Cannon Hinnant, the 5-year-old boy who was shot and killed while riding bike

ProV1 said:
I guess the shift to homicide rates backfired so now we are trying to retrench. I figured you would do this as soon as I hit "send"

Overall, and per your own data, rate of death from guns is higher in rural areas than urban areas. there is no debating that point. Now, if you want to say that suicides and accidental deaths for children don't count as much and you want to just focus on homicides, the child homicide rate and the overall homicide rate for blacks is higher. That said and per your own data, that is not a function of physical race but a function of " Deliberate policy decisions, particularly a history of housing discrimination, have resulted in segregated neighborhoods and underinvestments in Black and Hispanic communities."

So back to my original point. Gun violence is not just a rural or urban thing. Gun violence rates are not a racial thing. Again and per your own data, it is a social economic and discrimination thing.
Click to expand...
"Discrimination thing" >? Please explain
 
ProV1 said:
Actually not you...It was SayMyName. When he abandoned his argument based on his own post, you jumped in defending it. I will apologize for confusing your support for his BS as an original post coming from you.
Click to expand...
LMAO the BS the was proven twice. I never abandoned anything, you pulled a Biden and got confused. Additionally all the things you attribute to gun violence are all the things that keep Blacks and Hispanics in the situation they are in..liberal policies. Keep them down for your vote.
 
Tesoro said:
"Discrimination thing" >? Please explain
Click to expand...
It was all in the SayMyName study he posted. We were discussing child deaths by gun and I pointed out that it is more likely in rural areas than in urban areas. He then decided that he wanted to change it to homicides for all ages and posted a study as evidence that blacks were twice as likely to be killed in urban areas. That study he posted concluded that the reason was the following:

“Deliberate policy decisions, particularly a history of housing discrimination, have resulted in segregated neighborhoods and underinvestments in Black and Hispanic communities."

All I did was remind him of two things. The first was that we were not talking about all homicides. We were talking specifically about child deaths. Second, I reminded him that per his own evidence this was a condition of social and economic and discrimination policy. You are barking up the wrong tree. Ask him and read his data.
 
ProV1 said:
It was all in the SayMyName study he posted. We were discussing child deaths by gun and I pointed out that it is more likely in rural areas than in urban areas. He then decided that he wanted to change it to homicides for all ages and posted a study as evidence that blacks were twice as likely to be killed in urban areas. That study he posted concluded that the reason was the following:

“Deliberate policy decisions, particularly a history of housing discrimination, have resulted in segregated neighborhoods and underinvestments in Black and Hispanic communities."

All I did was remind him of two things. The first was that we were not talking about all homicides. We were talking specifically about child deaths. Second, I reminded him that per his own evidence this was a condition of social and economic and discrimination policy. You are barking up the wrong tree. Ask him and read his data.
Click to expand...
So if the Libs have their way, and say, they get to take all of the guns and provide free government housing and food to all minorities, have open borders and defund and change police departments that gun violence will be a thing of the past?
 
zeeman said:
So if the Libs have their way, and say, they get to take all of the guns and provide free government housing and food to all minorities, have open borders and defund and change police departments that gun violence will be a thing of the past?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Ask SayMyName. It is his study and conclusions.
 
ProV1 said:
I don't know. Ask SayMyName. It is his study and conclusions.
Click to expand...
LMAO it isn't one of my own published studies, just one that I saw in response to original post. Homicides seems a bit more realistic around "gun violence" than accidental discharge. Maybe you have a different definition of gun violence. So again, I'm right ?‍♂️
 
SayMyName said:
LMAO it isn't one of my own published studies, just one that I saw in response to original post. Homicides seems a bit more realistic around "gun violence" than accidental discharge. Maybe you have a different definition of gun violence. So again, I'm right ?‍♂️
Click to expand...
Violence is not always intended. Regardless, the exact terminology being used was not violence, anyway. It was deaths. As I have said, I don't view suicide or accidental homicide any less tragic so when looking at the subject, I don't try to parse them.
 
ProV1 said:
Violence is not always intended. Regardless, the exact terminology being used was not violence, anyway. It was deaths. As I have said, I don't view suicide or accidental homicide any less tragic so when looking at the subject, I don't try to parse them.
Click to expand...
So as I've said a few times, we don't agree.
 
ProV1 said:
More stupidity. Media companies do not try to deliver “down the middle”. Show me where that strategy results In better financial performance. Media companies are just like any other company. They define a target market(s) and then create products and services that maximize results based on those targets. No company tries to cater to every single market or consumer. That would be an epic failure.

I have attached the 2nd quarter earning releases from Fox Corporation (owner of Fox News) and AT&T ( owner of CNN). They both have commentary on those assets. Please note that none of that commentary has a single reference to how they did in adhering to ideology. As I said on a previous post. It amazes me that The Cult has no idea how capitalism works.


Click to expand...
Of course it would deliver better financial results.

The vast majority of people in the country identify as moderate/centrist. Maximizing consumption would be the move if its strictly about money. Who thinks alienating a large segment of potential customers is good business?

Liberal talk radio is a financial disaster. Fox News consistently dominates the ratings. Seems the conservative viewpoint is the money maker...why wouldn't more outlets lean right if it's all about profit?

They are true believers and believe it's their duty to shape the country with their ideology.
 
y2h said:
Of course it would deliver better financial results.

The vast majority of people in the country identify as moderate/centrist. Maximizing consumption would be the move if its strictly about money. Who thinks alienating a large segment of potential customers is good business?

Liberal talk radio is a financial disaster. Fox News consistently dominates the ratings. Seems the conservative viewpoint is the money maker...why wouldn't more outlets lean right if it's all about profit?

They are true believers and believe it's their duty to shape the country with their ideology.
Click to expand...
As a public company with a legal fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, they would do that if it were true. If they did not, the Board of Directors would blow the management team out or face mass lawsuits. You know absolutely nothing about the media and entertainment business and now you have proven to know nothing about public companies and capitalism. Is the Hallmark channel alienating potential customers by only airing crappy movies for housewives? What if they added baseball? I doubt many of your buddies will even defend you n this level of stupidity.
 
ProV1 said:
As a public company with a legal fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders, they would do that if it were true. If they did not, the Board of Directors would blow the management team out or face mass lawsuits. You know absolutely nothing about the media and entertainment business and now you have proven to know nothing about public companies and capitalism. Is the Hallmark channel alienating potential customers by only airing crappy movies for housewives? What if they added baseball? I doubt many of your buddies will even defend you n this level of stupidity.
Click to expand...
your naivety is noted.

news isnt entertainment. its purpose is to inform the public. unbiased reporting is a necessary component of democracy. by slanting coverage they can drive public policy towards their ideology. this has become the overriding motivation for a large segment of the media.
 
y2h said:
your naivety is noted.

news isnt entertainment. its purpose is to inform the public. unbiased reporting is a necessary component of democracy. by slanting coverage they can drive public policy towards their ideology. this has become the overriding motivation for a large segment of the media.
Click to expand...
LOL. Fox and CNN and CNBC are not entertainment networks. The statements keep getting dumber.
 
CNN: “We Don’t Have ‘Narratives’, We Just Report the News”
cnn comparison coverage hate crimes white black
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top