Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:40 pm Those are actually my responses.

That…surprises me.

Isgrimnur wrote:

hepcat wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:40 pm Those are actually my responses.

That…surprises me.

Which one in particular surprises you the most? We can start there, and I can elaborate.

The great sin in what happened in Texas is that an 18-year-old with murder in his heart walked into a public school and shot to death 19 kids and two teachers. The great shock is what the police did—their incompetence on the scene and apparent lies afterward. This aspect has rocked the American people.

Uvalde wasn’t an “apparent law-enforcement failure.” It is the biggest law-enforcement scandal since George Floyd, and therefore one of the biggest in U.S. history. Children, some already shot, some not, were trapped in adjoining classrooms. As many as 19 cops were gathered in the hall just outside. The Washington Post timeline has the killer roaming the classrooms: “The attack went for so long, witnesses said, that the gunman had time to taunt his victims before killing them, even putting on songs that one student described to CNN as ‘I-want-people-to-die music.’ ”

Students inside were calling 911 and begging for help. The officers failed to move for almost an hour.

Everyone in America knows the story. Finding out exactly how and why it happened is the urgent business of government. We can’t let it dribble away into the narrative void and settle for excuses. “People are still shaken up.” “Probes take time.” “We’re still burying the children.” We can’t let the idea settle in that this is how it is now, if bad trouble comes you’re on your own. It is too demoralizing.

We can’t let it settle in that the police can’t be relied on to be physically braver than other people. An implicit agreement in going into the profession is that you’re physically brave. I don’t understand those saying with nonjudgmental empathy, “I’m not sure I would have gone in.” It was their job to go in. If you can’t cut it, then don’t join and get the badge, the gun and the pension.

The most focused and intense investigating has to be done now, when it’s still fresh and raw—before the 19 cops and their commanders fully close ranks, if they haven’t already, and lawyer up.

Those officers—they know everything that happened while nothing was done for an hour. A lot of them would have had to override their own common sense to stand down under orders; most would have had to override a natural impulse toward compassion. Many would be angry now, or full of reproach or a need to explain.

Get them now.

Within moments of the massacre’s ending, the police were issuing strange claims. They said the shooter was confronted by a school guard and shots were exchanged. Not true. They said the shooter was wearing body armor. He wasn’t. They said he was “barricaded” inside the classroom. Is that the right word for a guy behind a single locked door? They said a teacher left open the door the shooter used to enter. Videotape showed otherwise. They didn’t admit what happened outside the school as parents pleaded with the police to do something and tried to fight past the cordon so at least they could do something. The Washington Post had a witness who heard parents tell the police, “Do your f— job!” The police said they were. A man yelled, “Get your f— rifles and handle business!” Those parents were patronized and pushed around.

Even accounting for the fog of war there’s something next-level about the spin and falsehoods that occurred in Uvalde.

...

I close with a thought tugging around my brain. I think I am seeing a broad and general decline in professionalism in America, a deterioration of our pride in concepts like rigor and excellence. Jan. 6 comes and law enforcement agencies are weak and unprepared and the U.S. Capitol falls to a small army of mooks. Afghanistan and the departure that was really a collapse, all traceable to the incompetence of diplomatic and military leadership. It’s like everyone’s forgotten the mission.

I’m not saying, “Oh, America was once so wonderful and now it’s not.” I’m saying we are losing old habits of discipline and pride in expertise—of peerlessness. There was a kind of American gleam. If the world called on us—in business, the arts, the military, diplomacy, science—they knew they were going to get help. The grown-ups had arrived, with their deep competence.

America now feels more like people who took the Expedited Three Month Training Course and got the security badge and went to work and formed an affinity group to advocate for change. A people who love to talk, endlessly, about sensitivity, yet aren’t sensitive enough to save the children bleeding out on the other side of the door.

I fear that as a people we’re becoming not only increasingly unimpressive but increasingly unlovable.

My God, I’ve never seen a country so in need of a hero.

Broad public support on the issue may not be as broad as polling shows or as Democrats hope.

Again and again and again

In the early hours after the shooting at a Tulsa medical center on Wednesday, the details were murky. Soon, it became clear that the death toll there was not going to be as nearly as high as the tolls from the recent shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo.

Four people were killed in Tulsa (in addition to the gunman), compared with 21 in Uvalde and 10 in Buffalo. But the Tulsa shooting is nonetheless horrific in its own way — not only for its victims and their families but also for what it says about gun violence in the United States.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:30 pm

• No, we don't, and maybe we should
• No, we don't
• Sure
• No, we don't
• No, we don't

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:15 am I used to have a chicken coop. And a pigeon coop. And ducks. And, yes, I needed to get rid of certain predators that would come to visit them. And I used to hunt, quite a bit.

I can't think of any scenario where a bolt action rifle with five rounds wouldn't be 100% as effective at those tasks as an AR with 30 rounds. Worst case scenario? There are two animals and you miss a shot at each. Typical scenario? You need one shot, plus possibly a second 'mercy' shot.

What animal do you need 20 or 30 rounds faster than the one aimed shot every two or three seconds that a decent hunter can fire from a bolt action rifle? Maybe wild boar or kodiaks, but you'll be using specialized equipment for them anyway.

And for defense in the home, a pistol, revolver, or shotgun is going to be superior practically every time. Better maneuverability, faster, less likely to penetrate multiple walls, and better suited to short range. There are a few longer weapons that are very effective in small areas (the M4 and certain SMGs-style weapons), but when it comes to the civilian models, none are more effective than a handgun or shotgun.

The types of weapons were talking about are designed for one thing: combat at range. They have some real strengths compared to slower weapons or handguns - strengths that don't apply to home defense or hunting.

If you snapped your fingers now and every single semi automatic rifle in the world vanished, not one of those activities would be diminished. And if every magazine with more than seven rounds also disappeared, the number of home defense situations that would turn out differently (in a positive manner) would be so small as to be almost non-existent.

You would impact collectors, militias, fantasy soldiers, and murder rates.*

*Not to say that everyone who owns those weapons is one of those things, just that any other practical use would be minimally impacted, such as having to switch to different (but equally effective) weapon choice.

This is from the perspective of someone who has sold firearms (my first job out of high school), who has worked multiple armed positions, and who has been range and combat trained with revolver, pistol, shotgun, and rifle.

pr0ner wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:09 am The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, technically, is to provide for a "well regulated militia". Unfettered access to guns, which is what a lot of people take the 2nd Amendment to mean these days, is not that.

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:34 am

pr0ner wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:09 am The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, technically, is to provide for a "well regulated militia". Unfettered access to guns, which is what a lot of people take the 2nd Amendment to mean these days, is not that.

It's a good thing that's not my position, then.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:18 am I don't think this is the best approach. All it ends with is endless debate about terminal ballistics and room clearing tactics, which is the 2A playbook. Combat rifles are very good for home defense. But so are a myriad of other firearms.

Why does every cop have a patrol rifle in the trunk? Why did SWAT teams, SEALs, etc switch to combat carbines from subguns, even for CQC? Because they are extremely effective at just about any range up to a few hundred yards. Don't fall into the 2A trap. Ultimately the question is, "Are you willing to give one non-essential class of firearms for the greater good? " This has always been the ask and it is gaining traction. You'll never convince those who don't want to be convinced so getting into the weeds on combat tactics is a waste of time. There's always some gun counter prophet ready to take up the fight.

pr0ner wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:49 am

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:34 am

pr0ner wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 8:09 am The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, technically, is to provide for a "well regulated militia". Unfettered access to guns, which is what a lot of people take the 2nd Amendment to mean these days, is not that.

It's a good thing that's not my position, then.

What, exactly is your position then? Because in this thread you've said assault rifles shouldn't be banned (with a caveat) and high-capacity magazines shouldn't be banned.

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:53 am Why does every cop have a rifle instead of sidearms? Because they are called on to react to a variety of tactical situations, including those at longer ranges, and because of events like the North Hollywood Shootout took 'policing' from facing a guy with a Saturday night special to cops facing battlefield equipped combatants.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 10:16 am

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:53 am Why does every cop have a rifle instead of sidearms? Because they are called on to react to a variety of tactical situations, including those at longer ranges, and because of events like the North Hollywood Shootout took 'policing' from facing a guy with a Saturday night special to cops facing battlefield equipped combatants.

And they've become comfortable enough with them that as soon as there's a potential shooter involved, they grab the carbine.

I'm well aware of the North Hollywood Shootout and the FBI Miami Shootout. In fact, they will inevitably come up when people are defending ownership of combat rifles.

Differences in national culture and issues, while meaningful, do not on their own explain things. After all, Canada also has two parties that mostly dominate national politics, an urban-rural divide, deepening culture wars, and a rising far-right. And guns have been a contentious issue there for decades, one long contested by activist groups.

Rather, much of the gap in how these two countries handle contentious policy questions comes down to something that can feel invisible amid day-to-day politicking but may be just as important as the issues themselves: the structures of their political systems.

Canada’s is a parliamentary system. Its head of government, Justin Trudeau, is elevated to that job by the legislature, of which he is also a member, and which his party, in collaboration with another, controls.

If Trudeau wants to pass a new law, he must merely ask his subordinates in his party and their allies to do it. There is no such thing as divided government and less cross-party horse-trading and legislative gridlock.

Canada is similar to what the United States would be if it had only a House of Representatives, whose speaker also oversaw federal agencies and foreign policy.

What the United States has instead is a system whose structure simultaneously requires cooperation across competing parties and discourages them from working together.

The result is a US system that not only moves slower and passes fewer laws than those of parliamentary models like Canada’s, research has found, but also stalls for years even on measures that enjoy widespread support among voters in both parties, such as universal background checks for gun purchases.
...
“The vast majority of the stable democracies in the world today are parliamentary regimes,” Linz wrote.

Presidential systems, on the other hand, tended to collapse in coups or other violence, with only the United States having persisted since its origin.

It’s telling that when American diplomats and technocrats help to set up new democracies abroad, they almost always model them on European-style parliaments.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:55 pm The highlights because of the late hour:

Depending on the wording, there’s the potential for the loss of due process.

There’s the unverifiability of surrendering all weapons without firearm registration.

Do these red flag laws tie into databases to prevent new purchases? We’ve seen people obtain weapons who should have been prohibited because of other jurisdictions including military discharges.

We’re pretty much all on board as seeing civil forfeiture as an abuse of power. To whom is the federal power going to be granted, and which federal law enforcement agency do you trust to administer this fairly?

At the state level, the laws contain a differing array of who can request an intervention. To whom do you grant this ability?

In conclusion, I’m willing to review and give feedback on any specific plan, but in the abstract bullet point sense, I doubt the motives and intent of those who would have control of the levers.

I know the objections. I know that red flag laws implicate a core constitutional right. I also know that poorly drafted laws are subject to abuse. But our constitutional structure permits emergency and temporary deprivations of even core liberty interests upon sufficient showing of need, with sufficient due process. Restraining orders and other forms of domestic violence prevention orders can often block parents and spouses even from their own families upon a showing of imminent threat.

Pyperkub wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:05 am Horrifying. That song will be in kids' heads forever...

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status ... 5829258241

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:24 am

Pyperkub wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:05 am Horrifying. That song will be in kids' heads forever...

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status ... 5829258241

This was in another thread and I'll say it again. This is good for preaching to the choir, in this case for Hogg to drum up support for MFOL. It's does nothing to convert or stimulate conversation and probably drives some people to dig in deeper.

malchior wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:09 am I argue again this time is different. It was like this incident finally ripped the blinders off some folks. Here is Peggy Noonan - as very serious a person who other 'very serious people' models themselves after having a full meltdown on the United States. She also went after some of the individuals involved to support the incompetence she is speaking to - some of the police in Uvalde and Greg Abbott in particular.

In any case, she speaks to a pattern she sees as a loss of professionalism and rigor. Welcome to reality Peggy. That is America under the watch of people she and her peers often lauded and excused as they tipped America into steep decline.

Though her last sentence is the problem we face. We are opening the door to a 'hero'. But it has an outsized chance it'll be a tyrant. Be careful what you wish for.

WSJ

The great sin in what happened in Texas is that an 18-year-old with murder in his heart walked into a public school and shot to death 19 kids and two teachers. The great shock is what the police did—their incompetence on the scene and apparent lies afterward. This aspect has rocked the American people.

Uvalde wasn’t an “apparent law-enforcement failure.” It is the biggest law-enforcement scandal since George Floyd, and therefore one of the biggest in U.S. history. Children, some already shot, some not, were trapped in adjoining classrooms. As many as 19 cops were gathered in the hall just outside. The Washington Post timeline has the killer roaming the classrooms: “The attack went for so long, witnesses said, that the gunman had time to taunt his victims before killing them, even putting on songs that one student described to CNN as ‘I-want-people-to-die music.’ ”

Students inside were calling 911 and begging for help. The officers failed to move for almost an hour.

Everyone in America knows the story. Finding out exactly how and why it happened is the urgent business of government. We can’t let it dribble away into the narrative void and settle for excuses. “People are still shaken up.” “Probes take time.” “We’re still burying the children.” We can’t let the idea settle in that this is how it is now, if bad trouble comes you’re on your own. It is too demoralizing.

We can’t let it settle in that the police can’t be relied on to be physically braver than other people. An implicit agreement in going into the profession is that you’re physically brave. I don’t understand those saying with nonjudgmental empathy, “I’m not sure I would have gone in.” It was their job to go in. If you can’t cut it, then don’t join and get the badge, the gun and the pension.

The most focused and intense investigating has to be done now, when it’s still fresh and raw—before the 19 cops and their commanders fully close ranks, if they haven’t already, and lawyer up.

Those officers—they know everything that happened while nothing was done for an hour. A lot of them would have had to override their own common sense to stand down under orders; most would have had to override a natural impulse toward compassion. Many would be angry now, or full of reproach or a need to explain.

Get them now.

Within moments of the massacre’s ending, the police were issuing strange claims. They said the shooter was confronted by a school guard and shots were exchanged. Not true. They said the shooter was wearing body armor. He wasn’t. They said he was “barricaded” inside the classroom. Is that the right word for a guy behind a single locked door? They said a teacher left open the door the shooter used to enter. Videotape showed otherwise. They didn’t admit what happened outside the school as parents pleaded with the police to do something and tried to fight past the cordon so at least they could do something. The Washington Post had a witness who heard parents tell the police, “Do your f— job!” The police said they were. A man yelled, “Get your f— rifles and handle business!” Those parents were patronized and pushed around.

Even accounting for the fog of war there’s something next-level about the spin and falsehoods that occurred in Uvalde.

...

I close with a thought tugging around my brain. I think I am seeing a broad and general decline in professionalism in America, a deterioration of our pride in concepts like rigor and excellence. Jan. 6 comes and law enforcement agencies are weak and unprepared and the U.S. Capitol falls to a small army of mooks. Afghanistan and the departure that was really a collapse, all traceable to the incompetence of diplomatic and military leadership. It’s like everyone’s forgotten the mission.

I’m not saying, “Oh, America was once so wonderful and now it’s not.” I’m saying we are losing old habits of discipline and pride in expertise—of peerlessness. There was a kind of American gleam. If the world called on us—in business, the arts, the military, diplomacy, science—they knew they were going to get help. The grown-ups had arrived, with their deep competence.

America now feels more like people who took the Expedited Three Month Training Course and got the security badge and went to work and formed an affinity group to advocate for change. A people who love to talk, endlessly, about sensitivity, yet aren’t sensitive enough to save the children bleeding out on the other side of the door.

I fear that as a people we’re becoming not only increasingly unimpressive but increasingly unlovable.

My God, I’ve never seen a country so in need of a hero.

malchior wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:09 am I argue again this time is different. It was like this incident finally ripped the blinders off some folks. Here is Peggy Noonan - as very serious a person who other 'very serious people' models themselves after having a full meltdown on the United States. She also went after some of the individuals involved to support the incompetence she is speaking to - some of the police in Uvalde and Greg Abbott in particular.

In any case, she speaks to a pattern she sees as a loss of professionalism and rigor. Welcome to reality Peggy. That is America under the watch of people she and her peers often lauded and excused as they tipped America into steep decline.

Though her last sentence is the problem we face. We are opening the door to a 'hero'. But it has an outsized chance it'll be a tyrant. Be careful what you wish for.

WSJ

The great sin in what happened in Texas is that an 18-year-old with murder in his heart walked into a public school and shot to death 19 kids and two teachers. The great shock is what the police did—their incompetence on the scene and apparent lies afterward. This aspect has rocked the American people.

Uvalde wasn’t an “apparent law-enforcement failure.” It is the biggest law-enforcement scandal since George Floyd, and therefore one of the biggest in U.S. history. Children, some already shot, some not, were trapped in adjoining classrooms. As many as 19 cops were gathered in the hall just outside. The Washington Post timeline has the killer roaming the classrooms: “The attack went for so long, witnesses said, that the gunman had time to taunt his victims before killing them, even putting on songs that one student described to CNN as ‘I-want-people-to-die music.’ ”

Students inside were calling 911 and begging for help. The officers failed to move for almost an hour.

Everyone in America knows the story. Finding out exactly how and why it happened is the urgent business of government. We can’t let it dribble away into the narrative void and settle for excuses. “People are still shaken up.” “Probes take time.” “We’re still burying the children.” We can’t let the idea settle in that this is how it is now, if bad trouble comes you’re on your own. It is too demoralizing.

We can’t let it settle in that the police can’t be relied on to be physically braver than other people. An implicit agreement in going into the profession is that you’re physically brave. I don’t understand those saying with nonjudgmental empathy, “I’m not sure I would have gone in.” It was their job to go in. If you can’t cut it, then don’t join and get the badge, the gun and the pension.

The most focused and intense investigating has to be done now, when it’s still fresh and raw—before the 19 cops and their commanders fully close ranks, if they haven’t already, and lawyer up.

Those officers—they know everything that happened while nothing was done for an hour. A lot of them would have had to override their own common sense to stand down under orders; most would have had to override a natural impulse toward compassion. Many would be angry now, or full of reproach or a need to explain.

Get them now.

Within moments of the massacre’s ending, the police were issuing strange claims. They said the shooter was confronted by a school guard and shots were exchanged. Not true. They said the shooter was wearing body armor. He wasn’t. They said he was “barricaded” inside the classroom. Is that the right word for a guy behind a single locked door? They said a teacher left open the door the shooter used to enter. Videotape showed otherwise. They didn’t admit what happened outside the school as parents pleaded with the police to do something and tried to fight past the cordon so at least they could do something. The Washington Post had a witness who heard parents tell the police, “Do your f— job!” The police said they were. A man yelled, “Get your f— rifles and handle business!” Those parents were patronized and pushed around.

Even accounting for the fog of war there’s something next-level about the spin and falsehoods that occurred in Uvalde.

...

I close with a thought tugging around my brain. I think I am seeing a broad and general decline in professionalism in America, a deterioration of our pride in concepts like rigor and excellence. Jan. 6 comes and law enforcement agencies are weak and unprepared and the U.S. Capitol falls to a small army of mooks. Afghanistan and the departure that was really a collapse, all traceable to the incompetence of diplomatic and military leadership. It’s like everyone’s forgotten the mission.

I’m not saying, “Oh, America was once so wonderful and now it’s not.” I’m saying we are losing old habits of discipline and pride in expertise—of peerlessness. There was a kind of American gleam. If the world called on us—in business, the arts, the military, diplomacy, science—they knew they were going to get help. The grown-ups had arrived, with their deep competence.

America now feels more like people who took the Expedited Three Month Training Course and got the security badge and went to work and formed an affinity group to advocate for change. A people who love to talk, endlessly, about sensitivity, yet aren’t sensitive enough to save the children bleeding out on the other side of the door.

I fear that as a people we’re becoming not only increasingly unimpressive but increasingly unlovable.

My God, I’ve never seen a country so in need of a hero.

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 10:54 am Checks and balances was designed as tool, but has become a weapon.

Pyperkub wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:12 am The thing is that you are essentially arguing that because it is hard and we might get it wrong, we should do nothing.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:55 pm In conclusion, I’m willing to review and give feedback on any specific plan, but in the abstract bullet point sense, I doubt the motives and intent of those who would have control of the levers.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:24 am

Pyperkub wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:05 am Horrifying. That song will be in kids' heads forever...

https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status ... 5829258241

This was in another thread and I'll say it again. This is good for preaching to the choir, in this case for Hogg to drum up support for MFOL. It's does nothing to convert or stimulate conversation and probably drives some people to dig in deeper.

Kurth wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:34 am The number of people killed in mass shootings is de minimis. Yet this is where we focus our attention because we have short attention spans and are absolutely terrible at weighing risk.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:25 pm

hepcat wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:40 pm Those are actually my responses.

That…surprises me.

Which one in particular surprises you the most? We can start there, and I can elaborate.

Kurth wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:34 amFocus on the police response is a distraction. Could the police have possibly saved some lives if they had done their job in a competent manner? Probably. Could they have averted this tragedy? Most likely not. Readily available assault rifles should be the focus.

The vase majority of gun violence does not involve assault weapons. The number of people killed in mass shootings is de minimis. Yet this is where we focus our attention because we have short attention spans and are absolutely terrible at weighing risk.

Kurth wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:34 am
The vase majority of gun violence does not involve assault weapons. The number of people killed in mass shootings is de minimis. Yet this is where we focus our attention because we have short attention spans and are absolutely terrible at weighing risk.

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:39 am

Pyperkub wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:12 am The thing is that you are essentially arguing that because it is hard and we might get it wrong, we should do nothing.

Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:55 pm In conclusion, I’m willing to review and give feedback on any specific plan, but in the abstract bullet point sense, I doubt the motives and intent of those who would have control of the levers.

We have 19 different state laws. We can start there.

Kivisto and Phalen find that Indiana’s law was associated with a 7.5% drop in firearm suicides in the decade after its passage. Connecticut’s law, they find, was associated with a 1.6% reduction in firearm suicides after it was passed — that jumped to 13.7% after the state started enforcing the law in earnest eight years later.

“Even though risk-based firearm seizure laws have typically been enacted in response to mass homicides, the laws have functioned primarily as a means of seizing firearms from suicidal individuals,” Kivisto and Phalen write.

Most subjects made explicit threats and owned firearms (Table 1). Four cases arose primarily in relation to medical or mental health conditions, and such conditions were noted in 4 others. In 14 cases, petitions were filed by law enforcement officers acting on information provided by members of the public. Fifty-two firearms were recovered, 26 of them in 1 case. In 3 cases, subjects had very recently purchased firearms but, as a result of California's 10-day waiting period, had not yet acquired them. These acquisitions were blocked by GVROs; according to California Department of Justice records, these subjects did not own other firearms...

...The seemingly high proportion of threatened mass shootings among GVRO cases (13% in this study) may also not be representative. The higher mean age for all 414 cases is expected if, in California as elsewhere, most ERPOs are issued in response to concerns about suicide; risk for suicide among non-Hispanic white men increases with age (25).

The limitations notwithstanding, these cases suggest that this urgent, individualized intervention can play a role in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in health care settings and elsewhere. In their demographic characteristics, frequent declarations of intent, declarations of animosity toward targeted populations, and access to firearms, these individuals resemble persons who have committed mass violence

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:56 am But yeah, one-line comments and single images only go so far, and then people start making (probably wrong) assumptions.

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:17 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:56 am But yeah, one-line comments and single images only go so far, and then people start making (probably wrong) assumptions.

What is presented without nuance can be dismissed without nuance.

ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:41 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:17 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:56 am But yeah, one-line comments and single images only go so far, and then people start making (probably wrong) assumptions.

What is presented without nuance can be dismissed without nuance.

Seems like one can choose ignore the context and thus dismiss the nuance that is a necessary part of the discussion. The POTUS tweet was a summary of a speech that outlined plans that would need to be hashed out in more detail. Just saying "No" to each of a summary point seems to either indicate an unwillingness to engage on the issues or a lack of understanding of the context in which the tweet was made. I mean, you don't really think they were planning on passing a law that said "Enact safe storage and red flags," do you?

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:54 pm If the speech or details had been presented, I would have happily responded to those. I was unaware of the speech or any specific proposals.