Target rich environment
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Using that logic, the whole article posted is irrelevant because we don't know who wrote it or their level of experience and knowledge of the subject matter. Someone at least had the good sense to not take ownership of this turd journalism.
That is certainly a possibility. The more I think about that, the more I believe it to be true. Add to that the fact that no author was listed is certainly suspicious. Even the webpage title is suspicious and confusing: the Right to Bear (insert lightning bolt connecting the word Bear to a long gun here). The right to bear? Bear as in belonging to the Ursidae family? Bear as in to carry (guns)?
I now believe the article and the comments that followed were all a hoax by a bunch of liberal college kids designed to discredit 2nd Amendment supporters. The whole piece reeks of liberal wackydoodlism. The original poster was either duped into perpetuating this turd journalism by these liberal college students or is in fact one of those wacky liberal gun grabbers undercover as a wacky conservative gun nut.
It was the content of the article that inspired me to reply to the OP. (Post #2) I am curious as to what content of the article do you disagree with?
Your comprehension of the article wasn't obvious to me because you responded to my post with a link about the psychiatrist shooting a crazy. It had nothing to do with my response to the OP which was about an article purporting to be pro 2nd Amendment but came off as discrediting gun supporters. The article makes an issue of a none issue. It is poorly written, sensational, crap. Target has not banned guns. John Mulligan, said in a statement issued Wednesday. “Starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.”
Last edited:
Apparently you need emoticons to detect sarcasm.
More "responsible" than the public at large since people get all kinds of things stolen from vehicles all the time - the most popular being laptops/iPads, GPS devices, cell phones and car registrations. Guns aren't even on the list.
Ten Things Most Likely to Be Stolen from Your Car - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
You may think you're learning a lot from readers' comments if you place a high value on gossip and unfounded assertions from unknown sources. But if you enjoy that sort of thing, feeling good is what counts.You can learn a lot from the readers' comments, including their level of knowledge & expertise on any given subject. You might even learn something, sometimes - if you don't think you already know it all, that is.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Another steaming pile of fine "product" from Logical Fallacy Central ... lol ...Apparently you need emoticons to detect sarcasm.
More "responsible" than the public at large since people get all kinds of things stolen from vehicles all the time - the most popular being laptops/iPads, GPS devices, cell phones and car registrations. Guns aren't even on the list.
Ten Things Most Likely to Be Stolen from Your Car - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
You may think you're learning a lot from readers' comments if you place a high value on gossip and unfounded assertions from unknown sources. But if you enjoy that sort of thing, feeling good is what counts.
That might be true had the comments referred to by the OP in addition to the article. Maybe some people consider comments to be part of an article nowadays - most people don't. Personally, I don't give a d*mn about the comments following any article. However, I agree that it's a bit strange that the entire website including its articles is anonymous - no names listed as editor, administrator, etc anywhere.
Here ya go:
"For example, as soon as Target announced they’d strongly prefer for their customers to leave their guns at home, they were inundated with criminals who began to rob unsuspecting, unarmed customers at their stores."
"In target enrichment zones criminals can rape, pillage, and murder with impunity."
I posted the article about the gun-toting doctor because your comprehension of the point of the OP wasn't obvious to me. I also disagree with the idea that it provides fodder for the anti 2d amendment fanatics; idealists like that don't need fodder. At any rate, I've made my points, supported them with a couple of articles, and am finished beating this dead horse.
Well, being an old fart with no knees, use your walking cane.
Fortunately, as we age so does the chances of being attacked. If you can survive just 2 more years to age 65, the chances of being attacked drop to miniscule levels.
Of course, if at 65 you choose to go into a high crime neighborhood in Detroit at 2300 on a Saturday night looking to buy drugs then your risk for violence might slightly increase a tad.
Exactly. The National Crime Survey, which surveys all crime (versus FBI stats which are only reported crimes) breaks it all down among race, sex, age, geography, etc. Granted, it includes fights between 13 year olds after school, but that can be helpful, as well. Like, women who are victims of violent crime knew their attacker 70% of the time, which indicates that if you are careful about who you associate with you can dramatically reduce your chances of being attacked. Like you said, avoiding dangerous situations is the best defense.
Incidentally, 3 of the most 25 dangerous neighborhoods in America are in Detroit.
The way to avoid getting struck by lightning on the lake is to make sure you are in an all-metal boat instead of a fiberglass boat. The metal will attract the lightning away from you and protect you from it.Now, one thing is for sure, IF I am out on Lake Erie my chances are much greater of getting struck by lighting if I believe NOAA weather predictions.
Do you know the difference between people classified as "liberal college students posing as dumb crackers" and most Bloggers?
None whatsoever.
You may think you're learning a lot from Bloggers comments if you place a high value on gossip and unfounded assertions from unknown sources. But if you enjoy that sort of thing, feeling good is what counts.
"Fortunately, as we age so does the chances of being attacked. If you can survive just 2 more years to age 65, the chances of being attacked drop to miniscule levels."
I am not so sure I agree with this one. Going just on what I see on the news of late there seems to be an increase of the number of attacks on seniors, not only on the streets but in their homes as well. Like the predator going after the weak/sick.
Those numbers you are quoting are by nature a bit "biased". By that I mean that younger people, as in teens through mid 20's, often put themselves into positions that can lead to problems. Older people learn not to do that.
It would be interesting to see stats on deliberate attacks on older people. I would bet that, at least in SE Michigan, those numbers are on the rise.
My boat is metal, they handle ice far better than glass or wood does.
I am not so sure I agree with this one. Going just on what I see on the news of late there seems to be an increase of the number of attacks on seniors, not only on the streets but in their homes as well. Like the predator going after the weak/sick.
Those numbers you are quoting are by nature a bit "biased". By that I mean that younger people, as in teens through mid 20's, often put themselves into positions that can lead to problems. Older people learn not to do that.
It would be interesting to see stats on deliberate attacks on older people. I would bet that, at least in SE Michigan, those numbers are on the rise.
My boat is metal, they handle ice far better than glass or wood does.
Those are the ones that manke headlines, the ones people pay attention to, the ones that stick in our minds. But the numbers are there.
Well, they're not really biased in any political sense, because they are simply the numbers of reality. They are survey numbers of all violence, as opposed to criminal violence that actually gets reported and cataloged by the FBI. They simply show the chances of being involved in violence depending on a large number of circumstances.
That would certainly stand to reason, since the number of older people are also on the rise. It's the number per capita that really matters.
Ice? Inside or outside the boat?
"Ice? Inside or outside the boat?"
Both. In late duck season we often have to deal with ice. Glass boats don't handle ice all that well. Had major problems with ice last season.
I am not sure you understood what I meant by "biased". I did not mean it is the political sense. I meant that young people tend to get themselves into situations that can lead to violence more often than older people. Just because the older tent to have learned what to stay away from.
I understand the number per 100K. That is what is so disturbing about the numbers I posted for Monroe county. They continue to rise.
Both. In late duck season we often have to deal with ice. Glass boats don't handle ice all that well. Had major problems with ice last season.
I am not sure you understood what I meant by "biased". I did not mean it is the political sense. I meant that young people tend to get themselves into situations that can lead to violence more often than older people. Just because the older tent to have learned what to stay away from.
I understand the number per 100K. That is what is so disturbing about the numbers I posted for Monroe county. They continue to rise.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Aren't you the fellow who was always going on about the "news" not reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ?
Apparently you need emoticons to detect sarcasm.Or you do, since I was just throwing it back at you.
More "responsible" than the public at large since people get all kinds of things stolen from vehicles all the time - the most popular being laptops/iPads, GPS devices, cell phones and car registrations. Guns aren't even on the list.You can spin it however you wish, but leaving a weapon in an unlocked vehicle is extremely irresponsible. If 2nd Amendment supporters want to be considered responsible, they need to walk the walk, and stop making excuses for those who treat a weapon with the same "it's replaceable" attitude as their cellphone, laptop, etc.
You may think you're learning a lot from readers' comments if you place a high value on gossip and unfounded assertions from unknown sources. But if you enjoy that sort of thing, feeling good is what counts.
What I enjoy is reading different viewpoints. And just like right here, it's not too hard to figure out whether the writer has anything of value to contribute.
The "unfounded assertions from unknown sources" jibe is pretty funny, considering that's precisely how I'd describe the 'article' you stated your complete agreement with.
For starters, the contention that the "left" has created the 'target enrichment zones' - I seem to recall their proliferating shortly after the right to carry nuts began openly parading their weapons in fast food restaurants, thereby scaring the bejeebers out of the other customers.
Oooh, a whole lotta incomprehension goin' here. I will walk you through how I reached my decision to my reply (post#2) to the original post.
I was scrolling through E.O. threads when I came upon this thread title: Target rich environment. I wasn't sure what a target rich environment was, so I proceeded to investigate. I came upon this link: How the Left Is Creating Dangerous ?Target Enrichment Zones?
I questioned the use of question marks (pun intended) in the link. Why a question mark after dangerous? Why the question mark at the end of the link? It was prefaced by a typical (for the OP) reference to the left. I clicked on the link and found the masthead: the Right to Bear. The word Bear was connected to a lightning bolt, which was connected to (holding?) a long gun.
Knowing the OP to be an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and of other parts of the Constitution he likes, I figured I was about to read a piece in favor of gun rights activists. Then I read the line under the masthead. In smaller type it stated: In Defense of Your God Given Rights. I found that amusing along with the ad for: Build Your Own AR-15 "Off The Books?" There it is again. Another mysterious question mark. Had this link been presented by almost anyone other than the OP, I would have suspected it came from a satirical source like the Onion.
I read on. I learned that a "Target Enrichment Zone" is the same as a "Gun Free Zone". Each side must add its own spin. Fair enough. I came to the Target (as in Target Stores) announcement. Hmmm, an ostensibly pro-gun article, with a picture of target, targeting Target as a zone where criminals can target shoppers to rape, pillage and plunder with impunity. An Onionesque vibe wafted through my mind.
The piece stated: "Target announced they'd strongly prefer for their customers to leave their guns at home". Of course the author didn't provide a link to the actual Target statement. After reading the entire article and the disturbing comments that followed, I read the Target news release. The interim CEO said: "Target respectfully requests that guests not bring firearms to Target." I guess it is acceptable to substitute "strongly prefer" for "respectfully request" when you have an important point to make.
The article went on to point out that Target was "inundated with criminals who began to rob unsuspecting, unarmed customer at their stores." Inundated? Yet they only cited two incidents.
To conclude-
Major Premise: This article was poorly written and nobody took credit for it by listing an author's name. It only presented crap to make the absurd point that shopping at Target is very dangerous.
Minor Premise: Crap stinks.
Conclusion: This article reeked, therefore it is crap. QED
A fanatic is a fanatic; whether they be an anti-2nd Amendment fanatic or a pro-2nd Amendment fanatic. Turd journalism to make a point is turd journalism; whether it comes from the right or the left.
emlm
Just so you know, the odd placement of the question marks if a quirk of UNICODE, ASCII and UTM Codes. UTM codes are little snippets of text added to the end of a URL to help track the success of the site's content on the web. An example of UTM codes is highlighted in the URL below:
http://blog.hubspot.com/9-reasons-you-cant-resist-list?utm_campaign=blogpost &utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
There are five things you can track in UTM Codes: Campaign, Source, Medium, Content, and Term.
In the case of the OP link, it is tracking Source and Campaign:
[noparse]http://therighttobear.com/how-the-left-is-creating-dangerous-target-enrichment-zones/?utm_source=140724RTB&utm_campaign=140724RTB[/noparse]
In this case, the source, 140724RTB, references the actual title of the piece when rendering pasted URLs at other sites, for tracking purposes. However, in the original piece there are not question marks, there are instead quotation marks. It's not a question mark after "dangerous," it's a quotation mark before "Target." Same with the end of the link.
A plaintext quotation mark (UNICODE U+0022) is not allowed in URLs. If you want to have an actual quotation mark in a URL, you must encode it with (%22). This is something that requires some knowledge, and prior planning, and a penchant for details.
Most people don't much care about such things, so it shouldn't be surprising that someone who pumps out turd journalism with inaccurate details will pump out turd HTML coding, as well.
http://blog.hubspot.com/9-reasons-you-cant-resist-list?utm_campaign=blogpost &utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
There are five things you can track in UTM Codes: Campaign, Source, Medium, Content, and Term.
In the case of the OP link, it is tracking Source and Campaign:
[noparse]http://therighttobear.com/how-the-left-is-creating-dangerous-target-enrichment-zones/?utm_source=140724RTB&utm_campaign=140724RTB[/noparse]
In this case, the source, 140724RTB, references the actual title of the piece when rendering pasted URLs at other sites, for tracking purposes. However, in the original piece there are not question marks, there are instead quotation marks. It's not a question mark after "dangerous," it's a quotation mark before "Target." Same with the end of the link.
A plaintext quotation mark (UNICODE U+0022) is not allowed in URLs. If you want to have an actual quotation mark in a URL, you must encode it with (%22). This is something that requires some knowledge, and prior planning, and a penchant for details.
Most people don't much care about such things, so it shouldn't be surprising that someone who pumps out turd journalism with inaccurate details will pump out turd HTML coding, as well.
OK, the horse still has a pulse because there's obviously something I need to clarify, or perhaps re-emphasize. My post #3 was not a response to your post #2 - notice you were not quoted in it. It was a reply to the thread in an effort to better state the point in the OP that I assumed the turd journalist was trying to make: gun-free zones don't accomplish their intended purpose. I supported that assertion with the article about the gun-toting psychiatrist and later followed that up with another post and article from USA Today written by a PhD from UT which linked to a study on the same subject done by two other PhDs. I thought the "gun-free zones" topic was worth discussing; turd journalism - not so much.
Clearly there is far more turd journalism than there are "gun-free zones." It doesn't make much difference whether a place is a gun-free or just loaded-with-guns to a shooter, despite the gross misconceptions on both sides of that one. It's absolutely hilarious that people think (and they really and truly believe this) that if you prohibit guns at a location, it will eliminate violence, gun violence in particular at that location. It's almost (almost) as hilarious as those who think gun-free zones will result in an increase of violence, gun violence in particular, and that if only someone there had a gun then violence could be eliminated or mitigated. Oh, sure, there are isolated exceptions that people on both sides will point to as proof of their belief, as if the exception to the rule is somehow, as if by magic, going to prove the rule.
Just think of how stupid the average person is. And then you realize that's average. Half of them are even stupider.
Which brings me back to the turd journalism that people read and believe at face value. Really?
Just think of how stupid the average person is. And then you realize that's average. Half of them are even stupider.
Which brings me back to the turd journalism that people read and believe at face value. Really?
