Mass Shootings

[angelburst29]

I don't know if Chicago can be included in this list of lethal shootings because of the high incidents of gang-related killings on a daily basis but this report states "Chicago shootings leave 40 shot, 3 fatally; Mt. Sinai Hospital closes emergency room" but the video states 47 shot - 5 fatally, in at least three hot-spots?

Chicago shootings leave 40 shot, 3 fatally; Mt. Sinai Hospital closes emergency room

 

[MikaelYosef]

This twitter post received a lot of backlash:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1158074774297468928

From a science and statistics point of view, correct. From a human point of view, you would have to be without emotion not to feel at least sorrow for the situation, the people, their families and the thousands of connected people that have had their lives changed now forever.

I'm most curious though about what people think on the content of the post (not of the author). Personally, I think yes, significantly more people died around the world yesterday which were preventable. Perhaps there are just so many people now on Earth, that there is a complacency about the fortunes of others to the point where preventable deaths are chalked up as just bad luck....the wrong place at the right time.

The worst part about this post from twitter I think, is that a legitimate concern was aired but rebuked by the masses to the point where, as a non-celebrity - am I even allowed to talk about this issue to the average Joe and Joanns who did a lot of the rebuking, without being condemned myself? If we addressed some of the other social issues raised, like why do medical errors occur in this age of technology, why do people still get the flu, why are people killing themselves, how do car accidents still happen, and what drives people to commit murder - and looked at the issues holistically rather than a compartmentalised reaction 'today is a gun massacre, nothing else matters', and without fear of outrage, maybe society could improve for a lot more people. Who knows, maybe even some of the other issues wouldn't happen in the first place.

 

[Joe]

For sure. I just try to avoid letting weight morph into certainty. Even if 9 times out of 10 an event will fit a certain type, that doesn't mean the we can say anything with certainty about the next one. And fracture points can be exacerbated by individuals falling for propaganda and directed by sinister influences, whether direct (e.g. a handler) or indirect (e.g. ideology), or even hyperdimensional. We can weight the probabilities based on past examples and patterns, and whatever direction the evidence seems to point, but there will always be an element of uncertainty.

I'm reading this CHAOS book on Manson and the CIA right now, and it leaves me with the same thought I have whenever I read any in-depth treatment of a crime, even a relatively 'simple' murder case: just how complex events like this are, how contradictory the evidence can be, how hard it is to say very much with absolute certainty, and just how much research it takes just to be able to formulate a good hypothesis that takes into account the majority of the evidence.

I thought you put it really well in the Moon Landing thread:

Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

To summarize; the claim that one light source (aka. the sun) can not produce all the effects that can be seen in the moon pictures/videos has been completely disproven. Both the angle issue of the shadows and the overlapping of shadows are completely natural phenomena that one light source...

cassiopaea.org

All good points, especially mine . There's one potential fallacy that you missed however, which is the fallacy of relying too much on your judicious and accurate assessment that things are very complicated and it is very difficult to formulate a good hypothesis. Relying too much on that truth can make us conclude that things are always that way and no good hypothesis can be formulated.

There are other aspects of this case that, when plugged in, may constitute the large amount of research needed to formulate a good hypothesis that is itself based on previous research that have defined patterns in these cases. One of those aspects is the confusion around who the actual shooter is. Look at the two pictures of the shooter in these two NY Post articles, both of which were published within a few hours of each other yesterday.

Prosecutors will seek death penalty for El Paso shooting suspect Patrick Crusius

Authorities will seek the death penalty for the El Paso mass murder and are treating the shooting — which took the lives of 20 at a Texas Walmart while wounding 26 others — as a “domest…

nypost.com

El Paso Walmart shooting suspect Patrick Crusius charged with capital murder

Court records show that 6-foot, 220-pound Patrick Wood Crusius — also known under an alias with the surname Brown — was charged with capital murder while held in El Paso jail.

nypost.com

 

[Joe]

For reference, some more photos of the El Paso shooter:

And his arrest photo:

Are we supposed to believe those two images are of the same person?

 

[loreta]

Are those pictures have been taken at the same period of time or when he was 12 years old and the other now? Time can change a person, look at me, but they don't look the same guy. Their ears are similar, by the way. But just the ears

 

[Joe]

Are those pictures have been taken at the same period of time or when he was 12 years old and the other now? Time can change a person,

How about now?

 

[Keit]

How about now?

There are these two photos. One of the shooter and the other of the one detailned. It appears that one has beard and the other one not? So if it isn't a matter of light and shading, it does appear that the one detained isn't the one that is on the shooter photo.

 

[loreta]

Two different guys. But it is not new: every time they use the same trick to confuse people.

 

[Josi]

Here is Beto O'Rourke reacting to his hometown shooting in El Paso. Yeah, laughing, real normal!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Alejo]

This twitter post received a lot of backlash:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1158074774297468928

From a science and statistics point of view, correct. From a human point of view, you would have to be without emotion not to feel at least sorrow for the situation, the people, their families and the thousands of connected people that have had their lives changed now forever.

I'm most curious though about what people think on the content of the post (not of the author). Personally, I think yes, significantly more people died around the world yesterday which were preventable. Perhaps there are just so many people now on Earth, that there is a complacency about the fortunes of others to the point where preventable deaths are chalked up as just bad luck....the wrong place at the right time.

The worst part about this post from twitter I think, is that a legitimate concern was aired but rebuked by the masses to the point where, as a non-celebrity - am I even allowed to talk about this issue to the average Joe and Joanns who did a lot of the rebuking, without being condemned myself? If we addressed some of the other social issues raised, like why do medical errors occur in this age of technology, why do people still get the flu, why are people killing themselves, how do car accidents still happen, and what drives people to commit murder - and looked at the issues holistically rather than a compartmentalised reaction 'today is a gun massacre, nothing else matters', and without fear of outrage, maybe society could improve for a lot more people. Who knows, maybe even some of the other issues wouldn't happen in the first place.

I saw some of the backlash,

I think most people are reacting violently against it because it holds a mirror into their own hypocrisy. The key to the tweet was the “spectacle” portion.

We emotionally react to spectacle more than data was his point, because absolutely one could feel the pain of 34 families and sympathize with their suffering. His point being, what about the other hundreds of families? Not only the day of the shooting but everyday prior and everyday since.

And people don’t like that inconsistency and thus lash out against him, but it’s true. And so the response is, but it’s gun violence and it was a planned attack and so on and so forth. Which is absolutely true, that’s why it’s being discussed everywhere.

But the point being you cannot have a reasonable and rational conversation about a real problem if you’re emotionally reacting to a political agenda being presented to you in a certain way. NDGT points this out and I think that’s helpful.

Why? Because people are calling the president a terrorist, and a white supremacist, and are polarizing themselves even further. Because they’ve been told for three years that this is all his fault, and if you’re shocked and prone to suggestion you will accept it without question and once that becomes part of your worldview... you’re no different than a concentration camp guard who thought they needed to exterminate the Jewish population because all their troubles were their fault.

I know at first and on the surface it looks like he’s being cold and apathetic simply going “well yeah that sucks but what about this?”. But the value of his tweet I think lies deeper, and I’m not surprised to see Twitter presenting it in such a bad light.

Sadly, he’s a public figure and they’ll make him retract it. If he’s hoping to have a career, and that’s ever scarier! We live with a sensor where all public opinion has to be homogenous, which means all public discourse is being flattened to be be singular and any form of dissent is quieted and demonized and insulted.

These are not good times.

Whether this was an organic attack of a lone nut, or a coordinated attack with a purpose by an intelligence agency, the fruits of the event itself are further division and violent polarization and the ones controlling the public discourse seem to be quite content with “extermination” of everything that disagrees with their point, and emotionally reacting to these events only makes whatever rational resistance the that idea less and less powerful. And from here to madness is a tiny step.

I hope the above makes sense, and I hope I don’t sound too catastrophic, but it’s how things seem to me at least.

 

[loreta]

Fear also is a reaction that can become violence. In fact fear is the most strong emotion and the most dangerous also. And with fear you can control the people.

 

[Miracle]

Are we supposed to believe those two images are of the same person?

I think that's a great question and I'm not entire convinced either way. The mug shot and the senior year high school photos are three years apart. Quite a bit of change and appearance can happen to a pubescent young man in three years especially if they are abusing hard drugs. One need only google 'before and after meth' photos to see the degree of possible change.

From the two photos I see that the profiles of the chin, lips, nose, eyebrows all look quite similar in both photos, that even that the right ear hangs higher than the left and, that the right side of his face seems longer and puffier than the left. So I see some similarities but how would we really know?

 

[SummerLite]

Another black tee shirt guy, and he does look a bit similar to the El Paso shooter(s). Ohio Shooter Was a Radical Leftist Who Supported Elizabeth Warren

Ohio Shooter Was a Radical Leftist Who Supported Elizabeth Warren

Media quiet on Dayton gunman’s motive.

Published
1 min ago
on
5 August, 2019
Paul Joseph Watson

• • 
    
  • 
    
• 15 Comments

While the media has been quick to blame President Trump for the mass shooting in El Paso, they are noticeably quieter about the mass shooter in Ohio, who described him self as a “socialist,” praised Antifa and expressed support for Elizabeth Warren.
Before it was suspended last night, Connor Betts’ Twitter feed made it clear that he was a left-wing fringe extremist. Amongst other things, Betts;
– Described himself as a “leftist”
– Tweeted “I want socialism”.
– Tweeted “Warren I’d happily vote for”.
– Retweeted Bernie Sanders numerous times.
– Retweeted Antifa accounts numerous times.
– Tweeted “kill every fascist”.
– Tweeted “burn the world to the ground to start the new one”.
– Repeatedly tweeted “hail Satan”.
– Expressed praise and sympathy for the Antifa terrorist who attempted to firebomb an ICE facility, calling him a “martyr”.
– Used Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “concentration camp” rhetoric.
– Tweeted “vote blue for gods sake”.
– Wore a patch that said “Against All Gods”.
– Expressed support for the “punch a Nazi” meme.
– Retweeted Right Wing Watch’s Jared Holt.
– Advocated for gun control.
Chris Menahan has archived all of this and more right here.

Does any of this mean Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are to blame for the actions of one sick individual. No. But that same courtesy has to be extended to President Trump.

America saw two tragic mass shootings this weekend. One by a right-wing extremist and one by a left-wing extremist.

However, only the motive of the right-wing extremist is being discussed by the media.

Only one side of the political spectrum immediately exploited the bloodshed to push their agenda, and that wasn’t President Trump or his supporters.

Heavy.com
✔@HeavySan

https://twitter.com/x/status/1158122203419959297

In his Twitter profile, Connor Betts, the 24-year-old suspected gunman in the Dayton mass shooting, wrote, "he/him / anime fan

5,730
3:07 PM - Aug 4, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

5,758 people are talking about this

"Dayton 24/7 Now spoke with other classmates of Betts' who said he was expelled from school after officials found a notebook where he reportedly wrote a list of people who he wanted to rape, kill and skin their bodies."

 

[Joe]

This twitter post received a lot of backlash:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1158074774297468928

From a science and statistics point of view, correct. From a human point of view, you would have to be without emotion not to feel at least sorrow for the situation, the people, their families and the thousands of connected people that have had their lives changed now forever.

I'm most curious though about what people think on the content of the post (not of the author). Personally, I think yes, significantly more people died around the world yesterday which were preventable. Perhaps there are just so many people now on Earth, that there is a complacency about the fortunes of others to the point where preventable deaths are chalked up as just bad luck....the wrong place at the right time.

I think it's an idiotic thing to say and he has no valid point. In most of the cases he cites, not only was the death accidental, but there were likely several people attempting to HELP the person survive. The mass shootings stand in complete contrast to that and are therefore in no way comparable. Worse still, I reckon his tweet was motivated by the delusional idea that there should be no suffering at all in society, that any suffering is wrong and we should all get together to stamp it out. Typical radical lefty ideology.

 

[aragorn]

Here is Beto O'Rourke reacting to his hometown shooting in El Paso. Yeah, laughing, real normal!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Even though Beto is a complete douchebag, I don't think there's anything completely abnormal in his grinning. As we've seen in other similar public appearances after horrible events, the 'laughing' is a quite typical stress reaction. In his case, it could of course be a sign of something else (he might be a psychopath), but I'm just saying that we shouldn't draw hasty conclusions every time someone 'laughs' under tremendous stress. And, I think that a 'well trained' psychopath would do a much more convincing performance of mourning, with crying and all.