No really, what makes them different, what's the obvious difference between the kind of person you picture robbing a store and the kind you picture committing a mass shooting?

Be bold, tell everyone the difference. Explain to us this essential difference that makes it so important that we segregate mass shootings from all other forms of gun violence as somehow a special sort of case?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What are you on about? The motivations and end goals of an armed robbery and mass shooting are obviously and clearly different.

To help you:

A robbery tries to acquire things, and the gun is a threat they generally hope to not use (but might be pretty comfortable using).

A mass shooting is a terroristic event with the core goal of killing as many as possible.

A thief isn't necessarily interested in killing. A mass shooter is.

Simple stuff.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you pull a gun out you are not threatening, you have declared your intent to kill whatever it's pointing at.

It is not a defense tool, it is a "all other options are expired and now someone has to die" tool.

There is no motive for pointing your gun at someone except to shoot them.

No matter how much your dumbass might think you're just trynna scare them a bit.

It is the same. It is gun violence. It is terrorism without a cause.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware of the basics of gun safety, and aware that having a gun elevates the charges on a crime like a robbery. Pointing a gun at anything does indeed make clear your willingness to kill.

But you dodged the point of my reply, the motive or intent of the crime.

A robbery is not terrorism, or terroristic in motive. A robbery has a cause and a goal outside of killing. I'm not saying an armed robbery isn't an inherently violent act, and I never said that shit about "trynna scare them". Not sure where you gathered that.

You've devolved to name calling, inserting thoughts for others, and dodging the point of what you're replying to. Seems you're about spent

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My point is that involving the gun makes it terrorism by the same principle of escalation.

It's not a robery, it's a near death experience where money might change hands.

Gun violence is gun violence. It is all attempted murder and terrorism. Fact that some people want money out of it is irrelevant, it is still terrorism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Words have definitions. Real life has different situations. Those situations have different motives and results, even if they share features. Edit you can't just declare everything violent terroristic.

It's silly to assume that the same actions would have the same impacts on two very different types of crime, despite both of those crimes having a gun.

For example: red flag laws where family or certain professionals can bring forward action to take guns away from someone or get them certain care. This is triggered by said folks detecting or acknowledging certain concerning behaviors in someone who might carry out a mass shooting.

This wouldn't help with someone considering a robbery, as their pattern of behavior (edit and motivation) isn't the same.

I am not advocating for red flag laws, or discounting them. That's not the point.