Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

the core problem is people wanting to kill other people isn't it ?

studies have shown 3 reasons people kill other people ... IIRC its Lust, Financial gain and revenge although I think there is another or two as well. 

how do you stop those people? we do stop them - often - with people reporting, people self defending, police catching them before etc etc. but as with anything in a free society, you're not going to stop 100% of them. We have hundreds of common sense gun laws to stop them. We have security at many places to stop them. Stopping them BEFORE they act - well, we live in a free country, and that's hard to do with people having Rights and Liberties isn't it ? 

 

We know that with all the other examples of the ways people kill other people - its collateral damage, its acceptable to have tens of thousands of deaths in order to have freedoms

commonalities on shooters - what % of murderers are convicted felons? what % are on mind bending medications? what % are muslims where their religion plays a part in the murders? what % are illegal drug related?

there are a lot of things that go into murderers doing their evils .... then you have anomalies like Paddock and the NFL player ... those murderers are very hard to stop

 

 

Do you have the answers to these questions, or are you just throwing out stuff?    What exactly are "mind bending medications?"

Your posts feel very much like you don't know the %s and answers, but are very convinced that these things are the contributing factors.  

 

So of the above bolded, what do you suggest we do with these groups?   Do we not allow them access to guns?  Get them treatment?  Lock them up?  Just monitor them, what?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, -fish- said:

Yeah, it's still the same.  That ban was a reaction to the Sandy Hook school shooting, and then it was tested in court by the NRA.  They banned assault weapons and high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds).  All other guns remain legal.

nobody really ever used AR15s etc in CT shootings/murders before Sandy Hook or after  - the ban literally only impacted law abiding citizens

crime/murder/violence hasn't changed much at all has it?   hoooray CT .... ya'll did nothing

I found 3 "mass" shootings in CT ...   2 out of 3 were with handguns - and BTW Lanza (seriously mentally ill) .... had handguns along with a rifle (most mass shooters do)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Connecticut

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Do you have the answers to these questions, or are you just throwing out stuff?    What exactly are "mind bending medications?"

Your posts feel very much like you don't know the %s and answers, but are very convinced that these things are the contributing factors.  

 

So of the above bolded, what do you suggest we do with these groups?   Do we not allow them access to guns?  Get them treatment?  Lock them up?  Just monitor them, what?  

if you are on medications that alter your personality, add to suicidal thoughts, add to depression .... bend your mind ..... I'd say you probably don't need to drive a car, vote, or buy a gun. You're not mentally sound and you could endanger yourself and others

do you agree ?  

how about first we define who is doing these murders - then we can set an action plan

so i ask you - what is the breakdown on murders in the USA - blacks, white, men, women, urban, rural ..... and then, the motivation behind? drug deals, are those people felons, are they poor ...

when those profiling's are set and we know who's doing these things - then we can action plan

 

deal ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

For those who are Pro 2A, I have nothing against dkp993, but the point I want to make in general is

1) If you are going to lose some guns, at least have some say in which guns are lost. This is the basis of why a trade, while unsavory, is realistic. It's not always about what we want, even if it's not fair, but what we can practically get and coexist in a larger society that will always be a majority of non gun owners.

2) Giving up nearly all handguns sounds insane, but look how it ends the argument. When the argument ends, the other side is going to listen. Some will say this is not fair, of course it's not always fair, but what works here? It's about what works.

3) Pro 2A would do better to talk to many non gun owners in a manner that is not geared toward talking to others who are Pro 2A and existing gun owners. Many non gun owners simply don't understand. It's not their path. It's understandable, esp those who are parents, to fear what they don't completely understand. We must live as examples in all things, be above reproach in all things and approach non gun owners in the communication style that will work, even if it's not always fair or desirable

I'm done giving and giving - I will not give up anything else that only affects me the gun owner. We've done this dance for years - giving up this and that and this and that and the liberal Democrat's promise it'll save lives and stop murders/violence and it don't do a damn thing

so no - I'll give nothing anymore

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but the President of the U.S. is making false gun law related statements:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/08/joe-biden/gun-policy-address-joe-biden-was-wrong-about-backg/

Even a left leaning fact checker admits it.  It seems to me that if you're trying to get something done lying about the problem shouldn't be necessary.  You lie when you can't make a cogent argument to support your position.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John123 said:

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but the President of the U.S. is making false gun law related statements:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/08/joe-biden/gun-policy-address-joe-biden-was-wrong-about-backg/

Even a left leaning fact checker admits it.  It seems to me that if you're trying to get something done lying about the problem shouldn't be necessary.  You lie when you can't make a cogent argument to support your position.

 

I dont know. His statement is pretty accurate. If you go to a gun show, and don't want to submit to a background check, there are as many non licensed dealers as licensed ones for you to choose from. I suppose you can't always get any and every gun from a non licensed dealer at a show, but I imagine that is pretty rare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

nobody really ever used AR15s etc in CT shootings/murders before Sandy Hook or after  - the ban literally only impacted law abiding citizens

crime/murder/violence hasn't changed much at all has it?   hoooray CT .... ya'll did nothing

I found 3 "mass" shootings in CT ...   2 out of 3 were with handguns - and BTW Lanza (seriously mentally ill) .... had handguns along with a rifle (most mass shooters do)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Connecticut

 

I was just reading an article b/c I was curious what, if any, effect the Conn ban had.   LINK

“If you look the homicide rate, I think it worked out that there were 92 gun homicides per year in Connecticut on average,” Pinciaro said. “Last year -- 2016 -- there were 53.”

That’s the lowest homicide rate ever, according to state data, and Connecticut has one of the lowest gun death rates in the nation.

 

I don't know if that holds still since it was a 2017 article, but a 40%+ drop in gun homicides is a good result.  The article also goes on to say that gun sales were actually up.  :shrug: 

 

Edited by KarmaPolice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if you are on medications that alter your personality, add to suicidal thoughts, add to depression .... bend your mind ..... I'd say you probably don't need to drive a car, vote, or buy a gun. You're not mentally sound and you could endanger yourself and others

do you agree ?  

how about first we define who is doing these murders - then we can set an action plan

so i ask you - what is the breakdown on murders in the USA - blacks, white, men, women, urban, rural ..... and then, the motivation behind? drug deals, are those people felons, are they poor ...

when those profiling's are set and we know who's doing these things - then we can action plan

 

deal ?

No, I don't agree. 

Do you understand the % of the US population that this would cover?    So, not only did you just take away the right to a gun for probably 1/2 the US population, you also just denied them the right to vote and now they can't have a car to get a job (that you also think is very important).  These are law abiding citizens.  

As for the 2nd part, we've gone down that path before, and the answer depends on what types of shooting you are talking about.  The most common thing you are going to find is that the vast majority is male.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, the moops said:

I dont know. His statement is pretty accurate. If you go to a gun show, and don't want to submit to a background check, there are as many non licensed dealers as licensed ones for you to choose from. I suppose you can't always get any and every gun from a non licensed dealer at a show, but I imagine that is pretty rare. 

I posted a link to a left leaning "fact checker", that actually researched the issue and concluded he wasn't telling the truth.  One would think you'd accept that as reasonable proof.  But I guess I should know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John123 said:

I posted a link to a left leaning "fact checker", that actually researched the issue and concluded he wasn't telling the truth.  One would think you'd accept that as reasonable proof.  But I guess I should know better.

You should maybe check your link before you bust too many balls.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John123 said:

:shrug:

Doesn't work for me

"Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!

You’ve followed a link to a page that doesn’t exist. Truth-O-Meter rating? True! Please use the navigation or search box above or try starting over from our main page.

Don’t worry, we’ve notified someone that this page is missing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

No, I don't agree. 

Do you understand the % of the US population that this would cover?    So, not only did you just take away the right to a gun for probably 1/2 the US population, you also just denied them the right to vote and now they can't have a car to get a job (that you also think is very important).  These are law abiding citizens.  

As for the 2nd part, we've gone down that path before, and the answer depends on what types of shooting you are talking about.  The most common thing you are going to find is that the vast majority is male.  

Half the population? :lmao:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, parrot said:

Doesn't work for me

"Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!

You’ve followed a link to a page that doesn’t exist. Truth-O-Meter rating? True! Please use the navigation or search box above or try starting over from our main page.

Don’t worry, we’ve notified someone that this page is missing."

I've checked it in my original post, as well as the post where Moops quoted me, and on multiple computers..  Works fine for me in all those places.  Moops didn't complain that the lnk didn't work.  Maybe it's not the link......

Am I free to continue busting balls now?

Edited by John123
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, John123 said:

I posted a link to a left leaning "fact checker", that actually researched the issue and concluded he wasn't telling the truth.  One would think you'd accept that as reasonable proof.  But I guess I should know better.

It’s a false statement. But it’s a pretty minor one. 
 

Biden said that no gun show sales require background checks. That’s not true. It’s only private sales at gun shows that don’t require background checks; that’s what is meant by the “gun show loophole.” Biden made a mistake; I strongly doubt it was deliberate because it makes no sense to be deliberate. In any case I’d you want to criticize his gun policies you’re going to need something a little more substantial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, parrot said:

Doesn't work for me

"Here's a fact: You ended up in the wrong place!

You’ve followed a link to a page that doesn’t exist. Truth-O-Meter rating? True! Please use the navigation or search box above or try starting over from our main page.

Don’t worry, we’ve notified someone that this page is missing."

Works for me.  Perhaps it you.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, John123 said:

I've checked it in my original post, as well as the post where Moops quoted me, and on multiple computers..  Works fine for me in all those places.  Moops didn't complain that the lnk didn't work.  Maybe it's not the link......

Don't know.  I tried it in two different browsers and got the same message.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I was just reading an article b/c I was curious what, if any, effect the Conn ban had.   LINK

“If you look the homicide rate, I think it worked out that there were 92 gun homicides per year in Connecticut on average,” Pinciaro said. “Last year -- 2016 -- there were 53.”

That’s the lowest homicide rate ever, according to state data, and Connecticut has one of the lowest gun death rates in the nation.

 

I don't know if that holds still since it was a 2017 article, but a 40%+ drop in gun homicides is a good result.  The article also goes on to say that gun sales were actually up.  :shrug: 

 

the nation has had falling homocide rates - the results had nothing to do with the bans on the guns that literally nobody used for murders 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

It’s a false statement. But it’s a pretty minor one. 
 

Biden said that no gun show sales require background checks. That’s not true. It’s only private sales at gun shows that don’t require background checks; that’s what is meant by the “gun show loophole.” Biden made a mistake; I strongly doubt it was deliberate because it makes no sense to be deliberate. In any case I’d you want to criticize his gun policies you’re going to need something a little more substantial. 

So Biden got his words wrong, again?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, parrot said:

Don't know.  I tried it in two different browsers and got the same message.   

Don’t worry about it. It’s a non story anyhow. 
 

The big story from yesterday, perhaps, is that some Republican lawmakers are open to closing the private sales loophole. That’s a really good sign. Couple that with 75% public support and we might actually get something done this time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tonydead said:

So Biden got his words wrong, again?  

He always will. He’s had a stuttering problem since childhood, and he tends to be overly passionate. What’s important is that he’s getting his decisions right. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

No, I don't agree. 

Do you understand the % of the US population that this would cover?    So, not only did you just take away the right to a gun for probably 1/2 the US population, you also just denied them the right to vote and now they can't have a car to get a job (that you also think is very important).  These are law abiding citizens.  

As for the 2nd part, we've gone down that path before, and the answer depends on what types of shooting you are talking about.  The most common thing you are going to find is that the vast majority is male.  

so you don't want to take away citizens constitutional right? or severely restrict them?  

see that's what I mean - the anti-gun and no-gun people do NOT want to give anything up in order to make society safer .... they just want other people to give things up

how convenient

 

ok - so we've set a baseline

lets assume most murderers are men

now - is there any indications of what kinds of men? rural? urban? color of skin, religion, mental stability etc? involved in drugs, maybe they're felons or have multiple convictions ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

He always will. He’s had a stuttering problem since childhood, and he tends to be overly passionate. What’s important is that he’s getting his decisions right. 

The stuttering excuse again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

the nation has had falling homocide rates - the results had nothing to do with the bans on the guns that literally nobody used for murders 

Has the nation as a whole also seen a 40%+ drop in gun homicide rates? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

65% or more of the public want a ban on assault weapons, but that’s unlikely for now. More Dems will have to get elected first because Republicans are too beholden to the more extreme elements of the pro-gun crowd to ever agree to this. Eventually, hopefully. For now we’ll have to settle for universal background checks. It will still be a significant and positive development. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

How many people do you think are on meds that could alter personality, have side effects of depression or suicidal thoughts? 

 

Just about every drug commercial lists that as a possible side effect.  Not sure about actual percentages...but id guess half (of adults at least) isn't that far off

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

so you don't want to take away citizens constitutional right? or severely restrict them?  

see that's what I mean - the anti-gun and no-gun people do NOT want to give anything up in order to make society safer .... they just want other people to give things up

how convenient

 

ok - so we've set a baseline

lets assume most murderers are men

now - is there any indications of what kinds of men? rural? urban? color of skin, religion, mental stability etc? involved in drugs, maybe they're felons or have multiple convictions ?

 

Part one goes both ways.  I have never said I want to take away your rights.   On the flip side you are always saying that the gun owners are law abiding citizens, so why deny them their guns - but you just said you would be fine taking guns from more law abiding citizens than any AR ban would do.   

The bolded is what we have gone around and around about, and the answer is no.   Talking about the mall/school type shooings, -there were about a dozen (if at all) mental illnesses cited, a couple different religions, different ethnicities, jail/no jail, etc.   Gang/inner city there might be more of a focused group, but we also have admitted that isn't what people normally talk about with mass shootings.   Important to try to problem solve, but just making that distinction that those solutions won't impact the types of shootings we saw in Colorado or Atl.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Just about every drug commercial lists that as a possible side effect.  Not sure about actual percentages...but id guess half (of adults at least) isn't that far off

Correct.  And the things we see when we look at the list of shooters - ADHD, anxiety, PTSD, etc.  are very common things that many people suffer from.  So my point to SC and others has always been that if you say to deny guns to all these people, you would basically be denying guns to a majority of the population  - including military vets.   Also, they are law abiding citizens.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Has the nation as a whole also seen a 40%+ drop in gun homicide rates? 

the nation as a whole has seen murder/violence trending down for decades now 

CT has always been lower in violence/murder hasn't it? Nobody ever used rifles to kill in CT - that's a fact isn't it? And so when some kinds were banned it was very easy to say "look, nobody is killing people with rifles now !!"

truth is - they never did 

the ban impacted law abiding legal people .... and didn't make a hill of beans difference on violence/murderers/criminals 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

How many people do you think are on meds that could alter personality, have side effects of depression or suicidal thoughts? 

 

Some simple googling and little reading tells me that number would be 13 to 18%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Correct.  And the things we see when we look at the list of shooters - ADHD, anxiety, PTSD, etc.  are very common things that many people suffer from.  So my point to SC and others has always been that if you say to deny guns to all these people, you would basically be denying guns to a majority of the population  - including military vets.   Also, they are law abiding citizens.  

oh I'm banning more than just guns

no driving, no voting, no sealed medical records ..... man if these people are really the dangerous ones, don't we need to really get them out of society ?

my post obviously isn't that serious - but see how quickly ya'll bristle when we start talking about removing rights that people would have to give up who don't own guns?

 

give me something - as a gun owner ...... give me something non-gun owners will give up, a Right, a Freedom .... something .... that'll make violence/murder better

anything?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

The bolded is what we have gone around and around about, and the answer is no.   Talking about the mall/school type shooings, -there were about a dozen (if at all) mental illnesses cited, a couple different religions, different ethnicities, jail/no jail, etc.   Gang/inner city there might be more of a focused group, but we also have admitted that isn't what people normally talk about with mass shootings.   Important to try to problem solve, but just making that distinction that those solutions won't impact the types of shootings we saw in Colorado or Atl.

what if we looked and found there IS no pattern?  Many mass murders would pass any background check we threw at them

then what?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, parrot said:

I can't wait to see the political fallout when we tell all the women on birth control that they can't drive or vote anymore so we can keep ARs available for sale over the counter.  :popcorn:

hey, if we can keep people safer and just save a life - isn't it worth it ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, John123 said:

The stuttering excuse again? 

It’s not an excuse. Choosing to golf instead of doing the job is an excuse, and a terrible one at that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

oh I'm banning more than just guns

no driving, no voting, no sealed medical records ..... man if these people are really the dangerous ones, don't we need to really get them out of society ?

my post obviously isn't that serious - but see how quickly ya'll bristle when we start talking about removing rights that people would have to give up who don't own guns?

 

give me something - as a gun owner ...... give me something non-gun owners will give up, a Right, a Freedom .... something .... that'll make violence/murder better

anything?

Lol.  Ah, this wasn't one of the times that you wanted to try to have an honest discussion? 

 

Again, I haven't advocated removing your rights.   We have covered how the courts rule that banning certain guns isn't removing your rights.   Nothing I have suggested has left you with the inability to defend your home. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, timschochet said:

He always will. He’s had a stuttering problem since childhood, and he tends to be overly passionate. What’s important is that he’s getting his decisions right. 

Since when does stuttering cause one to make false claims? I guess Trump has a stutter as well?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kal El said:

It’s not an excuse. Choosing to golf instead of doing the job is an excuse, and a terrible one at that. 

Biden has never stuttered that I've seen ...... he loses track of his thought processes and that's last few years and getting worse and worse

Biden doesn't stutter. Period

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

Lol.  Ah, this wasn't one of the times that you wanted to try to have an honest discussion? 

 

Again, I haven't advocated removing your rights.   We have covered how the courts rule that banning certain guns isn't removing your rights.   Nothing I have suggested has left you with the inability to defend your home. 

so you don't mind if I have an AR15 to defend my home and a 30 round clip just in case crap hits the fan ?

anti-gunners right here on this forum says no, they don't want that

Biden is surrounded by fully auto weapons, barriers, walls, barricades ..... but he doesn't even want me to have an AR15 :(

when they want guns protecting them and want to take the same guns from citizens .... that's a massive problem IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, timschochet said:

He always will. He’s had a stuttering problem since childhood, and he tends to be overly passionate. What’s important is that he’s getting his decisions right. 

Is that why Momala fields all the phone calls from foreign leaders?  So Joe doesn't word salad us into promises we can't keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First article that popped up, take it for what it's worth.  I have seen these 4 traits listed multiple places though.  

LInk

 

A new Department of Justice-funded study of all mass shootings — killings of four or more people in a public place — since 1966 found that the shooters typically have an experience with childhood trauma, a personal crisis or specific grievance, and a “script” or examples that validate their feelings or provide a roadmap. And then there’s the fourth thing: access to a firearm.

The study, compiled by the Violence Project, a nonpartisan think tank dedicated to reducing violence in society, was published Tuesday and is the most comprehensive and detailed database of mass shooters to date, coded to 100 different variables. 

The database delivers a number of arresting findings. Mass shootings are becoming much more frequent and deadly: Of the 167 incidents the researchers logged in that 53-year period, 20% have occurred in the last five years, and half since 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stealthycat said:

Biden has never stuttered that I've seen ...... he loses track of his thought processes and that's last few years and getting worse and worse

Biden doesn't stutter. Period

 

Stuttering isn’t just stumbling over a word, and it usually causes the sufferer to have to rearrange sentences to avoid any stutter risk, as well as substituting words for the same reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Biden is surrounded by fully auto weapons, barriers, walls, barricades ..... but he doesn't even want me to have an AR15 :(

when they want guns protecting them and want to take the same guns from citizens .... that's a massive problem IMO

This might just be the worst example for an argument ever posted on a forum in the history of forums.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Biden has never stuttered that I've seen ...... he loses track of his thought processes and that's last few years and getting worse and worse

Biden doesn't stutter. Period

 

Right.  Joe used to have a stuttering problem.  Not any more, he's learned how to control it, that's why he has the long pauses when he's speaking.  It doesn't explain the word salads.  Stuttering is just a convenient excuse to deflect from his dementia.  

Edited by tonydead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

so you don't mind if I have an AR15 to defend my home and a 30 round clip just in case crap hits the fan ?

anti-gunners right here on this forum says no, they don't want that

Biden is surrounded by fully auto weapons, barriers, walls, barricades ..... but he doesn't even want me to have an AR15 :(

when they want guns protecting them and want to take the same guns from citizens .... that's a massive problem IMO

 

Well, if places like Connecticut show a good drop in gun deaths, you still get to defend your house, and gun sales are still up, that's about a clear of a win-win as we could get, no? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

This might just be the worst example for an argument ever posted on a forum in the history of forums.  

I am guessing by that reasoning SC would be fine if Biden asked SS to protect him with a bat and then came and got SCs guns and gave him a bat?  ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Right.  Joe used to have a stuttering problem.  Not any more, he's learned how to control it, that's why he has the long pauses when he's speaking.  It doesn't explain the word salads.  Stuttering is just a convenient excuse to deflect from his dementia.  

Bill Walton had a serious stuttering problem.  After he retired from the NBA he had therapy to help him with it so he could become a broadcaster.  But I'm sure it's an ongoing issue he deals with.  Yet, Bill Walton isn't known for constant mistruths and on the rare occasion he says something a little "whacky", people don't use stuttering to excuse his statements.  It's pretty sad people feel compelled to use that excuse to cover for someone's lies.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Stuttering isn’t just stumbling over a word, and it usually causes the sufferer to have to rearrange sentences to avoid any stutter risk, as well as substituting words for the same reason. 

Does it also include rearranging truth for falsehood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John123 said:

Bill Walton had a serious stuttering problem.  After he retired from the NBA he had therapy to help him with it so he could become a broadcaster.  But I'm sure it's an ongoing issue he deals with.  Yet, Bill Walton isn't known for constant mistruths and on the rare occasion he says something a little "whacky", people don't use stuttering to excuse his statements.  It's pretty sad people feel compelled to use that excuse to cover for someone's lies.

Especially when reading from a script.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...