Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than just bashing every liberal idea, I'm legitimately curious what the conservative solution is. Please enlighten me.
Mass-shootings are not a problem. You're more likely to be killed by a drunk-driver or shot by a police officer or shot by someone who is drunk or stoned than you are to be a victim of a mass-shooting.
They are a money maker for the Media, but other than that, not much else.
If this were the 1970s, you wouldn't know anything about mass-shootings, unless one occurred in your town.
The network media, which at the time consisted only of ABC, CBS and NBC simply didn't cover them.
If Sharon Tate was just a housewife instead of an actress and her husband Roman Polanski owned a restaurant instead of being a film producer and director, you wouldn't have a clue who Charles Manson was.
You wouldn't know anything about it.
By the early 1980s, the majority of households had cable TV, and there was a new news network: the Cable News Network or CNN.
How do you fill air-time?
Cover everything, no matter how ridiculous it is. And the bloodier it is, the more viewers you attract, the more advertising you can sell, the more money you make.
Americans love blood.
That also forced the three network news companies to adapt. They started covering mass-shootings that previously went ignored, in order to compete with CNN.
Then FOX came along. The first 15 years or so, FOX didn't have news, but as viewership picked up because of the shows they aired, they got into the news game, too.
You had postal workers going into post offices and shooting up their bosses and employees.
The first incident aired on news network spurred copy-cats.
That's how the phrase "Going Postal" came to be although I believe it was either the Tampa Tribune or St Petersburg Times that coined the phrase and not TV news.
Then there were mass shootings in offices, and most of those were copy-cats, thanks to the Media.
Then it spread to schools, malls and other places, and there are copy-cats thanks to the Media.
If the Media wouldn't hype mass-shootings, there'd be fewer of them.
Mass-shootings are not a problem. You're more likely to be killed by a drunk-driver or shot by a police officer or shot by someone who is drunk or stoned than you are to be a victim of a mass-shooting.
They are a money maker for the Media, but other than that, not much else.
If this were the 1970s, you wouldn't know anything about mass-shootings, unless one occurred in your town.
The network media, which at the time consisted only of ABC, CBS and NBC simply didn't cover them.
If Sharon Tate was just a housewife instead of an actress and her husband Roman Polanski owned a restaurant instead of being a film producer and director, you wouldn't have a clue who Charles Manson was.
You wouldn't know anything about it.
By the early 1980s, the majority of households had cable TV, and there was a new news network: the Cable News Network or CNN.
How do you fill air-time?
Cover everything, no matter how ridiculous it is. And the bloodier it is, the more viewers you attract, the more advertising you can sell, the more money you make.
Americans love blood.
That also forced the three network news companies to adapt. They started covering mass-shootings that previously went ignored, in order to compete with CNN.
Then FOX came along. The first 15 years or so, FOX didn't have news, but as viewership picked up because of the shows they aired, they got into the news game, too.
You had postal workers going into post offices and shooting up their bosses and employees.
The first incident aired on news network spurred copy-cats.
That's how the phrase "Going Postal" came to be although I believe it was either the Tampa Tribune or St Petersburg Times that coined the phrase and not TV news.
Then there were mass shootings in offices, and most of those were copy-cats, thanks to the Media.
Then it spread to schools, malls and other places, and there are copy-cats thanks to the Media.
If the Media wouldn't hype mass-shootings, there'd be fewer of them.
Mass-shootings are not a problem. You're more likely to be killed by a drunk-driver or shot by a police officer or shot by someone who is drunk or stoned than you are to be a victim of a mass-shooting.
They are a money maker for the Media, but other than that, not much else.
If this were the 1970s, you wouldn't know anything about mass-shootings, unless one occurred in your town.
The network media, which at the time consisted only of ABC, CBS and NBC simply didn't cover them.
If Sharon Tate was just a housewife instead of an actress and her husband Roman Polanski owned a restaurant instead of being a film producer and director, you wouldn't have a clue who Charles Manson was.
You wouldn't know anything about it.
By the early 1980s, the majority of households had cable TV, and there was a new news network: the Cable News Network or CNN.
How do you fill air-time?
Cover everything, no matter how ridiculous it is. And the bloodier it is, the more viewers you attract, the more advertising you can sell, the more money you make.
Americans love blood.
That also forced the three network news companies to adapt. They started covering mass-shootings that previously went ignored, in order to compete with CNN.
Then FOX came along. The first 15 years or so, FOX didn't have news, but as viewership picked up because of the shows they aired, they got into the news game, too.
You had postal workers going into post offices and shooting up their bosses and employees.
The first incident aired on news network spurred copy-cats.
That's how the phrase "Going Postal" came to be although I believe it was either the Tampa Tribune or St Petersburg Times that coined the phrase and not TV news.
Then there were mass shootings in offices, and most of those were copy-cats, thanks to the Media.
Then it spread to schools, malls and other places, and there are copy-cats thanks to the Media.
If the Media wouldn't hype mass-shootings, there'd be fewer of them.
I have to check the timeline to be certain but I believe Patrick Purdy's shooting actions in Stockton preceded the postal shootings, but again I'm not sure about that. At an rate you are quite correct. The media blitz and political uproar following the latter shooting was insane.
The AK 47 became the Devil incarnate and thus began the "assault weapon" hysteria. And most certainly the hyped up coverage of the shooting spurred on copycats looking to "yoo hoo, I'm gonna be famous." Now the AK has been eclipsed by the AR as the bogeyman an the media continues to blather on. Giving these mass shooter vermin their 15 minutes of fame and stirring the steaming pot of hysterical feces that is the "gun control" issue.
This commentary is most often ignorant and total misinformation designed to whip up panic and push the ban this outlaw that nobody NEEDS the other thing agenda using contrived terminology that gives certain types of firearms magical capabilities and causing maximum fear factor.
Firearms like the AR 15 are touted to be "powerful and massively destructive devices" capable of mowing down people by the hundreds and stopping armored vehicles in their tracks. This due to the rifle being able to use "military grade" ammunition which is designed for "battlefield use" and is phase plasma infused self guiding and as destructive as an RPG. The absolute falsehood designed to cause panic and fear is just amazing.
And it's being believed even more amazing. Ignorance and outright lies self propagating like a rampant virus. (sigh)
Mass-shootings are not a problem. You're more likely to be killed by a drunk-driver or shot by a police officer or shot by someone who is drunk or stoned than you are to be a victim of a mass-shooting.
They are a money maker for the Media, but other than that, not much else.
If this were the 1970s, you wouldn't know anything about mass-shootings, unless one occurred in your town.
The network media, which at the time consisted only of ABC, CBS and NBC simply didn't cover them.
If Sharon Tate was just a housewife instead of an actress and her husband Roman Polanski owned a restaurant instead of being a film producer and director, you wouldn't have a clue who Charles Manson was.
You wouldn't know anything about it.
By the early 1980s, the majority of households had cable TV, and there was a new news network: the Cable News Network or CNN.
How do you fill air-time?
Cover everything, no matter how ridiculous it is. And the bloodier it is, the more viewers you attract, the more advertising you can sell, the more money you make.
Americans love blood.
That also forced the three network news companies to adapt. They started covering mass-shootings that previously went ignored, in order to compete with CNN.
Then FOX came along. The first 15 years or so, FOX didn't have news, but as viewership picked up because of the shows they aired, they got into the news game, too.
You had postal workers going into post offices and shooting up their bosses and employees.
The first incident aired on news network spurred copy-cats.
That's how the phrase "Going Postal" came to be although I believe it was either the Tampa Tribune or St Petersburg Times that coined the phrase and not TV news.
Then there were mass shootings in offices, and most of those were copy-cats, thanks to the Media.
Then it spread to schools, malls and other places, and there are copy-cats thanks to the Media.
If the Media wouldn't hype mass-shootings, there'd be fewer of them.
A quick check of my hometown's newspaper from August 1st 1966 and the Texas Sniper shooting was front page news. The media didn't report mass rampage killings in the 60's and 70's because they hardly ever occurred.
What is the liberal solution towards ending illegal immigration? stopping millions of future ones from coming in. I'm not talking about dealing with the ones already in the country.
What is the liberal solution towards ending illegal immigration? stopping millions of future ones from coming in. I'm not talking about dealing with the ones already in the country.
We can answer this one using Mircea’s logic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Mass-shootings are not a problem. You're more likely to be killed by a drunk-driver or shot by a police officer or shot by someone who is drunk or stoned than you are to be a victim of a mass-shooting.
Illegal immigration is not a problem. You’re more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or lose your blue-collar job to a robot than you are to be a victim of an illegal immigrant.
Illegal immigration is not a problem. You’re more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or lose your blue-collar job to a robot than you are to be a victim of an illegal immigrant.
Late entrant for "Dumbest Post of the Week" honors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
