Mass Shooting

[jmsaari]

10 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Yet the single event mass killings are by those tending to be white and Right.

In a country where about 2/3 is white, about 2/3 of mass shooters are white. What a surprise.

[urbanoid]

10 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Yet the single event mass killings are by those tending to be white and Right.

Just remember not to check 'normal killings' statistics, it's racist to know that.

[DB]

Doug's original question was, obviously, a trap.

Even though a couple of people answered in the affirmative, I don't believe that they were answering the question exactly as stated.

My interpretation is not so much that the right to gun ownership is a positive sign of a healthy democracy. Instead, and leaving aside the "inalienable rights" morass, it is one of many items designed to ensure that individuals can protect themselves against the abuses that can occur under any system of government. Although the constitutional amendment emphasises the protection against governmental abuse, I tend to see it more broadly as a right to self defence at all levels, and guns are one way of levelling the playing field by reducing the importance of physical strength, which is not so true for any other such means.

The existence of any implements that are for self defence has an unfortunate but inevitable opposite effect - those implements may be used offensively, and that's the acceptable trade off.

[bojan]

This + lot.

[LT Ducky]

I wonder if the gun-grabbers are going to find it awkward that Shinzo Abe was assassinated with a homemade weapon.

[R011]

8 minutes ago, LT Ducky said:

I wonder if the gun-grabbers are going to find it awkward that Shinzo Abe was assassinated with a homemade weapon.

No.  They've been quick to remind us that Japan has a very small gun homicide rate because of their strict gun controls.

[Burncycle360]

5 hours ago, jmsaari said:

In a country where about 2/3 is white, about 2/3 of mass shooters are white. What a surprise.

 

2/3rds of mass shooters are not white, it's just what gets the coverage. 

[Burncycle360]

4 hours ago, DB said:

Doug's original question was, obviously, a trap.

 

Yep.

 

We answered in the affirmative because Doug was trying for a gotcha, wanted us to accept the careful framing that ignored context, and answer in the negative rather than admit we are somehow morally inferior to defend gun ownership. So that was our middle finger.

 

When it was pointed out that the alternatives they tout as the moral high ground also means effectively stripping people of their human right to self defense and offering no safeguards against tyranny from the state, he and milo both ignored it.

When it was pointed out that defensive use of guns in the US far exceeds criminal homicides with guns, he and milo both ignored it.

When it was pointed out that bans reducing the amount of deaths by firearms also means defensive use also plummets, he and milo both ignored it.

When it was pointed out that even a state with the best of intentions cannot save you before an encounter is over, he and milo both ignored it.

When pointing out banning guns does nothing to reduce the people in a society who were willing to wield it and desired to inflict harm upon others, and does nothing but change the weapon most commonly used,  he and milo both ignored it. 

When it was pointed out that the right to bear arms is fundamental to a healthy relationship with a state as a safeguard against tyranny, he and milo both ignored it.

When it was pointed out that this doesn't end and eventually everything that can be used for self defense will be considered a weapon and turn the law abiding into criminals for carrying it, and the objective is utter dependence upon a state, he and milo both ignored it.

They seem to mostly be here for kafka traps and mental masturbation rather than discourse, and are incapable of answering challenges to their bias or self reflection, it's fascinating to watch people like that consider the rest of us as arrogant and backwards.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Burncycle360

[jmsaari]

1 hour ago, Burncycle360 said:

2/3rds of mass shooters are not white, it's just what gets the coverage. 

According to some statistics it's thereabouts, 60-something percent. May vary depending on what exactly is counted as "mass shooting"... 

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, LT Ducky said:

I wonder if the gun-grabbers are going to find it awkward that Shinzo Abe was assassinated with a homemade weapon.

'If you just banned guns, those things would bot happen.' Isn't this what we are repeatedly told? 

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, R011 said:

No.  They've been quick to remind us that Japan has a very small gun homicide rate because of their strict gun controls.

Japan has a small homicide rate because its a normally very peaceful and conformist society. The worst thing my host mother said to worry about when going into the big city for Tobata-gion from the suburbs of Yahatawarz was to watch out for pickpockets. 
 

 

[Burncycle360]

3 hours ago, jmsaari said:

According to some statistics it's thereabouts, 60-something percent. May vary depending on what exactly is counted as "mass shooting"... 

 

If we are discussing ones covered by media, then this may be true. If we are discussing any shooting where 4+ are shot in a single incident, then no. 

 

Notice the attention white mass shooters get (multiple days of coverage for the high profile ones), then notice mentions of "America has had three hundred + mass shootings this year alone!" and you're short a couple hundred white mass shooters...

 

I base this on going through the wikipedia entries of mass shootings per year then selecting each source article and noting the race in subject description, if mentioned, or try and chase down a follow up article if a subject was arrested. The last 4-5 years, they often do not mention race as part of the description because that goes against a narrative the media tries to paint. When this occurs it's safe to assume it wasn't a white shooter because they often don't have a problem mentioning it if it was.

 

Race has far less to do with it than culture and mental health anyway, it's baiting by racist demagogues. The only thing that tends to be uniform across them is sex.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Burncycle360

[bojan]

18 minutes ago, Burncycle360 said:

...The only thing that tends to be uniform across them is sex.

Or more probably lack of

 

 

[DougRichards]

No, I did not ignore anything, I just further understood how pointless any mention of civility without being armed has become in this context.

The USA is a country that celebrates

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

But where a large proportion of the population believes that they must be armed to maintain their rights against

 "that government of the people, by the people, for the people,"

The USA was indeed the first country that was founded on a huge measure of democracy (leaving aside that at the time that it was founded a huge percentage of the population was left out of the democratic experiment [ie, blacks and women]) and can be rightfully held up as an example of democracy.  So why do other democracies not require an armed citizenry to hold their governments in check?

Perhaps it is because in most of those democracies the government is not seen as an enemy, as those governments are seen as

governments of the people, by the people, for the people.

[Burncycle360]

You did ignore it. As for the rest, give it time 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Burncycle360

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, DougRichards said:

 

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

But where a large proportion of the population believes that they must be armed to maintain their rights against

 "that government of the people, by the people, for the people,"

 

Government power/authority flows from the people who are their temporary elected representatives. Even today folks who have been in government for decades are apt to forget that the power they exercise is only temporarily held by them.  

That there are those in government power who FEAR and armed population and seek to disarm them is telling  

The second amendment is designed to keep that power investiture temporary and to prevent anyone getting any funny ideas. 

3 hours ago, DougRichards said:

The USA was indeed the first country that was founded on a huge measure of democracy (leaving aside that at the time that it was founded a huge percentage of the population was left out of the democratic experiment [ie, blacks and women]) and can be rightfully held up as an example of democracy.  So why do other democracies not require an armed citizenry to hold their governments in check?

Because, ultimately the power still really derives from the armed state and not the voters who the state can just order to stay inside or else they will arrest you and kill you if you fail to comply. Covid underscored that. Especially in your nation, for example. 
 

 

[DougRichards]

And having a heavily armed populace who don't give a damn about in reality about democracy leads to a government (even a local government) who will not stop this:

 

[sunday]

That is what happens when there is gun control, in this case black people forbidden from having arms.

There is some need to improve out of context cherry picking.

Edited July 9, 2022 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im sure if George Floyd was armed with an AR15, and shot the policeman that was trying to murder him, there would have nothing but sympathy on tanknet for him.

Heck, maybe if Malcom X had been packing a MAC10, the history of the US would be completely different now.

 

 

[R011]

22 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im sure if George Floyd was armed with an AR15, and shot the policeman that was trying to murder him, there would have nothing but sympathy on tanknet for him.

Heck, maybe if Malcom X had been packing a MAC10, the history of the US would be completely different now.

 

 

Perhaps you could advert us to the posts where members have celebrated criminals who have shot police or anyone else for that matter?  And perhaps if someone like Malcolm X or people in his entourage could legally carry a handgun for self defence in New York City at that time, he might not have been murdered.

[EchoFiveMike]

Sure sucks to be a minority in another nation's country, what a profound observation...totally reason to disarm a nation, so that their extractive elite doesn't have anything to worry about.  

Quote

If you remember nothing else about what I’m about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldn’t do if you still had your weapons."— L. Neil Smith

S/F....Ken M

[rmgill]

8 hours ago, DougRichards said:

And having a heavily armed populace who don't give a damn about in reality about democracy leads to a government (even a local government) who will not stop this:

 

If the government is in bed with the population on committing an atrocity you're not going to stop it. If the minority is armed it might have a chance of making the costs steep, but you won't stop it. If the minority is disarmed then it'll be easy. 

Here's a thing Doug, the gun control legislation you defend, it was specifically enacted to ENABLE the thing you picture above. The carry laws that prohibited blacks in the south from being armed, it was almost exclusively effected against blacks and NOT whites. You're actually, in a way, defending the enabling of the above, by fact of history. You might as well by talking about the wisdom of gun control on the Warsaw ghetto. 

I Live in Georgia. I've seen how our "public gathering" statute was originally enacted and then still defended by Democrats decades later. Why do you think a law prohibiting carry of arms at a public gathering and which was not clearly defined but left up to the interpretation fo the police officer would work out in a segregationist country? 

Here's some history for you to review. 
https://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/georgias-carry-laws-explained/history-of-georgias-carry-laws/

[rmgill]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im sure if George Floyd was armed with an AR15, and shot the policeman that was trying to murder him, there would have nothing but sympathy on tanknet for him.

George Floyd was a criminal who was caught committing  acrime and who took a handful of drugs and had a medical event due to those drugs. 

Are you advocating that drug dealers/users committing fraud be armed and resist police? Are you that bloody woke? 
 

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Heck, maybe if Malcom X had been packing a MAC10, the history of the US would be completely different now.

So disarm the darkies? 

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, R011 said:

Perhaps you could advert us to the posts where members have celebrated criminals who have shot police or anyone else for that matter?  And perhaps if someone like Malcolm X or people in his entourage could legally carry a handgun for self defence in New York City at that time, he might not have been murdered.

If he pays CLOSE attention, he'll note that I have advocated that police who are CLEARLY doing the wrong thing and are shot are in fact fair game. The shooting at an Atlanta Motorcycle Shop I've been to is a clear example of that. I have also spoken with officers in Atlanta's Internal Affairs (2 were friends before and afterwards) so I have some rather in depth knowledge of the incident and the Careers of the officers in question. The simple fact is that Atlanta Police Department is a mix bag of good, mediocre and awful and criminally inclined officers with leadership thats similarly across the same spectrum. 

Here's the court case in question. 

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/fewvjj8c/court-of-appeals-for-the-eleventh-circuit/jackson-v-pinckney/
 

 

Quote

After hearing the wreck, Defendants observed that some of the men exiting the Moto Cycle Shop appeared to be the men who had been in the blue Pontiac. According to Plaintiffs, the blue-jean-clad Defendants had their police badges concealed so that nothing visually identified them as police officers. With guns drawn, the three Defendants then approached the men outside and did not verbally identify themselves as police officers. Defendants yelled and cursed at everyone to get back into the Shop and lie down. Officer Sauls stood in the doorway facing the inside of the Shop. Officers Fields and Pinckney were behind Sauls with Fields on the right and Pinckney on the left.6 While in the doorway, Defendants swept the Shop's interior with their guns.
 

There is considerable testimony that at this point everybody in the Moto Cycle Shop thought that Defendants were armed robbers about to harm them because the Defendants yelled obscenities at them, screamed at them to get on the floor, and never identified themselves as police officers. Jackson, Wimbish, Williams, and mechanic Delly went to the floor as ordered. Plaintiffs' friend Dean Under Defendants' version of the events, Pinckney and Fields stayed near their police vehicle and were not with Sauls when Sauls initially drew his weapon or when Stearns fired at Sauls. Instead, when the shooting erupted, Pinckney was radioing in the license plate and Fields was chasing Dean around the back of the Shop. Nonetheless, the evidence favorable to Plaintiffs places both Pinckney and Fields at the doorway of the Shop when the shooting erupted. [End Page 9] ran to the rear of the Shop. Mechanic Stearns ducked behind some motorcycles in the Shop. There was substantial confusion within the Shop.

The Shooting
Believing Defendants were armed robbers about to harm the Moto Shop's occupants, mechanic Stearns, a Caucasian male, drew his nine millimeter handgun and fired a three-round burst at Officer Sauls. It is undisputed that Stearns shot first and was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Stearns then retreated behind a row of motorcycles inside the Shop where he could not be seen from Marietta Street. Two of Stearns's bullets hit Officer Sauls in the abdomen. Sauls began to retreat across Marietta Street and initially fired two or three shots toward the doorway of the Shop. According to Plaintiffs, Sauls fired his shots despite the fact that Stearns, the man with the gun, was no longer in view and only Jackson, Wimbish, Williams, and Delly lying on the floor could be seen from the street. Indeed, Stearns was never shot. Instead, one of Sauls's shots hit Plaintiff Wimbish in the leg as he lay on the ground unarmed. Officer Sauls fired his remaining rounds toward the doorway while he was running north on Marietta. Sauls eventually collapsed up the street in a store front.

After the shooting erupted, Officers Pinckney and Fields moved to the south of the doorway closer to the parking lot and the two Pontiacs. Plaintiffs contend [End Page 10] that Officer Pinckney initially was not aware that Sauls had been hit.7 Pinckney stood at the curb close to a telephone pole near the southwest corner of the shop. Plaintiff Jackson, who was lying closest to the door when the shooting erupted, attempted to crawl outside the shop. Seeing Officer Pinckney with his gun drawn, Jackson, unarmed, dropped to the ground with his face down. Pinckney was about thirteen feet from Jackson and fired twice toward him.8 Pinckney's bullets hit the sidewalk inches from Jackson's head and ricocheted up, piercing Jackson in the upper right arm and base of the neck. Pinckney ran to the dumpster abutting the southwest corner of the Shop where he could still see Jackson.

Officer Fields then approached Jackson, as Jackson attempted to crawl back into the Shop. Officer Fields pointed a gun at Jackson as though he was going to shoot him again, but he did not. It is undisputed that Officer Fields never fired his weapon, that only Pinckney's bullets hit Jackson, and that Jackson died at the scene as a result of injuries from Pinckney's bullets. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants never verbally or otherwise identified themselves as police officers Officer Pinckney testified that he saw Sauls doubled over, knew Sauls had been hit, and radioed in "I've got one down." Nonetheless, in this summary-judgment posture, Plaintiffs argue, and the inference we must make in Plaintiffs' favor, is that this "one" referred to Jackson, not Sauls, indicating that Pinckney did not know Sauls had been hit. Pinckney avers that his shots were cover fire for Sauls and that he saw the muzzle of a gun in the doorway near Jackson. Plaintiffs emphasize, however, that no gun or any object resembling a gun was located on Jackson or in the doorway.  during any of this gunfire. Other witnesses testified that Sauls and Fields pulled their police badges from underneath their shirts only after the shooting. 

Post-Shooting Activity
Following the shooting, Officer Pinckney radioed to report the incident. He did not request back-up and did not report specifically that Officer Sauls had been hit. Instead, Pinckney reported that "I got one down," which could have meant Jackson or Sauls. In this summary judgment posture, we must infer it meant Jackson. Also, immediately after the shooting, Lebus, the owner of the Shop, called 911 and stated: "Some [expletive deleted] guys came in here and just started popping rounds in." Because Lebus did not identify the shooters as police officers, this circumstantially supports Plaintiffs' testimony that Defendants never identified themselves as police officers.Plaintiff Wimbish, shot in the leg and unarmed, was placed under arrest for aggravated assault and was transferred to the hospital. Plaintiffs' friend Dean, also unarmed, was arrested for aggravated assault. Although arriving at the scene after the shooting was over and the scene was taped off, George Jackson, an African- American male, was taken into custody and questioned. Stearns, a Caucasian male, fired the first shots but was not arrested. No weapons were found on Plaintiffs or anyone in the Shop except Stearns. 

I have actually spoken to the owner of the shop (Robert Lebus) multiple times (before and after the event) and spoke to the shop staff after the event AND to the mechanic who shot the police officer (Sauls). It happened right down the street from where I was working that week and I saw the police activity from the CocaCola building I Was in the day it happened. Naturally a week later I went by to see what was up.

The mechanic,  was never charged as it was obvious from all accounts that he was in fact in the right to have done so. The officers in their own reports stated that they had their badges hidden and it was clear that a man showing up in the doorway of a shop with a drawn gun was easily interpreted as there to conduct a robbery. That falls into lawful use of deadly force in Georgia and the officer, by didn't a badge does not escape that risk factor. 

So, yeah...I will, if the circumstances warrant, advocate that an officer CAN be shot. It better be clear and as with any shooting it's going to be dissected more ways than you can imagine. It's an act that is fraught with hazard. 

To note, Officer Willies Sauls was one of the officers charged for tasing the two students who refused to exit their car during the day of rioting in Atlanta. 
https://theatlantavoice.com/charges-dismissed-for-atlanta-police-officers-involved-in-2020-incident-with-two-college-students/

Edited July 9, 2022 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Good thing he didn't have a gun.