Jump to content
edjr

Black Friday starts early at Vagina Walmart. - 6 shot dead

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I'd guess most.   I think there are usually 50-100 school/mall/work type shootings during the year, but I could be off.    Another subsection is domestic shootings, so not all of the remaining are gang shootings.    

Chicago, Phily, Oakland, etc. show up quite frequently in your link. 

I'd also be curious to know how many of the shootings in your link were committed with legally owned weapons by people who shouldn't have already been locked up and off the streets or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Chicago, Phily, Oakland, etc. show up quite frequently in your link. 

I'd also be curious to know how many of the shootings in your link were committed with legally owned weapons by people who shouldn't have already been locked up and off the streets or otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. 

 

All good questions.  

Those questions also point to what I was saying about stuff not getting fixed.    The left drops the ball on the locking up part, and the right drops the ball on these people getting access to guns.  'round and 'round we go! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, edjr said:

:doh: they chained up the basketball hoops here. :lol:  think of that? WHAT THE FOCK!

Couldn't even golf and when we could, we couldn't touch the flag pole. :wall:

 

It was 1 person to a hole where I live.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

There is something to this.  I don’t know to what degree, but it’s there .

Kids today are lonely.  Social media has given the illusion of "friends".  Covid exacerbated this.  We as a society are on a bobsled to hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cloaca du jour said:

Kids today are lonely.  Social media has given the illusion of "friends".  Covid exacerbated this.  We as a society are on a bobsled to hell.

I’m coaching 9/10 Rec Basketball.  First practice was last week.  Great group of kids but after practice I went in to “break it down”. You know, where Coach has the ball, all the players put their hands in and we yell 1, 2, 3  Team Name!

Half the kids were visibly scared to put their hands in the huddle.  Like started too,  drew their hands back, all wide eyed like they didn’t know what to do.  It didn’t register to me at first but driving home it hit me.  The past damn near 3 years (they were six years old) our society scared the shiot out of them.  Its all they know.  
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KSB2424 said:

I’m coaching 9/10 Rec Basketball.  First practice was last week.  Great group of kids but after practice I went in to “break it down”. You know, where Coach has the ball, all the players put their hands in and we yell 1, 2, 3  Team Name!

Half the kids were visibly scared to put their hands in the huddle.  Like started too,  drew their hands back, all wide eyed like they didn’t know what to do.  It didn’t register to me at first but driving home it hit me.  The past damn near 3 years (they were six years old) our society scared the shiot out of them.  Its all they know.  
 

 

 

No .  The kids are isolated enough as it is, we don't need them to the point where they are afraid of shaking hands and at every cough.   

Seems without fail the only people around here who still are rocking their masks are healthy college aged kids.    Near 3 years later and plenty of opportunity to get vaxxes and boosters if you choose, it will be Ok, kids.   Sheesh.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kopy said:

It was 1 person to a hole where I live.

 

JFC :doh:

Once they finally let out carts it was one person to a cart and then for a while they had plastic partitions in the carts, so we could share

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kopy said:

It was 1 person to a hole where I live.

 

So that's why your mom was only allowing 3 dudes into her bedroom at a time during COVID.  Didn't realize that was the local rule.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

All good questions.  

Those questions also point to what I was saying about stuff not getting fixed.    The left drops the ball on the locking up part, and the right drops the ball on these people getting access to guns.  'round and 'round we go! 

I fail to see how "the right drops the ball on these people getting access to guns." There is a process you go through to legally purchase a firearm from an FFL. Even at gun shows, contrary to what some would have you believe. That process includes a background check and is designed to weed out those who aren't legally able to purchase a firearm. 

Falsifying or lying about any of the required information is a crime and disqualifies you from purchasing a firearm. Failing a bgc also disqualifies you. Straw purchases are illegal...

What additional laws do we pass that keep guns out of the wrong people's hands while not infringing on the rights of the law abiding? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.......who could have seen these shootings coming?

I'll bet the guy was an old straight white Christian bastard wearing a MAGA hat too! ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

I fail to see how "the right drops the ball on these people getting access to guns." There is a process you go through to legally purchase a firearm from an FFL. Even at gun shows, contrary to what some would have you believe. That process includes a background check and is designed to weed out those who aren't legally able to purchase a firearm. 

Falsifying or lying about any of the required information is a crime and disqualifies you from purchasing a firearm. Failing a bgc also disqualifies you. Straw purchases are illegal...

What additional laws do we pass that keep guns out of the wrong people's hands while not infringing on the rights of the law abiding? 

 

 

You don't think if there is a party that would be more against Red Flag laws, additional gun restrictions, things like that it would be coming from the right? That's what I was getting at.   Mix that with a sentiment I've seen in a variety of places where people say they wouldn't enforce a removing guns as well.  

I think a few more things should be looked at - somehow we need to have access to info on a minor to factor in gun purchases, for example.  We've seen a few cases in the last year or so where there were all sorts of signs from shooters that to anybody with common sense should prevent them from purchasing guns, but if they go to buy guns a few days after their 18th birthday - all's good.   As a country, I also don't believe we have the stomach to deny access to guns to the level we would probably need to in order to really crack down on mass shootings.  As I posted in the other thread, the common trait for these people are also fairly common in the public - suicidal thoughts, life crisis like job loss/death in the family, things like that.   Hell, if you buy the incorrect post in there that it's psych drugs and people in therapy - that probably includes 1/2 the country at some point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

You don't think if there is a party that would be more against Red Flag laws, additional gun restrictions, things like that it would be coming from the right? That's what I was getting at.   Mix that with a sentiment I've seen in a variety of places where people say they wouldn't enforce a removing guns as well.  

I think a few more things should be looked at - somehow we need to have access to info on a minor to factor in gun purchases, for example.  We've seen a few cases in the last year or so where there were all sorts of signs from shooters that to anybody with common sense should prevent them from purchasing guns, but if they go to buy guns a few days after their 18th birthday - all's good.   As a country, I also don't believe we have the stomach to deny access to guns to the level we would probably need to in order to really crack down on mass shootings.  As I posted in the other thread, the common trait for these people are also fairly common in the public - suicidal thoughts, life crisis like job loss/death in the family, things like that.   Hell, if you buy the incorrect post in there that it's psych drugs and people in therapy - that probably includes 1/2 the country at some point.  

More gun restrictions isn't the answer. Every time a mass shooting occurs that is the rallying cry. "MORE GUN CONTROL!" Incremental restrictions on law abiding citizens haven't worked. Maybe it's time to do the opposite. 

Also, when filling out the 4473 to purchase a gun there is a question about whether or not you've "ever been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution." A yes answer there prohibits you from purchasing a firearm. Maybe the form should be amended to include "have you ever been prescribed MAOI's or SSRI's." A yes answer there should trigger a deeper background check into your juvenile record. Where any behavior that would cause concern can be taken into account at the time of purchase. 

Also, also, if we started holding parents liable when their children commit these heinous acts of violence, maybe they would start taking a more active role in their children's lives and spot some of the warning signs a little sooner. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

More gun restrictions isn't the answer. Every time a mass shooting occurs that is the rallying cry. "MORE GUN CONTROL!" Incremental restrictions on law abiding citizens haven't worked. Maybe it's time to do the opposite. 

Also, when filling out the 4473 to purchase a gun there is a question about whether or not you've "ever been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution." A yes answer there prohibits you from purchasing a firearm. Maybe the form should be amended to include "have you ever been prescribed MAOI's or SSRI's." A yes answer there should trigger a deeper background check into your juvenile record. Where any behavior that would cause concern can be taken into account at the time of purchase. 

Also, also, if we started holding parents liable when their children commit these heinous acts of violence, maybe they would start taking a more active role in their children's lives and spot some of the warning signs a little sooner. 

 

What I am basing this on is examples like Uvalde and Buffalo.   Just about everybody I talked to on both sides of the aisle said something to the lines of "how do these nuts get access to their guns?".    Something is not catching these shooters and still allowing them to walk into stores and purchase their guns.   I am open to suggestions, but I would put any solution on this lines of thinking under the umbrella of "gun restrictions" which is usually met with reactions like yours.   So, like I said I largely believe we don't have the stomach for that, and more times than not it's a sentiment coming from the right side of the aisle.  I don't think any of that is really controversial or incorrect.  

I also don't think a self reporting question/answer on a form is going to stop too many people set on doing these shootings.   Somebody intent on killing multiple and themselves are going to care if they lie on a form when they get a gun?  Yes, I understand that it's included in the process, but let's be real here.

So if we aren't going to tighten anything up on that end, then it's a case of making it so people don't want to or can't get to that point to begin with.   Many times the parents aren't aware of some of these things, and many other times they are the ones causing the childhood trauma that is so prevalent in these shooters.   Counseling, ability to act when people are in crisis, training on knowing signs and who to call if somebody says something are all sorely lacking in this country.   Neither party seems to keen on talking much about those things, so we are where we are with the rising number of these events.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

What I am basing this on is examples like Uvalde and Buffalo.   Just about everybody I talked to on both sides of the aisle said something to the lines of "how do these nuts get access to their guns?".    Something is not catching these shooters and still allowing them to walk into stores and purchase their guns.   I am open to suggestions, but I would put any solution on this lines of thinking under the umbrella of "gun restrictions" which is usually met with reactions like yours.   So, like I said I largely believe we don't have the stomach for that, and more times than not it's a sentiment coming from the right side of the aisle.  I don't think any of that is really controversial or incorrect.  

I also don't think a self reporting question/answer on a form is going to stop too many people set on doing these shootings.   Somebody intent on killing multiple and themselves are going to care if they lie on a form when they get a gun?  Yes, I understand that it's included in the process, but let's be real here.

So if we aren't going to tighten anything up on that end, then it's a case of making it so people don't want to or can't get to that point to begin with.   Many times the parents aren't aware of some of these things, and many other times they are the ones causing the childhood trauma that is so prevalent in these shooters.   Counseling, ability to act when people are in crisis, training on knowing signs and who to call if somebody says something are all sorely lacking in this country.   Neither party seems to keen on talking much about those things, so we are where we are with the rising number of these events.  

 

People intent on killing will always find a way. Such is life. I don't think restricting the rights and freedoms of everybody else is the answer. On the contrary, if we do away with GFZ's and allow people to lawfully carry wherever they go, maybe more of these events get stopped before the body count gets above 1 or 2 and the person that stopped it gets all the media attention instead of the shitbag who tried to shoot up the place. 

I'm all for people getting the mental health help they need and I'm open to discussing anything we can do to help facilitate that. I think a good start would be to not prescribe drugs as an initial treatment. Helping people work through their issues and teaching them how to do it on their own is a better solution than drugging them up. But then, Big Pharma doesn't get their hooks into them and politicians don't get their kickbacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with a a great opportunity and a stable job...cant fix insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

People intent on killing will always find a way. Such is life. I don't think restricting the rights and freedoms of everybody else is the answer. On the contrary, if we do away with GFZ's and allow people to lawfully carry wherever they go, maybe more of these events get stopped before the body count gets above 1 or 2 and the person that stopped it gets all the media attention instead of the shitbag who tried to shoot up the place. 

I'm all for people getting the mental health help they need and I'm open to discussing anything we can do to help facilitate that. I think a good start would be to not prescribe drugs as an initial treatment. Helping people work through their issues and teaching them how to do it on their own is a better solution than drugging them up. But then, Big Pharma doesn't get their hooks into them and politicians don't get their kickbacks. 

The book had a couple really interesting examples showing that this is not the case all the way.   Yes, if they get to the point when they are walking out the door with their bag of guns, not much is stopping them, but there are several points up to that point where there is opportunity to intervene and stop these events.   

We don't agree on more people carrying is a positive solution.  That's ok, we don't have to agree on everything this topic.   IMO that goes against what we see when we look events with guards and other things.    I also think that it goes against common sense when we realize the vast majority are former students, workers, whatever.   They know about the security, where it is, and when they know there are armed guards it doesn't stop them - it makes them put on body armor and bring more guns.  Hence the trend of seeing armor and increasing casualties.  These largely are very specific targets they are choosing, and they know and desire the outcome of dying.   More people with guns doesn't make much sense to me with these shooters.   Good guys with guns are also not walking around much in areas where gang and drug mass shootings happen, so again - not something I believe helps a ton.   Where it helps is in cases like robbery, home invasion, things like that - where death is a deterrent, not a desired part of the outcome.  

I think just about everybody says they are all for people getting mental help.  My point is, I don't believe overall much is being done about it.   Millions of kids go to schools without counselors and psychologists.  They like to talk about it and blame it, but neither party seems to be leading the charge much on addressing any solutions on this part.  To say our infrastructure to help people and have the ability to act when people make threats is lacking is an understatement.  

To be clear, I am not advocating for any sort of gun bans, either.  Also won't help.  IMO some of the dumber ideas I've seen on these topics are gun bans (especially since handguns are protected and the most widely used weapon) and armed guards at all schools (for reasons above).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

The book had a couple really interesting examples showing that this is not the case all the way.   Yes, if they get to the point when they are walking out the door with their bag of guns, not much is stopping them, but there are several points up to that point where there is opportunity to intervene and stop these events.   

We don't agree on more people carrying is a positive solution.  That's ok, we don't have to agree on everything this topic.   IMO that goes against what we see when we look events with guards and other things.    I also think that it goes against common sense when we realize the vast majority are former students, workers, whatever.   They know about the security, where it is, and when they know there are armed guards it doesn't stop them - it makes them put on body armor and bring more guns.  Hence the trend of seeing armor and increasing casualties.  These largely are very specific targets they are choosing, and they know and desire the outcome of dying.   More people with guns doesn't make much sense to me with these shooters.   Good guys with guns are also not walking around much in areas where gang and drug mass shootings happen, so again - not something I believe helps a ton.   Where it helps is in cases like robbery, home invasion, things like that - where death is a deterrent, not a desired part of the outcome.  

I think just about everybody says they are all for people getting mental help.  My point is, I don't believe overall much is being done about it.   Millions of kids go to schools without counselors and psychologists.  They like to talk about it and blame it, but neither party seems to be leading the charge much on addressing any solutions on this part.  To say our infrastructure to help people and have the ability to act when people make threats is lacking is an understatement.  

To be clear, I am not advocating for any sort of gun bans, either.  Also won't help.  IMO some of the dumber ideas I've seen on these topics are gun bans (especially since handguns are protected and the most widely used weapon) and armed guards at all schools (for reasons above).  

 

That's partly my point. If they thought that anybody/everybody around might be packing, they wouldn't know who could or couldn't put a quick end to their intentions. Which might make them take a different tack that is less advantageous for them rather than focus on the one or two guys who are allowed to have weapons first then indiscriminately start shooting everybody else. They may even decide it isn't worth the chance. 

Regardless, I appreciate your ability to have a rational discussion on a topic that very few are capable of having.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours! Time to start working on that bird and stuffing my face hole. 

:cheers:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

That's partly my point. If they thought that anybody/everybody around might be packing, they wouldn't know who could or couldn't put a quick end to their intentions. Which might make them take a different tack that is less advantageous for them rather than focus on the one or two guys who are allowed to have weapons first then indiscriminately start shooting everybody else. They may even decide it isn't worth the chance. 

Regardless, I appreciate your ability to have a rational discussion on a topic that very few are capable of having.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours! Time to start working on that bird and stuffing my face hole. 

:cheers:

 

 

Understood, thanks for further clarification.    I get what you are saying, and can understand the thought process.  I also get that when we are talking about schools and places of employment that there has to be a balance.   

For schools, most of the info I see point to teachers largely not wanting to carry weapons.   I could be talked into more being allowed to if they are volunteering for it.  I would also like to see more training required for that as well, but that's a separate issue.  I think it would help a little, but like I said it seems like the vast majority of teachers don't like that idea.  

Not sure about other places like malls, concerts, etc.   We then need to start talking more about risk/reward.  We have to be honest about how infrequent these events are, even though they are extremely tragic.  Does it cause more accidents and incidents than it stops?   Dunno.     In the end, I think in most cases we talk about, it's still going to be a small number of people who have weapons and predictable who will have them - ie in the case of of schools, of course the adults are ones who have the guns, and if they are 80% of the time current and former students my question is how unpredictable is it?   IF we'd have to guess - probably the male teachers are a good place to start with who is packing.   

To me a lot of it circles back to these types largely being targeted with a purpose, by former workers/students.   If they know the drills and security, they know the people there and guess who has a gun fairly accurately if we allowed that as well. 

 

As to the rest of it - right back at you.  Always appreciate good back and forth.   Have a good day, and it's officially time for me to stop avoiding going to my family's house and hit the road.  :cheers:

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Everybody is twisting themselves into pretzels to figure out the cause of all the mass shootings. Why? It’s the most obvious answer: the massive amount of guns. The data are here:

Why does the U.S. have so many mass shootings?

Simpleton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, yes - it's hard to carry out a mass shooting without a gun.  It's part of the definition.   

When I look at it, it feels like we have a different problem than other countries with high gun ownerships.  Looking at countries such as France, it looked like it was fewer mass shootings but with huge numbers.  I assume probably political strifes?    For example, they might have 5 shootings in a year for 150 deaths.   We might have a stat more like 600 shootings for 900 deaths. It also makes it hard to make a 1:1 comparison because countries with similar or higher deaths/capita from mass shootings on average might also go 2-3 years without a mass shooting, where we do not.    To my knowledge the typical mall/school type shooter is more a US problem, but could be wrong on that.   I'd guess around the world it's more drugs/cartel mixed with political or religious strikes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

I mean, yes - it's hard to carry out a mass shooting without a gun.  It's part of the definition.   

When I look at it, it feels like we have a different problem than other countries with high gun ownerships.  Looking at countries such as France, it looked like it was fewer mass shootings but with huge numbers.  I assume probably political strifes?    For example, they might have 5 shootings in a year for 150 deaths.   We might have a stat more like 600 shootings for 900 deaths. It also makes it hard to make a 1:1 comparison because countries with similar or higher deaths/capita from mass shootings on average might also go 2-3 years without a mass shooting, where we do not.    To my knowledge the typical mall/school type shooter is more a US problem, but could be wrong on that.   I'd guess around the world it's more drugs/cartel mixed with political or religious strikes.  

If you actually look at the data, the numbers of guns correspond in a linear fashion with the numbers of shootings. It’s not a mystery to figure out. Making up random numbers is unnecessary, when you can actually look at the data, presented quite nicely in the article I linked. Until we decrease the number of guns, we will have 600+ mass shootings a year.

People want to blame gangs or terrorism or whatever. The fact is, violence is a part of the human condition, and always has been. Give one person an easy way to kill dozens or hundreds in a matter of moments? There will ALWAYS be somebody who is either crazy, or had a bad day, or is a murdering sociopath, or any number of other reasons. If they have easy access to weapons of war, this is the result. This isn’t “Minority Report.” We can’t magically predict who is gonna snap on any given day and start blowing people away. Red flag laws are a panacea. If you want to decrease the severity of mass shootings, ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15.

It’s painfully obvious, but there’s a lot of money and power invested in not allowing any restrictions on guns. So the mass killings, including those of little kids, will keep happening. It’s inexcusable, and a very big reason why I cannot vote for Republicans. If any of them told the NRA to F off and took this problem seriously, I might change my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RLLD said:

Well, it seems as though for this one no one knows why it happened……no jumping to conclusions from the start and assigning the act to some sort of National threat, how about that

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/24/us/chesapeake-virginia-walmart-shooting-thursday/index.html

 

Seems clear he was targeting specific people as he had a hit list and specifically spared some people 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Seems clear he was targeting specific people as he had a hit list and specifically spared some people 

Perhaps. It is just nice to not see the pretending about why this person did this act.  Not attribution to some politically-motivated factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America has always had a lot of guns. We haven't always had mass shootings. 

It isn't the guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Perhaps. It is just nice to not see the pretending about why this person did this act.  Not attribution to some politically-motivated factor.

Are you suggesting this is because of the shooter’s skin color?

Oh and you’re wrong anyway:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Of course it is, I mean, come on....be real....

I am not wrong, your link affirms my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I’m surprised you are continuing on with this nonsense after how badly you got embarrassed in the Idaho thread 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article clearly explains that the manager was suffering from some sort of mental illness perhaps a mild schizophrenic. Did anyone read the article?

“He was always saying the government was watching him. He didn’t like social media and he kept black tape on his phone camera. Everyone always thought something was wrong with him,” Reese said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dogcows said:

If you actually look at the data, the numbers of guns correspond in a linear fashion with the numbers of shootings. It’s not a mystery to figure out. Making up random numbers is unnecessary, when you can actually look at the data, presented quite nicely in the article I linked. Until we decrease the number of guns, we will have 600+ mass shootings a year.

People want to blame gangs or terrorism or whatever. The fact is, violence is a part of the human condition, and always has been. Give one person an easy way to kill dozens or hundreds in a matter of moments? There will ALWAYS be somebody who is either crazy, or had a bad day, or is a murdering sociopath, or any number of other reasons. If they have easy access to weapons of war, this is the result. This isn’t “Minority Report.” We can’t magically predict who is gonna snap on any given day and start blowing people away. Red flag laws are a panacea. If you want to decrease the severity of mass shootings, ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15.

It’s painfully obvious, but there’s a lot of money and power invested in not allowing any restrictions on guns. So the mass killings, including those of little kids, will keep happening. It’s inexcusable, and a very big reason why I cannot vote for Republicans. If any of them told the NRA to F off and took this problem seriously, I might change my mind.

What numbers am I making up?  The numbers in the post you quoted are just a general example of differences between us and other countries.   I think I've been pretty clear and honest about stats and rates.  

Like I posted elsewhere, yes - part of the profile of a shooter like this is access to a gun or guns.  It's common sense, you need a gun to commit a shooting.    AR bans would maybe make a tiny dent, but IMO that is a silly place to start when the vast majority of mass shootings don't involve weapons like that.    It does very little, and I like to focus on solutions that have bigger impact.   The better way to address it is to increase the ability to identify and deny access to these shooters to guns, IMO.   But even that has problems because the common links for these types of shooters are also very common in the general public, so that will also be met with the same amount of opposition because it takes guns from a ton of people.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Lol, I’m surprised you are continuing on with this nonsense after how badly you got embarrassed in the Idaho thread 

I am honestly confused, please elaborate.  My assertion remains with that thread as with this one....the media reporting and the political response will depend on the makeup of those involved. There will not be a fair assessment unless the mix is proper. That is my assertion, and frankly it cannot be directly proven or disproven. 

You make no sense at all :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, peenie said:

The article clearly explains that the manager was suffering from some sort of mental illness perhaps a mild schizophrenic. Did anyone read the article?

“He was always saying the government was watching him. He didn’t like social media and he kept black tape on his phone camera. Everyone always thought something was wrong with him,” Reese said.

And this is likely factual.  Of course.  Now, how it is represented......by media.....and how politicians decide to leverage it.....that is another matter.  How they can both use the situation to further divide us and pit us against each other.....that remains to be seen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I am honestly confused, please elaborate.  My assertion remains with that thread as with this one....the media reporting and the political response will depend on the makeup of those involved. There will not be a fair assessment unless the mix is proper. That is my assertion, and frankly it cannot be directly proven or disproven. 

You make no sense at all :dunno:

It could be disproven in the Idaho thread because we don’t know the makeup of the murderer.  You suggested the police told the media but said to keep it on the downlow, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TimHauck said:

It could be disproven in the Idaho thread because we don’t know the makeup of the murderer.  You suggested the police told the media but said to keep it on the downlow, lol

No it cannot.  In order to disprove my assertion we would first have to run the scenario with the killer being a white male, and then rewind it and have the killer be a black male.

We cannot do this.  My assertion remains.  Depending on those two factors, the media and politicians will USE the situation differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve heard about this shooting and honestly I assumed the shooter and most victims were white. There doesn’t seem to be any bias in the reporting of the story other than THIS thread. I find it strange that in all the posts about mass shootings, this is one of the only times the thread was titled in a humorous way. That alone let ME know the shooter and victims were likely black. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, peenie said:

I’ve heard about this shooting and honestly I assumed the shooter and most victims were white. There doesn’t seem to be any bias in the reporting of the story other than THIS thread. I find it strange that in all the posts about mass shootings, this is one of the only times the thread was titled in a humorous way. That alone let ME know the shooter and victims were likely black. 

You will not find bias, That is the point.  The makeup of those involved means this one will be reported properly. This is how journalism SHOULD look

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RLLD said:

You will not find bias, That is the point.  The makeup of those involved means this one will be reported properly. This is how journalism SHOULD look

Ooohhh…..I see what you’re saying. Interesting 🧐 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×