Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed

TomSweeney

hmm I wonder what would have given him this racism victimhood paranoid complex ??

GreeBo

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The amendment clearly upholds the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms under a free state when a regulated militia is necessary for its security. The militia and the people are clearly delineated. The right to bear arms pre-exists the state and is not dependent on the permission of the government. It cannot be taken away by the militia or removed because it is claimed only the military and police should bear arms somehow negating the rights of the people. The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable as the individual right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It defends all the other rights by making them possible.
And yes every person should have right to keep and bear arms.

So inalienable and obvious that they forgot it when writing the constitution....oh and when amending it the first time?

delboythedub

banie01 wrote: »

Having worked in CO. It's my own knowledge rather than sourced.
It's an open carry state, and that's a right that many residents enthusiastically exercise.

Open carry in CO is legal and concealed carry permits are on a "shall issue" basis.
That means once an applicant meets the criteria, the license must issue.

It is probably the most weaponized part of the US I've ever been in.
They make Montana look restrictive.

Sad reality is that guns save more peoples lives in america . America is highest % (number 1)of gun ownership in the world and Switzerland is number 3 or 4 as regards ownership, and Switzerland does not have anywhere near the same gun problems. In some US states they spend more money on local police departments than local schools. It will take a lot of work to sort out the bizarre gun laws in america where some people would not even consider going out their front door without their CCW, licenced concealed weapon. A very sad situation indeed.

Samsonsmasher

Tell me how wrote: »

The idea that a regulated militia was necessary for the security of a state might have been understood in the late 18th century, a few years after a revolutionary war, that does not mean it is still applicable heading for the middle of the 21st century when elections are held as frequently as every 2 years for members of the House, 6 years for senators and 4 years for Presidents.

You were earlier suggesting that the US democracy is the most exemplar and envied worldwide. If you believe this to be the case for a second, then there shouldn't be a need for armed civilians to maintain it.

And I could go in to the difference in available firepower controlled by government officials versus that available to civilians and were a modern day government of a mind to use its military to override the democracy of the state then an AR15 might not cut it against an F35 or Raider helicopter. FFS, the power of controlled flight was only a myth when the 2A was added to the constitution, but they apparently had the foresight to know that keeping people sufficiently armed was going to prevent tyranny being forced on society?

A tyranny would have to use heavy weapons against their own people destroying the country.
The people of Burma are unarmed.
The junta just took over earlier this year.
Barely a shot fired.
Nothing of the sort could happen in the United States without a fierce insurgency by the most heavily armed civilian population on the face of the earth. The whole of the United States would burn like Waco did.
It would not be worth trying which is why it hasn't happened and will never happen.
That proves the wisdom of the 2A.

biko

TomSweeney wrote: »

hmm I wonder what would have given him this racism victimhood paranoid complex ??

All 10 victims were white. Was that a coincidence, or did the killer actively only shoot white people?

GreeBo

biko wrote: »

All 10 victims were white. Was that a coincidence, or did the killer actively only shoot white people?

Knowing how many non white people were in the shop is probably relevant to that question.

wes

salmocab wrote: »

How is it a non story now? It’s still been spoken about.

The only reason it is being spoken about still, is due to his name.

There has been many a thread, when our "conservative" friends have mysteriously disappeared once the shooter has been found not to fit there narrative.

For example the Atlanta shooting has just 10 pages:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058169599&page=10

and this shooting has 25 pages, and that is due to a "conservatives" agenda. Their are plenty of examples this on boards, where when its a "white" shooter the thread fizzles out pretty quickly, when it is not, "conservatives" will keep a thread going for days and days, and banging on about "liberal" agenda's of other posters that don't exist.

Unfortunately for them all they have right now to back up there agenda is the name of the guy, we have no information on a motive yet and we also know he was not arrested on terrorism charges.

So all our "conservative" friends have to go on is rampant bigotry and racism, based solely on the guys name, as we simply don't have enough information and what we do have doesn't really back up there usual agenda, so instead they are flailing about a non-existent "leftist" or "liberal" or whatever word they are using for the boogey man these days, accusing everyone else of stuff that they are doing, as they can't imagine people don't live there lives trying to push an agenda on an online forum like they do.

riffmongous

biko wrote: »

All 10 victims were white. Was that a coincidence, or did the killer actively only shoot white people?

Boulder is 90% white

biko

So there were no non-whites in the shop?

biko

Ahmad Alissa bought the murder weapon, a Ruger AR-556, a week ago.
I guess the local government did not find anything worrying about him then.

Samsonsmasher

biko wrote: »

Ahmad Alissa bought the murder weapon, a Ruger AR-556, a week ago.
I guess the local government did not find anything worrying about him then.

All the more reason why citizens should exercise their 2A rights. The government will not protect them. They will just take nice crime scene photos of their bullet riddled corpses.

salmocab

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

All the more reason why citizens should exercise their 2A rights. The government will not protect them. They will just take nice crime scene photos of their bullet riddled corpses.

The government cannot protect them because of 2a

GreeBo

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

All the more reason why citizens should exercise their 2A rights. The government will not protect them. They will just take nice crime scene photos of their bullet riddled corpses.

Really?
The laws let everyone have guns, even the crazy people, so its more important that everyone gets a gun, rather than, oh I dunno, cut down on the people having guns?

silverharp

Was it true he traveled 25miles to get to that particular place?

BanditLuke

biko wrote: »

All 10 victims were white. Was that a coincidence, or did the killer actively only shoot white people?

Reverse the roles and have some nutjob loser white supremacist walk into a supermarket and kill 10 black people and the virtue signalling from the paranoid left and it's media industrial complex would be in overdrive. CNN would demand a national day of mourning and multi millionaire sports and movie stars would be climbing over each other to jump on the bandwagon.

biko

silverharp wrote: »

Was it true he traveled 25miles to get to that particular place?

He lives in Arvada, which is 34km/21miles away.
I don't think it's clear why he choose that particular shop.

King Soopers is massive. There must have been hundreds of people inside.
Thankfully he only managed to kill 10.
What is a bit strange is that there a no reports of injured people.

silverharp

biko wrote: »

He lives in Arvada, which is 34km/21miles away.
I don't think it's clear why he choose that particular shop.

King Soopers is massive. There must have been hundreds of people inside.
Thankfully he only managed to kill 10.
What is a bit strange is that there a no reports of injured people.

Arvada looks like an idyllic small town looking at a few google pix. i'd imagine there is good CC footage which I hope is not made public

GreeBo

silverharp wrote: »

Was it true he traveled 25miles to get to that particular place?

Travelling 25miles in the US is effectively going to the end of your driveway over here, I dont think you can read anything into that.

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

If you think, as you seem to do, that "Hey. As long as the guys who were shot all deserved it, then that's all good man!"

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's spot on. That's exactly what I think. If they were shooting at cops or otherwise endangering lives, then I've no problem with the cops shooting them to prevent further injury or death.

If the cop is being endangered or being shot at, then yes, the cop decides whether to shoot back. Again I've no problem with that.

You are now in the position of defending c 1,000 summary killings every year of people in America (the overwhelming majority of them American citizens) by police/law enforcement on the say so of the individual police officer in each case.

Were many of these "him or me" situations in which one pumped up individual with a gun squared off against another? Undoubtedly so. But in many others they were not. There are inevitably misunderstandings, panicky over reactions, and more often than not "I ain't taking no chances, they don't pay me enough" which cause an officer to shoot to kill because the worst thing you can be in America is "another victim".

The inevitable corollary of this is that ALL shootings by law enforcement have to be rationalised as "reasonable force" or "justifiable action". After all, one doesn't want unduly to offend the very people that are "serving and protecting" the community at large.

So even if it's a case of a traffic stop to examine someone's licence and registration, or to explain a faulty brake light, or even to upbraid someone for crashing a red light, if the cop thinks the person is armed and a threat to them, they can shoot to kill with impunity.
I'm not exaggerating. These things have happened so many times.

By equating such "tragedies" with the apocryphal image of a lone cop with a six shooter taking on the 21st century equivalent of the Jesse James gang emerging from a bank with Ak's and Uzis you are engaging in victim blaming of the worst kind.
People get shot by police because they deserved it.
Our police are only doing their jobs.
They have a right to kill citizens if they "believe" they are a threat.

Victim blaming is one way to describe this; another is tyranny. It's a tyranny caused by toleration of excessive power granted to people over the life and death of their fellows because of the lethality of modern weapons and the utter lack of responsibility required of those who use them.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think the violent behaviour of a large section of the American population is off the charts and that results in such a large response from the Police force.

So think outside the box!
How do you reduce the potential for violent behaviour in a large section of the American population? It's not hard; the rest of the world has sussed it out long ago.

I have spent years listening to Americans in the high-tech industries pontificating about their "innovative culture", their ability to produce "disruptive business models" and effect "paradigm shifts" that lead to the "creative destruction" of old ways of doing things for the betterment of civilisation.
But on this matter of basic curtailment of violent behaviour throughout their society they are as rigid and repressed as a DUP politician proclaiming "NO NO NO. Not an inch!!!"
Instead they pore forensically over a document that was written nearly 250 years ago, arguing over the power granted by the position of an apostrophe to any clown who wants a gun today rather than steppng back to take a common sense view of what was really intended. Just look around this thread; there's someone doing it here.

As a further irony they may then go on to trash the "woke" generation as infantile crybabies in thrall to the "deconstruction" theories of post-modern philosophers who pore over texts looking for hidden meanings in the dots and commas. How closely idiots of all shades of opinion resemble each other!

James Brown

BanditLuke wrote: »

Reverse the roles and have some nutjob loser white supremacist walk into a supermarket and kill 10 black people and the virtue signalling from the paranoid left and it's media industrial complex would be in overdrive. CNN would demand a national day of mourning and multi millionaire sports and movie stars would be climbing over each other to jump on the bandwagon.

Your comment here reads as paranoia coupled with a victim complex.

realdanbreen

What is it with Americans and guns, guns, guns and guns! Oh and of course bibles, bibles, bibles!

wes

James Brown wrote: »

Your comment here reads as paranoia coupled with a victim complex.

Doubly so, when we had an attack last week where the attacker murdered several Asian people, and the cop at the press conference discussing the attack, was talking about the attacker "having a bad day", and also the cop was apparently promoting racist (against Asians) tshirts on his facebook as well. Some people on here live in an alternate reality.

salmocab

James Brown wrote: »

Your comment here reads as paranoia coupled with a victim complex.

It’s a Sean Hannity tactic, invent a scenario and then get outraged about it and blame the left for your own imaginings. It’s meaningless beyond being an outlet for someone with no good faith argument.

WrenBoy

wes wrote: »

Doubly so, when we had an attacked last week murder a bunch of Asian people, and the cop at the press conference discussing the attacking was talking about the attacker "having a bad day", and also the cop was apparently promoting racist (against Asians) tshirts on his facebook as well. Some people on here live in an alternate reality.

There were white people shot in that incident too but who cares, the shooter was white so a racist attack, but in this case its not a racist attack, its "victim complex"

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

You are now in the position of defending c 1,000 summary killings every year of people in America (the overwhelming majority of them American citizens) by police/law enforcement on the say so of the individual police officer in each case.

I can clearly see where your motives lay. You seem to view all killings by police as an execution. But I'll answer you anyway.

There are approximately 1000 individuals killed by the police every year. By calling them summary killings you are saying that they were executions. That's not the case. Many of them, in fact most of them were justified. So not summary killings like you claim.

Were many of these "him or me" situations in which one pumped up individual with a gun squared off against another? Undoubtedly so.

This statement backs up my claim above that many of them were justified.

But in many others they were not. There are inevitably misunderstandings, panicky over reactions, and more often than not "I ain't taking no chances, they don't pay me enough" which cause an officer to shoot to kill because the worst thing you can be in America is "another victim".

If I was a cop, I don't think I'd want to be 'another victim' either. It's a dangerous, poxy job. I wouldn't fancy doing it over there.

Are some killings unwarranted, yes, I'm sure they are. Have you any idea how many of them were unwarranted? I don't. I'd guess you don't have those figures either.

The inevitable corollary of this is that ALL shootings by law enforcement have to be rationalised as "reasonable force" or "justifiable action". After all, one doesn't want unduly to offend the very people that are "serving and protecting" the community at large.

Yep, all shootings by police should be investigated to ensure that the shooting was justified.

I'd suspend any police officer involved in a shooting on full pay (with the presumption that they are innocent) pending an investigation into the circumstances of the shooting. And if the shooting is deemed to have been unjustified, then let the cop face the music.

So even if it's a case of a traffic stop to examine someone's licence and registration, or to explain a faulty brake light, or even to upbraid someone for crashing a red light, if the cop thinks the person is armed and a threat to them, they can shoot to kill with impunity.

Nope, not correct. They can't kill with impunity. You are making up stuff now.

By equating such "tragedies" with the apocryphal image of a lone cop with a six shooter taking on the 21st century equivalent of the Jesse James gang emerging from a bank with Ak's and Uzis you are engaging in victim blaming of the worst kind.

Where has this been mentioned? That's a mighty fine imagination you have there.

People get shot by police because they deserved it.
Our police are only doing their jobs.
They have a right to kill citizens if they "believe" they are a threat.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. If a cop believes that someone poses a threat to them, then yes, they are allowed to use force to protect themselves.

Victim blaming is one way to describe this; another is tyranny. It's a tyranny caused by toleration of excessive power granted to people over the life and death of their fellows because of the lethality of modern weapons and the utter lack of responsibility required of those who use them.

No idea what you are on about here. Are you on a rant about the cops being tyrannical?

So think outside the box!
How to you reduce the potential for violent behaviour in a large section of the American population? It's not hard; the rest of the world has sussed it out long ago.

I'm guessing you are going to suggest removing guns from the American populace. Yep, that would reduce the amount of people who would get shot for sure. But how do you achieve that goal? Serious question. There are probably 500,000,000+ guns in the wild in the US. How do you suggest collecting them all........especially when the law says you can't do that.

I'm not in favour of everyone having a gun. I absolutely acknowledge that there are people with guns that I wouldn't trust with a Swiss Army knife.

Instead they pore forensically over a document that was written nearly 250 years ago, arguing over the power granted by the position of an apostrophe to any clown who wants a gun today rather than steppng back to take a common sense view of what was really intended. Just look around this thread; there's someone doing it here.

There's a lot more than the US Constitution and 2A that gives US citizens the right to have guns. Each state has its own Constitution and the vast majority of them are even stronger than the US Constitution on gun rights. And most of them don't have a comma that can be argued over, nor do they require people to form a militia.

James Brown

WrenBoy wrote: »

There were white people shot in that incident too but who cares, the shooter was white so a racist attack, but in this case its not a racist attack, its "victim complex"

The whole point is when a Muslim or minority is responsible we look at that group as a whole. We discuss how they hate whites/west etc..
There are people reluctant or unwilling to acknowledge same from the other or white perspective.

When it's a white perpetrator we discuss his situation and what led him to do what he did etc.. Not his race, not his demographic, not his religion.

All you are saying here is #WLM. The issue is the same. Bringing attention to one doesn't mean you need counter with or dismiss the other.

TomTomTim

salmocab wrote: »

It’s a Sean Hannity tactic, invent a scenario and then get outraged about it and blame the left for your own imaginings. It’s meaningless beyond being an outlet for someone with no good faith argument.

There's no need to invent, anyone with eyes can see how different the reactions are based on the perpetrators race or religion. There's no need to deal in fantasy when reality supports said view.

TomTomTim

James Brown wrote: »

The whole point is when a Muslim or minority is responsible we look at that group as a whole. We discuss how they hate whites/west etc..
There are people reluctant or unwilling to acknowledge same from the other or white perspective.

When it's a white perpetrator we discuss his situation and what led him to do what he did etc.. Not his race, not his demographic, not his religion.

All you are saying here is #WLM. The issue is the same. Bringing attention to one doesn't mean you need counter with or dismiss the other.

There was many posts early in this thread highlighting many on the left blaming the white male straight away. Their assumptions where based on race, and race alone.

CtevenSrowder

James Brown wrote: »

The whole point is when a Muslim or minority is responsible we look at that group as a whole. We discuss how they hate whites/west etc..
There are people reluctant or unwilling to acknowledge same from the other or white perspective.

When it's a white perpetrator we discuss his situation and what led him to do what he did etc.. Not his race, not his demographic, not his religion.

All you are saying here is #WLM. The issue is the same. Bringing attention to one doesn't mean you need counter with or dismiss the other.

Who is this 'we' you talk of? When a Muslim kills someone in the name of Islam specifically, people tend to look at the religion, and extremist Muslims. Attacks in the name of Islam in the West usually do result out of a hatred for the West. The point the OP is making is the attack last week was instantaneously assumed (and still is by some) to have been for racist reasons. This has been denied by both the FBI and the person who carried out the attack. White Nationalist terrorists tend not to try and play down their racist intent.

When this attack first happened, the same was about to happen as the perp looked white, until the perpetrators name was released, and it appeared to be an Arab name (and as such a Muslim, so unlikely a White Nationalist). There were suddenly no insinuations that it must've had a racist motive, or have been motivated by some White Nationalist ideology.

salmocab

TomTomTim wrote: »

There's no need to invent, anyone with eyes can see how different the reactions are based on the perpetrators race or religion. There's no need to deal in fantasy when reality supports said view.

But the poster did invent the scenario.