IGX

Sua Sponte wrote: Pretty weak R-squared there. For the math novitiate, that means a line fit is a poor representation of the data.

Hush, hush. We don't have better data because Republicans, remember?

Sua Sponte wrote:

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

Schlegel wrote:The watch list is not a list of known terrorists. It's a 1.2 million name list of people to watch with weak requirements for getting on the list, no judicial review, no way to see if you are on the list, and no good way to get of it. The government estimates 30% of the names are errors, as well. All it takes is to have same name as sombody on the list, or be the victim of an anonymous "tip", or be a journalist who pissed off a politician (several think this is what happened to them). If even one name in a 100 was actually a terrorist it would be shocking.

So, is that like "Perfect is the enemy of good"? I love that argument.

I think it's better stated as "Doing nothing is better than doing the arbitrary." Especially when arbitrary also robs people of their rights. Or "better safe than sorry" doesn't make you safe but may very well leave you sorry.

Yeah. I'm not saying it has to be perfect, but it's a suspect list, not a known terrorist list, and it's composed of 99%+ non-terrorists, as well as being riddled with errors. Even using it as a no-fly list is frankly ridiculous.

I mean, would you find acceptable a list of DUI suspended driver's licenses in the police database that was made up of 99% legal sober drivers? After all, drunk drivers do kill people, and if it it saves even one life, isn't it worth it?

Everyone has read horror stories about people who wound up on the list for completely unknown reasons and struggled to get off it.

How about instead of knee-jerk disarming them, we, say, I don't know, disarm those who travel to and from terrorist-laden countries with a 30+ year history of exporting terror.

all solutions will be imperfect. thus finding fault is the refuge of the indolent, the timid, and the doctrinaire.

what are you willing to try to change the course of our violent culture?

dead man walking wrote:all solutions will be imperfect. thus finding fault is the refuge of the indolent, the timid, and the doctrinaire.

what are you willing to try to change the course of our violent culture?

Undo the changes we've made in the last 12 months or so?

dead man walking wrote:all solutions will be imperfect. thus finding fault is the refuge of the indolent, the timid, and the doctrinaire.

what are you willing to try to change the course of our violent culture?

Some solutions are more imperfect than others. Some so much so that they're not solutions at all. I'm not willing to try those.

what are you willing to try?

dead man walking wrote:what are you willing to try?

Cops being allowed to do their jobs without fear of political knives in their backs?

i figured it was probably a waste of time to post on this thread.

An approach that a) in large part actually addresses the root cause, b) does so without suspending the rights of others, c) does so without suspending due process, d) doesn't in the process create a new problem of equal or greater magnitude e) may be implemented within practicalities such as money and other resources. Not a lot of those going around. I don't see any on the topic of this thread. A free society has to accept that there are consequences to those freedoms and not all problems are fully or even partially solvable within or without those constraints.

dead man walking wrote: what are you willing to try to change the course of our violent culture?

Stop
Question
Frisk
?

How about you?

Oh wait, white lefties had a tizzy fit on this along side with hysterical and unemployed ghetto fabulous who were spun-up by world class race baiters. We saw this past summer how that back-off turned out for major cities and the blacks who live in them.

dead man walking wrote:what are you willing to try?

Profile people based on a matrix including, but not necessarily limited to, national origin, religion, and overseas travels? There seems to be a particular region of the world, practicing one particular religion, that's been exporting terror for many years. I can't quite remember which one it is?

Also, possibly tie mental health records into the background check system?

Just a few non-solutions.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

dead man walking wrote: what are you willing to try to change the course of our violent culture?

Stop
Question
Frisk
?

How about you?

Oh wait, white lefties had a tizzy fit on this along side with hysterical and unemployed ghetto fabulous who were spun-up by world class race baiters. We saw this past summer how that back-off turned out for major cities and the blacks who live in them.

I would think that an overwhelming amount of gun owning white-people would agree with you. I think I might agree with you to as I have nothing to hide, but the chances I get stopped are next to nil based on my skin color and where I live.

What I mean is, us more-or-less cleaned up white boys don't have much skin in the game. Though to be fair, not sure that should matter.

Ha! I just disagreed with you AND agreed with you. Fuck this - let's get drunk.

would stop-and-frisk have protected the charleston church, the colorado planned parenthood clinic, et cetera?

also, stop-and-frisk was judged to violate the constitution (privacy). are you willing to make a "reasonable compromise"--as a concept--on one protection, but not another (gun-ownership)?

you refer to "white lefties" having a "tizzy fit." as long as the discussion is framed in terms of stereotypes and cliches, it is unlikely to go anywhere useful.

i don't have answers. perhaps with reason, answers could be found. igx is not a reasonable place. neither is america, generally speaking. nor are humans, alas.

i guess we're fucked.

dead man walking wrote:would stop-and-frisk have protected the charleston church, the colorado planned parenthood clinic, et cetera?

also, stop-and-frisk was judged to violate the constitution (privacy). are you willing to make a "reasonable compromise"--as a concept--on one protection, but not another (gun-ownership)?

you refer to "white lefties" having a "tizzy fit." as long as the discussion is framed in terms of stereotypes and cliches, it is unlikely to go anywhere useful.

i don't have answers. perhaps with reason, answers could be found. igx is not a reasonable place. neither is america, generally speaking. nor are humans, alas.

i guess we're fucked.

Yes, we're fucked but we've been fucked many times in our past and eventually found our way - though often with substantial violence.

I'm not a fan of stop and frisk or many existing gun control laws. No right is infinite but stop & frisk because you're black and on the streets isn't right.

If I ruled the country, I'd trim gun violence around the edges.
• A real and honest study to see what drugs have been in the systems of maniac killers and suicides.
• Greatly increased access to mental health care.
• Acknowledge that a substantial amount of terror comes from certain groups and places and monitor or restrict access to the US accordingly.
• Have a massive joint fed/state/local gang crackdown in key cities (I'd start in Chicago) followed by mass incarceration of the guilty.
• I'd remove all federal funding from sanctuary cities.

dead man walking wrote:would stop-and-frisk have protected the charleston church, the colorado planned parenthood clinic, et cetera?

also, stop-and-frisk was judged to violate the constitution (privacy). are you willing to make a "reasonable compromise"--as a concept--on one protection, but not another (gun-ownership)?

you refer to "white lefties" having a "tizzy fit." as long as the discussion is framed in terms of stereotypes and cliches, it is unlikely to go anywhere useful.

i don't have answers. perhaps with reason, answers could be found. igx is not a reasonable place. neither is america, generally speaking. nor are humans, alas.

i guess we're fucked.

Why do you ask for solutions, and then walk away when they're proposed?

TerryB wrote: Why do you ask for solutions, and then walk away when they're proposed?

donkey offered something genuine. before that, i didn't see anything.

this is good:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... bernardino

dead man walking wrote: donkey offered something genuine. before that, i didn't see anything.

this is good:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... bernardino

And what would you like to offer?

I'm not sure what is good about the article other than to say there is collective responsibility in the abstract. Hardly a new idea, for good and for worse, and he sheds no new light.

dead man walking wrote:

TerryB wrote: Why do you ask for solutions, and then walk away when they're proposed?

donkey offered something genuine. before that, i didn't see anything.

this is good:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... bernardino

Gopnik is a full-on anti gun idiot in every piece he writes. It doesn't take him long to clarify that when he says "our shared blame", he means blame the NRA, but Cali has every restriction the anti-gunners want, the NRA has zero legislative influence there. The police have already confirmed the rifles were purchased in Cali, transferred with background checks and registered with the state.

Without guns, they'd have gone straight to bombs, after all, they already had an apartment full of them.

i'd start with a princple from improvisational theatre. when a fellow actor introduces an idea, you go with it. in effect, you say, "yes, let's see where this takes us." you don't shut down a possibility, even if you don't like it at first.

with that in mind, i'd say we must consider restrictions on gun purchases and ownership. we have placed limits on speech. what are reasonable restrictions on guns and gun ownership? reflexively saying no, you cannot intrude on my second amendment rights, creates an immediate dead end. i think we can do better than just get stuck.

it seems to me that columbine-sandy hook mass killings are different from islamic-crazy killings, which are different from right-wing crazy killings. all are different from depressingly routine black-on-black murder, which are different from deranged boyfriend/husband killings. we'll need to come up with a mix of policies and efforts, donkey has a mix of suggestions, and even if i were to feel uncomfortable about where several may lead, i'm willing to say yes, i'll consider that. consideration is different from saying yes, let's do that.

anyone can come up with a list of suggestions to strengthen background checks, close loopholes, restrict some likely offenders from being able to obtain weapons, restrict certain weapons. to me, the point is we should begin to do a variety of things to change the trajectory of gun violence in our society. it wasn't like this when i was growing up, and it doesn't have to remain the way it is now, does it?

accepting what has become the status quo is crazy.

that's all i got.

Schlegel wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

TerryB wrote: Why do you ask for solutions, and then walk away when they're proposed?

donkey offered something genuine. before that, i didn't see anything.

this is good:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... bernardino

Gopnik is a full-on anti gun idiot in every piece he writes. It doesn't take him long to clarify that when he says "our shared blame", he means blame the NRA, but Cali has every restriction the anti-gunners want, the NRA has zero legislative influence there. The police have already confirmed the rifles were purchased in Cali, transferred with background checks and registered with the state.

Without guns, they'd have gone straight to bombs, after all, they already had an apartment full of them.

you posted this a bit before my recent post.

as i note, what's going to work with islamic terrorists may not work for the sandy-hook crazies. to dismiss something because is wouldn't fix every incident of gun violence doesn't make sense to me. a multi-faceted problem will require multi-faceted solutions.

as an aside, i've got not problem with more agressive bombing in syria--like oil-tanker trucks, which we have avoided because the drivers are civilians. i doubt we would have won ww ii if we imposed the restrictions on our forces then that we currently impose.

dead man walking wrote:
with that in mind, i'd say we must consider restrictions on gun purchases and ownership. we have placed limits on speech. what are reasonable restrictions on guns and gun ownership? reflexively saying no, you cannot intrude on my second amendment rights, creates an immediate dead end. i think we can do better than just get stuck.

Hey jackoff, do you know how narrow the limits on free speech are when you're talking normal, every day citizens?

There are already many more restrictions on firearms in number and scope. Nobody has said "you cannot intrude." The question is, how much farther do you need to intrude on non-criminals rights in hopes of stopping criminals?

as a rule, speech doesn't kill.

dead man walking wrote:what are you willing to try?

Nothing. It worked like a charm for violent crime as a whole.

dead man walking wrote:would stop-and-frisk have protected the charleston church, the colorado planned parenthood clinic, et cetera?

also, stop-and-frisk was judged to violate the constitution (privacy). are you willing to make a "reasonable compromise"--as a concept--on one protection, but not another (gun-ownership)?

you refer to "white lefties" having a "tizzy fit." as long as the discussion is framed in terms of stereotypes and cliches, it is unlikely to go anywhere useful.

i don't have answers. perhaps with reason, answers could be found. igx is not a reasonable place. neither is america, generally speaking. nor are humans, alas.

i guess we're fucked.

I was being slightly facetious. SQF has many problems and even as a 'ghetto cop' 20 years ago, I can say I've felt bad about tossing (cop slang for frisk) some people, but one key benefit.....it works in terms of crime prevention when done by good cops and at the least, making it harder for bad guys to pack on the street. Which, ironically, keeps good guys/gals of color safer.

Now I was thinking in terms of the general concept. SQF is not based on 'probable cause', it is based on 'reasonable suspicion' and the safety of the officer and the public in the general vicinity. Applying RS in RL to people who rise to that standard, should have RS applied. Defining what RS is in this regard is the tough nut to crack, especially since, IMO, I think much of the domestic terror attacks we will see on US soil....and we will see a lot, will be done by US Citizens in the name of ISIS, Jihad, whatever.