Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed

wes

salmocab wrote: »

But the poster did invent the scenario.

Again these guys live in an alternate reality, or they think the rest of us are stupid. This thread is now in the late 20s page wise, and thread on the Atlanta shooting is at 10 pages. We have literal evidence of the page counts here on boards that proves them wrong, and yet they insist on there alternate reality. Its truly astonishing how these guys keep claiming the opposite to be true, in the face of objective reality.

Tell me how

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.

Fox effectively got a President elected in 2016, how's that for an industrial complex?
And if CNN and sports or movie stars were to call for action should there be such an event, why would that be a bad thing?

AOC, the anti-christ for most die hard republicans, raised $5M dollars for Texans suffering from a snow storm in February while the Republican elite focused on trying to pin the blame for the issues experienced on her yet to be implemented Green new deal in an effort to detract from the free market impact of an isolated grid which led to power outages and massive bills by those 'lucky' enough to have had power. Oh and their senator and past )and likely fututre) Presidential nominee seeking Ted Cruz took off to Cancun to avoid any discomfort.

I might start a thread on this topic because it fascinates me how much effort conservatives expend on hatred and regression rather than trying to genuinely help any group within society. Obviously there are differences in their local motivations between the US, Ireland and UK but they are frequently consistent in the style by which they go about their business of trying to ensure time stands still, if not moves backward such as was achieved in the UK with Brexit.

GreeBo

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.

The stupid thing is that regardless of who, what their background was, what their mental state was, what their religion or ethnicity was, you cant have a mass shooting without a gun.

Whats the problem with focusing on the guns? You will never resolve all the reasons why people might feel the need to kill people, so you control their means instead. Very hard to go rogue and kill 10 people with a butterknife.

PuddingBreath

ypres5 wrote: »

Another name incident of far right white nationalist terror in the space of a week. can we have a conversation on it now or will we stay in denial like so many on boards were with the atlanta shooting?

Sorry dude, this latest shooting had nothing to do with racist White people as neither had the last one. White people are not all one race either. I'm not English, I'm Irish/Celtic. I grew up poor, far from any supremacist leanings, but some racists will look at my skin colour and just assume I've some kind of silver spoon in my mouth.
America has a serious mental health problem, they need to look at that first. My theory is that their American dream idea is great for a way to make something of yourself, but people get left behind. In the USA it seems that you can be anything you wanna be, but just don't get sick... At that point you don't matter again.
There's guns in Ireland too and the farmers are starting to use them on their family members.. this is a combination of greed and mental health issues caused by younger sons or suchlike being cut out of the family farms etc.... Do we stop farmers buying guns for their farming needs?

TomTomTim

GreeBo wrote: »

The stupid thing is that regardless of who, what their background was, what their mental state was, what their religion or ethnicity was, you cant have a mass shooting without a gun.

Whats the problem with focusing on the guns? You will never resolve all the reasons why people might feel the need to kill people, so you control their means instead. Very hard to go rogue and kill 10 people with a butterknife.

I wasn't arguing about the merits of gun rights. Since you brought it up though, I think that if someone wants to kill many people, they will. While guns make it easier to do so, there's many other means. Remember the Nice truck attack? Remember all the bombings that killed many? America's issue with mass shooting events are far more about psychology than easy assess to guns in my view.

Tell me how

GreeBo wrote: »

The stupid thing is that regardless of who, what their background was, what their mental state was, what their religion or ethnicity was, you cant have a mass shooting without a gun.

Whats the problem with focusing on the guns? You will never resolve all the reasons why people might feel the need to kill people, so you control their means instead. Very hard to go rogue and kill 10 people with a butterknife.

The answer to your question is your first paragraph. Aside from the 'that there government is looking kinda tyrannical, tell Johnny get his musket' crowd, the weapons industry is big business.

The NRA donated 300K to Ted Cruz, he then did his job and on the floor of the senate, called any conversation about gun control as 'ridiculous theatre' and then went on Hannity for a dedicated spot to expand on that.

But yeah, the likes of AOC who wants an end to Super-PAC funding of politicians and CNN are the problem.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

The stupid thing is that regardless of who, what their background was, what their mental state was, what their religion or ethnicity was, you cant have a mass shooting without a gun.

Whats the problem with focusing on the guns? You will never resolve all the reasons why people might feel the need to kill people, so you control their means instead. Very hard to go rogue and kill 10 people with a butterknife.

What's the problem with focusing on the groups commiting the the overwhelming majority of these violent shootings? That would actually require a difficult conversation.

Much easier to go after people who have committed no crimes.

James Brown

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What's the problem with focusing on the groups commiting the the overwhelming majority of these violent shootings? That would actually require a difficult conversation.

Much easier to go after people who have committed no crimes.

#notallwhites ?

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What's the problem with focusing on the groups commiting the the overwhelming majority of these violent shootings? That would actually require a difficult conversation.

Much easier to go after people who have committed no crimes.

Why would it? Take their guns as well. 80% of guns used in Chicago were apparently bought legally. Do something about that avenue.

Rjd2

wes wrote: »

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.

The bad day line has been totally misunderstood.

Initially Aaron Rupar edited the video to imply that the officer said he did this heinous attack because he was having a bad day, if you actually watch the whole conference rather than the sneaky edit , its clear he is conveying what the murderer said to him on why he he committed this evil act.

He never injected personal opinion on the matter.

Rupar was called out on all sides by it, but obviously he did not back down as he knew the misleading clip has got close to ten million views and also so many people who seen it live in echo chambers and won't bother to check if it is true.

The t-shirt he got was crappy yes that however is fair criticism.

Dyr

Rjd2 wrote: »

The bad day line has been totally misunderstood.

Initially Aaron Rupar edited the video to imply that the officer said he did this heinous attack because he was having a bad day, if you actually watch the whole conference rather than the sneaky edit , its clear he is conveying what the murderer said to him on why he he committed this evil act.

He never injected personal opinion on the matter.

Rupar was called out on all sides by it, but obviously he did not back down as he knew the misleading clip has got close to ten million views and also so many people who seen it live in echo chambers and won't bother to check if it is true.

The t-shirt he got was crappy yes that however is fair criticism.

The poster knows all this full well, it was already pointed out in this thread, but sure just repeat the narrative regardless of the actual facts

Tell me how

Bambi wrote: »

The poster knows all this full well, it was already pointed out in this thread, but sure just repeat the narrative regardless of the actual facts

Whether the cop was interjecting his own view, or giving voice to what Aaron Long had said it was too early to be putting that sort of message out there and the cop should have known that.

The shooter in Colarado is said to have been suffering from mental illness, but it is his brother and attorney that has said this, not the police officers, at least to the best of my knowledge.

silverharp

Rjd2 wrote: »

The bad day line has been totally misunderstood.

Initially Aaron Rupar edited the video to imply that the officer said he did this heinous attack because he was having a bad day, if you actually watch the whole conference rather than the sneaky edit , its clear he is conveying what the murderer said to him on why he he committed this evil act.

He never injected personal opinion on the matter.

Rupar was called out on all sides by it, but obviously he did not back down as he knew the misleading clip has got close to ten million views and also so many people who seen it live in echo chambers and won't bother to check if it is true.

The t-shirt he got was crappy yes that however is fair criticism.

urban dictionary lists a verb out of his name :pac:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rupar&page=2

rupar
Rupar - v - To purposefuly misleading or to mischaractize through edit or omission, particular of video and speech
Im gonna rupar this video to make it look like this guy's a racist even though he said nothing of the sort

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Why would it? Take their guns as well. 80% of guns used in Chicago were apparently bought legally. Do something about that avenue.

What an obvious solution. Take their drugs too. Amazing the cops haven't thought of it yet.

That would undoubtedly also serve to reduce the prevalence of violence within those communities too

CtevenSrowder

Tell me how wrote: »

Whether the cop was interjecting his own view, or giving voice to what Aaron Long had said it was too early to be putting that sort of message out there and the cop should have known that.

The shooter in Colarado is said to have been suffering from mental illness, but it is his brother and attorney that has said this, not the police officers, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Why?

Again, the point is a certain narrative is trying to be portrayed in the left-wing media. That the police were playing down a racist crime (wrong) because the police are racist and look here's this edited clip manufactured to make it look like the police are saying he carried out his rampage because he was 'having a bad day'.

The policeman wasn't interjection his own view. You are very quick to criticize Fox News and the other media outlets when they do this, but not the left-wing ones!

GreeBo

TomTomTim wrote: »

I wasn't arguing about the merits of gun rights. Since you brought it up though, I think that if someone wants to kill many people, they will. While guns make it easier to do so, there's many other means. Remember the Nice truck attack? Remember all the bombings that killed many? America's issue with mass shooting events are far more about psychology than easy assess to guns in my view.

I dont think the facts back up your argument:
How many times have people attacked others with trucks? How many times have people blown other people up?

She same Psychology exists everywhere on the planet. Its the same thing that leads someone to stab someone else or glass them, its not confined to the US, you only think it is because rage+gun = reported mass shooting.

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What's the problem with focusing on the groups commiting the the overwhelming majority of these violent shootings? That would actually require a difficult conversation.

Much easier to go after people who have committed no crimes.

Those "groups" are quite often just regular people.

Snickers Man

BattleCorp wrote: »

I can clearly see where your motives lay. You seem to view all killings by police as an execution.

It's not the police themselves I have a problem with; it's the legal and social situation that entitles them to kill so many people perfectly legally.
I'll say it again: 1,0000 deaths BY FIREARM inflicted on US citizens by US Law Enforcement. The cognitive dissonance that exists between Americans and the citizens of the rest of the democratic world on this topic is astounding.

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

They were summary killings because they were done on the spot, in the moment, without any recourse to "due process". How many cops get prosecuted for unlawful killings in the US every year? So yes, most of them were justified under US law because extraordinary latitude is given to Americans to kill each other legally.

But that doesn't make it right. It is one of the basic corollaries of tyranny that killings by the powerful take place WITHIN the law. It's still tyranny.

BattleCorp wrote: »

This statement [of SM's] backs up my claim above that many of them were justified.

Well, as long as "many of them" were justified....phew.

BattleCorp wrote: »

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.

You mean like they do here? Or anywhere where there is a semblance of rule of law?
Of course here, when you say "all shootings by police" you mean in most given years "the shooting". That's if one happens at all.

BattleCorp wrote: »

If a cop believes that someone poses a threat to them, then yes, they are allowed to use force to protect themselves.

And this is the problem in a nutshell. If the cop "thinks" that someone is exercising their "2nd Amendment rights" and has a gun, then the benchmark for "posing a threat" to said cop is frighteningly low. Numerous people are killed every year who are not armed but by simply moving their hands around their belt area, they can spook a cop into thinking they're "reaching for their piece".
Of course they could be just pulling up their pants or scratching their balls. No matter. "He frightened me, your honour! What was I to do?"

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm guessing you are going to suggest removing guns from the American populace.

Nope. I'm not going to suggest anything to America about how they should correct things. It's very much their problem and their belief in "American exceptionalism" means they're not going to listen to anybody outside their country anyway.

That's the great weakness of "American Exceptionalism"; it generates an enormous sense of optimism, self confidence and faith in the future but it also creates an arrogance that nobody else is capable of doing things better. So they don't listen or learn from abroad.

My main concern is that some deluded fools would want to replicate American gun laws here. They are to be resisted to the death!! The fact that you refer to "over there" when you talk about America suggests that you live "over here" and are one such.
You are the enemy!
If you meet me while I'm carrying a butter knife, you're in trouble!!!

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's not the police themselves I have a problem with; it's the legal and social situation that entitles them to kill so many people perfectly legally.

I think the above is slightly misleading. The police are allowed to defend themselves using force. That force unfortunately results in 1000 people approx. per year losing their life. That's not exactly the same as saying the police are entitled to kill those people. For instance, if the police wound someone and remove the threat, then they aren't allowed to go up to them and shoot them in the head to finish them off.

I'll say it again: 1,0000 deaths BY FIREARM inflicted on US citizens by US Law Enforcement. The cognitive dissonance that exists between Americans and the citizens of the rest of the democratic world on this topic is astounding.

And many of those deaths are as a result of someone attacking the cops or someone else. Many of them are pretty unavoidable. Of course the cops could run away when they are fired upon or threatened, but then they'd also be criticised for not trying to stop a gunman (or woman).

They were summary killings because they were done on the spot, in the moment, without any recourse to "due process". How many cops get prosecuted for unlawful killings in the US every year? So yes, most of them were justified under US law because extraordinary latitude is given to Americans to kill each other legally.

Kind of hard to apply 'due process' to someone shooting at you or attempting to strangle you. Quite often the cop has half a second to decide what to do. Hard to get it right 100% of the time.

Can you suggest a better way of dealing with an armed person trying to kill you?

But that doesn't make it right. It is one of the basic corollaries of tyranny that killings by the powerful take place WITHIN the law. It's still tyranny.

It's enforcing the laws rather than tyranny. If people didn't break the law, go on violent sprees etc., they'd have very little interaction with the police.

Well, as long as "many of them" were justified....phew.

I'd be hoping the vast majority of them were justified.

You mean like they do here? Or anywhere where there is a semblance of rule of law?
Of course here, when you say "all shootings by police" you mean in most given years "the shooting". That's if one happens at all.

Many police forces in the US put officers on desk duty while they investigate a fatal shooting. Not sure what you ben in the last sentence above.

And this is the problem in a nutshell. If the cop "thinks" that someone is exercising their "2nd Amendment rights" and has a gun, then the benchmark for "posing a threat" to said cop is frighteningly low. Numerous people are killed every year who are not armed but by simply moving their hands around their belt area, they can spook a cop into thinking they're "reaching for their piece".
Of course they could be just pulling up their pants or scratching their balls. No matter. "He frightened me, your honour! What was I to do?"

You are exaggerating big time here. It occasionally happens that a cop shoots someone by mistake. That doesn't happen in the majority of cases. I can think of one time on Youtube when a cop asked someone for ID and the person reached for their ID and the cop shot them.

If you have a gun and you are behaving yourself, the cops will pretty much leave you alone. If you have a gun with you while you are commiting a crime etc., then that's a different story. Kind of the same thing here. Have a screwdriver with you while working, no problem. Have a screwdriver with you while you are fighting after the nightclub, then much different story.

I've lived in the States. Cops leave you alone if you aren't acting the b0llix. You might have a cop ask you where you are going etc. but if you answer them politely, they let you off on your way and the chances of getting shot by them is rapidly approaching zero.

Nope. I'm not going to suggest anything to America about how they should correct things. It's very much their problem and their belief in "American exceptionalism" means they're not going to listen to anybody outside their country anyway.

That's the great weakness of "American Exceptionalism"; it generates an enormous sense of optimism, self confidence and faith in the future but it also creates an arrogance that nobody else is capable of doing things better. So they don't listen or learn from abroad.

I agree with you above.

My main concern is that some deluded fools would want to replicate American gun laws here. They are to be resisted to the death!! The fact that you refer to "over there" when you talk about America suggests that you live "over here" and are one such.
You are the enemy!
If you meet me while I'm carrying a butter knife, you're in trouble!!!

Yep, I live here in Ireland and speaking as a law abiding gun owner I wouldn't like to see US style gun laws here.

Bring butter as well, I like butter. :pac:

Tell me how

^^
Irish butter is way nicer than American butter by the way. I'm in the US, Kerrygold all the way.

Snickers Man

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yep, I live here in Ireland and speaking as a law abiding gun owner I wouldn't like to see US style gun laws here.

I don't have any problem with law-abiding Irish gun owners, especially if they are willing to abide to Irish gun laws and reluctant to bring American-style laws here.

So what are we arguing about?

BattleCorp

Snickers Man wrote: »

I don't have any problem with law-abiding Irish gun owners, especially if they are willing to abide to Irish gun laws and reluctant to bring American-style laws here.

So what are we arguing about?

I think we are disagreeing with the justification for cops killing 1000 people per year.

I am leaning more on the cop's side by saying most of them (hopefully at least 90+% of them were justified (as in self defence or an attempt to stop a gunman harming other people) and I think you seem to think that most of them aren't justified. Maybe I'm incorrect but I think that's your position.

Obviously I'd prefer if the cops didn't have to shoot anyone but the US is a violent place and because the criminals use force, then the cops also have to use force.

BorneTobyWilde

There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind to other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham

LessOutragePlz

Snickers Man wrote: »

They were summary killings because they were done on the spot, in the moment, without any recourse to "due process". How many cops get prosecuted for unlawful killings in the US every year? So yes, most of them were justified under US law because extraordinary latitude is given to Americans to kill each other legally.

And this is the problem in a nutshell. If the cop "thinks" that someone is exercising their "2nd Amendment rights" and has a gun, then the benchmark for "posing a threat" to said cop is frighteningly low. Numerous people are killed every year who are not armed but by simply moving their hands around their belt area, they can spook a cop into thinking they're "reaching for their piece".
Of course they could be just pulling up their pants or scratching their balls. No matter. "He frightened me, your honour! What was I to do?"

Might I suggest you watch a few of the videos on the PoliceActivity YouTube channel it will open your eyes to the dangers faced by cops everyday and why they need to shoot to kill in certain situations when it's a life our death scenario.

WARNING THE VIDEOS BELOW CONTAIN SCENCES OF CRIMINALS BEING SHOT BY POLICE OFFICERS

This woman was tazed and managed to reach into her car and open fire on the officer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zFrF8PCR08

This cop gets run over and pinned against a fence and opens fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azaDHRWKeA8

Cookie_Monster

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

"Shall not be infringed."

but it is already infringed, there is no simple open right for everyone to own any kind of firearm; there are defacto infringements/restrictions. you can't simply own functional tanks or rocket launchers, 5 years olds cant buy guns etc. So how come those restrictions are ok but other aren't

wicklowstevo

Tell me how wrote: »

Why would it? Take their guns as well. 80% of guns used in Chicago were apparently bought legally. Do something about that avenue.

you want to disarm all those black folks killing each other in Chicago ?

sounds kinda racist to be but good luck with that lol

85603

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

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.

Its not a question of gun ownership. Few people will argue that all guns should be banned.
Its a question of which guns should be banned.
And the u.s. already does ban certain guns.

All guns/no-guns is a stupid argument, and a recipe for disaster.

No guns whatsoever will get you Myanmar, its true.
All guns will get you a state of bloody chaos.

U.S. is far away from being a myanmar for obvious reasons, but its also towards the 'all guns' end of the scale, which is why we keep seeing the bloody chaos of mass shootings.

The happy middle ground where people can still shoot back if necessary, yet also find it difficult to spree kill the public is moderate gun control. And thats what most western countries have.

AbusesToilets

85603 wrote: »

Its not a question of gun ownership. Few people will argue that all guns should be banned.
Its a question of which guns should be banned.
And the u.s. already does ban certain guns.

All guns/no-guns is a stupid argument, and a recipe for disaster.

No guns whatsoever will get you Myanmar, its true.
All guns will get you a state of bloody chaos.

U.S. is far away from being a myanmar for obvious reasons, but its also towards the 'all guns' end of the scale, which is why we keep seeing the bloody chaos of mass shootings.

The happy middle ground where people can still shoot back if necessary, yet also find it difficult to spree kill the public is moderate gun control. And thats what most western countries have.

Yet spree killings have happened multiple times in Europe in recent history. Perhaps one can't prevent murderous intent by passing laws aimed at restriction on law abiding citizens.

85603

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yet spree killings have happened multiple times in Europe in recent history. Perhaps one can't prevent murderous intent by passing laws aimed at restriction on law abiding citizens.

yeah, no govt can prevent certain things from happening, as govts are only human.

but what govts can do is make it as difficult as possible for such events to happen.

the govt restrict law abiding citizens from getting their hands on anthrax and highly explosive compounds. of course you see the sense in that.

the same logic applies in most western countries to certain firearms with high caliber and fire rate. theres simply no need for some of them to be in unqualified hands.
all they constitute is a threat to public safety, like anthrax or tnt, or uranium, or an m60.

Rows Grower

Two killed and 8 injured in a shooting near Virginia Beach, girl refused to take a fella's phone number, fight broke out, "they were pulling guns out like cell phones."

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/virginia/articles/2021-03-27/police-several-hurt-in-virginia-beach-oceanfront-shooting