Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry, you've proved her point. The ones that make national news are the ones that people usually think of as "mass shootings".

No, I have not. The only thing I have shown is that both she and the national media have a bias.

The public/indiscriminate cases. Your race statistics obviously are from one of the columns on the right.

Ok, let's look at that. Many gang-related shootings are in public. And this church shooter was deliberately targeting the school, so it was not indiscriminate. So why is this a legitimate "mass shooting" and, say, shooting up a party full of teens in Douglasville is not?

Indiscriminate. That's what most people are referring to when they say "mass shooting".

No, the law worked just as it was supposed to. It was designed to go after dirty books covering up other wrongdoing.

But that alleged "other wrongdoing" was never even prosecuted. That case stunk from the beginning. Especially since Bragg has a reputation to downgrade clear felonies such as armed robberies into misdemeanor petty thefts. Here he is doing the opposite for political reasons.

The whole reason for it's existence is the other crimes might be hard to prosecute. This was the modern equivalent of getting Al Capone on tax evasion.

I have a big problem with it based on it being preponderance of the evidence, but no problem with applying the felony upgrade to his actions.

At least you acknowledge some problems with the case. I dislike Trump as much as you and Toni do, and this case helped him tremendously, since it was clearly politically motivated. Alvin would never have gone to such lengths to prosecute a Democrat based on similar facts.

I don't really think politically motivated is the right term here. Yes, they were hunting him, but it was a case of finally being able to pin something on the kingpin.

And I'll actually file weed selling as not completely victimless. Growing of illegal weed is often done in a hazardous and destructive manner.

You can find negative externalities with all sorts of things, legal or illegal. Generally, when we talk about "victimless crimes" is where there is no direct harm. With white collar crimes such as embezzlement, somebody is the direct victim.
And just like with sex work, most of the harm of weed is a direct consequence of it being unjustly illegal.

I wouldn't call embezzlement victimless.

And I am not saying weed shouldn't be legal, it most certainly should. But that's not the same as pretending there is no harm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One thing that is a little bit confusing. Two articles I read said that her mother asked that her name be changed to Robin because she identified as female while one article said that she asked to have her name changed. My point is that if her mother asked to have her name changed, it sounds as if her mother was accepting of her being trans. Did her mother not realize how messed up she was?

I don't find the two incompatible. She wanted to have her name changed but she was a minor at the time, her mother actually filed the petition.

And she was not a minor when this happened. If the mother knew she was messed up it wouldn't have changed anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Injuries and Homicides: A Health Justice Approach to Two Intersecting Public Health Crises - PMC

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal restrictions on firearm possession by IPV perpetrators, thus jeopardizing the safety of victims and survivors. This article reviews the history and recent developments in the law at the intersection of IPV and firearm violence and proposes a way forward through a health justice framework.

Which is not a rebuttal at all.

I said firearms are underrepresented. The % of domestic murders that are with a firearm is well below the % of murders that are with a firearm.

 

[ZiprHead]

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Injuries and Homicides: A Health Justice Approach to Two Intersecting Public Health Crises - PMC

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal restrictions on firearm possession by IPV perpetrators, thus jeopardizing the safety of victims and survivors. This article reviews the history and recent developments in the law at the intersection of IPV and firearm violence and proposes a way forward through a health justice framework.

Which is not a rebuttal at all.

I said firearms are underrepresented. The % of domestic murders that are with a firearm is well below the % of murders that are with a firearm.

You said " I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much." It would certainly remove the main cause of domestic violence death.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/31/us/minneapolis-school-shooter-motive.html

The link is behind a paywall because I've used up all of my articles to share, but since there is some new information about the latest school shooter, I'm going to copy a little bit of it. The sad fact is that while we may never know his exact motive, this person was full of hate, maybe since some childhood friends of hers noticed she had some strange behaviors, that they were too young to understand, or she might have been just full of self hatred and took that hatred on others. We will never know, but this type of hatred is hard to understand, as is her obsession with guns and violence. Sadly, it's is too common and because of our countries easy access to legally owning guns, such murders are too easy to cary out. She also wrote suicide notes and other things. There were plenty of warning signs, but nobody seemed to either recognize them or care.

Robin Westman, 23, carried out the attack and died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the authorities said. The attacker left behind a lengthy suicide note, journal entries and scribbling on the weapons used in the ambush at the Church of the Annunciation, which is affiliated with an adjacent Catholic school.

The content includes disparaging messages about President Trump, Christians, Black people, Hispanic people, Jews and Israel.

“The shooter expressed hate toward every group imaginable,” said Joseph H. Thompson, the acting United States attorney in Minnesota. “The shooter’s heart was full of hate.”

The sprawling nature of the assailant’s rantings and grievances led government officials and other observers to zero in on single pieces of information in the immediate aftermath of the attack, which also injured 15 children and three adult parishioners.

But the only clear finding so far, law enforcement officials said, was that the attacker had come to idolize mass shooters, particularly those who have killed children.

Jillian Peterson, a professor of criminology at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., who studies gun violence, said the facts that have emerged so far fit a pattern. Shooters who target children in these attacks tend to be young, isolated, depressed and angry individuals who become obsessed with previous slayings that have generated extensive news coverage.

“It’s sort of this self-hatred that turns outward, and then you have this really angry person who plans to go out in a blaze of glory,” Dr. Peterson said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know why this thread has become obsessed with the racial demographics of school shooters,

It went back to Toni's claim in post #2,824 that "the vast overwhelming number of people who shoot up schools (and churches and concerts and shopping malls) are white and male".

*I've decided to self-moderate this response*

I also think the obsession with mass shootings is like airplane crashes.

What an incredibly daft observation seeing how much money goes into airline safety (well, everywhere but Boeing these days)!

Obsession with school shootings? How out of touch with humanity must one be, in order to think people wanting to eliminate school shootings are obsessing.

Yesterday I had to go through a metal detector at a fucking hospital ER because the fools who think the guns are fine, 'that most guns aren't a problem therefore go fuck yourself' have gotten their way on gun lack of control for the last 40 years... and were wrong. We get to live the consequences, while they continue to insist they know what they are talking about... and then shit their pants over urban gun violence.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't know why this thread has become obsessed with the racial demographics of school shooters,

It went back to Toni's claim in post #2,824 that "the vast overwhelming number of people who shoot up schools (and churches and concerts and shopping malls) are white and male".

*I've decided to self-moderate this response*

I also think the obsession with mass shootings is like airplane crashes.

What an incredibly daft observation seeing how much money goes into airline safety (well, everywhere but Boeing these days)!

Obsession with school shootings? How out of touch with humanity must one be, in order to think people wanting to eliminate school shootings are obsessing.

Yesterday I had to go through a metal detector at a fucking hospital ER because the fools who think the guns are fine, 'that most guns aren't a problem therefore go fuck yourself' have gotten their way on gun lack of control for the last 40 years... and were wrong. We get to live the consequences, while they continue to insist they know what they are talking about... and then shit their pants over urban gun violence.

Just like Derec's obsession with black on black crime he claims not to have... or the obsession with Antifa. Or the obsession with immigration.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Injuries and Homicides: A Health Justice Approach to Two Intersecting Public Health Crises - PMC

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal restrictions on firearm possession by IPV perpetrators, thus jeopardizing the safety of victims and survivors. This article reviews the history and recent developments in the law at the intersection of IPV and firearm violence and proposes a way forward through a health justice framework.

Which is not a rebuttal at all.

I said firearms are underrepresented. The % of domestic murders that are with a firearm is well below the % of murders that are with a firearm.

You said " I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much." It would certainly remove the main cause of domestic violence death.

That's not how it works. Remember, guns are a means, not an end. Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means. With domestics the murderer generally has the access and the strength to kill by other means. Why would you not expect most of it to be displaced?

It's like putting a bank door on your front door while leaving the windows unprotected.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/31/us/minneapolis-school-shooter-motive.html

But the only clear finding so far, law enforcement officials said, was that the attacker had come to idolize mass shooters, particularly those who have killed children.

Jillian Peterson, a professor of criminology at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., who studies gun violence, said the facts that have emerged so far fit a pattern. Shooters who target children in these attacks tend to be young, isolated, depressed and angry individuals who become obsessed with previous slayings that have generated extensive news coverage.

“It’s sort of this self-hatred that turns outward, and then you have this really angry person who plans to go out in a blaze of glory,” Dr. Peterson said.

Which is what I have been saying--the main driver of mass shootings is mass shootings. We should greatly limit media coverage of mass shootings and terrorism. Not complete censorship, just reduce it to a minimum needed to convey the facts.

 

[ZiprHead]

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Injuries and Homicides: A Health Justice Approach to Two Intersecting Public Health Crises - PMC

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal restrictions on firearm possession by IPV perpetrators, thus jeopardizing the safety of victims and survivors. This article reviews the history and recent developments in the law at the intersection of IPV and firearm violence and proposes a way forward through a health justice framework.

Which is not a rebuttal at all.

I said firearms are underrepresented. The % of domestic murders that are with a firearm is well below the % of murders that are with a firearm.

You said " I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much." It would certainly remove the main cause of domestic violence death.

That's not how it works. Remember, guns are a means, not an end. Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means. With domestics the murderer generally has the access and the strength to kill by other means. Why would you not expect most of it to be displaced?

It's like putting a bank door on your front door while leaving the windows unprotected.

Some, but not all.

You're again making the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

[bilby]

Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means.

And some won't. Which is a win.

Guns make murder easy and quick, with no opportunity for change of mind. Most other ways of killing someone entail the opportunity to reconsider. Killing a person is hard to do, both physically and psychologically, unless you can do it very fast, with high probability of success, from a distance.

Take away guns, and what other options are there? Who has a loaded crossbow handy during an argument with his wife?

 

[barbos]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/31/us/minneapolis-school-shooter-motive.html

But the only clear finding so far, law enforcement officials said, was that the attacker had come to idolize mass shooters, particularly those who have killed children.

Jillian Peterson, a professor of criminology at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., who studies gun violence, said the facts that have emerged so far fit a pattern. Shooters who target children in these attacks tend to be young, isolated, depressed and angry individuals who become obsessed with previous slayings that have generated extensive news coverage.

“It’s sort of this self-hatred that turns outward, and then you have this really angry person who plans to go out in a blaze of glory,” Dr. Peterson said.

Which is what I have been saying--the main driver of mass shootings is mass shootings. We should greatly limit media coverage of mass shootings and terrorism. Not complete censorship, just reduce it to a minimum needed to convey the facts.

Yeah, but how Mass Media is going to make money then?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/31/us/minneapolis-school-shooter-motive.html

But the only clear finding so far, law enforcement officials said, was that the attacker had come to idolize mass shooters, particularly those who have killed children.

Jillian Peterson, a professor of criminology at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., who studies gun violence, said the facts that have emerged so far fit a pattern. Shooters who target children in these attacks tend to be young, isolated, depressed and angry individuals who become obsessed with previous slayings that have generated extensive news coverage.

“It’s sort of this self-hatred that turns outward, and then you have this really angry person who plans to go out in a blaze of glory,” Dr. Peterson said.

Which is what I have been saying--the main driver of mass shootings is mass shootings. We should greatly limit media coverage of mass shootings and terrorism. Not complete censorship, just reduce it to a minimum needed to convey the facts.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out of the bottle.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Injuries and Homicides: A Health Justice Approach to Two Intersecting Public Health Crises - PMC

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal restrictions on firearm possession by IPV perpetrators, thus jeopardizing the safety of victims and survivors. This article reviews the history and recent developments in the law at the intersection of IPV and firearm violence and proposes a way forward through a health justice framework.

Which is not a rebuttal at all.

I said firearms are underrepresented. The % of domestic murders that are with a firearm is well below the % of murders that are with a firearm.

You said " I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much." It would certainly remove the main cause of domestic violence death.

That's not how it works. Remember, guns are a means, not an end. Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means. With domestics the murderer generally has the access and the strength to kill by other means. Why would you not expect most of it to be displaced?

It's like putting a bank door on your front door while leaving the windows unprotected.

Some, but not all.

You're again making the perfect the enemy of the good.

The problem is you're acting as if removing guns is cost-free. I believe the net effect of removing guns would be a considerable drop in criminal-on-criminal homicides, pretty much eliminating mass shootings, little effect on domestic murders and an increase in civilian-on-innocent murders and other violence. We would save some criminals at the cost of some innocents. I don't think that's a good deal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means.

And some won't. Which is a win.

Guns make murder easy and quick, with no opportunity for change of mind. Most other ways of killing someone entail the opportunity to reconsider. Killing a person is hard to do, both physically and psychologically, unless you can do it very fast, with high probability of success, from a distance.

Take away guns, and what other options are there? Who has a loaded crossbow handy during an argument with his wife?

You're forgetting the fact that domestics are considerably less likely than other murders to be committed with a firearm. When you have ready access to someone asleep you don't need a gun. And when it happens in an argument it's likely done with hands or a convenient object.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/31/us/minneapolis-school-shooter-motive.html

But the only clear finding so far, law enforcement officials said, was that the attacker had come to idolize mass shooters, particularly those who have killed children.

Jillian Peterson, a professor of criminology at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., who studies gun violence, said the facts that have emerged so far fit a pattern. Shooters who target children in these attacks tend to be young, isolated, depressed and angry individuals who become obsessed with previous slayings that have generated extensive news coverage.

“It’s sort of this self-hatred that turns outward, and then you have this really angry person who plans to go out in a blaze of glory,” Dr. Peterson said.

Which is what I have been saying--the main driver of mass shootings is mass shootings. We should greatly limit media coverage of mass shootings and terrorism. Not complete censorship, just reduce it to a minimum needed to convey the facts.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out of the bottle.

I think we could reduce it, although obviously we can't eliminate it. Mass shooting is about better to be infamous than unknown. If they see mass shootings barely get a mention they'll see that it still leaves them an unknown, thus removes most of the reason for it.

 

[bilby]

Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means.

And some won't. Which is a win.

Guns make murder easy and quick, with no opportunity for change of mind. Most other ways of killing someone entail the opportunity to reconsider. Killing a person is hard to do, both physically and psychologically, unless you can do it very fast, with high probability of success, from a distance.

Take away guns, and what other options are there? Who has a loaded crossbow handy during an argument with his wife?

You're forgetting the fact that domestics are considerably less likely than other murders to be committed with a firearm.

Are they? I am not capable of "forgetting" something you just made up, and then presented as though it were an agreed upon fact.

If it is a fact, then you need to provide some evidence for it.

When you have ready access to someone asleep you don't need a gun.

You do if you want to kill quickly from a distance.

And people DO want to do that. If unable, they often don't carry on the attack until their victim is dead.

Because killing people is hard to do, both physically and psychologically.

Donething you totally failed to address here, despite it being the main point I was making.

And when it happens in an argument it's likely done with hands or a convenient object.

... such as, in a US household, a gun.

 

[ZiprHead]

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Injuries and Homicides: A Health Justice Approach to Two Intersecting Public Health Crises - PMC

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal restrictions on firearm possession by IPV perpetrators, thus jeopardizing the safety of victims and survivors. This article reviews the history and recent developments in the law at the intersection of IPV and firearm violence and proposes a way forward through a health justice framework.

Which is not a rebuttal at all.

I said firearms are underrepresented. The % of domestic murders that are with a firearm is well below the % of murders that are with a firearm.

You said " I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much." It would certainly remove the main cause of domestic violence death.

That's not how it works. Remember, guns are a means, not an end. Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means. With domestics the murderer generally has the access and the strength to kill by other means. Why would you not expect most of it to be displaced?

It's like putting a bank door on your front door while leaving the windows unprotected.

Some, but not all.

You're again making the perfect the enemy of the good.

The problem is you're acting as if removing guns is cost-free. I believe the net effect of removing guns would be a considerable drop in criminal-on-criminal homicides, pretty much eliminating mass shootings, little effect on domestic murders and an increase in civilian-on-innocent murders and other violence. We would save some criminals at the cost of some innocents. I don't think that's a good deal.

You "believe". Well, that settles it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/31/us/minneapolis-school-shooter-motive.html

But the only clear finding so far, law enforcement officials said, was that the attacker had come to idolize mass shooters, particularly those who have killed children.

Jillian Peterson, a professor of criminology at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., who studies gun violence, said the facts that have emerged so far fit a pattern. Shooters who target children in these attacks tend to be young, isolated, depressed and angry individuals who become obsessed with previous slayings that have generated extensive news coverage.

“It’s sort of this self-hatred that turns outward, and then you have this really angry person who plans to go out in a blaze of glory,” Dr. Peterson said.

Which is what I have been saying--the main driver of mass shootings is mass shootings. We should greatly limit media coverage of mass shootings and terrorism. Not complete censorship, just reduce it to a minimum needed to convey the facts.

Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out of the bottle.

I think we could reduce it, although obviously we can't eliminate it. Mass shooting is about better to be infamous than unknown.

In general, we don't remember most of the shooters names, generally it is the location that sticks in my brain, and even then, only the big ones.

These events are about anger, rage at the world and wanting to make a point, leave the world with a scar they made. In a civilized world, we'd tend to want to restrict their access to weapons. Your solution is more like you want to rewrite history and pretend it didn't happen so that hopefully we don't have to pretend it didn't happen in the future.

If they see mass shootings barely get a mention they'll see that it still leaves them an unknown, thus removes most of the reason for it.

The main reason is anger and rage, isolation. Desire to no longer live. All of that still exists. It'll be hard to kill off the media seeing that the death of children is considered very bad and results in news.

 

[Gospel]

2) Domestic. The thing is domestics are considerably less likely to be with a gun than murders in general and normally involve situations where the murderer has ready access in private to the victim. I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much. The only real defense is to get out of there when the violence starts.

Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Injuries and Homicides: A Health Justice Approach to Two Intersecting Public Health Crises - PMC

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

More than half of all intimate partner homicides involve a firearm and firearms are frequently used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to injure and threaten victims and survivors. Recent court decisions undermine important legal restrictions on firearm possession by IPV perpetrators, thus jeopardizing the safety of victims and survivors. This article reviews the history and recent developments in the law at the intersection of IPV and firearm violence and proposes a way forward through a health justice framework.

Which is not a rebuttal at all.

I said firearms are underrepresented. The % of domestic murders that are with a firearm is well below the % of murders that are with a firearm.

You said " I do not believe removing guns from the picture is going to do much." It would certainly remove the main cause of domestic violence death.

That's not how it works. Remember, guns are a means, not an end. Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means. With domestics the murderer generally has the access and the strength to kill by other means. Why would you not expect most of it to be displaced?

It's like putting a bank door on your front door while leaving the windows unprotected.

For the bolded part, could you at least consult your crystal ball and show us a screenshot of the ‘evidence’? Every time, your pulled-from-thin-air opinions derail the conversation away from actual data and into your unfounded premonitions and feel-good guesses the discussion goes nowhere.