I think it's more the announcement that they actually are investigating for this. The confirmation, as it were.

Well, it's a leak though, not an announcement, so not super-new.

Looking through the article now it seems they meant more in the sense of Comey's firing and Trump's reported pressuring of his intel chiefs being the obstruction under investigation. They don't directly mention the evidence destruction alluded to by Comey. So this is sort of new info if you didn't think Mueller would explore this.


I didn't watch the Sessions hearing but I've seen him quoted as saying he has not been briefed on Russia's involvement with the election last year. Like, really? Recusing himself from the investigation doesn't prevent him from getting classified briefings on what transpired last year, it just makes the briefings a bit more complicated. He could still get briefed on it if he was actually interested. I mean yeah, there'd be slanderous headlines about "man who recused himself from Kremlingate probe still involved in probe," but he has a job to do.

Confession time here: I have a FOID card. I'm not a fan of guns whatsoever, but a year or two ago I decided to test the points that are always brought up in debate and apply for one to see how easy it is. Y'see, I was kicked out of the Navy, classified 2311 (general catch-all for "mental issue"), re-entry code RE-04 (which means I am never, ever, ever allowed in the military again, not even if the draft is reinstated). The actual specifics of what happened and why I was given a separation should show that I'm no real threat to anybody (all those numbers and codes I threw out are identical to somebody thrown out for sleepwalking), but just the generalities of seeing a non-physical reason that I can't ever serve in the military for any reason ever again should be a huge red flag that I probably shouldn't have a gun quite so easily. But no! They never asked! It didn't ask a fucking thing. Not for my medical history, not for any sort of qualifications, it didn't want a copy of my DD-214, it didn't even want any sort of proof that I've undergone safety training or even know how to fire or maintain a gun. I got this card, filled out the application in less than five minutes, lied about nothing on there, and just got it in the mail a few weeks later, essentially no questions asked.

Now, in fairness, I do think there's a separate background check that gets run when I actually go to purchase a firearm that might be more comprehensive, and I don't know that for sure because I have neither the money nor the desire to go buy one, but if I wanted to I could just walk right in, flash that card, slap some money on the counter, and have a shiny new gun waiting for me in a few days (pretty sure there's a waiting period). So the fact that this guy had a FOID card doesn't actually say anything about his mental state or whether or not The Man thought it was appropriate for him to have one. It's really god damned easy to get one either way.

And now the ATF is coming for me.

Except that in the time between you filling out the application and getting the card in the mail the Illinois State Police did a full background check. There's no such thing as a FOID card without a background check. And yeah, there's a waiting period in Illinois law as well for each gun purchased.

I have a FOID card as well, and like you it only took a few weeks for them to do the check. I say "only" but the check actually only takes a few days, the rest is mostly bureaucratic garbage. We're actually the lucky ones; I've known people who had to wait 6 months. Technically, the Illinois State Police make a lot of long-time FOID people accidental criminals by not processing their re-applications in time, thus creating a gap between issuances. They rarely charge people in that case, since it's the police who fucked up, but technically they can.

So either way a dude who was booted from the military for being a headcase is considered a-ok to be purchasing firearms. That doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in me and certainly makes me not at all surprised to learn that the guy out capping elected officials on a softball field was able to get one despite a criminal record of aggressive/violent behavior. If Illinois truly is a place with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, it's pretty telling when the hardest part of the application was making sure I didn't get so fat in between the time I got my driver's license and the time I applied for the FOID that I was unrecognizable.

I don't think he was ever convicted of anything. What I read on CNN was that no charges were ever brought in the most recent thing (target practice in his backyard) as he complied with the police's request, and in the other from over a decade ago ended when the beating victim declined to press charges.

The background check system is certainly weaker than it should be.

On an unrelated but somewhat vindicating note, the Senate just overwhelmingly voted to slap some sanctions on Russia for meddling in the 2016 election. The vote was 97-2, and those 2 holdouts were special little traitors named Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

Rand Paul's dad runs an "institute for peace" that has hired a host of Putin apologists in its time. Not surprising.

Fucking Rand Paul. He is one of the reasons I got sick of so many self-proclaimed Libertarians. They give the guy a free pass because of Ron Paul, despite Rand Paul being so far removed from actual libertarian ideals as to make his support comically misguided. I can't even imagine what his stupid reasoning must be.

Been busy, sorry. I'll add those to the OP, too lazy to rephrase so I'll just paste verbatim (if that's OK with you, if not I'll take it down I guess). Thanks


Also fuck Jeff Sessions, and fuck the GOP for coddling him during the hearing. Hypocritical, slimey pieces of shit, all of them.

It's insanely hard to keep up with the amount of shit that keeps happening as it is. Copy verbatim, no skin off my back. It's not like you're Melania giving a speech at the RNC or anything. Oh wait, they gave her a free pass for that.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't a good reason to vote for a single member of the GOP at this point. Anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-women, anti-minority, anti-LGBTQ, counter-productive, malicious, self-serving, greedy, secretive, and all the while they flaunt this apparent invincibility. Unless they all fully turn their backs on Trump, they're all just part of the same slimy pit. Fuck each and every one of them.

There is also this fascinating little article. To sum it up, once Trump gets involved with a politician in another country, the voters there tend to turn against them, handing wins to more liberal parties.

I saw Samuel Jackson of all people post this on Facebook:



Edit: I posted this as Rand Paul was one of the panicked people ("it could've been a massacre") apparently at the shooting at the Congressional baseball game/practice.

That "retake the gubmint when they git 2 powwaful" shit is literally one of the dumbest ideas anyone has ever thought of, and I've read the vast majority of mindshadow's posts. It's only an excuse for people to explain why they love a thing that can't love them back.

The best argument I've ever seen for why complete elimination of firearm purchase in the US isn't a universally good idea is Earthcubed's point that people in poor neighborhoods need to protect their families from gang violence. Unlike the checks and balances crap, that argument actually makes sense, and I have no idea why it's not used more often.

Ron Paul opposed sanctions more consistently than Rand has, thus far in Rand's career. Attacking Rand for not being enough like his father, when the context is this vote, doesn't make much sense.

That "sanctions are tantamount to war" argument which shows up from time to time just shows the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the broader neo-isolationist/pacifist/antiwar foreign policy mindset. It's just such utter garbage. It's fair to say sanctions can lead to negative outcomes in some cases, including war, but to argue that sanctions should rarely be used on that basis would just lead to even worse outcomes. On the right-leaning spectrum it betrays a naive faith in the sole power of economics to influence non-democratic states. When it's made by leftist critics of US foreign policy (the "Chomsky set," so to speak) it makes even less sense because they also argue against our economic support for countries with poor human rights records (eg Saudi Arabia), so which is it? Do you have trade relations with a country that does questionable things or do you sanction them? You can't be against both all the time.



yeah I can't stand the argument about it being a check on government abuse either. It's true that was part of the reason the 2nd Amendment was written, but things were different then. Tanks didn't exist, for one, nor did bombers or W80's.

Not specifically about poor people, but this article might be of interest to you: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ter-215084

Well, the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a check-and-balance for the government, not for self protection against gangs and such. Rand Paul is correct in "why" we have the 2A. After all, that's how this country was formed (i.e. by forcefully taking it from the "tyrannical" British). I'll admit, it's quite antiquated now due to drones, information gathering, etc. But that was its intent some 200+ years ago. (I think the government is far more powerful than the founding fathers ever intended it to be.) I don't think the self-protection argument is as commonly used because it's not in the Constitution and therefore is easier to change. So by the letter of the law, that's a firmer foundation, even if it isn't as relevant as it once was. I'd consider being able to protect ourselves with firearms from violence as a "perk" of the 2nd Amendment but I don't think it's explicitly a "right" in/by itself (at least as outlined in the 2A).

This is a bizarre mish-mash of beliefs for these guys. I would guess they'd be against sanctions under the idea of "government regulations are bad" kind of thing. Cripes, these guys are fucking confusing.

The 2nd Amendment is basically useless and outdated now. It's mostly used to justify not doing anything about the copious mass shootings we have here. I'd be perfectly happy if someone just did away with that amendment - though of course that would just result in the right-wingers completely losing their shit.

That's a band-aid fix at best. Firearms haven't changed much in their availability or "effectiveness" (technology) for the past 100+ years. The rise in mass shootings in recent years is due to something else much deeper and more personal that people don't seem to want to explore because it's not so easy, nor would it help getting politicians votes (which seems to be the main motivating factor these days...).

Uh, "amusingly," Cracked actually did a look into some mass shooters to see what the problem was, and ultimately concluded that there's no way to know, and predicting it is nearly impossible.

Ultimately, the only things loosely linking all this shit together is "disturbed people," "media fame," and "weapons."

edit: never mind, no idea what I'm talking about

I'm well aware it isn't the only issue, but it's the easiest one to do something about. This country's love affair with guns is grotesque and disgusting.

What would you say is the deeper reason then? I have my own theories but am curious.

Well, given that Kerrick is a Christian... take a guess.


Thanks! This was a good read.

Aww shoot, am I that predictable? Yes, I think the general rejection of God is the primary issue here. But as was mentioned above, technology plays a huge roll. I'm no psychologist, but giving these shooters the stardom they want must only aid in their motivation. I'd also be curious what the role of pharmaceutics and their effects is in this context. The food we put in our bodies has changed significantly over the past 50 years - as has prescription drugs - and I wonder if in addition to more instances of gluten intolerance, ADHD, and the like, there are also some more subtle chemical/biological changes happening that may be affecting mental health? I've got no data to back that up, but it seems plausible to me.

But again, none of those things are going to get politicians the votes they want, so instead we get all of these feel-good laws that don't actually accomplish much of anything.

Haha no, rejection of God has nothing to do with the shootings. The thing about the food and drugs doesn't sound plausible either - sort of a binary way to see it. If anything, the fact that we have so many more people in this country is more to do with it - more of us all packed together.

It's guns and mental health. Guns are too readily available, with legislators crafting ridiculous laws to make them even moreso, and the mental health system, and health care in general, we have in this country is just inadequate. Add to that a general stigma against talking to therapists or opening up about problems (i.e. "be a man, just deal with it" and the likes) and you get a lot of pent up rage.

Newsweek had a pretty good article ("The Roots of Evil") and it seems narcissism is a major contributing factor. Who would've thought, huh?

It's not mental health at all. In fact, people with mental health issues are more likely to become shooting victims than to be the shooters.

The focus on "mental health" or "mental issues" is overblown bullshit, to put it bluntly. Mostly, from what I've seen at least, the "mental health" thing is something thrown around by the Right as some kind of defense of guns. "See? Guns aren't bad, those mentals are bad! C'mon Cletus, let's go shoot sum shee-it!"

https://www.voanews.com/a/us-gun-violen ... 73716.html

https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-release ... olent.html

The people that, say, shot up Dimebag (who was noted to have schizophrenia) are an incredible minority here, to the point that they are not credible at all. They are a non-issue. It's not mental illness. It's ultimately such a small percentage as to be a non-factor. Ultimately, going with mental illness is a distraction preventing us from getting to anything close to real answers.

The evidence on this is actually pretty wide-spread. I used to tout this bit as well, and when I needed to research it further, I found out I was wrong.

Ok. Why do you think population density has anything to do with it? Sure, we've got a ton more people here than we used to, but we still have plenty of open space. That Cracked article had some good data in it; I'll have to look to see where these shootings took place (big cities, small towns), but if you're right, then wouldn't we expect to have seen more mass shootings in high-density cities throughout the years, not just in recent times?

I'll agree with you on the mental health thing though. I'm not sure what kind of solution there could possibly be for that unless EVERYONE gets psycho-analyzed [correctly, accurately, and regularly] or something along those lines. But that doesn't mean we as a country couldn't do better in getting the people help who obviously need it. I'm just not sure what that'd look like?



I guess it depends on your definition of "mental health." Anyone who shoots up a school full of children has got to be pretty mentally deranged...

This is tangential to the discussion but reforming the health care/mental health system and making guns harder to obtain would drive down the number of suicides per year by quite a bit, as the related mental health issues can be dealt with more effectively and one of the most foolproof methods becomes rather more out of reach. 60.6% of suicides were done using firearms according to a WHO report in 2006 - granted the proportion may have changed by now but the gist of it is that the US has a much higher firearm related suicide rate than any other developed nation, and all because they're so easy to obtain.

There have been widespread studies that show that suicide, like crime, often see numbers drop simply by being inconvenienced. I forget the details, but there was a bridge that was well-known as a point of suicide for jumpers. They installed some wall or railing on there making it much harder to go through with the act, and the numbers of suicides plummeted. It's not just guns, it's convenience. But you are correct in that guns are all too conveniently obtainable here.

A few years ago, Esquire published an excellent article on the pathway to violence - an explicable pattern through which all mass shooters go through. This excerpt outlines it quite well.



There isn't a single social cause (i.e. religion) which unites all of them, but a psychological process which can be interrupted by opening a doorway - providing hope/alternatives - to someone on that pathway to violence.

-The "rejection of God" is complete nonsense since the rate of violent crime has been dropping steadily over the last 25 years, which coincides with the growing secularization of the country as well.
-The dietary theory actually has credence, believe it or not, but still requires further study. The nutritional value of food consumed has dropped overall but, again, so has the rate of violent crime.
-The psychopharmacology theory also holds some value as that's a field based on trial and error. A prescription that mellows you out could potentially increase anxiety in me, for example, and the most obvious example is with adderall.
-I, myself, subscribe partially to the idea of overpopulation, as it creates increased competition for resources (be they real or perceived).

Guns are still readily available, but gun ownership has been on the decline in the USA according to several polls over the last 20-something years. This, however, does not take into account non-US regions and the rate of violent crime to gun ownership abroad, which leads me to believe that cultural issues are a bigger factor than people are willing to talk about (or can do so intelligently). If the idea that "guns = violent crime" holds true, then why does America, with the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, not also have the highest rate of violent crime?

I have heard this stuff before, and there's a distinction between talking about mental health and about specific mental disorders like bipolar or schizophrenic or something. I just said guns are the problem too so I am obviously not one of these Republicans you mean. I think "mental health" is a wide spanning thing - it just means what it says, the health of one's mind. Things like rage and desperation and the kinds of things that fuel a shooting obviously do not belie a healthy state of mind. People like Elliot Rodger who shot up California a few years back, the Columbine kids or the Aurora movie theater guy, or any number of other cases, were obviously not operating at a normal level. When I talk about mental health, I mean that these people were so far gone in whatever fucked up state they were in, that the shooting seemed the only logical recourse. I am not talking about specific named diseases here. I am talking about people just snapping.

I believe people are complicated and it's hard to pin down a reason for why this happens. I think it comes from people not paying attention to the warning signs that violence was going to happen, and like I said, the general difficulty of communication in a culture that prides itself on individualism and being strong and being manly and not accepting any help that would make one look weak. There are a lot of factors here.

Then you have cases like the Charleston shooting or Pulse that were more rooted in extremism of ideology - that is its own level of sickness in a way. Maybe they want some feeling of belonging or they've just been so heavily steeped in these ideas that they can't see the forest for the trees, who knows. I'm sure people have studied this in much more detail than I have.



The population density thing is really just a theory of mine like you have with the drugs and food thing. I've always thought because of the mass amounts of people that live in cities, it's easy for people to fall through the cracks amid daily life and the hustle and bustle of things. It isn't really a real solution though.

Ah, that makes sense. I thought you meant that more people = more anxiety/rage as a direct correlation. But yeah, it's easier to be anonymous with the more people all around you, and therefore less accountability, love and care given to, likelihood of getting help, etc.

It's hardly a coincidence that rich people are way less likely to perform shootings than poor people are. Economy is a huge factor for crime, and shootings are no exception. And economy is also a factor for the probability of people contracting and being stuck with mental problems.


Do you have anything to back that up? Are the more atheistic countries more or less violent than the countries with a high degree of theism? Were the historical periods with higher degree of theism more or less violent than today's? If anything, it was when religion ruled almost everything and people accepted theism just as easily as they believe trees exist, that the respect for human life was almost absent, with constant warfare, slavery, pain-based punishment, etc. Not to mention the danger of interpreting impulses and states as signs from a god rather than as something that can be explained in psychological, biological and sociologal terms.

Sorry, mostly redundant...I was typing (apparently quite slowly) while the last few posts were being composed and submitted.



I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "God." But however you define it, the claim about gun violence is absurd.

(I'm not sure if your meaning is (a) "Being an atheist makes one more prone to gun violence," (b) "Being a non-Christian makes one more prone to gun violence," or (c) "Being a non-member of my particular Christian denomination makes one more prone to gun violence." Well, you might get partial credit if your denomination happened to instill a belief in radical pacifism or something.)

I can think of a couple ways to show this. First, look at the proportions of religious/Christian people to non-believers in prison for violent crime. Second, contrast the rates of violent crime belonging to the most religious/Christian countries and the most secular countries.

And as for the claim about getting votes: Being a nutty Christian - which generally means, e.g., denying science; trying to deprive people of reproductive health care; wanting to be openly contemptuous of, if not actively discriminatory against, gender and sex minorities, as well as non-Christians (and claiming persecution when you can't) - unfortunately doesn't disqualify you from American politics. It actually makes you Vice President. Of course it's a somewhat different story for atheists (and Muslims and especially socialists).

Oh absolutely, that was my point. That said, guns are a rather foolproof method of suicide and unlike say bleach or some rope it isn't really an everyday item that is needed regularly, so I'd say based on all that guns should still be singled out somewhat when it comes to regulation.

I mean more in general terms, not that being a non-Christian necessarily makes one more violent or anything of the like. I believe that God created this world and the people within to function ideally and thrive when we remain most honoring to and dependent on Him. Conversely, when we reject Him, things will start unraveling because we're operating against the grain of what we were intended for. That could look like many things, including more violence. Only by His grace have we not plummeted into complete self destruction. There are plenty of instances (in the Bible even) when those against God appear to be thriving by all earthly standards which I acknowledge too. But I believe that God knows what's best for us, wants what's best for us, and has laid out what's best for us - which is also what is most glorifying to Him. Rejecting that will have massive effects, eternal and oftentimes here on Earth too.

Am I the only Christian on here? I'm just waiting for the title of "Token Christian" hahaha...

I think most gun violence came about as a result of jesus not getting off the Notorious pen-us, before he squeeze and bust.

Cute.