The stranger replies, “Do you really think you knew them Martin?”
I wouldn’t have guessed a cemetery, but shootings are really common around Milwaukee. It’s uncommon to check the news in the morning and not see something about a shooting (or multiple Kias being stolen). There’s been times when it’s so bad, even driving on the freeway can make you nervous since a not-insignificant amount of shootings are car-to-car.
And, while it’s gotten much worse over the years, it’s nothing new. When I was in college (school in Kenosha, living in Racine) in the late 90’s/early 00’s) my roommate always said the Milwaukee news was depressing since, at least to an outsider, it just seemed like a daily list of shootings and other violent acts.
Just a few weeks ago 17 people were shot outside of the Fiserv Forum after a Bucks game, where 11,000 people had gathered in the Deer District (like a giant block party during/after the games).
Also, very minor nitpick that’s mostly irrelevant to anyone outside of this immediate area, but that cemetery is in Racine. Racine is between Milwaukee and Kenosha. The cemetery is about 10 or 15 miles from the Jacob Blake/Kyle Rittenhouse incidents.
Glock party more like.
Will the bolded ever happen in the US?
Yeah I figured that was a dumb question.
Heh, nice inversion. 
The god-forsaken Villages in Florida seem to be a start. I can see the golfcart crossfire now.
Hm, that’s a big ask, methinks.
If not wishes, then how about thoughts and prayers?
3 killed and 11 injured on a crowded Philadelphia street last night. FTR, this was the 239th mass shooting in the US this year, in 155 days. That’s over 1.5 mass shootings per day. I hope our resident gun nuts are happy. I understand the deaths are well worth it.
The total number of mass shootings so far this year in Canada, AFAIK, is zero. And there is a bill before Parliament to strengthen gun laws even further.
Of course they can do that. They don’t have to worry about the populace riding up against the tyranny of wusses.
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
~Max
This is such a quintessentially American gun story that I thought the gun nuts here would appreciate it. It has everything – the visible result of America’s pervasive gun culture, a needless death, and tragic consequences for a child.
Short version: Two women get into a fight that turns into a physical altercation. The 10-year-old daughter of one of the women suddenly appears with a gun, and shoots and kills the other woman. “She shouldn’t have hit my momma”, the ten-year-old yells.
No surprise that this was in Florida, where apparently there is something in the water that enhances the crazy. Though it could have been Texas.
I’m sure all the gun nuts are applauding.
In other news ,the Dutch parliament isn’t able to enforce a ban on fireworks during New Year’s Eve. Which is proportionally a WAY smaller issue, people get killed sometimes, usually it’s just injuries, but the discussion is eerily similar to yours WRT guns…
Apparently every culture has some hill to die on.
Another small update. WIth the mass shooting in Maryland today, the total number of mass shootings in the US this year is now up to 254. On this 160th day of the year, the average number of mass shootings per day is now up to nearly 1.6. The total number of mass shootings this year in other civilized countries in the world so far is, as far as I can tell from media reports, still zero.
I trust that @Martin_Hyde, @SenorBeef, @WalterBishop, and the other gun nuts are once again celebrating their beloved “liberties” and how worthwhile all these deaths are.
Martin_Hyde is again showing his colors as a dishonest jerk in this thread, in which he attributes to me statements I did not make, claims that people do not care about health quackery including the promotion of a useless and dangerous cancer remedy, uses the classically sleazy tactic of dismissing facts through bogus attacks on the sources presenting them, and in general behaves like a slimy, disingenuous ass.
Let’s rephrase:
-
I said that Prince Charles has a largely rehabilitated image in the United Kingdom, and has had a positive favorability rating for something like 20 years running.
-
You keep posting nonstop about Edzard Ernst and alternative medicine–I am assuming because you are personally triggered by alternative medicine.
#1 and #2 have literally nothing to do with one another. You personally seem to really dislike Prince Charles, I do not know why–I don’t care at all. I don’t like Charles, nor do I dislike him. I find the British monarchy in the modern world to be a silly anachronism and that’s about the limit of my personal feelings on them. But I was quite aware with the evolution of the Prince’s public reputation, and there have been numerous articles written over a number of years about how he had successfully rehabilitated his image from a series of disasters in the late 1980s and through the mid-90s…he was literally hit with massive negative publicity for cheating on Diana, was blamed for the dissolution of their marriage (certainly at least that is somewhat fair, albeit the entire marriage appears to have been a bit of a sham), Diana goes on to become massively popular in her own right while Charles commits a number of gaffes and seems out of touch. Then Diana dies, and the public is left with Charles who actually gets heat over her death (something that was not really fair), in 1997 articles are published that literally talk about how Charles has hired PR firms to rehabilitate his image. And…it largely works, by the mid-2000s his favorability has significantly recovered, and while it has had ups and downs with different gaffes and scandals (not at all unusual among British royalty), he has consistently had more people view him favorably than unfavorably ever since. His unfavourability usually is in the 25% range in the UK, and his favorability is usually in the 45-60 range. This does make him less popular than other royals like the Queen and Prince William and his wife, but from where he was in the mid-90s, it is entirely factual that he has rehabilitated his image.
You don’t seem to be able to accept that your personal dislike of Charles is not the same as the collective opinion of the British public.
Lame pitting, and honestly a lame showing on your part in the thread. Your pathetic counter-cite to a credible YouGov survey (n=1730) of the British public’s opinion on Prince Charles is… a clickbait Reader’s Digest of Australia article (n=0) titled “11 reasons why some Brits don’t want Prince Charles to be king”.
~Max
You’re stepping into the same bullshit as Martin_Hyde by attacking the source instead of conceding its factual reporting. The only reason I linked to that cite was to back up the quote about how a British opinion poll found that nearly half of Britons want Prince Charles to step aside once the Queen dies, so that William can take the throne. That poll was commissioned on behalf of The Independent, so unless you can somehow find a way to discredit the poll, you can stuff your faux outrage up your jumper.
I think this is about the fourth time in a row Martin has dodged the question of Charles’ culpability in promoting a useless alt cancer remedy (Gerson therapy, which involves chuffing down handfuls of supplement pills daily along with coffee enemas), and what it might mean for cancer patients who decide that since Charles is recommending it, there must be something to it, and thus forego potentially curative therapy.
As for the rest, you bounced into that thread, evidently upset that negative things were being said about Charles, in an attempt to minimize his reprehensible activities (the latest being the cash-for-honors debacle). I don’t doubt that there are still royal-worshippers, but he’s far from having the shiny, burnished image you claim.
Then again, there’s reason to doubt you’re one of his fans, but just want to burnish your own reputation as a contrary asshole.
Success!
Because it has nothing to do with what I said–that he had rehabilitated his image. You’re arguing he’s some shit bag person. Maybe he is. That isn’t the same thing as his image. Mike Tyson rehabilitated his image as well–and he is a convicted rapist who did prison time for raping someone. He has largely never apologized or took ownership for that, either, in fact I think he still asserts he was legally railroaded. Tyson’s image and Tyson’s reality aren’t the same thing, you can argue all day long that Mike Tyson was a piece of shit then and now, or any other position you want–but none of that changes his image. Same deal for Prince Charles.
I’ll also note a number of other public figures who do not generally have poor reputations have embraced (and sometimes paid the price) for alternative cancer therapies in the past–Andy Kaufman and Steve Jobs come to mind.
On a total hijack for my own interest-is this local or family slang?
No idea. It’s slang, but i would have assumed it was common.
New to me, but I’m no expert. 
I haven’t read or heard it before either. Looking at Google’s book Ngram search ‘handy-by’ seems to have been in use for a while, really spiking around 1900. The 1891 American Slang Dictionary does have it in the definition for “convenient”
I don’t recommend a normal Google search, besides the ads for a male sex toy, most of the results are “Handy by X” stuff when I tried. Perhaps someone else will have better luck, or more tolerance slogging through lots of irrelevant results