The Media Industry

[militaryhorn]

Here's a dumb question. What do you ban when another shooter uses an illegal banned AR-15 and other illegal parts, i.e. 100 round magazine, etc., that was acquired illegally through black market or other illegal means?

This assumes that those who support more strict gun laws get what they want.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Quite a few people here think Trump's gaffes makes him a moron but seem not to care about Obama's. Obama's gaffes are just as bad as Trump's. Perhaps I shouldn't be petty over trivial nonsense like our libs here but I just want to make a point. Here we have Obama saying 10,000 people died from a tornado when only 12 died. The 57 state debacle. Austrian being a language and getting his daughter's age wrong, etc..

Top 10 Obama Gaffes

Honestly, I've never cared about so-called "gaffes." If everything we ever said was written down or recorded and made public, most of us would have a lot of stupid comments.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I remember on Johnny Carson he said something like, "I was screaming for God and Jesus to save me. I didn't call for Bank of America once."

Back when comedians were allowed to be funny. . .

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Here's a dumb question. What do you ban when another shooter uses an illegal banned AR-15 and other illegal parts, i.e. 100 round magazine, etc., that was acquired illegally through black market or other illegal means?

This assumes that those who support more strict gun laws get what they want.

Do you know of any active US military units that use AR-15s as standard issue weapons?

 

[Seattle Husker]

So define where you are willing to stop banning things to limit casualties. Please name your specific stopping point. I'll go ahead and guess you won't do this and ignore it.

At this point the weapon of choice for mass killings is clearly AR. The FBI Agent in charge at the Odessa scene stated he's investigating a mass homicide every two weeks at thus point. Can we start by removing the weapon of choice first? We don't allow civilians to have rocket launchers or grenade launchers. Limiting access to weopons is not a new idea. I'll make a deal with you. If we ban ARs and high capacity magazines, which were banned from 1994 to 2004, then I won't ***** about pistols until we see at least 50 incidents of 10 casualties or more. Deal?

Absent that, how do you propose stopping this problem?

 

[Monahorns]

Garmel, get it right.

Btw, ISIS flourished under Obama

Obama created ISIS. He gave them weapons and pointed them toward Syria.

 

[Monahorns]

Thanks Stat

My main issue is that in most of these cases there were existing laws that were not followed that would/could have stopped it. Until we start doing those right, adding more laws is unlikely to change much.

The Odessa/Midland shooter was a felon. He failed a background check. Yet he still purchased the gun without law enforcement coming to his home to say to nice try now hand it over.

The laws we have today would stop many if not most of these guys. Community or family involvement would stop many more. I am now against red flag laws. But with a caring community, difficult conversations can be had and weapons removed before anything gets violent.

 

[Monahorns]

SH, no deal

I'll make a deal with you. If we ban ARs and high capacity magazines, which were banned from 1994 to 2004, then I won't ***** about pistols until we see at least 50 incidents of 10 casualties or more. Deal?

You just showed your hand. That's all from you.

If SH and Progressives cared about dead people they wouldn't just worry about mass shootings. Lives aren't more or less important based on the context in which they were ended. Whether it is a mass shooting or a single murder, each person is valuable.

If you really want to reduce death, you look at the mode of murder and find ways of reducing that. If you do that, you don't worry about AR15s. You worry about handguns and hammers. OR you realize there has to be another way of reducing violence without turning law abiding citizens into criminals (because that is what you do with gun bans).

Think about this. How can anybody take you seriously when you want to ban AR15s when FISTS kills 2 times the amount of people than RIFLES. Get rid of all rifles and you really don't make a statistical difference.

The problem is the media. They report only on mass death with rifles. They sensationalize. They don't look at data. They aren't trying to save lives. They are trying to make money and propagandize.

 

[militaryhorn]

Do you know of any active US military units that use AR-15s as standard issue weapons?

When I was in the Air Force, I qualified on the M16, M4, and the M9. Not sure what the other services use. When I was flying on the C-130 we were issued M9s to carry when we flew in the desert and only if we carried passengers in the US to prevent hi-jackers.

 

[Crockett]

SH, no deal



You just showed your hand. That's all from you.

If SH and Progressives cared about dead people they wouldn't just worry about mass shootings. Lives aren't more or less important based on the context in which they were ended. Whether it is a mass shooting or a single murder, each person is valuable.

If you really want to reduce death, you look at the mode of murder and find ways of reducing that. If you do that, you don't worry about AR15s. You worry about handguns and hammers. OR you realize there has to be another way of reducing violence without turning law abiding citizens into criminals (because that is what you do with gun bans).

Think about this. How can anybody take you seriously when you want to ban AR15s when FISTS kills 2 times the amount of people than RIFLES. Get rid of all rifles and you really don't make a statistical difference.

The problem is the media. They report only on mass death with rifles. They sensationalize. They don't look at data. They aren't trying to save lives. They are trying to make money and propagandize.

Yeah: most of us don't worry enough about things likely to kill us and too much about statistically unlikely stuff like sharks and mass casualty events. But the media is uninterested in the common ... Always has been.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

When I was in the Air Force, I qualified on the M16, M4, and the M9. Not sure what the other services use. When I was flying on the C-130 we were issued M9s to carry when we flew in the desert and only if we carried passengers in the US to prevent hi-jackers.

Were those all full auto weapons or were any only semi auto? M16s I know are full auto but not sure about the M9 or M4.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

At this point...

This was exactly the purpose of my question....at this point you say. So in the future after banning these rifles when something else bad happens you'll want to ban that "to save lives". You laid out a 3 point plan which would appease you but then admit that in the end wouldn't satisfy you.

Absent that, how do you propose stopping this problem?

The human race is incapable of eliminating the desire to dominate and kill. No one on this board may have that desire, but with billions on the planet there will always be millions who do. As sad as that sounds it's the truth. You legislating my safety choices away and asking me to explicitly trust government agencies to protect me is ridiculously naive. This problem will never be solved whether rifles are banned or not.

 

[Horn6721]

VolHorn
Great post with some thought provoking points.
You helped me understand why I support the 2nd amendment and do not want many of the ideas some are clamoring for which has made some tell me I do not care about innocent lives.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

VolHorn
Great post with some thought provoking points.
You helped me understand why I support the 2nd amendment and do not want many of the ideas some are clamoring for which has made some tell me I do not care about innocent lives.

Right. People on the left tolerate innocent lives lost as long as its not an AR-15 doing the killing. Unnecessary loss of life is ok as long as its not a gun.

 

[Garmel]

For our libs here and this is something I didn't know.. The NOAA defends Trump's September 1 statements about Dorian. Statement from NOAA | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Edit-The NOAA is taking heavy flack from the MSM and ex-NOAA members (who are lying. Look at the map) for doing this.

Edit- You can clearly see that Alabama was still under risk on September 1st.

 

[Garmel]

Here's a heavy dose of fake news for you that don't believe it exists. The Washington Post states that the NOAA was told not to contradict Trump. NOAA Staff Reportedly Warned Not to Contradict Trump on Claim Dorian Could Impact Alabama That's not true. A nationwide directive was sent on Sept. 1 to NOAA personnel ordering that everyone “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”

The directive basically says to stick with the facts and not get involved in social media but somehow that means not to contradict Trump. Unbelievable.

 

[Crockett]

The Alabama thing was a pissy little thing to worry over. The media has always been pissy. Now they have a guy willing to piss fight with them until the next hurricane blows in.

 

[nashhorn]

Lives aren't more or less important based on the context in which they were ended.

Now that’s a quote!

 

[Joe Fan]

They scared?
Sounds like it

 

[Statalyzer]

From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama.

Trump's sharpie tweet was September 4, by which time the prediction no longer included Alabama. The map he used in the Tweet was nearly a week old by then and still didn't include Alabama. And he claimed it was "95%" that Alabama would be hit.

 

[Garmel]

Trump's sharpie tweet was September 4, by which time the prediction no longer included Alabama. The map he used in the Tweet was nearly a week old by then and still didn't include Alabama. And he claimed it was "95%" that Alabama would be hit.

He was trying to show that he was correct on September 1, not on the 4th. Read NOAA's statement and watch their map. The only thing he was wrong on was the probability.

 

[Seattle Husker]

What US military outfit equips its soldiers with AR-15s as standard issue? Im genuinely curious since as you say it is a "weapon of war."

Uh...the AR15 is the semi-automatic version of the M16. Surely you knew that.

The only thing I agree with you on is limiting magazines and strengthening background checks and loopholes for selling guns.

Common ground! That's a start.

 

[Seattle Husker]

eople like Husker arent actually concerned about loss of life. Its lip service.

Only one side here is trying to protect lives. Let that sink in a moment before responding.

He will more than justify 10s of thousands of lost lives due to drinking/texting and driving because "alcohol, cell phones and cars arent designed to kill" even though in combination they kill as many people every year as guns do. He will just shrug his shoulders and say "thoughts and prayers" to those victims because "accidents happen" despite laws prohibiting drunk driving or texting and driving.

What the hell is this strawman argument? That fact that it got two "winner" designations shows how shallow some are when considering this argument.

If you want to have a separate conversation on lives lost to texting, drunk driving or medical malpractice I'll welcome them because I'm more than capable of having thoughts on multiple issues simultaneously. In the meantime, that was a dodge. An abdication of defending your viewpoint because I'll assume you had no other direction to go.

 

[Seattle Husker]

None of those measures would have prevented the Santa Fe school shooting where the killer used a shotgun and a revolver.

You're debating an argument I never put forward. I've never said my proposed solutions would eliminate all mass shootings.

If you really believe that guns are the root cause then why not support the banning of shotguns and revolvers?

I've already covered this previously thus have no interest in regurgitating the stances again.

Not to mention far more gun crimes in the US are committed with handguns than ARs.

Mass shootings have different root causes than run of the mill crime thus need different solutions. Overall, you are correct that more criminals are committing many more crimes/casualties with handguns. Of course, as a ratio limiting the number and effectiveness of mass killings has more bang for the buck.

I would think banning handguns would be a high priority for you as well. Why are you only focused on banning a subset of the problem?

Have you not read my arguments? Me thinks you are arguing against someone else.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Here's a dumb question. What do you ban when another shooter uses an illegal banned AR-15 and other illegal parts, i.e. 100 round magazine, etc., that was acquired illegally through black market or other illegal means?

This assumes that those who support more strict gun laws get what they want.

That's a dumb argument. Using that line of logic, we should NEVER have automotive recalls.

 

[Seattle Husker]

When I was in the Air Force, I qualified on the M16, M4, and the M9. Not sure what the other services use. When I was flying on the C-130 we were issued M9s to carry when we flew in the desert and only if we carried passengers in the US to prevent hi-jackers.

I think all service members qualify on the M16 (the base of the AR15). In the Army, we didn't qualify on the M4 or M9 through basic training.

 

[Seattle Husker]

For our libs here and this is something I didn't know.. The NOAA defends Trump's September 1 statements about Dorian. Statement from NOAA | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Edit-The NOAA is taking heavy flack from the MSM and ex-NOAA members (who are lying. Look at the map) for doing this.

Edit- You can clearly see that Alabama was still under risk on September 1st.

Fast forward to Monday. NOAA's Chief Scientist is investigating the source of this unsigned PR release.

In a Sunday email obtained by the newspaper and later verified by The Hill, Craig McLean called NOAA's response “political” and a “danger to public health and safety.”

In other words...it wasn't the career NOAA employees that are defending Trump.

What's clear is that Trump was either ignorant or working off outdated information when he chose to make that video to show his knowledge/handling of this saga. Of course, rather than take an account of how this screwup happened, we have to act like it was purposeful because admitting mistakes is not acceptable in this Administration.

 

[Garmel]

Fast forward to Monday. NOAA's Chief Scientist is investigating the source of this unsigned PR release.



In other words...it wasn't the career NOAA employees that are defending Trump.

What's clear is that Trump was either ignorant or working off outdated information when he chose to make that video to show his knowledge/handling of this saga. Of course, rather than take an account of how this screwup happened, we have to act like it was purposeful because admitting mistakes is not acceptable in this Administration.

First, the fact that McLean's calling it political before an investigation has even started tells you all that you need to know- he's the one being political. Completely irresponsible on his part. If you watch the map it shows even on the 1st that Alabama was not out of the woods quite yet. If McLean is trying to say that the possibility of tropical storm force winds are not a danger then he's full of it. Second, saying what NOAA/Trump did was a "danger to public health and safety" is further evidence of this being about politics. If Trump was wrong no one would be hurt, just over-prepared for something that didn't happen. McLean is showing all signs of him being political with this with very little based on science. We all know where this is going.

 

[Seattle Husker]

First, the fact that MClean's calling it political before an investigation has even started tells you all that you need to know- he's the one being political

That's possible. Of course, he could also be following the actual data. It's public afterall and making a determination off of that. In this case, he's worried actual NOAA policies are being trodden over for the sake of defending the indefensible.

If you watch the map it shows even on the 1st that Alabama was not out of the woods quite yet.

Really? The last NOAA advisory that even included a smidgen of Alabama was 2am on 8/31. The map is there for everyone to see. Seriously...hit the link! It's Advisory #27A.

This is why Alabama wasn't even ON the 9/1 call in which Trump spoke as if someone was on the call telling them to be careful. 9/1 is when he posted the below tweet which Alabama...any part of Alabama had already called off any potential impacts on 8/31. This is why the Birmingham office of NWS called BS after Trump told Alabama to be prepared. He called fire and they correctly said..."uh...no fire".

Second, saying that this was a "danger to public health and safety" is further evidence of this being about politics. If Trump was wrong no one would be hurt, just over-prepared for something that didn't happen.

Yeah...calling fire in a theater is never a problem, at least when Trump does it, right?

McLean is showing all signs of him being political with very little based on science.

Uh...the science is on his side unless you now want to call that Fake News too because facts are inconvenient.

I've already given Trump and "out". It's possible that the people updating him were incompetent and still included Alabama on 9/1. Of course, they weren't the one that pulled out the sharpie. The attempt to try and blame the media...NOAA...anyone but the the man who made the statements is a laughable as it is sad.

Edit: It appears that the Trump administration did want accountability. Wilbur Ross threatened to fire anyone that contradicted Trump. The White House has turned into a carnival and we don't yet know who the ring leader is.

 

[Garmel]

That's possible. Of course, he could also be following the actual data. It's public afterall and making a determination off of that. In this case, he's worried actual NOAA policies are being trodden over for the sake of defending the indefensible.



Really? The last NOAA advisory that even included a smidgen of Alabama was 2am on 8/31. The map is there for everyone to see. Seriously...hit the link! It's Advisory #27A.

This is why Alabama wasn't even ON the 9/1 call in which Trump spoke as if someone was on the call telling them to be careful. 9/1 is when he posted the below tweet which Alabama...any part of Alabama had already called off any potential impacts on 8/31. This is why the Birmingham office of NWS called BS after Trump told Alabama to be prepared. He called fire and they correctly said..."uh...no fire".





Yeah...calling fire in a theater is never a problem, at least when Trump does it, right?



Uh...the science is on his side unless you now want to call that Fake News too because facts are inconvenient.

I've already given Trump and "out". It's possible that the people updating him were incompetent and still included Alabama on 9/1. Of course, they weren't the one that pulled out the sharpie. The attempt to try and blame the media...NOAA...anyone but the the man who made the statements is a laughable as it is sad.

I keep forgetting who I'm talking to. Despite all of the evidence you still think the Mueller Report isn't political. A "smidgen" of Alabama doesn't count as Alabama in Huskerland. Btw, you're wrong. It's all the way until September 2nd that Alabama is out of the fire. Watch it again, please. Trump and the NOAA are correct. Statement from NOAA | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration