Today's mass shooting in the US

[Jono8]

I find it highly amusing that the media where very quick to plaster the history of the first shooter all over the press, because he was a right winger, yet when it came to the 2nd, didn't utter a word, because it turns out he was a left wing antifa extremist.

What was the Dayton shooters motive again?

 

[Jono8]

Come on, we all know if it was a right wing attcker they would be plastering his tweets all over the news and drawing conclusions from them, but as it’s a left wing attacker that’s OK because reasons....

What are you talking about? The El Paso shooter literally posted his reasons for doing what he did, which was all about illegal immigrants invading etc.

There has been nothing to suggest the Dayton shooter being left wing had anything to do with his motive behind the shooting.

So, no it isn't "because reasons". Its just the facts.

 

[Freakbro]

Come on, we all know if it was a right wing attcker they would be plastering his tweets all over the news and drawing conclusions from them, but as it’s a left wing attacker that’s OK because reasons....

So what is it in his tweets and the "Antifa agenda" you think inspired him to go on a killing spree of random people, including his sister?

 

[200sols]

What are you talking about? The El Paso shooter literally posted his reasons for doing what he did, which was all about illegal immigrants invading etc.

There has been nothing to suggest the Dayton shooter being left wing had anything to do with his motive behind the shooting.

You are suggesting if a white supremacist had carried out this attack but didn’t leave a manifesto then the media would not draw conclusions from his tweets etc? I think they would..

 

[neckbeardthethird]

You are suggesting if a white supremacist had carried out this attack but didn’t leave a manifesto then the media would not draw conclusions from his tweets etc? I think they would..

If a white supermacist goes into a shopping mall and specifically targets people from a specific ethnicity I think it's pretty easy to draw conclusions... the tweets would just further confirm it.

A man shooting up a bunch of randoms including his transgender brother doesn't exactly scream 'inspired by far left politics' does it.

 

[Jono8]

You are suggesting if a white supremacist had carried out this attack but didn’t leave a manifesto then the media would not draw conclusions from his tweets etc? I think they would..

Well it entirely depends on the target of the attack doesnt it...?

If a known white supremacist did this specifically to a latino or black community. Manifesto or not, we can be pretty sure of his motive/intentions, .

Come on, this is pretty basic stuff!

 

[i know nothing]

Dmitriy Andreychenko walked into a Walmart in Missouri equipped with body armor, a handgun and a rifle less than a week after a gunman killed 22 people in a Walmart in Texas. He says it was a "social experiment" -- and not intended to cause panic.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/10/us/walmart-armed-man-missouri-second-amendment/index.html

 

[StriderX]

Hopefully he's convicted and it end's this stupidity of thinking you can just walk around with an AR anywhere you like, thinking people wouldn't be alarmed is such a retarded argument, guy's an idiot.

Anyone who thinks they need to test a right out, taking time out of living on this planet, is a huge edgelord.

 

[DB_SamX]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/10/us/walmart-armed-man-missouri-second-amendment/index.html

Amazing and stupid to try this at the same time imo.

BBC say he was charged with making a terrorist threat. From what I read, there was no evidence he did that so wonder if he'll really be prosecuted!?

It's very hypocritical of Walmart especially. They openly sell guns yet someone walks in with their goods (so to speak) and people panic. He could have claimed he was there to return them.

 

[Rroff]

Amazing and stupid to try this at the same time imo.

BBC say he was charged with making a terrorist threat. From what I read, there was no evidence he did that so wonder if he'll really be prosecuted!?

It's very hypocritical of Walmart especially. They openly sell guns yet someone walks in with their goods (so to speak) and people panic. He could have claimed he was there to return them.

I'd imagine they have guidelines for firearms returns which would involve them being unloaded and boxed.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/10/us/walmart-armed-man-missouri-second-amendment/index.html

Stopped and held at gunpoint by an off duty fireman with a concealed carry permit. I thought guns were never used in this way???!!???!

 

[MissChief]

Stopped and held at gunpoint by an off duty fireman with a concealed carry permit. I thought guns were never used in this way???!!???!

Good guys with guns rarely, and I mean very rarely, stop shootings. Of any sort. In fact I’m sure they’re more likely to be shot themselves.

 

[Roar87]

He won't be prosecuted, he's basically done nothing wrong according to their laws

 

[Rroff]

Stopped and held at gunpoint by an off duty fireman with a concealed carry permit. I thought guns were never used in this way???!!???!

He was fortunate the fireman didn't shoot first ask questions later as he certainly could have done in that situation in light of ongoing events.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Good guys with guns rarely, and I mean very rarely, stop shootings. Of any sort. In fact I’m sure they’re more likely to be shot themselves.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, your opinion and feelings aren't facts.

A 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

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, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Quite a few of the recent shooting incidents have been halted by civilians with carry permits, off the top of my head the one at the church was halted by a passerby with a firearm.

 

[StriderX]

A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.

The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:

TERRORISTIC THREAT

(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

1. cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
2. place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
3. prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
4. cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
5. place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
6. influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

I guess it will depend on whether the recent context of shootings, the particular context of someone walking into a walmart not too long after a similar event looking relatively like anyone's idea of a threat.

The fact the police arrested him is the big difference here vs the usual oath keeper weirdos, usually it's a swift talk and they're off.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, your opinion and feelings aren't facts.

A 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council reported that, “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence”:

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, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Quite a few of the recent shooting incidents have been halted by civilians with carry permits, off the top of my head the one at the church was halted by a passerby with a firearm.

The same CDC that is strictly prohibited from making statements or getting funding for this research?

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

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Mark L. Rosenberg, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, has described this amendment as "a shot fired across the bow" at CDC researchers who wanted to research gun violence.[6] In a 2012 op-ed, Dickey and Rosenberg argued that the CDC should be able to research gun violence,[7] and Dickey has since said that he regrets his role in stopping the CDC from researching gun violence,[8] saying he simply didn't want to "let any of those dollars go to gun control advocacy."[9]

In a 2016 article in The Atlantic on the impact of the Dickey Amendment, Rosenberg says: “It was the leadership of CDC who stopped the agency from doing gun violence research ... Right now, there is nothing stopping them from addressing this life-and-death national problem."[10] As the article notes this assertion runs counter to the "conventional wisdom" of the Dickey Amendment "as blocking the agency [i.e. the CDC] from conducting research on firearms deaths and injuries."[10]

I can't trust that ****.

 

[DB_SamX]

Stopped and held at gunpoint by an off duty fireman with a concealed carry permit. I thought guns were never used in this way???!!???!

You can't consider this case as an example of guns having been successfully used to stop an attack because the suspect never intended to shoot anyone.

It would have been relevant if it was a legitimate shooting attempt.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

I guess it will depend on whether the recent context of shootings, the particular context of someone walking into a walmart not too long after a similar event looking relatively like anyone's idea of a threat.

The fact the police arrested him is the big difference here vs the usual oath keeper weirdos, usually it's a swift talk and they're off.



The same CDC that is strictly prohibited from making statements or getting funding for this research?

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



I can't trust that ****.

"While the amendment itself remains, the language in a report accompanying the Omnibus spending bill clarifies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can indeed conduct research into gun violence, but cannot use government appropriated funds to specifically advocate for gun control.[17] It was signed into law by U.S. President Donald J. Trump on March 23, 2018."

I thought you were anti Trump? That research was conducted under Obama btw.

 

[Tefal]

But is having guns in Walmart to them not a bit like tesco selling fireworks. It's a tradition that's been around for so long it's normalised. We just don't get it as were so not used to it. A bit like Australia and its dangerous creatures.

Yeah but have 400+ people a year buy Tesco fireworks and kill/injure 4 people each and they wont ever sell them again.


That's the difference

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Yeah but have 400+ people a year buy Tesco fireworks and kill/injure 4 people each and they wont ever sell them again.


That's the difference

So change the foundations of a nation based on absolute freedom of speech/expression protected by the right to bear arms because of a criminal element of 0.0001% of the population (who will commit these acts regardless because criminals and those with room temperature IQ do not care about laws and regulations)? Well thought out response there.

Islam has killed more than 400 people this year, should we ban religions too? That's the same as the example you have given right? To punish and restrict everyone regardless of guilt.