Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Vince Vaughn is (HCH)OKG
Comments
-
That guy in the picture is just a white soldier trying to make native Americans look bad.Swaye said:I just noticed whatever fuckhead made my demotivator used a picture of an Injun with a rifle to illustrate the Trail of Tears. You can't even count on people to not fuck up demotivators anymore. Must have been a white devil. Asshole.
-
Wow really? Are you that FS?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Page 25 - http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CPRC-Mass-Shooting-Analysis-Bloomberg2.pdf2001400ex said:All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones. Take mass shootings. They've only happened in places that don't allow guns.
Link?? A lot of what he says is true and I'm a Vince Vaughan fan. But that comment is FS.There are only two mass public shootings since at least 1950 that have not been part of some other crime where at least four people have been killed in an area where civilians are generally allowed to have guns. These are the International House of Pancakes restaurant in Carson City, Nevada on September 6, 2011 and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/01/conservative-media-applaud-vince-vaughn-for-pus/203833
"According to an analysis of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, "Of the 33 [shooting] incidents in public spaces, at least 18 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried."
Furthermore, an analysis by Mother Jones of 62 public mass shootings found that none were stopped by civilians carrying concealed guns and that in no cases was there evidence that the perpetrator picked a location because guns could or could not be carried there." -
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin -
-
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
-
Because it's a deadly weapon and violent and insane people shouldn't have accessBlackie said:
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars -
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it. -
-
Hope you bought that straw man a nice dinner before you enjoyed each others company sweetie2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it. -
Welp, if Honda counts airports as a gun-permitted zone, point to him.
Man raises eyebrows carrying rifle through Atlanta Airport
-
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it. -
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not. -
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
-
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not. -
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
I always thought it was the food that killed people. I guess I have another reason avoid fast food.2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
Gun nuts struggle to understand this because they love their guns and are responsible.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Because it's a deadly weapon and violent and insane people shouldn't have accessBlackie said:
Why exactly should an individual need a license to protect himself from tyranny?AZDuck said:Agree, Disagree
I love guns, but they kill people, just like cars do. So I think they should be registered and people should have to go through safety training and a licensing process to use them, just like cars -
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
BHAM!Blackie said:
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
Just line up all the pussified libs who want gun control and shoot em in their gaybob faces. death for those who piss on our constitution (sorry freeloader, ex, J, etc.) No more debate! Nothing left but law abiding Americans with free speech, liberty and guns. Pup for Pres!
-
Right? Fuckin' wheelhouse stuff, man.dnc said:
BHAM!Blackie said:
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple? -
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child.Blackie said:
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual.
The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/latah-county/2015/01/10/shooting-arbys-moscow-idaho/21569979/
Technically it was January, I was thinking December. Either way, more than one person was shot. -
A shooting spree is not a mass shooting. Sounds like you need to learn the difference.2001400ex said:
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child.Blackie said:
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual.
The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/latah-county/2015/01/10/shooting-arbys-moscow-idaho/21569979/
Technically it was January, I was thinking December. Either way, more than one person was shot. -
Yeah. 3 different shooting incidents. 3 different crime scenes. Not a mass shooting. Wheelhouse stuff. It's about what's factual. GTFO.2001400ex said:
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child.Blackie said:
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual.
The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/latah-county/2015/01/10/shooting-arbys-moscow-idaho/21569979/
Technically it was January, I was thinking December. Either way, more than one person was shot. -
The cunt isn't leaving. < $15/hr to troll communist manifestos barely keeps him out of dads' basement.Blackie said:
Yeah. 3 different shooting incidents. 3 different crime scenes. Not a mass shooting. Wheelhouse stuff. It's about what's factual. GTFO.2001400ex said:
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child.Blackie said:
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual.
The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/latah-county/2015/01/10/shooting-arbys-moscow-idaho/21569979/
Technically it was January, I was thinking December. Either way, more than one person was shot. -
"Broadly speaking, the term refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence, but there is no official set of criteria or definition for a mass shooting, according to criminology experts and FBI officials."Blackie said:
Yeah. 3 different shooting incidents. 3 different crime scenes. Not a mass shooting. Wheelhouse stuff. It's about what's factual. GTFO.2001400ex said:
"People who knew Lee's first victim, Terri Grzebielski, said she was a physician's assistant at Moscow Family medicine. They said she also played in some local bands and that she was full of life and very well liked. Neighbors said she leaves behind a husband, another adopted child and a biological child.Blackie said:
Why are you including the shooting in the Moscow Arbys in a conversation about mass shootings? Only one person was shot there. And it was this year, not last year. As someone once said "It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual."2001400ex said:
Ok. Good point. Then why didn't he include the example where a dude drove into a McDonald's and shot up 20 people?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Honda's right, but wrong example, at least I hope. What "without another crime involved" is intended to do is limit the intent. For instance, a botched bank robbery where a bunch of people get shot, versus an asshole gone crazy in a school. If you could show that Lott's definition excludes Sandy Hook, for example, because the shooter broke state law by carrying a gun into a school before he started shooting, then I would agree the research is worthless. Because that is a similar scenario to driving a car through a wall for the intent to shoot people on the other side.dnc said:
I'm pro guns and Vince, but the riceburner's r, yk2001400ex said:
To say "there has been only two mass shooting since 1950 without another crime involved" is just silly. Especially people like Vince Vaughan and the conservative media drop off the last half of that sentence then take it out of context.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I believe that Prof. Lott has a consistent methodology he follows to arrive at his conclusions. His definition is somewhat wordy, leading me to suspect there's some incidences that been scoped out. I'm not sure I agree with them from a policy standpoint. I suppose one could say I'm anti-science then.2001400ex said:
It's not about me agreeing, it's about what's factual. And if your believed your link, you are fucktarded.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You asked for a link fucknut. You knew you weren't going to agree with it.2001400ex said:http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
How many of those are gun free zones?
@GrundleStiltzkin
But go ahead and believe your news source that's lying to you. I think we should just arm every man, woman and child and eliminate gun free zones. Yeah that's it.
So how are these two scenarios fundamentally different? A dude drives through the wall at McDonald's (commits another crime so it's excluded from his analysis) then goes and shoots 20 people. Second scenario, a dude walks in the front door of a McDonalds and shoots 20 people.
I know you are smart enough to figure that out. Or maybe not.
Or the shooting in Arbys last year in Moscow, ID? To name a couple?
The second victim, David Trail, was a businessman. He worked as a financial consultant for Northwest Mutual.
The third victim, Belinda Niebuhr, was a veteran manager at the Arby's on Peterson. The vice president for the local company that owns that Arby's said her loss is a huge hit for their family."
http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/latah-county/2015/01/10/shooting-arbys-moscow-idaho/21569979/
Technically it was January, I was thinking December. Either way, more than one person was shot.
HTH
