13 dead in California country western dance bar

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT
13 dead in California country western dance bar

Very sorry to hear and read about this tragic event.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/08/mass-shooting-...

 

WWWTT

11 days after a similar event on the other side of the US, there's a totally different media coverage approach. What happened? Why the different approach from two almost identical events? Where's the anger towards Trump? 

I guess it's all about guns again hey?

cco

WWWTT wrote:

11 days after a similar event on the other side of the US, there's a totally different media coverage approach. What happened? Why the different approach from two almost identical events? Where's the anger towards Trump? 

Probably because "Jews" are an identifiable and targeted-by-the-far-right group in a way that "country western dance fans" aren't. Just a hunch.

NDPP

Shooting at California Bar Leaves 13 Dead, Gunman ID'd as Ex-Marine

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/shooting-california-bar-authorities-say-1....

"The gunman who entered a Southern California bar Wednesday night and shot dead 12 people, including a sheriff sergeant before killing himself has been identified as US Marine Corps veteran Ian David Long.

[Sheriff] Dean said Long was acting alone, armed with a Glock 21 - a .45 calibre handgun designed to hold 10 rounds plus one in the chamber. But the sheriff said the gun had an extended magazine that is illegal in California.

Long joined the marines in 2008. He served in the war in Afghanistan for 7 months beginning in late 2010, the Marine Corps said, and was awarded multiple ribbons, commendations and medals. Dean said his department had previous contact with Long, including a call to his home in April, where deputies found him behaving irate and irrationally.

The sheriff said a mental health crisis team were called at that time and concluded that Long did not need to be taken into custody. Other prior encounters were a traffic accident and an incident in which Long was  the victim of battery at a bar..."

 

Unionist

Damn shame the Taliban didn't get him first.

WWWTT

cco wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

11 days after a similar event on the other side of the US, there's a totally different media coverage approach. What happened? Why the different approach from two almost identical events? Where's the anger towards Trump? 

Probably because "Jews" are an identifiable and targeted-by-the-far-right group in a way that "country western dance fans" aren't. Just a hunch.

Sounds like you're trying to side step or redirect what I was actually getting at (no pun attented).

However what did happen in between these two events was a US election. Was this part of the reason of the muted media attention and direction? But I'm thinking yes, the media can't use this mass shooting, so just treat it like every other mass shooting.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

11 days after a similar event on the other side of the US, there's a totally different media coverage approach. What happened? Why the different approach from two almost identical events? Where's the anger towards Trump? 

I guess it's all about guns again hey?

Thousand Oaks is now the site of the 307th mass shooting in the U.S. this year. 

And an even grimmer statistic was marked: The 307th mass shooting took place on the 311th day of the year – an average of a deadly incident almost every day so far this year.

In all, 328 people died in mass shootings incidents, and 1,251 injured, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit organization that provides online public access to information about gun-related violence. The numbers include incidents in which four or more people were shot or killed, not including the shooters, according to the archive.

Clearly there is something deeply wrong with America and its "glorification of war" culture.  This shooter was an Afghan war vet and his victims were college students and bar staff. I wish he had chosen to only commit suicide like so many other US war veterans shattered by their "combat" experiences.

 

 

WWWTT

Unionist wrote:

Damn shame the Taliban didn't get him first.

Ok Brother I've been going over this comment you made and already erased a couple of my responces. I wanted to lash out at you for making it but it's really what I'm thinking that I have to admit really bothers me.

This guy was a war pig. That other guy is a white supremist/nazi. But as much as I hate to admitt it, I suspect they both have mental health issues gone unchecked. And in this sence, are also both victims. The easy access to firearms is just stupidity.

There's more involved with this story that doesn't sit right with me but I'm not going to figure it out today.

NDPP

"Violence is as American as cherry pie." - Jamal Abdullah Al Amin (H. Rap Brown)

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

11 days after a similar event on the other side of the US, there's a totally different media coverage approach. What happened? Why the different approach from two almost identical events? Where's the anger towards Trump? 

I guess it's all about guns again hey?

Care to say WHO, exactly, you're accusing of double standards? Or whose lives you are implying were somehow treated as of lesser value? 

Also, has anybody here ever expressed anything even remotely close to the idea that guns no longer mattered as a cause of such events?

 

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

11 days after a similar event on the other side of the US, there's a totally different media coverage approach. What happened? Why the different approach from two almost identical events? Where's the anger towards Trump? 

I guess it's all about guns again hey?

Care to say WHO, exactly, you're accusing of double standards? Or whose lives you are implying were somehow treated as of lesser value? 

Also, has anybody here ever expressed anything even remotely close to the idea that guns no longer mattered as a cause of such events?

 

Actually Ken Burch it’s customary to express some kind of condolences for your first comment in these threads where innocent people die. But hey not you, different set of rules apply for trolls like you!

And yep I asked why the media is treating this mass shooting differently. 

And ya as far as the guns go, in Unionists thread about the synagogue shooting, several posters did brush away my suggestion that if you get rid of the guns, you would pretty much solve most of the problem because somehow “hate” is the reason for mass shootings. 

This is why I ignore you for the most part. 

Unionist

Haven't been spending much time on babble in recent months. The level of conversation appears to have plummeted. It's a shame.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

11 days after a similar event on the other side of the US, there's a totally different media coverage approach. What happened? Why the different approach from two almost identical events? Where's the anger towards Trump? 

I guess it's all about guns again hey?

Care to say WHO, exactly, you're accusing of double standards? Or whose lives you are implying were somehow treated as of lesser value? 

Also, has anybody here ever expressed anything even remotely close to the idea that guns no longer mattered as a cause of such events?

 

Actually Ken Burch it’s customary to express some kind of condolences for your first comment in these threads where innocent people die. But hey not you, different set of rules apply for trolls like you!

And yep I asked why the media is treating this mass shooting differently. 

And ya as far as the guns go, in Unionists thread about the synagogue shooting, several posters did brush away my suggestion that if you get rid of the guns, you would pretty much solve most of the problem because somehow “hate” is the reason for mass shootings. 

This is why I ignore you for the most part. 

I would have offered condolences, had it not been for the fact that you started out, with no justification whatsoever, implying that people on this board cared less about the deaths of folks in this bar than we did about the deaths in Pittsburgh.  And it's true that guns were the physical cause of the deaths in both situations, but it also goes without saying that the killings in Pittsburgh happened solely because of hate-that the man who killed those people didn't do so just because he had a gun, but because he felt toxic, bigoted hatred towards, in that case Jews.  Alsa, none of those who pointed out that hatred was the motive in Pittsburgh said a single word against the importance of gun control.  Why is it so important to you to deny that what happened in the Pittsburgh killings was a hate crime rather than nothing but random violence?  It isn't "guns" OR "hate".  It's the intersection of both.  Simply restricting access to guns wouldn't have prevented what happened in Pittsburgh-the guy would simply have switched to another form of weaponry, like bombs.  The only way to deal with these things is to address guns AND hate.

Everyone on this board mourns the dead in Thousand Oaks-and it's antisemitic bullshit to imply that the media is treating these deaths as less important because the dead in Thousand Oaks are apparently not Jewish, if that's what you're implying-though we don't know for sure that none of them were.  If there's any less coverage-and I don't know that we can assume that there is, since this only happened Thursday morning-it's simply because it's a little less surprising for people to be shot in a bar than in a house of worship.  

What actual injustice do you find in the way the shootings at the Borderline have been covered so far?  It's been on all day, just as the Pittsburgh massacre was on all day Saturday. 

WWWTT

Ken Burch wrote

I would have offered condolences, had it not been for the fact that you started out, with no justification whatsoever, implying that people on this board cared less about the deaths of folks in this bar than we did about the deaths in Pittsburgh. 

So you want to fabricate stuff so that you can blame me for acting like a dick. Ok got it. 

Have you written anything else here you regret that you want to blame me for while you’re at it?

WWWTT

Here’s a link that for me, shows that the US media is starting to label ALL mas shootings as just that, mass shootings 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/thousand-oaks-bar-attack-11th-mass-shootings-pittsburgh-n934221

special note, the term “hate” is not used in the synagogue mass shooting. Nor is Trump mentioned 

lagatta4

WWWTT, Ken is a longstanding babbler and has contributed a great deal to the board. He is not a troll.

It is horrible for any "random" person to be shot whether they were worshipping (Pittsburgh synagogue, Québec mosque, and several Black churches in the US south, studying or writing exams (Polytechnique, Dawson,many US schools) but some of these were clearly hate crimes. The same weekend as the Pittsburgh shooting the pipe bomb guy was caught, and another hater intent on a massacre at a Black church in Kentucky killed two random Black seniors out shopping...

The combined lack of gun controls and affordable mental health care in the US has given rise to many horrors, but growing hatred targeting specific religious and/or racial groups is utterly terrifying.

WWWTT

Actually lagatta4, as far as I’m concerned, a poster is only as good as their last post. If you expect me to kiss someone’s ass for garbage they write, then you’re dreaming. 

As far as the mass shooting at the synagogue goes, the SUSPECT is still innocent until proven guilty! 

But according to your above comment, you clearly believe that it was a “hate crime”  Are you not aware that everyone before the courts MUST  be treated the exact same way without prejudice?

I prefer that the suspect have a trial where ALL evidence is brought forward, including psychological analysis. 

It may very well be that hate was a motivation. Or it was a complete hate crime. Or that the suspect was suffering from something that makes him not criminally responsible. 

And that last one I suggested, I suspect won’t sit right with some posters!

another side note. The judge presiding over this trial has placed a publication ban. This could be due to the past biased coverage by the media. 

JKR

WWWTT wrote:

Actually lagatta4, as far as I’m concerned, a poster is only as good as their last post. If you expect me to kiss someone’s ass for garbage they write, then you’re dreaming. 

Is this your last post?

Pondering

lagatta4 wrote:

WWWTT, Ken is a longstanding babbler and has contributed a great deal to the board. He is not a troll.

Maybe so but he reads between the lines inferring things that people didn't say then criticizes them for it which is infuriating whether it is accidental or deliberate.

Of course mass killings of women are connected to mysogyny and shootings at synagogues have something to do with being Jewish and mass killings at mosques have something to do with Islam.

Obviously he didn't just wander into a synagogue by accident. He chose his target and he had a specific motivation beyond religion. He specifically objected to this particular synagogue because of their organization that helps migrants. In his mind they are aiding an invasion of minorities intent on turning white people into a minority in the United States. In a sense he isn't wrong in that white people will form a minority, I think I read by 2050. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that synagogue had not been involved in helping migrants. My guess is he would have chosen another target he viewed as masterminding the invasion.

This reminds of the "first they came for" poem.

There was a time you could say that if anti-Semitism didn't exist then no one would have been killed. I don't think that is the case now. I think that if this man had not been anti-semitic or the synagogue locked the target would have changed but the shooting would still have happened.

Of course we want anti-semitism to be wiped out but failing that dealing with the part that is driving the rage that leads to these mass shootings matters. This is not to say anti-semitism should be shoved aside but rather to make common cause. Do not ask for whom the death bell tolls. It tolls for us all whether it happens in a synagogue, church, music festival or school.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Actually lagatta4, as far as I’m concerned, a poster is only as good as their last post. If you expect me to kiss someone’s ass for garbage they write, then you’re dreaming. 

As far as the mass shooting at the synagogue goes, the SUSPECT is still innocent until proven guilty! 

But according to your above comment, you clearly believe that it was a “hate crime”  Are you not aware that everyone before the courts MUST  be treated the exact same way without prejudice?

I prefer that the suspect have a trial where ALL evidence is brought forward, including psychological analysis. 

It may very well be that hate was a motivation. Or it was a complete hate crime. Or that the suspect was suffering from something that makes him not criminally responsible. 

And that last one I suggested, I suspect won’t sit right with some posters!

another side note. The judge presiding over this trial has placed a publication ban. This could be due to the past biased coverage by the media. 

In Pittsburgh, the man was shouting antisemitic slogans as he fired the shots in the synagogue.  Yes, there still needs to be a trial(assuming the guy doesn't just plead guilty), but that clearly settles it as far as his motive.  You seem to be putting a great deal of effort into trying to discredit the idea that what happened in Pittsburgh was a hate crime.  Why is that?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

... dealing with the part that is driving the rage that leads to these mass shootings matters.

What is the part that is driving the rage that leads to these mass shootings?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

... dealing with the part that is driving the rage that leads to these mass shootings matters.

What is the part that is driving the rage that leads to these mass shootings?

In a nutshell the percieved loss of power of working/middle class white men. Some commentator recently said, and got lambasted for it, that white men are the most likely terrorists. In the seventies you could get a floor sweeping job for 16$ an hour. By 2050 white people will be a minority in the US. That is where the "invasion" talk is coming from. Between that and globalization and women's liberation they are enraged. The portrayals of idealic family life on TV doesn't help.

Jewish people having an organization that helps migrants to conspiracy theorists becomes a plot to weaken America or something or other along those lines. Feminists are blamed for denying them happy obedient wives and children. The black church was attacked to start a race war. They are men who know they are being shafted but they are picking the wrong targets and the wrong heroes (Trump). Trump expresses their rage and indignation and tells them they are being taken advantage of and under threat by liberals. They are strengthened by the white nationalist movement.

It's all intertwined. Synagogues went on high alert in case of copycats but there is no way to protect ourselves physically from these types of attacks. You could be doing your groceries in a small town.

There have been over 300 mass shootings in the US so far this year. Yes this mass shooting was anti-semitic but it isn't happening in a vacuum. As targets our descriptions vary but the grand majority of shooters are frustrated white men. The same demographic is responsible  for most road rage incidences too.

 

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Unionist wrote:

Damn shame the Taliban didn't get him first.

The same thing (in this case) went through my head when I heard he was a Afghan vet.

You have to be carful with that; being an "Afghan Vet" dosn't mean you're exposed to the stress of real combat. Plenty of people go over there, even in the Marines, and never fire a shot or never come to be in any real combat situation. He got twisted some how, his military service probubly had something to do with it and there isn't really a way to get treated for it unless he turned himself in for evaluation.

Pondering

WWWTT, this isn't a court of law so we don't need to wait for a trial to personally come to our own conclusions based on the information currently available. We are not sitting on the jury.

Even if someone is declared not guilty by reason of insanity if they are driven by hatred based on religion or gender it is a hate crime.

It used to be a hate crime was still individualized, a person being attacked coming out of a gay bar, or anti-semitic symbols on a door. IT results in a stiffer sentence to discourage crimes motivated by prejudice. It does feel a little strange in the case of mass shootings because it feels like "hate crime" should apply to all mass shootings or none. It's not like you can make the sentence extra strict. Nevertheless it is still a hate crime based on the anti-semitic views of the shooter.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Even if someone is declared not guilty by reason of insanity if they are driven by hatred based on religion or gender it is a hate crime.

You clearly do not understand the concept of Not Criminally Responsible so here is a link. Most people convicted and found NCR have to prove they were in a dissociative state. Being driven by hatred would mean you were still attached to reality.  A person killing for hate would understand they were killing. Most people with mental illnesses are still found criminally responsible for their actions because they understood what they did.

http://lawfacts.ca/mental-health/assessments

WWWTT

Not completely true kropotkin. Here’s a link to a recent trial that should help everyone understand 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/woman-found-not-criminally-responsible-in-fatal-toronto-stabbing-1.4164940

Take special note of the victims family reaction.

WWWTT

Pondering wrote:

WWWTT, this isn't a court of law so we don't need to wait for a trial to personally come to our own conclusions based on the information currently available. We are not sitting on the jury.

Even if someone is declared not guilty by reason of insanity if they are driven by hatred based on religion or gender it is a hate crime.

It used to be a hate crime was still individualized, a person being attacked coming out of a gay bar, or anti-semitic symbols on a door. IT results in a stiffer sentence to discourage crimes motivated by prejudice. It does feel a little strange in the case of mass shootings because it feels like "hate crime" should apply to all mass shootings or none. It's not like you can make the sentence extra strict. Nevertheless it is still a hate crime based on the anti-semitic views of the shooter.

I’m going to use your comment to hilite why I don’t like the term “hate crime” 

But before I do, kropotkin is right, you don’t understand what NCR means. 

In my opinion, hate is caused by many different social problems in societies. Hate is just another symptom of various different causes. 

Making hate a crime, does nothing to address the causes that push people into hate, and acting upon that hate. 

The other thing about the term “hate” that doesn’t sit right with me is that it is being used in a very unscientific manner. 

I’m adding a link below about a similar problem China was faced with. But a more scientific approach was used. An again in my opinion, I feel a more scientific analysis should be used as opposed to a gut reaction “it’s all about hate” approach. 

WWWTT
WWWTT

JKR wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

Actually lagatta4, as far as I’m concerned, a poster is only as good as their last post. If you expect me to kiss someone’s ass for garbage they write, then you’re dreaming. 

Is this your last post?

Thanks for proving my point troll!

Heres some more advice, stick to posting on MLW!

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Ken Burch wrote

I would have offered condolences, had it not been for the fact that you started out, with no justification whatsoever, implying that people on this board cared less about the deaths of folks in this bar than we did about the deaths in Pittsburgh. 

So you want to fabricate stuff so that you can blame me for acting like a dick. Ok got it. 

Have you written anything else here you regret that you want to blame me for while you’re at it?

Wow you have some nerve after misrepresenting the other thread.

Nobody said gun control was not critically important. You were the one suggesting taht hate was not critical.

People there were trying to convince you that hate was the cause and guns the means and yes, control the means you reduce the problem but also control the cause and you eliminate it.

Few of the poeple arguing with you are against gun control - if any. But we were arguing that hate is a significant factor and guns enable hate.

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

JKR wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

Actually lagatta4, as far as I’m concerned, a poster is only as good as their last post. If you expect me to kiss someone’s ass for garbage they write, then you’re dreaming. 

Is this your last post?

Thanks for proving my point troll!

Heres some more advice, stick to posting on MLW!

I see you call several people trolls here. Stop it please. It can only end with more fighting here and calling someone a troll at the rate you do is in fact trolling.

The person you are calling a troll here has contributed to this community a decade longer than you. Or if you look at it this way 4 times the length of time you have been here. That is a lot of posts and time. You should apologize.

WWWTT

Sean in Ottawa wro 

Nobody said gun control was not critically important. You were the one suggesting taht hate was not critical.

People there were trying to convince you that hate was the cause and guns the means and yes, control the means you reduce the problem but also control the cause and you eliminate it.

Few of the poeple arguing with you are against gun control - if any. But we were arguing that hate is a significant factor and guns enable hate.

completely disagree with you!

Hate is a symptom of many causes  

If it’s not one group, then it’s another. Who the group is really doesn’t matter, not to me anyways  

The only way to cure the problem of this violence is to centre the main focus on the causes and not the results of the causes  

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Not completely true kropotkin. Here’s a link to a recent trial that should help everyone understand 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/woman-found-not-criminally-responsible-in-fatal-toronto-stabbing-1.4164940

Take special note of the victims family reaction.

Here is what your link said about the woman's mental state and the reason she was ruled NCR.

A forensic psychiatrist who was the only witness to testify at the one-day trial last week concluded Bisesar was in the throes of a psychiatric breakdown due to untreated schizophrenia at the time of the attack.

I am not sure what in my post is not necesarily true.

WWWTT

Wasn’t a big thing if anything really. Just the part of having to prove. It’s an independent capacity assessor that provides the testimonial evidence. And from my understanding any of the three parties can request such assessment. The judge crown or defence. And at any time. 

Or something like this. But I’m probably splitting hairs here?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

They are men who know they are being shafted but they are picking the wrong targets and the wrong heroes (Trump).

 

How are white men being shafted?

JKR

WWWTT wrote:

JKR wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

Actually lagatta4, as far as I’m concerned, a poster is only as good as their last post. If you expect me to kiss someone’s ass for garbage they write, then you’re dreaming. 

Is this your last post?

Thanks for proving my point troll!

Heres some more advice, stick to posting on MLW!

Major League Wrestling?!?!?

Now that's one hell of a circus freak show!!!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(Self-delete.  Didn't read post I was responding to correctly.)

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

OK, let's just stipulate that

1) Everybody here is equally committed to gun control.

2) If hate crimes laws don't completely address the problem-and no one here was claiming they did-then let's work out what else needs to be done.

3) It has never been a question of referencing hate OR referencing guns as a cause of massacres like Pittsburgh or the black church in Charleston.  Everybody here recognizes that guns are a crucial component.   

It's not as though the ONLY way to deal with the gun part of it is to pretend the hate part of it is somehow irrelevant.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

OK, let's just stipulate that

1) Everybody here is equally committed to gun control.

2) If hate crimes laws don't completely address the problem-and no one here was claiming they did-then let's work out what else needs to be done.

3) It has never been a question of referencing hate OR referencing guns as a cause of massacres like Pittsburgh or the black church in Charleston.  Everybody here recognizes that guns are a crucial component.   

It's not as though the ONLY way to deal with the gun part of it is to pretend the hate part of it is somehow irrelevant.

 

Yep

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wro 

Nobody said gun control was not critically important. You were the one suggesting taht hate was not critical.

People there were trying to convince you that hate was the cause and guns the means and yes, control the means you reduce the problem but also control the cause and you eliminate it.

Few of the poeple arguing with you are against gun control - if any. But we were arguing that hate is a significant factor and guns enable hate.

completely disagree with you!

Hate is a symptom of many causes  

If it’s not one group, then it’s another. Who the group is really doesn’t matter, not to me anyways  

The only way to cure the problem of this violence is to centre the main focus on the causes and not the results of the causes  

 

Your last post is incoherent.

And don'tbe simplistic: a symptom can be a cause and and a cause a symptom and I think you have the principle causation backwards.

Guns were invented and perfected and are sold to feed hate.

And - you treat both the symptom and the disease so it is not even that important to sort this out.

Pondering

WWWTT wrote:

Making hate a crime, does nothing to address the causes that push people into hate, and acting upon that hate. 

The other thing about the term “hate” that doesn’t sit right with me is that it is being used in a very unscientific manner.

Hate is not a crime. Hate is not being made a crime. Everyone is free to hate as much as they want or feel. Hate is being used as an adjective not a noun unless you consider the term one word. You don't say murder crime, you just say murder. When you say "mass murder" you are adding a discriptor.

Same goes for hate coupled with crime. It doesn't just mean the criminal hated the person they attacked. In fact they didn't hate the person they attacked. Usually they don't even know the person they attacked. The person is attacked for being part of an identifiable group often in a means that cannot be changed such as skin colour or gender.

A hate crime doesn't have to include murder. It can be a beating or vandalism to a house. Like being pregnant, random prejudice is an aggravating factor because it poses an extra threat to individuals. It's one thing to be attacked because of something you did, it's different to be attacked just for being yourself.

Mass murder is similar in that the victims did nothing to precipitate the attack. In that sense it is similar to a hate crime.  It's different in the sense that the victims are not targeted based on an identifiable feature.

Lets take a different example. Two men are arguing politics. Later when one if them is leaving the other jumps him outside the bar. That's a crime but the cause was somewhat avoidable. Don't have heated political arguments with strangers when drunk. It doesn't cause anyone unrelated to the event to feel fear for themselves.

A man is drinking at a gay bar. After leaving a guy outside follows him and beats the shit out of him because he is gay. All gay people have reason to fear. They are all his potential target regardless of whether or not they go to bars or argue with anyone. The act of being makes them a target.

We do treat that differently. The broad motive makes the individual a greater threat to society at large. Belonging to a gang would also be an aggravating factor.

Using the descriptor "hate crime" tells us that the people attacked were attacked for something they can't change or shouldn't have to change about themselves.

The shooting at the music festival was a crime of hate but it wasn't a hate crime. We are still looking for the particular motive. The term "hate crime" is like the term "crime of passion". It adds information.

If you define the word passion separately from crime then one has nothing to to with the other. Passion unlike hate is usually a good thing. When you couple it with crime the phrase has a different connotation. Likewise the word hate creates a different connotation when coupled with crime. 

Paladin1

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Damn shame the Taliban didn't get him first.

The same thing (in this case) went through my head when I heard he was a Afghan vet.

You have to be carful with that; being an "Afghan Vet" dosn't mean you're exposed to the stress of real combat. Plenty of people go over there, even in the Marines, and never fire a shot or never come to be in any real combat situation. He got twisted some how, his military service probubly had something to do with it and there isn't really a way to get treated for it unless he turned himself in for evaluation.

 

I'm currently on my 6th deployment overseas and doing fine.  No issues here eh.

 

Your comments reminded me of a curious study I've read in the past. A large number of members returning from overseas who are diogonsed with PTSD actually aren't the combat soldiers like one might expect but support members as you mentioned who never fire a shot.  There's some guesses as to why. More stricter training for combat soldiers, more bonds found among peers, subordinates and leadership in combat arms and one big theory was that support members aren't in a position to respond when they're attacked (say rocketed or mortared) and it leaves them with a feeling of helplessness. 

 

In the little bit I've read about this case the shooter was known to police, had dealings with them yet was legally allowed to possess a firearm. 

I don't think the right approach is to try and ban guns in the US. Can't see that very successful. They need to  change their culture to include their obsession with firearms, obsession with violence and obsession with social media. 

Paladin1

WWWTT wrote:
 

The only way to cure the problem of this violence is to centre the main focus on the causes and not the results of the causes  

 

 

I think there is a lot of wisdom in this statement.