"But Chicago, Chicago, Chicago!"

[boutons_deux]

MSNBC host torches Ivanka Trump for tweeting ‘flippantly’ about gun violence in Chicago



tweeting about gun violence in Chicago without first checking the facts.

faced strong criticism from Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who said she got the most basic facts wrong in a pair of tweets sent out after mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.

Ivanka Trump
✔@IvankaTrump
· 21h
As we grieve Ivanka is grieving?

over the evil mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton,

let us pretentiously speaking for "us"

not overlook that Chicago experienced its deadliest weekend of the year.

Ivanka Trump
✔@IvankaTrump

With 7 dead and 52 wounded near a playground in the Windy City- and little national outrage or media coverage- we mustn’t become numb to the violence faced by inner city communities every day.

11:13 AM - Aug 6, 2019

Lightfoot criticized the president’s daughter for tweeting out inaccurate “nonsense” instead of reaching out to engage in a productive dialogue

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/msnbc-host-torches-ivanka-trump-for-tweeting-flippantly-about-gun-violence-in-chicago/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1049

[midnightpulp]

So it's ok if they kill each other because obviously black lives matter.

You differentiating "inner city gang violence" from "walking into Walmart and shooting everyone" is interesting. What is it about the lives of inner city kids that makes them any less important than people at a Walmart? What if the Walmart was in the inner city? Would it be ok then to shoot it up? Would that be dismissed with the wave of a smug, virtual hand as "those people"?

Some here, you included in this post, seem to imply that "inner city" and "gang" means the same thing, that the deaths are part of an ongoing war of attrition between rival factions. But somehow I'm supposed to go ape because someone from the suburbs did it.

This is the misconception I was talking about, if that Liberals, gun control advocates, etc aren't talking about "Chicago!" with the same fervor as a mass shooting, they must not "care," enough, even though I explained at the local level, there's plenty of "caring" and outrage. Quite simply, deaths that are gang related don't get the same national press coverage because of their frequency.

And again, it's cheap whataboutism, because the potential solutions to the respective events are different. I ask again, what's the "Chicago" deflection hoping to achieve? What response do conservatives want? Here's a response, "Yes, it's an issue and we should brainstorm solutions about it, just like we're brainstorming solutions about solving mass shootings." There, done. Now what?

To me, the "Chicago!" deflection just seems like it's trying to steer dialogue away from gun control debate, because if you entertain discussing "Chicago!" with conservatives they can retake command of the debate and talk about how gun control won't do anything in that regard because those guns are bought illegally, attempting to connect that non-sequitur logic to a potential mass shooting solution. "Well, gun control has done a lot of good for Chicago, hasn't it?" This is intellectually dishonest because mass shooters buy their weapons legally. And maybe these socially stunted, "incel" mass shooters would buy their weapons illegally, but putting more obstacles in front of them vs. just walking into a gun shop and walking out with a weapon is good nonetheless.

"Chicago!" is a lazy, ty, intellectually dishonest deflection.

[midnightpulp]

Well its pretty simple as explained by this chart and this meme i made a while back:

This basically ends the debate. We in' KNOW, and have known for nearly 100 years, the major factors behind inner city gang violence. Poverty+black market alcohol/drug markets. When those are reduced, crime is reduced.

We do not know what kind of solutions would work in solving mass shootings. We might have some theories, but nothing in practice obviously. And that's why those events tend to dominate discussion vs. "Chicago!"

[TSA]

Rifles have longer lethal range due to accuracy. A handgun might kill you from 100 yards but you'd be lucky to hit a 10'x10' wall at that distance with it. Take a simple .223 iron sights and you could put rounds through a 1'x1' window at 100 yards all day long. That along with rapid target acquisition make the semi-auto rifle more effective in urban combat situations than the handgun. The handgun is only used as backup or right up close and personal like cops usually get.

The mass shootings being discussed aren't situations where the shooter is taking 100+ yard shots. In a classroom or church I don't think there is much difference between a handgun or a rifle both equipped with the round magazine.

[Thread]

Tell it, Ivanka. Testify!!!

[Monostradamus]

[Chris]

^Woke Chicago guy just figuring out how Media operates. 's wild cuz.

[Chris]

[Pavlov]

Media story about the mass shooters criticizes media stories about the mass shooters.

Also, Trump drew even more attention to them today.

[Monostradamus]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

[TSA]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...5917891830274X

[Chris]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

^didn't read the article

[koriwhat]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

you should try it... the bullet in the head thing tbe.

[TSA]

Yeah all that free publicity really benefits them after they put a bullet in their head or go to prison for life.

For mass shooters, achieving fame -- or infamy -- is a frequent driver

On Friday, evidence mounted that Harper-Mercer was acutely attuned to the fame that comes to those who commit armed murder on a spectacular scale. Combing through the gunman’s online comments for clues to his motives, investigators found Harper-Mercer recently extolled the benefits of armed mayhem.

“I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a post about Vester Flanagan, who in August shot two news reporters on live television in Roanoke, Va.

“A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,” Mercer wrote.

University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford said that fame -- or infamy -- has emerged as a common thread in mass shootings since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold predicted on videotapes left behind that their armed rampage at Columbine High School would be one for the history books.

https://www.latimes.com/science/scie...002-story.html

[Pavlov]

For mass shooters, achieving fame -- or infamy -- is a frequent driver

On Friday, evidence mounted that Harper-Mercer was acutely attuned to the fame that comes to those who commit armed murder on a spectacular scale. Combing through the gunman’s online comments for clues to his motives, investigators found Harper-Mercer recently extolled the benefits of armed mayhem.

“I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a post about Vester Flanagan, who in August shot two news reporters on live television in Roanoke, Va.

“A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,” Mercer wrote.

University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford said that fame -- or infamy -- has emerged as a common thread in mass shootings since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold predicted on videotapes left behind that their armed rampage at Columbine High School would be one for the history books.

https://www.latimes.com/science/scie...002-story.html

But how would you know if he's Antifa?

[Monostradamus]

^didn't read the article

no I didn’t

[Chris]

no I didn’t

[Monostradamus]

For mass shooters, achieving fame -- or infamy -- is a frequent driver

On Friday, evidence mounted that Harper-Mercer was acutely attuned to the fame that comes to those who commit armed murder on a spectacular scale. Combing through the gunman’s online comments for clues to his motives, investigators found Harper-Mercer recently extolled the benefits of armed mayhem.

“I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are,” Harper-Mercer wrote in a post about Vester Flanagan, who in August shot two news reporters on live television in Roanoke, Va.

“A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,” Mercer wrote.

University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford said that fame -- or infamy -- has emerged as a common thread in mass shootings since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold predicted on videotapes left behind that their armed rampage at Columbine High School would be one for the history books.

https://www.latimes.com/science/scie...002-story.html

Oh, now you show up.

[Xevious]

The mass shootings being discussed aren't situations where the shooter is taking 100+ yard shots. In a classroom or church I don't think there is much difference between a handgun or a rifle both equipped with the round magazine.

This is a ~13 minute video of an interview with a couple guys at Federal with regards to balistic gel and different handgun calibers, but I think it illustrates the difference between handgun wounds and rifles wounds pretty well. They start talking about rifles at around the five minute mark.



The 10 peso version is that when projectiles reach that magic 2200 feet per second (which handguns cannot do), it severely changes how our body handles it. Handguns poke holes, rifles cause tissue damage 6-8 inches away from the path of the bullet.

[Pavlov]

This is a ~13 minute video of an interview with a couple guys at Federal with regards to balistic gel and different handgun calibers, but I think it illustrates the difference between handgun wounds and rifles wounds pretty well. They start talking about rifles at around the five minute mark.



The 10 peso version is that when projectiles reach that magic 2200 feet per second (which handguns cannot do), it severely changes how our body handles it. Handguns poke holes, rifles cause tissue damage 6-8 inches away from the path of the bullet.

TSA knows all of this. He just plays dumb when it's bad news about muh guns.

[ElNono]

Copycats have always been an issue, tbh... and there's without a doubt some degree of morbosity in people wanting to know who this guy was, and what was he/she thinking. Just like people that slow down/stop to see a car crash.

That said, in this day and age, if actual facts are not published, they'll be replaced with made up . That also happens all too often. "FBI insiders" and all sorts of imaginary friends coming out with to happily agree with one side or the other in the political spectrum.

In light of that, I prefer factual information.

[Thread]

Copycats have always been an issue, tbh... and there's without a doubt some degree of morbosity in people wanting to know who this guy was, and what was he/she thinking. Just like people that slow down/stop to see a car crash.

That said, in this day and age, if actual facts are not published, they'll be replaced with made up . That also happens all too often. "FBI insiders" and all sorts of imaginary friends coming out with to happily agree with one side or the other in the political spectrum.

In light of that, I prefer factual information.

El, with a cogent post. Congratulations, you broke your cogent post cherry.

[spurraider21]

Copycats have always been an issue, tbh... and there's without a doubt some degree of morbosity in people wanting to know who this guy was, and what was he/she thinking. Just like people that slow down/stop to see a car crash.

That said, in this day and age, if actual facts are not published, they'll be replaced with made up . That also happens all too often. "FBI insiders" and all sorts of imaginary friends coming out with to happily agree with one side or the other in the political spectrum.

In light of that, I prefer factual information.

i find it funny that there's guy on this forum (not naming names) who thinks that media publishing names of the shooters is a bigger deal than the guns themelves, and yet said poster always scours twitter/4chan pages like "laguna beach antifa" to rapidly learn the iden y of the shooter and prove that the it was a deranged socialist, etc

[Pavlov]

i find it funny that there's guy on this forum (not naming names) who thinks that media publishing names of the shooters is a bigger deal than the guns themelves, and yet said poster always scours twitter/4chan pages like "laguna beach antifa" to prove that the shooter was a deranged socialist, etc

dude still thinks Paddock was either ISIS or a gun control advocate.

[DMC]

i think we're on the same page. people trying to claim that assault rifles are no more effective in these mass shootings than a 9mm would be are disingenuous, and that's my point.

we're not even at what the appropriate solution would be, or if there is even a need to make changes (i doubt TSA and I would be on the same page there), but even getting him to acknowledge that these rifles are probably more effective in the mass shooting scenario is like pulling teeth

It depends on the cir stances. In a room, a handgun is just as deadly. Outside where folks can run, not so much.