Nashville Shooter Manifesto Will Not be Released

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Your country's security depends on them.

FWIW

Post removed by staff

The armaments.

More specifically, US armaments.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Your country's security depends on them.

FWIW

The insane?

The armaments.

More specifically, US armaments.

The issue isn't the raw materials, it is the configuration that puts them - configured as a primed weapon - into the hands of the unstable.

a reply to: chr0naut

Like a vehicle?

Knife?

Chokeholds?


What are you talking about.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Like a vehicle?

Knife?

Chokeholds?

What are you talking about.

All of the above objects should be restricted from those who would use them for unlawful purposes.

(Chokeholds are not an object, but should also be prosecuted if not used for a lawful purpose).

Constantly deflecting from the truth at hand, does nothing to prevent the same sort of tragedy from recurring, as seems to be happening with greater frequency all the time. At what stage would you admit that there is a problem?

a reply to: chr0naut

So we keep restricting murder weapons until we whittle it down to.....what exactly?


Constantly trying to blame an inanimate object doesn't solve the tragedies.


Last time, this time and next time, you will continue to lose the gun debate.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

So we keep restricting murder weapons until we whittle it down to.....what exactly?

To where thousands of innocents a year no longer die because some wingnut is upset, or feels vengeful in the moment.

Constantly trying to blame an inanimate object doesn't solve the tragedies.

Neither does trying to absolve the inanimate object.

Last time, this time and next time, you will continue to lose the gun debate.

No, I haven't lost the gun debate.

But 48,830 Americans lost the gun debate fairly majorly in 2021. Possibly another 50,000 or so this year, too.

Firearm Deaths in the US: Statistics and Trends

a reply to: chr0naut

More of your absurd and illogical conclusions. Debunked easily by applying the basic arguments.

To where thousands of innocents a year no longer die because some wingnut is upset, or feels vengeful in the moment.

Then why not cars, spoons, forks, cheesburgers, etc etc? Or, abortion for that matter.

Neither does trying to absolve the inanimate object.

See above.

No, I haven't lost the gun debate.

You most certainly have.

400,000,000 guns and counting. Every nation has them, especially the authority who is one bad day away from terminating it's unarmed populace.

Yes, Chro, you never even had a chance.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

More of your absurd and illogical conclusions. Debunked easily by applying the basic arguments.

Then why not cars, spoons, forks, cheesburgers, etc etc? Or, abortion for that matter.

Are people ever shot by "cars, spoons, forks, cheesburgers, etc etc? Or, abortion for that matter".

See above.

No, I haven't lost the gun debate.

You most certainly have.

400,000,000 guns and counting.

Ah, the 20 billion flies can't be wrong argument (eat $#it).

Every nation has them, especially the authority who is one bad day away from terminating it's unarmed populace.

One person, with one gun? Or would a government be tens of thousands of people, many who choose not to even be armed?

The truth is, you are more likely to be shot by someone who is armed. Guns really enable the whole 'shooting thing'. Proliferate them, and you don't decrease the likelihood.

Also, if a government wanted to shoot people to death, I'm pretty sure that they'd go for the armed ones first. And the government have better guns, greater numbers of carriers, mounted on vehicles, tanks, aircraft, drones, and even robots.

Your guns don't protect you, they make you a target. It's the 21st Century.

Yes, Chro, you never even had a chance.

a reply to: chr0naut

The truth is, you are more likely to be shot by someone who is armed. Guns really enable the whole 'shooting thing'. Proliferate them, and you don't decrease the likelihood.

100 percent of murder victims were killed by murders........

Nice try.

Your guns don't protect you, they make you a target. It's the 21st Century.

Say that to all the defensive uses by guns per year.

Ah, the 20 billion flies can't be wrong argument (eat $#it).

See, I told you your argument is dead.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

The truth is, you are more likely to be shot by someone who is armed. Guns really enable the whole 'shooting thing'. Proliferate them, and you don't decrease the likelihood.

100 percent of murder victims were killed by murders........

Nice try.

Everyone who was shot by a firearm, was shot by a firearm. No-one was ever shot by a banana.

Your guns don't protect you, they make you a target. It's the 21st Century.

Say that to all the defensive uses by guns per year.

Ah, the 20 billion flies can't be wrong argument (eat $#it).

See, I told you your argument is dead.

a reply to: chr0naut

Everyone who was shot by a firearm, was shot by a firearm. No-one was ever shot by a banana.

And everyone who has been murdered, was done so by a murderer. And they could have been murdered with a firearm...or a banana.

Another logic fail.

a reply to: chr0naut

Your guns don't protect you

Nor does your COVID vaccination protect you.

Why is it you advocate for one to be forced globally via social engineering and the other to be banned in countries you don't live in?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: chr0naut

Your guns don't protect you

Nor does your COVID vaccination protect you.

Why is it you advocate for one to be forced globally via social engineering and the other to be banned in countries you don't live in?

Of course the vaccine protected me.

Despite the arithmetically rising numbers of infections, there were markedly falling case hospitalization and case fatality statistics. The vaccines worked, as vaccines do.

Are bullets becoming less lethal on a case by case basis?

But it is, of course off topic.

Also, don't you see a slight inconsistency in saying that they were "forced" and then attributing social engineering as the method they were forced?

Were you vaccinated against COVID-19? If not, then you weren't forced very forcefully.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ancientlight
a reply to: JinMI

My guess, 100% certain is due to the shooter being trans. Wouldn't fit the obvious agenda.

Or, the public promotion of said manifesto was just what the shooter wanted to achieve, and could possibly also contribute to the radicalization of others towards extremism (as has happened in the past)?

...right.

Lets decided to break precedent now.

The shooter was another dangerous kook, trying to justify a minority viewpoint. I don't think they need to be given a platform.

Anyone in most modern countries can already express their opinion in ways that are not deadly or dangerous.

That is the problem with those who suggest that 'free speech' is being opposed, just because someone wants to withhold offensive material.

There are other ways that allow freedom of expression, and perhaps, some particular things need to be censored as being inappropriate ways to achieve 'free speech'.

Offensive material? It’s not like it’s pornography in school libraries.

My take is that the tranny renigged on their tranny-ism and denounced the ‘movement’ as evil.

Probably exhorting kids who are being brainwashed into mutilation to reconsider.

Can’t have that kind of stuff being released into the Wild. It might be contagious.

No, it is more likely a froot loop making up 'reasons' to justify killing innocent people who had no idea of who the froot loop even was, let alone their 'issues'.

That doesn’t seem a very sound reason to keep it out of the public domain, does it?

That wasn't the reason one would want to keep something like this from the public domain.

I know it is hard to conceive of this in a country such as yours that arms the insane (case in point), but such a document might convince others with no ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality to also commit mass murder as a way to get the voices in their head, 'heard'.

Additionally, what utility is there in having it in the public domain? Will it make anyone's life better for having read the ravings of a murderous madman?

I didn't see you as one who would realize that the Trans folk are mentally ill, and they should be treated and likely not able to have firearms, as they are mentally ill.

It's good to know you have some rational thoughts.

a reply to: chr0naut

I haven't got a horse in this race so I tend not to post much in these sort of threads nowadays.

That wasn't the reason one would want to keep something like this from the public domain.

Then what is the reason?
I'm yet to read a convincing argument why it shouldn't be.

Additionally, what utility is there in having it in the public domain?

I can't help but wonder if you would have the same opinion if the shooter was some rabid, ultra-Right Wing extremist or even a MAGA flag-waving individual?

Transparency is paramount in understanding why these things occur.
So is Freedom of Information in an open and honest society - of all things, regardless of our viewpoint or perspective.

Of course the details of why this person carried out these killings should be released to the general public, same as all such instances.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: chr0naut

Your guns don't protect you

Nor does your COVID vaccination protect you.

Why is it you advocate for one to be forced globally via social engineering and the other to be banned in countries you don't live in?

Also, don't you see a slight inconsistency in saying that they were "forced" and then attributing social engineering as the method they were forced?

I would have used the phrase human rights violations, but I was afraid you'd think I was coming on to you.

I know how you feel about other people's rights and forcing yourself on them. You've not been at all shy about sharing your deep knowledge of how to properly oppress people that may have endemic and low risk diseases. As a LARP public health expert you know the best thing to do is violate as many rights as possible without regard for wider impacts on populations.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: chr0naut

Your guns don't protect you

Nor does your COVID vaccination protect you.

Why is it you advocate for one to be forced globally via social engineering and the other to be banned in countries you don't live in?

Also, don't you see a slight inconsistency in saying that they were "forced" and then attributing social engineering as the method they were forced?

I would have used the phrase human rights violations, but I was afraid you'd think I was coming on to you.

I know how you feel about other people's rights and forcing yourself on them. You've not been at all shy about sharing your deep knowledge of how to properly oppress people that may have endemic and low risk diseases. As a LARP public health expert you know the best thing to do is violate as many rights as possible without regard for wider impacts on populations.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I am conversing on an online forum.

Firearms are specifically and only useful as projectile weapons. They don't have other safer uses such as knives and automobiles do.

Also, some things are not actually human rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights There is a right to health, but no right to illness, or to avoid public health initiatives.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Human Rights Dimensions of COVID-19 Response