• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    192
    ·
    2 years ago

    The bio of the victim from her store’s website:

    Lauri Carleton’s career in fashion began early in her teens, working in the family business at Fred Segal Feet in Los Angeles while attending Art Center School of Design. From there she ran “the” top fashion shoe floor in the US at Joseph Magnin Century City. Eventually she joined Kenneth Cole almost from its inception and remained there for over fifteen years as an executive, building highly successful businesses, working with factories and design teams in Italy and Spain, and traveling 200 plus days a year.

    With a penchant for longevity, she has been married to the same man for 28 years and is the mother of a blended family of nine children, the youngest being identical twin girls. She and her husband have traveled the greater part of the US, Europe and South America. From these travels they have nourished a passion for architecture, design, fine art, food, fashion, and have consequently learned to drink in and appreciate the beauty, style and brilliance of life. Their home of thirty years in Studio City is a reflection of this passion, as well as their getaway- a restored 1920’s Fisherman’s Cabin in Lake Arrowhead. Coveting the simpler lifestyle with family, friends and animals at the lake is enhanced greatly by their 1946 all mahogany Chris-Craft; the ultimate in cultivating a well appreciated and honed lifestyle.

    Mag.Pi for Lauri is all about tackling everyday life with grace and ease and continuing to dream…

    What a waste. A tragedy for that whole family for literally nothing. No reason at all other than small minded assholes.

  • Smacks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    It’s odd, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a lefty or a gay person outright killing someone over a Dixie or Trump flag. I keep reading about far-righties killing people over the scary rainbow flag though

  • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    Maybe it wasn’t a particularly good idea to make firearms so easily available to everyone and especially to (neo)Nazis?

    • telllos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      The need for the 2nd amendment is fundamental if you want the people, able to form a tyranny… oh wait…

      • GladiusB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        The problem is they don’t see the hypocrisy. They think tyranny only applies to the government.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Generally yeah most tyranny definitions refer to government. It’s hard to exert tyrannical rule without being a de facto government.

      • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Turns out they have always been pro tyranny as long it’s their guy hurting the “correct” people…

      • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        You couldn’t be more wrong Telllos. If I didn’t have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? (Pokes Telllos) Huh? (Shoves Telllos) Do ya!?

    • ph00p@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      You can just print that shit now.

      Imagine if these crazy fucks didn’t already have guns and they just discovered printable ones, I think that would have been a worse outcome.

      • Margrave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Please elaborate as to how that would be worse. At least half these nutters wouldn’t be able to figure out how to use a printer, let alone a 3d printer.

        • Intralexical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          This thread has, predictably, devolved into a hugely disrespectful exchange given the linked post.

          But as an aside, I shudder to think of trying to design an additively manufactured part that would reliably contain a propellant blast using anything less than an industrial $100k-$1m DMLS or at least really really good SLS machine. If the goal is to harm somebody using a 3D printer, you’d probably be better off bashing them over the head with it.

          • aidan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            Full plastic guns generally don’t last very long- but they have been proven to somewhat work since 2013. Now there are more stable designs that use off-the-shelf plumbing parts with plastic components. There are also designs that can be CNC’d with a cheap machine

      • Tenthrow@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Why does everyone thing 3D printing is magic? You’re not going to be 3D printing weapons that can kill scores of poeple. Any firearm printed on an FDM printer is lucky to fire once without injuring the dipshit wielder.

        • 👁️🫦👁️@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          This comment betrays a lack of understanding around 3d printed firearms.

          Of course there are your (nearly) fully plastic single shots like the Harlot that fire small calibers and dont always last long.

          On the other hand, there’s plastic lowers (the only part considered a firearm and thus the onlynpart that needs to be bought through an FFL) for AR15s that use off the shelf plumbing supplies for the pressure bearing components.

          The files are readily available and able to be printed on low end FDM printers with little adjustment and troubleshooting completely bypassing the need to purchase a firearm from a dealer.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Two sides of the same coin, since all “regular” conservatives are also “far-right” extremists. Any “moderate conservative” is just a centrist Democrat at this point.

        • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Except no. The majority of “moderate conservatives” would still vote for the Republican candidate. 74 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            And those 74 million people are far-right extremists and in no way “Moderate.”

            That’s the point. That’s the Overton Window.

            • Isthisreddit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              When they vote for, and are ok with open arms for far right extreme shit, what should it be called?

              I know some people might seem to be normal and perhaps moderate, but when you sit down with them and explain some of this shit to them, and they basically are ok with it because they feel the bad shit will only impact other people and not themselves (for example religious persecution - “I’m Christian so I’ll be fine”) what does one call that?

              • S_204@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                One calls that bigotry because that’s exactly what it is. They’re bigots and prejudicial against other religions and I’d wager races as well.

            • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              I was with you until that line. I know too many people who voted for Trump because they were ignorant and detached from politics, not because they were alt-right.

              There is a difference. Many of those detached-from-politics people are seeing Trump face all those charges, and moving on. Some are being told that it’s part of some Democratic conspiracy against Trump. If you’ve ever traveled to a red state on business and seen the local news, you’d understand how easy it is for someone to get convinced of the lie even though they are more aligned with Democrats on the issues than Republicans.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                I’m torn on how to respond to this. On one hand, I grew up in rural Appalachia in a Republican household. Eventually my family pivoted 180 towards Democrats and never looked back. I shudder to wonder if we would’ve been the idyllic Trump supporter 20-years-ago. I know what it’s like when Fox News is blaring in every doctor’s lobby, every bar, etc. When on the job site every other person is espousing those same conservative views. So I recognize that people are capable of change and we should not give up entirely on them (though their vote is less needed these days).

                The thing is, many voted for Hitler not out of dyed-in-the-wool SS Nazi beliefs, but as you said: Complete ignorance.

                Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right. In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism, versus those who know the game and commit 100% — both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion. Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.

                • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right

                  I can’t speak for everyone. But I knew quite a few Trump voters who clearly did not understand the for-right platform. They thought they voted:

                  1. Anti-corruption
                  2. This idea that both parties are the same and here’s someone who actually wants to pull a Perot
                  3. Saving jobs (he actually dramatically overperformed the labor vote that, while they can be racist, don’t usually run towards the dogwhistle candidate)

                  This, to me, is similar to a lot of the folks voting for Obama thinking he was actually progressive despite openly being conservative.

                  In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism

                  There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we’re not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.

                  both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion

                  This is true, and why it’s both important that we educate people, and that we work towards a country where campaigns of lies are either illegal or at least made ineffective. The Democrats ran fairly hard on “everything Trump said is a lie” and were able to prove it, and that wasn’t enough.

                  Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.

                  Sure, but not every fool is a racist. Most of them are “centirsts” or merely uninterested in politics and just want to go on with their lives.

          • Mockrenocks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            You’re not a moderate if you support overthrowing the government. They can delude themselves, but they should absolutely be denied that label.

  • Everlastingspud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    How much of a pussy do you have to be to go shoot somebody over a rainbow flag. What a fucking fairy. People are so sensitive these days and don’t know how to act. We can blame the internet all we want, but at the end of the day, people need to learn to have some social skills. How to talk disagreements out and let people have an opinion, even if it may be wrong or stupid in their eyes. It absolutely infuriates me that people gotta die over stupid shit.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      In like 2021 when the truckers were protesting g the vaccine at the border I made a man snap in public over what was legitimately a luke-warm shot at the protest.

      I said something like “these dipshits are acting like they didn’t get their mandated MMR shots already.” And a guy next to me, not in the conversation, dramatically stood up, and loudly announced “You know what?! All you fuckin idiots think the situation is simple, but it’s a lot more fucking complex that the corporate media is making it out to be!” He stormed out. Didn’t pay his tab.

      The whole bar just sat there in awe. Like “damn I guess some of us really got hit with that isolation crazy”

      Truly, a year alone for some was just too much.

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.

      Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world’s problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.

        • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.

          One could make the argument war didn’t get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn’t mean its a good argument.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.

        They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.

      • girlfriend@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.

      • ph00p@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        All the downvotes you’re getting on this one… YIKES I don’t think this is a very good community.

    • sumofchemicals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.

      That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be “right” it’s still a strategic error. It’s much harder to build than destroy and any “successful” deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.

      Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah open warfare in the streets is not, in fact, the solution to this problem.

      • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        When criminals have guns and are willing to use them being able to defend yourself is your final option. Making it known that your group isn’t a soft target makes them second guess trying it.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s absolutely not how criminals make choices, and you’re parroting the same line of shit people spew when they say we should arm teachers.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            No, I think it’s pretty different.

            Whether there is justification for gun ownership for “self-defense” or not, it is entirely different for someone who has a reasonable risk of being targeted for violence to have a gun than for teachers to have a gun in crowded schools with the expectation they might kill a school shooter.

            To point specifically the biggest differences:

            1. Crowded school filled with terrified children vs someone’s home or small business
            2. Self-defense against single-target hate crimes vs policing against a terrorist incident
            3. Voluntary self-defense which still allows for skill and responsibility requirements vs ~~mandating ~~arming people who might not even be comfortable armed (and might feel pressured)

            EDIT: I have crossed out “mandating” because I was informed there are no current bills trying to mandate arming schools. I believe my point stands without it. If someone has a reference of a mandate, I will un-cross-out it if I see it.

            • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 years ago

              I am yet to see a single proposal to mandate that any teachers be armed against their will. Every single proposal is simply to set up a permitting and training program for any teacher that desires to. It’s very similar to the program to arm airline pilots that want to, except they become deputized federal agents and are provided the gun, ammo and training free of cost. A shootout in a plane is also far riskier than one in an open classroom.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 years ago

                A teacher who is willing to be armed, and eager to be armed, is even worse imo

                • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Millions of completely normal people carry a gun every day. You don’t know because they only come out in actual emergencies and the media rarely covers them. If the only thing preventing someone from being armed in any given situation is their adherence to an honor system saying they legally can’t then only people intending to break the law are armed. Meanwhile, the people that follow the rules never turn out to be the issue.

              • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Fair enough. Then I don’t like the term “arm teachers”. I’m sure I’ve seen talk of mandating (or letting schools mandate) before, but it’s immaterial because I think my point still stands without it.

                • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  It’s a fair point, I have never seen a single proposal that works that way. It isn’t part of the job description and I don’t think anyone would expect it to be. Every single proposal and policy I’ve seen implemented simply have an option for teachers to pursue to be allowed to carry under various terms.

          • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 years ago

            It absolutely is how criminals make choices, they prey on those that are weaker based on their assumed advantage. Arming teachers is also the best way to stop school shootings that are actively occurring. Armed minorities are harder to oppress and mass shooters select gun free zones for a reason.

              • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                I never said it would prevent every single crime, criminals are generally dumb and some try really dumb shit. A lot of the time when they do so they end up dead fairly quickly. A successful armed robbery of a gun store during business hours is extremely rare. When it comes to risk vs reward they are super attractive targets, but only the most desperate and stupid of criminals actually attempt it.