20 Killed in El Paso, TX Mass Shooting

[otrkid1970]

When a gang banger opens fire in the city trying to kill a rival gang member innocent people are all around at the time terrorizing them. now multiply that times over 1500 shootings and it has the whole city terrorized as to when the next shooting will occur and if they will be a target.  Thats terrorism. these cities with "Mass shootings" are terrorized for a short period of time and life goes on but in Chicago it's every day.

nope, that's mafia. it's terrible and im sure it's making the news too. terrorism has political motivations. political motivations.

what's really your point? in chicago they black, right?

Yes they are mostly Black in Chicago and strangely enough it doesn't make headlines like these White mass shooters....And yes i'm white

[1713992599]

1713992599

[1713992599]

1713992599

[1713992599]

1713992599

[BADecker]

I wasn't aware it was a requirement to be sick to consume medication.

yes it is.

You are right. I wasn't sick at all. I went to my wife's medicine cabinet and tried to swallow her opioid drugs. I swished the pills around in my mouth, but as hard as I did it, I couldn't swallow them, and they didn't even break down in my mouth saliva.

So, I thought I would put them back in the bottle for the wife. But I couldn't. As I washed my saliva off them, they dissolved in the sink water, and flowed down the drain.

Darnedest thing.

 

[PrimeNumber7]

Gun violence is much worse in states/areas with strict gun control laws and the number killed in these areas are many magnitude larger than all gun deaths in mass shootings.

Its not though. There's a pretty clear correlation between the leniency of gun laws and gun death rates:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

The website you cited uses misleading statistics by using gun deaths, which includes accidental deaths and suicides. Look at places like Chicago or Detroit that have very serious gun violence problems and have the strongest gun control laws in the country.

The shooting in TX was stopped/slowed down by a citizen with a legal gun— if not for this hero, the number of deaths would likely have been higher.

Police were on the scene 6 minutes after the first shots were fired. I'd like to see your source -- haven't read that anywhere. I'd be quite surprised if Walmart didn't have an armed guard there, but perhaps that's the case.

I don’t think many mall security guards carry guns.

https://youtu.be/yywmSuC9wJc

This is an interview with the guy. It is widely available on many news sites.

The underlying problem is untreated mental illness. It is estimated that there are a million people in the US in various communities in who, several decades ago would be treated in state Mental facilities/hospitals and it is estimated that approximately half are receiving treatment.

I agree with you here. But I also think part of the problem is the ready access mentally ill people have to weapons designed to inflict mass casualties.

There are a lot of things that can inflict mass casualties. In 2017 in Charlottesville, a person drove his car into a crowd during the “free speech” march. There was someone who drove his car into a parade in OK killing 4 and injuring 48 in 2015. In 2016, in France, a terrorist drove a truck into a crowd killing 86 and injuring hundreds more.

If you take away everyone’s guns, there will not be many gun deaths, but bad people will use other means, and people will be in a worse position to defend themselves.

[BADecker]

Gun violence is much worse in states/areas with strict gun control laws and the number killed in these areas are many magnitude larger than all gun deaths in mass shootings.

Its not though. There's a pretty clear correlation between the leniency of gun laws and gun death rates:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

The website you cited uses misleading statistics by using gun deaths, which includes accidental deaths and suicides. Look at places like Chicago or Detroit that have very serious gun violence problems and have the strongest gun control laws in the country.

The shooting in TX was stopped/slowed down by a citizen with a legal gun— if not for this hero, the number of deaths would likely have been higher.

Police were on the scene 6 minutes after the first shots were fired. I'd like to see your source -- haven't read that anywhere. I'd be quite surprised if Walmart didn't have an armed guard there, but perhaps that's the case.

I don’t think many mall security guards carry guns.

https://youtu.be/yywmSuC9wJc

This is an interview with the guy. It is widely available on many news sites.

The underlying problem is untreated mental illness. It is estimated that there are a million people in the US in various communities in who, several decades ago would be treated in state Mental facilities/hospitals and it is estimated that approximately half are receiving treatment.

I agree with you here. But I also think part of the problem is the ready access mentally ill people have to weapons designed to inflict mass casualties.

There are a lot of things that can inflict mass casualties. In 2017 in Charlottesville, a person drove his car into a crowd during the “free speech” march. There was someone who drove his car into a parade in OK killing 4 and injuring 48 in 2015. In 2016, in France, a terrorist drove a truck into a crowd killing 86 and injuring hundreds more.

If you take away everyone’s guns, there will not be many gun deaths, but bad people will use other means, and people will be in a worse position to defend themselves.

And also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.     

[Flying Hellfish]

Get rid of the guns? Then only the criminals will be armed.  

If having MOAR guns made a country safer then the USA would have the least number of mass shootings.  Since the exact opposite is true the rest of the developed world decided to listen to the facts and that their citizens lives were more important that gun manufacture's profit!

[BADecker]

Get rid of the guns? Then only the criminals will be armed.  

If having MOAR guns made a country safer then the USA would have the least number of mass shootings.  Since the exact opposite is true the rest of the developed world decided to listen to the facts and that their citizens lives were more important that gun manufacture's profit!

[TECSHARE]

Get rid of the guns? Then only the criminals will be armed.  

If having MOAR guns made a country safer then the USA would have the least number of mass shootings.  Since the exact opposite is true the rest of the developed world decided to listen to the facts and that their citizens lives were more important that gun manufacture's profit!

Unless of course there is another dependent factor you are leaving out, such as over prescription of medication and lack of mental health treatment. McAfee raised an interesting question recently.

"Why have people become so angry, hostile and alienated that they need to murder total strangers? That's the question, people. We need to answer that first."

I wasn't aware it was a requirement to be sick to consume medication.

yes it is.

The fact is the USA is the most medicated nation on Earth. Everyone wants to pretend this is not a factor, instead opting for the personification of inanimate objects, blaming them for the acts of mass shooters, the majority of which are on some kind of psychotropic drug with the known side effects of suicidal and homicidal ideation.

well,  mass stabbing is a little harder to perform, but you're partially right, it's not only the guns, it's also the violent, racist culture.

What about setting buildings on fire? Improvised explosives? Poison? Running people over with trucks? The fact is modern life gives everyone ample opportunity to use these tools to harm people if they choose to. The problem is not the tool they use, it is the motivation behind it. If all we are doing is taking tools away we still have homicidal people only killing people using different tools, and people less able to defend themselves. That is even assuming that gun control will keep illegal guns out of their hands at all, which is arguable since if some one is willing to murder they don't much care about violating gun laws.

[seoincorporation]

...
Those who aren't from the U.S. -- what are your opinions on these seemingly constant gun massacres in America? What goes through your head every time you see a headline or read a news article like this one? I'm genuinely curious.

I always think the same when i read news like this... Give weapons to anyone and wait they don't shoot themselves is an ironic idea. I want to say i'm sorry about the news, no one deserves to die that way, but we live in a haters society, people who grow with bullying will not think twice about take a gun and kill the abusers. So, what did this kid has in his mind to pull the trigger? how muy pain he felt in the past days to decide to make a mass murder? We all think he ruins his life by doing this, but common sense tells me his life already was ruined and isn't his fault, is the society fault.

This is a complex topic and i hope it doesn't happen again, but sadly it will because the society let it happen.

[Sourhearrt]

People kill people with any tools they can find not just guns and its not easy to just take up a gun and shoot other people but where this world is going now only God knows hatred is growing bigger in the heart of people against people,the kid that did this might be rejected by the society or the other but im sure he was passing through alot and he was tired of living and yet living in anger towards other people,one way or the other i hope this will be the end of people getting killed in shootouts

[BADecker]

Now we're finding out that it was a government set-up. Soros is probably behind it to promote gun control. But there may be bigger hidden fish than he.


Five simple questions that blow apart the official fake news narrative about the El Paso...

Five huge questions are screaming out for real answers:

#1) If there's only one shooter, why did so many eyewitnesses report multiple shooters at the scene?

#2) Why did the local police arrest and hold three suspects in custody, as was widely reported by the media before the story was changed to a "lone shooter?"

#3) Why does the so-called "manifesto" appear to be written by someone far older than 21 years of age? (Answer: The manifesto is a hoax. It was not written by the individual who was arrested as the shooter.)

#4) How does one man kill 20 people and wound another 30 people with a single magazine that only holds 30 rounds? The surveillance photo shows no chest rig, no battle belt and no spare magazines.

#5) If the shooter is on a suicide mission, why does he bother to wear both eye protection and ear protection? Answer: Because he knows he will survive his "mission" and be taken into custody after surrendering to police. It wasn't a suicide mission at all.

Watch the video!

[Mastery]

Those who aren't from the U.S. -- what are your opinions on these seemingly constant gun massacres in America? What goes through your head every time you see a headline or read a news article like this one? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm from a country in which guns and weapons are strictly controlled by the government. There were many times I was disappointed on my government because they control and restrict us on so many things but seeing news or articles like this, I know that they're right at some point. Also, I feel really sorry for those people who were killed and their relatives. America is not Pakistan or some other Islamic countries, these gun massacres are tarnishing its image as a place of freedom, peace and democracy.

[BADecker]

Those who aren't from the U.S. -- what are your opinions on these seemingly constant gun massacres in America? What goes through your head every time you see a headline or read a news article like this one? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm from a country in which guns and weapons are strictly controlled by the government. There were many times I was disappointed on my government because they control and restrict us on so many things but seeing news or articles like this, I know that they're right at some point. Also, I feel really sorry for those people who were killed and their relatives. America is not Pakistan or some other Islamic countries, these gun massacres are tarnishing its image as a place of freedom, peace and democracy.

You forget the fact that if everyone in the store was open carrying - some of them with assault rifles - this joker would have been too scared to do what he did. Nobody would have died.

[nutildah]

Except your little website is akin to saying "People who have pools are more likely to drown." or "People who drive cars are more likely to have an automobile accident." It is not a legitimate metric.

Of course people who have pools are more likely to drown. Of course people who drive cars are more likely to have an automobile accident. Of course its a legitimate metric. Thats kind of the whole point: more guns = more gun deaths.

Also, you will notice it is "gun deaths", another slick little trick anti-rights pushers try to use to lump in all defensive use, suicides, etc into statistics to inflate them.

Any death caused by a gun is still a death.

All of the states with the most strict gun control laws have the biggest problems with firearm homicides.

Not true. If you honestly believed this, you'd provide some kind of a source. Though I'd prefer if it wasn't ZeroHedge or the NRA.

Six minutes is a long time. Of course you haven't read it anywhere. You only consume pasteurized and opinion piece media that filters your reality for you so you never have to experience any mild form of cognitive dissonance by being forced to consider ideas that conflict with your beliefs. It doesn't fit the "guns are bad" narrative so of course it is not being reported.

The soldier moved children out of the way. His gun had nothing to do with "slowing the shooter down." He didn't draw it, he wasn't even seen by the shooter. I first read that story 2 days ago so save your projection fantasies for another time.

Firearms aren't designed to cause mass casualties any more than a lighter is designed to burn down mass amounts of buildings. It is a tool, and it does what the person behind it makes it do.

Thats a ridiculous comparison. AK-47s are designed to inflict mass human casualties.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-13/ak-47-rifle-inventor-mikhail-kalashnikov-regrets-creating-weapon/5198396

This is a really big tragedy but I can't understand something.
Every time after these tragedies, the issue of arms purchases begins to be discussed, and nothing ever changes, everything remains the same.
How is that possible?
What has to happen that finally the very liberal laws in America about buying guns start to change?
How many people have yet to die in tragedies like this?

One of the big things that people who are really for gun rights in the US say is that while these mass shootings are horrible, they're not the majority of crime in the US -- they're probably only around 1 percent of all crime in the US.

There also has been no tried and true way to even eliminate these mass shootings -- as researches have concluded that the only possible solution would be to ban 'assault rifles' and all that does is lower the death-count during these tragedies. If people are to admit that lowering the deathcount is an OKAY conclusion, then that's fine -- but don't expect these shootings to go away.

It's a very tough topic on both sides here, as OBVIOUSLY neither side wants people to die -- but one side doesn't think they should have to give up their firearms due to crazy people abusing freedoms to kill people -- and the other side feels the only solution is to limit the availability of these guns to regular everyday Americans.

It's a very tough issue in the US and it's not something that can be solved by another countries model. Because as these shootings are so rare, it's even hard to find solutions statistical speaking.

This is the most well-reasoned response here so far, and really there's not much more to be said. The only thing I would add is that assault rifles should definitely be banned outright.

[BADecker]

^^^ Oh come on. If we are going to ban assault rifles, let's go all the way and ban hurting each other.

[nutildah]

^^^ Oh come on. If we are going to ban assault rifles, let's go all the way and ban hurting each other.

Hurting each other is already banned. It's called "assault." It would seem that you're on board for banning assault rifles then, thanks for taking a step forward.

[BADecker]

^^^ Oh come on. If we are going to ban assault rifles, let's go all the way and ban hurting each other.

Hurting each other is already banned. It's called "assault." It would seem that you're on board for banning assault rifles then, thanks for taking a step forward.

So you see? Banning something doesn't stop it. So, banning is simply wishful thinking... since it doesn't work, anyway.

[nutildah]

^^^ Oh come on. If we are going to ban assault rifles, let's go all the way and ban hurting each other.

Hurting each other is already banned. It's called "assault." It would seem that you're on board for banning assault rifles then, thanks for taking a step forward.

So you see? Banning something doesn't stop it. So, banning is simply wishful thinking... since it doesn't work, anyway.

This is the type of hyperbole that prevents meaningful discussion on the issue from taking place. I could go the other way and say why not just legalize murder since laws against assault don't work.

[BADecker]

^^^ Oh come on. If we are going to ban assault rifles, let's go all the way and ban hurting each other.

Hurting each other is already banned. It's called "assault." It would seem that you're on board for banning assault rifles then, thanks for taking a step forward.

So you see? Banning something doesn't stop it. So, banning is simply wishful thinking... since it doesn't work, anyway.

This is the type of hyperbole that prevents meaningful discussion on the issue from taking place. I could go the other way and say why not just legalize murder since laws against assault don't work.

You could. But don't. Rather, go the way that works. Arm everyone. Since most people are good, they will protect each other from the few who are bad.

[nutildah]

You could. But don't. Rather, go the way that works. Arm everyone. Since most people are good, they will protect each other from the few who are bad.

In what society does that work? The U.S. already has more than 1 gun per person and also the highest number of mass shootings. You have no evidence that your way works.

Regardless, I'd rather live in a place where being armed wasn't compulsory. Don't know about you.

[BADecker]

You could. But don't. Rather, go the way that works. Arm everyone. Since most people are good, they will protect each other from the few who are bad.

In what society does that work? The U.S. already has more than 1 gun per person and also the highest number of mass shootings. You have no evidence that your way works.

Regardless, I'd rather live in a place where being armed wasn't compulsory. Don't know about you.

Here's the society it works in. The Walmart society. What do I mean?

The average person goes to Walmart simply for groceries or other items. Many go for the fun of shopping. Do you know what else these people do? They get mad at Walmart Associates who make a mistake. They call the manager in. And if the manager sticks up for the associate, he better be right... because the customers stick up for each other.

Get over to Walmart. This happens all the time. The customers are sheep until they detect something going on that is not right. Then they become aggressive.

I'd much rather have a few dozen angry customers around me, helping me fight off a shooter, than sit there and cry in my blood before I died.

What in the world kind of a sissy are you? Arm the people so they have a fighting chance against a shooter.