13 dead in California country western dance bar

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.

Damn shame the Taliban didn't get him first.

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.

 

 

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

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. 

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.

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?

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 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 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 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.

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?

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

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

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.