Bring it on fate. You useless fucking concept developed by village shamans
These same people couldn't go three weeks without a haircut in 2020. There are some who'll shoot someone over a pride flag, but not enough to fight a war. They'd be begging to surrender the first time their grocery order doesn't arrive.
They said the same things in Germany in the 1930s
A viewpoint like that is very subject to confirmation bias. Literally any crime is held up as evidence that it is correct. Look at the terms you are using "cold" "about a decade". It isn't a who, what, where, why, and how. It is vague.
Reverse it for a moment. Treat it like a claim in science. What evidence would you use to try to prove your hypothesis wrong?
Here’s a podcast where the first handful of episodes lays out what it’d look like if a civil war were to happen and why the author thinks there’s a reasonable chance that it could happen.
I do really like Robert Evans, but this is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo could definitely happen, but I think it's far more likely that we'll see an American version of The Troubles. I don't think there are enough people who would truly be willing to fight and die over this; but there's plenty of people willing to commit terrorist bombings or acts of sabotage if they think they can get away with it.
I haven't listened to the podcast, so maybe I'm wrong... but isn't the "it" in "it could happen here" referring to fascism, not a second civil war?
Pretty important distinction imo
The bar for starting a podcast is a 10 dollar headset.
If you just call it terrorism more people will understand you. I understand you’re trying to draw a distinction and I’m here to tell you as someone who grew up in a rural town of 1200 people…just call it terrorism. These people aren’t backtracking on language because they thought of an exception. It’s part of why they hate us.
The systemic favoritism the right gets is insane, even from left wing people. We need to atop biasing in their favor, they don't deserve it
This thread is about someone who was murdered over a rainbow flag and you’re talking about people being too rude online?? Please get some perspective.
Yeah they’re no different from people calling a fatwa on a journalist.
I threw one of those blue lives matter flags in the trash. It blew in from my neighbors house fuck hate the traitorous fucks.
They outright kill someone over a flag and you’re fantasising about politely ripping one down?
Really puts it into perspective huh? Unfortunately we can't afford to be polite with savages.
Blat blat. Fire power's something no american has bragging rights over `cause we all can get it. Legal or illegal. We're in a slow motion civil war so don't go bragging about shit everyone has access to if you're a soft handed new age patriot.
People should be building up rations of medicine.
I smuggled home a confederate flag I found in a drawer at my grandmother's house. Disposed of it with a bag of cat shit.
Bruh, you just stole G-Ma's emergency TP reserve left over from the early days of covid. Nothing else attracts shit like the stars and bars.
I find it important to make clear it was a hate crime, but Lauri Carleton was NOT killed "over a rainbow flag outside her clothing store".
No one gets killed because of a rainbow flag. You get killed because an asshole who wants to rather die than adapt to the world changing wants to spread fear with his last action and needs desperately to find a "reason". Let's not pretend he had a reason any other than being a coward.
My heart goes out to her family, friends and the community impacted.
Why has calling murderers cowards become such a thing? I blame someone who acts out of fear less than someone who acts out of hate or greed. Fear is a normal emotion and often reasonable. I don't think this person acted out of fear though.
The reality is that terrorists like this guy are armed and carrying all the time, but the second amendment is for all Americans including liberals, lefties, moderates and everyone in between.
Im not advocating for violence, in fact having a concealed carry permit nearly always means the exact opposite. Someone being aggressive? You walk away and let them win. Someone tailgating you? Let them pass.
Carrying is about situations like this, between a shop owner with a rainbow flag and someone out looking for an excuse to murder someone over rage bait.
the problem I have with this is that you're basically saying more people should have guns. a significant part of the issue is that there already are too many guns around and accessible and that is statistically going to result in more alterations resulting in shooting. you can talk about how much respect guns should be given all you want. but if more people have guns then there will be more gun violence.
You're not wrong and I mainly don't disagree with you.
But look at it from another perspective.
Those millions of guns in households are largely in the hands of conservatives since gun ownership skews heavily towards white people, males, and those living in rural areas which we already know also skews conservative, within which is a subset that fantasize about having a reason to murder their neighbors over dumb shit like colorful flags or opinions.
Liberals are much more diverse of a population than conservatives which means that when it comes to liberals, women or poc the odds of them having a fighting chance are not great in a life or death situation they didnt create, vs who is most likely to be the aggressors, conservative white men.
My take on it is that the cat is already out of the bag. In a perfect world I would prefer not having easy to operate life-ending tools spread freely throughout the country, but that's not the reality we live in. The best shot we have is to even the playing field so to speak even with the downsides it presents. The current status quo is letting terrorists gun us down with impunity and that doesn't sit well with me.
I disagree and think the core problem of too many guns could be solved the same way other Anglophone nations did it.
However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.
I'm open to a solution, but it's unrealistic to expect Americans to give/sell back enough of their guns for it to work like it did in Australia.
We have A LOT more guns here, and each one lasts 100 years or more. We could give up 99% of them (we wouldn't though) and there would still be like 6 million guns here.
I have no faith that what has worked in europe would work here given the political and cultural landscape before us. If it was feasible for america I'm not sure we would be in this situation now.
I wish it was, you and me both, but until that changes I'm simply accepting the lay of the land for what it is and reacting accordingly. We can work towards a better solution in the meantime; these actions and thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.
Thanks for the kind words. It is rather annoying being the change I want to see in the world though.
I mean.. I kind of get where you're coming from but "with impunity"? The shooter is now dead. If they weren't dead they'd be either executed eventually or in prison for 50+ years, or more likely, life.
The trouble with this is that like @Liz@midwest.social pointed out in her comment about individual rights vs societal safety, from the perspective of the individual being shot, it is with impunity.
That woman had a right to life and safety and some stupid asshole came along and ended that no matter what justice the shooter rightfully faces after the fact.
It's a balance between individual rights and societal safety. You have a right to defend yourself from threats to your life and safety by using deadly force. To say otherwise removes the ability for a good chunk of the population to adequately defend themselves. I'm related to plenty of people who cannot defend their life against the average male aggressor without a gun, and you are too. At a certain point size and strength are insurmountable.
But yes, encouraging people to responsibility engage with firearms for self defense use means that there will be more guns floating around, which means more accidents, suicides, and murders. Just as with any other choice for the rules of society, it's a trade-off. How much do we value keeping the right to adequate self-defense as a universal right? How much do we value preventing accidental injury and death?
The classic comparison is cars, simply because the annual death numbers are similar, and pretty much no other reason. But even so, we can draw parallels. Cars have mandatory features that reduce the likelihood of injury without impacting the usefulness or general experience of using a car. So too do guns, with nearly all guns having to meet industry requirements for safety, like being able to handle an overpressure event, and being drop-safe.
Cars have a licensing procedure (though it's essentially a joke here in the US) and a licensing procedure would be fine for guns, so long as it can't be used to restrict access (racist approvals and denials would become a problem in a hurry). My ideal licensing program would be a free handling skills course where failure would require some sort gross negligence, and even then you'd still get racist denials.
And really, this is the fundamental problem with guns: I (and many others) view them as a necessary tool to accessing a highly valuable right. The chances you'll need a gun are very low, but the cost of not having it can be very high. You don't have full control over whether someone else will attempt to take your life, and I don't want to say to a large chunk of the population "we're going to take away your ability to defend yourself in order to save other people who would still have that option either way."
And I want to be clear, I completely agree with the other person. If you're going to bring guns into your life, you had better learn medical skills, social skills, and you had better train with your firearm in somewhat realistic conditions. You should carry pepper spray, you should practice learning how to actually effectively calm people down, you need to learn how to safely store your guns and ammo, etc. Etc.
I get the desire ban guns in order to save lives, but you'd also be endangering others. Compare that with the car analogy, and banning cars would have a similar trade-off. Some people would live thanks to not getting in a car accident, others would die thanks to not having the same level of mobility (which has about a billion knock-on effects for quality of life).
Without regard to the rest of your comment, somehow the lack of guns works ok in Europe and they aren’t all exactly equally sized.
So, two things:
If you read that comment and didn't realize I knew perfectly well that an increase in access to guns results in an increase in gun violence, I don't know what to tell you. That whole comment was about balancing the needs to the individual against the needs of society.
By your own data, the rape rate in the US was seven times higher than in Europe. Surely we would be talking about how common rape at gunpoint was in the US if that crime was increased by access to guns. The study you cited makes it very clear that direct, unqualified comparisons of crime rates between nation is a bad idea, since there's a million factors that influence crime.
One of those factors is access to guns, but so are things like poverty, population density, education level, pollution, social services, community engagement, access to green space, noise pollution, after school programs, etc. And the thing is, I want to fix and improve all of those things, something which seems to be lacking among hardcore gun nuts. I also want to fix and improve our relationship to guns, I'm just unwilling to restrict access in a way that can become a civil rights issue on a hurry.
I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing there aren't more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it's possible you're exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I'm convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.
obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there's already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.
regardless, to me there's no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.
Oh, no, it's just that I don't weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that's okay that we disagree there.
To me, removing a potential victim's ability to protect themselves isn't worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they're not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that's okay, but I place a high value on an individual's agency, to the point where I'm willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.
This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don't necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.
Carrying doesn't do crap for self defense. The moment a crazy asshole pulls their gun at you and shoots you won't even be able to comprehend the situation quick enough and get your own piece out of the holster.
The crazy asshole always wins as they shoot first (they are usually cowards on top, so you might just get shot in the back).
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns, I feel much safer in European countries.
In the situation you outline, yeah you'd have no real chance at protecting yourself. And those situations do happen in cases like the Las Vegas hotel shooting or any of the various school shootings we're seeing all over these days.
In many other cases even the most craven assholes need to work themselves up to shoot another human being.
That means arguments, harassment and threats.
These are helpful advance warning signs that tell you that you're entering dangerous waters and de-escalation tactics take priority. Many of our lady friends can already tell from a mile away if someone is dangerous even before they start flapping their mouthholes as a matter of everyday survival.
If all of that fails and I hope to god that it doesn't, that's when having a concealed weapon gives you a fighting chance at defending your right to live. Especially for women, guns are the great equalizer.
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns
You're right, this is true.
Unfortunately the cost of encountering a rather persistent strapped terrorist is extremely high even if the chance of it happening to you is low.
Well, I rather live in a country where pretty much no one is strapped (except police and military and even then not all of them).
Even the whole hero fantasy a lot of Americans have, it doesn't work out. There is a famous video of someone shooting up a mall. A random guy carrying tried to sneak up on him. Then the girlfriend of the shooter popped him right in the head from behind (as he didn't notice her following at a distance).
We need more people who think like you
There's more than you realize.
You likely don't hear much about it because liberal gun owners don't fetishize guns or base their personality around them like the chuds on the other side of the fence do. Guns are tools, not an identity.
Closest I've come is punching a skinhead for his jacket patches.
Exactly.
And mihor supports Russia.
'Nuff said.
President Donald Trump commended the U.S. Marshals for shooting Reinoehl, describing it as "retribution", and claiming to have personally "sent in" the U.S. Marshals to "get" Reinoehl during the first presidential debate with Joe Biden.
That's really the icing on top isn't it
That's especially disturbing considering that it seems more like a political hit job on a left-wing activist. Dude killed somebody allegedly in self-defense, then he was gunned down - why was a fugitive task for necessary when the dude was just chilling at home?
He was executed my a shady task force, probably without ever firing his gun, and then the president boasted about revenge. https://archive.ph/OFvJi
Damn, reading the wiki link is disturbing when you read the shooter's info. Dude's house was shot at. Not surprised he was on edge
Turns out they have always been pro tyranny as long it's their guy hurting the "correct" people...
This thread has, predictably, devolved into a hugely disrespectful exchange given the linked post.
But as an aside, I shudder to think of trying to design an additively manufactured part that would reliably contain a propellant blast using anything less than an industrial $100k-$1m DMLS or at least really really good SLS machine. If the goal is to harm somebody using a 3D printer, you'd probably be better off bashing them over the head with it.
Full plastic guns generally don't last very long- but they have been proven to somewhat work since 2013. Now there are more stable designs that use off-the-shelf plumbing parts with plastic components. There are also designs that can be CNC'd with a cheap machine
Why does everyone thing 3D printing is magic? You're not going to be 3D printing weapons that can kill scores of poeple. Any firearm printed on an FDM printer is lucky to fire once without injuring the dipshit wielder.
This comment betrays a lack of understanding around 3d printed firearms.
Of course there are your (nearly) fully plastic single shots like the Harlot that fire small calibers and dont always last long.
On the other hand, there's plastic lowers (the only part considered a firearm and thus the onlynpart that needs to be bought through an FFL) for AR15s that use off the shelf plumbing supplies for the pressure bearing components.
The files are readily available and able to be printed on low end FDM printers with little adjustment and troubleshooting completely bypassing the need to purchase a firearm from a dealer.
Yeah, it'd be so terrible having crazy fucks blowing their own hands off /s
How much of a pussy do you have to be to go shoot somebody over a rainbow flag. What a fucking fairy. People are so sensitive these days and don't know how to act. We can blame the internet all we want, but at the end of the day, people need to learn to have some social skills. How to talk disagreements out and let people have an opinion, even if it may be wrong or stupid in their eyes. It absolutely infuriates me that people gotta die over stupid shit.
In like 2021 when the truckers were protesting g the vaccine at the border I made a man snap in public over what was legitimately a luke-warm shot at the protest.
I said something like "these dipshits are acting like they didn't get their mandated MMR shots already." And a guy next to me, not in the conversation, dramatically stood up, and loudly announced "You know what?! All you fuckin idiots think the situation is simple, but it's a lot more fucking complex that the corporate media is making it out to be!" He stormed out. Didn't pay his tab.
The whole bar just sat there in awe. Like "damn I guess some of us really got hit with that isolation crazy"
Truly, a year alone for some was just too much.
It's just regular conservative violence at this point.
Except no. The majority of "moderate conservatives" would still vote for the Republican candidate. 74 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020.
You're not a moderate if you support overthrowing the government. They can delude themselves, but they should absolutely be denied that label.
Regular conservative domestic terrorism.
Good old homegrown god fearing terrorists.
US-perspective.
Ever notice how there's no such thing as a liberal hate crime?
"We are all domestic terrorists".
How much more do we have to put up with before we do something about this? Sadly I'm guessing it's a lot more.
Did you have a stroke while writing this? Hope you're ok
Brown shirts aren’t inherently bigoted, but they can be a reference to the colloquial name for the SA, the brownshirts, called that because their uniforms included brown shirts and also to differentiate them from other fascist militias of the era that wore different colored shirts. The SA used similar styles of military imagery, threats of violence, and acts of violence to modern right wing militias.
I would love to have my personal rainbow, could you haunt me a little as well? Maybe Tuesdays?
We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it's supposed to be wrong?
If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.
Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world's problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.
I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It's about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn't accomplish that, and in this case I don't blame them.
Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.
One could make the argument war didn't get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.
You're not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn't the US.
The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that's ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.
What about Finland? https://www.gunpolicy.org/...
History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.
They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.
I dunno. I've thought, for quite some time, that we'll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I'm increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I'm horrified by violence and probably wouldn't have the courage to do so.
If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).
Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.
At minimum, teach your children why we don't do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.
I hope you realize that you're falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you're familiar with ProPublica's research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, "See? They're no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are."
It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.
There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.
That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be "right" it's still a strategic error. It's much harder to build than destroy and any "successful" deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.
Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action
Militant trans sentiment is growing.
Everyone talking about the victim, etc what happened to the murderer? Is they in prisión now?
"The suspect was found and shot dead by responding officers"
I don't think they made it to jail.
Extremely extremely uncommon police W
Unless the shooter was African American and they had no idea about the shop shooting which I wouldn't doubt
I don't call it a win. That murderer deserved to be tried and convicted for their crime and serve decades behind bars. They gave him the easy way out.
From another article (The Sun is owned by Murdoch iirc), they suggested that the murderer did not want to get arrested and was aggressive. It's sad that people get so hateful that they would rather die hating people than just going about life.
Yeah it is really easy to fall for the schadenfreude when a POS gets got by cops but don't forget cops are wrong about who did what all the fucking time...
I hope they weren't wrong here...
I am actually interested to know the race of the murderer. I know some people are against giving that information, but truth is, that provides a lot of information.
Good. Thank you.
Trying to make memes is a waste of time. Spend an hour trying to make something funny in photoshop, 4 upvotes. Literally just read the second line of an article and put it in the comments, 50 upvotes. Not that I care about internet points, but if I did I would never waste my time actually trying to make something insightful!
War is here? We have 350 million plus people. I don't see how you can call the occasional incident "war". If it was violence targeted at non-conservatives even once every few days I could see your point maybe. But as violent and awful as America is, I think the vast majority of our violence is not political in nature.
I will probably get downvoted for saying it, but this post and the response here reminds me a lot of things you'd see on r/conservative in that people take an isolated hateful incident and extrapolate to say that this is the start of a civil war and we need to mount an equally forceful response. Yes this is a tragedy, unhinged, and terroristic behavior, but, as someone from a deeply red state who has some ultra-conservative family, 0 of them are even remotely close to wanting to fight and die over pride flags.
I only say this because the sentiment that "there is no other way out of this but civil war" is not anywhere close to true, in my mind, and only serves to stop coherent discussion.
Perfectly said. I'm with you. I do think it's a distinct possibility at some point but this news story is not a part of some inevitably imminent civil war. If nothing else, 99.9% of people are way too comfortable and lazy currently to even attempt to create that sort of chaos. Something to still be watchful about but nothing like some of the comments in this thread are saying.
I only say this because the sentiment that “there is no other way out of this but civil war” is not anywhere close to true, in my mind, and only serves to stop coherent discussion.
It is also not at all the appropriate response to hearing about an innocent person being killed. No sympathy or concern or even tact for the victim nor her community nor loved ones— Instead, fantasizing about even more of the same thing happening so you can mentally LARP as a hero. Even if you're right, this is not the place to scream your violence-fantasy slogans.
Interesting that as communities become more radical and more specialized— Not that that's always a bad thing; It's probably a natural part of the memetic processes by which communities evolve— But it's interesting that they also seem to become less and less empathetic at the same time.
I think the vast majority of our violence is not political in nature. Of course, but the rate that it's rising is very concerning. The rhetoric is also getting more heated.
Wouldn't be surprised if things did indeed boil over.
Your tone in no way helps the conversation. Bye.
California has entered the chat with a bit more money at over double the economic productivity of Texas (#2) and New York (#3)
California is where the money is at, New York/ New England just has a higher proportion of rich people living there.
Funny how these murder-babies are never from the north east
New York State isn't in the North East? I seem to remember a really bad day at a grocery store in Buffalo, a deli getting blasted in NYC, a subway getting shot to shit in NYC, and recently some psycho on a scooter running around popping people at random.
Why are you associating that with this?
I'm hoping they never release the killers identity to the public. Spreading around that hateful persons likeness and beliefs all over media and articles only empowers others to do the same thing. Leave them as a nameless pictureless murderer with no agenda or beliefs, just some bigoted murderer.
Others are empowered and emboldened to do the same thing regardless of whether this person's name makes it out. The right knows that they have a near monopoly on political violence so their agenda is to feed poison to the unstable so that they'll commit violence to make people fear to be themselves and supportive of others. I've heard about a shit-ton of abortion clinic bombings and murders, can't think of a single "crisis pregnancy center" issue.
Hell, when the Supreme Court got concerned about protesters they were absolutely fine with there being special guidelines for them. But for a person seeking an abortion? Nope, you'll get to have unstable "Christian" shitheads yelling in your face while they take pictures of you and your car to distribute to their network of terrorists.
I see what you're getting at, but the point of keeping this person anonymous is to lessen their ability to be used by people as a symbol or turn them into a martyr. It's far easier for bigots to say "remember Joe Johnson, we fight for him or whatever" and spin it their way than it is to say "remember that guy who shot the guy who hung up a flag? He's our man!"
Not tying a name to the criminal prevents them from being immortalized because they're not "Joe the defender" or whatever, they're "a murderer". There will still be bigots out there for sure, but leaving this person nameless gives them one less thing to latch on to.
Disturbed - Legion of Monsters
You made sure the world will remember the name
But didn't the thought even enter your mind?
You′d give a new legion of monsters
A reason to take your life
The song originally is about a school shooting, but the point is the same
You're absolutely not wrong. Sadly though, there's a world in which are both right and we're living in it. More than a few times school shooters have been copycats who likened themselves to the colombine shooters, or who literally wanted to be in the media and have people talking about them.
The amount of time and effort put into remembering the perpetrators of these heinous crimes is so much greater than the memories of those they killed. That's the part I'd like to change. I know it'll never happen, gotta get those views for the ad money, but I can hope.
When criminals have guns and are willing to use them being able to defend yourself is your final option. Making it known that your group isn’t a soft target makes them second guess trying it.
No, I think it's pretty different.
Whether there is justification for gun ownership for "self-defense" or not, it is entirely different for someone who has a reasonable risk of being targeted for violence to have a gun than for teachers to have a gun in crowded schools with the expectation they might kill a school shooter.
To point specifically the biggest differences:
- Crowded school filled with terrified children vs someone's home or small business
- Self-defense against single-target hate crimes vs policing against a terrorist incident
- Voluntary self-defense which still allows for skill and responsibility requirements vs ~~mandating ~~arming people who might not even be comfortable armed (and might feel pressured)
EDIT: I have crossed out "mandating" because I was informed there are no current bills trying to mandate arming schools. I believe my point stands without it. If someone has a reference of a mandate, I will un-cross-out it if I see it.
It absolutely is how criminals make choices, they prey on those that are weaker based on their assumed advantage. Arming teachers is also the best way to stop school shootings that are actively occurring. Armed minorities are harder to oppress and mass shooters select gun free zones for a reason.
Damn my hometown...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
The bio of the victim from her store's website:
What a waste. A tragedy for that whole family for literally nothing. No reason at all other than small minded assholes.
save