GoCommiesGo

Just now, tshile said:

It gets messy because you have to consider what qualifies for what charges. Then you have your own internal research methods you have to be concerned about. Then you have other agencies you have to interface with - what is their definition?
 

I didn’t mean to totally derail the thread. I think the point has been made on at least a basic level that “mass shooting” is, at best, poorly defined or defined inconsistently. 

I don't want to keep derailing this, but I looked at the FBI 2022 Active Shooter Incidents and they couple the incident (shooter) with the federal definition to get the mass shooter count. Either way I'm surprised I've never seen the actual breakout of what makes it a mass event like this anywhere else before.

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

so I noticed we were all using secondary sources. Even I was with my original definition. 
 

so I went to see if u could find something on the FBI’s site. A primary source.  And look, it matches wha to said. (They use active shooter for the person and mass shooting for the incident)
 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view

 

 

if you go to the third page of the off they offer a more extensive outline of the criteria they evaluate to determine if something qualifies. It’s all about the method and motivation - not about a body count. 
 

but the point was not to see who could correctly google any specific organizations definition. 
 

the point was that the term is not well defined, and you can see people abusing the term to fit a narrative or agenda. 
 

and as you can see in this thread - you can find people who don’t care. And there’s something to say about that too. 
 

i, personally, think the FBI is correct. A victim count is stupid for any number of reasons. Intention and details about how and why are what matters. Indiscriminate killing of random people in public is what a mass shooting is. 

Good link, I do want to correct myself on this. They do have a defined amount for a mass killing.

Page 2 of the report cite number 4 at the bottom "The federal definition of “mass killing” is defined as “three or more killings in a single incident.” Derived from Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, 28 USC § 530C(b)(1)(M)(i)".

I never knew there was a defined definition of mass killing that the Government couples with a specific type of incident. 

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well, no they don’t. 

@The Evil Genius Beat me to the link with the definition. So I'll add another one from Cornell The FBI defines mass shootings as “Four or more murders occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involve a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident.”

1 minute ago, Xameil said:

If im being honest...who gives a flying **** about classifying based on how many died.

 

Fact of the matter is, a mentally ill person who if I read correctly, spent time in an institution, did not have his guns removed.

Which, on a quick search, Maine claims to remove guns from people involentarily admitted to a psyche ward.

 

This is the problem.....once this guy had a diagnosed mental illness, he should have had his guns removed. 

 

No argument from me. 

I agree, if they had red flag laws, they should have caught this before it happened. That would be a massive breakdown on the local and state police. 

@Xameil  Travolta and Slater having a fist fight on a platform train car if I remember correctly. Haven't thought of that movie in a long time. 

I do think part of the problem from a tracking standpoint is different organizations use a different definition. 2, 3 or 4+ dead is bad but if you have the bar to low then a double homicide is a mass shooting event, you have to draw it somewhere but for some reason not everyone agrees on threshold. Just an odd idiosyncratic thing that comes up when a terrible event happens. 

1 minute ago, Xameil said:

Are you guys actually arguing about the semantics of the term mass shooting?!?

Nah, it's just kind of odd that there is not a definitive definition for it. FBI uses four killed, but also at the same time "The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area."

I think it's weird and was just giving the FBI definition out. 

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

So if 20 people get shot but only 3 die, that's not a "mass shooting"?

 

That's pretty stupid. 

That becomes an active shooter event, they track those separately from the mass shootings. 

FBI defines it as four or more murdered with a gun. 

@mhd24 Thank you, I did not know that about the new CBA. I didn't mind the Poole signing, compared to other contracts it looks reasonable. Appreciate the info. 

10 hours ago, Destino said:

I don’t get why we added Poole and kept Kuzma if the goal was to tank. Is it just to sell tickets while losing 60 games? 

Has to be, if these team loses less than 50 games, I'll be shocked. 

1 hour ago, Fan since a Fetus said:

How do you enforce the abortion interstate laws? Check stops for everyone with a female in the car. Pull them out and make them pee on a stick prior to leaving the state line? 

Only thing I could see if getting OBs to report if someone came in for a pregnancy test and then came back in and was no longer pregnant with no additional medical info. 

Going to be a sweet HIPAA case at some point. 

I’d strongly consider letting Ron and Jack go, promote EB. Just to change the dynamic of the team. This is just bad, like really bad. 

7 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Samuel’s was open, Sam got to him late.

Looked to me the LB flashes in his lane originally. May have saw it wrong. 

Game, bears

Forcing throws and no one is open again. 

I’m pretty close to turning this off. 

I’d fire Rivera and Del Rio if they lost this game. Embarrassing. 

1 minute ago, Conn said:

yeah, 3 plays in a row with veteran players. It’s a mess 

Something’s very off with this D. They don’t trust each other or the game plan and are trying to over correct for it. 

Six first round draft picks on the defense. Two plays by the worst offense to their best player for a touchdown. 
 

Embarrassing. 

I’m not a genius but that corner safety set didn’t look right. 

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

It’s not. 
 

I don’t think I said it was good. 
 

I think I said it’s likely the least harmful way to send a wake up call about the level of dysfunction and bull**** with our federal government. 
 

There’s decades of ignoring problems, kicking the can down the road, stoking culture war bull****, and pandering that has led to this point. And if something doesn’t change it’s going to get worse. And if this isn’t the wake-up call, I think it’s reasonable to believe whatever is will be even more harmful 

The only way you're going to get people to pay attention is if travel is disrupted or social security doesn't get paid out. We've never not paid social security during a government shutdown. People get flagged as exempt or excepted and continue to work and keep the critical things going. They do it without pay but the critical things continue. I'm an exempt employee and it sucks.

The way it's designed is to not cause a significant disruption to a normal day, pain points are limited to the people that are actively employed by the federal government or operate on government contracts. Government employees will get back pay but contractors typically will not be paid. 

The shutdown in 2018 / 2019 got everyone's attention when TSA and air traffic controllers called out sick and refused to continue working without pay. I think only 15% of social security employees were going to be furloughed if the CR wasn't passed. 

Test drove the Y & 3 this weekend. I'm sold, I'm going to pick one up end of the month or early November. 

Driving dynamics were very good and getting back into my car afterwards felt like a giant step backwards. I was also very happy with the dealership experience; no pressure answered all my questions and seemed generally invested in the product. I'm also very happy to not have to deal with the finance people at a traditional dealership and go back and forth with pricing and any potential post agreement add on. 

My current car is near end of life, maintenance and running costs are getting past the point where I think it's feasible to keep putting money into it. 

I'm looking at end of year to pickup a new car. The tax rebate for fed and state are very enticing and would have a positive impact on our end of year tax situation. It also appears they are discounting the on-hand inventory pretty aggressively at the moment. I'm interested to see how the driving and UI experience is versus the VW. 

Going to test drive a Model 3 on Saturday. I test drove the ID.4 last week. First time driving an EV, was pretty weird to not have the engine noise and just how smooth / fast it was. 

Got moving on a merge to the highway thought I was going 45 looked at the speedometer and was going 65. Neat experience definitely would take some getting used to. 

Curious if anyone has any feedback on the VW ID.4. I'm going to take a test drive this weekend, I'm planning on making the switch to an electric car before the end of the year. I'm mainly comparing the VW or a Model 3. I've ridden the 3 a few times and will do a test drive next weekend to get a comparison. 

We currently have two VWs and had very positive experiences with our local dealer from purchase to service. I'm leery of the Tesla from a build quality and dealer support standpoint based on conversations I've had with owners and general internet information.