Tiberius Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Again, that is entirely dependent on your definition of "mass shooting." Someone is digging a rabbit hole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 11 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Again, that is entirely dependent on your definition of "mass shooting." Anyway you define it, this is something the US sees happen far more than any other developed country. The notion that bad guys will always find guns simply doesn't ring true with any consistency anywhere else in the developed world. My opinion is that if you make it harder to get guns, these loner, lone wolf shooters with no social skills usually have no idea how to find the black market let alone purchase a high powered rifle there. The black market is a place for career criminals to find weapons, but I don't think the type of deranged psycho who wants to kill a bunch of random people will have any success buying illegal weapons there, otherwise you'd see these things happen way more in other developed countries around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Is every week in Chicago included in the mass shootings? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 40 minutes ago, jrober38 said: They're not relatable. Chicago has about 2.7 million people, or 0.8% of the country's population. I don't have exact numbers, but I imagine that tens of millions, if not 100 million Americans shop at Walmart at least once a month. When people die in Chicago, no one cares because it'll never affect them because they don't live there. When people get massacred in Walmart on a Friday night, it's a completely different story. This is one of the dumbest things I've read here, but that's probably because I have Qbaby on ignore. You truly believe that the reason no one reports ALL the murders in Chicago is because people don't live there? Read THIS STORY. Chicago had 1500 people shot JUST THIS YEAR. Then read THIS STORY. New York is celebrating because they FINALLY dropped below their 2018 best of five shootings PER FREAKING WEEK You really think the national media doesn't report on this because people who don't live in Chicago and NYC don't care? People should have to blow into a Stupidity Breathalyzer before they're allowed to post on message boards. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: This is one of the dumbest things I've read here, but that's probably because I have Qbaby on ignore. You truly believe that the reason no one reports ALL the murders in Chicago is because people don't live there? Read THIS STORY. Chicago had 1500 people shot JUST THIS YEAR. Then read THIS STORY. New York is celebrating because they FINALLY dropped below their 2018 best of five shootings PER FREAKING WEEK You really think the national media doesn't report on this because people who don't live in Chicago and NYC don't care? People should have to blow into a Stupidity Breathalyzer before they're allowed to post on message boards. There are shootings all over the country everyday. Of course the population centers have more, they have more people! Math matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 26 minutes ago, row_33 said: Is every week in Chicago included in the mass shootings? Of course not. It is RASYS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 TRUMP CONDEMNS BIGOTRY AND WHITE SUPREMACY [WITH VIDEO] by Paul Mirengoff ON TRUMP’S EXCELLENT SPEECH by John Hindraker Paul has noted the comments that President Trump made on the weekend’s two mass shootings this morning. His post embeds a video of the president’s speech, which is 10 minutes long. I recommend that you watch it. It was thoughtful, measured, and, in my opinion, struck all the right notes. It consisted in large part of denunciations of the murderers and sympathy for their victims. Beyond that, Trump’s comments were notable in several ways. First, Trump attacked white supremacism without noting that socialism, the doctrine of the Ohio murderer, was equally fatal in this case. That was probably sound from a political standpoint, and perhaps manifests the president’s conviction that the Democrats will get nowhere by trying to tie him to the El Paso murderer. Second, the president expressed determination to do something about mass shootings. He said that on this issue, as elsewhere, America will “win.” It is easy to be skeptical about this promise; as I wrote in May, the United States does not have an unusual number of mass shootings on a per capita basis. We rank 56th in the world in that regard, far behind countries like Norway, Switzerland, Finland and Russia. Mass murders are so rare that it is easy to be cynical about our ability to do much about them, even though we have cut the overall homicide rate in half. Still, it was bracing to hear the president express confidence that the problem can successfully be addressed. Third, Trump called for capital punishment for mass hate-murderers. This isn’t going to happen, but it puts liberals in a box. Most people think death is the appropriate punishment for mass murderers like the El Paso and Dayton shooters. Liberals don’t agree, but they have a hard time explaining to the average voter their reticence when it comes to punishing the actual murderer, as opposed to people who disagree with them politically. Fourth, Trump did not take the easy way out by endorsing more useless gun control measures. Rather, he came out in favor of the one thing that actually might make a difference: so-called “red flag” laws. Such legislation has, I believe, been enacted in a few states and introduced in others. The basic idea is that if you think someone is mentally ill and dangerous and therefore should not possess firearms, you can go to court on an expedited basis, potentially without notice to the “dangerous” person, and obtain an order that 1) bars that person from possessing firearms, and 2) directs police officers to go to his residence and confiscate any firearms they find there. It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a procedure of this sort might actually work. Mass shooters are pretty much all as nutty as fruitcakes. In most cases, it is obvious to everyone who encounters them that they are crazy and might be dangerous. Sometimes (like the Parkland murderer) they advertise their intent to commit mass murder on social media. So in some cases, a “red flag” process might actually work. On the other hand, the potential for abuse is equally obvious. More at the link: 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 “GUN-FREE ZONES” ARE AN IDIOT’S IDEA OF SAFETY: El Paso mass shooting brings back debate over gun-free zones. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 3 hours ago, jrober38 said: They're not relatable. Chicago has about 2.7 million people, or 0.8% of the country's population. I don't have exact numbers, but I imagine that tens of millions, if not 100 million Americans shop at Walmart at least once a month. When people die in Chicago, no one cares because it'll never affect them because they don't live there. When people get massacred in Walmart on a Friday night, it's a completely different story. It still doesn’t affect me because if I go to a Walmart it’s in Hamburg NY not El Paso Texas. Not exactly the same thing. Still, the liberal media has selective outrage about shootings. Just depends who’s pulling the trigger . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 The logic of the partisans: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: There are shootings all over the country everyday. Of course the population centers have more, they have more people! Math matters But where is the media outage over these shooting deaths ? Don’t all lives lost to senseless shootings matter ? It’s outrageous and it must be somebody else’s fault ( Trump) that people are shot everyday. Something must be done ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Really the only good news from this horrible situation is that the band (Menstrual Munchies, yes, really) now has an opening for Robert Francis O'Rourke, who will soon be looking for a new gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 4 hours ago, Hedge said: File this guy into the unpersonned memory hole along with James Hodgkinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Boatdrinks said: But where is the media outage over these shooting deaths ? Don’t all lives lost to senseless shootings matter ? It’s outrageous and it must be somebody else’s fault ( Trump) that people are shot everyday. Something must be done ! Do you really think there isn’t outrage over city shootings and gang related violence? “Make the streets safer” has been a platform of more community movements maybe than any other. These shootings get attention because of the number dead due to one (one Hedges right?) human. Deeper and better background checks checks might have prevented the El Paso shooting. They would have less effect on the gang violence. No single approach will fix this but less guns would have a more immediate impact. Mostly you need to love your neighbor and pass that on. That’s the long term option. Edited August 6, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 12 hours ago, jrober38 said: Mass shootings required easy access to high powered weapons capable of a high rate of fire. 50 years ago your average American didn't own an AR-15. The Dayton shooting lasted 24 seconds before police killed the gunman. In that time he killed 9 and injured many more. Even when there are good guys with guns, these weapons are capable of extreme carnage in a very short amount of time. In 2019, an average American doesn't own an AR-15 either. High capacity magazines have existed for decades before mass shootings became common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 7 hours ago, Hedge said: Really the only good news from this horrible situation is that the band (Menstrual Munchies, yes, really) now has an opening for Robert Francis O'Rourke, who will soon be looking for a new gig. There's a reason most of the coverage is of El Paso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 If those photos of the Dayton shooter are real we have a MAJOR credibility problem with the media. Two mass shootings on the same day just hours apart and the coverage by the media and politicians couldn’t be more starkly slanted! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 16 minutes ago, GG said: In 2019, an average American doesn't own an AR-15 either. Maybe it's a regional thing, but many "average American's" that I know do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, GG said: In 2019, an average American doesn't own an AR-15 either. High capacity magazines have existed for decades before mass shootings became common. None of these mass shooters are using decades old guns. They are almost all using recent purchases. There are lots of reasons for the rise, and no single solution will fix the problem. But I don’t see how requiring a more extensive background check to own a weapon like this is a bad thing. Young men play violent video games the world over. Young men have social media everywhere. Young men men do not have easy access to buy their own firearms everywhere. Repeating, this is only one piece of a bigger puzzle to put together. Edited August 6, 2019 by BeginnersMind 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, /dev/null said: Maybe it's a regional thing, but many "average American's" that I know do. Absolutely. Make no mistake, having access to the guns with high capacity stock makes it much easier to perpetuate a mass shooting. What it doesn't do is address the urge by these individuals to perpetuate mass killings. 1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said: None of these mass shooters are using decades old guns. They are almost all using recent purchases. There are lots of reasons for the rise, and no single solution will fix the problem. But I don’t see how requiring a more extensive background check to own a weapon like this is a bad thing. Young men play violent video games the world over. Young men have social media everywhere. Young men men do not have easy access to buy their own firearms everywhere. Repeating, this is only one piece of a bigger puzzle to put together. See the answer above. Having an easier access to the gun is not the motivation to go out and start shooting people. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 38 minutes ago, GG said: Absolutely. Make no mistake, having access to the guns with high capacity stock makes it much easier to perpetuate a mass shooting. What it doesn't do is address the urge by these individuals to perpetuate mass killings. See the answer above. Having an easier access to the gun is not the motivation to go out and start shooting people. It is if you count kills and injuries like a video game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Mass Shootings: The Elephant in the Room American Thinker, by Taylor Day Original Article . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: If those photos of the Dayton shooter are real we have a MAJOR credibility problem with the media. Two mass shootings on the same day just hours apart and the coverage by the media and politicians couldn’t be more starkly slanted! I don't think it's a huge issue. One guy wrote a manifesto and drove 10 hours to an area highly concentrated with Latinos, and proceeded to shoot a bunch of Latinos (including some others). This qualifies as terrorism. The other guy just seems like a crazy person. He bought a gun, got the biggest magazine he could find, and went into the entertainment district of Dayton and unloaded, killing his sister and other randoms. Shooter #1 was a terrorist. Shooter #2 was just a crazy guy with a gun. The terrorist, regardless of their colour and religious beliefs, is always going to get the majority of the attention. 2 hours ago, BeginnersMind said: None of these mass shooters are using decades old guns. They are almost all using recent purchases. There are lots of reasons for the rise, and no single solution will fix the problem. But I don’t see how requiring a more extensive background check to own a weapon like this is a bad thing. Young men play violent video games the world over. Young men have social media everywhere. Young men men do not have easy access to buy their own firearms everywhere. Repeating, this is only one piece of a bigger puzzle to put together. Exactly. The only noticeable difference between the US and the rest of the developed world is that the US has gun laws that allow pretty much anyone to purchase a weapon. All of the developed world has video games, all of the developed world has people with mental illness, yet the US is the only country where deranged men regularly kill large numbers of random people in public places. Edited August 6, 2019 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 13 hours ago, row_33 said: Is every week in Chicago included in the mass shootings? Yes. But it hasn't spilled onto the MagMile. If it does, all hell will break loose. Just if it does in Times Square in NYC. Unless it's Trump, his supporters will just become more supportive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 10 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Shooter #1 was a terrorist. Shooter #2 was just a crazy guy with a gun. Don't let that partisan spin make you dizzy. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Don't let that partisan spin make you dizzy. There's nothing partisan about it. Shooter #1 was a domestic terrorist. I don't see how that could be up for debate at all. Shooter #2 just seemed like a deranged kid with no motive. In the current political climate, where Trump describes Latinos as an infestation and invasion, it's news when a guy takes those words and goes and shoots a bunch of Latinos and says he's doing it for the same reasons the POTUS has used in his speeches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: There's nothing partisan about it. Incorrect. The fact you can't see it should be alarming to you. Why isn't there a "motive" for the second one? Could it be... his social media footprint was deleted (after being ignored) while the other shooter's footprint was spread and elevated by the media? That's all about partisanship. Don't let them fool you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Incorrect. The fact you can't see it should be alarming to you. Suggesting a mass shooting is a partisan issue boggles my mind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: Suggesting a mass shooting is a partisan issue boggles my mind. Your spin is what's partisan. Not the shooting. Saying one was a terrorist while the other was just a nutter is the partisan argument that's being made in real time right now by you and many others. It's nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Your spin is what's partisan. Not the shooting. What spin? Are you suggesting the El Paso shooter wasn't a terrorist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: What spin? Are you suggesting the El Paso shooter wasn't a terrorist? 17 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Shooter #1 was a terrorist. Shooter #2 was just a crazy guy with a gun. Spin. Above. Edited August 6, 2019 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Spin. Above. If you want to suggest Shooter 2 wasn't just a crazy guy with a gun, do more than just tell me I'm spinning things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: If you want to suggest Shooter 2 wasn't just a crazy guy with a gun, do more than just tell me I'm spinning things. I did. 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Incorrect. The fact you can't see it should be alarming to you. Why isn't there a "motive" for the second one? Could it be... his social media footprint was deleted (after being ignored) while the other shooter's footprint was spread and elevated by the media? That's all about partisanship. Don't let them fool you. You're being played. Hard. By the same media complex that has lied to you over and over again. You're being played so hard you don't even recognize it. case in point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: If those photos of the Dayton shooter are real we have a MAJOR credibility problem with the media. Two mass shootings on the same day just hours apart and the coverage by the media and politicians couldn’t be more starkly slanted! Because: Or to put it in a way explained over a 100 years earlier: "Tell all the Truth but tell it slant — Success in Circuit lies Too bright for our infirm Delight The Truth's superb surprise As Lightning to the Children eased With explanation kind The Truth must dazzle gradually Or every man be blind —" 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Don't let that partisan spin make you dizzy. "ROBIN! To the Studio 2B... The Moon Landing set! Grab the Bat Utility Belt and the screenplay!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Further examples: "One was a terrorist! Meaning his screed is important to broadcast and expose and understand!" (Because it looks bad for Trump) "The other was just a crazy guy! Meaning his screed is unimportant to broadcast or expose or understand!" (Because it looks bad for the DNC/left) That's an agenda. And you're parroting it -- unknowingly or knowingly. The truth is they're all criminals who did horrific acts. Trying to tie any of them to one side or the other is done purely for partisan reasons. Not to be honest about the situation or topic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Further examples: "One was a terrorist! Meaning his screed is important to broadcast and expose and understand!" (Because it looks bad for Trump) "The other was just a crazy guy! Meaning his screed is unimportant to broadcast or expose or understand!" (Because it looks bad for the DNC/left) That's an agenda. And you're parroting it -- unknowingly or knowingly. The truth is they're all criminals who did horrific acts. Trying to tie any of them to one side or the other is done purely for partisan reasons. Not to be honest about the situation or topic. You seem to be really upset that the El Paso shooter was a terrorist. Very bizarre. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 (For added clarity -- both sides are guilty of this. But the media only backs one of the horses in that race) Just now, jrober38 said: You seem to be really upset that the El Paso shooter was a terrorist. Very bizarre. Nah. I'm just pointing out your spin and calling it out for what it is: partisan. You want to run from it or ignore the point, that's fine. It's on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: You seem to be really upset that the El Paso shooter was a terrorist. Very bizarre. He's an influencer. That's why. He will NOT be mocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Exiled again proves he's not the sharpest tool in the drawer. I don't care about being mocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts