This seems curious, given the extreme attention that the national press has given such shootings since two cops were assassinated as they sat in their squad cars.
Why is the cop shooting in Minnesota being ignored? Maybe it's because the cops in New Hope survived with only relatively minor wounds.
Or maybe it's because the shooter was a crazy old white guy with a gun fetish.
The shooter, Raymond Kmetz, had a history of mental illness, terrorizing and attacking judges, police officers, lawyers, city council members, and so on. He had dozens of charges filed against him over the years, and his own attorneys filed restraining orders against him.
His son, Nathan, wrote long rambling diatribes on the Internet insisting that his father wasn't crazy, that they'd locked him up in a mental institution and ruined his life. But Kmetz's brother Marvin always feared his crazy brother would get someone killed.
Why did Kmetz go to the city council meeting with a gun? This appears to be the motivation:
In 2008, he tried to sell the house on Nevada Avenue N. where he had lived for 40 years to the city of New Hope for nearly $1 million, though it was worth well below half that amount. He argued that it was in an industrial zone ripe for development. The council rejected the unsolicited offer. The property was last sold in 2013 for $140,000 and now is boarded up.In other words, he was in financial difficulties and wanted to get bailed out.
If Kmetz had been a schizophrenic young black Muslim angry that the city council had blocked the building of a mosque in his town, what do you think the reaction of Fox News and the national news media would have been?
But if a crazy old white man tries to shoot up a city council meeting? That's just another Monday in Minnesota.
11 comments:
No shit, Nikto. It reminds of how Cliven Bundy is a "freedom fighter" against government tyranny when he breaks the law yet Michael Brown is a criminal who had it coming.
Bundy is still breaking the fucking law!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/29/rancher-cliven-bundy-still-grazing-his-cattle-on-d/?page=all
Huh. Looks like you're both full of shit, as usual. Gunman opens fire on city council meeting in Minnesota
Not even 1 minute's effort, fuckwits.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_27410863/new-hope-shooting-police-dont-know-how-shooter
I know exactly how he got it...massively outdated gun regulations.
Outdated in what way?
If you think you could 'update' them, what would be the changes?
We've covered this ground before, GD. I'd begin with Manchin-Toomey. The ultimate goal would be a system not unlike what Israel has right now.
Of course, it's largely pointless to discuss this issue with you because you simply aren't rational about it. Moreover, you know that we have a very serious problem with irresponsible Americans in this country and their firearms so these discussions devolve into "pedantic, semantic arguments" in the hopes that you can dodge owning it.
You are, of course, welcome to prove me wrong:)
I'd begin with Manchin-Toomey.
In short, a scheme less restrictive than CA gun law.
Why the half measure? Doesn't CA prove that restrictive gun laws eliminate gun violence?
Describe EXACTLY the process in which Manchin-Toomey would have prevented this.
Until you demonstrate that you can be rational about a gun rights discussion, I won't have one with you.
Describe any irrationality you've encountered while having a gun discussion with me.
Hint: Just because you don't agree with me does not make my argument irrational.
Hint 2: Pointing out inconsistencies, logical flaws, outright distortion or lies in your argument is also not irrational.
Hint 3: Refusing to be baited into your ever changing landscape of moving goalposts, non-defined terms, topic changing and dodging is also not irrational.
Hint 4: This is exactly what I'm talking about - the question is:
Describe EXACTLY the process in which Manchin-Toomey would have prevented this.
This is an on topic question. Your reply is not on topic. From experience you will go round and round and round for days trying to get out of answering the question. A question that is specifically on topic and directly in reply to something you claimed.
Back it up. Quit dodging. Stop being immature.
Let me quote something one of the early replies said about the rape thread that I think is wise and applies here as well:
When an argument degenerates into an argument about the argument, or an argument about personalities, rather than an argument about the underlying question, then both sides have lost. There was a wasted opportunity here to have had a real debate.
Don't waste opportunities for real debate.
The question is on the table. The opportunity is yours to use, or to waste. Your choice.
I put up a post about it today, GD and was planning to do so considering the new information that has come to light about the case. So, your question was most serendipitous.
But I won't be discussing gun issues much with you until your behavior changes. You will need to:
1. Stop obsessing about me
2. Present an argument of your own.
3. Cease the fallacious characterizations of my points.
4. Behave rationally.
Unless all of these conditions are met, you won't get much from me in terms of discourse.
1. Stop obsessing about me
If you make a statement that needs to be refuted, whether it be because of faulty facts or faulty conclusions, that DOES NOT MAKE IT EITHER A PERSONAL ATTACK NOR IS IT ABOUT YOU.
2. Present an argument of your own.
Refuting a claim made by you, either based upon faulty facts or faulty reasoning IS AN ARGUMENT.
3. Cease the fallacious characterizations of my points.
1. You have for a long time refused to answer clarifying question regarding your points. Lacking such detail leaves us with no other alternative but to infer, based upon experience, what your point is. Don't like it, answer clarifying questions.
2. An analogy is not a 'straw man'. You need to start being able to recognize the 'meat and potatoes' of the base logic of your argument.
4. Behave rationally.
I asked you to provide examples of irrational behaviour. Repeatedly accusing me of doing so without providing said examples is hollow baseless accusation. That is not rational argument in itself. Teacher, teach thyself.
Post a Comment