Shiftless2
Well-known member
Don't know about prior knowledge but they don't look to be the least bit sad or upset.
Uvalde - the followup
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
A shooting would leave me a little scared, since the reality is it would make me aware that anyone at any time could be a shooter.
Its almost as if they not only were not nervous, but happy it happened?
Side note is that all 2600 meals got frozen and donated to shelters.
{...
Are there any reports of what happened to the food not consumed at the WHCD?
11:58 AM
Claude responded: Yes — it's a genuinely heartwarming outcome from a chaotic night
Yes — it's a genuinely heartwarming outcome from a chaotic night. The Washington Hilton donated roughly 2,600 meals that went unserved after the dinner was cut short by a gunman.
The shooting took place about half an hour after the dinner began, meaning attendees had only received a salad course before the room was thrown into chaos, leaving around 2,600 plates of prime Chateaubriand steak and Maine lobster untouched.
Hotel staff freeze-dried the steak and lobster for longer shelf life before donating them to two shelters for abused women and children. WHCA President Weijia Jiang gave a public shoutout to the hotel staff for working through the night under difficult circumstances.
The remaining produce items were composted and sent to farms for agricultural use. And in a lighter note, the livestream captured some attendees grabbing bottles of wine on their way out of the venue.
...}
Last edited:
Shiftless2
Well-known member
If nothing else it distracts people from the Epstein files and the disaster that's Iran.
There's a diversity of "explanations" (aka "conspiracy theories") w/ varying degrees of implausibility.
Our OJT CIC flails embarrassingly,
first by punishing our trade partners with $tariffs, insulting our NATO allies,
then cutting them out of the loop on Trump's decision to wage War on Iran again (second time this term),
and then acts imposed upon when NATO allies decline to join in to help clean up the mess Trump created without even the courtesy of consulting them.
And the Strait of Hormuz remains contested.
Trump pretends to professionalism / expertise.
He's a bumbling incompetent.
Anyone that contests that, how can we explain Trump's claiming lowering consumer prices his top priority,
and then sending them spiraling upward? "Competence"? By Trump standards perhaps.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
What I read says pistols are 97% of all firearm deaths.
And the graph over time does not seem to show the assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 as having any effect.
How many people die from gun-related injuries in Washington, DC each year? | USAFacts
An estimated 148 people in 2024, the most recent year for which data is available. This includes homicides, suicides, accidents, and other incidents where a shooting was considered the primary cause of death.
usafacts.org
The assault weapons ban did not really ban much.
You could still buy an AK-47 for example, only they called it an MAK-90, and it had a thumbhole stock instead of a pistol grip.
You could still buy an AR-15, but just not from Colt.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
There seem to be a lot of different analyses of the effect
www.judiciary.senate.gov
theconversation.com
newhampshirebulletin.com
Studies: Gun Massacre Deaths Dropped During Assault Weapons Ban, Increased After Expiration | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Gun massacres fell 37 percent while ban was in place, rose by 183 percent after ban...
www.judiciary.senate.gov
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us
Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
theconversation.com
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? – commentary • New Hampshire Bulletin
A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
newhampshirebulletin.com
Thank you S2.
I've long had the uneasy apprehension when reading on the subject that what I'd previously read was not corroborated.
Utilitarianism may be an undeclared or unofficial objective of democracy.
QUESTION:
The Constitution's Second Amendment (2A) absolutizes this right: "... shall not be infringed ...". But,
Can we bell-curve the benefit of this 2A right?
100% disarmed risks authoritarian government oppression.
100% armament risks genocidal cataclysm, the termination of humanity.
Therefore it would seem the ideal is somewhere in between.
Is that close enough to be an objective toward which we strive?
There seem to be a lot of different analyses of the effect
Studies: Gun Massacre Deaths Dropped During Assault Weapons Ban, Increased After Expiration | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Gun massacres fell 37 percent while ban was in place, rose by 183 percent after ban...
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us
Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? – commentary • New Hampshire Bulletin
A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
The first URL is Pelosi defending her own bill, without any real substance, and only a claim of 34% decrease in mass shooting.
The 2nd and 3rd show a graph that to me looks like the 1994 to 2004 ban did nothing.
If there was any effect, it would have been the metal state of the people who were effected by the publicity against gun violence in general.
The actual ban result was simply to reshape the pistol grip into a thumbhole stock, which really does not change a thing about how it works.
The point of a rifle is its greater range than a pistol.
But since all these mass shooting are indoors, there is not a one where a rifle makes any sense.
If a pistol had been used instead, then they could have been firing 2 pistols at the same time, and not have worry about being attacked when reloading.
Last edited:
Let us not forget that before 1900 there were essentially no police, and there were constant threats ranging from bears and wolves, to Spanish pirates.
So before 1800, over 90% of the population was rural and armed.
Meaning that history shows there was little risk of "genocidal cataclysm, the termination of humanity"?
The utility of firearms come from the fact the police not only can become a corrupt arm of a decadent government, but that they simply never arrive in time.
No one can ever count on police defending anyone, since they are not going to show up for half an hour.
And we should examine the motivations for shootings?
There have always been deadly weapons ranging from blunt weapons to exotic toxins.
So why are these mass shootings increasing?
I would tend to guess that they are not due to there being more weapons, but that people are more stressed and unhappy because the wealthy elite have an ever growing monopoly over the only means of survival, like rent, jobs, food prices, healthcare, etc.?