[News] Post a D&D Picture

Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.

If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.

And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.

Speaking of bat-sh*t crazy pastors:

Fun fact: my bible crazy cousin goes to that church.

Of course it's the white ultra-wealthy capitalist who inherited his wealth and is virtually blind to his privilege standing in for Jesus.

I guess this pastor doesn't think that IP is covered in "thou shalt not steal."

Almost makes me wish we lived in a truly dystopian version of capitalism where Disney's secret police would smash through the auditorium doors during the performance, arrest everyone, and then bankrupt the entire church through a series of punitive lawsuits.

OG_slinger wrote:

I guess this pastor doesn't think that IP is covered in "thou shalt not steal."

That's because it isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement.

(edit removed) no. too soon, too far. - Amoebic

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/DdpI5U8.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/jJ1yVqw.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/F46vPu7.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/bN4qCZM.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/IVmG5fX.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/rZUWKdb.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/fxZtHhl.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/TTCxa1n.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/7LgLykF.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/52RjGJV.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/GPG9z9G.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/8m95J1W.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/CtGJHIp.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/haxHF1U.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTp2E43UUAAfUJC?format=jpg&name=medium)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/l9WGCct.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/ZoOk4U5.jpeg)

They don't blur douche bags...

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/LyydbgQ_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)

IMAGE(https://i.postimg.cc/2SxjY0f3/94327203-60-DF-4-D9-F-BAB9-E6783-D422-A2-A.png)

911 dispatchers, security forces, loss prevention people, etc are going to have to lend their flag to LEO:

IMAGE(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/2/thin-yellow-line-dispatchers-flag-tilen-hrovatic.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/NTQvYvu.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/cMZ2yFN.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/qjbG6WQ.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/GMu0OZo.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/y1Xzv3G.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Hgr71Y0.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/LsrXkeT.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Mrz81o6.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/ZZAtF1K.jpeg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/16nfRJy.jpeg)

Dan Riffle needs a stats class.

1: the trendline already existed prior to his MS Paint red line.
2: he ignores which of the incidents used assault weapons that would have been banned prior to 2004 (spoiler - not most of them)
3: he ignores the correlatory factor of number of firearms in circulation, which has been incessantly on the rise for the entire span of that graph

Sources for above just for accuracy

tweet source: https://twitter.com/danriffle/status...

graph source: https://www.ft.com/content/aa5fe164-...

graphed data source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics...

1. Yes the trend line did exist, but that doesn't mean it kept the same rate of increase. It seem like the rate grew.

2. Not sure what you mean, sorry.

3. So your saying it isn't that people could buy assault weapons but that they just bought more? I would still think that even if you account for buying more the type of weapon would be a contributing factor.

farley3k wrote:

Sources for above just for accuracy

tweet source: https://twitter.com/danriffle/status...

graph source: https://www.ft.com/content/aa5fe164-...

graphed data source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics...

1. Yes the trend line did exist, but that doesn't mean it kept the same rate of increase. It seem like the rate grew.

2. Not sure what you mean, sorry.

3. So your saying it isn't that people could buy assault weapons but that they just bought more? I would still think that even if you account for buying more the type of weapon would be a contributing factor.

I'm saying that the vast majority of firearm deaths are caused by handguns, not assault weapons. And that the number of firearms in circulation (most of which, again, are handguns) has skyrocketed in the time that graph shows, so quell surprise that the number of firearms deaths rose when there's waaay more firearms available to do the killing.

I'm saying that the focus on assault weapons is a canard, and won't do sh*t to curb gun violence should politicians find a shred of spine and ban them again.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/fibajrR.jpeg)

Jonman wrote:

I'm saying that the focus on assault weapons is a canard, and won't do sh*t to curb gun violence should politicians find a shred of spine and ban them again.

It certainly would not help curb suicide, etc. but it would do a lot to prevent large scale loss of life. So it is kind of what do we mean by "gun violence"

farley3k wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I'm saying that the focus on assault weapons is a canard, and won't do sh*t to curb gun violence should politicians find a shred of spine and ban them again.

It certainly would not help curb suicide, etc. but it would do a lot to prevent large scale loss of life. So it is kind of what do we mean by "gun violence"

Once again, the vast majority of firearm violence is conducted with handguns. Fully half of all firearm deaths are suicides, for instance - it's harder to off yourself with an AR-16 than a cheap handgun.

Rifles (of which assault weapons are a subset) are involved in THREE PERCENT of firearm deaths in the US. They're almost statistical noise.

Focusing on assault weapons is a waste of your time.

Jonman wrote:

Rifles (of which assault weapons are a subset) are involved in THREE PERCENT of firearm deaths in the US. They're almost statistical noise.

I'm sure it's a great comfort to the parents of Uvalde to know that their dead kids are just unimportant statistical noise.

CaptainCrowbar wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Rifles (of which assault weapons are a subset) are involved in THREE PERCENT of firearm deaths in the US. They're almost statistical noise.

I'm sure it's a great comfort to the parents of Uvalde to know that their dead kids are just unimportant statistical noise.

Yeah, I took that poorly as well.

I get what you are saying, Jon, but read the f*cking room.

Feels like they're really the problem in the massacres... I don't know.

Jonman wrote:

Rifles (of which assault weapons are a subset) are involved in THREE PERCENT of firearm deaths in the US. They're almost statistical noise.

Not to pile on, but three percent of America's firearm homicides is about 580 people. I'm sure the tens of thousands of people in their immediate families and friend groups would disagree that the gaping hole in their lives is just statistical noise.

That and ARs need special attention because they are clearly the weapon of choice for racist mass murderers precisely because they kill so quickly and efficiently and people who have fantasies about kicking off a revolution and overthrowing the government because it lets them cosplay brave soldiers.

America is cool because it’s just the movie Groundhog Day but with “statistical noise” instead of the weather

Jonman wrote:
farley3k wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I'm saying that the focus on assault weapons is a canard, and won't do sh*t to curb gun violence should politicians find a shred of spine and ban them again.

It certainly would not help curb suicide, etc. but it would do a lot to prevent large scale loss of life. So it is kind of what do we mean by "gun violence"

Once again, the vast majority of firearm violence is conducted with handguns. Fully half of all firearm deaths are suicides, for instance - it's harder to off yourself with an AR-16 than a cheap handgun.

Rifles (of which assault weapons are a subset) are involved in THREE PERCENT of firearm deaths in the US. They're almost statistical noise.

Focusing on assault weapons is a waste of your time.

Perhaps we could focus first on people who want to kill other people before we tackle the problem of people who want to kill themselves. Both are certainly problems that need addressing, but the former group is what people mean when talking about gun violence.

Take the handguns too then.

In England, death by asphyxiation from breathing oven fumes had accounted for roughly half of all suicides up until the 1970s, when Britain began converting ovens from coal gas, which contains lots of carbon monoxide, to natural gas, which has almost none. During that time, suicides plummeted roughly 30 percent — and the numbers haven't changed since

And as for people who want to kill themselves, from the same article...

suicide is an overwhelmingly impulsive act. He cites a study of survivors that said only 13 percent reported thinking about committing suicide for eight hours or longer; 70 percent said they thought about it for less than an hour; and a whopping 24 percent said the idea had occurred to them less than five minutes before their attempt.

If that's true, then suicide is highly opportunistic, and Anderson suggests that reducing the opportunities would reduce the incidence. He says that research and anecdotal evidence appear to bear this out. For example, he notes in his magazine piece that states in which gun ownership are highest have the highest rates of suicide by gun; in fact, the higher rates of gun ownership closely track the higher rates of gun suicides by state. Yet suicide rates by other means remain roughly similar

Stengah, that's a bit too utilitarian for my taste.

NathanialG wrote:

Stengah, that's a bit too utilitarian for my taste.

I'm not saying we ignore firearm suicides, I'm saying we shouldn't use them as an excuse to not do things that would stop mass shooting events just because they wouldn't also stop firearm suicides.