The mass shooting today.
GoSlugs said:
RealityForAll said:
Response to GoSlugs' Question on Point 2: if there is a relationship between intoxicants, pharmaceuticals, hallucinogens, etc. and a homicidal response then a cure can be fashioned. Before we can make such an association, we need the toxicology data gathered and analyzed.
The cure is kind of obvious. Just make people applying to buy guns take a drug test and a psych evaluation.
Kind of obvious, I would think.
Sounds like an enormous burden on a fundamental right.
If a new law burdened/required potential parents* with a drug test and a psychiatric evaluation before having children (also a fundamental right), then how would you respond?
*- in order to prevent child abuse, child endangerment, etc.
Jaytee said:
Can being on a Russian website promoting hateful rhetoric against Jews and the people these MAGATS hate be classified as a drug? The latest one in Texas is pro Russian. See the connection?
is this the El Paso guy (that you are referring to) who used his Land Rover to kill several people?
RealityForAll said:
is this the El Paso guy (that you are referring to) who used his Land Rover to kill several people?
no, this was yesterday. Killed 8 at the shopping center.
Jaytee said:
RealityForAll said:
is this the El Paso guy (that you are referring to) who used his Land Rover to kill several people?
no, this was yesterday. Killed 8 at the shopping center.
lt’s getting hard to keep track.
RealityForAll said:
Sounds like an enormous burden on a fundamental right.
Military recruits have been peeing in a cup and looking at ink blots since the Reagan Administration. If its good enough for the troops in the uniformed services, then surely it is good enough for the well regulated militia at large.
RealityForAll said:
If a new law burdened/required potential parents* with a drug test and a psychiatric evaluation before having children (also a fundamental right), then how would you respond?
*- in order to prevent child abuse, child endangerment, etc.
There's no explicit Constitutional right to have children as I am sure your originalist justices would affirm.
Don't try to foist your woke tosh on me.
RealityForAll said:
is this the El Paso guy (that you are referring to) who used his Land Rover to kill several people?
Yesterdays attack was in Brownsville, about 800 miles to the Southeast.
Texas is a big place.
GoSlugs said:
RealityForAll said:
Sounds like an enormous burden on a fundamental right.
Military recruits have been peeing in a cup and looking at ink blots since the Reagan Administration. If its good enough for the troops in the uniformed services, then surely it is good enough for the well regulated militia at large.
Mikitary recruits can be compelled to do many things that civilians cannot be compelled to do. IOW, bad analysis. Especially, in light of the fact that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.
RealityForAll said:
GoSlugs said:
RealityForAll said:
Sounds like an enormous burden on a fundamental right.
Military recruits have been peeing in a cup and looking at ink blots since the Reagan Administration. If its good enough for the troops in the uniformed services, then surely it is good enough for the well regulated militia at large.
Mikitary recruits can be compelled to do many things that civilians cannot be compelled to do. IOW, bad analysis. Especially, in light of the fact that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.
Only due to what I consider a flawed (to say the least) "interpretation" of the second amendment.
RealityForAll said:
Sounds like an enormous burden on a fundamental right.
I hear a lot about what can't be done from gun owners. Let's here more about what can be done. After all, I'm sure you would agree that the victims of gun violence have been deprived of some fundamental rights. Not sure if you'd agree, but I'd go further and argue that all of us, by virtue of having to live in a heavily armed society where a minor incident can trigger homicidal deadly rage, are also being deprived of some fundamental rights.
So what can be done? Or, to repeat my original question, is the argument that "such incidents [are] simply the price we pay for the right to bear arms"?
PVW said:
RealityForAll said:
Sounds like an enormous burden on a fundamental right.
I hear a lot about what can't be done from gun owners. Let's here more about what can be done. After all, I'm sure you would agree that the victims of gun violence have been deprived of some fundamental rights. Not sure if you'd agree, but I'd go further and argue that all of us, by virtue of having to live in a heavily armed society where a minor incident can trigger homicidal deadly rage, are also being deprived of some fundamental rights.
So what can be done? Or, to repeat my original question, is the argument that "such incidents [are] simply the price we pay for the right to bear arms"?
that's really all I'd like a gun advocate for just once to admit. All the firearm deaths in the U.S. are the price they accept for their right to own guns.
Just being honest about it would be refreshing. Instead of all this diversion and obfuscation about mental health or drugs or firearm black markets.
Just admit as a gun owner and gun ownership advocate that you're willing to accept our country's level of gun deaths.
End of story.
Re the right to have children: many people with inherited disabilities have been sterilised as children so their ‘abnormalities’ can’t be passed on to anyone else. This before they can give consent or are even aware of what the procedures are about.
So yes, communities in democracies can decide that some members don’t deserve the full range of rights others have. (It happens all the time, anyway, in lots of fields - who’s allowed to drive or fly a plane or own a big boat, or dig for minerals in a town or build a road where they like etc)
RealityForAll said:
Mikitary recruits can be compelled to do many things that civilians cannot be compelled to do. IOW, bad analysis. Especially, in light of the fact that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.
Maybe but many of the more whacky interpretations of the 2nd Amendment put forward by the advocates of Shooter's Rights assert that the armed population of the US are, in fact, an informal militia. If that is the case, they certainly can be regulated, per the 2nd Amendment.
Good analysis, poor interpretation on your part.
joanne said:
Re the right to have children: many people with inherited disabilities have been sterilised as children so their ‘abnormalities’ can’t be passed on to anyone else. This before they can give consent or are even aware of what the procedures are about.
So yes, communities in democracies can decide that some members don’t deserve the full range of rights others have. (It happens all the time, anyway, in lots of fields - who’s allowed to drive or fly a plane or own a big boat, or dig for minerals in a town or build a road where they like etc)
My comment was a joke about the conservative assertion that citizens of the US are only entitled to the rights enumerated in the Constitution. I certainly didn't mean for it to be taken seriously.
Only monsters would contend that a state or nation might deny their citizens the right to bodily autonomy or to bear children.
^ Yeah, I understand that, except that some families/guardians do take their fear of differences too far, and act “in the child’s best interests” even when it’s ultimately not really best.
Re the subject at hand, I was most interest to read the following article this afternoon:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/08/texas-mall-shooting-us-army-witness-gun-control-laws
A witness with professional experience of military weaponary wants to see the gun laws changed, in light of what he witnessed at the most recent mall shooting.
nohero said:
lt’s getting hard to keep track.
Sure is, and if you look at the last few events in Texas, there’s a pattern of right wing terrorism. This one last weekend at the outlet mall was pretty obvious. Mauricio Garcia, a white supremacist, has been on a Russian website that promotes this sort of behavior. He was a proud member of the RWDS. Right Wing Death Squad. Basically nazism.
Here's another one:
Louisiana man shoots girl playing hide-and-seek on his property, police say (WaPo)
A Louisiana man has been charged after police said he shot a 14-year-old girl playing hide-and-seek on his property in the back of the head.
The shooting occurred Sunday morning in Starks, La., a rural town of fewer than 700 people near the border with Texas. Officers from the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office received reports of a shooting at a property there, the office said in a news release. When they arrived, they found the girl suffering from a gunshot wound. She was taken to a hospital with injuries that weren’t life-threatening, the release said.
The release said children had been playing hide-and-seek in the area and hiding on David V. Doyle’s property. Doyle, 58, told officers he got his gun after seeing “shadows outside his home.”
Doyle “then advised detectives he went back outside and observed people running away from his property, at which time he began shooting at them and unknowingly hit the girl,” according to the release.
I've been posting these non-mass shootings -- such as the man in Florida who shot at the instacart driver -- because I think they get at something important underlying the gun problem we have in this country. Based on RFA's comments on the FL shooting, I'm sure he'd agree that the man in this latest incident acted irresponsibly. Given that he's been charged criminally, the local police seem to agree.
But would most gun owners agree he acted unjustifiably? I'm not sure. The children were on his property. He says he shot after "seeing shadows." This seems exactly the type of situation many gun advocates believe guns are for, and it seems that most would find it tragic that the "shadows" turned out to be children, but wouldn't find the "shooting at shadows" to be a problem. And I'd counter that this is exactly the problem, and what's so angering and frustrating about the gun debate is that gun advocates seem to just shrug and suggest that there's nothing to be done. Whether it be children shot playing hide and seek, a traveler making a wrong turn in a driveway, or a white supremacist gunning down a crowd, the response is always a denial that any action can or should be taken.
These maimings and deaths are the price we pay to assuage people who are literally scared of shadows.
Jaytee said:
nohero said:
lt’s getting hard to keep track.
Sure is, and if you look at the last few events in Texas, there’s a pattern of right wing terrorism. This one last weekend at the outlet mall was pretty obvious. Mauricio Garcia, a white supremacist, has been on a Russian website that promotes this sort of behavior. He was a proud member of the RWDS. Right Wing Death Squad. Basically nazism.
I have not yet thoroughly investigated this incident. But, your posting lists a number of common tropes: i.) White supremacist shooter; ii.) Russian website promoting bad behavior (namely, white supremacist behavior/attitudes); iii.) membership in a right-wing terrorist group (namely, Right Wing Death Squad (AKA RWDS)); and iv.) nazism. In addition, you name the shooter as "Mauricio Garcia." The shooter's name is a classically non-Anglo name (which could alternatively be described as non-White). Yet with a straight face, you describe a presumably non-Anglo as a white-supremacist, white supremacist terorist/militia member, Russian dupe and also a nazi. Anything is possible, but the above description sounds a lot more like a smear than an honest description. Do you have any evidence for such assertions?
Sorry to be such a cynic.
PVW said:
I've been posting these non-mass shootings -- such as the man in Florida who shot at the instacart driver -- because I think they get at something important underlying the gun problem we have in this country. Based on RFA's comments on the FL shooting, I'm sure he'd agree that the man in this latest incident acted irresponsibly. Given that he's been charged criminally, the local police seem to agree.
But would most gun owners agree he acted unjustifiably? I'm not sure. The children were on his property. He says he shot after "seeing shadows." This seems exactly the type of situation many gun advocates believe guns are for, and it seems that most would find it tragic that the "shadows" turned out to be children, but wouldn't find the "shooting at shadows" to be a problem. And I'd counter that this is exactly the problem, and what's so angering and frustrating about the gun debate is that gun advocates seem to just shrug and suggest that there's nothing to be done. Whether it be children shot playing hide and seek, a traveler making a wrong turn in a driveway, or a white supremacist gunning down a crowd, the response is always a denial that any action can or should be taken.
These maimings and deaths are the price we pay to assuage people who are literally scared of shadows.
but in almost every incident the shooter is white and the victims are non white…it’s racism that is legitimized by the far right. Domestic terrorism is sanctioned by the trump party. People have been programmed to believe that they have to shoot their way out of the invasion of their country in order to regain their freedom.
Not to forget how many neighborly disputes are becoming shootouts between white people in the south who think the only way to settle a dispute is by using violence.
The American dream is to own enough guns to defend yourself against the coming invasion…
PVW said:
A Louisiana man has been charged after police said he shot a 14-year-old girl playing hide-and-seek on his property in the back of the head.
The shooting occurred Sunday morning in Starks, La., a rural town of fewer than 700 people near the border with Texas. Officers from the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office received reports of a shooting at a property there, the office said in a news release. When they arrived, they found the girl suffering from a gunshot wound. She was taken to a hospital with injuries that weren’t life-threatening, the release said.
The release said children had been playing hide-and-seek in the area and hiding on David V. Doyle’s property. Doyle, 58, told officers he got his gun after seeing “shadows outside his home.”
Doyle “then advised detectives he went back outside and observed people running away from his property, at which time he began shooting at them and unknowingly hit the girl,” according to the release.Here's another one:
Louisiana man shoots girl playing hide-and-seek on his property, police say (WaPo)
I've been posting these non-mass shootings -- such as the man in Florida who shot at the instacart driver -- because I think they get at something important underlying the gun problem we have in this country. Based on RFA's comments on the FL shooting, I'm sure he'd agree that the man in this latest incident acted irresponsibly. Given that he's been charged criminally, the local police seem to agree.
But would most gun owners agree he acted unjustifiably? I'm not sure. The children were on his property. He says he shot after "seeing shadows." This seems exactly the type of situation many gun advocates believe guns are for, and it seems that most would find it tragic that the "shadows" turned out to be children, but wouldn't find the "shooting at shadows" to be a problem. And I'd counter that this is exactly the problem, and what's so angering and frustrating about the gun debate is that gun advocates seem to just shrug and suggest that there's nothing to be done. Whether it be children shot playing hide and seek, a traveler making a wrong turn in a driveway, or a white supremacist gunning down a crowd, the response is always a denial that any action can or should be taken.
These maimings and deaths are the price we pay to assuage people who are literally scared of shadows.
Shooting because he saw shadows. If true, is insane. This is such an insane explanation, or defense, that it calls the shooter's sobriety, and mental state into question.
Jaytee said:
PVW said:
I've been posting these non-mass shootings -- such as the man in Florida who shot at the instacart driver -- because I think they get at something important underlying the gun problem we have in this country. Based on RFA's comments on the FL shooting, I'm sure he'd agree that the man in this latest incident acted irresponsibly. Given that he's been charged criminally, the local police seem to agree.
But would most gun owners agree he acted unjustifiably? I'm not sure. The children were on his property. He says he shot after "seeing shadows." This seems exactly the type of situation many gun advocates believe guns are for, and it seems that most would find it tragic that the "shadows" turned out to be children, but wouldn't find the "shooting at shadows" to be a problem. And I'd counter that this is exactly the problem, and what's so angering and frustrating about the gun debate is that gun advocates seem to just shrug and suggest that there's nothing to be done. Whether it be children shot playing hide and seek, a traveler making a wrong turn in a driveway, or a white supremacist gunning down a crowd, the response is always a denial that any action can or should be taken.
These maimings and deaths are the price we pay to assuage people who are literally scared of shadows.
but in almost every incident the shooter is white and the victims are non white…it’s racism that is legitimized by the far right. Domestic terrorism is sanctioned by the trump party. People have been programmed to believe that they have to shoot their way out of the invasion of their country in order to regain their freedom.
Not to forget how many neighborly disputes are becoming shootouts between white people in the south who think the only way to settle a dispute is by using violence.
The American dream is to own enough guns to defend yourself against the coming invasion…
Sure, but I'd like to believe we can make meaningful progress in reducing gun violence without first having to solve racism.
RealityForAll said:
I have not yet thoroughly investigated this incident. But, your posting lists a number of common tropes: i.) White supremacist shooter; ii.) Russian website promoting bad behavior (namely, white supremacist behavior/attitudes); iii.) membership in a right-wing terrorist group (namely, Right Wing Death Squad (AKA RWDS)); and iv.) nazism. In addition, you name the shooter as "Mauricio Garcia." The shooter's name is a classically non-Anglo name (which could alternatively be described as non-White). Yet with a straight face, you describe a presumably non-Anglo as a white-supremacist, white supremacist terorist/militia member, Russian dupe and also a nazi. Anything is possible, but the above description sounds a lot more like a smear than an honest description. Do you have any evidence for such assertions?
Sorry to be such a cynic.
"Cynic" is not the correct word. The correct word prints with asterisks on this message board.
PVW said:
Sure, but I'd like to believe we can make meaningful progress in reducing gun violence without first having to solve racism.
racism is the driving factor since trump ramped up the rhetoric against immigrants and Muslims and liberals who seem to cuddle these people… before trump we had the local lunatic shooting up schools and movie theaters, it’s now a direct attack on migrants, synagogues and masjids wherever they are gathering. It’s not a coincidence. There are white hispanics who are more racist than white people in America. I have known a few.
Jaytee said:
PVW said:
I've been posting these non-mass shootings -- such as the man in Florida who shot at the instacart driver -- because I think they get at something important underlying the gun problem we have in this country. Based on RFA's comments on the FL shooting, I'm sure he'd agree that the man in this latest incident acted irresponsibly. Given that he's been charged criminally, the local police seem to agree.
But would most gun owners agree he acted unjustifiably? I'm not sure. The children were on his property. He says he shot after "seeing shadows." This seems exactly the type of situation many gun advocates believe guns are for, and it seems that most would find it tragic that the "shadows" turned out to be children, but wouldn't find the "shooting at shadows" to be a problem. And I'd counter that this is exactly the problem, and what's so angering and frustrating about the gun debate is that gun advocates seem to just shrug and suggest that there's nothing to be done. Whether it be children shot playing hide and seek, a traveler making a wrong turn in a driveway, or a white supremacist gunning down a crowd, the response is always a denial that any action can or should be taken.
These maimings and deaths are the price we pay to assuage people who are literally scared of shadows.
but in almost every incident the shooter is white and the victims are non white…it’s racism that is legitimized by the far right. Domestic terrorism is sanctioned by the trump party. People have been programmed to believe that they have to shoot their way out of the invasion of their country in order to regain their freedom.
Not to forget how many neighborly disputes are becoming shootouts between white people in the south who think the only way to settle a dispute is by using violence.
The American dream is to own enough guns to defend yourself against the coming invasion…
According to statistics, white mass shooters represent percentage wise less than their representation in the general population. See link: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/24/mass-shooters-by-race-and-hispanic-ethnicity-not-far-off-from-the-population-as-a-whole/
nohero said:
RealityForAll said:
I have not yet thoroughly investigated this incident. But, your posting lists a number of common tropes: i.) White supremacist shooter; ii.) Russian website promoting bad behavior (namely, white supremacist behavior/attitudes); iii.) membership in a right-wing terrorist group (namely, Right Wing Death Squad (AKA RWDS)); and iv.) nazism. In addition, you name the shooter as "Mauricio Garcia." The shooter's name is a classically non-Anglo name (which could alternatively be described as non-White). Yet with a straight face, you describe a presumably non-Anglo as a white-supremacist, white supremacist terorist/militia member, Russian dupe and also a nazi. Anything is possible, but the above description sounds a lot more like a smear than an honest description. Do you have any evidence for such assertions?
Sorry to be such a cynic.
"Cynic" is not the correct word. The correct word prints with asterisks on this message board.
Hey, thanks for sharing.
The Trump National Doral resort will host two pro-Hitler propagandists who hate the Jewish people.
One of them claims that Jews are cannibals.
The other claims that the Holocaust was invented by the Jews.
RealityForAll said:
PVW said:
A Louisiana man has been charged after police said he shot a 14-year-old girl playing hide-and-seek on his property in the back of the head.
The shooting occurred Sunday morning in Starks, La., a rural town of fewer than 700 people near the border with Texas. Officers from the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office received reports of a shooting at a property there, the office said in a news release. When they arrived, they found the girl suffering from a gunshot wound. She was taken to a hospital with injuries that weren’t life-threatening, the release said.
The release said children had been playing hide-and-seek in the area and hiding on David V. Doyle’s property. Doyle, 58, told officers he got his gun after seeing “shadows outside his home.”
Doyle “then advised detectives he went back outside and observed people running away from his property, at which time he began shooting at them and unknowingly hit the girl,” according to the release.Here's another one:
Louisiana man shoots girl playing hide-and-seek on his property, police say (WaPo)
I've been posting these non-mass shootings -- such as the man in Florida who shot at the instacart driver -- because I think they get at something important underlying the gun problem we have in this country. Based on RFA's comments on the FL shooting, I'm sure he'd agree that the man in this latest incident acted irresponsibly. Given that he's been charged criminally, the local police seem to agree.
But would most gun owners agree he acted unjustifiably? I'm not sure. The children were on his property. He says he shot after "seeing shadows." This seems exactly the type of situation many gun advocates believe guns are for, and it seems that most would find it tragic that the "shadows" turned out to be children, but wouldn't find the "shooting at shadows" to be a problem. And I'd counter that this is exactly the problem, and what's so angering and frustrating about the gun debate is that gun advocates seem to just shrug and suggest that there's nothing to be done. Whether it be children shot playing hide and seek, a traveler making a wrong turn in a driveway, or a white supremacist gunning down a crowd, the response is always a denial that any action can or should be taken.
These maimings and deaths are the price we pay to assuage people who are literally scared of shadows.
Shooting because he saw shadows. If true, is insane. This is such an insane explanation, or defense, that it calls the shooter's sobriety, and mental state into question.
it only suggests to me that the shooter was fearful. I don't know why you jump to the conclusion that he's mentally ill or was intoxicated.
and a lot of people are very fearful. We have a network of national and local news outlets that spend much of their time hyping crime, even though most parts of the country are as safe from random crime as they've ever been.
RealityForAll said:
Jaytee said:
nohero said:
lt’s getting hard to keep track.
Sure is, and if you look at the last few events in Texas, there’s a pattern of right wing terrorism. This one last weekend at the outlet mall was pretty obvious. Mauricio Garcia, a white supremacist, has been on a Russian website that promotes this sort of behavior. He was a proud member of the RWDS. Right Wing Death Squad. Basically nazism.
I have not yet thoroughly investigated this incident. But, your posting lists a number of common tropes: i.) White supremacist shooter; ii.) Russian website promoting bad behavior (namely, white supremacist behavior/attitudes); iii.) membership in a right-wing terrorist group (namely, Right Wing Death Squad (AKA RWDS)); and iv.) nazism. In addition, you name the shooter as "Mauricio Garcia." The shooter's name is a classically non-Anglo name (which could alternatively be described as non-White). Yet with a straight face, you describe a presumably non-Anglo as a white-supremacist, white supremacist terorist/militia member, Russian dupe and also a nazi. Anything is possible, but the above description sounds a lot more like a smear than an honest description. Do you have any evidence for such assertions?
Sorry to be such a cynic.
dude, two of the most prominent leaders of white supremacist groups in the U.S. have Hispanic names. Enrique Tarrio and Nick Fuentes.
Lots of Hispanic people identify as white. Some of them are adopting white nationalist views.
So you'd be more accurate chalking your thoughts up to ignorance and not cynicism.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The cure is kind of obvious. Just make people applying to buy guns take a drug test and a psych evaluation.
Kind of obvious, I would think.