So in the crime procedurals I watch where they are able to identify who a gun is registered to right away, is that bullshit?
Is there like some intern looking through thousands of written entries of serial numbers or some shit???
Crime procedurals are bullshit in general. Assume anything that completes instantly on the show really takes weeks, and you'll at least be closer to the truth.
CSI was hated by defense attorneys because they noticed that not only did juries increasingly lost their skepticism about evidence as the show went on, but police and prosecutors got more blatant about trying to sell obvious bullshit via putting a local CSI on the stand to use pseudoscience jargon to sell it.
That's the entire point of propaganda. CSI is not as blatant as 24's pro-torture, pro-war and pro-military bent, but is there.
I had heard it was also hated by prosecutors because so many real cases rely on a lot of circumstantial evidence and eyewitnesses, whereas on the show they always get DNA matches and hard evidence.
Yeah, it's not propaganda, it's just a purely fictional version of police work TV writers made up so they could sell you more police procedurals.
The modern police procedural on TV is descended from Dragnet, a 1940 radio and 50s TV show made in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department to improve the image of the LAPD, which was previously marred by news reports and lived reality of heavy corruption, violence, and racism. The show is credited with improving the image of police nationwide and creating the huge split in opinion about police among the white middle class and poor white and minority communities.
It was also part of one of several outreach efforts by Hollywood to create goodwill among the police, who the studios needed to help shield their execs and talent from consequences of actions like rape and substance abuse, which the police were more than happy to cover up. And while the industry had always kept a large payroll of LAPD advisors, the cop show became a way to turn this from a minor scandal to a totally legit and aboveboard affair.
But that was then, of course. Totally not propaganda now.
Dragnet was a show that stopped airing 60 years ago. Most modern shows afaik can't even use the official uniforms of the departments they are representing on screen because the police won't sign off on it. The reality today is that the Police Show is just like your Law Show or Doctor Show. It's the most generic of network drama that they churn out in endless numbers because they make money. Or some do.
But because there's so damn many, you have to find some way to differentiate yourself from the pack. CSI hit on "make it star the lab guys" and "dark colour palate and darker themes and graphic content and it's always night shift". And it worked. Really really well. To the point that some element of what they did is copied by essentially every police procedural made since then. And to the point that it actually warped people's sense of how police work ... works. But the only point was to try and make Police Procedural #2747 somehow different from #2746.
This is just disgusting. Instead of actually attempting to work towards doing anything to stop this violence, they will be defending their inaction and anti-gun regulation stance by pointing fingers at far left violence and also saying things like the passing of reciprocal concealed carry laws were done to combat the violence. They are also being told to point out that a number of the shootings, including Dayton, were perpetrated by people on the left... rather than admit that white nationalism is the root of the majority of the recent attacks. I just can't even...
Whatever the political affiliation/ideology of the shooter in question is frankly irrelivent. What is a problem is that any idiot can get their hands on a semi automatic weapon.
Problem is that:
A: People take lot of their ques on how the world works from fiction.
B: Producers of said fiction don't understand, or care, about this.
Which leads to a world where people assume police spend half their time in car chases and gunfights, evidence is always rock solid or the perp confesses, torture works, you must have a gun for self defense against <insert menace here> and loads of other misconception.
This is just disgusting. Instead of actually attempting to work towards doing anything to stop this violence, they will be defending their inaction and anti-gun regulation stance by pointing fingers at far left violence and also saying things like the passing of reciprocal concealed carry laws were done to combat the violence. They are also being told to point out that a number of the shootings, including Dayton, were perpetrated by people on the left... rather than admit that white nationalism is the root of the majority of the recent attacks. I just can't even...
Whatever the political affiliation/ideology of the shooter in question is frankly irrelivent. What is a problem is that any idiot can get their hands on a semi automatic weapon.
Like it's really that simple.
Yeah, it's not as simple as "white nationalism" or "misogyny." Mass shooters often have absolutely no ideology. The guy who shot Steve Scalise seemed to be motivated by conventional left-wing anger at the Republican party (but was also a violent misogynist who should never have been permitted a gun).
I think the difference is propaganda is done with intent to push an ideology or opinion. Dragnet may well have been propaganda, but I don't think modern police procedurals are out to push an opinion.
I think the difference is propaganda is done with intent to push an ideology or opinion. Dragnet may well have been propaganda, but I don't think modern police procedurals are out to push an opinion.
I think the difference is propaganda is done with intent to push an ideology or opinion. Dragnet may well have been propaganda, but I don't think modern police procedurals are out to push an opinion.
They are and they arent. In the same way the military can pressure motives to make them look good
I think the difference is propaganda is done with intent to push an ideology or opinion. Dragnet may well have been propaganda, but I don't think modern police procedurals are out to push an opinion.
Cops are always the good guys, unless they're crooked cops in which case they get theirs either from the criminals who they are working with or by being taken down by the good cops. In either case, the bad cops always suffer consequences for their actions and are stripped of their cophood and/or their life, and so the narrative that cops are good is maintained.
Alternatively, if the narrative is that the police force are incompetent because they are bound by rule of law, or if a crooked cop in a position of authority over the good cop abuses that authority to prevent the good cop from pursuing a case within the bounds of the law, well then the good cop has no choice but to take matters into their own hands and enact true justice, which is found not within our legal texts but from behind the barrel of a gun. Which ties nicely into our culture's fetishization of guns and our belief in the noble and justified vigilante.
I think the difference is propaganda is done with intent to push an ideology or opinion. Dragnet may well have been propaganda, but I don't think modern police procedurals are out to push an opinion.
Cops are always the good guys, unless they're crooked cops in which case they get theirs either from the criminals who they are working with or by being taken down by the good cops. In either case, the bad cops always suffer consequences for their actions and are stripped of their cophood and/or their life, and so the narrative that cops are good is maintained.
Alternatively, if the narrative is that the police force are incompetent because they are bound by rule of law, or if a crooked cop in a position of authority over the good cop abuses that authority to prevent the good cop from pursuing a case within the bounds of the law, well then the good cop has no choice but to take matters into their own hands and enact true justice, which is found not within our legal texts but from behind the barrel of a gun. Which ties nicely into our culture's fetishization of guns and our belief in the noble and justified vigilante.
There are good cops and there are bad ones I just feel most fall into the grey area.
But I live in Albuquerque https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mw_Y6AyjVc
This is from 2 years ago and it's gotten slightly better but they are still understaffed and it's not that great out there because of it
Sorry if this offends, but speaking as a non-US person, I just find it woefully pathetic that before you even get into the pedantic details about what kind of guns you can ban, the US makes it (next to purposefully) impossible to search for who own guns.
Surely most people back at least a proper gun ownership data base? Is it really a minority just stopping such an obvious thing being created?
I don’t know how some of you get up in the morning knowing this kind of obstructionist bollox goes on all the time.
Sorry if this offends, but speaking as a non-US person, I just find it woefully pathetic that before you even get into the pedantic details about what kind of guns you can ban, the US makes it (next to purposefully) impossible to search for who own guns.
Surely most people back at least a proper gun ownership data base? Is it really a minority just stopping such an obvious thing being created?
I don’t know how some of you get up in the morning knowing this kind of obstructionist bollox goes on all the time.
The NRA is very powerful. Most people support things like background checks and a decent number a registry. But the NRA will not allow it.
Going to the fair again tonight, last night was opening night so curious if there will be as much as a sheriff presence as last night. In guessing yes. Reo speedwagon for $5 though? I'm there.
The video I posted about Guns Here shows the basically byzantine way the Us government does account for gun purchases and background checks thanks to the gun lobby
+1
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Most people do. Even background checks are overwhelmingly bipartisanly supported.
Our politicians are in the pockets of the NRA, though. So.
Can’t find the studies thanks to all the keywords being flooded by the election, but there have been several quantitative analyses that show federal reps don’t vote in ways that align with voter preferences on most issues. It’s donor preference that matters when it comes to America’s legislatures.
Voter preference is also a bit misleading. If you tell a Trump voter "President Trump wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "Yes!" but if you said "AOC wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "No! Burn the witch! Our freedoms!"
Voter preference is also a bit misleading. If you tell a Trump voter "President Trump wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "Yes!" but if you said "AOC wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "No! Burn the witch! Our freedoms!"
To be fair to those voters, who is in charge of implementing an idea is extremely important.
Most people do. Even background checks are overwhelmingly bipartisanly supported.
Our politicians are in the pockets of the NRA, though. So.
The other thing that is a problem is people's passion on the subject.
Gun rights people will vote almost exclusively on that one issue. It's their first priority. Most also tend to be conservative, and so being for gun rights helps Republicans win primaries. Hence most politicians are gun rights advocates without receiving a nickle.
But for the vast majority of people who support background checks, or any other "majority" gun control measure, they don't. Republican voters who are for background checks, but oppose abortion, or gay marriage, or taxes, or any of the myriad other conservative issues, will still vote for the Republican, and even if they voice their support for a background checks bill, the Congressperson/Senator knows that they'll probably still get their vote if they say no.
It's the same with anti-abortion. Doesn't matter if a voter is anti-gun, pro-women (outside of choice), pro-diversity, pro-LGBT, pro-safety net, pro-immigration. They'll still vote for the Republican almost every time.
Republican politicians have keyed in on a lot of single-issue policies. Doesn't matter if someone disagrees with almost everything, if they'll vote your way because of one issue. That's not to say a significant number aren't all in on every aspect. But for a lot, it's "I'll take not getting my way on X as long as Y is looked after".
Voter preference is also a bit misleading. If you tell a Trump voter "President Trump wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "Yes!" but if you said "AOC wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "No! Burn the witch! Our freedoms!"
To be fair to those voters, who is in charge of implementing an idea is extremely important.
I think if you told liberals "President Trump wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "Finally!" and then maybe follow it up with "But I don't really trust him so I'd need to hear the details before giving it my full support."
Voter preference is also a bit misleading. If you tell a Trump voter "President Trump wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "Yes!" but if you said "AOC wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "No! Burn the witch! Our freedoms!"
To be fair to those voters, who is in charge of implementing an idea is extremely important.
To be even more fair to Badger, that is typically not the depth that said voters are engaging with the issue on.
Most people do. Even background checks are overwhelmingly bipartisanly supported.
Our politicians are in the pockets of the NRA, though. So.
The other thing that is a problem is people's passion on the subject.
Gun rights people will vote almost exclusively on that one issue. It's their first priority. Most also tend to be conservative, and so being for gun rights helps Republicans win primaries. Hence most politicians are gun rights advocates without receiving a nickle.
But for the vast majority of people who support background checks, or any other "majority" gun control measure, they don't. Republican voters who are for background checks, but oppose abortion, or gay marriage, or taxes, or any of the myriad other conservative issues, will still vote for the Republican, and even if they voice their support for a background checks bill, the Congressperson/Senator knows that they'll probably still get their vote if they say no.
It's the same with anti-abortion. Doesn't matter if a voter is anti-gun, pro-women (outside of choice), pro-diversity, pro-LGBT, pro-safety net, pro-immigration. They'll still vote for the Republican almost every time.
Republican politicians have keyed in on a lot of single-issue policies. Doesn't matter if someone disagrees with almost everything, if they'll vote your way because of one issue. That's not to say a significant number aren't all in on every aspect. But for a lot, it's "I'll take not getting my way on X as long as Y is looked after".
This was not true in 2018. The passion was on the gun control side for the first time ever.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
They mean, like, through the walls of the house.
We're also content to let it be more difficult for fun hobbyists to have whatever they want to prevent assholes getting people shot.
I know I'm not especially satisfied with only reactive measures.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
No. Some asshole killed someone in their home, by accident, using a tool designed to kill people they could legally obtain and allowed them to kill them with no risk to themselves or required skill.
In the uk, that rapper rolled up with his dad's old double barreled shotgun, fired twice into a brick wall and then found it didnt go through. In France, he brought a gallon of gasoline and a match, and the fire alarm went off and the girl walked out to safety. In Japan, he burst in the door with a knife, and then slowly backed away when he realized he was in the wrong house. In Germany he blew himself up trying to build a fertilizer bomb, and in Ireland he was arrested by the police trying to source an assault rifle from a guy at the market who turned out to be a cop.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
No. Some asshole killed someone in their home, by accident, using a tool designed to kill people they could legally obtain and allowed them to kill them with no risk to themselves or required skill.
In the uk, that rapper rolled up with his dad's old double barreled shotgun, fired twice into a brick wall and then found it didnt go through. In France, he brought a gallon of gasoline and a match, and the fire alarm went off and the girl walked out to safety. In Japan, he burst in the door with a knife, and then slowly backed away when he realized he was in the wrong house. In Germany he blew himself up trying to build a fertilizer bomb, and in Ireland he was arrested by the police trying to source an assault rifle from a guy at the market who turned out to be a cop.
Are these actual events or are you making an example narrative? I don't know how this fits in context or if it is even at all relevant, but I can think of a few recent mass attacks without guns.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
No. Some asshole killed someone in their home, by accident, using a tool designed to kill people they could legally obtain and allowed them to kill them with no risk to themselves or required skill.
In the uk, that rapper rolled up with his dad's old double barreled shotgun, fired twice into a brick wall and then found it didnt go through. In France, he brought a gallon of gasoline and a match, and the fire alarm went off and the girl walked out to safety. In Japan, he burst in the door with a knife, and then slowly backed away when he realized he was in the wrong house. In Germany he blew himself up trying to build a fertilizer bomb, and in Ireland he was arrested by the police trying to source an assault rifle from a guy at the market who turned out to be a cop.
Are these actual events or are you making an example narrative? I don't know how this fits in context or if it is even at all relevant, but I can think of a few recent mass attacks without guns.
Prevention doesn't have to be perfect to be better than what we have now. And at the end of the day, it's in part about increasing the barriers to entry such that most people can't do it, and those that try will be caught.
+14
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
We had a similar bystander accident here a few years back. I don't kid myself: Part of the reason I got a non street level apartment was to lessen the odds of something like this affecting me. Of course, now I live in fear that my yelly, likely abusive neighbor that I share my bedroom wall with is going to snap one day...
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
No. Some asshole killed someone in their home, by accident, using a tool designed to kill people they could legally obtain and allowed them to kill them with no risk to themselves or required skill.
In the uk, that rapper rolled up with his dad's old double barreled shotgun, fired twice into a brick wall and then found it didnt go through. In France, he brought a gallon of gasoline and a match, and the fire alarm went off and the girl walked out to safety. In Japan, he burst in the door with a knife, and then slowly backed away when he realized he was in the wrong house. In Germany he blew himself up trying to build a fertilizer bomb, and in Ireland he was arrested by the police trying to source an assault rifle from a guy at the market who turned out to be a cop.
So do fire alarms work better in France than in Kyoto?
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
No. Some asshole killed someone in their home, by accident, using a tool designed to kill people they could legally obtain and allowed them to kill them with no risk to themselves or required skill.
In the uk, that rapper rolled up with his dad's old double barreled shotgun, fired twice into a brick wall and then found it didnt go through. In France, he brought a gallon of gasoline and a match, and the fire alarm went off and the girl walked out to safety. In Japan, he burst in the door with a knife, and then slowly backed away when he realized he was in the wrong house. In Germany he blew himself up trying to build a fertilizer bomb, and in Ireland he was arrested by the police trying to source an assault rifle from a guy at the market who turned out to be a cop.
Are these actual events or are you making an example narrative? I don't know how this fits in context or if it is even at all relevant, but I can think of a few recent mass attacks without guns.
You've never heard of guns accidentally killing people in their own homes? PA's discussed this in gun threads numerous times in the past.
The same thing is true for accidents. States with more guns see more accidental deaths from firearms, and children ages 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US compared to other developed countries, where gun ownership is much less common. About half of gun accident fatalities happen to people under 25, and some recent analyses suggest that the official count of gun accident deaths among children is understated.
”When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard,” Harvard gun expert David Hemenway writes. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that “the absence of guns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents.”
Are you seriously trying to argue that the use of an AR-15 or whatever makes one of equivalent lethality to knives, matches and petrol etc? Like don't be disingenuous. Of course a gun is more lethal in those circumstances, that's why they use guns. That's why the military uses guns.
That whole... Argument is just bollocks mate. Sorry. You can attempt to justify why you think access to such lethal weapons is acceptable but don't pretend that if people didn't shoot each other then the stabbings would be just as bad or whatever. That's crap.
This is not a mass shooting but one of my Facebook friends is a cop and reported to this incident yesterday.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
No. Some asshole killed someone in their home, by accident, using a tool designed to kill people they could legally obtain and allowed them to kill them with no risk to themselves or required skill.
In the uk, that rapper rolled up with his dad's old double barreled shotgun, fired twice into a brick wall and then found it didnt go through. In France, he brought a gallon of gasoline and a match, and the fire alarm went off and the girl walked out to safety. In Japan, he burst in the door with a knife, and then slowly backed away when he realized he was in the wrong house. In Germany he blew himself up trying to build a fertilizer bomb, and in Ireland he was arrested by the police trying to source an assault rifle from a guy at the market who turned out to be a cop.
So do fire alarms work better in France than in Kyoto?
They work a whole lot better at saving lives in both places than than any guns kept by my neighbor. Which is the point of the original discussion. Guns do not make people safer, more guns do not make people more safe, and this extends well beyond your house's walls.
Posts
Dragnet was a show that stopped airing 60 years ago. Most modern shows afaik can't even use the official uniforms of the departments they are representing on screen because the police won't sign off on it. The reality today is that the Police Show is just like your Law Show or Doctor Show. It's the most generic of network drama that they churn out in endless numbers because they make money. Or some do.
But because there's so damn many, you have to find some way to differentiate yourself from the pack. CSI hit on "make it star the lab guys" and "dark colour palate and darker themes and graphic content and it's always night shift". And it worked. Really really well. To the point that some element of what they did is copied by essentially every police procedural made since then. And to the point that it actually warped people's sense of how police work ... works. But the only point was to try and make Police Procedural #2747 somehow different from #2746.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Whatever the political affiliation/ideology of the shooter in question is frankly irrelivent. What is a problem is that any idiot can get their hands on a semi automatic weapon.
Like it's really that simple.
A: People take lot of their ques on how the world works from fiction.
B: Producers of said fiction don't understand, or care, about this.
Which leads to a world where people assume police spend half their time in car chases and gunfights, evidence is always rock solid or the perp confesses, torture works, you must have a gun for self defense against <insert menace here> and loads of other misconception.
Except when it's violent video games.
And I say that as someone that enjoys hunting and shooting skeet
Yeah, it's not as simple as "white nationalism" or "misogyny." Mass shooters often have absolutely no ideology. The guy who shot Steve Scalise seemed to be motivated by conventional left-wing anger at the Republican party (but was also a violent misogynist who should never have been permitted a gun).
I think the difference is propaganda is done with intent to push an ideology or opinion. Dragnet may well have been propaganda, but I don't think modern police procedurals are out to push an opinion.
"Cops are heroes" is a political opinion.
They are and they arent. In the same way the military can pressure motives to make them look good
Cops are always the good guys, unless they're crooked cops in which case they get theirs either from the criminals who they are working with or by being taken down by the good cops. In either case, the bad cops always suffer consequences for their actions and are stripped of their cophood and/or their life, and so the narrative that cops are good is maintained.
Alternatively, if the narrative is that the police force are incompetent because they are bound by rule of law, or if a crooked cop in a position of authority over the good cop abuses that authority to prevent the good cop from pursuing a case within the bounds of the law, well then the good cop has no choice but to take matters into their own hands and enact true justice, which is found not within our legal texts but from behind the barrel of a gun. Which ties nicely into our culture's fetishization of guns and our belief in the noble and justified vigilante.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If you really wanna grasp the American mindset watch ion television for a few weeks... there's the propaganda backbone for our 50 to 80 year olds
There are good cops and there are bad ones I just feel most fall into the grey area.
But I live in Albuquerque
This is from 2 years ago and it's gotten slightly better but they are still understaffed and it's not that great out there because of it
Surely most people back at least a proper gun ownership data base? Is it really a minority just stopping such an obvious thing being created?
I don’t know how some of you get up in the morning knowing this kind of obstructionist bollox goes on all the time.
The NRA is very powerful. Most people support things like background checks and a decent number a registry. But the NRA will not allow it.
Going to the fair again tonight, last night was opening night so curious if there will be as much as a sheriff presence as last night. In guessing yes. Reo speedwagon for $5 though? I'm there.
Our politicians are in the pockets of the NRA, though. So.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Hey, Ion plays Leverage and Burn Notice still. Those are quality shows.
Can’t find the studies thanks to all the keywords being flooded by the election, but there have been several quantitative analyses that show federal reps don’t vote in ways that align with voter preferences on most issues. It’s donor preference that matters when it comes to America’s legislatures.
To be fair to those voters, who is in charge of implementing an idea is extremely important.
The other thing that is a problem is people's passion on the subject.
Gun rights people will vote almost exclusively on that one issue. It's their first priority. Most also tend to be conservative, and so being for gun rights helps Republicans win primaries. Hence most politicians are gun rights advocates without receiving a nickle.
But for the vast majority of people who support background checks, or any other "majority" gun control measure, they don't. Republican voters who are for background checks, but oppose abortion, or gay marriage, or taxes, or any of the myriad other conservative issues, will still vote for the Republican, and even if they voice their support for a background checks bill, the Congressperson/Senator knows that they'll probably still get their vote if they say no.
It's the same with anti-abortion. Doesn't matter if a voter is anti-gun, pro-women (outside of choice), pro-diversity, pro-LGBT, pro-safety net, pro-immigration. They'll still vote for the Republican almost every time.
Republican politicians have keyed in on a lot of single-issue policies. Doesn't matter if someone disagrees with almost everything, if they'll vote your way because of one issue. That's not to say a significant number aren't all in on every aspect. But for a lot, it's "I'll take not getting my way on X as long as Y is looked after".
I think if you told liberals "President Trump wants to institute a gun registry and licensing system. Do you agree?" they would say "Finally!" and then maybe follow it up with "But I don't really trust him so I'd need to hear the details before giving it my full support."
To be even more fair to Badger, that is typically not the depth that said voters are engaging with the issue on.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
This was not true in 2018. The passion was on the gun control side for the first time ever.
Rival rappers had a social media argument so one of them went to confront the other with a gun. He ended up opening fire on the wrong home and killed a 9-year-old girl by shooting her in the head.
He turned himself in (probably the only reason he’s alive).
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in this country.
You can just be sitting in your home and be killed in literally any country. This is a completely meaningless statement.
Not with a legally obtained weapon of mass murder capable of killing you through a brick wall with no risk to to user you goosing can't. Pocket knives and baseball bats dont accidentally kill random 9 year olds sitting inside their houses.
I wasn't aware that people weren't murdered in houses outside of the US. Is it because houses only exist in the US or because people are only murdered outside of their homes outside of the US?
Some asshole killed someone, it is tragic. But to respond with "people in their home are only killed in this country" is absolutely nonsense. And in this case, the firearm didn't accidentally kill the 9 year old, some asshole rapper shot at their house and should and will likely be punished for it.
They mean, like, through the walls of the house.
We're also content to let it be more difficult for fun hobbyists to have whatever they want to prevent assholes getting people shot.
I know I'm not especially satisfied with only reactive measures.
No. Some asshole killed someone in their home, by accident, using a tool designed to kill people they could legally obtain and allowed them to kill them with no risk to themselves or required skill.
In the uk, that rapper rolled up with his dad's old double barreled shotgun, fired twice into a brick wall and then found it didnt go through. In France, he brought a gallon of gasoline and a match, and the fire alarm went off and the girl walked out to safety. In Japan, he burst in the door with a knife, and then slowly backed away when he realized he was in the wrong house. In Germany he blew himself up trying to build a fertilizer bomb, and in Ireland he was arrested by the police trying to source an assault rifle from a guy at the market who turned out to be a cop.
Are these actual events or are you making an example narrative? I don't know how this fits in context or if it is even at all relevant, but I can think of a few recent mass attacks without guns.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Prevention doesn't have to be perfect to be better than what we have now. And at the end of the day, it's in part about increasing the barriers to entry such that most people can't do it, and those that try will be caught.
So do fire alarms work better in France than in Kyoto?
You've never heard of guns accidentally killing people in their own homes? PA's discussed this in gun threads numerous times in the past.
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death
That whole... Argument is just bollocks mate. Sorry. You can attempt to justify why you think access to such lethal weapons is acceptable but don't pretend that if people didn't shoot each other then the stabbings would be just as bad or whatever. That's crap.
They work a whole lot better at saving lives in both places than than any guns kept by my neighbor. Which is the point of the original discussion. Guns do not make people safer, more guns do not make people more safe, and this extends well beyond your house's walls.