Hard to find complete data on that timeframe….

There have actually been 212 so far just 5 months into this year alone with 251 deaths…if you extrapolate from this year’s rates, that’s 6000 dead in the last decade from mass shootings…but I think it’s less because mass shootings are on the rise since 2016.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?page=8

And here’s a list of over 10 years narrowed to incidents of 4 or more deaths that adds up to 601 in the last decade…so extremely conservatively at least double that if you account for the vast majority of mass shootings that end with <4 deaths, likely triple or more.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

No matter how you count, it’s more than Chicago over one year (including police shootings? Suicides?)
Apples to oranges anyway.

Wonder why you chose Chicago….hmmmmm….why could it be?….

St. Louis, MO (69.4 murders per 100000 residents)
Baltimore, MD (51.1)
Las Vegas, NV (31.4)
Kansas City, MO (31.2)
Memphis, TN (27.1)
Chicago, IL (24)

Why is it that leftest see everything as racist?

So narrow minded.

When you see a white man walking a black dog you see it as racist.

Nothing racist in yesterdays NY subway shooting. Just a radical leftest drinking the fake news Kool Aid.

*arrrgh* this simpleton calling anyone dumb or ignorant just narrows my eyes a bit.

ignorance is not knowing. dumb is not knowing you don't know. stupid is knowing but still choosing wrongly.

but this ninny...an example of 'elevated stupidity'.

any odds on her take on this? https://tinyurl.com/yw9uee7b

Texas still has "blue laws" restricting the sale of not just alcohol but other non necessities on Sundays. Enacted in 1961 and largely repealed in the 80's, you still cannot buy liquor at a store on Sundays, and car dealerships must close one weekend day. This was their way of forcing the Southern Baptist religious beliefs of the ruling class on everyone.

Edit: I grew up there in the 70’s when you could only buy food or medicine on Sundays, and some groceries and pharmacies closed.

Texas has a LONG history of legislating religious "morality", from it's inception through today. They love to talk about their freedoms, but you really only have the freedom to follow their narrow definition of morality. These morality laws always effect the poor far more than the wealthy, often completely exempting the well off....for example, you can buy an expensive mixed drink to go from a bar, restaurant, or hotel...they even have drive through bars...on Sunday morning in Texas, but you cannot buy a cheap bottle in a liquor store to pour your own. This is typical.

I know a fair number of smart people who have bad skills in epistemology, who have very odd anti-tax beliefs.

But whose IQ in their area of expertise is high. Some, not too oddly, are frankly on the spectrum.

Others have been quite successful and intelligent in a narrow area and then--sort of ail outside it. A bit, I suppose, like a lot of us. Only on this matter, it matters.

I know what snuff means, but VS has always carried a narrower definition of it. Unless it is a small part of a larger video based around news or a documentary, it usually gets tagged. I've avoided posting stuff where people die for that reason, even if they die off camera.

Your news clip might get around it, but the original one definitely breaks rule 3 imo. Unless we are relaxing that rule, which would be helpful to know.

Looks cute. Is it that narrow or is it just the camera?

Sorry to be the little grey raincloud on this Hate The Hedges party, but you might want to understand the implications of what just happened

Y'know that fund that's getting all attention, Melvin Capital? Yeah, fuck them, right? Fuckin' shorters all shortin' and shit -- they played, they paid!

There's a reason they were bailed out and with all due haste.

Here's the issue: they were VERY good at the shorting game. So good that they actually had to turn away business. They made money like horses makes shit. When clients couldn't get in at Melvin, they went elsewhere. That opened the door to a lot of other firms basically mirroring exactly what MC was doing, which included shorting the fuck outta GME.

Fuck those guys too, right? It's their money, so why should I care?

Let's go back a few year, shall we, to the glorious chapter in finance and economics that was the 2008 Crash. Remember when Paulson lost his shit because he realized that in about 36 hours, the basic system called Western Capitalism was going to shit the bed; the bedroom; the whole house and pretty much every surface above the ocean within a planetary radius? This is sorta like that. Only worse.

The thing about short squeezes is that the losses can be infinite, and that's exactly why WallStreetBets did what they did. They knew if they bought and held -- diamond hands -- the stock would have to rise as the shorters had to cover their bets. Melvin Capital and a shit-ton of other, smaller firms had to do that and ran out of liquidity long before GME was even at $50. For every share of stock they shorted, they need to cough up another share at a higher value -- and they HAD to actually have the higher-priced share.

And here's where things get VERY ugly.

Shorting GME was such a sure thing that a huge number of shorts were placed. In fact, more shares of GME were shorted than actually existed. Oops. But hey, SURE THING, BABY and what's the worst that can happen?

Yeeeah, y'see where this is going now?

So these firms, not only are they broke, they don't have the shares, either. They need to come up with shares, pronto, at any price, because contractual obligations are a motherfucker in the finance world. But again, more shorts than there are shares and the people who have the shares, WSB and 4chan's /biz/, aren't letting them go. The longer they hold, the higher the price will go as short after short faces having to cough up the shares they borrowed.

A lot of people are about to lose a LOT of money -- the kinda losses that have so many zeros attached that looking at the number bores the eyes.

Back to 2008: the reason the whole world almost started Mad Max LARPing back then is that a narrow number of highly-important financial institutions were a wee bit thin on liquidity because they were having to pay it out by the boatload. That's bad. What would be better is if risk were more distributed, and how could that little plan POSSIBLY go wrong? Maybe a Black Swan event involving a huge amount of money that needs to be paid out by all of them due to this annoying bird.

That's where we are now, but no one even remotely knows what that figure is going to be. Again, (potentially) infinite losses multiplied by 150% times the number of shares actually available, multiplied by the dogshit risk factor on the loans and the leveraged payouts -- your best case scenario might be a loss of about $500 billion. Someone has to come up with that money, be it the Fed or other banks/investors, but that latter group has to come up with the money themselves, which is generally accomplished by selling profitable holdings. We all know what happens when a lot of people have to sell, right?

I always wanted to live in interesting times, thus proving what an utter fuckwit I am.

Oh yeah, libel per se is a -bitch- if you're nailed with it. In libel per quod ("lost-cause libel"), you have to prove damages. Generally, this is what prevents people from filing lawsuits every time someone calls them a dick on 4chan.

Libel per se is different. Oh, it is SO different. Libel per se means y'all fucked up. Y'all fucked up BAD. In LPS, what you printed was such bullshit and so obviously damaging, the plaintiff don't have to prove SHIT; they sort-of name a figure and the judge works from that.

In the case of Dominion, I'm 99% certain it'll be LPS. Also, the Gold Standard defense against libel -- what you printed is actually true -- will not apply here, and it'd be comedy gold if the defendants actually tried this defense. At that point, the three fastest winds ever recorded on the planet would be Typhoon Li, Hurricane Katrina and the explosive laughter and legal pimp slap from the bench. It'd make Rudy's immense clusterfucks in court seem like goddamn Perry Mason cross-examining a 6-year-old.

It gets better.

So, on the billion-to-one chance you win a libel per quod suit, you get "damages", which can be surprisingly little as you have to prove every single dollar in very narrow legal ways. Libel per se, on the other hand, is the BIG PRIZES. Your ass is at least catching dollar damages that would make Jerome Powell say "Y'all niggas need to tone them digits down, yo!". Those damages are ANYTHING THE COURT DECIDES. Again, LPS means the plaintiff doesn't have to prove a single dime of loss to claim damages of damned near any amount. Given that Dominion is asking for a cool bil-point-something, I wouldn't be hugely surprised if another zero wasn't slapped on the end of that figure.

That's just the "actual" damages. If you egregiously fucked up, like claiming a company overthrew a US election and was in league with a dead dictator, you get to spin the wheel of punitive damages. Punitive damages are how the court hands out spankings, only they're not spankings, they're that scene from 12 Years A Slave, only with less tickles and kittens. Given the shitstorm that followed the lies about Dominion, those damages could make the initial billion-dollar claim look quaint.

(By the way, you can't discharge the settlement in bankruptcy, given that libel per se is considered 'malicious', meaning the laughter from the judge presiding over your initial case will be roughly 1/10,000th the laughter coming from the bankruptcy judge.)

If I was Newsmax, OAN, Fox News, Rush or Alex, I'd be lawyering up but good, because the Wrath of Fucking God is coming and there ain't no rock big enough to hide behind.

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of traitorous, America-hating, back-stabbing cocksuckers (and good luck to them on their per quod claim should they decide to sue me over the previous statement).

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

I've been to this church in the Normandy countryside. It's remote, removed from the beaches, and from all outward appearances unremarkable. It's not until you walk in and realize how small it is inside, unlike the grandiosity of Notre Dame in Paris or Cathédrale Notre Dame in Reims: it's narrow and confined. How so many wounded soldiers fit in the little space is beyond me. I can't imagine the stone floor slicked with blood, the moans of pain, the smells of wounds. Even the pews seem too narrow to accommodate a human body laid lengthwise.

Even with all that said, if you stand inside that little church it's impossible not to feel the touch of history. Of everything I saw in Normandy, nothing made a bigger impression on my than the little church in Angoville-au-Plain.

You just love to shit on cops.

I know this is a un believable story to you because in you small little peanut mind all a cop can be is bad.

There is more good than bad but you narrow minded head is blinded by your own prejudice .

@newtboy

That'd be an obvious no to taxation strawman, and the "cherry-picked list" wasn't made by myself, but rather the guy in the video so I think it a fair list to use as a critique of his point. I'm not narrowing or selecting anything to help me out, he did.

My 'logic' was not your taxation throw away, but rather as I stated: "being able to profit of your own ideas and grow your own business and keep the profits from it is just maybe a contributing factor in all that."

Innovation being connected to the ability of the inventor to profit from innovation? Doesn't seem a huge leap, and something that is far more pronounced under capitalism than socialism. So, yeah, when 100% of the examples the guy arguing here came up with all grew out of a nation with an underlying capitalist economy isn't a huge surprise, and makes a bit of case that maybe innovation IS encouraged by that factor of self-interest.

No, I spent a couple hours searching once, but I've never been able to find it. I can only narrow down the air date by where I lived when it was shown. It was B-roll stuff and it was 2 or 3 years after it was filmed that it aired (or at least that's the way it seems in my memory, but it was definitely long enough that I'd moved house twice in between).

"The world would be a better place without religion..."

Maybe. Probably not. We just can't will it into non-existence regardless. My hypothetical concern is, say we do get rid of all religion (by what? Burn all the books? Put them all in an Island? Killing them all once and for all? I'd LOVE to know your methods... but hey, off topic), then what? Human by nature will believe and follow in something/someone... Chinese followed their religion-banning dear leader MZD to their deaths by the millions. Germans got played into Nazis by a charismatic madman that resulted in WWII... my point is, we can't let any harmful idealism fall into the hands of charismatic leaders that cause real harm and be silent. Star Wars (and its mortal religious rival Trekkies) is a registered, legit religion to some but mostly for fun and harmless. Trumpism is arguably a religion itself in America now, and alt-right ideals are spreading all over the world from its aftermath that's 100% harmful IMO.

Religion as a practice can do immense good & evil in equal measure. We should all do our part in not letting people in power weaponize religion.

"Its the biggest sham in human history. " IMO, it's people in (religious/political) power that twists religion into a sham. And continues to. I blame these people, not the religion. Don't let these douchebags have their way!

A lot of people (majority even) fails to put the words of these religious books into historical context. Civilizations and cultures
evolve. Societal practices and knowledge of the physical world too. Look into the intent and context, then it'll do good. Twist religion into self-serving gavel of judgement (to others, NEVER to oneself!) then nothing good will come of it.

"Just goes to show how stupid the sheeple are."

Thing is, people get into (and out of ) religion for all kinds of reasons. Calling them all sheeple and stupid isn't doing anyone good service, merely shows your narrow view of religion (and stereotyping people of faith) more than anything, no? It's as wrong as a priest calling atheists must be lacking of a moral compass.

I'm with you in your disdain for mindlessness.

Are there sheeple? OF COURSE. Are blind followers stupid? Yes to a degree. But IMO these sheeple are stupid not because they're into a faith, but follow the words and commands blindly of their faith leaders without thinking of the intentions and lacking a firm grasp of reality and consequences.

We need to eliminate sheeple mentality, religious absolutism and self-righteousness that disrespect others, that thinks one is better than others because of following a religion.

I'm fine calling out the ridiculous among them, I do so in my church. Just don't call and treat everyone a sheeple. Besides, sheeple is not exclusive to religion, there are Apple sheeple, celebrity sheeple, political sheeple. Do we treat all of these people as sheeple with disdain?

But man... it's extremely disheartening to see the state of religion in the USA. I can see why some people are so against it there. I seriously can't feel defensive about it if I'm a US citizen, because watching videos like these do make sensible people wanting to punch that guy. But how can people NOT see through the idiocy and out right ban/disown that shit? That's the most concerning to me of American Christianity.