Support NeoGAF

[StrikeNinja24]

With your logic only those with a degree in journalism can enjoy their right to free speech and publish news articles.

False equivalency, you're not going to end up killing someone with a badly written paper.

Unless you're thrilled about the possibility of hundreds of untrained individuals pulling out a gun when there's a loud pop. Cause that's the point we are getting to.

Are you really going to say that training would be a bad idea?

 

[LegendOfKage]

False equivalency, you're not going to end up killing someone with a badly written paper.

Unless you're thrilled about the possibility of hundreds of untrained individuals pulling out a gun when there's a loud pop. Cause that's the point we are getting to.

Are you really going to say that training would be a bad idea?

Training is always better than no training. Thank goodness we have organizations concerned with encouraging gun safety, education, and training like the NRA, right?

I wouldn't recommend anyone own a gun if they're not going to educate themselves on how to use it safely, responsibly, and effectively.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

Good for the students. It will never make sense to me the American obsession over the gun. Is the desire to be able to kill someone so high that people would rather pay the cost of seeing kids killed in schools, than any attempts to tackle gun control?

 

[Cybrwzrd]

Guns are stupid and unnecessary in civilized society, but they pale in comparison to the idiocy behind this movement. This is like running a campaign to remove teeth from sharks to prevent shark attacks. Sure - doing so may prevent shark attacks and save a few lives; but the incidence rate is so unbelievably low that it isn't worth the effort, and there are unintended consequences.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Good for the students. It will never make sense to me the American obsession over the gun. Is the desire to be able to kill someone so high that people would rather pay the cost of seeing kids killed in schools, than any attempts to tackle gun control?

An average of 4.38 children per year have died in mass school shootings in the last 36 years. The low estimate of people successfully defending their own lives and / or the lives of their children with firearms is 180,000 per year.

This is the argument that school shootings aren't a result of guns.

With this in mind, what specifically would you suggest the US does to stop school shootings?

 

[Dubloon7]

Guns are stupid and unnecessary in civilized society, but they pale in comparison to the idiocy behind this movement.

HUH?

Guns are stupid and unnecessary in civilized society = YES, I concur;

but they pale in comparison to the idiocy behind this movement = HUH? Totally disagree with that idiocy of yours. Just b/c someone, and a LAAAARGE number of people at that have a 180 degree viewpoint from your narrow view does not depict that viewpoint as idiotic. Get outta here!

 

[Dubloon7]

Thank goodness we have organizations concerned with encouraging gun safety, education, and training like the NRA, right?

/s? /s

 

[Cybrwzrd]

HUH?

Guns are stupid and unnecessary in civilized society = YES, I concur;

but they pale in comparison to the idiocy behind this movement = HUH? Totally disagree with that idiocy of yours. Just b/c someone, and a LAAAARGE number of people at that have a 180 degree viewpoint from your narrow view does not depict that viewpoint as idiotic. Get outta here!

Seems you don’t understand my point. I don’t really understand what you are trying to say though. I’m wrong because people agree with them? This movement is driven by the same sort of lizard brain idiocy that makes people fear flying while being perfectly comfortable driving a car to work every day. There is no more of a mass shooting crisis than having a plane crash proves that there is a crisis of aviation disasters.

The media fuels these, and hypes these shootings up, driving more mentally ill people to want infamy from being a mass shooter.

The vast majority of gun crime in the us is not from rifles, but from hand guns, and the highest gun crime rates are not from young white men shooting up schools.

Banning guns at this point is impossible. Gun control isn't going to do much when there are already millions of them in law abiding citizen's hands. Pandora is out of that box, and shes not going back in it. Lets focus on dealing with mental health problems, and reasons for criminality (socio economic issues, cultural issues, etc), and not on legislating based on fear of getting eaten by sharks when swimming.

 

[Dubloon7]

Seems you don’t understand my point. I don’t really understand why you are trying to say though. I’m wrong because people agree with them? This movement is driven by the same sort of lizard brain idiocy that makes people fear flying while being perfectly comfortable driving a car to work every day. There is no more of a mass shooting crisis than having a plane crash proves that there is a crisis of aviation disasters.

The media fuels these, and hypes these up, driving more mentally ill people to want infamy from being a mass shooter.

The vast majority of gun crime in the us is not from rifles, but from hand guns, and the highest gun crime rates are not from young white men shooting up schools.

HUUUUUH? apparently you can't even convey what you are saying into words for us to understand your lizard tongue.

regardless of statistics the human race will need to push forward with a re-translation (IN TODAY'S MODERN LANGUAGE) of the constitution as these pointless weapons are not needed anymore other than to fuel your hatred for everyone else but you and your dog (or cat).

get off your pedestal and understand basic english where the mass children and media are stating words similar to the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, from all around the world about issues that strip away their livelihoods and basic need to live safely (without right-wing christian nut jobs pulling from the hip at every single person)

 

[Cybrwzrd]

HUUUUUH? apparently you can't even convey what you are saying into words for us to understand your lizard tongue.

regardless of statistics the human race will need to push forward with a re-translation (IN TODAY'S MODERN LANGUAGE) of the constitution as these pointless weapons are not needed anymore other than to fuel your hatred for everyone else but you and your dog (or cat).

get off your pedestal and understand basic english where the mass children and media are stating words similar to the 1940's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's, from all around the world about issues that strip away their livelihoods and basic need to live safely (without right-wing christian nut jobs pulling from the hip at every single person)

Are you just running this through google translate from Russian? Or do you just not understand sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation rules?

Also, why are you assuming that I have "hatred for everyone else but you and your dog (or cat)"?

 

[Dubloon7]

Are you just running this through google translate from Russian? Or do you just not understand sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation rules?

like i said, WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOUR LIZARD TONGUE.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

HUUUUUUUUUH? (I win, right?)

Who is "WE?"

 

[LegendOfKage]

Training is always better than no training. Thank goodness we have organizations concerned with encouraging gun safety, education, and training like the NRA, right?

/s? /s

No. I'm not being sarcastic. The NRA advocates for gun safety, training and education. If you're concern is...

Unless you're thrilled about the possibility of hundreds of untrained individuals pulling out a gun when there's a loud pop. Cause that's the point we are getting to.

Are you really going to say that training would be a bad idea?

Then why wouldn't you want gun owners to support the NRA, and the safety and training that they encourage? If you have an issue with the NRA, there are also other organizations that advocate for proper gun training and safety concerns. Either way, we agree that gun training is an important aspect of owning a firearm.

 

[gohepcat]

An average of 4.38 children per year have died in mass school shootings in the last 36 years. The low estimate of people successfully defending their own lives and / or the lives of their children with firearms is 180,000 per year.

This is the argument that school shootings aren't a result of guns.

With this in mind, what specifically would you suggest the US does to stop school shootings?

On what fucking planet?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that number is completely and utterly false....and not just by a small amount. I'm going to guess it's astronomically... comically false.

According to the FBI, in the US in 2012 there were 310 justifiable homicides. Only 259 with guns. In the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings.

You looked at that number and honestly thought "yea that sounds right. About 500 people successfully defend themselves with guns every day in the US....on the low end!"

That number looks realistic to you?

Even if I'm crazy generous to you and allow for the idea that justifiable homicides don't necessarily mean "successfully defending their own lives and / or the lives of their children", you are telling me that there were 188,342 attempted homicides in 2012, and only 8,342 were successful because the other 180,000 were thwarted by lawful gun owners? ...and out of that, the lawful gun owners only had to kill 259 people....Haha....on the low end of the estimate!

 

[Moneal]

On what fucking planet?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that number is completely and utterly false....and not just by a small amount. I'm going to guess it's astronomically... comically false.

According to the FBI, in the US in 2012 there were 310 justifiable homicides. Only 259 with guns. In the same year, 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings.

You looked at that number and honestly thought "yea that sounds right about 500 people successfully defend themselves with guns every day in the US....on the low end!"

That number looks realistic to you?

Even if I'm crazy generous to you and allowing for the idea that justifiable homicides don't necessarily mean "successfully defending their own lives and / or the lives of their children", you are telling me that there were 188,342 attempted homicides in 2012, and only 8,342 were successful because the other 180,000 were thwarted by lawful gun owners? ...and out of that, the lawful gun owners only had to kill 259 people....Haha....on the low end of the estimate!

Guess you think the CDC just makes up their numbers right. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3?term=defensive#15 From a report Obama pushed for none the less.

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

An average of 4.38 children per year have died in mass school shootings in the last 36 years. The low estimate of people successfully defending their own lives and / or the lives of their children with firearms is 180,000 per year.

This is the argument that school shootings aren't a result of guns.

With this in mind, what specifically would you suggest the US does to stop school shootings?

Do you have any proof for the bolded?

In regards to your earlier argument, I would counter you've not proved guns aren't a problem, just that the shootings have become far more deadly in recent years. At least that's what I've taken from the wikipedia article. Why do you set an arbitary limit of 36 years btw? This average increases dramatically 2000 onwards.

Your argument states that prior to a certain point in US history there were no school shootings, but there were still mass shootings in the US. Events like the Valentines Massacre are proof enough of that. As to why schools became such popular targets, I can't tell you. What I can tell you is that the homicide rate in the US with guns is leaps and bounds ahead of any other Western country and that only becomes worse when compared to school shootings.

I can suggest a few solutions. Gun buy back programs, stricter rules on who can own a gun, making it only legal to buy from first party venders, allow the CDC and other agencies to actually investigate causes and make suggestions on how to resolve it. The important thing in my mind is that it can't be left at state level, it needs to be federal. It's the reason why Chicago suffers from gun violence, despite having strict rules. People just buy out of state with laxer rules. On that note, maybe make it illegal for guns to be sold to out of state residence.

I know I'm not the first person to suggest this and these seem incredibly reasonable to me.

I find people seem to focus on muddying the water too much with pleas of mental health as the real cause, because as you've already described, if guns have always been about, surely crazies have as well? Unless crazies are a new thing? In which case I would like evidence supporting that.

 

[LegendOfKage]

On what fucking planet?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that number is completely and utterly false....and not just by a small amount. I'm going to guess it's astronomically... comically false.

Aside from the points made in the reply that monegames posted, the simple answer is that you don't need to shoot anyone to defend yourself with a gun.

 

[Moneal]

Do you have any proof for the bolded?

I posted where the statistic comes from, in the post right above yours.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I posted where the statistic comes from, in the post right above yours.

I'm trying to find that figure, could you give me a page number? I don't want to go through a hundred+ page report and the search function doesn't show it.

What I have found is their section of the defensive use of guns...

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

I'm wary of calling this a reliable estimate, mainly because even they cast doubt on this, but also this is from a study that took place in 1997. In a Times Article...

...Paul Blackman, research coordinator for the N.R.A., concedes that the advertisement "stretches the data." He adds, "I don't know of any criminological study that has tried to quantify the number of lives saved based on the number of guns that were successfully used for protection."

The article goes on to state the issues as to why measuring lives saved is an almost impossible task. I do find this argument strange though. Would all deaths caused by firearms be worth it if we proved firearms saved more lives than taken? Also out of the lives saved by firearms that could be proved, was it only because you had to carry a gun, because the criminal might have a gun?

 

[LegendOfKage]

Do you have any proof for the bolded?

Why do you set an arbitary limit of 36 years btw? This average increases dramatically 2000 onwards.

For the numbers related to the bolded part, read the posts around your reply.

36 years is about the time mass school shootings started to be more of a thing in the US. Mainly it's because I used a chart of mass school shootings that only went back that far, and then compared it to wikipedia for accuracy. You're welcome to run the numbers using wikipedia's school shootings page and come up with different numbers, though.

I'd be interested to see how they change if they're presented from 1990 or 2000 on. I'm sure they will change, but probably not drastically. The deadliest school shooting in history was 33 lives taken with handguns. If you combined all the lives lost from of all mass school shootings from that year alone, the number would still be 33. Change mass shootings to lives lost in all school shootings for that year, and we're up to 35.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Your argument states that prior to a certain point in US history there were no school shootings, but there were still mass shootings in the US. Events like the Valentines Massacre are proof enough of that.

While technically a mass shooting, the St. Valentines Massacre consisted of mobsters who dressed up like police officers to kill rival mobsters who thought they were just being arrested by the police. That's quite different than a mass shooting that involves someone who intends to kill random people.

I'm not saying that no mass shootings ever happened before the 60s, but I am saying that's not a very good example.

What I can tell you is that the homicide rate in the US with guns is leaps and bounds ahead of any other Western country and that only becomes worse when compared to school shootings.

That's not exactly true. And it's not true that more guns means less gun homicide either. You can have lots of guns with little gun violence, and you can have lots of gun violence with not many guns. See for yourself in this article that is quite clear on how they got the data, and how you can run the numbers yourself.

https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

This is also the issue with the idea that gun a buyback program would mean less gun homicide. It's not that simple. I'd go into the rest of your suggestions (some of which I agree with), but I don't have the time at the moment. Perhaps later.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

That's not exactly true. And it's not true that more guns means less gun homicide either. You can have lots of guns with little gun violence, and you can have lots of gun violence with not many guns. See for yourself in this article that is quite clear on how they got the data, and how you can run the numbers yourself.

https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

This is also the issue with the idea that gun a buyback program would mean less gun homicide. It's not that simple. I'd go into the rest of your suggestions (some of which I agree with), but I don't have the time at the moment. Perhaps later.

I can agree with the earlier points. The data in the article backup my statement that gun homicides are much larger than western equivalents. That data comes from the UN Office of Drugs and Crime.

I would agree with gun ownership != gun crime. Canada is a good example of a country that has lots of guns per capita and very little crime. It also has however free healthcare, more welfare programs and stricter rules on gun ownerhsip. I agree that gun control isn't the be all and end all, though in my mind a ban would be best in the long run. The biggest issues are all three.

The Buyback programs have worked in lots of places, but not in the US and for the big reason that they can only be implemented at a state level. The extra bureaucracy that is unique to the US makes gun control a harder issue because of the inability to achieve anything at a Federal level.

EDIT: I'll get back to you with the average. I've got a spreadsheet of the wiki entries, but 18 years might take a little while.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I can agree with the earlier points. The data in the article backup my statement that gun homicides are much larger than western equivalents. That data comes from the UN Office of Drugs and Crime.

Agreed. I was wrong when I said "that's not exactly true." Got the points I was trying to make mixed up. The US definitely has a higher firearm homicide rate than other western countries, but looking state by state, you can see that there's no correlation that suggests more guns or fewer guns means more gun homicide or less gun homicide.

The reasons for such a high homicide rate in the US seems to have more to do with a handful of inner cities in the US that are suffering disproportionately from poverty and violence.

 

[gohepcat]

Guess you think the CDC just makes up their numbers right. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3?term=defensive#15 From a report Obama pushed for none the less.

It’s weird that you’re trying to use this really interesting and involved report as some sort of cudgel. That also weird that you’re quoting the part that refutes the numbers that you’re trying to defend. I get the impression that you have seen this report used in defense of gun ownership somewhere but didn’t bother to closely look at what it’s actually saying.

I got to say it’s super depressing to read this study that is so earnestly trying to address this problem only to flip back to this thread saying that it isn’t a problem or it’s not that big of a problem. There seems to be this incredibly intense desire for gun owners to show that there is absolutely zero downside to filling a country up with firearms.

 

[Moneal]

It’s weird that you’re trying to use this really interesting and involved report as some sort of cudgel. That also weird that you’re quoting the part that refutes the numbers that you’re trying to defend. I get the impression that you have seen this report used in defense of gun ownership somewhere but didn’t bother to closely look at what it’s actually saying.

I got to say it’s super depressing to read this study that is so earnestly trying to address this problem only to flip back to this thread saying that it isn’t a problem or it’s not that big of a problem. There seems to be this incredibly intense desire for gun owners to show that there is absolutely zero downside to filling a country up with firearms.

I used the reports numbers to show where someone got their numbers from, because someone asked and went on a rant about the numbers being fake. didn't say anything about the report or its conclusions.

Thanks for assuming though.

 

[infinitys_7th]

It’s weird that you’re trying to use this really interesting and involved report as some sort of cudgel. That also weird that you’re quoting the part that refutes the numbers that you’re trying to defend. I get the impression that you have seen this report used in defense of gun ownership somewhere but didn’t bother to closely look at what it’s actually saying.

I got to say it’s super depressing to read this study that is so earnestly trying to address this problem only to flip back to this thread saying that it isn’t a problem or it’s not that big of a problem. There seems to be this incredibly intense desire for gun owners to show that there is absolutely zero downside to filling a country up with firearms.

There is downside to everything. Sometimes you just have to get used to letting people be free when it has minimal impact on everyone and stop trying to "optimize" people. People aren't property to be optimized. They own themselves.

 

[gohepcat]

I used the reports numbers to show where someone got their numbers from, because someone asked and went on a rant about the numbers being fake. didn't say anything about the report or its conclusions.

Thanks for assuming though.

But the numbers don’t match up to what he was claiming. And even the report itself seems to be really doubtful of those numbers.

 

[Moneal]

But the numbers don’t match up to what he was claiming. And even the report itself seems to be really doubtful of those numbers.

so the low number is 108000 instead of 180000.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Ya'll are forgetting that wanting zero school shootings, Las Vegas Hotel situations, or anti-police murder sprees is a worthy goal. The acts themselves literally have no purpose.

 

[LegendOfKage]

so the low number is 108000 instead of 180000.

Yep. Typo.

Ya'll are forgetting that wanting zero school shootings, Las Vegas Hotel situations, or anti-police murder sprees is a worthy goal. The acts themselves literally have no purpose.

I'm absolutely not forgetting that, and it is a worthy goal. From earlier in the thread:

Perhaps instead of jumping to bad-faith conclusions, some of the protesters and counter protesters could have talked to each other like rational, respectful human beings who care about saving lives. Anti-gun advocates want to save lives by decreasing the likelihood of people being shot, and pro-gun advocates want to save lives by increasing the ability of the weak to defend themselves from the powerful.

I tend to lean towards the latter rather than the former, but I'm not going to demonize those who disagree with me.

 

[camelCase]

Lol, it's awesome there's a user named after Legend of Kage.

 

[appaws]

John Adams became a Unitarian. The reason he liked church was that going to church weekly was good for bonding and I love that idea. It sounds great.. He wasn't big on Jesus and like every founding father he would literally cross out lines in his bible he felt were wrong.

Appaws, nobody wants pure secularism. Only freaks want to make religion illegal. Or middle east countries that are incredibly authoritarian. Christian values are great, unless they say gays can't get married or trans have to wear badges.

Just like I said above though. Whatever John Adams thought personally about religion, he was existing in a purely Christian cultural context...and he knew it even if he was a non-conformist. Western man and Christianity was like a fish in water situation until basically the twentieth century. And citing the odd apostate here and there does not take away from the fact that they lived in a Christian moral universe. And we don't. We live in a coarse and violent society, where a quasi-pagan worship of self has replaced the love of Christ, even among many who still use the title "Christian." And we are all worse off for it.

Good for the students. It will never make sense to me the American obsession over the gun. Is the desire to be able to kill someone so high that people would rather pay the cost of seeing kids killed in schools, than any attempts to tackle gun control?

C'mon man. You know the millions of good people who own and carry firearms do not have a "desire to be able to kill someone." I have been owning lots of guns and carrying for years for work and have never had to draw my weapon in a defensive situation. I pray I never do. Owning a fire extinguisher does not mean I want to have a fire.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

C'mon man. You know the millions of good people who own and carry firearms do not have a "desire to be able to kill someone." I have been owning lots of guns and carrying for years for work and have never had to draw my weapon in a defensive situation. I pray I never do. Owning a fire extinguisher does not mean I want to have a fire.

My issue isn't with gun owners, it's with the people who staunchly refuse to accept any movement on gun control. It was still an incorrect statement, so good for you to call me out on it.

 

[bucyou]

So what are these young adults doing now? Last I heard, Mr. Hogg called for a boycott of that lady on fox news, and ending up bumping her ratings 20%

 

[StrikeNinja24]

So what are these young adults doing now? Last I heard, Mr. Hogg called for a boycott of that lady on fox news, and ending up bumping her ratings 20%

Which shows how unethical Fox viewers are it seems.

 

[Greedings]

Which shows how unethical Fox viewers are it seems.

Or that bullying tactics don't work.

 

[JDB]

Or that bullying tactics don't work.

Laura Ingraham mocks a survivor of a school shooting for "whining" about getting rejected by four colleges, but somehow David Hogg is the bully. Alrighty then.

 

[Greedings]

Laura Ingraham mocks a survivor of a school shooting for "whining" about getting rejected by four colleges, but somehow David Hogg is the bully. Alrighty then.

Mocking is not the same as actively trying to destroy someone's career.

Laura is not faultless, her statement was dumb, but she apologised, fortunately.

 

[JDB]

Mocking is not the same as actively trying to destroy someone's career.

Laura is not faultless, her statement was dumb, but she apologised, fortunately.

I don't see how it's bullying to let advertisers know what stupid statements the people they support are making. Maybe don't make weak attempts at character assassinations of school shooters survivors because they happen to have a different stance on gun control. It's stupid shit that Fox News gets away with all the time.

 

[TrainedRage]

They keep getting away with it!!!
I'm outraged!

 

[JDB]

They keep getting away with it!!!
I'm outraged!

Glad you're as upset with Fox News as I am. :^)

 

[LegendOfKage]

I don't see how it's bullying to let advertisers know what stupid statements the people they support are making. Maybe don't make weak attempts at character assassinations of school shooters survivors because they happen to have a different stance on gun control. It's stupid shit that Fox News gets away with all the time.

Nope. That's not it. Fox News did say something really stupid, but David Hogg has been far more insulting, hateful, and intolerant of opposing opinion.



You don't get to say hateful things like this, then cry about the bad lady on the news being mean to you. At least not without people calling you out on your hypocrisy, and supporting the woman whose career you're trying to destroy, "because she happens to have a different stance on gun control."

This was never about David Hogg simply having a different stance on gun control. That said, Laura Ingraham was still reaching with her stupid tweet. Even after hearing the interview her tweet was based on (which wasn't included in the video I posted), it would be a stretch to calling that "whining."

 

[TheLaughingStock]

So what are these young adults doing now? Last I heard, Mr. Hogg called for a boycott of that lady on fox news, and ending up bumping her ratings 20%

Probably posting memes about Sean Hannity.