Registered bored user

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
monkwarrior Yep, was more a musing on how a winding career path/retraining alters your though process.

INTP is probably the most common type in engineering, then as I made the swap to healthcare, the different focus forced me out of my shell and learn a bit more about empathy ;p
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Which sort of amuses me. Over time my personality has changed from INTP, to ENTP, now ENFP.

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Apparently the engine went up 30 minutes into the flight, which nixed my first thought which was FOD (foreign object debris, random crap that gets sucked in and damages the engine), unless it was a tiny piece that just slightly damaged a turbine section. The engines these use is about as reliable as you get, really surprised me to hear about this. Most likely would be maintenance error, followed by a bad part that made it past QA.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
To my knowledge, he was the only marine to receive an honorary promotion post retirement to the rank of gunnery sergeant. Ran into him once years back, was a great guy.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Personal opinion here, but one of the reasons I think dogs are a popular pet is due to the brow like ridges they have, which allow them to convey expressions similarly to the way we do. Solitary hunters like cats do not have these, which make it harder for us to read their body language and emotions.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
prichards114 Except that race does not enter into the law in any way. What you have is a fairly common misconception- even if a law is applied in a biased manner, this does not make the law itself biased.

The sort of amusing thing is this is actually the same concern that gun rights advocates have, that laws designed to protect people could be applied in a biased manner to deprive others of the rights without recourse.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
skypirate The point of the law is that without the original felony having been committed, the justifiable homicide would never have occurred. Thus, the person who is responsible for the felony shares in the responsibility for the death of the accomplice. Since they did not have a legally acceptable reason to kill that person, it is not justifiable for them, and counts as a murder.

More or less it comes down to how our legal system shares responsibilities when a crime has been committed.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Against an unaware target, any weapon is more effective. In a race to draw/disable/kill, knives generally win at close ranges. At anything over 20', a gun will win if the person carrying it is trained, aware, and doesn't panic (adrenaline is a hell of a drug).

A lot of people who own a gun for defensive use rely on it more as a talisman to give them confidence and courage, but don't put in the time training that they need to. IMO anyone who owns a weapon that doesn't hit a range a few times a year is potentially placing themselves or others in danger. Anyone who regularly carries, especially concealed, should try to do monthly range time, as well as spending non-range time practicing their draw and disengagements. This said, I may be a bit overboard with the frequency of training here, but old habits are hard to break. 

Always keep one rule in mind, no matter the legality of the situation, a weapon should be your absolute last resort, when retreat, appeasement, and bribery don't work. Only ever draw a weapon if you are sure it is a matter of life or death. Once it comes out, it will force everyone involved into survival mode. 
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:

We haven't actually increased lethality of firearms in quite awhile. Most of the changes in the last 20 years have been to reliability and ergonomics. the M1911 is still a very popular pistol, and as the name suggests, it was designed in 1911.

On the other hand, what we have done with cars is mostly improved the odds of the driver and passengers to survive impacts, not to improve the survival of those hit by a car.

Guns are tools in much the same way cars are. They can both be used legally and illegally. Both can kill or maim. From working as an EMT and now as an RN, I can say that your odds of survival after being shot are higher than if you are hit by a car at anything over parking lot speeds. 

I'll repeat myself from before- we have a murder problem more than a gun problem. We need to find some way to deal with this, rather than removing one type of tool that allows people to kill.

In the end though, everything boils down to one point. If you can get the support for a constitutional amendment, you can remove guns from our society. Law abiding citizens will turn in their weapons, criminals will keep theirs. Black market sales will increase as they did with alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs, and I doubt we will see the end of gun crimes, including mass shootings.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:

For my preface, I would like to say that I don't see how you can limit the discussion to just school shootings or deaths of children, because the proposed changes will have a far greater reach than just those topics.

I'm looking at how the whole population is affected, both by the problems and the possible solutions.

Random facts from CDC MMWR data-
In 2015, an average of 103 motor vehicle injury deaths, 121 suicides, and 49 homicides occurred each day.
in 2015, there were 22,018 firearms related suicides, 12,979 homicides, and 489 deaths due to accidental discharge. that works out to 60.32 suicides, and 35.56 homicides per day.

There are roughly equal numbers of cars and guns in the US.

Depending on age group, cars kill more children than any other cause.

Also, note I said used legally. No matter what you use to do it, murder doesn't fit those rules ;p

Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it isn't a problem. I don't think my saying that since I don't have kids, school shootings don't affect me is appropriate. Also, asserting that all guns in criminal hands came from a legal purchase is a bit much. That is something like me saying that all the drugs they sell illegally must have come from a legal source initially.

Criminals can find items that are not legal for them to own through illegal means. If they can get their hands on drugs, they can certainly get their hands on guns.

3. If gang bangers were only killing each other, that may have had at least some value (save for not counting them as people with rights).

4. The US has a less homogeneous population in terms of culture, ethnicity, race, religion, etc. than most of those nations. This gives us more friction points that lead  to clashes that can escalate to the point of violence. If you look at a list of nations ranked by cultural diversity from least diversity to most: Japan, Italy, Germany, France, UK, US, Canada. (ill admit i was surprised Canada was ahead there, though I suppose a smaller population can cause faster demographic shifts due to immigration).  France has been pushed up a bit on the murder list due to recent immigrants.

5. We need more sanity and rationality all around. Less fear mongering by the NRA and the "for the children types" and more discussion as to ideas that will work rather than make one group feel good.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
holygod So few points in response (assuming the screwed up mobile site stops redirecting me to spam long enough to post).

1: Current law doesn't require a reason for you to own a gun, so long as you aren't a felon or several other disqualifying factors. Owning a gun to shoot for fun is functionally identical to owning a high end sports car for fun. So long as you use it legally, it is your right.

2:  Legal gun ownership doesn't correlate with incidence of gun crimes. Most gun crimes are performed by people who are not legally entitled to a gun. When I'm home I'll try to source this for you.

3: The most lethal type of gun is the handgun (vast majority of all gun crimes are committed with them). The AR-15 craze is that they look scary more than anything. As a veteran, I'll say from experience that they are far more lethal in close quarters (under 15 meters).

4: People always have, and likely always will, kill each other. We need to work on figuring out how to address this. It is mental health? Is it a societal issue? There is no way to remove all the means of killing from the world.

5: We DO have too many laws. I would rather see us review what we have, then consolidate them. Find better ways to enforce them. Once this is done, we will have a better idea of what we need. I wouldn't mind requirements such as we have for driving, to include mandatory training and a psych eval, so long as it is not twisted into a means of depriving people of a constitutional right.            
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
My issue is that people are trying to oversimplify a complex issue. Simple answers appeal a lot more than being told- we may be able to fix this, but it will take a lot of time and effort.

We have a lot of laws and regulations that are on the books, but are not being implemented properly or at all. A large percent of gun crimes are committed by people who currently should not be able to purchase a firearm. People who had legal guns, and later committed crimes that should have caused their weapons to be confiscated rarely have them taken (I recall hearing California has something like 30k people in this category, and something like 10 officers assigned to do the confiscations). Before we start making new laws, can we try to see why the current ones aren't working? And yes, if we ever actually try this, bar all lobbyists and activist groups from the review. No NRA, no BLM, nothing but facts and data.

We are socially dysfunctional. Social media in general is reinforcing cliques and isolating anyone who doesn't fit into a set group. As a result you have a lot of desperate depressed people out there who are often angry about being outcasts. Spend less time on your social crusades for the flavor of the month oppressed minority in Uganda and try to reach out to the people near you.

Claiming "It works in country X" isn't a good argument. The United States is fairly unique in terms of how racially, ethnically, culturally, and religiously mixed we are. We have different traditions, different views of authority, etc etc etc. 
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Gerry1of1 Heres the issue- I don't have facebook. My friends do. I never agreed to have them get any of my info, they stole my info off of my friends phone. I think i have a legitimate reason to be pissed
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
markust123 The main issue with the term assault rifle is how vaguely defined it is. It has very little to do with functionality, and quite a bit to do with looks.

H. R. 3355—203, title XI definition- 

 ‘‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of— ‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock; ‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; ‘‘(iii) a bayonet mount; ‘‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and ‘‘(v) a grenade launcher; ‘‘

  • Part i is talking about a stock (the portion that you rest against your shoulder) that can be shortened to allow for use in closer quarters. Most often this is used so that people don't need to spend money for custom length stocks for themselves. An improperly sized stock will lead to issues with controlling recoil, and may cause damage to the shoulder.

  • Part ii refers to a forward grip, which allows for better control of your weapon. Typically you can just grip the forward barrel shroud to similar effect.

  • Part iii self explanatory. TBH anyone who has one of these is just in it for the masturbatory value.

  • Part iv is actually an issue for the threaded barrel portion rather than flash suppressor part. The most common use of a threaded barrel is for a suppressor, which allows for a lower level of hearing protection to be used. Suppressors are already regulated, and carry a $200 tax on top of authorization.

  • Part v ... I'm not sure what they were smoking. 

I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
Personally I have zero issues with going after bump stocks. While the effects can be mimicked without a stock, their only legal purpose is to have fun burning off an entire mag (which is pretty fun I'll admit) at a go. In terms of actual use, they degrade accuracy too much to be of use. On the other hand, if you have a person who doesn't care about, or intends to cause collateral damage, they can be very effective at that.

Now on the other hand if we could only get suppressors off the regulated list, that would be great. Having a $200 tax stamp so i can use plugs instead of cans is a pain in the ass.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
abetterworld Making specific threats against others is against the law. At that point, it is not a matter of the government "deeming you dangerous", it is that you are being accused of a crime. The law does allow for confiscation of weapons from those arrested, so long as they are returned should the accusations not be upheld by the pressing of charges and a conviction. 

The only part of this the NRA has had a hand in is the last part, where the weapons need to be returned afterward if no charges are filed or upheld. This is a constitutional law issue regarding illegal search and seizure.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
spanz In the military, we are trained that for CQB (close quarter battle, indoors or in tight terrain) a pistol can be more dangerous than a rifle. within 20m or so, you're typically as accurate as a rifle, and its a hell of a lot easier to control while taking cover. Its one of the reasons that the military shifted from the M-16 to the M-4 carbine, shorter weapon that is easier to handle in close quarters, while not being as effective at long range.

Now if you have a person with a pistol vs a guy with a rifle outdoors at any kind of range, yes the rifle wins every time.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
kelly_hanna The guy had certain traits and characteristics that are considered to be disqualifying factors. Even while honesty with your interviewers is the best policy, and almost any past criminal behaviors will be forgiven, ongoing stuff is a massive red flag. Strong fundamentalist views, high debt, highly secretive family life, etc.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
barry9a Some of the ones that I find important at least are tax reform, allowing competition for health insurance across state lines, operating outside of the UN channels when the United State's interests did not correspond to its policies.

Again he never said he switched because he was tired of hypocrisy. He doesn't directly state it, but I read it as disgust that someone who was presented as a paragon wasn't. No one in their right mind would ever describe Trump as a paragon of anything except perhaps reality TV. I've had I don't know how many people describe Trumps idiocy as "Trump being Trump".

Taking the media's opinion of almost anything these days is an exercise in futility given how partisan things have become. We need to work with both parties to support candidates with integrity and values that they actually hold, rather than jumping on the "they're better than ..." bandwagon. We need to insist on raising the bar when it comes to choosing who will be the next leaders of the nation.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
My first thought would be mental illness. My second thought it HOW THE FUCK DID THIS MAN PASS A SECURITY CLEARANCE. I mean seriously, a lot of the jobs at Lockheed  and Northrop-Grumman require at least a secret, with many requiring a top secret clearance. If the background checks didn't spot this, what the hell were the investigators doing.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
barry9a I think you're confusing a catalyzing moment for the motivation to change. I will never say, or accept that democrats had a monopoly on hypocrisy. It is something that you will find in any person of any political affiliation. Part of it though i think is the degree of difference between what was thought about someone and what is exposed. If Richard Dawkins came out tomorrow saying that he was converting to Catholicism and that he intended to spend the rest of his life as a missionary it would be far more shocking than if a random college age atheist did the same, because of how different it was from his prior commitment and reputation.

As far as supporting Trump, I feel you can dislike a person for who he is, while supporting the good that he does. I think Trump is a bad spokesman for the Republican party, has little character, and acts like a clown. That said, he has done some things that I felt were necessary for the country that would not had happened without him.

Probably my biggest hope is that next election cycle, one or both of the parties will nominate someone with more character and integrity, so that at least next time we can respect the person we disagree with.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
holygod Personally I think the best political analysis of the election came from Southpark. We had a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. Both candidates scared the hell out of me in many ways. Honestly if Bernie had won the primary I would have voted for him despite disagreeing with almost all of his policy positions because the man had integrity, unlike Trump and Clinton.

That said, the argument of "unpresidential" is somewhat subjective. If you mean that he does not do dignity to the office, i agree. However i also felt that way about president Obama for several of the actions he had done as well. That said, I'm not voting on America's Got Talent, superficiality is less important to me than the character and actions of the person. While i hate his lack of character, I do like many of the actions he has taken (cabinet post choices, executive order allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines, and others).

TL;DR- IMO trump was the lesser of two evils, because at least people recognize his lack of character and will scrutinize what he does, while many will ignore it in Clinton.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
daegog You can find out about cover ups after the fact when they are exposed by investigation. A person didn't need to have been raped by a priest to learn that the church had been hiding the fact that these acts did occur.

Stories did occur after the public accusations that stated that Weinstein's actions were known about but not reported earlier. The New York Times had an article about it, as did many other outlets.

Some snippets from the article:
I was raised in a liberal Jewish family in Washington DC, where my dad served as a Democratic congressman for Los Angeles. Accordingly, I was indoctrinated with all of the correct values and views.

 I began to raise questions with my family and friends, and met resistance. It was not because my concerns were particularly inappropriate; I was just not supposed to be questioning at all.

One could disagree with nuances, but not the judgment of the (then) president, or the party. Period.

the media outlets that had enabled and covered up his indiscretions for years were the same major public voices for the Democratic Party

He was raised to follow the dogma of the democratic party, then later found out that the spokespeople for the party were involved in actions that were antithetical to their pronounced beliefs. Believe me, I very deliberately used the example of pedophile priests and the catholic church for my analogy
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
markust123 From someone in a somewhat similar position to the person who wrote this (conservative jew), I would say from my personal experience that shunning like this can happen even if you aren't going after other people. 

Personally I'm willing to discuss politics of any type with anyone, but I will rarely initiate the topic. Much more often I'll have someone come up to me to tell me about the latest idiocy from Trump or the republicans, then trying to scourge me for not agreeing with them. Since my political opinions were spread around the community, I would say that this makes up a good 60% of the things people will approach me about.

I didn't really lose friends over it, but that was more a factor that I never really had many in the first place, because there wasn't that common ground. Hell, I've had some of the people who do share social circles with me be attacked because they're willing to associate with me.
I-Am-Annoyed wrote:
daegog I read it more as a "straw that broke the camel's back" type of thing. Its not a big deal politically and it shouldn't reflect on other democrats, but a person that he was raised to see as a paragon wasn't. An analogy would be how the coverage of how a relatively few priests molested boys caused some people to leave the catholic church.