Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/20/13 04:41 PM, Samuraikyo wrote:

At 5/20/13 04:09 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: BREAKING NEWS PIERS MORGAN ADMITS THERES A POINT TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITH GOVERNMENT TYRANNY!

I love how Piers Morgan is a retard in the eyes of both main political parties, but then he says something retarded in your favor and all of a sudden his word is valid.

Tony's not saying that now suddenly Piers Morgan is his number 1 go-to guy for news. He's pointing out the validity of the notion that (pun intended) Obama's administration has quite probably shot themselves in the foot in terms of credibility on a major aspect of the push for gun control.

But you get style points for the attempted obfuscation!

LOL at the link from WND. Explains most of your shitty posts. Do you often get your news from biased conspiracy dwelling websites filled with bigoted hate? Troll more.

While WND is an obviously biased site, it did have the video clip on it to support its 'reporting'. I've sometimes had to go to such sites because they are the only ones to have some clips published either in a way I can link to or the only source of the clip/file/link I can find to link to.

Also, it is good to read a variety of sources to stay informed. The key is making sure they are a mix of ideologies and types (ie: established, new media, academic, journalistic, op-ed, etc).

But hey...if it helps you keep your head in the sand and ignore reality (and you're happy with that): more power to you!

:)

At 5/19/13 09:30 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/19/13 03:27 PM, TheMason wrote: * DoJ (Dept of Justice) violated the 1st and 4th amendments going after the AP.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, but I'm genuinely curious what constitutional arguments you have heard that support this claim. It's probably better if you take it to the AP thread, though.

I don't really want to de-rail the topic of guns, but at the same time since it is relevant to the topic I think a very short discussion would be in order. So I'll just put out what my thoughts are on the topic and be done with it in this thread. If anyone has any questions IM and we can talk privately or go to the AP thread.

====

1st Amendment: Leaks are a double sided coin. In a constitutional republic based upon self-rule and individual liberty, openness and transparency of the government is essential. If someone in the government sees something wrong and they have the integrity to go to the press...then their confidentiality should be protected. Look at Deep Throat and Watergate, the American Public has a right to know if their executive branch of government is corrupt and power-obsessed.

On the other hand, is the public interest served in EVERYTHING the government does being transparent? For example, is the government classifying a new armor plating for a tank an existential threat to individual liberty?

In this case, I think it is an administration (albeit not the only one) who uses the criminal justic system to plug leaks. Yeah...there are national security issues at play. BUT, I think after Bush and the GWOT we're all a little tired of things done in the name of natl security. So I think the Obama administration (especially having won in '08 in hopes of being something different) needs to run the natl security apparatus above board and with more transparency.

And so the 1st amendment issue is: is the administration doing something that will dampen the press' ability to report on government overreach by placing the specter of 'big brother' spying on them?

4th Amendment: This was all done in secret, and extended into the reporter's personal lives. Where is the warrant? Where is the reporter's right to know they are being searched in terms of their communication devices? The criminal 'offense' that was being investigated had already happened...so why the need for secrecy? Why not get a warrant and execute it? Again...because Obama was following Bush he needed to be the paragon of openness and transparancy. Violating a person's or company's privacy without going through due process goes against why the Founders wanted this protection.

This is why we have the Bill of Rights. People and institutions made up of people, have a tendancy to A) take the path of least resistance and B) act in self-interested ways. Government is no different, in fact it may be more susceptible in that it is about accumulating not just wealth but power as well.

And this is where this brief discussion is relevant to this thread. People who believe that firearms in the hands of civilians is a positive in that it provides a check on government overreach are mocked. Pro-gun control (I refuse to acknowledge their perversion of the term 'gun safety' since the vast majority of people for gun control display profound levels of ignorance on the topic) advocates say: "the government's not out to get you". But these three things illustrate that a balance is still very much needed.

At 5/16/13 05:19 AM, Fim wrote:

I'd be careful about casting personal dispersions. To paraphrase Clinton:
"Everytime you point your finger at someone, you're point three at yourself."

...I kinda wanted to dip my toes in the pool of debate and piss off retards like tony,..

TONY
* Understands how guns work, and what makes them effective at what purpose they are being selected for.
* Has more than a passing knowledge of the literature out there...academic, journalistic, or political.
* From talking with him, appears to have a better than average understanding of social scientific methodology.

YOU
* Previously stated you do not have any familiarity with guns as well as lacking the desire to learn (from what I can tell...this remains the status quo).
* Your arguments are based upon 'common sense' thought experiments and thin patina of statistics culled more often than not from journalistic sources and political/NGO groups.
* Violate the very social scientific norms you claim are being eschewed by the other side.

====

As for the whole tyranny argument and being able to laugh at supporters of the 2nd Amendment who argue that it provides a check to government excess (it's funny because obviously the US government is not out to get you)...

* IRS used to stifle political dissenters.
* DoJ (Dept of Justice) violated the 1st and 4th amendments going after the AP.
* And if that's not enough for you...the DoD (Dept of Defense) is trying to increase the role the military can play in domestic emergencies to civil unrest and giving commanders the ability to act on their own in the event the president cannot make a phone call.

And now it appears that Obama has lost Jon Stewart.

So those of you who mock the notion of a need to check government overreach...Obama has just discredited your side.
:)

At 5/18/13 09:07 AM, Fim wrote: Trust me, I've been through this debate long enough to know how much people on the pro gun lobby love to cherry pick their sources and carefully ignore cases like Australia where strict gun regulation worked.

VERY hypocritical of you...as well as a baseless argument. For the following scientific reasons:

1) By pointing to Australia...you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing pro-gun people of doing. You are selecting one case that fits your argument and then running with it to advance your argument. (That's the hypocritical part.)

(Now for the baselessness component of your argument as well as NRA-type arguments that cherrypick.)

2) Looking at just one or even 3, 4, or 5 countries to do a comparison is very bad science because even if you randomly select your countries for comparison (to eliminate selection bias)...there may be very significant differences between those countries. For example you selected Australia a country that is very different demographically from the US (ie: ELF score, educational attainment, employment situation, etc). These demographic factors have been shown, time and time again, to be the actual causal factors that influence crime while gun availibity has very little impact.

3) The best way to do this is through a more extensive examination of crime rates across nations. One of the advantages of cross-national studies you can compare crime rates from ALL countries. Here's one that examines the relationship between guns per capita and firearm homicides. He examines this at three levels:

ALL countries: slightly negative slope (R2: -0.0104. NOTE: Mr. Berezow does not acknowledge the downward slop of this non-correation despite his graph clearly showing a downward trend. This means that if anything...more guns when looked at ALL countries DOES mean less crime.)

DEVELOPED countries: Mr Berezow does make a good observation that one must look at countries that are at least somewhat similar to the US (ie: developed). When he looks at these countries the slope shifts to slightly positive. However, it remains a R2 of 0.00046. This means: the relationship does NOT correlate. This is significant because while correlation does NOT mean causation...there can be NO causation without correlation.

However, Mr. Berezow's obviously not going to be satisfied until he gets a positive and significant correlation. So he allows his bias to effect his methodology with the next calculation:

DEVELOPED countries MINUS S. AFRICA: Mr. Berezow justifies this exception by saying the following:
"Again, no correlation. But, notice the outlier, South Africa.That is a country with a history of apartheid, ethnic conflict and violence. It is obviously skewing the results. So, what happens if we eliminate South Africa from the analysis?"

This is horrible science for two reasons:
A) S. Africa is actually (Demographically speaking) the closest to the US than the other countries listed. Consider:
* Apartheid in the US was called Segregation. S. Africa elected a black chief executive right after ending Apartheid. The US did not elect a black chief executive until over 30 years later (officially it ended w/Brown v Board in the 1950s..but did not end de facto until the late '60s/early '70s.).
* The US has a serious history of ethnic conflict and violence. The last major event was the 1992 LA Riots. Today there are some radical groups (ie: New Black Panthar Party & Aryan Nation) that advocate viiolence to protect their ethnic 'purity'.
B) It is obvious that he did not adequately do a lit review, and is unaware of the social science (along with American history) related to the subject. These factors are the key causal attributes that result in all crime. If he had, he would've known that excepting S. Africa also would require excepting the US!

So while he does obtain his much desired "...clear correlation...that is highly statistically significant..." it is after cherry picking the data to get the data he wants. Therefore, the correlation is not true and thus unacceptable. Looking at the numbers, I think that if he took the US out of the equation...the correlation would once more disappear.

====

So sorry...hate to break it to you: but a single cross-comparison between the US and another country is invalid. Furthermore, valid studies that look at the trend globally (or even just between developed nations) no relationship exists between guns per capita and firearm homicide.

And there is no cherry picking the data involved in this conclusion.
:)

BA: Political Science from U of S. Carolina
MS: International Relations from Troy U

Was going for my PhD from U of Mo...but got deployed and decided I wanted to actually teach so I'm now doing troops to teachers. (Got a 191 out of 200 on the Praxis Test, top 15%!)

After the teacher cert probably going to get another Masters in History.

Sonofabitch! LL1 is back! Did someone say his name three times in front of a mirror at midnight again?

At 5/1/13 04:15 PM, Blitzkrieg667 wrote: I have no intention of getting into this debate due to knowing nothing of US politics, but holy shit, am I the only one who thinks this guy sounds really pretentious? ... In fact, you'd probably have been better off, because at least then you're not pretending that your argument is well thought-out.

Then there's also the fact that he is a liar and plagarizer. He copied this from an article written by http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&pag e=britt_23_2. (NOTE: In some places Britt is falsely attributed as PhD in Political Science...but this is not the case. He's a business man who wrote a novel, June 2004, about a right-wing utopia gone wrong.)

So...the sad fact is he's uncapable of coming up with his ideas on his own.

At 4/25/13 04:19 AM, Fim wrote: I didn't ask a question, I'm quoting a poll. And you're wrong, currently the law doesn't extend to background checks online and at gun shows, which is why it needed to change.

Here's the thing...the law does and does not extend background checks online and gunshows...as I've told you previously. It is a complex issue: licensed dealers who sell guns through these venues DO require a background check.

Now the problem is guys like me who want to sell our guns. These are called 'person-to-person' sales. The problem comes down to how do you require me to do a background check when I sell a gun? What are the record keeping requirements?

Furthermore, the 90% poll may have overstated supporte just a little.

"The proposal, put forward as an amendment to a broader gun bill, sought to widen current checks to include online and unlicensed gunshow dealers."

The keyword: unlicensed. These are people walking around selling one or two guns...for the vast majority of these sales you have someone selling only occassionally. While I do support background checks in principle...I have some doubts that Manchin-Toomey would have really solved any problems. I think it is more about feeling good or like 'we've done something'...instead of doing someting meaningful.

At 4/24/13 08:28 PM, Fim wrote: Australia had 13 mass shootings in 18 years, then they changed the gun laws, and now they haven't had one since 1996.

Germany did the same thing, and Japan has very strict gun bans. In Germany there was a drop in mass shootings...but guess what? These spree killers switched to less effective weapons like axes and other bladed weapons. In Japan we see mass stabbings.

However, there is a big difference than the US and those countries. There are indications that US spree killers would most likely switch to explosives. We have a history of this. The first (and most deadly) school mass killing involved a bomb in the 1920s...so did the killers at Columbine.

In a perverse way if we could wave a magic wand and take the guns away from someone like Lanza...we could see these mass killings getting more deadly.

At 4/21/13 03:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Under very big stretches of the definitions.

No...not at all.

* The Aurora shooter identified with the Joker from Batman...specifically the Alan Moore Joker where the guy goes from outlandish mobster to a socio/psychopathic terrorist.

And? If I idolized Osama Bin Laden and then shot up a 7-11 that doesn't make me a terrorist, .... Mere idolization does not equate to an intent to cause widespread fear. ... The lack of a specific intent to cause fear or intimidation is missing as of right now.

Only about half right.

If you idolize UBL and shoot-up a 7-11, no that does not mean you're a terrorist. However, if you do it in the name of UBL in support of his goals...then you very much are a terrorist.

Secondly, everything from his dress down to the weapon he chose are about intimidation and fear.

That's like claim the use of firecrackers in an attack would change it to terrorism. While it technically fits under the statute, it clear does not classify as a "weapon of mass destruction" as a grenade, bomb, serin gas, anthrax, or snuke would.

Again...wrong.

Firecrackers do not have a physical effect on the victims. His use of incapacitants was meant to cause a harmful physiological change in his victims to cause pain and suffering in and of themselves...and make them easier to shoot.

So sorry...this is an absolutely false equivalency.

This is perhaps the closest thing to terrorism, however as it was targetted at law enforcement (the likely people to try to enter his hoe after such an attack) it becomes less and less torrorism as in the domestic (non-international) the police are not civilians, and the targetting of civilians is a major element of terrorism.

Again...wrong. Absolutely wrong.

1) The notion that targeting law enforcement or the military is different for the purpose of calling something terrorism...is completely off-base. Since terrorism is (most commonly) a politically motivated act and these groups are the most prominent symbols of government...they are often the most targeted group. Under this definiton Oklahoma City would not be terrorism since McVeigh was targeting the FBI/BATFe. Likewise, the Pentagon on 9/11 wouldn't qualify because it was a military target.

2) You are wrong at the core, even if the targeting point were correct. It was indiscrimate targeting. It was just as likely that his neighbors and/or landlord would enter his apartment. In fact one woman claimed she almost entered the apartment...but something stopped her (gut feeling). And even if it were the cops who entered...he designed it in such a way as to kill many of his neighbors.

This is still an extremely weak case for terrorism, as it still only appears that terror (going beyond the direct victims) was a byproduct and not a motive for the attack, his use of 'chemical' weapons was hardly enough enough (and the bar is very low) and his use of explosives wasn't targetted at civilians.

No...very strong case for terrorism. The weakness is trying to call it something other than it is.

* His intent was to terrorize in the mode of the fictional Joker, the terrorist incarnation.
* His chemical weapons choice was selected so that he could inflict more pain and fear into his attack.
* The notion that something is targeted at police does not make it any less terroristic.
* That he was targeting cops is also erroneous. He was targeting whoever opened his door...but knowing that cops do not routinely clear a building for a noise complaint...he packed his apartment with enough explosives to take out his neighbors. So he was targeting civilians.

At 4/20/13 01:23 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 4/20/13 10:51 AM, Korriken wrote: Chechen to be specific. Also, Jihad doesn't care if you're black or white, as long as you do Allah's bidding by killing the infidel.

What? Just being Chechen changes the whole story because Muslims in former Communist nations are much more secular than Muslims from other parts of the world.

But one of these particular Muslims posted that his worldview was 'Islamic'...I'd say that moves him out of the secular calssification.

Also, while it does cause conflict with the Taliban and al-Qaida...you have this whole 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. After all, the Mujahideen were a very varied group of people who were only united against the USSR and splintered after Soviets left Afghanistan, the two largest factiions were the Northern Alliance (friends of the US) and the Taliban.

Another point: Korriken used the term jihadist...not Muslim...so is he really showing a bias or bigotry?

At 4/20/13 01:16 PM, test-object wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you're a bad person if you want to own one. It's just that the "why" should be reasonable. Is America or your neighbourhood truly in such a state of decay that without a gun you are done for like, let's say, small African towns?

I think the vast majority of "why" reasons are reasonable. These include:

* Hunting
* Target/skeet shooting
* Collecting
* Self-defense

Now, for the self-defense portion...I have lived in cities. I have had my house broken into...twice. Both times I used my gun defensively...and without firing a shot.

I also know many cops...and they all say that they cannot stop bad stuff from happening. They cannot be everywhere at once...and are seldom where they are needed. Over 90% of the time they arrive on-scene to make a report and see the victim to the ambulance.

So...if the stakes are your life (or that of your children and spouse), don't you think you should provide all possible layers of protection?

I try looking at discussions and reactions in contrasts and it just seems to me America is very, very paranoid.

I don't think it is paranoia. I think it is healthy realism. I live in a rural area where I have even less police protection than in an urban environment...as well as critters that could hurt my dogs or myself and my wife.

At 4/20/13 09:55 AM, test-object wrote: Eh, there's idiots and "sheep" on both sides of the spectrum. Let's not make childish arguments here.

I'm not trying to make a childish argument here. But this touches upon something I've been pondering for awhile now.

When I speak to people on the other side of the issue about assault rifles...they are so sure of their position that they do not question it. In fact, they often advertise that they do not anything about guns...all before decrying weapons that "belong on the battlefield and not the streets".

Some of them, like recently EdyKel, remain firmly entrenched in this position that the AR-15 or AK-47 are uncommonly effective killing machines and it is unreasonable for civilians to own them...even after this notion is debunked on a legal, military, and scientific basis. They still continue to argue.

While I will admit there are sheep on my side of the argument...the majority of them do have an understanding of firearms and what the various types are capable of.

But I have not seen the tenacity or level of ignorance displayed by them that the sheep on the gun-control side seem to wear as a badge of honor. I don't know how many of them are proud that they have never touched a gun...nor are they willing to learn.

At 4/19/13 06:11 PM, test-object wrote:

At 4/19/13 02:11 PM, TheMason wrote: How so?

The way they want to deal with people is according to the rule of the scariest. Still wonder why they scare me?
Such a weird mindset, to me at least.

I'm unsure of what the 'rule of the scariest' is. So please...explain.

Also is the weirdness of the mindset just the natural fear of the foreign that all humans have? So could the reason 'gun people' (a term I'm using here...not quoting you) scare you...is because the irrational lizard-brain part of your personality sees it and thinks: "danger...stay away".

I mean it is a natural and logical response. But is it rational? Look at it from the other side:

I'm a gun person. But I am also:
* I could also either be your HS Social Studies teacher or Political Science professor.
* A veteran of USAF active duty and currently serving in the Air Natl Guard...so I could also be the guy helping you out when your town is being flooded...or some other natural disaster has happened.
* I also live in a rural, sparsely populated area. This means two things:
1) I have 50 acres I can hunt deer as a cheap alternative to beef.
2) I have almost zero law enforcement protection...it would take a deputy up to 2 hours to get here in the middle of the night.
* I do not want to kill someone over my TV. If someone breaks into my home, I will retreat to my bedroom and only use lethal force if the home invader continues to try and gain entry to where I and my wife are at...after they have been warned I have a gun and the police have been called.

Must legal gun people are like me. They are not violent. They have to pass a background for the firearms they own or carry. Study after study show that across the board not only are gun owners less violent they are more law abiding across the board (down to traffic violations).

It's a gun. It simplifies killing people with just the pull of a finger.

Not really. A person's chance of surviving a gun shot wound is 95% if they make it to a hospital. And very few people die at the scene. Overall...only about 20-25% of all GSW victims die.

Look at Dzakhor Tsarnea most likely got shot in the early morning shoot-out in Boston Thursday night/Friday morning...and was still alive when he was taken into custody.

At 4/20/13 02:23 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Really, you don't think it has to do with certain unique social and economic factors?

He was talking about the unique social factor in the first place. Guns barely have little to nothing to do with economics.

What she was speaking of was the social and economic factors that have been shown to be the real causal factors of all crime.

The point is guns do NOT cause crime. Sociological and economic factors cause crime. Stricter gun control measures would not be meaningful...they would just nibble at the edges. If Obama really wanted to have a meaningful impact on gun homicides...he would not have gone after gun control measures. Instead he should have focused on:
*mental health
* educational programs in inner cities and other poor locales
* economic programs for those same locations

At 4/20/13 12:32 PM, MattDogg wrote: Hypothesis based on the Oakland Bank and NY Fed resrv FBI informant bombing set ups, informant led foiled plots.

The two suspects were being observed by the sniper merc group, Craft international , who were adjacent to the bombing location and pulled back before detonation.

link

A few things about your link:

1) How do you know those guys belong to Craft International? What identifies them as such? Furthermore...if they are snipers...where are their rifles?

2) At an event like the Boston Marathon you have people from the National Guard and Dept of Energy circulating in the crowd with radiation detectors to look for terrorists seeking to set-off a dirty bomb. They are called CSTs in the National Guard. In the DOE they are called Road Raptor teams. Their only job is to scan for radiation and chemical agents.

Also in the pic of the three guys running...one's jacket is open and I can see the logo. It is fuzzy, but it definately resembles the CST emblem. See, some CSTs do not wear standard issue Army or Air Force uniforms but 911 Tactical pants with a polo shirt with the WMD-CST logo on it. So they are uniform...but not 'in-your-face' military about it.

To answer the question about what's in the backpack...most likely more radiation detection equipment.

Finally, there is the picture of the guys standing around a blue (not black) Suburban with a satellite dish and other type of antenna on top of it. That is the Commander's vehicle and standard issue for a CST.

And here's another story I just found while looking for pics: Link

I also know this because I used to be one.

At 4/20/13 10:32 AM, Ericho wrote: I immediately thought it had something to do with Al-Qeda, but I was quite wrong. ... It's still small compared to all of the mass shootings we've had lately. In fact, I consider us lucky we didn't have a lot more deaths.

1) It is too early to say that you're wrong on the al-Qaida link. These guys are Chechnyans and Muslims...which means that there may still be a link to al-Qaida. The older one traveled abroad and was investigated by the FBI for links to extremist groups. We simply do not what the older brother was doing overseas...he could have been in an al-Qaida training camp. Also a few things to consider:
* Bomb making is extremely hazardous. The notion that two kids could make the number of bombs they did without blowing themselves up is a little suspicious and raises a flag against the lone wolf theory.
* That they were able to so calmly return to life as normal until Thursday night is indicative of training.
* That the younger brother was able to evade (and then penetrate) the police net is indicative of training.

So the jury is still out on whether or you not you are "quite wrong".

2) The numbers simply do not agree with your statement on mass shootings. Of the roughly 36 mass shootings that have occurred since 1984 only 11 produced death tolls in the double digits. Furthermore, only 2 of the 11 were in the 20s and 1 was in the 30s.

An interesting thing to point out:
* The vast majority of those were with handguns.
* Only one (Newtown) involved only an assault rifle.
* When only assault rifles are used the average death rate is 9 compared to 12 in pistol only mass shootings.
* Since Newtown is an outlier (main target were children, how he used the rifle, and the next highest death toll is less than half the Newtown total), once you remove it from the average...the average death toll drops to 5.8.
* There are no patterns of mass shootings getting more deadly...just slighlty more frequent.
* Nor is there a shift in pattern from type of firearm used.

At 4/19/13 06:29 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote:

My point is, there is no known motivation yet - so they cannot be classified based on a motivation. Terrorism is not simply a dramatic, scary crime. ... Americans seem to believe "terror" is anything which causes terror.

Actually...yes...yes it is. Hence the notion of socio/psychopathic terrorism. The goal of these guys is to spread terror through terrorist acts. Yes...they could be college students wanting to become America's Next Top spree killers with no political or economic motivation. But this does not mean they are not terrorists.

The only ways one may be classified as a terrorist is if they operate under the flag of a terrorist group or publicly/privately admit to planning and/or committing the crime for a political or national cause. Until either of these have been made evident, they are nothing more than criminals who put bombs on the street.

Absolutely an incorrect statement. Terrorists do NOT need to operate under the flag of a terrorist group or have a political/nationalist cause. They may feel alienated against the larger culture and feel the need to lash out at it...driven by socio/psychopathic tendencies. They want to visit terror on the general public for real and/or perceived wrongs committed against them.

An example of this would be the Unabomber. He's classified as a terrorist...however his politics are the result of a 1950s/60s psychological experiment gone wrong. They are all over the place to such a degree that he is not seeking political aims...but anti-society aims as well.

At 4/20/13 12:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/19/13 04:02 PM, TheMason wrote: Psycho/sociopathic (Aurora shooter)

While I would agree with your three categories, I would definitely distinguish the aurora shooter from terrorism, is it was not terrorism. Other than a case of a per se terrorist act being carried out, the mere result of fear does not create terrorism. There must be shown a specific intent to cause fear. Shooting up a theater does not count as a per se terrorist act (like using explosives, or the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear wepons.)

Um...yeah...the Aurora shooter DOES qualify under your stipulations:

* The Aurora shooter identified with the Joker from Batman...specifically the Alan Moore Joker where the guy goes from outlandish mobster to a socio/psychopathic terrorist.

* The Aurora shooter also used homemade chemical weapons in his attack on the theater...he threw tear-gas cylindars before opening fire. (And yes...non-lethal incapacitants are still classified as chemical weapons.)

* His apartement was rigged to blow, killing many people, when he set a trap for police and his neighbors to coincide with the shooting.

That he was calmly putting his stuff away and did not off himself indicates that Holmes is not like other shooters...that he was in it for the mayhem and not a public suicide ritual. One only wonders what he would have done had he gotten away.

At 4/19/13 03:12 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: ... Despite the widespread misuse of the term "terrorism" in this case, I would say mission accomplished for the Tsarnaev's.

At 4/19/13 03:40 PM, Cynical-Charlotte wrote: While we are legally unsure about their motivation(s), the government is responding as if they were terror-inspired. The most common reason we give for terrorism is their "hatred for American freedom;" thus, the blatant overreaction and stagnation of a major American city coupled with the nonstop media coverage is certainly a victory for a presently-deemed freelance attack. Most Bostonians may not be intimidated by one man, but the area is certainly behaving as if they were.

I do agree with you that the media sensationalizies all acts of terror as a "hatred for American freedom". For example, right-winger nutjobs would say the OKC bombing in 1995 was a blow FOR American freedom rather than against/hatred for it. Likewise, OWS nutters like the ones who schemed to blow-up a bridge in Cleveland last May, would argue that American freedom is illusionary and that had they been successful...it would have been a blow against America's Corporate and Monied slave masters.

But do not conflate the media's oft used cliche as support for the notion that this was not an act of terror.

These individuals purposefully sought out ways to kill and maim innocents. They studied Islamic terrorist methods, IEDs, and tactics...and then employed them. Once they were identified, the went on yet another spree of violence killing a MIT cop, holding-up a 7-11 and engaging police in a firefight where they attempted to use explosives.

This is terrorism. Terrorism can be broken down into three groups:
Political/military (Timothy McVeigh)
Economic (Anarchists)
Psycho/sociopathic (Aurora shooter)

Now, we may not know which one these guys belong to...but they belong to one of them.

Afterall, when something quacks loudly enough...the cautious intellectual would be a fool to not concede it is a duck.

Political persuasion aside...

Watching this manhunt unfold is amazing and truly historic. What we are seeing is a soft version of martial law in a major American city. I say soft because they are not ordering people into their homes but asking people to stay in their homes and only open their doors for law enforcement.

I wonder the 4th Amendment implications (I'd like to think Camaro would have some good insight into this question), do they have warrants? Do I have to let them search my house? Can I just tell the cops my house is clear? I mean SWAT is going house-to-house searching for the younger brother...do I have to let them in?

I think this is a very historic day on many levels.

At 4/19/13 10:59 AM, test-object wrote: Pro-gun people are creepy :(

How so?

At 4/18/13 01:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/18/13 11:09 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Firearms do have a legal use...

Assault rifles do not have a legal use unique to them.

However, there is no pressing threat/danger/cause to public health or safety that justifies erroding a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right. And yes...it would errode a civil right.

* They are not used in crime.
* They do not cause more harm when used in crime.
* The cost of banning them will outweigh lives saved...transferring money and manpower away from policies that would potentially save thousands.

The point is: even if there is no legal use/purpose to have them is not a high enough bar to errode a civil right AND incur high costs of enforcement. You need to provide a justification that is based in fact (not assumptions and feelings) where the cost of the ban will produce a measurable and meaningful public good.

At 4/17/13 08:59 AM, BeProf wrote: What I find more likely is that this is a veteran, probably Iraq, with PTSD. His psychological need is to inflict the trauma that he experienced on people whom he thinks lack sufficient appreciation for what he went through on their behalf. Based on the timing (Tax/Patriot Day), I would wager that, in an effort to justify what he did both to himself and to others, he's wrapping that psychological need in some kind of right-wing rhetoric.

While the events of last night and this morning have shown this part of your post to be utterly wrong...I think it is worth mentioning why the timing does not indicate a right-winger:

* Tax day...maybe. But targeting an event titled 'Patriot Day' would be sending a mixed message. Similarly, I doubt that a right wing nutjob would pick the 4th of July either. On the other hand, if the attack had occurred today (the 19th) I would have suspected right wingers off the bat because of the significance of Waco, Oklahoma City Bombing, and a few other minor things that happened on that day.

* The target was all wrong. A right wing nutjob would most likely have targeted a GOVERNMENT building. If tax day was a motivator...it would have been something like the IRS. Most right wingers would not target civilians. The only exceptions are individuals targeted for assassination such as abortion doctors or Jewish radio talk show hosts...the only bombing by a right winger to target civilians was Eric Rudolph with the Olympics in Atlanta. The difference there is that is a symbol of internationalism. The Bostom Marathon...not so much.

* The tactics are tactics we see in IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bomb came directly from an al-Qaida English language magazine called Inspire.

While their Chechnyan background suggests Islamic extremism...if that is not it I'd say it is more likely they are Left Wingers in the mold of OWS.

At 4/17/13 09:26 PM, Fim wrote: What a sad story. I can honestly say I thought that even the most rational gun advocate would agree that having a universal background check is important to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Why can't american politicians play in the interests of the public rather than playing party-politics?

BBC NEWS - American senate rejects amendment to expand gun-sale checks

I read that BBC story, and something struck me about it: yesterday Obama called the NRA liars. Indeed throughout the entire debate, pro-gun rights supporters as liars and manipulating people's emotions.

It struck me as I was reading the BBC article...that here is proof of the gun-control crowd being disingenusous in talking about buying a gun on-line or at a gun show. They make it sound like these are new challenges, when in fact they are just new twists on old things.

First of all, I have purchased firearms over the internet. Both times, I have had to have the firearm shipped to a FFL where there was a background check.

Secondly, the majority of guns sold at gun shows go through FFL dealers where you have to go through the background check when buying from a FFL dealer.

This is where I think Obama, Schumer, Feinsteing, Bloomberg, etc are being disingenuous and lying to elicit and manipulate emotions of people who are outside of the gun culture. They make it sound as if every gun sold on the internet or gun shows are sold without a background check. This is simply untrue. Check-out what two internet dealers tell customers about buying a gun on-line:

J&G Sales

It is the same at gun shows.

What the question should be: is how do you do background checks on person-to-person sales? THAT is what the issue is. What people like Mayor Bloomberg, and his Mayors Against Illegal Firearms, put out is that it is a phenomenon unique to the internet and gunshows and that there is a 'gunshow loophole'...a total misrepresentation of the facts.

What they are talking about with internet and gunshow sales that are not subject to background checks are people who want to sell their guns. Here's an example:

Say I want to sell my Colt .45. I ask around to the people I know, and I cannot find a friend or relative to buy it for me. I go to a FFL dealer/pawn shop. They do not want to give me fair market value since they have to mark-up what they sell it for since they need to make a profit as well. So I put a classified ad in the paper, The Shotgun News, or on an internet classified board.

My other option is to take it to a gun show and sell it myself.

For the most part...people are not going to gun shows and selling massive numbers of gun like a dealer would. But I do want to say two things:

1) I think it is irresponsible to sell to a stranger without a background check. I personally would not want to do it. I would like it if at gunshows there was computer or website I could go to and run a background check on someone wanting to buy my used gun. I do not want to sell to a criminal.

2) I do think that there are people out there who abuse the system. Who do sell multiple guns to people who would otherwise by-pass the background check. However, this is tempered by the higher cost involved as pointed out by the BBC article: these guys charge a $200 premium for their service. On the other hand...the majority of murders and gun crime are committed by gangs. Gangs who have access to a much cheaper stream of guns. So I'm not sure that guns purchased this way are a significant enabler of gun crime.

====

Now to switch focus:

Another concern is paperwork. Originally, the bill that was defeated yesterday had a requirement for an individual selling their personal firearms to keep records for like 15yrs. My problem with this is that in 15yrs many people move, basements get flooded, papers get lost, etc. I think this requirement is a little unreasonable to expect from private citizens, and sets them up for failure...failure that involves prison time and a misdemeanor record.

Perhaps keeping records is reasonable...but for a much shorter time period, maybe a year. I think that is more than enough time for a person with ill-intent to use the gun in a crime. Anything after that, it would be reasonable to assume that the sale was done on the up and up.

Also, if you do not include the type of gun or serial number in the background check...I think most gun owners would be fine with the FBI keeping a record of the names of the buyer and seller who accomplished an on-line background check.

====

In the end, there was only a token effort to work with gun owners on this legislation. Instead of building support from both sides and compromising...people like Senators Schumer and Feinstein cobbled together a very flawed bill. Senators Manchin and Toomey tried to fix some of the problems of the original bill...but we're talking about hastily crafting a major bill that itself was very flawed.

The president tried to shame these Senators and blame it on politics. The problem is he is the one how mishandled the passage of this legislation, and built it upon a bed of lies and misinformation.

At 4/5/13 03:56 AM, Dignatio wrote: For any war to happen, I think North Korea would have to make the first move, and they really can't. They don't have the technology to send a nuke our way, their air force it out dated, and they don't have enough fuel to make a trip here anyway, and the same for the Navy. Really, Kim Jong Un is just trying to get attention by threatening bigger countries. His father did it too.

* An attack on the US would be a miscalculation that we are soft and our population would prevent another war following our war fatigue following Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam. He's not looking to take us over.
* He has enough WMD to attack US forces in Korea and Japan.
* The Korean terrain blunts the effectiveness of air power and even mechanized armor and infantry.
* Infiltration tunnels and mass of forces against ROK and USFK infantry could make taking ground extremely bloody.
* DPRK military doctrine emphasizes ground attacks. Air and missile forces exist only to take out US airpower that could respond to a surprise attack as well as close air support of ground forces.

At 4/3/13 11:35 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 4/3/13 07:51 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually...yes they do. They control the airwaves as well as the internet pipeline into the country. Defectors are either killed on sight when they return or sent to someplace such as Yodok Prison.

Which is the case in countries like Iran or Syria or hell even Iraq.

No...not to the extreme in the DPRK. Radios and TVs sold in the DPRK can only be tuned to state run media...whereas in Iran, Syria, or Iraq they had access to satellite broadcasts and news outlets from all over the region and the world. Also see my point below about the jammers.

In those countries people had/have access to the internet to a point that is unthinkable by many in NK. (Doctors have to work about four years to afford a refrigerator.)

Airlift from Vietnam to S. Korea? Huh? I'm not really sure how that fits into the information flow.

People in North Korea knew about it and went directly to Vietnam.

And no...South Korea is NOT the prefered destination. With a few exceptions, the average NK defector plans on staying in China when they leave. Now, when they arrive in China they are exposed to news about SK and the conditions there. There is an underground railroad that tries to get them to either the US or SK after de-programing them about conditions there.

Not sure about that. Otherwise this still proves my point, the extent of indoctrination is not that great.

There are several books on DPRK refugees. The Aquariums of Pyongyang and Escape from North Korea to name two. This preference for China over the South is prevelant in interviews with North Koreans who escape to either the US or SK via the underground railroad after de-programming.

In no way does it prove your point. The indoctrination is so bad that they initially do not want to go to a country where they will be reunited with branches of their family. They have to be de-programmed before leaving China for the US or SK.

Also, those countries were unable to control their people's information about the outside world as much as in the DPRK.

That is difficult to measure.

Not at all. From the DMZ you can see the jammers pointed to keep receivers in the DPRK from receiving radio frequences from outside the country. Also, the DPRK has the ability to jam GPS signals...so it is safe to assume they can jam communication satellite signals too.

And this is where your first statement suffers from an erroneous assumption: that some of these defects are universal. See in Russia, China, and East Europe you have countries that had extensive contact with the West before the Commies took control.

To some extent the Koreans did as well. For example Vladivostok was originally a Korean city but the Koreans were deported to North Korea.

Uh...irrelevent?

In the DPRK, the Kim dynasty came into power over a peasant people whose history and culture had been largely erased by the brutal Japanese colonization. Hell, the Japs even tried to erase the Korean language! In many ways the Kim dynasty has returned the North back to fuedal times.

Again the question is to what extent were such attempts successful.

They were very successful. Hence the fear of DPRK refugees to try and make it to SK or the US. Hell, many females are so scared of what they will find in SK and US that they sell themselves to Chinese farmers as brides...opting for sexual slavery instead of trying to go South!

There is a HUGE difference between a cult of personality and mythology surrounding a monarch. Afterall, monarchies lasted for centuries. It was only replaced whenever aristocrats rediscovered ancient Athenian philosophy and literature.

Right, that does not mean that the majority of people supported the Monarchy but more that they lacked leadership to do bring down the monarchy. The aristocrats did just that. The lesson was that no matter how much you try to indoctrinate people if you oppress them to the point of starvation they won't buy it.

Nope, not the lesson at all. After all, in feudal Europe the peasantry were starved for years and did not rebel until the Aristocracy came into conflict with the ruling monarchy.

Feudalism was not brought down by the suffering of the people resulting in an uprising...it was conflicts between the Monarchy and the Aristocracy (and/or a new merchant class).

Secondly, in those other countries you had people who were aware that there were alternatives. In the DPRK you do not have that. Knowledge of other forms have been cut-off.

Not really. At the very least things have been getting worse in North Korea, in fact early on North Korea was actually relatively prosporous. However during the 90's there was a famine, now food rations shrink etc. etc. so they at the very least know that this regime isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing.

The economic stagnation occurred long before the famines in the 1990s. The North held the edge until the 1960s over the South then their economy froze in time. About two or three generations of North Koreans have been born since then.

North Korea has minorities, there are around several thousand Muslims there even. But that doesn't change my point, if you starve your people they won't believe what you have to say.

Source please. Every source I have ever seen shows that the DPRK is ethnically very homogenous. The only tiny minorities mentioned are Chinese with very few Japanese.

Okay...you do realize you actually made my point...right?

So you don't understand the Allegory of the Cave?

I understand the allegory as well as its metaphysical meaning. And in no way does it support what you're saying. The Kim regime is able to project their view of reality upon the NK people to such a magnitude that their fellow prisoners will beat down those who try to interject reality into the collective consciousness.

While your paragraph displays your ability to understand the allegory according to the larger work of The Republic, but you offer nothing that contradicts what I've said. The point is the indoctrination is to a point in the DPRK that it is the closest regime that we know of that has been able to so completely bring the allegory to life!

Now in the DPRK...you have a culture that is centered around filial piety and a collectivism that preaches (similar attitude in China, Japan, and S. Korea) that the individual exists for the community. While I do not completely dismiss the idea that the KPA will crumble...I do not think our experience in Iraq makes the same thing happening in the DPRK predetermined.

I guess it's hard to determine unless people actually went to war.

Not really. We have seen such ferocity in several enemies we have fought in the second half of the 20th Century:
* Taliban
* Vietcong
* North Vietnamese Army (also starved)
* Japanese (in the 1980s a soldier who had been cut-off on some island stormed out of the jungle to attack American tourists...thinking World War II was NOT over!)

Wrong Kim in your pic. That Kim is dead...his son is the new leader.

Up until the point of Russia and China showing their true intentions (ie: to do nothing to reign in Pyongyang) by openly criticizing the US's show of force as continuing the cycle of violent rhetoric...Obama was doing alright. Now that a US military spokesman has come out and announced that we were wrong and would be ratcheting down our response to rhetoric...Kim may only become more bold.

Kim is going to do what Kim is going to do and in the end nothing that we say will stop him.

The only things that will disuade him are shows of force such as B-2 and F-22 flyovers...followed with either a call from Obama or an invitation to call him. But to admitt weakness after a show of force...that could cost us. We'll have to see what happens in the following days.

But it is not comforting with what we're seeing now:
* DPRK moves mobile missiles to their East Coast.
* US then says that they will tone down our response to DPRK rhetoric and provocations.
* DPRK responds by expelling Russiand and British ambasadors saying they cannot guarantee the mission's safety.

At 4/3/13 04:48 PM, Feoric wrote:

... North Korea is blocking South Korean workers who work in Kaesong from entry back into the country.

This scares me the most. Most of the conventional wisdom to this point has been that this is saber rattling to get economic and food aid. That they are closing down the Kaesong Industrial Zone is troubling because that would be inconsistent with those aims. (I know...I may be injecting Western bias into examining the DPRK.)

This will likely end as just another obscure chapter in the big book of North Korean insanity but I can't see exactly how at this point.

During Vietnam there was a low-level war fought along the Korean DMZ. They captured a US Navy vessel. They shot down and imprisoned the aircrew. There were ambushes of patrols along the DMZ. An Army Lt and Sgt were murdered with axes as they tried to cut-down a tree. The ROK president was almost assassinated by DPRK SpecOps. This is called in some circles the 'Second Korean War'.

So there are several options of how this could turn-out.

At 4/3/13 05:28 PM, Warforger wrote: The only problem I have is that again North Korea doesn't have so much control as to stop the flow of information. ... The ROK is the preferred destination for North Koreans most of the time, ...

Actually...yes they do. They control the airwaves as well as the internet pipeline into the country. Defectors are either killed on sight when they return or sent to someplace such as Yodok Prison.

Airlift from Vietnam to S. Korea? Huh? I'm not really sure how that fits into the information flow.

And no...South Korea is NOT the prefered destination. With a few exceptions, the average NK defector plans on staying in China when they leave. Now, when they arrive in China they are exposed to news about SK and the conditions there. There is an underground railroad that tries to get them to either the US or SK after de-programing them about conditions there.

The problem with staying in China is that China doesn't protect them, it deports them back to North Korea where they're probably killed.

Yep.

A few things:

That doesn't mean that Communist regimes didn't exhibit the same defects everywhere they were implanted. ... I fail to see how North Korea is any different.

Because you're not thinking about or addressing the factors I brought up. Also, those countries were unable to control their people's information about the outside world as much as in the DPRK. And this is where your first statement suffers from an erroneous assumption: that some of these defects are universal. See in Russia, China, and East Europe you have countries that had extensive contact with the West before the Commies took control.

In the DPRK, the Kim dynasty came into power over a peasant people whose history and culture had been largely erased by the brutal Japanese colonization. Hell, the Japs even tried to erase the Korean language! In many ways the Kim dynasty has returned the North back to fuedal times.

I'm actually not too familiar with high ranking Generals defecting. As for officials; these tend to be people who have run afowl of the regime and know that Yodok or some worse fate await them...and three generations of their families.

Right, and their usual destination is South Korea.

Part of this is because they have access to information about the outside world. Some of these become disillusioned with their lives and defect. They have knowledge about the truth...they've been diplomats, military attaches, or part of economic missions outside the country.

Fundamentally different from the vast majority of defectors who tend to have either escaped from Yodok (which gives them experience getting through something like the DMZ) or border regions where they can see the lights from China at night.

In NK you have a mythology around the Kim family

You had the same thing in Romania and Iraq. North Korea's regime is the same as those in the USSR or Romania it's just amplified the personality cult. Given the track record for these kinds of regimes I really doubt it has as much influence on the people as the North Korean government would have us believe. I mean Monarchies in general did that kind of thing i.e. infuse religion to justify their rule and they still fell like in Russia, Ottoman Empire, Britain etc. yet they are not around today in the same form. They were only able to capture a minority of people usually, more or less younger, Mao for example was like that and he knew how unpopular he was. He started a campaign where he seemed to have granted people free speech and allowed them to criticize the government. People unleashed scathing criticisms at everyone in the government. Mao then ended the campaign and cracked down on these people. What North Korea is doing is not unique and nothing seems to say that they aren't going in the same direction.

Nope...not the same thing at all.

There is a HUGE difference between a cult of personality and mythology surrounding a monarch. Afterall, monarchies lasted for centuries. It was only replaced whenever aristocrats rediscovered ancient Athenian philosophy and literature.

Secondly, in those other countries you had people who were aware that there were alternatives. In the DPRK you do not have that. Knowledge of other forms have been cut-off.

Finally, in China you have different ethnicities such as different Chinese cultures, Tibetans, Koreans, etc. Same thing in Russia: you have Russians, Pashto, Azerbaijani, Turkmeni, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Slavs, etc. In Iraq you have tribalism that has kept the country seperate since the first settlers in the Middle East. You do not have those ethnic tensions in the DPRK.

as well as people who have lived their entire lives in Plato's Cave.

Um what? If you disagreed with Plato's conclusions about reality i.e. that what we think is real is actually an illusion and that there is a 2nd reality that is real and contains perfect forms, then you're in the cave. Anyone outside would be to us insane.

Okay...you do realize you actually made my point...right? The reality of the average N. Korean has been carefully crafted by the Kim regime. Yes, there are some fractures...but these are dealt with harshly and effectively.

War will either bring them victory and riches (in their mind) or death. Either way, things will be better for them.

Again like in Iraq the army is largely conscripted or compelled to serve. North Korea has a larger military than Russia, and it can't even arm it fully much less feed them. I highly doubt that the North Korean military is that motivated to fight.

Many countries have conscriptions...including S. Korea. Now in Democratic societies where the community exists for the individual...conscription does not work. In Iraq, there was no national unity. Tribal factions undermined loyalty to the Saddam regime.

Now in the DPRK...you have a culture that is centered around filial piety and a collectivism that preaches (similar attitude in China, Japan, and S. Korea) that the individual exists for the community. While I do not completely dismiss the idea that the KPA will crumble...I do not think our experience in Iraq makes the same thing happening in the DPRK predetermined.

At 4/1/13 05:51 PM, LordJaric wrote:

They are from different sides, but it still feels kind of weird that it is kind of funny as well.

How close are we talking? 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc...?

At 4/1/13 05:03 PM, Warforger wrote: Just looking through the comments that video is a joke video and the translation is far off.

Yeah...I've kind of come to that conclusion myself. However, art sometimes imitates life. I have read about in defector accounts that the regime actually portrays the rest of the world in that light and that the DPRK is involved in aid efforts outside their country.

It fooled me because it is an acurate portrayal of actual propaganda.

Their population is told DPRK aid workers are coming to the US to hand out coffee (that isn't made with snow) and cakes! This is one of the reasons that when North Koreans defect...they defect to China. In interviews and the literature, the vast majority of refugees cite the belief that life is worse in the ROK than in the DPRK as why they choose not to try to get to SK after sneaking into China.

Where? ...

The Aquariums of Pyongyang is the account of a DPRK prison camp survivor. While the route to the South is heavily militarized, most go to China because they believe it is much in the ROK than they have it in the North.

Also, they indoctrinate their children from an early age to kill Americans.

... This is a problem even the USSR and China had, they often had to deal with the fact that they just couldn't have as much power as they would like despite making the appearance that they had absolute power. Even Stalin kept from doing things like destroying the Russian Orthodox Church (during WWII he even requested their support for the war)

A few things:
* The DPRK is a small country whereas the USSR and PRC have to control huge land masses.
* The DPRK is ethnically homogenous whereas the USSR and PRC have different ethnicities.
* The Korean culture was very nearly obliterated by Japanese Colonization, allowing Pyongyang to fill the void. So in terms of religion, the regime has been incredibly successful in establishing the Kim family as demi-gods.

The thing is that there is probably very low morale from all but the most elite soldiers (although even that is debatable considering how many high ranking North Korean officials defect). This was the case in Iraq where the military surrendered like crazy during both Gulf wars and in Romania where Ceausescu could not use his military to put down protestors who were trying to do away with Communism.

I'm actually not too familiar with high ranking Generals defecting. As for officials; these tend to be people who have run afowl of the regime and know that Yodok or some worse fate await them...and three generations of their families.

Secondly, we're not talking about Iraq or Romania...but North Korea. The cultures are radically different. In Iraq you have a largely conscript army made up of a diverse population...a population often at odds with each other and with tenuous loyalty to the state. In Romania, you've got people who (although East European) still have Western notions of the Enlightenment.

In NK you have a mythology around the Kim family as well as people who have lived their entire lives in Plato's Cave. War will either bring them victory and riches (in their mind) or death. Either way, things will be better for them.

At 4/1/13 03:41 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

between the taliban and NK *

Okay. Wasn't sure where you were going with that!