Mass Shooting at Walmart in El Paso

[Padme]

1 hour ago, action said:

- then lawmakers should start working, and change the 1st amendment

That has been done long ago. It is call FCC. There are words you can't say on radio and T.V. And you can't see body parts on T.V. because they got blured. You can't print lies in a newspaper because you might get in legal trouble. You can't shout "FIRE" in a theater when there is no such a thing going on. And then claim 1st Amendment rights. It doesn't work like that.

[action]

22 minutes ago, Padme said:

That has been done long ago. It is call FCC. There are words you can't say on radio and T.V. And you can't see body parts on T.V. because they got blured. You can't print lies in a newspaper because you might get in legal trouble. You can't shout "FIRE" in a theater when there is no such a thing going on. And then claim 1st Amendment rights. It doesn't work like that.

Thanks. Considering this, I don't see that big of a problem with  what I'm proposing (shutting down extremist websites). It shouldn't be too much conflicting with the 1st amendment. You could add a minor addition to make it perfectly legal. If lies in newspapers aren't allowed, then there should be no problem with disallowing dangerous extremism on the internet.

[Padme]

2 minutes ago, action said:

Thanks. Considering this, I don't see that big of a problem with  what I'm proposing (shutting down extremist websites). It shouldn't be too much conflicting with the 1st amendment. You could add a minor addition to make it perfectly legal. If lies in newspapers aren't allowed, then there should be no problem with disallowing dangerous extremism on the internet.

 Extremist or not we're talking political ideology. Many people in different parts of the world are sent to jail because of political opinions and ideology. You should be free to express your political ideas no matter how horrific and dangerous they might be. I think those website should be under surveillance. The F.B.I. has the authority to do that. 

[action]

5 minutes ago, Padme said:

 Extremist or not we're talking political ideology. Many people in different parts of the world are sent to jail because of political opinions and ideology. You should be free to express your political ideas no matter how horrific and dangerous they might be. I think those website should be under surveillance. The F.B.I. has the authority to do that. 

I like to keep making snow analogies for some strange reason. So here is another one. I'm not saying that you should forbid ski resorts because of the danger of avalanches. Likewise, you should not shut down all access to the internet. Only the dangerous posts / websites (if it is clear they are breeding nests of terrorists). Just because it is snowing (people talking about politics) does not mean there is a threat to an avalanche (people talking about how they are going to commit an attack).

Like you pertinently suggested: these sites should be put under surveilance, and when dangerous posts are detected (signs for an avalanche), then these posts should be removed immediately, and the posters identified and prosecuted. But as it stands, and from what I gathered in the media, apparently there were certain websites where people could go on posting hateful speech, unhindered. 

[soon]

Where I live the gov hired a private tech firm to use AI to screen social media and highlight behaviours that could indicate that someone is at risk of suicide. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/feds-to-search-social-media-using-ai-to-find-patterns-of-suicide-related-behaviour-1.4467167

I would anticipate that AI would be used to predict mass shooters as well.

How do people feel about predictive policing algorithms?

[Download]

2 hours ago, action said:

- then lawmakers should start working, and change the 1st amendment

Good god what a ridiculous statement to make. 

 

People like you are are why Trump won and will win again. 

You may score points with antifa with asinine comments like that but anyone with an IQ above room temperature would prefer if you just stepped away from your keyboard and took a walk in the ocean.

[SoulMonster]

18 minutes ago, soon said:

How do people feel about predictive policing algorithms?

I suppose extremists will retreat to places where they could hang out without being surveilled. Like areas of the dark web, closed groups on Facebook, etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with such surveiilance per se, I just don't think it would help much.

[action]

19 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I suppose extremists will retreat to places where they could hang out without being surveilled. Like areas of the dark web, closed groups on Facebook, etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with such surveiilance per se, I just don't think it would help much.

...yet you advocate to make guns illegal. But I make the same objection as you do: that people will find guns anyway, in the back ally.

Nonetheless, I agree with your observation in principle. yes, on difficult to find places like the dark web people will continue to make these kinds of posts. But it won't be as readily available as it is now. So the measure will help to reduce massacres.

... wait a minute, I guess I'm starting to agree with you about gun bans after all 

[soon]

22 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I suppose extremists will retreat to places where they could hang out without being surveilled. Like areas of the dark web, closed groups on Facebook, etc. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with such surveiilance per se, I just don't think it would help much.

I would think law enforcement could get to a closed FB group, but I take your point. I think dark web stuff is what they call 'signals intelligence' ? When they can monitor that messages are happening but cant always know the content or origin, but its still somewhat useful info gathered. Not sure about any of it though. At least in movies they say about imminent terror attacks that "theres been lots of chatter coming out of that region." 

I also wonder how AI reacts when its told that it will go on socials and find extremists about to commit mass murder, but then the AI doesnt find any because the potential offenders are in the dark web? Would the AI just say "all clear" or would it suffer mission drift and, since it was told it would find something, it would make a bigger deal about lesser flags?

However, I think extremist idiot shooters will always post on the public web because they want the attention. 

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, action said:

...yet you advocate to make guns illegal. 

Not really. I have been pretty vague on how the gun laws should be fixed, but never advocating banning them altogether. 

[-W.A.R-]

1 hour ago, Padme said:

I think those website should be under surveillance.

I'm sure they already are.

[Padme]

1 hour ago, action said:

I like to keep making snow analogies for some strange reason. So here is another one. I'm not saying that you should forbid ski resorts because of the danger of avalanches. Likewise, you should not shut down all access to the internet. Only the dangerous posts / websites (if it is clear they are breeding nests of terrorists). Just because it is snowing (people talking about politics) does not mean there is a threat to an avalanche (people talking about how they are going to commit an attack).

Like you pertinently suggested: these sites should be put under surveilance, and when dangerous posts are detected (signs for an avalanche), then these posts should be removed immediately, and the posters identified and prosecuted. But as it stands, and from what I gathered in the media, apparently there were certain websites where people could go on posting hateful speech, unhindered. 

You can't prosecute anyone who has done nothing yet. Posting in a website "I'm going to kill immigrants" It's just a threat, a declaration of intentions. I'm not sure it can be called attempt of murder. Of course police and the F.B.I. must take that threat very seriouslly. And they should follow that guy moves 24/7. Beyond that I don't know what else can be done against that person. A search warrant maybe.

33 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

I'm sure they already are.

Yes, but I wonder if they should infiltrate groups, not only on their website. But also attending meetings and all the activites those groups might organize.

[action]

3 minutes ago, Padme said:

You can't prosecute anyone who has done nothing yet. Posting in a website "I'm going to kill immigrants" It's just a threat, a declaration of intentions. I'm not sure it can be called attempt of murder. Of course police and the F.B.I. must take that threat very seriouslly. And they should follow that guy moves 24/7. Beyond that I don't know what else can be done against that person. A search warrant maybe.

Yes, but I wonder if they should infiltrate groups, not only on their website. But also attending meetings and all the activites those groups might organize.

where I live, written threats are incriminable, in and of itself.

threatening with a terrorist attack is an aggravating factor.

I see no problem with that personally. Threats can and should be prosecuted, for obvious reasons

[Chewbacca]

Kasanova King made some of the best remarks TBH. You can't really compare a continent sized country like the US to the tiny european ones, some of which are smaller than a brazilian state.

Also, soulmonster, gun ban did NOT work everywhere else. It didn't work on Brazil, Venezuela... well most of south america quite frankly. 

 

I think you guys should travel more...

Edited August 8, 2019 by Chewbacca

[Download]

54 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Kasanova King made some of the best remarks TBH. You can't really compare a continent sized country like the US to the tiny european ones, some of which are smaller than a brazilian state.

Also, soulmonster, gun ban did NOT work everywhere else. It didn't work on Brazil, Venezuela... well most of south america quite frankly. 

 

I think you guys should travel more...

I don’t know @Chewbacca but you’re one of my favorite people 

 

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

Kasanova King made some of the best remarks TBH. You can't really compare a continent sized country like the US to the tiny european ones, some of which are smaller than a brazilian state.

Also, soulmonster, gun ban did NOT work everywhere else. It didn't work on Brazil, Venezuela... well most of south america quite frankly. 

I think you guys should travel more...

Of course you can compare differently-sized countries when you are talking about gun homicide rates (which I have been doing), where you look at the number of deaths per capita. Also if you look at the absolute number of mass murders, and compare USA with, say, Europe, you will see that there is vastly more of them in the US.

As far as I know, Brazil has never banned guns. They did pass some laws trying to reduce firearms some years ago, but which were badly executed and enforced. Anyway, the crime rate has increased in Brazil but you can't say it wouldn't have increased more if more guns were available. Still, in this discussion I have tried to make a note of always comparing USA to similar countries where the dynamics of black market and smuggling is likely to be comparable.

Travel more? Really? I travel enough as it is... 

[Padme]

2 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Kasanova King made some of the best remarks TBH. You can't really compare a continent sized country like the US to the tiny european ones, some of which are smaller than a brazilian state.

Also, soulmonster, gun ban did NOT work everywhere else. It didn't work on Brazil, Venezuela... well most of south america quite frankly. 

 

I think you guys should travel more...

I wouldn't compare with South America. Most of the countries there are run by drug cartels. I mean political leaders, police, judges make deals with the cartels. There is a lot of anarchy and corrupted officials there. Besides the level of povertry is a lot bigger compare to the U.S., Canda, Australia and Europe.  If you've been in several South American countries you should know this.

So it is not surprised that the level of crime is extremely high

 

[soon]

Brazil has a gun problem and in cases there are mass shootings the way we identify the US ones. But they also have a lot of shootings that fit the "4 shot" standard but they are not carried out by lone disgruntled gunmen, but rather are gang violence. So a tightening of definitions is needed. Is the US tally of Mass Shootings also including gang violence? Because I think for many of us it means "lone gunman on a random rampage?"

***********************

 It does not help that Bolsanaro loosened sensible gun laws when he took power.

"Bolsonaro, a longtime gun rights advocate, became known during the presidential campaign last year for posing with his fingers in the shape of a pistol. Since suffering a stabbing attack on the campaign trail, the former Army captain says he sleeps with a gun under his pillow — now in the presidential palace.

The 2003 law requires citizens who wanted to purchase a gun to prove that they needed it — and to get the police to agree.

During Bolsonaro’s first month in office, he signed a decree that limited the cases in which police could reject their applications."

https://www.massshootingnews.com/2019/03/25/in-brazil-a-rare-school-shooting-fuels-a-familiar-debate-over-guns/

***********************

Politifact unpacked the various ways to tally mass shootings and concludes that (in reference to the viral tweet stating Brazil had 1 mass shooting): 

"There are several problems assessing the accuracy of this claim. The tally Edwards cited includes incidents in which no one died, which stands in sharp contrast to the many deaths in El Paso and Dayton. It includes many situations, such as gang conflict and family killings that have no similarity to a lone gunman opening fire. And there’s no global definition of what constitutes a mass shooting.

Broadly, the data support the idea that the type of killings in El Paso and Dayton occur more frequently in the United States."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/aug/05/viral-tweet-about-mass-shootings-country-it-needs-/

************************

And as the politifact sheet explains the terminology of what constitutes a "mass shooting" is different in different places or orgs. This wiki uses the term "massacre" in referencing Brazils muttilple death rampages. With only one event listed that would align with the USA definition for Mass Shooting in modern USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Brazil

But of course there are others mass shootings including Sao Paulo School Shooting, Rio De Janeiro School shooting and the Rio Cathedral shooting https://globalnews.ca/tag/brazil-mass-shooting/ 

Edited August 8, 2019 by soon

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

the killer's mom called the Allen police a few weeks before her son did this mass killing. She told them her son has an AK 47, but never gave his or her name. Couldn't they trace it? And why would anyone own this kind of weapon? All I know is whenever I call the police or animal control for any reason, they always ask my name and where I live. What the hell was the dispatch person in Allen thinking?

I think all those kinds of guns should be out lawed and not sold to regular people. Why would you want an automatic weapon?  You don't use it for hunting except when you want to hunt and kill people. 

I don't give a damn what the Constitution says about the right to bear arms. That was a very long time ago and America was fighting for their freedom. Everyone had guns back then for their protection. 

These are different times and I'm sure the President can change that one clause. Our fore fathers would be so ashamed of what America has become.

12 minutes ago, soon said:

Brazil has a gun problem and in cases there are mass shootings the way we identify the US ones. But they also have a lot of shootings that fit the "4 shot" standard but they are not carried out by lone disgruntled gunmen, but rather are gang violence. So a tightening of definitions is needed. Is the US tally of Mass Shootings also including gang violence? Because I think for many of us it means "lone gunman on a random rampage?"

***********************

 It does not help that Bolsanaro loosened sensible gun laws when he took power.

"Bolsonaro, a longtime gun rights advocate, became known during the presidential campaign last year for posing with his fingers in the shape of a pistol. Since suffering a stabbing attack on the campaign trail, the former Army captain says he sleeps with a gun under his pillow — now in the presidential palace.

The 2003 law requires citizens who wanted to purchase a gun to prove that they needed it — and to get the police to agree.

During Bolsonaro’s first month in office, he signed a decree that limited the cases in which police could reject their applications."

https://www.massshootingnews.com/2019/03/25/in-brazil-a-rare-school-shooting-fuels-a-familiar-debate-over-guns/

***********************

Politifact unpacked the various ways to tally mass shootings and concludes that (in reference to the viral tweet stating Brazil had 1 mass shooting): 

"There are several problems assessing the accuracy of this claim. The tally Edwards cited includes incidents in which no one died, which stands in sharp contrast to the many deaths in El Paso and Dayton. It includes many situations, such as gang conflict and family killings that have no similarity to a lone gunman opening fire. And there’s no global definition of what constitutes a mass shooting.

Broadly, the data support the idea that the type of killings in El Paso and Dayton occur more frequently in the United States."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/aug/05/viral-tweet-about-mass-shootings-country-it-needs-/

************************

And as the politifact sheet explains the terminology of what constitutes a "mass shooting" is different in different places or orgs. This wiki uses the term "massacre" in referencing Brazils muttilple death rampages. With only one event listed that would align with the USA definition for Mass Shooting in modern USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Brazil

But of course there are others mass shootings including Sao Paulo School Shooting, Rio De Janeiro School shooting and the Rio Cathedral shooting https://globalnews.ca/tag/brazil-mass-shooting/ 

Never thought I'd live to see the day that the whole world is saying to their citizens, not to go to the US for fear of all the gun violence. How terrible is this?

[Download]

Want to stop drunk drivers from killing sober drivers? Just ban sober drivers from driving. That’s how gun control works. 

[Dazey]

56 minutes ago, Download said:

Want to stop drunk drivers from killing sober drivers? Just ban sober drivers from driving. That’s how gun control works. 

Want to talk bollocks? Just talk bollocks because you’re talking bollocks and that’s how talking bollocks works. Bollocks! 

[SoulMonster]

31 minutes ago, Download said:

Want to stop drunk drivers from killing sober drivers? Just ban sober drivers from driving. That’s how gun control works. 

Yes, of course gun laws hurt those who would never do anything wrong with their guns. Just like speed limits are a nuisance to all those who can drive fast yet not get in an accident. And like making metal searching illegal frustrates all those who would send in their protected finds. And like limitations on sale of alcohol is a bother to all those who wouldn't drink too much even if there were no limitations. 

My point is that we have many laws that limit the possibilities of those who wouldn't do anything wrong in the case of the laws not being there. But in society, many laws aren't designed for everybody, but for the few who wouldn't otherwise do the right thing. 

So gun restrictions aren't meant to take the guns away from responsible people who would never do anything wrong with them, but for those who would, and the rest is collateral. What can I say, welcome to society? It's a social thing. 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

2 hours ago, Padme said:

I wouldn't compare with South America. Most of the countries there are run by drug cartels. I mean political leaders, police, judges make deals with the cartels. There is a lot of anarchy and corrupted officials there. Besides the level of povertry is a lot bigger compare to the U.S., Canda, Australia and Europe.  If you've been in several South American countries you should know this.

So it is not surprised that the level of crime is extremely high

 

Wait, we can't compare South America to the US, but we can compare the US to Western Europe? The US has the world's largest economy, but it has huge pockets that literally look like a third world country and have similar crime rates. This would be like comparing Salt Lake City to the south side of Chicago, technically the same country, but it wouldn't look like it from looking at both!

[Download]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What can I say, welcome to society? It's a social thing. 

😂😂😂

Will that be your slogan? 

So just ignore the constitution and my constitutional rights because... what can I say, welcome to society? It’s a social thing. 

😂😂😂

and some/most of you despise Trump and call him an authoritarian.. but you guys aren’t, see, what can I say, welcome to society? It’s a social thing. 

 

Sorry, you can’t have abortions anymore because you’re actually committing murder and we don’t allow murder to happen. Sorry but there’s going to be collateral damage and the women that need them will just not be allowed. What can I say, welcome to society? It’s a social thing. 

 

You know what? I kinda like it. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Download

[SoulMonster]

5 hours ago, Download said:

So just ignore the constitution and my constitutional rights because... what can I say, welcome to society? It’s a social thing. 

My point is that the second amendment, the right to keep arms, has already been significantly watered-down through gun laws that definer what type of arms you can have and who can buy them -- without people going all crazy about that and screaming that it is a violation of their constitutional rights -- and what I am proposing is simply a continuation of this by adding more guns to List III (or whatever the list is called with "illegal" guns), like, say, semi-automatic guns and guns with large magazines. Secondly, harmonizing guns laws across the US states would also not be a violation of the second amendment. Nor would increased efforts to prevent unstable people getting their hands on weapons. Or having a limit on how many guns one may own.

So no, you are wrong. What I propose wouldn't be more of a violation of the second amendment than what you have already accepted through your existing gun laws. Unless you take the second amendment so literally you want to remove gun laws entirely and allow people to own weapons of mass destruction, bazookas, fully-automatic assault weapons, etc. It really depends on your level of craziness.

But for the sake of the argument, let's say we want to go further and make so many guns illegal the second amendment is basically pointless, or even desire to take away your right to bear arms in entirety, then that wouldn't be a problem, would it? I mean, it is not like your constitution is "holy" or something, is it? It was written by men not expecting the situation in today's USA, surely we can accept they got it wrong, or that this amendment shouldn't be perpetual, and that the constitution need a slight revision? Just amend it like you have done before.

And yes, many on the far-right seems to have a problem accepting the social responsibility of living in our types of democracies. It's "me, me, me, ME!" and "I want to have guns so fuck everybody else!" It is a bit immature and selfish.