LGBTQ Organisations Trying to BLOCK the release of the Transgender Shooter’s Manifesto. They know if released it will expose that this person was radicalised by the extreme elements in the LGBT community

submitted by [deleted] from (twitter.com)

all 63 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]LordoftheFlies 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Funny, there's people practically trampling each other to release every little detail of the shooter's beliefs when it's just a plain, vanilla white guy. But now, suddenly, we need to focus attention elsewhere because those beliefs aren't important?

Oh, and I had to laugh at the one comment that was touting the "but cis people shoot more often, let's focus on that" infographic.

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

"we should focus on how this happened, how they got the weapons"

Hmm sure, maybe they talk about that in the mannifesto eh?

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

They will talk about the guns, not where he got them. They still blame Christians for this shooting even if a Transgender Man did it.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I'm generally in favor of certain restrictions on the mentally ill from purchasing fire arms. Everyone wants to talk about government involvement or all that but it's always the same tired arguments.

Let's just look at this case then. Parents of the shooter were against the idea of their kid buying guns and the kid was buying them and hiding them. Maybe the solution is to simply require that parents need to approve fire arm purchases for their dependents? I mean if you are living at home and aren't independent it seems to me the head of the household should be able to have a say on whether or not you bring deadly weapons in there. And parents seem in a much better position to find and police this than the government.

Make it a double edged sword law. Parents have the ability to stop their children from purchasing fire arms. But also hold responsibility for their dependents actions should they know about a problem and fail to take action.

I also think you've just got to be smart about securing schools.

The thing with Americans is they are so focused on guns that they call these "mass shootings" but in reality they are rampage killings. They happen everywhere, even in countries with very strict gun control. Just that when the crazy people can't obtain guns (which isn't a bad thing) they'll find alternative means of killing people, like knives.

Some guy in Japan years back stabbed and killed a bunch of kindergarten students. Think the death toll was far worse than this shooting. Soft target and all that.

You have the occasional person driving into a crowd of people.

Hell they even manage to get guns legally. See the Norway summer camp shooting.

The American gun homicide rate is abnormally high compared to other countries sure but the rampage killing rate is about what you'd expect given population levels.

I don't think you see the same media coverage surrounding such things in countries more populous than the us for a number of reasons. One is that when they happen in China the news barely cares what happens over there (and the Chinese news doesn't want to focus on the problem, they'll just be like "this tragedy was stopped by the people's revolutionary police force and the anti social elements will be given no quarter" and they'll just imprison and execute anyone they see as a threat to the social order. Political or otherwise.

India I suspect you'd get beaten to death for this before you even managed to get arrested.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

The shooter was 38 years old with the mind of a child.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I believe the shooter was 28 years old.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

And retarded and mentally ill.

[–]Alienhunter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Does a sane person go to a school and start shooting kids?

[–]Godknight 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No, 3 sane people died that day.

And when you chemically castrate yourself using Lupron, you can be 28, 38 or 88. It does not matter.

You will have the mind of a child, also known as retardation, degeneracy, or my personal favorite: regression.

You can't 'pause' puberty, you can only skip it, if you want to be a retard like these loony troons.

Death to transgenderism.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We don't yet know the details behind the perpetrator do we? Do FTM even take lupron? I was under the impression they take testosterone. And we don't yet know if this was a case of roid rage or not. We don't have the information yet to my knowledge.

[–]Godknight 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We'll probably never hear the full details.

I guess you're right about Lupron being for killing off testosterone.

It seems that roid rage and extremism are an obvious cause.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's hard to "chemically castrate" somebody who was born female, though.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Who were the 3 insane ones then?

[–]Godknight 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, my comment was outdated. The 4 other victims weren't known to me yet. May they rest in peace.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, they don't. She was a troon who became a he.

[–]pattis 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

video: oslo norway shooting and bombing

https://youtu.be/n8B8dnbdvr8

https://youtu.be/Tk4grvIBhZo

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for another great example of someone who was encouraged and incited by a bunch of armchair warriors online, those people then went all "woe is me" when they got called out for it.

[–]MalusDeathblade 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only times you hear descriptive words is if it's White, Male, Christian, Straight.

If you're like this tranny or like Ezra Miller, you have impunity to do anything and will have it covered up.

[–]UncleWillard56 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

I agree about the access to deadly weaponry. As gender dysmorphia/phoria (whatever) is considered a mental disorder, it should preclude someone owning/buying a gun. You want gun control, there you go.

[–]chadwickofwv 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Under no circumstances should a free human being be disarmed. If you commit a crime you should go to jail, serve your sentence, and then all rights should be returned immediately after.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People don't believe in rights anymore. It's 2023.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I agree with you: the insane should have zero right to access firearms. Actually, some sort of testing to ensure you are actually sane first should be required.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Oh I see how it is. The right to bear arms is only good while you're forgetting that it's not just for yourselves and people you don't like have that right too. Once you remember that it gives people you don't like the right to have guns you suddenly do a 180 and root for gun control.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I live in Canada and our culture is different. However, I think it is not too farfetched to believe that insane raving maniacs with guns are more likely to go postal than reasonable people. Just a hunch.

And it's not about me liking or disliking people. It's about putting lethal weapons in utterly insane people's hands, and I feel that is just asking for trouble. It's the same thing as not letting your 4-year-old play with your loaded pistol: if somebody is not responsible and competent, then THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

And why should it be up to you to decide what is insane and not insane? Unless someone is clearly at risk of acting violent, the only criteria you can use is that they simply disagree with your opinions, is it not? Why is it a problem when the left does this, but when you do the exact same thing it's suddenly justified?

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I won't even answer that. I think I'll just add you to my blocked list, since you are obviously of bad faith.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The fact that you feel the need to block me for disagreeing with you tells me you're here in bad faith.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I am not, you are just dumber than a pile of bricks, why else did M7 choose you. I don't want to block you for disagreeing with me, I want to block you in order to stop seeing your degenerate, communist inanities.

If you don't realize that a community where the suicide rate is 40% is mentally unstable, there's nothing you can say to me that I will find interesting.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The fact that you're calling me of all people a communist for being against gun control makes me question your mental state. And you think M7 and all the other admins are also communists, as if a communist would even tolerate a site like this one. If you want to see what communists think about this site look it up on places like AgainstHateSubreddits. It's not pretty.

You are basically saying, "I don't want to block you for disagreeing with me, I want to block you for disagreeing with me". Unless you think you are omniscient and can never be wrong, so everyone who has a different opinion than you is a "degenerate idiot".

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Nice sliding the goal posts. This is PRECISELY the bullshit I want to block you for. Arguing in bad faith, and all the rest of the BS. Yeah, I can't say that I have seen you vociferously defending the 2A before. And in fact, in this back and forth with me, you have not.

Once again, repeating myself because apparently stating it once is not enough for your astute brilliance: What about babies? Should they have access to firearms? No, they should not. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT. Same with the insane. It's not that hard.

But yeah keep moving those goal posts, that's REALLY USEFUL especially for an admin where good faith arguing is supposed to be the universal rule. Good job.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wrote ZERO ACCESS, not "rights suspended". Sounds like the same thing? It's not. If insane people live in a place where everybody and their uncle owning firearms is a necessity, then there is no way to achieve ZERO ACCESS. It's an IDEA. Ideas, by their nature, are not always applicable.

Certainly here in Canada this idea is applicable, for all that our country is totally fucked. I mean, it's fucking hard to get a firearm here. Of course tyranny has installed itself in the seats of power already and nobody has been able to do anything about it. Some people think voting is going to work. I sure hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway, back to guns in the USA: yes they are a necessity, I never said anything else. Yes that does conflict with the idea of the insane not having any access. We were talking about principles, not applicable solutions.

The applicable solution is to go back to 1939 and the USA backing the GOOD side of the fight against communism. Of course, that's not really an applicable solution, it's still just an idea.

tl;dr: the USA are fucked, just as Nethanyahu promised 30 years ago.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, I used to suffer from body dysmorphia as a bodybuilder. As time went on, my previous "biggest ever" felt small: At 5'9" and 225lbs with abs, I felt big at first, then a few months later, mostly small. When I added another 20lbs of muscle I saw myself as decently big, but that didn't last either... Still, dysmorphia is more of a habit than a mental illness, you just lose perspective by being too much into your body image mindset.

Dysphoria OTOH means, "not able to be happy with" as in, "I'm born in the wrong body" and that's a whole other can of worms­.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

And just like that, everyone switched places on gun control

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Never switched places. I've always thought that not giving guns to mentally ill people is a good idea. You just know I'm right and it doesn't suit your narrative.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

More gun restrictions was always the liberal position. Now it seems to have flip flopped, all because a trans kid shot up a school. Which proves that to both of them the trans debate and culture wars are more important than things such as the Bill of Rights.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Protecting people from armed mentally ill people isn't a cultural thing, it's a safety thing. I'm sure you're not suggesting people with schizophrenia be allowed to own guns. Or are you?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Having a painful disability is not the same as being a schizo. And just so you know, probably almost everyone on this site would be considered some type of schizo.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think someone who has schizophrenia has a disability. If you can't tell reality from hallucinations (visual or audio), that's a disability. And no, while YOU may think people with differing opinions are schizo, most of us do not. But you go ahead and stick to your narrative and never question it.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Stop accusing me! I don't control big pharma or the establishment.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If we disarmed everyone with ANY kind of mental illness, almost all if not all people would be prohibited from owning guns. Because everyone has something, and definitely everyone on this website. If we're going to restrict firearms, restrict them for people who have actually dangerous disorders like psychopathy, not those who simply struggle in life. Even that is dangerous, because the government gets to decide who's dangerous.

This is just an excuse to disarm trans people. I guess you guys turned against the second amendment now that you realize it applies to people you don't like and not only yourselves. Figures. And the looney left suddenly loves it now that they see how it could come in handy for an uprising. It's almost like people only want rights for themselves and not others!

[–]UncleWillard56 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not trans people, mentally ill people. I'm fine with making gun ownership dependent on being stable, and most mental illness does not immediately disqualify someone from gun ownership. But when a disorder equates to ~82% of those that have it considering suicide, I think it's fair to be extra careful about arming those with it.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There are plenty of other ways to commit suicide.

[–]UncleWillard56 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And yet firearms account for more than half.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.955008/full

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If guns weren't available, they'd find another method.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

restrict them for people who have actually dangerous disorders like psychopathy, not those who simply struggle in life.

Ah, yes. That was so safe in this instance. Poor tranny, she was just "struggling" and wasn't really dangerous. I see.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's better to let the people have guns and risk a few incidents here and there than to allow the government to terrorize us defenseless citizens on a mass scale. And it's not like someone who's planning to shoot up a school would care about gun laws anyway; only this time the law-abiding citizens are defenseless.

[–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well I guess the populace of the USA must be mostly mentally ill, if restricting firearm purchases to the insane is going to render the citizens "defenseless on a mass scale."

Well I didn't know that, I thought most of them were reasonable. Now that explains why M7 has so many nutcases as admins, there's really almost nobody sane out there, right?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not by your standards where you can't have even one single difficulty of any kind. Certainly no one on this site would be eligible, the normies stick with reddit. Not every single struggle makes you a threat. No one is perfect. I feel like you're just making excuses.

[–]MagicMike 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Notice how the Leftists choose softer targets: they shoot defenseless people instead of going after human traffickers or drug dealers. Why not attack a drug house instead of Christians? GD cowards.

[–]handbananasrevenge 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you try to prevent people from being able to see and speak about what your group is doing, it’s natural to assume your group is shitty and up to no good.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[removed]

    [–]FreakyFalangist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Women have done school shootings before, it's just super rare.

    [–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I knew it. People will always try to deny that women are even capable of wrongdoing.

    [–]Alphix 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Was the individual using SSRIs?

    https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3697/rr-4

    [–]carn0ld03 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Not very inclusive.