Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/dayton-ohio-active-shooter-shooting/

Not even a full day after the El Paso shooting

9 dead including the suspect

get a life

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
thoughts and prayers and nothing more 🙏

BETA UPRISING HAS BEGAN

Awful

Originally posted by Stringer
Awful

Originally posted by carthage
https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/dayton-ohio-active-shooter-shooting/

Not even a full day after the El Paso shooting

9 dead including the suspect

This goes to support my point about plastering these cases all over the news and covering them around the clock.



We don't need anymore science to support the notion that this mass-media hysteria and coverage causes copy-cats. It is about time our representatives pass regulation against The Media that directly curtails this type of copy-cat behavior. And it needs to be based on science, not feelings. There's plenty of researchers who could help inform a new regulation that would have the least amount of right loss and the greatest amount of benefit.


Edit - was this another incel? Do we know motivations for this person?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This goes to support my point about plastering these cases all over the news and covering them around the clock.



We don't need anymore science to support the notion that this mass-media hysteria and coverage causes copy-cats. It is about time our representatives pass regulation against The Media that directly curtails this type of copy-cat behavior. And it needs to be based on science, not feelings. There's plenty of researchers who could help inform a new regulation that would have the least amount of right loss and the greatest amount of benefit.


Edit - was this another incel? Do we know motivations for this person?

If they don't plaster it they can't play up the narrative of this wave of evil white supremacists we are all supposed to be terrified of.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This goes to support my point about plastering these cases all over the news and covering them around the clock.



We don't need anymore science to support the notion that this mass-media hysteria and coverage causes copy-cats. It is about time our representatives pass regulation against The Media that directly curtails this type of copy-cat behavior. And it needs to be based on science, not feelings. There's plenty of researchers who could help inform a new regulation that would have the least amount of right loss and the greatest amount of benefit.


Edit - was this another incel? Do we know motivations for this person?

*Angry ranting about the first amendment of the constitution*

"Muh freedums" etc

Okay so this is a registered democrat who did this I think. Name is Connor Betts.

https://greene.ohioboe.com/apps/vtrpolldetails.aspx?idnum=212004

Age fits, it's the same state, etc.

So, now what happens? Narrative killed?

EDIT: Let me just say, this could be wrong, who knows.

Look at you proactively and desperately trying to distance this murderer from Trump and we don't really know anything about his motives yet. Too funny.

FunFact: Being a registered Democrat doesn't mean one can't be a Trump supporter. eg Remember how many Democrats voted for Trump in 2016.

You seem triggered by the facts and also like you desperately wanna connect this to Trump.

Sorry, not on my watch

Yep. Same old Surt antics as always.

https://i.imgur.com/pcLT5M8.jpg

^He says, as he uses the same old meme.

Originally posted by Robtard
FunFact: Being a registered Democrat doesn't mean one can't be a Trump supporter. eg Remember how many Democrats voted for Trump in 2016.

True. You're not wrong. It's why Trump won the election, in fact. No one wants to talk about why Hillary really lost - lots of pissed off democrats who wouldn't stand for the DNC corruption.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is about time our representatives pass regulation against The Media I've been having a hankering for idealistic pipe dreams recently, so is it alright if I nibble on this one?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I've been having a hankering for idealistic pipe dreams recently, so is it alright if I nibble on this one?

The Green New Deal will satiate you for centuries.

Wondering when Trump's going to call a National Emergency on gun violence.

Me too, we have so much gun violence in our inner cities.

Awful. Let us curb this violence plz.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
*Angry ranting about the first amendment of the constitution*

"Muh freedums" etc




Uh, yeah... our second amendment is infinitely important to us, you f***ing troll. I've said this before, it doesn't matter if a mass shooting happened every hour of every god**** day. It still doesn't justify taking away our 2nd amendment freedoms.

Period. End of discussion.

Originally posted by Surtur
Me too, we have so much gun violence in our inner cities.

Awful. Let us curb this violence plz.


LOL.

^ Hopefully he'll be one of the victims at his local Wal-Mart sometime soon. Nothing of any value will be lost.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Period. End of discussion.

Bernie Sanders says this same exact phrase, Ethnolester.

Originally posted by TempAccount
^ Hopefully he'll be one of the victims at his local Wal-Mart sometime soon. Nothing of any value will be lost.

If you dropped dead right now, what would be lost?

Originally posted by Surtur
If you dropped dead right now, what would be lost?


I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if that troll did, that's for damn sure.

DDD: Our 2nd amendment rights are non-negotiable. Period.

Originally posted by Surtur
If you dropped dead right now, what would be lost? The world would lose a CPA, and the local economy would have a hiccup.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if that troll did, that's for damn sure.
You wanna meet-up face-to-face d1ckwad? I'll show you how I troll IRL.

Originally posted by TempAccount
The world would lose a CPA, and the local economy would have a hiccup.


You wanna meet-up face-to-face d1ckwad? I'll show you how I troll IRL.

Do I deserve to be killed?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae


Uh, yeah... our second amendment is infinitely important to us, you f***ing troll. I've said this before, it doesn't matter if a mass shooting happened every hour of every god**** day. It still doesn't justify taking away our 2nd amendment freedoms.

Period. End of discussion.

But you're happy for other freedoms to be taken away. 👍

Like what freedoms?

Originally posted by Surtur
Do I deserve to be killed? Nope. I don't know what your exact health-problem is, but you should be assigned to desk-work by the government rather than live off welfare indefinitely.

Originally posted by TempAccount
Nope. I don't know what your exact health-problem is, but you should be assigned to desk-work by the government rather than live off welfare indefinitely.

Hmm, but then why would you hope another poster died?

Originally posted by Surtur
Hmm, but then why would you hope another poster died?


Because I hurt his fragile wittle fee fees in the past from disagreeing with him on so much stuff and I insulted his p-o-s dead idol Fredrick Niezche (or however in the Hell u spell his name).

Yeah but I've owned Kurk plenty of times.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah but I've owned Kurk plenty of times.


Yeah, but I also insulted his shitty idol Fredrick Nietzsche.

Lol.

Kurk seems like the kind of guy who would have been pro Stalin.

Kurk how you feel about Uncle Joe?

Originally posted by Surtur
Hmm, but then why would you hope another poster died? Because I've seen more thought-out sentences come out of a 4-year-old's mouth.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Because I hurt his fragile wittle fee fees in the past from disagreeing with him on so much stuff and I insulted his p-o-s dead idol Fredrick Niezche (or however in the Hell u spell his name).
Believe me, guy. It takes a lot to get under my skin and it doesn't happen on the internet. Ironically you're the one who has me blocked because your own fragile little ego was hurt.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol.

Kurk seems like the kind of guy who would have been pro Stalin.

Kurk how you feel about Uncle Joe?
I think Stalin was the POS criminal he was. He killed his way to power and offered nothing in the realm of ideology aside from mass-fear tactics. Russia is probably the country I detest most followed by China.

^Still non-negotiable.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^Still non-negotiable.

What a brilliant retort.

Originally posted by Surtur
Like what freedoms?

Well he just had a big rant about the 2nd amendment aimed at me when I wasn't even talking about the 2nd amendment.

A few sentences is a "big rant." LOL. Oooookay. Whatever you say, dude. It seemed pretty obvious to me you were referring to the 2nd amendment.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
But you're happy for other freedoms to be taken away. 👍





Really? Name one.


And before you say "a woman's right to choose" to kill her own unborn child, that is not a constitutional right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a woman has that right.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
A few sentences is a "big rant." LOL. Oooookay. Whatever you say, dude. It seemed pretty obvious to me you were referring to the 2nd amendment.

Odd given that I was replying to DDM talking about legislation to stop news outlets reporting in detail on mass shootings and that I specifically mentioned the first amendment that covers freedom of the press thus highlighting that any such legislation would be unconstitutional.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Odd given that I was replying to DDM talking about legislation to stop news outlets reporting in detail on mass shootings and that I specifically mentioned the first amendment that covers freedom of the press thus highlighting that any such legislation would be unconstitutional.


Ok, perhaps I was mistaken about that but I'm still waiting to hear what Constitutional freedoms I am against.

I don't see expletive filled posts attacking DDM for proposing legislation that goes against the first amendment.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I don't see expletive filled posts attacking DDM for proposing legislation that goes against the first amendment.


So because I haven't responded to someone's post you see that as supporting whatever the person typed in said post? That's crazy. There've been many comments I don't agree with by a variety of people on this forum on a variety of topics that I haven't bothered to respond to. It doesn't mean I necessarily agree with what they're saying.

So yeah, confirmed leftist. Tweeted out "vote blue' last November. Is big into Bernie and Elziabeth Warren.

I7yv_00Njms

For those who don't want to watch a video or can't right now, here is the original article from where Tim is talking about:

https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/connor-betts-twitter-politics-social-media/

I will also note it is a left leaning site with a factual reporting rating of "high" from the mediabias site people here like to use:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heavy/

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I don't see expletive filled posts attacking DDM for proposing legislation that goes against the first amendment.

Because I don't believe it falls under protected speech since we have objective research that shows The Media is causing deaths of others with their coverage.


Meaning, it's not protected speech under the first amendment and we need to better regulate The Media to save lives.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because I don't believe it falls under protected speech since we have objective research that shows The Media is causing deaths of others with their coverage.


Meaning, it's not protected speech under the first amendment and we need to better regulate The Media to save lives.


Is it really a surprise if people die from the act of making money?



One of the major motivations of war and suffering is that some people are getting very, very rich. Ask any college professor of foreign policy and they'll tell you that. (Which makes them completely useless, since all they do is point out corruption, without contributing towards ending that corruption. Why are the only politically active powers the ones who try and hide the bodies, and never the one's who see their game?)

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
So because I haven't responded to someone's post you see that as supporting whatever the person typed in said post? That's crazy. There've been many comments I don't agree with by a variety of people on this forum on a variety of topics that I haven't bothered to respond to. It doesn't mean I necessarily agree with what they're saying.

Seems odd that you'll only vehemently defend certain bits of the constitution.

We live in a country with over 330 million people and over 300 million guns.

I suck at math, but surely someone can figure out if the number of gun deaths here are disproportional to the number of guns we have in this country. I think the number is 30-40k, wth 60% of that suicides.

Which seems like a lot, but again..factor in...over 330 mil people, over 300 mil guns.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Seems odd that you'll only vehemently defend certain bits of the constitution.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because I don't believe it falls under protected speech since we have objective research that shows The Media is causing deaths of others with their coverage.


Meaning, it's not protected speech under the first amendment and we need to better regulate The Media to save lives.

Originally posted by Surtur
We live in a country with over 330 million people and over 300 million guns.

I suck at math, but surely someone can figure out if the number of gun deaths here are disproportional to the number of guns we have in this country. I think the number is 30-40k, wth 60% of that suicides.

Which seems like a lot, but again..factor in...over 330 mil people, over 300 mil guns.

You'd need to compare guns per capita with gun deaths per capita with comparable countries.

So for example the US has a guns per capita rate 3.5x higher than Canada and a gun deaths per capita 6x that of Canada.

The US has an ownership per capita 6x that of Germany and a gun deaths per capita 12x

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Seems odd that you'll only vehemently defend certain bits of the constitution.


No, I defend all of them, moron (though admittedly I do think our 2nd amendment is the most important of all of them). You're obviously just trolling now because you're upset I talked bad about your precious socialism in the other thread lol.

Waah, waah, waah.

Cry me a river.

2nd more important then the 1st?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No, I defend all of them, moron (though admittedly I do think our 2nd amendment is the most important of all of them). You're obviously just trolling now because you're upset I talked bad about your precious socialism in the other thread lol.

Waah, waah, waah.

Cry me a river.

Odd given we started this conversation before that one. Or do you not understand how time works either?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You'd need to compare guns per capita with gun deaths per capita with comparable countries.

So for example the US has a guns per capita rate 3.5x higher than Canada and a gun deaths per capita 6x that of Canada.

The US has an ownership per capita 6x that of Germany and a gun deaths per capita 12x

This is good stuff!


Do two things to those figures:
1. Subtract out suicides
2. Focus on total homicides, not only gun deaths

How do the new figures work out?


In other words, make it an apples to apples comparison.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Odd given we started this conversation before that one. Or do you not understand how time works either?

drugs are a hell of a drug

Originally posted by ares834
2nd more important then the 1st?

The far-left seems to hate them equally.

Yes, the 2nd amendment is more important than the 1st amendment, imo. Imo, the 2nd amendment should really be the 1st amendment.

The 2nd amendment is supposed to protect all of our other rights (including the 1st) and it is a safeguard against a tyrannical government. The 1st amendment is very important, make no mistake, but it can't really be used to defend our other rights or our very lives the way the 2nd can.

Not much of a subscriber to Edward Bulwer-Lytton then.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The 2nd amendment is . . . a safeguard against a tyrannical government.

No, it is not. Otherwise, treason would not be the only capital crime in the constitution.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it is not. Otherwise, treason would not be the only capital crime in the constitution.

Actually, yes it is. He's right. You're wrong.

Here's a slightly left leaning source for this:



https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-17/origins-second-amendment


Treason is a bit different crime than overthrowing you're government. Most of the section in the constitution on it is about working with enemies of the state:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

And let's not forget original intent of the Second Amendment being retard-washed away by Democratic and leftist morons:

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government./quote[


Original intent is to have the individuals as well as militias be fully armed. And also to overthrow their government. Contrary to many wrong-opinion pieces I had to sift through to find actual quotes.


I am not shocked that young Americans are indoctrinated, ignorant, Democratic, communist fools. It's hard to find facts when you talk about these subjects. If you do a cursory search, you'll be bombarded with literally factually incorrect articles and opinion pieces that are easily proven wrong.

I swear, Adam_PoE and I are not the same account. I am not secretly posting as Adam_PoE with classically false leftist talking points just so I can deftly knock them down. But it sure as hell seems like it.

Adam seems to be getting it wrong a lot lately.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, yes it is. He's right. You're wrong.

Here's a slightly left leaning source for this:



https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-17/origins-second-amendment


Treason is a bit different crime than overthrowing you're government. Most of the section in the constitution on it is about working with enemies of the state:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

And let's not forget original intent of the Second Amendment being retard-washed away by Democratic and leftist morons:



Yes, that's the founders reason.

I suppose tyranny of the people were not lost on them, but they considered it a lesser evil then a tyrannical government (Looking at how masses of people merely terrorize by extorting money in the courts, or hyper-focusing on a single issue that benefits them at the expense of others, I'd agree that beats death police and mass gassings of political dissidents.)

The shooter is responsible for what he did, but shit it seems like people dropped the ball. We know he had a hit list. He would talk to friends about killing. While apparently also making anti gun comments...when they would go out to places he would note how much damage a gun could have done there. He would make comments about shooting people.

And the friend giving this info stopped being friends with the guy 5 months ago because he *randomly put a gun to his head*.

And I will note the friend says he thinks perhaps the guys motive was to bring more attention to gun control. So in his crazed mind he thought more gun violence would lead to changes. I don't know if I believe it, but that is what the friend said.

Originally posted by Surtur
The shooter is responsible for what he did, but shit it seems like people dropped the ball. We know he had a hit list. He would talk to friends about killing. While apparently also making anti gun comments...when they would go out to places he would note how much damage a gun could have done there. He would make comments about shooting people.

And the friend giving this info stopped being friends with the guy 5 months ago because he *randomly put a gun to his head*.

And I will note the friend says he thinks perhaps the guys motive was to bring more attention to gun control. So in his crazed mind he thought more gun violence would lead to changes. I don't know if I believe it, but that is what the friend said.

An autistic kid in high school made a hit list. He got made fun of a lot for his quirks. I must say, kids grew up a lot more since I was in high school. They wouldn't make fun of an autistic kid like they did back then.

I tried my best to be his friend and help him with his behavioral outbursts. I never thought he would go on a killing spree but based on what happens these days, I should have reported him and got him help. Ugh. this is a terrible thought.

Originally posted by cdtm
Yes, that's the founders reason.

I suppose tyranny of the people were not lost on them, but they considered it a lesser evil then a tyrannical government (Looking at how masses of people merely terrorize by extorting money in the courts, or hyper-focusing on a single issue that benefits them at the expense of others, I'd agree that beats death police and mass gassings of political dissidents.)

You're correct. They feared majoritarianism which is why they wanted certain Inalienable Rights such as the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, freedom of speedy trial, etc.

Seems like all the young leftist morons forgot all about these things. Wait until the barrel of the weaponized social-terrorism is pointed at them more and more and they will reconsider trying to remove the inalienable rights.

Wait, it's already happening and they are imploding and eating each other.

They're ruling out a hate-crime angel on this, but the murderer's motives are still largely a mystery. As Surt said, he had a previous history of talking about killing people, an ex girlfriend is claiming he often said he heard voices in his head.

Fact check: Trump falsely accuses Sherrod Brown, Dayton mayor of misrepresenting his hospital visit

President Donald Trump, his press secretary and his director of social media accused Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, both of whom are Democrats, of misrepresenting the reception Trump received from shooting victims during his visit to a Dayton hospital.

Facts First: This is false. While both Brown and Whaley criticized Trump's past rhetoric, they were only complimentary about his visit to the hospital.

At a press conference following their joint hospital visit with Trump, Brown said Trump was "received well by the patients," was "comforting" and "did the right things." At the press conference and in an interview with CNN, Whaley said victims were "grateful" to see Trump and that he was "treated well by the victims, for sure." -snip


The Divider-in-Chief doing his usual thing. Lying, being divisive and trying to make it all about himself when he should be putting aside his ego for the victims of these murders.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fact check: Trump falsely accuses Sherrod Brown, Dayton mayor of misrepresenting his hospital visit

President Donald Trump, his press secretary and his director of social media accused Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, both of whom are Democrats, of misrepresenting the reception Trump received from shooting victims during his visit to a Dayton hospital.

Facts First: This is false. While both Brown and Whaley criticized Trump's past rhetoric, they were only complimentary about his visit to the hospital.

At a press conference following their joint hospital visit with Trump, Brown said Trump was "received well by the patients," was "comforting" and "did the right things." At the press conference and in an interview with CNN, Whaley said victims were "grateful" to see Trump and that he was "treated well by the victims, for sure." -snip


The Divider-in-Chief doing his usual thing. Lying, being divisive and trying to make it all about himself when he should be putting aside his ego for the victims of these murders.


If this is true, I would want to verify it.


If it is true, that's absolutely terrible of Trump to do to Democrats who were clearly trying to act in good faith during a moment of crisis.

I believe if either of them had attacked Trump in regards to Trump's hospital visit, The Washington Examiner would have included those quotes too.

Trump attacking someone for reason "A", which turns out to be a lie and then going, it was actually because of reason "D". Okay, then.

rnO-MflYxCw

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump attacking someone for reason "A", which turns out to be a lie and then going, it was actually because of reason "D". Okay, then.

More like this: Trump visited. They said mean things and he was mad. So Trump said mean things on his Twitter after he left.

That's exactly what happened.

You forgot to add Trump lied, don't think the other two lied in their comments.