Mass Shooting at Walmart in El Paso

[Len Cnut]

I love how guns are a massive issue when its little goofy white kids shooting up malls and all that but when gun violence was crazy in NYC and places on the west coast or detroit its like 'ahhh those are negroes, thats to be expected'. 

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Great point! That's an argument I've made many times on this topic. If you think about the average mass shooter they tend to fit a certain profile. One that is shall we say a little on the socially awkward side?

For instance if legal guns weren't freely and easily available where do you think this fucker is going to get his hands on one?

If I remember correctly, Anders Behring Breivik tried to get weapons on the black market, both in Norway and abroad, but failed. So he ended up going with legally acquired guns.

[action]

28 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

It's that way around when talking about what you're talking about in your specific example, sure. I understand the extremely basic(but still important, yes) point of human decency and a general respect to people.

Based on your recent cattiness towards me the problem is you seem to think you're entitled to say anything and if I ridicule or defy what you've said; I must be trying to chip away at the core of your being partly due to lacking a fundamental general respect for people, when that's obviously not the case. In fact it's rather condescending and stupid ergo not worthy of respect.

 

Guess I'm not worthy of respect then. Since I'm not one to judge, peace to you.

[Nicklord]

4 hours ago, lame ass security said:

Thanks for posting this, very informative facts.

Ugh. I'm on the phone. Can't figure out how to quote the original.

But it's not easy to compare just like that. For example I know for Serbia cause I lived there 25+ years. Small country 7.5m citizens. There were 3 mass shootings in the last 20 years but all 3 of them were big ones cause all 3 of them were in villages where the victims were family and neighbors and the police isn't close. We didn't have a single one where a dude just decided to go and kill random people. I'm not saying that's necessarily better, I want to say those things need a lot of context. Numbers aren't everything

[Ace Nova]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

If I remember correctly, Anders Behring Breivik tried to get weapons on the black market, both in Norway and abroad, but failed. So he ended up going with legally acquired guns.

Statistically, you have a better chance of dying from a mass shooting in Norway than in the U.S.  Darn backwards country that Norway is.  

Edited August 6, 2019 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

I think the attention to mental health is a red herring in this discussion. Although psychotic people can commit violent acts, the majority of these recent mass murderers don't seem to be psychotic or suffer from any clear psychological diagnosis. Breivik was not considered mentally ill, at least not to the extent that he couldn't be criminally judged. He was a lonely, estranged, marginalized, loser who was looking for someone to blame for his failures. And he believed that he and his "race" was about to be replaced by others, by foreigners. This seems to be a quite common thread among these recent mass murderers. They believe in the conspiracy theory of The Great Replacement. That their own homeland is about to be taken over by another people, and that it is being done under the acceptance, or even order, of the elite in their own land. Breivik, who feared the imminent Eurabia, hence decided to send a signal by killing as many youth politicians as he could in Norway's Labour Party, who he judged to have been responsible for accepting immigration of muslims to Norway.

So if people want to argue that guns isn't the issue, then they have to support an increased fight against extreme ideologies that are hateful towards others, that want to preserve racial purity, that want to separate people into groups. I would say, let's do both! Focusing on mental heat seems much like a digression. A side-tracking.

And anyone noticed that Trump in one breath can deny that available guns is the issue and instead focus on insanity, while in his next breath can argue that quick death penalties should be served for these mass murderers? You either accept they are mentally ill and thus not eligible to legal repercussions, or you don't. You can't have it both ways, Mr. President. So Trump manages to be servile to two of his voter groups at the same time, those that fight against stricter gun control, but also those who generally want harsher penalties, without either notices the impossibility of carrying out his entire message.

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Statistically, you have a better chance of dying from a mass shooting in Norway than in the U.S.  Darn backwards country that Norway is.  

I suppose Norwegian mass murderers are simply better at shooting than your mass murderers, then.

But seriously, it depends on the demarcation of the data. If you look at this, year, nope. If you look at las year, nope. If you look at the last 5 years, nope. If you look at the last 10 years, maybe. If you look at the last 20 years, nope. And so on. By cherry-picking such things you can always get the answer you are looking for. We've had one mass murder, a huge one, so if you just make sure that is within the data set you can always conclude that Norway is worse off. But that is a gross misrepresentation of the data, and a failure at statistics. There is no trend of mass murder in Norway, like it is in the USA. There is not a situation where mass murders get more and more frequent, like you have in the US. 

Besides, in this discussion where we talk about whether USA should have stricter gun laws, then the only thing that matters is the total amount of gun violence per capita in recent years. Fact is that more than 30,000 die each year from gun violence in your country, and that amounts to 20-25 times higher risk of death by gun in the USA than in comparable countries. And no, Brazil isn't a comparable country. Or maybe it is? Both Brazil and USA seems to have barely intact democratic institutions, a flawed democracy, a militarized police, and a President who leans towards fascism. Still, one would like to think USA aspires to more than what it has become.

Edited August 6, 2019 by SoulMonster

[Padme]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

I love how guns are a massive issue when its little goofy white kids shooting up malls and all that but when gun violence was crazy in NYC and places on the west coast or detroit its like 'ahhh those are negroes, thats to be expected'. 

When it comes to a crime you need motive, opportunity and MEANS. Well the gun is one of the many means anyone needs to commit a crime. So guns are part of the debate.  Even your own hands could be a mean if you strangle someone. But you only have two hands. You can't kill 20 people at the same time using only your two hands

[Dazey]

21 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think the attention to mental health is a red herring in this discussion. Although psychotic people can commit violent acts, the majority of these recent mass murderers don't seem to be psychotic or suffer from any clear psychological diagnosis. Breivik was not considered mentally ill, at least not to the extent that he couldn't be criminally judged. He was a lonely, estranged, marginalized, loser who was looking for someone to blame for his failures. And he believed that he and his "race" was about to be replaced by others, by foreigners. This seems to be a quite common thread among these recent mass murderers. They believe in the conspiracy theory of The Great Replacement. That their own homeland is about to be taken over by another people, and that it is being done under the acceptance, or even order, of the elite in their own land. Breivik, who feared the imminent Eurabia, hence decided to send a signal by killing as many youth politicians as he could in Norway's Labour Party, who he judged to have been responsible for accepting immigration of muslims to Norway.

So if people want to argue that guns isn't the issue, then they have to support an increased fight against extreme ideologies that are hateful towards others, that want to preserve racial purity, that want to separate people into groups. I would say, let's do both! Focusing on mental heat seems much like a digression. A side-tracking.

And anyone noticed that Trump in one breath can deny that available guns is the issue and instead focus on insanity, while in his next breath can argue that quick death penalties should be served for these mass murderers? You either accept they are mentally ill and thus not eligible to legal repercussions, or you don't. You can't have it both ways, Mr. President. So Trump manages to be servile to two of his voter groups at the same time, those that fight against stricter gun control, but also those who generally want harsher penalties, without either notices the impossibility of carrying out his entire message.

I think it kinda defeats the argument from mental health when the same people pushing that narrative are the ones who are doing everything in their power to take away healthcare coverage from the people.

[-W.A.R-]

22 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Then they have to support an increased fight against extreme ideologies that are hateful towards others

I see allot of talk about this but what exactly does this entail? We got screwed after 9/11 by this same premise.

[action]

32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think the attention to mental health is a red herring in this discussion. Although psychotic people can commit violent acts, the majority of these recent mass murderers don't seem to be psychotic or suffer from any clear psychological diagnosis. Breivik was not considered mentally ill, at least not to the extent that he couldn't be criminally judged. He was a lonely, estranged, marginalized, loser who was looking for someone to blame for his failures. And he believed that he and his "race" was about to be replaced by others, by foreigners. This seems to be a quite common thread among these recent mass murderers. They believe in the conspiracy theory of The Great Replacement. That their own homeland is about to be taken over by another people, and that it is being done under the acceptance, or even order, of the elite in their own land. Breivik, who feared the imminent Eurabia, hence decided to send a signal by killing as many youth politicians as he could in Norway's Labour Party, who he judged to have been responsible for accepting immigration of muslims to Norway.

So if people want to argue that guns isn't the issue, then they have to support an increased fight against extreme ideologies that are hateful towards others, that want to preserve racial purity, that want to separate people into groups. I would say, let's do both! Focusing on mental heat seems much like a digression. A side-tracking.

And anyone noticed that Trump in one breath can deny that available guns is the issue and instead focus on insanity, while in his next breath can argue that quick death penalties should be served for these mass murderers? You either accept they are mentally ill and thus not eligible to legal repercussions, or you don't. You can't have it both ways, Mr. President. So Trump manages to be servile to two of his voter groups at the same time, those that fight against stricter gun control, but also those who generally want harsher penalties, without either notices the impossibility of carrying out his entire message.

hitler was the same. He believed in the "stab-in-the-back-myth" and a conspiracy of the international jew-capital to take over the world. His "my struggle" is a manifesto similar to the ones written by these mass murderers.

All of these people were under the impression that "something had to be done" about a made-up problem. As we all know, Hitler eventually executed the "final solution" to the jew problem.

This "something must be done" may seem innocent at first, taken out of it's context. To most people, it is a quality to be active and "do something about" a supposed wrongdoing. Most of the times, it remains innocent. But also, most of the times, nothing is achieved.

This social rule that you "have" to do something, to make the world better, to oppose "wrong" opinions, I'm strongly against. When making up the balance (it can lead to mass murders versus nothing is ever really achieved anyway), one has to seriously question this supposed quality. Why is "not doing anything" and "letting it all take it's course" (like christianity advocates) so much worse? No matter what we do, we are powerless even as a group of people, to achieve anything. When, in history, has a group of people, consciously, achieved anything good? Is it not, on the contrary, the course of nature itself that shapes the world and society? Extremists by nature, run a high risk of dying young, taking their extremist views with them in their graves. The moderate people, those who let it all run its course, remain. If you stand on a platform, you're a sitting duck (martin luther kind, kennedy,...). Society is formed by those who remain: those who like me, let things be, and everything will turn out good one way or another. And in the end, we all die.

Edited August 6, 2019 by action

[Ace Nova]

53 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I suppose Norwegian mass murderers are simply better at shooting than your mass murderers, then.

But seriously, it depends on the demarcation of the data. If you look at this, year, nope. If you look at las year, nope. If you look at the last 5 years, nope. If you look at the last 10 years, maybe. If you look at the last 20 years, nope. And so on. By cherry-picking such things you can always get the answer you are looking for. We've had one mass murder, a huge one, so if you just make sure that is within the data set you can always conclude that Norway is worse off. But that is a gross misrepresentation of the data, and a failure at statistics. There is no trend of mass murder in Norway, like it is in the USA. There is not a situation where mass murders get more and more frequent, like you have in the US. 

Besides, in this discussion where we talk about whether USA should have stricter gun laws, then the only thing that matters is the total amount of gun violence per capita in recent years. Fact is that more than 30,000 die each year from gun violence in your country, and that amounts to 20-25 times higher risk of death by gun in the USA than in comparable countries. And no, Brazil isn't a comparable country. Or maybe it is? Both Brazil and USA seems to have barely intact democratic institutions, a flawed democracy, a militarized police, and a President who leans towards fascism. Still, one would like to think USA aspires to more than what it has become.

I believe the Norway figures are from when they started tracking the death rates from mass shootings which was from 2009 until now..so yes, the last 10 years.  Because of that incident, Norway has a higher death rate from mass shootings than any other country in the world.  (Over the past 10 years). 

I agree that we should be looking at gun violence deaths vs mass shooting deaths. Mass shootings seem to bring the most attention to gun violence but overall they are responsible for a very small % of overall gun violence deaths globally.  So contrary to what CNN and the rest of the media would like everyone to believe, mass shootings aren't the main problem when it comes to gun violence.  Not even close.

Your 20-25 times "risk" number for the U.S. vs other countries is overblown.  For starters, what would be considered a "comparable country"?  There are no countries in Europe with a population anywhere near the U.S, etc  The closest country to the U.S. with anywhere near its population would indeed be, Brazil.  And Brazil has much stricter gun laws than the U.S.  

Anyway, the gun death rate in the U.S. is 12.21...which from first glance looks very, very high.  But what you don't see when they use that figure is that 7.32 of those are from suicides.   

So the REAL number (gun homicide rate) in the U.S. is actually 4.46.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

4.46 is a high number but it's still nowhere near countries such as: Honduras: 66.64, El Salvador: 26.49, Jamaica 30.38, Venezuela: 26.48, Guatemala: 26.92, Columbia: 17.74 and Brazil at 20.7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I suppose Norwegian mass murderers are simply better at shooting than your mass murderers, then.

You Nordic types, you've always gotta be better, haven't you?

Edited August 6, 2019 by Len Cnut

[action]

2 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I guess not then? Peace to you too mate.

 

[-W.A.R-]

The suggestion of giving the death penalty to mass shooters is so out of touch and totally misses the mindset these people have. They do not care about dying and many commit suicide before they can be taken in anyway. This guy who shot up Wal-Mart said that he expected and preferred to die before he could be taken in. Giving him the death penalty is not only giving him what he wants but he'll probably get some satisfaction thinking hes a martyr and that he stood for something.

Edited August 6, 2019 by -W.A.R-

[action]

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

The suggestion of giving the death plenty to mass shooters is so out of touch and totally misses the mindset these people have. They do not care about dying and many commit suicide before they can be taken in anyway. This guy who shot up Wal-Mart said that he expected and preferred to die before he could be taken in. Giving him the death penalty is not only giving him what he wants but he'll probably get some satisfaction thinking hes a martyr and that he stood for something.

you can't punish crazy people, it has no effect or purpose whatsoever. In the case of dangerous crazy people like these mass murderers, we're talking not about punishment, but about safety measures. Society should use the most effective means to prevent this from happening again. In this case, no consideration should be given about what the mass murderer "wants" or "expects". It is totally irrelevant. We are talking about an absolute lunatic. He has all sorts of crazy thoughts, and taking them into consideration is pointless.

There is the aspect of retribution (which in this case, is a bit futile for the reasons you gave), but more importantly there is the aspect of precaution.

there's certainly no curing them, so trying to is pointless.

And detaining them for life as a safety measure will further (financially) damage society, who needs to free up cash to keep this person alive for as long as he lives. Then there is the risk of escape.

We shoot a dangerous animal without hesitation, to the point where it is expected. Why should this be different with a dangerous lunatic? Does that person deserve the same treatment and moral appreciation as anyone else? Hell no. It's a lost soul, a corrupted mind in a human body, and therefore devoid of any moral appreciation. They should be shot on sight, not as a penalty , but as a safety measure.

Edited August 6, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, -W.A.R- said:

I see allot of talk about this but what exactly does this entail? We got screwed after 9/11 by this same premise.

How we fight extremism? Probably by leading by example. Strengthen our educational institutions. Counter their flawed arguments. Speak out when faced with extremist comments and not shy away. Try not to elect racists morons to the presidency. On a more structural and broader scale: Avoid large income inequality. Better integration of immigrants. Fight poverty. Strengthen democratic institutions. Don't attack other countries unless you do it on sincere humanitarian grounds.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

No matter what we do, we are powerless even as a group of people, to achieve anything. 

Except that we aren't. As a group, humans have accomplished astonishing things. It is as a group, with our accumulated knowledge and combined strength, we can accomplish anything at all. We have risen from absolute primitive chaos where everybody had to fend for themselves i anarchy to highly advanced societies where people have a much higher chance of living long and happy lives.

More specifically, we have eradicated truly horrific diseases, through a combined effort. We fought and beat the horrendous ideology of Nazism and Hitler Germany. We did this because we didn't look away. 

When we don't rise to challenge is when bad things happen. That's when Jews were deported when Norway was besieged by Nazi Germany. Or the hutsi and tutu committed mass murder in Rwanda while the rest of the world looked elsewhere. And so on.

Extremism thrives in indifference. Bad things only survive when not challenged.

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

  So contrary to what CNN and the rest of the media would like everyone to believe, mass shootings aren't the main problem when it comes to gun violence.  Not even close.

Really? They want you to believe that, or is that something you erroneously conclude when the media focus more on incidents of mass murders than on isolated killings or suicides? The way I see it, the media can't report on every suicide by gun that happens (because then they wouldn't have time for anything else). They do, on the other hand, report on big mass murders, because they are stil somewhat unusual and because they represent single events with multiple, innocent casualties. Reporting on suicides by gun and on isolated single-victim homicides are better reported on in special segments, than in daily news. But don't let that confuse you. Don't think that means mass murders account for the most victims of gun violence. And don't think this means that they want to mislead you. That is just buying into the ridiculous "fake news" hysteria.

[-W.A.R-]

18 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How we fight extremism? Probably by leading by example. Strengthen our educational institutions. Counter their flawed arguments. Speak out when faced with extremist comments and not shy away. Try not to elect racists morons to the presidency. On a more structural and broader scale: Avoid large income inequality. Better integration of immigrants. Fight poverty. Strengthen democratic institutions. Don't attack other countries unless you do it on sincere humanitarian grounds.

Not where i was expecting you to go I don't have a problem with any of that and is better than calling for more police state tactics.

Edited August 6, 2019 by -W.A.R-

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Really? They want you to believe that, or is that something you erroneously conclude when the media focus more on incidents of mass murders than on isolated killings or suicides? The way I see it, the media can't report on every suicide by gun that happens (because then they wouldn't have time for anything else). They do, on the other hand, report on big mass murders, because they are stil somewhat unusual and because they represent single events with multiple, innocent casualties. Reporting on suicides by gun and on isolated single-victim homicides are better reported on in special segments, than in daily news. But don't let that confuse you. Don't think that means mass murders account for the most victims of gun violence. And don't think this means that they want to mislead you. That is just buying into the ridiculous "fake news" hysteria.

No, they don’t need to (or realistically can) report on every individual  gun homicide in the world. 

But when was the last time you heard CNN actually state facts after a report (which they can do with ease) such as “This is a tragic killing but the real issue is overall gun homicides, which are a much greater part of the gun problem”

They don’t do that because it doesn’t fit their political agenda and won’t get them ratings.  

[action]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Except that we aren't. As a group, humans have accomplished astonishing things. It is as a group, with our accumulated knowledge and combined strength, we can accomplish anything at all. We have risen from absolute primitive chaos where everybody had to fend for themselves i anarchy to highly advanced societies where people have a much higher chance of living long and happy lives.

More specifically, we have eradicated truly horrific diseases, through a combined effort. We fought and beat the horrendous ideology of Nazism and Hitler Germany. We did this because we didn't look away. 

When we don't rise to challenge is when bad things happen. That's when Jews were deported when Norway was besieged by Nazi Germany. Or the hutsi and tutu committed mass murder in Rwanda while the rest of the world looked elsewhere. And so on.

Extremism thrives in indifference. Bad things only survive when not challenged.

In all honesty, I'd seriously question the "happy" part in leading long and happy lives. Suicide rates are very high these days. I'm not particularily happy myself for various reasons. One thing is for sure; I don't see many efforts from society as a whole, to make people happier. Happiness comes from your own, it's of your own making and society is making that increasingly difficult to achieve, as time goes on.

The great revolutions were not accomplished peacefully, but rather by violence. Never was a bad situation altered peacefully, in negotiation and positive action. When a dictator was removed it was either by violence or by dying of old age. It's not as if a certain group "accomplished" such a revolution peacefully. Rather, the course of nature has accomplished this. Dictators ran out of money (louis XIV), they ran out of weapons and soldiers (napoleon / hitler) or in the case of terrorists, they blew themselves up. Show me one example, where a group of people made a blueprint of a desired situation, then executed this plan in a peaceful way and accomplished what they wanted. Better situations weren't planned, they were always an unexpected product of violent action by people with different agendas.

We've cured disease? Like what? We can't cure cancer. We can't cure aids, ALS and other horrible diseases. Sure, the doctor can prescribe you some painkillers and antibiotics, but if your own body doesn't work along it won't make much difference. When people are "lethally ill", there is absolutely nothing science can do about it. My ancestors in the 17th century went on to live to the age of 80 and beyond. These days many people die young of cancer. I'm not convinced by your utopian depiction of our medical knowledge.

If Hitler didn't want to go through the effort of changing things, there wouldn't even have been nazis. The misplaced desire to do something, was fertile ground for his extremist views to grow and evolve.

I maintain my belief: those who want to change things are doing so in vain. it's better to do nothing, than to do anything. Just leave me the fuck alone I say, and mind your own business. Think of all the wars and deaths that could have been avoided, just if people were all of the opinion that you should do "nothing". Millions, and another fuckload of millions of people wouldn't have died.

[SoulMonster]

16 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

No, they don’t need to (or realistically can) report on every individual  gun homicide in the world. 

But when was the last time you heard CNN actually state facts after a report (which they can do with ease) such as “This is a tragic killing but the real issue is overall gun homicides, which are a much greater part of the gun problem”

They don’t do that because it doesn’t fit their political agenda and won’t get them ratings.  

Don't watch CNN so can't answer. But from the media coverage I have seen, none are implying that mass murders account for the majority of deaths from guns. I think it is quite well documented that gun suicides account for 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US. They will lose their ratings if they, at the end of every segment on mass murders, point out that suicide and single-killings still account for the majority of gun deaths? Really? What demographic of viewers would then in disgust stop watching CNN? 

[Ace Nova]

26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Don't watch CNN so can't answer. But from the media coverage I have seen, none are implying that mass murders account for the majority of deaths from guns. I think it is quite well documented that gun suicides account for 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US. They will lose their ratings if they, at the end of every segment on mass murders, point out that suicide and single-killings still account for the majority of gun deaths? Really? What demographic of viewers would then in disgust stop watching CNN? 

You and I and most of the folks that post here are probably better educated (or at least aware) of the broader issue.  I can assure you that the majority of folks that just watch the news are most likely unaware of the fact that mass shootings are a small % of overall gun deaths.

Heck, even if you go back and glance at the beginning of this thread, no one even mentioned it until Len brought up the fact that people seem to worry about mass shootings much more than other types of shootings.

As far as CNN goes, they are admittedly ratings based. So they will always go with the story that will get them the best ratings.  This isn’t anything new. And yes, reporting on a mass shooting vs reporting on a gun related death in the inner city (sadly) gets them better ratings.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Kasanova King

[Len Cnut]

59 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How we fight extremism? Probably by leading by example. Strengthen our educational institutions. Counter their flawed arguments. Speak out when faced with extremist comments and not shy away. Try not to elect racists morons to the presidency. On a more structural and broader scale: Avoid large income inequality. Better integration of immigrants. Fight poverty. Strengthen democratic institutions. Don't attack other countries unless you do it on sincere humanitarian grounds.

You can't REALLY defeat terrorism and extremism.  I mean put a bang end to it, like OK 'from today forth there will be no more terrorism/extremism'.  Thats why its such a magnificently constructed propaganda tool, cuz that particular enemy has always been there and will always be there, the names and faces are incidental.  The war on terror didn't begin after 9/11, England were in war against terror against the IRA, wherever there's a terrorist organisation pre-9/11 people were fighting terrorism.  You can finish off Al Qaeda, ISIS, whoever you fancy, there'll be another lot along in a bit.  Sure, you can do the shit you suggested and serve to lessen it but it will always be there on some level and always has.  Fighting extremism is like fighting obesity, there's always gonna be some fat cunts knocking about, you can maybe improve shit in ways but you can't remove the right to have an entire fuckin' wedding cake to yourself anymore than you can eradicate the human inclination to think, act and feel in extremes. 

EDIT: bang end to it, that was a bad choice of words eh?

Edited August 6, 2019 by Len Cnut