. Rather than be devisive

All she had to say was "I didn't realize that those particular sentiments were ones made by the First Lady. It just goes to prove that even though we may represent different parties we don't need to disagree about absolutely everything and I hope it can be a sign of better alignment in the future..." She would have won a shit load of respect from most normal people. Of course both parties would have simultaneously exploded and had her murdered.

So you think the votes of the people should be disregarded Got it What?? Where did you get that from anywhere in my post???? When people aren't saying things that you can argue with do you just make them up? There were procedural abnormalities. That, to me, is newsworthy when those abnormalities may have been pre-arranged. And you're talking to ME about will of the people?

The speech thing while amusing shouldn't have been the story the media is making a big deal out of. The sketchiness of the Roll Call vote debacle is far more suspicious in my eyes.

and narrowly missed those rarest of Pokemon, a Headus Holus and an Extremely Deadus. Maybe next time?

But still no advice saying 'Don't go shooting at random members of the public you gun-toting fuckwits'. If you HAVE TO have a gun use it for self defense only. As soon as you take it out to cause a confrontation you're a criminal.

Known racist makes racist comments? Not exactly shocking.

Are you saying the political selection process is pre-arranged and totally corrupt?? No! surely not!