Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

Mass shootings on the radar again.

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

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

And he told the police he wanted to kill Mexicans

Share this post


Link to post
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.......

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

your post and meme had nothing to do with the shooting in El Paso, and certainly nothing to do with the shooting in Dayton, that conveniently is left out of the discussion...........

image.thumb.png.0c642fc0a7b733b67f0f9fc98ec0851c.png

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Have you read his manifesto?

 

1 hour ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

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

So in other words, no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

 

So in other words, no. 

No. Didn't try to find it either. I didn't read the Unabomber's either. He didn't use a gun, though, so I can't bring him up on a mass shooting thread.

Police are supposed to tell the truth, I don't think they were lying or politicizing. 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

 

So in other words, no. 

He killed Mexicans, not environmentalists or those advocating a universal minimum wage.  

You can try to deflect and be obtuse but he went to kill Mexicans and was clearly influenced by our very terrific Prez.

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swordfish said:

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

The FBI does.

 

Not really sure where this Nutbag falls politically, and don't really care.  

C'mon now....

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 8:21 AM, gonzoron said:

If you need more than 10 rounds for self defense,

1. You're a terrible shot. Practice more.

Gonzo and SF actually have to agree here. 

Although my 9mm double action semi-automatic handgun has the factory clip that holds 15.  Add one in the chamber I would be carrying 16 shots.  It's loaded with Hydra-shock hollow points.  Not saying I need that many, I hope I never have to fire it in self defense, but if needed, given my years of range time, I should only need one.  (Plan for the worst, hope for the best)

1 hour ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

You can try to deflect and be obtuse but he went to kill Mexicans and was clearly influenced by our very terrific Prez.

Even though the manifesto specifically says different......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

He killed Mexicans, not environmentalists or those advocating a universal minimum wage.  

You can try to deflect and be obtuse but he went to kill Mexicans and was clearly influenced by our very terrific Prez.

dawf13b-0b415fde-74fa-4121-8dbd-ec0d47d8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Even though the manifesto specifically says different......

What does the document say that is different from what he told the police immediately after the shooting? Why would he lie to police, and say he went to kill Mexicans, if that's not why he was there? And please don't say he was paid to say that by the Clinton's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gonzoron said:

What does the document say that is different from what he told the police immediately after the shooting? Why would he lie to police, and say he went to kill Mexicans, if that's not why he was there? And please don't say he was paid to say that by the Clinton's.

He was paid to say that by the Clintons.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

He was paid to say that by the Clintons.

 

Citation  Meme needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

bill-clinton-was-recorded-on-26-flights-

As are Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, “another prince,” a "foreign president," a "well-known prime minister" and the owner of a “large hotel chain.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, gonzoron said:

What does the document say that is different from what he told the police immediately after the shooting? Why would he lie to police, and say he went to kill Mexicans, if that's not why he was there? And please don't say he was paid to say that by the Clinton's.

In reference to "You can try to deflect and be obtuse but he went to kill Mexicans and was clearly influenced by our very terrific Prez". 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, swordfish said:

In reference to "You can try to deflect and be obtuse but he went to kill Mexicans and was clearly influenced by our very terrific Prez". 

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.

It's a manifesto, so he's obviously lying. Right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One wonders why our civilian peacekeepers, aka local law enforcement, are allowed to own and use military grade weaponry,  but now the call is not allow the actual civilians to own and use them?

Cops Still Love Their Armored Vehicles: https://reason.com/2019/08/13/cops-still-love-their-armored-vehicles/

Quote

The pay-only-for-shipping purchase of an armored vehicle by the police department in the nearest incorporated town to my home was "the best $4,000 Cottonwood PD ever spent," according to a recent article in the local newspaper. That's a debatable assertion, though it probably doesn't matter to you unless you're a Cottonwood taxpayer. But it's a reminder that while Americans may have lost interest in the reports about police militarization that grabbed headlines a few years ago, cops are still armoring up like shock troops.

Reason was on to the steady transformation of America's police forces from civilian peacekeepers to armies of occupation even before events in Ferguson, Missouri, brought the flow of equipment, weapons, and training from the armed forces to American cops to the country's attention. "In my research into the rise and overuse of SWAT teams, I found that the single biggest motivating factor behind the surge has been a Pentagon program in place since about 1990 that offers up surplus military equipment to local police departments free of charge," wrote former Reason staffer Radley Balko  (now at The Washington Post) in 2007.

Balko went on to author Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces, published in 2014.

That was the same year U.S. News & World Report discovered the program and notedthat "police forces are increasingly turning away from developing trust … and opting instead for arsenals of assault rifles, concussion grenades and the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, that have become ubiquitous to the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan."

And whaddya know, it's an MRAP that Cottonwood, Arizona police just added to the armory for the local multi-department rural SWAT team! "Verde Valley SWAT uses its MRAP on high-risk search warrants, SWAT events, barricade situations," reported the Verde Independent. "[Cottonwood Police Chief Steve] Gesell says its role within SWAT is fundamental."

Gesell is certainly a firm believer in the value of armored vehicles. He lost his previous gig as top cop in San Luis Obispo in part because he held out for up-armoring the department's motor pool. At least he's consistent in his beliefs, retaining his faith in rolling fortresses for addressing the sorts of law-enforcement challenges encountered in both coastal California towns and high-desert Arizona communities.

But the police chief's support for hard-core policing is hardly an isolated phenomenon in law enforcement.

....

If local civilian law enforcement is allowed to own and use MRAP's, concussion grenades, etc. then why can't I own and use a bazooka, or a tank?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

One wonders why our civilian peacekeepers, aka local law enforcement, are allowed to own and use military grade weaponry,  but now the call is not allow the actual civilians to own and use them?

Cops Still Love Their Armored Vehicles: https://reason.com/2019/08/13/cops-still-love-their-armored-vehicles/

If local civilian law enforcement is allowed to own and use MRAP's, concussion grenades, etc. then why can't I own and use a bazooka, or a tank?

 

You need a federal destructive device permit, and live in a tank friendly state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

You need a federal destructive device permit, and live in a tank friendly state. 

So that permit is just filling out a few lines and paying a few thousand $?

Is Indiana tank friendly?  There used to be a private military/tank museum near Crawfordsville that IIRC had dozens of those types of vehicles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Muda69 said:

So that permit is just filling out a few lines and paying a few thousand $?

Is Indiana tank friendly?  There used to be a private military/tank museum near Crawfordsville that IIRC had dozens of those types of vehicles.

 

I've never checked. I don't own nearly enough property, they are INCREDIBLY expensive not only to run, but maintenance is off the charts. The six figure price tag is the easy part. It is my understanding you not only have to have $200 tax stamp on the main gun and any gun over .50 bore, but you also need a $200 tax stamp on each round over .50 bore. I've seen Sherman main gun casings for sale, it's cost prohibitive for pretty much anyone that doesn't have FU money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...