>

Really Secret Service? I totally trust you. Where'd the texts go? What percentage would you say we're completely condemning to your organization?
What is the other 75%? I would have thought the % for hateful conspiracy theory driven attacks are higher but I am wrong. >

To get to something useful I think they need to start sorting these shootings into targeted and random.  Showing up at the place you used to work and shooting your former boss and coworkers is not the same as showing up at a grocery store and shooting random strangers.  Sorting only by body count is lumping 2 very different crimes together and is going to muddy any data related to motive. >


Showing up at the place you used to work and shooting your former boss and coworkers is not the same as showing up at a grocery store and shooting random strangers. 

JFC thank you! I've been saying things like this for years but I talk to so many people that think any crime with a gun is essentially identical. >

It gets fucking blurred when the guy shows up a decade later to shoot at people he was paranoid at but hasn’t been in contact with in that decade, along with random people. >

Yeah, but in conversations outside of this particular thread, people conflate crime related shootings, family destructions, other spousal abuse, workplace violence, a gun being mishandled by a guard in a school setting, and a person setting out to commit mass the mass murder of kids/adults/whoever. Those are distinct enough to warrant more detailed attention. >

Because those people ~~believe~~ recognize the devastation caused by all these causes could be, in the vast majority of cases, dramatically lessened by having ~~less~~ fewer guns.
Like, people might not even die because they could create distance from their baseball bat crazy spouse.  The dude who tried to kill his family failed because he chose a car as the method.
Edited for proposed grammar corrections >

~~believe~~ -> recognize
It's not a belief, it's a fact. >

It's not a fact at all.
It's an assumption, a rational one based on the available data, but still not a fact.    
I'd argue that the more critical issue is that if we aren't enforcing the gun laws we do have, new laws aimed at reducing the availability or total number of firearms aren't likely to be enforced either.  
Step one is actually enforcing existing rules and shoring up whatever shortcomings are preventing that enforcement from taking place (manpower/tools/rules/etc.) >

First, from the article "In over one-quarter of all mass shootings, the attackers possessed firearms illegally." So it sounds like you're at best only able to address that minority of the instances with enforcement of illegal possession. Second, what enforcement do you believe would be most effective in preventing those? A lot of the laws around illegal possession are not preventative, they're simply additional charges/sentencing added on after the crime. >

If anybody wants to read the full report you can do so here
This seemed most interesting regarding the types of reasons and that most firearms were illegally obtained at the time…

Key findings include:
• Most of the attackers had exhibited behavior that elicited concern in family members, friends, neighbors, classmates, co-workers, and others, and in many cases, those individuals feared for the safety of themselves or others.
• Many attackers had a history of physically aggressive or intimidating behaviors, evidenced by prior violent criminal arrests/charges, domestic violence, or other acts of violence toward others.
• Half of the attackers were motivated by grievances, and were retaliating for perceived wrongs related to personal, domestic, or workplace issues.
• Most of the attackers used firearms, and many of those firearms were possessed illegally at the time of the attack.
• One-quarter of the attackers subscribed to a belief system involving conspiracies or hateful ideologies, including anti-government, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic views.
• Many attackers experienced stressful events across various life domains, including family/romantic relationships, personal issues, employment, and legal issues. In some of these cases, attackers experienced a specific triggering event prior to perpetrating the attack.
• Over half of the attackers experienced mental health symptoms prior to or at the time of their attacks, including depression, psychotic symptoms, and suicidal thoughts.
Mass Attacks in Public Spaces: 2016 - 2020
LIMITED TO OPEN SOURCE INFORMATION >

1/4 of the general population is driven by conspiracy theories these days. >

Yeah, QAnon literally has more adherents than many Christian denominations. 
I’ll never forget this case in NY a few years ago where one of the most shadowy mafia bosses left in NYC was murdered and everyone assumed it was a rival mafia hit.
Turned out it was his daughter’s boyfriend who came to believe the mafia boss was involved in trafficking children or some insanity. Literally wrote Q on his hand for his first court appearance. >

I need a link for that lmao. Q is succesful!! Kind of, not really >

The report essentially tells us that people with personal grievances and histories of troubling behavior are most likely to commit mass shootings. 
Basically what we already knew >

Well, I guess the USSS would know about being hateful, conspiracy theorists..... >

It's almost like 24/7 nutbag hate propaganda from Fox, Newsmax, Infowars, and the rest of the right wing idiots has a negative impact.
Who could have imagined. >

This was my exact thought. 1 in every 4 mass shooting could have been prevented if Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, MTG, were held responsible for their hateful lies. 
You don’t see people on the left targeting white conservatives, or Christians for their political and religious beliefs. There’s one catalyst, and it’s the mouthpieces spreading the disinformation. >


You don’t see people on the left targeting white conservatives, or Christians for their political and religious beliefs.

Well, you do from time to time, but nowhere near the scale of right wing inspired violence. >

can you share some recent ones? >

It's hard to tell if you're trying to score Imaginary Internet Points with snark, or just have a crippling inability to use Google. 
But violence from people on the "left" (not a real thing in the US, since most Democrats aside from progressives are basically just centrist conservatives) hasn't been unheard of at Trump rallies, marches, etc.  People are routinely charged with a variety of assault and battery counts stemming from counter-protesting. You also have the man who conspired to kill Brett Kavanaugh last year following the Roe decision.
Again, the distinction only being made that saying "you don't see" is  not true. It's just also true that the balance of violence by the American Right far outweighs the American Center or Left. >

I think there's a difference between "I don't like Trump supporters so I'm gonna go punch some people at the trump rally" and "Tucker Carlson told me white people are being replaced so I'm gonna go murder a bunch of black people" >

US Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center released a report studying 173 attacks that hurt three or more people (not including the attacker) in public spaces, from 2016-2020. Some data from the article:

Among the findings: Although a personal grievance of some sort was the single most common motive, one-quarter of the attackers studied from 2016 to 2020 were motivated by conspiracy theories or hateful ideologies. 

-

Hateful ideologies that motivated attackers included anti-government, antisemitic or misogynistic views. The authors also found nearly one-third of all attackers had evidence of planning their attacks. 
The typical attacker was a 34-year-old man motivated by personal grievances, rather than ideology, the report says.
Alathari said the grievances could be “perceived wrongs, most often related to personal issues, maybe health or financial issues, workplace issues, as well as issues with family and romantic partners.”

-

More than three-quarters of all attacks involved firearms, and over 80% of attacks that used guns resulted in at least one death, the report found. Most of the attackers used handguns, but one-third used “long guns,” a category that includes automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Attackers who used weapons other than guns fatally wounded victims in fewer than 50% of attacks.
In over one-quarter of all mass shootings, the attackers possessed firearms illegally. >

That’s a very wide brush. So anything conspiracy, incel, 4 chan, racism, sexism, anti LGBT, anti protest etc.  I’m surprised the number isn’t way higher. >

On top of this, it's not including all mass shootings. It's weird. There were way more. >

I think it depends on how you want to define mass.  I was reading some places consider two or more deaths others four.  I do think it gets skewed a lot.  If two people died from being hit by a car I wouldn’t consider that a mass casualty event; but maybe I’m weird. >

The rest have a good point. . ? >

75% of mass attackers don't have hateful ideologies? Make it make sense. >

The Republican Party is really one stop shopping these days. Not only do you get the white supremacy, LGBQT hate speech, QAnon dipshittery, etc. but they ensure you have access to weaponry designed to kill as many people as possible. >

Unironically I stand against nearly all of the Republican's values but I believe that owning weapons is necessary so that these nutcases dont oppress our country. The problem is these same nutcases want their own to have them. >

At that point civil society has broken down and the values you want to defend have become impossible to realize. Sectarian violence isn't going to save democracy. >

When half of your country supports the very decisions that will break down society through defunding social programs and removing individual liberties, democracy will not solve that. Violence isnt the best answer but it is a language oppressors only understand. It took a civil war to remove slavery, words and votes wouldnt have resolved it. >

We've only had democracy since the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. It wasn't violence that got those passed. I'm not sure what your civil war fantasy looks like, but I can guarantee you democracy isn't the end result. >

I never claimed to wanted a civil war im just saying it set the foundation on how America fights for individual freedom. America which is a democracy by the way was founded during a civil war between colonists and a monarchal british government to which armed citizens were fighting an oppressive government taking their arms to silence their voices. Again, im not advocating for everyone to own guns but to say that all conflicts are resolved peacefully is extremely naive.
If that were true, the Ukraine war would never have happened. Do you think the Ukranians would just tell Putin to stop and he will? >

What ARE you advocating for? I'm not sure how you think your shooting people is going to save democracy. Your comparison is specious. The Ukrainian government, a representative democracy is repelling a foreign invasion. Talk about self aggrandizement. >

Im advocating for responsible gun ownership. Banning all guns wont stop stabbing, running people over, murder. And claiming that all human rights violations can be resolved peacefully is still a naive viewpoint no matter how you cut the cake. Its funny you think I want to shoot anyone to get my message across. It isnt and is only to defend myself from those who wish to violate my right to abortion, my right to vote, and my right to live as a normal human. >

Some people don't understand. I dont advocate for anyone being shot nor violence but I advocate for vulnerable minorities on the left such as myself and my fiancée( a queer interracial couple), being armed. I never ever want to use a weapon on anyone but if I have to in order to protect myself or those I love I will.
Imagine thinking I can just hold hands and sing kumbaya with armed people who want to harm me. My fiancée and I are pacifists but even pacifists realize the importance of being able to defend yourself. If someone attacks me what am I supposed to do? Just let it happen? Rely on the police/government to protect me??? Police won't even lift a finger to protect school children, you think they are gonna protect my POC queer ass? They have a long track record of doing the harming to people l like me. >

The same Secret Service that deleted their texts to hide what they were doing on Jan 6? Why the fuck should anyone care what they have to say - shit, knowing them, its likely closer to 75% and they wanted to downplay how bad it was. >

Well, they are probably the experts in the subject matter >

Is that a nice way of saying "Crazy domestic terrorists"? >

In other news, water is wet, snow is cold, and nobody is shooting things they love. >


nobody is shooting things they love. 

That's not true >

I love zombies. I love shooting them. >

Are they still zombies after you have shot them? >

So in other words: Conspiracy theories are a huge part of, but far from the sole cause of armed attacks.
As a non-american it always struck me that since Columbine, the USA have been on a streak of armed assaults against civilians, mainly schools. Conspiracy theories like the ones we see today were not the issue back then so perhaps America needs to look deeper to find the cause. >

It’s not about figuring anything out anymore, just an opportunity to point fingers. >

And Russia has been powering that engine for years, and the Secret Service and FBI have done absolutely nothing that's noticeable and effective to deal with that.
Until they admit that they're totally infiltrated and an arm of Putin's intelligence agencies, they're worse than useless. >

When you intentionally dumb down the population by ignoring education you get fuckwads that are not equipped to use logic during information consumption. 
Coupled with people who just "gotta believe / gotta have faith" and you have a large population of people who will fall for anything. 
Mix that in with a heavy period of automation and a lack of opportunity and you have the ingredients for explosive agents who are easily triggered; set upon a destructive mind state with lots of free time and an entire internet designed to reinforce their bias via echo chambers. >

Yeah. Conspiracy theorists are literally a domestic terrorism threat encouraged by Republicans. Whatever your problem, there’s a conspiracy theory you can use to avoid personal responsibility. >

The media drives the majority of the inflammatory divisive hatred in the US. >

Grow up. >

What's the venn diagram overlap between conspiracy theory nutjobs and pro gun nutjobs? >

A perfect circle. >

Good band. >

the secret service deleted the texts that accounts for another 50% of those though. >

Surprised it’s that low >

Why would you be?  I don’t worry about this shit at all but if I did I would be way more worried about a disgruntled coworker going postal than I would someone trying to start a race/gender/religious war.
I was initially surprised it was that high but they excluded gang violence which makes 25% plausible. >

That’s got to be grossly underestimated. >

To me “I deserve wealth/women/privilege and I’m going to kill the people who won’t give it to me” is the hateful ideology driving most of the other 75% but I doubt they are classifying it that way. >

The others are toxic masculinity / misogyny >

It also says that in one-quarter of shootings, firearms were acquired illegally. 
I wonder what the breakdown was Before Trump. >

That’s excellent news, that means 75% are not! Once again, the media is caught red-handed overselling “hate” with the sole purpose of making dollars by dividing us. >

You mean to tell me that other people who snap believe in crazy shit??? Make that a headline. >

Only a quarter.    Read the crazy laws that some TX legislator's are writing.    Who knew that it was illegal to have a pipe that could be used for pot smoking is illegal in TX.   
The Far Right are writing "parental rights" laws that are really bizarre. >

This isn't a tally of all mass shootings. This is a study of "mass attacks" (three or more victims not including the attacker) in public spaces only. >

So “One-quarter of mass attackers are driven by the GOP”. 
FTFY >

That’s interesting because most of the comments sections I read about shootings would have me believe that it was the guns fault they killed people. >

I care less about what "drives" them than I care about what enables them to kill en masse >

No shit Shakespeare. It’s the far Right wing as 87% of the problem. Always been Republicans as the turdHeads….🤮🤮🤮 >

I would bet the other 2/3 are mental illness related, and “hot take”- shitty gun laws. >

Secret Service is full of Trump ballsack suckers so I'm not taking anything they super seriously for a while. >

Jesus Christ, well that’s terrifying considering I am LGBTQ+ and autistic. >

I’m sorry, the secret service said this?!  Maybe they should find those missing texts and get back to us. Otherwise it would seem they applaud the efforts of these extremists. >

Is this the same Secret Service who was about to put pasty pence in the vehicle for disposal on 1/6? 
The USSS has traitors in its ranks. >

The other 75% are Trump supporters >

It’s higher than that.  Come on >

They need to study their own staff too. >

That's surprising, I would have thought that many mass attackers would be driven by loving ideologies. >

Where do they congregate online? >

I’m shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked. >

I thought secret service just handled money printing and presidential security. >

And how many of them are Secret Service members? >

What are the primary drivers for the other 75 percent? >

Are they considering Religion a a conspiracy theory or hateful ideaology... Or both? >

Keeping it vague! Can’t wait for them to pull the shit they always historically do and use right wing extremism as an excuse to crack down on… pretty normal left wing groups >

I am not shocked at all by this. >

Wow. I really thought it would be higher. Crazy. >

I’m surprised that it’s only a quarter tbh >

Including the Secret Service. Fucking Nazis. >

Makes sense to me, so I’m more curious what the other 3/4 of mass attackers are triggered by… >

I love how the article litterally deny the issue is religion in most of the case.
We won't tell wich ones, lets all pretend its a Zoroasthrian or Shamanic issue.