Liberals and gays drive Tennessee man over the edge

[Tricky]

It is a hate crime, and the victims are members of a church. Not just any church though. A Unitarian church. Why did he pick that church? Because it's full of liberals.

The suspect in a fatal shooting at a Knoxville church Sunday was motivated by frustration over being unable to obtain a job and hatred for the liberal movement, police said Monday.
...
...police found Adkisson's letter in his vehicle, and that Adkisson signed it but did not address it to anyone. The letter specifically expressed hatred for gay people

Yes, the church's historical support of such issues as desegregation, women's rights and gay rights was just too much for the chronically unemployed Jim Adkisson. The final blow apparently was that they were about to take away his food stamps.

This must be so gratifying to Fred Phelps to realize that he is not just a voice in the darkness, but that others are picking up on his message of what God wants.

 

[paiute]

I always pictured the UU congregation as a group of kindly old women, but the Knoxville group took the gunman down after only three blasts. It is reported that he was carrying a total of 76 rounds. Looks like he picked the wrong group of librals to pick on.

 

[fuelair]

I always pictured the UU congregation as a group of kindly old women, but the Knoxville group took the gunman down after only three blasts. It is reported that he was carrying a total of 76 rounds. Looks like he picked the wrong group of librals to pick on.

It may have helped that there were children there. It certainly helps me have some ideas for his future.

 

[Tricky]

It may have helped that there were children there. It certainly helps me have some ideas for his future.

It looks like that may be the case.

There is "an indication he was not targeting the children," but that has not been conclusively determined, Owen said.

 

[GreyICE]

Eh, I misunderstood this entirely.

He had 76 rounds on him? And got off 3?

See why we like the second amendment folks? Do you really think this guy would have been deterred from his murder spree by laws against him carrying guns around?

He was sure deterred by other people's guns though.

P.S. I wonder how long before Ann Coulter says "The only thing he did wrong was not pick a better position, he only hit five of them." That would go really well with her Timothy McVeigh statement. My only guess is on whether Rush or O'Lielly beats her to it.

 

[Fiona]

Are liberals the only employers in Tennessee?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Eh, I misunderstood this entirely.

He had 76 rounds on him? And got off 3?

See why we like the second amendment folks? Do you really think this guy would have been deterred from his murder spree by laws against him carrying guns around?

Laws against carrying, no. Laws against owning, yes. Remember, up until today he was one of those law-abiding citizens we hear so much about.

He was sure deterred by other people's guns though.

It appears he was tackled to the ground, not shot.

 

[GreyICE]

Laws against carrying, no. Laws against owning, yes. Remember, up until today he was one of those law-abiding citizens we hear so much about.

It was a shotgun. Since no one is even suggesting laws against shotguns, wouldn't have changed a thing.

Honestly, is it even practical to go round up all of the guns in America? No. We can engage in pointless what ifs like "Well, what if there weren't a few dozen million guns in this country, would it be a good idea to sell them" but given, say, a firm grasp on reality, it's pretty obvious it's a stupid hypothetical.

It appears he was tackled to the ground, not shot.

My bad. Still, would anyone have objected if he had been shot?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

As far as I know, no one in the congregation had a gun. They just jumped all over his a...er, butt.

One of the news reports I listened to suggested that the shooting spree was instigated by a hatred of religion in general. I'm relieved that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It was a shotgun. Since no one is even suggesting laws against shotguns, wouldn't have changed a thing.

Honestly, is it even practical to go round up all of the guns in America? No. We can engage in pointless what ifs like "Well, what if there weren't a few dozen million guns in this country, would it be a good idea to sell them" but given, say, a firm grasp on reality, it's pretty obvious it's a stupid hypothetical.

No, because we have a gun culture. A culture which means people have ready access to deadly weapons which they can then use when they get depressed/crazy enough to easily kill themselves/multiple others.

It's not practical to remove shotguns because the majority of Americans sees incidents like this as an acceptable tradeoff for the joys of gun ownership. It doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean this is a good situation. It just means there enough people who want guns to make removing them impossible. It doesn't change what's stupid or not, just what's practical.

My bad. Still, would anyone have objected if he had been shot?

If he could have been shot before killing people, no, but that's impossible to say.

 

[GreyICE]

No, because we have a gun culture. A culture which means people have ready access to deadly weapons which they can then use when they get depressed/crazy enough to easily kill themselves/multiple others.

It's not practical to remove shotguns because the majority of Americans sees incidents like this as an acceptable tradeoff for the joys of gun ownership. It doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean this is a good situation. It just means there enough people who want guns to make removing them impossible. It doesn't change what's stupid or not, just what's practical.

It's not impractical because of the gun culture. It's impractical because we're talking about two hundred million weapons spread out over 3.8 million square miles.

We're talking about basic arithmetic here. Your blaming the gun culture is nonsensical.

If he could have been shot before killing people, no, but that's impossible to say.

Even after killing people. Yes, brave people tackled him, so now he can be taken to trial for his crimes, and stuck in prison until he dies.

Does anyone really doubt that the time to tackle a person holding a shotgun is greater than the time to draw a weapon and return fire?

 

[Fiona]

Does anybody else think the gun debate is a little less important than the fact this man seemed to think that liberals and gays are the people who are keeping him out of a job? What is that all about ?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Hmmm. Interesting story. I'm so glad all other possible avenues of discussion are closing down quickly so this can develop into a gun control debate. Ed knows the forum is severely lacking in that department.

 

[GreyICE]

Does anybody else think the gun debate is a little less important than the fact this man seemed to think that liberals and gays are the people who are keeping him out of a job? What is that all about ?

Classic paranoia complex. You know Rush says it, so it must be true.

Anyone else find it ironic that what triggered this rampage was his social welfare program (food stamps) running out?

 

[Fiona]

I wondered about that. How does that system work? What happens if they withdraw them? Do they just leave people to starve?

 

[Tricky]

Hmmm. Interesting story. I'm so glad all other possible avenues of discussion are closing down quickly so this can develop into a gun control debate. Ed knows the forum is severely lacking in that department.

I know. I seriously considered starting this in the Religion forum just to prevent this sort of thing from happening... before the twentieth post.

As for the food stamps thing, I have seen it many times. There are a lot of poor bigots out there. They seem to think that it is only because of liberals/gays/women/blacks/Jews/illegal immigrants/<fill in ethnic group> that they cannot seem to find work. They also think that welfare and food stamps were specifically designed to help them, rather than the <fill in ethnic group> that is abusing them.

And this is not a big surprise. Many people low on the economic scale tend to search for a scapegoat to blame for their misfortunes. But the idea that it is okay to kill them, well, I think we can thank people like Fred Phelps for that particular meme.
***
As for the fact that no kids died, I heard that the man who was killed, Greg McKendry, had thrown his body across several of the kids. He is a true hero.

 

[Tricky]

I wondered about that. How does that system work? What happens if they withdraw them? Do they just leave people to starve?

Pretty much. Mostly they become the kinds of homeless beggars you see on street corners. There are charity missions, but they can't handle the number of people without lifelines. Also, many homeless would rather beg than be in a shelter.

But this guy wasn't homeless or penniless. He paid his rent on time. He owned and put gas into his truck.

This story has a couple of tie-ins for me. My uncle lives in Powell, TN, the tiny Knoxville suburb where this happened. They are not a community of rednecks and bums. It is a middle-class, mostly educated area in the shadow of the University of Tennessee, one of the more liberal spots in the state. Heck, they even have Unitarians. Adkisson was an anomaly.

The other tie-in is a bit more personal. I have a sister who hasn't been able to find work in about twenty-five years. She moves around from place to place, leeching on people as long as they will put up with her. Because food stamps depend on your household income, and she generally lives with someone who has some income, she can't get them. I send her money regularly and take my turn as the leechee. She has severe emotional problems, substance abuse problems, but of course, no insurance. I wish I could get her institutionalized, but she'd never agree, and in Alabama, that would pretty much rule it out. Fortunately, she's harmless, unless driving. I honestly don't know what I can do.

 

[Fiona]

I honestly had not realised that they could withdraw even food stamps. I don't like the idea of those in any case, but I thought it was as low as you could go. I am quite shocked. Is this true all over America? Your sister has no right to any income at all? What would happen if she had no family?

If she has substance abuse problems does she have access to treatment? Do you have any kind of maintenance/reduction policy like the methadone programme here?

 

[GreNME]

Are liberals the only employers in Tennessee?

You do realize the massive amount of jokes such a question leaves open, don't you?

"The only ones paying above minimum wage."

"The only ones requiring more than a high school diploma."

"The only ones where one of the hiring criteria isn't two degrees of separation by marriage or blood."

"The only ones run by women."

Et cetera, ad nauseum, I'm here all week, try the chicken...

Does anybody else think the gun debate is a little less important than the fact this man seemed to think that liberals and gays are the people who are keeping him out of a job? What is that all about ?

No, I would say that the liberals and gays keeping me from being rich is a very important to talk about.

Anyone else find it ironic that what triggered this rampage was his social welfare program (food stamps) running out?

Only that the irony is those lib'ruls he was blaming were likely not the ones who decided to cut him off.

Okay, okay... back to seriousness for a minute.

I wondered about that. How does that system work? What happens if they withdraw them? Do they just leave people to starve?

The answer varies depending on the state you live in, but the answer is almost assuredly no to the last question. However, the extent to which the state decides to assist-- because once the federal help is done, it's done-- is strictly up to the state and local agencies and policies, not to mention the diligence and workload of the case-workers. Most importantly, though, it is up to the person seeking the assistance to be able to withstand the amount of paperwork and what can sometimes feel like spinning wheels and going nowhere: patience is a virtue, but it also keeps the bills paid.

That said, gub'mint cheese isn't always so bad. I grew up on it until about my mid-teens. Gub'mint peanut buttah (sort of like peanut butter, but more buttery) tasted a lot like the creamy version of Skippy. I still to this day prefer 2% or skim milk for its watered-down taste, and am one of the few adults I know who prefers a baloney-and-('Merican-)cheese to a roast beef and swiss. The difference today is that as an adult I have a choice, and my family and I are determined to never again need those things (and succeeding).

I'm just guessing here, but I'm willing to wager that this guy probably hated his situation, couldn't see a way out of it, and decided to take out his anger on the target he chose to believe was responsible for it. I know that sounds pretty general, and it should: it describes the vast majority (no, I don't have percentages or numbers on-hand) of violent crime committed by people below the poverty line.


ETA: Tricky-- I can sympathize. That's all I'll say to avoid a derail.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

Many people low on the economic scale tend to search for a scapegoat to blame for their misfortunes.

I've observed the same thing.

I often wonder if one of these is the cause of the other, or if each reinforces the other.

This case was a real tragedy but it would only have been much worse of a child had been harmed.