Today's Mass Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
SuburbanTurkey said:
Reactionaries are more violent than the general public. Given the history of this country, that often means white people upset that they don't have the upper hand that they think they deserve.

It's hard to deny there's a trend of white supremacist terrorism that is unique to the white population. Likewise for incel misogynistic violence.
Click to expand...

True, but that not mean that the extreme left is not capable of similiar violence. I give you the radical terror groups of the early 1970's:The Weathermen, the SLA etc.
 
Louden Wilde said:
I agree. But I don't see how that's feasible given the fact that one party will oppose any effort towards removing guns (& restricting purchase) and the US governmental structure (e.g. the senate).
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz has already denounced the Democrats for "politicizing" the shootings.
 
Daily Mail: Facebook posts in past 18 months show him complaining about not having a girlfriend and hating Trump.
 
William Parcher said:
Daily Mail: Syrian-born shooter was known to FBI and ranted about 'Islamophobes hacking his phone'.
Click to expand...

Sheer Irony is, of course, the shooter has given the Islamophobes the biggest boost they have gotten in a long time.
As for the FBI knowing about the guy, problem is in the US you cannot arrest a person unless he has actually done something . That, and the FBI does not have the manpower to keep an eye on everybody who comes t thier attention:they have to choose which to keep an eye on and which can be ignores as being unlikely to act. Being Human, the FBI makes the wrong call on occasion.
 
dudalb said:
Which makes him like about a milliion other facebook posters" No real red flags there.
Daily Fail is really pushing for a story here.
Click to expand...
One of the issues with those red flag laws, these guys have more in common with the rest of us than they do with each other, at least up until they lash out.

dudalb said:
Sheer Irony is, of course, the shooter has given the Islamophobes the biggest boost they have gotten in a long time.
Click to expand...
So true of any number of recent violent outburst.

The Maga Mob at the capital, the antifa types in Portland, take your pick of what ever violent nuts that think they have a point. It mostly just lets the other side ignore or excuse their own nuts. And of course, backs up whatever confirmation bias you want. "seems to me most of these guys are insert the group you want to remember an example of here"
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
They can be counted as "white" because Middle Eastern people, including Jews, Arabs, and Persians, are white people.
Click to expand...

Isn't this part of the problem with defining the parameters of debate? White is a broad category that's specific when convenient. Are any of the groups you mentioned understood to suffer from white fragility or possess white privilege or harbor subconcious anti-minority prejudices (leftwing example)? Could any of them join a white supremacist group (rightwing example)? I think, unless they're a logic robot, most people understand what 'mass shooting perpetrated by white man' means and the white man probably wouldn't have a "Middle Eastern ... [Jewish], [Arabic], [or] [Persian] ... "-sounding name or appearance.

There probably can't be a consistent standard and everyone should just wait for facts and primarily examine cases in isolation. The Vice President's niece said, "The Atlanta shooting was not even a week ago. Violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country". She deleted the tweet but was she correct by your standard?
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
One of the issues with those red flag laws, these guys have more in common with the rest of us than they do with each other, at least up until they lash out.
Click to expand...

I agree. The red flag laws are suited for jealous threatening boyfriends, angry ex's, and people in the midst of breakdowns. Colorado has such a law (Extreme Risk Protective order, which I strongly support), but it would be of little use against the standard occasional rant and rave on social media type person.
 
ahhell said:
Seems like a lot of folks don't have much problem with thinking "whites are more violent that people of color".
Click to expand...

It doesn't have anything to do with how violent any ethnic group is (currently excluding certain people brainwashed by religion*).


*Not including mentally ill people that incorporate Jesus/Allah et al into their delusions.
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
I agree. The red flag laws are suited for jealous threatening boyfriends, angry ex's, and people in the midst of breakdowns. Colorado has such a law (Extreme Risk Protective order, which I strongly support), but it would be of little use against the standard occasional rant and rave on social media type person.
Click to expand...
I do think they are useful in domestic violence cases but mostly wouldn't address mass killers, except the domestic violence cases.
 
dudalb said:
True, but that not mean that the extreme left is not capable of similiar violence. I give you the radical terror groups of the early 1970's:The Weathermen, the SLA etc.
Click to expand...
Back in the 70s the majority of domestic terrorism was ethnic separatists (mostly not what we'd consider white then or now). There was a few years where there was terrorist bombing every week or so.

Of course, prior to that it was mostly the Klan and there was short period in which it was anarchists.
 
Last edited:
I've read that the murder weapon was an AR-15 pistol modified with an arm brace. An arm brace looks a bit like a short shoulder stock with a strap to wrap around the forearm and steady the pistol. The AR-15 pistol in my opinion is very difficult to shoot straight and too bulky.

Another issue is that for a while the ATF ruled that arm braces mounted on a handgun converted it to a short barreled rifle which is illegal to possess without ATF authorization and payment of the $200 tax. The ATF recently reversed their ruling and decided that at least some of the arm braces were legal.

But legal or not, if the arm brace is used as a shoulder stock, then the shooter needs that tax stamp to remain legal.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the shooter was using the arm brace as a shoulder stock. This would make the firearm illegally possessed. If he did not use it as a shoulder stock, this means a handgun was used as the case with most firearm related murder in the USA.

Not that any of this matters to the victims. It will be brought up in arguments concerning laws broken (if any) prior to the shooting and the type of firearm used to do so.

Ranb
 
An article on the victims, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56501686

3 of them were working there and one was a repairmen on a job there. I can imagine it's harder to run away from a check stand if you are the cashier than it would be for shoppers to run.

And there was this irony from the youngest victim:
On 8 March, he asked people to celebrate his birthday by donating to a pro-gun rights charity.
Click to expand...



If you take the two outside and the one guy just inside the door, those people were pretty much ambushed, then three employees who probably hesitated to run for obvious reasons and the officer who did what we've faulted cops who didn't for, he went right in to engage the shooter that only leaves 3 people who might* have gotten away but didn't. *Might as in we don't know. And of those 3 one was the repairman who also might have hesitated to get away, maybe his tools were out or something.

IOW, these people were somewhat easy targets. I'm glad most people got away. It sounds like there were many of them.
 
Ranb said:
I've read that the murder weapon was an AR-15 pistol modified with an arm brace. An arm brace looks a bit like a short shoulder stock with a strap to wrap around the forearm and steady the pistol. The AR-15 pistol in my opinion is very difficult to shoot straight and too bulky.

Another issue is that for a while the ATF ruled that arm braces mounted on a handgun converted it to a short barreled rifle which is illegal to possess without ATF authorization and payment of the $200 tax. The ATF recently reversed their ruling and decided that at least some of the arm braces were legal.

But legal or not, if the arm brace is used as a shoulder stock, then the shooter needs that tax stamp to remain legal.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the shooter was using the arm brace as a shoulder stock. This would make the firearm illegally possessed. If he did not use it as a shoulder stock, this means a handgun was used as the case with most firearm related murder in the USA.

Not that any of this matters to the victims. It will be brought up in arguments concerning laws broken (if any) prior to the shooting and the type of firearm used to do so.

Ranb
Click to expand...

All this arm brace situation is pretty silly. But then, so is the concept of short barreled rifle, which the leads to even sillier 5.56 "pistols". Any of that won't prevent single shooting. That's not gun control, that's just gun bureaucracy.
 
Dr.Sid said:
All this arm brace situation is pretty silly. But then, so is the concept of short barreled rifle, which the leads to even sillier 5.56 "pistols". Any of that won't prevent single shooting. That's not gun control, that's just gun bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
Why is a short barreled rifle silly? I own two; they perform well enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom