Mass shooting in el paso

greencap

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's a start. It might encourage people to lock up their firearms safely so that kids etc. like Adam Lanza can't access them.

You can't boil the ocean all at once. Small steps.

Mhmmm, safety classes, proper storage, background checks and mental health.

Its all of the above, and many other things, but its definitely definitely not the availability of assault weapons.

Boggles

Dog Man Star wrote: »

?? She won over 3,000,000 votes than Trump. The swing in the 2018 midterms was the greatest in US history.

She got over 4 million more votes than him in California, doesn't matter a feck. The rules are quite clear.

She thought it was going to be a formality. She was wrong.

For me she lost it when she apologized for the "Basket of Deplorables" comment, she should have doubled down.

Dog Man Star wrote: »

You think Trump will win in 2020? Not a hope in hell.

The exact phrase I used for 2016.

Guy:Incognito

Dog Man Star wrote: »

"As far as I can recall" = I am making this crap up. Deserves a ban mods? Definitely against the charter: "Do not post any material that you know or should know is...inaccurate"

25.7% of eligible voters, voted for Trump.

(27.8% voted for Clinton)

Total lies. Where's the ban?

Your posts sound like trump tweets. Same format.

El_Bee

Boggles wrote: »

The exact phrase I used for 2016.

He wont be able to rely on the Russians hacking into the electrical college this time around.

swampy353

So how does building a wall stop a pr1ck like the gunman in this case from doing this again. Would equate your argument with blaming a woman for being raped because of the way she is dressed.
The stats are very clear that immigrants are less likely to be criminals then "citizens".
In one way I can see the use of a wall to protect immigrants from idiots who cannot differentiates between reality and the dog whistling that is coming from the white House.

KevRossi

Here's an idea.

Manic Moran

BattleCorp wrote: »

That wouldn't work. How will you convince psychiatrists to come on board if such a system was in place.

I agree with you somewhat though. I think everone who wants to own a gun should take some sort of safety class. I think there should be background checks and if you are dodgy, then you shouldn't be allowed a gun

There are a few issues with the "mental check before a gun" requirement.
The big one is that the US mental health system is inadequate to meet current needs. With some 90 million gun owners in the US, is it really the best use of resources to be interviewing 89.999 million perfectly healthy folks as opposed to aiding those who actually need the help? Not only would it likely pick up an excellent portion of those who would be problematic with firearms specifically, but it would be more beneficial to the US mental health care system as a whole. Those who don't own guns can need help as much as those who do.
Secondly, most professionals won't make a declaration on the basis of a single interview, exacerbating the first problem.
Thirdly, as soon as some psychologist passes someone who later goes postal, he will get his ass sued. There is, as battlecorp observes, a question of if they wish to participate.

I personally think everyone should take a firearm safety class whether they own a firearm or not. We do sex ed in schools, we do drivers ed in schools. I think it not unreasonable to presume that a kid may encounter a firearm outside of parental supervision in the US. Interestingly, liberals oppose firearm education in schools for the same reason that conservatives oppose sex ed. They believe it will encourage "unapproved" behaviors. However, competence with a firearm does not seem to be a problem of many spree shooters.

Also agreed with background checks, which is the position of most of the US population. Sadly, neither major US political party seems interested in passing a bill which only facilitates background checks. Democrat proposals tend to go for overreach, and when Republicans control Congress, they don't submit anything at all.

Dog, perhaps this may come as something as a shock to you, but I do not subscribe to the theory of binary politics. That I take a viewpoint against some Democrat positions does not mean I must support Republicans in general or Trump in particular.

BattleCorp

greencap wrote: »

Mhmmm, safety classes, proper storage, background checks and mental health.

Its all of the above, and many other things, but its definitely definitely not the availability of assault weapons.

Easy access to guns by mental people is part of the problem, yes. And I'm saying that as a gun owner myself. Guns are fine if they are in the hands of sane, law abiding people.

If you look at the figures below, America had 258 mass shootings so far this year. Shouldn't Serbia have had over 150? Shouldn't Cyprus have had over 65 mass shootings this year?

Originally Posted by biko
USA - 112.6 guns per 100 residents.
Serbia - 75.6.
Yemen - 54.8.
Switzerland - 45.7.
Cyprus - 36.4.
Saudi Arabia - 35.

You never hear about mass shootings on a weekly scale in the other places.

StinkyMunkey

These type of mass shootings are unavoidable, people flat out refuse to believe that excessive gun violence is caused by extremely easy access to firearms.

I've said it countless times, more guns = more gun deaths, just like more cars on the road = more road deaths.

I personally believe that America is slipping down the rabbit hole, it's as if the current administration is doing everything in its power to destabilise America and the world as a whole.

I also believe that these mass shootings have not peaked, that 20 years from now, America will have reverted to the wide west and be something like escape from New York.

Guy:Incognito

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

These type of mass shootings are unavoidable, people flat out refuse to believe that excessive gun violence is caused by extremely easy access to firearms.

It's clearly not a simple "more guns = more mass shootings " thing. If it was there would be largely similar numbers of incidents around the world in line with gun ownorship rates and there just isnt.

Its goes much deeper.

Redneck Reject

Some folks sure have a lot of faith in "The Wall", which IMHO is the biggest waste of money. Money which could have been used to better infrastructure like Education, Health care including mental health, etc.
A wall at the border won't stop much from coming in.Not when there are still drug tunnels not found or closed up. If ole El Chapo taught us anything is that if you can't go over a wall, then you sure can under it.

dudara

Troll posts deleted. Please don’t feed the trolls. Report and let the mods tackle them.

dudara

StinkyMunkey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's clearly not a simple "more guns = more mass shootings " thing. If it was there would be largely similar numbers of incidents around the world in line with gun ownorship rates and there just isnt.

Its goes much deeper.

I agree 100% it isn't "that" simple, there are a variety of reasons "why" it happens. But remember there is only one reason "how" it happens.

I'm not calling for a ban, and I've given up saying there should be tighter gun controls.

I'm simply saying I think it will get worse. More people will get access to more guns. More mentally unstable people and criminals will have more effective military style weapons, which means more fire power.

America won't change, its long gone past the point where it can change.

Gbear

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

These type of mass shootings are unavoidable, people flat out refuse to believe that excessive gun violence is caused by extremely easy access to firearms.

I've said it countless times, more guns = more gun deaths, just like more cars on the road = more road deaths.

I personally believe that America is slipping down the rabbit hole, it's as if the current administration is doing everything in its power to destabilise America and the world as a whole.

I also believe that these mass shootings have not peaked, that 20 years from now, America will have reverted to the wide west and be something like escape from New York.

You can definitely make that case for things like suicides, which happen at a higher rate in the US than the rest of the Western world, and over half of their suicides are gun related, which is totally out of proportion with any other country.

But for mass shootings, I think you need an ideology of violence and hate, and an ample supply of unstable people to carry it out, and that's something else the US has in abundance.

These people are like the Taliban, and they will find a way to murder people en masse, because their ideology demands it.

You can thwart them to an extent, but it's a sickness that needs to be treated at source to truly eliminate the threat.

walshb

It happens because in this world of almost 8 billion there is plenty of evil.

swampy353

There are some very separate issues going on here and for the sake of clarity, I’ll break them out
• The shooting: I don’t think anyone can condone what happened with this, there is no excuse for killing people
• Immigration There is a case to be made for controlling borders in a more effective way, wouldn’t necessarily be my POV. The way in which it has been handled has be cold hearted, poorly thought-out and inhumane. There is a balance that needs to be struck between taking people in who are coming from objectively horrible situations and ensuring that immigration does not become a free for all. I would see the billions that were pumped into the detention centres providing luxuries like soap, been better used by providing services to these people rather then allowing the situation to develop. The cynic in me would say that it was part of Trumps plan to engineer the situation as a self-fulfilling prophecy
• Racism Its not about the people actually crossing, it’s a perceived notion, encouraged and disseminated by the Republicans
• Gun control I accept the vast majority of what MM has said. The issue is generally not a nutter buying a handgun, it’s a nutter who is able to multiple guns or automatics. The 2nd amendment states “right to bear arms”, why can’t the number be limited? Background checks on the purchase of the first gun with a deep vetting for everything beyond that, be it mental or criminal vetting. Gun lobby can’t claim that the gov is removing peoples right to have a gun for protection but will control stockpiling
What Trump and others have done really well is muddy the water by combining issues together to paralysis any lobby for change. The more unstable the country and the less safe that people feel the more likely they are to vote for the incumbent, well this is Trumps rationale

StinkyMunkey

Gbear wrote: »

You can definitely make that case for things like suicides, which happen at a higher rate in the US than the rest of the Western world, and over half of their suicides are gun related, which is totally out of proportion with any other country.

But for mass shootings, I think you need an ideology of violence and hate, and an ample supply of unstable people to carry it out, and that's something else the US has in abundance.

These people are like the Taliban, and they will find a way to murder people en masse, because their ideology demands it.

You can thwart them to an extent, but it's a sickness that needs to be treated at source to truly eliminate the threat.

There isn't always an idealogy behind these type of attacks. Unfortunately for Americans, these type of attacks have sunken in the psyche of the mentally unstable in the states.

For some ****ed up reason, in the states when some lunatic decides he has a gripe with the world, he goes out and shoots up the world.

In the Middle East and other places, its religion or some warped ideology.

People can and will find ways to hurt people. But in the states hurting numerous amounts of people is on easy mode. There is no solution to this problem until people agree what the common denominator is - it's America this will not happen.

Vincent Vega

Why doesn't boards have a 'Mass Shooting in America MEGATHREAD' by now?

StinkyMunkey

Vincent Vega wrote: »

Why doesn't boards have a 'Mass Shooting in America MEGATHREAD' by now?

I used to think that, but then I thought maybe people are just so used to them.

The last couple of big mass shootings didn't get a mention.

steddyeddy

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are a few issues with the "mental check before a gun" requirement.
The big one is that the US mental health system is inadequate to meet current needs. With some 90 million gun owners in the US, is it really the best use of resources to be interviewing 89.999 million perfectly healthy folks as opposed to aiding those who actually need the help? Not only would it likely pick up an excellent portion of those who would be problematic with firearms specifically, but it would be more beneficial to the US mental health care system as a whole. Those who don't own guns can need help as much as those who do.
Secondly, most professionals won't make a declaration on the basis of a single interview, exacerbating the first problem.
Thirdly, as soon as some psychologist passes someone who later goes postal, he will get his ass sued. There is, as battlecorp observes, a question of if they wish to participate.

I personally think everyone should take a firearm safety class whether they own a firearm or not. We do sex ed in schools, we do drivers ed in schools. I think it not unreasonable to presume that a kid may encounter a firearm outside of parental supervision in the US. Interestingly, liberals oppose firearm education in schools for the same reason that conservatives oppose sex ed. They believe it will encourage "unapproved" behaviors. However, competence with a firearm does not seem to be a problem of many spree shooters.

Also agreed with background checks, which is the position of most of the US population. Sadly, neither major US political party seems interested in passing a bill which only facilitates background checks. Democrat proposals tend to go for overreach, and when Republicans control Congress, they don't submit anything at all.

Dog, perhaps this may come as something as a shock to you, but I do not subscribe to the theory of binary politics. That I take a viewpoint against some Democrat positions does not mean I must support Republicans in general or Trump in particular.

All of those problems you mention pale in comparison to the fact that there's 250 people dead this year due to mass shootings. I really think a change in culture is sorely needed.

twowheelsonly

steddyeddy wrote: »

All of those problems you mention pale in comparison to the fact that there's 250 people dead this year due to mass shootings. I really think a change in culture is sorely needed.

It's far higher than that - there's been 250 mass shootings, not deaths.

This is an interesting site..

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

greencap

BattleCorp wrote: »

Easy access to guns by mental people is part of the problem, yes. And I'm saying that as a gun owner myself. Guns are fine if they are in the hands of sane, law abiding people.

If you look at the figures below, America had 258 mass shootings so far this year. Shouldn't Serbia have had over 150? Shouldn't Cyprus have had over 65 mass shootings this year?

Whataboutery.

The problem is you can't tell who is a sane, law abiding person.

All of this shyte that gets trotted out every time about 'mental health' 'safety classes' 'proper storage' is just a distraction from the one thing that gun fetishists dread the most ... not being able to dick around with military spec weapons.

The moronic joy of acting the cnt with something that belongs on a battlefield is more important to them than the implications on their society, such as the many recent innocent peoples deaths.

So very well, have background checks then, have proper storage, have safety classes, and on top of it have restrictions on weapon specifications.

I'm guessing there'll be some problem with that.

The people can't fight the government or some other horsesht.

lawlolawl

https://twitter.com/smashmouth/status/1158094341019058176

gandalf

The US is never going to ban guns totally and tbh I wouldn't expect them to. Alot of them live in rural areas where hunting is part of their lives and also where large wild animals co-exist that they have to be able to defend themselves from.

However there is no reason for military grade weapons to be available to the public or for high capacity magazines to be legal. IF i had my way they would be both banned immediately and a buy back organised for those that have these types of weapons. The second phase should be stringent background checks for anyone looking to purchase firearms.

TBH honestly I don't expect America to do anything. They did nothing when a class full of 6 and 7 year olds were slaughtered in Sandy Hook so I doubt they will do anything now. They are addicted to weapons, they cling to their 2nd Amendment without realising it was written when the bleeding edge weapons had a firing rate of 3 rounds per minute. It certainly wasn't written for weapons that can fire up to 400 rounds per minute or for nutters who own a whole arsenal of weapons. The Las Vegas shooter had 23 rifles in his room and a handgun, they found 19 other guns when they searched his home. Surely that kind of ownership should have raised serious questions about that guy?

tuxy

gandalf wrote: »

Surely that kind of ownership should have raised serious questions about that guy?

Why? Gun collecting is a common hubby in the U.S

gandalf

tuxy wrote: »

Why? Gun collecting is a common hubby in the U.S

Apparently gunning down people in cold blood is too :rolleyes:

tuxy

gandalf wrote: »

Apparently gunning down people in cold blood is too :rolleyes:

Very rare for anyone to carry out more than one mass shooting so not really a hobby.

Timberrrrrrrr

tuxy wrote: »

Very rare for anyone to carry out more than one mass shooting so not really a hobby.

Yup, death/jail usually puts an end to those sort if things.

Tony EH

Faugheen wrote: »

I actually have no issue with the second amendment.

However, there is no reason for any ordinary citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon. It's absolutely ridiculous.

You know, a lot of people don't even have a clue that there's a blatant qualifying prefix in the 2nd Amendment and it reads as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sick people with no access to mental health care and all too easy access to firearms are not part of a "well regulated militia".

It's an awful pity there's no one around from 1791 to tell us what they actually bleedin meant. But I can say, for sure, they didn't mean for it to be like this.

Tony EH

gandalf wrote: »

The US is never going to ban guns totally and tbh I wouldn't expect them to.

It's not about that, nor has it EVER been about that.

It's tighter regulations that people want.

gandalf wrote: »

Alot of them live in rural areas where hunting is part of their lives and also where large wild animals co-exist that they have to be able to defend themselves from.

Absolutely nobody needs an AR15 to do that.