JJFIVEOH

Nevermind, somebody will take it the wrong way.............

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt right now. Palin is just filling in for Tomi Lahren for a week. I really do enjoy the network, they don't tend to harp on any one news story all day long. Glad you're enjoying it, it's a pleasant change.

I like(d) OANN. It's pretty much the only station I watch for news. I said months ago it's just a matter of time before they turn into another FOX............. they just took another step.

It is. It's just not "typical".

My point is, two people were killed and it took about 30 seconds for them to jump on the 'guns are bad' bandwagon. Instead of focusing on the hundreds of murders per day, they focused on the story that would catch your attention as a means to push their agenda. Which, as I've pointed out, is often misguided. Many other outlets can be considered MSM as well. John Stewart, Jon Oliver, Bill Maher, VICE, Glenn Beck, Breitbart, Newsmax, Rush Limbaugh. More often than not they cover the same stories, while providing the opposite side of whatever their competitors are pushing. They seem to concentrate on the issues that aren't as pressing as they lead you to believe. That is what really grinds my gears.

Would you have known about it if the national MSM didn't report on it?

I think you give the mainstream media more credit than I do (maybe I'm just overly cynical). Just because people find it interesting, I don't think what they report on is indicative of what is typical. For instance, you mention the dozens of murders every day and how they don't get reported on.......... if they didn't report on the killings of the news reporters nobody would know any better. The MSM didn't report on it because we found it interesting, we found it interesting because they reported on it. The MSM has too much control over what we find entertaining/interesting and often times doesn't cover what needs to be considered informative. Which is why I brought up crime stats. The MSM makes it seem like there is an epidemic of killings, even Josh Earnest was going on about how they becoming more commonplace; when, in actuality it's a lie. All the major networks have an agenda, it nauseates me trying to watch them. That's just how I see it, your mileage may vary. ;) As far as mental illness, it's very difficult (not to mention a very slippery slope) to deny anybody the Right to a firearm. Risk is a product of living in a free society. Often times in many cases increasing restrictions only creates strife. I find it difficult to support the government wanting to restrict firearm possessions based on what they deem "mentally unstable" all while they freely let Big Pharm do whatever the hell they want with very little restrictions. Especially when it is very possible that medications have led to many of these mass shootings.

A church shooting in Charleston, not so difficult to understand. He had a deep hatred of black people. Yet that is still being talked about and lead a national movement over a flag most people didn't even pay attention to. You have a point about cases not being fully understood so it elevates the media status, but that's not always the case. If a network has an agenda that helps to bring in ratings they will not hesitate to exploit the situation to the fullest. I see your point though, a drive-by shooting in the ghetto or drug deal gone bad leading to the corner store getting shot up isn't going to make national news. Your last statement can be taken many ways. It all depends on what the definition of 'typical' is as well as who defines it. Just because it makes headlines doesn't define whether or not something is 'typical' nor should headlines define it for you. If the headlines aren't defining 'typical', who is? How do we define 'mentally ill'? At what point do we start holding our own government accountable for being bought and paid for by Big Pharm in so many cases where these "un-typical" shootings are carried out by people on psych drugs?

No, unless somebody is shooting/killing for protection/survival then mental health plays a role in all issues, the only difference being the motive. There is no "normal", the only reason some crimes are "celebrated" more is because it brings in the ratings. No. But gun owners should have to complete a background check and complete safety/training courses to carry.

Maybe I misread it, it didn't seem to match the rest of your post. The impression I got from the bolded print was that you have read all the posts and found some to have been posted by members that can't help themselves and rape is just under the surface. I can't recall anybody here coming remotely close to that point. If I misunderstood your point, I apologize.

Sorry, you asked for stats about my statement and part of that was the decrease in crime. Use that same link and note the violent crime rate per 100,000. Also note the years with the highest rate change. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Who would conduct personality tests and what would they test for? Are they going to turn you down for the purchase of a gun because they think you're an angry person? Sorry, didn't see you addressed that for me. ;) Sure, lets talk about mental health issues. Can we add in psyche drugs that have become commonplace in many of these shootings? Solutions are important when proposing limiting Constitutional rights, or any other proposition for that matter. Anybody can talk all day about fixing problems in which they find are in need of repair but it's not going to get far if there is no logical way carrying out those solutions. I'm all ears if you'd like to discuss reaching a mutual understanding about mental health issues.

If you were on a mission to kill somebody, or if you were going to rob a house............... would you be more apt to carry out your mission at a place where somebody might be armed?

Or a knife, or a bat.................. The media can't focus on incidents that hurt their narrative. (This goes both ways)

I'm not going to address every single situation, but most of the major incidents in which the media has focused on are in gun free zones.......... elementary school, movie theater, churches....... An example of statistical proof of states increasing gun rights is my own state of Florida. Since the inception of 'stand your ground laws' EVERY major violent crime has decreased significantly. https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Menu/Crime-Trends/Violent-Crime.aspx Gun violence has been dropping since 1993, nationally. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says I prefer that proposed solutions have a logical means in which to carry them out. You can't just say a disgruntled worker shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. And you can't just say somebody doesn't have the mental faculties to possess a firearm. Unless somebody has an obvious mental issue (in which case he probably wouldn't be on TV) it's almost impossible to determine whether or not somebody is crazy. A psyche test usually is warranted until after somebody proves they are not mentally capable. For all you know this guy had a short temper and finally had enough. I don't like asking you questions you have no answers to, but you simply can't propose an emotionally charged set of solutions written by a friend of yours with no way of implementing them.

I specifically addressed point #1. How do you prevent firearm possession of a disgruntled worker? aka the disgruntled worker that shot the news anchors.

I did miss that, my apologies.

Neither did I until just recently. I'm not sure I made the right choice.

It's also important to not be dismissive of the fact that even though guns are still legal, gun crimes have dropped dramatically, many gun crimes occur in gun free zones, and many states that have increased gun rights have actually decreased in all overall violent crimes. An increase in media focus does not correlate to an increase in the actual problem. I agree it's too easy to possess firearms, but #1 on that list is 'disgruntled workers'............ Would could have possibly been done to prevent this guy from possessing a firearm?

Hillary?

Crimes involving firearms are a third what they were 20 years ago. Blame firearms all you want, maybe it's better to blame the media and the government for convincing you otherwise.

You got that from reading the posts in this thread?

It's entirely possible you misunderstood some of the 'ridiculous' posts as well.

I can't watch that video. He's just trying to exploit those girls for the purpose of YouTube viewers. Those poor girls were just dressing nice for the party, especially the one girl that must have had a drink spilled on her.

Some of his shows I love, some are way over the top. I'm not keen on his delivery. I know it's partially satire but he could stand to tone it down a bit. His spastic outbursts and swearing get old. I love swearing but you need to know where to use it and how often to make an impact. Use it too often and it just waters down the effect.

Text culture?