Octopus Overlords

pr0ner wrote: Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:52 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:13 pm

Goddamn, that was powerful.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.