I want good journalism and not people's opinions which is why I generally don't watch or listen to stuff that I know is biased. MSNBC and CNN should do better, but I think they were obviously going on the notion that Russian did work to interfere and spend money in our elections. They overstated their opinions on to what degree, but there is no getting around the fact that the Kremlin had a favorite and did everything in their power to get him to the Presidency. That should be an issue to anyone, Republican or Democrat. I think Marco Rubio said as much after Trump won.
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
I want good journalism and not people's opinions which is why I generally don't watch or listen to stuff that I know is biased. MSNBC and CNN should do better, but I think they were obviously going on the notion that Russian did work to interfere and spend money in our elections. They overstated their opinions on to what degree, but there is no getting around the fact that the Kremlin had a favorite and did everything in their power to get him to the Presidency. That should be an issue to anyone, Republican or Democrat. I think Marco Rubio said as much after Trump won.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I didn't find it dishonest. He explains what happens and and brings up the legality of these actions towards the end. How would bringing it up first change the framing of the ideas?
This is a valid point.
Fair point, but confiscation may imply that there is no compensation. I'm assuming by the name of the process people are compensated, probably not what they would wish, but it is different.
While you can manipulate statistics, to dismiss them out of hand is the incorrect way to deal with this problem. You actually have to provide a counter argument. Gunpolicy.org is an advocacy group and therefore don't go through a peer review process. Stats that go through a peer review process should be treated with heavier weight because they have been looked at by a wide variety of people who understand the weaknesses of stats. It is a shame that more people don't have access to stats that go through this level of criticism. These people would be the first to point out your comparison of CT to national average crime rate. It would seem like they don't have as rigorous peer review process like that at VOX.
While yes the gun world does not have a "assault weapons" category. Categories can easily be made up, that doesn't mean their are not real.
I'd like to see the stats you are saying about feet and fists, but you are actually doing a statistical manipulation by making that statement.
If what you are saying is true. "There are more deaths form fists and feet than guns" that seems logical. Everybody has access to fists and feet. so there will be more deaths though that cause. You use of an absolute value masks the probability of harm, when a ratio would be more applicable.
people who die by gun/people who own guns
people who die by fists and feet/amount of people who have fists and feet
The ratio that is closer to 1 would show the one that has a greater probability to leading to a death.
Last edited:
ayayrawn
Well-Known Member
30 people were indicted from that investigation.
7 people plead guilty.
That people are still having the "both sides just as bad" debate in a time when the president is a literal fascist is fucking depressing.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
I didn't find it dishonest. He explains what happens and and brings up the legality of these actions towards the end. How would bringing it up first change the framing of the ideas?
The framing of the entire argument lays the blame for Chicago’s violence issues at guns from Indiana (even though more come from inside IL) and advocates changing their laws to match Chicago’s while ignoring the fact that Indiana doesn’t have the same issues. It attempts the blame the law abiding for the actions of criminals engaging in illegal activity. It’s deflection.
While you can manipulate statistics, to dismiss them out of hand is the incorrect way to deal with this problem. You actually have to provide a counter argument. Gunpolicy.org is an advocacy group and therefore don't go through a peer review process. Stats that go through a peer review process should be treated with heavier weight because they have been looked at by a wide variety of people who understand the weaknesses of stats. It is a shame that more people don't have access to stats that go through this level of criticism. These people would be the first to point out your comparison of CT to national average crime rate. It would seem like they don't have as rigorous peer review process like that at VOX.
But not unexpected that they don’t.
While yes the gun world does not have a "assault weapons" category. Categories can easily be made up, that doesn't mean their are not real.
What’s the definition of the term?
I'd like to see the stats you are saying about feet and fists, but you are actually doing a statistical manipulation by making that statement.
If what you are saying is true. "There are more deaths form fists and feet than guns" that seems logical. Everybody has access to fists and feet. so there will be more deaths though that cause. You use of an absolute value masks the probability of harm, when a ratio would be more applicable.
people who die by gun/people who own guns
people who die by fists and feet/amount of people who have fists and feet
The ratio that is closer to 1 would show the one that has a greater probability to leading to a death.
That’s a very convoluted and flawed way to frame it. Simple numbers are that if you get murdered, you’re most likely to get shot by a handgun. You’re more likely to get stabbed to death than beaten to death and more likely to get beaten to death than shot with any kind of rifle.
Here’s the data from the fbi.
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4
ucr.fbi.gov
I used bold in the quote inserts.
Last edited:
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
So in 2016 there were 15G total deaths 11G were from firearms 656 from fists and hands. It bears out that guns have a higher probability of causing a death was well as the absolute number of death cause by guns is higher as well.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
I didn’t say guns as a whole, but rifles in particular. You’re attempting to discredit me by twisting my words to say something I didn’t actually say.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I didn't mean to twist your words. It was an overlooked detail. I generally see the debate on gun control as more broader than just a AR ban.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
Ok. I get that. My point was in relation to the meaninglessness of a ban on that particular class of weapons in relation to criminal activity/murders.
Your greater aim is going to require a constitutional amendment. There’s no getting around that.
I was trying to be civil, but yeah this about sums it up. Most corrupt administration in American history and the majority of them have about as much business being in their jobs as I do being a brain surgeon. It’s a fucking shitshow everyday.
Trump wants the United States to buy Greenland? 
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
Yep. Lots of people were indicted and some plead guilty. Mostly of lying to investigators or crimes unrelated to the core subject of the investigation. Hell, even the arguably biggest get (Manafort) was convicted of stuff he did before he joined the Trump campaign.
Know what none of them were convicted of or charged with? Crimes that showed coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Russia straight up worked to influence the election. They’re gonna do it again. Guess what, we engage in the same activities because that’s how the game is played. The Trump administration is full of grifters, scoundrels, and various other shitbags. Trump himself is a horrendous pile of dogshit. I’m pretty sure these are all things we can agree on. Yet, none of them are proof of coordination between the campaign and Russia, the much searched for “collusion”.
It was a conspiracy theory pushed by folks who couldn’t accept that in a contest between the two least likable candidates possible, they lost. There are plenty of things to go after Trump for, but at this point trying to defend the Russiagate conspiracy just makes you look ridiculous. If you believed it, I’m sorry, you got schnookered. If you still believe it, could you explain chemtrails to me next?
Last edited:
NPR has a great story on the state of our healthcare system in rural America.
Over the last 5 years more than 100 hospitals have closed. Over the next 10 years an additional 700 are expected to close.
The high costs of healthcare are bankrupting rural hospitals. In rural America fewer people have health insurance. More medical bills are going unpaid. People without healthcare are avoided healthcare more often lowering traffic to the hospitals. This is resulting in they are not seeing enough business to cover salaries / turn a profit.
One hospital they were talking to was in Idaho and serves a geographic area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Not only is the only hospital in this region, it is also the only medical center where people go visit their primary care doctors or see specialists and so on.
The hospital filed for bankruptcy a couple years ago and nearly closed, only remaining open because private donors have decided to fund it / keep it open. The hospital is the single largest employer in the region as well with 63 employees. They do not have a surgeon or a gynecologist. A strain on them is when someone needs surgery they have to load them up in an ambulance and transfer them to the next nearest hospital, a 8 hour round trip for the ambulance crew. Why don't they have a surgeon? They can't fill the position. It's been open and unfilled for years. Why? They can't afford to pay competitive rates with higher population areas. Simply put, the supply of doctors who are willing to take positions just to provide service out of the goodness of their hearts are few and far between. Most are looking for the money and apply for positions in the cities where they can make nearly double what they would make at a rural hospital.
The lake of proper medical care do to lack of staff, and the sheer distance to the nearest hospital is very dangerous for many rural Americans. Imagine a pregnant women going into labor, and the nearest hospital is 4 hours away. Or having a heart attack and the same is true. Rural Americans simply do not have access to the same quality of healthcare and therefor their life expectancies are going down.
Over the last 5 years more than 100 hospitals have closed. Over the next 10 years an additional 700 are expected to close.
The high costs of healthcare are bankrupting rural hospitals. In rural America fewer people have health insurance. More medical bills are going unpaid. People without healthcare are avoided healthcare more often lowering traffic to the hospitals. This is resulting in they are not seeing enough business to cover salaries / turn a profit.
One hospital they were talking to was in Idaho and serves a geographic area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Not only is the only hospital in this region, it is also the only medical center where people go visit their primary care doctors or see specialists and so on.
The hospital filed for bankruptcy a couple years ago and nearly closed, only remaining open because private donors have decided to fund it / keep it open. The hospital is the single largest employer in the region as well with 63 employees. They do not have a surgeon or a gynecologist. A strain on them is when someone needs surgery they have to load them up in an ambulance and transfer them to the next nearest hospital, a 8 hour round trip for the ambulance crew. Why don't they have a surgeon? They can't fill the position. It's been open and unfilled for years. Why? They can't afford to pay competitive rates with higher population areas. Simply put, the supply of doctors who are willing to take positions just to provide service out of the goodness of their hearts are few and far between. Most are looking for the money and apply for positions in the cities where they can make nearly double what they would make at a rural hospital.
The lake of proper medical care do to lack of staff, and the sheer distance to the nearest hospital is very dangerous for many rural Americans. Imagine a pregnant women going into labor, and the nearest hospital is 4 hours away. Or having a heart attack and the same is true. Rural Americans simply do not have access to the same quality of healthcare and therefor their life expectancies are going down.
debianlinux
Well-Known Member
Yet the rural american is the quintessential red state voter.
Sonicpharmacist
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the source. I’ve been looking for a different checker for bias, and was unaware of this website. I apologize for the snide comments and tone. Gun violence is (obviously) a hot button topic for me, but I also want to be factual in my arguments. Usually I’m fairly level headed, so again, I’m sorry for not being so. Regardless, this is a sticky, complicated subject, one that won’t be easy to fix, considering our culture.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
No apologies needed. It isn’t like my posts are exactly snark free or anything.
Our worldviews are pretty much diametrically opposed. And that leads to friction. It’s cool.
Last night on the Nightly News there was a story about how the first time ever when going to the hospital, odds are better than not that you will get surprise out-of-network bills when going to a in-network hospital. And the rate that things are being billed as out-of-network is sky rocketing each year with no end in sight.
Fewer and fewer staff at hospitals are in-network. Many services are being contracted out to private companies.
For example, the machine that monitors your vitals. Many hospitals are switching over to machines that are provided by a private company who also does the monitoring. And guess what, there is a good chance that that could be out-of-network. The interviewed one women who ended up with a $20,000 bill for her vitals being monitors that was not covered at all by her insurance because it was considered out-of-network.
Fewer and fewer staff at hospitals are in-network. Many services are being contracted out to private companies.
For example, the machine that monitors your vitals. Many hospitals are switching over to machines that are provided by a private company who also does the monitoring. And guess what, there is a good chance that that could be out-of-network. The interviewed one women who ended up with a $20,000 bill for her vitals being monitors that was not covered at all by her insurance because it was considered out-of-network.
Interesting story on the local economy a month after the Encore Casino opened in Everett MA on the local news this morning.
Basically, the local restaurants and bars are struggling. Not because business has been taken away from them, but rather they are losing their wait staff and kitchen staff. They simply can not compete. The wages the Casino is offering are more than double that of the the local restaurants who are paying minimum wage (which for wait staff/tipped workers is $3.75 an hour). Wait staff at the casino are making $8.50 an hour or more plus tips. But even more enticing to them is benefits. They are union at the Casino and have great Healthcare and retirement. Benefits the local small restaurants simply can't afford to provide.
Restaurant owners say they are unable to provide these types of benefits. If they were to offer them they would have to raise prices and if prices go up they will lose business. Also being small, they don't have the same buying power to get deals on healthcare plans.
This has resulted in in some local restaurants and bars closing at times / days of the week because they simply do not have enough staff to operate the the capacity they were before the Casino moved into the area.
Basically, the local restaurants and bars are struggling. Not because business has been taken away from them, but rather they are losing their wait staff and kitchen staff. They simply can not compete. The wages the Casino is offering are more than double that of the the local restaurants who are paying minimum wage (which for wait staff/tipped workers is $3.75 an hour). Wait staff at the casino are making $8.50 an hour or more plus tips. But even more enticing to them is benefits. They are union at the Casino and have great Healthcare and retirement. Benefits the local small restaurants simply can't afford to provide.
Restaurant owners say they are unable to provide these types of benefits. If they were to offer them they would have to raise prices and if prices go up they will lose business. Also being small, they don't have the same buying power to get deals on healthcare plans.
This has resulted in in some local restaurants and bars closing at times / days of the week because they simply do not have enough staff to operate the the capacity they were before the Casino moved into the area.
Chucktshoes
Well-Known Member
Folks like to reference what New Zealand did in the wake of the Christchurch massacre with regards to gun bans. This article (don’t be put off by the source, it was originally a WaPo article)
Link shows what happens as a general rule. Folks simply ignore the new laws. It happened in Australia (estimates are only 20% of banned guns were surrendered) it happened in New York where the SAFE Act has been widely ignored. Laws like this really only accomplish one thing, and that’s to breed contempt for the law in the formerly law abiding.
Link shows what happens as a general rule. Folks simply ignore the new laws. It happened in Australia (estimates are only 20% of banned guns were surrendered) it happened in New York where the SAFE Act has been widely ignored. Laws like this really only accomplish one thing, and that’s to breed contempt for the law in the formerly law abiding.
In the local news this week NIMBYs are attacking the commuter rail in one town.
They are suing and calling for action to prevent trains from sounding their horns at a grade crossing as required by federal regulations.
The women leading the charge is saying the sounds of horns is nearly constants for a couple hours every morning and it's incredibly disruptful and it's no way to live. She claims the 3 homes for sale on her street are because of the train horns.
The commuter rail schedule and frequency has been pretty much unchanged since the 1970s, so it's not like the cases you hear about where lines are rejuvenize for commuter rail services.
Several affluent neighborhoods in MA have already created designated quiet areas where trains can't sound their horns / the public transit system can be fined for sounding their horns. However, the downfall is since it's required by federal regulation, if an accident does happen at a crossing the commuter rail takes on liability if the investigation finds they did not sound their horn.
The major downside to this quit zones is accident rates are way up. Pedestrians and cars trying to beat the train being hit by the train are up. Just this morning there was a fatality where a 21 year old male pedestrian was killed trying to beat a train across the crossing. He thought he had time since he didn't hear a horn (which the trains don't sound at that crossing because the local ordinances fine them).
The best thing to do is eliminate all grade crossings. But that's expensive, and no one is willing to pay for it. Not the town who owns the road or the State if it's a state owned road. If it would be done it would have to be paid for by the very underfunded public transportation system.
Currently they are spending loads of money installing wider gates, pedestrian gates across side walks and center dividers 100 feet on either side of the RR crossing to prevent people from driving around the gates. Also, at the busier crossings that are in quiet zones they are paying for police detail during rush hour to direct traffic at the crossing to try to discourage people from trying to beat the train.
They are suing and calling for action to prevent trains from sounding their horns at a grade crossing as required by federal regulations.
The women leading the charge is saying the sounds of horns is nearly constants for a couple hours every morning and it's incredibly disruptful and it's no way to live. She claims the 3 homes for sale on her street are because of the train horns.
The commuter rail schedule and frequency has been pretty much unchanged since the 1970s, so it's not like the cases you hear about where lines are rejuvenize for commuter rail services.
Several affluent neighborhoods in MA have already created designated quiet areas where trains can't sound their horns / the public transit system can be fined for sounding their horns. However, the downfall is since it's required by federal regulation, if an accident does happen at a crossing the commuter rail takes on liability if the investigation finds they did not sound their horn.
The major downside to this quit zones is accident rates are way up. Pedestrians and cars trying to beat the train being hit by the train are up. Just this morning there was a fatality where a 21 year old male pedestrian was killed trying to beat a train across the crossing. He thought he had time since he didn't hear a horn (which the trains don't sound at that crossing because the local ordinances fine them).
The best thing to do is eliminate all grade crossings. But that's expensive, and no one is willing to pay for it. Not the town who owns the road or the State if it's a state owned road. If it would be done it would have to be paid for by the very underfunded public transportation system.
Currently they are spending loads of money installing wider gates, pedestrian gates across side walks and center dividers 100 feet on either side of the RR crossing to prevent people from driving around the gates. Also, at the busier crossings that are in quiet zones they are paying for police detail during rush hour to direct traffic at the crossing to try to discourage people from trying to beat the train.
Is this a violation of freedom of press or could it actually be Criminal for for reporters to contact local officials via personal phone numbers and emails address?
Malheur Country only has one email address that reporters can use to contact them with questions and it probably goes pretty much unanswered. No phone number, no direct email to contact with questions. The County has previously asked reporters to not contact officials via personal phone or email address and the fact that the continue to do so has Malheur Country officials asking the sheriff to look into whether any laws were broken and if it's criminal for the newspaper to contact Country Officials directly through publicly listed phone numbers.
www.malheurenterprise.com
Malheur Country only has one email address that reporters can use to contact them with questions and it probably goes pretty much unanswered. No phone number, no direct email to contact with questions. The County has previously asked reporters to not contact officials via personal phone or email address and the fact that the continue to do so has Malheur Country officials asking the sheriff to look into whether any laws were broken and if it's criminal for the newspaper to contact Country Officials directly through publicly listed phone numbers.
Malheur County officials ask sheriff to assess whether Enterprise reporters broke laws - Malheur Enterprise
UPDATE: A comment from a sheriff's commander was added to this story on Tuesday, Aug. 20. VALE – Malheur County officials have asked Sheriff Brian Wolfe to assess whether the Malheur Enterprise has engaged in criminal conduct in its reporting. County Counsel Stephanie Williams confirmed last...
www.malheurenterprise.com