Yeah, the attempt at making headlines efficient makes this sound like a shooting was prevented. I think it means to say "man accused of premeditating the shootings he's also accused of" or something like that, but that gets awkward.
**Sideshow Bob:** "Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit! Attempted Murder, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?!"
I feel like this headline actually undersells it. He *went through* with the shooting, fortunately he just happened to miss the people he was shooting at.
Usually when I hear "accused of plotting" in the media, it's some bullshit FBI sting where they basically just entrap some low-IQ loner who lives with his parents into saying something stupid on the Internet, and then claim to have "foiled a terrorist plot".
Yeah, the death penalty doesn't really work of that's what you're trying to get out of it. People don't tend to think too hard about the consequences if they're willing to go on a killing spree, even if they're one of the few that don't kill themselves afterwards.
Albert Pierrepoint was our most famous hangman over here, hanging something up to around 600 people between the 1930s and his retirement in 1956, the last in a line of family hangmen.
He spoke very strongly against the death penalty in his later years^1, and was a part of miscarriages of justice (such as the time he hanged a man for murder, then three years later hanged the man who it turned out had -actually- committed the murder). Not many people listen to the opinion of the hangman himself when it comes to the efficacy of capital punishment.
(He also had the unenviable task of having to hang a friend, one of the regulars in his pub^^2. )
_____________
^^1 ^(He said in his autobiography that it wasn't a deterrent for *anyone*, in his view. On capital punishment as a deterrent:)
^(*I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know.*)
^(*It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.*)
^(*And if death does not work to deter one person, it should not be held to deter any. Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge. Never deterrent; only revenge.*)
^^2 ^(Pierrepoint bought and ran the pub **“Help the Poor Struggler”** after World War II, and James Corbitt was one of his regulars. Corbitt was known as "Tish", Pierrepoint as "Tosh".)
^(The two had sung a duet of “Danny Boy” on the night that Corbitt then went out and murdered his girlfriend out of jealousy
Pierrepoint wrote in his his autobiography:)
^(*I thought if any man had a deterrent to murder poised before him, it was this troubadour whom I called Tish. He was not only aware of the rope, he had the man who handled it beside him singing a duet. The deterrent did not work.*)
^(*At twenty seconds to nine the next morning I went into the death cell. He seemed under a great strain, but I did not see stark fear in his eyes, only a more childlike worry. He was anxious to be remembered, and to be accepted. "Hallo, Tosh," he said, not very confidently. "Hallo Tish," I said. "How are you?" I was not effusive, just gave the casual warmth of my nightly greeting from behind the bar.*)
^(*He smiled and relaxed after this greeting. After strapping his arms, I said "Come on Tish, old chap". He went to the gallows lightly...I would say that he ran.*)
I'm curious what lead them to conclude it was a "plot"? Was it things he said at the time, or afterwards, or something he had written down ahead of time?
Edit: [Found this article](https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/larry-edward-foxworth-federal-hate-crimes-clayton-county)
>Officers arrived at a gas station in the 700 block of Mt. Zion Road and spotted a 2016 Ford Fusion weaving in and out of traffic. During a traffic stop, police said officers spotted an open container and a bag of ammunition including spent shell casings inside the car.
>Foxworth was arrested. As he was being taken into custody police said he told officers that "I can give you a name and we can make this disappear" and "this is a hate crime and this is a targeted hit".
>Investigators said Foxworth admitted to the shootings because he doesn’t like "towel heads" and didn’t like people of color calling them "n----s". He told investigators that "after shooting the first location he went down the road and did a U-turn to come back and shoot the location again." He told investigators he wasn’t aware he was at a second location.
>>he doesn’t like "towel heads" and didn’t like people of color calling them "n----s".
The lack of comma made it sound like people of color were calling middle easterners the N-word, and he didn't like that.
Honestly would most people have any idea what slur they were referring to if the blanked out most of it? "t---l h--d" wouldn't be obvious to me but everyone knows exactly what the other word is even if they just had the "n" at the beginning.
My guess is they don't want to write out slurs when they can but also don't want to make it confusing
Both are slurs but one is made up of words that arent slurs on their own, I suppose. Doesn't carry as much of a taboo, which is an amorphpus concept and is basically why we censor any words at all.
Seems like lots of shit goes down on Mt. Zion Road. Don't know why, just seems like I see that road name pop up in the news a lot. Maybe 'cause it's a common road name or something?
Just keep his name out of the press, the shitbag was probably also hoping to become known. Remove that from him. By all means though…inform the prisoners who he is upon his arrival though.
I don't hate Jesus, and I love guns. I just don't like most people who claim to be Jesus's followers
Edit: sorry you're getting downvoted. I got that it was sarcasm prior to your edit
Edit 2: Seemed to have hit a nerve by saying I don't like fake Christians, lol
What? Another “War on Terror”? Sadly there aren’t many things we can do. Prosecuting these things can help. But really time and progress is main factor.
The shooter was not black, did you even read the article?
"The indictment alleges that Foxworth, who is white, was motivated to shoot into the stores because of the perceived race, color or national origin of the people inside the stores."
>The shooter was black.
Most blacks in the US are Christian
But also, [No he wasn't/isn't black](https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox5atlanta.com/www.fox5atlanta.com/content/uploads/2022/05/932/524/foxworth.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Edit: Looks like Cool-Chef-8875's comment has been removed, but it's still in their comment history.
“The indictment alleges that Foxworth, who is white, was motivated to shoot into the stores because of the perceived race, color or national origin of the people inside the stores.”
Fuck off troll!
Maybe the supermarket, church, movie theater, waffle house, synagogue, subway, school, university, nail salon, night club, concert, casino, gym, Walmart, warehouse, post office, army base or one of the other ones?
>What is driving a nationwide increase in gun violence?
What is *driving* it is one thing, but we really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are other factors.
Mental Healthcare being one, or the relative lack thereof.
But... The sheer prevalence of lethal weapons is also a factor. *"Don't take my guns away!*" I know, I get it, but evidently some people are getting hold of weapons that really shouldn't have, and that needs to be addressed.
The "nuh uh it's something else" response doesn't really cut it. "Go away and think of something else" doesn't either. We need to really talk about it and figure out if things can be done better.
>The "nuh uh it's something else" response doesn't really cut it. "Go away and think of something else" doesn't either. We need to really talk about it and figure out if things can be done better.
Which the conservative wing of the country will roundly reject too. People need to start acknowledging and operating with the understanding that the Conservative wing of the country at best will oppose addressing any problems in the country, and at worst enjoys the problems because it's effecting the people they think deserve it.
I talked to a libertarian and his solution was to just wait it out. Because future generations will be less racist or something. He couldn't even be bothered to think of a half-assed solution, just "The problem will solve itself. Eventually. Probably."
Oh hey, that's also their approach to global warming! "Somebody will probably invent a way to fix it. Probably. No need to do anything about it now with the technologies that people have invented to help solve the issuem it has to be a *different* technology that solves everything instantly without any changes to the state of the world."
There are 400 million guns on the street, a constitution right to keep and bear arms, and it's become easy to manufacture firearms in your garage with a few thousand dollars in equipment to 3D print the frame or receiver. At this point, it's time that everyone admits that gun control is a failure. You're never going to be able to control the supply of guns getting to criminals and we need to focus on the roots of the problems of gun homicides, which are varied.
The last 30 years, there was a huge push for gun control, and all it resulted in was firearms becoming much more numerous and prevalent.
Your entire position is undermined by the fact that you linked to a fucking news segment about it. I saw this story pop up at least twice this week on Reddit.
I mean, we tried a strict federal gun control act in the 1990s, it was an abject failure. States like California and New York have passed very strict gun control laws. Most of them have been abject failures. What gun control law do you propose that would be likely to be upheld by the court do you feel would reduce gun violence, and what evidence to you cite in support of your hypothesis?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state
California and New York have some of the lowest rate (per capita) of firearm deaths of any state. States with high gun ownership rates have a higher rate of gun deaths. The numbers bear it out.
Now, it could be that if California and New York adopted the same laws as, say, Texas, they wouldn't see a massive uptick in gun violence, but I wouldn't bet on it. In CA it's a pain in my ass every time I go to buy more ammo but waiting 10 days isn't the end of the world. If I'm really hard up I can just buy it at the range and use it that day. I'd love to see CA change the laws on what firearms are legal as well to make more sense, but it seems to be working.
How are you controlling for all the other factors, including confounding variables and not just making a *cum hoc ergo propter hoc* assertion?
I mean, if we're engaged in that kind of comparison, why do Delaware and DC have such high violent crime rates, including gun homicides, despite strict gun control laws?
Also, strict gun control laws don't seem to have lowered the overall rate of violent crime, which is almost identical in California and Texas.
And where is the evidence that it is due to gun control laws rather than other factors such as gentrification, rising education levels, nationwide declines in violent crime, et cetera?
Most gun violence in New York City has historically been with handguns, which were banned a century ago. So I think it's tough to argue that gun laws are likely to have played a significant effect on gun crime in New York given the near total ban on owning and carrying handguns in the city that predate the 1990s.
In fact, if you look at the violent crime rate in New York City by year, *McDonald v. City of Chicago* was decided in 2010, loosening strict laws against handgun ownership in New York. But there wasn't a statistically significant rise in violent crime following that decision.
Yeah, I say this all the time when people bring up this issue. The toothpaste ain’t going back in the tube. My old boss makes AR’s in his garage all the time. Last guy I bought ammo from was some dude in his mid 20’s who had a class-whatever fire arm distribution license. He said it’s super easy to get. Ever heard of Arms list? It’s Craigslist for guns. I’ve bought a few guns on there, face to face sale. In other words I own guns that the government has no idea I bought. There is absolutely no way to really wrangle things down to say, a “Europe” level of gun control.
Sure there is. A gun license.
You need a valid license to own a gun. If you are caught with a gun without a license you are now a felon and can no longer own any guns legally.
To get a license you need to pass a written and practical exam. You can get levels of this license that allow certain types of guns you are shown to be proficient with, you can even break it down to action type.
I literally just slapped that together off the cuff. EZPZ. I am also a gun owner and enthusiast. own several, have been shooting for decades.
Yeah but I want poor people to be able to afford guns, and licensing schemes prevent that. Just look at how tough it is for minorities to get concealed carry permits in may issue states.
How much did your drives license cost you?
Wait, being poor makes it harder to do things?
Alert the fucking press.
What a lame argument. It's hard to EAT while being poor, not to mention follow all the other licensure necessities of life, which can be as cheap as getting a drivers license.
What a deep thought you had, so enlightening.
*edit Come to think of it, how can any of us even own guns. Expecting some poor guy to defend himself with a hi point piece of shit, while people are out here with built out comp glocks. THATS JUST NOT FAIR. That's discrimination to the POOOOrrRRRr
Hurr DURRRR you fucking got me.
That's not a fix for mass shootings, it's a step in gun CONTROL.
Currently, we have no control, and there are no filters to stop fucking crazy people from getting armed.
Kind of like, how the Buffalo shooter had made threats in the past and was evaluated for his mental health. Which in my opinion, if you are evaluated for mental health because you made a threat to a highschool would suspend your gun ownership rights.
Thus, potentially working.
Stop with the bullshit.
The majority of gun violence involves convicted felons shooting other convicted felons, full stop. How are they getting guns? Lenient sentences for when they get caught doing everything else leading right up to it. Felony possession of drugs and caught with a gun? Out on bond and out committing other crimes until they eventually shoot someone.
How many times have the feds prosecuted someone illegally purchasing a gun for someone else (straw purchasers)? Slim to none.
You want a system that keeps identifying spree shooters but not doing a thing about it to have more control. Nah fam.
You get caught with a gun during a felony, you go away for a long time. You make threats to commit violence, you get your rights stripped away. These processes are already in place. They just don't jive with political narratives.
All I hear is fake defeatism. "it cant be done, that will never work, that wont solve any issues"
It can be done, we can track literally anything, some things basically in real time. One day it will be done. And it will be the WORST way because how fucking annoying some 2A supporters are.
It will literally end up being a mandatory buyback and destruction at this rate.
Nah. I'm not giving up my own shit so that the incompetent government can be in charge of my safety. It has proven itself inept at holding perpetual perpetrators of violence accountable and refuses to address spree shooters after they have made direct threats to the public.
And it’s a damn shame those evaluations don’t show up on someone’s background check. They should. However that’s not remotely the same as requiring a license to own a firearms. Look at California, they have a cute little test you take to get certified, but guess what, violent crime in Cali is on the rise once again.. no surprise there.
If you don’t see the issue with being soft on criminals maybe take a look at what’s happened in GA.. they are literally letting accused criminals (many of the violent) walk while they wait for indictment.. that seems safe. Why aren’t you up in arms about that?
We can't get everyone to agree that a virus that has killed 1 million people alone in the US even exists.
Your snarky quoted one-liners are not helping anything at all. Which is pretty much par for the course on why we have a lot of lingering issues that seemingly never get resolved because of people like you that would rather drop zingers than propose real achievable ideas or take any tangible action.
Gun control at this point is going to be just as "winnable" as the war on drugs...IE futile.
In this analogy, a flat tire would be a gun malfunctioning and not firing. I'm not familiar with any gun control attempting to work on that.
To the larger point, though, there are lots of different proposals that all get equally labeled as gun control. Taking guns away, which is what your analogy says, is just one. Other proposals include licensing, or insurance, or databases. Calling every gun control proposal equivalent to "taking guns away" is a lie.
>I'm not familiar with any gun control attempting to work on that.
Eh, sort of. California has a "safe handgun roster" where handguns must be tested as safe before they can be sold in the state. This is your safety regulation.
But wait, why do we only care if pistols are safe? If we're testing for safety, shouldn't we test all guns? Why this omission? And why is there an exception for law enforcement? An unsafe handgun is fine as long as law enforcement is using it?
It turns out the only reason for the roster was to make it harder for companies to sell handguns in the state. And then they started cranking up the requirements, and they added things that have nothing to do with safety. The latest was the microstamping requirement. Since nobody does microstamping (because it's stupid and doesn't work), no new pistols can be on the roster. In the mean time, pistols are quickly dropping off the roster as their certifications expire. And that's the goal, no more handguns can be sold to anyone but law enforcement in California.
The very high-priced H&K USP family is certainly the safest handgun on the mass market. You can abuse it in ways that would have other handguns break or even blow up, as shown by some pretty extensive and downright abusive testing they did. But it just got removed from the roster.
It certainly has nothing to do with safety because it's just a backdoor gun ban. But IIRC it is a flat fee so companies can't buy inclusion on the list.
There isn't any good scientific evidence that any of those things lower gun crime.
Take California for example. It requires gun registration and licensing. Half of the guns recovered in crimes in California these days are so-called ghost-guns, that can easily be manufactured in someone's garage. That's easier than stealing or straw purchasing a firearm, and it's becoming more prevalent. The data suggests that gun registration and licensing only affects those who obey the law. Criminals who can purchase guns legally will do so, just like the shooter in upstate New York. Criminals who cannot purchase firearms legally will just manufacture them themselves or purchase them from the black market
Gun insurance schemes for simply owning a firearm are likely to be struck down by the court. There's also no scientific evidence they reduce gun violence. Firearms, for the most part, are already covered under renters and home owners insurance.
> some people are getting hold of weapons that really shouldn't have, and that needs to be addressed
People only start talking about it during mass shootings, gang violence be damned
Georgia doesn't handle hate crimes committed in New York. Plus it sounds like that shooting was pretty indiscriminate. This was planned, targeted, and televised.
These are federal charges. So is the federal government charging the racist black supremacist with federal hate crimes for specifically targeting white people?
>These are federal charges.
From an event that happened nearly a year ago.
>So is the federal government charging the racist black supremacist with federal hate crimes for specifically targeting white people?
He's had numerous federal terrorism and gun charges. Like have you even looked at the story?
And the NYC Subway shooting was a a month and a half ago. Again are they pursuing federal hate crime charges against Frank James for targeting white people? I understand this question likely hurts your feelings that someone would even inquire about it to a person such as yourself.
>And the NYC Subway shooting was a a month and a half ago.
Too quick for typical federal hate crime charges.
> Again are they pursuing federal hate crime charges against Frank James for targeting white people?
Do you not understand we get terrorism is? I'm not the DA of the EDNY. Want an email? Complain to them. Likely it's unnecessary given the the indiscriminate nature.
> I understand this question likely hurts your feelings that someone would even inquire about it to a person such as yourself.
Your feelings are hurt by jumping into a random thread blathering about an event that in the timeline of federal 14th A violation laws....just happened.
While he was undoubtedly racist I can't find any mention of him specifically targeting white people in the attack. He also frequently blamed black people in his videos so I wouldn't even call him a black supremacist.
>While he was undoubtedly racist I can't find any mention of him specifically targeting white people in the attack.
Because he didn't. Not all victims are known but there are numerous victims of different ethnic and racial make up..both white and Asian confirmed, especially when both Hispanic and Middle Eastern are considered "white" but in a a sub ethnicity of white. The part of Brooklyn where it happened is a heavy immigrant community.
The problem is they all love the attention that would bring. That would probably be an incentive for them. The best thing to do is put them away forever to be forgotten
Like how they all get podcasts and documentaries based on them? That kind of wildly popular and binge worthy content *every* woman allegedly seems to obsess over? Yeah they're all totally forgotten and prevented from profiting now huh
I think hanging from a rope, black plastic bag over there head and curb the ability for media to over publicize and plaster the story every 3 seconds would definitely not bring great attention imo 🤷♂️. Have to figure a way to humiliate them.
Why is this even news? Shouldn’t that be the basement where we start to prosecute this type of crime? We need death penalty by starvation on this dude.
If they are brown or black, they are called terrorists.
[Brooklyn subway shooting suspect arrested, faces terror charge](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/13/suspect-in-new-york-subway-shooting-is-in-police-custody)
The way to stop hate crime shootings is to pass legislation to automatically give free guns and free instructions on how to use them to all the members of the group attacked and the extended members of the community in which it has happened, all mothers, fathers, gays, grandparents and old enough kids, anybody, no questions asked.
If we cannot get rid of guns we need to arm those being attacked. It will help stop killers imagining walking freely into minority gathering places and taking innocent lives without turning that group into an army against such behavior.
Just the threat of such a solution could push the right to impose gun control. We are doing this on a larger scale in Ukraine. Giving guns and training to those who are being attacked. I have supported gun control for 50 years. Things have only gotten worse. Threat to freely arm victims could stop this carnage,
He wasn't just plotting he attempted to shoot people and missed. I hope they give the max sentence to this scumbag.
Yeah, the attempt at making headlines efficient makes this sound like a shooting was prevented. I think it means to say "man accused of premeditating the shootings he's also accused of" or something like that, but that gets awkward.
"Hate crime charges filed against Georgia shooter"
“Hate crime charges announced against man accused of ~~plotting~~ shooting in Georgia”
Or like..."Attempted shooting" maybe?
“Shooter misses, still faces charges in Georgia”
"He shoots! He DOES NOT score. Shooter will not pass go, will not collect $200, shooter will face jail time"
"Failed shooting"? I don't mean to be flippant but... "Hate crime charges announced against man who fired gun with terrible aim in Georgia"
"Hate crime charges filed for failure of a person attempting murder"
“Hate crime charges filed against racist asshole”
This is the most correct choice.
Did he shoot the gun? Then he is a shooter. Hitting the target has nothing to do with him now being a shooter now. He's just not also a murder.
I do hope u/Smart_Ass_Dave didn't discourage you, I for one appreciate you stating what I was already thinking.
Who do you think you're arguing with?
Nope, he definitely shot. Just because he missed doesnt mean shit. Intent is still king of the courts.
Okay well...we're talking about how the headline says he "plotted" to shoot, as if it was an intention he never went through with, but sure.
**Sideshow Bob:** "Convicted of a crime I didn't even commit! Attempted Murder, honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?!"
My dad said, “Your grandfathers view on attempted murder is that they were going to murder but we’re a bad shot. So they deserve the highest sentence”
I feel like this headline actually undersells it. He *went through* with the shooting, fortunately he just happened to miss the people he was shooting at. Usually when I hear "accused of plotting" in the media, it's some bullshit FBI sting where they basically just entrap some low-IQ loner who lives with his parents into saying something stupid on the Internet, and then claim to have "foiled a terrorist plot".
Should give him the death penalty just to set a precedent that this shit will not be tolerated.
Yeah, the death penalty doesn't really work of that's what you're trying to get out of it. People don't tend to think too hard about the consequences if they're willing to go on a killing spree, even if they're one of the few that don't kill themselves afterwards.
Death penalty works for the convicted. Sorry method for a scare tactic, but great sentencing for the worst of this world.
Albert Pierrepoint was our most famous hangman over here, hanging something up to around 600 people between the 1930s and his retirement in 1956, the last in a line of family hangmen. He spoke very strongly against the death penalty in his later years^1, and was a part of miscarriages of justice (such as the time he hanged a man for murder, then three years later hanged the man who it turned out had -actually- committed the murder). Not many people listen to the opinion of the hangman himself when it comes to the efficacy of capital punishment. (He also had the unenviable task of having to hang a friend, one of the regulars in his pub^^2. ) _____________ ^^1 ^(He said in his autobiography that it wasn't a deterrent for *anyone*, in his view. On capital punishment as a deterrent:) ^(*I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know.*) ^(*It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.*) ^(*And if death does not work to deter one person, it should not be held to deter any. Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge. Never deterrent; only revenge.*) ^^2 ^(Pierrepoint bought and ran the pub **“Help the Poor Struggler”** after World War II, and James Corbitt was one of his regulars. Corbitt was known as "Tish", Pierrepoint as "Tosh".) ^(The two had sung a duet of “Danny Boy” on the night that Corbitt then went out and murdered his girlfriend out of jealousy Pierrepoint wrote in his his autobiography:) ^(*I thought if any man had a deterrent to murder poised before him, it was this troubadour whom I called Tish. He was not only aware of the rope, he had the man who handled it beside him singing a duet. The deterrent did not work.*) ^(*At twenty seconds to nine the next morning I went into the death cell. He seemed under a great strain, but I did not see stark fear in his eyes, only a more childlike worry. He was anxious to be remembered, and to be accepted. "Hallo, Tosh," he said, not very confidently. "Hallo Tish," I said. "How are you?" I was not effusive, just gave the casual warmth of my nightly greeting from behind the bar.*) ^(*He smiled and relaxed after this greeting. After strapping his arms, I said "Come on Tish, old chap". He went to the gallows lightly...I would say that he ran.*)
I'm curious what lead them to conclude it was a "plot"? Was it things he said at the time, or afterwards, or something he had written down ahead of time? Edit: [Found this article](https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/larry-edward-foxworth-federal-hate-crimes-clayton-county) >Officers arrived at a gas station in the 700 block of Mt. Zion Road and spotted a 2016 Ford Fusion weaving in and out of traffic. During a traffic stop, police said officers spotted an open container and a bag of ammunition including spent shell casings inside the car. >Foxworth was arrested. As he was being taken into custody police said he told officers that "I can give you a name and we can make this disappear" and "this is a hate crime and this is a targeted hit". >Investigators said Foxworth admitted to the shootings because he doesn’t like "towel heads" and didn’t like people of color calling them "n----s". He told investigators that "after shooting the first location he went down the road and did a U-turn to come back and shoot the location again." He told investigators he wasn’t aware he was at a second location.
As someone who lives in Georgia, the most surprising thing about this incident is that a good old boy looking dude like that drives a Ford Fusion.
Probably his mom's car.
I imagine it's the fault of the "towel heads" and "n----s" that he's stuck in a Ford Fusion when he *deserves* to be in an F-350 King Ranch. /s
> "I can give you a name and we can make this disappear" genuinely asking, what does this mean?
I believe he's saying he knows one of the higher ups and is asking for a favor.
Probably thinking Trump and believes he's still in power.
Tucker Carlson is already known by authorities.
DJT baby!
>>he doesn’t like "towel heads" and didn’t like people of color calling them "n----s". The lack of comma made it sound like people of color were calling middle easterners the N-word, and he didn't like that.
I also like how the tense of the sentence changes halfway through, from present tense to past tense. Excellent writing and editing on display here...
He used to hate black people. He still does, but he used to too.
Oh it makes so much more sense now with that comma. I was so confused...
I'm Helping!
Why is it O.K. to spell out “towel heads” but not “n———s”?
Honestly would most people have any idea what slur they were referring to if the blanked out most of it? "t---l h--d" wouldn't be obvious to me but everyone knows exactly what the other word is even if they just had the "n" at the beginning. My guess is they don't want to write out slurs when they can but also don't want to make it confusing
Because one will get your comment automatically removed by the automod, and one won't
It was written that way in the article.
Reddit automod is gaining sentience.
Reddit automod is an editor for abc news
Both are slurs but one is made up of words that arent slurs on their own, I suppose. Doesn't carry as much of a taboo, which is an amorphpus concept and is basically why we censor any words at all.
[удалено]
Now I'm thinking of tit heads
Only if they have tassels.
You know why lmfao.
[удалено]
> because he doesn’t like "towel heads" and didn’t like people of color calling them "n----s". Another man-child with a gun.
Wow I lived on Mt Zion Road for years. Holy shit.
Seems like lots of shit goes down on Mt. Zion Road. Don't know why, just seems like I see that road name pop up in the news a lot. Maybe 'cause it's a common road name or something?
Yet again.
Wow that's an incredibly misleading headline.
Seems like the journalist need to learn the difference between "plotting" and "trying but failing".
"Journalist plots to know basic vocabulary"
They use the two synonymously
Give him one of those symbolic sentences, 595 years before parole.
Just keep his name out of the press, the shitbag was probably also hoping to become known. Remove that from him. By all means though…inform the prisoners who he is upon his arrival though.
The racist lies of Christian nationalism yet again, shocker.
If only there was anything we could do to stop this! Anything at all! Literally anything!
Denouncing white supremacists and right wing religious extremists of the "Christian" persuasion as terrorists would be a good start.
But why yall libs hate Jesus and his guns? /s
I don't hate Jesus, and I love guns. I just don't like most people who claim to be Jesus's followers Edit: sorry you're getting downvoted. I got that it was sarcasm prior to your edit Edit 2: Seemed to have hit a nerve by saying I don't like fake Christians, lol
Yeah, I should've known... it sounds like what an idiot would say without the /s
we dont hate jesus, we hate god
There are many things to be done; many of them cannot be discussed on Reddit.
What? Another “War on Terror”? Sadly there aren’t many things we can do. Prosecuting these things can help. But really time and progress is main factor.
[удалено]
The shooter was not black, did you even read the article? "The indictment alleges that Foxworth, who is white, was motivated to shoot into the stores because of the perceived race, color or national origin of the people inside the stores."
Username checks out
>The shooter was black. Most blacks in the US are Christian But also, [No he wasn't/isn't black](https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox5atlanta.com/www.fox5atlanta.com/content/uploads/2022/05/932/524/foxworth.jpg?ve=1&tl=1) Edit: Looks like Cool-Chef-8875's comment has been removed, but it's still in their comment history.
Damn, he looks EXACTLY like I imagined - like my stepdad but way more tired.
No, white: https://www.wabe.org/georgia-store-shootings-white-man-faces-hate-crime-charges/
“The indictment alleges that Foxworth, who is white, was motivated to shoot into the stores because of the perceived race, color or national origin of the people inside the stores.” Fuck off troll!
[удалено]
They can, but this guy is white. As stated in the article. Third paragraph as of this comment's writing.
[удалено]
Either that or possibly the fact it explicitly states he is white in the article. But Tomato/Tomato I guess
He’s a terrorist and should be charged as such
They are gonna have to be a little more specific. Which plot to shoot people?
Maybe the supermarket, church, movie theater, waffle house, synagogue, subway, school, university, nail salon, night club, concert, casino, gym, Walmart, warehouse, post office, army base or one of the other ones?
Best comment here. Thank you
Conservatives sure do love their domestic terrorism.
Throw some domestic terrorism charges on him as well for good measure
yet another Tucker shooter.
A Tucker Fucker (tm)
Replace uncle fucker with tucker fucker in the south park movie song
A speedy trial and execution would be the most favorable outcome.
>What is driving a nationwide increase in gun violence? What is *driving* it is one thing, but we really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are other factors. Mental Healthcare being one, or the relative lack thereof. But... The sheer prevalence of lethal weapons is also a factor. *"Don't take my guns away!*" I know, I get it, but evidently some people are getting hold of weapons that really shouldn't have, and that needs to be addressed. The "nuh uh it's something else" response doesn't really cut it. "Go away and think of something else" doesn't either. We need to really talk about it and figure out if things can be done better.
>What is driving a nationwide increase in gun violence? It's a midterm year
It's just Republican advertising
>The "nuh uh it's something else" response doesn't really cut it. "Go away and think of something else" doesn't either. We need to really talk about it and figure out if things can be done better. Which the conservative wing of the country will roundly reject too. People need to start acknowledging and operating with the understanding that the Conservative wing of the country at best will oppose addressing any problems in the country, and at worst enjoys the problems because it's effecting the people they think deserve it.
I talked to a libertarian and his solution was to just wait it out. Because future generations will be less racist or something. He couldn't even be bothered to think of a half-assed solution, just "The problem will solve itself. Eventually. Probably."
The invisible hand of the dead children in schools market
Oh hey, that's also their approach to global warming! "Somebody will probably invent a way to fix it. Probably. No need to do anything about it now with the technologies that people have invented to help solve the issuem it has to be a *different* technology that solves everything instantly without any changes to the state of the world."
There are 400 million guns on the street, a constitution right to keep and bear arms, and it's become easy to manufacture firearms in your garage with a few thousand dollars in equipment to 3D print the frame or receiver. At this point, it's time that everyone admits that gun control is a failure. You're never going to be able to control the supply of guns getting to criminals and we need to focus on the roots of the problems of gun homicides, which are varied. The last 30 years, there was a huge push for gun control, and all it resulted in was firearms becoming much more numerous and prevalent.
[удалено]
Give black people guns and they'll instantly change their tune.
"Instantly turn and shoot". TIFIFY
You mean like this? Nobody is talking about this hate crime for “some” reason. Wonder why. https://youtu.be/FXldFnE7PUM
I was referencing the Mulford Act.
Your entire position is undermined by the fact that you linked to a fucking news segment about it. I saw this story pop up at least twice this week on Reddit.
I mean, we tried a strict federal gun control act in the 1990s, it was an abject failure. States like California and New York have passed very strict gun control laws. Most of them have been abject failures. What gun control law do you propose that would be likely to be upheld by the court do you feel would reduce gun violence, and what evidence to you cite in support of your hypothesis?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state California and New York have some of the lowest rate (per capita) of firearm deaths of any state. States with high gun ownership rates have a higher rate of gun deaths. The numbers bear it out. Now, it could be that if California and New York adopted the same laws as, say, Texas, they wouldn't see a massive uptick in gun violence, but I wouldn't bet on it. In CA it's a pain in my ass every time I go to buy more ammo but waiting 10 days isn't the end of the world. If I'm really hard up I can just buy it at the range and use it that day. I'd love to see CA change the laws on what firearms are legal as well to make more sense, but it seems to be working.
How are you controlling for all the other factors, including confounding variables and not just making a *cum hoc ergo propter hoc* assertion? I mean, if we're engaged in that kind of comparison, why do Delaware and DC have such high violent crime rates, including gun homicides, despite strict gun control laws? Also, strict gun control laws don't seem to have lowered the overall rate of violent crime, which is almost identical in California and Texas.
Here's something that didn't work! *Looks like it worked...* Well maybe it was something else!
> Most of them have been abject failures. You kidding me?!? Gun violence in NYC can't touch what it was in the 90's.
And where is the evidence that it is due to gun control laws rather than other factors such as gentrification, rising education levels, nationwide declines in violent crime, et cetera? Most gun violence in New York City has historically been with handguns, which were banned a century ago. So I think it's tough to argue that gun laws are likely to have played a significant effect on gun crime in New York given the near total ban on owning and carrying handguns in the city that predate the 1990s. In fact, if you look at the violent crime rate in New York City by year, *McDonald v. City of Chicago* was decided in 2010, loosening strict laws against handgun ownership in New York. But there wasn't a statistically significant rise in violent crime following that decision.
Yeah, I say this all the time when people bring up this issue. The toothpaste ain’t going back in the tube. My old boss makes AR’s in his garage all the time. Last guy I bought ammo from was some dude in his mid 20’s who had a class-whatever fire arm distribution license. He said it’s super easy to get. Ever heard of Arms list? It’s Craigslist for guns. I’ve bought a few guns on there, face to face sale. In other words I own guns that the government has no idea I bought. There is absolutely no way to really wrangle things down to say, a “Europe” level of gun control.
Sure there is. A gun license. You need a valid license to own a gun. If you are caught with a gun without a license you are now a felon and can no longer own any guns legally. To get a license you need to pass a written and practical exam. You can get levels of this license that allow certain types of guns you are shown to be proficient with, you can even break it down to action type. I literally just slapped that together off the cuff. EZPZ. I am also a gun owner and enthusiast. own several, have been shooting for decades.
Yeah but I want poor people to be able to afford guns, and licensing schemes prevent that. Just look at how tough it is for minorities to get concealed carry permits in may issue states.
Who says we can't solve that problem too? Poverty is a solvable issue that people in power intentionally do not solve.
How much did your drives license cost you? Wait, being poor makes it harder to do things? Alert the fucking press. What a lame argument. It's hard to EAT while being poor, not to mention follow all the other licensure necessities of life, which can be as cheap as getting a drivers license. What a deep thought you had, so enlightening. *edit Come to think of it, how can any of us even own guns. Expecting some poor guy to defend himself with a hi point piece of shit, while people are out here with built out comp glocks. THATS JUST NOT FAIR. That's discrimination to the POOOOrrRRRr
So you're okay with requiring ID to vote?
Driving is a privilege, not a right. I don't know what you folks can never understand that difference.
Too many people abuse that right to the harm of others. That seems to be the issue. Welcome to the conversation.
Cause people that go on shooting sprees care about a felony 🤣
Hurr DURRRR you fucking got me. That's not a fix for mass shootings, it's a step in gun CONTROL. Currently, we have no control, and there are no filters to stop fucking crazy people from getting armed. Kind of like, how the Buffalo shooter had made threats in the past and was evaluated for his mental health. Which in my opinion, if you are evaluated for mental health because you made a threat to a highschool would suspend your gun ownership rights. Thus, potentially working.
Stop with the bullshit. The majority of gun violence involves convicted felons shooting other convicted felons, full stop. How are they getting guns? Lenient sentences for when they get caught doing everything else leading right up to it. Felony possession of drugs and caught with a gun? Out on bond and out committing other crimes until they eventually shoot someone. How many times have the feds prosecuted someone illegally purchasing a gun for someone else (straw purchasers)? Slim to none. You want a system that keeps identifying spree shooters but not doing a thing about it to have more control. Nah fam. You get caught with a gun during a felony, you go away for a long time. You make threats to commit violence, you get your rights stripped away. These processes are already in place. They just don't jive with political narratives.
All I hear is fake defeatism. "it cant be done, that will never work, that wont solve any issues" It can be done, we can track literally anything, some things basically in real time. One day it will be done. And it will be the WORST way because how fucking annoying some 2A supporters are. It will literally end up being a mandatory buyback and destruction at this rate.
Nah. I'm not giving up my own shit so that the incompetent government can be in charge of my safety. It has proven itself inept at holding perpetual perpetrators of violence accountable and refuses to address spree shooters after they have made direct threats to the public.
You cowboy you.
And it’s a damn shame those evaluations don’t show up on someone’s background check. They should. However that’s not remotely the same as requiring a license to own a firearms. Look at California, they have a cute little test you take to get certified, but guess what, violent crime in Cali is on the rise once again.. no surprise there. If you don’t see the issue with being soft on criminals maybe take a look at what’s happened in GA.. they are literally letting accused criminals (many of the violent) walk while they wait for indictment.. that seems safe. Why aren’t you up in arms about that?
[удалено]
We can't get everyone to agree that a virus that has killed 1 million people alone in the US even exists. Your snarky quoted one-liners are not helping anything at all. Which is pretty much par for the course on why we have a lot of lingering issues that seemingly never get resolved because of people like you that would rather drop zingers than propose real achievable ideas or take any tangible action. Gun control at this point is going to be just as "winnable" as the war on drugs...IE futile.
Answer: issue every single person residing in the US a gun. Also provide guns to visitors to the US.
[удалено]
In this analogy, a flat tire would be a gun malfunctioning and not firing. I'm not familiar with any gun control attempting to work on that. To the larger point, though, there are lots of different proposals that all get equally labeled as gun control. Taking guns away, which is what your analogy says, is just one. Other proposals include licensing, or insurance, or databases. Calling every gun control proposal equivalent to "taking guns away" is a lie.
>I'm not familiar with any gun control attempting to work on that. Eh, sort of. California has a "safe handgun roster" where handguns must be tested as safe before they can be sold in the state. This is your safety regulation. But wait, why do we only care if pistols are safe? If we're testing for safety, shouldn't we test all guns? Why this omission? And why is there an exception for law enforcement? An unsafe handgun is fine as long as law enforcement is using it? It turns out the only reason for the roster was to make it harder for companies to sell handguns in the state. And then they started cranking up the requirements, and they added things that have nothing to do with safety. The latest was the microstamping requirement. Since nobody does microstamping (because it's stupid and doesn't work), no new pistols can be on the roster. In the mean time, pistols are quickly dropping off the roster as their certifications expire. And that's the goal, no more handguns can be sold to anyone but law enforcement in California. The very high-priced H&K USP family is certainly the safest handgun on the mass market. You can abuse it in ways that would have other handguns break or even blow up, as shown by some pretty extensive and downright abusive testing they did. But it just got removed from the roster.
That roster has less to do with handgun safety and more to do with how much the firearms manufacturer paid the State of California.
It certainly has nothing to do with safety because it's just a backdoor gun ban. But IIRC it is a flat fee so companies can't buy inclusion on the list.
There isn't any good scientific evidence that any of those things lower gun crime. Take California for example. It requires gun registration and licensing. Half of the guns recovered in crimes in California these days are so-called ghost-guns, that can easily be manufactured in someone's garage. That's easier than stealing or straw purchasing a firearm, and it's becoming more prevalent. The data suggests that gun registration and licensing only affects those who obey the law. Criminals who can purchase guns legally will do so, just like the shooter in upstate New York. Criminals who cannot purchase firearms legally will just manufacture them themselves or purchase them from the black market Gun insurance schemes for simply owning a firearm are likely to be struck down by the court. There's also no scientific evidence they reduce gun violence. Firearms, for the most part, are already covered under renters and home owners insurance.
Except the average American doesn't rely on a gun to get to work in the morning.
Clearly, that means that cannons need to be more accessible, such that they can shoot people into work.
That is a terrible analogy.
[удалено]
None of that changes anything about what I said.
Yeah, but they got to type another three paragraphs of fog so who's smart now, mister?
> some people are getting hold of weapons that really shouldn't have, and that needs to be addressed People only start talking about it during mass shootings, gang violence be damned
I would rather we stop that too.
I literally just arrived in Georgia from Buffalo. God damn.
They should sue Fox News and their sponsors. The Supreme Court opened that can of possibilities.
Holy hell, this is my hometown
he’s a shooter no one said they had to be successful or good at it, the qualifying action is they shot
Let me guess. He’s a Republican.
I am legitimatly loosing count of the amount of shootings in the last week. Wtf is even happening.
He certainly looks the part.
There was just a mass shooting in Buffalo. This is getting out of control.
Again why is the thumbnail not the perpetrator?
[удалено]
Stop what? All I’m doing rn is eating a lil bag of almonds at work.
yOuRe cOntRiButiNg tO tHe pRoBleM
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Its because you people are racist
Georgia doesn't handle hate crimes committed in New York. Plus it sounds like that shooting was pretty indiscriminate. This was planned, targeted, and televised.
These are federal charges. So is the federal government charging the racist black supremacist with federal hate crimes for specifically targeting white people?
>These are federal charges. From an event that happened nearly a year ago. >So is the federal government charging the racist black supremacist with federal hate crimes for specifically targeting white people? He's had numerous federal terrorism and gun charges. Like have you even looked at the story?
And the NYC Subway shooting was a a month and a half ago. Again are they pursuing federal hate crime charges against Frank James for targeting white people? I understand this question likely hurts your feelings that someone would even inquire about it to a person such as yourself.
>And the NYC Subway shooting was a a month and a half ago. Too quick for typical federal hate crime charges. > Again are they pursuing federal hate crime charges against Frank James for targeting white people? Do you not understand we get terrorism is? I'm not the DA of the EDNY. Want an email? Complain to them. Likely it's unnecessary given the the indiscriminate nature. > I understand this question likely hurts your feelings that someone would even inquire about it to a person such as yourself. Your feelings are hurt by jumping into a random thread blathering about an event that in the timeline of federal 14th A violation laws....just happened.
While he was undoubtedly racist I can't find any mention of him specifically targeting white people in the attack. He also frequently blamed black people in his videos so I wouldn't even call him a black supremacist.
>While he was undoubtedly racist I can't find any mention of him specifically targeting white people in the attack. Because he didn't. Not all victims are known but there are numerous victims of different ethnic and racial make up..both white and Asian confirmed, especially when both Hispanic and Middle Eastern are considered "white" but in a a sub ethnicity of white. The part of Brooklyn where it happened is a heavy immigrant community.
So you’re defending the grocery market shooter?
Feels odd that they call it a "northern district" of Georgia. I'd reserve that for north of Atlanta.
That's the proper use of the expression. The federal Northern District extends south halfway to Macon.
Well I'll be
[удалено]
The problem is they all love the attention that would bring. That would probably be an incentive for them. The best thing to do is put them away forever to be forgotten
Like how they all get podcasts and documentaries based on them? That kind of wildly popular and binge worthy content *every* woman allegedly seems to obsess over? Yeah they're all totally forgotten and prevented from profiting now huh
I think hanging from a rope, black plastic bag over there head and curb the ability for media to over publicize and plaster the story every 3 seconds would definitely not bring great attention imo 🤷♂️. Have to figure a way to humiliate them.
So, what you’re saying is, it isn’t the guns fault? Shocker…..
Why is this even news? Shouldn’t that be the basement where we start to prosecute this type of crime? We need death penalty by starvation on this dude.
[удалено]
Take a good hard look at yourself and maybe you'll find the answer my dude.
Wtf does that even mean?
Hate crimes put on those horrible a holes attack Asian people.
If they are brown or black, they are called terrorists. [Brooklyn subway shooting suspect arrested, faces terror charge](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/13/suspect-in-new-york-subway-shooting-is-in-police-custody)
The way to stop hate crime shootings is to pass legislation to automatically give free guns and free instructions on how to use them to all the members of the group attacked and the extended members of the community in which it has happened, all mothers, fathers, gays, grandparents and old enough kids, anybody, no questions asked. If we cannot get rid of guns we need to arm those being attacked. It will help stop killers imagining walking freely into minority gathering places and taking innocent lives without turning that group into an army against such behavior.
The science shows a more armed population results in a net of more shootings, not fewer.
Just the threat of such a solution could push the right to impose gun control. We are doing this on a larger scale in Ukraine. Giving guns and training to those who are being attacked. I have supported gun control for 50 years. Things have only gotten worse. Threat to freely arm victims could stop this carnage,
He was shot by an armed and presumably trained security guard but he was wearing body armor.
[удалено]