Categories
Uncategorized

Incels hail “our savior St. Nikolas Cruz” for Valentine’s Day school shooting [UPDATED]

Photos from the alleged shooter’s now-deleted Instagram page

By David Futrelle

The Internet’s incels long ago adopted Isla Vista killer Elliot Rodger, the maladjusted twentysomething who murdered six in cold blood as a kind of revenge for his “involuntary celibacy,” as a patron saint of sorts.

Now they are doing the same with Nikolas Cruz, the Florida teen who allegedly murdered 17 students and teachers at a high school in Parkland, Florida today. On Incels.Me — the web forum that Reddit’s incel population migrated to after the admins at Reddit shut their forum there down — one enthusiastic commenter got the discussion started by posting a thread titled “A hERo rises on this day of incel exclusion (Florida Valentines Day School Shooting).”  (All links in this post go to archived pages.)

The capitalized “ER” in “hERo” is of course a reference to Elliot Rodger.

In the thread, assorted incels cheered as the details of the shooting came out over the course of the day, declaring their “immense respect” for their new “HERO.” And some wondered — with more than a little justification — if the shooter wasn’t one of their fellow commenters on Incels.Me.

“Respect to him if he kills over 60 normies,” a commenter called Towncel declared. “Hopefully he isn’t just using 2 pistols and actually has an assault rifle,” he added in a followup comment.

Vman, a prolific commenter with over 2500 posts on the site was already set to declare Cruz his new idol.

holy shit its on valentines day! what a fucking hero! we have a new model! PLZ BE UGLY PLZ BE UGLY. WE NEED INCEL AWARNESS

Spicycurry was a little more reserved. “Watch the news blame incels rather than the femoids who mock us and oppress us,” he groused.

lonelyistheworld  has a rather different fear. “The media will probably try to cover up the fact that he’s an Incel,” he complained. “The elites know that there’s a huge problem with lonely men in the west.”

Naturally, many of the commenters hoped that most of the victims would be “femoids.”

“Hope his roastie kill count is high,” Reddit_is_for_cucks  opined

Roastie contribute nothing to the society anyway, sll they do is shopping and suck chads dick and get free stuff from cucks

Incel_Dikshit concurred, expressing his hope that the shooter had “snagged some degenerate roasties and depsrate beta orbiters with him.”

“Roastie” is a favorite incel slur for (cis) women, whose labia are thought (by incels) to resemble roast beef.

Many of the commenters took great pleasure in the fact that this murder spree took place on Valentine’s Day. “LIFEFUEL,” declared one. “The best Valentines Day in history buddy boyos.”

When several commenters expressed their uneasiness at this open celebration of mass murder, they were denounced as “Jooz.” Indeed, one prolific commenter called knajjd went so far as to justify the murder of young girls because, in his view

female children can, at best, be considered a timebomb. even if you believe that children are totes innocent creatures, etc. etc. that argument makes no sense since they’ll inevitably develop into roasties.

Comments like these continue for page after page; all of those quoted so far come from the first three pages of what is currently a ten page thread.

It didn’t take long for some of the commenters to wonder if the shooter hadn’t frequented Incels.Me. Several mentioned a recent Incels.Me thread in which a lurker posted an elaborately detailed threat to shoot up his former high school and other schools in the area (including an elementary school north of his high school) on February 12 before escaping by blending in with the those fleeing from the scene.

More than a few of the details match up with what happened today. The alleged shooter today targeted his former high school. There is a middle school northwest of the high school, though it is more west than north. Some reports suggest the shooter escaped the school by blending in with fleeing students. The date of the threatened rampage was only two days different from the actual assault. The gun he reportedly used is similar to, though not the same model as, the one mentioned in the post.

You can see the screenshotted post here.

It’s certainly possible that the threat posted to Incels.Me was nothing more than a fantasy, and that the similarities between it and the events that unfolded today mere coincidence.

EDITED TO ADD: But even if Cruz wasn’t the anonymous commenter on Incels.Me, he may well have thought of himself as an iucel. The Daily Beast reports that someone calling himself Nikolas Cruz left a comment on a YouTube video a year ago declaring that ““Elliot rodger will not be forgotten.” (Meanwhile, a self-described paramilitary white supremacist group in Florida is telling The Beast that Cruz had trained with them.)

Was Cruz an incel, a white supremacist — or both, or neither? The clues to his motivation are certainly unsettling. As is the existence of a forum overloaded with so many bitter, furious young men who look upon mass murder as a kind of righteous retribution for the refusal of “roasties” to offer them sex.

NOTE TO REGULAR READERS: I was planning on returning to regular posts here shortly. I’m sorry it had to be with a story on this horrendous incident.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

200 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kupo
kupo
2 years ago

I don’t see what his looks have to do with anything. Let’s not go there.

Hexum7
Hexum7
2 years ago
Reply to  kupo

It was in reference to the quote from Vman, in which he pleaded PLZ BE UGLY 3x, no less.

I was not suggesting that his looks had anything to do with it. My comment was meant to be sardonic

Sorry if it came off that way

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

Yeah, I know what you were referencing, but you’re lending it validity.

frank travellin
frank travellin
2 years ago

Lending it validity by mocking it? I really don’t see it that way. Aren’t you being a bit nitpicky.. Especially as I already apologized for it coming off the wrong way. Would you like me to flog myself?

Hexum7
Hexum7
2 years ago

Lending validity by mocking the notion?
I already apologized for it coming off the wrong way. Would you like me to flog myself?

Mels
Mels
2 years ago

@Hexum7, I think kupo was just elaborating their position. Please let’s not.

frank travellin
frank travellin
2 years ago
Reply to  Mels

I’m good with that

jaygee
jaygee
2 years ago

Yay! Also echoing the cheer that David is back but sorry it has to be over such tragic news.
I do hope that the newest horrific incident moves people out of complacency and into action and legislation change. I keep hoping that seeing the radical right and consequences of continuing to compromise with them will encourage a majority of people to push things in a more progressive direction.
I’m sorry you’re dealing with depression. That sucks. I may have mentioned before that I had a partner who was in the same depression boat. It’s always so tricky to find the right medication for an individual. I wish you continued progress. I mean, getting back to square one from being on medication that was not working is still an improvement.

Englishboy
Englishboy
2 years ago

Agree with kupo

lots of unattractive men who cant date end up being decent people who dont go on shooting sprees

Bananananana dakry: Short-Haired, Fat, and Deranged
Bananananana dakry: Short-Haired, Fat, and Deranged
2 years ago

Really glad you’re back, David. Got back from a trip where I got nailed with the cold, so I wasn’t able to comment before now.

Good that you’re finally getting some help with proper medication, and bad you had to spend so long fighting off the Monster before getting it. I think non-depressive people really have no idea how much mental and emotional energy can be expended fighting the thing. I’m just glad it didn’t get the best of you, because like quite a few others I was starting to worry myself about your status. We kind of need you as our guide through these little cesspools of thought.

As for the rest… well, I can’t even. I’m out of evens. *sigh*

Joaquin
Joaquin
2 years ago

Gun control did nothing to stop McVeight

Or TK, or the Charlie Hebdo massacre, or the Nice attack, or the London Bridge attack, etc.

Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

The thing is, we don’t know about the ones gun control did stop. Because they didn’t happen.

What we do know is that there are fewer mass-casualty events like these in countries with stronger gun control, and the numbers of casualties at each event tend to be much lower.

EJ (The Other One)
2 years ago

Or TK, or the Charlie Hebdo massacre, or the Nice attack, or the London Bridge attack, etc.

On the other hand, gun control in France and the United Kingdom does mean that those were unusual exceptions rather than happening literally every day.

Shadowplay
2 years ago

@Joaquin

Those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither.

And those who trade other people’s safety for their desires are fools.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

If a law doesn’t stop 100% of all crime, we might as well just not have any laws at all, right?

I Joaquin also doesn’t believe we should have any border security or immigration or visa requirements. Because it would sure be hypocritical to only be concerned about liberty when it comes to the right to stockpile AR-15s.

Per Wikipedia, the gun homicide per 100,000 people is 3.5 in the US. It’s .06 in the UK and .21 in France. So, despite the fact that there were a small number of mass shootings in those countries, gun control clearly keeps the rates of gun homicide down.

Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay and Venezuela are the countries with higher gun homicide rates than the US. Not sure what the gun control policies are in any of those countries, but they’re all countries with high rates of poverty and many are countries with rampant drug crime. No countries that are comparably wealthy and powerful to the US are on the list. And it should be noted that Mexican drug lords get a lot of their guns from the US. Arguably more gun control in the US would lower gun crime in Mexico and perhaps other Latin American countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The US is also by far the leader in mass shootings. From 1966 to 2012, we had 90 in the US. Philippines comes in a distant second with 18.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Seriously, dude. Five minutes on Google disproves the notion that mass shootings happen everywhere, even in countries with strict gun control. I’m honestly not sure why people even bother with that talking point. Do they actually believe it? Or is it a repeat a lie often enough and people believe it kind of thing?

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Oh, and here’s the context of that Benjamin Franklin quote.

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

WITTES: The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

SIEGEL: And what was the context of this remark?

WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly’s acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it’s almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

If anything, the context of that quote could be used against the NRA and their love of using their wealth and power to bully legislators out of even properly discussing gun control reform let alone actually passing it. He was not saying that people should do whatever they want because liberty.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

the context of that quote could be used against the NRA

There’s a similar thing with “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6”

Obviously that’s now a popular second amendment argument. But a couple of guys in the self defence community (Marc MacYoung and Massad Ayoob) tried to track down the origin of the phrase. It’s one of those sayings that gets attributed to lots of different people.

In the end it proved impossible. One thing that did crop up was it seems to date back quite a way. There’s variations of the saying from Western times. And one serious suggestion is that it originally arose as an argument against resolving disputes through gunslinging as opposed to through the courts.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

Of all the articles to make this comment on, it’s the article in which a mass murderer used a gun to butcher children, and was able to do so because of the ease in which he was able to get those weapons. You don’t do your argument any favours, gun-fondler.

The rejection of violence as an alternative in all but the most extreme disputes is the hallmark of civilization.

EJ (The Other One)
2 years ago

WWTH, that was a thing of beauty.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

If troll fights are still interesting I’ve got an interesting specimen at Dispatches to the Culture Wars. But NOTE: I’m putting pressure on someone who is trying to get people to stop talking about what accusers of sexual abuse are saying, and talking about associated abusive behavior band the person accused. The misogynistic murmerations give very offensive orders but it’s becoming fun to put pressure on them. I’ll gladly take criticisms and suggestions due to my social perception complications due to tourettes syndrome, social privilege, and unfound bad habits.

@WWTH
Another random order giver comes from the cultural milieu to WHTM, and goes thud. Utterly empty of all but feeling and generalization. WWTH that was fascinating and fun to to watch. A very fascinating and useful article. That could bounce many interesting trolls. Thank you.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Brony,

Wow. There’s a whole raft* of sea lions up in that comment section. I think you’re doing a good job with them. You’re being a lot more patient with them than I would ever be, but sometimes that style really gets under their skin. It’ll be interesting to see if you induce a meltdown.

* Yes, I had to look up what a group of sea lions is called.

Brony, Social Justice Cenobite

@WWTH
Raft! Thank you! I’ll start using that instead of murmerations. It’s better with existing politics.

It would be easier for me, it’s not personal so I appreciate the perspective.

It feels like hunting when I enjoy it, racing heartbeat band all. For some reason I like to dig into the really determined ones. Pull out the ugliness so others see it’s bad to be like them. I have gotten a few “don’t feed the trolls” in other places so I’m considering something dispositional to make it look better somehow. But then I’m sure if this confrontation looks like that one.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I like doing troll takedowns too. I’m not proud of having a mean streak, but I do. Arguing with and mocking trolls lets me work off those impulses in a way that is constructive rather than destructive. When I was younger, I used to mock people who didn’t deserve it. As I matured, I realized it was wrong and I shouldn’t do it. Now I only mock those who really had it coming. And bad movies.

Joaquin
Joaquin
2 years ago

Well… thanks WWTH for aswering politely instead of dismissing my post or calling me a piece of human waste!

Honestly:

What measures would you have taken to prevent this?

And comparing USA to another country is dishonest because we are dealing with different countries, each represent a different challenge.

In Australia, for example, gun control law reduced the number of GUN deaths (duh) but in the long run, the number of homicides remained the same, looks like people found other way of killing each other.

Yes, mass shootings ceased, but that is very little consolation when the number of homicides did not decreased.

Unless you focus your obssession on mass shooting due to “Shock Value”

Disarming us wont make us safer.

I recognize i have a bias on this matter due to the fact i live in a 3rd world country, where the draconian gun control laws did little to make people safer, yes, we don’t have mass shooting but we have more firearm homicides per 100000 people than the USA.

Just a question:

Why are you so eager to dismiss gun advocates as trolls or on NRA payroll? Don’t you think these representatives truly believe in the 2A?

Good night!

Joaquin
Joaquin
2 years ago

Breaking news:

It seems an Argentine citizen was caught plannig a mass shooting in Miami.

Well, i can kiss my Green-Card-goals goodbye then.

Crapbaskets!

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Did I just get accused of being polite?

comment image

Um, I don’t see why comparing other countries is dishonest? I deliberately compared to the US to countries of comparable wealth.

That said, banning AR-15s or implementing universal background checks won’t get rid of the issue in and of itself. The problem is that we have a whole gun culture. But we can’t begin to even think about changing that gun culture until our leaders get on board and until we stop allowing people to stockpile weapons of war.

There isn’t an easy overnight fix but it’s really gross to take advantage of that fact to prevent any fix from ever happening at all. That is what the NRA and the gun fondler crowd are doing.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ joaquin

In Australia, for example, gun control law reduced the number of GUN deaths (duh) but in the long run, the number of homicides remained the same,

I’m no mathematician, but I think you’re making an error of logic here.

The reason the homicide rate didn’t change much was because the Port Arthur Massacre didn’t actually boost the figures that much in the first place.

‘Only’ 35 people were killed. The thing is, that was enough for people to say ‘never again’. So the rate stayed as it was before, but the key thing is, it didn’t get a chance to increase through further mass shootings.

Same here after Dunblane.

Now you could speculate that these events were anomalies, and there wouldn’t have been any further mass shootings anyway. But neither Australia or the UK seemed to have wanted to put that to the test.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
2 years ago

In Australia, for example, gun control law reduced the number of GUN deaths (duh) but in the long run, the number of homicides remained the same,

Some states have more gun control laws, other states have fewer.

Those states with more gun control laws tend to have lower rates of homicide per capita than those which have fewer. In cases where this is not true (Detroit being the perennial example), it has been shown that guns are smuggled in from out-of-state.

There’s a correlation between lax gun control and an increased murder rate. It’s just raw numbers, my duck.

If you’d like to reply with “correlation is not causation” you had best bring some ample work to back it up, ’cause science is all about correlation these days.

looks like people found other way of killing each other.

Or there might have been a massive spike in murders that was made much smaller due to an absence of guns. For one.

A good hint that you’re arguing for a biased perspective is an inability to imagine contrary alternatives.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ joaquin

Consider two lines on a graph. One shows gun homicides, the other non gun homicides. You ban guns. The gun line goes down. But what we do *not* see is a corresponding increase in the non gun line. Which demonstrates that people *aren’t* seeking alternative ways of killing once guns are taken away.

That makes sense when you consider that most homicides are impulsive. People use whatever weapon is to hand. The problem when that’s a gun is that it’s easier to kill a lot of people.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ joaquin

Sorry, not meaning to harangue you, but I’ll just add this general point.

It’s very common for people to make the argument that wanabee killers will just find alternatives to guns. Hopefully we’ve now disproved that.

But people also seem unwilling to accept that guns are uniquely effective as a killing tool. They argue that alternative weapons are just as lethal. However I’ll just pose this question; if that’s true, why doesn’t the army just run over people in trucks?

Dalillama: Irate Social Engineer

The problem when that’s a gun is that it’s easier to kill a lot of people.

Or one person, frankly. A lot of incidents that would be homicides if guns were involved turn into assault or attempted homicide without them.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

It should also be noted that suicides go up in households with guns.

Joaquin
Joaquin
2 years ago

Alan

You are somehow admiting that mass shooting dont raise the homicide rate.

What the hell man? Sure, no more mass shootings but in the end, ir was only a “feel good” measure, like most gun control laws, at the “small” price of leaving law abiding citizens defenseless.

Scildfreja:

You mentioned Detroit (i could add Chicago, for that matter) and you correctly point out that guns come from an outside source.

Now well, i ask you (and everyone that uses that argument):

If you cannot isolate a CITY. How are you going to isolate one of the largest countries in the world???

Last time i checked there were 11 million people living in the USA without proper permits.

How many of you know a person who had/has access to illicit substances?

Do you understand my point? Gun control wont do CRAP!!!

And yes! I noticed the correlación between lax gun control and murder rates, my Swan. It’s not like guns were SPECIFICALLY designed with that in mind (duh)

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ joaquin

You are somehow admiting that mass shooting dont raise the homicide rate.

I’m admitting no such thing. I’m pointing out that the UK and Australia took immediate steps to remedy the issue before it had a chance to raise the homicide rate.

Joaquin
Joaquin
2 years ago

Why in so obsessed with this?

Simple, as i stated in my first post, having a gun is not required to kill a large number of people.
A crafty enough person can make a bomb, or cause mass arson, mass poisoning or ram a truck into a crowd.

Problem is:

I can’t protect myself or my home using home made explosives or incendiaries, at least not without causing HORRIBLE collateral damage.

That is why guns are important:

They allow for DEFENSIVE and OFFENSIVE use.

The end.

Joaquin
Joaquin
2 years ago

Alan

How many mass shootings were the Australians having?

Is there any clue that might suggest that Port Arthur was just the beggining?

Laugher at Bigots
2 years ago

You are somehow admiting that mass shooting dont raise the homicide rate.

He’s not; that only applied to Australia. The rest of your argument is therefore invalid.

If you cannot isolate a CITY. How are you going to isolate one of the largest countries in the world???

America is pretty isolated already: a huge ocean to the west, another huge ocean to the east, and friends to the north and south.

Cities, on the other hand, are connected to one another by a massive network of highways, blocking which would grind commercial activity to a halt and blast the economy.

The rest of your address to Scildfreja seems like the old gun-worshipper’s canard of “Outlawing guns will make sure only outlaws have guns”, with the implication “Why bother?” This is stupid, similar to saying “Outlawing murder will make sure only outlaws murder” with the implication “Why bother outlawing murder?”

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
2 years ago

I’ll be brief in reply. Mostly because I won’t need a whole lot of words.

If you cannot isolate a CITY. How are you going to isolate one of the largest countries in the world???

I will break it down into premises for you!

– Canada has the world’s longest undefended border, with the United States

– Canada has much tougher gun regulations than the United States.

– Canada has a much lower rate of homicides than the United States.

Can you guess the appropriate conclusion for these premises? I can guarantee that the conclusion is not “Gun control wont do CRAP!!!”.

You are making a mistake in your reasoning, my egg. You assume that all o the homicides are done by people who really really wanna murder someone, and are willing to put planning and forethought into doing it. That’s not true. In many cases they’re just angry and happen to have a gun on them. Or it’s an accident of some sort. Or they’re frightened and intimidated, and have a gun on hand.

Taking their guns away doesn’t mean they’ll go get one illegally, in most cases. We know this because we can see it’s true in other countries. Most of them will get into fistfights instead of gunfights, and they’ll survive.

I’ve written down what I think your reply to this will be, and have a reply waiting for that. Let’s see if I guessed right.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ joaquin

How many mass shootings were the Australians having?

Well it appears they decided to draw the line at one.

But to address your point, here in the UK we actually had a mass shooting (Hungerford), where we adopted your approach of assuming it was a unique aberration. So we only introduced limited additional gun control.

However we then had a second (Dunblane) and 16 children died unnecessarily because we’d decided to ‘wait and see’.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Hey, Joaquin,

You’re either lying about Australia’s overall homicide rate not going down or you’ve uncritically swallowed someone else’s lies. Which is it?

http://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-homicide-rates-79654

The national homicide rate has decreased from 1.8 per 100,000 people in 1989-90 to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-14.

Whether that is due to gun control is up for debate, but it’s not true that it didn’t change. Because the rates were never super high to begin with, it’s easy to make a chart look like it hasn’t changed. But it did change. If gun control makes a nation less safe, it would increase.

If you cannot isolate a CITY. How are you going to isolate one of the largest countries in the world???

You can drive between Youngstown, Ohio and Detroit or between Houston and Chicago without encountering any kind of border security between cities or states. That’s not the same as crossing an international border. Does that mean guns would never get across the border? No. But not as easily.

You mentioned Detroit (i could add Chicago, for that matter)

You sure you aren’t really an American? Or maybe a Russian troll farm employee? Because you sure are fond of American right wing talking points and racist dog whistles. Chicago has the 8th highest murder rate and Detroit the 4th highest. So homicide is an issue there for sure, but why did you bring up Chicago instead of the top three cities. Which are St. Louis, Baltimore and New Orleans? Could it be because our first black president is associated with Chicago? That’s sure why Republicans love to talk about crime in Chicago. https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/

I’ve noticed also that cities associated with liberalism like San Francisco, Minneapolis, Portland and Madison are not on there. Seattle is on there but only in 53rd place. NYC, another city with stricter gun control laws is 51st. There are a whole lot of red state cities on that list too. Many cities in Texas are on there.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Simple, as i stated in my first post, having a gun is not required to kill a large number of people.

On the same day as the Sandy Hook mass shooting, a man went into an elementary school in China and attempted to kill a large number of people. China has strong gun control. The man was armed with a knife. Guess how many people he managed to kill. You don’t even have to guess. You can Google it. I’ll wait.

A crafty enough person can make a bomb, or cause mass arson, mass poisoning or ram a truck into a crowd.

You don’t have to be crafty to pick up a gun. Lots of shooters aren’t crafty and won’t successfully make a bomb or poison lots of people. The last mass poisoning I can even think of in the US was the Tylenol murders. And guess what? Pharmaceutical companies put seals on the bottles so you could tell if they’ve been tampered with. The federal government implemented stricter rules to prevent it from happening again and guess what? It didn’t!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders

Nice own goal. You just illustrated that responding to a mass murder by changing the law does actually work. Thanks!

Robert Walker-Smith
Robert Walker-Smith
2 years ago

Scenario A: over the course of a month, thirty people are murdered by thirty other people under a variety of circumstances.

Scenario B: During that same month, one person murders thirty people all at once.

Many of us are more viscerally disturbed by Scenario B, and want to make it less likely.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

If you cannot isolate a CITY. How are you going to isolate one of the largest countries in the world???

You can drive between Youngstown, Ohio and Detroit or between Houston and Chicago without encountering any kind of border security between cities or states.

There’s also the perimeter to area ratio: much higher for a smaller thing like a city, than for a larger thing like a country, let alone a country the size of the US. This limits the diffusion rate, and it also means that, other things (e.g. population density and resources per capita) being equal, there will be more resources per kilometer of border. Thus more to spend on border control, in particular.

Joaquin
Joaquin
2 years ago

WWTH:

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

Well played, but as you may see, the rates were quite unstable, so i’m still not convinced that it did actually solved anything.

Nice own goal. You just illustrated that responding to a mass murder by changing the law does actually work. Thanks!

Yes! provided they are, you know… ENFORCED!.

I’d support gun control if only someone would promise that the bad guys will get dissarmed, instead of turning us (law abiding citizens) into free game, you know, the kind of thing that happened in every South American country dumb enought to believe gun control was the answer.

I don’t know you or your experiences with guns, but let me tell you this:

Having a gun pointed at my head was easily the most terrifiying experience of my life, you cannot outrun a bullet, and putting distance is useless.

A wise man said “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a GOOD guy with a gun”.

Criminals will keep their guns, Law abiding citizens should do the same.

And no, i have nothing against Obama, and i actually believe he earned his place in history, problem is, i strongly disagree with his policies. If only he hadn’t put so much effort in persecuting Lawful gun owners.

And no, sadly i’m not American, i wish i were, considering that my country copied much of it’s Constitution from yours, sadly we screwed it up somewhere and ended being a Banana Republic.

I would not live in the USA because i have nothing useful to contribute.

It’s sad that people like you hate everything your country was founded upon, i mean you have Canada, or Western Europe if you want progressive policies so much. No guns, no free speech, no problem, right?

Why the obsession with destroying the last stronghold of individual liberty in the world?

Robert Walker-Smith

Exactly my point!!!

It’s all about psychological impact, it’s not like i don’t care about massive loss of life, but we cannot act on feelings alone.

We can’t throw Constitutional rights away just because you are angry.

would you agree to punish a whole ethnic group for the actions of a few extremists? would you deny them refugee status?

Both sides of the political spectrum have this problem.

Meanwhile i will search for viable propposals on this.

Thanks!

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy
Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy
2 years ago

Sure, no more mass shootings but in the end, ir was only a “feel good” measure, like most gun control laws, at the “small” price of leaving law abiding citizens defenseless.

We don’t feel defenseless here (in Australia). We feel safe. I can send my son to school without fear. There are kids at his school who are troubled and sometimes violent, but they can’t access guns. So I don’t need to worry that I’ll get the kind of phone call parents in the US get.
I can go to a shopping centre, a cinema, a concert, a pedestrian mall, a political protest (etc.) and the thought of being shot or seeing someone else shot never enters my mind.
(Aust. is not perfect by any stretch whatsoever, but this is one thing I would never change)

@WWTH,

You sure you aren’t really an American?

It crossed my mind that it was a bit odd for a non-USian to mention the 2nd amendment in such obviously familiar terms.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
2 years ago

Another example: Reading this story, most (western world) non-USAians’ reaction is going to be “What the hell kind of country is it where a shooting at a school has peopel having to determine whether it was an accident or not???” https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/07/one-alabama-student-dead-another-injured-after-shooting-at-high-school.html

Joaquin
Joaquin
2 years ago

Mish:

I don’t know how old your son is, but asuming your use of the word “school” i supose that he is underage, which means his violent buddies cannot legally own a gun, so it’s a moot point.

How can you feel safe and being unarmed at the same time?

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/06/australia-hasnt-had-a-mass-shooting-since-1996/

In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense

Sounds great!

I can’t help but notice that many in the gun control team are also blatantly pro-criminal. Hmmm…

As to why i speak of the 2A in such a familiar way? Well, Argentina copied muchos of it’s Constitution from the American INE, in fact, our Constitutional Law courses analyze many SCOTUS landmark cases including my all time favourite: District of Columbia v. Heller

American values are superior to any other values, too bad many don’t appreciate this.

Thanks!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ joaquin

In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense

That’s not actually correct. What the 1996 agreement did was require applicants for firearms licences to demonstrate a ‘good reason’ for owning one. That could be things like vermin control, sports shooting etc. The agreement explicitly states that ‘personal protection’ could not be submitted as a good reason.

However that does not prohibit the use of firearms in self-defense. If you were attacked and you happened to have a firearm to hand, you could use it in self-defense, subject to the usual tests regarding reasonable force. Use of a firearm, or any other potentially lethal weapon, could amount to reasonable force if the threat was severe enough.

That’s exactly the same law as in the UK.

As to your general point about the efficacy of gun control in Australia, here’s a nice paper.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365

Shadowplay
2 years ago

… asuming your use of the word “school” i supose that he is underage, which means his violent buddies cannot legally own a gun, so it’s a moot point.

Annndddd … idiot confirmed.

Unless there’s some unwritten law somewhere, enfoced by angels of pure fire, that “his violent buddies” can only use a gun legally owned by themselves.

When in practice, most of the highschool shooters have been either ex-highschoolers or, more importantly in this case, using Mommy or Daddy’s gun.

However, I’m sure as a reasonable supporter of the second amendment you’ll be happy to agree felony charges against the parents of any shooter as accessory to murder, right?

Laugher at Bigots
2 years ago

American values are superior to any other values, too bad many don’t appreciate this.

W R O N G

The username (along with the Argentinianness and the trollishness) looks familiar. Another fellow named Joaquin (or JoaquinRL1) was banned in November 2016.