Well, I didn't exactly know such security measures were unreliable in my defense. I'm not a traveler, never been to an airport. My posts were built on assumptions of the hotel's location and quality, and the effectiveness of those measures. Though the "it isn't unreasonable" bit was referencing being suspicious, generally, of luggage being hauled about like it was before the attack.
Right.
Even if you're 100% correct with your assumption, what's your point? We already have enough examples of him being a fool. His statement on the matter isn't one of those examples, refreshingly.
Wanting equality. As I said, Trump wouldn't even offer his condolences, he'd just go on a rant if a non-white committed this heinous act. And if he does really care, he should start talking about stricter gun control laws.
Equality for what? You know you're only talking about a hypothetical right? That has no real bearing on what occurred during this attack?
Erh, why? That would be completely at odds with what the republican party stands for. Even beyond gun control, the republican party simply doesn't believe regulations are a solution to anything. It's completely unreasonable to think that the republican party as it is would ever support that. There certainly is an important part of the republican electorate that would support more controls when buying guns but those are not quite trump's base. Trump's base, and correct me if I am wrong, is the more gun enthusiastic part of the electorate.
Yeah but I think the point here is that this guy had no criminal record or warning signs that he'd be capable of something like this. Even "reasonable" gun control laws wouldn't have really done anything to prevent it. The only thing that could have potentially stopped this specific attack would be scanners in hotels, but that kind of thing would also be a logistical nightmare.
Yes, that's true. He passed all background checks and he didn't give any signs of mental deterioration or instability, but I think the real solution is tending to our mentally ill and improving mental checks on people purchasing fire arms. Our society is decaying and we need to do something about it. Perhaps make it so that if you own something like an assault rifle or more than a couple, you must undergo a mental health test annually or something. I know this kind of thing pisses conservatives (mostly big-wig Republicans) off but we do need to do something to stop misuse. We can try solutions that do not impede on our rights, but we can't do that if one side wants a complete removal of our rights and the other doesn't want to do anything at all to help the situation.
The thing with this is a case could be made that it's a violation of a citizen's rights. Not even mentioning that it'd be highly unlikely that the NRA and the gun lobby wouldn't throw heaps of money towards members of congress/senate to prevent something like this occurring.
I certainly don't want it to have to be a thing as it would be all sorts of wrong, but we can't do nothing, at least not forever. Sooner or later we're going to get a leader that will be willing to obliterate our rights due to the actions of a criminal. Republicans should act now to try and improve the situation.
Perhaps this could work as a preventative measure. But I think it's a slippery slope to suggest that someone that generally isn't considered a danger to themselves/others wouldn't be allowed to protect themselves. Now of course, they wouldn't need an AR to do that, but what guns/ammo/accessories are legal and what aren't varies by states as well.
If a Muslim or a black person committed the attack, they'd be demonized and have the entire religion/race be called terrorists/thugs/whatnot. Almost every time a white person does it, he gets humanized. If someone like Dylann Roof gets humanized by the press, what's to say another massacre won't happen because the criminal thinks he might be seen as a martyr or at least, not as bad?
I know that, but again, Trump can show he cares and redeem himself very slightly in the eyes of those who are against him. Though to add to what you said, republicans, Trump supporter or not, are dumb enough to support being allowed guns into sporting events, where there have been tons of fights. And Trump was at one point a democrat.
Redeem himself in the eyes of people who don't like him? You mean like how hillary tried to pander to republicans during the election? Remember how well that worked out for her? Trump pandering to people who dislike him by doing something that the entirety of his base and party would hate would be astonishingly stupid even by trump standards. And so what if trump was a registered democrat? His actual political views, which he has detailed in the books published under his name, are basically what he has been trying to do since he got elected. barring a few incoherent ramblings of course.
And how Hillary tried to pander to the left. But I'm not saying redeem himself, just redeem himself slightly. I don't think anything short of completely going against the republicans will even redeem him halfway in the left wing's eyes. Definitely won't in my eyes.
I mean, that is technically true but.... there is literally no reason for him to give two shits about that. How you even got from whatever started this convo to that is beyond me.
Wtf do you even mean by "humanized"? So, people who commit heinous acts shouldn't even be regarded as human? What use is that exactly? The entire point of understanding incidents like this is to remind ourselves that humans ARE capable of doing these kinds of horrific things. If you'd rather treat them like boogeymen and have them remain an "evil mystery", go ahead... but there's nothing to be gained from doing so.
He did few weeks ago? I forgot exactly what, given he's done other dumb shit.... like throwing paper towels at the crowd in Puerto Rico. Truly one of the biggest dumbasses to ever hold the office, and we had Bush Jr.
No they shouldn't. Why should a white supremacist or Islamist terrorist be called a loving person or academically gifted? They shouldn't be portrayed as people who are or were good.
So more fuel for Alex Jones?
No one starts off as homocidal maniacs though. Most people aren't overtly like this unless they're from a place where these kinds of things are more accepted.