Mass Shooting in California

Our murder rate (per 100,000) is significantly lower too. You know in terms of population that you're only 5 times bigger?

We just live in a dumb world now. One woman speaks out about how the shooter assaulted her 10 years ago. I can’t begin to tell you how pathetic that makes her look. It reminds me of the folks who come out of the woodwork when they know you’ve just won the lottery. People who claim shootings specifically Thousand Oaks can be prevented if average joes were trained and able to carry their guns around. You know how stupid that thought process is?

I don’t think I want somebody even trained exchanging gunfire in a public crowded place with somebody intent on causing damage. Cross fire victims would be insane. Not to mention what if somebody else thinks the guy trying to prevent the attack is the actual perpetrator. This isn’t the wild Wild West. God, we are such a dumb country now.

How is the sex offender registry working out? Last I checked, sex crimes are overloading every courthouse in America. It doesn’t prevent crime or protect anybody. Guns to average joes won’t prevent or solve anything. If people are intent on causing harm they will. That’s the bottom line.

Pixie13 wrote:

Our murder rate (per 100,000) is significantly lower too. You know in terms of population that you're only 5 times bigger?

Well yeah a country that has a smaller population is going to have less murder rates. Don't know what point you're trying to prove here.

More info on Ian Long's past.

I think you are getting confused between totals and rates. A country that has a bigger population is likely to have a bigger *total* number of murders, but a murder rate (e.g. 1 person murdered for every 100,000 people) is a comparative measure.

So Country A has 100 people, Country B has 500 people. Country A has 1 murder per year, Country B has 5 murders a year then their murder rate is the same (1/100 or 1%). Country A has 1 murder a year, Country B has 10 murders a year (1% vs 2%) country B has a higher murder rate

Pixie13 wrote:

I think you are getting confused between totals and rates.  A country that has a bigger population is likely to have a bigger *total* number of murders, but a murder rate (e.g. 1 person murdered for every 100,000 people) is a comparative measure.

So Country A has 100 people, Country B has 500 people. Country A has 1 murder per year, Country B has 5 murders a year then their murder rate is the same (1/100 or 1%). Country A has 1 murder a year, Country B has 10 murders a year (1% vs 2%) country B has a higher murder rate

The UK is a less violent country than America so it will have less murder rates, you also have to take in other factors such as mental health, crime, poverty, drugs etc and not just "evil guns".

This will be my last exchange with you, I'm sick of us going back and forth as you clearly won't change your mind and we're also derailing the thread, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fine. Happy to draw a line under it too. My original argument was that Britain was a safer country than the USA, so happy that is settled even if we disagree that gun control is part of the reason it is safer.

Have you seen that it looks like he posted on Instagram mid-shooting?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think that must be the weirdest detail I've read so far.

Pixie13 wrote:

Have you seen that it looks like he posted on Instagram mid-shooting?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think that must be the weirdest detail I've read so far.

True, that is some crazy shit.

I've heard someone say that he was recording his own massacre, but I dunno if that was confirmed.

School Massacre Archives wrote:

I've heard someone say that he was recording his own massacre, but I dunno if that was confirmed.

Surly if true it would have been talked about by now right?

(redac)

Pixie13 wrote:

Fine. Happy to draw a line under it too. My original argument was that Britain was a safer country than the USA, so happy that is settled even if we disagree that gun control is part of the reason it is safer.  

Guns are basically a religion in the US. I didn't grow up around the faith, but I've met plenty of lifelong believers. When you're indoctrinated into the gun cult, facts become completely irrelevant. There are no facts beyond the objectively absurd volumes of pro-gun apologetics, and you'll never, never convince a believer that they're wrong about anything.

They already know that other countries are much safer and don't have the same problems. They already know that gun control, by objective measures, would save lives here. They just don't care. Seriously, think of it as a violation of their firmest religious belief, because that's exactly how they see it.

Several people in this thread derisively dismissed California's gun laws, but they already know what the real problem is: in the US, all you have to do is drive to another state. There's a great example of this problem beyond mass shootings. Chicago is always cited by the gun cultists as a paragon of gun control failure, but most of the guns seized in Chicago come from border states.

Without federal action, the laws of any city or any state are irrelevant and nothing in the US is going to change.

[quote="Mh_12rm_66"]Videos



I think You can see Long in it

NSAhoneypot wrote:

It's amazing how the media managed to pin this on PTSD. I wouldn't be surprised if it actually had nearly nothing to do with his final decision. 

Well according to the source right above your post, he literally did it out of boredom.

curious2017 wrote:

Pixie13 wrote:

Fine. Happy to draw a line under it too. My original argument was that Britain was a safer country than the USA, so happy that is settled even if we disagree that gun control is part of the reason it is safer.  

Guns are basically a religion in the US. I didn't grow up around the faith, but I've met plenty of lifelong believers. When you're indoctrinated into the gun cult, facts become completely irrelevant. There are no facts beyond the objectively absurd volumes of pro-gun apologetics, and you'll never, never convince a believer that they're wrong about anything.

They already know that other countries are much safer and don't have the same problems. They already know that gun control, by objective measures, would save lives here. They just don't care. Seriously, think of it as a violation of their firmest religious belief, because that's exactly how they see it.  

Several people in this thread derisively dismissed California's gun laws, but they already know what the real problem is: in the US, all you have to do is drive to another state. There's a great example of this problem beyond mass shootings. Chicago is always cited by the gun cultists as a paragon of gun control failure, but most of the guns seized in Chicago come from border states.

Without federal action, the laws of any city or any state are irrelevant and nothing in the US is going to change.

I find your post quite patronizing. American people are not aware but you are. But you don't even seem to try to understand pro-gun people.
"There are no facts beyond the objectively absurd volumes of pro-gun apologetics, and you'll never, never convince a believer that they're wrong about anything."
Everything doesn't have to be based on facts. Facts can vary depending on several factors, and there are many factors that could reduce crime in the USA. Values are also important and you can build upon it and then try to improve facts. This is freedom, a right to protect yourself. This is important for them. We've already had this kind of conversation in other threads, but we've mentioned Switzerland where people have guns too. Here is a post I wrote in another thread about it:

Neah wrote:

Pixie13 wrote:

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the difference between the USA and countries that don't have disturbed teenagers shooting up schools is the American gun culture.

Indeed, it is obvious that only in America there is an American gun culture. But America is not the only country where many people have guns, Switzerland also have a gun culture and it works pretty well since the last mass shooting occurred in 2001.

"The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people." "In 2007, the Small Arms Survey found that Switzerland had the third-highest ratio of civilian firearms per 100 residents (46), outdone by only the US (89) and Yemen (55)." (Source: The Independent)

It is not gun culture that is to blame, it is gun culture in the American context that doesn't work, and this is probably so because of many issues. As you said, the teenage perpetrators were "disturbed", so mental health may be one of those issues.

However, maybe we will agree on that and I have said it many times on this forum and nothing makes me change my point of view, I do think it is obvious that if you have guns there will always be a risk of having a mass shooting. Sure mass murders can happen in every countries, but except for bombings (although Columbine, the bucket bomb in the London tube in 2017 and the Oklahoma City Bombing show us that bombs can be either a complete failure,especially for "disturbed teenagers" or a huge disaster, especially in case of terrorism) and to some extent arson, other forms of attacks usually leads to a much smaller amount of victims. A mass stabber has more chance to be stopped before he kills many people than a mass shooter. And I think it is a choice that a nation have to do between freedom and ability for each individual to defend himself without depending on others, and security and confidence in other people and the police.

Don't see me as a stupid pro-gun person, although I am more on the side of pro-gun people I am not in favor of no gun control at all. And I'm not even American. I don't want to change your opinion and I don't think I could anyway: what you think is admissible. It's just that we don't value the same things. We've already talked several time about gun control on this forum but maybe we should make another thread about it, so that new members can express their opinion and we don't write off-topic posts on other threads.

Neah wrote:

I find your post quite patronizing. American people are not aware but you are. But you don't even seem to try to understand pro-gun people.
"There are no facts beyond the objectively absurd volumes of pro-gun apologetics, and you'll never, never convince a believer that they're wrong about anything."
Everything doesn't have to be based on facts. Facts can vary depending on several factors, and there are many factors that could reduce crime in the USA. Values are also important and you can build upon it and then try to improve facts. This is freedom, a right to protect yourself. This is important for them.

Facts are actually facts. There are no "alternative facts" in this discussion.

Don't misunderstand my statements. Plenty of gun cultists, conservative and liberal, really do mean well. Good intentions don't matter here. Guns don't make people free anymore. They kill innocent people.

Quote :

Indeed, it is obvious that only in America there is an American gun culture. But America is not the only country where many people have guns, Switzerland also have a gun culture and it works pretty well since the last mass shooting occurred in 2001.

If you're using Switzerland as an example, you don't appreciate how easy it is to buy guns or ammo in the US. It is disturbingly simpler, and that is a huge part of our problem.

Quote :

Don't see me as a stupid pro-gun person, although I am more on the side of pro-gun people I am not in favor of no gun control at all. And I'm not even American. I don't want to change your opinion and I don't think I could anyway: what you think is admissible. It's just that we don't value the same things. We've already talked several time about gun control on this forum but maybe we should make another thread about it, so that new members can express their opinion and we don't write off-topic posts on other threads.

Where are you from? Can you walk into a grocery store and walk out with an assault rifle? Because you can do that here.

I don't get how you guys can have the same argument every time.

curious2017 wrote:

Neah wrote:

I find your post quite patronizing. American people are not aware but you are. But you don't even seem to try to understand pro-gun people.
"There are no facts beyond the objectively absurd volumes of pro-gun apologetics, and you'll never, never convince a believer that they're wrong about anything."
Everything doesn't have to be based on facts. Facts can vary depending on several factors, and there are many factors that could reduce crime in the USA. Values are also important and you can build upon it and then try to improve facts. This is freedom, a right to protect yourself. This is important for them.

Facts are actually facts. There are no "alternative facts" in this discussion.

Don't misunderstand my statements. Plenty of gun cultists, conservative and liberal, really do mean well. Good intentions don't matter here. Guns don't make people free anymore. They kill innocent people.

Quote :

Indeed, it is obvious that only in America there is an American gun culture. But America is not the only country where many people have guns, Switzerland also have a gun culture and it works pretty well since the last mass shooting occurred in 2001.

If you're using Switzerland as an example, you don't appreciate how easy it is to buy guns or ammo in the US. It is disturbingly simpler, and that is a huge part of our problem.

Quote :

Don't see me as a stupid pro-gun person, although I am more on the side of pro-gun people I am not in favor of no gun control at all. And I'm not even American. I don't want to change your opinion and I don't think I could anyway: what you think is admissible. It's just that we don't value the same things. We've already talked several time about gun control on this forum but maybe we should make another thread about it, so that new members can express their opinion and we don't write off-topic posts on other threads.

Where are you from? Can you walk into a grocery store and walk out with an assault rifle? Because you can do that here.

If you don't want to look at Switzerland, look at Austria. Or the Czech Republic.
Also, you can't walk out of a grocery store with an assault rifle. You can however walk out with a semi automatic modern sporting rifle. Assault rifles are select fire.

curious2017 wrote:

Neah wrote:

I find your post quite patronizing. American people are not aware but you are. But you don't even seem to try to understand pro-gun people.
"There are no facts beyond the objectively absurd volumes of pro-gun apologetics, and you'll never, never convince a believer that they're wrong about anything."
Everything doesn't have to be based on facts. Facts can vary depending on several factors, and there are many factors that could reduce crime in the USA. Values are also important and you can build upon it and then try to improve facts. This is freedom, a right to protect yourself. This is important for them.

Facts are actually facts. There are no "alternative facts" in this discussion.

This is not what I mean. Alternative facts don't exist, this is a lie to spread fake news. But facts can be changed by political and social measures.

curious2017 wrote:

If you're using Switzerland as an example, you don't appreciate how easy it is to buy guns or ammo in the US. It is disturbingly simpler, and that is a huge part of our problem.

It is not easy everywhere in the US but otherwise I agree with you on that point. I don't think guns should be bought totally freely, some control is still necessary.

curious2017 wrote:

Where are you from? Can you walk into a grocery store and walk out with an assault rifle? Because you can do that here.

Things are not that simple everywhere in the US. Some places have indeed very low gun control and I am not in favor of that either. I am from France and I can buy a gun if I get a license (hunting or sport shooting). The issue is that since I can have a license only for these two things, firearms are not, in France, for defense. So if I am attacked at my house (which will probably never happen but there is still a chance) and shoot the person who attacked me or tried to steal my things, I may have legal issues. And given that even if you have a license you cannot have a gun in the street, I can't even imagine the sanctions if I defended myself with a gun outside my house (you cannot even have a small knife in the street...).
If I want guns it is because the police often don't prevent attacks, it stop them once they started, and sometimes a long time after they started. I prefer to take the chance of living with people who could kill me (dangerous people often already have guns anyway) but I can also defend myself than having to wait for the police. If I think that way it is because I was, as most French people, traumatized by the 2015 November attacks in Paris, especially at the Bataclan. Many people tried to see how they could get a gun legally after the attack. I would agree that I am thinking out of fear and not (only) out of factual evidences, but fear is also a survival instinct, it is natural and I respect it. This is how I see things but I understand some people prefer to rely on the police and live in an environment with no guns.

W.A.R. wrote:

I don't get how you guys can have the same argument every time.

But we don't argue with the same people. But you're right, I should stop.

Having different view points and opinions on things is to be expected. Debates and discussions is the main purpose of the forum.

JUST as long as it's kept on a civilized level and no one retorts to name calling like a bunch of kids on a playground!

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Having different view points and opinions on things is to be expected. Debates and discussions is the main purpose of the forum.

JUST as long as it's kept on a civilized level and no one retorts to name calling like a bunch of kids on a playground!

On gun control I should be fine (I hope) because I really understand the two viewpoints.

But tell me that Marilyn Manson is responsible for the shooting and I may lose my calm.

Neah wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Having different view points and opinions on things is to be expected. Debates and discussions is the main purpose of the forum.

JUST as long as it's kept on a civilized level and no one retorts to name calling like a bunch of kids on a playground!

On gun control I should be fine (I hope) because I really understand the two points.

But tell me that Marilyn Manson is responsible for the shooting and I may lose my calm.

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Having different view points and opinions on things is to be expected. Debates and discussions is the main purpose of the forum.

JUST as long as it's kept on a civilized level and no one retorts to name calling like a bunch of kids on a playground!

Oh yeah totally. I'm not knocking having a debate.

W.A.R. wrote:

ShadowedGoddess wrote:

Having different view points and opinions on things is to be expected. Debates and discussions is the main purpose of the forum.

JUST as long as it's kept on a civilized level and no one retorts to name calling like a bunch of kids on a playground!

Oh yeah totally. I'm not knocking having a debate.

True. I like debates and hearing different opinions on things.  Although when you come to an impasse and clearly no one is going to budge, then it seems pointless to continue.

Just my opinion anyway!

I don’t believe this perperpetrator did it strictly out of boredom. His posts have too much substance, Like he knew gun control debates would happen once again. I feel like it was a stance against Trump and people who follow him.

Boredom, no... but I find it interesting he has made no big manifesto. It is almost like he wants to show how shallow and banal these killings are. That there are no great truths or lofty principles behind them, that they are not cries of pain, fragile masculinity... That they are just committed by someone who has nothing better in their life. That these deaths are senseless and the victims are not martyrs, but merely unlucky. It's a new level of creepy.

TheOne99 wrote:

Mh_12rm_66 wrote:

Videos



I think You can see Long in it

Yeah you can he see his silhouette very briefly although only his upper body is visible.

Sane One wrote:

I don’t believe this perperpetrator did it strictly out of boredom. 

Why? It's what he literally said was his motive!

Sane One wrote:

I feel like it was a stance against Trump and people who follow him.

Again I ask: Why? Because you feel like it? You have nothing to substantiate your claims, and I have a feeling that we're not going to get much more in the way of motive, so I don't have a clue as to why you feel comfy making these assertions.

QuestionMark wrote:

Sane One wrote:

I don’t believe this perperpetrator did it strictly out of boredom. 

Why? It's what he literally said was his motive!

Sane One wrote:

I feel like it was a stance against Trump and people who follow him.

Again I ask: Why? Because you feel like it? You have nothing to substantiate your claims, and I have a feeling that we're not going to get much more in the way of motive, so I don't have a clue as to why you feel comfy making these assertions.

I don't buy the anti-Trump motive. Maybe his motive was boredom but there was probably several factors who also made it. I mean he did that out of boredom because he probably had mental health issues. Sane bored people don't decide to kill people and themselves, they watch TV. I am surprised that since this shooting I read several members writing that mental health has nothing to do with shootings. But if it's not about mental health, what is it about? Do they think that pure evil exist?

It's a hard question, is it mental health issues that make mass shooters kill? Maybe.

Does that go for *all* killers? I mean sitting at home right now, I can't fathom anyone who would walk into a bar and shoot strangers... or starve a child to death, beat a partner to death, rape and strangle an ex, poison an elderly relative or anything. People do kill, people kill every day in vile, cruel ways. That poses a question, is every killer insane? Every serial killer, mass shooter, terrorist bomber, drug dealer, wife beater is insane? I guess from my view point, anyone who has it in them mentally to torture and kill has something twisted in their mind. What is the alternative? That we accept some people are evil or at least become evil?

Sorry, more of a musing than an answer.

Pixie13 wrote:

It's a hard question, is it mental health issues that make mass shooters kill? Maybe.

Does that go for *all* killers? I mean sitting at home right now, I can't fathom anyone who would walk into a bar and shoot strangers... or starve a child to death, beat a partner to death, rape and strangle an ex, poison an elderly relative or anything. People do kill, people kill every day in vile, cruel ways. That poses a question,  is every killer insane? Every serial killer, mass shooter, terrorist bomber, drug dealer, wife beater is insane? I guess from my view point, anyone who has it in them mentally to torture and kill has something twisted in their mind.  What is the alternative? That we accept some people are evil or at least become evil?

Indeed, it is hard to know.

I usually class killers in two main categories:

-killers with a motive (money, power...), so those who are not driven by a kind of urge. I don't think these people are mentally ill, or can be but it is not the main factor. I also put those who kill out of anger and then regret it in this category. Among this category there is imo a subcategory which is terrorist killers. Some of them can be mentally ill, which in addition to their ideology makes them crazy things (mass shootings for ex.) but not all them are. But overall in this category killers usually select their victims.

-And the second category is mass shooters or serial killers who have less clear motives, who don't really select victims as individuals, who are depressed, who hate everyone. I think those people are at least troubled. They may have an urge to kill and sometimes they commit suicide.


This is probably a very simplistic and wrong way of seeing things but this is how I can't help sorting killers. I guess we all have the same kind of categories.

Although if you look at most female serial killers, the motive is usually money and the victims are usually carefully selected for this end and often relatives. Many male serial killings have a sexual component to them but the victims themselves are unimportant.

I often see mass-shooters as similar to many murder-suicides. Like the divorced parents (usually non-custodial) who murder their own children and themselves to get revenge. The motive is to cause pain and upset in revenge for something. The revenge isn't on the victims themselves, but their death is a punishment. Similar to terrorists as well.

If it was out of boredom he wouldnt have made the type of posts he made. All you people do is give thoughts and prayers after shootings is all the evidence you need he had an agenda.

Sane One wrote:

If it was out of boredom he wouldnt have made the type of posts he made. All you people do is give thoughts and prayers after shootings is all the evidence you need he had an agenda.

I don't think he did that out of boredom, but I don't think we should give too much credit to what he wrote either. He thought what he wrote, but I don't think we can call that an agenda and even less a motive. It is probably more a simple comment on the shooting and on how society is stupid.

I do think he was just spitting out a lot before the shooting but I find his posts very telling. I dont know about everybody else but I find his posts to be very intelligent and .... I dont know. Like he was mocking America and its laws.

Sane One wrote:

I do think he was just spitting out a lot before the shooting but I find his posts very telling. I dont know about everybody else but I find his posts to be very intelligent and .... I dont know. Like he was mocking America and its laws.

I agree, I see mass shootings as a huge fuck to society, and I think his post is aligned with the shooting given that, as you said, he is mocking America.

Facts:
1. He wore a black outfit and a black bandana across his face - who else does this except Anti-Fa?
2. He killed probable conservatives in a country bar
3. He committed his act, just after the election, when liberals were upset and Anti-Fa mobs assaulted Tucker's family
4. He mocked religion
5. He just finished going to a California college for liberal brainwashing.

Sounds about white

Sane One wrote:

If it was out of boredom he wouldnt have made the type of posts he made. All you people do is give thoughts and prayers after shootings is all the evidence you need he had an agenda.

Um no? I've still yet to see any evidence here that substantiates your feelings here, I think he meant what he said, I don't think there was any real agenda at work here. 

Sane One wrote:

I do think he was just spitting out a lot before the shooting but I find his posts very telling. I dont know about everybody else but I find his posts to be very intelligent and .... I dont know. Like he was mocking America and its laws.

We have no idea what exactly he was mocking because he didn't tell us. All he said was "lol thoughts and prayers aren't gonna work" and then never elaborated on what he thought would work. 

Sane One wrote:

Facts:
1. He wore a black outfit and a black bandana across his face - who else does this except Anti-Fa?
2. He killed probable conservatives in a country bar
3. He committed his act, just after the election, when liberals were upset and Anti-Fa mobs assaulted Tucker's family
4. He mocked religion
5. He just finished going to a California college for liberal brainwashing.

Alright now you're just reaching. Give me a good reason to listen to you and take your claims seriously and I'll listen, but until then I have to assume you're as clueless as the rest of us.

1. Reach
2. Reach
3. Democrats just won the house, whats to be sad about?
4. He mocked the empty thoughts & prayers mantra
5. Reach