• 16 Posts
  • 1.21K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 25th, 2023

help-circle
    1. He’s going to court without a lawyer, which is always always always a bad idea (I wish that weren’t the case but it is a fact);
    2. He’s tried to claim he doesn’t own or operate the business in question;
    3. His defenses are spaghetti thrown at the wall:

    His defenses include fair use, invalid copyrights, a lack of standing, fraudulent inducement, an arbitration clause, failure to state a claim, and unjust enrichment.

    Many of these (in fact, all but the arbitration clause; that’s probably from their TOS but won’t save him) are SovCit arguments and simply do not apply. They’re going to be dismantled in seconds in court, and I know that with at best a slightly-better-than-layperson understanding of the law. This guy is going to get thoroughly Bowser’d.










  • This is not incorrect data, that is the definition of a school incident. A firearm was found in or near a school. It is not a school shooting, but every school shooting begins with a school incident because it is not possible to shoot in a school without a gun near or in the school.

    But this data is not being presented in its entirety as school shooting data, in any instance you’ve cited. Only the data for incidents which involved a shooting in a school is presented as school shooting data.







  • edit: clarified my misunderstanding

    If you want a better source, that’s fine; I don’t have one, I’m not that other guy and I’m not trying to prove anything myself. I just want to know what’s wrong with NPR as a source, or what’s wrong with that particular article.

    I think you might be taking issue with the fact that this guy wants to say the Gun Violence Archive counts non-shooting incidents as shootings? He’s wrong, they don’t; that GVA link points to “school incidents”, where even finding a gun is counted. CNN’s methodology for counting seems reasonable.


  • Sorry bud, I do usually agree with you, but I think you might be in the wrong on this one. Why don’t you find the NPR article convincing that maybe these numbers are might be inflated (edit: didn’t mean to use a declarative statement there)? Are you contending that NPR is misrepresenting the numbers and/or trying to push an agenda? They don’t really have a track record of either as far as I’m aware.

    edit 2: leaving this because it’s still true:

    Looking at the actual scope of an issue isn’t downplaying it. Nor is checking if the reporting is accurate. And accurate reporting (of data, I mean, as opposed to news) is extremely important when passing laws, so it is something to care about.