Shop owner shot, killed over rainbow flag outside clothing store near Lake Arrowhead

Coskii , 9 months ago

I’m hoping they never release the killers identity to the public. Spreading around that hateful persons likeness and beliefs all over media and articles only empowers others to do the same thing. Leave them as a nameless pictureless murderer with no agenda or beliefs, just some bigoted murderer.

Mockrenocks , 9 months ago

Others are empowered and emboldened to do the same thing regardless of whether this person’s name makes it out. The right knows that they have a near monopoly on political violence so their agenda is to feed poison to the unstable so that they’ll commit violence to make people fear to be themselves and supportive of others. I’ve heard about a shit-ton of abortion clinic bombings and murders, can’t think of a single “crisis pregnancy center” issue.

Hell, when the Supreme Court got concerned about protesters they were absolutely fine with there being special guidelines for them. But for a person seeking an abortion? Nope, you’ll get to have unstable “Christian” shitheads yelling in your face while they take pictures of you and your car to distribute to their network of terrorists.

abigscaryhobo , 9 months ago

I see what you’re getting at, but the point of keeping this person anonymous is to lessen their ability to be used by people as a symbol or turn them into a martyr. It’s far easier for bigots to say “remember Joe Johnson, we fight for him or whatever” and spin it their way than it is to say “remember that guy who shot the guy who hung up a flag? He’s our man!”

Not tying a name to the criminal prevents them from being immortalized because they’re not “Joe the defender” or whatever, they’re “a murderer”. There will still be bigots out there for sure, but leaving this person nameless gives them one less thing to latch on to.

luciferofastora , 9 months ago

Disturbed - Legion of Monsters

You made sure the world will remember the name
But didn’t the thought even enter your mind?
You′d give a new legion of monsters
A reason to take your life

The song originally is about a school shooting, but the point is the same

Coskii , 9 months ago

You’re absolutely not wrong. Sadly though, there’s a world in which are both right and we’re living in it. More than a few times school shooters have been copycats who likened themselves to the colombine shooters, or who literally wanted to be in the media and have people talking about them.

The amount of time and effort put into remembering the perpetrators of these heinous crimes is so much greater than the memories of those they killed. That’s the part I’d like to change. I know it’ll never happen, gotta get those views for the ad money, but I can hope.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

www.pinkpistols.org

SCB , 9 months ago

Yeah open warfare in the streets is not, in fact, the solution to this problem.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

When criminals have guns and are willing to use them being able to defend yourself is your final option. Making it known that your group isn’t a soft target makes them second guess trying it.

SCB , 9 months ago

That’s absolutely not how criminals make choices, and you’re parroting the same line of shit people spew when they say we should arm teachers.

abraxas , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

No, I think it’s pretty different.

Whether there is justification for gun ownership for “self-defense” or not, it is entirely different for someone who has a reasonable risk of being targeted for violence to have a gun than for teachers to have a gun in crowded schools with the expectation they might kill a school shooter.

To point specifically the biggest differences:

1. Crowded school filled with terrified children vs someone’s home or small business
2. Self-defense against single-target hate crimes vs policing against a terrorist incident
3. Voluntary self-defense which still allows for skill and responsibility requirements vs ~~mandating ~~arming people who might not even be comfortable armed (and might feel pressured)

EDIT: I have crossed out “mandating” because I was informed there are no current bills trying to mandate arming schools. I believe my point stands without it. If someone has a reference of a mandate, I will un-cross-out it if I see it.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

I am yet to see a single proposal to mandate that any teachers be armed against their will. Every single proposal is simply to set up a permitting and training program for any teacher that desires to. It’s very similar to the program to arm airline pilots that want to, except they become deputized federal agents and are provided the gun, ammo and training free of cost. A shootout in a plane is also far riskier than one in an open classroom.

abraxas , 9 months ago

Fair enough. Then I don’t like the term “arm teachers”. I’m sure I’ve seen talk of mandating (or letting schools mandate) before, but it’s immaterial because I think my point still stands without it.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

It’s a fair point, I have never seen a single proposal that works that way. It isn’t part of the job description and I don’t think anyone would expect it to be. Every single proposal and policy I’ve seen implemented simply have an option for teachers to pursue to be allowed to carry under various terms.

abraxas , 9 months ago

Agreed. If they really aren’t working that way, I leave out that point, but leave in my other 2 points.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

There are issues with the other points as well. A school classroom isn’t actually inherently riskier than say a store, in fact it’s easier to defend in a given active shooter scenario. Defenders have a huge tactical advantage over an attacker, the point isn’t to have a dozen armed teachers running around in the chaos trying to chase down the shooter. The same shelter in place/lockdown is still the best move. The difference is that if the shooter makes it into a room that happens to have an armed teacher, they are now challenged and very likely to be neutralized. The goal and training programs still have teachers lock the doors and hide the kids out of sight in a safe corner, the difference is the teacher then takes up a different point with a clear shot on the entrance so that if an attacker comes in they can be instantly engaged from cover. The biggest challenge here is figuring out the best location for the students and the defender, but this can all be sorted out long before an actual attack occurs, once an ideal location is chosen for each teacher all they need to do in the moment is follow the plan.

As far as preventing terrorist incidents, this is literally the point of terrorism. To find a soft target and create chaos and fear. If you harden the target and let it be known that it won’t be easy or successful to their goal, it is an extreme deterrent. There are numerous mass shooter manifestos that specifically state their targets were chosen based on being gun free. There are tons of other things that can and should be done to prevent them from happening at all, but in the moment during one that is actively being committed, the absolute best outcome is for them to face in place resistance as soon as possible.

abraxas , 9 months ago

I’m not sure I agree with that. Generally speaking, the biggest risk is a crowded room with out-of-control people. Considering many school shooters are former or current students as well, it’s a real hogan’s alley mistake waiting to happen with live people. There’s a reason that people trained to shoot in crowded areas are very highly trained on picking targets and temperament control so as not to make a tragic split-second decision. Police, in general, are trained NOT to shoot into crowded areas, though they sometimes do and sometimes tragedy ensues.

But I’m not sure we have to agree on this. My point was that *they are not apple-to-apple comparable scenarios. *I think I have shown this fairly well. You’re describing some very specific tactical training (that teachers may or may not be receiving) that clearly depict the differences. If I owned a small store in a small town where only one or two customers are in the store at a given time, it’s simply a different scenario even if you think it’s more dangerous. If I live alone, anyone forcing their way into my house at night is a definite risk. No false positives. That leaves out some legal complication (which I might actually agree with you on), but the point is depicting the differences.

As far as preventing terrorist incidents, this is literally the point of terrorism

So you do not believe the “terrorism” variable is different in any way between a school shooter and someone coming to murder you for a gay pride flag?

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

The issue with that point of view is that it’s based on a limited knowledge and understanding of a topic. It’s a fair hypothesis but the thing about general hypotheses is that they should be updated when challenged by a more in depth understanding of the topic. In real world scenarios when shit hits the fan it isn’t quite like in the Avengers when alien portals open over the street and people run in every direction. The basic shape and function of schools makes them highly compartmentalized. Short of being in a cafeteria, gym or assembly hall there really isn’t much room for people to be running in all directions. Even then, in both cafeterias and auditoriums the natural response to an event like a shooting is to drop lower for cover, unless you’re the shooter. Add in the fact that a single teacher shooting back at the primary person standing that has everyone moving away from is likely to end in a better outcome than not having a teacher there to do so and the tactical risk analysis tips heavily in favor of allowing properly vetted armed bystanders. In real world events armed bystanders are actually very effective with only a few cases of the attackers out gunning or police misidentifying the actual shooter.

While armed intervention is somewhat rare, it’s because the vast majority of non gang related, random public shootings specifically occur in gun free zones. Take an extremely rare statistical event and then filter out >90% of events where a legal armed intervention is even possible and the data pool is close, but not quite zero. In cases where an armed bystander is present and able to engage they are highly effective. I do not have links handy but last I saw it was greater than 90% of cases with armed intervention available they were able to neutralize or impede the attacker appreciably. Now with schools, like airlines, having unique challenges that make them sensitive, I am all for offering advanced training as part of the process for allowing faculty to carry. This training absolutely should include tactics to avoid the hypotheticals you are concerned with. That being said, a large portion of people that carry every day don’t just strap on a gun and go out into the world. We are the ones that do train and learn tactical scenarios and learn how to maximize defensive advantages. I don’t carry a gun because I’m scared of the world, I carry one because I want to be as prepared as I can be for any situation. It’s why I have a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, tire patch kit and jump start battery in my car as well. None of those things are useful without training and understanding of how they work. When it comes to guns I have had both formal and informal training in basic usage, function, repair and tactical employment. I have carried while around town in restaurants, bars, hospitals, amusement parks and movie theaters. I have also carried on airplanes and at airports and have specific training on how to defensively use a gun on an aircraft. I’m likely much more trained than the average, but I am not alone and the vast majority of my experience is purely voluntary and with the people I meet along the way I am by no means an isolated case. Armed teachers shouldn’t be the primary method of preventing school shootings, but they absolutely are the best option to stop them.

Terrorists are bullies that take it to truly evil levels. They prey on the weak to force their opinions on others. A school shooter and the asshole in this news article are both evil, it’s just a matter of how they chose to exert their evil on others. Who knows what his actual thoughts or motivations were, something tells me that the lack of any info on him from authorities means he doesn’t meet the cliche MAGA asshole they would love to pin it on so they’re just letting the shock of the crime run its course rather than diffuse what is a powerful political tool for furthering their own goals. Whatever his motivations or demographic were, he’s a monster that society failed to allow him to develop those views, as a last resort I just wish that for someone that evil there had been enough of a deterrent to prevent him from trying once he got the idea in his head.

abraxas , 9 months ago

You seem to be letting the topic drift from “whether these two things are different” to “I think teachers should be armed”. I’m not really here to discuss the latter topic. Everything you said here, whether I agree or disagree, reinforces the only point I’m trying to make - that the two scenarios are not apple-to-apple and should not be compared as such. You appear to agree with me, fully.

Tangentially, I find it interesting you think teachers should not need specialized training after you have now twice described very specific tactics you think they should employ. But as I say, I’m not really here to press my opinion on teachers being armed because I think it’s a nuanced and complicated issue. Also as YOU say, it is far more important to focus on steps that keep potential shooters from choosing to walk into a school with a gun in the first place.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

Just out of curiosity what part of my slightly rambling response gave you the impression that I did not think they should get specialized training? I intended to state the exact opposite so I would genuinely like to know which part of my phrasing failed to convey my intent. I was merely explaining that real world results without training are highly successful in the limited scenarios where they have been able to play out, and with that as a basis proper training can mitigate or eliminate the unique risks associated with schools.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant. I genuinely believe that gun control is 100% based in ignorance and lies, with a small group deliberately lying to the public to create ignorance and generate support for their own goals. As such, whenever I find someone genuinely willing to read and discuss it I try to do what I can to show the other side of the argument. A specific act of targeted violence is not the same as a cable news shooter in a school, but there are more similarities than you would expect at face value. Both are committed by damaged people who society allowed to go without proper support and moral guidance. Both should be prevented by proper upbringing with human kindness as a core value and both can only be stopped in the moment after tragedy strikes with equal or greater force. The right to be armed with whatever may be used against you is only the final measure rather than the ideal way to prevent it.

abraxas , 9 months ago

Just out of curiosity what part of my slightly rambling response gave you the impression that I did not think they should get specialized training?

My misreading on the second paragraph, which is 100% on me. I thought you were just pointing out airlines as needing specialized training (implying that teachers did not). I went to quote it back to you and realized the mistake was mine.

I’m genuinely not sure how I feel about that. I tend to like reduced situational volatility, and I’m not quite sure how much training (for teachers AND for responding police) would make me consider armed teachers at a school-shooting to be an asset instead of a liability. It seems like it might be more than is reasonable to give the teachers. Weeks, months? Hogan’s Alley was notorious for a reason. Being able to differentiate between an innocent and an active shooter when startled at high stress is not easy. It requires enough training to change one’s subconscious. And then, yes, the odds of that training ever being used are very low. But I would be more comfortable with that kind of training than with no training, for sure.

I genuinely believe that gun control is 100% based in ignorance and lies, with a small group deliberately lying to the public to create ignorance and generate support for their own goals

I genuinely believe that gun bans are based on ignorance and lies, but gun control generally works in most countries, virtually all countries that use it. Gun control can (and should) be about minimizing risk with the least cost of freedom, as opposed to about fear and reactionary behavior. For guns in schools, there’s only a couple countries that actually allow armed teachers. In fact, the only other one I could find is Israel, which is debunked in a fact check. To me, that is a risk because, as much as you accused me of ignorance on the topic, I would dare suggest EVERYONE is ignorant on the topic since we don’t have enough background to quantify it.

Risk mitigation would be to have dedicated armed and trained security, like many public buildings have. But many schools already have that, anyway.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

Properly executed defensive carry does not add much volatility. Having in place defenders also results in situations being ended almost immediately which reduces the actual volatility. Most cable news shootings only last a few minutes and end the moment the asshole doing it is challenged. Once the shooting stops the situation is much easier to work through with a calm and collected demeanor as first responders secure the area and assist the wounded. As I said earlier, defending is far easier than assaulting. Making the primary response an assault team that needs to enter and clear the building adds complexity and volatility. Having multiple faculty in defensive positions waiting for the shooter to enter their zone is a much safer tactical solution. While clearing the building is still a tactical challenge, if there is no threat that presents itself it can be done in a much safer manner with each room being cleared one by one based on pre-established protocols that are already in place nationwide as part of the existing lockdown planning.

Gun control always results in a ban. The US thankfully has it built into the Constitution as the fundamental right that it is. The issue is that “reasonable” gun control is rarely reasonable and even bans aren’t effective so no matter what concessions are made, when the results don’t match the aspirations it progresses. The other part of this is that it doesn’t generally work in most countries and correlation does not equal causation. The US is a far more heterogenous society than any of its peers and as such has an exponentially higher degree of societal tension. It is an unfortunate by product of the diversity that makes us as strong as we are. While you say that gun control works everywhere else it has been enacted, that is simply false. What actually exists is countries that have always had lower crime than the US, that at some point in the past enacted gun control and saw little to no effect. In order to support the hypothesis that it was successful, you would need to show examples of places where it was enacted and led to a reduction in crime following implementation. The only two near peer examples in a modern time frame would be the UK and Australia who both enacted draconian restrictions in the 90s. It just so happens that the 90s also coincided with a worldwide reduction in violent crime (normally attributed to the removal of lead from gasoline). Virtually every single developed country saw the exact same reduction, except for two. The UK and Australia bucked international trends during the decade and saw spikes. Immediately following the UK’s strict gun control, their murder rate nearly doubled. While the US’s rate was nearly 10x the UK’s at the beginning of the 90s, during the next 20 years the US’s was cut in half while the UK’s doubled and eventually stabilized at its pre-gun control rate. Australia saw similar results while the rest of Europe saw declines similar, but not as pronounced as the US. During these years the US expanded access to guns with the number in circulation consistently rising despite the extreme reduction in violent crime and murder. Also, using fact checks alone really don’t tell the full picture, they are wildly biased and when it comes to politically charged topics they go out of their way to get the result they want regardless of the truth. When it comes to guns they often straight up lie. Israel does have a lot of good lessons to be learned about effective self defense but it is nowhere near a 1:1 example. There really isn’t anywhere close enough to the US to compare us to. There are plenty of schools in the US within states that allow armed teachers and so far none of them have been a target of an incident so there is no data. It’s a catch 22 where they are already extremely rare and if an event doesn’t occur or is prevented it doesn’t count as an event so there is no data for it. Armed teachers won’t do anything for gang shoot outs in the street across from frat row or people in their 30s committing suicide at 2AM on a Sunday in a parking lot of a building that used to be a school, so things like the school shooting tracker won’t show any appreciable difference based on its enactment (the second scenario was literally one of the first events loaded into it when reddit started the tracker). There is plenty of actual information out there, but normal primary sources are deliberately hiding it from the masses because both the media and tech giants have a strong bias against it and are forcing the ignorance.

Dedicated armed and trained security is great to take over the police’s clearing duties, but from a tactical point of view, allowing teachers to be armed is still a superior option. Being embedded and able to self protect is a far stronger advantage, even over a response time of essentially zero. Just like counter-insurgency vs guerilla tactics, not knowing which door is defended is a far better deterrent than just specifying which expected opposing force you will be encountering. Either way, addressing the causes of cable news shootings is by far the best approach versus trying to restrict a single means of accomplishing one or debating the best way to stop one that has occurred.

abraxas , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

I’ve got a few disagreements on this. I really swore I wouldn’t get into a 2A argument here.

Properly executed defensive carry does not add much volatility

Allegedly. We just don’t have enough school examples to know if that’s really the case.

Making the primary response an assault team that needs to enter and clear the building adds complexity and volatility

Except that (in non-dystopian situations) those assault teams will have dramatically more training. You are correct that breaching is more dangerous. That’s why I pitched a security team stationed inside schools. I don’t agree that, from a tactical point of view, you want that many disparate defenders who are not even part-time trained for that role.

Gun control always results in a ban

There are hundreds of countries that prove this wrong. A supermajority of countries in the world have gun control, and a near unanimity of those countries do not have absolute gun bans. I’m sure you can find a definition for the term “gun ban” where that’s the case (say, if any weapon is banned for any reason, you call it a gun ban), but there seems to be no evidence of a real slippery slope between gun control and gun bans.

The US thankfully has it built into the Constitution as the fundamental right that it is

This is also strictly incorrect, or at least incredibly nuanced. The 2nd Amendment does not add it as a fundamental right at all (Barron v. Baltimore, or merely the laws passed/defended by the very same people who penned and signed the Constitution). The 14th Amendment does add it as a fundamental right based around the Equal Rights clause (specifically, regarding Southern States banning guns from Black Americans and not White Americans). Despite SCOTUS being extremely creative (good and bad) with the 14th Amendment the last 40-50 years in general, there are still teeth to some gun control laws for that very reason. Prejudicial gun control is unconstitutional, but (on strict interpretation, not on how a future SCOTUS would rule) gun control with a defensible reason is not. Non-gun weapons

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

Fair enough, I’ll let you get on with your night. It was just refreshing to have someone genuinely willing to read and have a civil discourse. More than anything I just hope I was able to give you more perspective. It’s rare to change someone’s opinion outright but I have had surprising success many times with just the right nudge that started the thinking down a different path. Have a nice day.

abraxas , 9 months ago

Also fair enough. I acknowledge that the gun question is an incredibly complicated and nuanced one, and I think both extreme sides of it tend to oversimplify it in their own way. I’m definitely with you on that part.

SCB , 9 months ago

A teacher who is willing to be armed, and eager to be armed, is even worse imo

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

Millions of completely normal people carry a gun every day. You don’t know because they only come out in actual emergencies and the media rarely covers them. If the only thing preventing someone from being armed in any given situation is their adherence to an honor system saying they legally can’t then only people intending to break the law are armed. Meanwhile, the people that follow the rules never turn out to be the issue.

SCB , 9 months ago

No one who walks around with a gun every day is a person I consider “normal”

Everyone is one bad day away from making bad choices and those choices are significantly more dangerous if you have a gun

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

Would you consider cops “normal?” Because legal concealed carriers are about 6x less likely to commit a crime than a police officer. They also stop more crimes and make fewer mistakes leading to fewer accidents. It’s a natural knee jerk hypothesis to assume that the presence of a gun would make a bad day turn deadly but it just doesn’t happen. The bottom line is that only a small subset of the population actually acts on those intrusive thoughts, and they aren’t the general law abiding public; they are the criminal element that already exists and arms themselves regardless of the law.

SCB , 9 months ago

No I don’t think cops are “normal” at all - they’re literally the exception of every concept of normality because we have given them a monopoly on violence on purpose.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

Depending on which state you live in, you likely pass and interact with people that are armed that you have no clue about, because they are just normal people.

SCB , 9 months ago

I am aware that more people are armed than I would like. I find that fact to be disturbing and those people to be weird.

There just isn’t that much to be that afraid of for 99% of people.

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

It absolutely is how criminals make choices, they prey on those that are weaker based on their assumed advantage. Arming teachers is also the best way to stop school shootings that are actively occurring. Armed minorities are harder to oppress and mass shooters select gun free zones for a reason.

BradleyUffner , 9 months ago

Were these criminals preying on the weak?

theyoyomaster , 9 months ago

I never said it would prevent every single crime, criminals are generally dumb and some try really dumb shit. A lot of the time when they do so they end up dead fairly quickly. A successful armed robbery of a gun store during business hours is extremely rare. When it comes to risk vs reward they are super attractive targets, but only the most desperate and stupid of criminals actually attempt it.

FormerlyChucks , 9 months ago

The suspect is also dead. I see this as an absolute win

isthismanas_droid , 9 months ago

https://lemdro.id/pictrs/image/4e6d8893-0829-4951-9a4c-be1f35aba057.gif

HawlSera , 9 months ago

This shit is why I just stay at home.

jampacked , 9 months ago

deleted_by_moderator

DLSchichtl , 9 months ago

Hello, what the fuck? The right conflated kids with drag queen shit and got people all riled up to hide the pedos in their own ranks. Don’t push this shit on us!

jampacked , 9 months ago

I didn’t have anything to do with it.

Everlastingspud , 9 months ago

How much of a pussy do you have to be to go shoot somebody over a rainbow flag. What a fucking fairy. People are so sensitive these days and don’t know how to act. We can blame the internet all we want, but at the end of the day, people need to learn to have some social skills. How to talk disagreements out and let people have an opinion, even if it may be wrong or stupid in their eyes. It absolutely infuriates me that people gotta die over stupid shit.

foggy , 9 months ago

In like 2021 when the truckers were protesting g the vaccine at the border I made a man snap in public over what was legitimately a luke-warm shot at the protest.

I said something like “these dipshits are acting like they didn’t get their mandated MMR shots already.” And a guy next to me, not in the conversation, dramatically stood up, and loudly announced “You know what?! All you fuckin idiots think the situation is simple, but it’s a lot more fucking complex that the corporate media is making it out to be!” He stormed out. Didn’t pay his tab.

The whole bar just sat there in awe. Like “damn I guess some of us really got hit with that isolation crazy”

Truly, a year alone for some was just too much.

Tenthrow , 9 months ago

You say that like any of those people actually quarantined.

scrubbles , 9 months ago

Talk about an easily triggered snowflake. Ahh they have a flag presented! I need my gun to protect my fragility!

Smacks , 9 months ago

It’s odd, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lefty or a gay person outright killing someone over a Dixie or Trump flag. I keep reading about far-righties killing people over the scary rainbow flag though

mihor , 9 months ago

Read on: …wikipedia.org/…/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_…

mrpants , 9 months ago

lol the only one in 26 years holy shit. feels like every other day with far right weirdos going on shooting sprees

girlfreddy , 9 months ago

@mrpants @mihor

Exactly.

And mihor supports Russia.

'Nuff said.

mihor , 9 months ago

And girlfreddy is a libtard.

rusticus , 9 months ago

Where were you Jan 6, 2021?

mihor , 9 months ago

Gee, I don’t know. I only remember watching online how your stupid country descended into chaos.

rusticus , 9 months ago

“I only remember watching online how your stupid country descended into chaos”. Says the Putin butt licker lol.

mihor , 9 months ago

I’m an assman, what can I say.

CeruleanRuin , 9 months ago

Truly no self-awareness in some people.

NewNewAccount , 9 months ago

Lmao, you actually used the word ‘libtard’.

mihor , 9 months ago

Hm, it’s one example, while he claimed he never heard of such occurence. Clearly there have been Trump supporters murdered for their allegiance. Can’t say there haven’t been.

Bakkoda , 9 months ago

“Can’t say they haven’t been.”

Actually I can. And I provided as much evidence as you did.

mihor , 9 months ago

Sure, Jan.

carbonated , 9 months ago

Who are the “clearly” murdered trump supporters you speak of?

NewNewAccount , 9 months ago

Probably considers Ashli Babbitt one of those murdered Trump supporters.

rusticus , 9 months ago

I can think of another example of a Trump supporter murdered for their allegiance. Jeffrey Epstein lol.

mihor , 9 months ago

“Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself!” 👀

scrubbles , 9 months ago

Lol this reads like the white Christians who say they’re the most persecuted group in the country

mihor , 9 months ago

Who knows if they really are?

Smacks , 9 months ago

President Donald Trump commended the U.S. Marshals for shooting Reinoehl, describing it as “retribution”, and claiming to have personally “sent in” the U.S. Marshals to “get” Reinoehl during the first presidential debate with Joe Biden.

That’s really the icing on top isn’t it

RIPandTERROR , 9 months ago

Damn, reading the wiki link is disturbing when you read the shooter’s info. Dude’s house was shot at. Not surprised he was on edge

thathoe , 9 months ago

That’s especially disturbing considering that it seems more like a political hit job on a left-wing activist. Dude killed somebody allegedly in self-defense, then he was gunned down - why was a fugitive task for necessary when the dude was just chilling at home?

He was executed my a shady task force, probably without ever firing his gun, and then the president boasted about revenge. archive.ph/OFvJi

sturmblast , 9 months ago

Closest I’ve come is punching a skinhead for his jacket patches.

lennybird , 9 months ago

Just another example of far-right extremist violence.

Burn_The_Right , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

It’s just regular conservative violence at this point.

foo , 9 months ago

Domestic terrorism

Burn_The_Right , 9 months ago

Regular conservative domestic terrorism.

FordBeeblebrox , 9 months ago

Good old homegrown god fearing terrorists.

lennybird , 9 months ago

Two sides of the same coin, since all “regular” conservatives are also “far-right” extremists. Any “moderate conservative” is just a centrist Democrat at this point.

NewNewAccount , 9 months ago

Except no. The majority of “moderate conservatives” would still vote for the Republican candidate. 74 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020.

lennybird , 9 months ago

And those 74 million people are far-right extremists and in no way “Moderate.”

That’s the point. That’s the Overton Window.

Isthisreddit , 9 months ago

When they vote for, and are ok with open arms for far right extreme shit, what should it be called?

I know some people might seem to be normal and perhaps moderate, but when you sit down with them and explain some of this shit to them, and they basically are ok with it because they feel the bad shit will only impact other people and not themselves (for example religious persecution - “I’m Christian so I’ll be fine”) what does one call that?

S_204 , 9 months ago

One calls that bigotry because that’s exactly what it is. They’re bigots and prejudicial against other religions and I’d wager races as well.

abraxas , 9 months ago

I was with you until that line. I know too many people who voted for Trump because they were ignorant and detached from politics, not because they were alt-right.

There is a difference. Many of those detached-from-politics people are seeing Trump face all those charges, and moving on. Some are being told that it’s part of some Democratic conspiracy against Trump. If you’ve ever traveled to a red state on business and seen the local news, you’d understand how easy it is for someone to get convinced of the lie even though they are more aligned with Democrats on the issues than Republicans.

lennybird , 9 months ago

I’m torn on how to respond to this. On one hand, I grew up in rural Appalachia in a Republican household. Eventually my family pivoted 180 towards Democrats and never looked back. I shudder to wonder if we would’ve been the idyllic Trump supporter 20-years-ago. I know what it’s like when Fox News is blaring in every doctor’s lobby, every bar, etc. When on the job site every other person is espousing those same conservative views. So I recognize that people are capable of change and we should not give up entirely on them (though their vote is less needed these days).

The thing is, many voted for Hitler not out of dyed-in-the-wool SS Nazi beliefs, but as you said: Complete ignorance.

Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right. In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism, versus those who know the game and commit 100% — both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion. Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.

abraxas , 9 months ago

Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right

I can’t speak for everyone. But I knew quite a few Trump voters who clearly did not understand the for-right platform. They thought they voted:

1. Anti-corruption
2. This idea that both parties are the same and here’s someone who actually wants to pull a Perot
3. Saving jobs (he actually dramatically overperformed the labor vote that, while they can be racist, don’t usually run towards the dogwhistle candidate)

This, to me, is similar to a lot of the folks voting for Obama thinking he was actually progressive despite openly being conservative.

In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism

There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we’re not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.

both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion

This is true, and why it’s both important that we educate people, and that we work towards a country where campaigns of lies are either illegal or at least made ineffective. The Democrats ran fairly hard on “everything Trump said is a lie” and were able to prove it, and that wasn’t enough.

Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.

Sure, but not every fool is a racist. Most of them are “centirsts” or merely uninterested in politics and just want to go on with their lives.

lennybird , 9 months ago

A lot of Americans are certainly being duped by right-wing propaganda. Distinguishing between the right-wing propaganda that dominates the airwaves and what is actually right-wing are two different things, which I think you fairly note. There are many people, including members of my extended family and many others who I’d consider generally “good” people, but duped and led astray — no doubt. I too have met these same people who cited the same points you did. But man, at this point if they haven’t changed, I have very little hope that they ever will. These aren’t centrists; these are largely red-hats through and through.

Like I said, this is how fascism rises to power. it hinges on the gullible and ignorant, not as I said the dyed-in-the-wool believers. They Thought They Were Free is a great book that examines this. That 1940s, “Don’t be a Sucker” video illustrated this well, too.

I think it’s reasonable to say that Obama was a progressive at heart, but conservative because a large swath of the country leans conservative, no thanks to right-wing talk radio, the influence of church, and Fox News (we can discuss modern influences like Russia’s foreign influence operation, Bannon & Breitbart, Joe Rogan, etc. and their effect today of course). The thing is, people believe right-wing talking points: (a) unions bad, (b) the rich earned it, © immigrants are bad, etc. Meanwhile many people publicly espouse “moderate” views but if among trusted acquaintances on a back patio, they show their true colors. So while I still to this day believe Obama is a progressive at heart, he felt one could not force too rapid of progress for a country still skewed to the right. I find that slightly different than those who were outright duped by thinking Trump was some sort of leader of blue collar worker when anyone with a brain could see from history he was anything but.

There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we’re not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.

I think there’s somewhat of a difference as to origin of beliefs, but I don’t know if there’s much in the outcome or even the capacity to move these people. I’d be more likely to fully buy that argument if this was still midway through Trump’s first term. For instance, after all has been said and done by Trump over the years. Scandal after scandal. Lie after lie. From grabbing women by the pussy, racist comments toward Mexico, Trump University fraud, or even the very first lie of his Presidency: the size of his inauguration… To catastrophic response to COVID, the damning 2 impeachments and even more compelling 91 criminal charges across 4 Grand Jury indictments… All of this is public record. All these losers know what Trump is, and yet they still continue to vote for him. Don’t count on a large number of them simply being innocently gullible. At what point do you simply conclude, “They just don’t care, do they?”

After all, even after showing his true colors and saturating the national media spotlight for 4 years, he came away with 11 million more votes. If people are that ignorant, then I regret to think there’s little hope for the vast majority of them and they are just as complicit in the outcome. Willful ignorance at best. Still, so incredibly dangerous. And after nearly 8 years of trying to get through to these people how bad Trump is, how much progress have we actually made among those who already fell for the cult?

Here’s where I hope we can find common ground: Every year there is a new batch of citizens who enter the political fold for one reason or another — whether that’s coming of age and finally taking an interest in civics, or someone who has had some major issue personally impact them. Generally there are a lot of the middle-ground “enlightened centrist,” fence-sitters who have yet to fully commit to a side. These are the people we must reach out to. They’re the ones not too far gone and too isolated among right-wing echo-chambers to catch before they’re gone (great allegory for this in The Matrix / Plato’s Cave). As we’re pursuing these fence-sitters, we must also energize the left by actually committing to progressive policy that we know works. Time and again, we shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to water down our policies in order to appeal to voters whom we’ll never get on the right anyway — only to disenfranchise the most active part of the left and water down our policies to such an extent that it backfires when implemented.

abraxas , 9 months ago

I agree with quite a few of your points, but not all of them. The biggest disagreement we have is on the nature of Obama.

In his political career, he was always a conservative/moderate. The fact that he seemed to hide his conservativeness in his campaigning suggests he knew progressives might be a fair draw and he needed their vote. Maybe he’s a lifestyle liar, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

As for Trump voters. Yeah. Two counterpoints.

1. Undecided voters are often short-sighted. Hell, most voters are short-sighted. We don’t remember 6 months ago if we’re not repeatedly reminded.
2. Buttery males, Bernie the commie, Hunter’s laptop. Birth Certificate. To someone distanced, the scandals started around 2007 and hasn’t stopped since. It takes actually paying attention to the scandals to realize that they’re not all fake. This is one of the neocon strategies: desensitize us to the evils they cannot hide.

Generally there are a lot of the middle-ground “enlightened centrist,” fence-sitters who have yet to fully commit to a side. These are the people we must reach out to.

1000% agree. But it’s not easy. I look at some of my family members in their formative voting years (19-22). They are uninterested in the left… why? Because they have family who won’t shut up about how bad Trump is. I kid you not. They have analyzed enough to realize it’s true, but then found themselves just not caring to vote because some people are just so damn passionate. Like passion is a bad thing. And it’s not just one or two people. The attitude seems fairly common, and reiterates the “desensitize” thing. The real problem could well be that after this influx of gen y upping the vote out of fear of Trump, we’re going to watch the voting rate plummet again… and we all know what happens when not enough people vote.

lennybird , 9 months ago

I think there were some hints to Obama’s progressive streak, and while I generally agree that Obama was probably as centrist as they come in terms of his Presidency – if not center-right in many respects – I think deep down he was frustrated that his hands were tied from enacting more progressive policies. Some of which he clearly signaled in the lead-up to his win in '08, like the desire for universal health care, initially seeking single-payer healthcare (something his rival Clinton famously espoused, “would never happen.”), then public option, then settling for an insurance mandate because of obstruction. As left as Bernie or Warren at heart? I wouldn’t say so; or if he is, he approaches it not with strong convictions but of pragmatism. That pragmatism unfortunately only works if the other side has the mutual interest in improving the country and they do not.

I can see that a bit. Fortunately my younger sister in that age group is still very active and gets it. But my sister in-law who is normally quite outspoken and willing to discuss and debate simply “did not have time to vote” and more or less bought into the rhetoric of her conservative dad that your vote doesn’t matter. I tried so hard to to ensure they voted, but it just hasn’t clicked with them. MAYBE passion like mine has driven them away, but let’s be honest, there’s a reason the crazy uncle who listens to Limbaugh or the latest charlatan runs their mouth and everyone else remains quiet. The loud mouth gets their voice heard and to the detriment of the country, that’s influential. I think it’s high time the left gets loud and vocal; for if not now, when?

Overall I’m hopeful, considering youth showed up big for a midterm no less last year. I think that trend overall might continue with Gen Y and Z, considering there has been no progress on abortion and Republicans have only continued to cripple LGBTQ rights as well as obstruct tuition forgiveness. Though I’m thoroughly convinced we’re not doing ourselves any favors running Biden again, it is what it is. For the sake of the country, I certainly hope it’s Trump who is their nominee. If someone like Chris Sununu runs, then we’re fucked. Even NPR was kissing his ass yesterday…

Overall I view Trump supporters as a lost cause, and I literally cannot count more than 2 people I know who regretted their support for Trump since 2015. Most cultists, no differently than the casual nazi party members before them, will double-down on the lie because that’s what people do when they’ve been hooked. Sure they’re capable of change if they really work for it as my family did, but it’s not worth the time and effort. Now it’s a matter of containing the spread of misinformation, inoculating the apathetic before they get in too deep.

abraxas , 9 months ago

I think deep down he was frustrated that his hands were tied from enacting more progressive policies

Ultimately, I cannot know what was going on in his mind, so we are theorizing. But here’s my counter-theory. He was frustrated because he believed in bipartisanship, in both parties working together for a better country despite neither getting everything it wanted, and he discovered the other side would literally burn the country down for an edge. I think he was an idealist, but his ideal was “one country, one people” instead of this Plymouth/Jamestown contrast we still seem to represent. To that end, he was willing to sacrifice almost anything, and only started playing hardball when he realized after he gave EVERYTHING, the other side smiled and said “so we’re going to vote against that”.

MAYBE passion like mine has driven them away, but let’s be honest, there’s a reason the crazy uncle who listens to Limbaugh or the latest charlatan runs their mouth and everyone else remains quiet. The loud mouth gets their voice heard and to the detriment of the country, that’s influential.

You’re not wrong. I don’t like that we can’t have successful left-loudmouths. I like to say/think it’s because a large part of the Democratic base is interested in truth and facts, but that doesn’t explain the lazy people who are willing to allow for alt-right nonsense but not leftist discussion.

there has been no progress on abortion and Republicans have only continued to cripple LGBTQ rights as well as obstruct tuition forgiveness

I used to think that Roe being overturned would be the last nail, that Red states would spontaneously turn Blue from people who suddenly realized they were in Gilead. I used to actually think they wouldn’t let their best tool to rally the alt-right go away. And I was right that it hurt them now that people are living in the hell of abortion being illegal, but it hasn’t been the wave I expected. I really hope you’re right, but look at Texas. It was supposed to be purple already, and quickly turning Blue in the next 20 years. And that was before Dobbs. I just don’t see that motion yet. I hope to see it soon.

Overall I view Trump supporters as a lost cause, and I literally cannot count more than 2 people I know who regretted their support for Trump since 2015.

Sad, but true. I swear, there’s a mile-long list for why the Republican party should be failing. And they KNOW it. They hate Trump as much as we do. Coming in to 2016, Republicans were internally talking about looking more moderate because they were afraid they’d alienated too many people. Trump wasn’t supposed to have a chance in the Primary. They’re like a zombie party. Things that would destroy almost any other party in the world are reinvigorating them. Non-stop sex scandals? MORE VOTES.

lennybird , 9 months ago

Regarding Obama, that’s a fair take. There was a hefty amount of naivety in his belief that Republicans would sincerely reach across the aisle and work together for the common good. Those days were long over, and they’d happily slap his hand down every time while accusing him of being partisan. It just happened over and over again. And because right-wing media has such a grip on America, the general apathetic citizen didn’t recognize this, and by the time Obama realized it, he had lost his strength in Congress.

True I can only theorize, though Obama did proclaim himself to be a progressive through the 2008 campaign with progressives naturally drawn to him as well. Unfortunately his “pragmatic progressive” approach did not work out. Though you know on hindsight I can’t really fault him. At the time we needed a leader to bring back stability and rebuild the country on the brink. He had to fix the broken puzzle, but lacked the circumstances to build upon it. Two of the biggest faults to his presidency was not prosecuting the bankers and not listening to Ambassador Ford’s advice to support the FSA and put an end to the Assad regime — but for the latter, again I somewhat understand in the context of seeking withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was supposed to be purple already, and quickly turning Blue in the next 20 years. And that was before Dobbs. I just don’t see that motion yet. I hope to see it soon.

Texas is tricky. It’s my view that New Mexico is 10 years ahead of Arizona politically-speaking, while Arizona is 10 years ahead of Texas. AZ had yet to even shed Arpaio at the time while the thought of having “2” Democratic US Senators seemed a far-away concept (hopefully AZ remedies the disaster that is Sinema). I still have some hope for Texas, but of course change never comes soon enough.

Trump wasn’t supposed to have a chance in the Primary.

What’s crazy is that the idiots could’ve likely prevented this in the 2016 GOP primaries if they rank a ranked choice voting system. All the “moderate” Republicans initially too scared to vote for someone as crazy as Trump split their votes across something like 8 other “normal” candidates. This party sustains itself off ignorant fear, anger, and greed. Ethics and reason have no place beneath their banner.

abraxas , 9 months ago

Your reply deserves more time than I have, I’m sorry. I am really grateful for this type of conversation where nobody reduces to name-calling. It’s refreshing after reddit.

But I do want to point to 1 thing. "True I can only theorize, though Obama did proclaim himself to be a progressive through the 2008 campaign with progressives naturally drawn to him as well. " I don’t think that’s actually true.

I used google historical search a couple years back to look at what Obama ACTUALLY campaigned as and proclaimed. Surprisingly, he wasn’t saying a ton of progressive things. He campaigned heavily on words that could be taken multiple ways, but on the issues he seemed fairly conservative. When I pulled up even slightly over, lots of news articles from unbiased (or left-biased) sources referring him to a Party Moderate.

I think the wool was pulled over our eyes, and I go back and forth between thinking he did it, thinking his campaign staff did it, and between thinking our optimism did it.

What’s crazy is that the idiots could’ve likely prevented this in the 2016 GOP primaries if they rank a ranked choice voting system.

I didn’t follow it as closely as I’d like to. Didn’t it go like Primaries usually do, with the bottom-polling candidate trying to step out and redirect their votes towards their favorite… with a lather-rinse-repeat? The final vote was apparently down to 4 candidates. And Trump got more votes than the other 3 combined, nearly 50% of the Primary Votes. RCV doesn’t beat him basically having a majority vote among the field.

Mockrenocks , 9 months ago

You’re not a moderate if you support overthrowing the government. They can delude themselves, but they should absolutely be denied that label.

MonkderZweite , 9 months ago

US-perspective.

Spaceinv8er , 9 months ago

Damn my hometown…

Nacktmull , 9 months ago

Maybe it wasn’t a particularly good idea to make firearms so easily available to everyone and especially to (neo)Nazis?

telllos , 9 months ago

The need for the 2nd amendment is fundamental if you want the people, able to form a tyranny… oh wait…

GladiusB , 9 months ago

The problem is they don’t see the hypocrisy. They think tyranny only applies to the government.

aidan , 9 months ago

Generally yeah most tyranny definitions refer to government. It’s hard to exert tyrannical rule without being a de facto government.

Isthisreddit , 9 months ago

Turns out they have always been pro tyranny as long it’s their guy hurting the “correct” people…

Nacktmull , 9 months ago

You couldn’t be more wrong Telllos. If I didn’t have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? (Pokes Telllos) Huh? (Shoves Telllos) Do ya!?

ph00p , 9 months ago

You can just print that shit now.

Imagine if these crazy fucks didn’t already have guns and they just discovered printable ones, I think that would have been a worse outcome.

Margrave , 9 months ago

Please elaborate as to how that would be worse. At least half these nutters wouldn’t be able to figure out how to use a printer, let alone a 3d printer.

Intralexical , 9 months ago

This thread has, predictably, devolved into a hugely disrespectful exchange given the linked post.

But as an aside, I shudder to think of trying to design an additively manufactured part that would reliably contain a propellant blast using anything less than an industrial $100k-$1m DMLS or at least really really good SLS machine. If the goal is to harm somebody using a 3D printer, you’d probably be better off bashing them over the head with it.

aidan , 9 months ago

Full plastic guns generally don’t last very long- but they have been proven to somewhat work since 2013. Now there are more stable designs that use off-the-shelf plumbing parts with plastic components. There are also designs that can be CNC’d with a cheap machine

NikkiDimes , 9 months ago

Yeah, it’d be so terrible having crazy fucks blowing their own hands off /s

Tenthrow , 9 months ago

Why does everyone thing 3D printing is magic? You’re not going to be 3D printing weapons that can kill scores of poeple. Any firearm printed on an FDM printer is lucky to fire once without injuring the dipshit wielder.

N0_Varak , 9 months ago

This comment betrays a lack of understanding around 3d printed firearms.

Of course there are your (nearly) fully plastic single shots like the Harlot that fire small calibers and dont always last long.

On the other hand, there’s plastic lowers (the only part considered a firearm and thus the onlynpart that needs to be bought through an FFL) for AR15s that use off the shelf plumbing supplies for the pressure bearing components.

The files are readily available and able to be printed on low end FDM printers with little adjustment and troubleshooting completely bypassing the need to purchase a firearm from a dealer.

Wirrvogel , 9 months ago

I find it important to make clear it was a hate crime, but Lauri Carleton was NOT killed “over a rainbow flag outside her clothing store”.

No one gets killed because of a rainbow flag. You get killed because an asshole who wants to rather die than adapt to the world changing wants to spread fear with his last action and needs desperately to find a “reason”. Let’s not pretend he had a reason any other than being a coward.

My heart goes out to her family, friends and the community impacted.

Staccato , 9 months ago

That headline is doing the murderer’s work by literally propagating his anti-LGBT terrorism. Shame on that periodical.

aidan , 9 months ago

Why has calling murderers cowards become such a thing? I blame someone who acts out of fear less than someone who acts out of hate or greed. Fear is a normal emotion and often reasonable. I don’t think this person acted out of fear though.

Imotali , 9 months ago

A lot of them are terrified of LGBTQ people and mask it as outrage. They honestly believe the shit they get told and it terrifies them what the world is becoming.

Alobarap , 9 months ago

Tragic and unacceptable.

ByteWizard , 9 months ago

And when a militant trans kills children it’s not their fault. Got it.

carbonated , 9 months ago

Why are you associating that with this?

duviobaz , 9 months ago

They want you dead. It’s time to return this sentiment.

Prethoryn , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.

Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world’s problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

No it wouldn’t, you are helping their agenda by discouraging the left from taking up arms.

crimroy , 9 months ago

I love how tough and secure you are! So impressive!

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

The projection is real.

crimroy , 9 months ago

So tough and secure! Most impressive!!

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

Isn’t this the second time you made that lame -ass statement?

I still say it’s projection. 🤔 Though I wonder if this isn’t some bot account…

crimroy , 9 months ago

No, I’m just saying you’re gay and afraid to admit it. And Republican. And also a gay too.

masterspace , 9 months ago

You’re not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn’t the US.

The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that’s ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I’m talking about.

The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There’s enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.

Drgon , 9 months ago

Lately I’ve been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

That’s basically how it’s been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.

I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we’ll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it’ll be downhill from there.

gayhitler420 , 9 months ago

Already happened a few times. Gca 68 was after Kennedy and 86 was after reagan.

Buelldozer , 9 months ago

Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.

Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.

Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn’t even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.

For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.

This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

Okay, fair, my bad. You’re right.

Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?

Buelldozer , 9 months ago

Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?

In yesterday’s society it was to protect the wealth and position of the Upper and Middle classes. In today’s society it’s because it seems like an obvious response to things like Mass Shootings and Gun Crime. The hidden in plain sight truth though is that modern day Gun Control proposals are doing the same thing as yesterday’s Gun Control proposals because if you have enough money they will not apply to you.

Pass a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban? No problem for the wealthy, they’ll just drop $20,000 on a pre-ban machine gun that can be legally transferred to them. Pass a Federal “Red Flag” law? They don’t care as they know it’ll never be enforced against them; their connections, money, and lawyers will see to it. Federal UBC? Again, no worries as their connections, money, and lawyers all make sure they won’t be impacted. Remove the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of firearms? No worries, the bodyguards surrounding them and their families will still be armed, just like they are everywhere else in the world.

What makes it even more stupid is that no direct causal link between the number of guns in circulation and the amount of “Gun Crime”, however you define that, has ever been shown. In fact the data shows something very different than the reality most people believe in.

The household ownership rate has been bouncing around the low to mid 40s since 1972.. The population of the US grew from 240M in 1972 to 322M in 2014 too, so that 40% household ownership rate includes an addition 80 Million people.

The number of NICS (Federal Background Checks) in the United States https://usafacts.org/data/topics/security-safety/crime-and-justice/firearms/firearm-background-checks/.

Meanwhile Intentional Homicide fell from it’s high of 9.82 in 1991 to 4.4 in 2014, a decrease of 50%. Gun Crime specifically peaked in 1993 and then declined by 49% over the next 20 years.

In short US Citizens bought a SHIT ton of guns starting in the 90s and tens of millions of new owners were added as our population grew…all while both Violent and Gun Crime continued to drop. We have a problem for sure, but it ain’t the number of guns in circulation.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

I always thought the drop on violent crime was because of the ban on leaded gasoline.

Buelldozer , 9 months ago

It’s a good theory and one that I bought into as well but the statistics should have stayed down if that was the cause. Since they didn’t there must have been another factor.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

I think they jumped back up because of the lockdowns

Buelldozer , 9 months ago

Unfortunately Violent and Firearm Crime statistics started climbing again in 2015. The pandemic may have played a role but it cannot be the cause.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

🤔 So what happened in the mid to late '10’s to cause it? Maybe it was the rise of Trump.

masterspace , 9 months ago

So? In what world does that necessitate you owning a gun? One where Robert Evans’s civil war happens?

The idea that everyone needs to be strapped because a few morons are, is paranoid race to the bottom thinking, not how you make a better future.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.

AngryCommieKender , 9 months ago

You’re more likely to be killed by a mosquito than raped, and men are far more likely to be murdered than you. You might want to reevaluate your threat assessment.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

Tell us you don’t know anything about the situation without telling us you don’t know anything about it

girlfreddy , 9 months ago

@AngryCommieKender @pinkdrunkenelephants

Got any proof for those statements or are they just your opinions?

AngryCommieKender , 9 months ago

I remembered the Texas economy lower than it is

wisevoter.com/state-rankings/gdp-by-state/

I was thinking they were only at 1.6-1.8 trillion

girlfreddy , 9 months ago

@AngryCommieKender

You wrote about mosquitoes, rape and murder, not GDP.

Those were the data I asked about.

AngryCommieKender , 9 months ago

Sorry I got confused about the thread.

www.mosquito.org/vector-borne-diseases/

Over 1 million people per year die from mosquitoes world wide.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

Males were more likely to be murder victims. (78.6%)

www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/…/fastfact.html

There’s the best SA statistics you’ll find, but even they admit that the data on the men’s side is flawed and incomplete at best.

girlfreddy , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

@AngryCommieKender

Thank you for the apology. It's appreciated.

Statistics for rape conclude that 10% of the world's female population are raped, which equates to about 400,000,000 girls and women. Stats on male rape are fairly non-existent (from a PDF here https://www.equalitynow.org/resource/the-worlds-shame-the-global-rape-epidemic/).

That's 400x the amount of people killed by mosquitoes.

edit to correct numbers

AngryCommieKender , 9 months ago

No it isn’t. That’s 400,000,000 total, not per year.

The total number of humans killed by mosquitos is in the billions. Mosquitoes have killed more of us than anything else including us and war

Oh, and that million+ per year is way down. Before we figured out how to cure malaria it was tens to hundreds of millions of humans per year.

girlfreddy , 9 months ago

@AngryCommieKender

It would take 400 years for mosquitoes to kill as many people as rape has affected.

AngryCommieKender , 9 months ago

Only at today’s death rate. Prior to malaria being cured it would have taken 4 years to 40. PS. They’ve been at it for 250,000 years the death toll isn’t even close. You’re arguing in bad faith.

masterspace , 9 months ago

Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they’re not strapped. That’s so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

Yes, they are. 1in 6 of all women on average are raped in their lifetime. Girls under 18, those rates are 1 in 4. And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.

And you’re evil for claiming otherwise. And for insinuating women should have to accept any risk of being raped at all just to not offend your sensibilities. My sensibilities are more important than yours.

masterspace , 9 months ago

1 in 6 women is raped in their lifetime

Is that stat higher in Canada / Europe or the US?

And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.

[citation needed]

My sensibilities are more important than yours.

Yes you’ve made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

Is that star higher for Europe or the US?

It’s higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show. It’s actually a lot worse. Everywhere. The numbers I gave you are estimates from RAINN.

But let’s say what you want to believe is right – that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.

You’re arguing that rape is rare anyway, so rape victims shouldn’t have a tool they can use to stop it from happening, and if that means any big, strong male threatens to or actually does rape them, they should just bend over and take it, and go to therapy and move on so you can make yourself feel better. If that means more completed rapes, so be it. If that means aggressors will therefore always be at an advantage and enjoy protection from you when you morally condemn and even physically force victims to stop when they try to resist, all the better. If that means even survivors will likely die from pregnancy complications because of so may countries around the world imposing abortion bans specifically so men can forcibly impregnate them against their will, too bad. Fuck them bitches – literally.

It doesn’t matter that it is very much worse than death – in fact, that’s what you’re gonna argue next, because you don’t care about other people or human life. You only care about being right.

And no sane person thinks like you.

You’re sick.

[citation needed]

Resisting against rapists works:

When confronted with a sexual attacker, women are often extremely concerned with avoiding rape completion. While narrative reviews typically suggest that the victim resistance is linked to rape avoidance, much of the existing literature relies on overlapping samples from the National Crime Victimization Survey. The current meta-analysis examines whether victim resistance is related to a greater likelihood of avoiding rape completion. Results from a systematic literature search across 25 databases supplemented by a search of the gray literature resulted in 4,581 hits of which seven studies met eligibility criteria for the review. Findings suggest that women who resist their attacker are significantly more likely than nonresisters to avoid rape completion. This finding held across analyses for physical resistance, verbal resistance, or resistance of any kind. Limitations of the analysis and policy implications are discussed, with particular focus on other research findings that resistance may be linked to greater victim injury.

Wong JS, Balemba S. The Effect of Victim Resistance on Rape Completion: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2018 Jul;19(3):352-365. doi: 10.1177/1524838016663934. Epub 2016 Aug 12. PMID: 27519993.

Resisting rapists doesn’t actually result in greater physical injury:

The impact of victim resistance on rape completion and injury was examined utilizing a large probability sample of sexual assault incidents, derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-2002), and taking into account whether harm to the victim followed or preceded self-protection (SP) actions. Additional injuries besides rape, particularly serious injuries, following victim resistance are rare. Results indicate that most SP actions, both forceful and nonforceful, reduce the risk of rape completion, and do not significantly affect the risk of additional injury.

Tark, Jongyeon & Kleck, Gary. (2014). Resisting Rape The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury. Violence against women. 20. 10.1177/1077801214526050.

Stop fucking telling women not to resist rape:

Women’s resistance strategies to rape were examined using police reports and the court testimonies of 274 women who either avoided rape or were raped by subsequently incarcerated sex offenders. The sequence of behaviors in the offender-victim interaction was analyzed to determine whether women who resist rape with physical force are, as some have suggested, exacerbating the potential for physical injury or are simply responding to the severity of the offender’s physical attack. The results indicated that 85% of the women in the study who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender’s initiated violence. The remaining 15% who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender’s verbal aggression. Moreover, those women who responded with physical aggression to the offender’s violent physical attack were more likely to avoid rape than were women who did not resist such force. Also, the potential for physical injury was no greater for these women than for those who used other resistance strategies or who offered no resistance. These analyses suggest that the frequently found correlation between physical resistance and injury of the woman might be the result of the initial level of the offender’s violence and should not be used to discourage women from physically resisting rape.

ULLMAN, S. E., & KNIGHT, R. A. (1992). Fighting Back: Women’s Resistance to Rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 31–43. doi.org/10.1177/088626092007001003

Guns allow for more effective resistance:

What are the consequences when rape victims resist rapists? Analysis of a nationally representative sample of rape incidents reported in the National Crime Surveys for 1979 to 1985 yields the following findings: (1) Victims who resist are much less likely to have the rape completed against them than nonresisting victims, a pattern generally apparent regardless of the specific form of resistance: (2) The form of resistance that appears most effective in preventing rape completion is resistance with a gun, knife, or other weapon: (3) Most forms of resistance are not significantly associated with higher rates of victim injury. The exceptions are unarmed forceful resistance and threatening or arguing with the rapist: (4) Even these two forms of resistance probably do not generally provoke rapists to injure their victims, as ancillary evidence concerning assaults and robberies indicates that resistance rarely precedes injury. Attack against the victim appears to provoke victim resistance, rather than the reverse: (V Only about three percent of rape incidents involve some additional injury that could be described as serious. Thus it is the rape itself that is nearly always the most serious injury the victim suffers. Consequently, refraining from resistance in order to avoid injury in addition to the rape is a questionable tradeoff.

Kleck, Gary & Sayles, Susan. (1990). Rape and Resistance. Social Problems - SOC PROBL. 37. 149-162. 10.1525/sp.1990.37.2.03a00020.

Now sit down and shut the fuck up you worthless rape apologist

You are an enemy to women and freedom-loving people everywhere. Including us independents.

Yes you’ve made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.

You’ve made it very clear that you value being superior to others over their literal lives, so you’re not anyone that should be taken seriously.

You’re evil.

masterspace , 9 months ago (edited 9 months ago)

Is that star higher for Europe or the US?

It’s higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show.

Yeah, you didn’t answer the question. European and Canadian women do not get raped at a higher rate than American women, despite not being strapped up like a commando.

And guess what? They suffer lower rates of spousal killing, and their children do not die from gun violence at any statistically meaningful rate.

But let’s say what you want to believe is right – that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.

Never said rape was rare, just pointed out that making guns easy for every psychopath to gets their hands on doesn’t make it less rare. Increasing gun ownership increases the rate of rapists who own guns as well, you, evil evil gun wielding rapist supporter 🙄

Congratulations on living in the only country in the world where dozens of children are regularly gunned to death at school. All your decisions are going great.

AngryCommieKender , 9 months ago

No they wouldn’t. Our military doesn’t even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn’t even get to play with their big toys.

Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit

pinkdrunkenelephants , 9 months ago

But not enough to stop them without the left shedding their unhelpful way of thinking on the matter and mobilize, and you know that.

Spiralvortexisalie , 9 months ago

What about Finland? gunpolicy.org/…/rate_of_civilian_firearm_possessi…

acutfjg , 9 months ago

No action will also reinforce their agenda

baked_tea , 9 months ago

Quite a bit of space between 0 and 100

lennybird , 9 months ago

There’s a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on…

darthfabulous42069 , 9 months ago

I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It’s about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn’t accomplish that, and in this case I don’t blame them.

lennybird , 9 months ago

All I’m saying is there’s a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have “reduced suffering in the world?”

gmtom , 9 months ago

Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.

Prethoryn , 9 months ago

Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.

One could make the argument war didn’t get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.

gmtom , 9 months ago

One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn’t mean its a good argument.

some_guy , 9 months ago

I dunno. I’ve thought, for quite some time, that we’ll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I’m increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I’m horrified by violence and probably wouldn’t have the courage to do so.

lennybird , 9 months ago

I hope you realize that you’re falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you’re familiar with ProPublica’s research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, “See? They’re no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are.”

GladiusB , 9 months ago

So, they act like children?

lennybird , 9 months ago

Nobody said they’re bright.

brognak , 9 months ago

Either way they lie and recruit the same. I’d much rather just punch the Nazis and anyone who sides with them.

lennybird , 9 months ago

In a way wouldn’t we all. But this is clearly posturing anyway since I’m not seeing much in the way of nazi punching. For instance we saw how many nazis were in DC on January 6th or at Charlottesville, yet not much punching occurred.

Either way there are better ways to undermine their goals.

carbonated , 9 months ago

Yeah because rational humans were at home being their non violent selves having no idea what was about to unfold. How stupid are you?

lennybird , 9 months ago

That just helps prove my point. One side is just not violent to begin with and to expect to beat violence with violence from a group unwilling to stoop to such a level themselves is absurd. Either way there are better ways to solving the problem. Nobody is going out “punching nazis” as much as it may feel cathartic to say. That will literally just land you in prison and feed their cause.

Burn_The_Right , 9 months ago

If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).

Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.

At minimum, teach your children why we don’t do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.

ph00p , 9 months ago

All the downvotes you’re getting on this one… YIKES I don’t think this is a very good community.

girlfriend , 9 months ago

It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.

Burn_The_Right , 9 months ago

History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.

They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.

ByteWizard , 9 months ago

Militant trans sentiment is growing.

charonn0 , 9 months ago

Normalizing political violence will inevitably, and possibly literally, blow up in your face.

duviobaz , 9 months ago

We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it’s supposed to be wrong?

jimbo , 9 months ago

The dude who shot her was killed by the police. What more were you thinking should have been done to him?

duviobaz , 9 months ago

There are more like him

abraxas , 9 months ago

So what are you recommending? It sounds like you’re recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It’s also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren’t involves in hate in the first place.

duviobaz , 9 months ago

All i am saying is that if someone were to kill one of those terrorists, they wouldn’t get my pity

abraxas , 9 months ago

What do you define as “one of those terrorists”? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?

aidan , 9 months ago

Who is they?

sumofchemicals , 9 months ago

There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.

That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be “right” it’s still a strategic error. It’s much harder to build than destroy and any “successful” deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.

Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action

CaptainAniki , 9 months ago

deleted_by_author

AngryCommieKender , 9 months ago

California has entered the chat with a bit more money at over double the economic productivity of Texas (#2) and New York (#3)

California is where the money is at, New York/ New England just has a higher proportion of rich people living there.

Buelldozer , 9 months ago

Funny how these murder-babies are never from the north east

New York State isn’t in the North East? I seem to remember a really bad day at a grocery store in Buffalo, a deli getting blasted in NYC, a subway getting shot to shit in NYC, and recently some psycho on a