Second cup of Coffee Talk

[KennyBanyeah]

Agreed. The Texas' AG's suggestion is in very poor taste.

This mass shooter had a convinction for assault on his own family. Many mass shooter's have histories of domestic abuse or violence.

It seems like a very simple gun control step would be to create a lifetime ban on purchasing firearms when you are convicted of certain violent crimes or if/while you have any type of restraining order on you.

"But that won't stop those people from getting guns!" -Says a random dumb person who ironically votes for "law and order" candidates. Maybe. First of all, you don't not create laws because some people may get around them. Feasibility is one component among many to be considered. The argument doesn't stop there as much as a dumb citizen with no understanding of public policy would like it to.

Second, and most importantly, you can now arrest that person for attempting to get a gun. So you have an opportunity for law enforcement to intervene PRIOR to violence/mass shooting/etc. which will prevent some instances. We have speed limits, some people still speed. But you can repeatedly fine and reduce driving privileges for those who are offenders. This won't prevent all motor vehicle death. But it does allow us as a society to (1) curb the behavior or (2) remove the person from the road if they repeatedly show a lack of adherence to the law. We do this for cars... but not for guns because... NRA lobbyists and dumb gun owners who blindly yell second amendment

Third, you allow neighbors and communities to assist law enforcement by having a bright line rule. See your neighbor you know is not allowed to have guns with a gun, you can call the cops. No difficult decision process to go through in terms of knowing what the proper action is.

Not to mention that the whole "Bad guys are going to get guns even if they're illegal" is bullshit for another obvious reason. That is that every illegal gun was once a legal gun. If you make it so that there are way less legal guns there will be, obviously, way less illegal guns. It's not fucking rocket science.

 

[elocomotive]

Yes I do, and I got your attention.

I just changed a few words of a sound bite used to chest thump from the other side.

Zero people harmed by Dare's statement.

Gravity of the words has the intended impact.

Intention of words is to protect life.

Poor taste my fucking ass.

 

[elocomotive]

It's not fucking rocket science.

Yup, the science ain't the issue. It's the society that thinks what you feel trumps facts that is the problem.

(Note: verb choices chosen carefully).

 

[scoutyjones2]

Your car scenario is a fine example. Plenty of illegal and unlicensed and uninsured drivers.

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, which obtains state-by-state data from the federal government Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database – found that 20 percent of fatal crashes involved an unlicensed driver. From 2010-2014, there was an average of 32,887 road deaths per year, which would mean 6,577 were caused by unlicensed drivers. Those drivers include citizens with suspended or revoked licenses, and those who never had licenses.

While I am all for licensing, classes and registering of guns, (and also for bringing back the Obama restriction on mental health and gun ownership) that won't move the needle. Mental health issues and the resources to deal with them are a big black hole in America

Unfortunately, like the homeless problem, these things will always exist

 

[elocomotive]

While I am all for licensing, classes and registering of guns, (and also for bringing back the Obama restriction on mental health and gun ownership) that won't move the needle. Mental health issues and the resources to deal with them are a big black hole in America

Unfortunately, like the homeless problem, these things will always exist

True. But the study and application of sensible laws to minimize those problems can lead to better governance and a safer society. Automobiles is a great example of this as we have more drivers, cars, and miles driven than ever before and yet much less death...

The NRA and many gun owners don't want to either (1) believe the studies that have been done about guns (spoiler alert - having a gun in your home means your daughter or wife is more likely to die because of a gun) or (2) use those studies to build and enforce practical laws.

That is a problem. It's because the people involved are largely idiots and throw piles of cash at our law makers to prevent effective change.

It's time for either sensible change... or us to take your fucking guns. If you all can't be grown ups and do the former, then the time has come to do the latter. I want your guns. And if history is any guide (spoiler alert)...

I'll eventually get them!

Your choice, dumb rednecks. Sincerely, smart fucking people.

 

[dare2be]

I don't agree that the car analogy is valid. Almost all car fatalities are due to accidents, whether illegally operated or not. How many car deaths per year are due to willful and deliberate attempts to commit harm and mayhem? On the flipside, how many gun deaths are due to accident vs. willful intent? I'll wager that the numbers are completely opposite of each other.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Woman Fired For Flipping Off Donald Trump's Motorcade | HuffPost

Follow up to the middle finger bike lady.

If the company has a social media policy then yeah, flipping off the President and then using photos of said flipping off as your profile pics when working for a government contractor is probably unwise.

Double standard with that Libtard guy, though, so…

 

[dare2be]

Double standard with that Libtard guy, though, so…

Yeah, this double standard reeks of fear of reprisal from the current regime in power, not wanting to risk losing a government contract. Oppressive governments have that effect.

 

[Darkstone42]

I've for some time advocated for safety and operation training, and safe storage information, being prerequisite to the acquisition of a firearm for some time, because those things would reduce accidental shootings considerably, and I used to think such training would generate a cultural respect for the destructive power of firearms, reducing also the likelihood of mass shooting events like this. But if a former member of the Air Force--who undoubtedly had such training--still carried out a mass shooting, I'm no longer sure it would work. Still, I think it needs to be done as a bare minimum.

One law I'd consider specific to this shooting, though, is forfeiture of one's right to bear arms if they're dishonorably discharged from service. Folks who were dishonorably discharged exercised and failed in enacting their right to bear arms for the U.S. military. Since the government has already seen fit to revoke other fundamental rights--like voting for felons--for certain transgressions, this clearly isn't a reach Constitutionally.

But something has to be done. A couple stop-gap measures and opening up CDC research would be great first steps, and then the research could inform more comprehensive and permanent solutions.

 

[dash]

President Trump is right, we do have a mental health problem at the highest level.

President Donald Trump said Monday that he believes the Texas church shooting was caused by a "mental health problem," not an issue with gun laws in the United States.

"Mental health is your problem here," Trump said, noting that "based on preliminary reports" the shooter was "a very deranged individual."
"This isn't a guns situation," Trump said. "This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It's a very, very sad event.

 

[dare2be]

But something has to be done. A couple stop-gap measures and opening up CDC research would be great first steps, and then the research could inform more comprehensive and permanent solutions.

Your typical 'Murican isn't going to go for that and just continue to contribute to the NRA.

 

[forty_three]

Not to mention that the whole "Bad guys are going to get guns even if they're illegal" is bullshit for another obvious reason. That is that every illegal gun was once a legal gun. If you make it so that there are way less legal guns there will be, obviously, way less illegal guns. It's not fucking rocket science.

I'll just leave this here:
Texas Church Shooter Killed More Than Japan’s Total Gun Homicides for 5 Years

If the company has a social media policy then yeah, flipping off the President and then using photos of said flipping off as your profile pics when working for a government contractor is probably unwise.

Double standard with that Libtard guy, though, so…

It's murky. She did not post the photo herself, she did not endorse the sharing of said photo. Someone who saw it figured out who she was and let her employer know, who in turn fired her.

I get social media policy and behavior standards. Hell, I make a pretty good living documenting and chasing down violators. But this was simply a person, on their leisure time, peacefully protesting who lost her job because someone saw her do it. It isn't a free speech issue, because the government didn't request she get fired. And Virginia is a "fuck you underling" state when it comes to employment.

This should be a fun precedent. If she put it on Instaface and said "LOL FUCK TRUMP!" then yeah. She didn't. And there is precedent where someone else wasn't fired for similar. Gonna be a long few months for that company.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

It's murky. She did not post the photo herself, she did not endorse the sharing of said photo. Someone who saw it figured out who she was and let her employer know, who in turn fired her.

What would you call changing her profile pics to it, then?

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I'll just leave this here:
Texas Church Shooter Killed More Than Japan’s Total Gun Homicides for 5 Years



It's murky. She did not post the photo herself, she did not endorse the sharing of said photo. Someone who saw it figured out who she was and let her employer know, who in turn fired her.

I get social media policy and behavior standards. Hell, I make a pretty good living documenting and chasing down violators. But this was simply a person, on their leisure time, peacefully protesting who lost her job because someone saw her do it. It isn't a free speech issue, because the government didn't request she get fired. And Virginia is a "fuck you underling" state when it comes to employment.

This should be a fun precedent. If she put it on Instaface and said "LOL FUCK TRUMP!" then yeah. She didn't. And there is precedent where someone else wasn't fired for similar. Gonna be a long few months for that company.

It's a tough one for sure, but the precedent has also been set legally that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while out in a public place. This is why, for example, someone can take your picture while you're walking in the park without having to get your permission to do so.

Codes of conduct are so murky too that it's virtually impossible outside of a few states for the employer to lose the case.

 

[forty_three]

What would you call changing her profile pics to it, then?

Wow. How did I miss that?

I guess I need coffee.

 

[Darkstone42]

On a completely separate note, the new tax code has already been ripped extensively for several reasons, but one of them hits especially close to home for me.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Republican-Tax-Proposal-Gets/241662

To summarize, many graduate students make a living while in graduate school by teaching or doing research, and part of the compensation package is a tuition waiver. The students don't ever see this money, but it keeps them from having to take out more loans and stacking onto their likely already significant debt. It's also a good tool for programs to recruit the most talented students.

This new tax program would make that tuition waiver taxable income, effectively quadrupling the taxes graduate students pay.

I don't live paycheck-to-paycheck right now, largely because I eliminate unnecessary expenditures and am clever about getting things I need for free where the opportunity presents itself, but if my taxes quadrupled, I would have to concede all semblance of comfort until I graduate.

There's no reason for this. It isn't income, for one thing, but a cost the University chooses to waive for students as an incentive to join the program, which strengthens those programs. In exchange, we do research and teaching for the university at a fraction of the cost a non-student professional would. Universities also generate revenue through research grants by doing this. Both the students and the University benefit.

It also won't generate appreciable revenue. Grad students are notoriously poor. I know this board is familiar with the Simpsons gag about grad students, and while it's exaggerated a bit, it carries a pretty heavy dose of truth. Quadrupling taxes on a small fraction of the population who have no money isn't going to help fund any government programs.

All this will accomplish is making life really hard on graduate students, especially students in things other than the hard sciences, and price first-generation, minority, and generally poor students out of pursuing graduate degrees. It's pointless and maybe even a little malicious, and I hate it.

 

[Darkstone42]

What would you call changing her profile pics to it, then?

I call it a seized opportunity, because it's a legitimately fantastic picture.

It's also fair cause to be fired from government contracting, but that's a risk I'd be tempted to take to have the coolest possible photo, especially since there are plenty of folks who--if she does any kind of good work--will willingly hire her because of it.

 

[dare2be]

All this will accomplish is making life really hard on graduate students, especially students in things other than the hard sciences, and price first-generation, minority, and generally poor students out of pursuing graduate degrees. It's pointless and maybe even a little malicious, and I hate it.

More dumbing-down of America. They don't want smart people to rise up.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Wow. How did I miss that?

I guess I need coffee.

LOL

If it weren't for that then I'd definitely agree but if she's gonna own it like that then she needed to be cognizant of what could happen as a result.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

On a completely separate note, the new tax code has already been ripped extensively for several reasons, but one of them hits especially close to home for me.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Republican-Tax-Proposal-Gets/241662

To summarize, many graduate students make a living while in graduate school by teaching or doing research, and part of the compensation package is a tuition waiver. The students don't ever see this money, but it keeps them from having to take out more loans and stacking onto their likely already significant debt. It's also a good tool for programs to recruit the most talented students.

This new tax program would make that tuition waiver taxable income, effectively quadrupling the taxes graduate students pay.

I don't live paycheck-to-paycheck right now, largely because I eliminate unnecessary expenditures and am clever about getting things I need for free where the opportunity presents itself, but if my taxes quadrupled, I would have to concede all semblance of comfort until I graduate.

There's no reason for this. It isn't income, for one thing, but a cost the University chooses to waive for students as an incentive to join the program, which strengthens those programs. In exchange, we do research and teaching for the university at a fraction of the cost a non-student professional would. Universities also generate revenue through research grants by doing this. Both the students and the University benefit.

It also won't generate appreciable revenue. Grad students are notoriously poor. I know this board is familiar with the Simpsons gag about grad students, and while it's exaggerated a bit, it carries a pretty heavy dose of truth. Quadrupling taxes on a small fraction of the population who have no money isn't going to help fund any government programs.

All this will accomplish is making life really hard on graduate students, especially students in things other than the hard sciences, and price first-generation, minority, and generally poor students out of pursuing graduate degrees. It's pointless and maybe even a little malicious, and I hate it.

Could the universities not get around this by doing something like calling it a scholarship instead of a tuition waiver?