Shootings

Moat_Man · Post by **Moat_Man** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:46 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:52 pm
Zaxxon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:13 pm
Goddamn, that was powerful.

Agreed.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:37 am

Once again, the media is happy to quote the GVA number of 251 mass shootings (4 or more shot) but they only mention and report on the 9 from the Mother Jones Mass Shootings list (4 or more killed, excluding gang and criminal shootings).

What is the disconnect? The other 242 are just statistical fodder to be discarded when it comes to the discussion?
I get his point that the 9 are more powerful than the 242 because we can all see ourselves at anyone of them, rather than at a drug deal gone wrong or at Garfield Park 2am. But it's disingenuous to invoke 251 when you only want to talk about 9.

And if you think I'm harping on this too much, imagine if the place where you lived experienced several mass shootings, but not Mass Shootings, on a weekly basis that never made the national news. Except as convenient stats when needed.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:56 am

Facebook acquaintance that I went to high school with is quoting William Burroughs to support his claim that calls for gun control are bad. I'm guessing he voted for Trump with that level of stupidity.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:08 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:37 am Once again, the media is happy to quote the GVA number of 251 mass shootings (4 or more shot) but they only mention and report on the 9 from the Mother Jones Mass Shootings list (4 or more killed, excluding gang and criminal shootings).

What is the disconnect? The other 242 are just statistical fodder to be discarded when it comes to the discussion?
I get his point that the 9 are more powerful than the 242 because we can all see ourselves at anyone of them, rather than at a drug deal gone wrong or at Garfield Park 2am. But it's disingenuous to invoke 251 when you only want to talk about 9.

And if you think I'm harping on this too much, imagine if the place where you lived experienced several mass shootings, but not Mass Shootings, on a weekly basis that never made the national news. Except as convenient stats when needed.

I like the GVA number. It seems a more honest discussion point than the Fed number. I don't like how everyone uses it. People use and then compare it to non similar things and say things like "The US has had 251 mass shootings in 2019. The next closest country is Mexico with 3." Or they actually say there have 251 shooting sprees killing four or more people. Or people will dismiss it because the Fed say there have "only" been 18 and that is because the Fed talk about people killed and don't include officers or suspects, etc... It's an enlightening (and I think valuable) thing to try and track but know you metrics.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:09 pm

Boston University

As the United States reels from three back-to-back mass shootings—which occurred within the span of eight days in Gilroy, Calif., El Paso, Tex., and Dayton, Ohio—Boston University School of Public Health researcher Michael Siegel says that mirrored analyses of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) homicide data serve to double down on evidence that controlling who has access to guns has much more impact on reducing gun-related homicides than controlling what guns people have.

“Using completely different datasets, we’ve confirmed the same thing,” says Siegel, an SPH professor of community health sciences. “The main lesson that comes out of this research is that we know which laws work. Despite the fact that opponents of gun regulation are saying, ‘We don’t know what’s going on, it’s mental health issues, it’s these crazy people,’ which doesn’t lend itself to a solution—the truth is that we have a pretty good grasp at what’s going on. People who shouldn’t have access to guns are getting access.”

Siegel’s latest study, published July 30, 2019, in the Journal of Rural Health, reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted. The study looked at gun regulation state by state in comparison with FBI data about gun homicides, gathered from police departments around the country. Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.

It’s a particularly compelling finding because in March 2019, Siegel and collaborators drew virtually the same conclusion by analyzing state laws in comparison with death certificate data collected nationally by the CDC.

In that study, which was published March 28, 2019, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Siegel’s team analyzed 25 years of national data to examine the relationship between 10 different types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates. In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and “stand your ground” laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:42 pm

Siegel’s latest study, published July 30, 2019, in the Journal of Rural Health, reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted.

Makes sense. Though I have problems with "may issue" laws because you end up with all the Sheriff's buddies and family with permits or like in NYC you get permits sold to the highest bidders. Make it "shall issue" with stringent requirements.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:14 pm

"What do you have in here that would be good at... say... killing 200 people? I'm asking for a friend."

Police are asking for help in identifying a man who reportedly asked a Walmart clerk Wednesday whether the clerk could “sell me anything (or a gun) that would kill 200 people,” the agency stated.

The incident happened about 7:10 p.m. Wednesday at the Walmart in the 10800 block of South U.S. 1.

Sgt. Robert Vega, police spokesman, said a person was having a conversation with a clerk in the sporting goods department. That conversation was interrupted by a man, described as between 50 and 60 years old with grayish black hair and a goatee.

“Can you sell me anything (or a gun) that would kill 200 people?” the man is quoted as saying.

The clerk said that wasn’t funny, and the man reportedly said, “I know,” and once again asked whether the clerk “could sell him anything that would kill 200 people.”

The man made a purchase elsewhere in the store and left.

The man was described as white, 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 9 inches tall, weighing 200 to 220 pounds. He wore a black, short-sleeved shirt and light-colored shorts. He had a black watch on his left wrist.

FWIW, this takes place in Port St Lucie. The same city where the Pulse nightclub shooter bought his guns, and tried (but failed) to buy body armor.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:41 pm

I feel sorry for all the dead and their families. If feels like the forces aligned against my side are just too strong. We might as well give up our firearms if people are just going to keep shooting people until we do(although I suspect that bad people might still find a way to kill people). Anymore, I don't even "really" think having firearms will be able to prevent us from riding down the same road that Venezuela did within the next ten years. Anyone who thinks that "they" will be able to do socialism right "this time" is crazy though. I don't think I'll have enough saved to escape in time, but that's not so bad for me as I'm used to living on not too much. Had hoped to cash out in the end and maybe have a little bit of enjoyable life in retirement, but I doubt that will happen now. The Maduro diet might do me some good. I'm not sure I can live without air conditioning though.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:58 pm

What if I told you you that, even at its most extreme (and we'll never get there), left-liberals' ideal of "socialism" is Scandinavia rather than Latin America?

And that corporations and rich people will continue to do just fucking fine because there's absolutely no way they'll allow any other outcome?

And that you'll still have air conditioning no matter how much you hate other people having a social safety net?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:31 pm

Christ, does anyone on the right have enough intelligence to even know what socialism really is? I suspect not. But that doesn’t stop them from using it every 4 seconds as a boogeyman.

Let’s start a rumor that Trump is bringing communism to America. His supporters probably don’t know what that is either, so we might convince a bunch of them it’s true before they all accidentally drown in their own bathtubs or something.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:01 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:31 pm Christ, does anyone on the right have enough intelligence to even know what socialism really is?

So you fellas(insert appropriate non-gender pronoun?) are even going to argue over our unconditional surrender? I'm sure we can be re-educated in a nice little camp someplace, and if not I'd make a nice lampshade.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:08 am

Education doesn't seem to take with many. So that seems like a worthless endeavor. And I'm all about cruelty free living and enjoy the lampshades I already have, so just having your kind mind their own damn business when it comes to who wants to marry who or what someone wants to do with their body, stop trying to kill anyone who isn't white, and avoid voting for anyone they think is funny that they see on TV is enough.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:09 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:31 pm Christ, does anyone on the right have enough intelligence to even know what socialism really is? I suspect not. But that doesn’t stop them from using it every 4 seconds as a boogeyman.

The problem is that socialism is a spectrum. Market or non-market? Social or political? Etc. or etc.? Each side takes an opposite extreme as their version, one to support socialism and one to oppose it.

You're thinking Sweden and someone else is this thinking CCCP.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:50 am

Most Trumpies mistakenly believe it's essentially communism though (which also proves my point that they don't even know what that is).

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:06 am

hepcat wrote:Most Trumpies mistakenly believe it's essentially communism though (which also proves my point that they don't even know what that is).

But they are just fine with Russia interfering in our elections. smh.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:16 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:09 am
hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:31 pm Christ, does anyone on the right have enough intelligence to even know what socialism really is? I suspect not. But that doesn’t stop them from using it every 4 seconds as a boogeyman.

The problem is that socialism is a spectrum. Market or non-market? Social or political? Etc. or etc.? Each side takes an opposite extreme as their version, one to support socialism and one to oppose it.

You're thinking Sweden and someone else is this thinking CCCP.

Socialism has basically been defined by conservatives as "any time another person gets something that I personally don't feel they should get, because I don't feel they worked hard enough and/or suffered enough to deserve it".

That definition allows lots of room for interpretation of what qualifies as "SOSHALIZMS!"

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:01 am

I don't see any of these cunts volunteering to give up their Social Security checks.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:01 pm

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 11:01 am I don't see any of these cunts volunteering to give up their Social Security checks.

See we can't even surrender, now you want to take away what senior citizens payed in for forty years

Once you do that the next logical step will be to euthanize them. I think I'm changing my mind, I'll keep my firearms.

I was all ready to give up and now you guys have talked me into going down fighting instead. I'll need an Alamo with air conditioning.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:08 pm

That's democratic socialism at work.

You should be railing against it. But since you have no clue what socialism is, you'll continue down the path of ignorance....giggling like a loon and swearing gay marriage causes cancer or something.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:30 pm

He even brings his socialism shit-talking into a thread about shootings.

Em2 is to OO as feces on the sidewalk is to San Francisco.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:50 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:30 pm He even brings his socialism shit-talking into a thread about shootings.

Em2 is to OO as feces on the sidewalk is to San Francisco.

If I'm the feces, then you guys are the butt cheeks that squeezed me out.

I came here to surrender my firearms in good faith(ready to go gently into that good night), but you guys convinced me otherwise(there won't be a gentle choice). LMAO Hopefully, you and your kind

Spoiler:

will have that same effect on voters this time around too.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:04 pm

Anyway...

It's interesting watching Fox News trying to create outrage over a movie right now instead of dealing with gun violence directly. It's literally the top 4 stories on their web site. :

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:07 pm

I'd never even heard of this movie until everyone started suddenly clutching their pearls over it. The studio must be thrilled at all this free publicity.

Still don't care enough to look up what it is, other than a very basic description. Something about people being hunted for sport or somesuch.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:14 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:04 pm Anyway...

It's interesting watching Fox News trying to create outrage over a movie right now instead of dealing with gun violence directly. It's literally the top 4 stories on their web site.

Fox is amazing to me. They're like an explosion of outrage 24 hours a day. No wonder that there are deplorables. And more everyday. They started stupid and were driven mad on top by the victim baiting overload. They are right now covering the Steele Dossier. Relevant stuff there folks...

The best part is the outrage over the movie completely misses the satire (as I understand it). And only focuses on the lizard brain part...because they are devoid of intellect.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:29 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:07 pm I'd never even heard of this movie until everyone started suddenly clutching their pearls over it. The studio must be thrilled at all this free publicity.

Still don't care enough to look up what it is, other than a very basic description. Something about people being hunted for sport or somesuch.

From what I understand, some stereotypical."liberal elites" decide to hunt stereotypical "MAGA types" a la deadliest game. Goreporn and bad jokes presumably follow in typical genre fashion.

Right wing crazies are saying it is a call to open season on white men or some such.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:35 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:29 pm Right wing crazies are saying it is a call to open season on white men or some such.

We think what Joaquin Castro did is also https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/re ... -antonio/

On Monday night, Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro posted the names and employers of 44 San Antonio residents who donated to President Trump’s reelection bid.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:38 pm

em2nought wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:35 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:29 pm Right wing crazies are saying it is a call to open season on white men or some such.
We think what Joaquin Castro did is also https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/re ... -antonio/

On Monday night, Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro posted the names and employers of 44 San Antonio residents who donated to President Trump’s reelection bid.

Add "doxxing" to things you don't know the meaning of. All that info is publicly available.

But do keep trying. It's fascinating to watch you prove all my beliefs about the average Trump supporter.

p.s. if it's any consolation (I sure hope not), the other rabid Trumpie sites are also clueless about what doxxing is because I've seen more than one of them make the same mistake.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:40 pm

https://www.opensecrets.org/

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:41 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:29 pm
Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:07 pm I'd never even heard of this movie until everyone started suddenly clutching their pearls over it. The studio must be thrilled at all this free publicity.

Still don't care enough to look up what it is, other than a very basic description. Something about people being hunted for sport or somesuch.
From what I understand, some stereotypical."liberal elites" decide to hunt stereotypical "MAGA types" a la deadliest game. Goreporn and bad jokes presumably follow in typical genre fashion.

Right wing crazies are saying it is a call to open season on white men or some such.

And now that they've been exposed to the word satire, they'll be using it anytime Trump or others say something that can be seen as racist or encouraging violence.

How do you stop immigrants?
Shoot them!

It's just satire!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:44 pm

As far as I can tell from trailers, they don't identify the hunted as conservatives and the hunters as liberals in any way, shape or form. Are they just forcing that context onto the film without justification, or am I missing a trailer or two that spells that out?

However, if I'm NOT missing some vital info, I would like to declare that Toy Story 4 is clearly torture porn about victimized liberals (the toys) being used and abused by conservatives (the children), and am now outraged.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:57 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:44 pmHowever, if I'm NOT missing some vital info, I would like to declare that Toy Story 4 is clearly torture porn about victimized liberals (the toys) being used and abused by conservatives (the children), and am now outraged.

Toys are for fun, clearly liberals can't be toys because liberals sap the joy out of everything.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:05 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:44 pm As far as I can tell from trailers, they don't identify the hunted as conservatives and the hunters as liberals in any way, shape or form. Are they just forcing that context onto the film without justification, or am I missing a trailer or two that spells that out?

However, if I'm NOT missing some vital info, I would like to declare that Toy Story 4 is clearly torture porn about victimized liberals (the toys) being used and abused by conservatives (the children), and am now outraged.

The trailer I saw mentioned the hunters as elites and the prey were from places like AK and WY.

It looked like a revenge fantasy for the common folk to me, so not sure why they are getting outraged.

Wikipedia also mentions that a trailer refers to them as deplorables.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:11 pm

I hate to feed but someone correct me if I'm offbase.

Social Security that I pay gives me an estimate of what they will pay me but social security I pay is not nor has it ever been for me. I am paying for those who came before and those that come after will be paying for me. Everyone "volunteered" and started paying in to cover the initial $50,000,000 a year to cover the exiting elderly with a the promise their payment would provide a net to them. That's why we pray the do not alter it further, with regard to the plan.

Can someone who reads legalize correct me here?

https://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html#TITLE%20I

It is my understanding that I am essentially not paying in to my Social Security. I'm paying in to dad's. My nieces and nephews would be paying in to mine.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:32 pm

This is the site I linked to earlier when this came up

Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out – it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism. The program requires workers and their employers, along with self-employed individuals, to pay into the system throughout their working years. The government controls the money they contribute, and decides when and how much they get back after – and if – they reach retirement age.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:43 pm

CNN

President Donald Trump said Friday there has been "tremendous support" for changing background check laws and appeared optimistic that the National Rifle Association would come around on the issue, despite public statements from the NRA against certain changes to current law.

"I really believe that the NRA — I've spoken to them numerous times — they're great people... and frankly I really think they're gonna get there also," Trump told reporters outside the White House on whether the NRA will support background check legislation.

When asked whether background checks will be bad for him politically, Trump didn't directly answer, saying there has been "no president that feels more strongly about the Second Amendment then I do. However we need meaningful background checks so sick people don't get guns."

Trump also referenced NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre, who spoke with Trump multiple times over the last two days, a person familiar with the conversations told CNN on Thursday. In those conversations, LaPierre made clear the NRA's stance on renewed calls for expanded background checks -- something the President has privately and publicly supported in recent days.

"I think in the end, Wayne and the NRA will either be there or maybe will be a little bit more neutral — and that would be OK too," Trump said Friday.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:01 pm

LaPierre is the guy who spent like $250K of the NRA's money on suits and who treats NRA jet account as his private airline. He's in it for the money just like Trump is.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:40 pm

Watching Fox News tell its supporters what to be OUTRAGED about next is like watching someone torment a cat with a laser pointer.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:29 pm

I will say that Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace are pretty damn good at being fair journalists.

...that's all I got.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:42 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:11 pm It is my understanding that I am essentially not paying in to my Social Security. I'm paying in to dad's. My nieces and nephews would be paying in to mine.

That is correct. Your benefit is calculated based on your lifetime earnings (and thus, indirectly, what you paid in). They average your 35 highest-earning years and pay you a percentage of that. That will be paid from current receipts and, to the extent that revenue is inadequate, the trust fund surplus (an accounting fiction -- there is no actual pile of gold).

The concern is that falling birthrates and a shrinking workforce can't fully support a growing pool of retirees, and therefore planned benefits might have to be reduced by as much as 25% after 2040-ish, when the surplus dries up. This can be easily solved by raising/eliminating the cap on earnings subject to taxation and/or raising the payroll tax rate (liberals), or by gradually raising the full retirement age and increasing penalties for early retirement (conservatives). In reality, the solution will be a mixture of those positions. But of course the longer they put off doing something, the bigger the something they'll have to do.

At any rate, even if nothing is done, receipts will suffice to pay 75% of your expected benefit.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:15 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:40 pm Watching Fox News tell its supporters what to be OUTRAGED about next is like watching someone torment a cat with a laser pointer.

I can’t wait to hear the about-face when the movie ends with the hunted MAGAs finding and killing the librul hunters with high powered weaponry, as I fully assume it will.

It will be hailed as a “Triumph of the Deplorable Spirit”