Bombings, Mass shootings & Domestic Security Issues in the US

Status
Not open for further replies.

swerve

Super Moderator
Quite a few of the rioters were former members of the armed forces & some were serving police officers, IIRC. I think a few have been identified as having joined the security forces to get training for insurrection, & others who joined up for other reasons, but share ideas with the first lot. Worryingly, it looks as if there may be organising of & recruiting to insurgency-minded groups going on within the US armed forces.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Quite a few of the rioters were former members of the armed forces & some were serving police officers, IIRC. I think a few have been identified as having joined the security forces to get training for insurrection, & others who joined up for other reasons, but share ideas with the first lot. Worryingly, it looks as if there may be organising of & recruiting to insurgency-minded groups going on within the US armed forces.
An unfortunate reality is that various groups have been attempting to either recruit current/ex-US military as members for years, or infiltrate existing members into branches of the US military. The most likely objective would be to get access to training and build operational experience which could then be brought back and shared.

These groups run the gamut from those with socio-political objectives, to human/narco-traffickers, and a host of things in-between.

What is good to now start seeing, is that at the Federal level, the US gov't is finally publicly admitting that certain groups/ideologies are threats to the public and/or responsible for violence to a degree that had not been officially admitted to or acknowledged before.
 

Terran

Active Member
Not new. Street gangs have been known to send members to join military services.

Groups on both sides have pulled in vets and active duty from Mil and Law enforcement. That’s a well known factor in events. People join for any number of reasons some of those hold decidedly contrary to the official views of the agencies. For example Lee Harvey Oswald was both a Marine and a avid Communist until his discharge from active duty and defection in the 50s.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #64
Mar 2021 Atlanta Mass Shooting — Part 1

1. On 16 Mar 2021, a series of mass shootings occurred at three spas or massage parlors in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia, US. 8 people were killed, 6 of whom were Asian women, and one other person was wounded. The Consulate General of Korea in Atlanta confirmed that 4 of 8 victims are of Korean descent. A suspect, 21-year-old Robert Aaron Long, was taken into custody later that day in a traffic stop 150 miles south of Atlanta.

2. Police were “contacted by members of the family indicating that may be their son” after the initial shooting. “They were very distraught and they were very helpful in this apprehension,” policd said. With the family’s assistance, police were able to track his phone and anticipate his movements before Georgia State Police in Crisp County eventually stopped Long with a PIT maneuver. Long was eventually nabbed on a highway two hours south of Atlanta after a police chase, and he has been charged with murder and attempted murder.

3. Studies have shown a significant uptick in hate crimes against Asian Americans in large U.S. cities linked to the rhetoric of Donald Trump and often amplified by white nationalist supporters who describe COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus” or “Kung Flu.” But there’s another element in these attacks that deserves scrutiny, and it, too, represents a broad and persistent problem in America. The man charged in these attacks — the worst mass shooting in the U.S. in nearly two years — purchased a firearm the same day police say he went on his rampage.
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #65
Mar 2021 Atlanta Mass Shooting — Part 2

4. Robert Aaron Long, the man charged with eight counts of murder, reportedly strolled into Big Woods Goods in Holly Springs, in Cherokee County, passed an instant background check and paid for his new 9mm pistol.

5. There was no waiting period. There was no mandatory safety class. There was simply a transaction that experts say might have only taken minutes to complete. As long as someone is not a convicted felon, it is okay to transport guns in a gun case in a vehicle in Georgia. There are other restrictions related to machine guns, sawed off shotguns, silencers, and weapons that must be registered under the Federal National Firearms Act before a person can transport them.

6. For the second time since the slaughter of 20 school children and 6 educators (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting) in Dec 2012 in Connecticut, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on 11 Mar 2021 to pass a bill (H.R. 8) requiring universal background checks for firearms purchases. The House version is promised a vote in the Senate; where it faces the prospect of a filibuster. The 2015 Charleston shooter was cleared to buy a gun in part because a background check was not completed in 3 business days, the deadline under H.R. 1446. H.R. 8 would extend the deadline to 10 days. At that point, a purchaser could request an expedited review.

7. Americans have gathered in rallies across the country this weekend to honor the victims and condemn violence against Asian Americans.
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

Another shooting now at Grocery Stores at Boulder Colorado. So far the death toll is not official, however unofficially media sources put 6 including one police officer.

Update: ABC just put the number of death casualty to 10. So the numbers seems still fluctuate.

 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Another shooting now at Grocery Stores at Boulder Colorado. So far the death toll is not official, however unofficially media sources put 6 including one police officer.

Update: ABC just put the number of death casualty to 10. So the numbers seems still fluctuate.

One cannot understand the mentality of a nation that continues to allow the proliferation of firearms, when such mass shootings are occurring with regular frequency. It's as though it's becoming normalised within the society. Thoughts and prayers no longer mean anything and are just turning out to be insulting now, given the number of shootings, the death toll, and the lack of political action.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Another mass shooting in the USA, just another day in paradise, just another day in the land of the free, and shot dead too.

Does anyone care anymore? Americans obviously don’t, do they? I must say that each time I hear about the latest mass shooting in the US I just go, “yep, just another day in America”.

A list of US 2021 mass shootings to date (don’t worry the list is guaranteed to grow):


Here’s another interesting list, a list of guns per 100 civilian population, per Country:


* Afghanistan has 12.5 guns per 100
* Iraq has 19.6 guns per 100
* And not to be out done, the USA with 120.5 guns per 100!

Mass shootings in the USA will eventually end when there is a report of the second last American being shot and killed by the last American.
 

Terran

Active Member
It’s a complicated argument particularly since by the US constitution all citizens have a right of firearms ownership. Changing that would be a major political issue.
states and the US have enacted from time to time “bans” and limitations but they either don’t actually work as they focus on a specific “scary weapon” or are unconstitutional.
Mass shooting events account for less than 5% of gun crime. How events are counted and considered is debated by sources with some groups creating numbers that boggle the mind. The FBI for example counts 28 mass shooting events in 2019. The advocacy group Gun Violence Archive claims 417, well USA Today counted 41. So dramatically different numbers from different sources who set criteria differently. For example some count domestic homicides where the FBI doesn’t.
Farther the criteria for this is skewed by another factor often overlooked. Rather US has more civilians with weapons than other nations. As a result the more common equivalent would be the Mass stabbing or vehicular rampage. The fact of availability skews the statistics.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
It’s a complicated argument particularly since by the US constitution all citizens have a right of firearms ownership. Changing that would be a major political issue.
states and the US have enacted from time to time “bans” and limitations but they either don’t actually work as they focus on a specific “scary weapon” or are unconstitutional.
Mass shooting events account for less than 5% of gun crime. How events are counted and considered is debated by sources with some groups creating numbers that boggle the mind. The FBI for example counts 28 mass shooting events in 2019. The advocacy group Gun Violence Archive claims 417, well USA Today counted 41. So dramatically different numbers from different sources who set criteria differently. For example some count domestic homicides where the FBI doesn’t.
Farther the criteria for this is skewed by another factor often overlooked. Rather US has more civilians with weapons than other nations. As a result the more common equivalent would be the Mass stabbing or vehicular rampage. The fact of availability skews the statistics.
Ahhh... the old Second Amendment argument, it gets old, very old.

Now I’m just a dumb Aussie, a dumb Skippy, but if I remember properly the oft quoted excuse, the Second Amendment dates back to 1791, correct?

And if I’m correct, pistols and rifles from that time were all single shot, they took a $hit load of time to load, fire, and a $hit load of time to reload, true? They were not capable of causing or performing ‘mass’ shootings.

If Americans are so wedded to the ideals of the 2nd Amendment maybe they should trade in all of their automatic and semi automatic weapons for those single shot weapons of 1791.

Failing that, there is the 2nd amendment itself, Americans scream out “You can’t change 2nd Amendment!!” Yes you can, it’s an amendment, amend the bloody amendment.

But the truth is very simple, Americans don’t need guns for reasons given back in 1791, the truth is they ‘like’ they ‘want’ guns.
 

Terran

Active Member
Ah the old single shot obsolete Consitution argument...
look we could flame each other back and forth but the US constitution is the founding and critical document and the bill of rights here is quite clear. “The right of a free people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.”
It was written for reasons just as valid then as now.
can it be amended? Generally yes practically no. It would need a rather uphill battle of politics involving a super majority of both the house senate followed by ratification by the states. The political class know that’s a suicide pact as you said we Like and Want guns. Often as where the urban don’t like want the US is a mixed nation and rural population as well as suburban communities prefer to view their home as their castle and castles were armed.
Last year first time gun buys increased as political protests spilled into residential areas. Which is exactly what the second amendment was about. Oh and the idea of multiple shot weapons wasn’t unheard of in the 1790s just rare. There were multi shot weapons in existence dating back to 1606 in fact.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Mate, I agree, let’s not go back and forth, it’s a wasted effort for sure.

At the end of the day I’m here in Oz and I don’t give a $hit how often Americans shoot the crap out of each other, and do you know why I don’t give a $hit? Because Americans obviously don’t care about how many of their fellow countrymen are massacred on an almost daily basis.

Why should the rest of the world?
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group

I do think that any realistically compromise between the Anti and Pro Gun sides will be to bring back 1994 Assault Gun Ban. This only work 10 years from 1994, and for me personally I follow this debate cause at that time I was taking my Graduate Studies in US.

I remembered how decisive this ban already in the 90's when I talk with my fellow Americans students. As non American I try to follow the thinking of both sides (I was in Midwest, and eventough it's not Texas or Rockies region, gun ownership is quite a big thing there).
Thus base on my observation, I can see some compromise can be achieve on the assault gun. Seems (correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just non American that observe), some of Pro Gun can accept the line draw on Assault Gun as long as the other side don't push more than that.

The problem that I see (I'm still in contact with some of my American friends on school alumni sites), the Political divide already created much distrust to each other side. In such I do see much more difficulty to find compromised bills compared to my time there in 90's.

The assault gun ban according some reports did not reduce much on Gun violence, however did reduce the numbers of fatality on any mass shooting incidents. Perhaps this is the compromise the Americans need to agree.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ah the old single shot obsolete Consitution argument...
look we could flame each other back and forth but the US constitution is the founding and critical document and the bill of rights here is quite clear. “The right of a free people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.”
It was written for reasons just as valid then as now.
can it be amended? Generally yes practically no. It would need a rather uphill battle of politics involving a super majority of both the house senate followed by ratification by the states. The political class know that’s a suicide pact as you said we Like and Want guns. Often as where the urban don’t like want the US is a mixed nation and rural population as well as suburban communities prefer to view their home as their castle and castles were armed.
Last year first time gun buys increased as political protests spilled into residential areas. Which is exactly what the second amendment was about. Oh and the idea of multiple shot weapons wasn’t unheard of in the 1790s just rare. There were multi shot weapons in existence dating back to 1606 in fact.
That argument doesn't really wash either. It's full of excuses. Why do civilians require military style automatic and semi automatic weapons? There is no absolute need for civilians to have access to those under any circumstances. Pistols, why do civilians require access to pistols, especially the ability to carry them concealed? I live in a country which until recent times was one of the most highly armed in the world. Australia was very similar. When we had a couple of mass shootings, our respective governments tightened the gun laws. They have generally worked as well. Maybe it's because your average Aussie and Kiwi are somewhat more thoughtful towards their neighbours and more civic minded, rather than being self centred and focused fully on the individual.

Like John I too think that this'll go back and forth and I am just a Kiwi who doesn't give a rats arse how many yanks shoot one another in mass shootings. Not my part of ship.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
The thing that stumps me as an Aussie is the vagueness of the term "infringed". It strikes me as problematic that what constitutes an "infringement" is potentially quite subjective.

For example, the US as a nation seems to have already decided that automatic weapons are out of the question for civilians. Same for 40mm grenade launchers, anti tank/shoulder fired weapons, hand held grenades... etc. John correctly pointed out that modern personal weapons/firearms have evolved considerably since the 2nd amendment first appeared and the US has already decided on which of the resultant capabilities should remain unavailable to its citizens, presumably for their own safety. I can see compelling arguments for keeping that "line" between what is and is not available to civilians under review as technology and killing power improves.

I have also long suspected that a heavily/commonly armed populace is not ideal from a law enforcement standpoint. To my mind it potentially undermines police when they are constantly dealing with the potential of being outgunned by their own citizens. The police mistrust the populace, the populace mistrust the police and escalation ensues. Enter police militarisation and generally greater paranoia on the beat(?). By contrast, this just doesn't seem to be the case here in Aus... Like anything, the ready availability of high quality, high capacity semi-automatic firearms among the American populace comes with a price, but I think the nation largely decided they were willing to pay it after Sandy Hook.

As an Australian high school teacher I have never felt the need or desire to own a gun, never really met another Aussie who does (not saying they don't exist), I have never encountered a metal detector or security guard at work (nor wanted or needed either) and never felt remotely in danger doing my job. It's a pretty great way to live.

That said, I used to be rather baffled by the US approach as a consequence but nowadays I am a bit more pragmatic. It seems to me that the semi-automatic Pandora's box has been opened over there and I have no idea how you'd close it again even if there was popular support. Unfortunately I don't see an end to this issue in sight and I think it will continue to be a political football for many many years to come.

Just my 2c.
 
Last edited:

SolarWind

Active Member
No branch of government can take away any of the Constitutional rights unless a supermajority wants it, and there is no supermajority who want to undo the right to bear arms. That's just the way it is.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I gave up this debate with Americans the second Sandy Hook happened. If you're happy to allow children to be massacred and cling to your right to carry semi-automatic assault rifles you've lost me completely. Personally I think the gun obsession in the USA could now be considered a national illness.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
No branch of government can take away any of the Constitutional rights unless a supermajority wants it, and there is no supermajority who want to undo the right to bear arms. That's just the way it is.
Well there's one example of why the rest of the world regard Americans as a bunch of gun loving crazies who don't care how many citizens they kill as long as they continue to worship at the alter of the Holy Gun and read from the sacred text of a flawed constitution.

I don't give jackshit about how many of your own people you nutters kill, just don't bother preaching to the rest of the world about morals and freedoms etc., because you don't have any.
 

SolarWind

Active Member
Well there's one example of why the rest of the world regard Americans as a bunch of gun loving crazies who don't care how many citizens they kill as long as they continue to worship at the alter of the Holy Gun and read from the sacred text of a flawed constitution.

I don't give jackshit about how many of your own people you nutters kill, just don't bother preaching to the rest of the world about morals and freedoms etc., because you don't have any.
Democracy is the reason why guns are allowed, because that is how the USA was designed from the beginning and is what the people still want. It is freedom in action, and I believe freedoms are worth fighting for. However, preaching morals to the rest of the world is a different can of worms. I believe it to be presumptuous and I find that a number of individuals who attempted that in the last decade did a very poor job.

If and when we have a super-majority to change the Constitutional right to bear arms, it will be attempted, but not before then.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top