• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tennessee grocery store attack: ‘He kept on shooting’

From Associated Press


A gunman attacked a grocery store in an upscale Tennessee suburb on Thursday afternoon, killing one person and wounding 12 others before the suspect was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound at the store, authorities said.

Collierville Police Chief Dale Lane said the shooting broke out at a Kroger grocery in his suburban community about 30 miles (50 kilometers) east of Memphis. He said the gunman shot 13 others and himself, and that 12 of the victims were taken to hospitals, some with very serious injuries.

One Kroger worker, Brignetta Dickerson, told WREG-TV she was working a cash register when she heard what at first she thought were balloons popping.

“And, here he comes right behind us and started shooting,” Dickerson said. “And, he kept on shooting, shooting, shooting. He shot one of my co-workers in the head and shot one of my customers in the stomach.”

Lane said police received a call about 1:30 p.m. about the shooting and arrived within minutes, finding multiple people with gunshots when they entered the building.

COMMENT:-
I'd be rather interested to find out what "serious issues" this arrogant, stupid, pathetic, piece of garbage, loser had that he felt justified him in killing other people in order to exercise his freedom of expression.​
Wouldn't you?​
Well, at any rate he won't be doing it again.​
Another example of “When seconds count, police are only minutes away “.
 
Could we find out who this guy is and what he was up to before the endless gun control debate starts?

Just as Arnold Schwarzenegger's character in "The Villain" was named after his father, so too should this arrogant, stupid, pathetic, loser's children be named after him.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when something like this would have gotten everyone's horrified attention, but now it's just another day in America.

Imagine, you're in Kroger's picking up some baking chocolate and plan to go home and bake a batch of brownies to surprise the fam for dinner. And you're shot in the stomach instead.

Js, this isn't normal.

What you are talking about is "socially normalized behaviour".

That does NOT mean that the behaviour is approved of, but only that the unacceptable behaviour is so common that no one is REALLY shocked about it (although they might say that they are).
 
And predictably this will encourage certain people to buy even more guns, and the endless cycle of Americans enthusiastically shooting other Americans will continue until someone has the guts to do something, anything, to restrict and regulate gun ownership and how laughably easy it is to get your hands on one. I hate the wretched, pointless things.
In the wake of two horrific massacres (Hungerford and Dunblane), perpetrated by individuals using legally-held firearms, Britain enacted stringent firearm legislation. The result? No more massacres. UK deaths by gun in 2019, 33 (thirty three). USA, 14,141 (fourteen thousand, one hundred forty one).

If you adjust that 33 for the UK to account for the difference in population size it becomes 161.

That means (as any graduate of the BS [Statistics] program at the University of Numerology will tell you) that the situation is worse in the UK than it is in the US because "16" is more than "14".
 
Why should it be hard to exercise our rights?

Do you agree with legislation that's making voting harder? IMO, that's a lot more dangerous.

Why should you have license to "exercise your rights" in ways that are potentially lethal to others?
 
What a sonnuvabitch. Getting fired gives you the right to shoot everyone in sight? No, it really doesn't.

WREG-TV reported the shooter was an employee who had been fired on Thursday, citing an unnamed law enforcement source.

Brignetta Dickerson, a Kroger employee, told WREG that she instructed fellow employees and customers when the shooting broke out to follow her to the back of the store and closed the door behind them, but the gunman followed.

"He kept on shooting and shooting and shooting. He shot one of my co-workers in the head and then shot one of the customers in the stomach," Dickerson said, adding that the shooter appeared to have a military-style rifle.



You see, he was only exercising his Second Amendment rights in furtherance of his exercising his First Amendment rights to freely express how he felt about being fired - right?
 
It's not an excuse that justifies him not facing punitive consequences, but his behavior is something we should study and try to understand. The best way to stop future shootings starts with us figuring out what causes them.

BINGO!!!

In a society where it is NOT "socially normalized" to kill other people over trivial matters, the number and distribution of guns is almost irrelevant.

In a society where it IS "socially normalized" to kill other people over trivial matters, the number and distribution of guns IS relevant.

There are two ways of dealing with the second situation and those are

[1] strictly regulate (and rigorously enforce) the number and distribution of guns;​
or​
[2] change the mindset of the populace so that it is NOT "socially normalized" to kill other people over trivial matters.​

Given the history and mythology of the United States of America, the first option (the easy one) simply isn't workable.

Given the fact that implementing the second option requires that the society admit that it actually has some basic flaws and also requires a concentrated (and unified) effort to rectify those basic flaws (i.e. do something hard), the second option is not currently workable in the United States of America.

That leaves two choices:

[1] grow up;​
or​
[2] live with it;​

your call.
 
I get pissed when I hear people make excuses for these people with the he had "problems", "mental issues" and that type of mess. His issue was he didn't have any regard for other peoples lives.
I know how hard it would be to be a swat officer and go into that building and not shoot a person like this after you see all the wounded.
are you presenting this shooter as someone who possessed sound mental health?
 
Good point.

But car accidents aren't intentionally to kill me. So it makes it a little different, although you're right about the odds of it happening.
just a wee bit of difference between an act of G_d and a G_dless act
 
Over the years of this shit happening we have been able to pretty much know why it happens. Disaffected and emasculated men, especially white men, used to just off themselves when they couldnt deal. Then came the Columbine shooters and that changed everything. Now these losers want to die AND try and be famous. To leave some "legacy" behind since they feel they failed at life. This is unfortunately going to keep happening until we stop trying to turn men into soft little girls and let them be men again. Social media and these dating apps where these incels get rejected time and time again arent helping. These apps have made people lazy and the dating scene has changed drastically. So these guys just stay in the basement smoking pot and playing COD instead of going out and socializing to meet girls like we used to. And they wallow in their self pity and stew and stew until their murder fantasies become reality. Of course there is also the religious zealot shooters, Im not sure of what we can do about them. Dangerous religious indoctrination can be a pretty crazy thing to stop. Any ideas?
 
BINGO!!!

In a society where it is NOT "socially normalized" to kill other people over trivial matters, the number and distribution of guns is almost irrelevant.

In a society where it IS "socially normalized" to kill other people over trivial matters, the number and distribution of guns IS relevant.

There are two ways of dealing with the second situation and those are

[1] strictly regulate (and rigorously enforce) the number and distribution of guns;​
or​
[2] change the mindset of the populace so that it is NOT "socially normalized" to kill other people over trivial matters.​

Given the history and mythology of the United States of America, the first option (the easy one) simply isn't workable.

Given the fact that implementing the second option requires that the society admit that it actually has some basic flaws and also requires a concentrated (and unified) effort to rectify those basic flaws (i.e. do something hard), the second option is not currently workable in the United States of America.

That leaves two choices:

[1] grow up;​
or​
[2] live with it;​

your call.
Instead of 'or,' it should be 'and.' Why do people insist on an all or nothing approach when it is a complicated matter requiring a number of actions, not just one or the other.
 
well we do see some of the usual suspects gleefully whining about the NRA and gun ownership before they even know where the person got a firearm, whether he could legally own it etc
and we have turtledude reminding us that these innocent collateral deaths are the price our citizens must pay to bear arms with very few, very ineffective controls
 
And the next time someone kills someone else with an automobile lets take away all the cars.
it seems you would be receptive to testing individuals periodically and only then issuing a license certifying they are fit to drive on the public highways
and to impose an insurance requirement to financially make whole anyone they victimized by their inaccurate driving actions
and screening out anyone who seeks to drive but demonstrates they are without the capacity to do so properly
and identifying those who are authorized to drive in a database, together with the registration of the vehicles they have available to drive
good on you for your willingness to impose reasonable licensing and registration measures on those who choose to bear arms in America
 
they won't support that unless they believed a large majority of drivers vote against the politicians they want in office
so, you are now saying the comparison between licensed drivers and those who opt to bear arms is an apt one
delighted to see that
glad you are willing to evolve your position on gun control and registration
 
so, you are now saying the comparison between licensed drivers and those who opt to bear arms is an apt one
delighted to see that
glad you are willing to evolve your position on gun control and registration
not at all-reread what I wrote and try again. what I am saying-and I know you understood-is that political agendas cause the support for gun control among anti gun advocates, not a desire to reduce crime
 
and we have turtledude reminding us that these innocent collateral deaths are the price our citizens must pay to bear arms with very few, very ineffective controls
you have never proven that implementing your desired gun control laws would change a damn thing other than harassing millions of lawful gun owners (which is the main goal of the gun control movement anyway)
 
not at all-reread what I wrote and try again. what I am saying-and I know you understood-is that political agendas cause the support for gun control among anti gun advocates, not a desire to reduce crime
you post that as if reducing gun crime is not a reduction in crime itself

what law school did you go to again?
 
The shooter was a 29 year old sushi chef working at the Kroger deli. He got into a disagreement with an employee, was made to leave (or fired) and came back with his rifle. His name was UK Thang.
 
The shooter was a 29 year old sushi chef working at the Kroger deli. He got into a disagreement with an employee, was made to leave (or fired) and came back with his rifle. His name was UK Thang.
then we learn the shooter was someone with significant knife skills and yet he instead chose the lethality of the firearm as his weapon
 
are you presenting this shooter as someone who possessed sound mental health?

Are you saying that that arrogant, stupid, pathetic loser was actually suffering from an actual (as defined by medical science) "mental illness" rather than being someone who felt entitled to kill other people because he "had issues" with people other than the ones that he shoot?
 
Are you saying that that arrogant, stupid, pathetic loser was actually suffering from an actual (as defined by medical science) "mental illness" rather than being someone who felt entitled to kill other people because he "had issues" with people other than the ones that he shoot?
you got me

it was a reach to assume someone who shot up a store of innocents had some kind of mental issue going on

after all, he had an unimpeded right to bear that arm
 
Sounds like this guy wasn't mentally ill, he was ****ing pissed off. Good enough reason to shoot 14 people.

I wonder if he was heavy into internet games or fantasy comics or something. He seemingly went home and suited up all in black and grabbed his rifle, went back for the performance. It was lunchtime at Kroger. Wearing black wasn't going to do anything for him tactically except making him look cool.
 
then we learn the shooter was someone with significant knife skills and yet he instead chose the lethality of the firearm as his weapon
As I've always said, guns make murder a lot less work, and no goo on your shoes.
 
As I've always said, guns make murder a lot less work, and no goo on your shoes.
extra added bonus: no need to re-sharpen the gun after its use

sure glad the two of us were able to figure this out
 
Back
Top Bottom