"First things first, I just want to say the fact that the murderer had 47 guns and 26,000 rounds of ammunition sheds no light on his personality or the crime."
If he regularly shot pictures of women or something sure but owning a lot of guns or buying ammo in bulk isn't really any indication of domestic violence. The son even said there wasn't a history of violence. It seems like the heavy drinking or arguments have more correlation than anything.
Media outlets often cite things like how many guns someone has to freak out people who don't know about guns. All the dude needed to fuck up was a single handgun and a single bullet. If he was drunk he shouldn't have even been carrying. And being drunk isn't really a good argument for why someone got violent.
That is a different statement. It's saying abusers can be more dangerous with a weapon. It does not follow that people who own a weapon are somehow more likely to be an abuser.
To make that argument it would need to say something about what percentage of gun owners commit abuse or some kind violent crime.
You can find higher rates of domestic violence among cops for instance so maybe you could argue cops are more likely to be abusers.
My original statement was that owning a lot of guns wasn't suggestive of anything. The comment suggested there was a "correlation" with owning guns and domestic violence in response.
Correlation isn’t causation. Example, we all have drunk water. Everyone dies at some point. I found correlation that drinking water causes death 100% of the time.
The number of guns isn’t the issue, it’s what he’s choosing to do with them. There are legitimate reasons to own them that are not malicious. Gun collection for example. There are some wacky designs out there. Look up the forgotten weapons YouTube channel for examples.
Violence was a thing before guns existed. If I got stabbed I'm not going to think, "Thank goodness I wasn't shot." I suppose I'll have plenty of to think about it while waiting for the cops to show up though.
Cherry picking and a lack of controling for confounding variables is an issue when people try to make the claim you did. There is also a lot more going on than just gun laws. When normal people don't benefit from our GDP it really isn't a good benchmark for comparable countries. When people have a lack opportunities or lack social programs there will probably be some social problems.
If I had time enough to ponder my injuries after being stabbed, the thought “at least I wasn’t shot” would absolutely cross my mind. But maybe that’s just an American thing
Nobody is claiming the guns invented violence, they’re pointing out how guns turn emotions into murders faster, and with more lethality, that any other form of violence.
Then of course there’s the usual “I will only consider the idea of not selling guns to deeply and blatantly damaged people after you cure every single person in America of every currently incurable mental health issue and build a perfect utopia of equality and free hugs”.
But I’ve got an even better idea: we could just ignore what the gun lobby and pro-gun crowd wants and address things now, without their rubber stamp of approval.
Yeah because having so many guns you literally have a gun on your ankle while also being a belligerent drunk doesn’t prime you more for murder the next time you “lose it”.
Guns make murder literally child’s play. If he wasn’t such an ammo sexual he may have slapped his wife and gotten beaten up by his son and landed in the drunk tank, but because a gun was easier and more available his first round of reported domestic violence was lethal.
IIRC California requires background checks every 6 months to order ammo, and it can only be shipped to licensed ammo dealers, which charge a fee, and then picked up in person. It makes sense for California gun owners to buy bullets in bulk quantities.
Bud get it in your brain: you will not solve the sort of problem that might require 26,000 rounds, as you are not a regimented militia or national guard. If we get invaded by ground troops from Canada or something, and we actually needed to call up militias, the government already has the guns and ammo stockpiled and will drop them off at your door, probably after seizing Amazon under the Defense Production Act.
Again, the problem you think you’re solving with 26,000 rounds isn’t legitimate. You’ve imagined it. You’re not Rick Grimes, you’re “unamed screaming guy 7.”
Well, I wasn’t talking about myself. I do have a moderate quantity of ammo but its a “better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it” philosophy for me.
Also I have some surplus stuff that was super cheap at the time and unobtainable today.
I certainly don’t like the idea of waiting for someone to drop off tools to defend myself as you suggested.
If you are a hobbyist shooter then it is common to buy ammo in bulk. And if you’ve never done competitive shooting or even just going to the range once a month, you may not realize how fast the ammo is used up.
The 10th Amendment grants all police powers to the states unless enumerated otherwise in the Constitution (such as is the case with interstate commerce). And states may not enact laws that supercede federal laws per the Supremacy Clause. This is important when applied to arms as they are protected by the 2A in the Constitution, which is the highest law in the land.
As for general welfare, that’s targeted at federal spending. A common place where it applies is that it empowers the federal government to grant crop subsidies to farmers.
That’s why when someone commits a crime like murder it’s under state jurisdiction. Unless that particular case occurred on federal land or involved cross state travel, then that would become a federal case.
26,000 is a lot, but with no other context it’s not an indicator of “crazy”.
As others have said: ammo is cheaper in bulk. It doesn’t “go bad” if stored properly, and you need different rounds for different guns. And for a while it was hard to find – you stocked up when you found it because you didn’t know when it was going to be available again.
1000 shells of 12 ga – that’s two cases, I have to drive a long way to find them, and I shoot trap every other week. 20ish shells, 12 ga slugs – left over from hunting I have 1050 rounds of 9mm, because I bought 3 cheap boxes of Blazer Brass on sale and that’s what I shoot at the range. 800ish of 7.62x54r – 2 spam cans, for the same reason. Probably 1500ish rounds of .22lr – 3 boxes of 500 rounds… same reason.
I’m not a nut, but if the cops raided my house the headline would be “found with over 4000 rounds of ammunition!!!”
Ammunition prices fluctuate drastically with global and national events. In 2021 when COVID hit 9mm cost roughly 70 cents a round. Today it’s around 19 cents a round. There’s a buy cheap stack deep philosophy practiced when buying ammo.
A competition shooter or someone attending a class can easily shoot 1,000 rounds over a weekend. Buying in large volume when prices are low means that weekend costs $190 not $700.
Get a new hobby? One that doesn’t threaten everyone around you, maybe? Maybe one that’s just overall cheaper.
I have zero problem with hunting, target shooting, collecting. One poster here says they have 4,000 rounds; shoots trap every weekend, buys them on sale. Fine.
This dude had 26,000. That is a compulsion. He thought amassing ammo would solve something for him. Would provide him something he lacked. Probably something subconscious. Some deep-seated fear.
As to the rest of us, it solves nothing legitimate, certainly nothing the Second Amendment was directed toward.
What harm can practically be done by one man with 26,000 that couldn’t be done with 4,000 or half that? If we stick with the 9mm metrics 4,000 rounds would weigh just past 100lb (45 kilos) @ 115g rds. 26,000 rounds of it would be 3-4x the weight of the average man at about 650lbs (294 kilos).
That volume only benefits consistent use over weeks/months/years, something fortunately not found in the cases where people abuse firearms to harm others.
There are multiple articles on this situation. This particular article was written because of the somewhat unique weapons cache. Other articles will be written about mental health, without a doubt
It’s almost like they want to continue to demonize normal gun owners (yes there are dozens of us left leaning gun owners). I’m kind of fucking sick of it but the rich folks that want us disarmed have enough to keep funding the meessages.
You’re not normal if you have 26000 rounds of ammo. I have 5 guns and don’t have 500 rounds. 26000 rounds sounds like someone with a dooms-day mindset preparing for anarchy.
I think it’s relevant to note that someone mentally unwell enough to kill another person (especially their own spouse) was able to hoard such a large amount of weapons.
I guess the rest of us are just lucky that he only wanted to kill one person, instead of several.
Devil’s advocate here. Where is the line? In an extreme example, ADHD is a mental condition so maybe they shouldn’t have guns?
In a more nuanced example, what about the trans community? Some say it’s mental disorder, some don’t. So should they or should they not have any firearms. Highest cause of gun death is actually suicide and trans community has high rate of suicide.
The point I’m making is, I think we can agree some extreme examples are very easy to distinguish. But it is a very slippery slope where people’s rights could be taken away without proper due process. Basically, at the mercy of the current administration’s opinions rather than the actual facts of the situation.
Your examples are extremely dismissive of a link that is actually there. He owned a fuckload of guns and used them to murder his wife. Not only are your crimes less serious, they’re not related to the hobby at all.
Regardless, the people claiming “what’s the big deal, so he owned a bunch of guns” clearly have no idea how it looks outside of pro-gun circles (and outside of America).
If he had been charged with sexual assault and the headline said that he owned a sex doll, you might say “so what?”. If he was charged with sexual assault and he owned 48 sex dolls, you’d be treating it like a red flag.
It’s not a random stat like Pokemon cards. You’re being obtuse. It would be more like “Woman with extensive collection of flares, matches, and gasoline burns down house” and “man who owned numerous police scanners and maps of escape routes evades police.”
The “actual situation” is that he had a collection of 47 weapons that enable murder and he murdered someone with one of them. Your analogies are absurd.
Yeah. I think the previous domestic disputes and alcohol abuse are more relevant to the domestic violence. If he didn’t have a gun, it would have been a fist.
If all content (all content) was paid for by tax dollars, it would not only be ad free, but there wouldn’t be huge companies standing in-between the artist and the consumer as far as getting the artists paid. And it wouldn’t cost that much. Like less than what you pay for having all streaming services simultaneously.
But imagine the controversy a government would receive broadcasting various kinds of content. People deride the BBC as a mouthpiece of whichever party is in power despite immense work making it as impartial as possible
And then we get into the weeds of how do we decide who gets grants? I’m a fairly enthusiastic watcher of Linus Tech Tips, and he discusses that the entertainment tax grants the Canadian Government gives out are so complex that only the largest companies (the ones who do not need the grants) can hire people to navigate the bureaucracy for the tax breaks. Is choosing artists going to be an America’s Got Talent competition? A random draw? What source do we get viewer/listener numbers from?
I would love to resume the federal government’s artist programs like under the New Deal, but the reality is that our culture is more niche and divided than ever. Rather than swing and jazz being unquestionably dominant for music in the days of yore, now we’d have to check and verify every SoundCloud rapper, YouTube artist, and pop-megastar.
Some years ago the BBC itself ordered a study by Nottingham University which did show that the BBC consistently was pro-whatever-party-was-in-Government, so not being pro a specific party but switching from one of the parties of the power duopoly in Britain to the other as they alternated in Government (funnilly enough giving very little airtime to the smaller leftwing-ecologist party and tons of airtime to smaller far-right parties like UKIP).
However that’s about the News, not the rest.
Mind you the BBC also does in it’s contents invariably beautify the view about certain slices of British Society and British History but that’s the same as the 100% private content producers in the US also do, so it doesn’t seem to be an explicitly “Public TV” thing.
Well, I lived in the UK for over a decade, having immigrated there from Portugal via The Netherlands, and was quite shocked after having been there long enough to start paying attention to Politics and Society as a whole, that my image of it that was formed when I was a kid in Portugal in the 80s was very different from the reality I found on the ground in the late 00s and beyond.
There is a huge “keeping up with appearences” strain in (mainly English, worse the higher the social class) British Society that would be seen as hypocrisy in, for example a place like The Netherlands, and that has a huge impact on the BBC because it’s always controlled (both via seats in its Board and those chosen as Editors) by people who come from the english upper classes, so you end up with the kind of things that are important in “Opinion Forming” of the Public (i.e. the News, politically relevant documentaries and such) being carefully managed to produce the “right opinion” (“rightness” being defined by that slice of English society that dominate the BBC’s Board and Editors, so for example they’re unabashedly pro-Monarchy).
Also the UK has Censorship, in the form of what’s called a D-Notice, where the Government can stop the publishing of certain stories if deemed “against the national interest”, plus things like Libel Legislation are extremelly broad and seem designed to stop whistleblowing, to the point that for example some years ago an Ukranian Oligarch sued in the UK an Ukranian newssite which had denounced actions of his in Ukraine, and the case was accepted by the British courts because “the website could be accessed from Britain”.
The result is that the creative and apolitical programs from the BBC are often top-notch whilst the rest is Propaganda, elegantly done and not at all in-your-face (mainly through half-throughts, false dichotomies, uneven selection of speakers for different sides and selective picking of things to report) but still done to “make opinion” not merelly “inform”.
Mind you, this is not just the BBC, though it does manage to be worse in this than the other TV channels in the UK.
Unsurprisingly the British Press is the Press least trusted by the locals in Europe.
Really interesting information! It’s a shame that they’re not as trusted as I thought in Europe, I revere their short-wave long range news broadcast worldwide. It’s an absolute tragedy Associated Press doesn’t do the same
Government funded art has a tendency of being loyal to their patrons, i.e. the government, which stifles the very essence of the art itself. All content is not for every body, due to taste, and interest. You're also talking about doing away with advertising, hahahahahahahaha.
You need to watch the film Cradle Will Rock if that’s what you think.
You should watch it anyway because it’s a great movie, but it’s also based on a true story about people getting government funding and using it to put on a socialist musical, which made the government freak out and shut the show down. That is what would stifle art- not artists being loyal, artists not being allowed to dissent.
Jesus Christ, if my tax dollars were going to the absolute garbage content that’s being currently produced I would personally run for office to repeal that legislation.
And if the quality is so low when billions are on the line, I am terrified of what we would get when it’s government funded. Even now, you don’t need to look far to see how poorly our taxes are spent. Look into how construction companies take advantage of government contacts.
Wife stopped him from committing suicide and he eventually killed her. This dude deserves to be strapped to a cannon so his chest can be blown out. I can’t imagine how their son feels finding out his dad is irredeemable trash who would execute his mother, and basically losing both parents in a night.
And yay, Jesus said unto the people, “I have taken these loaves of bread and water and turned them into a feast for all^1^”
^1^ Does not include anyone with a slightly darker skin tone^2^ or from outside of the greatest country ever^3^ or poor or lame or weak or obese or ugly or that doesn’t fit my perfect description of a person^4^
^2^ Unless that skin tone was achieved through baking oneself under harsh UV rays (real or artificial).
^3^ Obviously I mean the United States. That totally existed in biblical times you pedantic asshole.
^4^ Even if I don’t personally fit this description, this absolutely applies to me as well. I can be fat and poor and worthless, but fuck all you other people struggling with life. Be born better.
You can do any profession on which a company make long term profits on employees’ or freelances’ work. Such as science, programming, business development, etc. Amount of residuals paid is zero ($0.- gross).
Media company want to treat writers and actors as any freelance. The issue is that freelances and employees deserve residuals as actors and writers, but it won’t happen. It is easier to remove existing benefits labeling them as “privileges”, than give more benefits to all
The writers that were paid $3000 in the story wrote 11/134 episodes or 8.2%
The episodes are 42 minutes each, round down 2 minutes for skipped credits, divide 3x10^9 by 40 we get:
75 million episodes streamed (approx)
If they wrote 8.2 % of those streamed, then they wrote 6.15 million individually streamed episodes.
So writers got 0.049c per episode streamed or 0.00012c per minute streamed.
The average American watches 160 minutes of TV Video a day, so round that up to 5000 minutes a month, and say $10 a month per sub on that, we get $10 of revenue for 5000 minutes streamed, or 0.2c per minute.
So streaming revenue (using the above math and assumptions) would be 0.2c per minute of which the writers of the content that was streamed got 0.00012c or 0.06%.
Netflix 2023Q2 revenue was 8.18B and expenses were 6.36B.
I had a friend who was in a musicians union back in the 40s and 50s. Funny thing, I had a dream about him last night and I would’ve forgotten completely had you not made this comment.
He told me a story once. The union got him a gig on television. He was so stoked about it.
He lost half of his thumb in WWII and was very self conscious about it. The host of the show noticed the black cap he used to cover his thumb and asked him about it. He kindly asked the host to avoid making a thing of it and ask that the cameraman avoid shooting it up close.
He stepped out on the stage and the host said, “ladies and gentlemen, here’s Buddy, the thumbless wonder.”
Years and years later that still bothered him. He’s been dead and gone a long time now. He was an awesome dude who ran a guitar shop. His wife left him because he kept giving instruments away and she wanted a better financial future. I used to go to his shop to get strings and half the time he’d say, “They’re on the house buddy. I’ll be dead before they’ll get what I owe ‘em.”
Thanks for sharing this story. That TV host sounds like an unbelievable asshole, no wonder it stuck with your friend for so long. I can’t fathom what would make a person act like that.
I have a cassette full of recordings he gave me somewhere, at least I hope I do. I really need to hunt it and digitize it.
Dude was awesome.
His old guitar shop is now a food pantry. He lived in the back room in that tiny, dusty old shop and constantly had people over playing music. He always loved to see me coming because in Appalachia everyone plays bluegrass and I don’t. He wasn’t a huge fan of “the grass” but he played along any way until he shook too bad to do it. He was practically blown in half in the war and the damage got him down when he was older.
I’d come in and he’d say, “take my strat and show me something.”
I got my first guitar from him (technically my third but it was the one I learned on). A blue Chinese strat copy called a Lotus. I still have it but I need to reassemble it. God, I should do that. I’d love to hear that nasty buzz again. It’s been nearly 20 years since I played that thing.
That reminds me: I have a cassette of parody songs from a local radio station (Fox 97’s Shower Stall Singers) somewhere that might end up lost to history if I don’t find it and upload it.
Considering how few of the episodes they wrote, this seems almost reasonable. It would be a better comparison of we could see how much they make compared to TV reruns or home media sales.
It’s 3k to a few of many writers for 11 total episodes. We don’t know the actual streaming numbers of those exact episodes either. Could they be paid better? Maybe, but no one has compared this to the traditional residuals they did get.
Not that I’m trying to still for the corpo here, but this is a per quarter payment. ~$270 per episode from this single quarter just based on viewers from 2 streaming services. We don’t know how much they’ve got paid in aggregate for this single episode.
Presumably they got something upfront/hourly initially and they’ve been paid residuals for many years, as they did the work in 2011 and episodes have been rerun alot on network tv.
Idk how much is reasonable for the work they did do but it’s certainly been alot more than this small payment.
they’re probably going to make 5k a year for 6 months a work for 30 years from 11 episodes of 1 show. they might be owed more, but there is a ton of missing context around this that passing judgment on what could be a simply outdated contract from before streaming was a major consideration. if this is just a fraction of what an equivalent contribution to a show would have made from TV reruns or home media sales, then there is a conversation to be had, but no one has brought that up.
But we’re not talking about salary here. We’re talking residuals, per quarter, paid on top of the salary they received for the original work.
For a show that is 13 years old. Collecting $6k per quarter for work you did 13 years ago and that you have to do absolutely nothing for anymore seems pretty good to me?
There’s a hell of a lot of working class people who would absolutely love to be getting paid like that. Trying to frame this as the working class vs the rich seems really dishonest. Do TV writers even understand what the working class is, or how much we make? I sure as hell don’t collect $6k per quarter for work I did 13 years ago. If I did, I’d be rich.
Fwiw, the title is intentionally skewed and wrong. I’m not saying writers shouldn’t be upset because they should, but it is making the situation look much worse than it is.
The six original writers were paid $3K each in streaming residuals last quarter for Season 1.
Suits was added to Netflix on June 17th where it streamed for three billion minutes in a single week, June 26 to July 2. Using Nielsen numbers, it streamed for about five billion minutes on Netflix during Q2. Previously it was on Peacock and we don’t have the streaming data for that, but we can assume that it wasn’t anywhere as much. Using the most recent data through July 16, it was seen for a total of 12.8 billion minutes.
Streaming services also doesn’t pay residuals based on minutes watched, but based on a complicated formula.
Suits episodes are 42 minutes long, meaning the base annual residual is $10,034. Netflix US has more than 150M subscribers, so the subscriber factor is 150%. Their initial streaming residual payment would be $15K per episode.
However, that is just the initial payment Netflix needs to make. Subsequent payments for the actual streaming rights per year are adjusted down. This is the first year on Netflix so the residual factor is 45%. This makes the base annual payment $7,448.
Now, the show was on Netflix for 14 days during the last quarter, making their Q2 residual $286. WGA also imposes a 1.5% union due plus $25 per quarter. This brings the payment per episode down to $256.
I heard this cancer therapy installs 5G tracking chips so the Clintons can listen to your conversations. Ha! Nice try libs! Too bad conservatives are too smart to fall for it!
they collected $149k, donated $10k to the food back and kept the rest. now the DA is making them pay $50k. which leaves $89k net profit? seems like a lucrative business model.
If there is a way to kill a vulnerable person, a conservative will find it.
Do your part to combat conservatism. Exclude conservatives from your daily life. There is no place in polite society for such vile, grotesque villains.
Sure, ALL conservatives are grotesque villains who love killing vulnerable people… Some people should hear themselves speak, smh. Username checks out I guess.
And your solution is to shame and dehumanize the entire conservative community into submission/irrelevance? Labelling everyone on your right a villain, nazi, fascist or whatever solves absolutely nothing and kills any attempt at honest discourse.
I’m sorry but hardly anything you said about conservatives in this thread was in good faith. Otherwise, kindly point me to any moderate conservative casually calling themself a villain.
Everything I have said in this thread has been factual. I am not attempting to convince you of anything. I am pointing out the harmful, grotesque nature of conservatism. You disagree. I understand. Thank you for your feedback.
You are now free to return to stormfront or nambla or wherever conservatives like to hang out these days.
There it is, calling me a conservative without any proof. Good job grouping me with all the other “villains”. Nevermind that I’m a life-long leftie who understands nuance.
Aight, it’s getting late here. Good luck with that two party system of yours. Seems to work out great for you! Go extremism!
So you’re saying that you oppose the people removing the water then, right? How about J6? Do you believe it was a coup attempt by Trump and his compatriots, and they should all be held accountable? I have yet to meet a Conservative that does not dance around the subject. Please show me that I’m wrong.
Of course it's not all conservatives, but it's enough conservatives that do (or support, donate to, etc) shit like this that cause people to die, one way or another.
Instead of crying about it why don't you go after your fellow conservatives about the shit they do instead of others for calling it out.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.