GasBandit
Staff member
Heh, I would support the automatic replacing of the phrase "first post" with "boobies!" like they do on fark, except that we don't really have "first post" problems around here.
[News] Mass shooting at Sikh temple in Wisconsin
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
I was talking more along the lines of how they replace a certain word with "Attractive and successful African American."
Just do it for "I'm leaving."
GasBandit
Staff member
It has it's downsides too though, for example they completely obliterate any instance of the phrase "In soviet russia."
I remember 4 years ago that some conservative news site changed gay to homosexual. I wonder if today's news has Tyson Homosexual came in 4th.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ha! I remember that!
The Daily Mirror (which is a UK scandal rag, granted) says they did it again today, but I can't find a link to the actual thing.
For the record, I was being sarcastic and did not intend for my suggestion to be taken seriously. I don't think censoring a murder's name, whether by x-ing it out or using a word/phrase, is going to change anything. I understand Dave's intent. While noble, it doesn't change the facts about who committed the crime. If you're talking about "He-Who Should-Not-Be-Named" or XXXXXXXXXX that is on trial for murdering people in a movie theater in Colorado it's not hard to put together who is being discussed. Name or no name you are still basically giving that person attention.
And then where does it stop? I once belonged to a board with some ridiculous censoring. For example, you couldn't use the word cocktail because it contained cock, so the entire word would be x-ed out. I got banned for standing up for another friend who had challenged the rules and got kicked off the board. The whole situation left a bad taste in my mouth and I'd hate to see this become the beginning of something similar happening on this board.
So, hey, remember how that whole shooting thing that started this thread? Now we're all going to be having a debate as to whether or not it should be categorized as a "hate crime" or "act of domestic terrorism."
... because of all things we should worry about in this country, we've apparently decided to focus on the exact label of a horrible crime.
[source]
... because of all things we should worry about in this country, we've apparently decided to focus on the exact label of a horrible crime.
[source]
Tress, I didn't get that from the story. I got that the FBI is likely to label it terrorism depending on what they learn, and then a lot more information about the shooters, domestic terrorism in general, etc. It IS important what to call it because it sets a precedent and/or can draw on precedent. But I'd agree that it's only legally, not really socially important, not right now anyway.
Hmmm. The article has changed since I first read it. The original headline was "Sikh temple shooting: Domestic terrorism or hate crime?" It appears a section of commentary was removed, wherein the author talked about whether or not this is "just" a hate crime or if it counts as terrorism. So yeah. Nice stealth editing... stay classy, Yahoo!.
Yahoo is a terrible source for news, IMO, unless you want to know what Justin Bieber is wearing today.
Shit gets old after the third or fourth time. I've had enough of it, pure and simple.
Jurisdiction and what laws apply are very dependent on what they determine it to be.
I was too busy yesterday to spoon feed answers as to why I wrote what I wrote.
Anyways, will I say it again? Absolutely, why? Because America isn't learning. Having these events show up on the main page on news sites and going "Oh wow, that's horrible." isn't enough. I find American values... comical.... to say the least when it comes to this and I know I'm not the only one and this goes far beyond "Kanada".
A great example would be the whole Chick-Fil-A fiasco. OH NO! YOU DON'T SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS?! Manifestations! Boycotts! Get politicians involved! Pro Chick-Fil-A! Anti Chick-Fil-A! Twatter! Facebook! RAGGGGEEEEE.
As a Canadian....
Wat?
Meanwhile America goes from shooting spree to shooting spree with no consequence to people actions. Shoot a guy randomly that is selling door to door? It's not even spoke of the next day. OP's tragedy won't be talked about in a few days. No one will follow through and go... why does this guy have a dozen guns? How? It's clear as day to any non-American that Americans have a severe gun control problem yet little to nothing gets done. Instead of having one general consensus in this matter.... you have 50+ of them (WTF)...
Look, I won't go into the details about Americana failure at gun control... it's their gun culture... Americans have more gun deaths than the entire world combined many times over every single year.... recently an idiot shows up at a movie theater and kills a dozen people and what are people spoon feeding me?
"He was just a sick fuck, guns aren't the problem, anyone should have a right to defend themselves, it's in my rights. Don't piss me off in telling me that I shouldn't have the right to have a single or dozen guns. RAAAAAGGEEEEEEEE"
How can someone enlightened by this subject even talk sense with people as stupid as this? I will admit, some days I'd rather talk religion with those Baptist people... I feel I could manage some level of progress with them. Especially when they throw Canadian tragedies around as examples of my countries worst moments without even bothering to read what it was all about and what happened because of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre
It's a shame they couldn't bother themselves to read about it in full detail and actually find they were contradicting themselves in trying to make a mockery of one of Canada's worst moments.
If you're interested read paragraph 4.2
Change is good, embrace it as you were able to embrace many other things.
While you're changing things, fix the whole lobbying thing, it doesn't do democracy a whole of good anyways.
Anyways, will I say it again? Absolutely, why? Because America isn't learning. Having these events show up on the main page on news sites and going "Oh wow, that's horrible." isn't enough. I find American values... comical.... to say the least when it comes to this and I know I'm not the only one and this goes far beyond "Kanada".
A great example would be the whole Chick-Fil-A fiasco. OH NO! YOU DON'T SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS?! Manifestations! Boycotts! Get politicians involved! Pro Chick-Fil-A! Anti Chick-Fil-A! Twatter! Facebook! RAGGGGEEEEE.
As a Canadian....
Wat?
Meanwhile America goes from shooting spree to shooting spree with no consequence to people actions. Shoot a guy randomly that is selling door to door? It's not even spoke of the next day. OP's tragedy won't be talked about in a few days. No one will follow through and go... why does this guy have a dozen guns? How? It's clear as day to any non-American that Americans have a severe gun control problem yet little to nothing gets done. Instead of having one general consensus in this matter.... you have 50+ of them (WTF)...
Look, I won't go into the details about Americana failure at gun control... it's their gun culture... Americans have more gun deaths than the entire world combined many times over every single year.... recently an idiot shows up at a movie theater and kills a dozen people and what are people spoon feeding me?
"He was just a sick fuck, guns aren't the problem, anyone should have a right to defend themselves, it's in my rights. Don't piss me off in telling me that I shouldn't have the right to have a single or dozen guns. RAAAAAGGEEEEEEEE"
How can someone enlightened by this subject even talk sense with people as stupid as this? I will admit, some days I'd rather talk religion with those Baptist people... I feel I could manage some level of progress with them. Especially when they throw Canadian tragedies around as examples of my countries worst moments without even bothering to read what it was all about and what happened because of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre
It's a shame they couldn't bother themselves to read about it in full detail and actually find they were contradicting themselves in trying to make a mockery of one of Canada's worst moments.
If you're interested read paragraph 4.2
Change is good, embrace it as you were able to embrace many other things.
While you're changing things, fix the whole lobbying thing, it doesn't do democracy a whole of good anyways.
There is some serious troll shit happening there.
BananaHands
Staff member
Instead of banning guns, let's just ban every Canadian so we can shoot each other in peace.
M
Magister Moonie
ban guns and chic-fil-a
all bases covered.
all bases covered.
Jay : I agree.
That said, I think that it is an acceptable personal opinion to be more or less gun oriented. Patrick, for example, owns a gun, and isn't a nutter. GasBandit, for another example, is in favour of more guns and less control (I'm exagerating for effect, GB), but he's at least open-minded and clear-headed about it: guns as a form of defense against a tyrannical regime, and these losses are acceptable collateral damage to keep his right to defend himself. I don't agree, but hey. Both of them are, up to a point, agreed that people who own guns should be more responsible/educated about them.
What gets me are the nuts who don't think for themselves but just see "all guns are good" as a basic American Truth. They make little to no sense.
That said, I think that it is an acceptable personal opinion to be more or less gun oriented. Patrick, for example, owns a gun, and isn't a nutter. GasBandit, for another example, is in favour of more guns and less control (I'm exagerating for effect, GB), but he's at least open-minded and clear-headed about it: guns as a form of defense against a tyrannical regime, and these losses are acceptable collateral damage to keep his right to defend himself. I don't agree, but hey. Both of them are, up to a point, agreed that people who own guns should be more responsible/educated about them.
What gets me are the nuts who don't think for themselves but just see "all guns are good" as a basic American Truth. They make little to no sense.
There are just so many cultural issues that need to be tackled before we ever start rounding up all the gun owners.
Stop the glorification of gun violence, crime, gang lifestyles, criminals, and terrorists.
Create a mental health system that does not look like life behind bars to a troubled individual.
Do a better job about teaching fallacies of bigotry.
Remember that there was no law and order in this nation from the start of the Civil War till about 1910. That is one of the big cultural differences that I taught my classes between the lawless USA and peaceful Canada. Canada started its Westward Push after the US. While in a US boom town in the 1840-1930's there were no law enforcement, the Texas Ranger only showed up after the riots started. While in Canada, a prospector shows up in a boom town, he is met by an imposing Mountie in a Red Shirt carrying a Winchester and a club...
Stop the glorification of gun violence, crime, gang lifestyles, criminals, and terrorists.
Create a mental health system that does not look like life behind bars to a troubled individual.
Do a better job about teaching fallacies of bigotry.
Remember that there was no law and order in this nation from the start of the Civil War till about 1910. That is one of the big cultural differences that I taught my classes between the lawless USA and peaceful Canada. Canada started its Westward Push after the US. While in a US boom town in the 1840-1930's there were no law enforcement, the Texas Ranger only showed up after the riots started. While in Canada, a prospector shows up in a boom town, he is met by an imposing Mountie in a Red Shirt carrying a Winchester and a club...
So Canadians did things the right and logical way, and Americans did it the silly first-come-first-push-and-shove-first-serve way of hyperindividualistic children? Got ya.
And we did it first.[DOUBLEPOST=1344353169][/DOUBLEPOST]Just how did you do it in the Kongo?
Jay please set the example and reduce Canada's gun murder rate to zero without increasing the other methods of murder.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm
Also, why are you bothering to rage about this only when someone kills more than a few people? Most murders in the us, gun or otherwise, only involve one victim. Mass murders account for such a small fraction of gun deaths that even if we eliminated them in some magical way, it wouldn't really affect the overall statistics.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm
Also, why are you bothering to rage about this only when someone kills more than a few people? Most murders in the us, gun or otherwise, only involve one victim. Mass murders account for such a small fraction of gun deaths that even if we eliminated them in some magical way, it wouldn't really affect the overall statistics.
Those are maple syrup deaths. They don't want people to know how dangerous maple syrup is, so they hide them under "unknown".
I think the explanation for 'other' is even more interesting, in that it includes heart attacks. I can imagine the courtroom scene:
"the prosecution will show that the defendant murderd his father via heart attack by declaring his love of the Red Wings hockey team."
Or there were not enough parts left over to make a determination.
I like my explanation better.
U.S. is not the homicide capital of the world despite the guns.
Did I mention I've taken up target shooting? I have a Ruger 10-22 rifle and a SR-22 pistol now. It's taught me a whole lot about just how severely screwed up the gun laws are, especially in California (one of the most restrictive gun-control states). I can't even imagine how to fix that godawful mess, although banning 100-round mags (no civilian needs that) and possibly even Internet sales of weapons/ammo, and closing the last few gun-show loopholes seem two obvious places to start.
I have a non-trolling question to put to you guys. In a purely hypothetical world (forget the 2nd Amendment, the NRA lobby, etc.), do you think assigning ATF or some other Fed agency control over gun laws, as opposed to individual states, would be a helpful or harmful move? I can see the upsides but I'm sure there are downsides I'm not considering.
I have a non-trolling question to put to you guys. In a purely hypothetical world (forget the 2nd Amendment, the NRA lobby, etc.), do you think assigning ATF or some other Fed agency control over gun laws, as opposed to individual states, would be a helpful or harmful move? I can see the upsides but I'm sure there are downsides I'm not considering.
Yes, I'd imagine a federal agency watching over a single set of gun laws would be an improvement, if only because it would make enforcement of said rules much simpler. The problem is mostly enforcement.
GasBandit
Staff member
Nice! Much of my early plinking was done on my father's Ruger Mk 2 .22 cal pistol.
In my opinion, just about everything taken from the states to give to the federal government is harmful. The higher up in government something is, the less accountable it is. And frankly, to speak my mind about the ATF would probably godwin the thread.
- Status