Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Mass shootings on the radar again.


swordfish

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

My old savage arms over/under 410 22,  both single shot barrels, should be the only firearm available to non-military U.S. citizens.   No 2nd amendment violations there, right?

 

I see your logic ... but no, this would not pass current constitutional tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I see your logic ... but no, this would not pass current constitutional tests.

This is the issue I see. And I know I'm going to be accused of wearing a tin foil hat. In listening to those in favor of an "assault" weapons ban, the gist of it is they want all semi-auto guns banned when it all gets boiled down. If you question "what is an assault weapon" you're accused of getting in the weeds or arguing semantics. If the issue is pressed, even double action revolvers are semi-auto aren't they? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

My old savage arms over/under 410 22,  both single shot barrels, should be the only firearm available to non-military U.S. citizens.   No 2nd amendment violations there, right?

 

 

42 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I see your logic ... but no, this would not pass current constitutional tests.

We don't know the limits, but I'd say in my opinion  that would be too restrictive under the general logic of the Heller case. (Scalia bent over backwards in Heller to avoid appearing to set hard and fast rules regarding the parameters of permissible limits on types of firearms -- his main goal was to make it clear that the rights protected under the 2nd Amendment (whatever their specific scope) are rights of indivdual persons, and not withstanding the reference to well-regulated militias in the introductory clause, are not rights of the States or right "mediated" through the States. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Gun Control, Once More from the Top: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/on-gun-control-once-more-from-the-top/

Quote

...

Gun-control advocacy, as it stands today, is almost pure demagoguery. It consists mainly of urban progressives thinking up bureaucratic measures to inconvenience and humiliate federally licensed firearms dealers and the people who do business with them — one of the least criminally inclined demographics in these United States. When there are atrocities like the ones in El Paso or Dayton, the Democrats will propose new measures that would have done nothing to prevent those crimes and insist that they should be enacted anyway, for . . . some unspoken and unspeakable reason. Point out that they don’t know what they are talking about and they retreat into pop-Freudian analysis (somebody should explain to them that Sigmund Freud was a pseudoscientific fraud whose work is taken seriously by almost no one) and maybe make a sophomoric joke about gun enthusiasts compensating for some embarrassing genital insufficiencies. Which is to say, the anti-gun effort is pure Kulturkampf, having almost nothing to do with real policy issues.

Propose something as radical as, say, actually getting off our national ass and prosecuting those who violate straw-buyer laws, or pushing local authorities to get their illegal-weapons conviction rate up above 18 percent (Hey, Chicago!) of arrests and you’ll hear an uncomfortable silence, which will not be broken until somebody calls you a racist. Hundreds of firearms purchases have been wrongly approved because of defects in the background-check system, but no effort is made to recover the guns. These are real things that can be done, but what we hear instead is cheap invective and ignorant snark. (See all that talk about feral hogs in the past few days.) That’s American politics 2019: dumb and dumber.

Neil deGrasse Tyson recently found himself the target of a two-minute Twitter hate for having the bad taste to tell the truth about what I call the “Consider the Moose” issue. We make scary movies about shark attacks, but in reality we’re more likely to be killed by a moose, and much, much more likely to be killed by a cow or a mosquito. Tyson noted that for all the attention given to the El Paso and Dayton shootings, Americans are much more likely to be killed by preventable medical errors, the flu, car accidents, suicide, etc. “Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data,” he wrote. He was right, and that’s exactly what people did.

Properly understood, that is what terrorism is: spectacle.

We have some pretty good options for measures targeting ordinary workaday crime. We don’t have very good options for mass shootings. Which is to say, we have a few things we could do about the mosquitoes, but not the sharks. The measures that would be most likely to make a dent in El Paso–style shootings are the very ones that Democrats spent years promising us they’d never contemplate: prohibiting most or all firearms, including the ones most commonly used for hunting and other recreational purposes (the AR-style rifle is almost certainly the most popular hunting firearm in the United States) and the ones most commonly used for home defense (semiautomatic handguns), measures that almost certainly would, if they are to be effective, have to be enforced with heavy-handed police tactics including extensive searches and raids of private homes. Because these measures would be flatly unconstitutional, it is unlikely that voluntary compliance would be very high, and it is not beyond contemplation that some law-enforcement agencies or personnel would decline to cooperate with them.

If you want to try to repeal the Second Amendment, then we can have that conversation. If you’re trying to convince me that giving a $9-an-hour clerk at a sporting-goods store another form to fill out is all that stands between us and anarchy, then I trust you’ll forgive me for declining to take you seriously.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

This is the issue I see. And I know I'm going to be accused of wearing a tin foil hat. In listening to those in favor of an "assault" weapons ban, the gist of it is they want all semi-auto guns banned when it all gets boiled down. If you question "what is an assault weapon" you're accused of getting in the weeds or arguing semantics. If the issue is pressed, even double action revolvers are semi-auto aren't they? 

Those are drafting issues and can be handled by drafting broadly and then exempting out items that fall within the definition only semantically. But it is all moot. There are some folks who'd like to see private ownership of bazookas, and folks who'd like to ban all private gun ownership. Neither's going to happen. We are going to get lots of conversation, but no action out of these recent incidents, as in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Those are drafting issues and can be handled by drafting broadly and then exempting out items that fall within the definition only semantically. But it is all moot. There are some folks who'd like to see private ownership of bazookas, and folks who'd like to ban all private gun ownership. Neither's going to happen. We are going to get lots of conversation, but no action out of these recent incidents, as in the past. 

You're probably right, but I see some R's showing signs of caving. Trump's a wild card when it comes to guns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/05/we-have-studied-every-mass-shooting-1966-heres-what-weve-learned-about-shooters?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2BeTU6IhfEgQiQVeijf6RcTrQcQFy9KaA0UqaVV2t4zt6xzovb8F8lLgA

We Have Studied Every Mass Shooting Since 1966. Here’s What We’ve Learned About the Shooters

Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.

 
Family members of 13-year-old Gilroy shooting victim Keyla Salazar console each other before a San Jose vigil. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)
Family members of 13-year-old Gilroy shooting victim Keyla Salazar console each other before a San Jose vigil. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

In the last week, more than 30 people have died in three separate mass shootings in GilroyEl Paso and Dayton, Ohio. We believe that analyzing and understanding data about who commits such massacres can help prevent more lives being lost.

For two years, we’ve been studying the life histories of mass shooters in the United States for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. We’ve built a database dating back to 1966 of every mass shooter who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces, and places of worship since 1999. We’ve interviewed incarcerated perpetrators and their families, shooting survivors and first responders. We’ve read media and social media, manifestos, suicide notes, trial transcripts and medical records.

Our goal has been to find new, data-driven pathways for preventing such shootings. Although we haven’t found that mass shooters are all alike, our data do reveal four commonalities among the perpetrators of nearly all the mass shootings we studied.

First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.

Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.

Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.

 

 

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

So what do these commonalities tell us about how to prevent future shootings?

One step needs to be depriving potential shooters of the means to carry out their plans. Potential shooting sites can be made less accessible with visible security measures such as metal detectors and police officers. And weapons need to be better controlled, through age restrictions, permit-to-purchase licensinguniversal background checkssafe storage campaigns and red-flag laws — measures that help control firearm access for vulnerable individuals or people in crisis.

Another step is to try to make it more difficult for potential perpetrators to find validation for their planned actions. Media campaigns like #nonotoriety are helping starve perpetrators of the oxygen of publicity, and technology companies are increasingly being held accountable for facilitating mass violence. But we all can slow the spread of mass shootings by changing how we consume, produce, and distribute violent content on media and social media. Don’t like or share violent content. Don’t read or share killers’ manifestos and other hate screeds posted on the internet. We also need to study our current approaches. For example, do lockdown and active shooter drills help children prepare for the worst or hand potential shooters the script for mass violence by normalizing or rehearsing it?

We also need to, as a society, be more proactive. Most mass public shooters are suicidal, and their crises are often well known to others before the shooting occurs. The vast majority of mass shooters leak their plans ahead of time. People who see or sense something is wrong, however, may not always say something to someone owing to the absence of clear reporting protocols or fear of overreaction and unduly labeling a person as a potential threat. Proactive violence prevention starts with schools, colleges, churches and employers initiating conversations about mental health and establishing systems for identifying individuals in crisis, reporting concerns and reaching out — not with punitive measures but with resources and long-term intervention. Everyone should be trained to recognize the signs of a crisis.

Proactivity needs to extend also to the traumas in early life that are common to so many mass shooters. Those early exposures to violence need addressing when they happen with ready access to social services and high-quality, affordable mental health treatment in the community. School counselors and social workers, employee wellness programs, projects that teach resilience and social emotional learning, and policies and practices that decrease the stigma around mental illness will not just help prevent mass shootings, but will also help promote the social and emotional success of all Americans.

Our data show that mass shooters have much in common. Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/05/we-have-studied-every-mass-shooting-1966-heres-what-weve-learned-about-shooters?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2BeTU6IhfEgQiQVeijf6RcTrQcQFy9KaA0UqaVV2t4zt6xzovb8F8lLgA

We Have Studied Every Mass Shooting Since 1966. Here’s What We’ve Learned About the Shooters

Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.

 
Family members of 13-year-old Gilroy shooting victim Keyla Salazar console each other before a San Jose vigil. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)
Family members of 13-year-old Gilroy shooting victim Keyla Salazar console each other before a San Jose vigil. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

In the last week, more than 30 people have died in three separate mass shootings in GilroyEl Paso and Dayton, Ohio. We believe that analyzing and understanding data about who commits such massacres can help prevent more lives being lost.

For two years, we’ve been studying the life histories of mass shooters in the United States for a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. We’ve built a database dating back to 1966 of every mass shooter who shot and killed four or more people in a public place, and every shooting incident at schools, workplaces, and places of worship since 1999. We’ve interviewed incarcerated perpetrators and their families, shooting survivors and first responders. We’ve read media and social media, manifestos, suicide notes, trial transcripts and medical records.

Our goal has been to find new, data-driven pathways for preventing such shootings. Although we haven’t found that mass shooters are all alike, our data do reveal four commonalities among the perpetrators of nearly all the mass shootings we studied.

First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.

Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.

Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.

 

 

Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

So what do these commonalities tell us about how to prevent future shootings?

One step needs to be depriving potential shooters of the means to carry out their plans. Potential shooting sites can be made less accessible with visible security measures such as metal detectors and police officers. And weapons need to be better controlled, through age restrictions, permit-to-purchase licensinguniversal background checkssafe storage campaigns and red-flag laws — measures that help control firearm access for vulnerable individuals or people in crisis.

Another step is to try to make it more difficult for potential perpetrators to find validation for their planned actions. Media campaigns like #nonotoriety are helping starve perpetrators of the oxygen of publicity, and technology companies are increasingly being held accountable for facilitating mass violence. But we all can slow the spread of mass shootings by changing how we consume, produce, and distribute violent content on media and social media. Don’t like or share violent content. Don’t read or share killers’ manifestos and other hate screeds posted on the internet. We also need to study our current approaches. For example, do lockdown and active shooter drills help children prepare for the worst or hand potential shooters the script for mass violence by normalizing or rehearsing it?

We also need to, as a society, be more proactive. Most mass public shooters are suicidal, and their crises are often well known to others before the shooting occurs. The vast majority of mass shooters leak their plans ahead of time. People who see or sense something is wrong, however, may not always say something to someone owing to the absence of clear reporting protocols or fear of overreaction and unduly labeling a person as a potential threat. Proactive violence prevention starts with schools, colleges, churches and employers initiating conversations about mental health and establishing systems for identifying individuals in crisis, reporting concerns and reaching out — not with punitive measures but with resources and long-term intervention. Everyone should be trained to recognize the signs of a crisis.

Proactivity needs to extend also to the traumas in early life that are common to so many mass shooters. Those early exposures to violence need addressing when they happen with ready access to social services and high-quality, affordable mental health treatment in the community. School counselors and social workers, employee wellness programs, projects that teach resilience and social emotional learning, and policies and practices that decrease the stigma around mental illness will not just help prevent mass shootings, but will also help promote the social and emotional success of all Americans.

Our data show that mass shooters have much in common. Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.

The problem is that none of these correlations have any predictive value. The number of “false positives” makes it impossible to use these statistics in any really meaningful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly the optics look bad, and if they did in fact knowingly hire illegals offending parties need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However locally there have been several arrests for illegally making SS cards and other documents used to verify legal workers. And this is one small town in southern Indiana. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

If ICE can find over 600 undocumented  in one plant on the same day, the employer knew. 

Then prosecute. 

Many moons ago when my wife was on the teller line and our local immigration situation started, she said the tellers knew Hispanics were using counterfeit  documents to cash checks. The banks policy was if they presented proper documentation to not question it, cash the check, and get them out the door. 

In talking to people in the construction trade in CA, SOP is stop in the morning and pick up however many workers you'll need for the day. Buy them lunch, pay them cash at the end of the day and drop them off where you picked them up. This is just how it's done. Illegal workers usually hang out where people will shop that are needing help, Home Depot, Lowes, U-Haul, lawn and garden centers. 

No argument from me, prosecute the people who hire illegals.

We the citizens of the US are just as responsible for this issue as we are imports from Pacific rim countries and China, we want the cheapest possible products, and we don't care how we get them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

...and this has something to do with mass shootings??  🙄

Nope - just a convenient dodge.........

 

On 8/9/2019 at 7:16 PM, Bobref said:

The problem is that none of these correlations have any predictive value. The number of “false positives” makes it impossible to use these statistics in any really meaningful way.

So why even try?

And more importantly would the red flag laws being bounced around have worked on either of the 2 shootings last week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Nope - just a convenient dodge.........

 

Not a dodge at all. Illegal immigration was the motivation for the El Paso shooter.

How quickly some “conveniently” want to sweep that fact under the rug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Not a dodge at all. Illegal immigration was the motivation for the El Paso shooter.

How quickly some “conveniently” want to sweep that fact under the rug.

Have you read his manifesto? I contend the media took one component and ran with it. While I agree with the shooters not getting any pub in these situations, in this case when it's becoming so politicized, the manifesto should be made available to the public. It is very difficult to find. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Have you read his manifesto? I contend the media took one component and ran with it. While I agree with the shooters not getting any pub in these situations, in this case when it's becoming so politicized, the manifesto should be made available to the public. It is very difficult to find. 

Maybe because he shot 8 Mexicans and not people related to the other stuff he was babbling about.

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Not a dodge at all. Illegal immigration was the motivation for the El Paso shooter.

How quickly some “conveniently” want to sweep that fact under the rug.

You have to realize that I don't care what his "motive" was.  Your post had nothing to do with the topic of mass shootings and how do you keep guns from idiots like him, just a touch of the motive perpetuated by the New York Times headline "El Paso Shooting Suspect's Manifesto Echoes Trump's Language."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/has-anyone-actually-read-the-el-paso-manifesto

Much discussion was spurred by an article in the New York Times with the headline, "El Paso Shooting Suspect's Manifesto Echoes Trump's Language." The story quoted just 28 words of the nearly 2,400-word manifesto. It noted that Crusius specifically wrote that his views "predate Trump." And it warned that "linking political speech, however heated, to the specific acts of ruthless mass killers is a fraught exercise." Nevertheless, the Times declared that even "if Mr. Trump did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society."

First, to be clear: The manifesto is insane. Part of it discussed commonly debated issues such as the environment and the economy in ways that are well within the boundaries of political conversation going on today — indeed, that might have come out of the New York Times or many other outlets. Other parts of it mixed in theories on immigration from far right circles in Europe and the U.S. Then it threw in beliefs on "race-mixing" straight from the fever swamps. And then it concluded that the solution is to murder Hispanic immigrants, going on to debate whether an AK-47 or an AR-15 would best do the job. By that point, Crusius had veered far from both reality and basic humanity.

But the question is, was he inspired by President Trump? It is hard to make that case looking at the manifesto in its entirety.

Crusius worried about many things, if the manifesto is any indication. He certainly worried about immigration, but also about automation. About job losses. About a universal basic income. Oil drilling. Urban sprawl. Watersheds. Plastic waste. Paper waste. A blue Texas. College debt. Recycling. Healthcare. Sustainability. And more. Large portions of the manifesto simply could not be more un-Trumpian.

Crusius began the manifesto by expressing support for Brenton Tarrant, the man who in March murdered 51 people and wounded 49 others in attacks on a mosque and an Islamic center in Christchurch, New Zealand. Tarrant wrote a 74-page manifesto entitled "The Great Replacement" that dwelled on demographic change in Europe, which Tarrant said was experiencing an "invasion" of immigrants with higher fertility rates than native Europeans. "This crisis of mass immigration and sub-replacement fertility is an assault on the European people that, if not combated, will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people," Tarrant wrote.

Tarrant's writing deeply affected Crusius. The first words of Crusius' manifesto were, "In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto." Crusius went on to write that, "This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion* of Texas. ... I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion." Later, Crusius referred to Hispanic immigrants as "invaders who also have close to the highest birthrate of all ethnicities in America," and noted: "Actually, the Hispanic community was not my target before I read 'The Great Replacement.'"

Crusius was clearly inspired in large part by Tarrant, who in turn said he was inspired by seeing demographic change in France when he traveled to Europe in 2017.

With that in the background, Crusius expressed deep concerns about politics in the U.S. One of the "biggest betrayals" in history, he wrote, was "the takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations." Crusius said he could write "a ten page essay on all the damage these corporations have caused." But the biggest problem, he said, was a dangerous political mix: "Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party-state."

That one party, of course, was the Democratic Party. And although Crusius had little use for Republicans, he was most angry about what he had seen in the recent Democratic presidential debates:

They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters. With policies like these, the Hispanic support for Democrats will likely become nearly unanimous in the future. The heavy Hispanic population in Texas will make us a Democrat stronghold. Losing Texas and a few other states with heavy Hispanic population to the Democrats is all it would take for them to win nearly every presidential election. Although the Republican Party is also terrible. Many factions within the Republican Party are pro-corporation. Pro-corporation = pro-immigration. But some factions within the Republican Party don't prioritize corporations over our future. So the Democrats are nearly unanimous with their support of immigration while the Republicans are divided over it. At least with Republicans, the process of mass immigration and citizenship can be greatly reduced.

That is a not-inaccurate restatement of some of the calculations that have been going on in both Republican and Democratic strategy rooms around the country for many years, certainly before the emergence of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate.

Crusius expressed a number of reasons for his anxiety about immigration. Among them was the growth of automation in the American economy. "Continued immigration will make one of the biggest issues of our time, automation, so much worse," Crusius wrote. Crusius had obviously read reports that millions of American jobs will be lost to automation in coming years. He noted that while "some people will be retrained ... most will not."

Crusius felt automation would take away his future, too. "My whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn't exist," he wrote. "The job of my dreams will likely be automated."

The automation threat, Crusius continued, means the U.S. "will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs." (Crusius shared an interest in universal basic income, or UBI, and a pessimism about job retraining, with Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang.) Crusius' idea was that fewer "invaders" meant more resources for government programs. "Achieving ambitious social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed," he wrote.

Then there was education, the price of college, and the job market. "The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has plummeted," Crusius wrote. As a result, "a generation of indebted, overqualified students [are] filling menial, low paying, and unfulfilling jobs." A high school degree used to be "worth something," he said. No longer.

And then, the environment. Americans enjoy an "incredible" quality of life, Crusius wrote, but "our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country." Corporations, he said, are destroying the environment by "shamelessly over-harvesting resources."

Crusius cited a children's book by Dr. Seuss, The Lorax, which dealt with environmental devastation. It was published in 1971 and was made into a successful movie in 2012, when Crusius was 14. "This phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic 'The Lorax,'" Crusius wrote. "Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent."

There was more: "Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land," Crusius wrote. And: "We even use God knows how many trees worth of paper towels just [to] wipe water off our hands."

After his environmental concerns, Crusius, incredibly, moved to a discussion of the AK-47 versus the AR-15. And then to his racial theories. "I am against race mixing because it destroys genetic diversity and creates identity problems," he wrote. "Racial diversity will disappear as either race mixing or genocide will take place. But the idea of deporting or murdering all non-white Americans is horrific. Many have been here at least as long as the whites, and have done as much to build our country." Crusius then suggested dividing America into a "confederacy of territories" by race.

Crusius ended the manifesto by saying he expected to be killed in the attack he would allegedly carry out on Saturday. As it turned out, the shooter was not, and he is now behind bars, charged with killing 22 people and wounding 26 others. He said his actions would be misunderstood as being tied to Trump.

"My ideology has not changed for several years," Crusius wrote. "My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I [am] putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump's rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that."

That was the only time Trump appeared in the manifesto, and it appears clear that Crusius borrowed his "fake news" characterization of the news media from the president. But that is not what Trump's critics have charged. They have charged that Trump inspired Crusius to kill. They have charged it so often in the last few days that it has hardened into a general perception that Crusius was inspired by the president. But read the manifesto. It's just not there.

*The word "invasion" has been used in connection with illegal immigration since long before the president ran for office. In the 1990s, for example, the state of California unsuccessfully sued the federal government, claiming the government did not protect states from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. In 2010, the state of Arizona also unsuccessfully challenged the federal government over a similar "invasion." The word was also used, well before Trump, in general commentary, usually by those who sought to restrict immigration levels into the United States. And more generally, too: Bobby Jindal, the son of immigrants and governor of Louisiana who ended his 2016 presidential campaign with a bitter attack on Trump, used to say that "immigration without assimilation is invasion."

Buy into it what you want - Not really sure where this Nutbag falls politically, and don't really care.  He should hang for the slaughter he brought on innocent people.

The question still remains - how do you keep nuts like him and the Dayton shooter from legal gun ownership?  Neither of those guys broke the law obtaining their legal weapons.....

And trying to blame "assault weapons" is an exercise in futility.  Neither of those weapons were "military grade".  Just plain semi-automatic rifles just like the good old innocent looking Remington 7400 hunting rifle that just look meaner.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, swordfish said:

You have to realize that I don't care what his "motive" was. 

Fine with me if you want to lump all mass shootings into one box. No skin off my nose.

 

17 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Your post had nothing to do with the topic of mass shootings

Yes it did. It had something to do with the El Paso mass shooting. Illegal immigration was a factor. Sweep it under the rug all you want.

 

18 minutes ago, swordfish said:

just a touch of the motive perpetuated by the New York Times headline "El Paso Shooting Suspect's Manifesto Echoes Trump's Language."

I didn't say a word about Trump in my post. Triggered much?

 

19 minutes ago, swordfish said:

The question still remains - how do you keep nuts like him and the Dayton shooter from legal gun ownership?  Neither of those guys broke the law obtaining their legal weapons.....

And trying to blame "assault weapons" is an exercise in futility. 

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up "gun laws". You seem fixated on that. So do a lot of others on both sides. I've never advocated any changes or not in gun laws, not sure why you would even think I have, other than tunnel vision and not paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...