Arizona man planned a mass shooting targeting African Americans at an Atlanta concert to incite a race war, feds say

[Brian Kegerreis]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-man-planned-mass-shooting-targeting-african-americans-atlanta-rcna156735 

Guy sounds like an idiot. Put him in jail and throw away the key. 

Also this demonstrates how easy ot is to stop these kind of attacks from actually happening. Most attackers blab about thie plans before hand.

[GMoney]

I think that's a rather gross oversimplification.

Some blab. Some whisper. Most do so within an inner circle of similarly minded assholes who would rather vote for a democrat than turn in one of their fellow 'Murican Patriots.  The only reason they caught this dipshit so easily is he just happened to blab to an FBI informant.  No regular civilian 'Murican Patriot turned him in. 

You want every John Q. Asshole to be armed, and you mollify yourself by pretending it's "easy" to catch the bad guys with guns before they do bad things. You feed that need by nit picking articles that support your view.  It's a juvenile, yet predictable, behavior...and certainly not unique to you. In fact, it's the American Way.  

[Brian Kegerreis]

The vast majority of people who have gone on to attack have signaled thier intentions to do so in detectable ways. Those warning signs were often ignored even by law enforcement. So yeah that's an area we can improve on.

Also you'll note his planned attack, like again the vast majoroty of planned attacks, was against a soft target full of unarmed people. That's a place where being unarmed makes you less safe.....

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/CACazdfLqWnnAbU%3DOVa58D-1GqvXXAWZ3geL_wan6zGqVHdc7fg%40mail.gmail.com.

[GMoney]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 8:13 AM Brian Kegerreis <bkege...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's a place where being unarmed makes you less safe.....

Wrong, by a long shot (ha!)

You are infinitely more safe in a group of 10,000 unarmed people, than you are in a group of 10,000 armed people, at least as it relates to gun related crimes.  This is not opinion. 

So you can grouse all you want about soft targets.......mass shootings are not a good argument for or against gun control, as i've said billions of times. 

But delusions being as they are, sometimes satire is all that is left....so i repeat once again, The Onion:

"These things cannot be prevented, says the only country where these things regularly occur."

[Brian Kegerreis]

Well no one cares about anything but mass shootings, and that's what this article and discussion is about. So yes you are less safe from mass shootings in a soft target like a no gun zone. This is because those are the places that are most likely to be targeted. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/CACazdfKU%2B%2B7BwvW78UMskz_vrBo%2BNOQ-yhQgt%3D6RMdSxBmW09g%40mail.gmail.com.

[GMoney]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:11 AM Brian Kegerreis <bkege...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well no one cares about anything but mass shootings, 

And I'm done.....

[David Fairchild]

"You are infinitely more safe in a group of 10,000 unarmed people, than you are in a group of 10,000 armed people, at least as it relates to gun related crimes.  This is not opinion."

Isn't the logical conclusion of this akin to gun crimes are more likely in a world in which guns exist than in a world in which guns don't exist? If so, well, yes. 

And, as I have said billions of times, the pertinent question we should be asking ourselves is what is our goal. If it is zero gun crimes, then the answer seems clear.

[B Keg]

Isn't zero crime a better solution?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/f8da1b0a-1a5c-4f93-ae83-791953f190a3n%40googlegroups.com.

[GMoney]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:31 AM B Keg <kegb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Isn't zero crime a better solution?

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, 10:03 David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

"You are infinitely more safe in a group of 10,000 unarmed people, than you are in a group of 10,000 armed people, at least as it relates to gun related crimes.  This is not opinion."

Isn't the logical conclusion of this akin to gun crimes are more likely in a world in which guns exist than in a world in which guns don't exist? If so, well, yes. 

And, as I have said billions of times, the pertinent question we should be asking ourselves is what is our goal. If it is zero gun crimes, then the answer seems clear.

Meh....the goal...i would think...would be to strike the best balance between freedom and security for the greatest number of people. In such an equation, utility must be considered.  

It is within this context that I would argue that handguns present a negative benefit to society that far outweighs any positive.....especially since the only real positive is defense against itself. 

It is here that a Libertarian might argue..."So what?"....doesn't really matter if handguns are "good" or "bad" for society.....liberty says those who want them, can have them.

At least that argument has some merit. 

Arguing that more guns somehow makes us more safe.....does not. 

[David Fairchild]

"It is here that a Libertarian might argue..."So what?"....doesn't really matter if handguns are "good" or "bad" for society.....liberty says those who want them, can have them.

At least that argument has some merit. "

Spot on. Or more generally, the goal of libertarianism is not to maximize the benefit to society. It is to maximize the liberty of the individual -- which, of course, forbids aggression, and therefore maximizes the benefit to society.

[GMoney]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:56 PM David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

"It is here that a Libertarian might argue..."So what?"....doesn't really matter if handguns are "good" or "bad" for society.....liberty says those who want them, can have them.

At least that argument has some merit. "

Spot on. Or more generally, the goal of libertarianism is not to maximize the benefit to society.

It is to maximize the liberty of the individual -- which, of course, forbids aggression, and therefore maximizes the benefit to society.

Yes yes, one need only end aggression by "forbidding" it. 

We'll give you every instrument of war and aggression that your heart desires...free of strings..free of regulations...no questions asked.

BUT!!!!  You gotta PINKIE SWEAR you won't aggress anyone...

 

[Brian Kegerreis]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, 13:03 GMoney <gm0n...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 11:31 AM B Keg <kegb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Isn't zero crime a better solution?

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024, 10:03 David Fairchild <dfairc...@gmail.com> wrote:

"You are infinitely more safe in a group of 10,000 unarmed people, than you are in a group of 10,000 armed people, at least as it relates to gun related crimes.  This is not opinion."

Isn't the logical conclusion of this akin to gun crimes are more likely in a world in which guns exist than in a world in which guns don't exist? If so, well, yes. 

And, as I have said billions of times, the pertinent question we should be asking ourselves is what is our goal. If it is zero gun crimes, then the answer seems clear.

Meh....the goal...i would think...would be to strike the best balance between freedom and security for the greatest number of people. In such an equation, utility must be considered.  

It is within this context that I would argue that handguns present a negative benefit to society that far outweighs any positive.....especially since the only real positive is defense against itself. 

Oh no no no.  Handguns are wonderful defense and deterrent against all kinds of crime not just others with Handguns. 

Handguns in the hands of a smaller weaker person is a great equalizer and often the only immediate protection one can have against a stronger meaner and or crazier attacker. Often just revealing a concealed handgun will prevent trouble without even having to pull it.  Unlike a parachute or a fire extinguisher a handgun doesn't even need to be used to be useful. 

It is here that a Libertarian might argue..."So what?"....doesn't really matter if handguns are "good" or "bad" for society.....liberty says those who want them, can have them.

At least that argument has some merit. 

Arguing that more guns somehow makes us more safe.....does not. 

Taking guns away from reasonable peaceful people does not protect then from those who would disobey the law or are intent in causing them harm. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/CACazdf%2B-EV4gEop%2BuWQNGPNHp1cf7fPNWs2EdAEcqEwa0ACZ6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

According to a study by NCBI, people who own guns are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those who don't. Additionally, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that people living with gun owners are at a higher risk of being fatally assaulted. The study found that household members of handgun owners are twice as likely to die by homicide as their neighbors in homes without guns, and seven times more likely to be shot by a spouse or intimate partner. 

However, there is also evidence that guns are more likely to be used in violent crime, fatal accidents, or criminal homicides than for self-defense. For example, a Harvard Injury Control Research Center study found that guns are more often used to intimidate people in the home than to prevent crime. The study also found that most self-defense gun uses occur during escalating arguments, and that adolescents are more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense. 

Estimates of how often guns are used for self-defense vary widely, with some studies suggesting as many as 2.5 million uses per year, while others estimate as few as 65,000. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates that there are seven times as many gun crimes as defensive gun uses each year. 

So the gun owner is MORE  likely to get killed. Now that's what I call protection. Sort of like a condom with holes in it. 

[kan...@aol.com]

I liked this paragraph:

Among a long list of issues facing the American public, guns are third only to gay marriage and abortion in terms of people who report that they are “not willing to listen to the other side.” In concert with this cultural rift, scholarly discussion over guns has been similarly contentious. 

[kan...@aol.com]

And there's this myth being debunked:

https://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

Women are killed by handguns many times more often than they successfully defend themselves with  one. So for them, no guns would be a plus