Jump to content

Kalamazoo shootings


Crazy Lee
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

They're not, but are you? So you even have your own surveillance power? Or do you think that it should only remain with Google, Facebook, and police?

I don't have the surveillance power unless you mean my phone camera ;P

You're putting words in my mouth; I didn't say such powers should only remain with big companies and government, rather that they're the ones big enough to be able to have such a massive surveillance network in the first place.

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Seriously, how do you guys read "private individuals" and interpret that as "companies?" Are you guys so brainwashed by society that you believe you are not an individual, but some part of a social collective, like Borg or something, and when you hear "private" you immediately think evil individualists and corporations? This is mind boggling!

I think he means that while data collection is theoretically available to all, in practice most of it can only be accessed by the big guys (obviously individuals can access stats on their sites for example but not the "big picture", at least not to the same level of detail as intelligence agencies, corporations, etc). I'm not condoning such abuse of data collection, merely saying how it is.

It's like how free trade agreements (TTIP, TPP, etc) allow big and small businesses to sue governments for laws that interfere with profit-taking (health regulations? Oh no!) but in practice only big businesses would have the legal departments able to take on entire governments and bury them in paperwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

I don't have the surveillance power unless you mean my phone camera ;P

You're putting words in my mouth; I didn't say such powers should only remain with big companies and government, rather that they're the ones big enough to be able to have such a massive surveillance network in the first place.

Well, I'm saying that it would be good if people had their own cheap surveillance options, even on drones, since those work even better than guns as deterrents (somewhat), but I'm being argued against as if it's a terrible idea because Facebook and Google. Not sure how to take that. We don't need big mass surveillance for every person. Just enough to cover what happens in their own personal lives, and with enough protection and encryption that no one else can get to it. I just think that personal drones that follow you and record you and what others do with you would be a cool thing, and noticeable enough to make others think twice before doing anything bad. Like how police tend to behave better when on camera.

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

This idea is so obviously different from having police protection, because the police aren't armed to kill or maim [in my nation anyway]

Yeah, different situation entirely in US, Mexico, all of South America, some of Europe, all of Eastern Europe... Have to remember that when I talk about stuff, I'm not talking about my neighborhood, where we don't even see police unless someone gets pulled over for doing 45 in a 35. There are places where people don't have the luxuries we do, and much of the tech I'm interested is mainly to help those.

I do wonder, would your police be allowed to be armed of austerity measures got too tight and riots formed? Or if there was some major terrorist attack like in US that government used as an excuse to clamp down on security to "keep everyone safe?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rassah said:

Seriously, how do you guys read "private individuals" and interpret that as "companies?" Are you guys so brainwashed by society that you believe you are not an individual, but some part of a social collective, like Borg or something, and when you hear "private" you immediately think evil individualists and corporations? This is mind boggling!

Actually I'm not sure how I read what you said.
But I was referring to data collection by companies like Facebook, where they take personal info and sell it to advertisers... they collect every little bit of info about you and give it to advertisers on their site, and big data collectors. That's a form of surveillance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

If you really think other people would behave better if they know they're being watched, body cameras would be a substantially cheaper alternative, which is much less likely to result in unmanned vehicles armed with lethal payloads crashing into each other or falling out of the sky. 

The technology will improve and get cheaper over time. While body cams are cheaper, they only catch the small 1st person view in front of them. Drones give a full 3rd person view, can move to get better angles, can even hide and evade attacks (someone bashes you where the camera is and breaking it, vs drone watching you get bashed, seeing who did it, and recording you being stuffed in a van and recording the licence plate for instance), and unlike just cameras can also move in to protect you if needed. Think of a rapist going after women who might have cameras and wearing a ski mask, vs going after women who might have tactical drones that have AI, can recognize at attack, and can tazer and tag him for police to find him later.

Plus I just think drones are awesome.

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

Regards armed police in the UK, you can look that up if you're genuinely interested. There are special riot police, marksmen units and counter terrorist forces, they're just not your every-day police;

Oh, shit! I should commit seppuku for forgetting all that in Hot Fuzz :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Butters said:

there's lots of gun suicides and accidental gun deaths too though. 

So.. what
Ban these things because sometimes people kill themselves with them accidentally or intetionally?
Bring back prohibition! People become alcoholics and drink themselves to death!
I know someone who abused methadone patches, fell asleep with one on his tongue and died. Ban these! Nobody who uses them responsibly should have one!
Ban razorblades!
Ban cars, sometimes people crash and die accidentally, or intentionally crash to kill themselves!

Edited by Gamedog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gamedog said:

So.. what
Ban these things because sometimes people kill themselves with them accidentally or intetionally?
Bring back prohibition! People become alcoholics and drink themselves to death!
I know someone who abused methadone patches, fell asleep with one on his tongue and died. Ban these! Nobody who uses them responsibly should have one!
Ban razorblades!
Ban cars, sometimes people crash and die accidentally, or intentionally crash to kill themselves!

Nobody is banning guns in America. That is just a right wing knee jerk response to regulation of them. They are trying to make it harder for ex-criminals and mentally ill people from having them. 

And actually we do have a lot of unnecessary car death in America (and pollution caused by them too) and I'd be much happier with a greater public transport system. :3 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Butters said:

Nobody is banning guns in America. That is just a right wing knee jerk response to regulation of them. They are trying to make it harder for ex-criminals and mentally ill people from having them. 

And actually we do have a lot of unnecessary car death in America (and pollution caused by them too) and I'd be much happier with a greater public transport system. :3 

People are constantly calling for a ban on guns. Guns already are regulated, we don't need more regulation.
Ex-criminals and mentally ill people already can't have them.

What do you know about guns, exactly?? I don't even live in your country and it sounds like I know more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People always talk about "common sense" gun laws. Problem being no one has any idea what that means. I own several guns, including the evil AR-15. I will agree that the call for more legislation is a knee jerk reaction to bad things that happen, but even more than that, I would say it's the news media that's making it a bigger issue. You can look at the FBIs web sight where they track nationwide violent crime rate, and see that its gone down significantly in the past decade -and since the 1994 assault weapons ban was repealed in 2004 by the way- I find it interesting that so many people think guns are the bane of a healthy society when so many preventable issues still remain unchallenged.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gamedog said:

People are constantly calling for a ban on guns. Guns already are regulated, we don't need more regulation.
Ex-criminals and mentally ill people already can't have them.

What do you know about guns, exactly?? I don't even live in your country and it sounds like I know more.

 

A bit since I've been to gun ranges. ;3 God, I hate the noise though. 

And there is a gunshow loophole that allows people who shouldn't have them, to get them. That's gotta stop. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mr.Kumquat said:

People always talk about "common sense" gun laws. Problem being no one has any idea what that means. I own several guns, including the evil AR-15. I will agree that the call for more legislation is a knee jerk reaction to bad things that happen, but even more than that, I would say it's the news media that's making it a bigger issue. You can look at the FBIs web sight where they track nationwide violent crime rate, and see that its gone down significantly in the past decade -and since the 1994 assault weapons ban was repealed in 2004 by the way- I find it interesting that so many people think guns are the bane of a healthy society when so many preventable issues still remain unchallenged.  

I tried to bring this up in the wake of a shooting that happened last year. The responses I got basically boiled down to: Humans are violent, and will kill each other naturally, ergo we should ban guns to prevent the violence; You don't really suggest how we should fix those other issues, ergo we should ban guns because there's a way to fix those issues; and some other bogus reasons that basically came back to banning guns. 

It's like all anyone wants to talk about in these situations is to ban or not to ban, and not "What else can we do to reduce the chance of violent crime?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Butters said:

And there is a gunshow loophole that allows people who shouldn't have them, to get them. That's gotta stop. 

Absolutely false. Gunshow vendors are required to go through the same possess as a gun store. Same with online dealers, you still need the background check and paperwork from an FFL holder. The only time you don't is if you are buying or selling a gun you or the other person already has. State dependent, of course.  Love or hate them, visit the NRA websight, they do have a wealth of information regarding gun laws on a state by state basis.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Butters said:

A bit since I've been to gun ranges. ;3 God, I hate the noise though. 

And there is a gunshow loophole that allows people who shouldn't have them, to get them. That's gotta stop. 

Being to gun ranges doesn't mean you know anything about the laws pertaining to gun ownership. You can get into a gun range with a friend who has guns. 

Do you have a gun license? Have you gone through the process of obtaining one?

23 minutes ago, Mr.Kumquat said:

Absolutely false. Gunshow vendors are required to go through the same possess as a gun store. Same with online dealers, you still need the background check and paperwork from an FFL holder. The only time you don't is if you are buying or selling a gun you or the other person already has. State dependent, of course.  Love or hate them, visit the NRA websight, they do have a wealth of information regarding gun laws on a state by state basis.

^this

a lot of people cite columbine for an example of how lax gun checks are, without doing any research about what actually happened (Dylan knew a girl who could purchase guns and they befriended her because Dylan liked her, she bought guns at a convention and illegally gave them to the guys)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

Being to gun ranges doesn't mean you know anything about the laws pertaining to gun ownership. You can get into a gun range with a friend who has guns. 

Do you have a gun license? Have you gone through the process of obtaining one?

Having a license is irrelevant. I got my first gun in Alaska where no license is needed to buy, sell, or carry. Now I live in Washington, where no license is required to buy or sell, just concealed carry. And even the carry permit here is just fill out some paperwork and wait for a month or so. The one point i do agree on with most of the anti-gun people, is how if you are going to own one, you should really know what you're doing. I've been to too many ranges where someone that's never held a gun before thought they were dirty harry and shot a .44 mag into the ceiling. Even then, I still think it is up to the individual to learn how to safely and legally handle firearms. I've even heard of a guy that made a short barreled AR-15 without knowing the required tax stamp and paperwork for it. Yeah, that's 10 years in federal prison for being an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Given that you know some people don't handle their lethal weapons with the correct safety and legal preconditions, maybe it's silly to suggest that safe and legal handling should be self taught. 

In fact, you've constructed a very good argument to say that you should not be able to attain a license for a gun until you have demonstrated that you will be a safe handler of legal weapons. 

I think people that can't understand they're dealing with a thing that can injure or kill them self or others if misused absolutely should not be able to own one. I think even the strongest supporters of the second amendment would agree. I also think you can in fact be self taught to a point that exceeds even the most strict current requirements.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

So, to clarify, you support requiring people to pass formal exams to show they satisfy at least minimal safety requirements?

I see no problem with it. So long as formal classes are not a requirement. Anyone can search the internet or ask someone at a gun store for info or advise. Also if a test is needed, I would assume it would be for a permit. If a permit is required, I see no use for subsequent checks after it is issued, just run the permit number. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

IGetting safety advice for a firearm off the internet is one route by which shoddy or wrong safety practices spread. :\

Type "firearm safety" into Youtube and tell me how much shoddy information you get. You'll get tips from professional instructors and competitors. It's a better resource than you're giving it credit for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

People studying for their driving exams are required to attend formal lessons called 'essential driving training'; they're not allowed to merely turn up to their exams and say 'I learned my driving theory off of youtube'. 

So suggesting this for deadly weapons is...really fucking silly. 

I got my driving licence in Germany by reading a pamphlet and taking a short multiple choice test later the same day. I think you underestimate people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Saxon said:

So in Germany you're required to complete a first aid course and eye exam before being given a driver's license, along with mandatory attendance of driving school, where the content and number of lessons is legally enforced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_licence_in_Germany#Obtaining_a_driver.27s_licence

 

So you're either lying, or you already held a driver's license from another country, which Germany recognises. 

I was Military at the time, and the pamphlet was pretty much learn the test answers. Good ol' government required testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Saxon said:

This indicates you took your driving test illegally, then. :\ 

You should have been required to perform lessons in the dark, inner city, pass a first aid course, eye exam and so forth. 

Did you actually just fill out a multiple choice test...you weren't even required to sit in the car with an instructor to pass your practical before being given a license?

 

My state test was the typical written and practical exam. My test in Germany was multiple choice only. Know what doesn't prepare you for driving in Germany? Driving in the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Saxon said:

So you already had a license, like I suggested? and yet you didn't mention this earlier?

 

To return to the argument, obviously learning about your driving skills on youtube is a shitty idea; you have to have real training. Same with firearms. 

 

Driving is also more complex, with more rules and skill needed to drive safely. Firearm safety has 4 rules, you can easily learn them from a power point slideshow, and practice them in your living room with a toy. Only way to learn how to drive a car is to drive a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

You've contradicted your earlier arguments, that people don't need formal lessons to learn to drive and that believing so is to 'underestimate them', by the way. 

 

It's fair to ask that people who want to get a gun license have trained with the real deal, not a toy in their living room. 

Never said people didn't need to practice driving, and the underestimating comment was directed at peoples ability to learn basic things without going to a classroom. 

 

Let's say every purchase of a firearm requires various permits and classes with law enforcement registration to get those permits. Would it be fair that buying a gun should be as easy as buying a car? No background checks, waiting periods, etc? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2016 at 2:12 AM, Butters said:

I'd be much happier with a greater public transport system. :3 

Then stop supporting government roads and government subsidies on gasoline. Reason we can't have a decent public transportation is cause it can't compete with free roads.

 

Regarding guns, I feel I need to remind people again that banning guns requires more guns, and the end result isn't actually a ban on guns, but centralization of guns among the most powerful in our society. Can't say that never led to bad outcomes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2016 at 4:37 AM, Rassah said:

Well, I'm saying that it would be good if people had their own cheap surveillance options, even on drones, since those work even better than guns as deterrents (somewhat), but I'm being argued against as if it's a terrible idea because Facebook and Google. Not sure how to take that. We don't need big mass surveillance for every person. Just enough to cover what happens in their own personal lives, and with enough protection and encryption that no one else can get to it. I just think that personal drones that follow you and record you and what others do with you would be a cool thing, and noticeable enough to make others think twice before doing anything bad. Like how police tend to behave better when on camera.

Every person having their own surveillance drone covering everything around them sounds like "big mass surveillance for every person" to me.

Also as someone else mentioned, people already have devices that can record events such as cameras in phones. A drone for every person sounds like a ridiculously expensive and impractical idea, methinks you've seen too much sci-fi stuff (so have I, but I'm not assuming we'll have anything like that in the near future).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rassah said:

Then stop supporting government roads and government subsidies on gasoline. Reason we can't have a decent public transportation is cause it can't compete with free roads.

 

 

You should come by South Carolina and see our roads. They are anything but "supported". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Butters said:

You should come by South Carolina and see our roads. They are anything but "supported". 

For some reason I thought you were british.

What part of SC? West side, east side? Near Greenville, Columbia, or Charleston?

It's funny because after voting I was chatting with my city council member outside and decided to use the time to complain about a certain stretch of road that floods after every rain. He said they were aware of it, but didn't have enough money to fund it. It would need at least $4 million and they only got $300k a year in road budget. Which made me wonder: A) why the fuck are roads so expensive? B) Why the fuck do we only get $300k a year in road budget for the city? How the fuck are you supposed to keep up with road repair on that?! When did this government become so dysfunctional?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Every person having their own surveillance drone covering everything around them sounds like "big mass surveillance for every person" to me.

When I think "big mass surveillance," I think spying on everybody. In this case, it's only on the people an individual comes in contact with. So while there would be a lot of surveillance, it would be distributed and compartmentalized to individuals.

22 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

A drone for every person sounds like a ridiculously expensive and impractical idea, methinks you've seen too much sci-fi stuff

A super computer with instant access to the world's information and a camera that can take photos consisting of tens of millions of pixels, in everyone's pocket, sounds ridiculously expensive and sci-fi too if you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

For some reason I thought you were british.

What part of SC? West side, east side? Near Greenville, Columbia, or Charleston?

It's funny because after voting I was chatting with my city council member outside and decided to use the time to complain about a certain stretch of road that floods after every rain. He said they were aware of it, but didn't have enough money to fund it. It would need at least $4 million and they only got $300k a year in road budget. Which made me wonder: A) why the fuck are roads so expensive? B) Why the fuck do we only get $300k a year in road budget for the city? How the fuck are you supposed to keep up with road repair on that?! When did this government become so dysfunctional?

Well, the british thing is understandable. I've been living in England for 6 months. Just got home a few months ago. Grew up in the shadow of Greenville, now I'm roasting in the capital. xD (Which has some vague gay scene but of course can't rival Charleston's) 

The easy answer (in my opinion) is that we have too many idiots who keep voting in people who are bad with money. There was a roundabout that cost a million dollars back in the upstate and was considered cheaper than installing a new red light. A million dollars!!! It boggles the mind. To go from England's fantastic public transport back to our pothole invested roads was a huge eye opener to say the least. 

It's really sad. The cars that drive on those roads get so damaged, you almost want to bike just to save some cash. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

When I think "big mass surveillance," I think spying on everybody. In this case, it's only on the people an individual comes in contact with. So while there would be a lot of surveillance, it would be distributed and compartmentalized to individuals.

That still sounds like a more expensive version of carrying a camera phone with you.

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

A super computer with instant access to the world's information and a camera that can take photos consisting of tens of millions of pixels, in everyone's pocket, sounds ridiculously expensive and sci-fi too if you think about it.

Fine, I'll clarify my point then. While it's theoretically possible for everyone to have their own personal drone it is impractical to do so due to their expense and impracticality of crowding airspace with billions of drones flying a few meters above the users.

That is why I said it was in the realm of science fiction. I can't believe that I even have to explain why this idea is ridiculous and in the realm of science fiction to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Butters said:

Well, the british thing is understandable. I've been living in England for 6 months. Just got home a few months ago. Grew up in the shadow of Greenville, now I'm roasting in the capital. xD (Which has some vague gay scene but of course can't rival Charleston's) 

The easy answer (in my opinion) is that we have too many idiots who keep voting in people who are bad with money. There was a roundabout that cost a million dollars back in the upstate and was considered cheaper than installing a new red light. A million dollars!!! It boggles the mind. To go from England's fantastic public transport back to our pothole invested roads was a huge eye opener to say the least. 

It's really sad. The cars that drive on those roads get so damaged, you almost want to bike just to save some cash. 

I'm not even sure how a roundabout would be cheaper. Installing a red light would require just placing poles, wires, and control box, unless they had to repave the entire intersection. A roundabout, however, requires realigning and repaving the ENTIRE intersection.

I had family that lived in Anderson for most of their lives. Then they moved to Charleston a decade ago, and now live outside of Greenville. All nice places, but I loved Charleston the most, that city is absolutely beautiful. Best southern city.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

That still sounds like a more expensive version of carrying a camera phone with you.

Camera phones take some time to pull out and start. Why do all Russians and Eastern Europeans have dashboard cameras in their cars? They all have camera phones too, but they're inadequate somehow...

21 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Fine, I'll clarify my point then. While it's theoretically possible for everyone to have their own personal drone it is impractical to do so due to their expense and impracticality of crowding airspace with billions of drones flying a few meters above the users.

You said "their expense" before and I already said that things get cheaper to the point of being ridiculously cheap over time (a smart phone can be had for $25 now). Why would there be billions? It's just a drone per person, and only for those who want them. Also, you're probably imagining drones the size of quadcopters that we use now, like AR.Drone and DJI Phantom. Don't. Think Aerius, or even MAV's. We're only a few decades away from being able to create tiny swarms of tiny flying machines that would look like a cloud that doesn't obscure the sky, can quickly navigate to avoid obstacles or part to let things through, and can be made very cheaply from a home 3D printer. Which does sound like sci-fi, but the crude versions of that technology is already here (it's fun to work in the cutting edge tech market).

Edited by Rassah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Camera phones take some time to pull out and start. Why do all Russians and Eastern Europeans have dashboard cameras in their cars? They all have camera phones too, but they're inadequate somehow...

Sounds like it would be more practical to mount a camera or two on your shoulder than use a drone in that case.

45 minutes ago, Rassah said:

You said "their expense" before and I already said that things get cheaper to the point of being ridiculously cheap over time (a smart phone can be had for $25 now). Why would there be billions? It's just a drone per person, and only for those who want them. Also, you're probably imagining drones the size of quadcopters that we use now, like AR.Drone and DJI Phantom. Don't. Think Aerius, or even MAV's. We're only a few decades away from being able to create tiny swarms of tiny flying machines that would look like a cloud that doesn't obscure the sky, can quickly navigate to avoid obstacles or part to let things through, and can be made very cheaply from a home 3D printer. Which does sound like sci-fi, but the crude versions of that technology is already here (it's fun to work in the cutting edge tech market).

So basically you're saying all this wonderful stuff may be prevalent in a few decades. I was focusing more so on the now and near future (next couple of years).

3949834600_0a7487f402_b1.jpg

(Couldn't resist)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...