Welcome to Gaia! ::


Insularis's Waifu

Witty Phantom

Oh, 'Murica.....
Old Blue Collar Joe
The Peppermint Bunny
Unconditional Heart
The Peppermint Bunny
Unconditional Heart

But the current events of the shootings and seeing a person put a gun away on their person can be a motivator too. Race is always being looked at first, without getting more information on the person who tackled in the first place, besides him being white.

Again, this is because racism is still a problem. People, whether others believe it or not, are sometimes motivated to commit certain actions based on someone's ethnicity. Until that is not a problem anymore, racism is going to be seen as a possible motivator for events like this, because it happens very often.

But that is because the person who did it will be always seen as white so therefore racist.
I still think it's wrong because they are basing it off of skin. they do not know the history of the white guy and the poc. But are willing to make a judgement, and a jump of conclusions based on that fact.

Perhaps he is not a racist, and perhaps not. I do agree we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume he is, but I also don't think we should assume he isn't. It's still something we should take into consideration, and I think it is important to discuss whether or not this was motivated by racism (keep in mind that being motivated by racism doesn't always neccessarily put a person on the same level as the grand dragon of the KKK). Had this been two people of the same ethnicity, racism probably would not even enter into the equation, because like I said, it is less likely for people to make racially motivated and unfair judgements about people of their own ethnicity, but since it is two people of different ethnicities, it becomes a possibility that should not be ignored.


The other aspect is, it could quite simply be one of those rabid anti-gun whacko's who assume everyone who has a gun must be some crackpot kook and they must 'save the world'.
The guy had a holster for his handgun. The vast majority of your crackpots don't waste time with a holster that is used for regular carry.
As for those idiots saying 'he should only carry it when he's in a bad part of town'?
No one has ever had a shooting in a mall? Are you really going to try and go there and be that stupid? Most of your mass shootings take place in the most unlikely locations, after all.
They are called gun free zones. To whack jobs, that sign equates to open season.
Remember, Holmes, the Colorado shooter, had a theater closer to his home, but he didn't go there, instead he opted to go to the one that had a gun free poster. Yeah, he chose his target for specifically that reason.
If some of you choose to be professional victims, that is your right. Doesn't give you the right to take away our self defense, and, just to let you know? The majority of us that carry? We practice with our firearms WAY more than cops even consider.


Why is it as soon as I saw it was you who quoted me that I just knew I was going to get a lecture on being a "professional victim?"
Did you even read what I wrote? Here, I'll quote it here again since you seem to lack good comprehension skills. Sometimes the goal is going back over the text:

Quote:
Perhaps he is not a racist, and perhaps he is (admittedly, I had to edit there). I do agree we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume he is, but I also don't think we should assume he isn't. It's still something we should take into consideration, and I think it is important to discuss whether or not this was motivated by racism (keep in mind that being motivated by racism doesn't always necessarily put a person on the same level as the grand dragon of the KKK). Had this been two people of the same ethnicity, racism probably would not even enter into the equation, because like I said, it is less likely for people to make racially motivated and unfair judgements about people of their own ethnicity, but since it is two people of different ethnicities, it becomes a possibility that should not be ignored.


I even bolded all the important parts for you in case you just wanted to skim over it (which I'm sure you did the first time). I never said, "Well, this is obviously a case of racism. Mmmhmm...no doubt about it. Case closed!"
No.
I clearly stated that there could have been a lot of things that motivated this guy's actions, but since they are of two different ethnicities, we should not take racism out of the equation. I don't care about your opinion on gun control. I never even mentioned a view on gun control either way. I just stated that it's silly to say, "Race has nothing to do with it," when you don't know and how I find it ironic that those (like I've seen you do) only mention crimes motivated by racism against white people when derailing a conversation about the same sort of crime done to a POC. You enter the conversation saying something along the lines of, "Such and such happened to such and such white person, but no one is talking about that," and say nothing further. You don't talk about the atrocities of what happened, you simply say that much, derail the discussion, suggest the POC are "professional victims" and then walk away.

That was my main point in that conversation, Joe. Not to try to take your cuddly-wuddly gun away from you.
The Peppermint Bunny
Old Blue Collar Joe
The Peppermint Bunny
Unconditional Heart
The Peppermint Bunny

Again, this is because racism is still a problem. People, whether others believe it or not, are sometimes motivated to commit certain actions based on someone's ethnicity. Until that is not a problem anymore, racism is going to be seen as a possible motivator for events like this, because it happens very often.

But that is because the person who did it will be always seen as white so therefore racist.
I still think it's wrong because they are basing it off of skin. they do not know the history of the white guy and the poc. But are willing to make a judgement, and a jump of conclusions based on that fact.

Perhaps he is not a racist, and perhaps not. I do agree we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume he is, but I also don't think we should assume he isn't. It's still something we should take into consideration, and I think it is important to discuss whether or not this was motivated by racism (keep in mind that being motivated by racism doesn't always neccessarily put a person on the same level as the grand dragon of the KKK). Had this been two people of the same ethnicity, racism probably would not even enter into the equation, because like I said, it is less likely for people to make racially motivated and unfair judgements about people of their own ethnicity, but since it is two people of different ethnicities, it becomes a possibility that should not be ignored.


The other aspect is, it could quite simply be one of those rabid anti-gun whacko's who assume everyone who has a gun must be some crackpot kook and they must 'save the world'.
The guy had a holster for his handgun. The vast majority of your crackpots don't waste time with a holster that is used for regular carry.
As for those idiots saying 'he should only carry it when he's in a bad part of town'?
No one has ever had a shooting in a mall? Are you really going to try and go there and be that stupid? Most of your mass shootings take place in the most unlikely locations, after all.
They are called gun free zones. To whack jobs, that sign equates to open season.
Remember, Holmes, the Colorado shooter, had a theater closer to his home, but he didn't go there, instead he opted to go to the one that had a gun free poster. Yeah, he chose his target for specifically that reason.
If some of you choose to be professional victims, that is your right. Doesn't give you the right to take away our self defense, and, just to let you know? The majority of us that carry? We practice with our firearms WAY more than cops even consider.


Why is it as soon as I saw it was you who quoted me that I just knew I was going to get a lecture on being a "professional victim?"
Did you even read what I wrote? Here, I'll quote it here again since you seem to lack good comprehension skills. Sometimes the goal is going back over the text:

Quote:
Perhaps he is not a racist, and perhaps he is (admittedly, I had to edit there). I do agree we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume he is, but I also don't think we should assume he isn't. It's still something we should take into consideration, and I think it is important to discuss whether or not this was motivated by racism (keep in mind that being motivated by racism doesn't always necessarily put a person on the same level as the grand dragon of the KKK). Had this been two people of the same ethnicity, racism probably would not even enter into the equation, because like I said, it is less likely for people to make racially motivated and unfair judgements about people of their own ethnicity, but since it is two people of different ethnicities, it becomes a possibility that should not be ignored.


I even bolded all the important parts for you in case you just wanted to skim over it (which I'm sure you did the first time). I never said, "Well, this is obviously a case of racism. Mmmhmm...no doubt about it. Case closed!"
No.
I clearly stated that there could have been a lot of things that motivated this guy's actions, but since they are of two different ethnicities, we should not take racism out of the equation. I don't care about your opinion on gun control. I never even mentioned a view on gun control either way. I just stated that it's silly to say, "Race has nothing to do with it," when you don't know and how I find it ironic that those (like I've seen you do) only mention crimes motivated by racism against white people when derailing a conversation about the same sort of crime done to a POC. You enter the conversation saying something along the lines of, "Such and such happened to such and such white person, but no one is talking about that," and say nothing further. You don't talk about the atrocities of what happened, you simply say that much, derail the discussion, suggest the POC are "professional victims" and then walk away.

That was my main point in that conversation, Joe. Not to try to take your cuddly-wuddly gun away from you.


Let me clarify one point for you, Peppermint, that I should have made clear in my original post, and I do apologize for not doing so, and misguiding you down that path: The anti-gun whacko was NOT directed at you.
The post was actually meant to point out that this may not have had anything to do with race and everything to do with him having seen a firearm.
As for the insinuation that POC are 'professional victims'? Nowhere did I insinuate nor state that. You're reading between the lines in areas I didn't even put anything.
Professional victims is meant to be an insult, because that is for the people who trust the police to respond promptly, when in a lot of areas you can get a pizza faster than you can get a cop.
And to just be brutally honest? Carrying is a pain in the a** because of dumbasses like the guy that attacked another law abiding citizen. It's why you don't wear a holster you have to remove every time you get in the car.
Old Blue Collar Joe
The Peppermint Bunny
Old Blue Collar Joe
The Peppermint Bunny
Unconditional Heart

But that is because the person who did it will be always seen as white so therefore racist.
I still think it's wrong because they are basing it off of skin. they do not know the history of the white guy and the poc. But are willing to make a judgement, and a jump of conclusions based on that fact.

Perhaps he is not a racist, and perhaps not. I do agree we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume he is, but I also don't think we should assume he isn't. It's still something we should take into consideration, and I think it is important to discuss whether or not this was motivated by racism (keep in mind that being motivated by racism doesn't always neccessarily put a person on the same level as the grand dragon of the KKK). Had this been two people of the same ethnicity, racism probably would not even enter into the equation, because like I said, it is less likely for people to make racially motivated and unfair judgements about people of their own ethnicity, but since it is two people of different ethnicities, it becomes a possibility that should not be ignored.


The other aspect is, it could quite simply be one of those rabid anti-gun whacko's who assume everyone who has a gun must be some crackpot kook and they must 'save the world'.
The guy had a holster for his handgun. The vast majority of your crackpots don't waste time with a holster that is used for regular carry.
As for those idiots saying 'he should only carry it when he's in a bad part of town'?
No one has ever had a shooting in a mall? Are you really going to try and go there and be that stupid? Most of your mass shootings take place in the most unlikely locations, after all.
They are called gun free zones. To whack jobs, that sign equates to open season.
Remember, Holmes, the Colorado shooter, had a theater closer to his home, but he didn't go there, instead he opted to go to the one that had a gun free poster. Yeah, he chose his target for specifically that reason.
If some of you choose to be professional victims, that is your right. Doesn't give you the right to take away our self defense, and, just to let you know? The majority of us that carry? We practice with our firearms WAY more than cops even consider.


Why is it as soon as I saw it was you who quoted me that I just knew I was going to get a lecture on being a "professional victim?"
Did you even read what I wrote? Here, I'll quote it here again since you seem to lack good comprehension skills. Sometimes the goal is going back over the text:

Quote:
Perhaps he is not a racist, and perhaps he is (admittedly, I had to edit there). I do agree we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume he is, but I also don't think we should assume he isn't. It's still something we should take into consideration, and I think it is important to discuss whether or not this was motivated by racism (keep in mind that being motivated by racism doesn't always necessarily put a person on the same level as the grand dragon of the KKK). Had this been two people of the same ethnicity, racism probably would not even enter into the equation, because like I said, it is less likely for people to make racially motivated and unfair judgements about people of their own ethnicity, but since it is two people of different ethnicities, it becomes a possibility that should not be ignored.


I even bolded all the important parts for you in case you just wanted to skim over it (which I'm sure you did the first time). I never said, "Well, this is obviously a case of racism. Mmmhmm...no doubt about it. Case closed!"
No.
I clearly stated that there could have been a lot of things that motivated this guy's actions, but since they are of two different ethnicities, we should not take racism out of the equation. I don't care about your opinion on gun control. I never even mentioned a view on gun control either way. I just stated that it's silly to say, "Race has nothing to do with it," when you don't know and how I find it ironic that those (like I've seen you do) only mention crimes motivated by racism against white people when derailing a conversation about the same sort of crime done to a POC. You enter the conversation saying something along the lines of, "Such and such happened to such and such white person, but no one is talking about that," and say nothing further. You don't talk about the atrocities of what happened, you simply say that much, derail the discussion, suggest the POC are "professional victims" and then walk away.

That was my main point in that conversation, Joe. Not to try to take your cuddly-wuddly gun away from you.


Let me clarify one point for you, Peppermint, that I should have made clear in my original post, and I do apologize for not doing so, and misguiding you down that path: The anti-gun whacko was NOT directed at you.
The post was actually meant to point out that this may not have had anything to do with race and everything to do with him having seen a firearm.
As for the insinuation that POC are 'professional victims'? Nowhere did I insinuate nor state that. You're reading between the lines in areas I didn't even put anything.
Professional victims is meant to be an insult, because that is for the people who trust the police to respond promptly, when in a lot of areas you can get a pizza faster than you can get a cop.
And to just be brutally honest? Carrying is a pain in the a** because of dumbasses like the guy that attacked another law abiding citizen. It's why you don't wear a holster you have to remove every time you get in the car.


Again, I never wrote, "Yep! This is an example of racism! Nothing else could have contributed to this man's actions. Nope, nope, nope!"
Haha I live in this county.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum