Advertisement Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1798 Excellent

About tstrimp

  • Rank

Personal Information

  1. tstrimp

    Plea deals are bribery and should be illegal

    Plea deals can potentially be much, much worse than that. Just ask Richard Glossip. He is on death row because the actual murderer Justin Sneed told police that Richard paid him in order to avoid the death penalty himself. No physical evidence ties Richard to the crime, and inmates incarcerated with Justin Sneed have stated that he brags about getting the blame pushed onto Richard.
  2. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

    That makes more sense, but what is the solution? Mandatory hugs? Might be worth a try...
  3. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

    It's not just the background checks that are a problem. I believe that all states have a 72 hour hold to wait for the background check, but I've heard on the news that some states leave it up to the owner of the shop to decide to sell it or not if the background check hasn't came back by then. I mentioned that in my post as well. The default needs to be to forbid the sale if the background check fails to come back for any reason. We also need to remove guns from those who commit domestic violence. It is a very strong indicator for potential homicide. However, without gun registration it is much more difficult to do.
  4. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

    The data disagrees with you. Repeal of Missouri's background check law associated with increase in state's murders   Myth vs. Fact: Violence and Mental Health
  5. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

      I assume you're not referring the the nearly 750,000 Arabs who fled during the armed Jewish takeover of what is now Israel? That's 80% of Arabs who were in the area that were displaced by Zionism in a single year. Maybe you're referring to the 100,000 Arab youth who would flee Gaza if the blockade were to open? They can't. Gaza is a prison designed to contain the Palestinians until Israel can find a palatable way to get rid of them. Meanwhile, Israel continues the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem.   On the topic of guns... We need mandatory training and licensing for owning private weapons. I think it's stupid to blame gun manufacturers for how their products are used, but I think gun stores, private sellers and family members should definitely be culpable if they either knowingly or through negligence put guns into the hands of a killer. For example, recently an 11 year old boy shot and killed an 8 year old girl because she wouldn't show him her puppy. He obtained the gun from an unlocked closet. The owner of that gun should be charged with murder as well. The only way to reliably be able to do this is to track gun transfers.   Background checks need to be tightened and include mental health red flags. The shooter at the movie theater in Louisiana managed to purchase a hand gun despite being denied a CCW permit due to domestic violence and being sent to a psychiatric hospital by a judge. This is unacceptable. The Charleston Church shooter was able to buy a gun even though it should have been denied. Under Federal law, if there is a delay in NICS processing, the gun can be transferred to the purchaser after three days. This is unacceptable. The default has to be to deny the sale until the NICS report comes back clean. The gun used in the school shooting in Marysville, WA should have been denied but the domestic violence protection order was never entered into the system. The father should be charged with murder for allowing his son access to the weapon, and the person who screwed up the reporting of the domestic violence protection order should be charged as an accessory to murder. The 2014 Fort Hood shooter was able to purchase a firearm while being treated for depression and anxiety. This should raise a red flag in the system, and trigger a follow up with the psychiatrist on whether they recommend denying the weapon purchase. The Sikh shooter was charged with criminal mischief and was known to be associated with a white-power group. This should have raised red flags and prevented the purchase of a firearm. The man who shot Gabby Giffords was forced to withdraw from college because officials feared for the safety of staff and students. This should have raised a red flag and prevented the sale of firearms. The 2009 Fort Hood shooter was under investigation by intelligence agencies for ties to a radical cleric in Yemen who is known for anti-American teachings. This should have raised a red flag and prevented the purchase of a firearm. I mentioned red flags above a number of times. I think it should be very easy to get a red flag on your record, but I don't mean to suggest that those immediately disqualify someone from purchasing a weapon. I mean they should require human investigation into the situation. Possibly including interviews with gun buyer and psychiatrists involved in treatments if necessary. This, combined with the default fail if the report doesn't come back in time would go a long way to reducing these types of incidents. 
  6. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

      I thought about that as well while typing that up. I don't see any evidence of a Muslim master plan. Not being from Europe, I have a more difficult time telling the difference between bigoted FUD and actual issues happening in the UK.  
  7. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

    This is technically correct, but highly misleading. In 1948 they were 32% of the population. The vast majority of them had only arrived since the 1930's. Let's look at the timeline. 1915 - 1916: McMahon–Hussein Correspondence. British promised Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs agreed and lead a revolt against the Ottoman Empire with the aim of securing an independent Arab state. 1917: The British, hoping to keep the US and Russia engaged in the war (through Zionist pressures in those countries) published the Balfour Declaration promising Jews a home in Palestine. They bribed the Jews with a place in Palestine which they had already promised would be an independent Arab state. At this point in time, Jews made up just over 10% of the population in Palestine. Also in 1917, the Russians exposed the Sykes - Picot Agreement. It revealed that instead of Arabs getting independent control as they were promised, the land would be broken up into French and British Mandates. This is the turning point in Western relations with the Arabs as it reneged on many of the promises made to them in order to secure their support in the war. 1918: Arab Muslims and Christians lead peaceful protests against the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine. At this point there is no Arab hatred for Jews. They wrote a document denouncing the Balfour Declaration stating: "We always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries... but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation...ruling over us and disposing of our affairs.". The Zionists didn't like this declaration either, because they wanted all of Palestine. Not just a home in it. 1919 - 1929: Jews began the next large wave of immigration into Palestine. This increased tensions between Arabs and Zionists leading to riots and fighting. 1930 - 1939: Jews now at 17% of the population. They have more than doubled their population in Palestine in 10 years. This is when Arab resistance really ramped up. The Arab revolt was a uprising against the British as a demand for the independence they were promised and against the increasing Jewish immigration. Between 1933 and 1936 the Jewish population more than doubled yet again. In the face of rising conflict, the British finally tried to stem the flood of Jewish immigrants into Palestine through the White Paper of 1939. This policy paper also called for the formation of an independent Palestine governed by both Jews and Arabs. The Arabs accepted this proposal, but the Jews did not. In response to Arabs celebrating the White Paper, Jewish terrorists committed a series of bombings across Palestine. The attacks on government property and Arab civilians lasted months. 1940 - 1945: With WW2 underway, this time was relatively peaceful in Palestine but there was still tension and fighting. Jewish immigration both legal and illegal continued to climb. 1946 - 1948: Jews now make up 32% of the population. Here is a great image showing the breakdown of land ownership in 1946. During this time the UN was looking into partition plans for the region since Jews would not accept a shared state of Palestine. The Zionists in the US used their influence to modify the boundaries to the point where they would receive 66% of Palestine. There is strong evidence to suggest that the Jews accepted the partition plan only to prevent an independant Palestinian state from being created. Their goal was always complete control over Palestine. When the British saw the proposed plan they called for it not to be imposed on the Arabs. They also refused to take part in the transition as you stated. So yes, by the time the partition recommendation was made, Jews made up 32% of the population. However 70% of those Jews, around 500,000 had only arrived there in the past 10 years. They were hardly a significant portion of the population in the hundreds of years leading up to this point. There was no good justification for handing over 66% of Arab occupied land to Jews who made up 32% of the population and had largely just arrived in the last decade and who only owned 7% of the land at that point. The Arabs did not reject the partition because they wanted all of Palestine as you claim. "This opposition [to partition] is based upon the unwavering conviction of unshakeable rights and a conviction of the injustice of forcing a long-settled population to accept immigrants without its consent being asked and against its known and expressed will; the injustice of turning a majority into a minority in its own country; the injustice of withholding self-government until the Zionists are in the majority and able to profit by it."   No, but throughout that time the land was referred to as Palestine and it was the Arab's home for thousands of years. It was promised to be their own independent state by the British in support of overthrowing the Ottoman Empire. It was invaded by more and more Jews and finally chopped up by the international community and handed over as if they should be thankful for what little they were to receive. After trying unsuccessfully to repel the Zionist takeover, they were forced into smaller and smaller sections of land. The Arab hatred for Israel is not due to some Muslim anti-semitic belief, but a direct result of the creation of Israel (again, at the expense of Arabs who had lived there since the 12th century) and their actions leading up to that.   Their primary goal was the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. There is nothing in the Muslim faith about slaughtering Jews and it's possible that the Arabs and Jews could have coexisted if it wasn't for the Zionist movement. After all, Christians, Muslims and Jews were all getting along in the area before the Zionist takeover.
  8. tstrimp

    GNU ownership, Software - an everywhere epidemic

    But are you a responsible gnu owner?     Responsible gnu owners aren't the problem. It's the crazy gnu user who ruin it for everyone. We have to weigh the responsible gnu owners rights vs the overall benefit to society.
  9. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

    You're right about their support. I was referring to this vote.  
  10. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

    The sequence of events really aren't that cut and dried. The land making up Israel and Palestine was primarily Arab (83% Arab, 11% Christian, 5% Jew). They had been living there for hundreds of years. In 1917 the British released a letter stating the intention of creating a home for the Jews in Palestine. This was done for political reasons as a way of keeping the US and Russia involved in WW1. Based on the promise of a permanent home in Palestine, Jews began flooding into the region. This naturally increased tension and conflict between the Jews and Arabs. This is also why you had Palestinian Arabs reaching out to Axis powers and not supporting the British during WW2. Why would they fight for the country who wanted to forcibly take their land and give it to the Jewish immigrants? In 1947 the UN released the map of their plan to break up the Mandate of Palestine into Jew and Arab controlled sections, with the Jews getting over half of the area. Why the hell would anyone expect the Arabs in to just accept that? This tipped off the Civil War of 1947. This was largely a series of terrorist attacks from both sides. Arabs attacking buses, Jews bombing crowded markets. Nasty stuff. This is also what lead to the blockade of Jerusalem. It wasn't done in a vacuum or without provocation. It wasn't until the British gave up and fled (after being attacked by Jews and Arabs alike), and the Jews made their Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel that other Arab nations invaded. Since then the condition and treatment of Gaza is downright criminal. You have war refugees literally backed into a corner with no escape and they are fighting back the only way they know how. The US is the only country who opposes holding Israel responsible for their war crimes. As I said before, the continued blind support of Israel is a huge problem.   For the comparison to be apt, we would had to have taken all the land the US currently occupies from Canada and forced them into an area about the size of Delaware and not let them leave. Oh, we would also have to repeatedly bulldoze their houses and farmland. It's these actions which allow groups like Hamas to flourish.
  11. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

    I admit, I let these things bother me more than I should and tend to lash out at people. I see people like conquestor3 who completely ignore data or throw out things like "correlation doesn't equal causation" every time there is information presented contrary to their world view. I am okay with ignorance (to a degree), but quickly get fed up with willful ignorance.   Just quick FYI, I never said that.   I completely agree. It will never happen however. That's one of the things that the anti-gun control crowd will never compromise on because of their fear that the government is going to come take away their guns. The only way that their guns are safe is if the government doesn't know they have them. You could come up with a dozen rational gun control ideas and they would shoot every one down. See my previous post, this is not a group who compromises. They believe their right to guns is sacrosanct regardless of the harm to the rest of society.   97% of food stamp benefits reach eligible Americans in appropriate amounts. I'm okay with putting more of my tax dollars towards a program which has a 3% abuse rate (assuming all 3% is abuse) and which nearly half the recipients are children.     This is an inevitable consequence of First Past the Post Voting and will never change unless we can somehow change how elections and voting works here.   Of course it is. It's just one of many way the Obama presidency has been disappointing. Many would argue that he didn't have a choice because money is what wins elections, but you know that all of those large donations come with strings.   What's the alternative? Single payer is all but impossible for us because of the Republican's irrational fear of "socialism". The status quo before Obamacare was unacceptable, and there are appreciable differences in health outcomes for the poor under ACA. Changes in Self-reported Insurance Coverage, Access to Care, and Health Under the Affordable Care Act It's not perfect. Far from it, but it's better than the situation we had before.   Again, health and access outcomes are improved for the poor. They are less likely to be financially ruined by a health issue. That alone should contribute to their economic wellbeing. Overall, people seem to be pretty satisfied with what they are getting now.   No arguments there. When Republicans and Obama can agree on something, you know it's bad news.   No, Iran is not allowed to inspect itself Again. What's the alternative? This was a large multi-national agreement. If the US just backs out at the end, do you think Russia and China will as well? No. They want their oil as well. Besides, the sanctions on Iran largely hurt the wrong people. Their poverty rate nearly doubled, and I guarantee you their Ayatollah wasn't missing any meals. All it's doing is ensuring that the next generation of Iranians also support terrorism. Agreed. Especially when you consider: The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments   You don't throw out all organizations just because some of them are corrupt. Unions today are largely a joke because they have been destroyed by Republicans. As a result, our wages have stagnated and income inequality is higher than it has been since the great depression. We are the only advanced economy without mandatory paid vacation time. We are the only industrialized nation without guaranteed paid maternity leave. Also, you cannot be forced to join a union. The myth of compulsory union membership. The most they can do is force you to pay partial union dues which are only allowed to actually cover the provable cost of collective bargaining agreements.   His name is Bernie Sanders and he has been by far the most consistent and open candidate I've ever seen.   It's worth pointing out that Republicans set out from the beginning of the Obama presidency to make sure he was unable to accomplish anything. They had no plans to compromise on anything.   I appreciate that your pro-life views don't appear to be "pro-life". Meaning, your care for the fetus seems to actually extend beyond birth. However, that's still your belief, which is far from universal. I believe if you seriously want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, you are better off voting Democrat. After all, it's only the GOP who would choose not to fund a program which is shown to reduce teen pregnancy by 40%, abortion by 35% and save $7 in medicaid costs for every $1 spent on the program. Overall, progressive social and economic policies would have a far greater impact on reducing the number of abortions than defunding Planned Parenthood would.   Israel deserves a lot of the ire they receive. How exactly are Palestinians supposed to react when the international community decides to take over half their land and turn it into Israel? When they didn't agree to it and the first Arab - Israeli war broke out which culminated in Israel taking 60% more of the land which was originally supposed to be for Arabs and expelling 700,000 of them from their home. I suppose all that's okay because it's some prerequisite for Jesus to come take you to heaven. I will never approve of the unconditional support some Christians seem to give Israel.   Take a look at all the other votes before this. The Tea Party took over and is forcing the Republican party even further to the right. Boehner had to resign because he's not conservative enough. John McCain isn't conservative enough. The Republican party is in a race to the bottom right now. But hey... at least they pretend to value fetuses.
  12. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

    And what about the other study which showed that removing more lethal means of suicide (coal gas in the UK) reduces the overall suicide rate without significantly impacting suicide via other means? Maybe you just overlooked it, or maybe you chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view. Maybe you just think that changing from coal gas to a safer gas happened to coincide with a mass exodus from rural UK areas to the cities. How about this one? Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives?   Did all of those Australian residents also happen to move out of the rural areas and into the cities during this study?     If you want, I'll run through each of those positions quick.   Thanks for that. Although I wasn't referencing you specifically with those comments. That was directed at Servent of the Lord's comment that suggests that each side of the political spectrum was just as bad and compromises needed to be made on both sides.   ugh... don't get me started on this shit. They were investigated multiple times and there was NO evidence of wrong doing found. None. At all. The videos were heavily edited in order to make Planned Parenthood appear to be saying things they were not. This is nothing more than a witch hunt by the GOP pandering to their base. Furthermore, no, those funds are not better off going to other organizations. You have to remember who Planned Parenthood benefits the most. Poor young women. It's estimated that without those funds, up to 25% of the current patients would no longer have access to free or affordable heath care. This comes not just from lack of access to local facilities, but from overloading other clinics to the point that they would be unable to accept patients. Quite frankly it's a shame that we cannot use public funds for abortions. I understand that Christians are morally opposed to it, but we shouldn't legislate based on their religious belief. After all, I'm morally opposed to blowing up brown people with funny names in other countries, but I don't get a chance to block funding for that.   This is simply wrong. For the most part we have been suffering under the effects of supply side economics since Reagan. It has basically killed our middle class. More below...   Sure, we have the strongest economy in the world. How is it then that 30% of our children live in poverty? How is it that in a time of unprecedented corporate profits, wages have been stagnant for the last 40 years? Why is it that 99% of new income created goes to the top 1%? Why is it state and federal governments are giving tax cuts to the ultra wealthy and cutting basic services like food stamps and education? GM was the largest employer in the United States in the 70's and the average pay was around $50 / hour in today's dollars. Now, largely thanks to "free trade", deregulation, union busting and huge tax cuts our largest employer is Walmart which pays less than $10 / hour on average. The *only* people benefiting from our "strongest economy in the world" are the top 1%.     No, not correct. The major issues are the accusation of bias and the idea of a self ban, but I'll walk through each point for clarity.   The CDC funded the study, but didn't conduct it themselves. That's a minor point, so let's pass 1. For 2, the NRA did indeed cry bias. I still don't see what they are using as the basis of that claim aside from their dislike of the conclusion, but allege they did. An amendment got crammed into a bill, and there was not support/interest in tanking the whole bill because of it, so that's part of 3. The CDC chose not to risk violating the law, though not through a ban so much as not funding studies on gun violence, so that's 4.   The CDC stood by the Rivara paper, as did Dr. Rivara. The study successfully went through the peer review process for the New England Journal of Medicine, a very high-profile journal. It draws heavily on previously published studies. The paper itself seems pretty upfront to me about the approach used, its shortcomings, and potential sources of bias and how those concerns affect the results. The results themselves only suggest an association between having a gun in the home and higher risk of death, with a heavy emphasis on the complication of domestic violence. It doesn't even call for gun control! The strongest statement in it is that people should be discouraged from keeping guns in their homes because there's a net negative in terms of risk to residents vs. benefits against intruders.   The NRA shrieked bias, but I haven't found a specific piece they objected to, and I just don't see what they might have been referring to aside from a relatively mild conclusion that they wouldn't like. Without pointing to something specific, how could Rivara or the CDC rebut an accusation beyond standing behind the study? Which is what they did. What more, exactly ought they have done? And I'm talking about specific accusations to refute or actions to take, not a bland statement that "they didn't rebuke it".   I just wanted to emphasize this. The study done by the CDC was peer reviewed and accepted. The only claim to bias was from the NRA, who surely everyone can agree has an interest in suppressing information which would hurt their revenue. Millions of dollars spent on bribes lobbying can certainly buy a few friends in Congress who will take care of these pesky little PR problems for you though.
  13. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

      There was no self-imposed ban. You're making that up. If they do a study that finds certain gun control measures would reduce gun violence, or that as a society the guns are causing more harm than good, they are "advocating for gun control" and cannot publish. This is clearly an example of the NRA paying politicians to silence dissenting opinions. 
  14. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

        Suicide is often an impulse decision. Limiting access to things which can kill you in an instant will reduce the number of suicides. This has been shown in study after study and yet anti-gun control advocates continue to ignore it. You pretend that if guns magically disappeared tomorrow there would be no impact on the suicide rate, and that is simply wrong.    Means Matter   High gun ownership states have a firearm suicide rate of 9,749. Low ownership states have a firearm suicide rate of 2,606. If people would just use other methods, you would expect the non-firearm suicide rate to balance out. However the high gun ownership states have a non-firearm suicide rate of 5,060 and low gun ownership states have a rate of 5,446. So yes, it is a little higher non-firearm suicide rate, but the overall suicide rate is 46% lower when there is less access to guns.    Another example is the coal gas used in the UK.      This is the problem I have arguing with "you people". You debate with opinions and anecdotes rather than easily accessible data.      Not sub-human. Just wrong and prone to ignoring data. I've been there. I was a bootstrappy libertarian who loved guns and thought poor people were just lazy. After all, my parents were poor and I am doing great financially. I butted heads with LessBread about this sort of thing for quite a while. Then I started actually looking at the data instead of relying on personal anecdotes.      Sounds like you think both sides are equally bad. I went through that phase too, but it really requires a lot of mental gymnastics to justify Republican stances. They are wrong on abortion, gay rights, minimum wage, social programs to help the poor, tax rates, immigration, voting rights, campaign funding, education, unions, health care... the list keeps going. Their economic policies have been tried for the last 40 years and have lead to the huge income gap we have today. Instead of learning from failed policies and changing tactics, they double down. Somehow more tax cuts for the rich is going to mean more income for the bottom 99% of the country. If you think a little compromise would solve all our problems, then you should definitely be blaming Republicans.      After all, Republicans have God behind them so they can't be wrong and cannot compromise. Just take a look at the Republican Senate which is the most obstructionist we have ever seen. They clearly are not a party interested in any sort of compromise. They have blocked almost every single Obama appointee. At one point there was a backlog of over 100 appointees waiting for confirmation causing a vacancy crisis in federal courts. Republicans have filibustered more of Obama's nominees than all other presidents combined. Please stop pretending like both sides are equally bad. 
  15. tstrimp

    GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

      The cautiously low minimum is 108k, not 500k. The difference in injury rate between armed resistance and no resistance is negligible according to the study. That is, there is a very slightly lower chance of injury if you resist with a gun than if you hadn't resisted at all. That hardly seems like a glowing indorcement when you consider how many innocent lives are lost due to the prevalence of guns.      I seriously wish you people would stop with this FUD. The ONLY people talking about banning guns in the country are the anti-gun control crowd. It's a scare tactic designed to derail rational gun control discussion.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!