NAVSEA Shooter - DC

[irishScott]

I know you are late to the party, so I'll repost what you would have to believe in order to reach your conclusion:

You have a tendency towards extremes don't you? First you think that I'm pointing to a "conspiracy" (when in fact I'm pointing to simple marketing) and then you say I "have to" believe that most Americans have a completely binary reaction to the use of "AR-15" vs "shotgun".

Simple fact is I don't have to believe that, because I know marketing is not a binary process. We just finished up months of a very intense political debate in which AR-15s were a central issue. Shotguns were not a central issue. The use of "AR-15" links the story in question to that massive, highly publicized debate. The use of "shotgun" does not. That connection in turn would make the story more meaningful to viewers and thus increase viewership.

 

[dank69]

You have a tendency towards extremes don't you? First you think that I'm pointing to a "conspiracy" (when in fact I'm pointing to simple marketing) and then you say I "have to" believe that most Americans have a completely binary reaction to the use of "AR-15" vs "shotgun".

Simple fact is I don't have to believe that, because I know marketing is not a binary process. We just finished up months of a very intense political debate in which AR-15s were a central issue. Shotguns were not a central issue. The use of "AR-15" links the story in question to that massive, highly publicized debate. The use of "shotgun" does not. That connection in turn would make the story more meaningful to viewers and thus increase viewership.

Okay, so saying AR-15 doesn't increase viewership but saying AR-15 does increase viewership. I've got it all figured out now. Thanks.

Maybe you are doing the same thing I pointed out a while back as well, confusing "increasing viewership in the immediate" with "increasing the public debate that follows for months to come."

 

[irishScott]

Okay, so saying AR-15 doesn't increase viewership but saying AR-15 does increase viewership. I've got it all figured out now. Thanks.

Huh? And where did I say that exactly? I'm pointing out simple marketing, you think news reports aren't marketed? You think headlines aren't designed to grab attention?

"AR-15" increases viewership due to its popular association with the gun control debate making it more meaningful to a potential viewer (To spell it out: people pay more attention to things they find meaningful). I'm sorry that such a simple concept is going right over your head.

 

[dank69]

Huh? And where did I say that exactly?

I asked you if you believe a TV reporter saying AR-15 as opposed to shotgun causes more people to tune in and you said no. In fact, you thought it was offensive that I even suggested such. Therefore, you agree that a TV reporter saying AR-15 does not increase viewership.

I'm pointing out simple marketing, you think news reports aren't marketed? You think headlines aren't designed to grab attention?

"AR-15" increases viewership due to its popular association with the gun control debate making it more meaningful to a potential viewer (To spell it out: people pay more attention to things they find meaningful). I'm sorry that such a simple concept is going right over your head.

I never said news reports aren't marketed and I never said headlines aren't designed to grab attention. Those are straw men you built. AR-15 headlines may grab more attention over the entire life cycle of an event but when it comes to disseminating information during a breaking event, AR-15 vs. shotgun will have negligible effect if any. It is a minor detail during a time when there are much bigger questions that people want answers to.

The bolded statement implies that you think people will run to the TV/PC to get more info if they hear that AR-15 was involved but will not if they hear that a shotgun is involved. It implies that viewers will click on a headline that says "mass shooting in progress, perp. is using an AR-15," but will not click on a link that says "mass shooting in progress, perp. is using a shotgun."

 

[irishScott]

I asked you if you believe a TV reporter saying AR-15 as opposed to shotgun causes more people to tune in and you said no. In fact, you thought it was offensive that I even suggested such. Therefore, you agree that a TV reporter saying AR-15 does not increase viewership.

Kindly quote, because I'm not seeing where that took place. I always maintained that saying AR-15 would increase viewership. The only time I used the word "no" is when I responded "No conspiracy, ...".

I never said news reports aren't marketed and I never said headlines aren't designed to grab attention. Those are straw men you built. AR-15 headlines may grab more attention over the entire life cycle of an event but when it comes to disseminating information during a breaking event, AR-15 vs. shotgun will have negligible effect if any. It is a minor detail during a time when there are much bigger questions that people want answers to.

The bolded statement implies that you think people will run to the TV/PC to get more info if they hear that AR-15 was involved but will not if they hear that a shotgun is involved. It implies that viewers will click on a headline that says "mass shooting in progress, perp. is using an AR-15," but will not click on a link that says "mass shooting in progress, perp. is using a shotgun."

I don't think they'll run anywhere, but I disagree that the effect is negligible.

Probable difference in reactions:

"mass shooting in progress, perp is using a shotugun"
"Oh shit, another mass shooting."

"mass shooting in progress, perp is using an AR-15."
"Oh shit, another Sandy Hook."

Subtle but significant difference. One connects to a narrative of vauge "mass shootings", the other connects to a narrative of slaughtered children. The latter will draw more viewership.

 

[dank69]

Kindly quote, because I'm not seeing where that took place. I always maintained that saying AR-15 would increase viewership. The only time I used the word "no" is when I responded "No conspiracy, ...".

You said you don't have to believe that Americans have the binary reaction to the scenarios I described. The simple fact is, in order for AR-15 to increase viewership all by itself, a binary reaction has to take place.

I don't think they'll run anywhere, but I disagree that the effect is negligible.

Probable difference in reactions:

"mass shooting in progress, perp is using a shotugun"
"Oh shit, another mass shooting."

"mass shooting in progress, perp is using an AR-15."
"Oh shit, another Sandy Hook."

Subtle but significant difference. One connects to a narrative of vauge "mass shootings", the other connects to a narrative of slaughtered children. The latter will draw more viewership.

You are reaching by claiming that a mass shooting in a navy yard will be equated with another Sandy Hook. I'm sorry I didn't type "navy yard" into my example this time, but it feels like I've typed it too many times already since people don't want to read the thread before spouting the same shit over and over.

 

[irishScott]

You said you don't have to believe that Americans have the binary reaction to the scenarios I described. The simple fact is, in order for AR-15 to increase viewership all by itself, a binary reaction has to take place.

There's a vast difference between someone paying "more" attention and someone paying "full" attention. "More" attention, a non-binary reaction, increases viewership.

You are reaching by claiming that a mass shooting in a navy yard will be equated with another Sandy Hook. I'm sorry I didn't type "navy yard" into my example this time, but it feels like I've typed it too many times already since people don't want to read the thread before spouting the same shit over and over.

Sandy Hook was put alongside Aurora many times despite one taking place in a movie theater and the other in a school. I don't think it's that much of a stretch, especially considering how pictures of AR-15s next to "Sandy Hook" dominated the news for weeks.

 

[spidey07]

There's a vast difference between someone paying "more" attention and someone paying "full" attention. "More" attention, a non-binary reaction, increases viewership.






Sandy Hook was put alongside Aurora many times despite one taking place in a movie theater and the other in a school. I don't think it's that much of a stretch, especially considering how pictures of AR-15s next to "Sandy Hook" dominated the news for weeks.

What do all these mass shootings have in common?

Gun Free zones!!!!

 

[Fern]

Geez. Just saw an article over at MSNBC where the VA hospital etc is denying the shooter ever sought or had treatment for mental health issues.

Fern

 

[Lithium381]

What do all these mass shootings have in common?

Gun Free zones!!!!

And people who have either a mental illness and/or a deliberate disregard for the law.

 

[dank69]

There's a vast difference between someone paying "more" attention and someone paying "full" attention. "More" attention, a non-binary reaction, increases viewership.

Increasing viewership requires increasing the count of people viewing. I don't think Nielson breaks viewership down into how many people are half paying attention and how many are paying full attention.

Sandy Hook was put alongside Aurora many times despite one taking place in a movie theater and the other in a school. I don't think it's that much of a stretch, especially considering how pictures of AR-15s next to "Sandy Hook" dominated the news for weeks.

Aurora was closer to a Sandy Hook than this shooting was. Usually aren't any kids running around in an office building. This is getting way off on a tangent that doesn't really support your argument anyway.

 

[woolfe9998]

Kindly quote, because I'm not seeing where that took place. I always maintained that saying AR-15 would increase viewership. The only time I used the word "no" is when I responded "No conspiracy, ...".





I don't think they'll run anywhere, but I disagree that the effect is negligible.

Probable difference in reactions:

"mass shooting in progress, perp is using a shotugun"
"Oh shit, another mass shooting."

"mass shooting in progress, perp is using an AR-15."
"Oh shit, another Sandy Hook."

Subtle but significant difference. One connects to a narrative of vauge "mass shootings", the other connects to a narrative of slaughtered children. The latter will draw more viewership.

I think the problem here is that you view this through the lens of someone who is very concerned about possible gun control measures, so you're sensitive on the issue of which gun is reported for a mass shooting. Those who are pro-gun control might also be very sensitive. But people on both sides have already made up their minds. As for the rest of the people, the type of gun used is not going to be a major detail. Shotgun, handgun, AR15 - the major concern is generally over the loss of life.

The only possible consequence I can see of mis-reporting it as AR15 is a pro-gun control pol like Feinstein will prematurely grandstand over it, only to be later embarrassed when it turns out to be wrong.

The general public doesn't necessarily have the same concerns and interests as either you or someone on the other side like Feinstein.

 

[werepossum]

State law prevented him from purchasing an assault rifle otherwise we would have had a real mass shooting spree. This is the angle being spun.

Of course that is a flat out lie.

Then again, front page of cnn website not a single story about it and it's barely been 48 hours. Just like I said, this will be gone before the weekend. Black guy with a shotgun isn't part of the agenda/propaganda. Reference that with other shooting sprees and it's front and center for two-3 weeks.

Are the laws different between purchasing a pump shotgun and a semi-auto AR-15? I would have thought they were the same.

Ya but they are cleverly hidden under an ambitious banner of "Navy Yard Rampage" and buried at the top of the page.

Edit: goddammit they changed the page from when i looked earlier and now it's even more prominent.

DUDE! Some of us are drinking things we don't want to clean off our monitors and keyboards!

You said you don't have to believe that Americans have the binary reaction to the scenarios I described. The simple fact is, in order for AR-15 to increase viewership all by itself, a binary reaction has to take place.

SNIP

Two points. First, viewers drop in and out all the time. I think Terry has a point that "shooter with a shotgun" is something seen as dirt common, whereas "shooter with an AR-15/AK-47" has more impact. It implies organization and a higher level of threat, somewhat because of media hype but also because these are military-style weapons even if in civilian flavor. People tend to perceive a higher threat and thus watch longer. And since as I noted viewers drop in and out all the time, longer viewing means more viewers.

Second, this is an easily discerned common problem with the media hyping every mass shooting as an AR-15 or an AK-47. Absent some amazingly persistent and mathematically improbably coincidence, there are only two possibilities for this. The first possibility is intent of gun control; either the media or the police spokespeople are intentionally over-hyping every shooting as a ploy toward destroying the Second Amendment. Doesn't have to be a conspiracy, could just be a common outlook (liberal anti-gun press) or a perceived common interest (wouldn't it be great if only we police were armed?) The second possibility is intent of gaining market, which requires accepting that viewers watch longer if they think there are assault weapons being used in a crime.

 

[dank69]

...

Two points. First, viewers drop in and out all the time. I think Terry has a point that "shooter with a shotgun" is something seen as dirt common, whereas "shooter with an AR-15/AK-47" has more impact. It implies organization and a higher level of threat, somewhat because of media hype but also because these are military-style weapons even if in civilian flavor. People tend to perceive a higher threat and thus watch longer. And since as I noted viewers drop in and out all the time, longer viewing means more viewers.

I would agree with your first point if it wasn't tied to a mass shooting already. When someone is shot on the street with a handgun, nobody cares. If someone gets shot on the street with an assault rifle, it will make national news. However, in the context of this incident and discussion, we have a mass shooting, someone or some people already killing multiple other people. This is already national news and everyone already wants details before they even know what kind of gun he/they are using.

I was also told, in no uncertain terms, that keeping viewers tuned in is not the same thing as increasing viewership. LOL. As if keeping viewers tuned in longer doesn't lead to a higher total number of viewers.

Second, this is an easily discerned common problem with the media hyping every mass shooting as an AR-15 or an AK-47. Absent some amazingly persistent and mathematically improbably coincidence, there are only two possibilities for this. The first possibility is intent of gun control; either the media or the police spokespeople are intentionally over-hyping every shooting as a ploy toward destroying the Second Amendment. Doesn't have to be a conspiracy, could just be a common outlook (liberal anti-gun press) or a perceived common interest (wouldn't it be great if only we police were armed?) The second possibility is intent of gaining market, which requires accepting that viewers watch longer if they think there are assault weapons being used in a crime.

No. There is a third possibility already posited by woolfe. Law enforcement, while obtaining info about the suspect, uncovered receipts for a rented AR-15 and assumptions were made and leaked to the media. The media already had the full attention of the nation, so your 2nd possibility doesn't make any sense to me, for the reasons I've listed multiple times in this thread. That leaves your first possibility and the third, it's up to you to apply Occam's Razor.

 

[dank69]

I think the problem here is that you view this through the lens of someone who is very concerned about possible gun control measures, so you're sensitive on the issue of which gun is reported for a mass shooting. Those who are pro-gun control might also be very sensitive. But people on both sides have already made up their minds. As for the rest of the people, the type of gun used is not going to be a major detail. Shotgun, handgun, AR15 - the major concern is generally over the loss of life.

The only possible consequence I can see of mis-reporting it as AR15 is a pro-gun control pol like Feinstein will prematurely grandstand over it, only to be later embarrassed when it turns out to be wrong.

The general public doesn't necessarily have the same concerns and interests as either you or someone on the other side like Feinstein.

On top of all that, the great majority of people that DO care about the gun type used are already tuned in looking for details long before the gun type is ascertained, and still want other details long after it has been determined even if it isn't the type they were cheering for.

 

[Fenixgoon]

On top of all that, the great majority of people that DO care about the gun type used are already tuned in looking for details long before the gun type is ascertained, and still want other details long after it has been determined even if it isn't the type they were cheering for.

i called it way early with the "AK47/Glock" picture.

the media is notoriously incorrect when it comes to well....anything technical.

they really should just say "there has been a shooting and we are waiting for further details."

more reporting, less speculation and hearsay.

 

[xBiffx]

Good to see that I was gone for a whole day and dank is still going full retard. Keep it up, the last couple pages have been internet gold.

 

[dank69]

Good to see that I was gone for a whole day and dank is still going full retard. Keep it up, the last couple pages have been internet gold.

Good to see that you think making an ass of yourself is the way to victory. Why don't you make like a tree and get outta here?

 

[TerryMathews]

Good to see that you think making an ass of yourself is the way to victory. Why don't you make like a tree and get outta here?

TIL dank is Tom Wilson.

 

[dank69]

TIL dank is Tom Wilson.

Today you'll put the pieces together to figure out where Biff got his username, but not without my help.

 

[TerryMathews]

Today you'll put the pieces together to figure out where Biff got his username, but not without my help.

Hey what's Michael J. Fox like?

 

[xBiffx]

Today you'll put the pieces together to figure out where Biff got his username, but not without my help.

You wish you knew the story behind it.

 

[dank69]

You wish you knew the story behind it.

I wouldn't characterize it as "wishing" but now that you said that I am genuinely curious. You can tell me if you want, or not, won't matter a whole lot to me either way.

I was just referring to how when you first joined you had the Biff avatar is all. Nothing offensive was meant by it.

 

[Kaido]

NRA's LaPierre blames poor security for Navy Yard shooting:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...-blames-poor-security-for-navy-yard-shooting/

Usually I'm like, whatever, NRA, but seriously? How about blaming the shooter for the shooting? He goes on to talk about how mental health professionals should determine that if "someone is dangerous, that person ought to be flagged as a potential threat and prevented from buying a gun", but then drops this gem:

When he was asked whether the government should require background checks for private firearm sales between individuals, LaPierre said, "No, I don't believe you ought to be under the thumb of the federal government."

 

[TerryMathews]

NRA's LaPierre blames poor security for Navy Yard shooting:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...-blames-poor-security-for-navy-yard-shooting/

Usually I'm like, whatever, NRA, but seriously? How about blaming the shooter for the shooting? He goes on to talk about how mental health professionals should determine that if "someone is dangerous, that person ought to be flagged as a potential threat and prevented from buying a gun", but then drops this gem:

Failing to see how the NRA is wrong here. We know the shooter legally bought the shotgun from a dealer. We know he passed NICS.

So we have two issues: a) should he have passed NICS and b) why was he able to run rampant?

A) is an issue with states reporting to NICS and doctors failing to report. Not sure how you fix short of criminalizing failure to report on the part of the doctors or cutting federal funding on the part of the states.

B) is the ironic one. This guy was able to run rampant on a military installation because the soldiers were disarmed.

This is completely in Obama's court as commander in chief. Clinton disarmed them via executive order. Obama can rearm them via the same action.