Jump to content

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

Yeah, the "daily occurrence" are the shootings that no one really cares about. Mass shootings like this one are still incredibly rare despite sensationalized coverage of them. That's why they get so much attention. 

Wait wait, you mean to tell me there's more coverage of mass shootings where someone opens fire into a crowded area than coverage of incidents where 1 person shoots another?   Next you'll tell me that the news has more coverage when a plane crashes or a train de-rails than the 17,000 car accidents that happen every day.  

 

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

 

I hate this argument.  There never was an assault weapons "ban".  Such lazy journalism when people try to frame it as such.  

1 hour ago, Bacarty2 said:

 

Keep believing theyre not biased lol 

This is the problem. You have people like yourself who can not distinguish between lies and truth so you then believe any garbage that is fed to you because it is different from the norm. That difference, whether it is full of crap or not, makes you feel superior over others like you have discovered something new. Then you double down on that position even if it is the most ludicrous thing out there, hoping that one of those things come true. Then you will parade around thinking you are the smartest person in the room because of one idiotic stance that just happened to come true.

It is the same thing that Negadelphians do. They say that everything is the worst thing about the Eagles because to them it doesn't matter. If you are negative about the team and it comes true, then you were right all along and you can crap on everyone that was positive about the team going into the season, thinking you are better than them because you predicted this all along. If you were negative about the team and you were wrong, then it doesn't matter because the team is doing well so nobody can complain about that.

Is there bias at CNN,FOX,MSNBC,etc? Absolutely. Their only goal is to get advertisers, which requires viewers, so they pander to the lowest common denominator. They want people to follow the likes of Tucker Carlson because they know that Americans, in general, are too dumb to have their own opinions, so they need someone to tell them what to think. However, this is not proof of bias and it is sad that you think it is.

You are the problem with this country.

4 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

 

182 deaths over a ten year period lmao

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

182 deaths over a ten year period lmao

Yeah, only 19 children died in May LMAO

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

Yeah, only 19 children died in May LMAO

He would have unfortunately gotten the same body count with a pistol or multiple pistols. The story there was police response, not weapon choice.

Just now, Kz! said:

He would have unfortunately gotten the same body count with a pistol or multiple pistols. The story there was police response, not weapon choice.

Nah, he wouldn't have won a shootout with a pistol outside the school. The narrative you're trying to spin is nonsense. Carry on.

Bacarty is a **** who doesn't know how to find accurate news.

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

Nah, he wouldn't have won a shootout with a pistol outside the school. The narrative you're trying to spin is nonsense. Carry on.

Did police even engage him outside of the school? Thought that was debunked after the fact? Either way, I'd say it's doubtful the police prevent him from entering the school given how completely incompetent/cowardly they proved themselves to be. 

1 minute ago, Kz! said:

Did police even engage him outside of the school? Thought that was debunked after the fact? Either way, I'd say it's doubtful the police prevent him from entering the school given how completely incompetent/cowardly they proved themselves to be. 

Well they certainly were cowards. Can't argue that. Still doesn't change the fact that the Uvalde shooter murdered 19 children and he didn't use a pistol.

Just now, Paul852 said:

Well they certainly were cowards. Can't argue that. Still doesn't change the fact that the Uvalde shooter murdered 19 children and he didn't use a pistol.

Yeah but narratives and stuff. "Pistols just as effective at shooting large numbers of people as assault rifles" is not something I thought I would read today.

14 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

you are so incredible wrong it's laughable. In fact you back me up in the start of the 3rd paragraph. 

The Media is extremely bias. They show you this every time they open their mouths, what the cover, or the lack of coverage the give. 

This isnt about fake news, or lies, or whatever you want to call it. It's bias and how to fit narratives. 

If saying I want equal, unbiased, not narrative pushed news makes me "the problem" of the country. GOOD. 

As I mentioned, Between NYC or Chicago theirs going to be a mass shooting today 4+ people will be shot. the news will have little to no coverage. BUT, if a white boi did the same shooting, It would be covered non stop. 

This is a great example. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/04/akron-protests-jayland-walker/   If white people did this it would be front page news. 

The media is biased. The sources outside of the mainstream media are EXTREMELY biased. They are trying to be different to pursaude people to view them as viable sources because they want to make money as well from advertisers and clickbait. Then you have people that just want attention, so they post random nonsense on Twitter, and then people repost them as facts.

That is why you are the problem. You can't see that is what is happening and that you are falling for it.

You can't tell why a news story of a person who went on a rooftop and shot up a crowd of people that included children is more important than a random gang shooting in NY. There was a mass shooting in Kenosha, WI over the weekend, where 5 people were shot and one died. Where is the major news story on that? Why are you so focused on Chicago and NY?

It is simple - because they want you to focus on them because they are Democratic cities with a lot of violence. Well, guess what? When Guiliani was in charge in NY there was still a ton of violence. There were school shootings. When Bloomberg was in charge, there was a ton of violence and there were school shootings there. They were both Republicans (Bloomberg went independent in his latter term). The violence in these cities is not because of who is in charge. It is because there are a LOT of people crammed into a small area with access to deadly weapons.

56 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Yeah but narratives and stuff. "Pistols just as effective at shooting large numbers of people as assault rifles" is not something I thought I would read today.

Yeah no one said that, you just aren't very literate. 

Just now, Kz! said:

Yeah no one said that, you just aren't very literate. 

Keep backpeddling loser

40 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

The media is biased. The sources outside of the mainstream media are EXTREMELY biased. They are trying to be different to pursaude people to view them as viable sources because they want to make money as well from advertisers and clickbait. Then you have people that just want attention, so they post random nonsense on Twitter, and then people repost them as facts.

That is why you are the problem. You can't see that is what is happening and that you are falling for it.

You can't tell why a news story of a person who went on a rooftop and shot up a crowd of people that included children is more important than a random gang shooting in NY. There was a mass shooting in Kenosha, WI over the weekend, where 5 people were shot and one died. Where is the major news story on that? Why are you so focused on Chicago and NY?

It is simple - because they want you to focus on them because they are Democratic cities with a lot of violence. Well, guess what? When Guiliani was in charge in NY there was still a ton of violence. There were school shootings. When Bloomberg was in charge, there was a ton of violence and there were school shootings there. They were both Republicans (Bloomberg went independent in his latter term). The violence in these cities is not because of who is in charge. It is because there are a LOT of people crammed into a small area with access to deadly weapons.

Very pursausive post, thank you.

Just now, Boogyman said:

Keep backpeddling loser

lmao quote the post you're referencing and point out where it says pistols are more deadly than rifles. You won't because it doesn't exist. Have another beer Ms. Doubtfire. :lol: 

Just now, Kz! said:

lmao quote the post you're referencing and point out where it says pistols are more deadly than rifles. You won't because it doesn't exist. Have another beer Ms. Doubtfire. :lol: 

You've been saying stupid ish and backpeddling all day stupid.

Just now, Boogyman said:

You've been saying stupid ish and backpeddling all day stupid.

OK, quote the post, then. 

1 hour ago, Boogyman said:

Yeah but narratives and stuff. "Pistols just as effective at shooting large numbers of people as assault rifles" is not something I thought I would read today.

 

33 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Yeah no one said that, you just aren't very literate. 

 

31 minutes ago, Kz! said:

lmao quote the post you're referencing and point out where it says pistols are more deadly than rifles. You won't because it doesn't exist. Have another beer Ms. Doubtfire. :lol: 

The guy who's calling out anyone else on literacy doesn't understand the what the words "just as effective" mean. :roll: 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

 

The guy who's calling out anyone else on literacy doesn't understand the what the words "just as effective" mean. :roll: 

Imagine jumping into a random convo with this as your big gotcha moment lmao

You can literally sense how tiny this dude is irl with every post he makes.

4 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Imagine jumping into a random convo with this as your big gotcha moment lmao

You can literally sense how tiny this dude is irl with every post he makes.

6lux2z.jpg

 

If ARs were to get banned then these nuts would just use another firearm. If all were banned then they'd just do something else

10 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Imagine jumping into a random convo with this as your big gotcha moment lmao

You can literally sense how tiny this dude is irl with every post he makes.

 

little-nicky-self-own (1).gif

4 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

If ARs were to get banned then these nuts would just use another firearm. If all were banned then they'd just do something else

Sure, but they wouldn't be able to take out as many people when they do snap. There's a reason 8/10 of the most deadly mass shootings ever in the US involve assault rifles. 

Create an account or sign in to comment