Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#4752 Feb 26 2018 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Honestly, the only time I hear GG mentioned as a movement any more is as a joke. I think they've pretty much gone into total irrelevance.

I'd say that Vidya SJWs are mainly just whoever is threatening the Alt-Right crybabies that week but I also read where people were bitching that Kingdom Come's depiction of 16th century Bohemia didn't include any black dudes so there's always room for some nutjob or another.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4753 Feb 26 2018 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Verison did that with us before NN died, at least with the NFL app. Data used for watching games could be reimbursed. I dunno much about the current wireless rules, or how they've changed recently, but I'm pretty sure that was something that happened before at least to some extent.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4754 Feb 26 2018 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, T-Mobile has offered 'free' data for Google Music, Spotify, Pandora, Netflix and I think some other services for at least the last year.

Unintended consequence of such is my phone constantly bitching about how much data I've used since it doesn't know to discriminate between Pandora and, say, YouTube (which isn't free). So then I wind up just telling the phone that I get 5,000GB a month to shut it up which defeats the point of having the warning in the first place. But, since most of my data is either 'free' streaming stuff or just internet browsing, it hasn't been a problem.

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 11:58am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4755 Feb 26 2018 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Meanwhile, Parkland has armed guard and 17 are dead.
Turns out that the trained guard in question decided to hang outside for a few minutes while the shooting took place. Kind of undermines the whole "arming and training teachers" rhetoric quite a bit.
Not to mention he's gotten **** on a whole bunch for it too. So not only is there the risk of being them ineffective, but they also get a lifetime of shame and ridicule from all the armchair gun nuts of world if they react like a normal human being.

Should help with the volunteer drive. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 10:14am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4756 Feb 26 2018 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Unintended consequence of such is my phone constantly bitching about how much data I've used since it doesn't know to discriminate between Pandora and, say, YouTube (which isn't free).
That's ironically the reason I never used the NFL app. The data was only discounted later on, so I had to guess how much data was used for the game and remember how much I actually still had.

Unlimited* data is much nicer. I don't really care too much if they throttle me, but it's nice not to have the Mrs. stressing about going over our data limit. Even though we never have in a decade-plus... Smiley: rolleyes

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4757 Feb 26 2018 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I don't think I've ever had any issue with my data plan, but all I do is play one game, use Shazam to identify a song that is driving me crazy trying to remember, and occasionally check what time it is. And once a month I might even use it as a phone. The wife figure handles that stuff.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4758 Feb 26 2018 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I don't think I've ever had any issue with my data plan, but all I do is play one game, use Shazam to identify a song that is driving me crazy trying to remember, and occasionally check what time it is. And once a month I might even use it as a phone. The wife figure handles that stuff.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4759 Feb 26 2018 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I think the biggest reason we have had problems, or worries from the wife at least, is that we're purely mobile. There's no home internet/T.V./phone (sorry, not sorry, Comcast), so all the surfing/viewing/apps/etc was all using the data plan.

Unless I'm at work, of course, where I can mooch off the free internet access. Smiley: thumbsup

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 11:44am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4760 Feb 26 2018 at 2:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Think that's what is referred to as a win/win situation? Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 1:03pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4761 Feb 26 2018 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Hours later, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders sought to clarify the remark. "He was just stating that as a leader he would have stepped in and hopefully been able to help."

"Maybe he would have Tweeted something or perhaps he could have tried to lower the children's capital gains taxes. There's a lot of things he could do to help. He probably would have Tweeted though."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4762 Feb 26 2018 at 9:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Oh hey, when you make a list of "Gun Free Zones", you can prove shootings happened in "Gun Free Zones". Uh... Wow!


We were talking about K-12 schools Joph. Schools. I just provided data that shows pretty conclusively that since we passed a law mandating that all schools be "gun free zones", the rate of spreed style mass shootings at K-12 schools has significantly increased. They were lower before we made them gun free zones, and higher afterwards. This isn't just a matter of compiling data to the label. The label changed, but what made something a K-12 school did not.

Way to play word games with this though.

Quote:
First Baptist wasn't a Gun Free Zone -- 26 Dead, Las Vegas isn't a Gun Free Zone -- 58 dead, Emanuel African Methodist in Charleston wasn't a Gun Free Zone (though that didn't stop right-wing pundits from lying and claiming it was) -- 9 dead.


This is you changing the goal posts. I thought we were talking about schools? You know, the specific locations which the law I was citing apply directly to? That there may also be other public (or at least public access) locations which have adopted gun free rules (and some states and municipalities which may have passed laws to such effect), and how that may also affect (or not) the likelihood of a mass shooting event at those other types of locations, is a separate issue.

Quote:
Meanwhile, Parkland has armed guard and 17 are dead. Marshall County High School (less than a month ago) had an armed guard and four dead, 18 others wounded.


And? This shows that armed guards don't work. I'm not disputing that. In fact, I just argued that having armed uniformed guards at schools doesn't work. What part of that did you fail to understand?

Quote:
It's a beautiful fiction, especially when you have to keep piling on the qualifiers (uh, but only like secret guns and, um, only count these shootings and, uh, it only counts if the targets are random and, uh...) to try and make the argument work but the argument just doesn't work.


You're the one who keeps piling on qualifiers, changing the criteria, etc. I'm making one very simple argument. That if we were to eliminate the laws which currently make it illegal for anyone except uniformed LEOs to carry weapons in school zones, we would see a significant decrease in the number of school shootings.

Again. It's the uncertainty that affects the decision of the shooter to act. He knows about the armed guard(s). He knows where that guard is. He knows how much time he has to act before that guard can respond. When any random faculty member could have a weapon, and could be anywhere in the school, at any time, and he has no clue who this may be, where they may be, etc, his sick fantasy of having absolute control over the life and death of his victims is in jeopardy.

It's almost like I've explained this several times, and you keep ignoring it, and spinning off on tangents instead.

Quote:
Quote:
The very fact that there "could be" someone who is armed in the area is a massive deterrent to these kinds of shootings.

Even in cases where it's known, not "could be" but they KNOW there's an armed guard, it doesn't stop it. But let's pretend those don't count because those guards are TOO known and, uh, it has to be secret maybe-guns only!


Sigh. It's not a scale Joph. You're assuming that "known armed guard" is somehow more of a deterrent than "unknown person with a gun in the area". I have repeatedly stated that the exact opposite is true. It's the unknown that deters these shooters. I've said that several times now. You're free to disagree, but please don't respond as though I didn't even make the point in the first place.

The primary motivation for these shooters if power and control. Random elements are what will deter them. Known ones will not. They can plan around known elements. That's the point I'm making. If you want to argue against this, then do so. But you need to actually make the argument. You haven't done this. You just assume you're correct, and argue that since you're correct, then we should follow your conclusion. Your starting premiss is what I'm challenging here. You could at least attempt to defend it instead of just barreling forward.


Edited, Feb 26th 2018 7:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4763 Feb 26 2018 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
This is you changing the goal posts. I thought we were talking about schools? You know, the specific locations which the law I was citing apply directly to?

No, I was talking about Gun Free Zones. I realize that your argument doesn't hold up and you need to scramble to No True Scotsman every counter example but the fact will still remain that some of the deadliest massacres in our nation happened in places where guns were allowed. Given that there are no schools that aren't Gun Free Zones, I don't have any examples to choose from there but I have very notable examples of massacres in other areas that allow firearms. It's naive to assume that a "Not A Gun Free Zone" school would be more immune than these other locations.
Quote:
You're assuming that "known armed guard" is somehow more of a deterrent than "unknown person with a gun in the area". I have repeatedly stated that the exact opposite is true.

Yeah, it's a fairy tale to pretend that "Well, maybe there's a guy with a gun" is more of a deterrent than "I absolutely know there's a guy with a gun". I mean, I get it, this is the delusion that you have left to cling to since the whole "guy with a gun scares away killers" things got blown out of the water but you're not doing yourself any favors by believing it.

Man, if you think a 0-99% chance of a bad result is worse off than a 100% chance, you must be a real sucker in Vegas.
Quote:
You just assume you're correct, and argue that since you're correct, then we should follow your conclusion.

Like rain on your wedding day.

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 9:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4764 Feb 26 2018 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You do get that private firearm ownership is a right.
So is peacable assembly, but that doesn't mean I can do that wherever the fuck I want.


Certainly. And no one's arguing that anyone can do anything with a firearm. What I am arguing is that we must consider any restriction we place within the context of the right of firearm ownership as a whole.

We already have a massive number of laws related to what is illegal actions to do with a firearm. In the same way we have laws that prohibit certain types of assembly as well (You can't claim your lynching is an assembly and thus protected speech, for example). No one has an issue with that. The problem occurs when you start trying to make it harder to own a firearm at all. That's where the comparison starts to fall apart.

Quote:
It's almost...get this...it's almost like rights frequently have limitations on them.


I'm not arguing against any limitations at all. I'm arguing that there mere fact that we can place limitations on firearm use and ownership does not automatically mean that any limitation on firearm use and ownership is perfectly ok. We have to assess each one on their own merits.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4765 Feb 26 2018 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Think that's what is referred to as a win/win situation? Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 26th 2018 1:03pm by someproteinguy


*swoon*Ah, is there anything he can't do?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#4766 Feb 26 2018 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
"We need armed guards at the schools!!!!"
I didn't say this.
One of your original solutions was to have a single weapon in a locker that only the Principal had access to.


I'd need to find the thread you're referring to, but if I did suggest something like that, it was not my "original solution", but a proposed compromise to someone insisting that having firearms at a school would be dangerous because someone might use it for some nefarious purpose. IIRC, my suggestion was that you could have the firearms locked so that only those who owned them, or whatever, could access them. I don't think I said just the principle, because honestly, it would be pretty unlikely that the principle would be the best person for this. No more likely to be trained in proper firearm use than anyone else, and far far too restrictive.

Having a firearm in a locked safe in a faculty only area, where only those who knew the code to unlock the safe could get in, and those people were all properly trained, would work, since at any given time you'd have a decent chance of any random member of that group being in proximity to the firearm to be able to do some good. I'll also point out that this isn't the same as having an armed guard at the school.

Again though, this all really fails to address the primary purpose of this. It's not really about whether we can guarantee that any given random shooting event will be stopped by the presence of said firearm(s), but that the mere fact that the shooter can't guarantee that it wont itself acts as a deterrent. IIRC, that argument was in relation to the Sandyhook shooting, and I made a similar point at the time. It's not really about how long it would actually take a faculty member could have gotten the gun, and ran to where the shooting was going on. It's about the fact that the shooter doesn't know how long that will take either.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
m.. I don't feel like doing the math
That's good because I'd have to make fun of you for ignoring that in that time the gun laws have also been considerably loosened.


No. They haven't. Not as it relates to firearms in and around schools.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4767 Feb 26 2018 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not really about whether we can guarantee that any given random shooting event will be stopped by the presence of said firearm(s), but that the mere fact that the shooter can't guarantee that it wont itself acts as a deterrent

Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4768 Feb 26 2018 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, we don't need trained guards anyway if they're not willing to get shot. If there's anyone I have faith in during a gunfight, it's some 24 year old Early Childhood Education major making $22,000 a year who just got handed a 9mm with her union contract.


Sigh. And another strawman. No one. NO ONE. Is arguing that we should be "arming" teachers. We are not arguing to take teachers who do not have training, and do not want to use firearms, and/or who have no history of firearms, push them through a 1 week course and put them in charge of defending the school as part of their standard school training/prep as a teacher.

That is the absurd strawman you guys keep tossing out there. The actual argument is that, odds are, at any given school, there is likely to be a number of existing faculty members who are private gun owners. They have guns. They shoot them regularly. They practice with them. They grew up knowing how to use them, are not afraid of them, don't require any special training, and would be perfectly willing to bring one of their firearms to school "just in case" if they were simply allowed to do so.

This literally costs zero dollars. Just remove the current law preventing this. And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record: The reason this works is because, just as you probably didn't know which of your teachers was a gun owner back when you were in school, neither will the students at the schools today. And neither will the potential next shooter. Not knowing is what acts as the deterrent. I just can't repeat this enough. It's the fact that the kid planning a shooting has no clue who may or may not be armed, how close that person (or multiple people) may be to where he's planning on starting his shooting, how quickly they may respond, all act to make him less likely to decide to do a shooting in the first place.


You're looking at this from the standpoint of how effective this would be at stopping a shooting once it starts. But you're missing that a shooting is less likely to happen in the first place in an environment where the potential shooter doesn't know if or how many armed people are in the vicinity. That is the primary point to all of this. Make it less likely that some kid is going to decide that this is a good idea in the first place. That's how you save lives.

What is the downside? I mean, I get it. OMG! Some faculty member with a gun might go nuts and shoot kids himself. Yeah. Um... Nothing's preventing someone in the group I'm talking about from doing that right now. If you are a member of a faculty at a school, and are a private gun owner, you could trivially get a gun on school grounds if you really wanted to. Faculty don't go through the same security that the kids do. They have their own keys to the classrooms and access ways on campus. How about we trust that the people we've put in charge of our kids are presumed to be very low down the list of people likely to actually harm kids with guns, and maybe trust them just a bit more to maybe be willing to help protect them? Shocking thought, I know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4769 Feb 26 2018 at 10:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not really about whether we can guarantee that any given random shooting event will be stopped by the presence of said firearm(s), but that the mere fact that the shooter can't guarantee that it wont itself acts as a deterrent

Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock...


I get it. You don't believe this. Whatever. Why don't we try it anyway? Cost us nothing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4770 Feb 27 2018 at 12:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The actual argument is that, odds are, at any given school, there is likely to be a number of existing faculty members who are private gun owners. They have guns. They shoot them regularly. They practice with them. They grew up knowing how to use them, are not afraid of them, don't require any special training, and would be perfectly willing to bring one of their firearms to school "just in case" if they were simply allowed to do so.

Really? Those are the odds?
You previously wrote:
You just assume you're correct, and argue that since you're correct, then we should follow your conclusion.

Heh. Still ironic.
Quote:
I mean, I get it. OMG! Some faculty member with a gun might go nuts and shoot kids himself.

The fact that you think that's the counter-argument proves how much you don't "get it". And, no, I'm not really interested in explaining it to you again. Your entire argument rests on an unproven and illogical assumption that hypothetical guns prevent more attacks more than actual existing guns. That alone is enough to dismiss it. Here's a fun thought experiment: Why do you suppose gas stations and convenience stores get robbed five times more often than banks? Could it possibly be because one might have a hypothetical kid with a gun under the counter and the other does have a guy with a gun hanging around and faster access to more guys with real, existing guns?

The fact that your arguments have now boiled down to "But C'MON.... Just TRY it....", I guess we're done hearing waiting on any sort of fact-based argument from you.

Edited, Feb 27th 2018 1:02am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4771 Feb 27 2018 at 1:21 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
We already have a massive number of laws related to what is illegal actions to do with a firearm.
The point of the discussion is getting a firearm, not what one does with it you dingleberry.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#4772 Feb 27 2018 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's about the fact that the shooter doesn't know how long that will take either.
The kid in Florida didn't know how long it'd take for that sheriff deputy that actually existed and he knew was armed would stop him and he still went through with it.
gbaji wrote:
No. They haven't.
Yes. They have.
gbaji wrote:
The actual argument is that
The actual argument is that 45, and the NRA, are suggesting that 20% of all teachers that just so happen to also be "gun adept teachers with military or special training experience- only the best," be armed on the premises. So, you know, not the lunch lady who happened to borrow her husband's gun to shoot at a squirrel that one time.
gbaji wrote:
This literally costs zero dollars.
You mean besides giving them bonus pay to come to school packing, right? Or do you genuinely believe that there's 700,000 Retired Navy Seal and slash or Austrian Bodybuilder Undercover Cop kindergarten teachers that are itching at the chance to get blamed for not stopping the next shooting for free?

Edited, Feb 27th 2018 10:15am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4773 Feb 27 2018 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I love the fact that Gbaji is convinced that 18 year old shooters are calculating police response times like they're planning the armored car heist in Heat.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4774 Feb 27 2018 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I like how sincere he is in believing that the kids that are planning to shoot up a school would somehow not figure out which of all the ex-Army Ranger teachers at their schools were armed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4775 Feb 27 2018 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Cost us nothing.
Still can't wrap my head around this part. There's no way this doesn't get caught up in miles of red tape and political drama.

There's too many people that need to be convinced otherwise, and that's a lot of advertising dollars. There will be town halls, PTA meetings, counter-campaigns, protests. The legislation will get watered down. Even if the idea is approved you're going to have people panicking. The local school board will require additional gun safety courses, periodic mental health evaluations, firearm choice will be restricted requiring people to purchase only certain guns, etc.

It's probably cheaper to just hire a couple of additional police officers and have them stationed at the school during the day.


Edited, Feb 27th 2018 8:25am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#4776 Feb 27 2018 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Cost us nothing.
Still can't wrap my head around this part. There's no way this doesn't get caught up in miles of red tape and political drama.
[...]
It's probably cheaper to just hire a couple of additional police officers and have them stationed at the school during the day.

What you'll never see though is a GOP push for increased funding for school counselors and psychologists despite the "This is really a mental health issue" canard. Always room for more guns though!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 273 All times are in CST
Barudin314, Anonymous Guests (272)