St. Louis in the National Media

urban_dilettante · PostFeb 18, 2020#19512020-02-18T20:55+00:00

^ sure, but what percentage of F250 owners actually use their 6+ ton truck with 6-foot tall grill to regularly haul things that would require that much payload capacity? based on the looks of many of them, they ain't haulin' much. and, i mean, pickup trucks have been around for a long time. i'd imagine that the types of loads they're hauling haven't changed that much since the 70s, but compare the sizes of pickup trucks (and SUVs) now to their sizes then. it's ridiculous and is directly connected to an increase in pedestrian, cyclist, and driver deaths.

i don't know what kind of truck the guy was driving when he murdered two mothers and two young daughters, nor what he may have needed it for. and i'm not saying that nobody needs a large truck for work. but nobody needs a large truck for casual, daily use. all you have to do is step outside to witness the proliferation of excessively large, excessively loud vehicles being driven at excessive speeds by people who don't need them.

and, yeah, i have no hope that any such legislation will ever be passed. people are selfish a**holes. and nobody actually cares that more people are getting murdered by these things. it's all just thoughts and prayers.

sc4mayor · PostFeb 18, 2020#19522020-02-18T21:21+00:00

billikens_19 wrote: ↑
Feb 18, 2020
https://nypost.com/2020/02/17/former-volleyball-stars-and-their-daughters-killed-in-car-crash/

I've been seeing tons of articles outside of local media regarding Fridays horrific crash in Lake Saint Louis. Those cable barriers probably should be looked at. They are supposed to be capable of stopping semi trucks, yet a pickup truck was able to make its way through with ease.

I've read in local reporting that he rolled over the barrier in the center median. I do a lot of traveling for work (in the 5 years I've owned my current car I've put about 132,000 miles on it) and in seeing the hundreds of accidents I have these barriers are actually quite effective. I see cars (and semis) tangled up in them all the time, but rarely have they ever crossed the median into oncoming traffic. But just about every one of those I've seen was driven or slid into the barrier, not rolled over it like this guy apparently did.

I don't know if this guy had his truck lifted or what not. I wouldn't consider a stock F250 a "monster" sized truck. But if he had what I call the "small penis package," you know, the oversized tires, the massive lifts, huge grill and a halogen bar up on the roof, then that barrier wasn't going to stop him if he was rolling.

framer · PostFeb 18, 2020#19532020-02-18T21:25+00:00

^Bull Balls would be the clincher.

JaneJacobsGhost · PostFeb 19, 2020#19542020-02-19T01:53+00:00

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑
Feb 18, 2020
^ i disagree for the same reason that i disagree that someone in Shannon County should be able to own an assault rifle in addition to a hunting rifle.

there's utility and then there's selfish, excessive, dangerous indulgence. our society seems unable to distinguish the latter from the former.

There's plenty of utility for a semi-automatic rifle in rural Missouri. I'm sure you have proclivities that could be described as "excessive indulgences" and I sincerely hope that no one is trying to strip you of them.

urban_dilettante · PostFeb 19, 2020#19552020-02-19T04:33+00:00

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Feb 19, 2020
urban_dilettante wrote: ↑
Feb 18, 2020
^ i disagree for the same reason that i disagree that someone in Shannon County should be able to own an assault rifle in addition to a hunting rifle.

there's utility and then there's selfish, excessive, dangerous indulgence. our society seems unable to distinguish the latter from the former.
There's plenty of utility for a semi-automatic rifle in rural Missouri. I'm sure you have proclivities that could be described as "excessive indulgences" and I sincerely hope that no one is trying to strip you of them.

i didn't say "semi-automatic". i said "assault". but give me a break anyway. none of my "proclivities" come anywhere near collecting instruments that exist for the sole purpose of murdering efficiently—not even close. but let's hear some examples of totally necessary uses for civilian-owned automatic or even semi-automatic rifles in rural MO that justify the piles and piles of dead bodies that they've produced. you cool with civilians owning armored tanks? rocket launchers? fighter jets? nuclear warheads? i mean, what's the difference, right? bc freedom.

JaneJacobsGhost · PostFeb 19, 2020#19562020-02-19T21:06+00:00

Where are these piles of dead bodies in southern Missouri?

Do you own livestock that are terrorized by coyotes? Do you have fields infiltrated by sounders of wild boar? Is your property frequented by one of the nearly 1000 black bears that now live in the state?

Rooster · PostFeb 19, 2020#19572020-02-19T21:15+00:00

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Feb 19, 2020
Where are these piles of dead bodies in southern Missouri?

Do you own livestock that are terrorized by coyotes? Do you have fields infiltrated by sounders of wild boar? Is your property frequented by one of the nearly 1000 black bears that now live in the state?

But you don't need a semi auto or automatic assault rifle to eliminate a coyote or black bear. Wild boar well that would be effective if you have a helicopter.
Trapping in mass is the only way to control the hog population and that doesn't seem to work either.
I have several guns, use to hunt all the time and have two pistols in the house for self defense.
I see no reason for anyone to own one of those guns whose reason for being is to kill humans in mass in war.

JaneJacobsGhost · PostFeb 19, 2020#19582020-02-19T22:30+00:00

Rooster wrote: ↑
Feb 19, 2020
JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Feb 19, 2020
Where are these piles of dead bodies in southern Missouri?

Do you own livestock that are terrorized by coyotes? Do you have fields infiltrated by sounders of wild boar? Is your property frequented by one of the nearly 1000 black bears that now live in the state?
But you don't need a semi auto or automatic assault rifle to eliminate a coyote or black bear. Wild boar well that would be effective if you have a helicopter.
Trapping in mass is the only way to control the hog population and that doesn't seem to work either.
I have several guns, use to hunt all the time and have two pistols in the house for self defense.
I see no reason for anyone to own one of those guns whose reason for being is to kill humans in mass in war.

I don't own one, and I only see narrow reasons why someone would need one. I also don't see the reason to push my urban gun ideology on really rural people and I CERTAINLY don't think pickup trucks should be illegal because of a single tragic crash.

dweebe · PostFeb 19, 2020#19592020-02-19T23:08+00:00

I don't want to outlaw brodozer trucks: but can we at least get them to have rear license plates? Using the dump trump exception is stupid.

urban_dilettante · PostFeb 21, 2020#19602020-02-21T04:19+00:00

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Feb 19, 2020
Where are these piles of dead bodies in southern Missouri?

US mass shootings 2009-2018:

https://everytownresearch.org/massshoot ... 2009-2019/

Take a look at the big red dot in southern MO for starters. Select "Assault weapon or high-capacity magazine" to narrow the results. Though, I'm sure you'll say this isn't enough dead people to warrant a ban on assault weapons because they're SO necessary for not just killing coyotes but blowing them into tiny chunks.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:Do you own livestock that are terrorized by coyotes? Do you have fields infiltrated by sounders of wild boar? Is your property frequented by one of the nearly 1000 black bears that now live in the state?

Rooster already addressed this but I'll reiterate that a non-automatic, low capacity (<10 rounds per load) hunting rifle is perfectly sufficient to address predatory animals. And if you'd actually bothered to read anything that I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth for the sake of arguing, you'd have noticed that I acknowledged the need for/utility of hunting rifles.

PostFeb 21, 2020#19612020-02-21T04:47+00:00

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Feb 19, 2020
I don't own one, and I only see narrow reasons why someone would need one.

Good of you to admit, but you still haven't made a case for "narrow reasons" why a civilian would need an assault rifle instead of a hand gun or hunting rifle.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:I also don't see the reason to push my urban gun ideology on really rural people...

LOL. "urban gun ideology". "really rural people". I don't even know what to say.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:...and I CERTAINLY don't think pickup trucks should be illegal because of a single tragic crash.

Here's your "single tragic crash":

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/ ... rs/583960/

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion ... an-deaths/

Etc. There are a million similar articles/studies.

In any case, I never said pickup trucks should be illegal. Like hunting rifles, they have utility. However, I think that their SIZES should be REGULATED. Compare a 1980 Chevy C-10 or a 1983 Ford Ranger to a 2019 GMC Sierra or 2020 Chevy Silverado. Add some oversized tires to the 2019 and 2020 models (like so many douche bags do) and the grill easily reaches past the top of your head. The size increase is insane, completely unnecessary, and directly responsible for increased pedestrian deaths and driver deaths when smaller vehicles are involved.

So forgive me for caring more about people getting killed/murdered than some indeterminate "narrow reasons" for why average people need to drive around in tanks with military weapons.

STLEnginerd · PostFeb 21, 2020#19622020-02-21T15:42+00:00

I think it is important to note we don't actually no the details and aggravating factors associated with this particular accident so using it as the basis of an argument for restriction on one thing or another is premature. Even if your argument is valid, if the underlying facts don't support the scenario used to justify it, it will fuel the counter narrative. Don't get ahead of the facts.

I also think the charged language such as labeling people "murderers" because they had a car accident will do more to entrench peoples view points than to change peoples minds. If you goal is to affect change, it's counter productive. If your goal is to express your sense of moral superiority, then congratulations, well done.

In the end I agree to some degree, there should probably be more limitations to road legal designs of large trucks and significant limitations if not an outright ban on aftermarket modifications to suspension and general operating height.

The comparison to guns may be apt in some respects when it comes to comparing the key constituencies of the politicians with authority to make a real difference. For instance given the number of mass shootings in this country, how many more does it take to get real productive solutions in place? Back to the truck issue, how many accidents involving unnecessarily large trucks would it take to justify the implementation of common sense legislation to limit aftermarket modifications that exacerbate the public safety hazard? Short answer to both is sadly, A LOT MORE.

symphonicpoet · PostFeb 21, 2020#19632020-02-21T16:32+00:00

^Well said and thank you STLEnginerd.

JaneJacobsGhost · PostFeb 21, 2020#19642020-02-21T22:57+00:00

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑
Feb 21, 2020
JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Feb 19, 2020
I don't own one, and I only see narrow reasons why someone would need one.
Good of you to admit, but you still haven't made a case for "narrow reasons" why a civilian would need an assault rifle instead of a hand gun or hunting rifle.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:I also don't see the reason to push my urban gun ideology on really rural people...
LOL. "urban gun ideology". "really rural people". I don't even know what to say.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:...and I CERTAINLY don't think pickup trucks should be illegal because of a single tragic crash.
Here's your "single tragic crash":

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/ ... rs/583960/

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion ... an-deaths/

Etc. There are a million similar articles/studies.

In any case, I never said pickup trucks should be illegal. Like hunting rifles, they have utility. However, I think that their SIZES should be REGULATED. Compare a 1980 Chevy C-10 or a 1983 Ford Ranger to a 2019 GMC Sierra or 2020 Chevy Silverado. Add some oversized tires to the 2019 and 2020 models (like so many douche bags do) and the grill easily reaches past the top of your head. The size increase is insane, completely unnecessary, and directly responsible for increased pedestrian deaths and driver deaths when smaller vehicles are involved.

So forgive me for caring more about people getting killed/murdered than some indeterminate "narrow reasons" for why average people need to drive around in tanks with military weapons.

Wow, look at you google away!

The narrow reasons? Well the one's I listed are valid. You can disagree, but that doesn't invalidate them. Other reasons are target shooting, gun enthusiasm and self defense. I'm sure you'll have problems with those reasons, but I also don't really give a damn. Nor will the supreme court.

How do you not know what to say about a divide between rural people and urban/suburban people on the issue of guns? Its quite palpable.

"I never said pickp trucks" -immediately pastes 4 photos of pickup trucks- You are SPECIFICALLY picking on large pickup trucks when as your article points out the problem is SUVs of all kinds. Why are you singling out pickup trucks? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the type of people you associate with driving them

urban_dilettante · PostFeb 21, 2020#19652020-02-21T23:51+00:00

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑
Feb 21, 2020
Wow, look at you google away!

The narrow reasons? Well the one's I listed are valid. You can disagree, but that doesn't invalidate them. Other reasons are target shooting, gun enthusiasm and self defense. I'm sure you'll have problems with those reasons, but I also don't really give a damn. Nor will the supreme court.

How do you not know what to say about a divide between rural people and urban/suburban people on the issue of guns? Its quite palpable.

"I never said pickp trucks" -immediately pastes 4 photos of pickup trucks- You are SPECIFICALLY picking on large pickup trucks when as your article points out the problem is SUVs of all kinds. Why are you singling out pickup trucks? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the type of people you associate with driving them

Yeah, Googling is a great way to find information about things so long as you verify your sources. Guess that's why it's so popular.

I can see reading comprehension isn't one of your strengths. That or you're just being disingenuous. You've repeatedly either ignored what I actually wrote, or selectively abridged it to suit your taste. E.g. "I never said pickup trucks should be illegal" does not have anywhere near the same meaning as "I never said pickup trucks." You know that, though. And you know that an assault weapon is not needed for self defense. And your other "narrow uses" were already rebutted. And you know that "target shooting" and "gun enthusiasm" don't warrant individual ownership of assault rifles any more than those things warrant individual ownership of hand grenades and tanks.

I'm not arguing that there isn't, on average, a difference in mind set between rural and urban people. What's laughable is the idea that our national gun laws should be based on rural people liking to shoot at sh*t with military weapons instead of the thousands of gun related injuries and fatalities that occur every year in the US.

And Jesus Christ, if you would just please bother to READ the articles that I posted you would notice that both specifically mention pickup trucks in addition to SUV's—both fall into the category of "light truck," as is very clearly articulated in both articles. If you can't understand why I posted the pickup truck images then there's really no point to this conversation anyway.

PostFeb 22, 2020#19662020-02-22T00:20+00:00

STLEnginerd wrote: ↑
Feb 21, 2020
I think it is important to note we don't actually no the details and aggravating factors associated with this particular accident so using it as the basis of an argument for restriction on one thing or another is premature. Even if your argument is valid, if the underlying facts don't support the scenario used to justify it, it will fuel the counter narrative. Don't get ahead of the facts.

I also think the charged language such as labeling people "murderers" because they had a car accident will do more to entrench peoples view points than to change peoples minds. If you goal is to affect change, it's counter productive. If your goal is to express your sense of moral superiority, then congratulations, well done.

In the end I agree to some degree, there should probably be more limitations to road legal designs of large trucks and significant limitations if not an outright ban on aftermarket modifications to suspension and general operating height.

The comparison to guns may be apt in some respects when it comes to comparing the key constituencies of the politicians with authority to make a real difference. For instance given the number of mass shootings in this country, how many more does it take to get real productive solutions in place? Back to the truck issue, how many accidents involving unnecessarily large trucks would it take to justify the implementation of common sense legislation to limit aftermarket modifications that exacerbate the public safety hazard? Short answer to both is sadly, A LOT MORE.

Insofar as I don't know what caused the driver to roll over the barricade, yes, "murderer" was too harsh. I apologize. However, regardless of the driver's responsibility, this accident is relevant to the argument for regulation of truck size. And this particular accident is just one of many, many such examples so whether or not the driver is at fault has little bearing on the larger scenario—this story just happened to raise my ire.

What I'm advocating for is simply evidence-based regulation of truck sizes and guns to sensible levels that minimize deaths.

I mean, Coronavirus has killed maybe a couple thousand people world-wide and it's all over the news. EPIDEMIC! HEALTH EMERGENCY! But car crashes killed more than THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND people in the US alone in 2018. Guns killed nearly FORTY THOUSAND people in the US alone in 2017 and...crickets. It's just insane.

jshank83 · PostFeb 22, 2020#19672020-02-22T01:53+00:00

Is there a way to move this convo somewhere else. I think we have moved way off the subject of this thread.

shadrach · PostFeb 22, 2020#19682020-02-22T02:16+00:00

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit!!

Ut mattis, sem at tristique egestas, orci mi tincidunt dolor, eu laoreet erat tortor id enim. Donec urna magna, semper id felis nec, accumsan imperdiet ante. Etiam interdum a odio ut porttitor. Vivamus non magna et quam convallis porttitor ut at mi.

Donec vel quam leo. Suspendisse finibus, orci quis pulvinar congue, magna ligula vestibulum dolor, id imperdiet magna enim sagittis ipsum. Pellentesque odio arcu, dapibus ac dictum pretium, mattis at orci. Etiam sollicitudin ligula ut laoreet dignissim. Nam fringilla augue dolor. Fusce congue libero nibh, nec bibendum metus facilisis nec. Ut molestie orci vitae nisi sodales vulputate. Proin vitae massa iaculis, imperdiet risus ut, tristique augue. Duis sed mauris rhoncus, rutrum nisi ac, hendrerit lorem. Curabitur hendrerit dolor nisl, a blandit ipsum laoreet faucibus. Quisque ut pulvinar est.

Nulla tincidunt augue a mi vulputate porta. Vestibulum in molestie odio, a mollis arcu. Cras tempus ligula in dignissim sagittis. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Cras sed nibh ut risus lacinia porta. Suspendisse potenti. Praesent tellus leo, fermentum sit amet dignissim semper, feugiat facilisis elit. Nam eu ex commodo, tempus libero vitae, accumsan felis. Nulla sed nisi nec velit rhoncus rhoncus vel a ipsum.

Phasellus sollicitudin quam massa. Praesent feugiat facilisis tempor. Donec sodales vel dui quis pellentesque. Etiam luctus ultrices leo, in blandit neque ullamcorper ac. Suspendisse et ultricies urna. Maecenas pellentesque felis nec nisl sagittis elementum. Curabitur vel enim mollis, auctor quam at, tempus sem. Nam bibendum metus quis erat sollicitudin, a cursus dolor aliquam. Donec viverra sit amet lectus non aliquam. Ut non ex enim. Etiam semper nulla orci, quis cursus erat venenatis eget. Nulla eget nulla a nisi malesuada imperdiet eget ac ipsum. Mauris at porttitor odio.

chaifetz10 · PostFeb 22, 2020#19692020-02-22T08:39+00:00

shadrach wrote: ↑
Feb 22, 2020
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit!!

Ut mattis, sem at tristique egestas, orci mi tincidunt dolor, eu laoreet erat tortor id enim. Donec urna magna, semper id felis nec, accumsan imperdiet ante. Etiam interdum a odio ut porttitor. Vivamus non magna et quam convallis porttitor ut at mi.

shadrach · PostFeb 22, 2020#19702020-02-22T15:14+00:00

Note to self: never post on the forum after a bottle (or two...) of Merlot.

LArchitecture · PostFeb 22, 2020#19712020-02-22T15:23+00:00

jshank83 wrote:Is there a way to move this convo somewhere else. I think we have moved way off the subject of this thread.

Agree. Is there a thread for politics? Seems like this is a political discussion at this point.

urban_dilettante · PostFeb 22, 2020#19722020-02-22T22:54+00:00

LArchitecture wrote: ↑
Feb 22, 2020
jshank83 wrote:Is there a way to move this convo somewhere else. I think we have moved way off the subject of this thread.
Agree. Is there a thread for politics? Seems like this is a political discussion at this point.

I'm finished. If others want to continue discussing elsewhere be my guests. Sorry for derailing. (Though, in parting, I would argue that until we stop framing empirically demonstrated public health hazards as mere political disagreements or cultural differences, things are not going to get better.)

PlatinumBlues · PostFeb 27, 2020#19732020-02-27T02:38+00:00

St. Louis named as top trending destination in the country by Tripadvisor

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local ... c07915b115

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rbeedee · PostFeb 29, 2020#19742020-02-29T06:14+00:00

rbeedee wrote: ↑
Nov 21, 2019
Not much about St. Louis in the article, but the WaPo has a series where an art critic is highlighting works of art that are meaningful to him, and this week profiled Gerhard Richter's "Betty," in the SLAM:

Blurred vision: Gerhard Richter’s “Betty” is arguably the most famous painting by the most influential artist alive

Another SLAM painting profiled in the Washington Post: Great Works in Focus: Mysterious Matisse

Trololzilla · PostMar 05, 2020#19752020-03-05T07:52+00:00

An... interesting political ad I got earlier today on Facebook:

Screenshot_20200304-223253_Facebook.jpg (894.26KiB)

St. Louis in the National Media

Choose Display Mode