Court reporter fined for courting reporting in court reporting.



  • I don't think fear causes people to own firearms in the U.S. It's the culture, especially in the rural areas I'm from. Everyone owns guns because that's what you do. And a lot of people get involved in hunting, plinking, collecting, sometimes even sport shooting competitions. Very few of these people are worried about being crime victims.

    I can't personally vouch for the big cities though, but I would guess that their much higher violent crime rate compared to rural areas means people are more likely to want firearms for personal protection.



  • I shouldn't be on the internet after the pub.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Did the banks groom girls to be raped and then rape them?

    You tell me.

    @boomzilla said:

    ... it's pretty tedious to call everyone who disagrees with you a hater.

    I'm against hate, therefore people who disagree with my view on this are, by definition, haters.

    It's a logical conclusion to refer to them as such. I don't have to hate hate or haters, but I can certainly reject it as a source of reasoning or scientific thinking. Hate should be relevant only to the beholder. It should be their responsibility to take action in spite of their emotional problems. If that means seeing a psychiatrist or counsellor, it's their own business.

    Immigrants are human beings who bring money into the economy. Even a psychopath can understand money, but the rest of what I hear is about their strange customs and variations on "but they're different to us", so yes I dismiss anti-immigration sentiments as hate, because the reasons presented in favour of putting them at fault have been weak and the reasons against aren't.



  • @Intercourse said:

    That is just a fucking idiotic statement. So you are saying that if a person is suicidal, they are going to take the time to go to their local sporting goods or gun store and plunk down a few hundred dollars, go back home and do the deed? You did not think that through, did you?

    Two responses:

    First, I'm saying that if I were suicidal, then yes, that's exactly what I'm most likely to do. Now, I'm not suicidal and so there's already a pretty important disconnect between my mind and that of someone who is... but at least to me, the other, obstinately-easier alternatives are some combination of more painful and/or (in my guess as to the relative risks) have the CO problem I mentioned above (too likely to fail in a way that leaves me crippled).

    Second, good work: you picked up on exactly my biggest point, which is that having a gun immediately available dramatically lowers the bar for suicidal impulses.

    @Intercourse said:

    But this is the same kind of bullshit, cherry-picking statistics to suit your needs that I see all the time. I think it was Mother Jones (what a waste of paper that hunk of shit is) that showed gun deaths in the US and included suicides, people killed by police AND those who were shot by people defending themselves legitimately. They inflated their numbers roughly 10X by careful cherry-picking.
    Is that better or worse than accusing someone of citing bad statistics when they didn't actually provide a link?

    Did you even read what I wrote? All I'm saying is that not considering the effect of gun legislation on suicides at all only makes sense if you don't care whether people commit suicide, because "well they'll just do it another way" is an overly-simplistic approximation. (Gun advocates seem to often make the same mistake with murder too...) Maybe the statistics would say that the effect is minimal. Maybe they'd say it's important. I don't know; I've only heard info secondhand and not evaluated it myself. But you can't just say "let's ignore suicides."

    @Squiggle said:

    tl;dr: You can't gun if you don't have a gun; low crime rate means fewer shootings; America is weird; Europeans don't care.
    I actually think there's something important here. Which is that it's very possible that both systems ("everyone has a gun" and "no one can legally buy a gun") can work depending on the situation, or even hypothetically even in the same situation with some weird halfway thing working worse than being at either end.

    In other words, you might be able to simultaneously (1) take a country with strict gun control and low violence, loosen the regulations, and see violent crime rise as a result and (2) take a country with very loose gun control and low violence, tighten the regulations, and see violent crime rise as a result. Or you could take a country that has middling regulations and either tighten or loosen its restrictions and see violence drop as a result.

    I'm not saying necessarily that is the case, and even less so that it'd be the case in the US, but if someone came out with a pretty convincing study showing those, I wouldn't be exactly surprised. I also think that what works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work here, because of the US's history of things like the Wild West and such where you really did need guns. I think that plays into the culture even today.



  • If a discussion on The Daily WTF goes on long enough (usually for 10 posts), sooner or later someone will turn it into a debate of USA vs. Europe or¹ Liberal vs. Conservative.

    Did someone trademark this law yet?

    [1] Inclusive or


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Shoreline said:

    so yes I dismiss anti-immigration sentiments as hate

    OK, so you're a hater in your own way. Fair enough.

    @Squiggle said:

    To put this into perspective, we just don't have this sort of debate in Europe.

    IGNORANCE IS BLISS

    @Squiggle said:

    America is weird; Europeans don't care.

    They don't care so much that they love to tell us how weird we are all the time. You're right, at least, in that they don't care enough to know much about the subject matter of their non-caring opinions.


  • BINNED

    @Squiggle said:

    The USA is a bit of an edge case in most statistics. High gun ownership, relatively lawful, but what sets it apart is the fear of violent crime is disproportionate to the crime rate.

    It's complicated. We've always had high gun ownership here, but we haven't always had high gun crime (really only in the past 100 years), and mass shootings (at least those not related to drugs or gangs) are a relatively recent phenomenon.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @mott555 said:

    Very few of these people are worried about being crime victims.

    That's probably largely to do with it not being an urban slum.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @antiquarian said:

    but we haven't always had high gun crime (really only in the past 100 years), and mass shootings (at least those not related to drugs or gangs) are a relatively recent phenomenon.

    And statistics show that violent crime rates are at their lowest rates in years and continue to go down, while people still keep freaking out saying the exact opposite. Just because the news reports it more sensationally, does not mean that it is not getting better.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I really don't follow UK politics, but in the US, anti-immigration sentiments are often dismissed as hate, too. I guess some people probably are hating the brown man, but it's pretty tedious to call everyone who disagrees with you a hater.

    The entire immigration debate is tedious and wrong-headed to begin with, because nobody is addressing the Byzantine nightmare that following the immigration laws has become. News flash: how do you expect individual citizens to follow laws that are so complex even entities with armies of lawyers on the payroll can't figure them out?



  • @tarunik said:

    News flash: how do you expect individual citizens to follow laws that are so complex even entities with armies of lawyers on the payroll can't figure them out?

    I'm not personally familiar with US immigration, but there are people who successfully do it, so it can't be impossible.


  • BINNED

    @tarunik said:

    how do you expect individual citizens to follow laws that are so complex even entities with armies of lawyers on the payroll can't figure them out?

    Actually, they don't. Laws of that complexity are not made to be followed, they are made to be broken. If everyone's guilty, then you can arrest whoever you want, or to be more precise, whoever is causing you the most trouble or would give you the most reputation for future positions.



  • @antiquarian said:

    Actually, they don't. Laws of that complexity are not made to be followed, they are made to be broken. If everyone's guilty, then you can arrest whoever you want, or to be more precise, whoever is causing you the most trouble or would give you the most reputation for future positions.
    That's pretty much any of our laws... driving laws, pedestrian laws... none of them are enforced so much as it's just up to officer "discretion". Discretion is an important thing, but for laws that are rarely enforced, it creates a "ha-ha, I got you since I don't like you" sorta thing.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    That's pretty much any of our laws... driving laws, pedestrian laws... none of them are enforced so much as it's just up to officer "discretion".

    AIUI, traffic law isn't that complicated, thankfully! (Save for a few pieces of buggy statute that pop up in various places from time to time, that is...)

    The main problem is that cops don't really know anything about the laws they are tasked to enforce. Traffic example: ticketing someone for driving 15mph faster than the advisory speed posted for a curve, yet still under the speed limit.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @tarunik said:

    The main problem is that cops don't really know anything about the laws they are tasked to enforce. Traffic example: ticketing someone for driving 15mph faster than the advisory speed posted for a curve, yet still under the speed limit.

    But don't most states have some sort of "not safe in conditions" or whatever that they can use to justify that sort of thing? Well, you might beat the ticket if you bothered to show up and contest it I guess.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Sutherlands said:

    If you have a gun pointed at someone, you can very easily stop them before 21 feet (depending on caliber).

    I'm glad you added that parenthetical. I'd also add "and depending on your aim." You hit someone with a pair of .45 slugs low in the chest, he might not stop as fast as you'd like.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @EvanED said:

    Having ready access to a gun doesn't just raise the suicide rate by gun... it raises the suicide rate period. (I don't have time to look for a citation now.)

    Right, but Sutherlands probably was pointing out, it increases "the likelihood you'll wind up dead if you have a gun in the home" if you're the kind of dishonest person American gun grabbers are.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @hungrier said:

    I'm not personally familiar with US immigration, but there are people who successfully do it, so it can't be impossible.

    I believe he meant laws in general, not immigration law.

    BUt for that matter, is it fair to all the legal immigrants who have to take 10-15 years and spend tens of thousands of dollars to become citizens, when anyone with brown skin[1] can basically walk over the southern border and get all the benefits of citizenship?

    [1] and most likely the other colors.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Would all y'all please stop fucking with the title so I don't keep getting spurious notifications?



  • @boomzilla said:

    But don't most states have some sort of "not safe in conditions" or whatever that they can use to justify that sort of thing? Well, you might beat the ticket if you bothered to show up and contest it I guess.

    Assume severe clear/dry conditions -- my recollection is that was the case in the situation I am referencing, as well.



  • @hungrier said:

    I'm not personally familiar with US immigration, but there are people who successfully do it, so it can't be impossible.

    I'm not saying it's impossible; I know folks who have done it. I'm saying it's a real nasty piece of dickery that can backfire on you in the weirdest ways.

    Filed under: such as stranding you in India when you have a job to get back to



  • @boomzilla said:

    OK, so you're a hater in your own way. Fair enough.

    Nope.


  • BINNED

    @FrostCat said:

    Would all y'all please stop fucking with the title so I don't keep getting spurious notifications?

    You must be new here.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @antiquarian said:

    You must be new here.

    har de har. I figured asking quirkily might work, out of surprise.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    That was a dick move, @Intercourse (Why did the autocomplete suggest you and @chubertdev after three characters ⁉)


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    Once we know it annoys someone, we do it more. It is like putting blood in a shark tank.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Intercourse said:

    Once we know it annoys someone, we do it more.

    Yes, well, everyone else stopped when I asked.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    One and done for me. I have never changed a topic title before.

    Now...to go seek out threads that @blakeyrat has started...



  • But Liberal and European are thought to mean same thing in many ways here.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @FrostCat said:

    Why did the autocomplete suggest you and @chubertdev after three characters


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Shoreline said:

    Nope.

    Ah, yes, then the denial sets in.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @tarunik said:

    Assume severe clear/dry conditions -- my recollection is that was the case in the situation I am referencing, as well.

    Right, but he could still claim it was unsafe for that strip of road.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @PJH said:

    FrostCat:
    Why did the autocomplete suggest you and @chubertdev after three characters

    TDEMSY[1]R!

    [1]Discurse, of course.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    It does if you look at what's actually in the list: - it's looking at the username first then the user's name second:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @PJH said:

    It does if you look at what's actually in the list: - it's looking at the username first then the user's name second

    I can see how someone might want that. Someone who's retarded and can't remember a person's user name but only their long-form name. But I still think it's stupid.

    What do you think, @CodingHorrorBot?


  • kills Dumbledore

    Twitter is similarly annoying with the way it prioritises "Real" names instead of the usernames that are actually unique and can be used to @mention people.



  • Too bad it doesn't work with my fullwidth letters.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @aliceif said:

    Too bad it doesn't work with my fullwidth letters.

    I was actually considering mentioning that and other forms of abuse, but then I decided most forums won't have to consider that use case.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Ah, yes, then the denial sets in.

    Hi, my name is Shoreline, and I am a hater.

    Hi Shoreline

    It's been 7 days since my last hate. I'm just taking it one day at a time.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Right, but he could still claim it was unsafe for that strip of road.

    And then you take him out in a modern vehicle with a ball-bank inclinometer and show him the folly of his ways.



  • @anonymous234 said:

    I always found the US legal system very confusing. Having things that are both legal and a crime does not make it better.

    That's just it. Things are legal by default. A state simply does not have the power to make something legal that is against federal law. They can remove any redundant state law, but they cannot make it legal. Marijuana is not both legal and a crime, it is simply illegal, and the feds are letting them get away with acting like it is legal. This is more or less unprecedented in American history.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @tharpa said:

    Marijuana is not both legal and a crime, it is simply illegal, and the feds are letting them get away with acting like it is legal.

    Honestly, I don't see how the Feds have the Constitutional power to make intrastate marijuana illegal (and yes, I think Wickard v. Filburn is bullshit).

    @tharpa said:

    This is more or less unprecedented in American history.

    I can't think of an immediate counter example, but I have a hard time believing this is true. Federalism conflicts have been going on since the beginning.


  • BINNED

    @boomzilla said:

    Honestly, I don't see how the Feds have the Constitutional power to make intrastate marijuana illegal (and yes, I think Wickard v. Filburn is bullshit).

    Since when does that stop anyone? Sarcasm aside, I've heard it said that the Supreme Court isn't there to protect us from government; it's the other way around. If it were common knowledge that the federal government basically does whatever the Belgium it wants without regard to what voters want, people might do bad things like rioting, not paying taxes, not voting, etc.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @antiquarian said:

    Since when does that stop anyone?

    No one with a pen or a phone, certainly. :trollface:



  • @tharpa said:

    Marijuana is not both legal and a crime, it is simply illegal, and the feds are letting them get away with acting like it is legal.

    Even that is not at all certain.

    The Feds have said some vagueness like, "we respect Washington and Colorado's autonomy" but have made ZERO solid promises (much less any laws) that they won't arrest and prosecute Washington pot smokers using Federal laws.

    I will not be even one tiny bit surprised when we have a Federally-run raid of a pot dealer here in WA. I'd actually be more surprised if we went 5 years without one.

    @tharpa said:

    This is more or less unprecedented in American history.

    We can't drive 55.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    Honestly, I don't see how the Feds have the Constitutional power to make intrastate marijuana illegal (and yes, I think Wickard v. Filburn is bullshit).

    Of course WvF is BS, but you (legally) have to acknowledge that it essentially unbounds the Federal government's power: there isn't really any such thing as non-interstate commerce. If only the Supreme Court--and courts in general--weren't so opposed to reversing themselves.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    We can't drive 55.

    That's not quite the same: the Feds didn't actually make a law; they simply threatened to withhold highway funds if the states didn't pass their own laws.

    I'd love to see a state actually tell the Fed to fuck off and refuse the money.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @FrostCat said:

    but you (legally) have to acknowledge that it essentially unbounds the Federal government's power:

    As far as commerce, yes. Of course, the Court has pushed back on expansive definitions of Commerce.

    I'm just saying that my reading of the Constitution says it's bullshit. I'm not saying it's not accepted law or whatever.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I'm just saying that my reading of the Constitution says it's bullshit.

    Unfortunately, unless you wear a black robe to work, your reading is irrelevant.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @HardwareGeek said:

    Unfortunately, unless you wear a black robe to work, your reading is irrelevant.

    Yes and no. I mean, in a legally binding way, of course. But the (amended) document itself says that as part of the people certain powers are reserved to me. And maybe someday I might exercise that and get the court to agree. I'll just hold my breath until then.


Log in to reply