Today's Mass Shooting

[mgidm86]

That has been the trend, but the pandemic pushed things in the other direction. Household ownership sharply increased. There was a piece in the Washington Post profiling liberals who bought guns in response to confrontations with armed right-wingers at BLM rallies. Lots of first-time gun owners.

Makes sense, but maybe that's temporary. One hundred years (my arbitrary timeline) is a long time. I think it's likely that the trend toward less gun ownership will continue, especially if it is backed by other actions.

Society has changed in numerous ways over the years. Guns is just one of those things. It's possible and it is necessary.

The gun whackjobs (most are in my opinion) and the right-wing whackjobs have a big overlap. We need to do something about both groups, especially the latter. Let's do 'em at the same time.

Hey man I'm just trying to get a dialog going, I don't have the answers. WE might though. Maybe this country is too far gone, I wonder if it is all the time. Maybe 100 years is extremely optimistic.

Sounds crazy, but either we work towards this goal or we accept the country as it is. I can't imagine a modern nation having guns all over the streets as we move into the future (or now). Even pressure from other nations could help.

This country needs to grow up in so many ways. Maybe it is hopeless. The way politics are headed I may move away in a few years anyways.

I feel silly as if I'm pushing for some pie in the sky fantasy, but it's really the only answer. People need to want it to change.

 

[Cain]

Makes sense, but maybe that's temporary. One hundred years (my arbitrary timeline) is a long time. I think it's likely that the trend toward less gun ownership will continue, especially if it is backed by other actions.

I think this sort of prediction would have made a lot more sense in 1921, but here we are now. A hundred years is a long time, so a lot of things can happen, but I don't see much room for optimism. Social conservatives have lost on most issues, but this is not one of them. The Supreme Court now recognizes an individual right to own a firearm.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That has been the trend, but the pandemic pushed things in the other direction. Household ownership sharply increased. There was a piece in the Washington Post profiling liberals who bought guns in response to confrontations with armed right-wingers at BLM rallies. Lots of first-time gun owners.

I wonder if there's any good reporting on who were buying all these guns during the spree and why.

There's often a run on guns whenever a Democrat wins office anticipating some new gun control legislation, and I saw plenty of right wingers online expressing sentiment that BLM protests were a good reason to arm up. I also saw sentiments from leftist and even some liberal types that they needed to arm up as they responded to the looming threat of fascist street violence or general anxiety about a Trump takeover. I wouldn't be surprised if a general fear of lawlessness and civil strife was a big motivator.

Seems incontrovertible that a ton of guns moved off the shelves, and not just to the typical buyers. Ammo is still about twice as what it was in the before times in all my normal vendors, though it's been trending steadily down recently.

 

[cmikes]

That's an utterly stupid thing to say. How can gun control not be totally about guns?

Because most (all?) gun control proposals are exclusively aimed at legal gun owners. Even the most strident anti-Constitutionalists admit that criminal use of guns are the problem and yet their solution is "Hey, let's take guns away from legal, law-abiding gun owners!" It won't solve the illegal gun problem, but it will let them exert more control over the citizenry.

It's the equivalent of stopping drunk drivers by banning cars, except the ownership of cars isn't a Constitutional right.

 

[cmikes]

I have seen this put forward a few times.

It's ****.

When you can just drive up the road and buy all the guns you want any local control is meaningless.

There is effectively no control.

No, you can't just drive up the road, or you shouldn't be able to since straw purchases (buying a gun for someone else that you know can't legally own a gun) is a federal crime.

Now, you want to talk about enforcement of the law that's a different conversation. But simply making something that's illegal super double extra illegal isn't a solution if you're not going to enforce the new law any better than the current one.

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK so just carry on as you are and put up with the periodic child sacrifice the worship of the gun demands.

 

[smartcooky]

Because most (all?) gun control proposals are exclusively aimed at legal gun owners. Even the most strident anti-Constitutionalists admit that criminal use of guns are the problem and yet their solution is "Hey, let's take guns away from legal, law-abiding gun owners!" It won't solve the illegal gun problem, but it will let them exert more control over the citizenry.

It's the equivalent of stopping drunk drivers by banning cars, except the ownership of cars isn't a Constitutional right.

I respond to this by asking about the high casualty mass shootings (and I'm not talking about Bogative's totally BS derail about gang-related, criminally motivated shootings here, which are completely unrelated to the intended subject of this thread).

How many of them were carried out by shooters who used their own legally owned guns?

Well, I'll answer that question for you.....

Boulder, Colorado, March 22, 2021: 10 killed
Atlanta, March 16, 2021: 8 killed
Midland, Texas, Aug. 31, 2019: 7 killed
Dayton, Ohio, Aug. 4, 2019: 9 killed
El Paso, Texas, Aug. 3, 2019: 23 killed
Virginia Beach, Virginia, May 31, 2019: 12 killed
Thousand Oaks, California, Nov. 7, 2018: 12 killed
Pittsburgh, Oct. 27, 2018: 11 killed
Santa Fe, Texas, May 18, 2018: 10 killed
Parkland, Florida, Feb. 14, 2018. 17 killed
Sutherland Springs, Texas, Nov. 5, 2017: 25 killed
Las Vegas, Oct. 1, 2017: 58 killed
Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016: 49 killed
San Bernardino, California, Dec. 2, 2015: 14 killed
Roseburg, Oregon, Oct. 1, 2015: 10 killed
Charleston, South Carolina, June 17, 2015: 9 killed
Washington, D.C., Sept. 16, 2013: 12 killed
Newtown, Connecticut, Dec. 14, 2012: 26 killed
Aurora, Colorado, July 20, 2012: 12 killed
Virginia Tech. April 16, 2007: 32 killed

20 mass shootings, 365 people killed (many of them children) and EVERY ONE of these shootings were carried out by killers who owned their guns legally!

In fact, 83% of mass shootings between 1982 and 2021 were perpetrated by killers who owned their guns legally

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/

... so that shows your claim that criminal use of guns are the problem, in respect of mass shootings, is just plain, flat out false!

 

[cmikes]

OK so just carry on as you are and put up with the periodic child sacrifice the worship of the gun demands.

Who worships guns? I don't even own any. Besides which, there are plenty of things we as a country could do to reduce the crime rate. It's the anti-Constitutionalists that insist that the only thing to do is something that will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Devoting more resources to stopping straw purchases is just one thing, there are plenty more.

The problem, as this thread shows, is that progressives aren't really concerned about gun deaths as long as they can't blame white people for them.

 

[cmikes]

I respond to this by asking about the high casualty mass shootings (and I'm not talking about Bogative's totally BS derail about gang-related, criminally motivated shootings here, which are completely unrelated to the intended subject of this thread).

How many of them were carried out by shooters who used their own legally owned guns?

Well, I'll answer that question for you.....

Boulder, Colorado, March 22, 2021: 10 killed
Atlanta, March 16, 2021: 8 killed
Midland, Texas, Aug. 31, 2019: 7 killed
Dayton, Ohio, Aug. 4, 2019: 9 killed
El Paso, Texas, Aug. 3, 2019: 23 killed
Virginia Beach, Virginia, May 31, 2019: 12 killed
Thousand Oaks, California, Nov. 7, 2018: 12 killed
Pittsburgh, Oct. 27, 2018: 11 killed
Santa Fe, Texas, May 18, 2018: 10 killed
Parkland, Florida, Feb. 14, 2018. 17 killed
Sutherland Springs, Texas, Nov. 5, 2017: 25 killed
Las Vegas, Oct. 1, 2017: 58 killed
Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016: 49 killed
San Bernardino, California, Dec. 2, 2015: 14 killed
Roseburg, Oregon, Oct. 1, 2015: 10 killed
Charleston, South Carolina, June 17, 2015: 9 killed
Washington, D.C., Sept. 16, 2013: 12 killed
Newtown, Connecticut, Dec. 14, 2012: 26 killed
Aurora, Colorado, July 20, 2012: 12 killed
Virginia Tech. April 16, 2007: 32 killed

20 mass shootings, 365 people killed (many of them children) and EVERY ONE of these shootings were carried out by killers who owned their guns legally!

In fact, 83% of mass shootings between 1982 and 2021 were perpetrated by killers who owned their guns legally

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ur4norpchwihrd/Mass%20shooting%20stats.png?raw=1[/qimg]

... so that shows your claim that criminal use of guns are the problem, in respect of mass shootings, is just plain, flat out false!

As to the highlighted, why are mass shootings a derail in a thread titled "Today's Mass Shooting"?

As to your list, let me start by saying that almost every murder is a tragedy and very few people deserve to die whether by gun or any other method. On the other hand, you've listed 365 deaths of people killed in mass shootings over a period of 14 years 2007-20021. That's roughly one half the number that are killed by beatings in one year on average and roughly one quarter the number of people that are killed by stabbing in one year on average. Maybe we should ban knives and cut everyone's hands off?

In a country of over 350 million people, 365 deaths over 14 years is statistical noise.

Again, to be absolutely clear, I'm not claiming that nothing should be done about gun crime. I'm just saying taking away people's Constitutional rights in order to not solve the problem is not a good way to go.

And your source is very dishonest. They get their 83 percent number by simply ignoring the vast majority of mass shootings. Perfect illustration of "It doesn't count if it's not a white guy".

 

[Meadmaker]

Because most (all?) gun control proposals are exclusively aimed at legal gun owners. Even the most strident anti-Constitutionalists admit that criminal use of guns are the problem and yet their solution is "Hey, let's take guns away from legal, law-abiding gun owners!" It won't solve the illegal gun problem, but it will let them exert more control over the citizenry.

It's the equivalent of stopping drunk drivers by banning cars, except the ownership of cars isn't a Constitutional right.

I wonder how difficult it would be to compile a statistic showing what percentage of criminals who used a gun in their crimes had no prior criminal records.

i.e. The were law abiding citizens, until they weren't.



Aside from that, your post contains a lot of assertions, many of which are disputed.

 

[smartcooky]

As to the highlighted, why are mass shootings a derail in a thread titled "Today's Mass Shooting"?

This thread was started with the intent of discussing mass shootings like the one I listed, where multiple people are killed by a shooter with a political/religious grudge, such as the racist Dylan Roof (Charleston, South Carolina) and the anti-Semitic Robert D. Bowers (Pittsburgh, Oct. 27, 2018), a personal grudge with their workplace, school or society in general, such as Adam Lanza (Newtown, Connecticut, Dec. 14, 2012), Nikolas Cruz (Parkland, Florida, Feb. 14, 2018).

Shootouts between drug dealers and/or criminal gangs are not part of the discussion here however much you would like to cloud the issue by making it into one.

As to your list, let me start by saying that almost every murder is a tragedy and very few people deserve to die whether by gun or any other method. On the other hand, you've listed 365 deaths of people killed in mass shootings over a period of 14 years 2007-20021. That's roughly one half the number that are killed by beatings in one year on average and roughly one quarter the number of people that are killed by stabbing in one year on average. Maybe we should ban knives and cut everyone's hands off?

This is typical, oft repeated, but deeply flawed gun-nut's "well cars/knives/swimming pools kill people too" whataboutism. That argument fails because unlike cars, knives and swimming pools, guns were invented for the SOLE purpose of killing PEOPLE. That they are also used for hunting and target shooting, and for overgrown boys to play with theirs toys is irrelevant - those uses are spin offs from the reason they were invented.

In a country of over 350 million people, 365 deaths over 14 years is statistical noise.

Oh, I'm sure that "its just statistical noise" will be of immense comfort to all those whose whose son, daughter, partner, wife, husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, aunt or uncle were the victims.

Again, to be absolutely clear, I'm not claiming that nothing should be done about gun crime. I'm just saying taking away people's Constitutional rights in order to not solve the problem is not a good way to go.

No one is arguing that Constitutional rights be taken away. At the very least, there should be much more stringent background checks. Over 92% of Americans want stronger background, checks, and that includes gun owners, many of whom have had enough of beimng the focus every time there is a Parkland, or Newtown or a Las Vegas type shooting

And your source is very dishonest. They get their 83 percent number by simply ignoring the vast majority of mass shootings. Perfect illustration of "It doesn't count if it's not a white guy".

1. Please point out where you lifted the quote in your post. I can't find that in the source.

2. You should be more careful. You have shown your hand somewhat!

3. Making guns harder to legally get will automatically make it more difficult for criminals to get them, because their source is almost always stolen legally owned weapons. If there are less weapons overall, there will be less weapons to be stolen.

 

[Checkmite]

3. Making guns harder to legally get will automatically make it more difficult for criminals to get them, because their source is almost always stolen legally owned weapons. If there are less weapons overall, there will be less weapons to be stolen.

I'm not altogether certain that the weapons used in the majority of crimes are stolen. Of the subset of firearms that are illegally-possessed at the time of the crime, a great many of them - I couldn't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out to be most - were sold by legal owners, to illegal owners. Owing in no small part to the formers' tireless advocacy for the rights of private owners to sell to whomever they like without any obligation to find out if the purchaser they're selling to is legally allowed to buy or possess a firearm.

 

[catsmate]

Periodic sacrifices of schoolchildren are a price the USA is prepared to pay for easy access to assault weapons and automatic pistols.

Unlike Dunblane.

An yet his point appears to be true.

 

[Bogative]

Meanwhile…

But Chicago, Monday night.

4 men shot while standing outside. This occurred a few blocks away from a shooting that wounded a 15-year-old girl who was the unintentional target of the shooting.


But But Chicago, Wednesday night

8 people wounded on a party bus while sitting at a gas station.


But But But Chicago, Wednesday night

14-year-old boy killed, 5 wounded.


But But But But Chicago, Wednesday night

4 wounded, including a 14-year-old, 15-year-old and 17-year-old.



Let's just hope another "Karen" incident happens soon to distract us from this reality.

 

[cmikes]

This thread was started with the intent of discussing mass shootings like the one I listed, where multiple people are killed by a shooter with a political/religious grudge, such as the racist Dylan Roof (Charleston, South Carolina) and the anti-Semitic Robert D. Bowers (Pittsburgh, Oct. 27, 2018), a personal grudge with their workplace, school or society in general, such as Adam Lanza (Newtown, Connecticut, Dec. 14, 2012), Nikolas Cruz (Parkland, Florida, Feb. 14, 2018).

Shootouts between drug dealers and/or criminal gangs are not part of the discussion here however much you would like to cloud the issue by making it into one.

Well, I guess as long it's just mostly minorities killing other minorities it just doesn't count. Showing your hand a little bit, are we?

This is typical, oft repeated, but deeply flawed gun-nut's "well cars/knives/swimming pools kill people too" whataboutism. That argument fails because unlike cars, knives and swimming pools, guns were invented for the SOLE purpose of killing PEOPLE. That they are also used for hunting and target shooting, and for overgrown boys to play with theirs toys is irrelevant - those uses are spin offs from the reason they were invented.

Tell that to the millions of gun owners who have never killed anyone. Or most gun owners that haven't even killed an animal with their legal guns, let alone a human being. Cars have certainly killed many more people than guns in the US, no matter what they were designed for.

Oh, I'm sure that "its just statistical noise" will be of immense comfort to all those whose whose son, daughter, partner, wife, husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, aunt or uncle were the victims.

Of course almost every death is a tragedy, but we don't make public policy exclusively because of tragedies. Three year old children have drowned in bathtubs, should we ban bathtubs because it's such a tragedy? It's a tragedy when a little old lady gets run down by a bus, maybe we should ban public transportation.

There are always tradeoffs. How many people have died because the police were forced to follow the Fourth Amendment and couldn't legally get evidence against a criminal gang before they killed someone. Should we repeal the Fourth Amendment?

No one is arguing that Constitutional rights be taken away. At the very least, there should be much more stringent background checks. Over 92% of Americans want stronger background, checks, and that includes gun owners, many of whom have had enough of beimng the focus every time there is a Parkland, or Newtown or a Las Vegas type shooting

Of course plenty of people are arguing that Constitutional rights be taken away. President Biden just said that he was trying to make guns illegal. As far as background checks, I agree with you. They should be much more stringent, both to make sure the person is qualified to own a gun and to prevent straw purchases. As I said above, a lot of the mayhem in the inner cities could be prevented by simply enforcing the laws against straw purchases and stopping criminal access to illegal guns.

I think that in many ways the pro-Constitutionalists are their own worst enemies in that regard. On the other hand, they oppose just about every gun regulation because the anti-Constitutionalists have made it abundantly clear that no matter what the interim regulations are, their ultimate goal is to completely ban guns so that only criminals are armed.

1. Please point out where you lifted the quote in your post. I can't find that in the source.

It's obvious that your source is simply making up numbers. Just reading this thread demonstrates that the vast majority of mass shootings in the US are committed by criminals that don't legally own the weapons they are using.

2. You should be more careful. You have shown your hand somewhat!

Is this some sort of vague racism accusation? Sure, my wanting to prevent gun crime, particularly in the inner cities, is racist while your "Shootings between criminals don't count" is the height of tolerance.

3. Making guns harder to legally get will automatically make it more difficult for criminals to get them, because their source is almost always stolen legally owned weapons. If there are less weapons overall, there will be less weapons to be stolen.

Are you seriously claiming that the same gangs that are smuggling thousands, if not tens of thousands, of tons of drugs across the most porous border in the world couldn't smuggle weapons if they had to? Really?

 

[smartcooky]

Well, I guess as long it's just mostly minorities criminals killing other minorities criminals it just doesn't count.

FTFY in terms of what THIS THREAD is about.

Showing your hand a little bit, are we?

W.R.T. my correction above, proud to show that hand.

Tell that to the millions of gun owners who have never killed anyone. Or most gun owners that haven't even killed an animal with their legal guns, let alone a human being. Cars have certainly killed many more people than guns in the US, no matter what they were designed for.

I doesn't matter how many gun owners haven't killed anyone, it does not change the irrefutable fact that guns were invented and designed for the sole purpose of killing people. Therefore the argument that "well, cars/knives/swimming pools kill people too" nothing but spurious gun-nut whataboutism.

Of course almost every death is a tragedy, but we don't make public policy exclusively because of tragedies. Three year old children have drowned in bathtubs, should we ban bathtubs because it's such a tragedy? It's a tragedy when a little old lady gets run down by a bus, maybe we should ban public transportation.

More gun-nut whataboutism.

There are always tradeoffs. How many people have died because the police were forced to follow the Fourth Amendment and couldn't legally get evidence against a criminal gang before they killed someone. Should we repeal the Fourth Amendment?

Looks like whataboutism is all you have left...

Of course plenty of people are arguing that Constitutional rights be taken away. President Biden just said that he was trying to make guns illegal.

... well, maybe not... looks like you've got NRA misinformation, propaganda and bare-faced lies too!

1. Banning "ghost guns" and home-made guns with no serial numbers is not "making guns illegal". 2A might give you the right to own guns (and even that is debatable), it certainly does not give you the right to make them.

2. Allowing states to have "red flag laws" to prevent the mentally ill and those with violent criminal records from owning guns is not "making guns illegal".

3. Cracking down on the illegal arms trade, e.g. dealers who sell guns to criminals, is not "making guns illegal".

As far as background checks, I agree with you. They should be much more stringent, both to make sure the person is qualified to own a gun and to prevent straw purchases. As I said above, a lot of the mayhem in the inner cities could be prevented by simply enforcing the laws against straw purchases and stopping criminal access to illegal guns.

And so you should.

I think that in many ways the pro-Constitutionalists are their own worst enemies in that regard. On the other hand, they oppose just about every gun regulation because the anti-Constitutionalists have made it abundantly clear that no matter what the interim regulations are, their ultimate goal is to completely ban guns so that only criminals are armed.

The first sentance I agree with.

The second is complete BS.

a. Just because you believe 2A was an ill-advised and short-sighted amendment to the Constitution doesn't make you an "anti-Constitutionalist"

b. Just because you have seen enough of the death, mayhem and utter misery caused by guns in the hands of dangerous people, doesn't make you an "anti-Constitutionalist".

c. Absolutely no politicians of any stripe are demanding a 100% ban on all guns. This is just another one of the "but muh-guns" scaremongering flat out lies perpetrated by right-wing gun-nuts.

It's obvious that your source is simply making up numbers.

Their sources are the publicly available figures of the DoJ, ATF, FBI and other police organisations, so making up numbers, yeah, right!

Just reading this thread demonstrates that the vast majority of mass shootings in the US are committed by criminals that don't legally own the weapons they are using.

Sure, my wanting to prevent gun crime, particularly in the inner cities, is racist while your "Shootings between criminals don't count" is the height of tolerance.

Nope, that is simply not true. This thread is not, and never was, about criminals shooting other criminals in turf wars etc (despite certain members trying to derail it into one). If you want to discuss criminal v criminal shootings feel free to start a separate thread for it.

Is this some sort of vague racism accusation?

I don't know, is it? You're telling the story.

Are you seriously claiming that the same gangs that are smuggling thousands, if not tens of thousands, of tons of drugs across the most porous border in the world couldn't smuggle weapons if they had to? Really?

If you're talking about the US/Mexico border, then those are two more untruths.

1. The most porous border in the world is Pakistan/Afghanistan.

https://www.perceptivetravel.com/issues/1117/border.html

There are approximately two dozen borders in Europe* and the Middle East more porous than US/ Mexico.

*https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen_en

"Any person, irrespective of their nationality, may cross the internal borders [of Europe] without being subjected to border checks."

2. The vast majority of drugs that are smuggled into the US enter through legal ports of entry, not the vast, open parts of the border.

"According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year was caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points."

The ludicrous idea that there are some vast cartels of drug smugglers driving truckloads of drugs across the US/Mexico border out in the boondocks at some remote rural/mountain locations is the purest of Hollywood fantasy as well as racist Trump propaganda that he uses to wind up his racist political base.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ugs-crossing-southern-border-wall/2591279002/

 

[mgidm86]

I'm not altogether certain that the weapons used in the majority of crimes are stolen. Of the subset of firearms that are illegally-possessed at the time of the crime, a great many of them - I couldn't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out to be most - were sold by legal owners, to illegal owners. Owing in no small part to the formers' tireless advocacy for the rights of private owners to sell to whomever they like without any obligation to find out if the purchaser they're selling to is legally allowed to buy or possess a firearm.

Obtained illegally may be more accurate then.

 

[mgidm86]

Because most (all?) gun control proposals are exclusively aimed at legal gun owners. Even the most strident anti-Constitutionalists admit that criminal use of guns are the problem and yet their solution is "Hey, let's take guns away from legal, law-abiding gun owners!" It won't solve the illegal gun problem, but it will let them exert more control over the citizenry.

It's the equivalent of stopping drunk drivers by banning cars, except the ownership of cars isn't a Constitutional right.

Most guns on the street started out as being legally owned by someone. Those legal gun owners, largely through negligence in leaving them out to be stolen, or selling them illegally or to questionable folk, allowed the guns to get on the streets.

It makes sense that people who cannot be responsible will have their toys taken away or restricted. Gotta stop the flow at the source, or as close as possible.

Owning guns is a right but I contend that it is a stupid idea. I also think the 2nd Am has been misinterpreted, and that the "right" is possibly BS.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm not altogether certain that the weapons used in the majority of crimes are stolen. Of the subset of firearms that are illegally-possessed at the time of the crime, a great many of them - I couldn't say for sure but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out to be most - were sold by legal owners, to illegal owners. Owing in no small part to the formers' tireless advocacy for the rights of private owners to sell to whomever they like without any obligation to find out if the purchaser they're selling to is legally allowed to buy or possess a firearm.

Obtained illegally may be more accurate then.

Fair call. I will amend what I said to...

3. Making guns harder to legally get will automatically make it more difficult for criminals to get them, because their source is almost always stolen legally owned weapons or illegally purchased weapons. If there are less weapons overall, there will be less weapons to be stolen or illegally purchased.

 

[Bogative]

Time for the weekly round up before the weekend starts.

4 mass shootings in Chicago to be excluded on the list.


Perth Amboy, New Jersey

6 wounded when some dude tries to kill another guy he knew and ended up wounding five others. No mugshot available, I guess he wasn't wearing a MAGA hat.


Jacksonville, Texas

4 dead when three creepy ass crackers pulled a home invasion/robbery.


Adelphi, Maryland

1 dead, 4 wounded when

two suspects walked up to the group of victims, had an exchange of words and then fired upon the group.

Houston, Texas

1 dead, 5 wounded in a drive-by shooting outside a bar that was hosting a memorial/fundraiser for a person who was murdered a week prior.


Darlington, South Carolina

4 wounded in a car to car drive by shooting.



9 mass shootings.

7 killed.

40 wounded.

0 white DVEs of the trigger.