A final word on this incident ... IMO, you can ban all the AKwhatevers you want, remove them from households. Remove any other guns you think are problematic too. The problem isn't the guns. The problem is the culture. And I'm not referring to "gun culture". The culture of emulation ... the social cultures present that affect and influence especially the younger generations. Witness the innumerable idiotic TikTok crazes, for example. The culture (history!) tells the societal misfits that they must fit in or go out in a blaze of glory. The culture inflames and exacerbates mental illnesses. Research any mass shooter and you will find a conflicted and tortured soul feeling they have nothing to live for. Go ahead, ban your AKwhatevers. You haven't solved the problem. Now your victims of societal pressures and their own mental illnesses will merely seek out the next weapon handy or available to them. And then we'll be talking about banning metal cutlery from our homes.
Yes and no. Those police who visited the shooter last year had no tools at their disposal so they walked away thinking "that one's trouble." As I've said before though, it's not up to me to find a solution that works but I'm happy to start with the most glaring one and go from there. It's up to the people who won't consider restrictions on guns to come up with a workable and effective alternative. More and more bulletproof glass is one suggestion. And then the same pro-gun families lament the fact that kids spend their days indoors, not enjoying the freedom and fresh air that they grew up with.
A final word on this incident ... IMO, you can ban all the AKwhatevers you want, remove them from households. Remove any other guns you think are problematic too. The problem isn't the guns. The problem is the culture. And I'm not referring to "gun culture". The culture of emulation ... the social cultures present that affect and influence especially the younger generations. Witness the innumerable idiotic TikTok crazes, for example. The culture (history!) tells the societal misfits that they must fit in or go out in a blaze of glory. The culture inflames and exacerbates mental illnesses. Research any mass shooter and you will find a conflicted and tortured soul feeling they have nothing to live for. Go ahead, ban your AKwhatevers. You haven't solved the problem. Now your victims of societal pressures and their own mental illnesses will merely seek out the next weapon handy or available to them. And then we'll be talking about banning metal cutlery from our homes.
What Vance said is he dislikes that school shootings have become a fact of life.
Why is this so hard? Read it carefully:
"I don't like that this is a fact of life COMMA but if you are a psycho, and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets."
FULL STOP.
VANCE: PSYCHOS KNOW SCHOOLS ARE SOFT TARGETS
ALSO VANCE: WE HAVE TO IMPROVE SECURITY IN OUR SCHOOLS
ALSO ME: FUCK YOU AP, for distorting the words of a candidate
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 7, 2024 - 9:20am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Which I don't see. Everyone ran with their own interpretation of it but that's what he said and that's the story. Saying it's a fact of life isn't cynical or negative in and of itself. The first step is admitting you've got a problem and that sounds like the GOP finally admits we've got a problem. His solutions or how he feels about it are what he wants to talk about but maybe someone at AP got that it's a new thing, that he said it so plainly: school shootings ARE a fact of life. I still think that's the story and thank the AP (and you and others here) for bringing it to my attention.
Yes. The acknowledgment that school shootings unfortunately have become a fact of life is the news here.
Which I don't see. Everyone ran with their own interpretation of it but that's what he said and that's the story. Saying it's a fact of life isn't cynical or negative in and of itself. The first step is admitting you've got a problem and that sounds like the GOP finally admits we've got a problem. His solutions or how he feels about it are what he wants to talk about but maybe someone at AP got that it's a new thing, that he said it so plainly: school shootings ARE a fact of life. I still think that's the story and thank the AP (and you and others here) for bringing it to my attention.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 7, 2024 - 9:10am
Beaker wrote:
Again, the issue at hand here is AP's misreporting of Vance's words. And your interpretation, as noted above, reinforces just how damaging a biased (or maliciously incompetent ?) media are to democracy.
My observations on the AP malfeasance are in this thread. On which part of the story should the focus be on â that is what we most obviously disagree on.
What Vance said is he dislikes that school shootings have become a fact of life.
Yeah I don't know how to say this but you are missing the point. That a GOP candidate for high office admits that school shootings in America are a fact of life? THAT is the story. Everything else that he said or what you or I say about what else he said is not news. Vance: School shootings are a fact of life. He said it, that's the news. Context is irrelevant. We as a nation have never (to my knowledge) admitted this. This is in no way a condemnation of Vance, although I clearly have thoughts about what he said before and after.
Again, the issue at hand here is AP's misreporting of Vance's words. And your interpretation, as noted above, reinforces just how damaging a biased (or maliciously incompetent ?) media are to democracy.
My observations on the AP malfeasance are in this thread. On which part of the story should the focus be on â that is what we most obviously disagree on.
Yeah, I think you missed the point of that part entirely!
Yeah I don't know how to say this but you are missing the point. That a GOP candidate for high office admits that school shootings in America are a fact of life? THAT is the story. Everything else that he said or what you or I say about what else he said is not news. Vance: School shootings are a fact of life. He said it, that's the news. Context is irrelevant. We as a nation have never (to my knowledge) admitted this. This is in no way a condemnation of Vance, although I clearly have thoughts about what he said before and after.
Good job Mr. Vance, you avoided the Electric Third Rail of American politics and tried to throw Harris onto it. It is Not Allowed for him to say anything that upsets the gun owners, they demand the right to carry whatever wherever and if a small percentage of them decide to go fuckin' crazy, well it's our fault for not living our entire lives in a bulletproof shell.
Outlawing certain guns in certain situations won't solve all of our problems. But this kid got a visit from the cops last year but they apparently didn't find anything they could take action on. Would things have turned out differently if they came with a warrant to look for School-Shooter47s in the closet? I think so.
Yeah, I think you missed the point of that part entirely!
Pay close attention: the fact that you found one incident does not mean that the program has not vastly reduced the death and violence. But you would rather just give kids a bullet proof backpack (the fact that this thing exists is proof of your selfishness) and some thoughts and prayers. But yeah, party of life and all. Won't somebody think of the children (the ones in school, not the ones dreaming up policy and lobbying junkets).
I glad to see you deeply researched the topic before your response.
Pay close attention: the fact that you found one incident does not mean that the program has not vastly reduced the death and violence. But you would rather just give kids a bullet proof backpack (the fact that this thing exists is proof of your selfishness) and some thoughts and prayers. But yeah, party of life and all. Won't somebody think of the children (the ones in school, not the ones dreaming up policy and lobbying junkets).
Good job Mr. Vance, you avoided the Electric Third Rail of American politics and tried to throw Harris onto it. It is Not Allowed for him to say anything that upsets the gun owners, they demand the right to carry whatever wherever and if a small percentage of them decide to go fuckin' crazy, well it's our fault for not living our entire lives in a bulletproof shell.
Outlawing certain guns in certain situations won't solve all of our problems. But this kid got a visit from the cops last year but they apparently didn't find anything they could take action on. Would things have turned out differently if they came with a warrant to look for School-Shooter47s in the closet? I think so.
Barkeep, I'll cover the next round for my friend here.
edit to add: the latest several schools that were shot up were actually 'hardened' (JFC, who the hell thought this was a solution?). Shootings still happened. They will happen again, soon. If only there were something that could be done. Maybe an example of another country with a culture of independence and toughness that said 'enough' after a violent outbreak. A country that took action against the gun problem by addressing guns instead of targets. A country of responsible adults who looked around and said 'yeah, enough'.
"According to a paper titled: âMass shootings and firearm control: comparing Australia and the United Statesâ by the Australian Institute of Criminology, it is very difficult to determine what factors lead to acts of violence such as mass shootings in schools because the motives are almost unknowable."
"Weapons are more difficult to obtain in Australia due to gun control laws introduced in 1996, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for an offender to get one. Moreover, motives behind acts of violence like this are almost unknowable because the offenders often commit suicide or are killed by law enforcement before they are apprehended."
The error everyone makes is something we all learned in elementary school but needs reinforcing. Headlines are not the article. Not even a summary. They used to be written by non-journalists, a snippet or rephrasing of the first paragraph that told the reader it was about Vance and Shootings, not about the Giants losing to *checks notes* Everyone. Even the first paragraph is not the article. It is meant to be the who-what-when-where-why summary and cannot carry the full context of what was said.
And to be honest, the story is about the "fact of life" aspect of school shootings, not his lamentations over it. Everyone is welcome to interpret "fact of life" as they wish, and that many (perhaps mostly pundits) interpreted it as "deal with it!" might indeed be inaccurate. But okay, he feels awful about it, it is still (according to Vance) a fact of life and that's a big story. Finally someone admits they're not anomalies, explainable by a general wave toward the bogeyman of the day, mental health or poor parenting etc.
Exactly. Or at least that's what they're supposed to be. Yet, many headlines of political stories don't actually match the story content - AT ALL. And in today's world of social media insta-everything, who among us can say they 100% all the time actually read the story?!
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I thought about taking a breath right here but continuing on: Vance then went on, apparently, to say that since school shootings are a fact of life, the appropriate answer is not to attempt any sort of culture shift away from the fetishizing of guns and using them to settle minor grievances. No his answer to the new fact of life is to simply make schools more difficult to shoot up. Most schools in Wyoming are already outfitted with one-way-in "man traps" and metal detectors. Could a shooter still get in? Of course! Or just wait until recess. It's just theater to say we've done everything imaginable, short of anything at all having to do with discouraging people from owning deadly weapons whose sole purpose is to shoot other people. It's honestly not even something that a law can solve on its own: leaders of the GOP need to start actively mocking people who own AKwhatevers as tinfoil psychopaths. Laws are needed, but people who are not active school shooters need to mock these weapons and the people who own them as the beta simp cuck pick your word that they are.
Yes. Theatre. Recall post 9/11 and the shoe bomber Richard Reid - and now we are removing our shoes.
Removing AKwhatevers, or even all guns isn't going to solve the problem. Have you seen the rise in mass stabbings in Europe over the last decade or so? Because that's the weapon where the psychos go with next. (search for 'mass stabbing' attack)
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Edit to add: Vance did say they're a fact of life. Not sure why you're saying that's not accurate. Unless my saying "I'm sorry you're a Canadian" means you actually might be from Wisconsin, TBD.
Vance said, paraphrasing, that psychos know schools are a soft target. No need for the 'fact of life' quote. Yet it's the fact of life bit that everyone is all upset about. Again, no one here is getting upset that AP grossly distorted the context of what Vance actually said.
Now explain this: ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Edit to add: Vance did say they're a fact of life. Not sure why you're saying that's not accurate. Unless my saying "I'm sorry you're a Canadian" means you actually might be from Wisconsin, TBD.
I'm not clear why you disapprove of Wisconsinites, but there it is.
The error everyone makes is something we all learned in elementary school but needs reinforcing. Headlines are not the article. Not even a summary. They used to be written by non-journalists, a snippet or rephrasing of the first paragraph that told the reader it was about Vance and Shootings, not about the Giants losing to *checks notes* Everyone. Even the first paragraph is not the article. It is meant to be the who-what-when-where-why summary and cannot carry the full context of what was said. And to be honest, the story is about the "fact of life" aspect of school shootings, not his lamentations over it. Everyone is welcome to interpret "fact of life" as they wish, and that many (perhaps mostly pundits) interpreted it as "deal with it!" might indeed be inaccurate. But okay, he feels awful about it, it is still (according to Vance) a fact of life and that's a big story. Finally someone admits they're not anomalies, explainable by a general wave toward the bogeyman of the day, mental health or poor parenting etc. I thought about taking a breath right here but continuing on: Vance then went on, apparently, to say that since school shootings are a fact of life, the appropriate answer is not to attempt any sort of culture shift away from the fetishizing of guns and using them to settle minor grievances. No his answer to the new fact of life is to simply make schools more difficult to shoot up. Most schools in Wyoming are already outfitted with one-way-in "man traps" and metal detectors. Could a shooter still get in? Of course! Or just wait until recess. It's just theater to say we've done everything imaginable, short of anything at all having to do with discouraging people from owning deadly weapons whose sole purpose is to shoot other people. It's honestly not even something that a law can solve on its own: leaders of the GOP need to start actively mocking people who own AKwhatevers as tinfoil psychopaths. Laws are needed, but people who are not active school shooters need to mock these weapons and the people who own them as the beta simp cuck pick your word that they are.
Edit to add: Vance did say they're a fact of life. Not sure why you're saying that's not accurate. Unless my saying "I'm sorry you're a Canadian" means you actually might be from Wisconsin, TBD.
< slow clap >
Barkeep, I'll cover the next round for my friend here.
edit to add: the latest several schools that were shot up were actually 'hardened' (JFC, who the hell thought this was a solution?). Shootings still happened. They will happen again, soon. If only there were something that could be done. Maybe an example of another country with a culture of independence and toughness that said 'enough' after a violent outbreak. A country that took action against the gun problem by addressing guns instead of targets. A country of responsible adults who looked around and said 'yeah, enough'.
The error everyone makes is something we all learned in elementary school but needs reinforcing. Headlines are not the article. Not even a summary. They used to be written by non-journalists, a snippet or rephrasing of the first paragraph that told the reader it was about Vance and Shootings, not about the Giants losing to *checks notes* Everyone. Even the first paragraph is not the article. It is meant to be the who-what-when-where-why summary and cannot carry the full context of what was said. And to be honest, the story is about the "fact of life" aspect of school shootings, not his lamentations over it. Everyone is welcome to interpret "fact of life" as they wish, and that many (perhaps mostly pundits) interpreted it as "deal with it!" might indeed be inaccurate. But okay, he feels awful about it, it is still (according to Vance) a fact of life and that's a big story. Finally someone admits they're not anomalies, explainable by a general wave toward the bogeyman of the day, mental health or poor parenting etc. I thought about taking a breath right here but continuing on: Vance then went on, apparently, to say that since school shootings are a fact of life, the appropriate answer is not to attempt any sort of culture shift away from the fetishizing of guns and using them to settle minor grievances. No his answer to the new fact of life is to simply make schools more difficult to shoot up. Most schools in Wyoming are already outfitted with one-way-in "man traps" and metal detectors. Could a shooter still get in? Of course! Or just wait until recess. It's just theater to say we've done everything imaginable, short of anything at all having to do with discouraging people from owning deadly weapons whose sole purpose is to shoot other people. It's honestly not even something that a law can solve on its own: leaders of the GOP need to start actively mocking people who own AKwhatevers as tinfoil psychopaths. Laws are needed, but people who are not active school shooters need to mock these weapons and the people who own them as the beta simp cuck pick your word that they are.
Edit to add: Vance did say they're a fact of life. Not sure why you're saying that's not accurate. Unless my saying "I'm sorry you're a Canadian" means you actually might be from Wisconsin, TBD.
Please enlighten me. He was talking about school shootings and the fact that he thinks there needs to be more security at schools, right? And he said it is a fact of life. Was he saying that it is a fact of life that we need more security at schools? If so, why do you think there needs to be more security? Shootings, right? I'm sorry, but I am missing the point of your stance here.
*edit* I am not trying to be argumentative
The error you're making here is interpreting what you believe Vance was saying - and skipping over how this info came to be under discussion (it's media source). And it matters naught whether your interpretation is perfectly accurate or completely wrong in every aspect. The entire point - and why you're discussing the words of Vance - is because AP made a FACTUAL error by stating AS A QUOTE words that Vance DID NOT UTTER. Deliberate or otherwise, that doesn't matter. The AP error received at least 2.9M views before they deleted it. And the fake quote went viral - which is how it got posted here - and why the claimed quote is under discussion.
AP's job is to report the news. Factual news. AP's fake Vance quote did not carry a byline/author. AP's job is NOT to speculate, offer opinion, or interpret what someone said - unless their resulting article is clearly labelled as opinion. This news item from AP was not labeled as opinion. Again, they presented Vance's words as JD Vance says school shootings are a 'fact of life', (ie get used to it, citizens) ... The use of the symbol for single quote ( ' ) means a quote within a quote. And those words were no such thing.
AP presented Vance's words as a quote - and they were wrong to do so - which is why they deleted their original tweet and replaced it with this. Note the change in context - from JUST GET OVER IT to We must do something about it. HUGE difference. Context is everything. And even here, AP fails to post the entire quote. Utterly shameful.
WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID:
Meanwhile, here's your candidate for President, Dems:
Your job, as a consumer of news, is to detect if/when the headline accurately represents the article / news within. AP has failed here. And it's not the first time media have posted factually wrong information. Strangely, the media errors seem to only benefit one candidate in this election.
Now if you believe this lengthy post of mine on this incident is merely a different opinion on semantics, then you've learned nothing. Media bias is real. Not every article from a given media outlet is biased, but biased articles do emerge from all media outlets.
Here's a photo of Kamala harassing innocent puppies. Wait until you hear the obscenities she uttered about those puppies!
I found the pic on the Internet (made it myself) so it must be true. That poor puppy on the left. So sad.
It is so easy to prove if she wants to. Social Security will have a record of payments made to her account from that employment. She just has to produce it. Never heard of a Mickey D's paying anyone under the table, ever. My SS records go back to the early 70's at the very least, should be into the 60's but I haven't looked in a long time.
.
Until proven otherwise it's just another one of her tall tales told for the express purpose of political pandering to a particular audience. You really gotta ask yourself why someone would even bother to lie about working at McDonalds.
Why is her repeated claim of having worked at McDonaldâs for a brief period of time being questioned? Trump said she made it up. What proof is there of that? This is beginning to sound a bit like the questioning of Obamaâs birth certificate.
I do not know whether it is true or false, but I am wondering what â if anything â prompted the questioning of its veracity.
It is so easy to prove if she wants to. Social Security will have a record of payments made to her account from that employment. She just has to produce it. Never heard of a Mickey D's paying anyone under the table, ever. My SS records go back to the early 70's at the very least, should be into the 60's but I haven't looked in a long time.
. Harris Claims She Worked at McDonald's in College. Here's What We Know
Okay, "unproven" so far. It is odd to see the SS statements - there were jobs I forgot I had on there.
You aren't voting for the guy. What else could you be trying to do ?
So what about Kamala's lie about working at McDonalds ? Of all the things in the world to lie about in a presidential campaign, that is a really bad one.
It is so easy to prove if she wants to. Social Security will have a record of payments made to her account from that employment. She just has to produce it. Never heard of a Mickey D's paying anyone under the table, ever. My SS records go back to the early 70's at the very least, should be into the 60's but I haven't looked in a long time. . Until proven otherwise it's just another one of her tall tales told for the express purpose of political pandering to a particular audience. You really gotta ask yourself why someone would even bother to lie about working at McDonalds.
