Ongoing Mass Shooting Thread #3... that's right, a third thread. Because 'Murica.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

That seems to suggest exactly what I’m saying. Republicans have required scores murdered in mass shootings to even reach half support for “stricter gun laws.”

How much of that 15% increase in republicans form 2016 to now do you think were *enlightened*? How much of the original 35% do you think were staunch in their support for stricter gun laws?

Answer: very few on both.

How many of the people surveyed get their information from tainted media sources like Fox News that are in cahoots with the NRA?

You may be right in that we discount how strongly the constituents of these politicians actually matter vs money... but you're also discounting how much the NRA money goes into shaping these opinions.

[trojanchick99]

Gun Control laws were not an issue in the '90s, what changed? The NRA is now a funding AND propaganda machine.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Can anyone tell me when the wall is going up to protect us from the armed caravan of mass shooters? TIA. They're not just throwing rocks either.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Their constituents are republicans. Make no mistake, we have hit an all time low on who-represents-who. They don’t represent the 90%. They represent the easier-to-obscure-gives-less-of-a-shit 60% from within that 90%.

If 90% of the population supports something.

And 30-40% of the population of the country is being represented by the GOP.

There's no way that fits into the 10% remaining of people who don't support expanded background checks. I'm really struggling to understand your math here.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by bono_212

If 90% of the population supports something.

And 30-40% of the population of the country is being represented by the GOP.

There's no way that fits into the 10% remaining of people who don't support expanded background checks. I'm really struggling to understand your math here.

[anitram]

The mother weeping on TV that she doesn't want anymore prayers or thoughts sent to her, but gun control is just heartbreaking.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by anitram

The mother weeping on TV that she doesn't want anymore prayers or thoughts sent to her, but gun control is just heartbreaking.

I saw it and it sure is heartbreaking.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by anitram

The mother weeping on TV that she doesn't want anymore prayers or thoughts sent to her, but gun control is just heartbreaking.

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

I saw it and it sure is heartbreaking.

Heartbreaking isn't a big enough word.

Also, apparently her son was at the Las Vegas music festival last year when that shooting happened. He got out of there alive, only to get caught in another shooting.

[Moonlit_Angel]

That story about the young man who survived the Las Vegas shooting only to die here is precisely why the "Your chances of being killed in a mass shooting are small" argument never sits well with me. That may well be true, but I always can't help thinking, 'Yeah, I'm sure all the people who died in these mass shootings thought or were told the same thing at some point."

And then there's this guy, caught in two mass shootings, dying in one. That may be even rarer an occurrence, but the fact remains that it does still happen on occasion. Somebody will, unfortunately, beat those odds at times.

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Can anyone tell me when the wall is going up to protect us from the armed caravan of mass shooters? TIA. They're not just throwing rocks either.

Seriously, if people think it's okay for us to scrutinize and profile Muslims and other immigrants and black people and so on because some of them sometimes commit crimes, then surely they'll have no problem with us doing the same to white men who buy and own guns, since most mass shootings are committed by them. Right?

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by bono_212

If 90% of the population supports something.

And 30-40% of the population of the country is being represented by the GOP.

There's no way that fits into the 10% remaining of people who don't support expanded background checks. I'm really struggling to understand your math here.

I’m struggling to understand your writing lol. Clearly we are both shorthanding.

90% represents something.

Call it 50-50 on Democrats-Republicans (more generally, left to right).

Assume that 90% is broken down by saying 100% of Dems and 100% of independents. Then what percent of Republicans?

Well, 35-25-40 is about the breakdown of D-R-I in this country.

So 75% of the nation is contributing their full commitment/support. The other 25% is only committing 15%.

15/25 is 60%. They don’t answer to or represent 90%. They answer to and represent the 60% [of republicans] within that 90%.

The same 60% who clearly does not feel strongly about the issue the way that anyone here does. The same 60% who probably responded to that poll but also makes the “as long as my taxes are low” cliche.

[bono_212]

I get where you're coming from, but 25% of the nation isn't electing 54% of the senate, so your math is pretty dodgy, there. Not to mention the fact that reps rep their whole state, not just who voted for them, so it goes back to the larger question of, if the majority of your constituents want this, why are you voting against it?

And yes, it was 90% of all Americans, so again your math is dodgy, because you're assuming 100% support from D and I which is unlikely.

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ecks-all-gun-/

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I get where you're coming from, but 25% of the nation isn't electing 54% of the senate, so your math is pretty dodgy, there. Not to mention the fact that reps rep their whole state, not just who voted for them, so it goes back to the larger question of, if the majority of your constituents want this, why are you voting against it?

And yes, it was 90% of all Americans, so again your math is dodgy, because you're assuming 100% support from D and I which is unlikely.

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ecks-all-gun-/

The math isn’t “dodgy.” If you want to question my assumption, fine. But there’s no bad math coming from some simple algebra.

And I never said 25% is electing 50% of the nation, but that’s not really all that far off from reality. 25% is the “base.” The constituents who go to rallies. The constituents who get energized.

As far as it not being far off from reality, assuming a politician answers to their base voters beliefs and suckers independents into voting for them by other issues (taxes), the independents who don’t give a shit about gun control despite claiming they do are not getting a voice in the game. Or for many other topics, at that. Because loads of people don’t give a shit.

And I’m still not sure what you’re saying. I never said it wasn’t 90% of Americans. My prior post you’ve quoted clearly indicates a breakdown of the theoretical 100% of Americans being D-R-I. If 90% of Americans support a topic of gun control, why on earth would that be unreasonable to approximate that 100% of democrats and independents are for it? Are you suggesting that a sizable portion of democrats and independents make up that 10% who do not support background check expansion? It’s entirely fair to approximate republicans as responsible for being that entire 10%.

[bono_212]

I was just confirming for you what the polling populace is, since you asked me to clarify.

No, your math isn't dodgy, you're right, I meant I think your numbers are.

Anyways, this is pedantic, you're overlooking the point and this is an argument no longer worth having, to me.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I get where you're coming from, but 25% of the nation isn't electing 54% of the senate, so your math is pretty dodgy, there. Not to mention the fact that reps rep their whole state, not just who voted for them, so it goes back to the larger question of, if the majority of your constituents want this, why are you voting against it?

And yes, it was 90% of all Americans, so again your math is dodgy, because you're assuming 100% support from D and I which is unlikely.

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ecks-all-gun-/

And this is literally from your link’s first citation of Pew that quite literally illustrates my point:



The diagram is split with gun control positives on top and gun control negatives on bottom.

Within the gun control positives, there are “softer” positions on top. And you can see, everyone happily supports the do-nothing views. Stop people from buying guns who are “mentally ill”!!!! Conscience cleared!!!!

Background checks show up at #3 there. Democrat/“leans dem” are at 88% in support, and Republican/“leans republican” are a whopping 18% below that at 70%.

If you cut away the “leans dem” and “leans republican” from that data, why would it be so farfetched to assume those numbers go to *approximately* 100 and 60, respectively?

And to add further to this, this graphic shows another point of mine from earlier. Soft positions like “no guns for mentally ill people!!!” garner republican support because that’s what clears there conscience. Look at the behavior as the position gets harder... less support. That type of behavior *suggests* that the majority of republicans don’t actually support doing something that would be impactful. That gives you a look into the overall view and who Mr. or Mrs. Senator answers to. People who don’t give a shit about gun control.

[dabiggestu2fan]

It says a lot about the problem when a person survives a mass shooting only to get killed in yet another mass shooting! I feel horrible for that poor mother. Thoughts and prayers just don’t cut it. We need real solutions and not suggestions by the NRA or thoughts and prayers. In other words right now we are all just sitting ducks never knowing when it could happen to any of us!

[Zephyrpilot]

We need to contain white men. Isolated them.

[DaveC]

just another normal thing happening on a normal day in a normal country.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Active shooter near Mercy Hospital in Chicago

[MrsSpringsteen]

Chicago police officer shot, is in critical condition

[trojanchick99]

Three people killed in a domestic dispute including a police officer and doctor. And yet, the NRA wants doctors to “stay in their lane”.