Jump to content
BlueJean Baby

Mass Shooting at Walmart in El Paso

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

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!

You could find a similarity here and there but for the most part is like day and night when it comes to third world and first world countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Download said:

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. 

But fortunately abortion is about as much murder as removing a malignant tumor.

Anyway, on-topic: You have already accepted that the second amendment needs clarification so as not to allow any weapon to be legally obtainable, hence the existent of current gun laws and prohibition of things like fully-automatic shotguns ++. What I am saying is that we need to amend these guns laws (you like amendments, don't you?) to make them consistent throughout the USA, to make additional weapons inaccessible, and to make sure that people who are in danger of abusing guns can't have them. You might look at this as a hollowing-out of the law, and yes, it is, but you have already accepted this through the current gun laws. You can't be all "don't touch the constitution!" when you have already accepted the current gun always. If you are going to be a constitution nutter you would have to be in favor of repealing existing gun laws, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

But fortunately abortion is about as much murder as removing a malignant tumor.

And that’s why the Democratic Party always loses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Download said:

And that’s why the Democratic Party always loses.

 

They don't though. They have California, New York, and Illinois on lockdown. And Florida and Texas are purple states that will probably turn blue by 2024 or 2028, all because of demographic changes.

14 hours ago, Padme said:

You could find a similarity here and there but for the most part is like day and night when it comes to third world and first world countries.

There are parts of the US that have more in common with a third world country than a first world one though, that was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

They don't though. They have California, New York, and Illinois on lockdown. And Florida and Texas are purple states that will probably turn blue by 2024 or 2028, all because of demographic changes.

There are parts of the US that have more in common with a third world country than a first world one though, that was my point.

Texas is purple? Texas hasn’t voted for Democratic President since Carter in 1976. 

2019 - 1976 = 43 years. 

Could it eventually go purple? Sure. But it’s not purple yet. 

America was so down with socialism that Obama lost over 1000 seats during his presidency and lost the house and senate 2 yrs after he took the job, but no, they don’t always lose. Please hurry and try implementing it again. It’s obvious that no means yes to Democrats. Dems aren’t even close to taking the senate back, hell they lost more seats in 2018. 

Edited by Download

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

But fortunately abortion is about as much murder as removing a malignant tumor.

 

Leave it to Soul Monster to equate an unborn baby to a malignant tumor.  Do you think that highly of your children?  You know, the ones that used to be pretty much the same thing as a"malignant tumor".  :facepalm:

Edited by Kasanova King
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

On 08/08/2019 at 2:15 PM, SoulMonster said:

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... 

 

No, you can't. Big countries have more heterogenous populations. Southern brazilians are way different from northern ones. It's like having 5 countries within a country (That's why we are, usually, federations).

I never said we banned it. I said we have strict gun laws. For example no semi auto past .30 carbine (which means no AR15 or similar rifles). Gun prices are over the roof) or even 9mm, all those are banned for carry or for non registered civils.

So the laws were badly implanted/ enforced?

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

We're not even close to the top. Most civils here don't know they can buy a legal gun here. Of  course to buy it, you gotta get a permit. It takes close to a year and you gotta show the state you really need it. 

Edited by Chewbacca
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 08/08/2019 at 4:17 PM, 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/ 

And? Those mass shootings still equate for the minority of your gun kills. Also, Bolsonaro advocates for violence? Did you know he was stabbed in the gut by a left wing nutter? He had to serve the first months of his term with a cholostomy. He almost died and now our left wing congress is blocking all investigations on him lile they did with Daniel Dantas back in the early 00's. We're very used to having the left linked to violence, just like the Dayton shooter.

 

My favorite part from the links you sent:

And there’s no global definition of what constitutes a mass shooting.

Edited by Chewbacca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

But fortunately abortion is about as much murder as removing a malignant tumor.

Ok, that's the most horrifying thing I have ever read in this forum. You see, I'm a surgeon. I removed many tumors and I also delivered many babies, I'm usually called for C-sections. I can tell you it is NOT the same thing.

Sadly, pregnancy complications happen and, on an emergency, when we can't have both the mother alive, we must ensure the mother's safety and I had to help abort a fetus. She did jump and tried to defend herself from... me, only calming down after the digoxin kicked in and she died. Seeing that poor creature on the ultrasound... I felt horrible, but at least I knew there's was no other way and we would've 2 deaths if we didn't do it. I would never do it because someone made a bad decision and ended up pregnant and don't want the baby, especially with all the contraceptive methods we have today. For god's sake we are able to save highly premature babies, like 24 weeks sometimes less, and they grow to be healthy kids. I wish I could make you abort a baby to see your "malignant tumor" defending his/ her life. Maybe that would open your eyes and make you understand why what you wrote is just wrong. There are indeed moments when aborting is the only solution, the parents being selfish is not one of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

Leave it to Soul Monster to equate an unborn baby to a malignant tumor.  Do you think that highly of your children? 

No, of course not. They are not fetuses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Ok, that's the most horrifying thing I have ever read in this forum. You see, I'm a surgeon. I removed many tumors and I also delivered many babies, I'm usually called for C-sections. I can tell you it is NOT the same thing.

I never said a fetus is the same thing as a malignant tumor. I compared abortion to the removal of a malignant tumor and said that neither was murder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

No, you can't. Big countries have more heterogenous populations. Southern brazilians are way different from northern ones. It's like having 5 countries within a country (That's why we are, usually, federations).

While that might be a loose trend it is harder to show positive correlation between heterogeneity of population and gun violence. It is also a moot point since you can compare the gun homicide rates of USA to Europe,which I did. 

4 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

I never said we banned it.

Except that you did. 

4 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

So the laws were badly implanted/ enforced? 

Yep, that's what I have read. But I am inclined to trust you over that, it is still a moot point in our discussion on USA and comparable countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I never said a fetus is the same thing as a malignant tumor. I compared abortion to the removal of a malignant tumor and said that neither was murder. 

Abortion is the killing and removal of a living unborn fetus. Unless your definition of abortion has nothing to do with removing the baby, then yes, that's what you did, you compared removing a tumor to removing a fetus and unless you're doing it to save the mother, it is murder.

Edited by Chewbacca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

While that might be a loose trend it is harder to show positive correlation between heterogeneity of population and gun violence. It is also a moot point since you can compare the gun homicide rates of USA to Europe,which I did. 

Except that you did. 

Yep, that's what I have read. But I am inclined to trust you over that, it is still a moot point in our discussion on USA and comparable countries. 

Kasanova also compared gun kill rates. Turns out Norway was up there because of its small population. So did you and I'm telling you your argument is weak because you're basically doing a transversal study? Which is the weakest kind of study on epidemiology. You let out a lot of variables.

Brazil is a comparable country. Therefore your point is moot. Why don't you compare gun crime within USA states/ cities? See for yourself if strong gun laws really make that much difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Abortion is the killing and removal of a living unborn fetus. Unless your definition of abortion has nothing with removing the baby, then yes. That's what you did, you compares removing a tumor to removing a fetus and unless you're doing to save the mother, it is murder

No, removing a fetus is never murder because "murder" is about killing humans. Not unwanted growths. 

3 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Kasanova also compared gun kill rates. Turns out Norway was up there because of its small population. 

Huh? Gun homicide rates are per time per capita, and hence our small population does not matter. And our gun homicide rate is 0.1, 45 times lower than that of USA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up on a farm, I have seen and used a gun. It’s a tool in the wild and protects dopey chickens and vulnerable new born lambs from foxes, stray dogs etc.

But why do you need a tool that can shoot 1000s of rounds of a certain caliber ammunition for reasons way beyond the possible need. 

The gun laws were made during the time of muskets. Not assault rifles. 

But is there a reason why you can’t limit the types and varieties of weapons you can buy as an individual?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Brazil is a comparable country. 

I mean, sure, USA is a mess but I don't think it makes sense at all to compare it to Brazil when discussing gun violence. It has much more in common with Europe in terms of recent history, economics, demography, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Why don't you compare gun crime within USA states/ cities? See for yourself if strong gun laws really make that much difference.

There have been many examples in this thread of comparing gun homicide rates of USA with comparable countries, like European countries and Australia and New Zealand. 

And the conclusion is that reducing access to guns is positively correlated to a decrease in gun homicides. It is also, like, common sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

No, removing a fetus is never murder because "murder" is about killing humans. Not unwanted growths. 

A fetus is a human, ffs. We deliver these fetuses as early as 24 weeks and they live, just like any human. Who are you to tell what is a human or not? Specially someone clearly uneducated on the matter?

28 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There have been many examples in this thread of comparing gun homicide rates of USA with comparable countries, like European countries and Australia and New Zealand. 

And the conclusion is that reducing access to guns is positively correlated to a decrease in gun homicides. It is also, like, common sense. 

Ok. Show me the studies. Real studies, not some random stuff you googled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

A fetus is a human, ffs. We deliver these fetuses as early as 24 weeks and they live, just like any human. Who are you to tell what is a human or not? Specially someone clearly uneducated on the matter?

Pretty sure he literally has a PhD in the matter. :shrugs: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

And? Those mass shootings still equate for the minority of your gun kills. Also, Bolsonaro advocates for violence? Did you know he was stabbed in the gut by a left wing nutter? He had to serve the first months of his term with a cholostomy. He almost died and now our left wing congress is blocking all investigations on him lile they did with Daniel Dantas back in the early 00's. We're very used to having the left linked to violence, just like the Dayton shooter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 

Youve assumed that if I posted it then you have to disagree with it. I simply provided facts and figures about gun violence in Brazil. This actually is aligned with your earlier points :facepalm::lol::lol:

Yes of course he promotes violence. I only spoke to his loosening of gun laws though... so... :question:

11 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

My favorite part from the links you sent:

And there’s no global definition of what constitutes a mass shooting.

Okay... Im glad that you found this fact more interesting then the other facts :question::question:

Edited by soon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×