Nothing makes white people support racism quite like cutting them off from electricity for however long it would take to fix the damages. /s
What is it with racially charged hate groups and damaging things that affect the people they supposedly are fighting for? I wouldn’t be surprised if groups like white supremacists are more than willing to sacrifice white people in order to further their goal but are too pansy to sacrifice themselves. Sounds right up their wheelhouse, those neanderthals.
I’m not sure that’s true. He’s said that he wouldn’t step aside for someone with a better chance. He has said he would only step aside if he had no chance of winning.
BUT there’s a good chance he is just presenting confidence. Either way they need to know the backup plan regardless.
This is exactly it. Conservatives don’t want free speech for others: they want free speech for themselves, which in their minds also means that no matter what they say nobody can react negatively to it in any way. They specifically don’t want anybody else to have any freedoms; the core of conservatism is social dominance over the Other
Damnit Idaho, again with the bad behavior :/ One of my niblings is trans, they’ve got to grow up in that state, it’s not going to be easy. I grew up in that state before I knew I was trans but everyone including me sensed something off and even that wasn’t easy. I wish there was more I could do from where I am now but best I know is to make sure they know I support them and have their back in what ways I can
Nibling is a gender-neutral term used to refer to a child of one’s sibling as a replacement for “niece” or “nephew”. The word is thought to have been coined in the early 1950s, but was relatively obscure for several decades before being revived in recent years.
Just a reminder that inflation slowing down doesn’t automatically mean the prices will drop too. It only means the prices stop increasing. You’d need deflation to make the prices come down and that would be even worse for the economy.
They’re not fake guns; they’re real guns with what was supposed to be fake ammo. Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real since you can see the tips of the bullets in the cylinder. Typically, there’s a hole in the side of the casing indicating that it’s a dummy round, but you can no longer see that once it’s been loaded into the gun.
Whether or not you believe what you’re calling “gun culture,” the fact that the gun in question is a revolver is one of the most relevant facts of the case.
A semi-automatic pistol, which is to say a single-hand firearm that is meant to be fired without being steadied against the user’s body where the ammunition is fed up the handle into to back of the barrel after each shot, until the magazine is exhausted, will not load the next round if you fire a blank. It relies on there being a bullet in the barrel to contain pressure long enough to push a mechanism that pops out the old bullet case and slides the next round into the chamber. In order for a semi-auto to use blanks, you have to modify it in such a way that you can no long fire live ammunition without destroying the gun.
Revolvers do not need such modification. Revolvers have a cylinder with boreholes running through it that form the chambers for the rounds. Pulling the trigger or cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder to the chamber, no pressure from the last round needed. This means that idiots on film sets can grab a revolver intended as a prop, put real live ammo in and target shoot in between takes and eventually mix up live and dummy ammo, causing people to be killed.
This means that idiots on film sets can grab a revolver intended as a prop, put real live ammo in and target shoot in between takes and eventually mix up live and dummy ammo, causing people to be killed.
I thought they were arguing that the gun that was supposed to come with fake ammo actually came with real ammo? To me it sounds like the gun supplier should be held liable?
The person who supplied the gun, the armorer, was held responsible. It was her job to make sure the guns were kept safe and she failed. She was found guilty already. Baldwin was on trial because statements he made to police regarding the incident were found to be inconsistent with the facts found through investigation, which were concerning enough to warrant a trial. The prosecution then fucked up so hard he can’t be retried.
I meant I thought the prop supplier should be held liable, since the article I read about it previously, had said that a box of ammo came from the prop supplier, Seth Kenney, and that it matched the ammo that was used that killed Hutchins, and that’s why I was thinking the prop supplier should be held liable.
If that’s the case I agree. Bringing live ammo onto a movie set is a huge no-no, and if it was his round that killed the AD he certainly bears some responsibility.
It is not about you, specifically. One people do not make a culture. But see, what I find baffling is that real guns are taken into movie sets, when they repeatedly have been used to kill cast and crew members since decades ago, and it is still not prohibited. School shootings, attempted assassination of presidential candidates, Wal-Mart shootings with guns sold in place, bar massacres, etc. they all come from this gun culture.
Take a look at user Thorny_Insight higly upvoted comment. While I guess I should be appreciative of its informative content, I just find violent that, without any warning, they link to a photograph of a loaded revolver pointing at the viewer’s face without realizing that is probably kind of fucked up. That’s what baffles me, like, no fucking kidding those guns are real?! A man was killed. Then they show me a photograph of a loaded revolver pointing at my face to demonstrate how real real guns look like. I hope you see my point.
Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real
I have seen so much bad science, like basic physics mistakes, in movies that that’s not really true. The average movie goer isn’t going to know what the difference between a fake and real revolver by sight.
That’s not the point. If you’re swinging around a semi-automatic pistol with an empty magazine, nobody will know. However, with a revolver, you need to load it with real-looking bullets for close-up shots. Of course, at a distance, you can use lesser-quality prop guns.
Or you can create, from scratch, purpose built guns with the same spec, but are made of materials(like aluminum) that the holder will know is fake from the moment they pick it up. For larger pieces, you could include a co2 mechanism to recreate recoil and include an LED to light up with a trigger pull for sfx people to use as a reference. Pretty sure some of these things already exist.
And quite frankly, the audience doesn’t deserve a perfect recreation if it means putting people in harms way. There’s a thing call Suspension of Disbelief that seems to be in short supply these days. Never bring the CinemaSins guy to a traditional Japanese theater. The Kuroko stagehands would give him an hearth attack.
There was a Jason Statham movie, The Mechanic, I think that had some ‘cool guy target practice in the woods moment’ and they were blasting off rounds and did a cool slo-mo so you could clearly see that they were firing crimped blanks. I’m sure next to no one noticed.
Even less so in Dear John when Channing Tatum’s M4 turns into an M249 so you can see the links of the belt flying out when he shoots at someone.
Point being, don’t leave town to dodge safety regulations and be surprised when unsafety happens.
I was going to say there’s no way those fake rubber guns or toy guns can be dangerous but then I remembered a police officer could shoot someone especially in america
US has a blanket-policy, that they NEVER bargain with terrorists: once you “appease” 1 of them, then the ALL are certain of their terrorism’s “rights”.
US’s policy is simply to break them.
Nonfatally if possible, but there’s no moral/ideological problem with killing them.
The US … I expect only 1/3rd of the US’s population to be left alive, after US Civil War Part2, & the ever-escalating ClimatePunctuation has finished trashing things, these next years…
When ww3 begins, the ContinuousHammerfall stage of The Great Filter ( 2035-ish ), I expect not 400,000,000 citizens in the US, but 4/3 hundred-million citizens left alive.
133,000,000-ish.
Maybe the remnant left alive will understand the stakes, then…
as I’m “sure” the rest of the world will, by then ( not a chance in hell, iow ).
Socio-political-pressure NEVER kept humankind honest.
Not in the old-testament, not in the new-testament, not in the mahabharata, not in the buddhist, or shinto, ar any records.
IF humankind survives The Great Filter, THEN objectivity is going to be LAW among the survivors, however few they are.
Honest question, can you vote without ID in the US? To me, asking for ID (or any sort of proof of citizenship and age) seems completely normal, since those are the two requirements for being eligible for voting, citizenship and being over 18 years old.
That is a state by state question. The problem people have with it, is that it frequently is done in bad faith. Here’s a few examples. Alabama has been known to shut down the places where you can get proper identification in certain areas, making it so that you have to travel long distances to get the id. Something poor people have a harder time doing. North Carolina has been proven in court to do preliminary research about what kind of ID black people tend not to have, before passing a law requiring that specific ID. Texas required IDs have your exact name on it. That doesn’t sound like a much of an issue, until you realize they did it months before the election, and their system for updating it takes longer. Any one who had changed their name, such as women who had taken their husband’s name, would not have been allowed to vote had it not been delayed by the courts.
Wow, what the fuck? Also can you vote without identification in some States? Won’t that lead to voting fraud, eg people not eligible to cast a vote being able to vote
I was an election monitor in the US. I am not aware of a state that lets anyone walk in and vote without any form of ID. If your ID is incorrect or cannot be confirmed, your vote is provisional and you have the opportunity to fix the issue.
There are plenty of states where you can vote without having to show identification at the time of voting. You do have to register prior to voting, though, and that process requires identification and proof of residency. And no, none of this has ever resulted in any significant voting fraud. Between 2000 and 2014 there were only 31 documented cases of voter impersonation in the entire country.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.