My initial thought when the description of the subway shooter was released as a short, highly paranoid/disturbed black man was “I thought Bushwick Bill of the Geto Boys died last year!”
Well noted - it’s a reliable indicator now. Seems a bit harsh to term it a ‘dead give-away’ but accurate nonetheless. It’s a reflection of the weird racial condescension that seems to permeate the upper echelon of the Dems. Not too surprising coming from the same people who proclaimed Ketanji Jackson for being the first as if simply being qualified wasn’t enough - we had to stand in awe of the tardy dutifulness ...
"The New York Times reported that a Capitol Hill police officer who died after the January 6 riot had his head bashed in by a fire extinguisher; he actually died of natural causes."
A minor point in the grand scheme of things, but I'm still amazed that people think the 43 year old cop who died of a stroke less than 24 hours after a traumatic event died of "natural causes." I understand that there will and could not be any prosecution here because of the ME report and the lack of physical findings, but come on now. He had a massive stroke a day after an incredibly physically and mentally stressful event in which he got bear sprayed.
I'm trying to think of another circumstance where conservatives would agree a cop dying of a stroke 24 hours after a riot would be unconnected...
I basically agree with your logic, but I'm using the language used by the medical examiner. I felt that to characterize it any other way would be me substituting my (emphatically non-expert) opinion for his.
It also remains completely untrue that he died of blunt force trauma from a fire extinguisher, which was what was initially reported and has been repeated many times.
Black shooter - the left ignores it or blames mental health issues. The right edges closely towards black people attacking white people (even though he didn't)
White shooter - the left celebrates the massive story to confirm that yes, Virginia, white people are that evil and your biggest threat currently, also guns. Conservatives say mental health issues.
There isn't really any good excuse for ignoring the Waukesha massacre and indulging in the Rittenhouse story for months upon years.
"Both sides" might be equally exploitative but only one side has the keys to the entire kingdom and that side with the most power to drive the narrative. They need more people like you keeping them in check.
I understand and agree with your point that attempting to apply convenient press-on labels to tragic events is a futile and ultimately pointless exercise. Ultimately they all involve a seriously damaged individual motivated by who knows or cares what acting in a horrible, abhorrent fashion resulting in injury, death, destruction and terrorizing innocent victims. And, that is really the significant point not the press-on motivational labels being applied by people trying to support their own particular views.
Having said that, I am left however, with the overwhelming thought that there must be some lesson in such incidents about how to lessen the risks to society of such incidents continuing to happen. Therefore, I can not let this moment pass with pointing out that the risks of such incidents continuing to happen are much higher in the U.S. than almost anywhere else in the world. Why is this the case? Oh yes, Americans’ love of guns combined with unjustifably easy access to them without any reasonable controls, particularly for those who are most prone to misuse them.
We could spend a lot of time on the facts related to this issue but it is frankly all well documented and old news. Therefore today I will simply state here as a fact that the U.S. has too many, too dangerous guns in the hands of way too many dangerous and damaged people, with seemingly no intention to enact reasonable controls or precautions to address that issue in a reasonable manner. And that is a very real and serious defect in our national psyche and morality.
OK, here is a good place to start on that - banning anyone with a history of domestic violence from either owning or acquiring a gun. Why? Well after a careful examination of the data, 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV. We found significant differences in the average number of injuries and fatalities between DV and history of DV shootings and a higher average case fatality rate associated with DV-related mass shootings (83.7%) than non-DV-related (63.1%) or history of DV mass shootings (53.8%). Fifty-five perpetrators died during the shootings; 39 (70.9%) died by firearm suicide, 15 (27.3%) were killed by police, and 1 (1.8%) died from an intentional overdose.
Most mass shootings are related to DV. DV-related shootings had higher Case Fatality Rates than those unrelated to DV. Given these findings, restricting access to guns by perpetrators of DV may affect the occurrence of mass shootings and associated casualties.
We have to start somewhere. It seems we should be able to agree on that.
Well, what's a "history of DV"? If you're convicted of violence, it's likely you are already prohibited from owning a gun. Does "history" mean conviction or merely allegation?
If those with a DV complaint or conviction were prevented from owning a gun, we would not have so many mass shootings. The data is clear. There are many, most places in fact where that is not the case, and even where such laws are in force, they are rarely enforced without a strong local commitment to enforcement. Red flag laws are still lacking in most places. This is not only about an inability to pass a background check to acquire a weapon, too rarely an effective measure without universal background checks but removing guns from those who have them and domestic violence complaints filed against them.
In any case, the link between DV and mass shootings is clear, and yet, we do little to nothing to address it. Frankly, it is a significant moral failing of our American culture. Until and unless we step up to address that moral failure I see little hope of making any real progress on this. The idea that the only acceptable answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is just stupid and proven repeatedly wrong and ineffective. It has never worked anywhere at any time as an effective answer to the problem.
My 76 year old father recently spent hours with a needle the size of a prison shank replacing the zipper on his ancient Carhartt vest, AFTER my sister told him she had already bought him a new one for his upcoming birthday….the mentality is real.
Reminds me of a quote I loved from Kiefer Sutherland about a time when his father, unable to repair a pair of torn pants, "painted his ass black with boot polish."
Ultimate mind trip-as a side hustle from his main gig as a pastor in Indianapolis in the early 60s, Jim Jones sold spider monkeys as pets door to door!!!!
I think progressive new yorkers think of crime as some sort of hairshirt they have to wear in order to atone for their "privilege" or whatever real / imagined sins that were committed by their ancestors.
I agree with you when it comes to the motivations of the shooters. The immediate discourse about whether or not something is a hate crime, whether or not it's terrorism, etc, seldom leads somewhere useful.
I think your case is much weaker regarding guns. If you're trying to make a specific point about "universal background checks would have stopped this", you have some work to do. However, the argument "firearms being more widely available than in other countries makes events like this more likely" seems pretty damn solid.
I'm not saying that universal background checks would have stopped this (in fact, I don't have the enthusiasm for the background check/magazine clip size legislation that most liberals do -- I support them as common sense measures but I recognize that their impact will be small). "More guns = more shootings" is much closer to my position; I'll devote a full column (or four) to this some day.
My point is that while I think you're argument against using mass shootings for specific, narrow gun control legislation is reasonable, but if your priors are "this happens because of wide access to firearms", then I'd be comfortable saying that they're pretty confirmed.
My stance is --
A: I support Japan-style gun laws.
B: I support Democrats winning elections.
C: This means that I shouldn't demand that Democratic policy makers support banning guns, because then they would lose elections.
In this article, I'm really just arguing against the habit of reacting to a tragedy as if it proves one viewpoint or another. Wasn't trying to really get into gun laws. And your point is taken; one reason I haven't devoted a whole column to guns yet is that my views are so far outside the mainstream (I'd like us to basically become Australia) that they're not especially relevant to our current debate and I don't expect Democrats to share them.
If there was a subway shooting, 10 people shot in the legs, there would have been video and pictures of them being carried up the subway steps by EMTs. But there was nothing. Its all propaganda. Just like the Trump fake shooting. And the hero who died protecting his wife and daughter. But when they show the hero getting CPR, his wife and daughter are not around.
What's the compelling evidence that the Asian spa shootings weren't racially motivated? I'm not seeing anything to that effect in the linked NBC article.
The shooter's own statements, the fact that 1/4 of his victims weren't Asian, the characterizations of eye witnesses, and the total absence of evidence suggesting that he was racially motivated.
The guy stated that he had sex addition issues and that conflicted with his religious views and he had been a customer at the massage places where he shot the women. The implication being that the race of most of victims might have been a function of who was working there rather than a motivator. The wikipedia article has a summary that's consistent with my memory of it at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Atlanta_spa_shootings
Without knowing the race of the shooter I figured it out because it wasn’t mentioned in any headlines.
My initial thought when the description of the subway shooter was released as a short, highly paranoid/disturbed black man was “I thought Bushwick Bill of the Geto Boys died last year!”
Well noted - it’s a reliable indicator now. Seems a bit harsh to term it a ‘dead give-away’ but accurate nonetheless. It’s a reflection of the weird racial condescension that seems to permeate the upper echelon of the Dems. Not too surprising coming from the same people who proclaimed Ketanji Jackson for being the first as if simply being qualified wasn’t enough - we had to stand in awe of the tardy dutifulness ...
"The New York Times reported that a Capitol Hill police officer who died after the January 6 riot had his head bashed in by a fire extinguisher; he actually died of natural causes."
A minor point in the grand scheme of things, but I'm still amazed that people think the 43 year old cop who died of a stroke less than 24 hours after a traumatic event died of "natural causes." I understand that there will and could not be any prosecution here because of the ME report and the lack of physical findings, but come on now. He had a massive stroke a day after an incredibly physically and mentally stressful event in which he got bear sprayed.
I'm trying to think of another circumstance where conservatives would agree a cop dying of a stroke 24 hours after a riot would be unconnected...
I basically agree with your logic, but I'm using the language used by the medical examiner. I felt that to characterize it any other way would be me substituting my (emphatically non-expert) opinion for his.
It also remains completely untrue that he died of blunt force trauma from a fire extinguisher, which was what was initially reported and has been repeated many times.
Black shooter - the left ignores it or blames mental health issues. The right edges closely towards black people attacking white people (even though he didn't)
White shooter - the left celebrates the massive story to confirm that yes, Virginia, white people are that evil and your biggest threat currently, also guns. Conservatives say mental health issues.
There isn't really any good excuse for ignoring the Waukesha massacre and indulging in the Rittenhouse story for months upon years.
"Both sides" might be equally exploitative but only one side has the keys to the entire kingdom and that side with the most power to drive the narrative. They need more people like you keeping them in check.
The subway shooter, in his rantings, actually said “The mental health system in NYC is f****d”. (and I’m walking proof, by implication)
I understand and agree with your point that attempting to apply convenient press-on labels to tragic events is a futile and ultimately pointless exercise. Ultimately they all involve a seriously damaged individual motivated by who knows or cares what acting in a horrible, abhorrent fashion resulting in injury, death, destruction and terrorizing innocent victims. And, that is really the significant point not the press-on motivational labels being applied by people trying to support their own particular views.
Having said that, I am left however, with the overwhelming thought that there must be some lesson in such incidents about how to lessen the risks to society of such incidents continuing to happen. Therefore, I can not let this moment pass with pointing out that the risks of such incidents continuing to happen are much higher in the U.S. than almost anywhere else in the world. Why is this the case? Oh yes, Americans’ love of guns combined with unjustifably easy access to them without any reasonable controls, particularly for those who are most prone to misuse them.
We could spend a lot of time on the facts related to this issue but it is frankly all well documented and old news. Therefore today I will simply state here as a fact that the U.S. has too many, too dangerous guns in the hands of way too many dangerous and damaged people, with seemingly no intention to enact reasonable controls or precautions to address that issue in a reasonable manner. And that is a very real and serious defect in our national psyche and morality.
Everyone is in favor of reasonable controls. We just can't agree on what's reasonable.
OK, here is a good place to start on that - banning anyone with a history of domestic violence from either owning or acquiring a gun. Why? Well after a careful examination of the data, 59.1% of mass shootings between 2014 and 2019 were DV-related and in 68.2% of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed at least one partner or family member or had a history of DV. We found significant differences in the average number of injuries and fatalities between DV and history of DV shootings and a higher average case fatality rate associated with DV-related mass shootings (83.7%) than non-DV-related (63.1%) or history of DV mass shootings (53.8%). Fifty-five perpetrators died during the shootings; 39 (70.9%) died by firearm suicide, 15 (27.3%) were killed by police, and 1 (1.8%) died from an intentional overdose.
Here is the study and data:
https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-021-00330-0
Most mass shootings are related to DV. DV-related shootings had higher Case Fatality Rates than those unrelated to DV. Given these findings, restricting access to guns by perpetrators of DV may affect the occurrence of mass shootings and associated casualties.
We have to start somewhere. It seems we should be able to agree on that.
Well, what's a "history of DV"? If you're convicted of violence, it's likely you are already prohibited from owning a gun. Does "history" mean conviction or merely allegation?
If those with a DV complaint or conviction were prevented from owning a gun, we would not have so many mass shootings. The data is clear. There are many, most places in fact where that is not the case, and even where such laws are in force, they are rarely enforced without a strong local commitment to enforcement. Red flag laws are still lacking in most places. This is not only about an inability to pass a background check to acquire a weapon, too rarely an effective measure without universal background checks but removing guns from those who have them and domestic violence complaints filed against them.
In any case, the link between DV and mass shootings is clear, and yet, we do little to nothing to address it. Frankly, it is a significant moral failing of our American culture. Until and unless we step up to address that moral failure I see little hope of making any real progress on this. The idea that the only acceptable answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is just stupid and proven repeatedly wrong and ineffective. It has never worked anywhere at any time as an effective answer to the problem.
So, what you're saying is that this tragedy confirms your priors?
Hallelujah I couldn’t agree more. Your logic is spot on. Can you print this up by the thousands in pamphlet form and pass out on the street?
Or he could post it on the internet ...
Oh, come on. We all know the shooting in question was caused by......(wait for it)....White Supremacy.
Get with the program, man.
Mom always knew it was time to toss dad's pants out when she could see the pattern on his boxers.
Yeah but I'll bet he fought her on it.
My 76 year old father recently spent hours with a needle the size of a prison shank replacing the zipper on his ancient Carhartt vest, AFTER my sister told him she had already bought him a new one for his upcoming birthday….the mentality is real.
Reminds me of a quote I loved from Kiefer Sutherland about a time when his father, unable to repair a pair of torn pants, "painted his ass black with boot polish."
".. hack reporters treat narratives the way old men treat pants..." I may sign up for your newsletter based on that one line hahahaha.
Ultimate mind trip-as a side hustle from his main gig as a pastor in Indianapolis in the early 60s, Jim Jones sold spider monkeys as pets door to door!!!!
I think progressive new yorkers think of crime as some sort of hairshirt they have to wear in order to atone for their "privilege" or whatever real / imagined sins that were committed by their ancestors.
I agree with you when it comes to the motivations of the shooters. The immediate discourse about whether or not something is a hate crime, whether or not it's terrorism, etc, seldom leads somewhere useful.
I think your case is much weaker regarding guns. If you're trying to make a specific point about "universal background checks would have stopped this", you have some work to do. However, the argument "firearms being more widely available than in other countries makes events like this more likely" seems pretty damn solid.
I'm not saying that universal background checks would have stopped this (in fact, I don't have the enthusiasm for the background check/magazine clip size legislation that most liberals do -- I support them as common sense measures but I recognize that their impact will be small). "More guns = more shootings" is much closer to my position; I'll devote a full column (or four) to this some day.
My point is that while I think you're argument against using mass shootings for specific, narrow gun control legislation is reasonable, but if your priors are "this happens because of wide access to firearms", then I'd be comfortable saying that they're pretty confirmed.
My stance is --
A: I support Japan-style gun laws.
B: I support Democrats winning elections.
C: This means that I shouldn't demand that Democratic policy makers support banning guns, because then they would lose elections.
In this article, I'm really just arguing against the habit of reacting to a tragedy as if it proves one viewpoint or another. Wasn't trying to really get into gun laws. And your point is taken; one reason I haven't devoted a whole column to guns yet is that my views are so far outside the mainstream (I'd like us to basically become Australia) that they're not especially relevant to our current debate and I don't expect Democrats to share them.
Basically this: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/001/135/731/a86.png
"Cram" lol
If there was a subway shooting, 10 people shot in the legs, there would have been video and pictures of them being carried up the subway steps by EMTs. But there was nothing. Its all propaganda. Just like the Trump fake shooting. And the hero who died protecting his wife and daughter. But when they show the hero getting CPR, his wife and daughter are not around.
Get some help Gene
What's the compelling evidence that the Asian spa shootings weren't racially motivated? I'm not seeing anything to that effect in the linked NBC article.
The shooter's own statements, the fact that 1/4 of his victims weren't Asian, the characterizations of eye witnesses, and the total absence of evidence suggesting that he was racially motivated.
The guy stated that he had sex addition issues and that conflicted with his religious views and he had been a customer at the massage places where he shot the women. The implication being that the race of most of victims might have been a function of who was working there rather than a motivator. The wikipedia article has a summary that's consistent with my memory of it at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Atlanta_spa_shootings