36
   

Charleston Church Massacre: Thug, Terrorism, Disturbed Loner?

 
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2015 11:19 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I get confused about how the killings are categorized. I know more than 204 people are killed across the US on a daily basis, but now we split hairs over how many senseless killings qualify as mass shootings. I do know that at the time of the rasist murders at the Charleston Church, Obama said it was the 14th time since he took office he had to address the nation about a massacre.

its pathetic to admit my country has categories for senseless murder.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2015 11:24 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
There's some debate about how to define mass shootings. But using the definition many people operate under — shootings at a public place in which the shooter murdered four or more people, excluding domestic, gang, and drug violence — they appear to be getting more common, as the chart above from Mother Jones, based on an analysis from Harvard School of Public Health, shows.

But not everyone agrees with this definition. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, for example, defines mass shootings as any shooting in which at least four people were murdered. Under those terms, mass shootings don't appear to be increasing. Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health call that definition too broad, since it catches domestic, gang, and drug-related shootings that aren't usually considered mass shootings in layman terms.

Using data from the Stanford Geospatial Center, which defines a mass shooting as an event in which someone shot three or more people, Vox's Soo Oh made this interactive map of mass shootings since the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School:

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9030337/gun-violence-mass-shootings

Walters site does not up front at least define mass shootings, but clearly it is not one of the standard definitions since sometimes no one dies.

Like we see with the feminists use of the word rape there are political points to be had by redefining words and phrases to suit ones purpose. Bumping up the numbers one wants to see bumped is but one.
glitterbag
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2015 11:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
There's some debate about how to define mass shootings. But using the definition many people operate under — shootings at a public place in which the shooter murdered four or more people, excluding domestic, gang, and drug violence — they appear to be getting more common, as the chart above from Mother Jones, based on an analysis from Harvard School of Public Health, shows.

But not everyone agrees with this definition. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, for example, defines mass shootings as any shooting in which at least four people were murdered. Under those terms, mass shootings don't appear to be increasing. Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health call that definition too broad, since it catches domestic, gang, and drug-related shootings that aren't usually considered mass shootings in layman
terms.


Using data from the Stanford Geospatial Center, which defines a mass shooting as an event in which someone shot three or more people, Vox's Soo Oh made this interactive map of mass shootings since the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School:

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9030337/gun-violence-mass-shootings



Walters site does not up front at least define mass shootings, but clearly it is not one of the standard definitions since sometimes no one dies.

Like we see with the feminists use of the word rape there are political points to be had by redefining words and phrases to suit ones purpose. Bumping up the numbers one wants to see bumped is but one.


Hawkeye, you moron.....I didn't write what you listed as my quote. Please deal with whoever actually made the statement and leave me the hell out of it.

By the way, nobody is talking about rape but you, what's the problem, killing people isn't only a feminist complaint? You have to be the most stupid person I have ever encountered on any forum.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2015 11:47 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag, you moron, terms used in debate must be defined, and Walter gave us a link claiming that there have been 240 mass shootings this year that is using non standard definitions and so the fact that these people are making up their own definitions must be pointed out. . You claiming to not understanding shooting definitions should be cheering my attempt to introduce standards and clarity to the argument.

you are welcome.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2015 11:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye, you idiot. We are not having a debate, there is nothing to thank you for, by the way.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jul, 2015 11:57 pm
@glitterbag,
Glitterbag, you idiot, we have had 15 pages of debate on this subject so far.
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 12:21 am
@hawkeye10,

WE have not had anything. Much has been posted, but i only noticed you tonight. Yes, there have been many pages, but there has not been a debate. What do you think is being debated? Mass murder v feminist agenda, that doesn't make any sense at all....and sadly you know, just as I do. Are you sad none of the murdered people were raped post mortum, so you're denied the opportunity to claim feminist nazi's created this horror movie to cage men? go smoke another rock.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 12:29 am
@glitterbag,
It has been a glorious A2K thread, all over the place and yet not, talking about a dozen different aspects of this tragedy and what drives stuff like this with lots of smart and opinionated people putting in their 2 cents.


Go piss someplace else please.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 01:35 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Walter gave us a link claiming that there have been 240 mass shootings this year that is using non standard definitions and so the fact that these people are making up their own definitions must be pointed out.
No. I didn't give a link which claims such. The article I quoted referred to those definitions.

When you use the links, you easily can find those used definitions.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 07:57 am
@farmerman,
Watch him on Meet the Press this morning if you'd like to hear what he has to say.

You STILL think he's such a total longshot? Smile
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 08:37 am
@Lash,
I've listened to Bernie Sanders every Friday since forever on the Thom Hartman show on XM Radio (not because of Bernie Sanders but because I'm already listening to Hartman). To be honest, I've never been that impressed by him - he always says whatever leftwing populist talking points that will make him the darling of the leftwing populists. I think we saw a glimpse of what will happen when Sanders gets un-assed of his rote blather when he was completely flummoxed by the #BlackLivesMatter protest in Arizona a few days ago.
blueveinedthrobber
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 08:39 am
@Lash,
yes
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 08:55 am
@snood,
What you said totally side-steps the reality of what's happening. Sanders has been living what he says for 40 years. How can you possibly really think he's spent his life "saying what makes him the darling?" Being the left's darling has gotten him nowhere. Disagree with what he believes or what he says, but I think it's disingenuous to dismiss his entire, consistent life's work as lip service.

btw I was proud as hell of his performance at Netroots. Hillary was too afraid to show. The activists didn't create a space of silence for him to speak. He has said plenty since in environments where he had the floor. You won't find anyone of any party who can or will say what he did.

Take a look at his remarks at the SCLC. He's more forceful about racial equality than Obama.

https://berniesanders.com/remarks-senator-sanders-southern-christian-leadership-conference/

Nice to see you btw, snood
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 09:24 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

What you said totally side-steps the reality of what's happening. Sanders has been living what he says for 40 years. How can you possibly really think he's spent his life "saying what makes him the darling?" Being the left's darling has gotten him nowhere. Disagree with what he believes or what he says, but I think it's disingenuous to dismiss his entire, consistent life's work as lip service.

btw I was proud as hell of his performance at Netroots. Hillary was too afraid to show. The activists didn't create a space of silence for him to speak. He has said plenty since in environments where he had the floor. You won't find anyone of any party who can or will say what he did.

Take a look at his remarks at the SCLC. He's more forceful about racial equality than Obama.

https://berniesanders.com/remarks-senator-sanders-southern-christian-leadership-conference/

Nice to see you btw, snood


I didn't dismiss anything. I listen to the man and agree with him about just about everything. You like him and his chances a lot more than I do, that's all.
As for talking about race, if you wish to be honest about it, Sanders or any white liberal can afford to be more "forceful" than Obama can while he's in office. Look at the ridiculous accusations of "divisiveness" and howls of outrage like he's a goddamn Eldridge Cleaver mau mau every time he's made ANY mention of his views on a current racial issue for the last 7 years. He's only now begun to speak more freely with a lot less to lose for doing so.

Yeah, good to see you too.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 10:06 am
@snood,
When you say this
Quote:
he always says whatever leftwing populist talking points that will make him the darling of the leftwing populists.

most people consider it to be dismissive. Most people who are attracted to his candidacy value his authenticity.

& I think the biggest error in your last post was saying Bernie doesn't stand to lose as much as Obama in speaking truth about race. Bernie has everything to lose. Obama, nothing.

snood
 
  5  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 12:13 pm
@Lash,
I get it, you like him. I don't dislike him but I don't like him enough to start carrying his water. You say I'm being dismissive in the way I've characterized how he talks and what he talks about. I say that seems a little defensive, but kudos on your passionate stand.

Of course Obama doesn't have as much to lose right now, but when he was running, and for the large part of his presidency, he did. All things being equal, I still say it's self-evident that Obama had to tread lightly whenever race came up.

Do you just want to fight, Lash? I'm just going to put off marching for "Bernie" or anyone else for a few months, is that okay?
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 12:32 pm
@snood,
I'm not trying to twist your arm to support my candidate, just responding normally.

Wish you didn't see that as "fighting." If you're able to discuss it with me without being defensive or accusatory of my motives in responding, that'd be great. If you don't think it will work (and I can well understand that given our history), just stop addressing my posts - and I'll withdraw from addressing you.

I'm not mad by a speck. Don't want to devolve Smile Just let me know.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 05:48 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

I'm not trying to twist your arm to support my candidate, just responding normally.

Wish you didn't see that as "fighting." If you're able to discuss it with me without being defensive or accusatory of my motives in responding, that'd be great. If you don't think it will work (and I can well understand that given our history), just stop addressing my posts - and I'll withdraw from addressing you.

I'm not mad by a speck. Don't want to devolve Smile Just let me know.


Sigh, I'm responding "normally" too, Lash.

This is sort of how I remember our exchanges going. I'm not mad, and I don't even have a dog in this fight to defend, but you suggest I'm being defensive. You're testy and confrontational and always cocksure about something. And that's great - you probably got that way honestly. But it's not going to be like "Jan, you must respond as I want you to, or just totally opt out of conversing with me" - that's stupid. I disagree about how momentous "Bernie's" candidacy is - that doesn't mean you have to prove anything or that I have to explain anything - I just disagree. I'll disagree or agree in the words I choose in the tone I choose. I really think you make more of it than is there (accusatory? your motives? what?) If I choose to get into the "back-and-forth" with you only matters if one or both of us learns something or is added to. Otherwise it's a circular and tiresome activity. I'll try to keep it on the subject and not get personal. You do the same.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 06:00 pm
@snood,
OK.

You said this:
Quote:
Do you just want to fight, Lash?


That felt like it was out of the blue to me.

You also said somewhere that I was "defensive." I felt that these two comments by you were personal and unmerited. If we can leave stuff like this off and stick to the topic, I'd enjoy that.



snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Jul, 2015 06:05 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

OK.

You said this:
Quote:
Do you just want to fight, Lash?


That felt like it was out of the blue to me.

You also said somewhere that I was "defensive." I felt that these two comments by you were personal and unmerited. If we can leave stuff like this off and stick to the topic, I'd enjoy that.

Lash...short term memory. I only used the word defensive after you used it about me first. But, agreed - we'll try to stick to the topic. I might not 'enjoy' it, but it will definitely suck less.




0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/26/2020 at 09:56:43