I just feel that the way a lot of these laws are implemented is terrible. Many of them seem very reasonable on paper, but in practice results in bullshit raids by the ATF.

I'm not sure that the ATF concerns itself much with raiding small time gun owners, but you're right in saying they're not perfect. It's just some of the best we can come up with about now, flawed as it may be, because the alternative of not having these regulations is definitely a lot worse.

But I feel that certain things might be skewed, and that many gun crimes are lumped together and that illegal guns are even thrown into the statistics.

They sure are, but that doesn't really change the fact of the matter. There are no large scale underground criminal factories making illegal guns. Pretty much every single last one of them was once legal. It's the easy access to legal firearms that fuels the black market and illegal use of guns. You can't just look at the statistics surrounding legal guns when to assess gun regulations when the existence of these regulations is directly responsible for all of the illegal use too. Two sides of the same coin. That being said, I agree that some research might be skewed. The state of gun violence and control research in the US is lacking in a lot of ways, and this and this perfectly explain part of why.

I feel like it's too easy to buy a firearm in some states, and then that they make it extremely difficult in others. What's the point if the legislation isn't even nationwide?

Probably the number one thing that gun control advocates argue for are nationwide regulations. Creating these islands of stricter gun control is inherently flawed as guns used for crime in states/cities with stricter gun control legislation are simply brought in from the closest state with loose laws.

And I think especially that certain laws like a 10 round magazine limit are absolutely retarded.

There's an argument to be made in their favor, but it's a weak one at best. It's often seen that active shooters who are forced to reload often create the best possible scenario for victims to escape or even take the shooter down. And there is some evidence out there to suggest that limits on magazine size result in larger magazines being used less and less in crime. But yeah, it doesn't do much.

But why should you expect to be arrested for carrying a rifle (which you didn't need licensing for at the time) or even a pistol (which do need licensing) if you're just defending yourself? Surely the parameters should change? What's your opinion on that, as a lawyer?

I'm really not looking to comment on the specifics of these riots or defend the actions of the police, as I'm not too familiar with them myself. But at a more abstract level, I don't think that the parameters should change. The law is as it is. It cannot be too vague, but it can't be too specific either. The law is there to set guidelines and limits. These rules are then applied to specific contexts by judges who interpret the law and base themselves on legal doctrine and existing jurisprudence. I think that it is only just that these people were arrested if they were breaking the law. It's typically not up to the police to decide who can get away with doing something illegal. This should go to court where a judge takes into account mitigating circumstances, gets to the bottom of the situation and reaches an appropriate conclusion. If not, you're opening the door to so much shit. John Doe might claim that he's just doing this to protect himself ("what's the harm in me having these guns, I'm not a criminal and just keep them to keep my family safe"), but in reality he might be a middleman in a straw purchase scheme where he sells these guns to criminals who can't get them themselves.

Consistency is important. I don't think you can give anyone a pass or a special treatment because they're just breaking the law for their own safety or because they claim they're not actually going to harm anyone else. That doesn't mean I condone what happened to these people, but opening the door just a bit will only give rise to a lot of abuse. This should go to court where, for example, a judge would let them off with a warning, confiscation of the firearms and a push in the direction of getting a gun legally.

Quote from: Maverick on May 01, 2017, 11:21:24 AM

Quote from: Iberian Husky on May 01, 2017, 10:08:32 AM

I should be allowed to own recreational nuclear warheads if I so please.

Just like our forefathers intended.

Stepping on the snake is a violation of the NAP.

But what if the snake consents?

Of course, it all makes sense now. It's those pesky, archaic and no good "checks and balances" and, ugh, "constitution" that's preventing him from making America great again. After all, what have democratic safeguards and human rights keeping the government in check ever done for us?

As per The Guardian:

On his 100th day in office on Saturday, facing historically low popularity ratings, a succession of intractable foreign crises and multiple investigations of his links with Moscow, Donald Trump reminded the nation that 1 May was Loyalty Day.

The day is a US tradition dating back to the cold war, when it was a bolster to stop May Day becoming a rallying point for socialists and unionised workers, but for an embattled president learning politics on the job it has an added resonance.

In an interview with Fox News to mark the 100-day mark, he declared himself “disappointed” with congressional Republicans, despite his many “great relationships” with them.

He blamed the constitutional checks and balances built in to US governance. “It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”

The Loyalty Day announcement came amid a flurry of other proclamations to mark the milestone at which the early stages of American presidencies are traditionally measured. The coming seven days were named both National Charter Schools Week and Small Business Week. May has been burdened with being simultaneously: National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, Older Americans Month, Jewish American Heritage Month, National Foster Care Month, as well as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.

Such announcements help a president look busy, especially at such heavily scrutinised milestones as the 100-day mark, and particularly for an inexperienced politician rapidly learning the limits of presidential power, even with a solid Republican majority in Congress.

He has failed to get any of his priorities turned into legislation in the face of party disunity, and his attempt to rule by executive order has been largely hollow. His decrees have been either meaningless, like his one-page, detail-free tax reform plan, or have been blocked by the courts, such as his travel ban for Muslim countries and refugees.

Trump’s approval ratings have remained mired at historic lows for a presidency in what is supposed to be a honeymoon period, hovering around – and frequently below – the 40% mark, well below his recent predecessors at this stage in their presidencies.

But his core supporters have remained faithful, choosing to believe that the mainstream media are purveyors of fake news, rather than accept that the Trump presidency has not been the unrivalled success the president has claimed. They have also accommodated Trump’s affinity for Vladimir Putin. The percentage of Republicans who see Russia as an unfriendly state has fallen from 82% in 2014 to 41% now, according to a CNN/ORC poll.

On his 100th day, Trump turned to this loyal base to sound off on the issue that bonds them most tightly – economic nationalism. On an otherwise leisurely Saturday, during which his only other engagement was a call with the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, the president was due to attend an evening rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where disenchanted workers defected from the Democrats in droves in the 2016 election. While visiting the town, he was also due to sign an executive order to establish an office of trade and manufacturing policy, which will help push his drive for import substitution.

In his weekly presidential address, he also focused on jobs, pointing to evidence of an economic revival that has been previously contested as a result of corporate decisions made before Trump came to office. He claimed that car companies were “roaring back in”, an apparent reference to General Motors’ plans and Ford’s decision to expand in Michigan, which both appeared to be part of their long-term strategy.

Trump also claimed that his approval of the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada would create tens of thousands of jobs. That will be true in the short term, during the construction phase, but after that keeping the pipeline going is expected to employ 35 people on a permanent basis.

The gap between the extreme bravado of Trump’s claims and the daily realities of governing has deepened public cynicism. In a new Gallup poll, just 36% declared him honest and trustworthy, down from 42% in early February. His general approval rating stood at 40%.

here is strong evidence, however, that the fact-checking of presidential claims is having a small and dwindling impact on true Trump loyalists. His support remains strong in traditional blue collar areas and evangelical strongholds, where there is more trust in the president than the mainstream media. The president has relentlessly assaulted the media, launching an attack per day on average since he took office, denouncing negative news as fake news, and there are signs the relentless offensive has inflicted wounds. One poll released on Friday found that more people trusted the White House than political journalists.

Against that background there were reports yesterday that Steve Bannon, the champion of economic and ethnic nationalism, was making a political comeback in the White House, and that he remained a bulwark of Trump’s strategy to secure his core support and win again in 2020.

His hand has been seen behind the rapid-burst issue of protectionist moves in the run up to the 100th day, picking fights with Canada over milk and softwood imports, and measures to shield the aluminium industry from foreign competition.

“All of these people who say the president doesn’t have an ideology, they’re wrong,” one unnamed Bannon ally told political news site The Hill. “He does have an ideology, and it’s Bannon’s ideology. They are just now figuring out how to implement it.”

Bannon was also said to have drafted an executive order withdrawing the US from the North American Free Trade Area (Nafta), but on Thursday Trump decided simply to issue a call for its renegotiation reportedly after having been shown a map showing it would cost the most jobs in states that had supported him in the election. The battle between countervailing factions in the Trump White House continues to ebb and flow, but the president’s reflexes in times of adversity lead him to fall back on the “America First” narrative that got him elected in the first place.

Daily reminder that people actually voted for this man and still support him to this day.

All these bullshit regulations seem to only be detrimental to normal people that just want to defend themselves.

I'd say it's the complete opposite. If you're legitimately just looking to defend yourself and be a responsible, law abiding gun owner, I feel it would be worth it to jump through a few hoops to get what you want. Especially when those hoops are there to keep guns out of the hands of the baddies. People who argue against this usually don't understand the way the illegal market for guns works and how criminals obtain firearms. At this point, I'd say there's pretty major academic consensus that gun control works. It's just the practical implementation that people disagree on. The more reseach goes into this, the more clear this becomes. I could cite you dozens of studies finding this, but that wouldn't get us anywhere, so I'll limit this to a few very recent and notable ones.

A 2016 study by Harvard Medical School concluded that "stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide".
Another 2016 meta-analysis of 130 studies (the biggest of its kind to date, done by Columbia University) also concluded that more gun restrictions equal fewer deaths. This coincides with other high profile research by Harvard finding that looser gun control laws and higher rates of firearm ownership are linked to more firearm robberies, more firearm assaults and more homicide in general, and Boston University analyzing gun control and gun crime trends over the course of 30 years to again confirm the link between access to firearms and high rate of firearm homicides. On the opposite end, research done by Stanford University recently reaffirmed that right-to-carry gun laws are connected with an increase in violent crime. Perhaps the most relevant piece of research is this study from December 2016. It's conducted by an infamous pro-gun researcher, making this all the more interesting. He looked at all major American cities and found that "requiring a license to possess a gun appears to reduce rates of both homicide and robbery", and that there exists (albeit weaker) evidence to also suggest that other types of gun control may reduce assault and robbery rates.

If you want to see this put in a more coherent way, I can recommend this (part 2, but it's more relevant) and this (part 1). It does a pretty good job at illustrating how gun control works and how it doesn't just hurt the normal people looking to defend themselves.

Imagine, this was in the 90's when gun control wasn't that big of a thing. How would you feel if you were arrested for protecting your business from looters?

How many of them actually got in serious trouble for it? I would fully expect to be arrested for breaking the law, but mitigating circumstances should be taken into account.

Quote from: Flee on May 01, 2017, 04:39:21 AM

Quote from: challengerX on May 01, 2017, 04:35:14 AM

Quote from: Flee on May 01, 2017, 04:19:54 AM

Is this you meme'ing on /pol/ again?

How is this a meme? A lot of these guys actually got arrested and possibly prosecuted just for defending their businesses. Does that seem fair to you?

Like I said, it's only a matter of time before something like this happens again.

Just seems out of character, I suppose.

I've never been fully for or against the 2nd amendment. I believe there are valid arguments on both sides.

So do you want to discuss the subject or are you just going to make these snide insinuations about my character?

Nothing snide at all man. You recently made a post about how people are often oblivious to you /pol/ posting on here. I thought this seemed pretty out of character and kinda blunt, hence my question. I'll give you a proper response when not on mobile.

Quote from: Flee on April 30, 2017, 07:49:25 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 30, 2017, 07:39:17 PM

Quote from: Flee on April 30, 2017, 07:31:35 PM

Yes, pretty much.

Why?

Because I think it's somewhat common sense to think that allowing literally everyone to arm themselves with firearms is a pretty bad idea. I think there's pretty substantial evidence out there to suggest that entirely unfettered access to guns is more detrimental than it is beneficial for society.

All these bullshit regulations seem to only be detrimental to normal people that just want to defend themselves.

Imagine, this was in the 90's when gun control wasn't that big of a thing. How would you feel if you were arrested for protecting your business from looters?

Is this you meme'ing on /pol/ again?

Quote from: Flee on April 30, 2017, 07:31:35 PM

Yes, pretty much.

Why?

Because I think it's somewhat common sense to think that allowing literally everyone to arm themselves with firearms is a pretty bad idea. I think there's pretty substantial evidence out there to suggest that entirely unfettered access to guns is more detrimental than it is beneficial for society.

I (rightly) assume that anyone that mains Genji or Widowmaker on console is a piece of shit. Hanzo I can forgive for his broken scattershot, radar arrow, and ult.

Hanzo is easily one of my least favorite heroes. I know there's some very skilled Hanzo players out there, but the vast, vast majority of times you're killed by one it just feels so cheap. Arrows with hitboxes the size of a Torbjorn that are just spammed at your team until it happens to connect with your torso and register a headshot, or scattershots that, if god wills it, bounce in the right way to deplete your entire health pool when placed somewhere in the general vicinity of your feet. It's the kind of hero where if I'm killed by him, I usually feel like it was just a cheap lucky shot that wouldn't have landed it if weren't for the extremely lenient hitboxes. And the rare times I'm playing as him, I feel like few of my kills are actually deserved, which is a feeling I don't really have with many other heroes.

but a huge amount of this IS the media still ass ravaged about how >Madam President lost.

Do you have a source or evidence for that? I'm not seeing much butthurt in the media I'd consider reputable. They're reporting a lot of bad things, but that is because Trump is just an awful president.

But when it comes to the truth of the matter of whether or not this is the media still anally anguished or Trump literally is the worst ever

That's not the question though. The question is whether Trump is as bad as much of the media is making him out to be. To which the answer is an absolute and resounding "yes, he sure is". The media might be biased and hoping to portray him in a bad light, but that doesn't necessarily make their reporting on him any less accurate when he really just keeps doing moronic things.

Yes, he really is that bad, and it is baffling that some people don't see that.

Somewhat interesting column on the denial.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/27/trump-voters-ruining-america-tom-nichols-column/100926836/

 I've been working on algorithms and their opacity recently, so it's mainly about that.

Weapons of math destruction:



And The Black Box Society:

Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 05:44:59 PM

Probably because it's not an opinion and it's a fact?

If it were a fact, then I couldn't possibly disagree with it.

Not sure that's correct. People disagree with factually correct information all the time.

With VPN:

Got one without or not going to do that?

still doesn't explain my ps4's lightning fast download speeds

Seems reasonably fast to me. That translates into about 300MB per minute, or a gigabyte every 3 minutes.

How fast is your internet? Who has the best internet connection on sep7agon? Let's find out! Go to Speedtest.net, give it a go and share the results.

My speed (slightly slower than usual because of other programs being on, but whatever):