OK then, we'll just stick with the left-wing college newspapers who cheered it on and called for more. Or the people in the crowd holding typical liberal protest signs cheering on the beating and silencing of the people they don't like. Regardless of which of their factions shows up to beat and destroy, isn't the fact that the liberals who watch it or write about it LIKE it enough for you?
Hillary Clinton is NOT in the past. Because the people who do things like block ambulances on public roads and burn the property of small business owners and beat people bloody on college campuses are upset that she didn't win, and think that her electoral college loss was illegitimate. All of the vitriol and violence and vandalism is outrage that the election didn't go her way. She spent wildly more money, and had virtually the entire media and entertainment industry working for her, and lost - and all of the histrionics on the left are, and continue to be, about that. The entire "it was the Russians, in collusion with Trump!" delusion is an ongoing effort to distract from the fact that the person that millions of people thought was entitled to more political power couldn't convince enough states to give her and her husband back that power. She's (thankfully) "the past," yes. But she's the near-past that the mainstream media is still saying should be the present.
Oh, I get it. You are unable to watch the news, and only consume your propaganda from... what? HuffPo? OccupyDemocrats? You really should read more. It will improve your awareness of things like Berkeley students beating people bloody, or people burning their own churches down. No, I'm not going to link you to BBC, NPR, NYT, ABC, CBS, FOX, WAPO or any of the others that routinely report on such things. Because you obviously already know about them, and are committed to your juvenile theatrics.
No, not like that. He wasn't assaulted by an organized, funded group of leftist activists who have repeatedly done the same things over and over again, proudly do so on video, and then get praised by the left for their bloody, violent "activism." So no, not at all like that.
You mean, like arrest records for self-torching a church after vandalizing it with fake Trump praise? Yes.
You mean, like video of anti-Trump protesters smashing stores and burning people's property? Yes.
You mean, like police going on the record explaining that yet another (and another, and another) person who initially reported being the victim of a hate crime by people shouting Trump slogans... totally fabricated the reports? Yes.
But you KNOW all of this. It's widely covered, and easily Googled - neither of which you need to do, because you already know it, and are pretending you don't so that you can maintain the lazy bit of theater that you're hoping might score a point or two with other low-information people of whose ideology you approve.
Really. You mean the one guy who got hit after he was disrupting a private event and spoiling for a fight? Yes, the guy who hit him should have faced assault charges. WHICH HE DID.
Meanwhile, we have dozens of events where gangs of liberals attack people simply walking on the sidewalk near a Trump event. Or a liberal university crown not merely standing around, but actively cheering as people they don't like are literally beaten unconscious for not obeying the group think. Week-in, week-out displays of property damage meant to ruin someone's means of making a living. Anti-Trump protesters walking up and pepper-spraying an old man in the face for not being one of them. Regular reports of anti-Trump people filing false reports of "hate crimes" against them - hoax after hoax after hoax (doing things like spray painting Trump messages on their own church and then burning it down to construct a false narrative - lots of theatrics like that).
So what you're saying is that people who are standing and saying words that you don't like should be violently attacked, have their businesses smashed, and their grandparents pepper-sprayed and pushed to the ground by good liberals who know best how things should be.
You are the personification of the fascist thuggery that you're pretending to oppose. You LIKE violence against non-violent people. You WANT it. Just as long as it's liberal foot-soldiers being violent against people you don't like. Thanks for showing your true colors. Please make an even bigger display of your hypocrisy, as often as possible, leading up to the 2018 legislative elections, so that D minority in the Senate can shrink even more. Thanks for your hard work towards that goal!
I wonder if Prof took the time to review with the students the difference between a search result and a fact.
No, the students were too busy heading out the door to join in a good old fashioned Berkeley-Style Bloody Beat Down of some people who weren't sufficiently towing the liberal line. If Google says it, it's good enough to break out the black masks and the clubs, man. Or at least to smash up some immigrant's limousine, or burn a coffee shop.
Hey, look! Still not one word even remotely related to the subject. Thank, so much, for making your own inability to grasp and comment upon the absurdity of comparing the signing of the Declaration with checking boxes on an internal Facebook process to label an OccupyDemocrats meme as "disputed." Your craven avoidance of the matter is really quite funny. More, please!
Hey, look! You still can't address the substance of the matter, and are simply proving my point about your intellectual cowardice. Excellent work! Keep going, please.
You know how you can tell you've made a good point? When the juvenile anonymous coward goes for the lazy ad hominem instead of even trying to address the point. So, your concern is that John Hancock and the other signers were NOT putting their property, liberty, and their actual lives on the line when they declared independence? If you think that, then you are ignorant of reality, and shouldn't express opinions on the matter or, more importantly, do dangerous things like voting. Or are you saying that a person working for Facebook who, deciding which posts deserve the distinction, clicks the "disputed" box on a web form IS somehow taking the same risks and responsibility as someone literally taking up arms against an empire's army?
I know, all you understand is snark. So don't trouble yourself with the chore of actually thinking it through and attempting to assemble a coherent thought on the matter. Maybe you can find a meme JPG from OccupyDemocrats that will resonate with you, and you can bravely link to that, instead.
"Being "a signatory" to something doesn't mean squat. "
John Hancock would like a word with you.
John Hancock was then willing to take up arms and put his life on the line to back up the liberty proclaimed in the document he risked everything by signing. Do you REALLY think you're making some sort of valid point by comparing that to a Facebook employee sitting in a cubicle clicking "disputed" when something runs against the narratives they're paid to favor?
The fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles.
The very people that I see on social media passing around some of the most egregiously toxic meme "explainers" and the like also won't go a week without citing posts on Poynter about how important it is to show integrity in reporting. Being "a signatory" to something doesn't mean squat. Hillary Clinton, for example, signed all sorts of things recording her promises not to do the very things she then went right and did as secretary of state. People who illegally register to vote do so by signing a document that, among other things, asserts that they're not doing so illegally. A Facebook news moderator sitting in Menlo Park deciding whether or not some HuffPo piece should or shouldn't be considered "disputed"... should be considered informed and neutral because they signed the thing that they were told they had to sign in order to get that gig?
Way to completely miss the point, and to make a lazy emotional play for the establishment of a completely absurd, bureaucracy-rich, round-about way to tax people to buy houses for other people.
Don't worry, there are worse examples. Hawaii is considering a law that says, essentially: "It might be bad for your health if you're homeless, so doctors should be able to prescribe houses. And just like every other medical prescription that some people can't afford, don't worry, there's Medicaid for that. Enjoy your new house! We'll just have to raise taxes on the people bought their own houses in order to pay for that."
but it might have drastic impacts on the drake equation if there was some requirement for life that has to happen as the planet forms
But that wouldn't even make sense. Because the planet, "as it was forming," was a completely life-hostile seething ball of super-heated molten stuff. Life-friendly things present at that time would have been cooked into oblivion. Things had to cool down and get wet, first.
Seriously...I would suspect this is due to an attack of some sort. Just a hunch.
The last time Microsoft's Azure platform had a huge, sustained failure, it was just an internal screw-up, not an attack. I've got no reason to think Amazon's east coast problems are any different. Not to say it couldn't be an attack, but no reason to think one way or the other, and lots of reasons to think "screwed up" - because that has happened at Amazon and elsewhere in Big Cloud many times.
And if so, isn't it the case that the larger the company, the bigger the target?
Yeah, but they've also got the enormous resources to help fend off problems that would crush a smaller provider. Works both ways.
I don't have to "admit" I left them out, because I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THEM. I also left out deaths by arson, and deaths by insane jihaddis running people down with stolen trucks. Should I "admit" that, too?
Including handgun data doesn't change the point at all. In fact it makes my point stronger. Because most life-saving, crime-stopping use of guns is performed with handguns, not long guns.
Let's say you're already willing to admit that the data could be off by 10-20 times. Those are your own words, so you are. Why not 50? Why not 100? You have no way of proving it isn't completely and utterly off by huge amounts, and that the effectiveness is unprovable. That takes you a long way away from actual reliability. Basically, you have zero demonstrable proof, and are stuck with mere conjecture.
So what you're saying is that you've never actually looked at any of the research in question, and you're willing to wave your hands and say that the thousands of routinely police-reported uses of guns in personal defense never happen. None of them. There's no way that research can be even 5% true, you're saying. Why didn't I say "let's assume it's off by 50%?" Because I have no reason to think that's true. For purposes of showing how silly the conversation is, I allowed for the sake of argument that position that the numbers are off by even 20 times. I don't think that's even remotely the case. But even if we were to absurdly assume that all of the state, local, and federal law enforcement reports on the subject are over-reporting by 20 times, the defensive use cases are still wildly larger than the criminal murders. How are you not following this?
The fact is, defensive gun use is a conjectural argument.
No, it's not. LEOs, every day, report on exactly such things. "Mr. Jones shot his assailant, wounding the man." "The pharmacist, fearing for the safety of his customers, brandished a pistol, causing the robber to flee."
I understand, you think that both Mr. Jones, and the pharmacist, and the police who do things like review video of such events are all lying. It's not a question of whether or not these things happen, it's a question of why you think that wishing them away is somehow intellectually meaningful. Do you also wish away lives saved by airbags in cars, or the effectiveness of commercial alarm systems, or other things that for some reason annoy you?
That's what I wonder about you.
Why? You're the one making up stuff. Hard not to miss your unwillingness to link to a discussion about "sending the military into Chicago" (you do understand, right, that it's the Governor of that state that has to request the activation of his state national guard, right? do you get how this works?). You're the one trying so very hard to pretend that Trump didn't routinely, explicitly refer to the carnage taking place in crime-ridden inner cities (you know, like Chicago - where the local slaughter rate is, incredibly, even higher so far this year than it was last year - which is astounding). He hasn't said anything about "disarming the population," he's said precisely the opposite - he'd prefer that law abiding citizens be allowed, if they see fit, to defend themselves. And that the criminals who infest places like Chicago and who are responsible for dozens of murders in any given weekend are the ones finally subjected to law enforcement for what they do. But no... you fantasize that's he's talking about sending in the military to disarm the public. Do you even listen to yourself?
Did you think nobody would notice what you're leaving out, ScentCone? Handguns. Hmm.
Of course I'm not "leaving them out." They weren't the point I was making. The press loves to go on breathlessly about "assault weapons," and not only has no idea what they're talking about (technically, spec-wise), but mostly they have absolutely no willingness ot be honest about the actual numbers involved.
Claims of such are rampant, but the methodology to collect that data is sketchy at best, though at least you are no longer citing the very discredited Kleck-Gertz study that got into the millions. It was a joke.
Let's say that the most conservative interpretation of such studies are coming in ten times too high. That still means that defensive use of guns to prevent injury and death hugely eclipses the rate at which criminals use guns to hurt and kill. Still true of those studies over estimate by 20 TIMES.
Yet we have a president claiming criminal violence has resulted in a country full of carnage, and promising to send Federal troops into Chicago to disarm the population. Are you going to tell him no?
Why are you lying? I mean, really? What do you hope to achieve by spouting off stuff that's demonstrably not true? I guess you're hoping it'll score rhetorical points with lazy, low-information readers who pay attention to anonymous cowards, but... really?
Put it in context. The states with the highest level of "gun" homicides are also the states with the highest rates of ANY kind of homicide, including stabbings, beatings, etc.
Yes, it IS cultural, not legal. Which is why a place like Chicago - which has absolutely draconian gun laws - none the less has extremely high murder rates. But we're not talking about illegally possessed guns. We're talking about what happens to the rate at which the average innocent person is violently attacked before and after the place they live makes it legal for them to defend themselves, especially outside their homes. None of that has anything to do with hundreds of gang members in Chicago or New Orleans killing each other with (mostly) stolen or illegally owned guns.
Guns and shootings are also highly preventable. Problem is Americans don't want to grow up and admit the more guns the public has the more gun violence occurs...
All SORTS of violent crime is highly preventable. Far more people are killed every year, for example, using pipes and clubs or other objects than are killed using "assault" rifles or ANY sort of rifle, shotgun, or other long gun. More people are killed with BARE HANDS than are killed by someone using any kind of long gun.
In fact, one of the most common ways to PREVENT someone from being violently killed by an attacker is: pointing a gun at the attacker. Defensive brandishing (and much less often, actualy shooting) of guns - usually handguns - happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. In places where people are allowed to carry, violent crime GOES DOWN. The "more legally owned and used guns equals more crime" meme is demonstrably false.
They they also lose your elementary school text books in transit right at that critical moment when your teacher was trying to get you to understand the difference between "loose" and "lose?"
the box was sitting in a Atlanta for over a month
Which was probably the same week when you'd have been learning about using "an" in front of words that start with vowels, though that still doesn't help that sentence make any more sense. An Atlanta what?
the recipient who's address is on the box
The recipient who is address on the box? Or did you mean "whose?"
It's getting pretty bad out there. It's a good thing people are spending thousands of dollars and hours reviving old 8-bit video games! Whew!
Yeah, he'll never get around, for example, to orders reducing regulatory burdens. Oh, right! Already done. Or any movement at all to start to undo the financial stranglehold that Obamacare has put onto people forced to fear IRS enforcement if they don't go broke buying insurance they can't use... oh, right! Already done, with more under way. I guess we could run down the long list, but you already know it and you're pretending you don't so you can engage in more lefty denialism. Carry on! It obviously is your coping mechanism.
Slashdot Mirror
OK then, we'll just stick with the left-wing college newspapers who cheered it on and called for more. Or the people in the crowd holding typical liberal protest signs cheering on the beating and silencing of the people they don't like. Regardless of which of their factions shows up to beat and destroy, isn't the fact that the liberals who watch it or write about it LIKE it enough for you?
If you lean over, maybe some of us can leverage that synergy out of your ass, positioning you for a go-forward mission.
Hillary Clinton is NOT in the past. Because the people who do things like block ambulances on public roads and burn the property of small business owners and beat people bloody on college campuses are upset that she didn't win, and think that her electoral college loss was illegitimate. All of the vitriol and violence and vandalism is outrage that the election didn't go her way. She spent wildly more money, and had virtually the entire media and entertainment industry working for her, and lost - and all of the histrionics on the left are, and continue to be, about that. The entire "it was the Russians, in collusion with Trump!" delusion is an ongoing effort to distract from the fact that the person that millions of people thought was entitled to more political power couldn't convince enough states to give her and her husband back that power. She's (thankfully) "the past," yes. But she's the near-past that the mainstream media is still saying should be the present.
Oh, I get it. You are unable to watch the news, and only consume your propaganda from ... what? HuffPo? OccupyDemocrats? You really should read more. It will improve your awareness of things like Berkeley students beating people bloody, or people burning their own churches down. No, I'm not going to link you to BBC, NPR, NYT, ABC, CBS, FOX, WAPO or any of the others that routinely report on such things. Because you obviously already know about them, and are committed to your juvenile theatrics.
No, not like that. He wasn't assaulted by an organized, funded group of leftist activists who have repeatedly done the same things over and over again, proudly do so on video, and then get praised by the left for their bloody, violent "activism." So no, not at all like that.
You mean, like arrest records for self-torching a church after vandalizing it with fake Trump praise? Yes.
... totally fabricated the reports? Yes.
You mean, like video of anti-Trump protesters smashing stores and burning people's property? Yes.
You mean, like police going on the record explaining that yet another (and another, and another) person who initially reported being the victim of a hate crime by people shouting Trump slogans
But you KNOW all of this. It's widely covered, and easily Googled - neither of which you need to do, because you already know it, and are pretending you don't so that you can maintain the lazy bit of theater that you're hoping might score a point or two with other low-information people of whose ideology you approve.
Really. You mean the one guy who got hit after he was disrupting a private event and spoiling for a fight? Yes, the guy who hit him should have faced assault charges. WHICH HE DID.
Meanwhile, we have dozens of events where gangs of liberals attack people simply walking on the sidewalk near a Trump event. Or a liberal university crown not merely standing around, but actively cheering as people they don't like are literally beaten unconscious for not obeying the group think. Week-in, week-out displays of property damage meant to ruin someone's means of making a living. Anti-Trump protesters walking up and pepper-spraying an old man in the face for not being one of them. Regular reports of anti-Trump people filing false reports of "hate crimes" against them - hoax after hoax after hoax (doing things like spray painting Trump messages on their own church and then burning it down to construct a false narrative - lots of theatrics like that).
So what you're saying is that people who are standing and saying words that you don't like should be violently attacked, have their businesses smashed, and their grandparents pepper-sprayed and pushed to the ground by good liberals who know best how things should be.
You are the personification of the fascist thuggery that you're pretending to oppose. You LIKE violence against non-violent people. You WANT it. Just as long as it's liberal foot-soldiers being violent against people you don't like. Thanks for showing your true colors. Please make an even bigger display of your hypocrisy, as often as possible, leading up to the 2018 legislative elections, so that D minority in the Senate can shrink even more. Thanks for your hard work towards that goal!
I wonder if Prof took the time to review with the students the difference between a search result and a fact.
No, the students were too busy heading out the door to join in a good old fashioned Berkeley-Style Bloody Beat Down of some people who weren't sufficiently towing the liberal line. If Google says it, it's good enough to break out the black masks and the clubs, man. Or at least to smash up some immigrant's limousine, or burn a coffee shop.
Hey, look! Still not one word even remotely related to the subject. Thank, so much, for making your own inability to grasp and comment upon the absurdity of comparing the signing of the Declaration with checking boxes on an internal Facebook process to label an OccupyDemocrats meme as "disputed." Your craven avoidance of the matter is really quite funny. More, please!
Hey, look! You still can't address the substance of the matter, and are simply proving my point about your intellectual cowardice. Excellent work! Keep going, please.
You know how you can tell you've made a good point? When the juvenile anonymous coward goes for the lazy ad hominem instead of even trying to address the point. So, your concern is that John Hancock and the other signers were NOT putting their property, liberty, and their actual lives on the line when they declared independence? If you think that, then you are ignorant of reality, and shouldn't express opinions on the matter or, more importantly, do dangerous things like voting. Or are you saying that a person working for Facebook who, deciding which posts deserve the distinction, clicks the "disputed" box on a web form IS somehow taking the same risks and responsibility as someone literally taking up arms against an empire's army?
I know, all you understand is snark. So don't trouble yourself with the chore of actually thinking it through and attempting to assemble a coherent thought on the matter. Maybe you can find a meme JPG from OccupyDemocrats that will resonate with you, and you can bravely link to that, instead.
"Being "a signatory" to something doesn't mean squat. "
John Hancock would like a word with you.
John Hancock was then willing to take up arms and put his life on the line to back up the liberty proclaimed in the document he risked everything by signing. Do you REALLY think you're making some sort of valid point by comparing that to a Facebook employee sitting in a cubicle clicking "disputed" when something runs against the narratives they're paid to favor?
The fact-checkers will be signatories of the non-partisan Poynter Code of Principles.
The very people that I see on social media passing around some of the most egregiously toxic meme "explainers" and the like also won't go a week without citing posts on Poynter about how important it is to show integrity in reporting. Being "a signatory" to something doesn't mean squat. Hillary Clinton, for example, signed all sorts of things recording her promises not to do the very things she then went right and did as secretary of state. People who illegally register to vote do so by signing a document that, among other things, asserts that they're not doing so illegally. A Facebook news moderator sitting in Menlo Park deciding whether or not some HuffPo piece should or shouldn't be considered "disputed" ... should be considered informed and neutral because they signed the thing that they were told they had to sign in order to get that gig?
Way to completely miss the point, and to make a lazy emotional play for the establishment of a completely absurd, bureaucracy-rich, round-about way to tax people to buy houses for other people.
Don't worry, there are worse examples. Hawaii is considering a law that says, essentially: "It might be bad for your health if you're homeless, so doctors should be able to prescribe houses. And just like every other medical prescription that some people can't afford, don't worry, there's Medicaid for that. Enjoy your new house! We'll just have to raise taxes on the people bought their own houses in order to pay for that."
I wonder how the solid electrolyte holds up under rugged use/abuse.
but it might have drastic impacts on the drake equation if there was some requirement for life that has to happen as the planet forms
But that wouldn't even make sense. Because the planet, "as it was forming," was a completely life-hostile seething ball of super-heated molten stuff. Life-friendly things present at that time would have been cooked into oblivion. Things had to cool down and get wet, first.
Seriously...I would suspect this is due to an attack of some sort. Just a hunch.
The last time Microsoft's Azure platform had a huge, sustained failure, it was just an internal screw-up, not an attack. I've got no reason to think Amazon's east coast problems are any different. Not to say it couldn't be an attack, but no reason to think one way or the other, and lots of reasons to think "screwed up" - because that has happened at Amazon and elsewhere in Big Cloud many times.
And if so, isn't it the case that the larger the company, the bigger the target?
Yeah, but they've also got the enormous resources to help fend off problems that would crush a smaller provider. Works both ways.
Including handgun data doesn't change the point at all. In fact it makes my point stronger. Because most life-saving, crime-stopping use of guns is performed with handguns, not long guns.
Let's say you're already willing to admit that the data could be off by 10-20 times. Those are your own words, so you are. Why not 50? Why not 100? You have no way of proving it isn't completely and utterly off by huge amounts, and that the effectiveness is unprovable. That takes you a long way away from actual reliability. Basically, you have zero demonstrable proof, and are stuck with mere conjecture.
So what you're saying is that you've never actually looked at any of the research in question, and you're willing to wave your hands and say that the thousands of routinely police-reported uses of guns in personal defense never happen. None of them. There's no way that research can be even 5% true, you're saying. Why didn't I say "let's assume it's off by 50%?" Because I have no reason to think that's true. For purposes of showing how silly the conversation is, I allowed for the sake of argument that position that the numbers are off by even 20 times. I don't think that's even remotely the case. But even if we were to absurdly assume that all of the state, local, and federal law enforcement reports on the subject are over-reporting by 20 times, the defensive use cases are still wildly larger than the criminal murders. How are you not following this?
The fact is, defensive gun use is a conjectural argument.
No, it's not. LEOs, every day, report on exactly such things. "Mr. Jones shot his assailant, wounding the man." "The pharmacist, fearing for the safety of his customers, brandished a pistol, causing the robber to flee."
I understand, you think that both Mr. Jones, and the pharmacist, and the police who do things like review video of such events are all lying. It's not a question of whether or not these things happen, it's a question of why you think that wishing them away is somehow intellectually meaningful. Do you also wish away lives saved by airbags in cars, or the effectiveness of commercial alarm systems, or other things that for some reason annoy you?
That's what I wonder about you.
Why? You're the one making up stuff. Hard not to miss your unwillingness to link to a discussion about "sending the military into Chicago" (you do understand, right, that it's the Governor of that state that has to request the activation of his state national guard, right? do you get how this works?). You're the one trying so very hard to pretend that Trump didn't routinely, explicitly refer to the carnage taking place in crime-ridden inner cities (you know, like Chicago - where the local slaughter rate is, incredibly, even higher so far this year than it was last year - which is astounding). He hasn't said anything about "disarming the population," he's said precisely the opposite - he'd prefer that law abiding citizens be allowed, if they see fit, to defend themselves. And that the criminals who infest places like Chicago and who are responsible for dozens of murders in any given weekend are the ones finally subjected to law enforcement for what they do. But no ... you fantasize that's he's talking about sending in the military to disarm the public. Do you even listen to yourself?
Did you think nobody would notice what you're leaving out, ScentCone? Handguns. Hmm.
Of course I'm not "leaving them out." They weren't the point I was making. The press loves to go on breathlessly about "assault weapons," and not only has no idea what they're talking about (technically, spec-wise), but mostly they have absolutely no willingness ot be honest about the actual numbers involved.
Claims of such are rampant, but the methodology to collect that data is sketchy at best, though at least you are no longer citing the very discredited Kleck-Gertz study that got into the millions. It was a joke.
Let's say that the most conservative interpretation of such studies are coming in ten times too high. That still means that defensive use of guns to prevent injury and death hugely eclipses the rate at which criminals use guns to hurt and kill. Still true of those studies over estimate by 20 TIMES.
Yet we have a president claiming criminal violence has resulted in a country full of carnage, and promising to send Federal troops into Chicago to disarm the population. Are you going to tell him no?
Why are you lying? I mean, really? What do you hope to achieve by spouting off stuff that's demonstrably not true? I guess you're hoping it'll score rhetorical points with lazy, low-information readers who pay attention to anonymous cowards, but ... really?
Put it in context. The states with the highest level of "gun" homicides are also the states with the highest rates of ANY kind of homicide, including stabbings, beatings, etc.
Yes, it IS cultural, not legal. Which is why a place like Chicago - which has absolutely draconian gun laws - none the less has extremely high murder rates. But we're not talking about illegally possessed guns. We're talking about what happens to the rate at which the average innocent person is violently attacked before and after the place they live makes it legal for them to defend themselves, especially outside their homes. None of that has anything to do with hundreds of gang members in Chicago or New Orleans killing each other with (mostly) stolen or illegally owned guns.
Guns and shootings are also highly preventable. Problem is Americans don't want to grow up and admit the more guns the public has the more gun violence occurs...
All SORTS of violent crime is highly preventable. Far more people are killed every year, for example, using pipes and clubs or other objects than are killed using "assault" rifles or ANY sort of rifle, shotgun, or other long gun. More people are killed with BARE HANDS than are killed by someone using any kind of long gun.
In fact, one of the most common ways to PREVENT someone from being violently killed by an attacker is: pointing a gun at the attacker. Defensive brandishing (and much less often, actualy shooting) of guns - usually handguns - happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. In places where people are allowed to carry, violent crime GOES DOWN. The "more legally owned and used guns equals more crime" meme is demonstrably false.
loose it for another couple weeks it will be worth 20!
How much looser could it get?
USPS DID loose the package!
They they also lose your elementary school text books in transit right at that critical moment when your teacher was trying to get you to understand the difference between "loose" and "lose?"
the box was sitting in a Atlanta for over a month
Which was probably the same week when you'd have been learning about using "an" in front of words that start with vowels, though that still doesn't help that sentence make any more sense. An Atlanta what?
the recipient who's address is on the box
The recipient who is address on the box? Or did you mean "whose?"
It's getting pretty bad out there. It's a good thing people are spending thousands of dollars and hours reviving old 8-bit video games! Whew!
Yeah, he'll never get around, for example, to orders reducing regulatory burdens. Oh, right! Already done. Or any movement at all to start to undo the financial stranglehold that Obamacare has put onto people forced to fear IRS enforcement if they don't go broke buying insurance they can't use ... oh, right! Already done, with more under way. I guess we could run down the long list, but you already know it and you're pretending you don't so you can engage in more lefty denialism. Carry on! It obviously is your coping mechanism.