School shooting: Parkland, Florida

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Without googling it, what’s the name of the shooter who gunned down the congregation in the south Texas church, or the dude who shot of the Florida nightclub, or the guy who shot up the Jason Aldene concert? I couldn’t tell you any of them without looking them up. They’re not famous. I know Dylan Roof and James Holmes but that’s because they lived and I followed their trials.

Without googling it can you name a single victim of Dylan Roof of James Holmes?

Of course not.

Originally Posted by pgardn

So you did not read the wall of text meant and directed towards rmt. We were discussing algebra, she suggested books I had heard about, and you responded. Yet you found my Yogism. But you did not read it. Sure thing.

How about:

I would have never foreseen these math difficulties until I witnessed it for myself and asked questions.

So I'm glad you got a laugh. Anyways, you should have just stopped there instead of carrying on.

x(y) = 5(y)+ y^2

When the parenthesis used mean two different things in the same equation I was enlightened as to why the student was having difficulty. I never detected this misuse on my own. And you, you showed bravado leading to a good humbling moment. So I enjoyed this and my own Yogy.

More drama from the site weirdo.

Is this true? 10,000 was hired?

Originally Posted by AaronY

Is this true? 10,000 was hired?

Man, if there were only more school shooting attempts we could get our money's worth.

Originally Posted by DMC

Without googling it can you name a single victim of Dylan Roof of James Holmes?

Of course not.

Originally Posted by DMC

Man, if there were only more school shooting attempts we could get our money's worth.

I mean, I love trolling and/or snark as much as the next guy, but sometimes you are such a ing tryhard just let the game come to you, man.

Originally Posted by Monostradamus

I mean, I love trolling and/or snark as much as the next guy, but sometimes you are such a ing tryhard just let the game come to you, man.

I don't study you so I wouldn't know.

Originally Posted by DMC

In the absence of solid, scientific study, you have to take what you can get. You'll never know how the Russians affected the election but you can probably safely say they swayed some votes. You could pool a group of 200K people and ask everyone if the video games made them want to shoot other people IRL, they'd likely say no. How do you ever get that real data? Maybe it didn't, but if it swayed one in 10 million just enough to think "what would it take for me to ever do that?" then you put those people together and when said condition exists, you get what you got.

I really don't have to take anything. You can always say I don't know. Until there's conclusive data, we don't really know.

The social media phenomenon is fairly new, relatively speaking. I would even be skeptic of taking any study at face value unless the sampling goes for a few years (probably as far back as Barry's campaign, which was one of the first ones to rely heavily on that medium).

Obviously, everybody is free to have different standard, and their own opinions. I have expressed mine when I said I thought Shillary was a really bad candidate (number of reasons, unlikeability, etc), and the main reason she lost the election.

But, I certainly look forward to reading about these sociological experiments in social media.

Originally Posted by pgardn

And if the agencies get data that correlates to behavior conservatives don't like, that agency is branded politically motivated. Just like climatologists are undermining their credibility because they gave us bad news. Scientists are all flaming Liberals, can't be trusted.

So easy and so tired... Some on this board just wear it to the bone. They can't handle the truth.

As as to your last paragraph, there is no doubt there was interference. I personally think it will be very difficult to assess the impact. Also, IMO, the impact did not significantly change the results. It was close. That's the take home fact, close. There was a very angry block that voted Trump. The significant part of his votes, (not the looney tunes 1/3 that stick by him) were people who responded to the have and have not theme and wealth discrepancy. This is also why Bernie gave Hillary fits. So in my mind, when the country is so evenly split, flip a coin. We have a real division and someone has to lead.

Most important is the absolute paranoid, unwillingness to investigate the extent of the interference so the public knows and the government responds with sanctions and isolating individuals who took part in taking money from Putin. This is very disturbing. Trump and the 1/3 think investigating interference delegitimizes their victory. The election is over. Trump IS president. Can Trump (&the1/3) possibly act like a president and understand the importance of free and fair elections?
( now the response is but,but, but... the US has played games in elections also... So the what; shame on us, stop it and let the public know what we have done, which we do know) Now, let Mueller et al investigate. And if it leads to further investigation of only Russians please continue. We need to know. Let the intelligence community give us the goods.

I do dislike the fact that interest groups can simply ban government research. I don't really care how people individually react to said research, but I do think that kind of insistence to remain ignorant is terrible. I understand groups basically buying up fraudulent studies (although I don't agree with the practice), like the Phillip Morris of yesteryear, but outright banning is deplorable.

Originally Posted by DMC

More drama from the site weirdo.

Says the OCD wannabe author who got his Time Magazine article altered.
Alleged author alleges editing. Cool story.

"dislike the fact that interest groups can simply ban government research"

the oligarchy's "interest groups simply" own and operate the entire govt. Elections are a scam, not "freedom and democracy" nor "power to the people"

NRA/BigGun own govt by

1) donating to politicians (they're very cheap)

2) running campaign ads to support or slander candidates

When other westernized countries get social media, they're ed.

Originally Posted by ElNono

I do dislike the fact that interest groups can simply ban government research. I don't really care how people individually react to said research, but I do think that kind of insistence to remain ignorant is terrible. I understand groups basically buying up fraudulent studies (although I don't agree with the practice), like the Phillip Morris of yesteryear, but outright banning is deplorable.

Government agencies have little credibility with the willfully ignorant 1/3. It is important for a country to be able to " go in for a physical" and at least get some numbers since the diagnosis and treatment will be disputed. This is where we stand with the ideologues backing Trump. We have a president who repeatedly denies the veracity of the intelligence community, the military, the scientific community of a country just because things don't appear to be the "greatest fantastic _____ (overuse superlatives).

If one wanted to start a dictatorship: Criticize government agencies/branches you don't have total control of. Attack the press. Sow doubt in the public. Purge and replace with willing servants and family.

All we have to do is take a micro view of how the White House is run.

Originally Posted by DMC

I don't study you so I wouldn't know.

Good one, tryhard!

Originally Posted by ElNono

I really don't have to take anything. You can always say I don't know. Until there's conclusive data, we don't really know.

The social media phenomenon is fairly new, relatively speaking. I would even be skeptic of taking any study at face value unless the sampling goes for a few years (probably as far back as Barry's campaign, which was one of the first ones to rely heavily on that medium).

Obviously, everybody is free to have different standard, and their own opinions. I have expressed mine when I said I thought Shillary was a really bad candidate (number of reasons, unlikeability, etc), and the main reason she lost the election.

But, I certainly look forward to reading about these sociological experiments in social media.

RG posted a really interesting paper concerning this. Its a longish read but the methodology is fascinating.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/h...pdf?sequence=9

Originally Posted by pgardn

Says the OCD wannabe author who got his Time Magazine article altered.
Alleged author alleges editing. Cool story.

So you say.

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

RG posted a really interesting paper concerning this. Its a longish read but the methodology is fascinating.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/h...pdf?sequence=9

thanks for sharing

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

RG posted a really interesting paper concerning this. Its a longish read but the methodology is fascinating.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/h...pdf?sequence=9

Taking that at quite credible face value, the asymmetry of extremism is obviously to the right, another denial of "both parties are the same", that the equivalence is false, both parties are NOT equally guilty of fatal polarization of America.

The oligarchy / Capitalists and literalist, Bible-humping Christian Taliban finance, promote the polarization and right extremism.

Republicans love not doing their jobs but when it comes to asking for people they dont agree with to resign, they're right there.

NRA liars are getting TRASHED on the Sunday morning shows, deservedly.

If you shoot a kid with a toy gun because you're afraid, we support you.

If you avoid an adult with a semi-automatic weapon because you're afraid, go yourself, coward.

What Percentage Of Mass Shootings Happen In ‘Gun Free Zones’? The Number Is Stunning.

After dozens of warning signs and alerts from concerned citizens went unnoticed, a shooter walked into a South Florida high school and murdered 17 people. In the wake of the tragic mass shooting, guns and "gun free zones" have become hot-button issues.

The Left has since turned-up the volume on calls for a crackdown on Secondment Amendment rights, quickly exploiting teens who attend the targeted school to makes the case for them. They have also slammed the suggestion that schools should have armed security, or perhaps well-trained, voluntarily armed teachers.

But what does the evidence say about "gun free zones"?

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, "gun free zones" (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings. This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as "soft targets," meaning unprotected and vulnerable.

"According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, only a little more than 1% of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places that were not considered to be a gun-free zone," reports The Blaze. "In fact, as Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott Jr. noted in October 2015, only two mass shootings in the U.S. since 1950 have occurred in an area where citizens were not prohibited from carrying a gun."

Former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) to the U.S. Senate in 1990, and it was signed into law by then-President George H.W. Bush, a Republican. The act was clearly proposed with the intent to prevent mass shootings at such precious areas as schools. But the act, as the statistic proves, did not result in the desired outcome.

While mass shootings are a complex issue with more than one action needed to prevent them, it seems unclear why gun control advocates would hold so tight to their well-intended, but ultimately dangerous "gun free zones" even in the face of such a staggering reality. Why is it kosher to protect our politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and federal currency with guns, but not our children?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27440...prestigiacomo#

Just watched Fox News Sunday where the father of daughter killed at Parkland pointed out the school safety issue - saying treat schools like courthouses. No one/judge in the courthouse is worried about getting shot at - there's no gun argument, no worries about mental health, etc.