(05-16-2022 09:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 09:53 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 07:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 05:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 05:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  LOL to the bolded.

Dude, the explanation (bolded) that you provided was complete gibberish to me. Perhaps it is clear to you and others. I'm happy to say that gun control was part of his intent but I'd like to understand the mechanics behind that opinion.

You'd like to understand the writings of a mad man. Ok, one more time:
a) New York's strict gun control laws, in his mind, made it unlikely he'd encounter anyone heavily-armed enough to stop him. Here, he used the "cucked" language to mock laws like the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines. (Not my opinion, his, in case it's necessary for me to point that out.)
b) He hoped to encourage the passage of gun control laws against assault-style rifles - hence, his choice of weapon.
c) He hoped that the additional gun control laws would trigger a backlash against gun control.

Ergo, New York and an assault rifle - obviously his racial choice of victims was not part of his gun control philosophy - but surely you can understand that his multiple objectives did not require him to have multiple targets.

Clear enough?

You lose me with the bolded. I thought he supports gun control so why would he want to trigger a backlash against gun control?

That is exactly how he put it. Provoke gun control efforts to generate backlash against gun control. I never claimed he was being rational. My point is the contrary, actually.

Based solely on that statement that you reference it would seem as equally likely that he was against gun control rather than for gun control.

Exactly. The guy has a screw loose.

I’m not trying to prove he had any genuine or valid ideology. That’s your argument, not mine.