• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

bhyde

Members
  • Content count

    4,435
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Whiner

About bhyde

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Trumplandia
  • Interests
    Not dying before the end of my life.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,771 profile views
  1. 2018 HillaryJ Poll Average Begins Now.
  2. Yeterday all my troubles seemed so far away. Now it looks as though they're here to stay. Oh, I believe in yeterday.
  3. Roy Moore 3rd rail?

    This is the one time I wish teenagers could vote.
  4. Why the Focus on Gunz?

    You do realize I'm not a gun grabbers, right? I know many people that own and enjoy guns. I trust them. They are rational people. And I while I don't own any guns (I have in the past), I fully support your current right to own guns. Do you understand this? Is that clear? But when you post stupid shit that this, my mind starts think there are a lot of people that shouldn't have guns. Maybe the stereotypical gun nutter we see in the media, and that I would normal think is the exception to the rule, is closer to the truth than what I normally see in my gun owning friends. Maybe in the near future when the debate is all over, and it comes time to decide whether or not you get to keep your guns, I'm going to have to say, "Sorry Jeff, I know you're a responsible gun owner and would never do anything crazy. I wish things could be different, but there are a bunch of nut case Toms running around that fucked it up for you. They couldn't handle their shit, so now you have to pay the price. Sorry bro." If that's what you would like to see happen Tom, if that is your goal, then by all means, keep posting.
  5. Why the Focus on Gunz?

    I think we are pretty much on the same page here. There is clearly an existential threat to our freedoms. It is surely manifested in our current 2A discussion. As you have mentioned, after 9/11, in the wake of public fear, all manner of laws and regulations have been imposed to "ensure our safety." Once imposed, there is little motivation to reverse that trend. The momentum pushing in the direction of ever increasing restriction is simply too great when fueled by fear, justified or not. I don't like that any more than you. Once it's gone it ain't comin' back. That seems obvious as is fully illustrated by the post 9/11 erosion of our rights and little to show in the way of safety. Once the 2A falls, it's not much of a stretch to see how over reaction to "Fake Nuws" starts to nibble into the 1A. I fully understand why gun owners are digging in their heals; they simply see the debate ultimately turning into a ban ala OZ. That's a reasonable fear on the part of the gun owners. But whether or not you sympathize with public fears and panic, it would be foolish for you, and every other gun owner, to not recognize its potential impact. It will be the instrument used by the government, voters, and politicians to drive the justification to further limit our freedoms. I don't want your rights taken away and I don't want my rights taken away, so I would suggest that focusing the debate on public fear, and how to alleviate it, is well worth all gun owner's effort. The usual arguments are not working and they are pushing people into polarized, binary thinking. That's always going to go badly for someone. Personally what I would like to see is a solution that would have a level of gun violence that is equal to, or less than, the other western democracies (with bans in place) while retaining full 2A rights. If the gun owners, lobbies, NRA, etc. were to just to stand up and set a goal of reducing gun related deaths by say half in the next five years, I think you'd find a lot more non-guns owners willing to get on board. Pick whatever numbers you like, but work towards a goal, any goal, that reduces deaths and public fear. Alienating the general public is not a good way to get what you want, or keep what you have. Doesn't that seem like a more reasonable approach than the "Fuck you, you're not taking my guns" or "That's it. Hand them over assholes" that is going on right now? And I still have no idea why Tom is talking about bump stocks and suicides.
  6. Why the Focus on Gunz?

    Tom, c'mon. Posting the exact same question after I've already asked for clarification really isn't helpful. The link you provided is to a thread I haven't read or care to. If your question is: Do bump stocks have any impact on the suicide rate? My answer is: I have no idea. I have never seen a bump stock. I don't own a bump stock. I'm never going to own a bump stock. I don't know anyone who uses or has ever used a bump stock. Until Las Vegas, I had no idea such a device even existed. I have exactly zero cognitive resources currently allocated to thinking about any aspect of bump stocks. And furthermore, bump stocks have less than zero to do with the OP or what Jeff and I were discussing. Why are you bringing it up and how does it relate to the OP?
  7. Why the Focus on Gunz?

    Help me out here Tom. What are you asking?
  8. DeVille / Coolio 2020!!!

    Would we really need to vet her? I mean, everything (literally) is out in the open. It's not like she is hiding anything like Roy Moorelester. I'd be honored to serve under her.
  9. DeVille / Coolio 2020!!!

    I can get behind her.
  10. Why the Focus on Gunz?

    No I can't. I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor do I think it is relevant to the conversation Jeff and I were having. We were talking about gun related deaths in general (+/- suicides) and whether or not comparing stats is a valid way of looking at the problem (see OP). I contented that comparisons to say auto accidents is not a strong argument. Jeff thinks otherwise and has supported his view. I further contend that the real problem is public perception and not the absolute number of deaths (like airplane crashes). If you would like to discuss this, and have a fairly unbiased opinion from a non-gun owner, you are welcome to join in. If you want to antagonize people concerned with gun violence and your rights as a gun owner, you'll may want to start another thread. Sound good?
  11. Why the Focus on Gunz?

    It sound like your concerned with the amount of attention (mostly bad) that guns get in proportion to other causes of murder/death; that guns are unfairly stigmatized in relation to the actual amount of damage they do. Dropping the suicide angle for now, why would you expect any different? When an airplane plows into the side of a mountain and kills 200 people the press jumps all over it. Everyone has a shit fit. We both know flying is orders of magnitude safer than just about any other form of transportation and the odds of you or I getting killed are really remote. But no one points to the press and says they are unfairly critical of the aviation industry. Instead everyone tries to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again, right? The fact remains, that regardless of the actual number of people killed, in both aircraft accidents and guns deaths, people really get excited about it. No one wants to get whacked in a theater, or at a church, or at a school, or at a concert. It really doesn't matter that the number aren't big in the grand scheme of things. The idea of gun violence is now stuck forever in our collective heads. That's just the reality of the situation and no statistics you or I come up with is going to make people less fearful. People have irrational fears regardless of the facts. And those fears are reaffirmed every time there is a mass shooting (i.e. yesterday in Northern California). So I agree with you that education, training, and awareness are all good tactics to address the gun violence problem. But if the public's perceived fear is reinforced by mass shootings every month or so, even if the total numbers of deaths are relatively small, then changes are going to be made. You're not going to be able to enjoy your sport/hobby if the public's fear reaches a level that your rights are no longer important. Trivializing the number of deaths or saying it's ok because fists kill more people is not going to do anything to remove public fear. I think the onus is on the gun owners, lobbies, the NRA, and industry to find a solution. Hopefully one that allows responsible ownership AND a significant reduction is gun violence. If you (the collective you, not you in particular) don't, then don't be surprised when the non-gun owning American public takes the easy way out and calls for an all out ban. I'd suggest acknowledging the reality and working on a solution before one is imposed on you. It's in your best interest IMHO. 'nuff said.
  12. Climate news

    No. I'm laughing at you. Especially the part where you quote a fragment of a sentence in the article and then conveniently forget the rest. It's like you think no one will read the link after you quote it and find out you're lying. That hilarious. It's even more hilarious for an adult. Here's the complete sentence with the bolded text showing what you posted. "There's a fair amount of uncertainty in that projection, with possible values from .8 percent to 3 percent — but the researchers are confident it represents an overall rise, fueled in part by changes in the Chinese economy."