Well, if you want to go that route, sure, still no equivalency between slick Willie who inappropriately got a blow job from a willing subordinate and tried to obfuscate out of it earning him an impeachment along with a few unverified and mostly unreported accusations of groping and a pedophile, or a blackmailing mistress abuser, or Dumb Donald who bragged on tv and radio about groping and leering at underage girls in pageants he ran and offering bribes and gifts to sleep with his friends wives while he was married....not to mention the multiple sex workers/models/porn stars he paid for sex (or to be quiet about how bad it was) and accusations of everything from groping to outright rape, and is being sued over it.
Or ran charities he used as a personal piggy bank to pay off legal debts and buy portraits of himself and fake magazines with him on the cover.
Or ran fraudulent schools and admitted it.....and has yet to pay a price for any of it besides the fines levied over his fraudulent schools.

Pretty sure the Clinton foundation has been thoroughly investigated, and I'm not hearing any charges pending....Trump can't say the same.

So no....no equivalency.

?! Well, that seems dumb. I guess I opted out on both screens I use. I thought you just meant when you hover over the channel name the description doesn't appear, and that the channel front page hadn't changed.
Yes, this needs to be addressed one way or the other.

If we're going to have a kids channel only for kid friendly videos, it MUST be enforced or it's child abuse, like pasting porn in a highlights magazine and placing it in a pediatrician's waiting room. If not, it should be removed as a channel imo.

Posted to @lucky760 on sift talk forum.

Edit: please don't ignore that the description has been cut and pasted into comments by multiple sifters (tagged with his name so they aren't missed) repeatedly, and manually removed by multiple sifters only to be retagged "kids" repeatedly, so ignorance is not an excuse, it is absolutely done knowingly and intentionally to make a point.

"it's the assault that makes it an assault weapon" LOL. Guess we should start banning assault hammers and assault knives then.

10 yr Assault weapon ban didn't affect gun violence at all.

AR-15s aren't weapons of war, they are used by police agencies across the country.

BTW, the parkland shooter used 10rnd low capacity magazines. Looks like banning 30rnds won't do much good at all, but that's just common sense.

This gun control hysteria is the Republicans' best shot of retaining control of the house and senate. Just look at '94 when they swept into power after the clinton assault weapon ban.


You can't really show any side when you limit each exchange to a 2-sentence sound byte. Pretty pointless.

as·sault ri·fle. : noun-a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Obviously it's not any gun used to fight. You act on one hand like you're a near expert, and on the other like you know nothing about the subject. Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?

Shotguns aren't rifles, and pump action isn't semi auto. No need for semi auto to hunt ducks.

Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead isn't acceptable, even when you're just eradicating them and intentionally wasting the meat. That's why professionals trap them for humane disposal. You get more that way too. If you can't hunt humanely, leave it to those who can, please.

Home defense, I think short barrel pump action shotguns are the best choice...easier to wield in close quarters, and much easier to hit your target with. Also, the unmistakable sound of chambering a round is usually all it takes.

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

Even though NZ's laws were relatively stricter at the time, the real issue was that Australia's laws were lax. We went from one end of the spectrum to the polar opposite (which is a not uncommon illogical human reaction to bad events).

The laws you speak of were enacted a few years before Australia changed theirs. The salient point is that they didn't restrict or legislate for some things over the following years.

The standards you have there (fit and proper person) for gaining a license are almost exactly the same as in Australia. The endorsement for getting an AR15 can be obtained by shooting in IPSC or 3 gun competitions. Basically, if you're a fit and proper person and join one of these clubs then you can get an AR15 and full capacity magazines.

"I started "coding" at 8 by typing out programs from an adventure game programming book, in BASIC (think old Infocom games, like Wishbringer/Zork, etc). "

Me too! I remember typing out pages and pages of BASIC on my C64 from a magazine... ugh. Then I made my own adventure game (ripping off Aliens) with a whole bunch of gotos for each "room".... the horror!

"The challenge in today's programming environment is the rapid pace of change. It's so f'n hard to keep up with every new toolkit, platform, library, programming language enhancements, etc."

Pfsh... how hard can it possibly be?

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Mental health is a pretty big issue that is connected. So are socio-economic issues. There is a bigger puzzle of which access to firearms is only the last piece.

I don't think anyone should expect the NRA to address mental health. This is not their mandate. They exist to champion firearm rights. Mental health or other issues are some other lobby group or the general population's responsibility.

The Australian and New Zealand law changes show that restricting the types of firearm, caliber, and magazine capacities has little to no effect. There are multiple studies (the majority in fact) concluding that the draconian Australian laws didn't even affect the homicide by firearm rate.

Ha! Even sifty knows to not listen to you, Bob. ;-)

The kid was a nut...he supports Trump, that's proof positive.

What's funny is lies could be appropriate, since the NRA spokeswoman was lying through her teeth, claiming they support a strong useful national registry and screening system. They do nothing but lobby to obstruct it at every turn. She's a bold faced liar. I used to be a member decades ago.

Nothing he did, even if it had been investigated fully, would have bared him from buying his guns. Blame police and the FBI, but they're powerless to stop known dangers from buying weapons because the NRA ensured they would be, because they exist only to lobby for manufacturers right to sell guns.

The leftist solution is to 1) ban guns from people diagnosed or
being investigated for criminal instability 2) regulate certain guns, modifications, and magazines much more stringently and 3) make private gun sales go through background checks. Without the latter, the rest is moot.

Really? funny, I recall Trump saying the buck stops with him, and blaming Obama when it happened under his watch, don't you? (He also likely claimed mass school shootings were fake news leftist propaganda, his buddy Jones told him so) Now, he blames the investigation of his campaign for the FBI not investigating his internet postings, knowing they aren't connected at all.

How is the cop responsible, specifically?

Operation mockingbird ?



“Operation Mockingbird” was a fully implemented CIA program to spread disinformation throughout American media.

CIA Director William Colby testified to the Church Committee that over 400 CIA agents were active in the US media to control what was reported through American mainstream television, newspapers, and magazines.

CIA Funding and Manipulation of the U.S. Mainstream Media According to the Congress report published in 1976:

Thanks for that link -- really good.

I do think that "the left" is perhaps a bit too focused on specific weapon or accessory types. AR-15's, bump stocks, magazine sizes, etc. It's not completely ridiculous to say that if we banned AR-15's with 20-30 shot magazines, most of these shooters would just move on to the next best thing; maybe a Ruger Mini 14 or something with a 15 shot magazine.

Would that mitigate some of the deadly potential? Sure. Slightly. But it wouldn't prevent things at all, just (slightly) mitigate them. That might be worth doing, but it isn't beneficial enough to be what we should be focusing on.


I think two things could help contribute to prevention. Registration, and Licensing.

Step 1) Anyone who owns or purchases a firearm would be legally required to get it/them registered. Serial numbers (if they exist), etc. Anyway, descriptions of the weapon(s) on file and linked to a registered owner. If a firearm is used in a crime, the registered owner could be partially liable for that crime. Crime resulting in death? Owner subject to charges of negligent manslaughter. Violent crime, but no deaths? Owner subject to charges of conspiracy to commit X. Registered owner finds one or more of their firearms stolen or missing? Report them as such, and your liability could be removed or mitigated. Failure to register a firearm would also carry criminal penalties.

Step 2) Anyone who wants to use a firearm would be legally required to get a license. Licensing requires taking a proficiency and safety test. The initial license would require practical examination (safety and proficiency) at a range. Initial licensing and renewals (every 4 years?) would require passing a written test of knowledge about ownership laws, safety, etc. Just like a driver's license. And just like a driver's license, there could be things that might reasonably preclude your ability to get a license. Felony record? No license for you. Mental health issues? No license for you.


The NRA loves to tout themselves as responsible gun owners. Well, responsible people take responsibility. Remember that one kid in your class back in third grade that talked back to the teacher, so she made you all stay in and read during recess? Yeah, he ruined it for the rest of you. Guess what -- that's happening again. These nutjobs that shoot up schools or into a crowd of civilians are ruining things for the rest of you. We've tried unfettered access and an extremely lax interpretation of the second amendment. It didn't work out well. For evidence, compare the US to any other developed country on Earth.

Guns are a part of American culture, to an extent that taking them away completely would be ... problematic. But there are many, many things between the nothing that we're doing now and that.

Ha!
I thought it was more like making Trump the Time magazine person of the year, about quantity, not quality. Love or hate her, you must admit her brand is huge.

To be honest, except for a few of her movie rolls, I've never been a fan, and I totally agree about Dr Oz etc., but between the shows, channel, production company, magazine, and movie rolls her contributions to entertainment are pretty outstanding in their ubiquity if not quality.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'music, comedy, politics' to 'neo magazin, trump, wilders, nationalism, refugees, pride, stereotype, german, 2016' - edited by Eklek