• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    269
    ·
    1 year ago

    The bio of the victim from her store’s website:

    Lauri Carleton’s career in fashion began early in her teens, working in the family business at Fred Segal Feet in Los Angeles while attending Art Center School of Design. From there she ran “the” top fashion shoe floor in the US at Joseph Magnin Century City. Eventually she joined Kenneth Cole almost from its inception and remained there for over fifteen years as an executive, building highly successful businesses, working with factories and design teams in Italy and Spain, and traveling 200 plus days a year.

    With a penchant for longevity, she has been married to the same man for 28 years and is the mother of a blended family of nine children, the youngest being identical twin girls. She and her husband have traveled the greater part of the US, Europe and South America. From these travels they have nourished a passion for architecture, design, fine art, food, fashion, and have consequently learned to drink in and appreciate the beauty, style and brilliance of life. Their home of thirty years in Studio City is a reflection of this passion, as well as their getaway- a restored 1920’s Fisherman’s Cabin in Lake Arrowhead. Coveting the simpler lifestyle with family, friends and animals at the lake is enhanced greatly by their 1946 all mahogany Chris-Craft; the ultimate in cultivating a well appreciated and honed lifestyle.

    Mag.Pi for Lauri is all about tackling everyday life with grace and ease and continuing to dream…

    What a waste. A tragedy for that whole family for literally nothing. No reason at all other than small minded assholes.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      85
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, it’s the second civil war starting. Expect to see more terrible garbage like this on your feeds as we reach 2024 and beyond.

          • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            45
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            These same people couldn’t go three weeks without a haircut in 2020. There are some who’ll shoot someone over a pride flag, but not enough to fight a war. They’d be begging to surrender the first time their grocery order doesn’t arrive.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              58
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Actually American gun owners have about 78-157 billion bullets stockpiled between them, most of them right-wing. They regularly train with their weapons and have made this second civil war into an important aspect of their culture. A lot of them believe it’s the end times because the book of revelations talks of brother turning against brother.

              The left is actually woefully untrained and outmatched, and that’s because of years of nonviolence being browbeaten over their heads and used to propagandize them to do nothing to meaningfully advance any of their causes. The left was fattened up with decades of propaganda and are now ready for the slaughter.

              So is the right, really. The only ones who are going to win this coming civil war are the BRICS countries.

              • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                32
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, they have a lot of guns. On the other hand, we’ve had to tell them, at least twice in my lifetime, not to drink bleach to cure diseases.

                They won’t last a week.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  18
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They’re really, really not as stupid as you think and underestimating them to make yourself feel better will only result in suffering for you and yours. It’s enabled them to do so much damage already.

                  If they’re really so stupid, how did they manage to pack the courts and get abortion banned? Get Trump elected?

              • sfgifz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                25
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’ve seen enough Doomsday Peppers to know that these “prepared” right wingers will be gasping for breath on the floor when it actually comes time to run and do something physically strenuous. Fat fucks couldn’t even breath through a thin mask, their brain cells are the only thing they’ll slaughter due to lack of oxygen.

                • Catasaur@lemmy.catasaur.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  29
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s what you hope. The reality is that they’re armed and militant, and people will be shocked when they start going door to door.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  20
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Statistical averages are, however. 47% of Americans own a gun. They have on average 500-1000 bullets on hand at any one time, enough for one or two trips to their gun ranges, which totals up to 78 to 157 billion bullets.

                  Just because you are insulted when faced with the fact that the left is woefully unprepared for that does not make it not true. Reality does not bend to your wishes.

                  You can either accept the facts as I present them to you and prepare yourself, or when this whole thing blows up next year, suffer. Your choice.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  18
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Oh look, found an antifascist. Yeah, you guys are way too little in number to really be able to do anything about them and you guys know it. There is over a hundred million of them armed to the teeth and a few thousand of you, tops.

                  Look in the thread. A lot of these motherfuckers even deny that a second civil war is starting or has been going on. They cling too closely to their narrative that it’s just hopelessly misguided brainwashed chumps committing random acts of violence instead of seeing it for what it really is: a collective act from a fascist political faction, and they cling to it because letting it go would send them down a spiral of fear because they cannot cope with the very real possibility they’ll likely die at the hands of one of those cultists unless they change their perceptions and prepare.

                  So what makes you think you’ll get the manpower to really stop the right? Can you convince enough left wingers that using violence against those scumfucks is okay in time? Can you convince the denialists in the thread to change their minds?

              • Tenesto@citizensgaming.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right wing gun owners average BMI is like 40+

                All the guns in the world won’t help you win a war if you can barely walk a mile without getting winded.

              • Asafum@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lmao.

                While I agree that is what should happen, there is literally nothing about current day Democrats that makes me think they’ll actually take the hard stance and punish people for their actions. We’ll have Biden or whoever is in charge at the time saying some bullshit “we need to heal now. We’ve been though rough times, let’s welcome our neighbors back home. Blah blah blah no repercussions other than for the ring leaders.”

      • asg101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it’s the second civil war starting

        The first civil war never REALLY ended, just went a bit cold.

      • figaro@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m curious, do you actually think there is going to be another civil war?

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We’re literally already in one. We’ve been in a cold civil war for about a decade now (arguably the past few decades), and the war’s been growing hotter with every mass shooting and tragedy like this one.

          This is how civil wars are fought in the modern age. It’s not all fancy suits and muskets. It’s large swaths of people with opposing views killing each other over it at every opportunity, like this one.

          Why do you think school shootings happen? Or mass shootings in general? The vast majority of them are committed by members of right-wing hate groups and it’s part of this civil war they’ve been waging against the left. The whole point is to eradicate the left or force them to submit to their will.

          • bamfic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The first civil war never ended. It entered a cold phasw for 150 years or so. That’s heating up now.

            • GlendatheGayWitch@lib.lgbt
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There were even people waving the battle flag of the Confederate army/navy when the neoconfederates invaded Congress on January 6, 2021.

              I still can’t believe that these people are getting such light sentences for taking up arms and invading the Capitol.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            A viewpoint like that is very subject to confirmation bias. Literally any crime is held up as evidence that it is correct. Look at the terms you are using “cold” “about a decade”. It isn’t a who, what, where, why, and how. It is vague.

            Reverse it for a moment. Treat it like a claim in science. What evidence would you use to try to prove your hypothesis wrong?

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              21
              ·
              1 year ago

              My guy, it’s obvious to the rest of us what’s going on and if you can’t observe current events for five seconds and see it for yourself, nothing I ever tell you will change your mind.

              The truth doesn’t depend on you believing it. All I have to do is express it. It’s up to you what you decide what you’re going to do with it. Listen to it and you have a chance to prepare and you might survive when it all blows up next year. Don’t and you won’t unless you get lucky – at the very least, you’ll suffer the way refugees of civil wars always do. It’s your choice.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                These are rhetoric tricks. Refusing to defend your viewpoint and trying to use carrot+stick.

                Why not answer my question? It will be easier than bring out stuff that would have been caught that easily.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  16
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s the truth. It’s like asserting that because I can’t give the scientific explanation for why the grass is green, it must not be, while I am pointing at the grass on the ground and showing you its color.

                  Again, it’s up to you to be willing to accept the reality in front of you and what has been happening innthis country for decades together. It’s up to you to be willing to overcome your own pride to save yourself and your family from what’s coming. I can only lead you to water. It is you who must choose to drink. Choose wisely. Your family depends on it.

          • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            35
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I do really like Robert Evans, but this is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo could definitely happen, but I think it’s far more likely that we’ll see an American version of The Troubles. I don’t think there are enough people who would truly be willing to fight and die over this; but there’s plenty of people willing to commit terrorist bombings or acts of sabotage if they think they can get away with it.

            • PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the most likely scenario is a dissolution limitation, similar to what happened with the soviet union.

              • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Soviet Union didn’t collapse from political rhetoric and hurt feelings.

                And the morons with enough guns and ammo to fight a war are far too economically comfortable to want actually want one.

                If the shit really ever did hit the fan having a few chickens and a garden is going to get you a lot farther than a few thousand rounds.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I haven’t listened to the podcast, so maybe I’m wrong… but isn’t the “it” in “it could happen here” referring to fascism, not a second civil war?

            Pretty important distinction imo

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You should probably look into the person behind it before you throw out your own worthless opinion that had no bar at all towards publication.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                Show me what I said that was opinion. Oh I am sorry, was that a strawman?

                I stated a fact. “The bar for starting a podcast is a 10 dollar headset.”

                • Ser_Ocelot@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh so that was a non sequitur unrelated to the podcast link posted, since you didn’t specifically criticise that specific podcast?

                  Robert Evans is a journalist btw

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I threw one of those blue lives matter flags in the trash. It blew in from my neighbors house fuck hate the traitorous fucks.

      • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They outright kill someone over a flag and you’re fantasising about politely ripping one down?

        Really puts it into perspective huh? Unfortunately we can’t afford to be polite with savages.

      • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Blat blat. Fire power’s something no american has bragging rights over `cause we all can get it. Legal or illegal. We’re in a slow motion civil war so don’t go bragging about shit everyone has access to if you’re a soft handed new age patriot.

        People should be building up rations of medicine.

    • chilburn06@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I smuggled home a confederate flag I found in a drawer at my grandmother’s house. Disposed of it with a bag of cat shit.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bruh, you just stole G-Ma’s emergency TP reserve left over from the early days of covid. Nothing else attracts shit like the stars and bars.

    • Aderyna@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a guy in my rural northern NY town with TWO confederate flags in the back of his big ass truck 🙄

  • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I find it important to make clear it was a hate crime, but Lauri Carleton was NOT killed “over a rainbow flag outside her clothing store”.

    No one gets killed because of a rainbow flag. You get killed because an asshole who wants to rather die than adapt to the world changing wants to spread fear with his last action and needs desperately to find a “reason”. Let’s not pretend he had a reason any other than being a coward.

    My heart goes out to her family, friends and the community impacted.

    • Staccato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      That headline is doing the murderer’s work by literally propagating his anti-LGBT terrorism. Shame on that periodical.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why has calling murderers cowards become such a thing? I blame someone who acts out of fear less than someone who acts out of hate or greed. Fear is a normal emotion and often reasonable. I don’t think this person acted out of fear though.

      • Imotali@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of them are terrified of LGBTQ people and mask it as outrage. They honestly believe the shit they get told and it terrifies them what the world is becoming.

  • Shortstack@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The reality is that terrorists like this guy are armed and carrying all the time, but the second amendment is for all Americans including liberals, lefties, moderates and everyone in between.

    Im not advocating for violence, in fact having a concealed carry permit nearly always means the exact opposite. Someone being aggressive? You walk away and let them win. Someone tailgating you? Let them pass.

    Carrying is about situations like this, between a shop owner with a rainbow flag and someone out looking for an excuse to murder someone over rage bait.

    • fosho@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      the problem I have with this is that you’re basically saying more people should have guns. a significant part of the issue is that there already are too many guns around and accessible and that is statistically going to result in more alterations resulting in shooting. you can talk about how much respect guns should be given all you want. but if more people have guns then there will be more gun violence.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re not wrong and I mainly don’t disagree with you.

        But look at it from another perspective.

        Those millions of guns in households are largely in the hands of conservatives since gun ownership skews heavily towards white people, males, and those living in rural areas which we already know also skews conservative, within which is a subset that fantasize about having a reason to murder their neighbors over dumb shit like colorful flags or opinions.

        Liberals are much more diverse of a population than conservatives which means that when it comes to liberals, women or poc the odds of them having a fighting chance are not great in a life or death situation they didnt create, vs who is most likely to be the aggressors, conservative white men.

        My take on it is that the cat is already out of the bag. In a perfect world I would prefer not having easy to operate life-ending tools spread freely throughout the country, but that’s not the reality we live in. The best shot we have is to even the playing field so to speak even with the downsides it presents. The current status quo is letting terrorists gun us down with impunity and that doesn’t sit well with me.

        • Digitalprimate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree and think the core problem of too many guns could be solved the same way other Anglophone nations did it.

          However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.

          • tacosplease@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m open to a solution, but it’s unrealistic to expect Americans to give/sell back enough of their guns for it to work like it did in Australia.

            We have A LOT more guns here, and each one lasts 100 years or more. We could give up 99% of them (we wouldn’t though) and there would still be like 6 million guns here.

            • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Demanding people give up their guns would just cause an open civil war. The solution that worked in other countries wouldn’t work here because the ideology is different.

          • Shortstack@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I have no faith that what has worked in europe would work here given the political and cultural landscape before us. If it was feasible for america I’m not sure we would be in this situation now.

            I wish it was, you and me both, but until that changes I’m simply accepting the lay of the land for what it is and reacting accordingly. We can work towards a better solution in the meantime; these actions and thoughts are not mutually exclusive.

            However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.

            Thanks for the kind words. It is rather annoying being the change I want to see in the world though.

        • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean… I kind of get where you’re coming from but “with impunity”? The shooter is now dead. If they weren’t dead they’d be either executed eventually or in prison for 50+ years, or more likely, life.

          • Shortstack@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The trouble with this is that like @Liz@midwest.social pointed out in her comment about individual rights vs societal safety, from the perspective of the individual being shot, it is with impunity.

            That woman had a right to life and safety and some stupid asshole came along and ended that no matter what justice the shooter rightfully faces after the fact.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a balance between individual rights and societal safety. You have a right to defend yourself from threats to your life and safety by using deadly force. To say otherwise removes the ability for a good chunk of the population to adequately defend themselves. I’m related to plenty of people who cannot defend their life against the average male aggressor without a gun, and you are too. At a certain point size and strength are insurmountable.

        But yes, encouraging people to responsibility engage with firearms for self defense use means that there will be more guns floating around, which means more accidents, suicides, and murders. Just as with any other choice for the rules of society, it’s a trade-off. How much do we value keeping the right to adequate self-defense as a universal right? How much do we value preventing accidental injury and death?

        The classic comparison is cars, simply because the annual death numbers are similar, and pretty much no other reason. But even so, we can draw parallels. Cars have mandatory features that reduce the likelihood of injury without impacting the usefulness or general experience of using a car. So too do guns, with nearly all guns having to meet industry requirements for safety, like being able to handle an overpressure event, and being drop-safe.

        Cars have a licensing procedure (though it’s essentially a joke here in the US) and a licensing procedure would be fine for guns, so long as it can’t be used to restrict access (racist approvals and denials would become a problem in a hurry). My ideal licensing program would be a free handling skills course where failure would require some sort gross negligence, and even then you’d still get racist denials.

        And really, this is the fundamental problem with guns: I (and many others) view them as a necessary tool to accessing a highly valuable right. The chances you’ll need a gun are very low, but the cost of not having it can be very high. You don’t have full control over whether someone else will attempt to take your life, and I don’t want to say to a large chunk of the population “we’re going to take away your ability to defend yourself in order to save other people who would still have that option either way.”

        And I want to be clear, I completely agree with the other person. If you’re going to bring guns into your life, you had better learn medical skills, social skills, and you had better train with your firearm in somewhat realistic conditions. You should carry pepper spray, you should practice learning how to actually effectively calm people down, you need to learn how to safely store your guns and ammo, etc. Etc.

        I get the desire ban guns in order to save lives, but you’d also be endangering others. Compare that with the car analogy, and banning cars would have a similar trade-off. Some people would live thanks to not getting in a car accident, others would die thanks to not having the same level of mobility (which has about a billion knock-on effects for quality of life).

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So, two things:

            1. if you read that comment and didn’t realize I knew perfectly well that an increase in access to guns results in an increase in gun violence, I don’t know what to tell you. That whole comment was about balancing the needs to the individual against the needs of society.

            2. By your own data, the rape rate in the US was seven times higher than in Europe. Surely we would be talking about how common rape at gunpoint was in the US if that crime was increased by access to guns. The study you cited makes it very clear that direct, unqualified comparisons of crime rates between nation is a bad idea, since there’s a million factors that influence crime.

            One of those factors is access to guns, but so are things like poverty, population density, education level, pollution, social services, community engagement, access to green space, noise pollution, after school programs, etc. And the thing is, I want to fix and improve all of those things, something which seems to be lacking among hardcore gun nuts. I also want to fix and improve our relationship to guns, I’m just unwilling to restrict access in a way that can become a civil rights issue on a hurry.

        • fosho@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing there aren’t more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it’s possible you’re exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I’m convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.

          obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there’s already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.

          regardless, to me there’s no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, no, it’s just that I don’t weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that’s okay that we disagree there.

            To me, removing a potential victim’s ability to protect themselves isn’t worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they’re not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that’s okay, but I place a high value on an individual’s agency, to the point where I’m willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.

            This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don’t necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.

            • fosho@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what’s better for everyone. you can’t pretend this is your choice for others. it’s definitely for yourself.

              • Liz@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Uh, no, it’s so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that’s ridiculous. We’re just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.

                • fosho@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  in this case there’s only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can’t argue it’s better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it’s clear that position results in more gun violence and death.

    • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Carrying doesn’t do crap for self defense. The moment a crazy asshole pulls their gun at you and shoots you won’t even be able to comprehend the situation quick enough and get your own piece out of the holster.

      The crazy asshole always wins as they shoot first (they are usually cowards on top, so you might just get shot in the back).

      More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns, I feel much safer in European countries.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In the situation you outline, yeah you’d have no real chance at protecting yourself. And those situations do happen in cases like the Las Vegas hotel shooting or any of the various school shootings we’re seeing all over these days.

        In many other cases even the most craven assholes need to work themselves up to shoot another human being.

        That means arguments, harassment and threats.

        These are helpful advance warning signs that tell you that you’re entering dangerous waters and de-escalation tactics take priority. Many of our lady friends can already tell from a mile away if someone is dangerous even before they start flapping their mouthholes as a matter of everyday survival.

        If all of that fails and I hope to god that it doesn’t, that’s when having a concealed weapon gives you a fighting chance at defending your right to live. Especially for women, guns are the great equalizer.

        More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns

        You’re right, this is true.

        Unfortunately the cost of encountering a rather persistent strapped terrorist is extremely high even if the chance of it happening to you is low.

        • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, I rather live in a country where pretty much no one is strapped (except police and military and even then not all of them).

          Even the whole hero fantasy a lot of Americans have, it doesn’t work out. There is a famous video of someone shooting up a mall. A random guy carrying tried to sneak up on him. Then the girlfriend of the shooter popped him right in the head from behind (as he didn’t notice her following at a distance).

        • Vlyn@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You mean start arming black people. Fastest way to get gun regulation in the US.

      • Shortstack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s more than you realize.

        You likely don’t hear much about it because liberal gun owners don’t fetishize guns or base their personality around them like the chuds on the other side of the fence do. Guns are tools, not an identity.

  • Smacks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s odd, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lefty or a gay person outright killing someone over a Dixie or Trump flag. I keep reading about far-righties killing people over the scary rainbow flag though

    • telllos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The need for the 2nd amendment is fundamental if you want the people, able to form a tyranny… oh wait…

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is they don’t see the hypocrisy. They think tyranny only applies to the government.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Generally yeah most tyranny definitions refer to government. It’s hard to exert tyrannical rule without being a de facto government.

      • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Turns out they have always been pro tyranny as long it’s their guy hurting the “correct” people…

    • ph00p@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can just print that shit now.

      Imagine if these crazy fucks didn’t already have guns and they just discovered printable ones, I think that would have been a worse outcome.

      • Margrave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please elaborate as to how that would be worse. At least half these nutters wouldn’t be able to figure out how to use a printer, let alone a 3d printer.

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This thread has, predictably, devolved into a hugely disrespectful exchange given the linked post.

          But as an aside, I shudder to think of trying to design an additively manufactured part that would reliably contain a propellant blast using anything less than an industrial $100k-$1m DMLS or at least really really good SLS machine. If the goal is to harm somebody using a 3D printer, you’d probably be better off bashing them over the head with it.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Full plastic guns generally don’t last very long- but they have been proven to somewhat work since 2013. Now there are more stable designs that use off-the-shelf plumbing parts with plastic components. There are also designs that can be CNC’d with a cheap machine

      • Tenthrow@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why does everyone thing 3D printing is magic? You’re not going to be 3D printing weapons that can kill scores of poeple. Any firearm printed on an FDM printer is lucky to fire once without injuring the dipshit wielder.

        • 👁️🫦👁️@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This comment betrays a lack of understanding around 3d printed firearms.

          Of course there are your (nearly) fully plastic single shots like the Harlot that fire small calibers and dont always last long.

          On the other hand, there’s plastic lowers (the only part considered a firearm and thus the onlynpart that needs to be bought through an FFL) for AR15s that use off the shelf plumbing supplies for the pressure bearing components.

          The files are readily available and able to be printed on low end FDM printers with little adjustment and troubleshooting completely bypassing the need to purchase a firearm from a dealer.

  • Everlastingspud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    How much of a pussy do you have to be to go shoot somebody over a rainbow flag. What a fucking fairy. People are so sensitive these days and don’t know how to act. We can blame the internet all we want, but at the end of the day, people need to learn to have some social skills. How to talk disagreements out and let people have an opinion, even if it may be wrong or stupid in their eyes. It absolutely infuriates me that people gotta die over stupid shit.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In like 2021 when the truckers were protesting g the vaccine at the border I made a man snap in public over what was legitimately a luke-warm shot at the protest.

      I said something like “these dipshits are acting like they didn’t get their mandated MMR shots already.” And a guy next to me, not in the conversation, dramatically stood up, and loudly announced “You know what?! All you fuckin idiots think the situation is simple, but it’s a lot more fucking complex that the corporate media is making it out to be!” He stormed out. Didn’t pay his tab.

      The whole bar just sat there in awe. Like “damn I guess some of us really got hit with that isolation crazy”

      Truly, a year alone for some was just too much.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Two sides of the same coin, since all “regular” conservatives are also “far-right” extremists. Any “moderate conservative” is just a centrist Democrat at this point.

        • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except no. The majority of “moderate conservatives” would still vote for the Republican candidate. 74 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And those 74 million people are far-right extremists and in no way “Moderate.”

            That’s the point. That’s the Overton Window.

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was with you until that line. I know too many people who voted for Trump because they were ignorant and detached from politics, not because they were alt-right.

              There is a difference. Many of those detached-from-politics people are seeing Trump face all those charges, and moving on. Some are being told that it’s part of some Democratic conspiracy against Trump. If you’ve ever traveled to a red state on business and seen the local news, you’d understand how easy it is for someone to get convinced of the lie even though they are more aligned with Democrats on the issues than Republicans.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m torn on how to respond to this. On one hand, I grew up in rural Appalachia in a Republican household. Eventually my family pivoted 180 towards Democrats and never looked back. I shudder to wonder if we would’ve been the idyllic Trump supporter 20-years-ago. I know what it’s like when Fox News is blaring in every doctor’s lobby, every bar, etc. When on the job site every other person is espousing those same conservative views. So I recognize that people are capable of change and we should not give up entirely on them (though their vote is less needed these days).

                The thing is, many voted for Hitler not out of dyed-in-the-wool SS Nazi beliefs, but as you said: Complete ignorance.

                Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right. In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism, versus those who know the game and commit 100% — both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion. Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right

                  I can’t speak for everyone. But I knew quite a few Trump voters who clearly did not understand the for-right platform. They thought they voted:

                  1. Anti-corruption
                  2. This idea that both parties are the same and here’s someone who actually wants to pull a Perot
                  3. Saving jobs (he actually dramatically overperformed the labor vote that, while they can be racist, don’t usually run towards the dogwhistle candidate)

                  This, to me, is similar to a lot of the folks voting for Obama thinking he was actually progressive despite openly being conservative.

                  In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism

                  There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we’re not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.

                  both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion

                  This is true, and why it’s both important that we educate people, and that we work towards a country where campaigns of lies are either illegal or at least made ineffective. The Democrats ran fairly hard on “everything Trump said is a lie” and were able to prove it, and that wasn’t enough.

                  Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.

                  Sure, but not every fool is a racist. Most of them are “centirsts” or merely uninterested in politics and just want to go on with their lives.

            • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              When they vote for, and are ok with open arms for far right extreme shit, what should it be called?

              I know some people might seem to be normal and perhaps moderate, but when you sit down with them and explain some of this shit to them, and they basically are ok with it because they feel the bad shit will only impact other people and not themselves (for example religious persecution - “I’m Christian so I’ll be fine”) what does one call that?

              • S_204@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                One calls that bigotry because that’s exactly what it is. They’re bigots and prejudicial against other religions and I’d wager races as well.

          • Mockrenocks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re not a moderate if you support overthrowing the government. They can delude themselves, but they should absolutely be denied that label.

  • Hobbes@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ever notice how there’s no such thing as a liberal hate crime?

    “We are all domestic terrorists”.

    How much more do we have to put up with before we do something about this? Sadly I’m guessing it’s a lot more.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Brown shirts aren’t inherently bigoted, but they can be a reference to the colloquial name for the SA, the brownshirts, called that because their uniforms included brown shirts and also to differentiate them from other fascist militias of the era that wore different colored shirts. The SA used similar styles of military imagery, threats of violence, and acts of violence to modern right wing militias.

      • duviobaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it’s supposed to be wrong?

        • jimbo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The dude who shot her was killed by the police. What more were you thinking should have been done to him?

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So what are you recommending? It sounds like you’re recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It’s also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren’t involves in hate in the first place.

              • duviobaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                All i am saying is that if someone were to kill one of those terrorists, they wouldn’t get my pity

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What do you define as “one of those terrorists”? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.

      Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world’s problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on…

          • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It’s about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn’t accomplish that, and in this case I don’t blame them.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              All I’m saying is there’s a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have “reduced suffering in the world?”

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.

        • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.

          One could make the argument war didn’t get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn’t mean its a good argument.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn’t the US.

          The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that’s ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I’m talking about.

            The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There’s enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No they wouldn’t. Our military doesn’t even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn’t even get to play with their big toys.

              Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                But not enough to stop them without the left shedding their unhelpful way of thinking on the matter and mobilize, and you know that.

            • Drgon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lately I’ve been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s basically how it’s been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.

                I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we’ll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it’ll be downhill from there.

                • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.

                  Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.

                  Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn’t even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.

                  For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.

                  This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So? In what world does that necessitate you owning a gun? One where Robert Evans’s civil war happens?

              The idea that everyone needs to be strapped because a few morons are, is paranoid race to the bottom thinking, not how you make a better future.

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they’re not strapped. That’s so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re more likely to be killed by a mosquito than raped, and men are far more likely to be murdered than you. You might want to reevaluate your threat assessment.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.

        They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dunno. I’ve thought, for quite some time, that we’ll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I’m increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I’m horrified by violence and probably wouldn’t have the courage to do so.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).

          Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.

          At minimum, teach your children why we don’t do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hope you realize that you’re falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you’re familiar with ProPublica’s research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, “See? They’re no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are.”

          • brognak@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            Either way they lie and recruit the same. I’d much rather just punch the Nazis and anyone who sides with them.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              In a way wouldn’t we all. But this is clearly posturing anyway since I’m not seeing much in the way of nazi punching. For instance we saw how many nazis were in DC on January 6th or at Charlottesville, yet not much punching occurred.

              Either way there are better ways to undermine their goals.

              • carbonated@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah because rational humans were at home being their non violent selves having no idea what was about to unfold. How stupid are you?

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That just helps prove my point. One side is just not violent to begin with and to expect to beat violence with violence from a group unwilling to stoop to such a level themselves is absurd. Either way there are better ways to solving the problem. Nobody is going out “punching nazis” as much as it may feel cathartic to say. That will literally just land you in prison and feed their cause.

      • girlfriend@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.

      • ph00p@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        All the downvotes you’re getting on this one… YIKES I don’t think this is a very good community.

    • sumofchemicals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.

      That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be “right” it’s still a strategic error. It’s much harder to build than destroy and any “successful” deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.

      Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action

      • WiildFiire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Extremely extremely uncommon police W

        Unless the shooter was African American and they had no idea about the shop shooting which I wouldn’t doubt

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          41
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t call it a win. That murderer deserved to be tried and convicted for their crime and serve decades behind bars. They gave him the easy way out.

          • Wahots@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            From another article (The Sun is owned by Murdoch iirc), they suggested that the murderer did not want to get arrested and was aggressive. It’s sad that people get so hateful that they would rather die hating people than just going about life.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do they ever want to get arrested? That sounds like a poor excuse not to hit him with a bunch of taser darts and take him down that way. Sure, that might kill him too, but at least there would be a chance. Easier for the cop to reach for their gun and “solve” the problem.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            My cognitive dissonance is thinking both you and the guy you replied to are correct.

            • WiildFiire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              As much as I will defend my stance that I’m glad the shooter is dead, I still do agree with Flying Squid to an extent. Immediately murdering the aggressor goes against the whole of the system of law, I suppose a fair trial should still be taken place, but I’d be the happiest if they got the death penalty. Keeping him behind bars just keeps the hate alive

          • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            You should know it is a win. Justice is dealt swiftly, there’s no bullshit trials or wasting anyone’s time on this murdering asshole. Time or money.

            Sure, he “suffers less” getting a quick death, but let’s price this out for fun. This is in CA, Jesus, those idiots spent on average $64K per inmate annually as of 2015. Let’s not forget we’re in the era of Magic Biden Bucks™; according to Google we have experienced roughly 26% inflation since 2015. That $64K becomes $80K. Averages are just that, average, let’s be very generous & assume this guy is nothing special. Costing the taxpayer $70K per year incarcerated. Nice, even numbers. :-)

            That’s at least $700K per decade, not accounting for any future inflation. You want decades, so this revenge/justice venture will cost at minimum $1.4M. Versus 10 mins & $10 in bullets.

            I don’t really seek vengeance in the form of life sentences. The end result is the same; death is death & he got his. Justice has been served accurately with zero delay, a modern day miracle.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh yeah, police just shooting who they feel like is a modern day miracle! Nothing bad can come from that! Totally won’t end with a police officer kneeling on a man’s neck and slowly choking him to death for being black!

              • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You erroneously framing a self defense situation which the cops were actually in for once as some 90’s revenge movie cliche is only hurting us.

                This is not about you.

                • rbhfd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They’re replying to the comment celebrating the fact the suspect was given a quick and cheap death by the police.

                  Maybe the police actions in this case were warranted because of self defense, but that’s not what the comment was saying at all.

              • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That isn’t at all what I said, and this isn’t a case of “shooting who they feel like”. 🤨 This was a case of a killer, a true murderer, getting killed. No one will be prosecuted for fatally shooting this murderer. Stop making false equivalence arguments.

              • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We’re in agreement on that. But when in pursuit of an armed & dangerous individual, armed with a gun, I do believe lethal response in self-defense or pursuit of neutralizing the threat is authorized. If the killer is killed in an armed standoff with police, while not the goal, I’m going to call that a bonus.

                I think it is a lapse in moral judgment to command others to act in ways that we wouldn’t act ourselves…I think most people, pursuing an armed & dangerous killer, would want a gun & permission to use it when their lives are threatened. Tasers, stun weapons, and other non-lethal forms of detainment require getting uncomfortably close to the armed & dangerous person.

        • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah it is really easy to fall for the schadenfreude when a POS gets got by cops but don’t forget cops are wrong about who did what all the fucking time…

          I hope they weren’t wrong here…

          • Root@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not their job to execute people. It’s their job to arrest them and provide evidence in a court of law to get them jail time. Even if it’s the perpetrator.

            • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That is why I’m arguing for not celebrating this way of handling problems. Executions, even official ones that are done “correctly” by the state, often kill innocent people. And, as you said, people that have directly commited a crime still deserve their rights.

              Situations like this, where no one wants to see a killer like that get away, it becomes easier to overlook bad policing, and everyone should make a conscious effort try and hold police to a higher standard to do things properly.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess he should be allowed to shoot whoever he wants and fuck our human right to self defense then. 🤷

              I hate cops too but this is one of the few cases where lethal action on their part is justifed. Him shooting at them gives them the right to shoot back, not as cops but as human beings. And how dare you tell human beings that the machinations of an old, decrepit, broken system is more important than their own lives?

        • electrogamerman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am actually interested to know the race of the murderer. I know some people are against giving that information, but truth is, that provides a lot of information.

      • IGuessThisIsForNSFW@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Trying to make memes is a waste of time. Spend an hour trying to make something funny in photoshop, 4 upvotes. Literally just read the second line of an article and put it in the comments, 50 upvotes. Not that I care about internet points, but if I did I would never waste my time actually trying to make something insightful!