Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Sure thing, Digi. Whatever helps ya sleep at night. Keep denying reality all u like. You already deny reality by refusing to understand that there's no possible way that everything in the universe could exist without intelligent design so you might as well be consistent. "World safer as a whole", my ass. One of these days hopefully u wake up to what's going on in the world. Though I wouldn't bet on it.
Heh. I'm not even close to the most opposed to you in this particular thread.
But the problem is perspective. You saying the world is more dangerous is a personal observation. But any of our observations are too limited on this subject to count for anything. I count my own perspective in that as well.
And every study I've seen on the subject has unequivocally endorsed the idea that crime is down in almost every conceivable variable in the country. There's no incentive to lie about such things - fear sells better than sanity, after all - so that's what I base my opinion on.
If you'd like to present a competing argument, I'm all ears. But simply calling me deluded isn't going to do it. Not only is it n ad hominem attack, but it doesn't target the source of my opinion, which is explicitly not my own experiences.
Originally posted by jaden101
Yes. Semantics are the issue. Not the shootings.
Yes, semantics are the issue when the claim is there's almost been 1,000 mass shootings in 3 years. Why not say 2 people are considered mass shootings and therefore, we're probably at the 5,000 range? Semantics like your link and logic are what drives emotional appeals. If you can't exaggerate a number, what's the point, right?
Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, semantics are the issue when the claim is there's almost been 1,000 mass shootings in 3 years. Why not say 2 people are considered mass shootings and therefore, we're probably at the 5,000 range? Semantics like your link and logic are what drives emotional appeals. If you can't exaggerate a number, what's the point, right?
So what's your definition of a mass shooting?
Regardless of definition, as long as the definition stays steady, shouldn't we be able to track statistics across time, or by country, or state, or {insert variable}? Then from that, form theories or discover trends. Shock value is obviously a cheap tactic, but that shouldn't be the issue. Context should.
Frankly, though, regardless of the number, the number of shootings should surprise and disappoint us. Total dead might be a better gauge, but there's likely no perfect cutoff point.
Originally posted by Digi
And every study I've seen on the subject has unequivocally endorsed the idea that crime is down in almost every conceivable variable in the country. There's no incentive to lie about such things - fear sells better than sanity, after all - so that's what I base my opinion on.If you'd like to present a competing argument, I'm all ears. But simply calling me deluded isn't going to do it. Not only is it n ad hominem attack, but it doesn't target the source of my opinion, which is explicitly not my own experiences.
While you are right generally, sadly there's one metric where it is up:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/mass-shootings-rising-harvard
edit: Regarding definition "There has never been a clear, universally accepted definition of "mass shooting." The data we collected includes attacks in public places with four or more victims killed, a baseline established by the FBI a decade ago. We excluded mass murders in private homes related to domestic violence, as well as shootings tied to gang or other criminal activity."
I assume that the Guardian has not taken out private homes and gang related activity.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Stalin signed off on the murders of multitudes of his countrymen. Yet, that was the Soviet Union.
Yep, but only after they were all disarmed, of course. And that's just one of many examples of bad things happening to citizens of countries who've had their guns (self-defense) taken away.
The actor James Woods asked a question on Twitter regarding Obama's response to shooting after learning that the gunman targeted Christians:
Now that it is recognized that the terrible Oregon tragedy was an assault on Christians, will the President still sing Amazing Grace there?- James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) October 2, 2015
Probably not James, since all the victims were white this time (unlike SC when he sang it) and shooter was mixed race.
Hate crime massacre of Christians finally silences Obama.- James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) October 2, 2015
*waits for some boneheaded lib to come along and accuse James Woods of being a racist now*. LMAO
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2613/9317/original.jpg
Obama after 3 Muslims killed in Chapel Hill: "Nobody should be targeted for their faith".
Obama after 9 [white] Christians killed in Oregon: "Guns!"-@hale_razor
LOL. Liberal double standards at work.
I don't want to hear about gun control--AGAIN--from the same guy who is making it possible for Iran to get nuclear weapons.-Ken Gardner
👆
Well said, Ken.
Originally posted by Star428
The actor James Woods asked a question on Twitter regarding Obama's response to shooting after learning that the gunman targeted Christians:Now that it is recognized that the terrible Oregon tragedy was an assault on Christians, will the President still sing Amazing Grace there?- James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) October 2, 2015
Probably not James, since all the victims were white this time (unlike SC when he sang it) and shooter was mixed race.
Hate crime massacre of Christians finally silences Obama.- James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) October 2, 2015
*waits for some boneheaded lib to come along and accuse James Woods of being a racist now*. LMAO
I'm really not sure what your comment or Woods' have to do with anything pertinent to the situation.
Originally posted by Lestov16Amusing. When he does something right, you demotards sing his praises. When he doesn't, it's either an exaggeration of "you're always blaming stuff on Obama", or "it's Bush's fault."
Why should Obama do anything? Whenever he tries to do something, you pubbies accuse him of being a gun-hating dictator. So now he's not doing anything. So congrats pubbie, this is what you wanted.
I hope you noticed the incredibly idiotic blanket statement I just made, which you make on weekly basis thereby embarrassing the democrats on this forum.
