Jump to content

Mass Shooting at Walmart in El Paso


BlueJean Baby

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I have already given other European examples as well as Christchurch.

You cited massacres in France and New Zealand as evidence that Norway has inadequate gun laws. Nice one. Great argument! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

You cited massacres in France and New Zealand as evidence that Norway has inadequate gun laws. Nice one. Great argument! :lol:

I cited the massacre in france, as an example to show that anti gun laws don't work. not in norway, not in the USA, not in syria... nowhere.

because no matter how illegal guns are, they can shoot rounds just as well as legal once.

making drugs illegal didn't help stopping drugs very much either. It's a million business.

rape is prohibited. murder is prohibited. everything is prohibited, but it all happens regardless, on a daily basis, everywhere on earth.

that's the argument, not what you make of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, action said:

I cited the massacre in france, as an example to show that anti gun laws don't work. not in norway, not in the USA, not in syria... nowhere.

because no matter how illegal guns are, they can shoot rounds just as well as legal once.

making drugs illegal didn't help stopping drugs very much either. It's a million business.

rape is prohibited. murder is prohibited. everything is prohibited, but it all happens regardless, on a daily basis, everywhere on earth.

that's the argument, not what you make of it. 

What I make of it is that unless a law eradicates a problem, there is no point in having it. Fortunately our law-makers disagree and accept that a reduction in crime is better than nothing. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, action said:

the easier way is not always the most efficient way.

I'm also not agreeing that fixing racism is harder, or reducing the availability of guns is easier. Guns are everywhere, in remote buildings, with extremist groups, criminals etc. Absolutely impossible to remove them all. the internet on the other hand, is a mouse click away.

it is my observation that these types of hate-crime, with online platforms full of racist posts (such as 8chan), online manifests by the murderers, live video feeds, are a phenomenon that was facilitated because of the internet. The internet is a controllable environment, see china and russia that heavily restrict access to the internet. If those countries can do that, how hard can it be to restrict access to these sites?

So more government involvement? 

😂😂😂 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, action said:

I cited the massacre in france, as an example to show that anti gun laws don't work. not in norway, not in the USA, not in syria... nowhere.

because no matter how illegal guns are, they can shoot rounds just as well as legal once.

making drugs illegal didn't help stopping drugs very much either. It's a million business.

rape is prohibited. murder is prohibited. everything is prohibited, but it all happens regardless, on a daily basis, everywhere on earth.

that's the argument, not what you make of it. 

So you think rape and murder should be legalised? 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What I make of it is that unless a law eradicates a problem, there is no point in having it. Fortunately our law-makers disagree and accept that a reduction in crime is better than nothing. 

those law makers, in virtually every country that bans guns, are confronted with gun related crimes, every day.

My country has one of the strictest gun laws you can come up with, but armed crime happens on a daily basis. 

Agreed, massacres dont happen every day, but is that because of strict gun laws or because of other reasons? My country has seen some massacres in the past anyway (belgium).

Ok, norway has only one mass-massacre. But that's not the point. Armed robbery does occur plenty. Other exampled of armed crime happen there too. Just because norway happens to have a smaller population (and a smaller amount of lunatics), does not mean the anti gun laws are effective. it just means there are less lunatics, in a country with far less population than say the USA. the division between poor and rich (a potential recipe for extremist mass murderers) is also different in norway. But armed crime is plenty in norway, just as in every other country you can name.

Focusing on making anti gun laws, really won't make that much of a difference when the CAUSES are not confronted. In that regard, virtually nothing is done

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

So you think rape and murder should be legalised? 

not worthy of a comment this one ;)

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, action said:

those law makers, in virtually every country that bans guns, are confronted with gun related crimes, every day.

My country has one of the strictest gun laws you can come up with, but armed crime happens on a daily basis. 

Agreed, massacres dont happen every day, but is that because of strict gun laws or because of other reasons? My country has seen some massacres in the past anyway (belgium).

Ok, norway has only one mass-massacre. But that's not the point. Armed robbery does occur plenty. Other exampled of armed crime happen there too. Just because norway happens to have a smaller population (and a smaller amount of lunatics), does not mean the anti gun laws are effective. it just means there are less lunatics, in a country with far less population than say the USA. But armed crime is plenty in norway, just as in every other country you can name.

Focusing on making anti gun laws, really won't make that much of a difference when the CAUSES are not confronted. In that regard, virtually nothing is done

What you are saying flies in the face of all data, studies and common sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, action said:

not worthy of a comment this one ;)

Why not? You literally said that the laws make no difference at all so why would you want to burden the police and justice system?

Either the laws make a difference or they don’t. If they do then they’re worth having. If not then why even bother?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Why not? You literally said that the laws make no difference at all so why would you want to burden the police and justice system?

Either the laws make a difference or they don’t. If they do then they’re worth having. If not then why even bother?

the argument in this thread, which has been reinstated plenty by soul, was that making anti gun laws would REDUCE massacres.

that's what I argued against, not that massacres, rape or murder should be legalised 

Rape and murder is prohibited, not to reduce these facts, but more importantly as retribution. prevention is part of it, but you can't prevent rape with laws. you can punish rape, but you can't really prevent it. Rape should very well be punished, and that's why the law forbidding it is needed.

But like anti gun laws, anti drugs laws, any anti whatever law, the law as such does not reduce the facts. If that were the case, those laws would becoming pointless as time goes on, and we could throw the penalty code out of the window! that's obviously not how this works

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, action said:

the argument in this thread, which has been reinstated plenty by soul, was that making anti gun laws would REDUCE massacres.

that's what I argued against, not that massacres, rape or murder should be legalised 

Rape and murder is prohibited, not to reduce these facts, but more importantly as retribution. prevention is part of it, but you can't prevent rape with laws. you can punish rape, but you can't really prevent it. Rape should very well be punished, and that's why the law forbidding it is needed.

But like anti gun laws, anti drugs laws, any anti whatever law, the law as such does not reduce the facts. If that were the case, those laws would becoming pointless as time goes on, and we could throw the penalty code out of the window! that's obviously not how this works

Yeah, I am outta here :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, action said:

the argument in this thread, which has been reinstated plenty by soul, was that making anti gun laws would REDUCE massacres.

that's what I argued against, not that massacres, rape or murder should be legalised 

Rape and murder is prohibited, not to reduce these facts, but more importantly as retribution. prevention is part of it, but you can't prevent rape with laws. you can punish rape, but you can't really prevent it. Rape should very well be punished, and that's why the law forbidding it is needed.

But like anti gun laws, anti drugs laws, any anti whatever law, the law as such does not reduce the facts. If that were the case, those laws would becoming pointless as time goes on, and we could throw the penalty code out of the window! that's obviously not how this works

You argued that it wouldn’t reduce massacres (it would) so there’s no point in doing it. You backed up your argument by saying that rape and murder laws didn’t have any impact on rates of rape and murder. By your rationale laws make no difference to people’s behaviour so there’s no point in having them. 

Edited by Dazey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

You argued that it wouldn’t reduce massacres (it would) so there’s no point in doing it. You backed up your argument by saying that rape and murder laws didn’t have any impact on rates of rape and murder. By your rationale laws make no difference to people’s behaviour so there’s no point in having them. 

then I suggest you read more on the retributive function of penalty

https://www.britannica.com/topic/retributive-justice

crime is of all ages, and has never been totally eradicated. It would be pointless to expect so, and it's not the point of the penalty code. Retribution is the main purpose of the penalty code. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

@DieselDaisy

I still don't get why individuals should feel morally prohibited to discuss issues that their own country struggle with. Could you share some more light on this?

And even more so, why I, living in a country with a gun homicide rate of 0.1. can't "lecture" Americans (who suffer from a rate of 44.5) on gun laws and how to prevent mass murders?

44.5?  You mean 4.6?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

Aaaand another thing! 

@action in the debate when passing anti rape laws back in the day. 

“You can’t take people’s cocks away. Rape will happen whether you like it or not. Why does government have to get involved?” :lol: 

"back in the day", as you call it, rape laws didn't exist and offenders were dealt with in a proper way by society as a whole. Not a single law in sight. you'll find, that criminal law is fairly recent, say of the last 200 years, and prior to that law was of a very different nature.

Today, there are more criminal laws than ever, so according to your logic crime should be reduced, compared to "back in the day". What we find however, is crime is increasing year on year, small exceptions here and there.

so why are there laws? to codify sanctions, which have the purpose of retribution (not reduction) of crimes.

social control is a far better means to prevent crime. Take away the causes of crime, that's also far more efficient.

Edited by action
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, action said:

Today, there are more criminal laws than ever, so according to your logic crime should be reduced, compared to "back in the day". What we find however, is crime is increasing year on year, small exceptions here and there.

Absolutely not.  

Long-term trends show that crime, however you want to define it, has seen drastic reductions. 

FT_19.01.03_CrimeTrends1.png?resize=640,

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 9/11, most Texans I knew figured it would never happen in Texas. Well, it seems that now Texas realizes they are not immune to gun violence. I'm sorry it took this shooting and others in Texas to make a lot of people realize this kind of violence can happen anywhere in the US.

My sympathies go out to the families of these poor victims. I shop in Walmart all the time.

It seems the hatred for different peoples is growing day by day and it scares me so much. Now the government is meeting to decide what to do about gun violence. I hope it's not too late.

Texas loves their guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, downzy said:

Absolutely not.  

Long-term trends show that crime, however you want to define it, has seen drastic reductions. 

FT_19.01.03_CrimeTrends1.png?resize=640,

 

 

with all the mass shootings happening in the USA today, and seeing that statistic one has to wonder how it was in 1993!

also, different numbers for the UK

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/crime-and-defence/crimes-of-the-century/

olympic-crimeanddefence-crime-chart1-sta

it doesn't matter. Statistics don't prove much and can easily be manipulated.

There is one pertinent fact though, and that is that penalty law, codified like we have today, is a fairly recent thing. in the UK, the earliest criminal trials had very little, if any, settled law to apply. It's only since that 18 th century that european countries began to have operating police forces!

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_criminal_law

do not underestimate the power of social control, that was the main prevention against crime. People didn't commit crimes, out of fear of being lynched by the mob (at one point, even out of fear for the church). that was not nice, so in order to stop that happening, the state made criminal laws as if to say: stop lynching people, we'll take over from here

criminal law is a codification, but crime prevention happened for hundreds of years prior, by other means. 

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, America was freed by violence, so I doubt this kind of shit is ever going to stop. Guns are part of the problem, but it's the people who use guns because of their blind hatred that has to be stopped but how? We have to be aware of things and people we know, but sometimes it's not that easy. How can we see the sickness in others and ourselves? Sometimes you just don't know a person or what goes on in their hearts and minds? It's scary but true.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...