685
submitted 4 months ago by DxK@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CaptainKickass@lemmy.world 187 points 4 months ago

They also said he was a terrible shot.

I'm not even kidding. He tried out for the school shooting club and they asked him not to come back because they considered his poor shooting and gun handling dangerous.

[-] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 107 points 4 months ago

school shooting club

Maybe they should name it something else...

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 11 points 4 months ago

No, I think that's an accurate description

[-] Snailpope@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago

LMFAO! I had a feeling he was conservative. It don't know about a terrible shot, he got damn close but if his school had a shooting club he was probably still better than someone untrained but could still be bad enough not to make the team. Like when I got cut from golf, a no cut sport, half way through the first day

[-] Akuden@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

What merit is a person's political affiliations if they're mentally ill?

[-] EldritchFeminity 16 points 4 months ago

In this context, young men with mental health issues are the exact kinds of people to fall down the alt-right propaganda pipeline that the social media grifters are spewing, most commonly.

In my opinion though, his political affiliation is more important in the sense that it gives the copycat shooters and cultists less justification for the uptick we'll see in the coming weeks of attempted assassinations, death threats, and mass shootings (especially against democrats and minorities), though that's never stopped them before.

[-] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 4 months ago

I'm very glad LGBTQ* Pride was last month.

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Actually, super relevant. It shoots down (pun intended) any attempt to blame this on Dems.

[-] Akuden@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Straight to finger pointing, classic. Yes, let's figure out what political party the mentally ill child belonged too so we can blame it on that sides politics. Lol

[-] rekorse@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

They specifically said it was to refute those claims, not use them as a weapon.

[-] voldage@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

Imagine if his motivation was to prove he had great aim and that they did him wrong. Maybe he just wanted to become the most well known sniper-assassin in the modern world. Maybe that's the reason he didn't use scope, he wanted his memory to be that of the rifle maverick. I wonder what went through his head after he realised he missed. I mean, other than a bullet.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago
[-] Magnergy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I've heard that "no scope" detail elsewhere too. But would love to confirm it or have it disproven.

It is the detail that I keep coming back to that would indicate something about his state of mind, lack of rationality, lack of time, something.

[-] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Nope. He used an ar style rifle and nailed that shot 300 yards away. A fly fart could have been the difference between Trump's loss of hearing and his loss of brain.

[-] Lyrl@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

I heard it was shrapnel and not a bullet that got Trump's ear.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago

It's like if Hitler was allowed to become an artist, except it's a kid wanting to shoot guns.

[-] Magnergy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Do you have a source on the 'no scope' detail?

[-] voldage@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I'm not sure where exactly I've read or heard that, sorry. Those past 2 days were very information dense. I'm sure I've heard it being referenced a few times though, along with the gun having only iron sights.

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 22 points 4 months ago

Maybe he was aiming at a suspiciously Antifa-looking person in the crowd and missed?

[-] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

"Those damn Antifas and their damn anti-fascist ways."

[-] nexusvoyager@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 months ago

Oh that makes it even funnier holy shit

this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
685 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2206 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS