MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on November 14, 2017, 09:31:50 PM
-
California elementary school.
I'd say "thoughts and prayers" are in order, but I think we've tried that after the last few shootings and it doesn't appear to have had much of an effect
-
Unlikely this is going to be the one to actually create change.
-
Unlikely this is going to be the one to actually create change.
We're going to need to get to at least 150-200 dead from one guy before that's not true.
Who am I kidding .. 250, at least.
-
Could have done just as much damage with a knife or a ball-peen hammer or a Duncan yo-yo.
That'll be the stance of the NRA. And, of course, Banny.
-
California elementary school.
I'd say "thoughts and prayers" are in order, but I think we've tried that after the last few shootings and it doesn't appear to have had much of an effect
thoughts and prayers are always appropriate if you are sincere. if one believes that it is their own "thoughts and prayers" or in combination with others is going to absolutely stop everything bad from happening, they should find another outlet. "thoughts and prayers" is not only an appropriate response to a tragic development, but it should be a unifying message, again, if they truly believe.
today, the "thoughts and prayers phrase seems to be taking on a more political tone and some are using it as a way to protest something. it's like the 2 year old not getting what he wants from santa claus, so he says "F" the man cuz he never comes thru.
thoughts and prayers are (in my mind) a prayer for those involved to have peace and strength to help them get through the "ordeal". prayers aren't like morse code being sent to God's command and control. all the incoming "thoughts and prayers" don't go thru God and then He decides which ones to honor or not. this ain't a sigfried and roy show going on here. believers are meant to be God personified here on earth. it is through our thoughts and actions onto our fellow man that God wishes for us to carry out-"thy will" /His will, not ours.
now just because things may or may not work out to the betterment for all every time, do we just chit-can the phrase or for those who truly mean it? the thoughts? or is it for some, their way to take a passive/aggressively position. if the latter is the case, then i believe they are missing the point. we can review many many instances of tragedy or atrocies that have occurred time after time after... yet continue to occur-terrorism of any kind, vehicle accidents, drug over doses, crime in general...do we abandon our thoughts and prayers because people in syria or north korea continue to get slaughtered? not me. it's just one way we can keep our spirituality alive, wishing/praying for those involved to be strong and maybe even seek out peace through the Lord. one can never go wrong with a few thoughts and prayers throughout the day
-
In before the lock.
-
James 2:17
-
thoughts and prayers are always appropriate if you are sincere. if one believes that it is their own "thoughts and prayers" or in combination with others is going to absolutely stop everything bad from happening, they should find another outlet. "thoughts and prayers" is not only an appropriate response to a tragic development, but it should be a unifying message, again, if they truly believe.
today, the "thoughts and prayers phrase seems to be taking on a more political tone and some are using it as a way to protest something. it's like the 2 year old not getting what he wants from santa claus, so he says "F" the man cuz he never comes thru.
thoughts and prayers are (in my mind) a prayer for those involved to have peace and strength to help them get through the "ordeal". prayers aren't like morse code being sent to God's command and control. all the incoming "thoughts and prayers" don't go thru God and then He decides which ones to honor or not. this ain't a sigfried and roy show going on here. believers are meant to be God personified here on earth. it is through our thoughts and actions onto our fellow man that God wishes for us to carry out-"thy will" /His will, not ours.
now just because things may or may not work out to the betterment for all every time, do we just chit-can the phrase or for those who truly mean it? the thoughts? or is it for some, their way to take a passive/aggressively position. if the latter is the case, then i believe they are missing the point. we can review many many instances of tragedy or atrocies that have occurred time after time after... yet continue to occur-terrorism of any kind, vehicle accidents, drug over doses, crime in general...do we abandon our thoughts and prayers because people in syria or north korea continue to get slaughtered? not me. it's just one way we can keep our spirituality alive, wishing/praying for those involved to be strong and maybe even seek out peace through the Lord. one can never go wrong with a few thoughts and prayers throughout the day
Do you get why some may be a little tired of politicians sending thoughts and prayers but never taking any substantive actions that may prevent some of these deaths?
-
If he was not out on bail this would have never happened.
-
Do you get why some may be a little tired of politicians sending thoughts and prayers but never taking any substantive actions that may prevent some of these deaths?
That's what happens when you are financially beholden to a domestic terrorism organization.
-
Do you get why some may be a little tired of politicians sending thoughts and prayers but never taking any substantive actions that may prevent some of these deaths?
If there were a mystery virus killing 5+ people at the same frequency, with local/federal governments refused to acknowledge there was an issue and/or refuse to do anything to help, the citizens would either force them to act or find a solution (and almost every aspect of our lives would immediately change).**
It's been said here before....we either don't care about the deaths/don't want change or are not angry enough to force change.
**not my original analogy but i can't remember where it was from
-
If there were a mystery virus killing 5+ people at the same frequency, with local/federal governments refused to acknowledge there was an issue and/or refuse to do anything to help, the citizens would either force them to act or find a solution (and almost every aspect of our lives would immediately change).**
It's been said here before....we either don't care about the deaths/don't want change or are not angry enough to force change.
**not my original analogy but i can't remember where it was from
Not to mention if we didn't allow the CDC or NIH to study the virus
-
Do you get why some may be a little tired of politicians sending thoughts and prayers but never taking any substantive actions that may prevent some of these deaths?
yes, but i was trying to leave politics out of it and focus just on why "thoughts and prayers" is always appropriate if one sincerely means it and tries to live them. i am a firm believer in prayer. if one has to tell everyone, they aren't going to say that anymore and those who do are phonies or whatever, that is not in their place to state that as they do not know what is in their heart(s). i understand the point-then why aren't they doing anything, etc etc-that is still not a reason for anyone else to judge another person on. it is a separate issue
-
yes, but i was trying to leave politics out of it and focus just on why "thoughts and prayers" is always appropriate if one sincerely means it and tries to live them. i am a firm believer in prayer. if one has to tell everyone, they aren't going to say that anymore and those who do are phonies or whatever, that is not in their place to state that as they do not know what is in their heart(s). i understand the point-then why aren't they doing anything, etc etc-that is still not a reason for anyone else to judge another person on. it is a separate issue
I don't think most people have an issue with most sending thoughts and prayers when something like this happens, whether it be just the general public, entertainers, etc.
But at this point when it comes via Twitter from those in politics that refuse to do anything at all about these issues it feels completely disingenuous.
-
James 2:17
Another of my favorite bible verses
-
If there were a mystery virus killing 5+ people at the same frequency, with local/federal governments refused to acknowledge there was an issue and/or refuse to do anything to help, the citizens would either force them to act or find a solution (and almost every aspect of our lives would immediately change).**
It's been said here before....we either don't care about the deaths/don't want change or are not angry enough to force change.
**not my original analogy but i can't remember where it was from
This did happen. In the 80s with AIDS. Reagan refused to acknowledge it or even mention the name - until someone he knew died.
It was only when the gay community and Libs got out into the streets that anything was done.
We need mass demonstrations weekly throughout the country. We need Lib candidates making gun control their #1 concern.
Despite the NRAs delight, most people favor something being done.
-
I don't think most people have an issue with most sending thoughts and prayers when something like this happens, whether it be just the general public, entertainers, etc.
Count me in the minority that finds sending thoughts and prayers to be offensive. Anyone that thinks prayer works to stop mass shootings, newsflash, they are still happening on a weekly basis, so your thoughts and prayers aren't doing anything. And anyone that sends thoughts and prayers without taking action to implement change it just a hypocrite.
Anyone that professes to live their faith understands that God helps those that help themselves. Thoughts and prayers without conscious follow-through is just a hollow excuse for inaction.
-
Do Something Do Anything
Yeah, that always works.
-
Do Something Do Anything
Yeah, that always works.
Good call. Do nothing but pray is going gangbusters right now.
-
Do Something Do Anything
Yeah, that always works.
It has a far higher rate of success than doing nothing.
-
Count me in the minority that finds sending thoughts and prayers to be offensive. Anyone that thinks prayer works to stop mass shootings, newsflash, they are still happening on a weekly basis, so your thoughts and prayers aren't doing anything. And anyone that sends thoughts and prayers without taking action to implement change it just a hypocrite.
Anyone that professes to live their faith understands that God helps those that help themselves. Thoughts and prayers without conscious follow-through is just a hollow excuse for inaction.
ok, but what are they supposed to say? sucks for them?
yes it is a platitude, but we don't know everything that goes on in conversations in washington. yes, i realize they are always very quick to tell you everything you want to hear. but if the pols don't say anything, then they get criticized for that too. unless someone can come up with another appropriate phrase, it's better than ahhh, blah blah blah blah, umm, what?
many of them are trying to do something, but at the same time they are walking a fine line between their "puppet masters" and the 2nd amendment. yes, politics suck. the reason i believe it's got even sucky'er is all about $$$=power
-
Say nothing unless you have something worthwhile to say.
Hiding behind "thoughts and prayers" is cowardly.
-
Say nothing unless you have something worthwhile to say.
Hiding behind "thoughts and prayers" is cowardly.
easy for you to say. if this were about anything else, this wouldn't be an issue. tragic car accident? would it be ok to say thoughts and prayers? or because one isn't "doing anything" to stop them, it's hypocritical? when an acquaintance passes on, i always try to avoid saying "thoughts and prayers" because it does sound recycled and/or disingenuous, kind of like "at the end of the day, etc etc
today-everything is under a microscope. if it's sunny, it's not sunny enough.
-
Count me in the minority that finds sending thoughts and prayers to be offensive. Anyone that thinks prayer works to stop mass shootings, newsflash, they are still happening on a weekly basis, so your thoughts and prayers aren't doing anything. And anyone that sends thoughts and prayers without taking action to implement change it just a hypocrite.
Anyone that professes to live their faith understands that God helps those that help themselves. Thoughts and prayers without conscious follow-through is just a hollow excuse for inaction.
Completely agree. "Thought & prayers" is a handy excuse to make it seem like one cares while doing nothing to remedy the problem.
Caring requires action.
-
I think sending thoughts and prayers is perfectly acceptable.
I think only sending thoughts and prayers when you have the power and privilege to help make meaningful change to ensure that less thoughts and prayers are needed in the future is unacceptable.
Check the signature. This is one of those topics where we need a little more courage and wisdom and a little less serenity.
-
I think sending thoughts and prayers is perfectly acceptable.
I think only sending thoughts and prayers when you have the power and privilege to help make meaningful change to ensure that less thoughts and prayers are needed in the future is unacceptable.
Check the signature. This is one of those topics where we need a little more courage and wisdom and a little less serenity.
Thanks for the wise words TAMU.
I should have used the word "only" as well.
-
Say nothing unless you have something worthwhile to say.
Hiding behind "thoughts and prayers" is cowardly.
This.
Completely agree. "Thought & prayers" is a handy excuse to make it seem like one cares while doing nothing to remedy the problem.
Caring requires action.
And this.
I think sending thoughts and prayers is perfectly acceptable.
I think only sending thoughts and prayers when you have the power and privilege to help make meaningful change to ensure that less thoughts and prayers are needed in the future is unacceptable.
Check the signature. This is one of those topics where we need a little more courage and wisdom and a little less serenity.
But also this. Here's the thing...sending thoughts and prayers is fine. Broadcasting on social media or an internet message board or to the media (for those that have that type of platform) that you are sending thoughts and prayers is unnecessary and meaningless.
If you want to send thoughts, spend time thinking about a solution that can be implemented. If you believe in prayer, then pray for the victims. But don't try to broadcast it to the world. It accomplishes nothing other than to make the thought-and-prayer-sender look like a self-serving asshat, especially in light of years of inaction while we're told to send thoughts and prayers because it's too early to talk about the tragedy.
-
Here's the thing...sending thoughts and prayers is fine. Broadcasting on social media or an internet message board or to the media (for those that have that type of platform) that you are sending thoughts and prayers is unnecessary and meaningless.
If you want to send thoughts, spend time thinking about a solution that can be implemented. If you believe in prayer, then pray for the victims. But don't try to broadcast it to the world. It accomplishes nothing other than to make the thought-and-prayer-sender look like a self-serving asshat, especially in light of years of inaction while we're told to send thoughts and prayers because it's too early to talk about the tragedy.
Right on.
-
"If you want to send thoughts, spend time thinking about a solution that can be implemented. If you believe in prayer, then pray for the victims. But don't try to broadcast it to the world. It accomplishes nothing other than to make the thought-and-prayer-sender look like a self-serving asshat, "
now we're getting somewhere-i like this!
-
Takin’ it to da streets, ai na?
-
This.
And this.
But also this. Here's the thing...sending thoughts and prayers is fine. Broadcasting on social media or an internet message board or to the media (for those that have that type of platform) that you are sending thoughts and prayers is unnecessary and meaningless.
If you want to send thoughts, spend time thinking about a solution that can be implemented. If you believe in prayer, then pray for the victims. But don't try to broadcast it to the world. It accomplishes nothing other than to make the thought-and-prayer-sender look like a self-serving asshat, especially in light of years of inaction while we're told to send thoughts and prayers because it's too early to talk about the tragedy.
All of this. Well said, brew, TAMU, brand and others.
-
This.
And this.
But also this. Here's the thing...sending thoughts and prayers is fine. Broadcasting on social media or an internet message board or to the media (for those that have that type of platform) that you are sending thoughts and prayers is unnecessary and meaningless.
If you want to send thoughts, spend time thinking about a solution that can be implemented. If you believe in prayer, then pray for the victims. But don't try to broadcast it to the world. It accomplishes nothing other than to make the thought-and-prayer-sender look like a self-serving asshat, especially in light of years of inaction while we're told to send thoughts and prayers because it's too early to talk about the tragedy.
https://youtu.be/0ODeKJdhff0
-
Another of my favorite bible verses
From a Jesuit..
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/927910041985970176
-
If he was not out on bail this would have never happened.
So what is your solution? No one gets bail?
Cmon, we are always going to come up with some excuse or extenuating circumstance. Look, people are going to be let out on bail. People are going to be mentally ill. Making it harder for them to act in a destructive manner isn't that much of a limitation.
It is bordering on disgusting that we can see models from around the world where gun violence has been limited. Let we just sit around and say "welp, what can you do?"
-
So what is your solution? No one gets bail?
Cmon, we are always going to come up with some excuse or extenuating circumstance. Look, people are going to be let out on bail. People are going to be mentally ill. Making it harder for them to act in a destructive manner isn't that much of a limitation.
It is bordering on disgusting that we can see models from around the world where gun violence has been limited. Let we just sit around and say "welp, what can you do?"
Welp, for one thing we can offer thoughts and prayers.
-
This did happen. In the 80s with AIDS. Reagan refused to acknowledge it or even mention the name - until someone he knew died.
It was only when the gay community and Libs got out into the streets that anything was done.
We need mass demonstrations weekly throughout the country. We need Lib candidates making gun control their #1 concern.
Despite the NRAs delight, most people favor something being done.
You're 100% correct and that is a great example of marginalizing a portion of the situation as an excuse to not deal with it. With AIDS it was the people dying who were marginalized. With mass shooting it's the people committing the atrocities i.e. they're terrorist/extremists/illegals/criminals/mentally ill/etc.
What's the tipping point to get people in the streets on this? hopefully it has already happened and the 2018 midterms are where the peoples voice is heard.
-
This did happen. In the 80s with AIDS. Reagan refused to acknowledge it or even mention the name - until someone he knew died.
It was only when the gay community and Libs got out into the streets that anything was done.
We need mass demonstrations weekly throughout the country. We need Lib candidates making gun control their #1 concern.
Despite the NRAs delight, most people favor something being done.
this is absolutely false, and another example of the some are more equal than others code we have here. i am going to have to refrain from citing my sources showing why this is false as it will make this an even more political debate, piss people off, lead to this topic getting locked down and put some at risk for getting the real ban hammer-probably me because even though someone else made it political, i would be blamed for taking the "2nd punch" it just baffles me how some here can do this over and over without consequence, but the minute someone else(read-the "other side") intimates politics, scream bloody murder
if any of you care to see the real, true and rest of the story, just google it or pm me and i will send you the real link.
-
Oh look. Rockets playing the victim again.
You should probably try to be a little more self reflective.
-
And here we go again, the us vs them mentality you all love to show. Instead of coming together to get a real solution (and maybe some mental healthcare?) yall continue to do nothing but bicker at each other.
Shame on all of you, people are dead and you decide to attack each other. I'm sure thats what they would have all wanted, you guys at each others throats.
-
Ders no cummin’ together. Knot wen ya got one side dat insists da light is red, wen clearly its green. And, den can’t get over it, even a year later, hey?
-
And here we go again, the us vs them mentality you all love to show. Instead of coming together to get a real solution (and maybe some mental healthcare?) yall continue to do nothing but bicker at each other.
Shame on all of you, people are dead and you decide to attack each other. I'm sure thats what they would have all wanted, you guys at each others throats.
How's the weather up on that high horse? ;D
-
And here we go again, the us vs them mentality you all love to show. Instead of coming together to get a real solution (and maybe some mental healthcare?) yall continue to do nothing but bicker at each other.
LOL. What "real solution" is this group going to "get?"
-
LOL. What "real solution" is this group going to "get?"
Thoughts and prayers.
-
Just waiting till thoughts and prayers becomes a cool social media hashtag like #TsNPs then we’ll really know people mean it
-
Ders no cummin’ together. Knot wen ya got one side dat insists da light is red, wen clearly its green. And, den can’t get over it, even a year later, hey?
(https://i.giphy.com/media/dEdmW17JnZhiU/giphy.webp)
Ridiculous.
-
Oh look. Rockets playing the victim again.
You should probably try to be a little more self reflective.
projection much? this seems to be all you ever have.
the truth
-
this is absolutely false, and another example of the some are more equal than others code we have here. i am going to have to refrain from citing my sources showing why this is false as it will make this an even more political debate, piss people off, lead to this topic getting locked down and put some at risk for getting the real ban hammer-probably me because even though someone else made it political, i would be blamed for taking the "2nd punch" it just baffles me how some here can do this over and over without consequence, but the minute someone else(read-the "other side") intimates politics, scream bloody murder
if any of you care to see the real, true and rest of the story, just google it or pm me and i will send you the real link.
infowars.com!
-
Just waiting till thoughts and prayers becomes a cool social media hashtag like #TsNPs then well really know people mean it
Or the message of a Hallmark card.
-
it just baffles me how some here can do this over and over without consequence, but the minute someone else(read-the "other side") intimates politics, scream bloody murder
I have been warned, and I was given a "break" over the summer. And deservedly so
I'm an Independent who is not really on a "side" when it comes to Dems and GOP, but I obviously am anti-Orange (who of course is neither GOP nor Dem).
As has been pointed out, you do really play the victim well. I got no problem with that, though ... we all need a skill!
-
projection much? this seems to be all you ever have.
the truth
I don't act like a victim here. I don't whine about the moderators. I don't complain about what "side" they take. I figure if I don't like it, I can leave.
You choose to whine.
-
I'm an Independent who is not really on a "side" when it comes to Dems and GOP
lol, funny guy!
-
How bout that Al Franken. Gonna get me some popcorn when the 10:00 news comes on tonight.
Blood in the water.
-
Al should go. As should all of the R's accused of the same, RC83. Happy?
-
Al should definitely go. No doubt.
-
Al should go. As should all of the R's accused of the same, RC83. Happy?
Agreed. Easy on the hostility, friend.
From up close, Franken is a smarmy punk. Also very smart, and knows how to speak well and spin things. He's like a lot of (not all) politicians on both sides of the aisle.
In MN we've had some great politicians that were on both sides of the aisle. I respected David Minge and Rod Grahms. Dem and Rep. We've also had our share of complete idiots. I was kicked out of Paul Wellstone's office by the senator himself....before I could even say a word. Guy was the laughing stock of the Democratic Party...by democrats. Bill Luther was a very reasonable man. Jim Ramstead was great to talk to, and had a wonderful staff.
-
Al should definitely go. No doubt.
Didn't know McGuire was a politician
-
I support any sanctions toward politicians accused of sexual impropriety. Of both parties. I'm glad the floodgates have opened in Hollywood. Bring it out into the open. Expose the predators and hypocrites, regardless of profession or political persuasion.
-
Say nothing unless you have something worthwhile to say.
Hiding behind "thoughts and prayers" is cowardly.
I’m 100% on both. Problem is, we live in a country where 99.9% thinks 55% is perfectly acceptable.
Want to see real change? Start with making political campaigns about issues, not turnout. MAKE VOTING MANDATORY. Zero point zero zero something of Americans will be killed by a gun this year because just about every one of you don’t give two shtz about the 45%, let alone the other 27.5% of you.
-
Agreed. Easy on the hostility, friend.
From up close, Franken is a smarmy punk. Also very smart, and knows how to speak well and spin things. He's like a lot of (not all) politicians on both sides of the aisle.
In MN we've had some great politicians that were on both sides of the aisle. I respected David Minge and Rod Grahms. Dem and Rep. We've also had our share of complete idiots. I was kicked out of Paul Wellstone's office by the senator himself....before I could even say a word. Guy was the laughing stock of the Democratic Party...by democrats. Bill Luther was a very reasonable man. Jim Ramstead was great to talk to, and had a wonderful staff.
You managed to talk about idiot politicians from Minnesota without bringing up Venture? Impressive.
As for Franken, if the allegations are true, he should absolutely step down. If he doesn't, he should be investigated and then be made to step down if the investigation finds the claims to be credible.
-
You managed to talk about idiot politicians from Minnesota without bringing up Venture? Impressive.
As for Franken, if the allegations are true, he should absolutely step down. If he doesn't, he should be investigated and then be made to step down if the investigation finds the claims to be credible.
If they’re true? There’s a dang picture of it. I could see how a rational, unbiased person could use the “if” word for that crapbag Moore and keep a straight face (I’ll admit that I’m assuming there’s no visual evidence of any of his god-knows-how-many score incidents), but unless you’re a LEO or media, using the “if” word on Franken takes some real Kellyanne Cohones.
-
I support any sanctions toward politicians accused of sexual impropriety. Of both parties. I'm glad the floodgates have opened in Hollywood. Bring it out into the open. Expose the predators and hypocrites, regardless of profession or political persuasion.
How do we sanction the politician who publicly admitted to going backstage at beauty pageants so he could leer at naked contestants as young as 15, and also publicly admitted grabby lady cats?
-
If they’re true? There’s a dang picture of it. I could see how a rational, unbiased person could use the “if” word for that crapbag Moore and keep a straight face (I’ll admit that I’m assuming there’s no visual evidence of any of his god-knows-how-many score incidents), but unless you’re a LEO or media, using the “if” word on Franken takes some real Kellyanne Cohones.
Oh sh*t. I hadn't actually looked at the story yet. I just saw the headlines. There's so many "*insert famous person* sexually assaulted/harassed *insert person here*" stories out there right now that I stopped reading all of them. (It's made my job super fun over the last month)
Yeah, he needs to step down.
-
How do we sanction the politician who publicly admitted to going backstage at beauty pageants so he could leer at naked contestants as young as 15, and also publicly admitted grabby lady cats?
Hopefully by his opposing political party holding their own accountable with no drama or fuss to set the example. Maybe people will see that and realize that they can expect more from their politicians than what they've gotten in the past.
-
What laws do we lack that can stop this?
Gunman in Northern California rampage was not supposed to have guns
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/us/california-tehama-county-shootings/index.html
California mass shooter built his own illegal guns
https://nypost.com/2017/11/16/california-mass-shooter-built-his-own-illegal-guns/
California mass shooter killed wife, buried her beneath floor
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-mass-shooter-killed-wife-buried-her-beneath-floor-n821051
------------
And to anticipate the unrealistic answer, we have 300 to 500 million guns in this country, how do we get them out of his hands after a total ban is in place? How do we get the illegal parts out of his hands when we make them illegal ... oh wait, they are already.
-
And I'll ask the question again.
Until the 1930s you could buy machine guns, grenades, anti-tank weapons, cannons, mortars and the like. Sears Roebuck sold them through their catalogs. Why didn't we have a mass shooting problem before the 1930s? (I detailed this in a previously, now banned, post).
More recently, why was this problem non-existent until about five years ago? See the chart below.
We had millions of AR-15s in society in the 1980s and 1990s. Why was there less than 20 people killed a year in mass-shootings back then (meaning 1 or 3 a year). Why do we have about one a week now?
To be specific ... from 1982 to 2007 (25 years) only four mass shootings resulted in 10 or more killed. We had nine in the last seven years, and two in the last month. The last month has seen more mass shootings killing 10 or more than all of the 1980s.
What changed? Hint: It is not the availability of semi-automatic guns, as I have repeatedly pointed out, they have been in society for 140 years. They have numbered in the hundreds of millions for decades.
Don't you think before you demand solutions, you answer these questions first?
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-3
(https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/20171111_woc931.png)
-
I don't know what the exact solutions should be. I know more inaction isn't a good one.
-
What laws do we lack that can stop this?
Gunman in Northern California rampage was not supposed to have guns
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/us/california-tehama-county-shootings/index.html
California mass shooter built his own illegal guns
https://nypost.com/2017/11/16/california-mass-shooter-built-his-own-illegal-guns/
California mass shooter killed wife, buried her beneath floor
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-mass-shooter-killed-wife-buried-her-beneath-floor-n821051
------------
And to anticipate the unrealistic answer, we have 300 to 500 million guns in this country, how do we get them out of his hands after a total ban is in place? How do we get the illegal parts out of his hands when we make them illegal ... oh wait, they are already.
Did anyone here say that this epidemic can be stopped entirely? Did anyone say that it is realistic to go after all of the guns already out there? Did anyone say this was entirely a gun control issue? Hint: no.
This is about prevention and saving lives going forward. You'll never be able to eliminate mass shootings entirely. But there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the scale of carnage inflicted, to stop individuals that don't already have weapons from obtaining them, etc.
Doing nothing is not acceptable. As usual, your logic misses the mark.
-
Did anyone here say that this epidemic can be stopped entirely? Did anyone say that it is realistic to go after all of the guns already out there? Did anyone say this was entirely a gun control issue? Hint: no.
This is about prevention and saving lives going forward. You'll never be able to eliminate mass shootings entirely. But there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the scale of carnage inflicted, to stop individuals that don't already have weapons from obtaining them, etc.
Doing nothing is not acceptable. As usual, your logic misses the mark.
He'll come back with his slippery slope argument as usual.
I've noticed slippery slope and equivalency are 2 of the more common logical fallacies used around here
-
I don't know what the exact solutions should be. I know more inaction isn't a good one.
Did anyone here say that this epidemic can be stopped entirely? Did anyone say that it is realistic to go after all of the guns already out there? Did anyone say this was entirely a gun control issue? Hint: no.
This is about prevention and saving lives going forward. You'll never be able to eliminate mass shootings entirely. But there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the scale of carnage inflicted, to stop individuals that don't already have weapons from obtaining them, etc.
Doing nothing is not acceptable. As usual, your logic misses the mark.
I've never used the slippery slope argument. I've just said the gun is a fact of life in the US and it is impossible to get rid of them.
And since you admitted it is impossible to stop these type of shooters**, there is one solution left ... more guns and more "good guys" with conceal carried guns.
So you will demand we "do something" ... but not this. "Do something" is code for punishing legal gun owners. Jockey is so far gone he blames legal gun owners (i.e., the NRA) for these shootings. He does even know what the problem is anymore.
-----
** six weeks after Vegas they still don't have a motivate. The Texas Chruch shooter was not supposed to have guns but the Government screwed up. This guy made his own illegal guns. The only way to stop this is a "good guy" with a gun that can take him on as he starts.
-
I've never used the slippery slope argument. I've just said the gun is a fact of life in the US and it is impossible to get rid of them.
And since you admitted it is impossible to stop these type of shooters**, there is one solution left ... more guns and more "good guys" with conceal carried guns.
So you will demand we "do something" ... but not this. "Do something" is code for punishing legal gun owners. Jockey is so far gone he blames legal gun owners (i.e., the NRA) for these shootings. He does even know what the problem is anymore.
-----
** six weeks after Vegas they still don't have a motivate. The Texas Chruch shooter was not supposed to have guns but the Government screwed up. This guy made his own illegal guns. The only way to stop this is a "good guy" with a gun that can take him on as he starts.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/d8/d81467834960529231a9bbf81a40e07849cf512974ae31e5e79e0741fc7ed769.jpg)
-
I've never used the slippery slope argument. I've just said the gun is a fact of life in the US and it is impossible to get rid of them.
And since you admitted it is impossible to stop these type of shooters**, there is one solution left ... more guns and more "good guys" with conceal carried guns.
So you will demand we "do something" ... but not this. "Do something" is code for punishing legal gun owners. Jockey is so far gone he blames legal gun owners (i.e., the NRA) for these shootings. He does even know what the problem is anymore.
-----
** six weeks after Vegas they still don't have a motivate. The Texas Chruch shooter was not supposed to have guns but the Government screwed up. This guy made his own illegal guns. The only way to stop this is a "good guy" with a gun that can take him on as he starts.
No one said it is impossible to stop these type of shooters. That's very different from saying all mass shootings cannot be eliminated. Try again.
Good guys with guns is not the solution.
-
How do we sanction the politician who publicly admitted to going backstage at beauty pageants so he could leer at naked contestants as young as 15, and also publicly admitted grabby lady cats?
You’re right, Nads. Knot a donkey or an elephant. Just yo own man, hey?
-
No one said it is impossible to stop these type of shooters. That's very different from saying all mass shootings cannot be eliminated. Try again.
Good guys with guns is not the solution.
So you want to rule that out. And it cannot be stopped. And the status quo cannot remain.
Then what do you want? Just to scream on a message board so you feel better?
-
"Do something" is code for punishing legal gun owners.
If restricting people's access to certain guns, making people register their guns with the government and limiting those with mental illnesses from getting guns, is "punishment" in your eyes, so be it.
Or you can propose doing nothing and continue to watch people die. A good guy with a gun did not prevent Vegas. It did not prevent Texas. It will not prevent the next.
The people who find any excuse for inaction, such as yourself, are in very much in a way responsible for the continued carnage. YOU are a toadie for the gun industry. Despite all your supposed intellectualism, you are being lead around by a bunch of people who care only about their wallets. Blood is on YOUR hands my friend. YOU are part of the problem.
-
How do we sanction the politician who publicly admitted to going backstage at beauty pageants so he could leer at naked contestants as young as 15, and also publicly admitted grabby lady cats?
Hold politicians you agree with to a high standard. Expect the patrons of politicians you disagree with to do the same.
-
So you want to rule that out. And it cannot be stopped. And the status quo cannot remain.
Then what do you want? Just to scream on a message board so you feel better?
Thoughts and prayers.
-
Hold all pols to a high standards. They are supposed to be leaders.
The Orange Creep's followers who openly voted for an admitted sexual criminal now demand Franken's scalp.
Please, please - will someone explain?
-
If restricting people's access to certain guns, making people register their guns with the government and limiting those with mental illnesses from getting guns, is "punishment" in your eyes, so be it.
Or you can propose doing nothing and continue to watch people die. A good guy with a gun did not prevent Vegas. It did not prevent Texas. It will not prevent the next.
The people who find any excuse for inaction, such as yourself, are in very much in a way responsible for the continued carnage. YOU are a toadie for the gun industry. Despite all your supposed intellectualism, you are being lead around by a bunch of people who care only about their wallets. Blood is on YOUR hands my friend. YOU are part of the problem.
If restricting people's access to certain guns ... done
making people register their guns with the government ... done (we register the gun owners, not the guns themselves)
limiting those with mental illnesses from getting guns ... done
Besides proposing what has been the law for decades, what else you got?
Or you can propose doing nothing and continue to watch people die. A good guy with a gun did not prevent Vegas. It did not prevent Texas. It will not prevent the next.
Why do you say this? Becuase it goes against your political philosophy?
Again .. you were the guy that said the status quo cannot continue. I'm, open to hearing what you want.
But all you propose is what is already existing law, suggesting you don't really understand the issue and reject the thing that has not been tried (good guy with a gun).
So you have nothing and they screaming and whining. If I wrong, tell me what you want.
-
I support any sanctions toward politicians accused of sexual impropriety. Of both parties. I'm glad the floodgates have opened in Hollywood. Bring it out into the open. Expose the predators and hypocrites, regardless of profession or political persuasion.
Bravo.
But where it happens more is in the workplace. It is about power more than sex and victims are afraid to speak up because they are the ones who will get fired.
-
If restricting people's access to certain guns ... done
making people register their guns with the government ... done (we register the gun owners, not the guns themselves)
limiting those with mental illnesses from getting guns ... done
Besides proposing what has been the law for decades, what else you got?
Or you can propose doing nothing and continue to watch people die. A good guy with a gun did not prevent Vegas. It did not prevent Texas. It will not prevent the next.
Why do you say this? Becuase it goes against your political philosophy?
Again .. you were the guy that said the status quo cannot continue. I'm, open to hearing what you want.
But all you propose is what is already existing law, suggesting you don't really understand the issue and reject the thing that has not been tried (good guy with a gun).
So you have nothing and they screaming and whining. If I wrong, tell me what you want.
You’re lying. It isn’t all existing law.
Stop being dishonest and wash the blood off your hands. History will judge you as one who sit back and philosophized yet did NOTHING.
Congrats.
-
Hold all pols to a high standards. They are supposed to be leaders.
The Orange Creep's followers who openly voted for an admitted sexual criminal now demand Franken's scalp.
Please, please - will someone explain?
Where did he admit he was a sexual criminal? I missed this.
And isn't Hillary more a criminal on this front? She led the effort to destroy every one of Bill's sexual accusers.
So, the Orange Creep's voters picked the least offender of the two.
And let's go down this road you want all these people "gone" or just the ones you disagree with politically?
Trump - Gone
Roy Moore - Gone
Franken - Gone
Bill Clinton - Gone
Hillary Clinton - Gone
Bernie "everyone women wants to raped" Sanders - Gone
Joe "Handsy" Biden - Gone
HW "cop-a-feel" Bush - Gone
John Kennedy - Gone ( the worst offender of the last 50 years, pedophile)
Theodore Roosevelt - Gone (off Mt. Rushmore)
Mark Cuban - Gone
... and this is just what we know.
So are you bi-partisan on this?
-
You’re lying. It isn’t all existing law.
Stop being dishonest and wash the blood off your hands. History will judge you as one who sit back and philosophized yet did NOTHING.
Congrats.
Here we go ... I have blood on my hands ... you do want to blame owners of guns, not the people that pull the trigger. here comes the undirected primal scream!
Again, what part of this is not currently the law. Please correct me.
If restricting people's access to certain guns ... done
making people register their guns with the government ... done (we register the gun owners, not the guns themselves)
limiting those with mental illnesses from getting guns ... done
-
Where did he admit he was a sexual criminal? I missed this.
And isn't Hillary more a criminal on this front? She led the effort to destroy every one of Bill's sexual accusers.
So, the Orange Creep's voters picked the least offender of the two.
And let's go down this road you want all these people "gone" or just the ones you disagree with politically?
Trump - Gone
Roy Moore - Gone
Franken - Gone
Bill Clinton - Gone
Hillary Clinton - Gone
Bernie "everyone women wants to raped" Sanders - Gone
Joe "Handsy" Biden - Gone
HW "cop-a-feel" Bush - Gone
John Kennedy - Gone ( the worst offender of the last 50 years, pedophile)
Theodore Roosevelt - Gone (off Mt. Rushmore)
Mark Cuban - Gone
... and this is just what we know.
So are you bi-partisan on this?
You must have missed the part where he said:
Hold all pols to a high standards. They are supposed to be leaders.
I do love your whataboutism... So can you denounce the POTUS's sexual misconduct as well? No?
-
So you want to rule that out. And it cannot be stopped. And the status quo cannot remain.
Then what do you want? Just to scream on a message board so you feel better?
Who's screaming? Why do you feel the need to speak in absolutes? What I want is something, anything to be done.
No, not all mass shootings can be stopped. However, I strongly believe steps can be taken to both reduce the amount of them and magnitude of the carnage. Those steps have been covered here many times before.
Sure, a good guy with a gun can potentially help in such a situation. Or such an individual can harm other bystanders. To rely on that as a solution is idiotic.
You're a real piece of work.
-
How many mass shootings in Australia since they bought back the guns?
How many in Japan, which has an incredibly
High education and licensing threshold?
-
Who's screaming? Why do you feel the need to speak in absolutes? What I want is something, anything to be done.
No, not all mass shootings can be stopped. I strongly believe steps can be taken to both reduce the amount of them and magnitude of the carnage.
Sure, a good guy with a gun can potentially help in such a situation. Or such an individual can harm other bystanders. To rely on that as a solution is idiotic.
You're a real piece of work.
Ok, all you have is to scream "do something." For the third time, what part of what I said is existing law is wrong?
But now you seem to be coming around to my idea about a "good guy with a gun." I guess that is progress.
I strongly believe steps can be taken to both reduce the amount of them and magnitude of the carnage.
Ok, and for the fourth time ... what?
-
How many mass shootings in Australia since they bought back the guns?
Impossible to tell and we are too different to replicate here.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/
Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare. In the post-buyback period, Great Britain has had one massacre with guns while Australia has had none. It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban. Australia looks more successful in this regard, because it had more frequent mass shootings before the ban (averaging about two mass shootings every three years from 1979 to 1996.) Mass shootings in Great Britain, prior to the ban, were rarer. Prior to 1996, there hadn’t been a widely covered mass shooting in Britain since 1987.
It’s hard even to calculate how successful the bans were at getting powerful guns out of private hands. Neither Great Britain nor Australia had a registry of guns before the new laws, so, although the governments can report how many guns they collected, it’s difficult to estimate how many guns people kept when they were supposed to turn them in. In Australia, estimates of the share of guns collected range from 40 to 80 percent of the guns sought. It is difficult to find any estimate of what percentage of guns Great Britain managed to recover; instead most reports cite the raw numbers of guns turned in.
...
In Australia, homicides declined after the ban and buyback, but homicides had already been falling, according to a 2003 analysis by criminologists Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos. The share of robberies and suicides committed with a gun declined, but the researchers found that the overall data was “consistent with a story of substitution” — meaning people used other weapons for homicide and suicide. Through 1998, the number of suicides (normalized by age) remained nearly constant, and the share of suicides using a firearm fell by the same rate it had been falling before the ban. Armed robberies increased through 2000, though fewer were conducted with a gun. Causing criminals and potential suicide victims to reach for a different weapon could be a partial victory for a buyback program. Most alternative weapons are less lethal than a firearm. But if that happened, it didn’t appear to change the overall trend for violent deaths.
...
Any success Australia and Great Britain had reducing gun deaths would be hard to replicate in the U.S., because of how it differs from those places before their bans. One of the most obvious differences is that these other nations are islands. Smuggling in illegal guns is harder in places like Australia and Great Britain because they don’t have land borders. The U.S. also has far more guns already within its borders; as of 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco estimated there were more than 300 million guns in America.
There’s another important difference between the U.S. and other countries when it comes to guns. Neither Britain nor Australia has anything like the Second Amendment, so many parts of their reforms, from total bans to requiring a reason for gun ownership, might not survive judicial review in the U.S. — if there were ever the political will to make them laws in the first place.
-
Ok, all you have is to scream "do something." For the third time, what part of what I said is existing law is wrong?
But now you seem to be coming around to my idea about a "good guy with a gun." I guess that is progress.
I strongly believe steps can be taken to both reduce the amount of them and magnitude of the carnage.
Ok, and for the fourth time ... what?
I'm not coming around to anything. A good guy with a gun is not a viable solution in regards to reducing the occurrence of mass shootings and the amount of lives lost. Anyone who thinks that is the best course of action is not particularly bright.
The steps have been covered with you ad nauseum, including in this thread by Sultan, so I'm not going to waste my time listing them out for you again.
-
The 538 article Heisy posted is not wrong. It is impossible to know how many mass shootings were stopped by Australia's gun buyback. You can't prove a negative.....but it's also hard to argue with those results.
I agree that a buyback here wouldn't stop all gun violence. But I think it could make a significant impact. In fact, I think it would make the biggest impact in places like Chicago which is often the first thing pro-gun folks bring up after mass shootings.
-
The 538 article Heisy posted is not wrong. It is impossible to know how many mass shootings were stopped by Australia's gun buyback. You can't prove a negative.....but it's also hard to argue with those results.
I agree that a buyback here wouldn't stop all gun violence. But I think it could make a significant impact. In fact, I think it would make the biggest impact in places like Chicago which is often the first thing pro-gun folks bring up after mass shootings.
Chicago has had several buybacks. They never work as the majority of guns are either broken or collecting dust in someone's basement. No bad guys sell their gun.
-
Where did he admit he was a sexual criminal? I missed this.
I believe he is referring to both the admitted "wet hairy cat grabbing" which he dismissed as locker talk and the comments about going into the dressing room of the miss universe pageants when the contests were naked. Both of these things, which at one point he claimed to do, could be considered sex crimes if the stories were true.
-
Chicago has had several buybacks. They never work as the majority of guns are either broken or collecting dust in someone's basement. No bad guys sell their gun.
I'm sure they have. Make them bigger. Offer more. Make it a part of a nationwide effort. While some people hold that our views on guns will never change, I don't believe that. I think with every mass shooting, more and more moderates are starting to believe that gun control is the answer to gun violence. The extremes may be getting more polarized, but I think the moderates on this topic are starting to shift in favor of gun control.
-
I believe he is referring to both the admitted "wet hairy cat grabbing" which he dismissed as locker talk and the comments about going into the dressing room of the miss universe pageants when the contests were naked. Both of these things, which at one point he claimed to do, could be considered sex crimes if the stories were true.
When did locker room talk become a crime. (if he actually did it, or tried, it would be. Has any actress ever come out and claim he did, or tried?)
Regarding the Miss Universe Locker Room, was he the only Man that did that? I thought the locker rooms were like Grand Central during those pageants and many did that (stagehands, other producers etc.)
Again ... I'm not defending Trump, I asking Jockey (latest of numerous falsehoods) that Trump to show where Trump is an admitted sexual criminal. Not true.
-
I'm sure they have. Make them bigger. Offer more. Make it a part of a nationwide effort. While some people hold that our views on guns will never change, I don't believe that. I think with every mass shooting, more and more moderates are starting to believe that gun control is the answer to gun violence. The extremes may be getting more polarized, but I think the moderates on this topic are starting to shift in favor of gun control.
Bad guys don't sell their guns back.
-
Failure of gov't if you look at it.
In the Texas shooting the laws were in place to prevent him from buying a gun because he was dishonorably discharged, but the gov't screwed up by not putting him into the database to prevent it. So the cure is to penalize all of us that are legally using guns the correct way?
Laws were in place, but failed. The same is true in California where the killer stabbed someone earlier this year and was not able to buy guns. Instead, he built his own. The solution is to penalize the 99.9999% of us that respect people, guns, practice safety?
For those of us that own guns we are deeply troubled by the crazies that commit crimes, but when we hear someone say we have to do more what does more mean? What we already do doesn't work because gov't fails at enforcement. Which is why so many of us believe the true intentions is total ban, which the gun control lobby denies, but is very much on their minds. Boston Globe opined to confiscate all guns. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/11/10/hand-over-your-weapons/6IxJLanMKGak7RvCLipwbN/story.html
And yes, thoughts and prayers are never a bad thing. The failure of govt to enact the laws passed should not penalize others through additional gov't action that they will also fail at. Only law abiding people are hurt by this.
-
Good guys with guns is not the solution.
Umm. Just watched the first episode of Punisher. I have to disagree.
-
Bad guys don't sell their guns back.
I'm sure most don't. But I think some do and would. Every little bit helps.
Ultimately, the solution to the gun violence problem in the US is a culture change. It's not necessarily about getting guns away from bad people now. It's about making sure the future generation don't believe in gun violence in the first place.
-
The sexual assault and harassment stuff has been a time bomb since Clinton. When the National Organization for Women refused to do anything and stayed quiet it was one of the great disappointments to the women's movement. Terrible path to take. Enabled the actions with double standards. Only now is he finally being condemned and his accusers believed. Decades were lost. The left now saying he should have resigned rings hollow decades later. If he had done it then, imagine how far ahead we would be with this?
The most powerful man in the world taken down by those actions, but not to be. It would have woke people. Now Hollywood and other people of power are getting theirs, though it has also become weaponized. The carnage will be wide.
-
Where did he admit he was a sexual criminal? I missed this.
And isn't Hillary more a criminal on this front? She led the effort to destroy every one of Bill's sexual accusers.
So, the Orange Creep's voters picked the least offender of the two.
And let's go down this road you want all these people "gone" or just the ones you disagree with politically?
Trump - Gone
Roy Moore - Gone
Franken - Gone
Bill Clinton - Gone
Hillary Clinton - Gone
Bernie "everyone women wants to raped" Sanders - Gone
Joe "Handsy" Biden - Gone
HW "cop-a-feel" Bush - Gone
John Kennedy - Gone ( the worst offender of the last 50 years, pedophile)
Theodore Roosevelt - Gone (off Mt. Rushmore)
Mark Cuban - Gone
... and this is just what we know.
So are you bi-partisan on this?
Hello there, false equivalencies. One has nothing to do with the other
Quite frankly, most people in here have said throw all the violators out.
I noticed you have made no such statement.
-
The sexual assault and harassment stuff has been a time bomb since Clinton. When the National Organization for Women refused to do anything and stayed quiet it was one of the great disappointments to the women's movement. Terrible path to take. Enabled the actions with double standards. Only now is he finally being condemned and his accusers believed. Decades were lost. The left now saying he should have resigned rings hollow decades later. If he had done it then, imagine how far ahead we would be with this?
The most powerful man in the world taken down by those actions, but not to be. It would have woke people. Now Hollywood and other people of power are getting theirs, though it has also become weaponized. The carnage will be wide.
Fine. It was washed over in the past (as lots of issues have been before and will be in the future).
So do the right thing today. With everyone. Everywhere. Regardless of political party or position or power or wealth.
Agree?
-
I'm sure they have. Make them bigger. Offer more. Make it a part of a nationwide effort. While some people hold that our views on guns will never change, I don't believe that. I think with every mass shooting, more and more moderates are starting to believe that gun control is the answer to gun violence. The extremes may be getting more polarized, but I think the moderates on this topic are starting to shift in favor of gun control.
They had a buyback in Trenton a few years ago. What they discovered was those who sold their guns used the money to get a better gun.
-
Umm. Just watched the first episode of Punisher. I have to disagree.
I still have to get through the seasons of Luke Cage, Iron Fist (which I heard stinks), and the Defenders before I make it to the Punisher.
-
When did locker room talk become a crime. (if he actually did it, or tried, it would be. Has any actress ever come out and claim he did, or tried?)
Regarding the Miss Universe Locker Room, was he the only Man that did that? I thought the locker rooms were like Grand Central during those pageants and many did that (stagehands, other producers etc.)
Again ... I'm not defending Trump, I asking Jockey (latest of numerous falsehoods) that Trump to show where Trump is an admitted sexual criminal. Not true.
I never said locker room talk was a crime. I said if the actions he had at one point time claimed to have committed were true, then they could be considered sex crimes.
On the Miss Universe thing, I have no idea what the dressing room situation is like. Judging by the reactions of the contestants, it seems like it was shocking to them that a man was in there. I also am not familiar with the contest. Are all the girls of age in those things? If not, that's a whole extra layer of inappropriate. I would have thought the party that is so up in arms about where transgendered individuals use the bathroom would be extra outraged about men in women's dressing rooms.
-
Failure of gov't if you look at it.
In the Texas shooting the laws were in place to prevent him from buying a gun because he was dishonorably discharged, but the gov't screwed up by not putting him into the database to prevent it. So the cure is to penalize all of us that are legally using guns the correct way?
Laws were in place, but failed. The same is true in California where the killer stabbed someone earlier this year and was not able to buy guns. Instead, he built his own. The solution is to penalize the 99.9999% of us that respect people, guns, practice safety?
For those of us that own guns we are deeply troubled by the crazies that commit crimes, but when we hear someone say we have to do more what does more mean? What we already do doesn't work because gov't fails at enforcement. Which is why so many of us believe the true intentions is total ban, which the gun control lobby denies, but is very much on their minds. Boston Globe opined to confiscate all guns. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/11/10/hand-over-your-weapons/6IxJLanMKGak7RvCLipwbN/story.html
And yes, thoughts and prayers are never a bad thing. The failure of govt to enact the laws passed should not penalize others through additional gov't action that they will also fail at. Only law abiding people are hurt by this.
This is part of the problem. Who cares if the true intention is a total ban? When they propose a total ban, vote it down. In the meantime, taking some small steps towards compromise could save a lot of lives. Passing some increased gun control now doesn't mean that you have to support a gun ban later.
It doesn't have to be status quo or total gun ban. There are several places in the middel.
-
When did locker room talk become a crime. (if he actually did it, or tried, it would be. Has any actress ever come out and claim he did, or tried?)
Regarding the Miss Universe Locker Room, was he the only Man that did that? I thought the locker rooms were like Grand Central during those pageants and many did that (stagehands, other producers etc.)
Again ... I'm not defending Trump, I asking Jockey (latest of numerous falsehoods) that Trump to show where Trump is an admitted sexual criminal. Not true.
16 women, so far.
You are simply a hypocritical blowhard.
-
16 women, so far.
You are simply a hypocritical blowhard.
That doesn't make him and admitted sexual criminal.
It makes him a person with a lot of allegations.
-
This is part of the problem. Who cares if the true intention is a total ban? When they propose a total ban, vote it down. In the meantime, taking some small steps towards compromise could save a lot of lives. Passing some increased gun control now doesn't mean that you have to support a gun ban later.
It doesn't have to be status quo or total gun ban. There are several places in the middle.
Stop with the platitudes. What are the "several places in the middle?" Name them?
-
When did locker room talk become a crime. (if he actually did it, or tried, it would be. Has any actress ever come out and claim he did, or tried?)
Regarding the Miss Universe Locker Room, was he the only Man that did that? I thought the locker rooms were like Grand Central during those pageants and many did that (stagehands, other producers etc.)
Again ... I'm not defending Trump, I asking Jockey (latest of numerous falsehoods) that Trump to show where Trump is an admitted sexual criminal. Not true.
The mental gymnastics you are going through here are astounding. If this was considered an Olympic event, you'd have the gold medal locked up, truly.
-
Remember the concession that the NRA surprisingly made after LV - they were advocating that "bump stocks" be made illegal?
After a day or two of congresspeople nodding their heads ... crickets.
Still no law against bump stocks.
Still no law closing the gun-show loophole.
Still no law requiring universal background checks, which are supported by a huge majority of Americans - even a majority of NRA members! - but our legislators don't have the backbones for it.
Still no law preventing gun sales to those on the no-fly list and terrorist watch list.
So there you have a few recommendations that I and other Scoopers have made previously, regulations that have the wide support of our fellow Americans.
Would they stop all or most or many shootings? Probably not. But if they stop 100 or 50 or a dozen a year, they're not worth it? What happened to "all life is precious"?
What's funny (not really; it's sad) is that the same people who argue that none of these moderate gun regulations would save lives will go to the mat defending the Muslim ban even though such a ban would not have prevented any of the terrorist attacks so far.
-
16 women, so far.
You are simply a hypocritical blowhard.
17, actually.
https://qz.com/1130324/17-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault-or-misconduct-its-time-to-revisit-those-stories/
-
Iron Fist (which I heard stinks),
It is a bit overacted for sure. But it does have some pretty fun martial arts fighting scenes.
-
Remember the concession that the NRA surprisingly made after LV - they were advocating that "bump stocks" be made illegal?
After a day or two of congresspeople nodding their heads ... crickets.
Still no law against bump stocks.
Still no law closing the gun-show loophole.
Still no law requiring universal background checks, which are supported by a huge majority of Americans - even a majority of NRA members! - but our legislators don't have the backbones for it.
Still no law preventing gun sales to those on the no-fly list and terrorist watch list.
So there you have a few recommendations that I and other Scoopers have made previously, regulations that have the wide support of our fellow Americans.
Would they stop all or most or many shootings? Probably not. But if they stop 100 or 50 or a dozen a year, they're not worth it? What happened to "all life is precious"?
What's funny (not really; it's sad) is that the same people who argue that none of these moderate gun regulations would save lives will go to the mat defending the Muslim ban even though such a ban would not have prevented any of the terrorist attacks so far.
Go open one of the many closed threads, all of these were discussed at length. But to remind you
Still no law against bump stocks.
They are stupid and will be banned, agree
Still no law closing the gun-show loophole.
This is a fancy way of saying private gun sales. Go ahead an ban it, it is utterly unenforceable. Your neighbor gives you $100 for your pistol, no possible way to track this and know it happened.
Still no law requiring universal background checks, which are supported by a huge majority of Americans - even a majority of NRA members! - but our legislators don't have the backbones for it.
Wait, I thought the NRA ran Washington. How dare they defy them by having universal bakground checks. Fact is this requires the Government to tie in hundreds of databases into one repository, and then secure it from unconstiutional uses (like emploiyers or landloads using it). The Government cannot properly run a healthcare website. It is simply beyond their capaiblity. They have already spent/wasted billions to try and make this happen and they are nowhere.
Still no law preventing gun sales to those on the no-fly list and terrorist watch list.
You know the answer here. This list a total unconstitutional mess. I've repeatedly pointed out that when a name goes on the list, like Susan Johnson (the example of my friend), that means every Susan Johnson everywhere is banned from flying, and now you want to deny them a gun. Fix the list first! Again it is beyond the government's capability. They have spent tons of money trying and can't.
Bottom line, I agree that all these need to be fixed, but the Government cannot ... why do you think the Airforce did not report the Texas Church shooter. They are too incompetent and should never expect them to get competent enough to fix this.
-
Stop with the platitudes. What are the "several places in the middle?" Name them?
See 82's post for a lot of them. I would also advocate for longer waiting periods, increase required education, limits on magazines/mods, and increased penalties for possession of illegal firearms and illegally modified weapons.
-
Go open one of the many closed threads, all of these were discussed at length. But to remind you
Still no law against bump stocks.
They are stupid and will be banned, agree
Still no law closing the gun-show loophole.
This is a fancy way of saying private gun sales. Go ahead an ban it, it is utterly unenforceable. Your neighbor gives you $100 for your pistol, no possible way to track this and know it happened.
Still no law requiring universal background checks, which are supported by a huge majority of Americans - even a majority of NRA members! - but our legislators don't have the backbones for it.
Wait, I thought the NRA ran Washington. How dare they defy them by having universal bakground checks. Fact is this requires the Government to tie in hundreds of databases into one repository, and then secure it from unconstiutional uses (like emploiyers or landloads using it). The Government cannot properly run a healthcare website. It is simply beyond their capaiblity. They have already spent/wasted billions to try and make this happen and they are nowhere.
Still no law preventing gun sales to those on the no-fly list and terrorist watch list.
You know the answer here. This list a total unconstitutional mess. I've repeatedly pointed out that when a name goes on the list, like Susan Johnson (the example of my friend), that means every Susan Johnson everywhere is banned from flying, and now you want to deny them a gun. Fix the list first! Again it is beyond the government's capability. They have spent tons of money trying and can't.
Bottom line, I agree that all these need to be fixed, but the Government cannot ... why do you think the Airforce did not report the Texas Church shooter. They are too incompetent and should never expect them to get competent enough to fix this.
https://www.healthcare.gov/
Seems to work fine. No issues for me for years now.
-
See 82's post for a lot of them. I would also advocate for longer waiting periods, increase required education, limits on magazines/mods, and increased penalties for possession of illegal firearms and illegally modified weapons.
We have no waiting periods. Instant check now. We had waiting periods and were deemed ineffective. So it was tried and failed. What is the argument for them returning?
Increased education? What exactly does that mean? Force legal gun owners to spend money to attend government-sanctioned classes? How does this help control bad guys? How does this stop illegal activity? Sounds like punishing law-abiding citizens.
The penalties for illegal firearms and illegal modifications are pretty harsh now, including years in prison. What is the case that they are not harsh enough?
Magazines ... the problems is they are nothing but a hunk of metal and a spring. There are millions and millions out and about. The reason they are not banned is it is impossible to regulate. So, go ahead and pass the law, but please admit (if you're honest) that absolutely nothing has changed once the law has been passed.
-
I don't know what the exact solutions should be. I know more inaction isn't a good one.
i think a good start would be to quit plea bargaining or throwing out the felons in possession of a gun when charging them with the other laundry list of crimes in order to give them more probation or heaven forbid, the dreaded ankle bracelet
-
Every little bit helps. The goal isn't to fix everything tomorrow. The goal is to change the culture so future generations don't have to deal with the same level of violence that we do now.
-
i think a good start would be to quit plea bargaining or throwing out the felons in possession of a gun when charging them with the other laundry list of crimes in order to give them more probation or heaven forbid, the dreaded ankle bracelet
I can get behind some of this. Have a gun on you while you commit a violent crime, do double the time. Plea bargaining is usually done to net more people in a crime, or to guarantee a conviction (10 years for sure, instead of 80% chance to convict and get 15 years)... so I'd hate to get rid of that.
-
Every little bit helps. The goal isn't to fix everything tomorrow. The goal is to change the culture so future generations don't have to deal with the same level of violence that we do now.
And I'll ask the question yet again ... why is this happening now, as in the last five years! How do we know this won't naturally go away in a few years? This was not a problem before 2012.
------------
Until the 1930s you could buy machine guns, grenades, anti-tank weapons, cannons, mortars and the like. Sears Roebuck sold them through their catalogs. Why didn't we have a mass shooting problem before the 1930s? (I detailed this in a previously, now banned, post).
More recently, why was this problem non-existent until about five years ago? See the chart below.
We had millions of AR-15s in society in the 1980s and 1990s. Why was there less than 20 people killed a year in mass-shootings back then (meaning 1 or 3 a year). Why do we have about one a week now?
To be specific ... from 1982 to 2007 (25 years) only four mass shootings resulted in 10 or more killed. We had nine in the last seven years, and two in the last month. The last month has seen more mass shootings killing 10 or more than all of the 1980s.
What changed? Hint: It is not the availability of semi-automatic guns, as I have repeatedly pointed out, they have been in society for 140 years. They have numbered in the hundreds of millions for decades.
Don't you think before we demand solutions these questions need to be answered first?
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-3
(https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/20171111_woc931.png)
-
It's a lie that this was not a problem until 5 years ago. It became a bigger problem 5 years ago.
-
It's a lie that this was not a problem until 5 years ago. It became a bigger problem 5 years ago.
Lie is a strong word. Look at the chart again, before 2012 it was less than 20 a year, save the once every few years incident Only five times in the 30 years between 1982 and 2012 was it more than 20 in a year. and in 13 of these years, it was one or zero shootings for the year. Still more people are killed struck by lighting than mass shootings.
---
What did the mentally unstable do to kill people in the 1980s? Serial killings, see the chart below. But as serial killings declined, mass shootings are on the rise. (MU is very familiar with serial killers as Dahmer was at 24th and State in the 1980s). Interesting that the peak of serial killings saw the same number of victims as mass shootings now.
So how do we know that this mass shooting epidemic is the next phase, after serial killings, as the mentally unstable move on to some other way in a few years?
If this has merit, then gun control is not only ineffective but counter-productive.
https://www.allanalytics.com/author.asp?section_id=3619&doc_id=278214
(http://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/files/2015/07/us_serial_killers_by_year.png)
Was guns the issue with serial killings? Less than half were by gun. So the mentally unstable found a way to do it without a gun, and probably will again.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/O31FXoVCEUzDDxs7m2NB2oP11Uw=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7564601/serial_killer_victims.png)
-
17, actually.
https://qz.com/1130324/17-women-have-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault-or-misconduct-its-time-to-revisit-those-stories/
Nothin’ compared to the BeeJays given ta Bill in the Oval Office. Actually, I offer my congratulations ta Bill on dat choice. if I were married to his mess, I’d stray too, ai na?
-
All your data shows me is that things are getting worse. I don't think it has anything to do with the rise and fall of serial killers. I think it has a lot more to do with a culture that has become increasingly obsessed with violence and guns. I want less children growing up around and glorifying guns and violence.
-
All your data shows me is that things are getting worse. I don't think it has anything to do with the rise and fall of serial killers. I think it has a lot more to do with a culture that has become increasingly obsessed with violence and guns. I want less children growing up around and glorifying guns and violence.
This I agree with this ... are you in favor of censoring Hollywood?
-
Nothin’ compared to the BeeJays given ta Bill in the Oval Office. Actually, I offer my congratulations ta Bill on dat choice. if I were married to his mess, I’d stray too, ai na?
Why is this an accepted/go to response in today's political culture? "But someone on the other side did something bad too!" Why can't it be "Yeah, the guy on my side screwed up, just like the guy on the other side did, let's hold them both accountable" Ai na?
-
This I agree with this ... are you in favor of censoring Hollywood?
Censoring? No. Educating yes.
-
We didn't significantly decrease any public health crisis overnight. Just look at auto accident fatalities
-
It has a far higher rate of success than doing nothing.
You and your cronies spin your wheels like crazy taking action action action. Please. Propose a gun law that will actually accomplish something. You guys reward activity and don't give a darn about results.
-
Every little bit helps. The goal isn't to fix everything tomorrow. The goal is to change the culture so future generations don't have to deal with the same level of violence that we do now.
Well said.
-
Lie is a strong word. Look at the chart again, before 2012 it was less than 20 a year, save the once every few years incident Only five times in the 30 years between 1982 and 2012 was it more than 20 in a year. and in 13 of these years, it was one or zero shootings for the year. Still more people are killed struck by lighting than mass shootings.
---
What did the mentally unstable do to kill people in the 1980s? Serial killings, see the chart below. But as serial killings declined, mass shootings are on the rise. (MU is very familiar with serial killers as Dahmer was at 24th and State in the 1980s). Interesting that the peak of serial killings saw the same number of victims as mass shootings now.
So how do we know that this mass shooting epidemic is the next phase, after serial killings, as the mentally unstable move on to some other way in a few years?
If this has merit, then gun control is not only ineffective but counter-productive.
https://www.allanalytics.com/author.asp?section_id=3619&doc_id=278214
(http://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/files/2015/07/us_serial_killers_by_year.png)
Was guns the issue with serial killings? Less than half were by gun. So the mentally unstable found a way to do it without a gun, and probably will again.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/O31FXoVCEUzDDxs7m2NB2oP11Uw=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7564601/serial_killer_victims.png)
Incomplete data, especially when you go back to the 1930s. It doesn't include the proliferation of weapons, which is a key piece of information.
-
You and your cronies spin your wheels like crazy taking action action action. Please. Propose a gun law that will actually accomplish something. You guys reward activity and don't give a darn about results.
This is dumb. How do you know that the multitude of proposals in this thread won't accomplish anything? You don't because politicians don't have the backbone to put any of them into motion.
-
Censoring? No. Educating yes.
Educating in what sense?
Personally, I don't believe violent movies, music, or video games have much impact, if any, on all of this.
I enjoy each one of those and I don't have any desire to own a gun. That's a simplification but on a larger scale I don't think there's a connection. (I also realize you're not stating that there is).
-
Incomplete data, especially when you go back to the 1930s. It doesn't include the proliferation of weapons, which is a key piece of information.
Read it again, there is no proliferation of weapons! If anything, we are less armed now than the 1930s or earlier. Grenades were legal before 1930!
I have written this about a hundred times and non-gun owners either don't want to believe it or do not understand ... the semi-automatic weapon was invented in the 1880s. The majority of guns are semi-automatic and have been for almost a hundred years. In the 1920s, as in about a 100 years ago, gangsters used the Thompson submachine gun (aka Tommy Gun). That gun was at least as lethal, and probably more lethal (as it was fully automatic) than the AR-15 today.
So, let's put a rest to this idea that there is some breed of new "super-gun" is behind this rise in mass shootings. Armor-Lite (or "AR) invented the AR-15 about 65 years ago. Why did we see an epidemic of the mass shooting the first 50 years after the AR-15 was invented?
The availability of guns is largely unchanged for 140 years. But mass-shooting is a relatively new thing (despite TAMU protests).
So, again, why now? What changed from 2011 or earlier? Answer that and we can craft a real solution.
-
This is dumb. How do you know that the multitude of proposals in this thread won't accomplish anything? You don't because politicians don't have the backbone to put any of them into motion.
Because Sultan is proposing stuff that is already existing laws
Tamu wants stuff that has been tried and failed (like longer waiting periods).
This is what makes these threads so interesting. Everyone that thinks they are "smart" is actually very ignorant about guns and prefer primal screams of "do something" and when someone proposes something their primal scream does not agree with, instead of a reasoned argument, they are reduced to attacks and insults.
Write this large and you have the entire country.
So, Jockey and Sultan, the problem is you blaming me and other gun owners as having "blood our hands." The reality is you would rather show your moral superiority over "mouth-breathing" gun owners than actually fix the problem. Becuase, if you really wanted to fix this problem, you would take seriously ideas you disagree with.
No one wants this problem fixed more than gun owners so the ignorant, like you guys, stop attacking us.
-
Personally, I don't believe violent movies, music, or video games have much impact, if any, on all of this.
I enjoy each one of those and I don't have any desire to own a gun. That's a simplification but on a larger scale I don't think there's a connection. (I also realize you're not stating that there is).
Simplification? Smoking doesn't give lots of people cancer. Can those who avoid it conclude that it's safe?
-
Read it again, there is no proliferation of weapons! If anything, we are less armed now than the 1930s or earlier. Grenades were legal before 1930!
I have written this about a hundred times and non-gun owners either don't want to believe it or do not understand ... the semi-automatic weapon was invented in the 1880s. The majority of guns are semi-automatic and have been for almost a hundred years. In the 1920s, as in about a 100 years ago, gangsters used the Thompson submachine gun (aka Tommy Gun). That gun was at least as lethal, and probably more lethal (as it was fully automatic) than the AR-15 today.
So, let's put a rest to this idea that there is some breed of new "super-gun" is behind this rise in mass shootings. Armor-Lite (or "AR) invented the AR-15 about 65 years ago. Why did we see an epidemic of the mass shooting the first 50 years after the AR-15 was invented?
The availability of guns is largely unchanged for 140 years. But mass-shooting is a relatively new thing (despite TAMU protests).
So, again, why now? What changed from 2011 or earlier? Answer that and we can craft a real solution.
I stopped reading when you used the legality of grenades as a talking point.
-
I stopped reading when you used the legality of grenades as a talking point.
Exactly my point, you are completely ignorant about the history of weaponry in the public hands and want to stay that way so you can make up things and then call anyone that disagrees with you an idiot.
Exactly the problem with the larger gun debate.
-
Do we know that Chica and Heisy aren't the same person?
Same MO.
1. Carpet bomb threads with every argumentative thought in their heads until they drive everyone away. Then disappear for a while.
2. Change names often thinking they are outsmarting all of us dummies here.
3. Are encouraged by the two or three who agree with their politics into believing they are even smarter yet.
-
Do we know that Chica and Heisy aren't the same person?
Same MO.
1. Carpet bomb threads with every argumentative thought in their heads until they drive everyone away. Then disappear for a while.
2. Change names often thinking they are outsmarting all of us dummies here.
3. Are encouraged by the two or three who agree with their politics into believing they are even smarter yet.
Birds of a feather, but certainly not the same bird.
-
Exactly my point, you are completely ignorant about the history of weaponry in the public hands and want to stay that way so you can make up things and then call anyone that disagrees with you an idiot.
Exactly the problem with the larger gun debate.
I've read enough of your ludicrous posts to know when not to waste my time. Your repeated insistence that what was happening in the 1930s has a strong correlation to what is happening 80-90 years later tells me all I need to know.
-
Heisy, you are acting like gun ownership exists in a vacuum. No one is arguing that that semi-autos haven't existed for decades. But we as a country have changed over the decades. For one, we are no longer a country where a majority of our population lives in spread out rural areas. For another, the proliferation of weapons has increased dramatically. Now you sidestepped this by saying "but you could own grenades!" But NPR estimates that since 1968, the guns per capita in the USA has doubled. For another, our culture increasingly glorifies guns and violence. For another, the 24 hour news cycle increases our awareness of these events and unfortunately adds to the immortalization of those who commit these acts of violence. Mental health concerns are on the rise.
These are just off the top of my head. I don't care if there weren't as many mass shootings in 1930. There have been way too many of them in the past 30 years. And we are the only country experiencing this. To throw up our hands and say "whoops, nothing to be done" is lazy and unethical.
-
Everyone that thinks they are "smart" is actually very ignorant about guns and prefer primal screams of "do something" and when someone proposes something their primal scream does not agree with, instead of a reasoned argument, they are reduced to attacks and insults.
Write this large and you have the entire country.
So, Jockey and Sultan, the problem is you blaming me and other gun owners as having "blood our hands." The reality is you would rather show your moral superiority over "mouth-breathing" gun owners than actually fix the problem. Becuase, if you really wanted to fix this problem, you would take seriously ideas you disagree with.
No one wants this problem fixed more than gun owners so the ignorant, like you guys, stop attacking us.
The only idea I have seen you propose, Mr. NRA, is "more good guys with guns."
What about bigly extra money to deal with mental-health issues? After all, it's a mental-health problem, right?
>>Everyone that thinks they are "smart" is actually very ignorant>>
This is you to a T, Smuggles. Nobody is as smart as you. Nobody. Well, maybe one, your orange-hued hero. But otherwise, nobody. (Nice grammar, BTW.)
-
The only idea I have seen you propose, Mr. NRA, is "more good guys with guns."
What about bigly extra money to deal with mental-health issues? After all, it's a mental-health problem, right?
>>Everyone that thinks they are "smart" is actually very ignorant>>
This is you to a T, Smuggles. Nobody is as smart as you. Nobody. Well, maybe one, your orange-hued hero. But otherwise, nobody. (Nice grammar, BTW.)
Me after repeatedly listening to logic involving good guys with guns, grenades, and 1930s weapons/mass shooting statistics:
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1305979/1-21-gigawatts-o.gif)
-
What changed? Hint: It is not the availability of semi-automatic guns, as I have repeatedly pointed out, they have been in society for 140 years. They have numbered in the hundreds of millions for decades.
(https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/20171111_woc931.png)
Oh, a few things have changed: guns, guns, and moar gunz
(https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/guns_manuf.jpg?itok=Do_Y28Aa)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4342379/gun_ownership_and_homicide_victimization.0.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/Gunmakers_Bars_630.png)
(https://img.readitlater.com/direct?resize=w2000&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F4118836%2Fgun%2520ownership%2520states.png)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/09/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions-1449710314128/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions-1449710314128-master495-v6.jpg)
-
Oh, a few things have changed: guns, guns, and moar gunz
(https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/guns_manuf.jpg?itok=Do_Y28Aa)
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4342379/gun_ownership_and_homicide_victimization.0.jpg)
(http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/Gunmakers_Bars_630.png)
(https://img.readitlater.com/direct?resize=w2000&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.vox-cdn.com%2Fuploads%2Fchorus_asset%2Ffile%2F4118836%2Fgun%2520ownership%2520states.png)
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/09/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions-1449710314128/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions-1449710314128-master495-v6.jpg)
So what is the proper amount of guns that the country should have? 200 million? 250 million? What is the magic level that it becomes too much?
Again, TAMU can protest all he wants but when we had 200 to 250 million guns in the coutnry in the 1980s mas shooting was not a problem ... we averaged about 1.5 a year with less than 20 killed/year. Now we have about 120 killed from mass shootings a year, and it started spiking in the last five years.
This is why I said their is not a profilaterion of weapons. We have had semi-automatic military style weapons in society for a century. We have worse prior to the 1930s. Their was not shortage of these weapons for decades. And for decades we did not have these shootings. The problem is not avaialbility.
So, I await your made up number about what the maximum number of guns the country should have. Or, do you have the courage to speak what your mind ... and say it is zero?
-
Heisey, I said mass shootings are not new to the last 5 years but dramatically increased in the last five years. And if you think 1.5 mass shootings a year is not a problem, that's a problem.
I don't know how many guns is appropriate. But since we are number one in guns per capita and our number is nearly double the country in second it's probably less than we currently have.
-
You are giving the NRA a bad name. None of these killers were members of the NRA. The organization supports our rights, guaranteed by the Constitution which too many want to erode.
Politico Magazine claims mass shootings are more deadly, not more frequent. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678
What has changed in the last 5 to 10 years?
Social media and the ability to go out in a blaze of glory
Smart phones and the voyeresque abilities that go with them
Media coverage. 24 hour news dedicated to providing news to fit news bias. General news doesn't exist anymore, it is targeted. See blaze of glory above.
Population growth
Prisoner releases. States have released 1000's of prisoners for what they deemed low level crimes due to overcrowding and crime has gone up in many of these states as a result
-
Fine. It was washed over in the past (as lots of issues have been before and will be in the future).
So do the right thing today. With everyone. Everywhere. Regardless of political party or position or power or wealth.
Agree?
Agree, but if we are going to tear down statues in this country, then there are some people that have been lionized that need a reexamination as well.
Was it washed over, or was it left out and not covered on purpose? Media protecting their own? How many stories do we in the general public never get to read about because the media chooses not to report it? Their power is unfettered and they can pick and choose who to lay waste to.
The Lion of the Senate, the great Ted Kennedy. He was built up as a Mt. Rushmore of the left, but this is the kind of stuff that he was doing and dismissed as boys being boys. The Waitress Sandwich with Chris Dodd, published in GQ because the normal mainstream media didn't want to bother with it.:
Brasserie I: In December 1985, just before he announced he would run for president in 1988, Kennedy allegedly manhandled a pretty young woman employed as a Brasserie waitress. The woman, Carla Gaviglio, declined to be quoted in this article, but says the following account, a similar version of which first appeared in Penthouse last year, is full and accurate:
It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant's annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. "They'd always get their girls very, very drunk," says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.
As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.
Eyewitness Betty Loh told me that Kennedy had "three or four" cocktails in his first half hour at the restaurant and wine with dinner. When she walked into the room after Gaviglio had gone in, she says, "what I saw was Senator Kennedy on top of Carla, who was on top of Senator Dodd's lap, and the tablecloth was sort of slid off the table 'cause the table was knocked over—not completely, but just on Senator Dodd's lap a little bit, and of course the glasses and the candlesticks were totally spilled and everything. And right when I walked in, Senator Kennedy jumped off…and he leaped up, composed himself and got up. And Carla jumped up and ran out of the room."
From all available evidence, God created our elected officials to drink and screw around.
According to Loh, Kennedy "was sort of leaning" on Gaviglio, "not really straddling but sort of off-balance so it was like he might have accidentally fallen…He was partially on and off…pushing himself off her to get up." Dodd, she adds, "said 'It's not my fault.' " Kennedy said something similar and added, jokingly, "Makes you wonder about the leaders of this country."
Giving Kennedy the benefit of the doubt, it's quite possible he did not intend an assault but meant to be funny, in a repulsive, boozehead way. Drunks are notoriously poor judges of distance, including the distance between fun and assault.
Brasserie II: On September 25, 1987, Kennedy and a young blonde woman—identified by several sources as a congressional lobbyist—allegedly got carried away at a wine-fueled lunch in a private room upstairs and succumbed to the temptations of the carpet, where they were surprised in a state of semi-undress and wholehearted passion by waitress Frauke Morgan. The room, located next to the restrooms, is secured only by a flimsy accordion door, which could not be fully closed. Morgan declined to be interviewed for this story or to comment on or refute the accounts of other sources.
However, waitress Virginia Hurt, who says Morgan described the scene to her shortly after witnessing it, recalls, "He was on the floor with his pants down on top of the woman, and he saw her and she just kind of backed away and closed the door. The girl didn't see Frauke. So Frauke went downstairs and told the manager and [another waitress] overheard."
A waitress to whom Morgan spoke just after the incident says, "She told me…she went up to offer them coffee and when she opened the door…there they were on the floor." Morgan said explicitly, the other waitress goes on, that Kennedy had his pants down and his date "had her dress up," and the two " 'were screwing on the floor.' "
Says another waitress to whom Morgan immediately related the episode, "She said she had walked in to ask them if they needed anything else before she gave them the check, and she just sort of found Senator Kennedy on top of this [woman] on the floor and they were sort of half under the table and half out."
A copy of La Brasserie's reservation list for that day shows that a luncheon table for two in the back room was reserved for Kennedy. A copy of the check, signed "Edward M. Kennedy," shows he was billed for two bottles of Chardonnay.
-
Hmmmm...I wonder who this guy "TYME Machine" is?
-
Hmmmm...I wonder who this guy "TYME Machine" is?
Quite a mystery. Apparently he did earn another ban after he defended a pedophile, but that isn't going to stop him from posting.
-
This is why I said their is not a profilaterion of weapons.
And this why you have it wrong, which seems to be your thing. It is quite clear: more guns = more deaths. It is quite simple, yet it eludes you.
-
Agree, but if we are going to tear down statues in this country, then there are some people that have been lionized that need a reexamination as well.
Was it washed over, or was it left out and not covered on purpose? Media protecting their own? How many stories do we in the general public never get to read about because the media chooses not to report it? Their power is unfettered and they can pick and choose who to lay waste to.
The Lion of the Senate, the great Ted Kennedy. He was built up as a Mt. Rushmore of the left, but this is the kind of stuff that he was doing and dismissed as boys being boys. The Waitress Sandwich with Chris Dodd, published in GQ because the normal mainstream media didn't want to bother with it.:
Brasserie I: In December 1985, just before he announced he would run for president in 1988, Kennedy allegedly manhandled a pretty young woman employed as a Brasserie waitress. The woman, Carla Gaviglio, declined to be quoted in this article, but says the following account, a similar version of which first appeared in Penthouse last year, is full and accurate:
It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant's annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. "They'd always get their girls very, very drunk," says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.
As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.
Eyewitness Betty Loh told me that Kennedy had "three or four" cocktails in his first half hour at the restaurant and wine with dinner. When she walked into the room after Gaviglio had gone in, she says, "what I saw was Senator Kennedy on top of Carla, who was on top of Senator Dodd's lap, and the tablecloth was sort of slid off the table 'cause the table was knocked over—not completely, but just on Senator Dodd's lap a little bit, and of course the glasses and the candlesticks were totally spilled and everything. And right when I walked in, Senator Kennedy jumped off…and he leaped up, composed himself and got up. And Carla jumped up and ran out of the room."
From all available evidence, God created our elected officials to drink and screw around.
According to Loh, Kennedy "was sort of leaning" on Gaviglio, "not really straddling but sort of off-balance so it was like he might have accidentally fallen…He was partially on and off…pushing himself off her to get up." Dodd, she adds, "said 'It's not my fault.' " Kennedy said something similar and added, jokingly, "Makes you wonder about the leaders of this country."
Giving Kennedy the benefit of the doubt, it's quite possible he did not intend an assault but meant to be funny, in a repulsive, boozehead way. Drunks are notoriously poor judges of distance, including the distance between fun and assault.
Brasserie II: On September 25, 1987, Kennedy and a young blonde woman—identified by several sources as a congressional lobbyist—allegedly got carried away at a wine-fueled lunch in a private room upstairs and succumbed to the temptations of the carpet, where they were surprised in a state of semi-undress and wholehearted passion by waitress Frauke Morgan. The room, located next to the restrooms, is secured only by a flimsy accordion door, which could not be fully closed. Morgan declined to be interviewed for this story or to comment on or refute the accounts of other sources.
However, waitress Virginia Hurt, who says Morgan described the scene to her shortly after witnessing it, recalls, "He was on the floor with his pants down on top of the woman, and he saw her and she just kind of backed away and closed the door. The girl didn't see Frauke. So Frauke went downstairs and told the manager and [another waitress] overheard."
A waitress to whom Morgan spoke just after the incident says, "She told me…she went up to offer them coffee and when she opened the door…there they were on the floor." Morgan said explicitly, the other waitress goes on, that Kennedy had his pants down and his date "had her dress up," and the two " 'were screwing on the floor.' "
Says another waitress to whom Morgan immediately related the episode, "She said she had walked in to ask them if they needed anything else before she gave them the check, and she just sort of found Senator Kennedy on top of this [woman] on the floor and they were sort of half under the table and half out."
A copy of La Brasserie's reservation list for that day shows that a luncheon table for two in the back room was reserved for Kennedy. A copy of the check, signed "Edward M. Kennedy," shows he was billed for two bottles of Chardonnay.
Holy crap.
I literally just said do the right thing on both sides and throw them all out.
Holy unnatural carnal knowledge. I can't believe I had to repeat it.
This equivalency stuff is so outrageous.
-
Al Franken sighting....on a milk carton.
-
Heisey, I said mass shootings are not new to the last 5 years but dramatically increased in the last five years. And if you think 1.5 mass shootings a year is not a problem, that's a problem.
I don't know how many guns is appropriate. But since we are number one in guns per capita and our number is nearly double the country in second it's probably less than we currently have.
First, you say we cannot stop all of them, then you call 1.5/year to many and demand more gun restrictions.
The only way they are going to zero is a total ban. But you don't want that.
Make up your mind.
-
Holy crap.
I literally just said do the right thing on both sides and throw them all out.
Holy unnatural carnal knowledge. I can't believe I had to repeat it.
This equivalency stuff is so outrageous.
I've said this for a long time too, but is seems some people don't get it. Throw them all out. If they broke the law, through them all in jail. It seems a lot of people aren't actually concerned with the crimes, and assaults these people commit, they are more worried about if they can personally benefit from person X being in office.
-
I've said this for a long time too, but is seems some people don't get it. Throw them all out. If they broke the law, through them all in jail. It seems a lot of people aren't actually concerned with the crimes, and assaults these people commit, they are more worried about if they can personally benefit from person X being in office.
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-what-are-our-representatives-supposed-do
During America's founding era, a significant debate took place about the nature of representation in a democratically elected government. Were representatives supposed to act as simple proxies for their constituents? Or were they supposed to exercise independent judgment?
Edmund Burke was a forceful advocate for the latter position: A representative, he said, was supposed to exercise his "mature judgment, his enlightened conscience. And "he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living." John Stuart Mill, too, believed that representatives ought to act independently; he said: "A person whose desires and impulses are his own...is said to have a character. One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam-engine has a character."
Then there were those who argued that to exercise independent judgment would be to betray voters, that they sent you there with a mission, and your job is to fulfill that mission. This so-called delegate view of representation is supremely transactional — we only bother electing representatives in this view in order to do the work we're not willing to do. They aren't elected to spend time learning about the issues or broaden their perspective beyond the regional. They're there to do what you want them to do.
This debate has finally come to a head recently, not because sectional representatives have forgone their voters but because characterless people are running for office more and more. Those who believe in the Burkean model oppose such people — we say that to put those without character in charge of policy is to leave our future in the hands of the untrustworthy. Those who believe in the delegate model can embrace such people — they say that so long as the representative votes the right way on the issues, they can murder dogs in the backyard or allegedly molest young girls.
Nina Burleigh's perspective on then-President Bill Clinton falls into this second camp. "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," she said. So does Rep. Mo Brooks' perspective on Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore. He said: "Roy Moore will vote right ... That's why I'm voting for Roy Moore."
There's a certain freedom to this perspective. It allows us to forgo discussion about the nature of the people we support — so long as they're not lying about how they vote, we can trust them in office. The founders, however, would have rejected this perspective. The Federalist Papers are replete with explanations of just why a good government would require good men. The founders greatly feared the constraints of a parchment barrier against characterless men; they didn't trust human nature enough to believe those child molesters or puppy torturers would be bound by simple conformity with the public will.
And the founders were right. History has shown that bad men in positions of power rarely get better; they often get worse. They tend to abuse power. They tend to exercise their judgment — or lack thereof — even when they pledge to do otherwise. That means that we must measure our candidates for character as well as position. "May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof," President John Adams prayed regarding the White House. He didn't pray that they agree with him on tariffs.
-
One more thing about Franken being the subject of an ethics investigation ....
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/04/senate-ethics-panel-has-issued-no-punishments-9-years/79704196/
Between 2007 and 2015 the Senate ethics committee received 613 allegations of wrongdoing. Only 75 made it to a preliminary investigation being opened. The rest were dismissed without getting this far.
So, how many of these 75 preliminary investigations resulted in punishment? Answer, ZERO.
Franken has nothing to worry about.
-
Agree, but if we are going to tear down statues in this country, then there are some people that have been lionized that need a reexamination as well.
Was it washed over, or was it left out and not covered on purpose? Media protecting their own? How many stories do we in the general public never get to read about because the media chooses not to report it? Their power is unfettered and they can pick and choose who to lay waste to.
The Lion of the Senate, the great Ted Kennedy. He was built up as a Mt. Rushmore of the left, but this is the kind of stuff that he was doing and dismissed as boys being boys. The Waitress Sandwich with Chris Dodd, published in GQ because the normal mainstream media didn't want to bother with it.:
Brasserie I: In December 1985, just before he announced he would run for president in 1988, Kennedy allegedly manhandled a pretty young woman employed as a Brasserie waitress. The woman, Carla Gaviglio, declined to be quoted in this article, but says the following account, a similar version of which first appeared in Penthouse last year, is full and accurate:
It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant's annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. "They'd always get their girls very, very drunk," says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.
As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.
Eyewitness Betty Loh told me that Kennedy had "three or four" cocktails in his first half hour at the restaurant and wine with dinner. When she walked into the room after Gaviglio had gone in, she says, "what I saw was Senator Kennedy on top of Carla, who was on top of Senator Dodd's lap, and the tablecloth was sort of slid off the table 'cause the table was knocked over—not completely, but just on Senator Dodd's lap a little bit, and of course the glasses and the candlesticks were totally spilled and everything. And right when I walked in, Senator Kennedy jumped off…and he leaped up, composed himself and got up. And Carla jumped up and ran out of the room."
From all available evidence, God created our elected officials to drink and screw around.
According to Loh, Kennedy "was sort of leaning" on Gaviglio, "not really straddling but sort of off-balance so it was like he might have accidentally fallen…He was partially on and off…pushing himself off her to get up." Dodd, she adds, "said 'It's not my fault.' " Kennedy said something similar and added, jokingly, "Makes you wonder about the leaders of this country."
Giving Kennedy the benefit of the doubt, it's quite possible he did not intend an assault but meant to be funny, in a repulsive, boozehead way. Drunks are notoriously poor judges of distance, including the distance between fun and assault.
Brasserie II: On September 25, 1987, Kennedy and a young blonde woman—identified by several sources as a congressional lobbyist—allegedly got carried away at a wine-fueled lunch in a private room upstairs and succumbed to the temptations of the carpet, where they were surprised in a state of semi-undress and wholehearted passion by waitress Frauke Morgan. The room, located next to the restrooms, is secured only by a flimsy accordion door, which could not be fully closed. Morgan declined to be interviewed for this story or to comment on or refute the accounts of other sources.
However, waitress Virginia Hurt, who says Morgan described the scene to her shortly after witnessing it, recalls, "He was on the floor with his pants down on top of the woman, and he saw her and she just kind of backed away and closed the door. The girl didn't see Frauke. So Frauke went downstairs and told the manager and [another waitress] overheard."
A waitress to whom Morgan spoke just after the incident says, "She told me…she went up to offer them coffee and when she opened the door…there they were on the floor." Morgan said explicitly, the other waitress goes on, that Kennedy had his pants down and his date "had her dress up," and the two " 'were screwing on the floor.' "
Says another waitress to whom Morgan immediately related the episode, "She said she had walked in to ask them if they needed anything else before she gave them the check, and she just sort of found Senator Kennedy on top of this [woman] on the floor and they were sort of half under the table and half out."
A copy of La Brasserie's reservation list for that day shows that a luncheon table for two in the back room was reserved for Kennedy. A copy of the check, signed "Edward M. Kennedy," shows he was billed for two bottles of Chardonnay.
Ah, there's Jamie.
-
Al Franken sighting....on a milk carton.
Do pedophiles and serial assaulters bother you as well?
-
Agree, but if we are going to tear down statues in this country, then there are some people that have been lionized that need a reexamination as well.
Serious question.
Why is it important to you to keep statues of traitors to the US? They definitely have their place in museums and Nat'l Parks such as Gettysburg and others where they are marking history. But why do favor having them in other places?
Also do you know when the majority of these statues were erected?
-
Serious question.
Why is it important to you to keep statues of traitors to the US? They definitely have their place in museums and Nat'l Parks such as Gettysburg and others where they are marking history. But why do favor having them in other places?
Also do you know when the majority of these statues were erected?
Do you want to go down this road? Whatever emotional reaction we have this week decides who stays and who goes?
Becuase NYC is thinking about tearing down Columbus Circle. Jefferson is also at risk.
How about Che Guevara in Central Park? Can we tear him down too? How about the Stephen Douglass tomb/memorial on Chicago's Southside? When Feminist start objecting to the Picasso in Daley Plaza, will that go too?
Point is once you go down this road, over time different people will have different "visions of history" and they will all come down.
Otherwise, tell me the standard by which some go (Confederate soldiers) and some stay (Columbus)? Or, do you want all the above to go?
-
Do you want to go down this road? Whatever emotional reaction we have this week decides who stays and who goes?
Becuase NYC is thinking about tearing down Columbus Circle. Jefferson is also at risk.
How about Che Guevara in Central Park? Can we tear him down too? How about the Stephen Douglass tomb/memorial on Chicago's Southside? When Feminist start objecting to the Picasso in Daley Plaza, will that go too?
Point is once you go down this road, over time different people will have different "visions of history" and they will all come down.
Otherwise, tell me the standard by which some go (Confederate soldiers) and some stay (Columbus)? Or, do you want all the above to go?
I figured a serious question would get a silly response.
-
I figured a serious question would get a silly response.
Actually, it was a serious response. Your problem is you see the name and you always judge books by the cover, which is one of your many issues.
So, answer the questions, or is beyond your ability. What is the standard and when do we say no?
And here start with this ... in Charlottesville, the home of the University of Virginia, the school that Thomas Jefferson founded, his statue has been covered up.
These protestors apparently agree with you when you said Why is it important to you to keep statues of traitors to the US?
You agree with them? Was "TJ" a rapist and racist? Are you going to defend their right to tear this down?
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/13B3A/production/_97789608_picture.jpg)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41258592
Dozens of people staged the protest on Tuesday, reportedly posting a sign reading "TJ is a racist and rapist".
The act happened exactly one month after a far-right rally was held against plans to remove the statue of a Confederate general in the town's park.
-
I figured a serious question would get a silly response.
Tackle this one too wise one. Does Columbus fit your standard of Why is it important to you to keep statues of traitors to the US?
New York mayor considers Christopher Columbus statue removal
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/25/new-york-christopher-columbus-statue-de-blasio
Bill de Blasio, the New York mayor, has said he may order the removal of the landmark statue of Christopher Columbus that has overlooked Manhattan’s Columbus Circle since it was erected as part of the city’s 1892 commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the explorer landing in the Americas.
And this ... is he a traitor too?
Chicago pastor urges mayor to remove George Washington statue, rename park over slavery
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/16/rahm-emanuel-urged-by-chicago-pastor-to-remove-geo/
Bishop James E. Dukes of Chicago’s Liberation Christian Center made headlines in the Windy City on Wednesday for calling on Mayor Rahm Emanuel to rename Washington Park and remove a statue of the first U.S. president over his ties to slavery. Mr. Dukes told his Facebook flock that “it’s time” after Mr. Trump sparred with reporters over efforts to expunge Civil War-era monuments from existence.
-
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ben-shapiro/ben-shapiro-what-are-our-representatives-supposed-do
Your whole diatribe (typical mostly cut and paste) is fatally flawed. It assumes that those voting right or left are doing so because of the constituents and not because they are voting their free independent mind.
People like Moore have plenty of character. Bad character. He has consistently been vocal about race and sex issues, and voted consistently with his personal beliefs. His actions indicate he believes in how he voted on race and sex issues. People are voting for him, because his character for the most part matches theirs. They also believe the same things he has spoken out about race and sex issues. They then excuse away these allegations (wholly consistent with his character), as attacks from their vile opposition.
People vote in people with plenty of character, bad character, and they then vote for their own self-interest (not their constituents).
It reminds me of a colleague of mine, who just yesterday said he didn't believe any of these allegations against Moore (or similarly Trump), and that women are lying because it doesn't happen that often. He said he knows this because of his three daughters only his oldest ever had anything happen to her, when a construction worker smacked her on the ass when she was wearing short shorts. He explained, that when she told them, they properly told her she just can't go around wearing shorts like that...they blamed her. He then explained that she never, nor her sisters ever had any problems, cause they would tell him everything.
Well, no they wouldn't, not when they were blamed when it happened to them. This is the problem.
-
"People are voting for him, because his character for the most part matches theirs."
this is NOT the way i see it nor i doubt the, let's just say, 50% of alabama voters see it. if this were true, do you apply the same toward BC and/or HRC ?? and then, anyone else who has obvious character flaws?
your story about your colleague, may i add, is also way way in the minority. this doesn't sound like one of your best posts forgetful
-
Ah, the old slippery slope argument.
If we get rid of the statues of traitors who killed scores of Americans just so they could keep enslaving an entire race of humans ... then that will open the floodgates to statues of Jefferson and Washington being removed.
You know what, Smuggles? It's a risk I'm willing to take.
Let's deal with one issue at a time. Let's take the statues of traitors - and there is no other word for them - to museums where they belong and then we can deal with other issues on a case-by-case basis.
I have a feeling that if we do that, we won't be getting rid of Jefferson and Washington statues. But maybe we will; we'll see.
And for those who really get pissed off if statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson get taken down and sent to museums ... I send them my thoughts and prayers.
-
Your whole diatribe (typical mostly cut and paste) is fatally flawed. It assumes that those voting right or left are doing so because of the constituents and not because they are voting their free independent mind.
People like Moore have plenty of character. Bad character. He has consistently been vocal about race and sex issues, and voted consistently with his personal beliefs. His actions indicate he believes in how he voted on race and sex issues. People are voting for him, because his character for the most part matches theirs. They also believe the same things he has spoken out about race and sex issues. They then excuse away these allegations (wholly consistent with his character), as attacks from their vile opposition.
People vote in people with plenty of character, bad character, and they then vote for their own self-interest (not their constituents).
It reminds me of a colleague of mine, who just yesterday said he didn't believe any of these allegations against Moore (or similarly Trump), and that women are lying because it doesn't happen that often. He said he knows this because of his three daughters only his oldest ever had anything happen to her, when a construction worker smacked her on the ass when she was wearing short shorts. He explained, that when she told them, they properly told her she just can't go around wearing shorts like that...they blamed her. He then explained that she never, nor her sisters ever had any problems, cause they would tell him everything.
Well, no they wouldn't, not when they were blamed when it happened to them. This is the problem.
This is a partisan response. as this read as Moore and Trump are terrible people but not Franken, both Clintons and Bob Mendedez.
-
Ah, the old slippery slope argument.
If we get rid of the statues of traitors who killed scores of Americans just so they could keep enslaving an entire race of humans ... then that will open the floodgates to statues of Jefferson and Washington being removed.
You know what, Smuggles? It's a risk I'm willing to take.
Let's deal with one issue at a time. Let's take the statues of traitors - and there is no other word for them - to museums where they belong and then we can deal with other issues on a case-by-case basis.
I have a feeling that if we do that, we won't be getting rid of Jefferson and Washington statues. But maybe we will; we'll see.
And for those who really get pissed off if statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson get taken down and sent to museums ... I send them my thoughts and prayers.
And I'll put you down as "yes" to tearing down Columbus, Jefferson, and Washington.
-
This is a partisan response. as this read as Moore and Trump are terrible people but not Franken, both Clintons and Bob Mendedez.
You are grossly misrepresenting my statements, like usual.
My colleague I'm referring to is a huge GOP supporter. I wrote that from his perspective on what "he didn't believe". He wholly believes that Clinton, Franken and Menendez should all be thrown in jail immediately. He doesn't believe the same about Trump and Moore.
I've made it clear on here, and even posted today, that I think we should throw them all out and those that have committed crimes should be thrown in jail.
So your statement, again, is way off base.
-
First, you say we cannot stop all of them, then you call 1.5/year to many and demand more gun restrictions.
I never said we cannot stop all of them. I reject that belief. Other countries have been mass shooting free for years. We can figure it out to. What you may have mistaken for me saying that was that the goal of my suggestions wasn't necessarily to stop all mass shootings tomorrow, but to slowly eradicate our country's unhealthy obsession with guns and violence with the eventual goal eliminating all mass shootings. There is nothing that can be done to eliminate mass shootings overnight, not even a total ban. It will take a culture change which takes time. Passing stricter gun control laws can help that culture change.
The only way they are going to zero is a total ban. But you don't want that.
Make up your mind.
Two things with this. First, thank you. This is the first time you've suggested something to help end mass shootings. So far you've just called everyone else's ideas stupid without contributing any possible solutions. I'm glad you are now trying to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
2nd, why do you assume I don't want a total gun ban? I absolutely do. But that can't happen in today's political climate and gun obsessed culture. So in the meantime, I will take smaller measures that can help limit the damage that guns can do and help change that culture over time. Eventually, I hope we get to a place as a country where we look at guns and say "You know what, we don't need these. In fact, we don't even want these." I know that seems like a crazy/impossible vision at the point, but I believe it could one day happen. When seat belts where introduced, there were plenty who vowed never to embrace them. Now it is something that most people don't even thinking about. Big tobacco seemed like a permanent part of our culture but they are losing more and more power every day. The battle over guns will be more difficult than either of these, but I think it will happen one day.
To further explain my comments above, I don't want to see the government and take everyone's guns. That is part of our Bill of Rights and that shouldn't be changed unless it is the true will of the people. I want us to get to a place where we the people ask the government to take our guns because they are no longer wanted or needed.
-
Confederate generals are famous for being traitors who attacked America.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are famous for being Presidents of the United States who also happen to be flawed individuals who committed immoral acts.
To me there is a pretty easy line to draw between the two.
Columbus is a more interesting case study. He is famous for "discovering" America...but part of that discovery involved the murder of hundreds? thousands? (honestly not sure how many to attribute to Columbus) of native peoples. I can see both sides to that argument.
Typically, I'm a fan of keeping the statues up but making sure that the plaque that goes with the statue encompasses the 360 degree view of the individual and not just the good stuff.
-
Heisy has gotten absolutely off his rocker with the logical fallacies and misrepresenting what people say. It's comical at this point. Impossible to have any sort of discussion with him, that's for sure.
-
Heisy has gotten absolutely off his rocker with the logical fallacies and misrepresenting what people say. It's comical at this point. Impossible to have any sort of discussion with him, that's for sure.
His arguments remind me of people who argue that gay marriage will lead to man-on-dog relationships.
A waste of all of our times.
-
Do you want to go down this road? Whatever emotional reaction we have this week decides who stays and who goes?
Becuase NYC is thinking about tearing down Columbus Circle. Jefferson is also at risk.
How about Che Guevara in Central Park? Can we tear him down too? How about the Stephen Douglass tomb/memorial on Chicago's Southside? When Feminist start objecting to the Picasso in Daley Plaza, will that go too?
Point is once you go down this road, over time different people will have different "visions of history" and they will all come down.
Otherwise, tell me the standard by which some go (Confederate soldiers) and some stay (Columbus)? Or, do you want all the above to go?
We can't remove statues of traitors to the U.S who wanted to continue to enslave people--statues that were erected specifically to let those now ex-slaves know that they would never be equal--because in the future we might also decide that there are other statues that are no longer worthy of being the public square?
And in your little mind you think this makes the tiniest bit of sense? smh
-
waiting for the cries for william JEFFERSON clinton to change his name...oh wait, bubba works ;D
better not be a statue in the works
-
Your whole diatribe (typical mostly cut and paste) is fatally flawed. It assumes that those voting right or left are doing so because of the constituents and not because they are voting their free independent mind.
For the record, it was not a diatribe ... yes, I copied most of the comments from the link above. But I guess that was lost on you.
And second, he made an excellent point about the two types of representation was could have, proxies or those that exercise independent judgment. Then he quotes Edmund Burke and the Federalist papers that tackled this exact issue.
But all of this went completely over your head because you work with one moron that made stupid statements that are irrelevant to this entire conversation.
So, go back and read it again, it is actually very good .. better than anything you have ever written here.
-
I never said we cannot stop all of them. I reject that belief. Other countries have been mass shooting free for years. We can figure it out to. What you may have mistaken for me saying that was that the goal of my suggestions wasn't necessarily to stop all mass shootings tomorrow, but to slowly eradicate our country's unhealthy obsession with guns and violence with the eventual goal eliminating all mass shootings. There is nothing that can be done to eliminate mass shootings overnight, not even a total ban. It will take a culture change which takes time. Passing stricter gun control laws can help that culture change.
Two things with this. First, thank you. This is the first time you've suggested something to help end mass shootings. So far you've just called everyone else's ideas stupid without contributing any possible solutions. I'm glad you are now trying to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
2nd, why do you assume I don't want a total gun ban? I absolutely do. But that can't happen in today's political climate and gun obsessed culture. So in the meantime, I will take smaller measures that can help limit the damage that guns can do and help change that culture over time. Eventually, I hope we get to a place as a country where we look at guns and say "You know what, we don't need these. In fact, we don't even want these." I know that seems like a crazy/impossible vision at the point, but I believe it could one day happen. When seat belts where introduced, there were plenty who vowed never to embrace them. Now it is something that most people don't even thinking about. Big tobacco seemed like a permanent part of our culture but they are losing more and more power every day. The battle over guns will be more difficult than either of these, but I think it will happen one day.
To further explain my comments above, I don't want to see the government and take everyone's guns. That is part of our Bill of Rights and that shouldn't be changed unless it is the true will of the people. I want us to get to a place where we the people ask the government to take our guns because they are no longer wanted or needed.
Sounds like the slippery slope argument. Little by little, step-by-step
MU82 is going to make fun of you.
-
And I'll put you down as "yes" to tearing down Columbus, Jefferson, and Washington.
And I'll put you down as an easily duped guy who isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
Sounds like the slippery slope argument. Little by little, step-by-step
MU82 is going to make fun of you.
Nope. I don't make fun of nice guys. TAMU doesn't instigate for the sole purpose of instigating, and argue for the sole purpose of arguing. He also doesn't think he knows everything about every subject. Finally, he didn't tell me to stay away from AAPL when it was at $90/share!
-
For the record, it was not a diatribe ... yes, I copied most of the comments from the link above. But I guess that was lost on you.
And second, he made an excellent point about the two types of representation was could have, proxies or those that exercise independent judgment. Then he quotes Edmund Burke and the Federalist papers that tackled this exact issue.
But all of this went completely over your head because you work with one moron that made stupid statements that are irrelevant to this entire conversation.
So, go back and read it again, it is actually very good .. better than anything you have ever written here.
None of it went over my head. I explicitly stated that you just copied and pasted like usual. No sense in trying to discuss anything with you. I'll go back to ignoring you. Cheers.
-
Sounds like the slippery slope argument. Little by little, step-by-step
MU82 is going to make fun of you.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy in this case. If you believe in a gun control measure but don't vote for it because you are afraid to give any ground, that is illogical.
-
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy in this case. If you believe in a gun control measure but don't vote for it because you are afraid to give any ground, that is illogical.
Seriously, don't bother with him. He can't comprehend that his arguments consistently use logical fallacies.
-
It's a start.
http://www.postandcourier.com/politics/south-carolina-s-u-s-sen-tim-scott-backs-bill/article_a9fa403e-cae7-11e7-ae77-876203680660.html
The skinny: There is a bipartisan bill to close the "Charleston loophole" that allowed a terrorist to buy the gun that he used to kill 9 parishioners at a church 2 years ago. It surprisingly has won the support of Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who had repeatedly opposed any kind of new gun regulations, including the bipartisan bill that was floated after the Newton massacre.
If enough legislators hire private detectives to help them find their spines so they can overcome great NRA pressure to actually pass this, no, this law would not stop every gun crime in the future history of man. But it might stop 10 or 3 or 1. It is a logical law that falls under a "it's the least they can do" heading, and it's a start.
-
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy in this case. If you believe in a gun control measure but don't vote for it because you are afraid to give any ground, that is illogical.
And we are back to square one ... I'm in favor of ...
Getting rid of bump stocks (they are largely gone because virtually no one sells them anymore, regulation will follow)
Streamlining the background checks by aggregating the databases and fixing the mess that is the no-fly and terror watch list. The problem here is the ACLU and other first amendment defenders. The idea of the Government putting together a "mentally unstable" list frightens them, as it should. What is the definition that gets one on the list? How do they get off? What protections can the government ensure that landlords, insurance companies, and employers will not use this list to screen? These are serious issues.
Easing the restrictions for conceal carry.
------
What I do not think will work in a gun culture with hundreds of millions of guns already in society
Restriction on "assault weapons." The biggest problem here is the definition. Again, "assault weapons" were banned in 1994. The ban was repealed in 2004. Why? Becuase the definition is impossible to determine. They are not semi-automatic like GooMU and MU03eng suggested. That is the vast majority of guns, and virtually every handgun, and has been for many decades. (most of my shotguns are semi-automatic). "Assault weapons" is just a primal scream ... "do something!!!!". See the closed threads, I posted numerous of identical hunting guns that were not "assault weapons."
Meaningless product bans. The bump-stock is stupid because it largely does not work. The gun overheats and jams quickly. They were not designed to fire that quickly. That is why the vegas shooter brought over a dozen guns with bump-stocks, he know they would work for a minute or two and then jam. So he would pick up another gun. Lastly, the bump stock was only approved for sale in 2010 so there are not many in circulation. So go ahead and ban but understand it will not change much if anything. Again, they are gone now.
Large magazine ban ... that is a different issue than bump-stocks. First, they have been around for 100 years and many millions are in circulation. So a ban is ineffective. Second, they actually serve a useful purpose for shooters in a range. Third, most gun experts and those that understand the issue will acknowledge, after a few days of practice quickly changing 10 round magazines is just as lethal as a 30 round magazine. So, banning them does not make the world safer from mass shooters.
Bringing back waiting periods. We had them before and got rid of them because of the instant background check. The idea was a "cooling off" period. That turned out to be wrong. The number of people that committed a crime five days after legally buying guns was extremely rare. It was offset by people that had to wait for a gun for protection. So for every case that someone bought a gun and committed a crime in less than five days, one could point to an abused wife that was killed or severaly hurt because she had to wait five days for a gun. Point is, this just punishes legal gun owners and does nothing to make society safer.
Everything else you suggested is already the case. Your contention that we should take little steps sounds like punishing legal gun owners for having nothing to do with these crimes. This puts you in the camp of the hysterical, Vander, Jockey, 82, Sultan and the like that say I'm no different than the killer and the NRA has blood on its hand. I promise you the more you say this, the more nothing is going to happen. As I said, gun owners are more interested than you in stopping these crimes. The difference is gun owners are seeking ways to make it stop, you acknowledged you want to "do something" even if it is ineffective which means that gun owners are punished.
-
It's a start.
http://www.postandcourier.com/politics/south-carolina-s-u-s-sen-tim-scott-backs-bill/article_a9fa403e-cae7-11e7-ae77-876203680660.html
The skinny: There is a bipartisan bill to close the "Charleston loophole" that allowed a terrorist to buy the gun that he used to kill 9 parishioners at a church 2 years ago. It surprisingly has won the support of Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who had repeatedly opposed any kind of new gun regulations, including the bipartisan bill that was floated after the Newton massacre.
If enough legislators hire private detectives to help them find their spines so they can overcome great NRA pressure to actually pass this, no, this law would not stop every gun crime in the future history of man. But it might stop 10 or 3 or 1. It is a logical law that falls under a "it's the least they can do" heading, and it's a start.
The NRA is in favor of this, you even admitted this above. Everyone wants this except one group ... the ACLU. They fear these streamlined lists will be used by landlords, insurance companies, and employers to deny rights. They are also rightly worried about the Government developing a definition of "mentally ill" and the government maintaining such a list.
If you were not so intent on winning an internet argument you to would be rightly worried about these laws. The intent of restricting gun ownership is good, the possible government abuse could be far more damaging.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin
-
Forgetful, I'm with you, throw them all out.
Should NY drive its governor from office?
LAWSUIT: CUOMO IGNORED SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS AGAINST OLD EMPLOYEE
http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2017/11/19/lawsuit-accuses-andrew-cuomo-ignoring-complaints-sexual-harassment-against-employee
A federal lawsuit accuses Gov. Andrew Cuomo of ignoring repeated complaints of sexual harassment against a former state employee. The lawyer for the accuser has scheduled a news conference for Sunday afternoon in Manhattan. The complaint names Sam Hoyt — who used to be the president of the Empire State Development Corporation — and the governor as defendants. The suit claims Cuomo's office wanted the issue to "go away." But sources told NY1 that the governor acted immediately when the employee initially complained. They also say this woman reached a monetary settlement with Hoyt. Hoyt stepped down last month after the accusations first surfaced.
-
If the problem is the assault weapon definition, then start by banning the AR-15 (regardless of manufacturer) and Sig Sauer MCX.
-
The NRA is in favor of this, you even admitted this above. Everyone wants this except one group ... the ACLU. They fear these streamlined lists will be used by landlords, insurance companies, and employers to deny rights. They are also rightly worried about the Government developing a definition of "mentally ill" and the government maintaining such a list.
If you were not so intent on winning an internet argument you to would be rightly worried about these laws. The intent of restricting gun ownership is good, the possible government abuse could be far more damaging.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin
You are right about the NRA supporting this. I assumed and it made an arse out of me.
That's called an admission that I made a mistake. You might want to try it sometime.
Again, this is a start. There are other policies out there that could do something, too. You even have acknowledged a couple.
Were you as concerned about taking away people's essential liberties in the wake of 9/11? How about when it comes to women's reproductive rights? When it comes to capital punishment? When it comes to voting rights?
I have found that people are very selective in applying quotes like Ben Franklin's - they love 'em when they fit their narrative; not so fond when they don't. Kind of like many people who constantly quote the Constitution or the bible.
-
If the problem is the assault weapon definition, then start by banning the AR-15 (regardless of manufacturer) and Sig Sauer MCX.
We tried that in 1994, it was banned 23 years ago. But it became such a mess it was repealed in 2004.
Again, this is the problem, people get outraged and then demand we "do something" and then demand things that are already the law or was tried and failed.
-
We tried that in 1994, it was banned 23 years ago. But it became such a mess it was repealed in 2004.
Again, this is the problem, people get outraged and then demand we "do something" and then demand things that are already the law or was tried and failed.
Fact check: It wasn't repealed and it wasn't a mess.
It was a 10-year ban allowed to expire by the GOP-controlled (read: NRA-controlled) Congress in 2004.
Some more facts:
Between 1973 and 1994, there were 2.05 mass shooting (defined as 5 or more deaths) per year.
Between 1995 and 2004 (during the ban) that number fell to 1.6 per year.
Between 2005 and 2015, that number spiked to 4.18 per year ... a number that has surely continued to go up.
You're correct in one sense, though. The ban was terribly flawed through a series of exceptions, grandfather clauses, etc. that vastly weakened it. Those could easily be addressed without scrapping the ban, of course. But as is often the case with the gun-clingers' specious arguments, if a gun restriction can't guarantee nothing bad will ever happen with a gun, then it's worthless.
-
Fact check: It wasn't repealed and it wasn't a mess.
It was a 10-year ban allowed to expire by the GOP-controlled (read: NRA-controlled) Congress in 2004.
This is why anti gun-nazis have trouble passing their agenda. There is strong support of the NRA among Democrats. You guys (Pakuni, et al.) don't get it. You use NRA as a profanity. NRA members are among the most law abiding citizens in the USA. I am not 100% sure, but I think I've heard that no NRA member has been involved with a mass shooting.
-
This is why anti gun-nazis have trouble passing their agenda. There is strong support of the NRA among Democrats. You guys (Pakuni, et al.) don't get it. You use NRA as a profanity. NRA members are among the most law abiding citizens in the USA. I am not 100% sure, but I think I've heard that no NRA member has been involved with a mass shooting.
"Nazi".. nice. Glad we made it there.
-
"Nazi".. nice. Glad we made it there.
I was careful not to invoke Godwin's Law.
-
This is why anti gun-nazis have trouble passing their agenda. There is strong support of the NRA among Democrats. You guys (Pakuni, et al.) don't get it. You use NRA as a profanity. NRA members are among the most law abiding citizens in the USA. I am not 100% sure, but I think I've heard that no NRA member has been involved with a mass shooting.
Highlighted is correct
-
This is why anti gun-nazis have trouble passing their agenda. There is strong support of the NRA among Democrats. You guys (Pakuni, et al.) don't get it. You use NRA as a profanity. NRA members are among the most law abiding citizens in the USA. I am not 100% sure, but I think I've heard that no NRA member has been involved with a mass shooting.
Such an intelligent argument.
-
Fact check: It wasn't repealed and it wasn't a mess.
It was a 10-year ban allowed to expire by the GOP-controlled (read: NRA-controlled) Congress in 2004.
Some more facts:
Between 1973 and 1994, there were 2.05 mass shooting (defined as 5 or more deaths) per year.
Between 1995 and 2004 (during the ban) that number fell to 1.6 per year.
Between 2005 and 2015, that number spiked to 4.18 per year ... a number that has surely continued to go up.
You're correct in one sense, though. The ban was terribly flawed through a series of exceptions, grandfather clauses, etc. that vastly weakened it. Those could easily be addressed without scrapping the ban, of course. But as is often the case with the gun-clingers' specious arguments, if a gun restriction can't guarantee nothing bad will ever happen with a gun, then it's worthless.
This article says your numbers and conclusions are all wrong.
Mass Shootings Are Getting Deadlier, Not More Frequent
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678
For example, we had roughly the same raw number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 (14,612) as in 1969 (14,760). But because there were 110 million more Americans in 2011, the 1969 murder rate per 100,000 residents was 7.3, about 55 percent higher than the 2011 rate (4.7). Due to the rarity of mass public shootings, I’ve calculated the rates per 100 million in the U.S. population. (And, to help clarify the direction of trends over time, the black lines in the graphs below represent a five-year moving average.)
(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/a4b4a22/2147483647/resize/658x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fa4%2F0a%2Ff720b9af43938f84324fe8cdeaa0%2Fshooting-rate.jpg)
What has increased over time is the number of people shot in these incidents. Looking at annual trends in the total number of victims shot in mass public shootings (on a per capita basis), you can see that the severity has recently increased, reaching a 40-year high. Because the trends in the rates at which victims have been killed and wounded have been similar, I focus on the total number of victims shot (either killed or wounded). Before 2012, the five-year moving average never exceeded 20 victims shot (per 100 million Americans). Since then, the five-year moving average rate has been above 20 every year but one (2014).
(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/77afa75/2147483647/resize/658x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F7d%2Ff8%2F5ac7e7c943aa9110044d245c9349%2Fscreen-shot-2017-10-04-at-11.45.56-AM.jpg)
This may help to explain why shootings seem more common, even though they aren’t. Research shows that the number of victims killed and wounded are the strongest predictors of the extent to which a mass killing gets reported by the news media. Recent growth in the number of catastrophic mass public shootings—combined with the extensive, wall-to-wall news coverage that accompanies these tragedies—likely accounts for the commonly held misconception that mass shootings are now more frequent.
The rise in the average number of victims also raises a number of other questions about mass public shootings. Foremost among them: Why have they become more deadly since the mid-2000s?
It may be tempting to conclude this increase is because of the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004—after all, the increase began shortly after the ban ended. But the limited research that’s been done suggests it had little short-term impact on gun violence.
That’s probably not a popular conclusion. But the available evidence suggests that strengthening or weakening gun laws would not significantly affect the incidence or severity of mass public shootings. For example, studies examining bans on large-capacity magazines and right-to-carry concealed firearms laws have found they would have little or no effect on mass public shootings.
Still, the question of whether the assault weapons ban had an impact on the severity of mass public shootings has yet to be answered empirically, which highlights a surprising major problem for those of us who’d like to stop the killings: There’s been relatively little rigorous research on mass violence, likely due to the virtual absence of research funding on this topic. In comparison, we spend millions each year to fund research on tornadoes, which have been about as deadly as mass shootings since the mid-1970s.
The few studies we do have tell us that mass public shootings, while horrific, are, fortunately, quite rare. This apparent paradox—rare yet “routine”—likely reflects the outsized impact that catastrophic mass murders have on our perceptions of public safety. But until we make the investment to find solutions, we won’t really know why these tragedies happen or how to prevent them.
-
This article says your numbers and conclusions are all wrong.
No, it doesn't say that at all.
Try harder.
-
No, it doesn't say that at all.
Try harder.
This is your problem, you do not understand basic statistics. You intentionally used statistics (that are probably inaccurate) to say the NUMBER of shootings is rising. The article above says when this is adjusted for population, it has not. So your premise is wrong.
What the article does say, which you have not address, is they are becoming deadlier. However, your suggestion that it is the assault weapons ban, is not supported by research.
------------------------------
What is supported by research is the following, and you're not going to like it ...
Widespread media coverage contributing to rise in mass shootings, say psychologists
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mass-shooting-media-contagion-psychologists-research-personality-traits-us-a7172036.html
Widespread media coverage of mass shootings is contributing to their rise by giving perpetrators the fame they "desire", according to researchers.
By spreading the names and faces of mass shooters, social media and the mainstream media can be linked to a rising trend in school shoot-outs and public mass murder, psychologists have said.
And the number of shootings in the US, which now occur at a rate of one every 12 days, would be reduced by one third if journalists, bloggers and social media users "made a pact" not to spread the news.
---------------
The only variable that has changed and the only variable that correlates is TV coverage. Gun laws, mental health spending and everything else you are told matters, does not relate.
What has changed is the over-the-top coverage. And why now? The rise of social media and 24-new cycles.
from the article ...
"At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?"
Dr Johnston emphasised the media's responsibility not to be beholden to online traffic and newspaper sales, in a paper presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention.
"We suggest that the media cry to cling to 'the public's right to know' covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their number one ratings and advertising boosters," she said.
"If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in one to two years.
---------------
We have another thread about people POV and news sources. But in this thread, we learn that the most closed-minded are those that act the most enlightened. Puk, 82, Vander, Brew, Vander, Goo, Eng03, Sultan, Forget and especially Jockey. All have gone out of their way to condemn me and/or the NRA has having "blood on their hands."
In other words, you are weak and gullible. The left plays you like a violin and you go off in places like here, exactly what they want. Too unthinking to critically challenge the assumption. Instead, we get the primal scream of "do something." See TAMU posts in this thread (which can be summarized as "just pass some laws, anything .... please!!")
Is it because they live in a liberal echo chamber and refuse to think outside that bubble. That is why they constantly attack me. And when presented with facts they do not like, they attack me even further but accusing me and/or the NRA of being the murder. Blaming is the NRA is akin to Godwin, say it and you lose the argument. Most of you lost.
So instead of mocking "thoughts and prayers," which is unconscionable from those that claim to have a Jesuit education, if we had more god in society, we would have less of this carnage. If we stopped celebrating the godless and their acts of mayhem, we have less of it.
The sad part is the highlighted should not be controversial among those that went to a Catholic university. Watch how I will be attacked for this.
-
Ah, if only we all could be as enlightened as Smuggles, the world would be a better place.