dustryder

So the question remains, are media-like twistings of words and removals of context topical? Because I think it's a rather similar situation. The only difference is where the twistings and removals occur. ie primary vs secondary sources of information

Here let me use an example. Perhaps the OP is looking for a heater to warm up his room and asks about what types of radiant heaters would be good for this purpose.

I might go "Well what about convection heaters or fan heaters. They also heat up the room". Because I assume the goal is to rapidly heat up the room and not any specific method of heating up the room.

The OP then might reply "Nice, I didn't think about those types of heaters, thank you". Or he might go "I've already considered those types of heaters but they don't suit my needs but thanks anyway". On the otherhand, I don't know until I make the suggestion and he replies but I feel that suggesting other types of heaters is relevant and topical.

Your reply to my comment would be something alone the lines of "Well convection heaters and fan heaters aren't radiant heaters". Which is absolutely true. On the otherhand such a comment is absolutely useless and makes me think that you are unable to grasp basic subtext. Especially when I've already explained it.

What is an adult american tax and how would it work?

I can easily counter with this article.

https://reason.com/2018/05/14/civilians-with-guns-intervening-in-activ/

I'm not subscribed to the Washington Post, so I didn't read that article.  I read the other one and it stated that 16% of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.  Yet, openly gun free zones make up like 1% of the zones in the USA.  Gun free zones are very rare here.  So the fact that gun free zones make up an extremely small portion of the space yet account for 16% of mass shootings means that I think openly gun free zones(places that post a "gun free zone" sign ought to become discouraged or abolished.

Barr allowed 6 Democrats to view the unredacted report and they all refused because this is all about having endless bullshit hearings until the next election. 

I believe the phrasing used was "less-redacted", not unredacted.

Let me give you a scenario, one main stream media reports on a story, they run a few articles regarding it, or report it as breaking news.  Other news outlets with the same agenda then report on the same thing over and over again (probably 5 or 6 networks).  The first media outlet finds out that it was inaccurate, then in one statement apologizes for it, and it usually has to be a pretty big inaccuracy. They make some tiny apology on the last page of the newspaper, or in a tiny segment of the show.  It is too late, half the country never sees the apology and does not realize it is inaccurate....Apologies don't mean anything. 

And if it has been long enough where most of the country has already forgotten, they feel no apology is necessary. 

Here is something else I distrust, and I can't see why people don't see it as well. The Washington Post claims they are in possession of a letter from Mueller to Barr saying that he mislead the public about the findings of the report.  They quote just a few lines from this letter, but will not show the whole thing to the public.

Everyone wants to see the full Mueller report, that the Government won't release because of Grand Jury information (an actual law on the books), but the news outlets won't publish a full letter?  Why?  Because they have probably taken that letter out of context as well.

you are being too analytical, this is a classic example of "the boy who cried collusion"

any so called "news" agency that constantly tries to pass off opinion and conjecture as fact is misleading aka fake.  I find very little difference between misleading and fake.  In some of these "reports" I would go so far to call them out right lies.  Then there are people like that woman? Madcow who exaggerates and sensationalizes so much how can he/she/they be taken seriously?

Now consider the statement from some twits sadly elected to congress who make public states like the earth will end in 10 years or whatever.  Would you consider such a person who makes statements like that credible?  Whether they are an elected person or tv personality they have full control over what comes out of their mouths, or they should have anyway.

I don't think there's an actual number or number range for how often people have to be wrong or misleading before you can consider them full of shit.

Good question. While I think other criteria may be in play, I think the core of fake news relies on no corroboration, anonymous or false sources, and grand speculation.

Also saying you have evidence for something when you do not have evidence is fake news, for example..Schiff said repeatedly he saw evidence of Collusion, yet never revealed that evidence.

Do you think the media have any part of the blame for their public perception?

Don't you believe in a free society that we should hold fake news accountable? Is unscrutinized propaganda okay as long as you agree with it? (even if you are ultimately proven wrong too as they were)

Exactly. If MSM does not report it, then it's not a scandal

Also...if we go by the sheer number of "scandals" it most certainly won't be objective as MSM lists one scandal as when Trump had 2 scoops of ice cream while everyone else had one (yes that was a real news story)..

The fact still remains that relations between the US and Russia have improved since Trump took office (I'll leave Korea out of it for now, even though the South Korean President suggested Trump recieve the Nobel Peace Prize). This is thanks to Trump and his negotiation/communication skills, without involving hypotheticals or third parties.

As far as the video evidence of liberals flip-flopping goes, it's next to impossible to guage the percentage of leftists that mindlessly disagree with anything presented by a right winger, but the fact still stands that there is an incredibly large number that do so.

Slightly Offensive's newest video proves this as well, that leftists mindlessly dislike Trump (for example) without even doing their own research on him.

I admit that some right wingers had their stupid moments during Obama's presidency, but the numbers pale in comparison to leftists' current attitude toward anything and everything right wing.

If Austria Hungary had assimilated the locals that they conquered, then the country would still exist today possibly.  The Country might have broken up like Czecosloviaka, but they would still retain huge parts of their former country.

Why would this nationalistic military action take place?

Their GDP per capita of PR in 2016 is about the same as the US in 1996 and only slightly poorer then Mississippi in terms of GDP per capita.  

They have representation, they just don't have as much because they are a territory.

Spain agreed to sell PR with some other islands for $20 million.  There was a war for it but Spain in the end got money for the land.

Can you rephrase this?  I don't think it makes much sense.

It was a combination of war and purchasing.  But why did the US want the land?  I think it was because culturally similar to America as opposed to Mexico.  Unless you or someone else can provide an alternative reason, I don't know what else was the cause.  Gold wasn't discovered until after the Mexican American war for the Mexican cession, so the reason wasn't purely economic.

That something is France's common language and culture. Austria Hungary lacked this.

I think that France got it's size the same way the U.K got it's size. By conquering. By sending your own people to the conquered area. By assimilating the locals heavily. France assimilated the octillians(at least that's what I think they were called) that were South of France and they don't want to break away. Austria Hungary conquered but failed to assimilate the lands that nation conquered and as a result, they lost their land.

What else could it be in a way that is consistent?

The US treats PR pretty well. It is because of the US that the GDP per capita of PR is about double the Latin American average and easily the highest GDP per capita in Latin America, with one about as high as South Korea.

1: If they were pro slavery at one point, would they have wanted to join Mexico once they became anti slavery? 

2: This does not explain how we got California, which was anti slavery.

If the US is more right wing then Canzuk, What's wrong with this?  America been pretty united despite states like Texas being more right wing then states like NY.

Due to diminishing returns and increasing odds of corruption, that is not reliable advice

Such things can be accounted for when analyzing data. However you can't analyze data that you don't have or have refused to include

The United States is between Canada and Mexico, which are potentially more similar than the majority of first world countries in various respects, though I wouldn't close myself off to considerations in European data.  I believe that North American data is sufficient for comparative analysis in application to policy topics within the United States, and may arguably be preferable to European data.  

which again you haven't provided, the video you presented had huge flaws and obvious things not taken into consideration which I pointed out.  yet you still deny the realities of ballistic testing.

fine use the whole thing and tell me what the numbers say or you can as I suggested just look at the numbers no math required.

show me

if you can explain at what lower or higher rate of fire is/was a factor for any of these murders then perhaps I could agree.  But since it depends on the individual the whole thing is silly.  So it can't actually be tested.  Recoil has no impact on people who are proficient, skilled, whatever thus subjective and individualistic.  

How proficient do you have to be where recoil plays little to no part in your accuracy?  seem what I mean

but let's say it could, how does that translate to how many wouldn't have been killed?  

I.D.P.A. videos prove that well enough. 

why not?  don't you think you should?  how else would you or anyone know what else to ban or not ban?

obviously our opinions differ

such as?  that more people are killed by handguns?  You are more likely to die in handgun murders? No idea what you are talking about.

I used the biased and liberal mother jones report which I posted for you, the numbers are what they are, no cherry picking needed.

Oh?  not in the study you think is the best argument for your point.

" how many shots were taken, the length of time the shooter had"

the confinement of the people per yard or whatever measure you like, obviously a bunch of people trapped in a room or unable to exit an area due to everyone fleeing etc is a huge factor.

ah ok, but what practical difference if any is made?  in some of the cases where people are trapped in rooms or buildings how important is accuracy?  And since you brought it up, how did rate of fire play a role in any of these murders?

Do you think if in Las Vegas he would have aimed rather than use a bump stock he would have killed more people?  I do.

yes, so where do you draw the line?

I don't know what that means, there was talk of banning ammo but that quickly went away as they new it wouldn't be constitutional.

the assault weapons ban was specific and restrictive nothing like what you are advocating for.

you see it's very situational, when you look at the other murders most are around the 10% mark.  If the Ar was so deadly how did so many escape wounded instead of dead in Las Vegas AND he might have used a bump stock?

circumstances and situations that really can't be accounted for in the stats or your studies.  For all the talk about power, lethality etc, the numbers don't seem to really show that.

there's also how many shots were taken, the length of time the shooter had which I mentioned before those are huge key factors when looking that these numbers, which the studies can't factor in.  Even you would have to agree the longer it takes the shooter to be stopped the more people they can shoot.

explain

good I don't think there's any significant difference either, with that said, one would be banned, the other would not, unless you'd like to now expand the ban into some hand guns or specific rounds?

as I have said I find enough flaws with your "evidence" that I don't find it useful, then when compared to other facts like ballistics etc, the lines you are attempting to draw aren't possible, but instead it would be a circle, not a line.

sure but you can't draw any lines so.....

you should read up on how and why that came to be and how and why that can't happen to semi autos, not constitutionally anyway.

yes it was specific, you are calling for a semi auto rifle ban huge difference as well as expansions or additional inclusions.

but what that means no one has answered yet

yes, I just have to have faith, I know.

again there has been no apples to apples proof.  If put a 5 inch pipe through your monitor or a 3 inch one, in the end it doesn't make any difference does it.  so at what point does the expansion not make any appreciable difference?  no one seems to know because when you look at the videos, fbi tests etc most seem to be pretty dramatic.  reminds me of Miracle Max The Princess Bride, they are just mostly dead not all dead.

except for Las Vegas as I have said, range hasn't been a deciding or major factor in the mass murders so barrel length isn't very important and perhaps a hindrance depending on the scenario.  Whatever increased velocity a longer barrel gives is on par or perhaps causes a larger wound cavity than handguns of certain calibers and bullet designs, but again dead it dead.  

Managing muzzle flip with hand guns can be done quickly even by complete novices.  So this recoil theory you have doesn't have the impact you think, consider the videos I posted also showed women who managed just fine.

everything seems to hinge on this claim that .223 puts big holes in things, yep so doesn't a lot of other guns, handgun included.  But you'd ban them for that reason even though we aren't banning guns based on their abilities that also put big holes in things.  

Rate of fire for all semi auto actuated fire arms is the same, as fast as you can pull the trigger regardless of form factor.

Barrel length aka rifle form factor, isn't really a factor, or hasn't been so yet. (anomalies)

because of these I don't believe it would/should/could end with just a simple semi auto rifle ban, that just doesn't make sense to me.  And I'm having difficulty understanding why it makes sense to you other than you see it as a path of least resistance to which I would say slippery slope since the handguns could easily be shown to meet the criteria for banning.

If you expand to ban all semi auto which make up 90% of all firearms (don't quote me on that, was something I heard) then for all practical purposes it's a gun ban, which I have stated and reasoned prior.

one final thought on barrel length do you think the ballistics are significantly different between a 16" barrel (shortest legal) and a 15" barrel handgun?

if you bothered to educate yourself you would have seen many of the videos made no claims some aren't even narrated but left up to you to believe your own eyes, which in these instances I do.  I don't need to have faith in studies when I can observe the reality and draw my own conclusions from it.  Being a free thinker is important.  None of these contradict the FBI studies, unless you want to argue the FBI is wrong.

a real world visual representation which goes with the ballistics chart Snoopy posted is pretty basic to understand what is actually happening and the ability of these calibers.

sure because you say so

hardly, you've gone from assault weapons to all semi auto rifles and have mentioned to include some hand guns but you didn't or wouldn't elaborate.  Also your ban would include verbiage so it would be modified, updated whatever to include new designs that were similar, some kind of arbitrary sliding scale.  

when asked if specific guns or features would be banned they largely went ignored and unanswered, at best some vague non answer one could expect from a politician.

You tried to use a temporary wound cavity as a justification, but yet you can't or won't say how large a temporary wound cavity is acceptable to keep a gun off the ban list etc, I could go on, but it's not necessary.

The handgun homicide rate?  Also, shouldn't you be bringing up some information?

the ballistic videos I've posted and researched on my own rather than relying on studies, apparently you don't watch the videos and things I post since your level of education about guns hasn't seem to increased much

 but regardless, a judge has ruled that California's large capacity magazine ban is unconstitutional, therefore so would banning semi auto rifles.

I am satisfied enough that your proposal and how it would work would just lead to a weapons ban, also you haven't demonstrated how it wouldn't or couldn't

It is commonly known to be atypical for rifles to prove "more lethal" than handguns in the United States on whole,