• At least 8-10 injured in Ohio State University attack; one suspect dead
    217 replies, posted
[QUOTE=StonedPenguin;51441336]This shit wouldn't happen near as often if there was proper access to mental health are and if the media didn't latch onto it was a chance for cheap views every time.[/QUOTE] Hatred doesn't require psychological evaluation to manifest.
[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-dead-after-ohio-state-university-car-knife-attack-n689076[/url] Apparently he posted a rant a bit before he rammed into the crowd. From the article: [B]Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, wrote on what appears to be his Facebook page that he had reached a "boiling point." "America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially Muslim Ummah (community). We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that." the post said. Two hours before that, a cryptic post on the page said: "Forgive and forget. Love."[/B] What a fucking asshole.
[QUOTE=geel9;51440666]Everyone is allowed to have guns, you just can't bring them certain places. Notice how the vast majority of shootings (that aren't gang-on-gang violence) happen in a place where nobody is allowed to have guns? What makes you think they would choose to attack a place where EVERYONE could have a gun?[/QUOTE] I was really interested if this claim had any merit and found [url=https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/]this site.[/url] At least between the years of 2009 to 2015, the majority of shootings were not actually committed in gun free zones.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51442160]I was really interested if this claim had any merit and found [URL="https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/"]this site.[/URL] At least between the years of 2009 to 2015, the majority of shootings were not actually committed in gun free zones.[/QUOTE] Talking about "mass shootings" as simply any shooting where 4 or more people are killed is extremely deceptive in this context because it includes things like gang shootings and domestic violence, which, of course, aren't relevant to the subject. Going through the list of events they looked at shows that a huge number of them, probably the majority, were an estranged family member killing other members of their own family. I would be interested in the statistics from mass shootings that were specifically motivated by political or religious reasons.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51442178]Talking about "mass shootings" as simply any shooting where 4 or more people are killed is extremely deceptive in this context because it includes things like gang shootings and domestic violence, which, of course, aren't relevant to the subject. I would be interested in the statistics from mass shootings that were specifically motivated by political or religious reasons.[/QUOTE] That's what the fbi uses to define mass shootings so if it works for them it works for me.
What a terrible situation. Innocent students injured, a stain of trauma placed upon the college and the city around it, and this bastard just put another wedge that paints many sane innocents in a bad light and the vocal violent minority of the spectrum gain ammo.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51442160]I was really interested if this claim had any merit and found [URL="https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/"]this site.[/URL] At least between the years of 2009 to 2015, the majority of shootings were not actually committed in gun free zones.[/QUOTE] We have contradicting data, then. [URL]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/[/URL] [QUOTE=Lambeth;51442194]That's what the fbi uses to define mass shootings so if it works for them it works for me.[/QUOTE] Well it shouldnt, the FBI's definition is contradictory at best, nonfunctional at worst. "of the 160 cases it counted, 32 involved a gun being fired without anyone being killed. Another 35 cases involved a single murder. The FBI study also ignored 20 out of what should have been a total of 113 cases where at least two people were killed. For example, it missed a 2001 shooting at a Chicago bar that left two dead and 21 wounded, as well as a 2004 Columbus, Ohio, attack at a concert that left four dead." [URL]http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/the-fbis-bogus-report-on-mass-shootings/[/URL] [QUOTE=Lambeth;51442216]I'd like to believe we live in a world that can agree on standards for data and statistics.[/QUOTE] I would too, but don't think the FBI will create that standard, as you can see they clearly cannot agree on what a mass shooting really is.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51442194]That's what the fbi uses to define mass shootings so if it works for them it works for me.[/QUOTE] So you're just going to play semantics, OK.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51442202]So you're just going to play semantics, OK.[/QUOTE] I'd like to believe we live in a world that can agree on standards for data and statistics.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51442216]I'd like to believe we live in a world that can agree on standards for data and statistics.[/QUOTE] It's semantics because the conversation obviously isn't about domestic violence, yet you insist on using the definition of a word that includes something like domestic violence. I'm not disagreeing with that data. I'm disagreeing with it's relevance to the conversation.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51442194]That's what the fbi uses to define mass shootings so if it works for them it works for me.[/QUOTE] Well, then you're being ridiculous and pedantic.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51442222]It's semantics because the conversation obviously isn't about domestic violence, yet you insist on using the definition of a word that includes something like domestic violence. I'm not disagreeing with that data. I'm disagreeing with it's relevance to the conversation.[/QUOTE] The reason many mass shootings happen in places which are no-gun zones is because most places where tons of people gather prohibit them. It's confusion of correlation and causation. The shooter is after a lot of people (or assisted suicide). The places that have a lot of people tend to ban guns - therefore, most places likely to be selected by a potential shooter are likely to have banned guns. I don't think many people who are already planning to die would be stopped by the notion of somebody shooting back. If anything, they would welcome it because it would present something to combat rather than something to slaughter, vindicating them in their violence. The "good guy with a gun" narrative also only works until you realize that every "good guy with a gun" has to be able to tell one another from the threat, which only works when there is some visible indicator of being an active shooter, which there isn't (aside from holding and firing a gun). The instant 'good guys' draw their guns, they become indiscernible from the attacker both to other 'good guys' and law enforcement either on the scene or arriving late to the party. To outside observers, both (or all) parties participating in the gunfight are unknowns and strangers, which means that they are seen as equal and indiscernible threats. [IMG]https://s12.postimg.org/kusvpw62l/e91m29u6.jpg[/IMG] Who do you shoot when you run out of the store and see one person shoot another person who was firing a gun? Was the person who was shot a 'good guy' drawing in self defense or the neutralized attacker? Was it friendly fire, because two armed good guys suddenly saw each other and both went for their firearms? Are you going to ask and announce your presence, or shoot? Will others know that you are innocent, or will you be shot as you are rushing to defend others? What stops the attacker from identifying himself as a 'good guy' during a shooting's chaos to gain a crucial moment or after fleeing the immediate area and using that to gain entry or access to barricaded innocents, when the majority of armed people actually are innocent, but are openly carrying due to the situation? It's not like they are going to come in dressed in a specific way to identify themselves, or as if mass shootings will simply stop. If anything, some would attack open-carry places while wearing clothing that indicated support of the second amendment and which was draped in American flags, in an attempt to gain an edge and be mistaken for a friendly during the chaos that would ensue. And aside from that, for every simultaneous shooter you have added to the scene, there is now a new position from which bullets are traveling, capable of missing and hitting bystanders with out a care as to whether they were fired by a good guy or a bad one.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51442409]The "good guy with a gun" narrative only works until you realize that every "good guy with a gun" has to be able to tell one another from the threat, which only works when there is some visible indicator of being an active shooter, which there isn't (aside from holding and firing a gun). The instant 'good guys' draw their guns, they become indiscernible from the attacker both to other 'good guys' and law enforcement either on the scene or arriving late to the party. To outside observers, both (or all) parties participating in the gunfight are unknowns and strangers, which means that they are seen as equal and indiscernible threats. [IMG]https://s12.postimg.org/kusvpw62l/e91m29u6.jpg[/IMG] Who do you shoot when you run out of the store and see one person shoot another person who was firing a gun? Was the person who was shot a 'good guy' drawing in self defense or the neutralized attacker? Was it friendly fire, because two armed good guys suddenly saw each other and both went for their firearms? Are you going to ask and announce your presence, or shoot? Will others know that you are innocent, or will you be shot as you are rushing to defend others? What stops the attacker from identifying himself as a 'good guy' during a shooting's chaos to gain a crucial moment or after fleeing the immediate area and using that to gain entry or access to barricaded innocents, when the majority of armed people actually are innocent, but are openly carrying due to the situation? It's not like they are going to come in dressed in a specific way to identify themselves, or as if mass shootings will simply stop. If anything, some would attack open-carry places while wearing clothing that indicated support of the second amendment and which was draped in American flags, in an attempt to gain an edge and be mistaken for a friendly during the chaos that would ensue. And aside from that, for every simultaneous shooter you have added to the scene, there is now a new position from which bullets are traveling, capable of missing and hitting bystanders with out a care as to whether they were fired by a good guy or a bad one.[/QUOTE] Yeah all those mass shootings that happened in non-gun-controlled areas were a real bloodbath Oh wait they didn't happen at all
[QUOTE=geel9;51442448]Yeah all those mass shootings that happened in non-gun-controlled areas were a real bloodbath Oh wait they didn't happen at all[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2014/jun/06/jim-rubens/jim-rubens-says-when-armed-civilians-stop-mass-sho/"]Do some research?[/URL] [QUOTE] Roughly half of all active shooter events Blair studied ended before law enforcement officers arrived. The most common occurrence was that the shooter stopped the attack spontaneously on their own. [B]The decision was often made after an initial burst of violence, in which the shooter attacked everyone who was in the immediate area[/B], Blair said. When those who remained either ran away or barricaded themselves in secure areas, [B]shooters often made the decision to leave the attack site or commit suicide[/B], he said. Blair said he also documented cases in which civilians took direct action. Civilians stopped about one out of every six active shooter events, but their actions rarely involved the use of firearms, he said. [B]The most common method was tackling the attacker, as was the case during a campus shooting in Seattle this week.[/B] Blair said he found [B]only three cases in which an armed civilian shot the attacker, and in two of those incidents, the civilian who took action was an off-duty police officer.[/B] Blair said it would be [B]difficult to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of armed civilians in stopping active shooter events based on the limited data that exists.[/B] In general though, Blair said, fewer people were killed or injured in the events that ended before police showed up at the scene -- either because civilians took action, or because the shooter spontaneously stopped or committed suicide. Data suggests the best course of action for civilians is first to avoid the attacker, and if that’s not possible, to deny access by barricading themselves in locked rooms or other secure areas. [. . .] Blair said he encourages civilians to take physical action to defend themselves only when it’s impossible to escape. "We see the firearm as being an adjunct to that part," he said. Blair said there are pros and cons to having armed civilians at the scene of a shooting. Confronting the shooter with a gun would likely provide the fastest resolution, he said.[B][U] But if multiple civilians are wielding guns at the scene, it could also create confusion about who the shooter is -- particularly for police who are arriving to render aid.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
One of the officals in the OSU diversity department wrote this on facebook [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/v6jvhJs.jpg[/IMG] 10/10 injecting blacklivesmatter into it
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51442779]One of the officals in the OSU diversity department wrote this on facebook [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/v6jvhJs.jpg[/IMG] 10/10 injecting blacklivesmatter into it[/QUOTE] No you see this really has to do with police brutality and not geopolitics and a mentally disturbed person! Although I will be fair, if she knew this person closely then this sort of irrational response is very typical and understandable. It's a lesser version of like when a parent continually denies that their kid is a rapist/murderer, it's just best to leave them alone while they sort it out with a counselor or something.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51442779] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/v6jvhJs.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] whaaaaaaaaat tf yeah we should stop hating people like Adam Lanza, the Unibomber, and that Asian man who killed 22 with a knife, after all they are the real victims, they must've been through so much to get to that point! As far as we know Abdul was sober. No mental illnesses, no crazy drugs. He made the conscious decision to brutally assault those random people, how in the heck can you defend that?
This is his manifesto: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dpjpguH.jpg[/IMG] Ummah: The Islamic community dawla in al sham: ISIS Interesting how he calls every muslim a sleeper agent, he's provoking the right wing anti-muslim people
Oh man. A certain somebody who's currently in flames about the corrupt media and voter fraud on twitter is going to have a field day when he reads that. I wonder what "We are not weak. We are weak" means, it's probably deliberate.
[t]https://i.sli.mg/EfpaMu.png[/t] I don't even have a face that could go more :| than mine already is.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;51442805]whaaaaaaaaat tf yeah we should stop hating people like Adam Lanza, the Unibomber, and that Asian man who killed 22 with a knife, after all they are the real victims, they must've been through so much to get to that point! As far as we know Abdul was sober. No mental illnesses, no crazy drugs. He made the conscious decision to brutally assault those random people, how in the heck can you defend that?[/QUOTE] She's just being emotional. Sorry Steph, but Abdul was a shitbag who flat-out admitted he sympathized with ISIS and who clearly had religious delusions. Whatever caused those delusions, who can say at this point in time. And to be fair, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) actually made a lot of valid points in his manifesto about technology, human over-dependence on technology and our disrespect for nature, societal superficiality and shallowness, etc. He wasn't a deranged religious killer the way this guy in Ohio was, nor was he a lunatic like Adam Lanza. He was a child prodigy and a genius mathematician who didn't fit in with other people (he was literally too smart for his own good), and then that psychologist from Harvard got a hold of him and really screwed him up with one of his stress experiments. He had clear goals and issues outlined in his manifesto. It's important to make distinctions here-- not all these guys are the same.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51442843]I wonder what "We are not weak. We are weak" means, it's probably deliberate.[/QUOTE] i bet that's actually a typo
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51442779]One of the officals in the OSU diversity department wrote this on facebook [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/v6jvhJs.jpg[/IMG] 10/10 injecting blacklivesmatter into it[/QUOTE] DO NOT SHARE THIS POST
[QUOTE=Covalent;51442903][t]https://i.sli.mg/EfpaMu.png[/t] I don't even have a face that could go more :| than mine already is.[/QUOTE] I like how he says the name of the officer but not the shooter, it almost makes me wonder what he really intends to cause with this tweet.
[QUOTE=Covalent;51442903][t]https://i.sli.mg/EfpaMu.png[/t] I don't even have a face that could go more :| than mine already is.[/QUOTE] Society is pretty fucked up when people celebrate a guy stopping a homicidal maniac. [sp]/s[/sp]
[QUOTE=Covalent;51442903][t]https://i.sli.mg/EfpaMu.png[/t] I don't even have a face that could go more :| than mine already is.[/QUOTE] He's been retweeting a lot of shit that goes against what he said there, I guess he is trying to provoke something so he can say 'look at the racism against me!! I did nothing wrong!!' He even goes after Alex Jones(LOL) when the guy made a piece on him being outraged with that tweet: [url]https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/803411913765814272[/url] Look at what he said about Fidel Castro: [url]https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/802577311170056192[/url]
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51442553][URL="http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2014/jun/06/jim-rubens/jim-rubens-says-when-armed-civilians-stop-mass-sho/"]Do some research?[/URL][/QUOTE] This isn't a response to his claim and your big wall of text with bolded snippets adds nothing to the conversation. He claimed that mass shootings don't occur in non-gun-controlled areas, making your claim about friendly fire irrelevant. You cited an article arguing that when mass shootings occur, they're typically not stopped by civilians. You're not contradicting him at all. If anything, you're confirming his claim- the article makes no mention of the incidents stopped by armed civilians involving wild shootouts between concealed carriers unable to distinguish between one another.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51442825]This is his manifesto: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dpjpguH.jpg[/IMG] Ummah: The Islamic community dawla in al sham: ISIS Interesting how he calls every muslim a sleeper agent, he's provoking the right wing anti-muslim people[/QUOTE] He lost me at "Stop the killing of muslims in Burma." Cause it's totally the muslims who are the victims of that war. This is the prime example of a "vetted" Muslim refugee in America. These people are a fucking joke.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51442825]This is his manifesto: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dpjpguH.jpg[/IMG] Ummah: The Islamic community dawla in al sham: ISIS Interesting how he calls every muslim a sleeper agent, he's provoking the right wing anti-muslim people[/QUOTE] So glad this piece of trash is dead, wish it could've happened sooner if he had that mindset.
[QUOTE=Komodoh;51443031]He lost me at "Stop the killing of muslims in Burma." Cause it's totally the muslims who are the victims of that war. This is the prime example of a "vetted" Muslim refugee in America. These people are a fucking joke.[/QUOTE] Hey man most muslims don't randomly stab people. I feel like I shouldn't have to say that but you had to go and say "these people" so I assume you're saying muslims are all stab happy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.