Media coverage of Florida shooting
- Thread starter wyomingosualum
- Start date
IF you were nefarious, had access to key word searches and phone and databases, wouldn't it just be a matter of a little goading on these little socially retarded balls of hormones. Is there a demographic that would be easier to manipulate?
I know the above is incredibly implausible, but the frequency that this sort of thing is happening is definitely ramping up and has me looking for reasons why.
It's really effective at changing what people are talking about which is of great importance to some people.
I know the above is incredibly implausible, but the frequency that this sort of thing is happening is definitely ramping up and has me looking for reasons why.
It's really effective at changing what people are talking about which is of great importance to some people.
Last edited:
I watched some eye opening videos about the psychology behind social media last night, that you may be interested in.
That and the progressive lurch into shameful identity politics are my 1a and 1b of underlying causation to an increasingly volatile society.
It helps if people would take the time to understand the tactics and psychology behind advertising.
That shit is deployed against us by pols every day.
That shit is deployed against us by pols every day.
Did not look up Brady Act. But get this: the definition of “adjudication” in the help section of the form is just vague enough to bring this scenario to mind. It speaks of a court, board, commission, or “other legal authority” as making the determination that a person is mentally ill. Holy shit. I had never researched this before and was shocked when I read that.
You are a giant flabby pussy whether you ignore people or not. You can't stand to be proven wrong so you throw a tantrum ending with some version of "I quit you" every single time. It's your standard go to. Hilarious to watch, but a sad reality for a seemingly intelligent guy.
With that said, buh bye.
Lol...you do realize that every time you resort to name calling and weak defense of your already-lame conclusions, that you show everyone is it you who can’t handle the #losing and are nothing more than what you miserably try to label others...a child with a pre-K temper haha. Whine and cry like a baby some more please.
Carry on
interesting. and when that fails, what do we try then?
obviously at some point we get to confiscation in this paradigm.
Exactly.
But, if the proposal were to cut shootings in half, is it worthwhile?
But flipping back over, again, are the DavidAllens of the world ever going to stop their push?
You just cant' be on here without him venting his spleen. He's become far and away the most toxic poster, and if you actually engage him he really is a moron. He doesn't think anyone should be believed re: climate change if they work for the government or academia. Predictably, he's on this board because it's free.
My preference would be they limit this board to paying subscribers and it'd weed the troll out if he had to spend $9.00. I don't think people that are investing even a token monthly amount would troll like he does.
Murder/non-negligent manslaughter rate 20 years before 1994 assault weapons ban per 100,000:
1974 9.8
1975 9.6
1976 8.7
1977 8.8
1978 9.0
1979 9.8
1980 10.2
1981 9.8
1982 9.1
1983 8.3
1984 7.9
1985 8.0
1986 8.6
1987 8.3
1988 8.5
1989 8.7
1990 9.4
1991 9.8
1992 9.3
1993 9.5
1994 9.0
Next 20 years:
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3
1999 5.7
2000 5.5
2001 5.6
2002 5.6
2003 5.7
2004 5.5
2005 5.6
2006 5.8
2007 5.7
2008 5.4
2009 5.0
2010 4.8
2011 4.7
2012 4.7
2013 4.5
2014 4.4
Weird. Facts.
Carry on.
1974 9.8
1975 9.6
1976 8.7
1977 8.8
1978 9.0
1979 9.8
1980 10.2
1981 9.8
1982 9.1
1983 8.3
1984 7.9
1985 8.0
1986 8.6
1987 8.3
1988 8.5
1989 8.7
1990 9.4
1991 9.8
1992 9.3
1993 9.5
1994 9.0
Next 20 years:
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3
1999 5.7
2000 5.5
2001 5.6
2002 5.6
2003 5.7
2004 5.5
2005 5.6
2006 5.8
2007 5.7
2008 5.4
2009 5.0
2010 4.8
2011 4.7
2012 4.7
2013 4.5
2014 4.4
Weird. Facts.
Carry on.
Man you ladies sure get verklempt when you get your asses handed to you. I'd gladly spend $9 a month to get this level of entertainment.
You’re getting away from my point that crack cocaine was a giant factor in the rise of murder rates. You told me I was wrong, and then you post something that is irrelevant to that point.
Here’s a New York Times article that enlightens us on how the decline of crack led to the decline of murders:
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/27/us/drop-in-homicide-rate-linked-to-crack-s-decline.html
“Some have criticized the new study, saying its sample of cities was too small and did not include some large cities like New York. The other cities in the study were Atlanta, New Orleans and Miami.
Jeffrey Fagan, a criminologist at Columbia University, said the study failed to take into account the loss of jobs, increasing income inequality and growing racial segregation that caused decay in cities and made them more susceptible to the ''contagion of crack, guns and gangs.''
''It was not demon crack'' by itself that spawned the upsurge in violence in the 1980's, he said.
Lee Brown, the former Police Commissioner of New York who is now a candidate for Mayor of Houston, commenting on the study's findings, said he believed it was hard to single out any one factor that was responsible for the drop in homicide rates in cities across the nation. ''I think it is a combination of factors, from crack going down to community policing to demographics,'' Mr. Brown said.
numbers without context aren’t facts. they are raw data easily manipulated by any dogma.
Even the people who disagree with the results of the study acknowledge that crack cocaine is a factor. Is there anything better you can come up with that will prove your assertion that I am wrong in my belief?
It’s not a giant factor as you asserted. It’s one of several factors that were in play.
The original thesis of the article is that crack was exactly that which you claim it wasn’t. Then you point out that some people believe it was a factor, only to a lesser extent. I disagree. For example, one of the naysayers says that rising income inequality is a factor. OK, well, what’s happened to income inequality since then? Shouldn’t the murder rate be skyrocketing now?
As a side note, have you ever admitted to anybody that you have been wrong about anything? Lately? Or ever?
Income inequality in the 1980s was a big problem.
And yes, you just don’t pay attention.
Exactly. Coloration doesn't equal causation.
Drinking milk causes kid's teeth to fall out? I can prove it. Kids drink milk and then their teeth fall out. Poof.
Same situation here.
Lol...yeah those numbers had nothing to with the assault weapon ban. Nothing at all.
Carry on.
I’m by no means a gun advocate. However this is an extremely flawed idea. Think how well what you are describing works with auto insurance. Recent estimates are that 35+% of drivers on the road do not have valid insurance.
Plus, insurance companies do not provide coverage for intentional acts. So what good is the policy that you describe?
My simple point, which seems to have escaped you, is that if income inequality had any relevance to the murder rate, then it would have exploded the murder rate instead of leading to the lower murder rate we have had recently. I can’t explain it more simply than that.
Income inequality in the 1980s was a big problem.
And yes, you just don’t pay attention.
You’re not doing a very good job of showing me where I was wrong. So far, you have decreed that I was wrong. Then you post irrelevant numbers which show nothing. Then you seize upon two people who disagree with a study that helps prove my point. Not to worry that they didn’t do any sort of study to bolster their point of view, they’re just throwing rocks. Then you post a graph that proves my point about income inequality and tell me that I’m not paying attention.
Dude, if this was halftime in a football game, the scoreboard would read
Wyoming 55
Clinton 0
Lol...I’m not disputing the crack epidemic didn’t have an effect, but I am disputing the severity to which you assert its impact.
I'll take the incremental improvement. Do you apply similar logic to drunk driving and the confiscation of cars?
Why do we have insurance requirements then? The insistence that any single approach be 100% effective is the go to NRA defense. Number 2 is enforce what you got already. How is that working ?
Because insurance requirements are put in place for protection against accidents. If you take your car and decide that you don’t like the guy walking across the street and intentionally hit him, your insurance policy is not going to respond. The discussion around guns is not currently centered around accidental shootings, and thus insurance does not warrant discussion. You understanding of an insurance contract appears to be flawed.
I would be all for a ban on assault style rifles, semi automatic weapons and all handguns. Bolt action hunting rifles and pump shotguns are sufficient for the needs of the general public in my opinion. It’s not going to stop murders and horrific events, but it could make a dent. Unfortunately the gun epidmic is the proverbial cat is out of the bag. Too many illicit guns in circulation for anything to have an immediate impact in terms of gun control. Won’t make me any friends on here, but that’s okay.
Back to your insurance idea, I simply think it would be a waste of time and resources. I like thinking outside the box, I just think that’s off base.
You probably ought to check out when the ban was lifted and see how badly that messes up your post. I would suggest deleting years 2005-2017 so that your point is still valid.
I wasn't going to tell him that and just let him continue. You are nicer than me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-weapons-in-one-post/?utm_term=.c74fdf4e9721
Did the law have an effect on mass shootings? That's possible, though not certain. As this chart from Princeton's Sam Wang shows, the number of people killed in mass shootings did go down in the years the ban was in effect (save for a surge in 1999, a year that included Columbine):
Because mass shootings are relatively rare, it's difficult to tell whether this was just a random blip or caused by the ban. Still, the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired. That's suggestive, at least.
Yeah, I wouldn’t want to play the second half of that ball game if I were you, either!
You asserted income inequality had no relevance to a rise in violent crime lol. You know that’s not true. That’s equivalent to trash talking after you just got flagged for pass interference.
Carry on.
You are thinking a bit narrowly about the impact that liability insurance would have. Sandy Hook for instance - Lanza's mother likely would have been priced out of the ownership of weapons given Adams mental state.
In this incident, I would not presume that the perp would have been able to afford or been underwritten for gun liability insurance.
Why then is the murder rate setting new records when the income inequality gap has gotten wider? I’m just looking at the graph you provided which seems to make the case for me.
