WWTBAM Bored

There are reports of an active shooter in the mall across the street from my office. We've been asked not to leave the building (including driving out of the parking garage) until further notice.

I'm not particularly worried about my personal safety -- the doors to the building lobby have been locked, it takes a key card to get the elevator up to our floor, and it takes either a key card or the receptionist to get you out of our elevator lobby into the office proper. But it's still annoying. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:There are reports of an active shooter in the mall across the street from my office. We've been asked not to leave the building (including driving out of the parking garage) until further notice.

I'm not particularly worried about my personal safety -- the doors to the building lobby have been locked, it takes a key card to get the elevator up to our floor, and it takes either a key card or the receptionist to get you out of our elevator lobby into the office proper. But it's still annoying. --Bob

Those pesky receptionists are expendable.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:There are reports of an active shooter in the mall across the street from my office. We've been asked not to leave the building (including driving out of the parking garage) until further notice.

I'm not particularly worried about my personal safety -- the doors to the building lobby have been locked, it takes a key card to get the elevator up to our floor, and it takes either a key card or the receptionist to get you out of our elevator lobby into the office proper. But it's still annoying. --Bob

Those pesky receptionists are expendable.

There's a camera system. They can see what's going on before making the decision to open the door. --Bob

What was the final story? You said "a report of an active shooter". Was there an actual shooter? If so, how many people were shot? Was it random or targeted?

You expressed "outrage" about this incident
All I found is this:

UPDATE: At around 10 p.m. on Friday night, the LAPD announced via Twitter that “there was no evidence of a shooting [and] Bomb Squad determined the suspicious device was not an explosive.”

Seems like most of the media, you don't like retracting a false story if it does not support your narratives. This article was posted well before you further complained about your your building "all afternoon" giving you plenty of opportunity to complete the story here. But you didn't feel the need to. Why?

BackInTex wrote:What was the final story? You said "a report of an active shooter". Was there an actual shooter? If so, how many people were shot? Was it random or targeted?

You expressed "outrage" about this incident
All I found is this:

UPDATE: At around 10 p.m. on Friday night, the LAPD announced via Twitter that “there was no evidence of a shooting [and] Bomb Squad determined the suspicious device was not an explosive.”

Seems like most of the media, you don't like retracting a false story if it does not support your narratives. This article was posted well before you further complained about your your building "all afternoon" giving you plenty of opportunity to complete the story here. But you didn't feel the need to. Why?

Because our building never updated us on what was going on and I stayed at my office, working, past 9:00 p.m.

I’m glad it turns out no one was hurt. But the Mall was closed for hours and my building was locked down. This incident proved to be a relatively harmless inconvenience (except to the Mall tenants that lost half a Friday’s worth of revenue). But I’m still pissed off that I live in a world where my state government’s efforts to prevent ithings like this with sane gun control laws are opposed in the courts by politicians and voters on your side of the aisle. —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:What was the final story? You said "a report of an active shooter". Was there an actual shooter? If so, how many people were shot? Was it random or targeted?

You expressed "outrage" about this incident
All I found is this:

UPDATE: At around 10 p.m. on Friday night, the LAPD announced via Twitter that “there was no evidence of a shooting [and] Bomb Squad determined the suspicious device was not an explosive.”

Seems like most of the media, you don't like retracting a false story if it does not support your narratives. This article was posted well before you further complained about your your building "all afternoon" giving you plenty of opportunity to complete the story here. But you didn't feel the need to. Why?

Because our building never updated us on what was going on and I stayed at my office, working, past 9:00 p.m.

I’m glad it turns out no one was hurt. But the Mall was closed for hours and my building was locked down. This incident proved to be a relatively harmless inconvenience (except to the Mall tenants that lost half a Friday’s worth of revenue). But I’m still pissed off that I live in a world where my state government’s efforts to prevent ithings like this with sane gun control laws are opposed in the courts by politicians and voters on your side of the aisle.

Please explain how sane gun control laws would have prevented a false "active shooter" report.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:What was the final story? You said "a report of an active shooter". Was there an actual shooter? If so, how many people were shot? Was it random or targeted?

You expressed "outrage" about this incident
All I found is this:

Seems like most of the media, you don't like retracting a false story if it does not support your narratives. This article was posted well before you further complained about your your building "all afternoon" giving you plenty of opportunity to complete the story here. But you didn't feel the need to. Why?

Because our building never updated us on what was going on and I stayed at my office, working, past 9:00 p.m.

I’m glad it turns out no one was hurt. But the Mall was closed for hours and my building was locked down. This incident proved to be a relatively harmless inconvenience (except to the Mall tenants that lost half a Friday’s worth of revenue). But I’m still pissed off that I live in a world where my state government’s efforts to prevent ithings like this with sane gun control laws are opposed in the courts by politicians and voters on your side of the aisle.

Please explain how sane gun control laws would have prevented a false "active shooter" report.

And bomb threat.

Beebs52 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Because our building never updated us on what was going on and I stayed at my office, working, past 9:00 p.m.

I’m glad it turns out no one was hurt. But the Mall was closed for hours and my building was locked down. This incident proved to be a relatively harmless inconvenience (except to the Mall tenants that lost half a Friday’s worth of revenue). But I’m still pissed off that I live in a world where my state government’s efforts to prevent ithings like this with sane gun control laws are opposed in the courts by politicians and voters on your side of the aisle.

Please explain how sane gun control laws would have prevented a false "active shooter" report.

And bomb threat.

Uh........ because Trump!

BackInTex wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Estonut wrote:Please explain how sane gun control laws would have prevented a false "active shooter" report.

And bomb threat.

Uh........ because Trump!

This is reminding me of the line the tobacco companies used to use until people understood it a little better:

Lots of different things cause lung cancer, right?
And you can't tie this specific case of lung cancer to tobacco use, can you?
So we should be held blameless for this death. And for the tens of thousands of similar deaths occurring annually.

Can I tell you that Donny's overt racism and currying of favor with white nationalists is directly responsible for any one specific incident? Probably not, although the New Zealand guy comes close. But it takes willful blindness to ignore the fact that Donny is using his megaphone to create an atmosphere where these incidents become more likely.

And I get that die-hard Republicans are prepared to remain willfully blind for as long as it takes. You're not my audience. My audience is the independents looking on in silence and wondering just what it will take for Republicans to regain their senses. You're doing a wonderful job of illustrating my point for me. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: And bomb threat.

Uh........ because Trump!

This is reminding me of the line the tobacco companies used to use until people understood it a little better:

Lots of different things cause lung cancer, right?
And you can't tie this specific case of lung cancer to tobacco use, can you?
So we should be held blameless for this death. And for the tens of thousands of similar deaths occurring annually.

Can I tell you that Donny's overt racism and currying of favor with white nationalists is directly responsible for any one specific incident? Probably not, although the New Zealand guy comes close. But it takes willful blindness to ignore the fact that Donny is using his megaphone to create an atmosphere where these incidents become more likely.

And I get that die-hard Republicans are prepared to remain willfully blind for as long as it takes. You're not my audience. My audience is the independents looking on in silence and wondering just what it will take for Republicans to regain their senses. You're doing a wonderful job of illustrating my point for me. --Bob

<Judge Chamberlain Haller>Mr. Numbers, that is a lucid, well thought-out, intelligent response. However, it does not remotely address the questions asked, and even quoted in your response. Please stay on topic, if you can. </Judge Chamberlain Halle>

You, Bob78164, wrote:But I’m still pissed off that I live in a world where my state government’s efforts to prevent ithings like this with sane gun control laws are opposed in the courts by politicians and voters on your side of the aisle.

I then wrote:Please explain how sane gun control laws would have prevented a false "active shooter" report.

I'll wait.

Estonut wrote:

You, Bob78164, wrote:But I’m still pissed off that I live in a world where my state government’s efforts to prevent ithings like this with sane gun control laws are opposed in the courts by politicians and voters on your side of the aisle.

I then wrote:Please explain how sane gun control laws would have prevented a false "active shooter" report.

I'll wait.

Do you not understand the request, Bob?

Estonut wrote:

Estonut wrote:

You, Bob78164, wrote:But I’m still pissed off that I live in a world where my state government’s efforts to prevent ithings like this with sane gun control laws are opposed in the courts by politicians and voters on your side of the aisle.

I then wrote:Please explain how sane gun control laws would have prevented a false "active shooter" report.

I'll wait.

Do you not understand the request, Bob?

Better than you understood my answer, apparently. I'll repeat it for your benefit:

This is reminding me of the line the tobacco companies used to use until people understood it a little better:

Lots of different things cause lung cancer, right?
And you can't tie this specific case of lung cancer to tobacco use, can you?
So we should be held blameless for this death. And for the tens of thousands of similar deaths occurring annually.

Can I tell you with certainty that sane gun laws would have prevented any one specific incident? No. But I can feel very, very confident that far fewer such incidents would occur if our gun laws were sane, and that's a choice the people of the State of California should have the ability to make. --Bob