Yet another school shooting.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

You do realize that this was the exact rational for the killer today right? You read his social media tweet about "his people" that happened five minutes before he began the slaughter, right?

Uh no. Think that is a stretch.

[NobodyHere]

This is generally my reaction nowadays



I have no idea what practical policy would stop this guy. I don't understand why someone would want to murder 11 random strangers. Is it fame to give meaning to some sad life? If so then how did he get to such depravities and how can we stop it?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'll go with an extreme scenario - if you had a gun in hand and could kill someone that was going to kill your family (ala Purge movies, great entertainment BTW), you would not do it?

There is no doubt I would do my best to kill that person.

It isn't a question of whether I could do it, but whether or not the action would be sinful. One of the big challenges of the Gospels is whether or not violence is ever not sinful.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

...Then again, maybe he doesn't stand out as an extremist anymore. The right has been pushing the anti-semitic stuff for awhile. Fox News was running the ZOG conspiracy theory hard today (and has been for awhile). The President himself has a history of saying things tinged with anti-semitism. There's a Congressman who is an open neo-Nazi.

There’s the rub. When The President is Trump, and he is setting the tone, some of what was previously extreme becomes largely in line with what comes from the White House

How people cannot link the two together, or will not link the two together, is beyond me. Much as people refuse to link the evidence that more guns means more shootings, even compared to other areas in the US.

It must be either wilful ignorance or extreme stupidity.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It isn't a question of whether I could do it, but whether or not the action would be sinful. One of the big challenges of the Gospels is whether or not violence is ever not sinful.

FWIW, as a non-practicing Catholic I don't claim to be up to speed on dogma but here's one Catholic POV. Hope it helps.

The Catholic Guide to Self Defense | The Catholic Gentleman

are we justified in defending ourselves and our families? Or should we meekly turn the other cheek, come what may?

The short answer is yes, self defense is justified. The Doctors of the Church and the Magisterium have made it clear that self-defense is not only a right, but in some cases, a duty. In the Catechism, the guidelines for when exactly self-defense is legitimate are presented. Let’s take a look at what it has to say.
:
I will conclude with a quote from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, Evangelium Vitae, on the tension between respect for human life, obedience to the 5th commandment, and self defense. It summarizes the issue perfectly.

Just a thought, you should post your question in the reddit christianity/catholic/etc. forums. I'm sure you get more educated answers there.

.

[JPhillips]

Thanks. I know the Catholic theology, but I'm not sure I agree. The older I get the closer I get to the Quaker stand on non-violence.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by AlexB

How people cannot link the two together, or will not link the two together, is beyond me. Much as people refuse to link the evidence that more guns means more shootings, even compared to other areas in the US.

It must be either wilful ignorance or extreme stupidity.

Is there a link that more guns mean more shootings? Rural America has a higher gun ownership rate than urban areas. Yet urban areas have more gun homicides per capita.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by whomario

...
In the hopes it gets through to at least one person, my usually attempt at offering a synopsis i find easy to grasp:

America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts - Vox

Whomario posted a really interesting link just yesterday

[molson]

It's pretty hard to find state-by-state data of gun violence. The articles tend to use "gun deaths" to make their point. Sometimes they use the terms "gun death" and "gun violence" interchangeably to it's tough to know what they're measuring.

Obviously there's more gun suicides where there's more guns. And there seems to be a correlation between suicide rates and gun ownership, which makes sense, guns make suicide easy. But that usually isn't part of the rallying cry for gun control. It's just one part of the debate that comes off as disingenuous to me. Americans are concerned mostly about one particular type of gun violence - mass shootings. That's what sparks gun control debates. Not domestic violence, suicides, or gang violence. Which is kind of unfortunate because mass shootings are the type of gun violence/death that's probably least impacted by gun control. Most mass shooters could have bought weapons no matter what the background check required. (though some of them could have been slowed down some based on the types of weapons available, etc.)

[RainMaker]

For the armed guard option, this guy was able to get the best of armed police and SWAT if you read through what happened.

This affidavit, uploaded by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, makes it clear how Bowers repeatedly got the best of trained police officers who were trying to stop him, including a SWAT team. https://t.co/lEjV45uDch pic.twitter.com/9V8cE7HDrr

— Matt Pearce 🦅 (@mattdpearce) October 28, 2018

[cuervo72]

Note that last line, too.

Stretch indeed.

[whomario]

First off, the article also very clearly shows the insane difference in terms of gun homicides per capita despite there not being a discernible difference in overall violent crime. Basically, americans aren't more violent or murderous, but are statistically much more likely to have access to a gun and be aclimated to using one.

Originally Posted by molson

Which is kind of unfortunate because mass shootings are the type of gun violence/death that's probably least impacted by gun control. Most mass shooters could have bought weapons no matter what the background check required. (though some of them could have been slowed down some based on the types of weapons available, etc.)

It is however not in question (to me at least), that the easy accessibility and resulting gun culture lowers the inhibitions and makes them more 'accesible' from a mental perspective as well. And this has nothing to do with media and the likes, because there is pretty no difference (anymore) between western countries.


A country like Germany has a lot of guns per capita as well (compared to other western countries other than the US), but it has never been commonplace to pretty much treat guns and gun ownership the same as you would a nice set of steak knives. A gun here is still something outlandish/exotic/strange that seems out of place when visible in civil life and even on police*, this simply isn't the case in many areas of the US.

*police shooting somebody in other western countries is also significantly lower than in the US. Again the reason can be a) more murderous police or b) police more accustomed to use a gun AND feeling more in danger from the prevelance of people owning a gun.

I doubt any german police officer makes a traffic stop and worries about there being even the slightest chance of the guy being armed.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Thanks. I know the Catholic theology, but I'm not sure I agree. The older I get the closer I get to the Quaker stand on non-violence.

Sounds pretty deep. Good luck on your search for answers.

When you finally do get it, let us know.

[molson]

Originally Posted by whomario

It is however not in question (to me at least), that the easy accessibility and resulting gun culture lowers the inhibitions and makes them more 'accesible' from a mental perspective as well. And this has nothing to do with media and the likes, because there is pretty no difference (anymore) between western countries.

That makes sense, but I don't think restrictions on who can buy guns can really put a dent in the number of guns in the United States or damper the gun culture. How many millions of millions own weapons in the U.S. that wouldn't be prevented from doing so even if ownership restrictions based on crimes already committed and mental diagnoses already made could be tightened up? It's still worth doing those things, but that's yet another part of the gun control debate I find disingenuous - Americans pointing to how things are done in Europe but also claiming they don't want an outright ban of guns here. How exactly do we get to those drastically reduced levels of gun ownership without a broader ban that impacts non-felons and non-schizophrenics, etc? What laws get guns away from CU Tiger or all of my neighbors in Idaho? Unless you get guns away from them, we're not becoming Europe when it comes to gun culture. In fact, I think we've seen that the more gun rights are threatened (even just as rhetoric that doesn't go anywhere), the stronger the gun culture becomes. Just the irrational fear that Obama was going to take away their guns caused the best 8 years ever for gun sales. Governments aren't great at regulating culture generally - except when they go full totalitarian.

[PilotMan]

The more discussion there is about what could be done, the more the reaction is to double down and increase the number of guns available. This isn't exactly a conversation where both sides are working toward a common goal. Molson is more or less correct in his observations. As the pendulum swings you're going to see moving closer to a total ban, or drastic reduction in guns, or at the very least, a much tighter patrol over who can have them, as the response is to 'stock up and prepare for war' is pretty much the only response the gun lobby has. I also think you're going to see more vigilantes, more gun violence, the police having a harder time keeping order. The conversation just can't stop though, because we think that there's no way to get guns off the streets. There will be a solution out there if we keep working for it.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by molson

That makes sense, but I don't think restrictions on who can buy guns can really put a dent in the number of guns in the United States or damper the gun culture. How many millions of millions own weapons in the U.S. that wouldn't be prevented from doing so even if ownership restrictions based on crimes already committed and mental diagnoses already made could be tightened up? It's still worth doing those things, but that's yet another part of the gun control debate I find disingenuous - Americans pointing to how things are done in Europe but also claiming they don't want an outright ban of guns here. How exactly do we get to those drastically reduced levels of gun ownership without a broader ban that impacts non-felons and non-schizophrenics, etc? What laws get guns away from CU Tiger or all of my neighbors in Idaho? Unless you get guns away from them, we're not becoming Europe when it comes to gun culture. In fact, I think we've seen that the more gun rights are threatened (even just as rhetoric that doesn't go anywhere), the stronger the gun culture becomes. Just the irrational fear that Obama was going to take away their guns caused the best 8 years ever for gun sales. Governments aren't great at regulating culture generally - except when they go full totalitarian.

How about thinking long term ? Current existing guns 'break' or their owners die or go out of style or whatever. Goal should be changing laws for new purchases and getting programs in place to deal with guns currently owned by people that are somewhat perceptible to the argument, make sure those guns don't end up being sold illegally to nutjobs by putting some sort of buy-back program in place etc.
Of course, for that both parties would have to support it in at least some way.

Just because it's not quick fix and likely won't ever reduce levels to where other western countries, shouldn't mean it is not a worthwhile goal. I mean, it seems pretty clear there is a correlation between the number of guns in existence in a country/state and the number of deaths by gun. So in all likelihood any sort of decent sized reduction (be at 10% or 40%) would result in a somewhat proportional reduction of homicides and suicides. It's simple statistics/propability.

Same as why you put speed limits in place, which you know is still potentially deadly but limits the risk and which one can't actually fully enforce (what percentage of violations get detected ? 1% maybe ?).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Uh no. Think that is a stretch.

No it's not. Read what he wrote. He literally believed that there was genocide being committed against white people. He believed that this caravan was coming to slaughter his family. You don't commit terrorist attacks unless you're a true believer in your cause.

And this isn't some extreme belief. It's become part of the mainstream rhetoric on the right. Fox News routinely runs stories about the "white genocide". They allude to the ZOG conspiracy all the time.

He was constantly told that the Jews were sending these caravans of people looking to exterminate him and his family. At some point someone was going to take it serious and act.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by whomario

How about thinking long term ? Current existing guns 'break' or their owners die or go out of style or whatever. Goal should be changing laws for new purchases and getting programs in place to deal with guns currently owned by people that are somewhat perceptible to the argument, make sure those guns don't end up being sold illegally to nutjobs by putting some sort of buy-back program in place etc.
Of course, for that both parties would have to support it in at least some way.

Just because it's not quick fix and likely won't ever reduce levels to where other western countries, shouldn't mean it is not a worthwhile goal. I mean, it seems pretty clear there is a correlation between the number of guns in existence in a country/state and the number of deaths by gun. So in all likelihood any sort of decent sized reduction (be at 10% or 40%) would result in a somewhat proportional reduction of homicides and suicides. It's simple statistics/propability.

Same as why you put speed limits in place, which you know is still potentially deadly but limits the risk and which one can't actually fully enforce (what percentage of violations get detected ? 1% maybe ?).

Two quick counter points.Im in the middle of a 48 hours weekend project ...taking a quick break for dinner and a mind refresh.
1- regarding guns breaking. I own 4 1800s firearms that still work fine. I also own many pre 1950s models. All work flawless. Honestly it's part of the appeal To me . But waiting on them to break out is a poor plan if gun control. Is your goal.
2- regarding correlation. Murders are down compared to prior decades thats an accepred fact. Gun sales are at an all time high and again since they don't break frequently total gun ownership is at an all time high. How does that correlation compute.

Look I've said before. I'm more open than most pro2a guys to some reform.deciding what, where and how that is is the rub.

I just wanted to point out the more guns = more crime isn't a good true correlation. Not to mention it never accounts for unregistered firearms.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No it's not. Read what he wrote. He literally believed that there was genocide being committed against white people. He believed that this caravan was coming to slaughter his family. You don't commit terrorist attacks unless you're a true believer in your cause.

And this isn't some extreme belief. It's become part of the mainstream rhetoric on the right. Fox News routinely runs stories about the "white genocide". They allude to the ZOG conspiracy all the time.

He was constantly told that the Jews were sending these caravans of people looking to exterminate him and his family. At some point someone was going to take it serious and act.

Just to lay the baseline to make sure we are discussing the same thing ...

My "stretch" comment was referring to the attempt to make Bower's rationale (which has been quoted several times now) for the murders equivalent to my extreme scenario below. This scenario was in the context of JPhillips comment about "can't justify killing based on the gospels".

if you had a gun in hand and could kill someone that was going to kill your family (ala Purge movies, great entertainment BTW), you would not do it?

There is no doubt I would do my best to kill that person.

So my example of family in danger and having ability to kill the assailant to remove the danger & save my family is the same "exact rationale" Bower's is using?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So my example of family in danger and having ability to kill the assailant to remove the danger & save my family is the same "exact rationale" Bower's is using?

I'd say it's close going by his own words. He believed people were being sent by the Jews to slaughter him and his family.

How is that not the same rationale?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd say it's close going by his own words. He believed people were being sent by the Jews to slaughter him and his family.

How is that not the same rationale?

Close is not "exact rationale".

Is the genocide really the only reason? Wasn't there something about migrant caravans being supported by the Jews? I guess you can draw the link that "he believed migrant caravans would ultimately cause genocide against his people" but there are several degrees of separation to me.

Did he believe his killing the Synagogue victims would resolve the "issue", the immediacy of it? Me killing the assailant would immediately remove the issue.

Is him wanting to kill "all jews" the same as me wanting to kill a single assailant that is threatening my family. Wouldn't the equivalent be I want to kill all killers?

What is the definition of "his people"? Is "his people" have the same intimacy as a family member of mine?

[RainMaker]

It's connected. He and many others believe that the Jews are sending immigrants here to kill off the white race. The idea that the migrant caravan is a Jewish funded hit squad to kill people is a mainstream Republican talking point these days.

Reading through his posts it was clear he felt his and "his people" were in danger of being slaughtered.

His final words are "I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. I'm going in".

I don't know if that's the same as a person holding a gun to someone's head. But he obviously felt lives were in danger and he had to do something about it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's connected. He and many others believe that the Jews are sending immigrants here to kill off the white race. The idea that the migrant caravan is a Jewish funded hit squad to kill people is a mainstream Republican talking point these days.

Reading through his posts it was clear he felt his and "his people" were in danger of being slaughtered.

His final words are "I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. I'm going in".

I don't know if that's the same as a person holding a gun to someone's head. But he obviously felt lives were in danger and he had to do something about it.

Sure its connected. In addition to Jews are helping the migrant caravan ... might as well toss in Jews own the banks, Jews have the President's ear, Jews own the politicians, Jews own high-tech ... ad nauseum.

Everything he "believes" that is bad about Jews goes into his belief of genocide. That's a heck of a catch-all category.

To say that is "exact rationale" to my scenario of killing an assailant to save my family but I honestly don't see it. Let's settle on "similarities" and I'm good.

[PilotMan]

There is a responsibility for the words you choose. Words are powerful. Look at the Bible. Take that whichever way you want. Either way, they are powerful. Allowing the sort of irresponsibility that we see in modern leadership in the white house and in the media extremes (https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-con...8_2018-min.jpg) is simply killing us. It's not a discussion. It's not civil. There is no end goal other than the sum zero game, and that won't get us to the end.

Having said that. Until certain people in politics, who are directly responsible for the current climate are gone, I have no interest in cooperating to create a win/win as they have no good faith bargaining chips left to play with and are wholly untrustworthy and not worth bargaining with. I would work with those who disagree with me though, who are willing to work toward a long term solution to current problems though, just like it's designed to do.

I digress. The ease at which people are willing to give trump a pass because of his use of words is scary. NO previous president would have ever gotten away with it. None.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

Obviously there's more gun suicides where there's more guns. And there seems to be a correlation between suicide rates and gun ownership, which makes sense, guns make suicide easy. But that usually isn't part of the rallying cry for gun control. It's just one part of the debate that comes off as disingenuous to me. Americans are concerned mostly about one particular type of gun violence - mass shootings. That's what sparks gun control debates. Not domestic violence, suicides, or gang violence. Which is kind of unfortunate because mass shootings are the type of gun violence/death that's probably least impacted by gun control. Most mass shooters could have bought weapons no matter what the background check required. (though some of them could have been slowed down some based on the types of weapons available, etc.)

The loud voices that react to specific events seem to be concerned only about the specific events. But the people who care deeply about reducing gun violence in the US, and people who work hard on a daily basis, regardless of the latest incident, to try to raise awareness about gun violence in general - they really do care deeply about all of this.

Just read through this thread, and look at the calm and reasonable and well-reasoned arguments digamma makes at every opportunity, with mention of reasonable measures that could be taken to reduce the overall number of gun deaths in our country, I'm quite certain I've seen him reference the number of suicide deaths that could be prevented with reasonable gun control measure, with references to available data comparing states that have implemented laws at the state level compared to those that don't.

And then watch as, every time, he gets completely ignored as the loudest amongst the group goes back to shouting at each other about what could or couldn't have done to stop this one individual shooting today - when the actual argument is NEVER about one very very specific set of circumstances, but about gains that could very easily be made with reasonable change that almost everyone is generally in favor of outside of the NRA.

It gets old, and sad, and disheartening.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Radii

It gets old, and sad, and disheartening.

It sure does.

[Logan]

I was sitting in a Pennsylvania synagogue with my extended family watching my oldest niece lead the service for her Bat Mitzvah at the exact same time that psychopath was murdering people in a similar setting on the other side of the state.

So sickening.

[cuervo72]

Shooting at Butler High "began with bullying that escalated out of control" | ktvb.com

"I don't know how a young person gets a handgun in the state of North Carolina but we'll look into all those things and make sure it doesn't happen again."

No idea.

[RainMaker]

The yoga mass shooter was an extremist with a history of violence against women and a love of guns. Check all the boxes yet again. As a bonus, he was an incel.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/u...g-florida.html

[Ksyrup]

Yeah that one hits somewhat close to home. A former attorney I used to work with was in training to be a yoga instructor at that studio, and another attorney was in a restaurant at the same strip mall when the shooting occurred. That's less than 10 minutes from where we used to live.

[Edward64]

Another one.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/cal...ntl/index.html

• Twelve people killed in shooting at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California. Ventura County sheriff's deputy among the dead, police say.
• The suspected gunman is also dead, police say.
• At least a dozen people injured.
• Eyewitnesses say shooter opened fire in a packed bar during college night.

[Ksyrup]

28-year old veteran who suffered PTSD.

[Edward64]

More on the shooter.

Thousand Oaks Bar shooting: Gunman ID'd as Ian David Long, Marine

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. – Authorities have identified the gunman as Marine veteran Ian David Long, 28, of Newbury Park, in the shooting that killed 12 at bar in California.

A tall, hooded man dressed in black opened fire late Wednesday during "college night" at a crowded country dance bar in Southern California, killing 11 people and a sheriff's sergeant.

The shooter used a caliber handgun for the shootings and drove his mother's car to the Borderline Bar and Grill in this small city, about an hour north of Los Angeles. The man was found dead in the bar, but authorities don't know if he died from suicide or from a law enforcement bullet.

Local authorities said it had contact with Long over the years. He was the victim of a battery at a local Thousand Oaks bar and deputies were called to his home in Newbury Park in 2018 due to a domestic dispute, where he was "somewhat irate and acting irrationally," said Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean.

However, after mental health professionals looked at him, they decided not to pull him in for further observation.

Dean said Long used a 45 caliber handgun that was designed to be fit with ten rounds of ammunition. The gun was purchased legally.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

28-year old veteran who suffered PTSD.

And this is the social price of war. All the love for the great and mighty military and we lose the price we pay in human suffering after they come home. It's the cost of throwing our men and women willy nilly with no real break. Sadly, it's really the only deterrent we have to the never ending war of the future.

Yesterday, China released a video of a stealth drone capable of delivering a payload. As soon as we reach the level of autonomous war, I'm not sure we'll figure out how to stop it.

[RainMaker]

Ooooffffffff...this video. Parents worst nightmare.

Heart-wrenching moment as father announces his son was killed in Thousand Oaks mass shooting. “Only him and I know, how I loved—how much I miss him…Oh, son, I love you so much.” https://t.co/H1XcH2w5PS pic.twitter.com/mAtfVmIIhy

— ABC News (@ABC) November 8, 2018

[Edward64]

Absolutely heart-wrenching. I couldn't imagine what he is going through.

As part of a solution, maybe get more of these really candid grief out there so people can see the impact and maybe think twice or report suspicions.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

28-year old veteran who suffered PTSD.

Ehhh, let's not use PTSD as an excuse. Seems like he was a piece of shit long before he joined the Marines. And plenty of soldiers come back with PTSD and don't slaughter a bunch of college students.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018...coach-assault/

This also continues a trend of these mass shooters having a history of violence against women.

[RainMaker]

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-p...s-r-1830308976

[QuikSand]

Folks, I know we’re all running low on thoughts and prayers, but #Wilmington

I guess get used to this feeling

[QuikSand]

(Sounds like this might be nothing, hope so)

[Thomkal]

Yep sounds like malfunctioning equipment that someone took for gunfire. Given what they have been through with the hurricane/floods, very happy to see this wasn't a shooting.

[RainMaker]

I think one of the craziest thing about this is how quickly it's out of the news. 12 people murdered like this would have run for weeks. President would have made a trip out.

Maybe the only positive takeaway is that if the press cover them less, maybe it dissuades people from doing it?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As part of a solution, maybe get more of these really candid grief out there so people can see the impact and maybe think twice or report suspicions.

Another part of the solution is to have these like groups talk out more about the impact they have seen with guns (e.g. cops, EMS etc.) with kids and young adults.

I wouldn't doubt this Dr. group is way more gun-control than I would like but am okay as I do think these conversations are needed and the NRA is too immovable for me.

There is no immediate solution, its just laying out the groundwork for the next generation. Focus on them while we wait out 20-30 years of craziness.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/healt...act/index.html

Two signs of the times: another mass shooting and more Twitter outrage. This time, though, the barbs over social media came from the medical community in response to a tweet from the National Rifle Association.

The piling-on began after the NRA tweeted on Wednesday a link to an article from its Institute of Legislative Action. The article, titled "Surprise: Physician Group Rehashes Same Tired Gun Control Policies," was promoted with these words: "Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane. Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves."

[miami_fan]

Give the guy credit for one thing. He knew the world he was leaving behind.

Thousand Oaks shooting gunman posted on Instagram during bar massacre

THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. – Ian David Long, the gunman who killed 12 people at a country music bar, posted on social media during the deadly rampage, according to law enforcement officials.

The first call to law enforcement came in at 11:19 p.m. Wednesday, officials said. The authorities arrived at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, three minutes later. They entered the building at 11:25 p.m.

Long, 28, first posted on Instagram at 11:24 p.m: "It's too bad I won't get to see all the illogical and pathetic reasons people will put in my mouth as to why I did it," the military veteran said in the post. "Fact is I had no reason to do it, and I just thought....(exploitive), life is boring so why not?" Long posted, according to ABC News and Buzzfeed.

Three minutes later Long posted, "I hope people call me insane (two smiley face emojiis) would that just be a big ball of irony? Yeah... I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is 'hopes and prayers'...or 'keep you in my thoughts'." He added, "Every time...and wonder why these keep happening... --(two smiley face emojis)."

Long ended the killing spree by taking his own life.

The Ventura County Sheriff's office requested that the social media service preserve the communications until the posts can be subpoenaed with a search warrant or court order.

The posts have already been taken down. Authorities have not yet determined a motive for the attack.

A stretch of Rolling Oaks Drive, the street leading to Borderline Bar and Grill, remained closed Saturday.

Investigators wearing white hazmat-style suits and respirators over their faces continue to process the scene that Long left behind. They'll keep going until at least Tuesday, a Ventura County Sheriff's Department spokesman said.

[PilotMan]

That is a serious empathy gap. How can you care about what happens afterward if you don't care about the fallout of who you're doing it to?

[thesloppy]

So we've entered a grand new age of postmodern mass murder. Terrific.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

That is a serious empathy gap. How can you care about what happens afterward if you don't care about the fallout of who you're doing it to?

No sense in applying logic to someone clearly not operating on a reasonable manner.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

No sense in applying logic to someone clearly not operating on a reasonable manner.

If that's the standard the judgement of any person could be brought into question. I mean, I may have even used that argument in a social media argument. The case could be made that trump doesn't operate in a reasonable manner. It's too vague.



The military doesn't exactly get the pick of the litter when it comes to enlistments, and war and dangerous/hostile deployments don't make that challenge any easier. In fact, it makes the ramifications of it much more dangerous and a drawback that should be considered when asking what we do of our completely volunteer military.

[cuervo72]

How Robert Bowers went from conservative to white nationalist | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

More in-depth profile/analysis of the synagogue shooter.

[RainMaker]

Officer shoots, kills armed security guard outside south suburban bar | WGN-TV

Going to guess we won't get much response from the NRA about this legal gun owner being mowed down despite doing nothing wrong. Can't figure out why.