Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[CGVT]

So when did you serve, Internet Tough Guy?

[crashcourse]

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/11/the-insurance-policy-the-ec-the-2016-fbi-counterintel-operation-and-the-mysterious-informant-who-originated-brennans-ec/

heres your story DSL--written 10 days ago btw

[Kapture1]

lot a dumb people out there.

[CGVT]

*yawn*

[CGVT]

Tired of winning yet? The worst negotiator in the world just got rolled by China. Trump says trade wars are easy to win. China says "they are---against DJT".

Yes, it's early and there is no "done deal", but the way Trump's team is characterizing the results so far it looks like they will declare the status quo (along with vague promises by China) as victory and move on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ade-war/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c7767269306e

[Kapture1]

Yes, a 200,000,000,000 increase in American exports to China, cutting our trade deficit by 2/3rds. Very stable genius

[Kapture1]

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...d-brennans-ec/

heres your story DSL--written 10 days ago btw

funny how the FBI opened their CI investigation on July 31st, yet Halper invited Page to London in June, and meet with him on July 11th and 12th while he was there attending this symposium http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/26818

keep in mind this was before wikileaks released their first set of DNC emails on July 22nd


what the fuck was the FBI investigating the Trump campaign before officially investigating the Trump campaign for? this was BEFORE the FBI learned of what GP said in that London bar about Russia having dirt on Hillary.

[Jeff Buchanan]

The genius of the NYT notwithstanding, I tend to think this is the best explanation for school shootings: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ds-of-violence

It was written in 2015 and, I think, is consistent with today. And it's a horrifyingly pessimistic explanation.

Very disturbing.

One of the underlying conclusions by the author of this piece is that, "there is nothing we can do" about these people who are acting according to a theory of, I'd call it, mob violence or rioter mentality.

My perception is that in 2015, after recounting the history of shootings going back to 1933, and then trying to figure out a pattern of behavior or set of symptoms the persons involved in these shootings exhibited, we would then, in the future, be able to stop such persons by noting this pattern and then intervening.

Of course, there was no pattern of pre-shooting behavior or set of identifiable psychiatric symptoms. The growing number of shootings were simply consistent with Mark Granovetter's hypothesis about how rioters behave. In short, participation in riotous behavior by a person can be ranked from 1 to 100 with a person ranked as 1 very likely to throw the first rock at the slightest provocation and the person marked as 100 less likely to join in until a large number of persons around him are throwing rocks too. i.e., shooters aren't all crazies that can be identified as such and appropriate interventions undertaken to thwart the shooting; some of them are but some of them are also pretty normal if not a bit odd but not enough to trigger suspicion that they are about to undertake a shooting. Still, as the number of shooters over time increases, those thought to be pretty normal, will join in, plan and execute a shooting, like otherwise unwilling rioters (shooters) might when everyone around them is rioting (shooting).

Where does this leave us then IVO the likelihood that 2A is not going to get repealed and the things necessary to reduce access to firearms that follow from that repeal aren't going to occur (i.e., we get feel good incrementalism without it doing much good in stopping these shootings)?

While there might not be a pattern of specific aberrant psychiatric behaviors, as such, there are suspicious actions present in almost every shooting that has occurred since I started thinking about this; you could say there were observable events in a shooter's pre-shooting time line that if the dots had been connected pre-shooting, the shooting might have been thwarted by authorities or other citizens.

This leads me to the conclusion that interested parties are spinning their wheels pursuing changes in gun laws, arming teachers, limiting access to schools and so on. That's not to say we can't do a better job of enforcing the laws regarding gun safety already on the books but significant gun law changes? No.

I still believe there needs to be increased funding for and access to mental health resources becasue some of the shooters are fucking crazy. Intervene with those guys before they start planning and executing.

The rest? If you see something strange say something. First educate citizens regarding what sort of odd behavior to look for and let public safety authorities trained in these matters, not necessarily law enforcement, know and connect the dots. I'd advocate for a local reporting system that does not tie up 911 but instead is a separate number, say 311, that citizens can report what appears to be a pattern of suspicious behavior, rule or law breaking that does not rise to the level where police intervention might be more appropriate.

The point is, we cannot just do nothing about the increasing trend in these shootings we are talking about based on research that might lead us to believe nothing can be done. Get used to it. I reject that view. There are reasonable steps to be undertaken to reduce the likelihood shootings like these will occur. But even as you see it in the exchanges here, they are so polarizing that the state and federal environment for discussion and problem solving is toxic and not terribly conducive to finding them. That is the first thing that needs changing.

[iam416]

Buchanan:

I think there is a lot to the "riot" theory. Each time it happens I think it becomes a little easier for the next one. In the Texas case, I think you literally have to throw your hands up and say -- "nothing we could do." The kid used a shotgun and a .38 -- no one is advocating that those guns need to be banned and confiscated.

The fact that there is very little we can do doesn't mean you still can't pursue sensible measures (and your definition and my definition of sensible surely varies). However -- be warned -- it ain't gonna stop. So, when political folks use school shootings as a justification for gun control measures (and, they will starting in 2020), and those measures don't curtail anything then they lose political credence. Their answer will be, similar to the Obama Stimulus -- we didn't do enough! But that's a hard sell when you've sold folks on your proposed solutions as being a partial answer and you haven't seen shit in return.

So, politically, the Ds will get there shot. But the reality is that with 300M guns (or however many) in circulation the stuff they can pass will do fuckall. AND they'll lose credibility with the middle voters when fuckall is the result.

[CGVT]

.

[Rocky Bleier]

This all began in 1988 with a kid copying the character in a Stephen King novel called Rage. We have a people problem. Guns have been around for centuries, but this craziness is a reflection of our culture. You can't pass a law that keeps a kid from stealing his dad's gun and killing people. You can't pass a law that prevents a kid from driving a car at high-speed into a crowd of students. I told people advocating a ban on AR-15 platform rifles after the last school shooting in Florida that it could have been done with a revolver and a shotgun. I was told that I was stupid.

Seems that most of these killer were bullied and outcast. Some of them are narcissistic. More gun laws won't change anything. A gun is a tool that is no better or worse than the person using it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(King_novel)

[iam416]

I told people advocating a ban on AR-15 platform rifles after the last school shooting in Florida that it could have been done with a revolver and a shotgun. I was told that I was stupid

Yeah, they have nothing to say after Texas other than to mock folks who offer "thoughts and prayers." The guns were staple firearms. The shooter was underage and thus it was illegal for him to acquire the guns and, more importantly, there was no background check because, well, it was illegal for him to buy guns. And Texas has a law about securing firearms.

There was literally nothing that could be done other than banning and confiscating ALL guns. So, anyone using the Texas tragedy as a reason to "do something" is essentially advocating the complete ban and confiscation of guns -- as that's the only "something" that could have worked.

[Rocky Bleier]

What bothers me is being told that I don't care about kids, and that I care more about guns than children. I want to focus on the real problem, though I don't know if we can turn back the clock on our culture. Yes, make schools safer, but other buildings will be just as vulnerable. What if a sizable group of kids hang out at a local eatery? Trucks are a popular choice of weapon in Europe for the jihadis. Anyone who says guns are the problem is offering up a simplistic solution that won't prevent future attacks. They're the type of people who want the government to take care of them and all of their problems. It opens the door to tyrants, which is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent. Ban guns and we'll be like London, where they now have such a problem with wayward knives running the streets that the mayor wants them to be banned too.

[Kapture1]

Not only knives and trucks, they dont have the right to free speech anymore in the UK. You can be jailed for a joke, or telling the truth about Islam. And with the way that some want to legislate language here and do away with the first amendment while they're at it, if people dont think tyranny is right around the corner they're not paying attention. We are becoming a post constitutional nation.

[millenwasmyfavorite]

What bothers me is being told that I don't care about kids, and that I care more about guns than children. I want to focus on the real problem, though I don't know if we can turn back the clock on our culture. Yes, make schools safer, but other buildings will be just as vulnerable. What if a sizable group of kids hang out at a local eatery? Trucks are a popular choice of weapon in Europe for the jihadis. Anyone who says guns are the problem is offering up a simplistic solution that won't prevent future attacks. They're the type of people who want the government to take care of them and all of their problems. It opens the door to tyrants, which is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent. Ban guns and we'll be like London, where they now have such a problem with wayward knives running the streets that the mayor wants them to be banned too.

This.

Pretty much lost in translation on all fronts -- but, touched upon by article Jeff linked:

Soft targets are in abundance -- and all executable through improvised or conventional weapons.

If not schools, then hospitals. If not hospitals, then churches. If not churches, then shopping centers/grocery stores/high trafficked civic centers.

The footpath to tyranny is open both ways.