The Media Industry

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.

 

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.

 

Back when comedians were allowed to be funny. . .

 

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

 

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?

 

Garmel, get it right.

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

 

Thanks Stat

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Now that’s a quote!

 

They scared?
Sounds like it

 

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.

 

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

Common ground! That's a start.

 

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

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.

 

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

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

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.

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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