Jump to content

Mass Shooting at Walmart in El Paso


BlueJean Baby

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

I give up

Jesus christ i give up. Get a fucking tank then if your that scared. Put a nuclear warhead on everyone's porch. Until the criminals get one and round and round we go. 

Scared of what? I don't even live in the US. In fact, I live in a country with a much worse gun crime background:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

And I'm saying they will resort to illegal ones once legals are banned. Just like drugs, they will manage to get one. Heck, there's no stopping a lunatic from attempting a murder. If he/ she wants they'll find a way, like running people over with a truck/ car.

You're right there is no way of stopping a lunatic commuting a murder. It's been that way for thousands of years. It is possible to restrict the firepower available to them though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

I give up

Jesus christ i give up. Get a fucking tank then if your that scared. Put a nuclear warhead on everyone's porch. Until the criminals get one and round and round we go. 

You’ve convinced me. . . 

So if I give up my weapons all I have to do to protect my family is call someone else? 

The authorities I bet, the ones we’ve sworn will protect us. 

All I have to do is wait 30 minutes for them to get here... 

 

 

Cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

You're right there is no way of stopping a lunatic commuting a murder. It's been that way for thousands of years. It is possible to restrict the firepower available to them though.

Restrict? There's no restriction for ilegal guns.

Here it is again:

This is a Brazilian dude in a favela (slum) with a .50BMG barret and sometimes we get to see them using grenade launchers and other explosives. You can't restrict the black market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Download said:

You’ve convinced me. . . 

So if I give up my weapons all I have to do to protect my family is call someone else? 

The authorities I bet, the ones we’ve sworn will protect us. 

All I have to do is wait 30 minutes for them to get here... 

 

 

Cool. 

Don't argue with me. Tell it to the family of the person who went to Wal-Mart to pick up some clothes for the summer and got a bullet through the neck. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past 48 hours, the US has lost 34 people to mass shootings 

on average every 48 hours we lose 

500 to medical errors 

300 to the flu 

250 to suicide

200 to car accidents 

40 to homicide by hand gun 

 

tell me... do we respond emotionally more to spectacle or data? 

Curious minds would like to know. . .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

How is it backward if we have restrictive gun laws?

Don't ask me. I'm an outsider I can't fix your country problems I can only give my thoughts as a fellow human being who doesn't like seeing innocent people get killed. And my thoughts right now is that if you have people tossing hand grenades around you live in a Pretty. Shitty. City.

Edited by spunko12345
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

Don't ask me. I'm an outsider I can't fix your country problems I can only give my thoughts as a fellow human being who doesn't lime seeing innocent people get killed. And my thoughts right now is that if you have people tossing hand grenades around you live in a pretty shitty city.

I'm not asking you to fix my country. I'm asking why you think we are "backward" if we have restrictive gun laws, something you want for your country. You want to be "backward" too?

Yes, I live in a shit hole. I'm well aware of that. We're trying to change it by voting for people that want reduce goverment size (which is why a big country, full of resources like Brazil is still a shit hole). Boy... Lula sure fucked up this country.

Edited by Chewbacca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

One for Brazil? Lol. Obviously whoever made this had a very curious  definition of mass shooting.

The term mass shooting in this case was defined as more than 4 fatalities in one shooting spree, not one on one murder or gang shootings (obviously the numbers would be higher in all countries) 

So mass shootings are way way higher in America than any other country. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Download said:

In the past 48 hours, the US has lost 34 people to mass shootings 

on average every 48 hours we lose 

500 to medical errors 

300 to the flu 

250 to suicide

200 to car accidents 

40 to homicide by hand gun 

 

tell me... do we respond emotionally more to spectacle or data? 

Curious minds would like to know. . .  

What an odd thing to post (or for Neil De Grasse Tyson to post) is it that hard to understand the human reaction to mass slaughter of innocent people?  

The medical errors stat (just to pick one) is completely useless by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

 

Yes, I live in a shit hole. I'm well aware of that. We're trying to change it by voting for people that want reduce goverment size (which is why a big country, full of resources like Brazil is still a shit hole). Boy... Lula sure fucked up this country.

Yeah, there’s still some of us fighting for that in America as well 👍

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, janrichmond said:

The term mass shooting in this case was defined as more than 4 fatalities in one shooting spree, not one on one murder or gang shootings (obviously the numbers would be higher in all countries) 

So mass shootings are way way higher in America than any other country. 

Just 4? Then we had more than one. Well, it matters not. In the end of the day we still have a way higher killcount. Sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spunko12345 said:

What an odd thing to post (or for Neil De Grasse Tyson to post) is it that hard to understand the human reaction to mass slaughter of innocent people?  

The medical errors stat (just to pick one) is completely useless by the way.

Well at least you admit your responses are based on emotion instead of data. 

-Thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Download said:

In the past 48 hours, the US has lost 34 people to mass shootings 

on average every 48 hours we lose 

500 to medical errors 

300 to the flu 

250 to suicide

200 to car accidents 

40 to homicide by hand gun 

 

tell me... do we respond emotionally more to spectacle or data? 

Curious minds would like to know. . .  

How many of the 200 car accidents are from distracted drivers texting?  Lets start banning cell phones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, spunko12345 said:

I give up

Jesus christ i give up. Get a fucking tank then if your that scared. Put a nuclear warhead on everyone's porch. Until the criminals get one and round and round we go. 

Sorry if I sound cynical here, because I'd love to believe that change was possible, but having seen this argument go round and round and round and round here for years while more and more innocent people die, I've come to the conclusion that it's virtually impossible to get lots of Americans to conceive that a society where the vast majority of people do not have guns is a society without gun violence. 

In Scotland we had one gun massacre in history, after which, we enforced a ban and it's never happened again. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It’s not because of mental health. It’s because those who suffer from mental health challenges have easy access to firearms in the United States.

It’s not because too many today subscribe to platforms of hate. It’s because those who espouse hate have easy access to firearms in the United States.

It’s not because youth are exposed to violent video games. It’s because youth who are exposed to violent video games have easy access to firearms in the United States."

Surely this could not have been the society contemplated by our Founders when they authored the Second Amendment — a sentence so tortured in its modern interpretation that little consensus exists among scholars some 230 years later."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/04/dayton-el-paso-shooting-guns-too-easy-to-get-ex-republican-column/1914695001/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, downzy said:

"It’s not because of mental health. It’s because those who suffer from mental health challenges have easy access to firearms in the United States.

It’s not because too many today subscribe to platforms of hate. It’s because those who espouse hate have easy access to firearms in the United States.

It’s not because youth are exposed to violent video games. It’s because youth who are exposed to violent video games have easy access to firearms in the United States."

Surely this could not have been the society contemplated by our Founders when they authored the Second Amendment — a sentence so tortured in its modern interpretation that little consensus exists among scholars some 230 years later."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/04/dayton-el-paso-shooting-guns-too-easy-to-get-ex-republican-column/1914695001/

Well true, but they also didn't imagine private companies like twitter, facebook, and google being platforms where huge amounts of people spoke to eachother and becoming the new public square. But whenever I talk about forcing these companies to respect speech I get libertarian type arguments about muh constitution and muh precedents. Not so much on guns though.

Back to guns though. Access to guns has always been pretty easy in this country compared to the rest of the world. Need I remind people that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a rifle through the mail for less than $20 in 1963. Something has gone seriously wrong in this society with the amount of mass shootings now as compared to then. That's something significant and worth discussing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Download said:

In the past 48 hours, the US has lost 34 people to mass shootings 

on average every 48 hours we lose 

500 to medical errors 

300 to the flu 

250 to suicide

200 to car accidents 

40 to homicide by hand gun 

 

tell me... do we respond emotionally more to spectacle or data? 

Curious minds would like to know. . .  

Neil Degrasse Tyson wants to know also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Well true, but they also didn't imagine private companies like twitter, facebook, and google being platforms where huge amounts of people spoke to eachother and becoming the new public square. But whenever I talk about forcing these companies to respect speech I get libertarian type arguments about muh constitution and muh precedents. Not so much on guns though.

Back to guns though. Access to guns has always been pretty easy in this country compared to the rest of the world. Need I remind people that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a rifle through the mail for less than $20 in 1963. Something has gone seriously wrong in this society with the amount of mass shootings now as compared to then. That's something significant and worth discussing.

Every other developed nation has access to these platforms.  And yet, no mass shootings comparable to what we see in the U.S.  So no, the problem isn't freedom of speech and online social platforms per se.

Again, the problem is, for the most part, the easy access to guns.

Let's look at it in terms of the path of least resistance.

Sure, mental health care is an issue.  But is the United States actually going to devote the attention and resources to address the matter in any real way?  No.  It's far too big and complex of an issue, particularly with the fact that 40-50 percent of the country wants government to shrink and do less.  

Every other developed nation has taken the path of least resistance on this matter: make it harder and raise the threshold for gun usage and ownership.  It doesn't solve all problems.  But it has proven to be the reason why gun-related deaths are statistically far less of an issue in every other developed nation.  Gun-related violence in the U.S. is a matter of gun-related policy.  Full stop.  I don't disagree that social isolation and online platforms further radicalized individuals, but the license and ability to inflict harm in a given society is linked to that person's ability to obtain guns.  Why not pick the low hanging fruit first with respect to gun violence and deal with gun-policy?  Then proceed to the harder stuff like mental health and online-radicalization on various online social platforms (looking at you 8chan).  

  • Like 1
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...