http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/20/guns-across-america Comments On: Guns Across America by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss "Let's pretend that I wrote something like ..."

You can pretend all you want.
You can even claim that I implied whatever you want.
But the fact is that I did not say there was a conspiracy.
Again, at best you are only slightly delusional.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:21:32 -0800 The Stranger
Let's pretend that I wrote something like "Eventually, the sky will turn blue. Eventually." You would not read that and think, "yep, this guy certainly thinks the sky is blue right now!" You would read that and think, "hmm; he thinks the sky isn't blue already." You'd think that because such a statement IMPLIES (I'm using it correctly, genius; look it up) that the sky is currently some color other than blue. Interpreting the statement that way is not being "slightly delusional" so much as "literate."

But I have no interest in teaching you basic English; being obtuse might have kept the argument going for a time, but it didn't make your so-called "point" any less idiotic. Good luck relying on stupidity (feigned or real) to support your beliefs. I'm done wasting my time on you.
Posted by Bonefish]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:03:49 -0800 The Stranger "Your words, not mine, implying that CURRENTLY the media is explicitly ignoring brown shooting victims."

I think you need to look at that word "implying" because that is not what I said.
You are, incorrectly, INFERRING something from my statement that was not in my statement.

"... if the media were doing this, as YOU implied, ..."

Again, I did not imply that.
I did not say that and I did not claim that.
You, incorrectly, inferred that.
So, at best, you are only slightly delusional.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:33:46 -0800 The Stranger
Eventually The Stranger (or other media) will cover the shooting of a brown person.
Eventually.


Your words, not mine, implying that CURRENTLY the media is explicitly ignoring brown shooting victims. I never mentioned the government specifically; if the media were doing this, as YOU implied, that would be a conspiracy whether the government were involved or not (it would be a "media conspiracy" even if not a "government conspiracy"). I'm not the one who believes that this is happening; you are. I repeat: I'm saying that things like this are NOT happening, and that there are several other plausible reasons that Slog isn't flooded with lists of "brown" shooting victims. Thus, you are implying conspiracies and I am not. And when I point out that you are implying a conspiracy, that does not mean that I am claiming a conspiracy myself. Same thing with when I pointed out that you're using circular logic that is popular among conspiracy theorists.

You need to work on your reading comprehension; it seems like you're just observing that the word "conspiracy" is located in one or two sentences and that therefore I must be proposing one.

So tell me, which of my "other claims" were conspiratorial? My claim that mass shootings get more attention simply because they are more of a spectacle? My claim that people pay more attention to statistics because those are more informative than individual stories? My argument that this, and not racism, is the reason people like me are supposedly "ignoring" individual shootings of all races? My point that you STILL haven't offered evidence that there have been any recent shootings in Seattle for us to really be "ignoring" in the first place? My sarcastic joke about Grey Aliens that I used to demonstrate your logical fallacies, which apparently went waaay over your head?

Maybe you should look up the word "rational," because I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "make a bunch of unfounded accusations that are only tangentially related to the topic at hand and then skirt around the issue when asked to back up your claims."
Posted by Bonefish]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:20:46 -0800 The Stranger "Maybe this is due to the reasons that I have already spelled out for you several different times now (which you continue failing to comprehend):"

Maybe.
Or maybe you've been a bit too focused on your other claims of coverups and conspiracies.

"You're the only one proposing coverups and conspiracy theories."

No.
The government will NOT stop you from reporting on brown people who have been shot.
The government will NOT conceal evidence of a shooting where the victim is a brown person.
There is no secret organization of the media that blocks such reports.
Got that yet?
You're having a little bit of trouble with this "rational" thing, aren't you?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:47:18 -0800 The Stranger I do not know about January-2013-non-white-shooting-victims-in-Seattle because there isn't any info on them for ME to look up in the first place, or because they haven't happened during that time period at all, rather than because I do not care. Maybe I also can't name any white January-2013-shooting-victims-in-Seattle either, because racism isn't the reason I'm not posting some long list of names.

Maybe this is due to the reasons that I have already spelled out for you several different times now (which you continue failing to comprehend): 1) shooting statistics are more relevant than individual victims, and therefore I see no need to memorize the names of individual victims (whatever their race). 2) Mass shooting stories flood the media because mass shootings are more of a spectacle, not because people don't care about "brown" victims. These two points perfectly explain why mass shootings get more coverage AND why slog commenters are talking about crime stats instead of rattling off victim names, no "kidnapped white girl syndrome" required. Therefore it's ridiculous of you to imply racism on my part as the reason I'm not rattling off the names of a bunch of non-white Seattle January shooting victims in an argument about gun control. I'm not exactly naming a bunch of white shooting victims, am I?

So my point still stands- in order for you to prove that I simply don't care about all the "brown" people who have been shot in January in 2013 in Seattle, you have to prove two things- 1) that there have been any such shootings for me to ignore in the first place, and 2) that I am not also ignoring singular white shooting victims alongside singular "brown" ones.

Otherwise, your accusation that I (alongside the Stranger staff and everyone else on Slog) am selectively ignoring brown shooting victims has no basis in reality. Offering proof of these two things would win you this argument, so your continued failure to do so must mean that you don't have this info, and that you're therefore every bit as full of shit as I accused you of being. Thanks for proving me right!
Posted by Bonefish]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:29:31 -0800 The Stranger "When asked for proof that there have even been any race-specific shootings for the stranger to cover, you refused to offer proof and replied that nobody knows about these stories because the victims are brown (see post 66 and your response)."

No.
I'm saying that YOU do not know about them.
And the reason YOU do not know about them is because YOU do not care.
By your "logic" if I asked you to name the first black Senator without looking it up then I'd really be claiming that there is some kind of conspiracy that hides all the non-white Senators and that there are really lots of them.

And pointing out that YOU do not know without YOU looking it up is completely different from telling you that YOU did not know that it was Senator Revels.

Because in the first case YOU still do not know because YOU do not care UNLESS someone like me makes an issue of it.
In the second case, I have just provided the information that YOU did not have so now YOU can parrot it when I raise the issue again.

"You're the only one proposing coverups and conspiracy theories."

Yeah and you're not entirely rational, are you?
There is no coverup. There is no conspiracy.
There is only you (and other entitled, privileged and amazingly uninformed liberals such as yourself) who do not care if a brown person is shot UNTIL someone else makes an issue of it.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:01:23 -0800 The Stranger
The point is that the people who are most upset about this are the same people who do not care if the victim is not "photogenic".
At least not until the shooting has been sanitized into nice, non-brown statistics that the people posting here can throw around.
[...]
I'm saying that The Stranger does not cover shootings of brown people in Seattle DESPITE the majority of people posting here advocating gun control.
But The Stranger WILL cover shootings on the other side of the nation.


Riiight, and as I already spelled out extremely simply, your entire basis for this "point" is a lack of news articles on these shootings during 2013. When asked for proof that there have even been any race-specific shootings for the stranger to cover, you refused to offer proof and replied that nobody knows about these stories because the victims are brown (see post 66 and your response). Now that I've asked you for proof again (police reports, etc) that race-specific shootings are actually happening in Seattle but are being ignored by the Stranger, you accuse me of missing your point. And the circular logic continues, even after it's been pointed out to you. This is a sign of stupidity on your part, not mine: asking for proof of your point, and pointing out that you haven't offered any, isn't "missing the point" so much as "not being gullible."

So I'll ask you again, in a way that you can't dodge (without exposing how obviously dishonest you're being): can you show me at least one article in another Seattle newspaper, that the Stranger didn't also cover, about a shooting in Seattle during 2013 where the victim was non-white? Can you also find a Stranger article about a white person getting shot in a NON-mass shooting during this same time period? If not, then I'm forced to conclude that you're making shit up in order to levy false accusations against Slog. Why should I just take your word that there are all these shootings to report on this month, and that they're simply being ignored based on the race of the victims, if you don't offer any actual evidence whatsoever?

Also, if Slog cares so little about "brown" shooting victims, why were there so many articles about Treyvon Martin just after he was shot? On the other side of the country, no less? How do you possibly fit that into your narrative that the only shootings Slog cares about covering are ones in which the victim is white?

You also (conveniently) ignored my explanation for why papers like the Stranger would be more interested in mass shootings elsewhere than they are in individual shootings here. Mass shootings are more sensational because they're less common and the victims are more randomly targeted, not because the victims are white. I for one don't think that mass shootings are "more relevant" to gun control than a collection of individual shootings, but they make for more shocking examples of gun violence because of how much of a spectacle they are.

Meanwhile, the commenters cite statistics because statistics are relevant, not because they're non-brown. If I want to make the point that gun crime is rampant, which would make that point more clear: citing how many people get shot each year, or telling a story about one shooting victim, "brown" or otherwise?

The individual story might be good for arguing that "shootings are sad *frowny face*," but that's not what people are trying to argue. People are trying to argue that effective gun control is necessary, and aggregate statistics on gun crime are what's relevant to that; not sob stories.

You're the only one proposing coverups and conspiracy theories. I'm merely pointing out to you that you have no evidence for these, and how ridiculous you sound as a result. If I were you, I'd think about that before accusing me of paranoia.
Posted by Bonefish]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:58:13 -0800 The Stranger "... you seem to be insisting that a bunch of racial minorities are getting shot in Seattle but none of the newspapers are covering it."

I think you just lost your "Non-Fuckhead" status because I have clarified that over and over in this thread.
The point is that the people who are most upset about this are the same people who do not care if the victim is not "photogenic".
At least not until the shooting has been sanitized into nice, non-brown statistics that the people posting here can throw around.

"You insist that nobody- including you- can find any news articles about this because the media doesn't want to cover it."

Yeah, you might want to check your paranoia because it's a bit out of control.
I'm saying that The Stranger does not cover shootings of brown people in Seattle DESPITE the majority of people posting here advocating gun control.
But The Stranger WILL cover shootings on the other side of the nation.

"And even if we do find a couple Seattle shootings, ..."

Wow. You've skipped over paranoia and gone straight to conspiracy theories.
Nice job.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:00:11 -0800 The Stranger
"fairly.unbalanced"- with your apparently rhetorical question about "how many brown people have been shot this year," you seem to be insisting that a bunch of racial minorities are getting shot in Seattle but none of the newspapers are covering it. You insist that nobody- including you- can find any news articles about this because the media doesn't want to cover it.

Of course, in order for you to know this, there would have to be SOME evidence somewhere- police reports, underground newspapers, video footage- SOMETHING. What you've done is created a rhetorical circle where evidence against your theory serves as evidence for it. Once you've done this, it signals to the rest of us that you are not a person who we should take seriously. You're participating in the same circular rhetoric favored by conspiracy theorists who believe our government is controlled by reptilian aliens.

Of course, I guess there really could be a barrage of race-specific slayings within Seattle city limits that are going unreported by the news. But you don't get to declare that this is happening in order to make some other point until you have some semblance of evidence. Actual evidence, not just a lack of evidence that somehow serves as evidence itself because you say so.

And even if we do find a couple Seattle shootings, whatever their race, that haven't been reported on, this still doesn't mean there's some racist or anti-gun-motivated coverup of shootings in Seattle. It means that mass shootings are more sensational than any individual murder. Mass shootings happen all too often, but individual shootings happen daily; the victims also tend to be less random than those in mass shootings. So to your average reader, a mass shooting all the way in CT or CO is going to be more novel and sensational than a jilted lover who shoots his ex's new boyfriend in Seattle. However, I fail to see how "covering up" the pervasiveness of either would be a sign of anti-gun bias. Wouldn't a conspiratorial anti-gun newspaper want to milk every story about every shooting for all it's worth?

Speaking of coverups, I've noticed a conspicuous lack of newspaper articles about members of Congress who are Grey Aliens in disguise. Check it out if you don't believe me- I bet you can't find a single article from any (mainstream) newspaper talking about Grey Alien Congressmen. Suspicious, huh?
Posted by Bonefish]]> Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:06:32 -0800 The Stranger "The question of how you pay/paid for college (and your gender, race, nationality, orientation, etc) IS entirely material here because it shows how shallow and terribly ironic your 'argument' is that others are 'privileged' and therefore biased and naive and 'entitled' in their world view, view of guns, race relations, politics, whatever -when it is YOU who is apparently the 'privileged' one in being (likely/perhaps) white, male, American, straight, able bodied, etc."

Maybe you should work on your editing skills, too.
No.
It shows how you are an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal.
You are attempting to establish some form of moral superiority in an attempt to refute my position. That's stupid, but okay.
And the criteria you selected for your moral superiority is how I paid for college.
When the discussion is about gun control and gun violence.
But you want to establish that there is something less moral or whatever about how I paid for college.
That is why you are an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:29:31 -0800 The Stranger
Okay, maybe not. But it's okay. Do keep repeating the same O'Hannity catch phrases, off into oblivion. Go to fucking town. I've stopped listening. Demographics are spelling the end of your type, regardless.



Posted by Velvetbabe]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:34:24 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Patricia Kayden]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:07:39 -0800 The Stranger Filtering on teen: Lotsa towns south of the 38th parallel sure hate their teens! "Sorry kids, the teabaggers we elected cut your mental health spending. Use this rifle in conjunction with your SSRIs to solve your emotional problems."

Filtering on male: androgens, God's li'l self-destruct buttons!
filtering on female: a shooting in Marblemount, WA! "A man who says he accidentally shot his girlfriend while they were camping in a tent near Marblemount was charged Wednesday in Mount Vernon with manslaughter. Thirty-one-year-old Clayton Riggles told investigators he was putting his .45-caliber revolver under his pillow to go to sleep Saturday when it went off and hit 28-year-old Brittany Zika in the head."
Filtering on city: Holy shit! How can St. Louis, MO go so long without shootings? Are they snowed in? Also, suicide by that rapper guy in Renton, one in Kent, two in Tacoma, one in Sumner. Tacoma shootings both women: Tyliah Jones, 22 was murdered; Sophia Strickland, 22 opened fire in her home, mom called 911, police shot Sophia.
Filtering on city: Chicago must be hateful to live in in January. Are these people being killed for their space heaters? Or is that where all the "tyrannical government representatives" are threatening the God-fearin' otherwise lawful gun owners?
Posted by Americans terrorizing other Americans, for freedom]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:51:24 -0800 The Stranger
What have I ever said to show that I'm an absolutist?

I've pointed out that Scalia's version of the Second Amendment need not be read as Gospel, and I've shined a light on the NRA's behavior and their motivations. I've pointed out that the current line between semi-automatics and fully automatics is arbitrary and could be drawn elsewhere.

But take away everyone's guns? I've even said it doesn't bother me at all that machine guns are legal, because they're in the hands of competent people. I would expand access to even more military hardware, as long as the buyer meets a high bar for competence and responsibility.

And moderate gun owners have a PR problem. The perception is that the NRA speaks for them, and the only ones pointing out that it's false are gun control activists. Moderate gun owners should be the ones calling out the NRA on their shit. The trend of increasing mass murders is going to go on, and if the only parties to the conversation are NRA extremists and gun control extremists, the moderate gun owners will have no one but themselves to blame.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:38:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:38:42 -0800 The Stranger Let's keep it up, America! I love freedom and living where we accept slaughtering 6yo's as a reasonable price for it!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p…
Posted by OutInBumF]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:15:53 -0800 The Stranger Posted by treat 'em like they're mentally ill screamers, ignore 'em]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:53:15 -0800 The Stranger "I've asked you three times to identify yourself because I believe it's a valid point when one throws out labels one apparently see as insults."

Of course you do.
Because to an entitled, privileged (and amazingly uninformed) liberal such as yourself the question of how I paid for college is critical to discussing gun violence and ownership.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:22:22 -0800 The Stranger PS. The reason your college tuition being paid by mommy and daddy is a valid point when you label OTHERS 'privileged' should be too ridicuously obvious a point for me to have to explain.


Posted by Velvetbabe]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:59:03 -0800 The Stranger Okay, it's official, F.U.: I've asked you three times to identify yourself because I believe it's a valid point when one throws out labels one apparently see as insults. Based on your third refusal to answer, I can only conclude that you belong to a category of the truly privileged, yourself, (young, white, male, American, college educated), and are apparently too embarrassed to admit it, because it crushes your lame non-argument. Thanks.

Also, you have again refused to define your terms. How am I "entitled"? Please, I genuinely want to know the answer.




Posted by Velvetbabe]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:56:40 -0800 The Stranger "There have been no blips on the minority murder in Seattle."

I didn't say murder.
I said shooting.
Are you claiming that there has not yet been a shooting in Seattle in 2013 where the victim was a brown person?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:09:06 -0800 The Stranger
BTW, up here in Canada gun policy really is run by people with similar views to you, and as someone who doesn't want to ever own a gun I'm totally fine with the results.

Posted by Old Crow]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:00:03 -0800 The Stranger
Me, I skim murder minority or not. Growing up around Detroit, it becomes desensitizing. You try seeing death every day as the lead local story on the news and caring about all of them. Same is currently happening in Chicago. Seattle? Not as much.
Posted by TheMisanthrope]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:41:54 -0800 The Stranger The point is that you do not know.
The reason you do not know is because you are not interested in gun violence when it is happening to brown people.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:41:10 -0800 The Stranger