(06-15-2016, 09:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(06-15-2016, 06:03 AM)Mikebert Wrote: This too is an interesting response for two reasons. First it is noncommital and does not answer the question. Second it seems to imply that it was obviously a rampage (that is, a criminal act rather than an attack by a member of an irregular military unit like 911) and went to the next level of speculating why the shooter decided to commit this criminal act.
[Bob]How do you define 'membership in an irregular military unit'?
[Mike]The phrase was being applied to the 911 terrorists.
[Bob]Occupy Wall Street? Definitely much larger, much more organized, but not violent. Not a match at all.
[Mike]The example was the Wall Street bombing (in 1920) not Occupy. I provided a link.
[Bob]If there is a bucket I can tentatively put him in it is lone spree shooter.
[Mike]That falls in the rampage category, which is what I said you implied. My point was you did not see it as anything like 911, and yet Danilynn did. And I'll bet most conservatives would agree.
The first response from the Republican candidate for president was to stop Muslim immigration--as if that would stop an attack from a citizen who was born here. This statement provides elite signaling on how members of the conservative tribe should view this incident. Hence Danilynn's drawing a connection between Pulse and 911.
The interesting question for me is why does the shooter's Muslim background drive out the usual "good guy with a gun" or armed citizenry narratives following large-scale mass murders?
Why not focus on the fact that in a nightclub in a right-to-carry state there would likely have been a dozen guys carrying who could have gunned this guy down were they not patted down for weapons.?
[url=https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/robert-farago/florida-gay-nightclub-massacre-proves-armed-security-isnt-effective/][/url]