theyoyomaster

Most of the truly ridiculous knife laws are in states with equally ridiculous gun laws. A few have been challenged under 2A grounds with some degree of success but it just isn't being pursued that much.

What does the article say? I’m on mobile and even with DNS Adblock all I get is a super loud Ford commercial that links me away from the article if I try to stop it.

The media are absolutely working together to push specific political viewpoints. This specific manifesto being blocked fits perfectly with the openly stated political goals of the majority of media in the US.

They are released very quickly if they fit the desired political narrative, just look at the buffalo shooter and how quickly every major news article dove into his manifesto as soon as they got their hands on it. If and when it can be used to promote a specific view it is released, if it doesn’t promote the correct view it sits for a while until they can figure out how to spin it or the hype dies down and if it hurts the desired view it is blocked like this one.

I would also suggest that you never speak or write any of these assholes’ real names. The notoriety is what they seek and every time a stranger mentions them by name they get their wish.

How is this different from any other shooting where there is a manifesto left behind? This is nothing new and it is very common that they are released very shortly after the shooting.

Cool, so your entire post was calling out the bot for not including a word that doesn't appear anywhere in the article and isn't correct for describing what is stated in the article. Got it. Not really sure what you're getting at here, are you mad at the bot for not lying to make it fit your views on the conflict? 300 isn't the "unintended" figure, it is the total figure. It's also an average for a wildly varying number across the last several months. Any way you look at it though it doesn't represent only "unintended" deaths because that is literally not what the article says.

Yeah, the article doesn’t specify 300 civilian deaths, it’s all encompassing. Casualties also includes injuries, not just deaths.

Where does it say 300 “unintended” casualties a day? The only reference I can find in the article is an average of 300 a day total.

So if a dog is 10% pit bull, 20% German shepherd, 10% beagle 15% husky, 20% lab, 5% golden and 10% Belgian Malinois it counts towards “pit bulls” but no other breed? Got it. It’s almost like another form of historical discrimination by race said any percentage counts as belonging to the undesired race that is being targeted…

“Of unidentifiable dogs that have average dog characteristics we attributed generic criteria that meet any number of breeds but also fit the specific ones we wanted to target with our predetermined conclusion prior to executing this study. We were able to validate our desired outcome with this specific targeting.” #Science!

That is simply not true. More injuries are attributed to “pit bull type” breeds but that is far different from “more human attacks.” It’s also wildly tainted since it’s based on self reporting and any time it’s not an obvious German shepherd, husky or golden (etc) if someone can’t quite guess what it is most people are predisposed to assuming pit bull because of bigots like you that just hate the breed.

Small dogs like chihuahuas are far more likely to attack humans than pit bulls, although serious injury is less likely for smaller breeds. Even that is skewed based on human factors and handling since small dogs like chihuahuas are often carted around and over handled with complete disregard for their comfort or tolerance level because they’re “pocket sized” and too many assholes have no problem just picking them up whether they want it or not.

The only thing your link shows is that the majority of unknown large dogs that caused injuries were assumed to be pit bulls by one person or another.