• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. 7+ dead

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
Oh great, whataboutism, the flu no less!

Do you guys know how many mothefucking pigs died in the last hour, holy shit!!! Cant fuck with guns anymore!

#onethingatatime
#MAGAt
yikes dawg, take your pills
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
Oh god...

Vice has an article on this, big interview with a band member.

The anti-fascist extreme metal band Neckbeard Deathcamp was quick to distance Betts from their scene.
They had tweeted:

“OH TURNS OUT THE DAYTON SHOOTER WAS LITERALLY CONNOR FUCKING BETTS,” Neckbeard Deathcamp wrote in a since-deleted tweet. “I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD USE THE TERM LEFTIST TO DESIGNATE ONE OF THE DUDES IN MENSTRUAL MUNCHIES. ANTIFASCIST SURE. BUT NOT GREAT WITH WOMEN.”

So... sounding more and more like antifa. Or at least, antifa-adjacent as the left like to say. Certainly membership in the socialist gun club links him to the militant far left.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: brap

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
And i guess it's official:


A Twitter account appearing to be from the gunman who killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, showed tweets labeling himself a "leftist," bemoaning the election of President Donald Trump, supporting Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and encouraging people to cut fences of immigrant detention centers.

While investigators try to determine a motive for Sunday's attack by 24-year-old Connor Betts, his apparent account offers a window into his politics. It stands in contrast to the social media of El Paso shooting suspect Patrick Crusius, which appeared to support Trump.

Though the Twitter account @iamthespookster does not bear Betts' name, it does include selfies that resemble known photos of him.
Extra details: Crusius actually distanced himself from Trump in his manifesto, don't know why they call him a supporter.

Tim Pool said this twitter is confirmed based on selfies, tattoos, and even of the family dog. The tweets show an extended history of far left commentary, retweets etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: brap
Oct 26, 2018
4,176
3,330
440
Wow. Can't believe CNN posted a similar article right on page one.


(CNN)A Twitter account that appears to belong to Dayton mass shooter Connor Bettsretweeted extreme left-wing and anti-police posts, as well as tweets supporting Antifa, or anti-fascist, protesters.

The most recent tweet on the @iamthespookster account was on August 3, the day of the shooting, when he retweeted a post saying, "Millenials have a message for the Joe Biden generation: hurry up and die." He also retweeted messages supporting Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

The user's Twitter bio reads: "he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / I'm going to hell and I'm not coming back." One tweet used the hashtag #HailSatan.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: brap

royox

Member
Nov 3, 2013
3,736
1,349
565
32
Did you really have to pass a psychological test to drive a car? I didn't. I would be really interested in knowing more about this psychological test. If you buy a firearm at Wal Mart you will be subject to a background check. The background check is primarily looking for criminal history. If someone has been a law abiding citizen, why should we be able to deny them the right to buy a firearm?
It's a test where you are asked if you take drugs, if you need some specific medication, the last time you were ill or in emergency room, if you smoke, how many times per week you drink alcohol, if you want to kill somebody or tried to suicide in the past, etc. They also search in your medical story to find any mental condition. After that you have to pass a fast test where they check your sigh, hearing and reflexes using a videogame.

If someone has been a law abiding citizen, why should we be able to deny them the right to buy a firearm?
Because maybe that person is crazy or has schizophrenia or a mental condition that has always been under control till the day something triggers that person and starts shooting random people. I dunno, it always surprised me you can buy things literally made for killing others without passing any kind of filter.
For you maybe very normally having weapons and guns and stuff, for me it's very scary.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
Because maybe that person is crazy or has schizophrenia or a mental condition that has always been under control till the day something triggers that person and starts shooting random people. I dunno, it always surprised me you can buy things literally made for killing others without passing any kind of filter.
For you maybe very normally having weapons and guns and stuff, for me it's very scary.
If their condition has always been under control then you're not going to pick it up in a test.

Most people in America either never see a gun in their life... or have one on their wall or in a safe. I've lived in major cities almost all my life [nyc, philly, etc] and honestly, if someone isn't involved in drug dealing, the odds they've ever seen a gun in hand during their life is near zero, with the exception of law enforcement [for awhile after 911 there were heavily armed forces around the city].

But when you combine the media hyper reporting violent crime, plus watch shows like Csi and action movies, some people have ridiculous mental images of how the streets of nyc actually are.

Don't get me wrong, go to certain areas of certain cities and gun violence goes up significantly, i'm more talking about the average well off nyc liberal who is heavy on gun control but will never actually see a gun in 80 years living there.

Meanwhile, those who own guns and are comfortable with them aren't nearly as scared of them, despite being around them. Those stuck in particularly high crime areas of cities like chicago do have it worse, but even there we picture shows like The Wire and not reality. And those cities generally have strict gun control.
 
Last edited:

pimentel1

Midas Member
Jul 22, 2018
1,421
1,059
695
@autoduelist


They waited til 11:30 pacific time to post it. Tim Pool is right. Both the media and politicians on both sides are to blame. Let’s see if CNN leaves this up for people to read when they wake up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist

royox

Member
Nov 3, 2013
3,736
1,349
565
32
Why does the number of mass shootings matter by itself? Who cares if in one country everyone who was murdered dies in a mass shooting while in another country where everyone who was murdered was stabbed?

Because fire weapons only have one purpose: kill and kill fast from distance. While a knife is supposed to be used at the kitchen and its not suited for mass murdering.

If there's a mass shooting my the first thing I think is "How could a person like that have fire weapons?". It's very diferent than a murderer using a tool that belongs to a kitchen as an improvised weapon. It's not a tool made for the sole purpose of killing, it's easyer to stop, it's less dangerous, you can only hurt people 1 by 1 and in close distance.

I really don't understand the comparison. You can kill people using everything at your sigh on an office but none of those things are made for killing. Guns are.
 
Last edited:

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,686
2,795
700
Also, comparing apples and oranges of two very, very different countries and cultures.
Because killing tens of thousands of people every year is part of American culture.

Japan had what, 3 mass killing incidents in the last 15 years?

Who worries about those things?
Just checked suicide figure, real number is about 129. Should I re-check the rest?
That besides the point of how nonsensical the concept of "there is greater evil, can't we ignore the lesser one". Nope, those are independent.
 

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,045
1,066
395
United States
Did you really have to pass a psychological test to drive a car? I didn't. I would be really interested in knowing more about this psychological test. If you buy a firearm at Wal Mart you will be subject to a background check. The background check is primarily looking for criminal history. If someone has been a law abiding citizen, why should we be able to deny them the right to buy a firearm?
And these two shooters would have passed a background check. So I don't see how more gun control is the answer. It seems to me like an emotional reaction. It's understandable given the circumstances.
 
May 22, 2018
5,247
4,637
595
And these two shooters would have passed a background check. So I don't see how more gun control is the answer. It seems to me like an emotional reaction. It's understandable given the circumstances.
Let me ask you a hypothetical.


Let's say more common sense gun control laws are passed (let's just say for the sake of argument longer waiting periods and more intensive background checks, and the requirement for a gunsafe in the home of every gun owner) and these new laws reduced gun related crime and death in the US by maybe just 5-8%. Nothing earth shattering, but still saved lives. (not saying these specific laws would do that. Let's pretend that they did for the sake of argument.)


Would that be okay with you? Or would you say that the people saved by these hypothetical laws being passed is not worth the imaginary "infringement" on people's rights.


If the answer is no then how much of a difference would these laws need to have to make it worth it to you? Or is there just no amount of lives being saved that is worth it to you? Where do you draw the line?
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
Let me ask you a hypothetical.


Let's say more common sense gun control laws are passed (let's just say for the sake of argument longer waiting periods and more intensive background checks, and the requirement for a gunsafe in the home of every gun owner) and these new laws reduced gun related crime and death in the US by maybe just 5-8%. Nothing earth shattering, but still saved lives. (not saying these specific laws would do that. Let's pretend that they did for the sake of argument.)


Would that be okay with you? Or would you say that the people saved by these hypothetical laws being passed is not worth the imaginary "infringement" on people's rights.


If the answer is no then how much of a difference would these laws need to have to make it worth it to you? Or is there just no amount of lives being saved that is worth it to you? Where do you draw the line?
you're drawing absurd hypotheticals so let's take it further --> how many more lives do you wanna endanger, because if i couldn't get a gun to mass murder then i'd probably hop in my vehicle and plow down a concert or festival
 
May 22, 2018
5,247
4,637
595
you're drawing absurd hypotheticals so let's take it further --> how many more lives do you wanna endanger, because if i couldn't get a gun to mass murder then i'd probably hop in my vehicle and plow down a concert or festival
The funny part about your hypothetical is that it's easier and more affordable to buy a gun than it is a car. In fact it's easier for me to go out and get a gun than it is for me to score some decent weed.

That should frighten the hell out of you.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
The funny part about your hypothetical is that it's easier and more affordable to buy a gun than it is a car. In fact it's easier for me to go out and get a gun than it is for me to score some decent weed.

That should frighten the hell out of you.
ah so now it's about affordability, not ease of access?

and no it's absolutely not easier to get a gun than a car

i can go buy a car right now, with paperwork i'll be rolling onto the highway in less than two hours

even putting that aside it's faster and easier to get to a car with no significant work or paper trail

i could probably hijack my local dump truck with a cardboard gun and be on my merry way to mowing down hundreds of people in a few minutes
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
5,247
4,637
595
No one cares how amused or embarrassed you are. Address people with civility and respect or leave.
ah so now it's about affordability, not ease of access?

and no it's absolutely not easier to get a gun than a car

i can go buy a car right now, with paperwork i'll be rolling onto the highway in less than two hours

even putting that aside it's faster and easier to get to a car with no significant work or paper trail

i could probably hijack my local dump truck with a cardboard gun and be on my merry way to mowing down hundreds of people in a few minutes
The fact that "well people would just use other stuff to kill people so why even bother man!!!!!!" seems like an intelligent argument to make by some people is frankly embarrassing to me.


"Why lock your door bro? If people wanna get in they will just break a window then!"


"Why bother making heroine illegal man? People will just use other ways of getting high!"


"Why bother making literally anything illegal BRUH!?!?! Criminals will still break the law!"



Great logic there man. 10/10 would laugh again. Good talk.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
The fact that "well people would just other stuff to kill people so why even bother man!!!!!!" seems like an intelligent argument to make by some people is frankly embarrassing to me.


"Why lock your door bro? Of people wanna get in they will just break a window then!"


"Why bother making heroine illegal man? People will just Huf paint if they wanna get high!!!"


"Why bother making literally anything illegal BRUH!?!?! Criminals will still be law!"



Great logic there man. 10/10 would laugh again.
you got rekt

you are the one who thinks we have a gun problem, not me

i like guns
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
5,247
4,637
595
Exactly. The logic of your argument was terrible. At least you are willing to recognize that. +1


(I honestly can't believe how hard you walked into that one man. At least read carefully before you respond. That was too easy to captalize on. I almost feel bad about that one. )
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
Exactly. The logic of your argument was terrible. At least you are willing to recognize that. +1
i'm willing to recognize that young men need help, not that we have a gun problem

our exchange basically flat lined your argument of access and affordability

*edit*

(I honestly can't believe how hard you walked into that one man. At least read carefully before you respond. That was too easy to captalize on. I almost feel bad about that one. )
such a brainlet, too stronk for me
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Exactly. The logic of your argument was terrible. At least you are willing to recognize that. +1


(I honestly can't believe how hard you walked into that one man. At least read carefully before you respond. That was too easy to captalize on. I almost feel bad about that one. )
You had to resort to hypotheticals to make your "point". The rest of us can simply point to real cities and real states with restrictive gun laws -- yet higher gun crime than their neighbors -- to point out the absurdity of your proposition:



Why are Illinois and California -- two of our most restrictive states -- also the source of the most deaths due to mass shootings this year? Boggles the mind! It's almost as if gun restrictions don't have an effect. No hypotheticals needed!
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
You had to resort to hypotheticals to make your "point". The rest of us can simply point to real cities and real states with restrictive gun laws -- yet higher gun crime than their neighbors -- to point out the absurdity of your proposition:



Why are Illinois and California -- two of our most restrictive states -- also the source of the most deaths due to mass shootings this year? Boggles the mind! It's almost as if gun restrictions don't have an effect. No hypotheticals needed!
you ain't gonna get a reasonable answer to this
 

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,045
1,066
395
United States
Let me ask you a hypothetical.


Let's say more common sense gun control laws are passed (let's just say for the sake of argument longer waiting periods and more intensive background checks, and the requirement for a gunsafe in the home of every gun owner) and these new laws reduced gun related crime and death in the US by maybe just 5-8%. Nothing earth shattering, but still saved lives. (not saying these specific laws would do that. Let's pretend that they did for the sake of argument.)


Would that be okay with you? Or would you say that the people saved by these hypothetical laws being passed is not worth the imaginary "infringement" on people's rights.


If the answer is no then how much of a difference would these laws need to have to make it worth it to you? Or is there just no amount of lives being saved that is worth it to you? Where do you draw the line?
Yes, I would be okay with any gun control laws so long as they do not involve gun confiscation or the banning of certain firearms. They don't even have to save lives for me to be okay with it.

But that's the problem. These gun laws that are proposed are only effective in a hypothetical scenario. In the real world, I support a background check and anything beyond that I see as serving no practical purpose. It's great for politicians who want to advance their careers, but that's about it.
 

pennythots

Member
May 14, 2019
611
935
415
we are now at a branching pathway where we solve this issue plaguing America

one branch is government intervention - gun control, mass surveillance, watched lists, citizens calling each other in, etc - I am fundamentally opposed to this stuff and should only be used as a last resort. A lot of this type of stuff will harm innocent civilians along the way and probably restrict constitutionally recognized rights.

the other branch is society figuring this out - these young men being raised in radical echo chambers, they're shunned and shamed by society, they feel ignored, they feel left behind and it takes normal jane and john does to make sure we're reaching out to those slipping through the cracks. "it takes a village to raise a child"
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
5,431
6,588
615
they feel left behind and it takes normal jane and john does to make sure we're reaching out to those slipping through the cracks. "it takes a village to raise a child"
See I agree with you but the prevailing wisdom is “deplatforming works” and that these people should be shunned and isolated, which IMO is dumb and backwards. If someone is not being heard, that is when hey lash out for attention. Deplatforming is basically ignoring the problem and making it worse.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
5,247
4,637
595
See I agree with you but the prevailing wisdom is “deplatforming works” and that these people should be shunned and isolated, which IMO is dumb and backwards. If someone is not being heard, that is when hey lash out for attention. Deplatforming is basically ignoring the problem and making it worse.
And I would argue that deplatforming means that their extremist views has a smaller chance at reaching an impressionable audience. I would rather risk one nutcase possibly lashing out than one nutcase radicalizing countless others and convincing them to lash out in their place.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
And I would argue that deplatforming means that their extremist views has a smaller chance at reaching an impressionable audience. I would rather risk one nutcase possibly lashing out than one nutcase radicalizing countless others and convincing them to lash out in their place.
Alternatively, help bolster our society to make people less impressionable. Granting more power to media to control the messages that people are allowed to see will not make our citizenry less impressionable.

Nutcases lashed out prior to media influence and in spite of it, so what you're saying is you'd rather have actual people lash out and kill than to have the risk of someone saying something and others possibly lashing out. Concerned mothers and fascists everywhere applaud your "logic".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
5,431
6,588
615
I’d rather a nutcase say his piece on the internet than take it out in real violence. It’s not as if these people disappear from the planet when they are pushed offline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
Heard on NPR yesterday that this freak had gotten suspended years ago back at his high school for writing a list of names of classmates he wanted to rape/kill. He was even escorted out of school by police at one point.

Seems pretty no-brainer he should not have been able to purchase a semiautomatic rifle and a 100 round drum. But the people who died can at least rest easy that the second amendment rights of their killer was preserved.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Dada55000

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Heard on NPR yesterday that this freak had gotten suspended years ago back at his high school for writing a list of names of classmates he wanted to rape/kill. He was even escorted out of school by police at one point.

Seems pretty no-brainer he should not have been able to purchase a semiautomatic rifle and a 100 round drum. But the people who died can at least rest easy that the second amendment rights of their killer was preserved.
If it's a matter of imposing opinions upon dead people for the sake of pushing a political agenda, I'm sure this crowd's voice is larger:

 

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,045
1,066
395
United States
Heard on NPR yesterday that this freak had gotten suspended years ago back at his high school for writing a list of names of classmates he wanted to rape/kill. He was even escorted out of school by police at one point.

Seems pretty no-brainer he should not have been able to purchase a semiautomatic rifle and a 100 round drum. But the people who died can at least rest easy that the second amendment rights of their killer was preserved.
That bit at the end is really unnecessary. People can care about their right to own a firearm and still condemn the murder of innocent people.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,529
2,930
385
So how is this now working after the media directly blamed trump for a mass shooter, will the media now blame all the antifa apologist politicans in the democrat party as well?
Fucking clowns
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Tesseract

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
That bit at the end is really unnecessary. People can care about their right to own a firearm and still condemn the murder of innocent people.
Lot of good that does.

Murder is bad, mmmmkay. Glad we solved that.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
Matt Christiansen makes an important point: these psychos decide to kill before they decide what to use or how to do it.

To address a few other points: it is not harder to get a car. You can easily steal your parents car when you're 12 because most people keep their keys on a counter or in their bag. And if not that, people can just rent a truck like has happened in Europe.

Heard on NPR yesterday that this freak had gotten suspended years ago back at his high school for writing a list of names of classmates he wanted to rape/kill. He was even escorted out of school by police at one point.

Seems pretty no-brainer he should not have been able to purchase a semiautomatic rifle and a 100 round drum. But the people who died can at least rest easy that the second amendment rights of their killer was preserved.
Regarding the first paragraph:

Yes, this is what many on the right have been saying time and time again. Most of these shooters have already been recognized as violent and mentally ill, yet little is being done on that side. That is part of the problem.

That doesn't mean we need to take away the guns of safe, sane, legal owners. It means when kids show signs of being violent perhaps we shouldn't just suspend them and forget about them.

Regarding the second paragraph: as @DunDunDunpachi pointed out, many more have died protecting our rights [thousands of revolutionaries getting us those rights as well]. And what about the lives armed civilians have saved? Do i get to add those up? Playing math like this does no one any good.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
156
157
475
It's a test where you are asked if you take drugs, if you need some specific medication, the last time you were ill or in emergency room, if you smoke, how many times per week you drink alcohol, if you want to kill somebody or tried to suicide in the past, etc. They also search in your medical story to find any mental condition. After that you have to pass a fast test where they check your sigh, hearing and reflexes using a videogame.



Because maybe that person is crazy or has schizophrenia or a mental condition that has always been under control till the day something triggers that person and starts shooting random people. I dunno, it always surprised me you can buy things literally made for killing others without passing any kind of filter.
For you maybe very normally having weapons and guns and stuff, for me it's very scary.
I don't recall having to do any of those things to get my drivers license except get my eyesight checked. The last time I bought a firearm I did have to fill out forms where I had to answer a bunch of questions, I don't remember the specifics except they wanted to know the model number of the safe I would be storing it in to make sure it complies with state regulations. For me having firearms is normal. I attended hunter safety and received a youth hunting license at age 8. I've used firearms virtually all of my life, and have been around a lot of other people that use firearms. I don't know anyone that has died to a firearm, despite knowing a lot of people who have grown up with them and spent their entire lives around them. I know precisely one person who has been shot, and that was a relative who does not hunt, and was a drug dealer as a teen who was in the process of making a deal.


Edit:

I believe it was this plus a state form. So, you basically have to do a psychological evaluation as you described it.

 
Last edited:

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
Yes, this is what many on the right have been saying time and time again. Most of these shooters have already been recognized as violent and mentally ill, yet little is being done on that side. That is part of the problem.
Unfortunately, the right has decided that treatment for mental illness is a privilege and not a right. Something something socialism. Hard to put your kid through therapy when you can't afford it.

That doesn't mean we need to take away the guns of safe, sane, legal owners. It means when kids show signs of being violent perhaps we shouldn't just suspend them and forget about them.
Perhaps we could keep track of individuals throughout their life, across state lines. A comprehensive national database, if you will, that ties owners to serial numbers.

You're trying to make it sound like gun owners don't care about loss of life. Most gun owners in this country are law abiding citizens who are always demonized whenever a mass shooting happens.
As a fellow gun owner, they don't care enough to do something about it, frankly. We've circled around the pasture going from metal music to videogames to teachers needing to be armed to my favorite newest one: mass shootings are statistically rare so its actually not a big problem. And as someone who actually sold firearms at retail, I can assure you the bar for "law abiding" is very low. I got a NICS outright rejection one time, maybe, out of thousands of transactions.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: Tesseract

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
588
521
330
Funny how I turn on cnn when it first happened and they were releasing the names and skin color of the victims, and cnn immediately went into, “Oh it’s a racist white shooter”..

...but then it came out that the shooter loved the Democrats and was a socialist and loved Elizabeth Warren and had a rape list in high school and suddenly ... crickets. CNN is garbage, and if you watch it, just know I wouldn’t hang out with you
 
Last edited:

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
@Sub_Level what do you think gun owners should do?
More support for gun control legislation. I'd personally wanna see a nationwide ban on semiautomatics and a national registry. Thats not politically viable whatsoever, tho, so instead some more incremental steps like:

- universal background checks.Let us hold vendors accountable who don't do checks. This is more related to gun trafficking than mass shooters. Gun show sales have been tied to mexican criminals in the past so republicans should be on board with this anyway.
- Trump's proposed strengthening of background checks. Red flag laws.
- Raising the minimum age limit like Florida did, with waivers for those serving in our armed forces.