alfa164 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

The mall where this happened is a gun free zone. So your point doesn’t apply. If anything, you are making a compelling argument for more places that allow guns.

That's a lie. It happened at a Walmart - and that store is about a quarter-mile from the mall itself. It is hardly "gun-free"; it actually sells guns there.

It happened at a WalMart. The police did do a run through the mall for whatever reason. Someone inside a Mall store filmed the police running by. And that video is what ran on WFAA (An ABC/Disney) affiliate as they described details about the shooting. That was irresponsible. But WFAA's handling of the story on the 10pm news was all dramatics. Sensationalism.

alfa164 wrote:

That's a lie. It happened at a Walmart - and that store is about a quarter-mile from the mall itself. It is hardly "gun-free"; it actually sells guns there.

Be careful what you call a lie. You need to confirm whether or not this store had signs not allowing carry. If they did, it's a gun-free zone. It seems like Walmart generally allows carry holders to carry, but that needs to be confirmed before you make that statement.

bgm wrote:

Yet outside the US, the odds are significantly lower. Why do you think that might be?

Not true as a blanket statement. Why are some areas of the world more dangerous than the U.S.?

MSPNWA wrote:

You need to confirm whether or not this store had signs not allowing carry

This is an absolutely trivial issue and has absolutely zero to do with this mass killing by the right wing nut job who did it. You're just trying to turn the conversation to a petty triviality.

According to USA Today, the El Paso massacre marked the 250th mass shooting in the United States in 2019.

Well done!

Deflect deflect deflect.

The right wingers have their fingers in their ears and will bring up semantics, Antifa, Muslims, inner city gang crime... anything to distract them from the fact this was yet another right wing terrorist attack by a white Christian male.

These terrorists are emboldened and riled up by the great Orange commander in chief. You bet this is political. His vile rhetoric has tragic consequences.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The odds of you getting shot in a mass shooting are very low. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sometimes they use knives, or, bombs, like the Tsarnaev brothers.

Yeah, all of those mass stabbings are getting out of hand.

And these guys survived two mass shootings in two years....

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/31/us/g ... index.html

MSPNWA wrote:

Not true as a blanket statement. Why are some areas of the world more dangerous than the U.S.?

Countries with high crime activity are usually associated with a high GINI number denoting major wealth gaps and overconcentration of opportunity. The US ranks somewhere between Cameroon and Peru and while slightly better than Central America ranks worse than Iran, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and plenty of other places derided as 'dangerous'.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 2rank.html

Another major contributor is political instability. While the transition of government power in the US is peaceful and orderly, with the current levels of social division and online rancor against entire groups of people based on fake information and 'alternative facts', the general environment could easily be described as politically unstable in broader society.

MSPNWA wrote:

bgm wrote:

Yet outside the US, the odds are significantly lower. Why do you think that might be?

Not true as a blanket statement. Why are some areas of the world more dangerous than the U.S.?

Name a first world country which is more dangerous than the US. If you want to be compared to third world crap holes that’s great, but you should have aspirations to be better than them.

It's a case of stubborn denial of cause and consequences.
Hand out guns to everyone including psychos, don't be surprised to get mass shootings. Invite half of Africa and South Asia to Europe (thanks Angela), don't be surprised to get mass killings by all other available means. There are exceptions, of course... if your kid gets thrown under a train the fault is not with the multicultural enrichment, the blame is on understaffed police.
I don't think the usual suspects from Europe on this forum have any ground to lecture others how to fix US society.

Are thots and pears on the way?

It's all going to be alright as long as thots and pears are on the way.



(Is there anything else to do other than resort to cynicism, btw? Just wondering...)

L410Turbolet wrote:

It's a case of stubborn denial of cause and consequences.
Hand out guns to everyone including psychos, don't be surprised to get mass shootings. Invite half of Africa and South Asia to Europe (thanks Angela), don't be surprised to get mass killings by all other available means. There are exceptions, of course... if your kid gets thrown under a train the fault is not with the multicultural enrichment, the blame is on understaffed police.
I don't think the usual suspects from Europe on this forum have any ground to lecture others how to fix US society.

It's not just about the guns



we need to stop treating these recent attacks as just another mentally deranged school shooter and call them for what they are: Right-wing terrorism, emboldened by the rhetoric of the White House.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Hand out guns to everyone including psychos, don't be surprised to get mass shootings. I

But we are told quite steadfastly and in no uncertain terms that more guns being easily available stops these mass shootings. Can you tell us why that isn't the case, given that so many good, honest people are saying so?

These mass shootings, no matter if at a mall, a Walmart, workplace, school, hotel, or the streets of Dayton, Ohio or Chicago, if by someone who is from the far left to the far right, a christian or Muslim, Black or White or a mix, upon an family or random strangers, they are acts of terrorism. They rationalize in their minds to kill many to protect their 'turf' for drug dealing, express extreme political or social views, get revenge from bullying or being fired from a job, hate people for the color of their skin or religion. They may be mentally ill in different degrees.

The most common links are too easy access to weapons including handguns or slightly modified military ones designed to kill people, and a culture that encourages the use of guns in acts of terrorism. Politicians in the USA are too afraid to go after guns due to the 2nd Amendment and we cannot censure the media due to the 1st Amendment.

We need a 'stand down' in America, like done in the military when major problems of order and discipline happen, to look at ourselves and figure out how to deal with these acts of gun terrorism before they destroy us, make us all paranoid, put in more and more costly security to interfere with our lives, more of us have guns. I don't want to live in that kind of America. It is time we changed.

L410Turbolet wrote:

I don't think the usual suspects from Europe on this forum have any ground to lecture others how to fix US society.

Really?

Murder rates per 100,000:

France 1.3
Germany 1.0
UK 1.2
Ireland 0.9
Sweden 1.1
Netherlands 0.8
Spain 0.7
USA 5.3

I think the Europeans have a lot of ground and expertise to lecture the US about how to fix it’s society, because it’s now blatantly obvious the US can’t do it themselves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

cpd wrote:

.. given that so many good, honest people are saying so?

"good", "honest" :: you are misinformed. start with "bigotted", continue ...

L410Turbolet wrote:

It's a case of stubborn denial of cause and consequences.
Hand out guns to everyone including psychos, don't be surprised to get mass shootings. Invite half of Africa and South Asia to Europe (thanks Angela), don't be surprised to get mass killings by all other available means. There are exceptions, of course... if your kid gets thrown under a train the fault is not with the multicultural enrichment, the blame is on understaffed police.
I don't think the usual suspects from Europe on this forum have any ground to lecture others how to fix US society.

Europe has issues but populist nationlism and right wing rhetoric isn’t the answer.

Sierrakilo44

Interested to hear your proposals .

sierrakilo44 wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

I don't think the usual suspects from Europe on this forum have any ground to lecture others how to fix US society.

Really?

Murder rates per 100,000:

France 1.3
Germany 1.0
UK 1.2
Ireland 0.9
Sweden 1.1
Netherlands 0.8
Spain 0.7
USA 5.3

I think the Europeans have a lot of ground and expertise to lecture the US about how to fix it’s society, because it’s now blatantly obvious the US can’t do it themselves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

You left out L410Turbolet's home country that has lower murder rate than any of the countries you've mentioned and it is half compared to the UK or France. And this is a bit of a strange situation. With every shooting everybody and his brother is screaming for tight gun control. And yet the country with the most liberal gun control laws in the EU is doing much better than many EU countries with much tighter gun control. That only shows that gun availability is only a part of the equation and that simple solutions for complex problems never work.

If gun control laws were solely the answer states with the least gun control laws, like Vermont, would have the highest gun violence rates. And yet Vermont’s is among the lowest.

Are you suggesting that all guns be confiscated?

Another misguided person killed multiple people.

"Authorities are investigating a racist, anti-immigrant screed that they believe was posted by a man who opened fire at a shopping center in El Paso, Texas, on Saturday.

Twenty people were killed and 26 people were injured when the gunman, identified by three sources as Patrick Crusius, a 21-year-old white man from Allen, Texas, began shooting just after 10:30 a.m.
About 20 minutes earlier, a post on the online message board 8chan believed to be from the suspect laid out a dark vision of America overrun by Hispanic immigrants. The 2,300-word document, which police called a "manifesto," was attached to a post that said, "I'm probably going to die today.

The writing is filled with white nationalist language and racist hatred toward immigrants and Latinos, blaming immigrants and first-generation Americans for taking away jobs."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/04/us/el-pa ... index.html

That is CNN


Fox news glosses over it all.

A gunman killed 20 people and injured 26 others Saturday after he opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, state and city officials said.

"Texas grieves with the people of El Paso today," said Gov. Greg Abbott at an evening news conference following one of the deadliest mass shootings in America. The casualties were the highest number since 2017, when gunmen killed 58 and 26 people, respectively, in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs, Texas.

.......

Chief Allen said investigators were examining a manifesto that may have been written by the suspect and would indicate a “nexus to a hate crime,” but declined to offer details. The suspect will likely face capital murder charges, Allen said.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/el-paso-walm ... greg-allen


BBC

A 21-year-old white man was arrested at the Walmart store where the attack took place in the city of El Paso, near the US-Mexico border, on Saturday.

A document, apparently posted shortly before the attack and believed to have been written by the man, espoused white supremacist and racist views.

The tract called the attack a response to "the Hispanic invasion of Texas".

The man, who opened fire with an assault-style rifle, lived in Allen, Dallas, about 650 miles (1,046km) east of El Paso, police said. The attack also left 26 injured.

Officials have not offered a precise motive for the attack, but El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen said investigators were looking into a document that could indicate a "potential nexus to a hate crime".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49226573



I wonder why fox news is so hesitant to scream about domestic terrorism with a hitch to racism ?

VTKillarney wrote:

Are you suggesting that all guns be confiscated?

What's your solution?

casinterest wrote:

I wonder why fox news is so hesitant to scream about domestic terrorism with a hitch to racism ?

Because to do so would admit guilt and complicity in the right wing white terrorism we're seeing.

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Are you suggesting that all guns be confiscated?

What's your solution?

Mental health treatment.

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Are you suggesting that all guns be confiscated?

What's your solution?

Mental health treatment.

People have to want to go for most treatment to be successful...sounds a little Pollyanna to me. Any others? I suggested some things upthread these incels can do to improve their own lives, but other men are going to have to step in and properly advise them.

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Are you suggesting that all guns be confiscated?

What's your solution?

Mental health treatment.

And if they don't have health insurance to cover that?
How do you decide who gets 'mental health treatment' and who doesn't?

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

What's your solution?

Mental health treatment.

And if they don't have health insurance to cover that?
How do you decide who gets 'mental health treatment' and who doesn't?

So let’s assume that not everyone can get mental health treatment. Should we confiscate guns because of that?

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Mental health treatment.

And if they don't have health insurance to cover that?
How do you decide who gets 'mental health treatment' and who doesn't?

So let’s assume that not everyone can get mental health treatment. Should we confiscate guns because of that?

So even you yourself admit that the 'mental health treatment' is not a valid solution. So again, I ask you, what is your solution as a hard right winger? Am genuinely really curious.

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

And if they don't have health insurance to cover that?
How do you decide who gets 'mental health treatment' and who doesn't?

So let’s assume that not everyone can get mental health treatment. Should we confiscate guns because of that?

So even you yourself admit that the 'mental health treatment' is not a valid solution. So again, I ask you, what is your solution as a hard right winger? Am genuinely really curious.

I’m not admitting that. I’m asking you to flesh out your position. Are you in favor of gun confiscation?

As a moderate, I believe that we need better mental health treatment and better enforcement of existing gun laws. Do you agree with me or are you looking to confiscate guns? If you are, just come out and say it.

I wonder what his motivation was...

VTKillarney wrote:

Are you suggesting that all guns be confiscated?

No we should definitely do nothing and just pray harder to white Jesus. Seems 2 B werqing.

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Are you suggesting that all guns be confiscated?

What's your solution?

Mental health treatment.

LOL republicans hate that too, so what else you got?

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

So let’s assume that not everyone can get mental health treatment. Should we confiscate guns because of that?

So even you yourself admit that the 'mental health treatment' is not a valid solution. So again, I ask you, what is your solution as a hard right winger? Am genuinely really curious.

I’m not admitting that. I’m asking you to flesh out your position. Are you in favor of gun confiscation?

As a moderate, I believe that we need better mental health treatment and better enforcement of existing gun laws. Do you agree with me or are you looking to confiscate guns? If you are, just come out and say it.

I believe that gun licenses should be issued complete with criminal background check, mental health exam, and semi-automatic assault rifles should be banned for civilian use. If you don't pass the check, you don't get to own a gun.

If you are mentally stable and a law abiding citizen, then it shouldn't be a problem, right?

bgm wrote:

I believe that gun licenses should be issued complete with criminal background check, mental health exam, and semi-automatic assault rifles should be banned for civilian use. If you don't pass the check, you don't get to own a gun.

If you are mentally stable and a law abiding citizen, then it shouldn't be a problem, right?

This.. Any reasonable person - and a vast majority of American citizens, representing both parties, agree. It is only that part of Congress that has been bought and paid for by the NRA - and the provocateurs here on A.net, who have no real answers but who only argue and post to get attention in their poor, socially deprived lives - who would disagree.

Now let's wait and see who disagrees...

MaverickM11 wrote:

I wonder what his motivation was...

You might mention - that was the gunman's own photo, created for and posted on his Facebook page.

There is a direct line between these xenophobia-motivated shootings and Trump's over-the-top racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

So even you yourself admit that the 'mental health treatment' is not a valid solution. So again, I ask you, what is your solution as a hard right winger? Am genuinely really curious.

I’m not admitting that. I’m asking you to flesh out your position. Are you in favor of gun confiscation?

As a moderate, I believe that we need better mental health treatment and better enforcement of existing gun laws. Do you agree with me or are you looking to confiscate guns? If you are, just come out and say it.

I believe that gun licenses should be issued complete with criminal background check, mental health exam, and semi-automatic assault rifles should be banned for civilian use. If you don't pass the check, you don't get to own a gun.

If you are mentally stable and a law abiding citizen, then it shouldn't be a problem, right?

I think there is a lot in what you’ve said that is reasonable. I’d have to give the ban more thought, though.

Magog wrote:

bgm wrote:

Magog wrote:

I’m not admitting that. I’m asking you to flesh out your position. Are you in favor of gun confiscation?

As a moderate, I believe that we need better mental health treatment and better enforcement of existing gun laws. Do you agree with me or are you looking to confiscate guns? If you are, just come out and say it.

I believe that gun licenses should be issued complete with criminal background check, mental health exam, and semi-automatic assault rifles should be banned for civilian use. If you don't pass the check, you don't get to own a gun.

If you are mentally stable and a law abiding citizen, then it shouldn't be a problem, right?

I think there is a lot in what you’ve said that is reasonable. I’d have to give the ban more thought, though.

We'd all appreciate that, you let us know your final thoughts on this matter please. Thanks!

Quote: "I often wonder how many more mass shootings have to happen until gun control is implemented."

I stopped wondering some time ago about the US. Answer: Never, or at least not during my lifetime.
Considering the way Americans voted at the last election, the NRA has a bright future.

For a strange reason, United Statians think it's cool (and safe) to carry a gun.

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Mental health treatment.

And if they don't have health insurance to cover that?
How do you decide who gets 'mental health treatment' and who doesn't?

So let’s assume that not everyone can get mental health treatment. Should we confiscate guns because of that?

May I answer ?

Yes, of course !!!! Even if people get mental treatment by the way. (Everybody knows that a guy with a mental health treatment will never feel anger again in his life (joke) )

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Are you suggesting that all guns be confiscated?

What's your solution?

Mental health treatment.

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

bgm wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

So even you yourself admit that the 'mental health treatment' is not a valid solution. So again, I ask you, what is your solution as a hard right winger? Am genuinely really curious.

I’m not admitting that. I’m asking you to flesh out your position. Are you in favor of gun confiscation?

As a moderate, I believe that we need better mental health treatment and better enforcement of existing gun laws. Do you agree with me or are you looking to confiscate guns? If you are, just come out and say it.

I believe that gun licenses should be issued complete with criminal background check, mental health exam, and semi-automatic assault rifles should be banned for civilian use. If you don't pass the check, you don't get to own a gun.

If you are mentally stable and a law abiding citizen, then it shouldn't be a problem, right?

Good points but mental health exams are in this purpose useless. You meet a doctor for like what, 30 minutes. It's easy to fake that long and most of the time you don't even have to fake. Mental health in such a short time is checked by filling tests (paper). If you want a gun it's easy to lie in those tests and get points that prove any nutcase is mentally healthy.

I have one question for everyone here that is bent on restricting firearms ownership. The war on drugs has failed, drugs come over the border by the metric ton daily. We can’t seem to stop illegal aliens from coming across the border and everyone knows the bloodbath and how successful banning alcohol was in the 1920’s... what makes you think that banning firearms today is going to stop these horrific events?

You can not regulate morality and I know of no cop that is going to go door to door risking their life to take a gun from a previously law abiding citizen (just look at New York State and their mandatory registration legislation passed a few years back)

For all y’all calling for stricter ownership requirements and confiscation of legally owned firearms, I give you exhibit A...the reason you will never be given an inch on this debate.

stl07 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

bgm wrote:

What's your solution?

Mental health treatment.

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

What regulations were that? The only ones I recall was that those that received social security were no longer banned from owning outright. I bought multiple firearms during his tenure and I never had to deal with any mental health requirements, even with having PTSD from fighting in Afghanistan.

LittleSprocket wrote:

stl07 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Mental health treatment.

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

What regulations were that? The only ones I recall was that those that received social security were no longer banned from owning outright. I bought multiple firearms during his tenure and I never had to deal with any mental health requirements, even with having PTSD from fighting in Afghanistan.

We need to repeal the 2nd amendment. We need to do it legally, and we need to have whatever replaces it define mandatory life sentences for anyone using a gun during a crime.

Totally possible in the US today. We banned beer once. So it’s not impossible.

Mike Drop

seb146 wrote:

What "well regulated militia" did this right wing domestic terrorist belong to? And the right wing domestic terrorist in Gilroy? And the right wing domestic terrorist in Dayton? Anyone else see a pattern here?

Yes, the inability for some to comprehend what well-regulated militia meant in the 1700’s when the 2nd amendment was passed. There are over 300 million firearms in this country with millions of owners, if we were the problem California and New York State would be the first to know.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

MikeDrop wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

What regulations were that? The only ones I recall was that those that received social security were no longer banned from owning outright. I bought multiple firearms during his tenure and I never had to deal with any mental health requirements, even with having PTSD from fighting in Afghanistan.

We need to repeal the 2nd amendment. We need to do it legally, and we need to have whatever replaces it define mandatory life sentences for anyone using a gun during a crime.

Totally possible in the US today. We banned beer once. So it’s not impossible.

Mike Drop

Yeah...so explain to me who you will send to confiscate said firearms?

We did ban beer once and it created a black market so deadly that it was repealed. I’ll leave this for you though.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

WildcatYXU wrote:

You left out L410Turbolet's home country that has lower murder rate than any of the countries you've mentioned and it is half compared to the UK or France. And this is a bit of a strange situation. With every shooting everybody and his brother is screaming for tight gun control. And yet the country with the most liberal gun control laws in the EU is doing much better than many EU countries with much tighter gun control.

That's not the point I was trying to make. There has been a surge in gun ownership in recent years, when a lot of far-left and far-right voting rabble all of a sudden needed a gun. I would give it another decade before passing any judgment.

LittleSprocket wrote:

stl07 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Mental health treatment.

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

What regulations were that? The only ones I recall was that those that received social security were no longer banned from owning outright. I bought multiple firearms during his tenure and I never had to deal with any mental health requirements, even with having PTSD from fighting in Afghanistan.

If you have ptsd you sure as hell shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm of any sort.

I find it quite horrifying that someone with ptsd can own a gun.

Kiwirob wrote:

LittleSprocket wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Would be nice, except congress removed Obama era mental health gun control regulations.

What regulations were that? The only ones I recall was that those that received social security were no longer banned from owning outright. I bought multiple firearms during his tenure and I never had to deal with any mental health requirements, even with having PTSD from fighting in Afghanistan.

If you have ptsd you sure as hell shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm of any sort.

I find it quite horrifying that someone with ptsd can own a gun.

The vast majority of veteran suicides are by gun. "Supporting the troops" means talking about guns. But we don't so... Thoughts 'n prayers instead.

You know what's worse than a weak country? A weak country that doesn't admit it's weak and does nothing to try to improve itself. That is how I see the USA.