Why do people keep copying my posts?

Today, 07:26:
Today, 13:07:

Mass shooting in the USA since 2007

Let's count the Muslims....

Of course we could add up all the Muslims killed by Americans and compare it to the number of Americans killed by Muslims since 2013

lets count pissed off homosexuals as well

so when i state that motive is important because we can watch for people that applaud this motive and prevent more killings that way, you counter with "omg so with what motive is it ok to slaughter 50"

yeah talk about motive. so its ok to for muslims to kill americans because other americans have killed other muslims?

Suspect is a Swiss which was until last October a member in the local gun club and took part in the Jungeschützenkurs (pre-military shooting course, using the SIG 550/StGW-90). The youngsters take home their wepon but w/o the lock (was not allways the case) so it is pretty useless. Additionaly, with leaving the club he had to hand in the gun.

http://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/aargau...rein-130353011

If things are still the same as it was in my time (safe the part with the lock) it is pretty easy to sneak out some rounds which you got/bought but never fired.

The police did not specify what kind of weapon was used. But may be possible it was the StGW-90 of his father, older sibling, or a gun which dead killed person brought to the scene.

__________________
On Strike - ChatGPT knows more than I, so use it (or doesn't it?)

What you fail to understand is that motive actually doesn't matter - how do we know that?

In Europe since WW2 we've had terrorist attacks by (and not limited to) the following groups: IRA, Basque separatists, IRA, Al-Quaeda, OAS, ISIS, Baarder-Meinhof.

So over a 60+ year period, and for numerous difference ideologies, people with fanatic views have acted out and killed people. We can't change that. They will always exist.

What we can do is reduce their opportunities and reduce the chance of them having the means.

You use intelligence to monitor those linked to previous attacks, you prevent them recruiting and you reduce their travel choices. You impose tighter controls of weapons and explosive materials. You tighten restrictions on controlled or sensitive information.

You will never control how the entire population thinks nor will you ever get to a place where there is total security.

__________________
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" Abraham Lincoln

Because you are a cool person
Looking for the brown nose smilie.....

For that you need to know the motive, the underlying ideology. You don't know which groups to target otherwise.

so if someone is lyrical about IS and it's ideology you dont think that warrants a closer look on this person. i mean, you could even do that in addition to your general restriction of the public. maybe prevent an extra few killings. why willingly ignore the motive? seems like a valuable piece of info for future reference. find a pattern perhaps. isnt that what intel agencies do?

you act like someone decides that x people get killed per year due to ideology and that if you stamp out one group, another group would just fill the quotum so why bother.

how about a compromise? we let intel agencies look for jihad boys and then we prevent them from recruiting and you reduce their travel choices. You impose tighter controls of weapons and explosive materials. You tighten restrictions on controlled or sensitive information.

instead of hamhandedly restricting the entire populace just to avoid being called an islamophobe.

While the vast majority of the mass shooters were anything else then Muslims, you do what to prevent THEM?

Gun control.

Ok, fair points. I hope that I won't be labeled as extremist feminist if I raise this question - do we know anything about their marriage? Given his history, perhaps he was violent, perhaps he threatened her. In most of cases, victims don't react as we would like them to react, the risks are too high. There was a child involved, you don't have to be a genius to figure he could have manipulated her as he wished.
I hope that FBI has the maturity to analyse these circumstances and establish whether we have another victim or an accomplice.
I wouldn't know, I'm not the "almighty" press...

That still leave people like the Tsarnaevs. What is to be done about them?

Pressure cooker control

It's turned into another talking point on how we can control muslims. Trump is even now using it to say guns shouldn't be given to people on the watchlist even though this guy wasn't on the watchlist.

It's as if everyone forgot that the right and christian groups have been against lgbt rights every step of the way. Quite frankly, in the US, it was a surprise the guy was muslim given how pissed off many people are that lgbt have any rights at all. But if some hardline christian guy had done it, he would have been quickly written off as a loon. There would be no talk of investigating fundamentalist christians, there would be no talk of banning guns to groups like the KKK. But because it's a muslim, anything goes.

And reading around, the lgbt community is etremely pissed off that it's become this sort of talking point, and who can blame them, they still suffer more violence than other group: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...merica/486722/

I think this is a matter of cause exponentially increased by means.

I don't mind attributing christian loons their blame too. Or the supremacists like in charleston.

And speaking of talking points, everybody in the US ignores the domestic violence issue greenmount touched on. Yes, let's prosecute the wife or even the ex-wife...

how is it a bad thing to say that you should not give guns to people on watchlist? apparently mateen should have been on watchlist anyway, wouldnt you agree? besides he got pretty close because twice investigated by fbi.

millions of angry christians that hate gays but do not kill them en masse. gays are being killed on a daily basis by muslims throughout the world, yet it comes as a surprise that a muslim did the slaughtering?

im up for going after extreme christians as well, by the way. seems like a waste of resources though, as christianity does not seem to be inspiring many killings nowadays. yeah it inspires to be on the receiving end of the killings in large parts of the world.

"violence" in your article probably includes anything from looking funny at someone to mass murder. both bad, but not comparable. the only example they give is a muslim setting a gay bar on fire...

but still wasn't on the watchlist,

Yes, because there are so many shootings, but the standard reporting is

white guy: lone wolf lunatic
black/latino : gang violence
brown : muslim terrorist.

So you're not about going after extreme christian groups.

nice, just downplay violence by just stating it "probably" someone looking at someone funny. Bollox

EDIT: My point being, you downplay violence against LGBT in christian countries in order to point at muslims and say, but they're worse!