America - The Official Thread

[huskeR32]

There's (in what I've seen) no reaction to the latter.

What reaction, exactly, are you hoping to see?

 

[FoolKiller]

Odly enough I just scrolled through and only saw one posting about it...

I have a fair amount of friends from both sides of the political spectrum and I have seen everything from gun control comments to racist anti-Islamic comments. If I had any art talent I could draw the faces of the Marines from memory at this point.

What reaction, exactly, are you hoping to see?

I guess he thinks people should be equally angry and fire bomb a mosque.



To be honest, I see a very large difference when you consider that the observers he expects reactions from view both killings as wrong, but one was perpetrated by an authority figure who is supposed to protect and serve and was seen to abuse his authority to use deadly force, and the other was a terrorist. Add in that the riots began as protests about the fact that the officer hadn't had charges pressed against and was considered a murderer walking free while the terrorist was shot and killed by police. There is nothing to protest and riot about. The killer is dead.

Now, if the terrorist were simply arrested and then walked away with no punishment, I expect there would be some protesting and rioting.

 

[Swagger897]

What reaction, exactly, are you hoping to see?

I haven't been hoping to see any reaction, it's the lack of that caught my attention.

I guess he thinks people should be equally angry and fire bomb a mosque.

That would be a bit excessive for something with little to no known connections with faith as being a motive.

abuse his authority to use deadly force,

whoa, that's not what the gj said...

There is nothing to protest and riot about.

The same could be said about the riots of the MB case. All the vast majority wanted was to put a man to jail, not to entirely change the SOP's when to use deadly force. For them, they would see that as a cause complete but they lack the intelligence to see that nothing would change even in the limelight.

Now, if the terrorist were simply arrested and then walked away with no punishment, I expect there would be some protesting and rioting.

Most definitely. If that's what you guys think I'm trying to relate with the riots in Ferguson and across the US, you're wrong. It's primarily from the lack of reaction to change anything in the operations of DOD facilities.

I don't recall when, but firearms used to be allowed on the premises of DOD recruitment facilities. Now, learning they are not allowed at all, made me think of Formula 1, when they banned refueling, and what Will Buxton said, "So they banned refueling because it was unsafe and now they want to potentially bring it back because it's more safe?" Insert gun:refueling and that's what I'm getting at. Who changed that and why? And if they were to re-implement that, what was the defining cause to remove them?

 

[huskeR32]

I haven't been hoping to see any reaction, it's the lack of that caught my attention.

Okay, so if it "caught your attention," then you were expecting to see some kind of reaction. Which is what I was asking. Don't get too caught up on a literal definition of the word "hope" here.

What reaction were you expecting? What reaction do you think should be happening? Interpret this question in some way that works for you, then get back to me with an answer.

 

[Swagger897]

Okay, so if it "caught your attention," then you were expecting to see some kind of reaction. Which is what I was asking. Don't get too caught up on a literal definition of the word "hope" here.

What reaction were you expecting? What reaction do you think should be happening? Interpret this question in some way that works for you, then get back to me with an answer.

Reactions to actually change something, or debates within Washington about what they need to do. Because it is DoD property, and they wanted to make it appear more "friendly", I don't think that service personnel should be completely restricted from having firearms on the property. A concealed carry license holding civilian from my knowledge, can carry into such, but not a member of the armed forces. A bit odd when you think that every single one of them went through more than what the average holder has gone through (on a personal account of the people I know).

Although other topics may deserve equal attention, it sucks that it had to come to this where human lives were lost only to grab attention.

 

[Liquid]

In other news, diplomatic relations between the USA and Cuba have taken another step forward; the missions in Washington and Havana have now become fully recognised embassies.

 

[Joel]

Man they're going to ruin Cuba for everyone else again.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's primarily from the lack of reaction to change anything in the operations of DOD facilities.

I don't recall when, but firearms used to be allowed on the premises of DOD recruitment facilities. Now, learning they are not allowed at all, made me think of Formula 1, when they banned refueling, and what Will Buxton said, "So they banned refueling because it was unsafe and now they want to potentially bring it back because it's more safe?" Insert gun:refueling and that's what I'm getting at. Who changed that and why? And if they were to re-implement that, what was the defining cause to remove them?

It is hard to get people who want more gun control to argue for more guns just after a shooting, no matter the situation.

That said, people in favor of gun rights have been asking this question after every shooting at a military facility.

As for your questions about lack of response on this issue: Armed citizens are standing guard outside centers.

It should also be noted that your thought that the two situations are comparable is not better when you make it out that riots = policy debate. The shootings aren't comparable, the reaction you want to see isn't comparable, and you have no idea if what you want to see happen is happening because the media doesn't show up when average people just talk about stuff. We have a presidential election coming up. Donald Trump is talking far more than any group of people could.

 

[GTsail]

Its my understanding that there are two principle reasons that the military personnel in these recruitment centers don't have firearms:

1) Posse Comitatus

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act was originally passed in 1878, and was intended to preclude the Federal Government from using its military personnel to perform routine local law enforcement tasks (like guard recruitment centers).

Its my understanding that the military has refrained from arming its recruitment personnel so that it will be in compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act.

2) Recruiting tactics:

As Swagger says:

Because it is DoD property, and they wanted to make it appear more "friendly",

The military doesn't want the recruitment centers to seem to be armed camps. The military is trying to present a "friendly" face to the public to encourage 18-year olds to enter and obtain info about various military opportunities.

@FoolKiller (I don't think that you are recommending this as a solution) but having armed citizens standing guard in front of military recruitment centers is a ridiculous solution to this problem:

Armed citizens are standing guard outside centers.

It would entirely defeat the military's idea of presenting a "friendly" face to the public.

@FoolKiller @Swagger897 do either of you have any recommendations on how the recruitment centers should protect themselves from infrequent attacks of this sort?

Its my understanding that members of the National Guard are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act and therefore they could be used to provide protection. The up-side is that the National Guard could also do some recruitment of their own at the same time! But maybe the various military services don't want this kind of inter-agency competition, so maybe they wouldn't want National Guard recruiters in every recruitment center.

I suppose we could scrap the Posse Comitatus Act altogether and have units from the Army and Marines in every city with a recruitment center. Maybe a couple of MRAPS in the parking lot!

Or do these attacks on recruitment centers happen so infrequently that the security is best left up to the local law enforcement officers?

My solution is to arm the recruitment officers. Keep a low profile with the weapons, but arm the recruitment officers nevertheless. I'm not a huge fan of the Posse Comitatus Act so I'm not too worried about working around it. Maybe some high-paid lawyers could come up with legal loophole to allow a few weapons at each recruitment center. Personally, I'm a huge fan of naval aircraft so perhaps a couple of the recruitment centers here in Massachusetts could have some F-18 Hornets parked in the back parking lot.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

Definitely, the armed citizens is a pointless exercise. 1) It is rare and the site chosen will be random to us until we understand what makes them choose a site to attack. 2) It sends a message to possible recruits that you need protecting when you join the military.

As for a solution to prevent this stuff: Quit screwing around in the Middle East. I don't care how bad the guy is, if you kill a handful of innocent people around him at the same time then you only anger multiple families and their friends.

That is assuming this is a true terrorist attack.

I have also seen reports that he was depressed. In almost every mass shooting case that doesn't involve a random crime of passion the shooter has some form of mental illness. If we can't find better ways to treat mental illness then none of this would have occurred.

The solutions most people offer are bandages on a gushing wound. More guns, less guns, tighter security, etc. only serve to maybe stop someone who wants to kill from succeeding. Don't stop someone who wants to kill from killing. Stop them from having a reason to want to kill. We need to help their mental health state or understand what makes them angry and help them deal with it.

 

[Swagger897]

As for a solution to prevent this stuff: Quit screwing around in the Middle East. I don't care how bad the guy is, if you kill a handful of innocent people around him at the same time then you only anger multiple families and their friends.

Yeah, someone needs to go to Washington with a historical religious teacher (don't know what the correct term is but one who teaches religious history) and tell them they haven't changed for the past 2000 years so what makes us think that we can do it?

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah, someone needs to go to Washington with a historical religious teacher (don't know what the correct term is but one who teaches religious history) and tell them they haven't changed for the past 2000 years so what makes us think that we can do it?

And if we can, it won't be through wars. That's what they've been doing for the past few thousand years. It clearly isn't working.

 

[Swagger897]

And if we can, it won't be through wars. That's what they've been doing for the past few thousand years. It clearly isn't working.

Honestly, imo I would rather let it contain itself, and when it stretches into borders, then that's where you do something.

Which is unfortunately how we got real deep into it after 9/11, when it did come over here. Now with Internet and common day radicalization, it's hard to stop it entirely.

It's the spread that's bad. Once the fire burns itself out onto sand, it's hard to start it up again.

 

[Dennisch]

They decapitated Hitchbot!

Damn anti Robot jihadies!

 

[CodeRedR51]

They decapitated Hitchbot!

Damn anti Robot jihadies!

'Merica.

 

[Dennisch]

'Merica.

They took the electronics from its head and left it for dead.

 

[CodeRedR51]

They took the electronics from its head and left it for dead.

Yeah. I commented the way I did because it had already been through a few other countries with no problems, then it comes to the USA and dies a horrible death after only a few states.

 

[Sanji Himura]

James Holmes now faces the Death Penalty phase of the Colorado massacre shooting. Judge is reading the verdict of Phase 2 as of post time.

EDIT: Now they are on Phase 3, the actual sentencing after voting to keep the Death Penalty on the table.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I won't make a whole lot of friends on this post, and quite frankly, I don't really care if your misconceptions about our legal system get hurt in the process. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.

The 16 Sandy Hook shooting victims settled two lawsuits against the estate of Nancy Lanza, the mother of the shooter Adam Lanza, for $1.5 million, or rather $94,000 a piece. The shooting is horrific, make no mistake about it, but I want you to know that I hope that the victim's families sleep well tonight because they forgot the prime victim in all of this.

It's not the children.

It's not the parents who had to bury their children because of one raging lunatic with a gun.

It's not even the shooter who died at the scene.

It's Nancy Lanza herself!

Was it her stupidity that she didn't follow safe gun handling procedure in securing her weapons? Yes, but that can't change the fact that she is the first to die to her son's rampage. It also doesn't change the fact that the blame should have been put on the shooter in the first place for the whole incident.

If they want something to blame, put the blame where it actually belongs, on the shooter. Not on the elderly woman who turned out to be victim number 1.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I won't make a whole lot of friends on this post, and quite frankly, I don't really care if your misconceptions about our legal system get hurt in the process. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.

As you get older you'll realise that not everything is black and white.

There are multiple victims. Several lost their whole lives, one lost a whole lot of money. Perhaps none of it should have happened?

 

[Swagger897]

one lost a whole lot of money.

Can't lose anything if you don't have a hand on it.... ie, dead.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Can't lose anything if you don't have a hand on it.... ie, dead.

Not even life?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Just curious as I don't know anything about this stuff, but if you get sued for that kind of money and you physically don't have it, what happens?

 

[Keef]

It's about damn time this thread was back on top!

 

[GTsail]

Just curious as I don't know anything about this stuff, but if you get sued for that kind of money and you physically don't have it, what happens?

As a partial answer to your question, from reading a few of the news stories about this settlement, I understand that the $1.5 million was tentatively agreed upon because its the approximate value that Nancy Lanza's estate is expected to receive from her home owners insurance policy.

Link:http://newtownbee.com/news/news/2015/08/03/proposed-settlement-reached-lanza-estate-lawsuits/281117

The various news articles say that the lawyers are mostly waiving their normal fees so the estate may actually receive the full $1.5M unless the insurance company decides to fight this further.

GTsail

 

[Swagger897]

Not even life?

well... she's dead, so what good is that going to do?

 

[TenEightyOne]

well... she's dead, so what good is that going to do?

It seems that there's a valid claim on the insurance which is being made with due diligence. What I was arguing against was the idea that she was the greatest victim in the whole scenario. You claimed that nobody could lose anything unless they were alive with their hand on it.

 

[Dennisch]

It's about damn time this thread was back on top!

Que Team America theme!

**** YEAH!

 

[Swagger897]

It seems that there's a valid claim on the insurance which is being made with due diligence. What I was arguing against was the idea that she was the greatest victim in the whole scenario. You claimed that nobody could lose anything unless they were alive with their hand on it.

Ohh yeah, no doubt. But you can't say the things she will be losing his her loss, because the doesn't have control...

Anyways, talking about dead peoples stuff gives me the shakes...

 

[Carbonox]

So, thoughts on this practice?



I can't claim to know the full story, but judging by the cop's comments, the kid had been violent... and autistic or not, it's better for everyone around him to let him calm down in a state where he can't hurt anyone else.

In fact, the most outrageous part is the comments. I 🤬 you not, they're full of angry and clueless people screaming not only about the handcuffing, but also about how most kids in America are being "drugged" these days. I suppose those of us who are familiar with pseudoscience will be quick to recognize what that refers to...