Nearly 30 dead as multiple mass shootings hit across the US

[BmorePat87]

(08-05-2019, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: El Paso shooter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/04/el-paso-wal-mart-shooting-patrick-crusius-probed-hate-crime/1914874001/

Drudge posted he manifesto (I guess others did too) but I have not read it.

I did see a photo of the word "trump" spelled out with guns that is allegedly from the shooters social media but I did not try to confirm that either.

I read this morning that someone created a mylife page and listed him as a democrat but that the initial speculation was that was created after the shooting.

The manifesto is the only confirmable part so far to my knowledge.

I read it. I highlighted bits of it in my first post. Wanted no "race mixing", separate areas for each race, and to end latinos taking over. Complained about corporations making it possible. 

He retweeted a photo of "TRUMP" spelled out in guns. Most of his social media posts related to Trump were just retweets on pro Trump stuff.

[*Nately120*]

(08-05-2019, 12:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I read it. I highlighted bits of it in my first post. Wanted no "race mixing", separate areas for each race, and to end latinos taking over. Complained about corporations making it possible. 

He retweeted a photo of "TRUMP" spelled out in guns. Most of his social media posts related to Trump were just retweets on pro Trump stuff.

This happens quite a lot, doesn't it?  Politician/public figure garners support but simultaneously bragging about how how awesome and influential he/she is and then warns people that a specific group/ideology is invading/threatening/your enemy.  A follower of this person goes out and attacks members of this cited group and then the politician/public figure says "Hey, I don't control people!"

Same ol' song n' dance.


What is Trump supposed to say? Hey, I may have said that immigrants are dangerous criminals, but I didn't expect anyone to attempt to harm them! That's the charade of the whole thing...he may as well just say "I'm going to demonize a group of people that aren't you. All you have to do in response is vote for me. Don't attack them, don't harass them, don't even talk about them on the internet. I tell you a group that isn't you is bad and you vote for me. That's it. End of transaction, ok?"

[BmorePat87]

(08-05-2019, 12:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: This happens quite a lot, doesn't it?  Politician/public figure garners support but simultaneously bragging about how how awesome and influential he/she is and then warns people that a specific group/ideology is invading/threatening/your enemy.  A follower of this person goes out and attacks members of this cited group and then the politician/public figure says "Hey, I don't control people!"

Same ol' song n' dance.


What is Trump supposed to say?  Hey, I may have said that immigrants are dangerous criminals, but I didn't expect anyone to attempt to harm them!  That's the charade of the whole thing...he may as well just say "I'm going to demonize a group of people that aren't you.  All you have to do in response is vote for me.  Don't attack them, don't harass them, don't even talk about them on the internet.  I tell you a group that isn't you is bad and you vote for me.  That's it.  End of transaction, ok?"

When you laugh and make jokes about shooting immigrants, people you have called rapist and murderers, someone is going to listen.

It certainly takes a mental illness on their part to go from hate filled behind a computer to pulling the trigger, but this is why we should expect the best from our leaders, not the worst. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-05-2019, 01:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When you laugh and make jokes about shooting immigrants, people you have called rapist and murderers, someone is going to listen.

It certainly takes a mental illness on their part to go from hate filled behind a computer to pulling the trigger, but this is why we should expect the best from our leaders, not the worst. 

I guess that's the most cynical view of it that I can think of.  A certain percentage of people are mentally ill enough to believe and act upon the fear-mongering the president uses to bolster his position.  I'm just going to throw this message out to millions of people and if within that millions of people there exist a few that are willing to shoot people, well...that's not my fault.

[*bfine32*]

Much as I asked Muslim leaders to speak out against Terror attacks committed by Radical Islam i ask some of the "good people from the other side" to speak out about the ideology that appears to have motivated the El Paso shooter. The President should demand it.

Sadly El Paso is a community that is no stranger to these types of violent acts. many most likely remember the Fort Bliss, but there have been at least 2 other since that 2009 attack. I have an old Army buddy with whom I was stationed at FT Bliss. He is currently an El Paso City LEO and a Baptist preacher. You can imagine how bust his weekend was.
First off I mourn for all the victims and give my support to their families and the survivors.
First off: I mourn for the victims and send my support to their loved ones as well as the survivors.
The motivation for the Dayton shooting along with the shooting in Cali is a little more clouded; but we must stop these. As a conservative I am very liberal when it comes to gun rights. My position has remained unchanged.

Every mentally sound American should be able to own 1 long rifle for home protection and this weapon can never leave the home except to go to and from the rifle range.

If you want anything more than that, you must be licensed and increased weaponry requires increased levels of license. Much like your car, you must obtain a learners permit to purchase a handgun. This permit consists of a state regulated written test. Once you obtain your firearm and permit you have six months to train yourself on the use and the weapon can only be transported to and from the rifle range. Within the six months you then must take a performance test to obtain your license and you must renew this license periodically. And as the firearm progresses so does the level of licensing. much like CDLs ect..

I am opposed to folks talking about restricting the type of firearms folks can purchase; as I support a WELL REGULATED militia.

[*Nately120*]

(08-05-2019, 01:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Much as I asked Muslim leaders to speak out against Terror attacks committed by Radical Islam i ask some of the "good people from the other side" to speak out about the ideology that appears to have motivated the El Paso shooter. The President should demand it.

The president should demand good people stand up and tell him that demonizing an entire group of people is wrong?  

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2019, 01:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The president should demand good people stand up and tell him that demonizing an entire group of people is wrong?  

I doubt he could demand anyone to think in anyway. He should demand that they do speak out against engaging in violence because of your beliefs.

[*Nately120*]

(08-05-2019, 01:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I doubt he could demand anyone to think in anyway. He should demand that they do speak out against engaging in violence because of your beliefs.

So Trump tells people that certain groups of people are dangerous and/or the enemy and then reminds people not to engage in violence because of the beliefs he just instilled in them?  

[*michaelsean*]

BTW...for one station here in Cincy, the amount of dead and wounded weren't sensational enough. They sent a reporter to Wright State University (near Dayton). So she's standing in front of Wright State, and the caption is 'Warren County college student was one of those killed." The person was 30 years old and took two classes at Wright state in 2015.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2019, 01:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So Trump tells people that certain groups of people are dangerous and/or the enemy and then reminds people not to engage in violence because of the beliefs he just instilled in them?  

I applaud the forum members for their general tone up to this point and their strive for solution rather than blame; therefore, I am hesitant to continue this further. But my last contribution this this point will be as follows:

There are dangerous people and there are those that wish to do us harm. I get that you're Liberal and want to paint his message as "All Brown people are bad" but some folks see that's not the message.  Weak-minded such as this shooter may infer that. So no, I don't think Trump needs to demand folks have a certain view of illegal immigrants, but he must demand that regardless of our feelings and differences violence is not the answer. And he must demand responses from alt right leaders who may have a "all brown people are bad' mentality.

[Belsnickel]

As usual, there are a lot of discussions about policy options intended to reduce gun violence in the country. A lot of them sound good, but we don't know if they will have any impact, let alone a significant one. This is why the most important thing we can do right now is promote research into firearm violence so that policy solutions can be thoroughly examined. Even the ones I have proposed are admittedly based on small scale studies lacking in the resources, depth, and comprehensiveness of studies into other issues.

This is a result of the Dickey Amendment that has stopped the CDC from researching gun violence since 1996. Last year, it was clarified that the amendment does not actually prevent research, only using it to promote gun control, though this clarification did not come with any more earmarked for the research. This year, Democrats in Congress currently have budgeted $50M for this research, but it isn't likely to pass the GOP controlled Senate. I sincerely encourage everyone to contact their folks in Congress to show support for this funding into gun violence.

Evidence based policy solutions are the best way to proceed, but we need that evidence first. Whether you are for or against gun control, this should be something to get behind.

[*Nately120*]

(08-05-2019, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I applaud the forum members for their general tone up to this point and their strive for solution rather than blame; therefore, I am hesitant to continue this further. But my last contribution this this point will be as follows:

There are dangerous people and there are those that wish to do us harm. I get that you're Liberal and want to paint his message as "All Brown people are bad" but some folks see that's not the message.  Weak-minded such as this shooter may infer that. So no, I don't think Trump needs to demand folks have a certain view of illegal immigrants, but he must demand that regardless of our feelings and differences violence is not the answer. And he must demand responses from alt right leaders who may have a "all brown people are bad' mentality.

Actually, I'm a bit of a "what's the point" libertarian.  Trump can demand Americans go on killing sprees for all it matters.  It's the job of the voters to send the message that saying stuff like that isn't cool.  Trump isn't president because we wanted a reasonable guy in office, that's my stance.  The guy uses violent rhetoric to whip up support, so acting like it's time to put the toothpaste back in the tube now is admirable but probably meaningless.

I don't hate the player, I hate the game...so to speak.


EDIT - I will admit though that as much as Obama and Hillary led me away from the democratic party, Trump is sort of leading me back to it. Then again, the 2020 election will sour me on that again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-05-2019, 12:23 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Absolutely not.  I value your opinion on these matters just as I did roto in the past.

  
Apologies for my cynicism.

Quote:My nomenclature is sub-optimal, I will admit.  But yes, I believe private party sales need to be tracked as well, especially in the case of higher power weapons.  

The problem with this, and this is an argument I've had with Fred numerous times, is that this is completely unenforceable without a complete registry of who owns what gun.  Without a registry there is no way to prove when you bought your gun or from who.  Obviously if it's a brand new model there can be no argument about it being handed down from your father, but in many cases it would be impossible to prove you haven't owned "X" gun for "Y" years without a registry.

The problem with a registry, and why a large percentage of gun owners oppose it, is that it will aid in any future confiscation efforts.  I know the counter-argument to that is that the "government is trying to take your guns".  Unfortunately this is demonstrably untrue in your deeper blue states already.  CA already has confiscation laws put into place for certain types of firearms.  They are non-transferable and must be surrendered to the state at the time of your death, rendered inoperable or transferred out of state.  Add to this that there are calls on the left to outlaw large categories of privately owned firearms (in extreme cases to appeal the 2A entirely) and the "registry leads to confiscation" argument isn't really a far right conspiracy theory.

One actually need look no further than new Zealand to see exactly this type of effort being put into play. Which is ironic as it's exactly what the shooter stated he wanted to have happen so as to further polarize people.

Quote:Agree with the invasion of privacy to some extent.  But if you want something that high power, maybe elements of you privacy need to be forfeited?  I'm not all to sure on that front to be honest.
Ohio shooter was suspended from HS for having a 'hit list' and was on the police'd radar.  Which is why I beleive they were so quick to state "there is nothing in his past that would KEEP him from procuring this weapon"  (sic)

At what point do we surrender our freedoms to the state?  It's often a contradictory argument from "the left" as they will say only the police and military should have "x" firearm but the next day are screaming about not being able to trust the police.  It's also odd that, after 9/11, the argument frequently advanced about the excesses of the Patriot Act was a quote from Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety will lose both and deserve neither".  How is this argument any different?

Quote:Not sure how Warren's ideological rhetoric would be forwarded by an attack like this...  

Quite honestly it probably doesn't but I was playing into the knee jerk reaction to blame all white male shooters on right wing ideology.  I shouldn't buy into the same game.


I will say this, this demonizing white males that's going on on twitter and your more far left sites is insanely counter productive.  You have some celebrities, such as Rosanna Arquette, making such demonstrably false statements such as "All mass hooters have been white men. Period."  You start labeling people like that and don't be surprised when that starts generating more of them.

Lastly, I would add that a lot of the responses to these shootings of late are playing perfectly into the Christchurch shooters manifesto.  He stated he intentionally used firearms to further polarize the population, to have the left attack the 2A, to foment racial animosity and blame and I'll be damned if the media and the some of our politicians are giving him absolutely everything he wanted.

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2019, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Lastly, I would add that a lot of the responses to these shootings of late are playing perfectly into the Christchurch shooters manifesto.  He stated he intentionally used firearms to further polarize the population, to have the left attack the 2A, to foment racial animosity and blame and I'll be damned if the media and the some of our politicians are giving him absolutely everything he wanted.

Why would a New Zealand shooter be talking about an American constitutional right in that way?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-05-2019, 02:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As usual, there are a lot of discussions about policy options intended to reduce gun violence in the country. A lot of them sound good, but we don't know if they will have any impact, let alone a significant one. This is why the most important thing we can do right now is promote research into firearm violence so that policy solutions can be thoroughly examined. Even the ones I have proposed are admittedly based on small scale studies lacking in the resources, depth, and comprehensiveness of studies into other issues.

This is a result of the Dickey Amendment that has stopped the CDC from researching gun violence since 1996. Last year, it was clarified that the amendment does not actually prevent research, only using it to promote gun control, though this clarification did not come with any more earmarked for the research. This year, Democrats in Congress currently have budgeted $50M for this research, but it isn't likely to pass the GOP controlled Senate. I sincerely encourage everyone to contact their folks in Congress to show support for this funding into gun violence.

Evidence based policy solutions are the best way to proceed, but we need that evidence first. Whether you are for or against gun control, this should be something to get behind.

The problem is neither side trusts the other.  The GOP thinks that the Dems will use any results to push for tighter gun control.  Given that they have the ability to stop this course of action they are taking it.  I honestly don't know what such research would even find that would pass constitutional scrutiny.  I think the money would probably be better spent on analyzing the motivations of these shooters, understanding them and trying to prevent them with targeted mental health, or other, services.  Guns have been part of this nation since its founding, the mass shooting problem is a recent development.  Clearly guns didn't create the problem, they just allow the violence to be enacted.

[BmorePat87]

When asked about Trump visiting Dayton:

"I've heard that [President Trump's] coming Wednesday but I have not gotten a call. And you know he might be going to Toledo, I don't know," Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley

[Vas Deferens]

(08-05-2019, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   
Apologies for my cynicism.

No worries.  I get it.  Just wanted to be clear.

Quote:The problem with this, and this is an argument I've had with Fred numerous times, is that this is completely unenforceable without a complete registry of who owns what gun.  Without a registry there is no way to prove when you bought your gun or from who.  Obviously if it's a brand new model there can be no argument about it being handed down from your father, but in many cases it would be impossible to prove you haven't owned "X" gun for "Y" years without a registry.

Totally understandable.  I would think that starting with all new purchases is a starting point, albeit somewhat neutered and initially ineffective, that has gained legitimacy given the increase in these occurances.  Any new purchases should be documented going forward.  Strengthen that law down the road, but start somewhere for ***** sakes.  I mean, think about if that was done 10 years ago?  I just think that if you believe you should own a high powered "assault style platform" (i know you're wreathing with that term, lol) you should be able to prove you are of sound mind.  

Quote:The problem with a registry, and why a large percentage of gun owners oppose it, is that it will aid in any future confiscation efforts.  I know the counter-argument to that is that the "government is trying to take your guns".  Unfortunately this is demonstrably untrue in your deeper blue states already.  CA already has confiscation laws put into place for certain types of firearms.  They are non-transferable and must be surrendered to the state at the time of your death, rendered inoperable or transferred out of state.  Add to this that there are calls on the left to outlaw large categories of privately owned firearms (in extreme cases to appeal the 2A entirely) and the "registry leads to confiscation" argument isn't really a far right conspiracy theory.


One actually need look no further than new Zealand to see exactly this type of effort being put into play. Which is ironic as it's exactly what the shooter stated he wanted to have happen so as to further polarize people.

Again, a completely reasonable response and I did not know that was part of the NZ manifesto.  As an outsider looking in, I just don't see confiscation as a plausible task given the sheer number of firearms out there; registry or not.  I'm sure that statement can easily sound naive.  I'm just providing my perspective on a registry itself.  

EDIT:  I think I was quick and vague with my initial "what I would want" comment.  It would be hard to clarify here, but I do not believe we would need a complete and total registry for ALL weapons.  For example, I don't believe we would need a registry for every handgun in circulation today.  

Quote:At what point do we surrender our freedoms to the state?  It's often a contradictory argument from "the left" as they will say only the police and military should have "x" firearm but the next day are screaming about not being able to trust the police.  It's also odd that, after 9/11, the argument frequently advanced about the excesses of the Patriot Act was a quote from Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety will lose both and deserve neither".  How is this argument any different?

I could not agree with you more here.  But I still think that there is common ground we could come to.  As Isomeone here has alluded to previously, forcing those with guns to hold insurance as a condition of their possession would solve some of this and would be analogous to auto insurance.  I know that those who would use weapons for illicit acts would not carry said insurance, but again, its a first step.

Quote:Quite honestly it probably doesn't but I was playing into the knee jerk reaction to blame all white male shooters on right wing ideology.  I shouldn't buy into the same game.



I will say this, this demonizing white males that's going on on twitter and your more far left sites is insanely counter productive.  You have some celebrities, such as Rosanna Arquette, making such demonstrably false statements such as "All mass hooters have been white men. Period."  You start labeling people like that and don't be surprised when that starts generating more of them.

Lastly, I would add that a lot of the responses to these shootings of late are playing perfectly into the Christchurch shooters manifesto.  He stated he intentionally used firearms to further polarize the population, to have the left attack the 2A, to foment racial animosity and blame and I'll be damned if the media and the some of our politicians are giving him absolutely everything he wanted.

I agree to an extent.  I also believe much of that is in response to the current political climate that has been pushing the degradation of american society on people that just arent the source.  We only need to look at that Ohio Rep's FB comments to see where their heads are at.

I'm going to agree with Bels here that the first step is to allow and fund research in the area.  That is the poised first step I would like to see the most.  

[Dill]

(08-05-2019, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: He may or may not have been on the police radar.  They won't say yet.

If he was, or at least if they were told and they did nothing, it was because of his actions about loving the thought of killing more than any political bias, according to the article.

This state rep from Ohio has finally gotten to the root cause of such violent behavior.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/dayton-shooting-due-family-breakdown-gay-marriage-video-games-state-lawmaker-says/jf8XNJPSfKFl13yggzTFgM/

State Rep. Candice Keller, R-Middletown, said in a post to her Facebook page that blame for the Dayton shootings should be placed on the breakdown of the traditional family, gay marriage, violent video games, professional athletes who protest the American flag, recreational marijuana and “snowflakes, who can’t accept a duly-elected President.”

 If we really want to prevent more Dayton-style shootings, then it is time for liberals to start taking responsibility for their actions.
Reporters offer this as the full statement. Stop the hatred.

[BmorePat87]

Professional terrible human being Mitch McConnell posted this on twitter the day of the mass shootings in a move that was totally not tone deaf

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-05-2019, 05:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why would a New Zealand shooter be talking about an American constitutional right in that way?

He is Australian.  Based n what I read, and I did not read the whole thing, he is tying the future of the "white race" to armed resistance to migration.  Again, I am surmising based on what he wrote, but his hope is that mass shooting leads to more gun restrictions which leads to more polarization which leads to civil war.  He specifically mentions the US and the 2A and "the lefts" attempts to restrict it as a flashpoint to get this envisioned war started.

(08-05-2019, 05:29 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: No worries.  I get it.  Just wanted to be clear.

It is appreciated.

Quote:Totally understandable.  I would think that starting with all new purchases is a starting point, albeit somewhat neutered and initially ineffective, that has gained legitimacy given the increase in these occurances.  Any new purchases should be documented going forward.  Strengthen that law down the road, but start somewhere for ***** sakes.  I mean, think about if that was done 10 years ago?  I just think that if you believe you should own a high powered "assault style platform" (i know you're wreathing with that term, lol) you should be able to prove you are of sound mind.  

I think plenty of gun owners would be comfortable with this sort of thing if they didn't worry about the "slippery slope" or future confiscation.  Trust me, no law abiding gun owner wants to again have to defend their right to own a firearm because some sick POS just shot a lot of people.

Quote:Again, a completely reasonable response and I did not know that was part of the NZ manifesto.  As an outsider looking in, I just don't see confiscation as a plausible task given the sheer number of firearms out there; registry or not.  I'm sure that statement can easily sound naive.  I'm just providing my perspective on a registry itself.  

It wasn't really part, it was the core thrust.  It was amazing how the NZ government basically fulfilled the shooter's "wish list".  Confiscation wouldn't work that way anyways.  It would start with mandatory buy backs and after a certain date you're now a criminal if you own a prohibited firearm.  Called the cops because someone broke into your house?  What's this illegal firearm, please place your hands behind your back.  You're out shooting?  Cops show up and what's this illegal firearm?  Significant other and you have a bad break up?  Cops who up, do you have illegal firearms?  You get the point.

Quote:EDIT:  I think I was quick and vague with my initial "what I would want" comment.  It would be hard to clarify here, but I do not believe we would need a complete and total registry for ALL weapons.  For example, I don't believe we would need a registry for every handgun in circulation today.  

Glad to hear it.  There are plenty of, increasingly vocal people who want exactly that though.

Quote:I could not agree with you more here.  But I still think that there is common ground we could come to.  As Isomeone here has alluded to previously, forcing those with guns to hold insurance as a condition of their possession would solve some of this and would be analogous to auto insurance.  I know that those who would use weapons for illicit acts would not carry said insurance, but again, its a first step.

Wouldn't fly as your putting a cost on a constitutional right.  This would also unfairly punish poor gun owners.  Additionally, this information could be sued to deny a rental or home purchase.  Of course they wouldn't say that was the reason.

Quote:I agree to an extent.  I also believe much of that is in response to the current political climate that has been pushing the degradation of american society on people that just arent the source.  We only need to look at that Ohio Rep's FB comments to see where their heads are at.

Extreme attitudes are wrong regardless of the end of the spectrum they come from.  On this we completely agree.

Quote:I'm going to agree with Bels here that the first step is to allow and fund research in the area.  That is the poised first step I would like to see the most.  

While not opposed to the idea I don't see what likely benefits will come from it.  As I said, I think you'd have way more success putting this research funding in analyzing what made these guys do what they did.  What mentally lead them down this road.
[/quote]

[/quote]