This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 190191192 193194 ... 520
5731
« on: January 06, 2016, 02:14:53 AM »
Decent message, poor execution. I've said it dozens of times before: appeals to emotion are not the way forward here. There's millions of guns without "a history". A gun is nothing but a tool, albeit a very lethal one. Their message that guns don't make you safer is a good one, but I think that there are more honest and less populist ways of getting that point across than what's essentially "see this gun? It killed a baby, man!"
Although in the end I do suppose that this might work for some and be effective in its own way, but I still don't really agree with it.
5732
« on: January 05, 2016, 03:43:14 PM »
Fighting words are when somebody goads you into being physically violent, right?
Surely the person actually being physically violent should be the one held to account.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that the person saying the fighting words shouldn't either. The definition varies and it's basically a synonym for incitement to violence at this point. Apparently, the subtle difference is that incitement is supposed to make someone else the extension of their will, while fighting words is just to get a general violent reaction out of someone. It doesn't even explicitly exist in most legal systems.
5733
« on: January 05, 2016, 03:29:53 PM »
Of course. There's numerous instances where it should be limited.
Care to name a few and elaborate on why?
Others have already mentioned quite a few good ones. Libel, slander, harassment, incitement to violence and hatred, fighting words, exclamations carrying risks, true threats, classified iinformation, trade secrets, copyright, contractual obligations, privacy laws, commercial speech licensing/broadcasting provisions, positional decorum (proper speech as an educator/military personnel/government representative...) and such. Article 10ECHR does a good job at listing the necessary conditions, in my opinion. "...are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
5734
« on: January 05, 2016, 03:07:46 PM »
Of course. There's numerous instances where it should be limited.
5735
« on: January 05, 2016, 01:30:26 PM »
Posted my views in the other thread. Off-topic but related question: how many of 2015's high-profile shootings would have been prevented by a background check? Because I have a suspicion the answer is "none", so this is really just useless legislation.
There actually are some reasons to assume that some might have been prevented by the proposed (but dismissed) gun control measures in 2013. Granted, they're not all aimed at improving or broadening background checks and there's obviously no way to say with certainty if they would've stopped the high profile mass shootings of 2015, but there is reason to assume that they might have. We know that a majority of the highly publicised and worst mass shootings in the last few years were commited by people who had obtained their firearms legally. We also know that several of them were suffering from certain conditions or had a (criminal) past that arguably should or would have stopped them from owning firearms. Among these shooters, some had known mental disorders or issues. Others had a criminal past. With others, we don't know whether or not there existed reasons for them not to have owned a gun as information on a criminal history, run-ins with the law or mental issues is often not easily publicly available. Finally, several of them used magazines or weapon types that would've been classified as assault weaponry that they would (or should) not have had easy access to if the proposed laws actually passed. Would better background checks definitely have stopped some of these shootings? Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely is reason to assume that they could've done something. In some of these cases, there was information available on these shooters that simply fell outside the scope of the older background checks or that didn't reach the right person at the right time because of a lack of proper law enforcement of these rules. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/14/the-role-of-gun-control-in-2015-worst-mass-shootingshttp://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0You also can't forget that mass shootings are a relatively small problem, even though they occur far more frequently than in other developed countries. Even going by the very broadest definitions of "mass shooting", statistics show that they only account for a fraction (less than 2-3%) of all gun deaths and gun homicides. They are highly publicised, very capable of affecting the public opinion and are often taken very personally by people, but they're ultimately only a small part of America's problem with guns. On average, there's about 30 gun homicides and 90 gun deaths a day in the US. Homicides alone, that's one of the worst mass shootings in years every single day. All gun deaths combined, that's more than Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora movie theater and Newton combined each and every day of the year. So even if these (increased) background checks don't or wouldn't have stopped these mass shootings, I'd say that it only stands to reason that they could help avoid some of these other deaths.
5736
« on: January 05, 2016, 12:03:00 PM »
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-handshttps://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-ourAfter announcing upcoming executive actions to address gun violence, Obama and the White House revealed the scope and contents of these plans which focus primarily on improved background checks to close the gun sale "loophole", mental health care and (smart) gun safety improvements. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.
ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history records and criminal dispositions, information on persons disqualified because of a mental illness, and qualifying crimes of domestic violence.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is overhauling the background check system to make it more effective and efficient.
The envisioned improvements include processing background checks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and improving notification of local authorities when certain prohibited persons unlawfully attempt to buy a gun. The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.
Make our communities safer from gun violence
The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws.
The President’s FY2017 budget will include funding for 200 new ATF agents and investigators to help enforce our gun laws.
ATF has established an Internet Investigation Center to track illegal online firearms trafficking and is dedicating $4 million and additional personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.
ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.
The Attorney General issued a memo encouraging every U.S. Attorney’s Office to renew domestic violence outreach efforts.
Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system
The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.
The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.
The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons.
Shape the future of gun safety technology
The President has directed the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology
The President has also directed the departments to review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety. Summary by the Guardian:The president has concluded his remarks on new executive actions on gun control. Here’s what we learned:
In an emotional appearance, President Obama announced that he was taking action beef up background checks on gun sales, and to institute new legal penalties for illegal gun sales.
The president cried freely as he talked about the victims of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school. ““Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad,” he said.
Obama called for new gun safety measures to prevent children from dying in accidental shootings. “If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin,” he said, we should make sure they can’t pull the trigger on a gun.”
30,000 Americans die each year in gun violence, Obama said: “We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom.”
The new guidelines include measures to encourage states to swap information on those with mental illness. Thoughts?
5737
« on: January 04, 2016, 12:21:05 PM »
Got all achievements except for the co-op ones. No co-op matchmaking or splitscreen is literally the worst.
5738
« on: January 04, 2016, 09:37:53 AM »
Sleep tight pupper.
5739
« on: January 04, 2016, 05:38:30 AM »
>armed public protests, occupation of government property, threats aimed at law enforcement and implications of severe violence as a response to a single likely incorrect application of the law.
These people's cause and any sort of possible support from the public or myself were doomed the second they did that.
5740
« on: January 04, 2016, 04:46:54 AM »
I do hope there's going to be a prequel or sequel.
What happened to the son? How did he meet his untimely demise? What about the mother or other siblings?
5741
« on: January 04, 2016, 02:41:57 AM »
The game can be done either way.
Even with 30 soul arrows and a knife?
People have beaten the game with nothing but a broken ladle. Even bare fist builds are completely viable.
5742
« on: January 04, 2016, 02:30:51 AM »
I probably wasn't clear.
I'm not actually looking for a specific build to go for as much as it's more of a question of in what order should I level stuff up in? and is it even possible to go full magic focus for PVE, and will it make the experience hellish to the point where I would regret it.
Full magic is entirely possible for PVE. Wouldn't recommend it much for PVP, but most spells have sufficient uses to carry you through most areas of the game. Lots of attunement, intelligence, a few cast boosting pieces of equipment and some consumable items that refill your casts if you run low in boss fights should get you through the game. As for your stats, it really just depends on what playstyle you're going for. Lighter and quicker melee weapons and bows generally rely on dexterity while the heavier ones usually do better with strength. I personally enjoy full melee (with perhaps some supporting spells) the most, but it's entirely your call. Just don't try to level every single stat in the game. Endurance and vitality are must haves for just about any build, and then just go with strength/dex for melee and focus on or two styles of spells (magic, faith, hex, pyro) while you're at it. Pump your adaptability up to 20 for some better dodging and you're set. And don't worry about it too much. If you feel like you messed up, there's a lot of Soul Vessels in the game. Take one back to the firekeeper ladies at the very start and you can reassign all your skills.
5743
« on: January 04, 2016, 02:07:19 AM »
>this cancer has some serious effects
5744
« on: January 03, 2016, 11:00:23 AM »
Do you have a source to suggest that these studies don't include those illnesses in their analysis?
I find the disconnect to be indicative of the fact that they could be ignoring such illnesses; after all, among the global prison population, about 50pc of men have antisocial personality disorder:
Antisocial personality disorder is common in prison settings. Surveys of prisoners worldwide indicate a prevalence of antisocial personality disorder of 47% for men and 21% for women (Fazel & Danesh, 2002). In the UK prison population, the prevalence of people with antisocial personality disorder has been identified as 63% male remand prisoners, 49% male sentenced prisoners, and 31% female prisoners (Singleton et al., 1998).
I don't find it particularly surprising though; ASPD--and by extension psychopathy--isn't viewed as an illness which qualifies somebody as legally insane within the criminal justice system. I remember reading that judges are more likely to hand heavier sentences to people diagnosed with ASPD.
Not that I disagree with you, but wouldn't it be likely that being in prison fosters or contributes to these illnesses rather than the disorders being one of the main reasons they end up in there? At the very start of the article you linked, the authors concede that "the criteria for antisocial personality disorder as specified in DSM-IV have been criticised because of the focus on antisocial behaviour rather than on the underlying personality structure. This has led to the belief that antisocial personality disorder and its variants may be over-diagnosed in certain settings, such as prison..." Additionally, I believe there's also a lot of research that ASDP and other mental illness go hand in hand with substance abuse, which is a much larger predictive factor to determine violence. Either way, this is a very fuzzy subject. It's hard to accurately determine rates of mental illness and to what extent they contribute to violence.
5745
« on: January 03, 2016, 09:22:02 AM »
While rates of mental illness are relatively high among mass shooters, research shows that only a tiny fraction (probably less than 5%) of all gun violence is commited by people with serious and demonstrable mental health problems.
As I understand it, "mental illness" statistics on any kind of crime don't include the mental illnesses that would make you most susceptible to committing crimes in the first place. Namely, anti-social personality disorder and maybe narcissistic personality disorder. Not that these conditions are particularly treatable, but if we're going to talk about mental illness and crime then missing out ASPD seems to be ignoring one of the biggest pieces of the puzzles.
I'm actually not sure about that. There's heaps of research suggesting that the mentally ill aren't particularly violent and that especially when it comes to gun violence, they only account for a tiny fraction of all gun homicides and gun crimes. I never really looked into what that research considers to be a mental illness, though, so that might change things a little. Do you have a source to suggest that these studies don't include those illnesses in their analysis? Because this article that only appeared last year did some very thorough analysis of existing information on the subject. One of the foremost sources it references is the National Center for Health Statistics, whose database showed that less than 5% of all gun homicides were commited by the mentally ill. I don't know what illnesses they include, but since they're part of the CDC and share their methodologies, I'd be inclined to say they also use the same definition of mental illness, which uses the DSM-IV as its main guideline. And seeing how that includes personality disorders, I'd assume that they'd be considerd in their analysis too. I may well be wrong, but I don't immediately see a reason to think that they failed to inclode those disorders in their review.
5746
« on: January 03, 2016, 06:49:24 AM »
A better approach, I think, if we must approach the issue through law, would be to increase the capacity and obligation of mental healthcare providers to watch those who are at risk of becoming violent, and increasing the capacity and obligation of FFLs to be wary of who they sell firearms to, ideally by training them to spot potential problem customers. That probably wouldn't yield very significant results, though. I support that approach but I doubt it's enough. While rates of mental illness are relatively high among mass shooters, research shows that only a tiny fraction (probably less than 5%) of all gun violence is commited by people with serious and demonstrable mental health problems. And knowing that mass shootings only account for a very small portion of all killings involving guns (even going by the very broad "reddit definition" of a mass shooting, they only account for 1.5% of all gun deaths and less than 5% of all gun homicides), focusing exclusively on them will barely even put a dent in the amount of gun deaths. There's also something to be said about the effectiveness of what you're suggesting. In my last thread about guns, I already mentioned how difficult it is to determine potential problem cases. Psychiatry and psych evaluations are generally considered very ineffective at predicting threats. I linked some interviews with renowned psychiatrists and psychologists who argued against putting more of a burden on these people as the predictive value of what they do is extremely low. Over the years there's been hundreds of thousands of angry, confused, depressed, socially inept, extremely introverted and outcasted teens that have strong and negative feelings towards their peers and society. Almost of all of them meet the criteria of what's considered common characteristics of rampage killers, yet only the tiniest fraction of them actually ends up shooting up a school or local mall. How do you make that call? Stop anyone checking the boxes from owning a gun? I can already imagine the outrage, "NEW LAW STOPS ANYONE DEEMED DANGEROUS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT FROM OWNING A GUN". Wait until it's too late? Pour billions of dollars into mandatory therapy and close evaluations of every person who suffers from mental illness and "might" go violent? Hold psychologists criminally liable whenever someone they worked with ends up commiting a violent crime? Plus, how far would you go with increasing this capacity and obligation before other pro gun people say it's too much? Wouldn't an increased capacity of analysing their potential customers go hand in hand with longer waiting periods and/or background checks in order to actually be effective? And wouldn't legal obligations on FFL's either just be ignored by vehemently pro-gun salesmen, or be blasted by thousands of second amendment advocates who feel that the government obliging these people to apply certain conditions and criteria on who they can sell to is going way too far? I agree that better health care, closer evaluation of "red flag cases" and an increased obligation/capacity of gun salesmen to identify problem customers is a good thing. I just worry that they focus too much on mass shootings alone (which are definitely a problem, but relatively speaking only account for a small portion of gun deaths and violence) and are too dependent on predictive analysis of a person's psyche and intentions (which is already a near impossible task for trained psychiatrist and psychologists spending dozens evaluating of hours with a single person).
5747
« on: January 03, 2016, 04:46:38 AM »
Original Red / Lance is better though.
5748
« on: January 03, 2016, 03:12:12 AM »
definately now Passchendaele
Good movie. I remember actually seeing it in Passendale itself. Chilling experience.
5749
« on: January 02, 2016, 05:46:53 PM »
It's even expected that for the first time in any country in recent history, there are going to be less traffic fatalities than deaths by guns in the US in 2016.
That's a shame. I don't know if it still holds up, but wasn't there more mass shootings than days in the US in 2015?
That depends on what definition of mass shooting you go by. The main problem here is that there's no generally accepted definition of the term which leads to varying results. In the loosest sense of the word, a mass shooting is any incident in which there's multiple victims of gun violence. This means that the "victims" can just have suffered injuries that they survived and that technically speaking, the original shooter himself might be included in the "multiple victims" part. As far as I'm aware, this definition is never actually used as two men shooting each other in the leg would be considered a mass shooting, which clearly is pretty dishonest. If you go by the so-called "reddit definition" which stems from a gun policy group on Reddit compiling information on mass shootings, there have been 374 mass shootings in 2015. They consider any incident in which 4 or more people were shot to be a mass shooting. However, this includes people who were shot but survived as well as the original shooter himself. If you go by the definition used by the Gun Violence Archive, there were 330 mass shootings in 2015. They count 4 or more people shot (but not necessarily killed) in a single event as a mass shooting, but not including the original shooter. This is a definition that has become increasingly more popular and that I think can teach us a lot. Aside from that, there's another handful of other definitions that people use. Applying a 4-fatality treshold, there's around 35 mass shootings in 2015. A 3-fatality treshold, you're looking at closer to 60. Applying the strictest definitions possible (not including the shooter himself, a 4 or 5-fatality treshold, a single shooter in a single day in a public area, no gang/drug related incident...), that number drops to less than 10. tl;dr, it all depends on the definition you use and what criteria you go by. Including the original shooter in the victim count or not? Only count mass shootings taken place in public places or include those in private residences? Count injuries or just fatalities? How many victims before it's "mass", 3-4-5? Count only single shooters or multiple? Include shootings done by druggies/gangbangers/known criminals? Consider "single event" as less than a day or more, or even require some maximum time limit in between killings? Count only what happened in a specific location, or consider a person shooting some people in his house and some in the street a mass shooting too? The broader definitions cover close to 400 instances of mass shootings a year while the strictest ones bring it down to less than one a month. No matter what definition you go by, though, there's pretty compelling evidence to suggest that the amount of mass shootings has been on a rise over the past few years. I didn't actually read these two links before making this post, but skimming over them, they seem pretty informative. Some additional readings for those interested: https://newrepublic.com/article/123027/heres-why-no-one-can-agree-number-mass-shootingshttp://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/03/mass-shootings-no-ones-sure-how-many.html
5750
« on: January 02, 2016, 05:15:31 PM »
I don't understand why this whole gun issue is becoming a big problem. Taking guns away isn't going to solve anything, people can still kill even without guns.
Sure, but guns do make it significantly easier, no?
What easier to kill? Sure but lets be honest, would any criminal want to take the chance of giving up their gun? Also we have bows and other range weapons, its not just guns.
That's why we confiscate illegal guns owned by criminals and make it harder for them to get firearms rather than expect them to just turn in their guns.
And the amount of deaths homicides involving other range weapons than guns is miniscule.
The only reason why he have deaths from firearms is because of peoples choices, do guns really kill people? its a tool, its like saying a knife kills people, its a tool, the only reason your killing people with a gun is not the guns fault, its peoples actions.
If the government restricts and regulates and individual's right to operate a motor vehicle based on predisposed illnesses that endanger others (and a car is a tool significantly more important than a firearm in daily life for 99% of people) then what's the difference here? Prior criminals to not have full rights under the law and have restrictions that they must oblige by. I have no problems with expanding the background check system.
Yeah, this too. There's many parallels between the regulation of guns and vehicles, even in a historical sense. Nowadays, people think it's perfectly normal that we have all these traffic regulations and require people to wear seat belts and such, but this wasn't always the case. I'm on mobile so am not going to bother looking for it now, but there's actually news articles available from the early 1900's where people were outraged by the government requiring seat belts in cars because it infringed their enjoyment of driving, only hurt responsible drivers and should not be something that the government should have a say in. The similarities between that and people now opposing things like background checks and safety rules are pretty obvious, and so is the massive amount of evidence to support how the government regulating cars and traffic drastically lowered traffic accidents and vehicle deaths. It's even expected that for the first time in any country in recent history, there are going to be less traffic fatalities than deaths by guns in the US in 2016.
5751
« on: January 02, 2016, 04:59:47 PM »
I don't understand why this whole gun issue is becoming a big problem. Taking guns away isn't going to solve anything, people can still kill even without guns.
Sure, but guns do make it significantly easier, no?
What easier to kill? Sure but lets be honest, would any criminal want to take the chance of giving up their gun? Also we have bows and other range weapons, its not just guns.
That's why we confiscate illegal guns owned by criminals and make it harder for them to get firearms rather than expect them to just turn in their guns.
And the amount of deaths homicides involving other range weapons than guns is miniscule.
The only reason why he have deaths from firearms is because of peoples choices, do guns really kill people? its a tool, its like saying a knife kills people, its a tool, the only reason your killing people with a gun is not the guns fault, its peoples actions.
I don't think anyone argues against that. What people do argue is that guns simply are one of the most lethal and most effective tools we have to commit crimes and kill people. Statistics support that this is the case. No one thinks that guns grow legs and shoot people on their own accord. They just think that it deserves to be regulated differently due to its inherently more lethal capacities.
5752
« on: January 02, 2016, 04:55:39 PM »
Sympathy for the devil by the Rolling Stones is absolute top tier.
They wrote 2 good songs in their entire career and that isn't one of them.
Sure thing bud.
5753
« on: January 02, 2016, 04:50:05 PM »
Sympathy for the devil by the Rolling Stones is absolute top tier.
5754
« on: January 02, 2016, 04:46:49 PM »
I don't understand why this whole gun issue is becoming a big problem. Taking guns away isn't going to solve anything, people can still kill even without guns.
Sure, but guns do make it significantly easier, no?
What easier to kill? Sure but lets be honest, would any criminal want to take the chance of giving up their gun? Also we have bows and other range weapons, its not just guns.
That's why we confiscate illegal guns owned by criminals and make it harder for them to get firearms rather than expect them to just turn in their guns. And the amount of deaths and homicides involving other range weapons than guns is miniscule.
5755
« on: January 02, 2016, 04:41:15 PM »
I don't understand why this whole gun issue is becoming a big problem. Taking guns away isn't going to solve anything, people can still kill even without guns.
Sure, but guns do make it significantly easier, no?
5756
« on: January 02, 2016, 01:52:11 PM »
One question. Does this help get illegal guns from the hands of criminals?
It doesn't. It's designed to keep possibly legal guns temporarily out of the hands of people who are potentially extremely close to becoming criminals.
HA NICE TRY TOU FUCKING LIBERAL HIPPIE
IF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE MY GUNS, COLD DEAD HANDS ETC
That's pretty accurate though. As I referenced earlier, reading the comments on the Yahoo and WT articles on this is just painful. Numerous people referring to Obama as nothing but "Hussein" or "Barrak" in attempt to villify him.
5757
« on: January 02, 2016, 12:58:28 PM »
One question. Does this help get illegal guns from the hands of criminals?
It doesn't. It's designed to keep possibly legal guns temporarily out of the hands of people who are potentially extremely close to becoming criminals.
5758
« on: January 02, 2016, 09:26:50 AM »
Re-rolling
Rude double post.
5759
« on: January 02, 2016, 09:25:27 AM »
Never actually read the books even though I have them.
5760
« on: January 02, 2016, 09:20:41 AM »
Oh boy.
Pages: 1 ... 190191192 193194 ... 520
|
Show Posts