Today's Mass Shooting

[HansMustermann]

Hmm. OK, I could be wrong about that one. Still, the point still remains that it's a trivial exercise to come up with a rimfire version of almost any round ever designed, especially rimmed ones, but not only, and the offset firing mechanism to make it work. If any law actually made just the position of the primer the issue, you'd see rimfire weapons in every calibre. Is all I'm saying.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Hmm. OK, I could be wrong about that one. Still, the point still remains that it's a trivial exercise to come up with a rimfire version of almost any round ever designed, especially rimmed ones, but not only, and the offset firing mechanism to make it work. If any law actually made just the position of the primer the issue, you'd see rimfire weapons in every calibre. Is all I'm saying.

It's a already somewhat common feature of states with gun control to make specific exemptions for 22LR. There's no need to generalize about rimfire vs centerfire, if the intention is to ban all but .22 plinking rifles, it's easy to just be specific and name .22LR as a offering that is exempt from blanket prohibitions. With the exception of people firing vintage and reproduction firearms of bygone eras, the only rimfire round that is used widely enough to merit consideration is 22LR (even 22 Long and 22 short are rare throwbacks these days).

Though that does lead to some interesting grey zones. For example, it's somewhat common in my state of Massachusetts for people to build .22LR AR-15 rifles. Since .22LR is exempt from the Assault Weapons Ban, you can build there AR-15s with post-ban receivers that wouldn't be possible for any other caliber. It would be incredibly simple for someone wanting to evade the AWB to build a .22 AR-15, then swap out for a centerfire upper and, presto, an illegally acquired centerfire caliber AR-15.

 

[Meadmaker]

It is going to interesitn exactly what kind of a defense the guy is going to put up.

Insanity or nothing. There's really no defense possible on any other grounds.

ETA: Yesterday, I heard on the radio that this wasn't death penalty eligible, despite the hate crime and high body count. If that's not the case, we might hear something else in the penalty phase, but I think this one will be a straightforward, "Lock him up and throw away the key" case.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Insanity or nothing. There's really no defense possible on any other grounds.

ETA: Yesterday, I heard on the radio that this wasn't death penalty eligible, despite the hate crime and high body count. If that's not the case, we might hear something else in the penalty phase, but I think this one will be a straightforward, "Lock him up and throw away the key" case.

Well someone capable of act like this isn't exactly mentally healthy. Might be perfectly fine in the side of understanding consequences of his action though.
Either way, he needs to stay locked, forever.

 

[Checkmite]

Insanity or nothing. There's really no defense possible on any other grounds.

Insanity is going to be a hard sell, if his manifesto is genuine. It shows an ordered thought process and measured decision making, not panicked or impulsive.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Notable facts:

1) shooting took place in a state with fairly strict gun laws

2) this guy was on law enforcement radar for threats to commit a mass shooting at his school

Noteworthy because both gun restrictions and increasing police are often suggested as simple solutions to the problem of stochastic terror, but there's really very little reason to believe either would be effective.

Maybe total prohibition of guns, including a mass confiscation, is something that might do some real good, but that's so politically non-viable it's not really worth mentioning. Little bites of gun control, like banning certain features and calibers on a state by state (or city by city) level, seems unlikely to do much good.

Police are an inherently reactive force. Even with all the money in the world, there's little they can do to prevent crime. Even if given expansive powers that would require further erosion of civil rights in the name of taking more proactive action against would-be shooters, police routinely show themselves to have massive blind spots for right wing violence. Hell, I imagine a significant portion of US cops more or less believe the major elements of this "Great Replacement" theory that motivated the attack.

Each attack only serves to normalize violence as a legitimate means for achieving far-right political goals and emboldens others to take similar action.

 

[shemp]

Here's your White Terrorist Bingo Card. Have fun playing!

 

[Meadmaker]

Notable facts:

1) shooting took place in a state with fairly strict gun laws

2) this guy was on law enforcement radar for threats to commit a mass shooting at his school

Noteworthy because both gun restrictions and increasing police are often suggested as simple solutions to the problem of stochastic terror, but there's really very little reason to believe either would be effective.

Maybe total prohibition of guns, including a mass confiscation, is something that might do some real good, but that's so politically non-viable it's not really worth mentioning. Little bites of gun control, like banning certain features and calibers on a state by state (or city by city) level, seems unlikely to do much good.

Police are an inherently reactive force. Even with all the money in the world, there's little they can do to prevent crime. Even if given expansive powers that would require further erosion of civil rights in the name of taking more proactive action against would-be shooters, police routinely show themselves to have massive blind spots for right wing violence. Hell, I imagine a significant portion of US cops more or less believe the major elements of this "Great Replacement" theory that motivated the attack.

Each attack only serves to normalize violence as a legitimate means for achieving far-right political goals and emboldens others to take similar action.

Did he break any gun laws? (Prior to opening fire at the supermarket?)

I've seen surprisingly little. Not even what sort of gun he used, much less how he got it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Noteworthy because both gun restrictions and increasing police are often suggested as simple solutions to the problem of stochastic terror,

I remain a staunch advocate of stricter gun restrictions, but I would never call those restrictions a "solution" to any problem, including stochastic terror. I don't know if anyone else would say that, either.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Yes there's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with a gun and you're a commie if you suggest otherwise. Like take away this kids gun and explain to me in non-crazy terms how he kills 10 people in only a few minutes without hijacking a large vehicle or learning virus theory.

- That being said if you could snap your fingers and take away every gun in American and create a magic "Under the Dome" shield around America and America's murder rate would still be several times higher than the rest of the civilized world and that's just not something we can not notice. (Goes without saying since someone always says this when I bring this point up as if it means anything yes of course still getting rid of the gun deaths would be a neat positive.

I don't think that's a direct paradox, but it's food for thought.

 

[Checkmite]

It's interesting to me that the Buffalo shooter waited until he was 18. After all, illegality of firearms, we are told, makes no difference in the ability to obtain or transport them. He could have done this last year, couldn't he?

It does not appear to be the case that he waited until he was 18, according to investigators:

Evidence points to Gendron self-radicalizing when the pandemic began, spending inordinate amounts of time engrossing himself on hate posts on social media, according to a senior law enforcement source briefed on the case.

Law enforcement assessed that in May 2020, the teen watched a 17-minute video of the gunman who attacked two mosques in New Zealand in 2019, killing 51 people.

In recent months and weeks, some of the items Gendron posted on social media became increasingly violent in tone, a senior law enforcement source said.

It happened now because now happens to be the point at which his radicalization evolved into willingness to commit murder in the name of white supremacy. He could not have done it last year, because while he was certainly well along in the radicalization pipeline, he had not reached that point yet.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes the murderer obviously waiting until it wasn't illegal to do something.

Just low how little kids would run away but they aren't allowed to cross the street.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

- Yes there's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with a gun and you're a commie if you suggest otherwise. Like take away this kids gun and explain to me in non-crazy terms how he kills 10 people in only a few minutes without hijacking a large vehicle or learning virus theory.

Was this comment in response to me?

Guns are definitely used in these attacks because they are the best killing tools. There are substitutes, like trucks, but guns are obviously preferred because they are the simplest and most universal way to conduct these attacks.

My point is that the typical gun control measures don't really work. I don't know at what point it became this way, but Pandora's box is well and fully open in the US. The country is awash in guns and they're not hard to get, legally or illegally.

Nothing short of a substantial and radical gun prohibition and confiscation program is going to do much about the widespread availability of these killing tools. My point is that this is one area where half-measures does not lead to half-results, especially so in cases where mass shooters are planning what amount to suicide missions.

Considering this is a country where the liberals cannot even protect abortion rights, which are broadly popular, it's not going out on a limb to say that such a radical confiscation program, which is much more controversial, is currently a non-starter of a solution.

Some states pass token gun restrictions after such attacks, but that's more about the appearance of doing something than actually accomplishing much.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
ETA: And we just had another mass shooting at a church in California, zero details at this moment.

My grand nieces (brother's grandkids) went to preschool at that church (they are 7 & 8 now). He tells me the issue was some sort of politics. He only had vague details, the shooter was from China or something. The victims were Taiwanese.


Edited to add, the gunman was stopped by a good guy coming at him (sadly the guy who died) and another good guy with a chair who took advantage of the fact the shooter was distracted..

 

[Bogative]

God, you disgust me.

I don't care.

The California church shooting was an inconvenient hate crime.

Chinese on Taiwanese, motivated by hate. Time to move on and focus solely on the white on black mass shooting.

 

[smartcooky]

Notable facts:

1) shooting took place in a state with fairly strict gun laws

2) this guy was on law enforcement radar for threats to commit a mass shooting at his school
Noteworthy because both gun restrictions and increasing police are often suggested as simple solutions to the problem of stochastic terror, but there's really very little reason to believe either would be effective.

Maybe total prohibition of guns, including a mass confiscation, is something that might do some real good, but that's so politically non-viable it's not really worth mentioning. Little bites of gun control, like banning certain features and calibers on a state by state (or city by city) level, seems unlikely to do much good.

Police are an inherently reactive force. Even with all the money in the world, there's little they can do to prevent crime. Even if given expansive powers that would require further erosion of civil rights in the name of taking more proactive action against would-be shooters, police routinely show themselves to have massive blind spots for right wing violence. Hell, I imagine a significant portion of US cops more or less believe the major elements of this "Great Replacement" theory that motivated the attack.

Each attack only serves to normalize violence as a legitimate means for achieving far-right political goals and emboldens others to take similar action.

Right there is the reason why this scumbag should not have been able to obtain a gun of any kind. Being on a law enforcement watchlist should be an automatic fail in a background check.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't care.

The California church shooting was an inconvenient hate crime.

Chinese on Taiwanese, motivated by hate. Time to move on and focus solely on the white on black mass shooting.

The details of your "inconvenient hate crime" are being widely reported by mainstream media. The story is being suppressed only in your imagination. Here, for instance, is how one of America's "big three" networks is covering the violence:

From Buffalo to Houston, 8 cities rocked by violent weekend of shootings

 

[Dr.Sid]

Right there is the reason why this scumbag should not have been able to obtain a gun of any kind. Being on a law enforcement watchlist should be an automatic fail in a background check.

That's where gun license + gun registration could help. License which can be revoked, and guns then taken away. Should be at least on the same level as cars.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Buffalo: AR-15
Boulder: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Aurora, CO: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Midland/Odessa: AR-15
Poway synagogue: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15

 

[Thermal]

Most popular rifle in the US: also AR-15.

Coincidence...or something more?

Eta: also, AR manufacturers and their clones wish to express indignation for ommiting Kyle Rittenhouse and the other low-kill shooters. ARs aren't just for mass murder, ya know.