Mass shooting on campus in Oregon

What does he know? Maybe we should ask the nearest hippie.

 

I'm confused. Perhaps you could use an analogy to clear it up for me.

 

"Gunman slays Christian students"

It implies that 1. The 9 killed were Christians, when it hasn't been confirmed yet. 2. If it hasn't been confirmed, what if one or more of the 9 killed were not Christian? Then the headline is inaccurate, 3. If the headline is inaccurate, then the Post just slighted the non-Christians who were killed by assuming they were Christian.

From the AP story I read last night, the shooter asked the students if they were Christian or not, then shot some of them without hearing an answer. So, as of last night, unless the Post had information the AP didn't have the headline was inaccurate.

That break it down for you? Or do I need to use one of your baseball analogies?

 

I wonder if the sheriff in Oregon thinks the UCC shooting was a hoax or false flag operation.

Sheriff In Charge Of Oregon Massacre Probe Posted Sandy Hook Truther Video

 

Anything in any Murdoch foghorn must be presumed to be spun to promote its paranoia-persecution narrative.

 

Chelsea Clinton, unsure whether to use effected or affected, uses impacted as a verb:



Welcome to the club Chelsea.

 

Unless I am sorely mistaken, the U.S. hasn't done anything substantial with regard to its gun laws since 1996 (when Australia did its bit). Since then the overall risk of dying by gunshot in the U.S. has, by my calculations, fallen approximately 15%. The risk of dying at someone else's hand has fallen by around 28%. Further, Australia has a bit older population than does the U.S. (and a younger population tends to be more prone to violence/gun violence).

The idea that what we would have to go through to implement a program similar to Australia's* would be worth it if we could get such a "smashing" success is not at all supported by the facts.



*Keeping in mind that Australia's program was a compulsory buyback made possible by a legislature unshackled by a bill of rights and willing to impose pretty hefty tax levies to fund it.

 

I'm pretty sure if there was a black powder gun that could kill 10 and wound 20 in under a minute back in the 1700s, the founding fathers might have rethought a few things.

 

Well, that does it. Hitlerry is toast.

 

Stanford's English faculty weeps ...

 

Unlike gun laws, language evolves and changes.

 

So, can I use impact as a verb?