theyoyomaster @ theyoyomaster @lemmy.world

Posts

10

Comments

317

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don’t get it, the title actually says what the point is… wtf is going on here. Shouldn’t it say “#1 pirated show of 2023 revealed!!!!” or “NETFLIX BEATS OUT DISNEY WITH SURPRISE PIRACY RANKING!!”

It’s almost 2024, I didn’t think meaningful titles were allowed anymore.

Lincoln didn’t qualify to be on the ballot in 10 out of 11 Confederate states. In Virginia northerners were successful in getting enough signatures to get him on but he got basically no votes.

When it changed from "Social Media" to "Social Media" it really went to shit. That and when Google's new board decided "don't be evil" was no longer compatible with their goals. Yeah, the internet used to be great...

Yeah, yet again that is just literally not how anything works in the real world. You seem to be used relying on echo chambers and smugness to get by. At the end of the day this one sided "debate" has gone on plenty long enough; anyone who hasn't already locked into one side or the other has more than enough to read through and realize that after a day and a half you have made literally zero statements whatsoever to actually support anything you've tried to posit. 100% of your arguments are simply a lazy meta attack directed at me with an astounding amount of direct avoidance of anything resembling actual support for your position. If there is actually anyone on Lemmy that is genuinely open to honest discussion and debate with an open mind they have already seen your responses and mine and taking this any further isn't necessary to convince them seeing as your responses have bolstered my views nearly as much as anything I've said. Since talking in circles is starting to get boring and you've already proved my point, I'll just leave it there. Have a nice weekend and Merry Christmas.

So I get the feeling that you're used to arguing by just being overbearing and smug but that doesn't mean that you actually win the argument at the end of the day. Just repeating "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it" makes you sound like a broken record without a single original thought of your own and no understanding of basic reason or scientific method. You don't "prove" something is true by positively showing it applies to 100% of cases, you do it by testing it against all other cases until there are no exclusions left. If you want to show I'm wrong and try to convince people here all you need to do is name a law and show me a state where it was implemented with a resulting reduction in mass shootings. The thing is, you can't, which is why you're just repeating the same thing over and over and over again.

As far as the far left like CNN and MSNBC causing them, it really doesn't take much to show their impact on it. Virtually every criminal psychologist agrees that they do it for the infamy and attention and vehemently disagree with the current standard practice of reporting on them. The liberal media literally takes the exact list of "what not to do" by the experts and does just that every single time and, as the study I linked shows, this has been blatantly linked to repeats and copy cats.

As I said in a previous reply, there is a simple legislative fix here, but it goes directly against the 1st Amendment freedom of press so unfortunately, until CNN grows a conscience and decides they care about stopping mass shootings more than they hate Republicans and guns, we're going to keep seeing these pop up from time to time. The real world solution of just having basic morals and being a decent human being isn't even novel. Cable news shooters boil down to a very fucked up version of public suicide; virtually none of them expect to survive and those that do are almost always because they chicken out at the end. Suicide has been known to be contagious based on publicity for decades and all major news networks have developed a standard of reporting that reduces this. Unless it's a celebrity (where they ignore this which leads to copy cats) you never see a news story about "Bill Smith was found hanging in his closet Thursday night after committing suicide." They always use careful phrasing along the lines of "Thursday night Bill Smith was found dead in his home, no foul play was suspected." A similar standard phrasing that does not name the attacker while reporting the basic facts of value to the public and de-glorifying the shooter would fall right in line with this. Unfortunately, they don't want to solve the issue so we still have this. Religious based and terrorist goals would still be an issue but even without guns mass killings are always possible by anyone with enough commitment. Bombs and car attacks have the potential to be far more lethal than a single shooter in a public setting but the current trend of suicidal losers trying to get the cable news high score a meaningful change could actually be made by not fucking giving them exactly what they want while creating a motive for others that try every single time.

That the liberal media is deliberately causing them to promote their anti gun views. CNN has way more blood on their hands than the NRA ever has.

Name a single proposal you think will prevent or mitigate shootings. I’ll wait.

I just did with a link to a peer reviewed study and a detailed explanation of a common gun control proposal. Try again.

Prove it? They are all law in various states and countries with zero to negative correlation. Gun control and crime, to include mass shooting does not have any statistical correlation that is actually mathematically valid which is why grabber groups stray so far from the scientific method for their "studies" and rely so heavily on emotion.

They deliberately encourage them. This is a known and proven fact.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117259

You aren't arguing, you're just claiming you're right and pretending that because of that you don't need to justify shit. I can go in depth on any of these. The onus is on you to actually suggest a difference rather than falsely assuming your position is already secured.

Magazine bans for example overwhelmingly hinder defensive uses over offensive ones. Anyone that played the original Call of Duty Modern Warfare was taught this in the tutorial when they yelled "SWITCH TO YOUR PISTOL, IT'S FASTER THAN RELOADING." An empty magazine is simply a "failure to fire drill" and is treated as such. You retreat to cover and clear the weapon. It is only an issue if you are cornered and alone. For an attacker, the easiest way to mitigate it is to bring multiple weapons, which high body count shooters do. When you are the attacker you get to select the time and place of the attack as well as set the pace of each encounter. When I go to a movie theater to watch a movie, I have a single pistol on me because carrying multiple guns isn't practically feasible day to day. If I was told that on a specific day at a specific time and specific place I would be a in a shootout, you can bet your ass I would have multiple guns and screw concealment; this is exactly what cable news shooters do. At Virginia Tech he fired 170 rounds from 17 magazines. Many of them held more than 10 rounds but he never needed to reload under duress because he chose his own pace from room to room with opportune reloads in between. The only person that is functionally limited by a magazine capacity restriction is the person that did not choose to be in a shootout at that point in time and does not have control over the location and pacing of the fight.

I can do this for virtually every single proposal you have. I can also give counter proposals that can actually address some of the concerns like with UBCs but nothing I say is new. It has all been proposed before but rejected by the Democrats for not going too far enough. They don't want to solve the problem or stop shootings; they want to ban guns. Gun control has and will always be about control.

Guns are a red herring in this. None of the current proposals with any sort of support from the democrats will make any sort of a difference here. The issue isn't the guns but they focus on them and deliberately encourage them to create emotional responses to try and ban them. Semi auto bans, magazine capacities, UBCs; none of them do a damn thing to prevent or mitigate mass shootings. They are literally just power grabs. There is tons that can be done to prevent and mitigate them but the alt left wants them to happen so they can ban guns so they will continue happening.

Name a current proposal and I'll explain the issues with it.

No, they are a problem but not one that can be solved with any of the current proposals. For cable news shooters the real issue is a societal one, the only legislative solution that could actually make a difference is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights so until people start caring more about stopping them than using them to promote a political view they are going to be a fact of life.

So then why does every single proposal overwhelmingly affect law abiding citizens while only serving to give criminals even softer targets?

Also, are you talking about cable news style mass shootings like everyone thinks when they hear the term (Aurora, Pulse etc) or daily gang violence to inflate statistics? They are wildly different issues so actual meaningful solutions aren't one size fits all (but with a surprising overlap).

So your pathological need to lie for political bias so strong that you get mad at summary bots for not adding nonexistent changes to news stories? Got it.

No, but if they stopped actively encouraging them to generate political capital and focused on things that would actually prevent them rather than scapegoating legal and constitutionally protected gun ownership it would not turn away a massive amount of otherwise swing voters.

Until the exemptions for “light trucks” go away this won’t change. The current CAFE standards reward automakers for making even larger, less efficient and more dangerous “passenger” vehicles every year.

No, a few states passed this in response to Bruen. All of them have been challenged but this is the first to get a ruling.

If the republicans dropped abortion 100% or the democrats dropped guns 100% either could win nationally in a landslide.

It’s just blue box to me.

Cool, so your entire post was calling out the bot for not including a word that doesn't appear anywhere in the article and isn't correct for describing what is stated in the article. Got it. Not really sure what you're getting at here, are you mad at the bot for not lying to make it fit your views on the conflict? 300 isn't the "unintended" figure, it is the total figure. It's also an average for a wildly varying number across the last several months. Any way you look at it though it doesn't represent only "unintended" deaths because that is literally not what the article says.

Yeah, the article doesn’t specify 300 civilian deaths, it’s all encompassing. Casualties also includes injuries, not just deaths.

Where does it say 300 “unintended” casualties a day? The only reference I can find in the article is an average of 300 a day total.