Terrorists strike yet again

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,962
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Yeah, because calling a regular gun an "assault weapon" (made up term) is done ONLY to instill fear in the ignorant. Calling a person who is in the country illegally an "illegal" is actually accurate. Whether you call the Texas shooter a terrorist or not, quite frankly I don't care - one way or another he's a POS.
At least we agree on something.

As a scholar I would expect a better source than wikipedia.

Where is the evidence that he targeted people of religion for religious reasons rather than practical reasons?

I would say that two are inexorably linked, IMO no mentally stable person would go on a killing spree in the first place but what does that have to do with anything?

I don't really understand what you are trying to achieve in the first place, far as I know there has been no evidence of any kind of ideological* underpinnings of this guy's actions. If/when some are found we can call him a terrorist, till then his just a mass murderer.

*I use that term as a catch all her for political, religious, etc...
The statement from wikipedia is backed by a list of several peer-reviewed journal essays and books. I can compile the list for you, if you doubt their legitimacy and are interested in reading them.

What I am trying to get at is the fact that the label of terrorism seems to be the one of the few things that actually prompt people to do something about it. The material effects of a mass shooting or a terrorist attack are the same - devastating loss of life. But our actions in response are very different. If we, once again, resort to the "just a mentally ill asshole" narrative, we become complacent with the act. I don't want to slap the terrorist label willy-nilly on every killer, but in cases of mass shooters, I think the label is apt.

If I may ask you a similar question - I don't really understand, what are you trying to achieve by asserting the "not a terrorist" position? Outside of reinforcing the rigid boundaries of the term, why do you oppose expanding its definition to cover cases of mentally ill mass shooters?
 

gaasc

Desperately looking for a title
DONOR
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
8,046
Location
Honduras
Car(s)
3 of them
He could've identified as a giraffe. This is so offensive.*

*so much sarcasm
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,663
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
What I am trying to get at is the fact that the label of terrorism seems to be the one of the few things that actually prompt people to do something about it.
Like what?
If I may ask you a similar question - I don't really understand, what are you trying to achieve by asserting the "not a terrorist" position? Outside of reinforcing the rigid boundaries of the term, why do you oppose expanding its definition to cover cases of mentally ill mass shooters?
Because you are using that word incorrectly.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,234
What I am trying to get at is the fact that the label of terrorism seems to be the one of the few things that actually prompt people to do something about it. The material effects of a mass shooting or a terrorist attack are the same - devastating loss of life. But our actions in response are very different. If we, once again, resort to the "just a mentally ill asshole" narrative, we become complacent with the act. I don't want to slap the terrorist label willy-nilly on every killer, but in cases of mass shooters, I think the label is apt.
Do you think that we don't want to find a solution to mass shootings (even though we've repeatedly offered possible solutions)? Do you think that calling them terrorist attacks will suddenly make us support gun control? I'm against this fear mongering just like I'm against calling modern sporting rifles "assault weapons". You're playing language chess against yourself here.
 

NecroJoe

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
19,150
Location
San Francisco area, CA, USA
Car(s)
2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
It's the opposite for me, I saw the NY one everywhere, no idea what this dude looks like.
Interesting. It's on the front page of both CNN.com , and FoxNews.com, and seemingly appears in most of the articles about the general shooting. When it's about specific aspects like a certain victim, they don't include it.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,663
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Interesting. It's on the front page of both CNN.com , and FoxNews.com, and seemingly appears in most of the articles about the general shooting. When it's about specific aspects like a certain victim, they don't include it.
I haven't been seeking the news out specifically just w/e is trending basically.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,234
Reports now coming out that the Air Force never reported this guy's convictions to the FBI, which is how he was able to pass a background check. Legally, his prior crimes absolutely precluded him from owning firearms, but the system failed. Tell me again how gun control wouldn't helped here?
 

NecroJoe

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
19,150
Location
San Francisco area, CA, USA
Car(s)
2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
Reports now coming out that the Air Force never reported this guy's convictions to the FBI, which is how he was able to pass a background check. Legally, his prior crimes absolutely precluded him from owning firearms, but the system failed. Tell me again how gun control wouldn't helped here?
Wait...if i understand correctly, his convictions were for assault, which is a misdemeanor (unless it's towards a law enforcement officer, or if it's aggravated assault, which I don't believe this was). Was this not the case?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,234
The way I understand it (and I could be wrong), he assaulted his wife, the USAF found out and threw him out. I think the discharge might make him a federally prohibited person, not sure, but an assault charge definitely would... if the USAF actually reported it like they were supposed to.

In basic terms, getting charged with any crime that carries a maximum punishment of 2.5+ years automatically disqualifies you from ever legally touching a firearm. In my state, a single DUI is enough to trigger this.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,663
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
That's really the basic issue with background checks, information has to be available and acted upon, not to mention that it would require person to be caught in the first place.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,234
I love how the media is calling the AR15 used by the bad guy an "assault weapon" but the AR15 used by the good guy is a "rifle". I wonder if CNN will mention that the good guy was an NRA member...




Hi HV!

There is another aspect of this story - the fact that none of these people with guns confronted or tried to stop the killer. Which is fine, your personal safety comes first. But this story also illustrates that the catch phrase "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is a bit of a misleading pipe dream because it suggests others would risk their lives to save yours if you are confronted by a shooter. Having a gun for self-defense may be useful, and you are absolutely not obligated to risk your life to save others. But that is different from the narrative that having more good guys with guns around you will protect you from a bad guy with a gun.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,962
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
I love how the media is calling the AR15 used by the bad guy an "assault weapon" but the AR15 used by the good guy is a "rifle". I wonder if CNN will mention that the good guy was an NRA member...
Hi HV!
You answered this yourself in the other thread:

Good guy with a gun is VERY situation dependent. Someone shooting up a church across the street from me? Yeah, I'd probably grab an AR and post up behind cover. Different story if I'm at the mall with my fiance and someone starts shooting - I'm not drawing on them, I'm getting out of there. Cop getting assaulted and losing the fight? I'd probably draw and shoot his assistant. Idk, it all depends on the person,the situation, the circumstances, etc - sometimes a good guy with a gun will step up and other times he won't.
And I agree with your assessment. It is situation dependent and it does depend on your willingness to risk your own safety.

I still maintain that the NRA catch phrase that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is misleading and is not a guaranteed solution.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,234
You answered this yourself in the other thread:



And I agree with your assessment. It is situation dependent and it does depend on your willingness to risk your own safety.

I still maintain that the NRA catch phrase that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is misleading and is not a guaranteed solution.
A suppose a good gal could stop a bad guy too. How else would he be stopped, get bored and go home? Every mass shooter I can think of was stopped by good guys with guns.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,962
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
A suppose a good gal could stop a bad guy too. How else would he be stopped, get bored and go home? Every mass shooter I can think of was stopped by good guys with guns.
That's not the context of the NRA phrase, and you know it. The full context is that you can't always rely on LEO to stop a bad guy, so the only way to stop a bad guy is more civilian good guys with guns. And the statistics in active shooter scenarios simply don't support that assertion. Self-defense and home invasions are a different story - having a gun in those scenarios has been proven an effective measure for self-defense.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,234
That's not the context of the NRA phrase, and you know it. The full context is that you can't always rely on LEO to stop a bad guy, so the only way to stop a bad guy is more civilian good guys with guns. And the statistics in active shooter scenarios simply don't support that assertion. Self-defense and home invasions are a different story - having a gun in those scenarios has been proven an effective measure for self-defense.
Hardly surprising, given that nearly all mass shootings occur in places where citizens are not allowed to have their firearms - Newtown, Aurora, Virginia State, now Texas - you name it.

You're also ignoring cases where someone was stopped before the situation escalated to a mass shooting event. I vaguely recall a mall shooter who took his own life as soon as he saw a regular Joe pull out his concealed carry pistol.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
19,663
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
That's not the context of the NRA phrase, and you know it. The full context is that you can't always rely on LEO to stop a bad guy, so the only way to stop a bad guy is more civilian good guys with guns. And the statistics in active shooter scenarios simply don't support that assertion. Self-defense and home invasions are a different story - having a gun in those scenarios has been proven an effective measure for self-defense.
I tried to explain this to you before, this is what you are reading into it, not what the reality of that phrase is.
Let me try to break it down to you:
- bad guy with a gun, anyone looking to do harm to someone else, that would include a burglar breaking into your house or a mugger or a carjacker, etc...
- good guy with a gun, anyone who is not looking to do harm and has a gun, that does include LEO as well as private citizenry, LEO kind of have to be good guys by definition (reality might be different)

The idea is that if someone is armed and looking to do harm then someone else who is armed would be best chance against them, not that 100% of cases will be settled by a good guy with a gun for sure.

Additionally:
he statistics in active shooter scenarios simply don't support that assertion
What are statistics on LEO stopping them? I asked you this before but you didn't seem to provide anything (or I missed it). I think about 90% of the high profile shootings I can think of the shooter took their own life at the end (could be wrong, human memory is unreliable)
 

public

Not shou emousshiöns
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
11,568
Location
Oysterbottom
Car(s)
205–405–MX5–Polo–Panda–Daimler
Plot twist: the bad guys were good guys with guns gone bad.

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,962
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
Hardly surprising, given that nearly all mass shootings occur in places where citizens are not allowed to have their firearms - Newtown, Aurora, Virginia State, now Texas - you name it.

You're also ignoring cases where someone was stopped before the situation escalated to a mass shooting event. I vaguely recall a mall shooter who took his own life as soon as he saw a regular Joe pull out his concealed carry pistol.
But you said it yourself - you wouldn't actually interfere in a situation if it posed significant risk for your own life or the lives of your loved ones. Most people would behave like that, even in a non-gun-free zone. I have no problem with the claim that guns are for self-defense. But the selfless hero with a gun sacrificing his life for others is a very rare occurrence.

I tried to explain this to you before, this is what you are reading into it, not what the reality of that phrase is.
So let me get this straight - I'm the one who is reading into things, you are one who just knows reality? You are not reading into it as well?

Let me try to break it down to you:
- bad guy with a gun, anyone looking to do harm to someone else, that would include a burglar breaking into your house or a mugger or a carjacker, etc...
- good guy with a gun, anyone who is not looking to do harm and has a gun, that does include LEO as well as private citizenry, LEO kind of have to be good guys by definition (reality might be different)

The idea is that if someone is armed and looking to do harm then someone else who is armed would be best chance against them, not that 100% of cases will be settled by a good guy with a gun for sure.
No. In the context of the NRA using the phrase, it does not include LEOs. No one is debating gun control for LEOs. And no one is suggesting taking the guns from police officers - the NRA is not lobbying against that. The NRA speaks strictly in the context of civilian gun rights. LEOs are good guys, but the NRA doesn't mean them when they use the phrase.

Additionally:

What are statistics on LEO stopping them? I asked you this before but you didn't seem to provide anything (or I missed it). I think about 90% of the high profile shootings I can think of the shooter took their own life at the end (could be wrong, human memory is unreliable)
That's probably true. So where does that leave us? Statistically it doesn't matter if there are good guys with guns in high profile shooting situations?
 
Top