How does a public service building that size have no security cameras? My workplace has them everywhere. Most businesses have at least one.
Sometimes people make decisions based on how they want to feel about themselves at the end of the day; do they not want to have any regrets over how they made their choices - and sometimes their individual decisions won’t necessarily have far-reaching consequences, but they can go to sleep at night feeling better about having taken a stand.
All the boycotts that I’ve participated in… I’m pretty sure they don’t have any major financial consequence to the companies I refuse to business with, but I can sleep at night knowing I’m doing the best I can to stand up for what I believe in; occasionally I may share with someone why I won’t give certain companies my business, but it’s more an internal feeling I want to experience. When I know better, I do better; life is about constant reflection on what you value and prioritize and how you live those values and priorities.
Perhaps AH is having second thoughts about what she needs to do to make peace with herself at the end of every day. I think CNN was really the first major media outlet to tell him no when they refused to pay him $5M for appearance at the debate. And maybe other media will now start to consider how they can stand up to his ridiculous demands, too.
I was a journalism major back in the early 80s; I loathe the way almost every media outlet has pandered to entertainment ratings. For the most part, I get my hard news from NPR and BBC, but occasionally articles come up on my Facebook news feed like the one I linked above and I read them. While she may have a self-selecting demographic, I’m sure (well, I know, because of the feedback I’ve already received from people I know who vote Republican) there are many who appreciate whatever she can do to bring his racism to light. The kind of propaganda he has been spewing since the attack in San Bernardino will send us in a direction that this country cannot afford, if people don’t call him out on it. The radical factions of Islam are celebrating in his words - it just gives them more justification for doing what they’re doing.
Trump the unifier?
Every other candidate - both parties - blasted him on this. Bi-partisan agreement that he is nuts.
Voters are such “sheeple”. Trump gets the mot coverage so he is leading. I’ve never seen a candidate garner " breaking news status" for EVERY rally. Sadly the networks are slaves to advertising revenue o thy cover him ad nauseum. I would be pissed if I were one of the other candidates.
Interesting limitation on the data used, “homicides”.
Also, “guns everyone wants to ban”. I don’t think there’s a single list out there.
Same here. I do think it mainly applies when the comments are just gratuitous and unconnected to the main issue of the thread.
In this case, kind of hard to discuss San Bernadino and how it applies to the entire terrorism issue without sometimes discussing what candidates and the President says. In fact, I would say it is impossible given the President and Congress are the ones who institute the policies re Muslim immigration and vetting policies.
^Not to mention that the number of international students coming to the US to study increased from 110,000 in 2001 to 524,000 in 2012. Many of them will be substantially impacted, depending on which candidate is elected to the presidency.
@frugaldoctor - I believe the distinction you are not taking in your post is the closeness and sheer personal nature of ISIS and Islamic terrorism in general.
95% of people do not live in the drug-infested, poor, gang-run areas of Chicago or other cities. And the gangs in Chicago are not on social media talking about killing Americans and are not producing videos of Americans being be-headed, while shouting Praise Allah. Want to avoid being one of the 2800 in Chicago, then do not go to those areas of Chicago. Same for other cities. Simple to avoid.
ISIS is not that simple to avoid because it actually comes to you - it finds your person. In contrast to Ft. Hood, San Bernadino and Paris, gang members are not all of a sudden killing co-workers in regular office buildings; workers they have known for years. Nor are gang members randomly killing people enjoying dinner at a restaurant or listening to a concert - they kill people (and their relatives) that they have a beef with. That is very personal because 95% of people can see themselves in those positions and places hit by ISIS.
It is not an issue of statistics either; it is an issue of it is easy to insert oneself into the picture and seeing oneself as victim of an ISIS / Islamic terrorist attack in supposedly safe normal place. Seeing oneself as a victim of gang violence, not so much, if at all, if one is never in those areas.
There is also the element of shocking surprise vs the expected, which is psychologically quite different than being concerned. One can be concerned, but think one is helpless to do anything about it.
CC exemplifies this dichotomy very well. There is always post whenever there is a shooting (mass or otherwise) and people think they can advertise it to then push for gun control - those shootings shock people because they project it could have been them, as the shooting occurred in a “normal” place. Posters even wonder if such shootings are the “new normal.”
In contrast, there is rarely ever a post about the mass shootings in Chicago which occur weekly, simply because it is expected and people instinctively know that those gang members are going to kill themselves regardless. There is no lamenting about the “new normal” in Chicago.
I suspect there is rarely such posts because no is surprised by Chicago violence; that is what happens in poor areas. However, to say people are unconcerned assumes that people would do nothing if they could. I also suspect that people would try to end that Chicago violence if they thought there was a to get to the people doing the killing. And there again, I do think 95% of people do not relate to that level on wanton violence and thus feel powerless to get those killers to stop, as many are hardened criminals after all.
In another contrast, people do not feel powerless against ISIS or Islamic terrorism, as the answer is to not let those type of people in the country in the first place, i.e., people who want to kill Americans under some religious guise. People have assessed they can do something about that threat that comes to them by not letting the threat in.
Overall, I think people are concerned about both Chicago and ISIS, but they only see the ability to effectively affect one, but not the other - simply because they can relate as victims of one, but not as victims of the other.
Experiments are one thing; real life is another.
And there are thousands upon thousands of these situations each year where CCP holders stop a crime.
And I notice that you did not address the fact that CDC studies show that annually 1Million+ gun users stop commission of a crime on them and on others with guns each year. A good portion of them are CCP holders, as many of these crimes happen outside the home because only a subset are home invasions and home defense.
In fact, to be accurate, the CDC says that gun owners, which includes the 14M CCP holders, stop an equal number of crimes from happening, as are successfully committed. Said another way, the crime rate would be close to double without gun owners using their guns to stop many crimes from being successful or effectively reducing the number of victims of a crime.
No mystery here - the obvious problem with leading experiments is they are set up to tell you what you want to see or hear.
Curious though - Why the need for an experiment to see what CCP holders do? Are there not thousands upon thousands of real world cases that can be looked at? How about looking at the real world data where the CDC shows that people do unholster their weapons rather handily? One cannot get the numbers that the CDC has unless people are unholstering and using their guns, as they are stopping actual crimes in progress or before they occur. Oh, I get it, talking about the real world data would spoil the fake narrative party.
There is a reason why people are not listening to the gun control crowd and this experiment exemplifies it in droves - they need experiments and fake narratives to tell them about what is happening in the real world. When, in contrast, logical thinking people simply analyze the real world around them to ascertain what is actually happening around them.
[Quote[Here Are 5 Times Concealed Carriers Have Stopped Mass Shootings
[/Quote]
Here are four other times a CCP holder stopped not just any crime, but actual mass shootings that are all the rage on CC, i.e., the “new normal” that CC posters talk about.
http://concealednation.org/2015/10/here-are-5-times-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings/
Seriously, you know someone has lost the argument big time when the real world cannot be used as part of their argument and logic construction.
I cannot find these CDC studies, do you have a link?
Yawn. Just as ms. Huff may not change anyone’s mind, so too will the repetitive, lengthy lectures here about the brilliant, heroic responsible gun owners not change anyone else’s mind. Reports say that many gun owners and members of the NRA agree with the need for some changes in gun regulation and ownership. Others seem to browbeat readers with repetition, condescension and discount research. Seems many on both sides are quite closed minded. There is a difference here between discussion and debate. More helpful IMO here to stick with the former.
Haven’t read the rest yet but in case #1 the shooter entered the bar looking for specific people in retaliation for a drive by shooting that they perpetrated. He found them and shot them before being shot himself by the patron. This wasn’t a random “mass shooting” episode it was a family feud that was being settled with guns on both sides. So I guess it’s good that he was taken out by another guy with a gun but it would be even better if we didn’t live in a culture where people solve their personal problems by shooting their friends, families and associates. If we’re going to have a culture war that might be a good place to start.
I took a look around the Internet, and it looks to me as though the research on gun owners stopping crimes is really thin. I think there’s a need for more and better studies of this issue.
Which CDC studies show that 1 million+ crimes per year are stopped by gun users? (Post 1048, paragraph 5) I’m not necessarily suggesting that you are wrong. But a statistic like that should be backed up with citations.
^ Yes, we need more studies. I have been amused by awntbd’s references to CDC studies showing these millions of felonies stopped by good guys with guns. Over and above the fact that that doesn’t even pass the smell test, Congress has passed laws making it illegal for the CDC to research gun violence. I call BS to the nth degree.
And on the one hand there is a call for CDC studies, and then there is a discounting of a study as “No mystery here - the obvious problem with leading experiments is they are set up to tell you what you want to see or hear.”, and that real life anecdotes are more valid that research. Agree with blowing the BS whistle.
I think the statistics being discussed are probably from this report http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence . Although it’s mostly a description of a research agenda, it does cite some past studies of various aspects of gun use, and perhaps the person who posted was referring to some of that information.
If that’s the case, it would be helpful to know the page number so that we could see the statistics in context.
I’m willing to look at any legitimate studies showing that America’s obsession with the 2nd amendment is making our country safer. There were 185,345 requests for background checks on Black Friday alone, a record. The crime rate should start to plummet one of these days. We are waiting.
But, I’d also like to see studies of the economic toll our obsession is taking. In Columbus, OH last week a three year old boy got hold of his mother’s firearm, which she needed for protection, and shot himself in the stomach.
One moment of inattention, and that boy will need half a million dollars or more in medical attention. A felony conviction will make her virtually unemployable. I’m always amazed that many fiscal conservatives who so carefully scrutinize the cost of food stamp programs are willing to look the other way when it comes to the enormous “subsidy” that society pays for private gun ownership. The Columbus story is indeed an anecdote. But removing the current barriers to research could actually begin to tell us the enormous monetary price we are paying.
Hiding in plain sight:
For all those who are suspicious of the couple’s relatives “not knowing” what they were up to, how about all the folks who watched her on the shooting range, presumably in a hijab? Should that have raised any suspicions?
On the one hand, that would suggest racial profiling, which I can see many good people recoiling from; on the other, how common is it for a devout Muslim woman to regularly take shooting practice? I have no idea, honestly.
Honestly, I wish they’d stop reporting on these 2 shooters. They are posthumously getting the attention they wanted. While yes, its interesting that they were at a firing range and someone dumped $ into their account, we should give them no more attention than other hoodlums.