Another fucking shooting

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:
[

Just because the religious left doesn't think the FBI isn't seen as a trusted source by them...what does...so they don't think they're not, so they do think they are? But an anonymous blog is? Is what?

Zontar, help me out here.

I and others have posted the violent crime statistics regarding gun violence here quite a few times, yet it's always rejected out of hand because apparently the FBI isn't a valid source. Yet places that post anything that's submitted to them are accepted by those same people.

Usually because you link you a meme image or a random chart hosted by a blog.

Last time we asked for the FBI source, you claimed Google was hiding it from you.

altnameJag:

Last time we asked for the FBI source, you claimed Google was hiding it from you.

You're about a year late on the timeline Jag, this discussion was on race based shooting statistics, not the wealth based breakdown by race.

And given how you're one of the ones who posts blogs as sources, well pot, meet kettle.

A few new details

The US Airforce has admitted that it failed to add the shooter's domestic abuse court martial into the federal database. This error allowed the shooter to purchase his guns.

The shooter may have been driven by anger towards his wife's family. The shooter's mother in law is a member of the church and may have been the shooter's target. However, the mother in law was not at the church at the time of the shooting.

After exiting the church, a bystander opened fire on the shooter hitting him in the leg and torso. The shooter managed to get back to his vehicle and drive away, but the bystander and another man gave chase. After crashing his car the shooter committed suicide with a gunshot to the head.

erttheking:

Dirty Hipsters:
They're probably not calling it a terrorist attack because it likely wasn't a terrorist attack. Rural Texas isn't exactly a major target for terrorist acts.

Maybe this was more of a personal grudge taken to an extreme (similar to the way many school shootings are). Guess we'll see once more details are released.

I doubt that would've stopped some people from jumping the gun. And I still stand by my prediction that he's white since we haven't heard anything about his race.

If I seem bitter, it's because I am. I'm fucking tired of how normal and predictable this has fucking become.

Looks like I was right, current reports are saying he went to the church to kill his mother in law.

Zontar:

altnameJag:

Last time we asked for the FBI source, you claimed Google was hiding it from you.

You're about a year late on the timeline Jag, this discussion was on race based shooting statistics, not the wealth based breakdown by race.

And given how you're one of the ones who posts blogs as sources, well pot, meet kettle.

Hey, my blogs link to things.

When did you post a source for "Muslim minority violence > white people violence in western countries"? When did you post any sort of coherent argument for "inner city violence was going down because abortion is legal"?

Because I very much doubt I'm going to find those on FBI.gov

Dirty Hipsters:

erttheking:

Dirty Hipsters:
They're probably not calling it a terrorist attack because it likely wasn't a terrorist attack. Rural Texas isn't exactly a major target for terrorist acts.

Maybe this was more of a personal grudge taken to an extreme (similar to the way many school shootings are). Guess we'll see once more details are released.

I doubt that would've stopped some people from jumping the gun. And I still stand by my prediction that he's white since we haven't heard anything about his race.

If I seem bitter, it's because I am. I'm fucking tired of how normal and predictable this has fucking become.

Looks like I was right, current reports are saying he went to the church to kill his mother in law.

We really gotta figure out why dudes not only want to off themselves, but decide to take as many people out with them as they can. Like, if it were revenge, I get it. Not condone, but understand. If it's an accident, like that Pakistani gal, okay.

But this was deliberate. He must not have even looked too hard for his target.

That's some toxic shit.

altnameJag:

Dirty Hipsters:

erttheking:

I doubt that would've stopped some people from jumping the gun. And I still stand by my prediction that he's white since we haven't heard anything about his race.

If I seem bitter, it's because I am. I'm fucking tired of how normal and predictable this has fucking become.

Looks like I was right, current reports are saying he went to the church to kill his mother in law.

We really gotta figure out why dudes not only want to off themselves, but decide to take as many people out with them as they can. Like, if it were revenge, I get it. Not condone, but understand. If it's an accident, like that Pakistani gal, okay.

But this was deliberate. He must not have even looked too hard for his target.

That's some toxic shit.

We have heard that he was an atheist, probably had some bad blood with his mother in law regarding religion.

Maybe his mother in law really got on his nerves constantly trying to make him go to church so he decided to blow away the whole congregation?

An appallingly petty motivation to be sure, but at least one I'd be able to understand on a very base level.

Dirty Hipsters:

We have heard that he was an atheist, probably had some bad blood with his mother in law regarding religion.

Maybe his mother in law really got on his nerves constantly trying to make him go to church so he decided to blow away the whole congregation?

An appallingly petty motivation to be sure, but at least one I'd be able to understand on a very base level.

It's also not true.

"This was not racially motivated, it wasn't over religious beliefs," said Mr Martin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41895695

Semes:

Dirty Hipsters:

We have heard that he was an atheist, probably had some bad blood with his mother in law regarding religion.

Maybe his mother in law really got on his nerves constantly trying to make him go to church so he decided to blow away the whole congregation?

An appallingly petty motivation to be sure, but at least one I'd be able to understand on a very base level.

It's also not true.

"This was not racially motivated, it wasn't over religious beliefs," said Mr Martin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41895695

If I'm reading that correctly Mr. Martin is the dude's father? The article isn't very clear on who he is or what his connection is with the case at all. Him saying that it wasn't over religious beliefs really doesn't prove much.

bastardofmelbourne:

generals3:
As far as I know there is no white terrorist organisation which targets christian churches in rural America for reason X or Y. So why assume it is an act of terrorism rather than any other potential reason which is as (un)likely?

As Saelune said, there is the KKK, which is/was an anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic group in addition to being big ol' racists. And, of course, black Christians exist, and they go to church just like regular Christians, and those churches have been attacked from time to time in ways that most people would consider to be terrorism.

Oh, there's a list? There's a list. So, that's good to have.

On this shooting specifically; there's no indication yet as to the shooter's motive, which is basically the only thing that differentiates a random act of mass murder from a terrorist attack. So it would be premature to call this a terrorist attack; there does not seem to be a political objective involved at all.

But the KKK has become largely inactive in terms of significant attacks unlike IS or Al Qaeda. And when I look at that list in recent years it even includes "a small fire" which caused little damage. And nothing in that list links these actions to particular organisations. On the other hand in the days of the IRA, ETA or FLNC white people were regularly labeled as terrorists when they committed attacks or bombings for the cause of said organisations. That's the key difference between your random spree shooter and a muslim who drives over people and yells "Allahu Akbar". Trying to make it about "white" vs "non-white" is progressive intellectually dishonest racist bullshit.

altnameJag:
...so what is the timeframe on being able to politicize a mass killing or talk about gun control?

Because we politicized the NYC truck killing basically immediately, calling for all sorts of bans and restrictions, and in some cases arguing that Muslims should be deported immediately.

But here, barely a month after the largest mass shooting in the US conducted by civilians, we still "shouldn't politicize" mass shootings. Because the blood is too fresh, you see.

So what's the goddamned time limit?

There is no answer to that because the "let's not politicize this..." argument is the most idiotic ever spawned by the gun lobby to avoid any gun-related discussion. It is an argument that has never been applied in history and still isn't in most cases and for very obvious reasons at that.
Maybe we shouldn't talk about Myanmar and the ethnic cleansing going on there because the bodies are still warm and we wouldn't want to politicize their fresh deaths... Or what about 9/11 and how it was immediately politicized and used as an excuse to fight a war against terror. Maybe we should have waited an indefinite amount of time just for it all to sink in. And Heck we should also stop politicizing the actions of brutal regimes because every day they spawn new fresh bodies which we wouldn't want to be disrespectful to.

This idea we should wait, while remaining silent, before taking action in order to not be disrespectful towards the victims is actually extremely disrespectful towards the victims. It's basically telling the victims that their deaths are not important enough to warrant taking actions to prevent future dramas of the same nature.

Semes:

Dirty Hipsters:

If I'm reading that correctly Mr. Martin is the dude's father? The article isn't very clear on who he is or what his connection is with the case at all. Him saying that it wasn't over religious beliefs really doesn't prove much.

From the article.

"Kelley was also shot in his leg and torso by a citizen, the regional director for the Texas Department of Public Safety, Freeman Martin, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press."

If you have trouble reading anything else you can usually active a mode to have your device or OS read to you.

Do you have a source that it was religiously motivated as you claim?

Fair enough, missed that line. The way the article was written, mentioning that he'd called his father and then immediately going into the "causes" of the shooting made me think that he had called his father to explain his motivations before he died or something. Clearly I was reading into the article more than intended, you kind of have to agree it's not particularly well written though and doesn't flow in a logical manner. Still, totally my fault for glossing over the name.

No source for the claim that the attack was religiously motivated. There's a few news sources that are calling him a "militant atheist" because of things he posted on facebook, but those are less than reputable. I just find it weird to attack a congregation of people just to kill a single target, so in my mind it makes sense that part of his issue with his mother in law was her religion, if he was there to kill her specifically.

generals3:
Trying to make it about "white" vs "non-white" is progressive intellectually dishonest racist bullshit.

To be frank, trying to whitewash or dismiss the long and sordid history of racist terrorism in the United States is also intellectually dishonest bullshit. And attacks on black church congregations are not exactly old news. You don't get to shrug and say "we're past all that" when there are Nazis marching in Virginia.

You want to ignore all that in favour of splitting hairs over what counts as an "organisation" for the purpose of terrorist attacks, then that's your deal. I think it's bullshit, because no-one has ever defined terrorism by the perpetrator's membership in an overarching terrorist organisation or lack thereof. Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate a polity into acceding to the perpetrator's political demands. It is politically motivated violence, and therefore the only relevant factor is the perpetrator's motive.

Dylann Roof was a terrorist because he killed black people in the name of white supremacism. Sayfullo Saipov was a terrorist because he killed New Yorkers in the name of radical Islam. Is there a difference? Other than the fact that one used a gun and the other used a car?

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:
[

Just because the religious left doesn't think the FBI isn't seen as a trusted source by them...what does...so they don't think they're not, so they do think they are? But an anonymous blog is? Is what?

Zontar, help me out here.

I and others have posted the violent crime statistics regarding gun violence here quite a few times, yet it's always rejected out of hand because apparently the FBI isn't a valid source. Yet places that post anything that's submitted to them are accepted by those same people.

You don't trust the FBI's conclusions about the whole Russia thing, though. Or do you?

Xsjadoblayde:
Holy fuck, they know they're lying purely to fuel distrust and hatred among their readership, yet they not only continue, they put actual effort into manufacturing evidence with zero shame. They must be keenly aware they're living a lie and are fine with it.
It's terribly written as it is, reading like precisely somebody with limited imagination wrote it. But I guess if their readership lasted this long already, they may not have the liberty of critical thought towards bias confirmation in online or offline publications to look further.

Don't react to it. As far as we know it might have been written by Russian trolls. It fits their MO, from what we've learned about their activities in the past couple of months.

bastardofmelbourne:

To be frank, trying to whitewash or dismiss the long and sordid history of racist terrorism in the United States is also intellectually dishonest bullshit. And attacks on black church congregations are not exactly old news. You don't get to shrug and say "we're past all that" when there are Nazis marching in Virginia.

Who is dismissing anything and who is saying we're past anything? I said the KKK has largely been inactive in terms of significant attacks in recent years. Do you have proof of the contrary? Is there a long list of recent significant attacks done by them?

You want to ignore all that in favour of splitting hairs over what counts as an "organisation" for the purpose of terrorist attacks, then that's your deal. I think it's bullshit, because no-one has ever defined terrorism by the perpetrator's membership in an overarching terrorist organisation or lack thereof. Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate a polity into acceding to the perpetrator's political demands. It is politically motivated violence, and therefore the only relevant factor is the perpetrator's motive.

Dylann Roof was a terrorist because he killed black people in the name of white supremacism. Sayfullo Saipov was a terrorist because he killed New Yorkers in the name of radical Islam. Is there a difference? Other than the fact that one used a gun and the other used a car?

I'm not splitting any hairs. You are. IS and Al Qaeda are well known and recognized organisations which have been very active in the terrorism department. The KKK is well known but hasn't done a lot of high profile attacks as of late (or am I wrong?).

And I'm not saying that one has to be a member of a terrorist organization in order to be a terrorist. This is just you, yet again, making wild interpretations in order to avoid having to address the crux of the argument.
The point is and has always been that if a person, who has similar traits as the typical member of a well known terrorist organisation, commits an attack which is in line with the organisation's modus operandi (and in most cases even adds a "catch phrase" used by these terrorists) it's 100% normal he will be assumed, and later on, based on evidence even considered a terrorist. While a random person who doesn't have a typical profile linking him to any terrorist organisation committing an attack, which doesn't fit any particular terrorist organisation, is indeed much less likely to be assumed to be a terrorist. And only when significant evidence shows otherwise he will. Sounds perfectly normal and legit to me. This has NOTHING to do with being white or not. If a white guy in Ireland had blown up a police station back when the IRA was very active terrorism would have also been assumed. It's all about who is the current biggest producer of terrorism at the moment.

It's not my nor anyone else's fault that nowadays the most high profile terrorists in the West are Arabic/North African and/or have big beards and yell "Allahu Akbar".

Let's just ask yourself this: Imagine a black person making a racially dubious comment. Not plain racism but not innocent either. How likely are you to consider his comments to be racist and how likely are you going to give him the benefit of the doubt and try to get some clarification on why he said what he did or what he meant exactly. Now imagine that person being white and saying "SIEG HEIL" after his comment. How likely are you now going to consider him and his comment to be racist?

generals3:
Who is dismissing anything and who is saying we're past anything? I said the KKK has largely been inactive in terms of significant attacks in recent years. Do you have proof of the contrary? Is there a long list of recent significant attacks done by them?

Yeah. A white supremacist shot up a church in Charleston two years ago.

Or does that not count because he's not in the KKK? Because two paragraphs later...

generals3:
I'm not splitting any hairs. You are. IS and Al Qaeda are well known and recognized organisations which have been very active in the terrorism department. The KKK is well known but hasn't done a lot of high profile attacks as of late (or am I wrong?).

And I'm not saying that one has to be a member of a terrorist organization in order to be a terrorist. This is just you, yet again, making wild interpretations in order to avoid having to address the crux of the argument.

...you're saying that him being in the KKK isn't relevant to him being a terrorist. Am I right in that interpretation? Because that seems like a contradiction to me. But who knows? Maybe I'm just splitting hairs. Silly me; trying to piece together the logical implications of the words you are using to communicate with in order to discern your meaning! What a doofus I am.

Let's focus on something not hair-sized: was the Charleston shooting an act of terrorism in your eyes? If not, what is it that makes it not an act of terrorism? Is it simply because white supremacist terror attacks are - according to you - not common? What about the Quebec mosque shooting? Or the Wisconsin attack on a Sikh temple? Or Heather Heyer? Or the Portland train attack? Or do those all not count?

generals3:
The point is and has always been that if a person, who has similar traits as the typical member of a well known terrorist organisation, commits an attack which is in line with the organisation's modus operandi (and in most cases even adds a "catch phrase" used by these terrorists) it's 100% normal he will be assumed, and later on, based on evidence even considered a terrorist.

Well, Dylann Roof walked into a church and started shooting people, much like Omar Mateen walked into a nightclub and started shooting people. James Alex Fields drove a car into a crowd of people in Charlottesville, much like Sayfullo Saipov drove a car into a crowd of people in New York. All those perpetrators were men between the age of 20-30. Do these similarities in each attack's M.O. imply a relationship to a specific terrorist organisation?

No. All of those killers were lone wolf actors. That means they acted without any direction or support from a larger terrorist organisation; they planned and carried out their own attack, and the only factor that transforms their actions from mundane homicide into an act of terror was the political motive behind each killing. The similarities in M.O. are not the result of organisational cohesion; it is because those tactics happen to be very effective and practical ways of killing or injuring large numbers of people in a very public manner. The only thing connecting Omar Mateen to ISIS or Dylann Roof to the KKK are the fact that they happen to sympathise with the views of those organisations. But they're all still terrorists.

I mean, from what I can figure out, you're basically saying that because ISIS is in the news, it's okay for people to conjure up a fundamentalist Muslim in their head when they hear the word "terrorist." And because the KKK is not in the news, it's not okay for people to conjure up a white supremacist in their head when they hear the same word. Even if they know that the shooting shared the same MO as many similar terrorist attacks, and even if they know the perpetrator's race already; because the KKK is not as infamous as ISIS, it is justified to assume that a Muslim murderer was a terrorist and not justified to assume that a neo-Nazi murderer was a terrorist.

How about this for a counterpoint: both assumptions are fatally fucking retarded, because no race or doctrine has a monopoly on terrorism. The only sensible point of distinction between a mass murder and a terrorist attack is the political motivations of the perpetrator - not their resemblance to the MO or profile of an existing terrorist organisation, and not the relative infamy of any given terrorist organisation at any time. Solely the motive.

Yes? No? Hair?

generals3:
Let's just ask yourself this: Imagine a black person making a racially dubious comment. Not plain racism but not innocent either. How likely are you to consider his comments to be racist and how likely are you going to give him the benefit of the doubt and try to get some clarification on why he said what he did or what he meant exactly. Now imagine that person being white and saying "SIEG HEIL" after his comment. How likely are you now going to consider him and his comment to be racist?

Ugh...if I absolutely have to engage with this hypothetical, then I would say that the latter is less deserving of the benefit of the doubt. Not because he is white, but because shouting a Nazi salute is well past "accidental racism," straight through "plain racism," and all the way to "you would have to be a colossal fucking jackass to sieg heil a person and not expect them to think that you're racist."

If you replaced the sieg heil with something less directly evocative of the most infamously prolific mass murderers in history - like, "I think this Obama fellow is a Muslim," - then I would be slightly more charitable. You know, there's people who sound racist but aren't, people who are racist but don't know it, and people who are racist and know it. I will only wholeheartedly condemn that third category; the first is the victim of a misunderstanding and the second is the victim of their own ignorance.

bastardofmelbourne:

Yeah. A white supremacist shot up a church in Charleston two years ago.

Or does that not count because he's not in the KKK? Because two paragraphs later...

Who says it does not count? And whether or not that instance was an act of terror changes nothing about the argument and the fact there are no high profile white supremacist terrorist organisations.

...you're saying that him being in the KKK isn't relevant to him being a terrorist. Am I right in that interpretation?

Yes & No. What is the most relevant are his actions and motivations. Being part or affiliated/linked to an organisation which is known for terrorism does help establish a terrorist motive. So no it's not a "sine qua non" condition but it is most definitely a factor which would contribute to whether or not someone is assumed or considered a terrorist.

Let's focus on something not hair-sized: was the Charleston shooting an act of terrorism in your eyes? If not, what is it that makes it not an act of terrorism? Is it simply because white supremacist terror attacks are - according to you - not common? What about the Quebec mosque shooting? Or the Wisconsin attack on a Sikh temple? Or Heather Heyer? Or the Portland train attack? Or do those all not count?

That particular case did appear to me as a terrorist attack yes. Atypical nowadays but one nonetheless. Same for the attack on the Sikh Temple. But not the Quebec Mosque, as there is much less evidence towards a specific political goal. The Canadian courts seem to agree on that as he was charged with multiple counts of murder. A hate crime isn't necessarily a terrorist attack. The attack of Andres Brevik for instance was also a terrorist attack. But let's consider things for a second. How many white lone shooters who have no particular political motive commit atrocities every year in the US? Too many. Only a tiny fraction do it with political motives and with the ultimate goal of causing terror. On the other hand when people who are part of the small muslim minority go on and shoot at crowds, drive over them or place bombs it's almost always linked to a terrorist organisation. So who's the most likely to be a terrorist? The white guy shooting in a church? Or the muslim using a truck as a weapon and yells "Allahu Akbar" afterwards?

These are the problems you and plenty seem to purposely overlook:

- The most high profile terrorist organisations are Islamic
- Relatively speaking Islamic terrorism is extremely over represented in the US and West in general
- Islamic terrorists have managed to cause more attacks which warranted a lot more media attention

This all creates the very normal and expected reaction that attacks which have terrorist characteristics will be assumed to be as such if they have links with Islamism. If the Alt-Right started to spread terror in the same way Al Qaeda or IS does a lot more white attacks would be assumed to be terrorist by nature. It's all a matter of CONTEXT!

Well, Dylann Roof walked into a church and started shooting people, much like Omar Mateen walked into a nightclub and started shooting people. James Alex Fields drove a car into a crowd of people in Charlottesville, much like Sayfullo Saipov drove a car into a crowd of people in New York. All those perpetrators were men between the age of 20-30. Do these similarities in each attack's M.O. imply a relationship to a specific terrorist organisation?

Did they have anything else but age and gender in common? Political Ideology? Religion? The use of chants or heils typically used by known terrorists and terrorist organisations? Have we also found other elements linking them to specific ideologies and/or organisations? These are all relevant questions in determining whether or not someone will be assumed and/or considered a terrorist. The more the profile fits the stronger the assumptions will be.

No. All of those killers were lone wolf actors. That means they acted without any direction or support from a larger terrorist organisation; they planned and carried out their own attack, and the only factor that transforms their actions from mundane homicide into an act of terror was the political motive behind each killing. The similarities in M.O. are not the result of organisational cohesion; it is because those tactics happen to be very effective and practical ways of killing or injuring large numbers of people in a very public manner. The only thing connecting Omar Mateen to ISIS or Dylann Roof to the KKK are the fact that they happen to sympathise with the views of those organisations. But they're all still terrorists.

Who said anyone needed actual directions or support from an organisation? And "Happen to sympathise with..." sounds very very mild when talking about terrorists who owned flags and watched a lot of videos from the organisation and often also proclaim themselves as soldiers of said organisation. There is more than mere sympathy. There is inspiration as well.

I mean, from what I can figure out, you're basically saying that because ISIS is in the news, it's okay for people to conjure up a fundamentalist Muslim in their head when they hear the word "terrorist." And because the KKK is not in the news, it's not okay for people to conjure up a white supremacist in their head when they hear the same word. Even if they know that the shooting shared the same MO as many similar terrorist attacks, and even if they know the perpetrator's race already; because the KKK is not as infamous as ISIS, it is justified to assume that a Muslim murderer was a terrorist and not justified to assume that a neo-Nazi murderer was a terrorist.

I have never said assuming X as being a terrorist is right and Y wrong. I have said that the current context with regards to terrorism is quite naturally creating the link between certain profiles and actions with terrorism. Read the bold part, I have said it is "normal" and "less likely". I can't see any "right" or "wrong" anywhere. This is pure human psychology 101. The day White Nationalist terrorism becomes as prominent and high profile as Islamic terrorism your ideal will be reached and assumptions will be made equally across the board. Meanwhile as reality is extremely skewed so will be assumptions which are based on people's experiences (which includes what they see, read about and so forth).

"The point is and has always been that if a person, who has similar traits as the typical member of a well known terrorist organisation, commits an attack which is in line with the organisation's modus operandi (and in most cases even adds a "catch phrase" used by these terrorists) it's 100% normal he will be assumed, and later on, based on evidence even considered a terrorist. While a random person who doesn't have a typical profile linking him to any terrorist organisation committing an attack, which doesn't fit any particular terrorist organisation, is indeed much less likely to be assumed to be a terrorist. And only when significant evidence shows otherwise he will. Sounds perfectly normal and legit to me. This has NOTHING to do with being white or not. If a white guy in Ireland had blown up a police station back when the IRA was very active terrorism would have also been assumed. It's all about who is the current biggest producer of terrorism at the moment."

How about this for a counterpoint: both assumptions are fatally fucking retarded, because no race or doctrine has a monopoly on terrorism. The only sensible point of distinction between a mass murder and a terrorist attack is the political motivations of the perpetrator - not their resemblance to the MO or profile of an existing terrorist organisation, and not the relative infamy of any given terrorist organisation at any time. Solely the motive.

They are not fatally fucking retarded, it would be better without assumptions but it could be worse. You could assume anyone with a long beard who says "Alluha Akbar" is a terrorist and not just those who kill people. That would be fatally fucking retarded. And we have to remain realistic, our brain loves to extrapolate and generalize based on its known data (that's why we avoid touching a hot stove, it hurt us once, it's likely to hurt us again. We don't know for sure, we just assume it will). It's really fatally fucking hard to drill people to act against their nature. It's like preaching abstinence. So as long as trends occur, generalizations and assumptions will be made. The best way to counteract that is by fighting the trend.

Ugh...if I absolutely have to engage with this hypothetical, then I would say that the latter is less deserving of the benefit of the doubt. Not because he is white, but because shouting a Nazi salute is well past "accidental racism," straight through "plain racism," and all the way to "you would have to be a colossal fucking jackass to sieg heil a person and not expect them to think that you're racist."

Just like you have to be a colossal fucking idiot to scream "Allahu Akbar" after purposely driving over people and not expect people to think you're a terrorist. That's the point. Sieg Heil-ing is a trademark of nazis. Just like praising God after committing an attack is a trademark of islamic terrorists.

Zetatrain:
A few new details

The US Airforce has admitted that it failed to add the shooter's domestic abuse court martial into the federal database. This error allowed the shooter to purchase his guns.

The shooter may have been driven by anger towards his wife's family. The shooter's mother in law is a member of the church and may have been the shooter's target. However, the mother in law was not at the church at the time of the shooting.

After exiting the church, a bystander opened fire on the shooter hitting him in the leg and torso. The shooter managed to get back to his vehicle and drive away, but the bystander and another man gave chase. After crashing his car the shooter committed suicide with a gunshot to the head.

So if I got it right:
1) this isn't a case of loose gun laws but rather the USA army makes a fuckup
2) There really was a "good guy with a gun" who limited the carnage the scumbag made.

Good thing no one tried to use the case for political profit before knowing all the information.

"Thoughts and prayers mental health issue the real problem are all those darn brown people please excuse me while I collect my NRA campaign donations we need to start arming good guys with guns and it was probably a leftist."

Another day another shooting. While this guy does seem like he was just generally unstable the fact that unstable people are still able to pull this shit off so easily is really worrying. I guess I'm grateful he was stopped though most mass shooters usually don't escape afterwards anyway. It's horrific to think about quite frankly but still the scariest thing remains that my first thought was:
Another day, another mass shooting.

inu-kun:

2) There really was a "good guy with a gun" who limited the carnage the scumbag made.

You know 27 people had already died by the time the 'good guy with a gun' intervened. Plus who knows how many more were injured. I'd hardly call that a successful limitation of anything.
Or is America finally at a point where a mass shooting that doesn't come close to breaking into triple digits is seen a major step forward?

Good thing no one tried to use the case for political profit before knowing all the information.

Let's hold the celebrations on this one too.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/google-youtube-texas-shooting-fake-news
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/nov/06/yournewswirecom/fake-news-no-proof-antifa-communism-compelled-texa/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/talalansari/fake-news-about-the-texas-church-shooting?utm_term=.pekzgMGwj#.djWL85JkP

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The guy was ex-service, dishonourably discharged, and was an assault perp. His victims being their spouse and child.

The gun he used bought after conviction.

How's that total lack of background checking working out for you?

The air force dropped the ball and never forwarded the conviction. As such there was nothing to disqualify him from purchasing. This is on the Air force, not the NRA, not on background checks, not on the ability to get a gun, but on the Air Force for not forwarding the conviction.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
With one side heavily leaning towards "when a Muslim does it." And not when a white man does it. Even though you SAID it would be considered terrorism. So are you admitting you were wrong?

The inclination is to expect that it is terrorism when a mass shooting / attack is committed by a Muslim. By the dictionary definition, it is racist, but against whom? To be honest, I think it's a cultural thing. I don't think people brought up in a Muslim family / community are as prone to completely random sprees as you Yanks. It is kind of a uniquely US problem. I mean, the fact that the majority of attacks by Muslims are terrorism related could be (loosely) taken as a good sign. At least it's a single problem to fix, rather than the clusterfuck that is gun culture in the US.

And that's a bullshit mindset that is built on ugly hateful mindsets that have been festering ever since 9/11. And yes, it is very much a US problem. As for it being easier to take care of...eh...I can see how you would think that, but I think if that actually made things easier, we would've done something about it by now.

inu-kun:

Zetatrain:
A few new details

The US Airforce has admitted that it failed to add the shooter's domestic abuse court martial into the federal database. This error allowed the shooter to purchase his guns.

The shooter may have been driven by anger towards his wife's family. The shooter's mother in law is a member of the church and may have been the shooter's target. However, the mother in law was not at the church at the time of the shooting.

After exiting the church, a bystander opened fire on the shooter hitting him in the leg and torso. The shooter managed to get back to his vehicle and drive away, but the bystander and another man gave chase. After crashing his car the shooter committed suicide with a gunshot to the head.

So if I got it right:
1) this isn't a case of loose gun laws but rather the USA army makes a fuckup
2) There really was a "good guy with a gun" who limited the carnage the scumbag made.

Good thing no one tried to use the case for political profit before knowing all the information.

The other guy with a gun only returned fire after the shooter had left the church and was walking away. He did nothing to save lives. In my experiences, the mindset behind "good guys with guns" is that American gun owners think they're John Rambo, ready to jump in at a moments notice, take down all the bad guys, and save the day. But that's not how things work. By the time they realize what's going on, it's already too late and the shooter has already accomplished their goal.

Vrex360:

inu-kun:

2) There really was a "good guy with a gun" who limited the carnage the scumbag made.

You know 27 people had already died by the time the 'good guy with a gun' intervened. Plus who knows how many more were injured. I'd hardly call that a successful limitation of anything.
Or is America finally at a point where a mass shooting that doesn't come close to breaking into triple digits is seen a major step forward?

From what I gathered by the people talking about the idea it is more of a "fast response" thing, that once an attack starts it can be quelled very fast with help from good samaritans, the idea that a "Rambo" will come out of the ether is not only ridiculous but incredibly dangerous as it could lead to innocents being killed for acting suspiciously.
To try to make an equivelance, it's like going against states teaching people how to help someone who's having a heart attack by complaining that he shouldn't had a heart attack in the first place.

Good thing no one tried to use the case for political profit before knowing all the information.

Let's hold the celebrations on this one too.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/google-youtube-texas-shooting-fake-news
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/nov/06/yournewswirecom/fake-news-no-proof-antifa-communism-compelled-texa/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/talalansari/fake-news-about-the-texas-church-shooting?utm_term=.pekzgMGwj#.djWL85JkP

It's kinda why I think this whole thing turned into a game more than news, every side does this shit.

kiri3tsubasa:

The air force dropped the ball and never forwarded the conviction. As such there was nothing to disqualify him from purchasing. This is on the Air force, not the NRA, not on background checks, not on the ability to get a gun, but on the Air Force for not forwarding the conviction.

Okay, that might've held water if only;

A: He didn't buy the gun a year and a half prior the mass shooting.

B: That apparently the justice system itself relies on third parties actually registering felons on a national database.

C: That regulatory agencies regularly finds itself understaffed and underfunded that they cannot process background checks properly nor provide proper evaluatory investigation.

You could look up Devin Kelley's military service records ... just nobody was there to do so.

D: That conviction alone would only be picked up anyways if he didn't have a prior firearms licence before his felony conviction.

After all. He bought 4 firearms that all passed NICS background checking on the simple basis that hr had been cleared before.

E: Even Republican senators have said the gun vetting process is a fucking shambles. State senators like Jeff Blake... who voted against greater gun control measures.

F: That NICS alone doesn't cover mental health complaints, or instances where the unwell can purchase arms.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

kiri3tsubasa:

The air force dropped the ball and never forwarded the conviction. As such there was nothing to disqualify him from purchasing. This is on the Air force, not the NRA, not on background checks, not on the ability to get a gun, but on the Air Force for not forwarding the conviction.

Okay, that might've held water if only;

A: He didn't buy the gun a year and a half prior the mass shooting.

B: That apparently the justice system itself relies on third parties actually registering felons on a national database.

C: That regulatory agencies regularly finds itself understaffed and underfunded that they cannot process background checks properly nor provide proper evaluatory investigation.

You could look up Devin Kelley's military service records ... just nobody was there to do so.

D: That conviction alone would only be picked up anyways if he didn't have a prior firearms licence before his felony conviction.

After all. He bought 4 firearms that all passed NICS background checking on the simple basis that hr had been cleared before.

E: Even Republican senators have said the gun vetting process is a fucking shambles. State senators like Jeff Blake... who voted against greater gun control measures.

F: That NICS alone doesn't cover mental health complaints, or instances where the unwell can purchase arms.

A) The conviction that would have prevented him from acquiring firearms (and body armor) happened in 2014 due to a domestic abuse incident while on base (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/11/06/the-air-force-says-it-failed-to-follow-procedures-allowing-texas-church-shooter-to-obtain-firearms/?utm_term=.79aded6bd9fc). Unless the guns he used were bought prior to that (and so far, I've been unable to find any info one way or the other), then yes, it's on the Air Force for being feet dragging nincompoops.

B) I assume this was because it was a military matter, but I am not well versed in the interplay between the US legal system and the Army/Navy/Air Force courts. I would assume the latter have to inform the former of any infractions resolved within military courts, but I don't know.

C) This is true, sadly enough. Further, even if you could look up his records, I doubt they would've been available within 3 business days, so the purchase would've gone through anyway.

D) No, his dishounorable discharge would've pinged every single time he tried to purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer, since NICS are mandatory. He didn't ping because the Air Force didn't forward his conviction/discharge, AFAIK.

E) Politicians being politicians. He is right in that the vetting process is pretty borked though.

F) Well, it does. One of the grounds for immediate denial of purchase in a NICS check is:

"The potential buyer has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution."

Problem is, of course the adjudicated as a mental defective part, because it generally involves a criminal trial (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/agorder0001pdf/download).

TheFinish:
A) The conviction that would have prevented him from acquiring firearms (and body armor) happened in 2014 due to a domestic abuse incident while on base. Unless the guns he used were bought prior to that (and so far, I've been unable to find any info one way or the other), then yes, it's on the Air Force for being feet dragging nincompoops.

Bit harsh on the Air Force, failing a NICS check would not have prevented this.

Even if the Air Force had correctly reported the crimes he could easily have bought the same firearms (at a gun show or via private sale).

TechNoFear:

TheFinish:
A) The conviction that would have prevented him from acquiring firearms (and body armor) happened in 2014 due to a domestic abuse incident while on base. Unless the guns he used were bought prior to that (and so far, I've been unable to find any info one way or the other), then yes, it's on the Air Force for being feet dragging nincompoops.

Bit harsh on the Air Force, failing a NICS check would not have prevented this.

Even if the Air Force had correctly reported the crimes he could easily have bought the same firearms (at a gun show or via private sale).

That doesn't mean they shouldn't have done their job nor are they not responsible for this.

Is it Thursday again already? How the time flies.

inu-kun:
From what I gathered by the people talking about the idea it is more of a "fast response" thing, that once an attack starts it can be quelled very fast with help from good samaritans, the idea that a "Rambo" will come out of the ether is not only ridiculous but incredibly dangerous as it could lead to innocents being killed for acting suspiciously.

Fast response my ass!
These people are literally saying that "Good guys with guns stop shootings from happening", people are even deliberately saying that "This good samaritan with a gun stopped the shooting!" when the civilian stopped nothing. The gunman was fired on by a nearby resident after the shooting had already finished and the gunman was exiting the church and walking to his car. By this point 23 people were dead, 3 people in critical condition, and another 20 people were wounded.

To put it simply, the idea of adding a random civilian with a gun into a situation only makes things worse unless they have military training. Civilians are not taught proper use of force, they aren't taught how to operate under such a high-risk, high-stress situation like dealing with a potential armed assailant or active armed assailant, and it may very well lead to other people being killed in the crossfire. The only time I can give any kind of slight leeway is if the "Civilian with a gun" happens to be one of the people in the crowd being shot at if the gunman is clearly visible. Even then I'm hesitant.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/02/shoppers-pulled-weapons-walmart-shooting/

Apparently all the potential 'good guys with guns' at a Walmart shooting that ALSO happened recently only hindered the police as they were essentially just useless red herrings who did not actually stop the guy themselves.

Dr. Thrax:
These people are literally saying that "Good guys with guns stop shootings from happening", people are even deliberately saying that "This good samaritan with a gun stopped the shooting!" when the civilian stopped nothing. The gunman was fired on by a nearby resident after the shooting had already finished and the gunman was exiting the church and walking to his car. By this point 23 people were dead, 3 people in critical condition, and another 20 people were wounded.

I think it tells you something about the NRA apologists that they consider 26 dead people, half of them children, to be a victory for gun rights.

Dr. Thrax:
To put it simply, the idea of adding a random civilian with a gun into a situation only makes things worse unless they have military training. Civilians are not taught proper use of force, they aren't taught how to operate under such a high-risk, high-stress situation like dealing with a potential armed assailant or active armed assailant, and it may very well lead to other people being killed in the crossfire. The only time I can give any kind of slight leeway is if the "Civilian with a gun" happens to be one of the people in the crowd being shot at if the gunman is clearly visible. Even then I'm hesitant.

As an aside, when Reagan was shot, he was surrounded by highly trained armed secret service personnel who didn't respond until the shooter had emptied his weapon.

And then the first man on the shooter was a random union official standing nearby armed with a briefcase.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here