Another white supremacist mass shooting

[SDBoiler1]

Well, we do know assault weapons are designed for one purpose: killing people.

These should not be sold in stores.

Semi-autos banned? All semi-auto handguns? Autos are already banned.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

You're right....You weren't a part of the group. But we'd have let you join in had you been there.

WE know it won't work because criminals don't give a shit about the "rules". And I can kill with a car, a truck, a motorcycle, bombs, or any other device to do harm if I don't have a gun. Again...Criminals don't give a shit.

Is this just criminals who kill in a mass shooting or is it all criminals? Your post makes it sound like laws don't work for any criminals, so why have laws?

 

[SDBoiler1]

Is this just criminals who kill in a mass shooting or is it all criminals? Your post makes it sound like laws don't work for any criminals, so why have laws?

Laws are supposed to be in place to have ramifications for people who break them. You commit the crime, you do the time. If you commit a serious enough crime(s), you may lose your life. The guy in TX deserves to be taken out for what he did.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I'm personally for making it harder for a person to not get a weapon designed to mow people down. If it stops one shooter from getting an assault weapon, then it worked.

Me too. I'm not in the business of preventing wrongful deaths, which is why I find the red herring about "Why aren't you talking about the murders in Chicago?!?!" particularly obtuse. I agree with the assertion that criminals are going to be criminals, and that some will undoubtedly find a way to get a weapon wherein they can kill someone, whether that's a gun or a knife or a car or a shiv or whatever.

What I'm interested in is preventing the general public from being able to obtain weapons wherein they have a decided tactical advantage over literally everyone except the military, that is they walk in with a semi-automatic long rifle with a 30-round magazine, and even a law abiding citizen or LEO with a 15-round magazine handgun is at a decided disadvantage. Let's just start there.

There's a reason a good majority of mass shootings are executed with "assault rifles". It's not because they're cool or inherently evil. It's because they are the most effective weapons with which to conduct these types of killings. And there is no purpose for them other than killing people. Hunters don't need them. There is no argument for personal protection. And frankly the well-armed militia to protect against a tyrannical government is a ridiculous argument because TwinDegrees armed with an AR-15 isn't stopping the drone strike that's going to take him out anyway.

 

[70boiler]

Sorry for the delay in responding but I was vacationing last week and have been trying to approach catching up with the office.
Actually the delay has provided me this morning with a partial reply to your post when I read this NYT Op-Ed that, while I haven't fully digested, I pretty much agree with. While it is directed at the President, it isn't an exercise in blame placing, but is far more an attempt at addressing the overall causation of the mass shooting phenomenon, that rings generally true to me
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/opinion/trump-el-paso-dayton-shootings.html

The thought seems to be quite startingly consistent with the description given by the Dayton shooter's ex-girlfriend
https://www.today.com/video/ex-girlfriend-of-dayton-shooter-cites-warning-signs-65398341526

 

[70boiler]

An interesting read, but again a flawed analysis by an avowed Never Trumper.

Did not deranged killers mow down folks at Columbine under Clinton, Pulse Nightclub and Sandy Hook under Obama, University of Texas under LBJ, Luby’s restaurant under George HW Bush, Virginia Tech under George W Bush, Las Vegas under Trump?

Douthat tried to make it seem as if these recent shootings were caused by Trump. Did these other Presidents cause mass shootings during their Administration, too? It’s a specious argument at best. Mental illness has afflicted many generations. Trump has not helped tamp down the tendency for these shootings, for sure, but he did not cause deranged people to kill others. They pulled the triggers.

In no way does your comment show the analysis to be flawed or specious. Please reread my original comment suggesting the op-ed be not read as an indictment of Trump personally but rather addressing the underlying issues.
Can you never stop being defensive and thinking initially of defending Trump? I was quite careful about indicating why I linked the op-ed but it was seemingly lost. Sorry that I don't have the ability to be clearer.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Me too. I'm not in the business of preventing wrongful deaths, which is why I find the red herring about "Why aren't you talking about the murders in Chicago?!?!" particularly obtuse. I agree with the assertion that criminals are going to be criminals, and that some will undoubtedly find a way to get a weapon wherein they can kill someone, whether that's a gun or a knife or a car or a shiv or whatever.

What I'm interested in is preventing the general public from being able to obtain weapons wherein they have a decided tactical advantage over literally everyone except the military, that is they walk in with a semi-automatic long rifle with a 30-round magazine, and even a law abiding citizen or LEO with a 15-round magazine handgun is at a decided disadvantage. Let's just start there.

There's a reason a good majority of mass shootings are executed with "assault rifles". It's not because they're cool or inherently evil. It's because they are the most effective weapons with which to conduct these types of killings. And there is no purpose for them other than killing people. Hunters don't need them. There is no argument for personal protection. And frankly the well-armed militia to protect against a tyrannical government is a ridiculous argument because TwinDegrees armed with an AR-15 isn't stopping the drone strike that's going to take him out anyway.

Your argument is not consistent. “You’re not in the business of preventing wrongful deaths”, but you want to keep people from being killed by semi-auto long guns? What’s the difference if someone is wrongfully killed via a semi-auto long gun or a semi-auto pistol? In the end, the people get shot and die. Why is it not significant that hundreds of people get shot dead in the streets of Chicago every year?

 

[SDBoiler1]

In no way does your comment show the analysis to be flawed or specious. Please reread my original comment suggesting the op-ed be not read as an indictment of Trump personally but rather addressing the underlying issues.
Can you never stop being defensive and thinking initially of defending Trump? I was quite careful about indicating why I linked the op-ed but it was seemingly lost. Sorry that I don't have the ability to be clearer.

No need to apologize. When I read the article Douthat took his typical shots at Trump. I find it a tad disingenuous to say that Douthat is not blame placing in this opinion piece. He has a long history of doing so, because he can’t stand Trump’s uncouth, mercurial style.

 

[70boiler]

No need to apologize. When I read the article Douthat took his typical shots at Trump. I find it a tad disingenuous to say that Douthat is not blame placing in this opinion piece. He has a long history of doing so, because he can’t stand Trump’s uncouth, mercurial style.

I suppose when I said blame placing I was more referring to the Pres. performing causative acts rather than exacerbating acts.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Your argument is not consistent. “You’re not in the business of preventing wrongful deaths”, but you want to keep people from being killed by semi-auto long guns? What’s the difference if someone is wrongfully killed via a semi-auto long gun or a semi-auto pistol? In the end, the people get shot and die. Why is it not significant that hundreds of people get shot dead in the streets of Chicago every year?

There is an implicit "all" in the first sentence, which perhaps I should edit and make explicit. As I said, we are not going to stop all criminals from taking lives, but that does not mean we should not make it exceptionally difficult for people to achieve so decided a tacitcal advantage which they can now achieve in a matter of hours or days, at the most.

The difference is not the means of death; the difference is the capability afforded the user of a semi-auto long rifle over the semi-auto handgun - specifically the tactical advantages of range, penetrating power, accuracy and firing rate. Obviously the environment matters... in an enclosed classroom, a shotgun is a more effective weapon than either a hand gun or a long rifle. That said, in a Wal-Mart, the long rifle has a decided advantage over either of the other two. And from a hotel window, the answer again should be obvious.

My point is, there is an arguable purpose for a shotgun and a hand gun, within reason. I think magazine limits are important in all cases to afford actors the opportunity to act in self defense. The difference between having to wait out 30 rounds and having to wait out 8 or 10 before reload/rearm should be obvious. I can think of no purpose other than killing people for a large-magazine rifle. Simply put, if you need a large magazine for your deer hunting, you're doing it wrong.

The lives of those in Chicago matter. Many - but not all - of those are created by circumstances well in the hand of the individuals shot and killed - gang violence, other domestic violence. People being shot while shopping at Wal-Mart or attending a work function or attending a concert is an entirely different matter. If you are unable to discern the difference between those two, then there is no point in continuing conversation because I have to believe that as an educated person, you are simply being obtuse.

 

[indy35]

An interesting read, but again a flawed analysis by an avowed Never Trumper.

Did not deranged killers mow down folks at Columbine under Clinton, Pulse Nightclub and Sandy Hook under Obama, University of Texas under LBJ, Luby’s restaurant under George HW Bush, Virginia Tech under George W Bush, Las Vegas under Trump?

Douthat tried to make it seem as if these recent shootings were caused by Trump. Did these other Presidents cause mass shootings during their Administration, too? It’s a specious argument at best. Mental illness has afflicted many generations. Trump has not helped tamp down the tendency for these shootings, for sure, but he did not cause deranged people to kill others. They pulled the triggers.

When killers use white supremacists rhetoric as their reason behind the shooting, it's relevant that Trump and Fox News pound that rhetoric into their audience all day, every day. Other shooters have other motivations. In the El Paso case it was clearly someone that had listed to too much right wing propaganda and wanted to save the United States from the immigrant invasion.

With Sandy Hook, did Obama rail constantly against first graders and then the shooter decided that he had to go kill first graders? The scenarios are entirely different. Your logic is astoundingly stupid, even compared to your normal standards.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

When killers use white supremacists rhetoric as their reason behind the shooting, it's relevant that Trump and Fox News pound that rhetoric into their audience all day, every day. Other shooters have other motivations. In the El Paso case it was clearly someone that had listed to too much right wing propaganda and wanted to save the United States from the immigrant invasion.

With Sandy Hook, did Obama rail constantly against first graders and then the shooter decided that he had to go kill first graders? The scenarios are entirely different. Your logic is astoundingly stupid, even compared to your normal standards.

I enjoyed the article linked by @70boiler regarding nihilism and narcissism of individuals devoid of character in the broad sense (i.e. "emptiness"). While certainly not every shooting is rooted in right-wing extremism, most of those shooters share more than a few common traits with the president.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Is this just criminals who kill in a mass shooting or is it all criminals? Your post makes it sound like laws don't work for any criminals, so why have laws?

I'll put the question back at you......If laws worked, would we have criminals? Or crimes?

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Me too. I'm not in the business of preventing wrongful deaths, which is why I find the red herring about "Why aren't you talking about the murders in Chicago?!?!" particularly obtuse. I agree with the assertion that criminals are going to be criminals, and that some will undoubtedly find a way to get a weapon wherein they can kill someone, whether that's a gun or a knife or a car or a shiv or whatever.

What I'm interested in is preventing the general public from being able to obtain weapons wherein they have a decided tactical advantage over literally everyone except the military, that is they walk in with a semi-automatic long rifle with a 30-round magazine, and even a law abiding citizen or LEO with a 15-round magazine handgun is at a decided disadvantage. Let's just start there.

There's a reason a good majority of mass shootings are executed with "assault rifles". It's not because they're cool or inherently evil. It's because they are the most effective weapons with which to conduct these types of killings. And there is no purpose for them other than killing people. Hunters don't need them. There is no argument for personal protection. And frankly the well-armed militia to protect against a tyrannical government is a ridiculous argument because TwinDegrees armed with an AR-15 isn't stopping the drone strike that's going to take him out anyway.

One shot....the drone is down. Aren't you ex military?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I'll put the question back at you......If laws worked, would we have criminals? Or crimes?

Of course you would. Criminals have existed since laws have. If we applied the same logic that we run around applying to gun control, we should have no laws.

My thought is to which is more effective: gun toting ordinary citizens preventing mass shootings? Or taking measures to prevent widespread and easy availability of weapons capable of executing mass shootings?

We already know one doesn't work, in spite of vehement arguments to the contrary. We don't know that the other wouldn't work, that is unless you were part of a selective discussion amongst like-thinking folk at a local Bob Evans.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

One shot....the drone is down. Aren't you ex military?

I'm not talking about drones you buy at Brookstone, bud. You're going to shoot a weaponized, military-grade (Predator or similar) drone with an AR-15?

I'm current military. I'll tell you the answer to that question is "no." I question whether you're being obtuse or you're really just this ignorant.

 

[SKYDOG]

Have tougher consequences for people breaking the rules or laws and things would change.

 

[70boiler]

Have tougher consequences for people breaking the rules or laws and things would change.

That has not historically been the case. How did that "War on Drugs" thing work out, as we now see blanket early releases being implemented?
There are generally three reasons, 1) many involved in criminal behavior don't give a damn about potential consequences and 2) most don't plan on being caught and 3) the thought process in initiating a crime often tends to be near instantaneous without opportunity for considering potential consequences.

 

[SDBoiler1]

There is an implicit "all" in the first sentence, which perhaps I should edit and make explicit. As I said, we are not going to stop all criminals from taking lives, but that does not mean we should not make it exceptionally difficult for people to achieve so decided a tacitcal advantage which they can now achieve in a matter of hours or days, at the most.

The difference is not the means of death; the difference is the capability afforded the user of a semi-auto long rifle over the semi-auto handgun - specifically the tactical advantages of range, penetrating power, accuracy and firing rate. Obviously the environment matters... in an enclosed classroom, a shotgun is a more effective weapon than either a hand gun or a long rifle. That said, in a Wal-Mart, the long rifle has a decided advantage over either of the other two. And from a hotel window, the answer again should be obvious.

My point is, there is an arguable purpose for a shotgun and a hand gun, within reason. I think magazine limits are important in all cases to afford actors the opportunity to act in self defense. The difference between having to wait out 30 rounds and having to wait out 8 or 10 before reload/rearm should be obvious. I can think of no purpose other than killing people for a large-magazine rifle. Simply put, if you need a large magazine for your deer hunting, you're doing it wrong.

The lives of those in Chicago matter. Many - but not all - of those are created by circumstances well in the hand of the individuals shot and killed - gang violence, other domestic violence. People being shot while shopping at Wal-Mart or attending a work function or attending a concert is an entirely different matter. If you are unable to discern the difference between those two, then there is no point in continuing conversation because I have to believe that as an educated person, you are simply being obtuse.

Appreciate your well-stated response. The dig at the end was unnecessary......

I agree with you that there really isn’t a strong need for high-capacity magazines for non-LEO and non-military folks. I would limit them to 15 myself.

Having 30+ round mags is a lot, even to me as a registered gun owner. In CT, we are limited to 10 round mags, which I think is too little. I just go to the range on occasion and exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights.

 

[SDBoiler1]

When killers use white supremacists rhetoric as their reason behind the shooting, it's relevant that Trump and Fox News pound that rhetoric into their audience all day, every day. Other shooters have other motivations. In the El Paso case it was clearly someone that had listed to too much right wing propaganda and wanted to save the United States from the immigrant invasion.

With Sandy Hook, did Obama rail constantly against first graders and then the shooter decided that he had to go kill first graders? The scenarios are entirely different. Your logic is astoundingly stupid, even compared to your normal standards.

Eff off. You’re incapable of reasonable conversation because of your obvious bias and hatred of non-lefties.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I enjoyed the article linked by @70boiler regarding nihilism and narcissism of individuals devoid of character in the broad sense (i.e. "emptiness"). While certainly not every shooting is rooted in right-wing extremism, most of those shooters share more than a few common traits with the president.

Trump is definitely a narcissist. I don’t think he’s a nihilist, per se.

 

[indy35]

Eff off. You’re incapable of reasonable conversation because of your obvious bias and hatred of non-lefties.

If you're mad because you got called out for saying something so stupid, that's your problem Make better arguments.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Appreciate your well-stated response. The dig at the end was unnecessary......

I agree with you that there really isn’t a strong need for high-capacity magazines for non-LEO and non-military folks. I would limit them to 15 myself.

Having 30+ round mags is a lot, even to me as a registered gun owner. In CT, we are limited to 10 round mags, which I think is too little. I just go to the range on occasion and exercise my 2nd Amendment Rights.

It's only a dig if you're unable to discern the difference between the two. I think you are plenty able to do so, but if you continually draw equivalency between the shootings over the weekend in XXX city and a mass shooting of innocents who've never even met the shooter, then the dig is aimed at you, and rightfully so IMO.

We can dance around the round limit - you know we will whenever this comes to fruition - but I can't really come up with a logical reason why you need more than 3 to 5 rounds at any given time, but I also know we'll never get there. IMO, if it could save even one life in one of these events, I'll take the complaints of law-abiding range shooters who have to reload more frequently.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

I'm not talking about drones you buy at Brookstone, bud. You're going to shoot a weaponized, military-grade (Predator or similar) drone with an AR-15?

I'm current military. I'll tell you the answer to that question is "no." I question whether you're being obtuse or you're really just this ignorant.

Fact is....the military isn't going to send a Predator to such a soft and easy target as me so I'm not too concerned.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Fact is....the military isn't going to send a Predator to such a soft and easy target as me so I'm not too concerned.

Getting back to the point, what's the rationale for someone needing a large magazine long rifle? Or large magazine anything? Because freedom?

 

[SDBoiler1]

If you're mad because you got called out for saying something so stupid, that's your problem Make better arguments.

I’m not mad. I just find you annoying. What you consider arguments are just emotional, racially-charged screeds which rarely advance the conversation.

 

[SDBoiler1]

It's only a dig if you're unable to discern the difference between the two. I think you are plenty able to do so, but if you continually draw equivalency between the shootings over the weekend in XXX city and a mass shooting of innocents who've never even met the shooter, then the dig is aimed at you, and rightfully so IMO.

We can dance around the round limit - you know we will whenever this comes to fruition - but I can't really come up with a logical reason why you need more than 3 to 5 rounds at any given time, but I also know we'll never get there. IMO, if it could save even one life in one of these events, I'll take the complaints of law-abiding range shooters who have to reload more frequently.

Even the liberal bastions of CT and CA allow 10 round magazines, right? I suspect, if a national decision is made on the issue (which I doubt), it would end up at either 10 or 15 round magazines in the end.

 

[indy35]

I’m not mad. I just find you annoying. What you consider arguments are just emotional, racially-charged screeds which rarely advance the conversation.

I guess I'd be annoyed too if I was constantly having my arguments shot down in flames. Have you found any examples of Obama attacking first graders, so that the shooter then attacked a bunch of first graders? Then it's not the same. Your attempt to link clear political killings to other killings is a sad attempt to change the narrative.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I guess I'd be annoyed too if I was constantly having my arguments shot down in flames. Have you found any examples of Obama attacking first graders, so that the shooter then attacked a bunch of first graders? Then it's not the same. Your attempt to link clear political killings to other killings is a sad attempt to change the narrative.

I’m not the media and I don’t work in the media.

As for Obama attacking first graders, it’s an idiotic analogy, even for you.

The guy in El Paso said that he had contempt for Hispanics well before Trump was even a candidate. He claimed in his narrative on social media prior to releasing his manifesto that Trump wasn’t the reason he did what he did. He did it because he felt the USA was being invaded by Mexicans. The guy is a whack job. So are you.

 

[indy35]

I’m not the media and I don’t work in the media.

As for Obama attacking first graders, it’s an idiotic analogy, even for you.

The guy in El Paso said that he had contempt for Hispanics well before Trump was even a candidate. He claimed in his narrative on social media prior to releasing his manifesto that Trump wasn’t the reason he did what he did. He did it because he felt the USA was being invaded by Mexicans. The guy is a whack job. So are you.

Hmm, where would he have thought that Hispanics were invading the United States? He watched too much Fox News. Our country would be much safer if people turned off Fox News and played video games instead.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...as-used-invasion-in-thousands-of-facebook-ads

You're the moron trying to compare Newtown to El Paso. The El Paso shooter was clearly influenced by right wing propaganda, it's not the same thing as Columbine, Newton, Pulse Nightclub, etc. What brain cells are you missing that you can't understand that? You are a complete pos defending all of this stuff.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Even the liberal bastions of CT and CA allow 10 round magazines, right? I suspect, if a national decision is made on the issue (which I doubt), it would end up at either 10 or 15 round magazines in the end.

Sure, I'd be fine with 10... 15 would even be a move in the right direction. I was just talking from a practical standpoint, I can't really come up with a good reason to need more than 3 or 5.

 

[doubleyous]

I wasn’t one who was saying that it was just right-wing lunatics who were the killers. A number of your left-leaning compatriots tried to make that statement. This kind of violence comes from all kinds of backgrounds and beliefs.

Too much is getting lost in translation here...….movin' on...….

 

[70boiler]

Hopefully, this is one of those "WTF were we thinking and we are really sorry" moments

 

[SDBoiler1]

Hmm, where would he have thought that Hispanics were invading the United States? He watched too much Fox News. Our country would be much safer if people turned off Fox News and played video games instead.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...as-used-invasion-in-thousands-of-facebook-ads

You're the moron trying to compare Newtown to El Paso. The El Paso shooter was clearly influenced by right wing propaganda, it's not the same thing as Columbine, Newton, Pulse Nightclub, etc. What brain cells are you missing that you can't understand that? You are a complete pos defending all of this stuff.

Mental derangement isn’t limited by color or belief system. All of these killers were deranged, otherwise they wouldn't have done what they did in the first place. You are too deranged and triggered to get that yourself it seems.

 

[doubleyous]

Your argument is not consistent. “You’re not in the business of preventing wrongful deaths”, but you want to keep people from being killed by semi-auto long guns? What’s the difference if someone is wrongfully killed via a semi-auto long gun or a semi-auto pistol? In the end, the people get shot and die. Why is it not significant that hundreds of people get shot dead in the streets of Chicago every year?

Re: last sentence. Have we not exhausted the Chicago murder rate talking points, by now ?? How much more mileage does the Right think it can get out of those stats ??

Dayton - background/motive still a work in progress.
El Paso - Trump's favorite whipping boy - Mexican Immigration - FRONT & CENTER
Proceed…..

 

[ComradeRedBoilermaker]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ew-gun-control-measures/ar-AAFmSa1?li=BBUPk4T

An insincere non apology in which he accepted no responsibility whatsoever. And frankly, the only reason he did it was cynical, the optics of the situation were getting too bad.

Until he accepts responsibility for the role he has played in radicalizing these young men and proposes an actually reasonable plan of action to prevent further violence, it’s just empty words.

 

[70boiler]

It appears that the Trump campaign spent significant money in amplification of the invasion by immigrants through Facebook
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/us/politics/trump-campaign-facebook-ads-invasion.html

 

[bonefish1]

Hopefully, this is one of those "WTF were we thinking and we are really sorry" moments

View embedded media

They don’t like AOC? What’s wrong with that? I don’t like her either.

 

[bonefish1]

An insincere non apology in which he accepted no responsibility whatsoever. And frankly, the only reason he did it was cynical, the optics of the situation were getting too bad.

Until he accepts responsibility for the role he has played in radicalizing these young men and proposes an actually reasonable plan of action to prevent further violence, it’s just empty words.

How many cop executions should Obama at least take a little bit of responsibility for?

 

[70boiler]

They don’t like AOC? What’s wrong with that? I don’t like her either.

Well, what can anyone say here???