514
Post by: Orlanth
Breaking news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37469757
Several people have been wounded in a shooting at a shopping centre at Houston in the US state of Texas, reports say.
Local media report that the police shot the suspect, but nearby residents were asked to avoid the area.
Police say they do not believe any other people are involved in the shooting.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
123
Post by: Alpharius
And what are your thoughts on the matter?
100848
Post by: tneva82
And surprised people are...where?
89204
Post by: redleger
Well, this is unfortunate.
Whats weird is there could be proof this dude was a radical muslim, and no one would care because USA and guns.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
 redleger wrote:Well, this is unfortunate.
Whats weird is there could be proof this dude was a radical muslim, and no one would care because USA and guns.
Not sure what this comment is supposed to add? If they do find evidence he's a radical Muslim, then it's concerning that these attacks are becoming more frequent. However, the news mentions nothing about the skin color of the subject or his race, so why bring it up? He could be just another run of the mill crazy.
OT, this is tragic, but not surprising. America has a massive mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Heard on NPR but didn't take notice. This is Houston. Multiple shootings aren't a big deal. It just happened to happen at a mall right after the one in Seattle.
Was in a bit of a wealthier area. Thats a bit unusual.
10920
Post by: Goliath
redleger wrote:Well, this is unfortunate.
Whats weird is there could be proof this dude was a radical muslim, and no one would care because USA and guns.
See, before you get proof you need evidence, and there isn't any thus far. Besides, if you have a consistent problem with spree shootings then it seems odd to immediately go "Well it must 100% be islam, you're obviously protecting islam to demonise guns!"
89204
Post by: redleger
 jreilly89 wrote: redleger wrote:Well, this is unfortunate. Whats weird is there could be proof this dude was a radical muslim, and no one would care because USA and guns.
Not sure what this comment is supposed to add? If they do find evidence he's a radical Muslim, then it's concerning that these attacks are becoming more frequent. However, the news mentions nothing about the skin color of the subject or his race, so why bring it up? He could be just another run of the mill crazy. OT, this is tragic, but not surprising. America has a massive mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.
The only reason I bring it up is because of the shooting in WA. Even after nationality was proven, it was still swept under the rug as standard gun violence. Listen, these events suck. To think at any second my daughters and I could be out doing our thing then bam, some dude starts shooting is scary. But what's scarier is denial. Its like the Alcoholic who says he has no problem. everyone around him suffers, but his significant other keeps enabling him. Well in this case radical Islam is the alcoholic and government is the enabling abused girlfriend. The nation keeps being told its not a problem, but more and more its starting to look like its no longer weekend drinking, but every day drinking.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
redleger wrote: jreilly89 wrote: redleger wrote:Well, this is unfortunate.
Whats weird is there could be proof this dude was a radical muslim, and no one would care because USA and guns.
Not sure what this comment is supposed to add? If they do find evidence he's a radical Muslim, then it's concerning that these attacks are becoming more frequent. However, the news mentions nothing about the skin color of the subject or his race, so why bring it up? He could be just another run of the mill crazy.
OT, this is tragic, but not surprising. America has a massive mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.
The only reason I bring it up is because of the shooting in WA. Even after nationality was proven, it was still swept under the rug as standard gun violence. Listen, these events suck. To think at any second my daughters and I could be out doing our thing then bam, some dude starts shooting is scary. But what's scarier is denial. Its like the Alcoholic who says he has no problem. everyone around him suffers, but his significant other keeps enabling him. Well in this case radical Islam is the alcoholic and government is the enabling abused girlfriend. The nation keeps being told its not a problem, but more and more its starting to look like its no longer weekend drinking, but every day drinking.
That's a bit of a stretch. I can think of several that weren't Islam, just plain old mental health/gun violence. Is it actually a problem with Islam, or is it just easier to paint crazies as "radical Muslims"?
Besides, your daughters can get shot anywhere. Could be a gangbanger, crazy ex, whatever. Doesn't have to be a crazy Muslim out to get them.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Sounds like the perp in this case died of wounds.
89204
Post by: redleger
jreilly89 wrote: redleger wrote: jreilly89 wrote: redleger wrote:Well, this is unfortunate.
Whats weird is there could be proof this dude was a radical muslim, and no one would care because USA and guns.
Not sure what this comment is supposed to add? If they do find evidence he's a radical Muslim, then it's concerning that these attacks are becoming more frequent. However, the news mentions nothing about the skin color of the subject or his race, so why bring it up? He could be just another run of the mill crazy.
OT, this is tragic, but not surprising. America has a massive mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.
The only reason I bring it up is because of the shooting in WA. Even after nationality was proven, it was still swept under the rug as standard gun violence. Listen, these events suck. To think at any second my daughters and I could be out doing our thing then bam, some dude starts shooting is scary. But what's scarier is denial. Its like the Alcoholic who says he has no problem. everyone around him suffers, but his significant other keeps enabling him. Well in this case radical Islam is the alcoholic and government is the enabling abused girlfriend. The nation keeps being told its not a problem, but more and more its starting to look like its no longer weekend drinking, but every day drinking.
That's a bit of a stretch. I can think of several that weren't Islam, just plain old mental health/gun violence. Is it actually a problem with Islam, or is it just easier to paint crazies as "radical Muslims"?
Besides, your daughters can get shot anywhere. Could be a gangbanger, crazy ex, whatever. Doesn't have to be a crazy Muslim out to get them.
I understand we can all be blanked out in an instant from any number of things, in that regard I was not referring to radical islam, but to the fact that it is a possibility, even though statistically remote. It was actually 2 separate thoughts, which I failed to display well.
This very well may be just some random crazy dude. I am from Texas, and I know for a fact there is a large number of them in our big cities for some reason. What I was eluding to is the thought process that for some reason, many look right at the "duck" see it quacking and waddling, yet insist that it is not a duck.
100848
Post by: tneva82
jreilly89 wrote:That's a bit of a stretch. I can think of several that weren't Islam, just plain old mental health/gun violence. Is it actually a problem with Islam, or is it just easier to paint crazies as "radical Muslims"?
Besides, your daughters can get shot anywhere. Could be a gangbanger, crazy ex, whatever. Doesn't have to be a crazy Muslim out to get them.
Yeah not like there's not any whites shooting(probably lots that simply don't get mentioned because it's not news enough to make money from...). Should we start calling americans as a problem because there's americans shooting people? Should we call Finns school shooters because there's been school shootings in Finland?
One does not need islam for problems. People are quick to blame islamist refugees for everything...Well let's see. In Finland people are complaining about crimes etc that come but statistics actually say that refugees are giving LESS work for police per 1000 person than locals. Give me 1000 random finn and 1000 random refugee and most cases police will be on ones without refugee involved. Either as the one causing the trouble or the one being victim...
It's easy to blame different people for problems. Harder to fix the real problem.
18698
Post by: kronk
From the pictures and descriptions, some of the victims were in their cars in the parking lot: https://www.rt.com/usa/360633-shooting-houston-injured-active/ This is more of a shopping center than a mall, I believe. It's been years since I've been in that area. As Fraz said, this is a rich part of Houston, TX.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Strip mall, not big indoor mall.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Per KHOU:
What we know about the suspect, according to HPD:
He was a resident of a nearby apartment
He was an attorney who recently had issues with his law firm
A bomb squad is looking over his Porsche parked outside on Law Street, where the shooting took place
Other weapons were found in the suspect's vehicle
The wife of a shooting victim spoke with KHOU 11 News and had further insight into the possible mental state of DeSai prior to the shooting.
"What personal problems he has going on in his life, who knows. I do know that there was a confrontation with a roofing company a few weeks ago that he had a problem with and I believe he was waving around his AR, but what set him off at 6:12 this morning, I don't know," said Jennifer Moredo. Watch her full interview here.
Active shooting suspect's vehicle being inspected by robot. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. Houston Police & Fire respond to reports of an active shooter north of the City of West U. early Monday, Sept. 26, 2016.
According to Jason Delgado, property manager of the The Oaks complex, there were two incidents reported with the suspect in the past few weeks. Regarding the roofing project that Jennifer Moredo referenced, one of the roofers called police and said he had been threatened by DeSai with a gun. HPD was not able to make an arrest because the gun was not pointed at the roofer.
Most recently, there were maintenance issues at DeSai's unit. Delgado says that DeSai sent threatening emails to a man in the office.
According to Mayor Sylvester Turner, there is no credible remaining threat and that "there does not appear to be any connection to a terrorist act."
89204
Post by: redleger
Oh Lawyer. That's worse. If he was waiving around an AR-15 how could they not arrest him. I mean if you are on your property, and you pull out your weapon, for no reason other than anger, and start threatening someone, even in Texas it seems like you should be arrested.
43066
Post by: feeder
Clearly Law School is the problem here. Time to deport the lawyers, gotta Make America Great Again!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.
There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.
89204
Post by: redleger
 Kilkrazy wrote:Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.
There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.
This.
18698
Post by: kronk
 feeder wrote:Clearly Law School is the problem here. Time to deport the lawyers, gotta Make America Great Again!
I approve your message.  Automatically Appended Next Post: redleger wrote:Oh Lawyer. That's worse. If he was waiving around an AR-15 how could they not arrest him. I mean if you are on your property, and you pull out your weapon, for no reason other than anger, and start threatening someone, even in Texas it seems like you should be arrested.
Edit: Ah, I missed that: HPD was not able to make an arrest because the gun was not pointed at the roofer. Most recently, there were maintenance issues at DeSai's unit. Delgado says that DeSai sent threatening emails to a man in the office. According to Mayor Sylvester Turner, there is no credible remaining threat and that "there does not appear to be any connection to a terrorist act."
221
Post by: Frazzled
To him being a dickbag to a construction crew:
In Texas, carrying long guns has been permitted since it was Mexican territory. However one cannot use said firearm to threaten others. I'm betting: 1) firearm not seen; 2) no evidence outside of witnesses who likely weren't going to do anything as they weren't legal citizens and didn't want to get involved; and 3) cops not wanting to get involved with ranty bloodsucking attorney.
Carrying an AR to yell at a construction crew is (to intentionally use the legal parlance in reference to an attorney) prima facae proof you are a crazy dickbag.
89204
Post by: redleger
 Frazzled wrote:To him being a dickbag to a construction crew:
In Texas, carrying long guns has been permitted since it was Mexican territory. However one cannot use said firearm to threaten others. I'm betting: 1) firearm not seen; 2) no evidence outside of witnesses who likely weren't going to do anything as they weren't legal citizens and didn't want to get involved; and 3) cops not wanting to get involved with ranty bloodsucking attorney.
Carrying an AR to yell at a construction crew is (to intentionally use the legal parlance in reference to an attorney) prima facae proof you are a crazy dickbag.
Didn't think about immigration status being a factor. But a LEO who is scared of a lawyer just means the LEO isn't doing his job by the book. I have high ranking officers checking my training all the time. Only time I care is when I know I have forgot to do something.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think the internet ate my reply. Now that I think about it, the construction incident may never have been reported to the PoPo.
514
Post by: Orlanth
This case is odd, most spree killings are by underachievers, the odd exceptions are mostly political radicals.This guy appears to be neither. He drives a Porshe, has a transferable skill. What set his fuse, financial issues?
18698
Post by: kronk
That and cocaine? He sounds unstable, even without the shooting.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Orlanth wrote:This case is odd, most spree killings are by underachievers, the odd exceptions are mostly political radicals.This guy appears to be neither. He drives a Porshe, has a transferable skill. What set his fuse, financial issues?
His law firm went under in February and the underlying Houston economy has been kicked in the babymaker by the worst energy recession in my memory.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Kilkrazy wrote:Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.
There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.
well there could be, but for some reason neither party wants the CDC to collect any data on spree shootings. It might hurt the gun sales I guess. We do know that gun ownership greatly increases the chances of killing someone living in the household, and that is far more likely than stopping any crime. I wouldn't say wanting to own a gun pre disposes you to commit a spree killing, but they are the weapon of choice for them. And those committing them lately do seem to have multiple guns, so there could be some correlation there.
The crime rate has been declining, but that has been attributed to the removal of lead from gasoline and paint.
Sure spree's have been going on for 100 years, but they are picking up in frequency and becoming a weekly occurrence. They used to skip quite a few years out of those 100.
These stats are known, look them up at your convenience.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There are a lot more people and guns in the USA than 100 years ago. Draw your own conclusions.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Kilkrazy wrote:There are a lot more people and guns in the USA than 100 years ago. Draw your own conclusions.
so you're saying per capita, the number of shootings have remained the same? decreased? that's a interesting idea, do you have any data to support it?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
The CDC can and does collect data on firearms related incidents. Huge volumes of it. What it cannot do is undertake studies to recommend gun control solutions.
Spree killings are increasing, but overall killings are dramatically declining. Spree killings are ultimately rare events that dont kill huge numbers of people in the big picture but make a great big whopping news impact, and that may be a large driver of such behavior.
One will notice that when you could mail order a machine gun through the mail and have it delivered to your door across state lines without an FFL or background check, spree killings were almost nonexistent and limited to gangster on gangster stuff mostly. Something has changed socially such that people who wouldn't have dreamed of doing such a thing 90 years ago now find it a viable method of seeking vindication or whatever.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:There are a lot more people and guns in the USA than 100 years ago. Draw your own conclusions.
Thats ...ok. Yes there are more people and guns that there were 100 years ago. More airplanes and spaceships too. Unfortunately the scourge of cat people continues unabated as well.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
 Vaktathi wrote:The CDC can and does collect data on firearms related incidents. Huge volumes of it. What it cannot do is undertake studies to recommend gun control solutions.
Spree killings are increasing, but overall killings are dramatically declining. Spree killings are ultimately rare events that dont kill huge numbers of people in the big picture but make a great big whopping news impact, and that may be a large driver of such behavior.
One will notice that when you could mail order a machine gun through the mail and have it delivered to your door across state lines without an FFL or background check, spree killings were almost nonexistent and limited to gangster on gangster stuff mostly. Something has changed socially such that people who wouldn't have dreamed of doing such a thing 90 years ago now find it a viable method of seeking vindication or whatever.
Media hype may have something to do with this. Ever since columbine every crazy person knows that the easiest way to get mass media recognition is to start shooting up a place with a lot of people.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Aye, that would be my guess. People looking for something other than obscurity opting for infamy in response to perceived humiliations and a loss of place in the world that 50 years ago would have provided a different future.
34390
Post by: whembly
--didn't know where to stick this, so stuck it here as it's tangently related--
Orlando Police just released the full Omar Mateen’s phone conversations with police the night he shoot the Pulse...
Mateen repeatedly told police he wanted to send a message to Americans and get them to stop aerial drone strikes against ISIS forces.
This is my shocked face:
18698
Post by: kronk
Even the early reports stated that he made pro-ISIS claims before and during the attack, right?
We already knew the basics, but we didn't have the full transcript.
34390
Post by: whembly
 kronk wrote:Even the early reports stated that he made pro-ISIS claims before and during the attack, right?
Aye... pretty much. Even though this Administration tried so hard to say that it wasn't so... even the intial transcripts, the FBI scrubbed out any references to ISIS and Allah. But, you could "read between the lines"...
We already knew the basics, but we didn't have the full transcript.
And now we know definitively... Just goes to show to not make any determination in the first few hours (or weeks). But, sometimes, if it walks like a duck...
43066
Post by: feeder
 whembly wrote:
Just goes to show to not make any determination in the first few hours (or weeks). But, sometimes, if it walks like a duck...
So we can all agree that the War on Terror is an unwinnable farce?
Because the only real connection between spree shooters in America and Daesh groups claiming "responsibility" is a shared delusion in an Abrahambic myth.
We can't fight an idea.
The only way to "win" is to undertake massive nation building in Syria and Iraq, like we did in Germany and Japan post WW2. The reason Daesh groups have power and influence is they are the closest thing to a functioning government in their areas of influence.
34390
Post by: whembly
feeder wrote: whembly wrote:
Just goes to show to not make any determination in the first few hours (or weeks). But, sometimes, if it walks like a duck...
So we can all agree that the War on Terror is an unwinnable farce?.
Nah... because we aren't in a true war.
If we used all our resources, there wouldn't be any Terrors alive to fight back. 
Because the only real connection between spree shooters in America and Daesh groups claiming "responsibility" is a shared delusion in an Abrahambic myth.
Horse pucky.
We can't fight an idea.
The only way to "win" is to undertake massive nation building in Syria and Iraq, like we did in Germany and Japan post WW2. The reason Daesh groups have power and influence is they are the closest thing to a functioning government in their areas of influence.
Sure... but, 'murrican (and the rest of the civilized world) can't stomach something like that now.
221
Post by: Frazzled
We can't fight an idea.
Thats one of the stupidest arguments ever. We fight ideas all the time, every day.
To be more extreme, we killed off far more powerful ideas in the idea of Nazis and the Greater Eastern Prosperity Sphere. The Romans were experts in killing off ideas, as were the Soviets.
100848
Post by: tneva82
whembly wrote: feeder wrote: whembly wrote:
Just goes to show to not make any determination in the first few hours (or weeks). But, sometimes, if it walks like a duck...
So we can all agree that the War on Terror is an unwinnable farce?.
Nah... because we aren't in a true war.
If we used all our resources, there wouldn't be any Terrors alive to fight back.
So you would be killing every single people in arab and crapload outside as well?
Bombs NEVER fix problem. At best only change one problem to another.
221
Post by: Frazzled
tneva82 wrote: whembly wrote: feeder wrote: whembly wrote:
Just goes to show to not make any determination in the first few hours (or weeks). But, sometimes, if it walks like a duck...
So we can all agree that the War on Terror is an unwinnable farce?.
Nah... because we aren't in a true war.
If we used all our resources, there wouldn't be any Terrors alive to fight back.
So you would be killing every single people in arab and crapload outside as well?
Bombs NEVER fix problem. At best only change one problem to another.
Its your view that "every single person in Arab" supports ISIL? If so how are they storming the gates of Vienna as we speak? Why do they need to kill thousands of people in the occupied areas to maintain control? Why are they in retreat?
43066
Post by: feeder
Frazzled wrote:
We can't fight an idea.
Thats one of the stupidest arguments ever. We fight ideas all the time, every day.
To be more extreme, we killed off far more powerful ideas in the idea of Nazis and the Greater Eastern Prosperity Sphere.
No, we didn't kill those ideas. Racism and Colonialism are very much alive and well.
We don't have an overt white power terror network operating out of eastern Europe because after we annihilated their infrastructure, we went back in there and built in up again.
39995
Post by: Maniac_nmt
 TheCustomLime wrote: Vaktathi wrote:The CDC can and does collect data on firearms related incidents. Huge volumes of it. What it cannot do is undertake studies to recommend gun control solutions.
Spree killings are increasing, but overall killings are dramatically declining. Spree killings are ultimately rare events that dont kill huge numbers of people in the big picture but make a great big whopping news impact, and that may be a large driver of such behavior.
One will notice that when you could mail order a machine gun through the mail and have it delivered to your door across state lines without an FFL or background check, spree killings were almost nonexistent and limited to gangster on gangster stuff mostly. Something has changed socially such that people who wouldn't have dreamed of doing such a thing 90 years ago now find it a viable method of seeking vindication or whatever.
Media hype may have something to do with this. Ever since columbine every crazy person knows that the easiest way to get mass media recognition is to start shooting up a place with a lot of people.
Which should be somewhat surprising, as the worst attacks (not counting 9/11) in the US's history of this sort have not been gun related, but explosive related.
McVeigh and Oklahoma City killed 168 people and wounded over 680, LA Times bombing in 1910 killed 21 and injured 100, Wall Street bombing in the 20s which killed 38 and injured 400, the 96 Olympics with 2 dead and over 100 injured, and the Bath, Michigan attack in the 20s killed 45 and injured 58 being some of the more famous explosive based attacks (although I doubt many users have heard of any of these, or at least tend to forget about them).
However, it currently is a quick and easy 10 minutes of fame given the media hype. So, despite the ability to obtain or build home made explosive devices and their increased lethality the sensationalism of a gun attack probably does attract the crazies.
221
Post by: Frazzled
feeder wrote: Frazzled wrote:
We can't fight an idea.
Thats one of the stupidest arguments ever. We fight ideas all the time, every day.
To be more extreme, we killed off far more powerful ideas in the idea of Nazis and the Greater Eastern Prosperity Sphere.
No, we didn't kill those ideas. Racism and Colonialism are very much alive and well.
We don't have an overt white power terror network operating out of eastern Europe because after we annihilated their infrastructure, we went back in there and built in up again.
Nazism is not racism. Please don't be droll.
Using this argument you should immediately burn yourself alive for being an infidel, because hey you can't fight an idea. 
43066
Post by: feeder
Technically you are correct, but you and I both know that racism is one of the central tenets of Nazi ideology. Please don't be pedantic
Using this argument you should immediately burn yourself alive for being an infidel, because hey you can't fight an idea.
Sorry chief, ya lost me here. What are you driving at?
221
Post by: Frazzled
feeder wrote: Technically you are correct, but you and I both know that racism is one of the central tenets of Nazi ideology. Please don't be pedantic
ONE TENET. Thats like reducing a whole social, economic, political, and military theory down to well racism...  Using this argument you should immediately burn yourself alive for being an infidel, because hey you can't fight an idea.
Sorry chief, ya lost me here. What are you driving at?
You're arguing you can't defeat an idea. So getting back to the actual topic. Looks like lawyer nutjob. We need common sense lawyer control.
43066
Post by: feeder
Frazzled wrote: feeder wrote:
Technically you are correct, but you and I both know that racism is one of the central tenets of Nazi ideology. Please don't be pedantic
ONE TENET. Thats like reducing a whole social, economic, political, and military theory down to well racism...
Using this argument you should immediately burn yourself alive for being an infidel, because hey you can't fight an idea.
Sorry chief, ya lost me here. What are you driving at?
You're arguing you can't defeat an idea.
Ah, I gotcha. I'm right, you can't win a war on an idea. Doesn't mean we are going to lose, it just will never end. A cynical man might argue this is the intention.
So getting back to the actual topic. Looks like lawyer nutjob. We need common sense lawyer control.
On this we agree. We need better controls on who has access to lawyers and harsh penalties for those who flout them.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Only law abiding citizens get lawyers?
34439
Post by: Formosa
feeder wrote: Frazzled wrote: feeder wrote:
Technically you are correct, but you and I both know that racism is one of the central tenets of Nazi ideology. Please don't be pedantic
ONE TENET. Thats like reducing a whole social, economic, political, and military theory down to well racism...
Using this argument you should immediately burn yourself alive for being an infidel, because hey you can't fight an idea.
Sorry chief, ya lost me here. What are you driving at?
You're arguing you can't defeat an idea.
Ah, I gotcha. I'm right, you can't win a war on an idea. Doesn't mean we are going to lose, it just will never end. A cynical man might argue this is the intention.
So getting back to the actual topic. Looks like lawyer nutjob. We need common sense lawyer control.
On this we agree. We need better controls on who has access to lawyers and harsh penalties for those who flout them.
you can win a war on an idea, its happened a lot in history, that's why all the mainstream western religions are based around the same single god concept, rather than the pantheons of old, basically you believe our version or die, so they slaughtered countless people to make sure there idea won, and the other idea lost.
43066
Post by: feeder
We still have the ideas of a pantheon of gods around, some Eastern and most pagan religions include it.
You can't bomb an idea out of existence. Unless we are willing to "see if sand glows" we aren't going to stop terrorism by drone strikes and no-knock raids.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Back on topic, please. The spread of western religions ain't it.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Some information about the shooter.
http://abc13.com/news/who-is-nathan-desai/1526983/
We're learning more about a Houston attorney whose vehicle was connected to a violent shooting Monday that injured nine people in southwest Houston.
The HPD bomb squad was in the process of searching Nathan DeSai's Porsche when Eyewitness News confirmed the vehicle was registered to him.
Now ABC News has learned that two guns and Nazi materials were found at the scene. ABC13 has confirmed that Nazi materials found inside the car registered to DeSai.
A source told abc13 the vehicle was filled with weapons, prompting officials to use a bomb robot to search the car.
We spoke with DeSai's father who said the attorney lived near Weslayan and Bissonnet, the site of this morning's shooting. He also confirmed the attorney drove a black Porsche.
DeSai was troubled by a downturn in business at his law office, his father said. When Eyewitness News went by the office, no one could be found.
His former law partner, Ken McDaniel, told Miya Shay the firm dissolved six months ago, but would not go into the reasons why.
DeSai's father says his son continued to represent clients, but worked out of his home.
After the shooting broke out, DeSai's father said he tried to contact his son.
So far, all he's heard is his voicemail message.
So he's a nazi.
76825
Post by: NinthMusketeer
Vaktathi wrote:...in response to perceived humiliations and a loss of place in the world that 50 years ago would have provided a different future.
If you were white and male.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Frazzled wrote: Orlanth wrote:This case is odd, most spree killings are by underachievers, the odd exceptions are mostly political radicals.This guy appears to be neither. He drives a Porshe, has a transferable skill. What set his fuse, financial issues?
His law firm went under in February and the underlying Houston economy has been kicked in the babymaker by the worst energy recession in my memory.
Sure but he is a lawyer, he isnt going to have trouble finding work. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:
We can't fight an idea.
Thats one of the stupidest arguments ever. We fight ideas all the time, every day.
To be more extreme, we killed off far more powerful ideas in the idea of Nazis and the Greater Eastern Prosperity Sphere. The Romans were experts in killing off ideas, as were the Soviets.
I think what he is saying is that you cant entirely eradicate an ideology, without genocidal policies, and even that isn't assured.
The threats facing nowadays are so asymmetric that even a small remnant has the power to perpetuate discord.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Orlanth wrote:I think what he is saying is that you cant entirely eradicate an ideology, without genocidal policies, and even that isn't assured.
The threats facing nowadays are so asymmetric that even a small remnant has the power to perpetuate discord.
Japan tried to exterminate(as in kill) christianity from their country for centuries. Failed.
Terrorists can't be determined by sight so killing only all terrorists is going to fail. If you try to kill every muslim you would have to kill who knows how many, kill along non-muslims and likely STILL fail(see Japan's example...). And at that point you have become worse than the problem itself as you have killed lot more innocent people than terrorists have ever killed...
You don't fix the problem with bombs. Nazi's weren't got rid of by bombs but by fixing the reason they came into being in the first place. Had they simply been bombed and then be done they would have still come back(as it is they STILL exists...Yeah real good success with eradicating ideology there...)
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sure but he is a lawyer, he isnt going to have trouble finding work.
Thats an extremely incorrect statement in the US. We have a substantial surplus of bloodsuckers on this side of the pond.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Frazzled wrote: Sure but he is a lawyer, he isnt going to have trouble finding work.
Thats an extremely incorrect statement in the US. We have a substantial surplus of bloodsuckers on this side of the pond.
I think we do here, as well. Law was seen as a reliable money maker when it came to what to study so now we have a lot of people going to uni and studying Law but there not actually being enough demand for them afterwards, so you get massive competition for the few places and people with law degrees doing work which is really not making the most of their degree, if they manage to find work that is. Not as bad as Forensic Science, though. The number of jobs in that field in the UK is tiny as most police forces and other organisations which make use of such technology no longer have their own unit but rather send it off to private companies, of which there are few. However there has been a huge surge in people studying it at university (the physical sciences department at my previous uni was basically kept afloat by a huge forensic science intake) so the competition for those few jobs is astronomical.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Per NPR this morning shooter had Nazi and "historical paraphernalia" either on him or at his residence.
89204
Post by: redleger
Posts equating humans with dogs needing euthanasia are not appropriate for Dakka. Ever. --Janthkin
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Frazzled wrote:Per NPR this morning shooter had Nazi and "historical paraphernalia" either on him or at his residence.
wait a second, I thought you just got done saying how you defeated the nazi's ideas.
To be more extreme, we killed off far more powerful ideas in the idea of Nazis and the Greater Eastern Prosperity Sphere.
this does highlight the point that you can not defeat an ideology, the believers of the ideology might eventually discard it on their own, but it can never be forced.
221
Post by: Frazzled
sirlynchmob wrote: Frazzled wrote:Per NPR this morning shooter had Nazi and "historical paraphernalia" either on him or at his residence.
wait a second, I thought you just got done saying how you defeated the nazi's ideas.
We found the last Nazi! We defeated his ideas with four or five warnings shots directly to the torso.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Kilkrazy wrote:Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.
There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.
The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.
All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).
So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.
There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.
The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.
All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).
So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.
the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
sirlynchmob wrote:the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.
Domestic abusers are already prohibited from owing firearms, or purchasing new ones, at the federal and state level.
Your claim that guns in the home are a greater risk to a family member than an intruder comes from a study that had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed.
Are you sure that :there is absolutely no truth to that statement" that private firearm ownership has no positive impact on crime? No positive impact like the NRA member who stopped the knife attack in Minnesota by a self radicalized individual? No positive impact there? Or the Wal-Mart employee who successfully defended himself against an armed assailant in Florida earlier this week ( http://wsvn.com/news/local/walmart-employee-fatally-shoots-armed-robber-in-sunrise/) ? Or countless other examples such as this one from 4 days ago http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/09/23/burglar-shot.html
The National Research Council (an nonprofit, non-governmental organization that is not affiliated with the NRA) found that those who used firearms to defend themselves had lower injury rates than did victims who used other strategies.
Even the CDC in their most recent study found that "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
89204
Post by: redleger
sirlynchmob wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear. There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.
The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is. All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself). So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.
the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.
The fact that crime is going down, and requests for permits is going up seems to be pretty cut and dry.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
redleger wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.
There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.
The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.
All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).
So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.
the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.
The fact that crime is going down, and requests for permits is going up seems to be pretty cut and dry.
crime has been on a steady decline since my birth, you're welcome. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dreadclaw69 wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.
Domestic abusers are already prohibited from owing firearms, or purchasing new ones, at the federal and state level.
Your claim that guns in the home are a greater risk to a family member than an intruder comes from a study that had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed.
Are you sure that :there is absolutely no truth to that statement" that private firearm ownership has no positive impact on crime? No positive impact like the NRA member who stopped the knife attack in Minnesota by a self radicalized individual? No positive impact there? Or the Wal-Mart employee who successfully defended himself against an armed assailant in Florida earlier this week ( http://wsvn.com/news/local/walmart-employee-fatally-shoots-armed-robber-in-sunrise/) ? Or countless other examples such as this one from 4 days ago http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/09/23/burglar-shot.html
The National Research Council (an nonprofit, non-governmental organization that is not affiliated with the NRA) found that those who used firearms to defend themselves had lower injury rates than did victims who used other strategies.
Even the CDC in their most recent study found that "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
ya and let's not forget this helpful guy:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/
and this helpful lady:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/11/mich-woman-who-shot-at-shoplifters-gets-18-months-probation-vows-to-never-help-anybody-again/
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/
Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3
89204
Post by: redleger
sirlynchmob wrote: redleger wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.
There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.
The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.
All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).
So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.
the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.
The fact that crime is going down, and requests for permits is going up seems to be pretty cut and dry.
crime has been on a steady decline since my birth, you're welcome.
sirlynchmob ,
Your name offends me. I am triggered, need a safe place because I am as soft as charmin. Oh wait that's not me...........
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.
I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject
very well, til the next mass shooting, coming soon to a town near you. let's continue to do nothing and hope that something changes.
34390
Post by: whembly
sirlynchmob wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.
I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject
very well, til the next mass shooting, coming soon to a town near you. let's continue to do nothing and hope that something changes.
No... that's not what he's saying.
Back to OP: was the shooter actually wearing a Nazi uniform? Or some nazi paraphernalia???
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
whembly wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.
I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject
very well, til the next mass shooting, coming soon to a town near you. let's continue to do nothing and hope that something changes.
No... that's not what he's saying.
Back to OP: was the shooter actually wearing a Nazi uniform? Or some nazi paraphernalia???
He has a bunch of nazi stuff in his car. I didn't hear mention of a uniform.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
sirlynchmob wrote:I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject
Far from it. I want us to get away from an unhelpful side bar on safe spaces and the impact of your birth so that you can actually address the points I have raised and not merely avoid them as you are currently attempting to do.
whembly wrote:Back to OP: was the shooter actually wearing a Nazi uniform? Or some nazi paraphernalia???
That is something that I would like to hear more of. Was he a collector of WWII memorabelia, or was he someone who actually sympathized with the Nazi ideology.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Dreadclaw69 wrote:sirlynchmob wrote:I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject
Far from it. I want us to get away from an unhelpful side bar on safe spaces and the impact of your birth so that you can actually address the points I have raised and not merely avoid them as you are currently attempting to do.
the link I sent which you obviously ignored addressed all your "points" with actual facts.
like this one:
Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5
...
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed.8
see it has sources cited.
you're 500,000 to 3 million per year is so grossly wrong, it's off by 98.5%, that's a pretty huge margin of error. But feel free to ignore my points and make up stuff I never said.
show me where I said anything on safe spaces, and the impact of my birth clearly shows how demonstrably flawed the argument of correlation = causation is. But I guess you're so used to missing the point, you missed that as well.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Frazzled wrote:
Sure but he is a lawyer, he isnt going to have trouble finding work.
Thats an extremely incorrect statement in the US. We have a substantial surplus of bloodsuckers on this side of the pond.
Sure, but it still means he had a office relevant degree and professional standing. AFAIK most people with law degrees dont actually work in law.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Co'tor Shas wrote: whembly wrote:sirlynchmob wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.
I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject
very well, til the next mass shooting, coming soon to a town near you. let's continue to do nothing and hope that something changes.
No... that's not what he's saying.
Back to OP: was the shooter actually wearing a Nazi uniform? Or some nazi paraphernalia???
He has a bunch of nazi stuff in his car. I didn't hear mention of a uniform.
Conflicting. Sounds like he was wearing tacticool outfit/clothing of some sort. Automatically Appended Next Post: Orlanth wrote: Frazzled wrote:
Sure but he is a lawyer, he isnt going to have trouble finding work.
Thats an extremely incorrect statement in the US. We have a substantial surplus of bloodsuckers on this side of the pond.
Sure, but it still means he had a office relevant degree and professional standing. AFAIK most people with law degrees dont actually work in law.
True words. Moi for instance.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
sirlynchmob wrote:the link I sent which you obviously ignored addressed all your "points" with actual facts.
like this one:
Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5
...
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed.8
see it has sources cited.
you're 500,000 to 3 million per year is so grossly wrong, it's off by 98.5%, that's a pretty huge margin of error. But feel free to ignore my points and make up stuff I never said.
My most humble and sincere apologies for missing your automatically appended post. Had I seen it earlier I would have been happy to rebut it for the nonsense that it is.
Leaving aside the irony of claiming that only the NRA claims a positive impact on the private ownership of firearms while then quoting an organization dedicated to gun control (the Violence Policy Center), . The VPC's claims are based on the study by Dr. Kellerman which was deeply flawed in that it examined 420 homicides (when the annual average is between 15K-16K homicides), and only considered it a successful case of self defense if the attacker was killed. With many attacks being thwarted by merely presenting a firearm in self defense, or with non-fatal injury to the assailant, then this distorts the results considerably.
Of course I am amused by your slight of hand that the study by the non-partisan CDC which arrived at the conclusion that you dispute (without any substantive or accurate reason) that "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” is inaccurate when you are unable to show me how, all while relying upon the flawed studies of those chasing an agenda rather than facts. So it would be fair to say that the biased studies you are staking your arguments on are off "off by 98.5%, that's a pretty huge margin of error"
I am disappointed that someone who would rail against an organization like the NRA for their implicit bias would cite sources that are just as biased as you would protest.
sirlynchmob wrote:show me where I said anything on safe spaces, and the impact of my birth clearly shows how demonstrably flawed the argument of correlation = causation is. But I guess you're so used to missing the point, you missed that as well.
The safe space comment was not directed to you, ever. It was a general appeal in the wake of the comment by redledger, and then your reply about the affect of your birth. Second to the point of the discussion on correlation and causation I have already raised that issue as unhelpful and intellectually dishonest ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/703607.page#8928227).
So, with respect, if anyone is "missing the point" in this thread it is not I.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
it's funny you keep referring to a cdc study, yet are unable to post a link to it.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
from that source:
Risk Factors Associated with Gun Possession
Certain aspects of suicide, homicide, and unintentional injury may be amenable to public health research. Some studies have concluded that persons who keep a firearm in the home may have a greater risk of suicide and homicide (Kellermann et al., 1993)
also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun”
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use
odd, It's almost exactly what I've been saying.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
sirlynchmob wrote:from that source:
Risk Factors Associated with Gun Possession
Certain aspects of suicide, homicide, and unintentional injury may be amenable to public health research. Some studies have concluded that persons who keep a firearm in the home may have a greater risk of suicide and homicide (Kellermann et al., 1993)
also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun”
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use
odd, It's almost exactly what I've been saying.
It is almost nothing like what you have been saying.
Here is what you have said;
"you're 500,000 to 3 million per year is so grossly wrong, it's off by 98.5%," - that finding is not supported by the CDC study
"the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less."
You claimed as fact that having a fun at home raised the risk of injury to the occupants. What the CDC said in relation to an increased risk by keeping a gun at home was in no way definitive. Saying that it "is possible" is very different to claiming that definitively "the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less."
So while the CDC study said that there may be an increased risk, it did not claim it as a fact or provide any supporting evidence that it in fact was. To claim that this is "almost exactly" what you have been saying is grossly dishonest. In fact you were so dishonest that you neglected to mention that the passage from the CDC that you are claiming supports your argument is a quote from the Kellerman study, which has already been debunked above.
You have either not read the material, not understood the material, or are deliberately distorting the material in an attempt to support your argument.
What the report clearly said though was; "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
As have no established as fact from a variety of impartial and credible sources that private ownership of firearms does have a positive effect, so your argument that "the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement" is demonstrably false and without merit.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
ENOUGH.
This isn't a gun control thread. This isn't going to BE a gun control thread. And anyone who continues to push the thread in that direction is going to be out of the OT Forum for at least a week.
There is a topic. Discuss it, or don't.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yea you scurvy dogs...yarrr!
Evidently the tacticool outfit had Nazi emblems on it. No confirm if fake Nazi uniform or he sewed Nazi cray cray on his tacticool outfit before coockoo.
He also had 2,500 rounds in his car. Thats, what 90 lbs of ammo...in a Porsche...
A disgruntled lawyer wearing military-style apparel with old Nazi emblems had two weapons and more than 2,500 rounds of live ammunition when he randomly shot at drivers in a Houston neighborhood Monday before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said.
89204
Post by: redleger
Frazzled wrote:Yea you scurvy dogs...yarrr!
Evidently the tacticool outfit had Nazi emblems on it. No confirm if fake Nazi uniform or he sewed Nazi cray cray on his tacticool outfit before coockoo.
He also had 2,500 rounds in his car. Thats, what 90 lbs of ammo...in a Porsche...
A disgruntled lawyer wearing military-style apparel with old Nazi emblems had two weapons and more than 2,500 rounds of live ammunition when he randomly shot at drivers in a Houston neighborhood Monday before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said.
More than 90 LBS. I carried around 300rds of 7.62 for my M240B gunner all through Iraq and that alone was like 40lbs.
43066
Post by: feeder
I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're probably right. I am thumbnailing. A case of 9mms is about 31 lbs (some of us have been receiving presents in light of the next bullet bubble) and thats 2.5x that plus the bullet weight alone is 2x. Wow. Automatically Appended Next Post: feeder wrote:I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.
Alt-right plants? Sorry rephrase please.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Frazzled wrote:Yea you scurvy dogs...yarrr!
Evidently the tacticool outfit had Nazi emblems on it. No confirm if fake Nazi uniform or he sewed Nazi cray cray on his tacticool outfit before coockoo.
He also had 2,500 rounds in his car. Thats, what 90 lbs of ammo...in a Porsche...
A disgruntled lawyer wearing military-style apparel with old Nazi emblems had two weapons and more than 2,500 rounds of live ammunition when he randomly shot at drivers in a Houston neighborhood Monday before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said.
That is a lot of weight for a 9mm, or even 5.56mm. Could it have been .22 instead?
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Frazzled wrote:You're probably right. I am thumbnailing. A case of 9mms is about 31 lbs (some of us have been receiving presents in light of the next bullet bubble) and thats 2.5x that plus the bullet weight alone is 2x. Wow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.
Alt-right plants? Sorry rephrase please.
I think he meant forums not fora and it would be interesting to see if the murderer had contact with others who might have known about the attack or encouraged it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
1. I think one articla specifically said .45 acp but I could be wrong.
2. Yes, he should be fully and quickly investigated for just such an issue (did others know or aid).
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
feeder wrote:I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.
Did any visits to left leaning sites influence Nidal Hassan, Aaron Alexis, Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, Amy Bishop, Andrew J. Stack, Jared Loughner, etc. when they committed their heinous acts? Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:2. Yes, he should be fully and quickly investigated for just such an issue (did others know or aid).
If others offered aid/support on an online forum then that should be easy to trace and track down those responsible.
43066
Post by: feeder
Frazzled wrote:You're probably right. I am thumbnailing. A case of 9mms is about 31 lbs (some of us have been receiving presents in light of the next bullet bubble) and thats 2.5x that plus the bullet weight alone is 2x. Wow.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote:I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.
Alt-right plants? Sorry rephrase please.
Fora is a nose-in-the-air way of saying forums. Since my forehead is mostly skull, behind which lurks not much brain, I like to use terms that make me appear smarter.
89204
Post by: redleger
Dreadclaw69 wrote: feeder wrote:I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.
Did any visits to left leaning sites influence Nidal Hassan, Aaron Alexis, Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, Amy Bishop, Andrew J. Stack, Jared Loughner, etc. when they committed their heinous acts? Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:2. Yes, he should be fully and quickly investigated for just such an issue (did others know or aid).
If others offered aid/support on an online forum then that should be easy to trace and track down those responsible.
Actually in Nidal Hassans case, I would say definitely yes. He frequented many radical sites, which is how he was linked up with the Imam that fed him the gak that led to his actions. Still Nidal's fault for his actions, but he was weak minded and easily influenced. I would say that unless someone was actively seeking to push him into such action, they are not the same. But they could be.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yes but you're speaking to some of us who aren;t quite down with that bipedal walking thing yet (its just a fad, We'll all be back in the trees soon I tell you!) so you have to be clear more gooder.
43066
Post by: feeder
Dreadclaw69 wrote: feeder wrote:I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.
Did any visits to left leaning sites influence Nidal Hassan, Aaron Alexis, Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, Amy Bishop, Andrew J. Stack, Jared Loughner, etc. when they committed their heinous acts?
What's that got to do with anything?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
The same thing you question does.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
How many of those people committed their acts bedecked in iconography of left wing extremists? Maybe they were wearing a Chairman Mao mask? Wondering whether someone who went and killed a load of people and was also in possession of a load of fascist memorabilia may have been influenced to do so by potentially fascist groups seems like a question which should be asked, lest there is actually a group out there encouraging these kinds of atrocities.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How many of those people committed their acts bedecked in iconography of left wing extremists? Maybe they were wearing a Chairman Mao mask?
Wondering whether someone who went and killed a load of people and was also in possession of a load of fascist memorabilia may have been influenced to do so by potentially fascist groups seems like a question which should be asked, lest there is actually a group out there encouraging these kinds of atrocities.
There absolutely is a group out there encouraging these kinds of atrocities
The news reports show that he was a military memorabilia collector;
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26/as-many-as-7-may-be-wounded-in-houston-shooting-report-says.html
The man's apartment was filled with historic and vintage military items "going back to the Civil War," Houston Police Department Captain Dwayne Ready said during a Monday evening news conference.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/us/houston-shooting/
However, Ready would not speculate on whether the Nazi insignia would help establish a motive. He said the emblems may have been collector's items. At the shooter's home, police found vintage military equipment and paraphernalia dating back to the Civil War.
The reports currently support the view that this was an incident of actual work place violence, and no motivation based on hate has yet been established.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
I would point out that being a collector does not automaticaly rule out being a neo-nazi (many of them are obsessed with history, being when the "Aryans" had complete control over the world). It does, however point to there being doubt one whether he was one. I guess we'll fin out when the get to his computer.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Hey how, I'm sure that a collector of Islamic art and books would be given the same deferential considerations if he shot up a place.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 d-usa wrote:Hey how, I'm sure that a collector of Islamic art and books would be given the same deferential considerations if he shot up a place.
Same deferential considerations? They...er killed his ass.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:Hey how, I'm sure that a collector of Islamic art and books would be given the same deferential considerations if he shot up a place.
Same deferential considerations? They...er killed his ass.
People being deferential to the cause of the motivation of the shooting, not the response.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:Hey how, I'm sure that a collector of Islamic art and books would be given the same deferential considerations if he shot up a place.
Same deferential considerations? They...er killed his ass.
People being deferential to the cause of the motivation of the shooting, not the response.
Not seeing anyone being differential here. So far nothing has been noted that I am aware of linking him to foreign or domestic terrorist/extremist groups, but that should be fully invesitgated.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote: d-usa wrote:Hey how, I'm sure that a collector of Islamic art and books would be given the same deferential considerations if he shot up a place.
Same deferential considerations? They...er killed his ass.
People being deferential to the cause of the motivation of the shooting, not the response.
Not seeing anyone being differential here. So far nothing has been noted that I am aware of linking him to foreign or domestic terrorist/extremist groups, but that should be fully invesitgated.
He's saying that anytime the suspect is of Arab descent or has some link to Islam, that's the first that's jumped on, as opposed to mental health/stress/whatever other reasons would cause someone to shoot up a place.
43066
Post by: feeder
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The news reports show that he was a military memorabilia collector;
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26/as-many-as-7-may-be-wounded-in-houston-shooting-report-says.html
The man's apartment was filled with historic and vintage military items "going back to the Civil War," Houston Police Department Captain Dwayne Ready said during a Monday evening news conference.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/us/houston-shooting/
However, Ready would not speculate on whether the Nazi insignia would help establish a motive. He said the emblems may have been collector's items. At the shooter's home, police found vintage military equipment and paraphernalia dating back to the Civil War.
The reports currently support the view that this was an incident of actual work place violence, and no motivation based on hate has yet been established.
Sure, but he chose to wear his Nazi gak to his big temper tantrum event. He's not just some collector.
Just to be clear, there is a definite divide between the Right, and the alt-right. The former is a legit cultural and political persuasion, while the latter is a wretched hive of scum and v̶i̶l̶l̶a̶n̶y̶ life's frustrated failures.
221
Post by: Frazzled
feeder wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The news reports show that he was a military memorabilia collector;
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/26/as-many-as-7-may-be-wounded-in-houston-shooting-report-says.html
The man's apartment was filled with historic and vintage military items "going back to the Civil War," Houston Police Department Captain Dwayne Ready said during a Monday evening news conference.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/us/houston-shooting/
However, Ready would not speculate on whether the Nazi insignia would help establish a motive. He said the emblems may have been collector's items. At the shooter's home, police found vintage military equipment and paraphernalia dating back to the Civil War.
The reports currently support the view that this was an incident of actual work place violence, and no motivation based on hate has yet been established.
Sure, but he chose to wear his Nazi gak to his big temper tantrum event. He's not just some collector.
Just to be clear, there is a definite divide between the Right, and the alt-right. The former is a legit cultural and political persuasion, while the latter is a wretched hive of scum and v̶i̶l̶l̶a̶n̶y̶ life's frustrated failures.
Assuming its Nazi and not East German then that would be an indicator of Nazi leanings. I don't know about alt.right stuff but militia guys and the infamous Klan would not be additionally indicated. This does not mean he wasn't a racist and one of either of those too (I think the East Coast terrorist was who executed all the people at the church no?)
I have no problem calling him a terrorist if evidence is shown of Nazi sympathies.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Subject is indeed appropriate. Another day, another shooting. This time 14yo got nuts in south carolina.
Colour me surprised...Not.
106867
Post by: WarbossGubbinz
redleger wrote:Well, this is unfortunate.
Whats weird is there could be proof this dude was a radical muslim, and no one would care because USA and guns.
Who cares if he was a 'radical Muslim' he still injured and/or killed a lot of people! Race should never be the first thing mentioned in an argument regarding anything at all!
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 WarbossGubbinz wrote: redleger wrote:Well, this is unfortunate.
Whats weird is there could be proof this dude was a radical muslim, and no one would care because USA and guns.
Who cares if he was a 'radical Muslim' he still injured and/or killed a lot of people! Race should never be the first thing mentioned in an argument regarding anything at all!
Good thing Islam isn't a race then 
89204
Post by: redleger
Good thing he just turned out to be your average crazy lawyer then huh, then no one has to have hurt feelings. You know except the families of, and the victims themselves.
|
|
