Multiple Dead in El Paso Walmart Shooting- What should be done?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/0…
Today, a tragedy has taken place in El Paso Texas with several dead due to a Walmart shooting with many more being injured. A suspect has been found but it is not clear yet if it is him or not.
Honestly, this is getting out of control. The frequency of these "surprise" crimes seems to be rising. Now nobody can send their kids to school, shop, go to a concert, or even go to church without knowing if that will be the last day of them or a loved one. The fact we have an increasing number of psychos in this country presents many problems. Something needs to change.
But my question for the community is what needs to change? How to make America safe again? What are your thoughts?
Came here to make this post right now. These mass shootings really make me sad and upset. I hate that I cannot think of a solution. Interesting to hear other’s thoughts.
I agree- something needs to change. I think it needs to be a deep, cultural change on many levels. Politics, gun admiration, extremist views, mental illness stigma, unified healthcare system, gun sales, and more.
You must mean pockets of safe, affluent neighborhoods like Parkland, Florida or Sandy Hook, CT?
My favorite thing about gun culture is that people say outlawing guns means only criminals would have guns
This is so dumb! 1) most of these things are perpetrated by people who were not “criminals” prior to the whole killing many people thing 2) you know how a lot of criminals get guns? By stealing them from idiots who own guns but don’t secure them! It’s pretty easy to break into five cars in Georgia or Texas and you’ll find at least one gun in a glovebox...
Maybe not "criminal" but the root cause to many of these shootings are a form of mental illness. The Dayton OH shooter was one sick fuck and should have been flagged, regardless of what is protected under his juvenile status.
No it’s not that’s just a conservative trope
Also just to add, I doubt that some deranged kid is gonna be able to just walk up to some criminals he spots on the street and buy an AK. Like he would literally just end up getting robbed. The idea that anyone can just seek out and buy a gun illegally is ridiculous.
Agreed - banning guns (or even limiting the types for sale) won’t stop all shootings but these suburban boy massacres will stop because where are they going to source guns from, their weed dealer??
"Hey man lemme grab an 8th of sour D and also like an AK47 with a few hundo rounds of ammo k thanks"
One thing I've noticed with the gun violence issue is the media. They seem to be very divisive in the aftermath of shootings by labeling the shooter by race.(FOX spitting out the number of deaths in Chicago, CNN calling them naming the number of white mass shooters) Even if it is true, I think that it polarizes people with different political views and overshadows everyone's sympathy for the victims, making it more difficult for the two sides to compromise and find a solution to the real problem, gun violence . I think if after shootings the sole issue was gun rights, it would be easier to compromise. But because the race issue is also tied into it, people become much more defensive and more reluctant to work with the other side.
Culture. American culture has a very weak sense of family compared to other cultures IMO.
Lack of access to mental healthcare.
Too easy for any moron to buy a gun.
Most guns, short of shotguns and rifles meant for hunting and sportsmen, should be banned. It is the only logical solution.
That won't happen, and with the second amendment it can't happen, but let's not pretend that any other "solution" is anything more than a stopgap or a feel good measure.
I agree but the reason it will not happen is the money....follow the money.
The second amendment isn't the right to slay chickens...it's the right to defy authoritarian governments foreign and domestic. It's easy to say this isn't necessary bc we are the most powerful military in the world...but if/when this changes, you'll appreciate it's value.
Not to mention threats of looting/violence should the power go out more than a few days a'la hurricane or other natural disaster, where 911 isn't even available, defend yourself with knives and see what happens.
It is a very shortsighted solution. I'd say that in theory yes, banning all guns is the most simple meme that will get rid of the shootings. However, the repercussions will decidedly be much worse.
There is no solution as "ban" will never be successful even it if is implemented. I view sad unfortunate events like this as a premium paid for insurance against tyranny. The ghost of Mao, Stalin, or Hitler could easily rise again - it is foolish to think that this relatively long period of peace will last forever. I personally want to be armed when people come to take away the rights of myself and those I care about.
Those on the left have a terrible knowledge of history, or maybe just a selective knowledge because Communism killed 100 million+ people and permanently crippled an entire region of the world (Eastern Europe).
We do not live in an authoritarian dictatorship. We have checks and balances in the United States. There is no need to sacrifice human life for some extra protection
US homicide rate is at low levels historically looking at past 50 years, so your claims like "getting out of control" are baseless:
To be honest, that is a very misleading chart. It doesn't take into account medical or technological improvements nor if there has been any changes in legal definitions or standards of evidence.
We live in a Brave New World where facts no longer matter my friend. Don't you know that utopia is possible if we forfeit all of our rights to Big Brother?
Heart disease from obesity kills over 1,000 people per day yet not a peep from the disgusting media and politicians on their knees fellating the plutocrat shareholders of Monsanto, Coca-Cola, and McDonald's.
Odd complaint from a Republican in 2019
Homicide rates by race by cdc.gov
Lol, everyone knows about 13/50 but you're not actually supposed to say it in polite company. The correct euphemism used by clueless, TOTALLY NOT HYPOCRITICAL, shitlibs is "good schools". Example:
Neighbor: Hey Katie and Mike, why did you leave the city and move out to this great (gated, more expensive, 99% White and Asian) community?
Katie: Well we LOVED the culture and diversity that the city offered, but Brayden and Hayden over there need a nourishing academic environment.
Mike: Yea, we really appreciate the good schools here neighbor! Only shame is that we can't order authentic Mexican food at 3am anymore.
Neighbor, Mike and Katie: Hahahahahahaha! Yea, we miss that!
The brunt of the real estate development industry functions off of educated families fleeing "urban youths" and "urban decay" .
Yes, always important to distract from the topic of white terrorists by placing blame on the black boogeyman.
So ironic and funny seeing a bunch of threatened white guys turn to racial differences to defend mass shootings that kill hundreds of innocents at an increasing rate. Clearly, you take it personal that people don't like these mass shootings.
Where I live I'm 100x more likely to get mugged and/or killed by an "urban youth" than by a "white terrorist", but please continue seeing nazis everywhere you look. Sorry reality isn't always PC.
What exactly does this chart have to do with OP's post? You want to spout off statistics, but I doubt you even are thinking about the systemic issues that have affected one specific community for hundreds of years. Do you think they enjoy killing each other? Is it sport for them? Or is it because it is an endless cycle of abuse, neglect, and violence for these kids in those areas where they cannot get out - literally.
Since you wanna bring up numbers, what are you gonna do to try and decrease them? Or are you just posting pointless shit as an excuse to keep your lame ass guns and dismiss everyone that has died as a result..
Here's a chart for you
Not that I'm disagreeing with the premise but it's hard to compare the US to other developed countries because no other developed country has gun laws as lenient as we do. If there were 4 other countries with similar gun laws and socioeconomic status, and they all had a large amount of mass shooters, it'd be easier to definitively say that it's the gun laws, but because there is no perfect or even close to perfect comparison, it's hard to say, from a statistical perspective, that it's solely because of access to guns.
...you understand that is the point, right? More lenient gun laws = more guns = more mass shooters.
You're chart seems to indicate france and all other countries to the left above 11ish has a much higher rate of mass shootings, your argument is invalid.
Also pull out drug violence b/c gangs account for a majority of 'mass shootings' and you're left with a much smaller ratio. Lastly, USA is larger than most of those countries combined, physically and population-wise leading to very unique factors of enforcement and crime.
So, actually, I disagree more guns equal more crime bc you failed to state the number of guns in said countries. Produce a guns per mass shooting ratio and USA will be non-existant.
Uh this is horseshit. These numbers are based on self reported, self selected ranges by country. For example the US has far lighter regulation of what a mass shooting is. Just 15 years ago it required more than 4 or 5 people unrealted to the shooter to die. I haven't checked the most recent threshold but I think it is now it doesn't even require a death and only like 2 unrelated people to be injured. The data collection has been skewed to such a degree for political purposes that comparison analysis is useless.
You simply lose all credibility on the issue if you pretend the U.S. doesn't experience mass shootings on a level unparalleled to the rest of the world. If you're unwilling to even acknowledge the problem, you're unwilling to try to solve it.
Do you have a source that says what qualifies as a mass shooting on that chart varies wildly by country?
"This chart is bullshit. A perfectly acceptable amount of people die by mass shootings in America." is such an absurd take.
Here's a chart for you
shooting
Less pirates = more mass shootings
Your chart isn’t showing up, but are you making a pro-pirate argument?
Also, “fewer”
Nothing is gonna get done about this. It's America. How many times have we had a chance to do something and it was just passed up. Like when could have been the tipping point? Newtown? Pulse? Parkland? Vegas? Like fuck, nothing will change.
Yeah, tbh we should focus on something that is a lot easier. Ban soda or doughnut sales if you really wanna save lives
Classic whataboutism
I do just wanna mention (not just @-ing your reply) that in real life I see this argument being used seriously quite a lot, such as "put the time and money we could put into guns into dealing with the herioin/fent crisis" at least in my state. However, these people aren't running up to others and stabbing them with fentanyl laced heroin, nor am I charging into schools armed with dozens of dunks boxes jamming donuts down the throats of kids. I do agree that problems such as addiction and obesity are not solely the fault of the person actually suffering from them, but I do think they are inherently different from the gun issue, since the abundance of mass shootings have impacted other people very directly, whereas addiction impacts those around the sufferer in a much less directly harmful way. The issues in society that led one 17 year old kid to become dangerously obese and another to get shot while sitting in her history class are wildly different, in my opinion. It's just the "apples to oranges" of how this issue gets dealt with, kind of when people default to how gang violence kills more people than mass shootings, and treats the two as the same.
Yes there is. It is banning semi-automatic guns.
It is not an easy solution - arguably near impossible - but it is certainly simple.
Let me guess - you want to take them away from legal gunowners like me but wouldn't dare get your hands dirty by attempting to come get them. Who will come take them away? The predominantly conservative military or police force? Maybe the left is waiting for Google to create AI terminator robots to disarm everyone and create this magical utopia the left so foolishly believes is possible?
You should move to New Zealand. One mass shooting in March this year where 51 people were killed and the Government almost immediately announced a banning of certain guns, and is compensating people who voluntarily hand in their, now illegal, guns.
This argument is made on the Right to refute any attempt to reform gun control, healthcare, progressive tax rates, social safety net, etc. This is not a good faith argument, it's a sweeping generalization to end discussion before it starts because they have no interest in fixing these problems.
hahaha you're right- the Right sees diversity as a good thing, and doesn't view it as a "problem"
I don’t agree with banning guns, but I do agree with more significant checks on people trying to purchase one. I am all for the 2nd amendment but the idea that some guy with mental health issues or whatever it may be, can walk into a store in Texas and purchase a semi-automatic 1-2-3 is absurd.
Since we are discussing about violent crime thought I would share this https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/13/philippine-president-says-iceland-no-cri…
Makes me really question what has become of world leaders today (including american politicians)
My political platform:
.
I don't get it. Gun laws aren't really all that different than they were before the late 1990s, but you start to see a rise in mass shootings in recent years.
What made the America of 1956 different than the America of 2019? Because despite the same gun laws, one has more mass shootings.
+1 for some critical thinking
I think the rise of the internet is a contributor. Any nut job can have their feelings of hatred towards others amplified by easily-accessible echo chambers.
Also, I may be wrong, but I imagine that the NRA’s power and influence has increased greatly through places like Fox News and Breitbart, which do a great job of whipping up paranoia and hysteria about the government coming to get your guns every time there’s a mass shooting (which is often).
We are reaping the consequences of economic inequality. The difference between the 50's/90's and recent decades is that primarily white working/middle class' economic stability has been eroded or completely upended in many cases. We lack the social infrastructure to treat mental health and the economic tools to redistribute wealth, jobs and training to people who need them. At the same time, the rise of social media has perpetuated fear and hatred across the spectrum (left vs. right, right vs. left, between races and genders, etc.)
This frustration gets pent up in certain individuals that are at high risk already. They want to get across a message and it's very easy to do so nowadays with a mass killing.
Gang / gun violence has always been an issue in the inner cities, for economic reasons. Now economic struggles have moved to white people and they are taking it equally as bad but expressing it differently. Some apparently insane individuals blame everyone but themselves.
I agree with what you are claiming as a root cause of the issue (along with mental health). I disagree that these individuals have no one to blame but themselves. There will be continued violent backlash against immigration, particularly if it continues to accelerate at this pace.
Immigration is extremely negative for existing American workers in those fields which receive the worker supply shock.
As I will continue explaining to everyone, the pivotal shift in America began to occur after the Immigration Act of 1965. This lowered the quality of life for the average American man, and has created a society where it is currently impossible for many young men to achieve the same family creation, lifestyle, etc... that their father's did due to inflation becoming decoupled from wage growth and massive worker supply shocks from immigration.
Society is changing. Shouldn't gun laws change with it?
Without taking a side in either direction, I'd just like to point out that not all changes are good, and just because there's change in one area doesn't mean we should change everything. Our society is doing pretty damn well, better than most of the world. IF this is a key component of that, why would we change it?
What exactly is your point? Heart disease isn't news - it is perfectly clear how to prevent most cases. Likewise, if you get cancer, you seek treatment.
Deaths by homicide and terrorism are, by your own chart, far more rare, thus by default more notable to report on.
Crossed messages but of course this makes sense. I do think there's a conversation to be had about the media's role in perpetuating fear of relatively rare things to drum up excitement, as our media are for-profit entities. That being said, sweeping terrorism or mass killings under the rug to score political points would be equally insidious.
A majority of heart disease deaths are preventable through nutrition and exercise. Of course, this is never discussed by the media because they receive their ad-revenue through MCD, KO, etc...
Instead, the media focuses on mass shootings and terrorist attacks which, while terrible unfortunate events, distract us from more important issues facing America. All an attack to disarm legal gun owners would do is cause civil war, which would create enormously more bloodshed than these one-off events.
Americans are soft pussies who have no idea what real violence is. Look at Mao or Stalin to see how much violence occurs when citizens have no means to defend themselves against tyranny.
Is there a point to this graph, because this makes complete sense, right?
"Old, overweight American man dies of heart disease" is not news. You're not supposed to die from mass killings, terrorism, homicide, or suicide, so when they do happen, it's more newsworthy.
This story is likely to get a ton of shit and claim that the source isn't legitimate but it is based on statistics and crime data. It also goes against the professed narrative.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274538/51-mass-shooters-2019-were-blac…
Whether it's true or not is kind of beyond the point.
Who gives a shit what race mass shooters are? I'll leave it to politicians and talking heads to argue over who is going on shooting sprees - the fact that anyone is, and easily can, is the problem.
Wow for once we agree on something - race really shouldn’t matter. You’re wrong about the fact that anyone can commit a mass shooting though. Obviously 99.9% of people can’t, and banning firearms isn’t going to stop the almost negligible amount of people who are deranged enough to commit a mass shooting. Those deranged enough to commit a mass shooting are deranged enough to build a bomb, burn a building or fuck just stab people. Here’s another thing you’ve still yet to refute: the actions of others don’t negate my rights.
The race matters when the narrative is that "white men" commit mass killings. Does it actually matter in reality? No, but when race relations are inflamed by creating highly distorted views of reality to create false perceptions that are widely believed as true.
This is not about black, brown, yellow or white… it’s about green.
Regardless of how and whether you tighten up gun access, issue a gun buy-back program, improve our mental health system, require more hoops to jump through to be a responsible and legal gun owner such as not only a background check but a psych check [as is required of peace/law officers virtually everywhere in the U.S.] – how about getting rid of the vast majority of lobbyists, be they Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Bank, gun manufacturers or the NRA?
Or since lobbying is protected speech under the First Amendment, at the very least, severely restrict and control the ability of lobbyists to throw money at politicians via “fundraising donations.”
Gone are the days of when the term “lobbyist” literally related to someone lingering in the lobby in the hopes of getting a word in with a legislator. And the fact that ROIFL [Return On Investment For Lobbying} is actually a thing?! The ROIFL over the past decades in many instances is in the 5-digit percentages as in 22,000% as in for every dollar spent on lobbying, a company got $220 in tax benefits.
I understand that we can’t expect our politicians to be experts in tech, energy, healthcare, etc., but the current model of how lobbying works is beyond twisted and skewed especially when you look at the influence [read that as $$$$] that they peddle.
Something like gun control really shouldn’t be in the hands of those with a massive bias for looser, laxer gun laws. And the fact that the NRA issues “grades” on politicians based on how gun-tolerant they are [or not] truly bogles my mind.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/corporations-lobbying-government-reap-760…
https://www.valuewalk.com/2016/04/best-roi-ever-1171-every-1-lobbying/
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-o…
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corpor…
Accusamus amet maiores sit error non. Ut id qui dignissimos est.
Et beatae enim saepe. Sequi rerum eligendi quia reprehenderit.
Sed itaque tempora est saepe. Quo eos ut repellat quia iusto corrupti quos. Est iure corporis aut quia rerum pariatur delectus sequi. Nostrum quam quia nihil. Soluta eos aliquid quis vel eos impedit. Rem saepe pariatur quia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Dolore iste debitis saepe. Consequatur ut doloremque voluptate illum rerum. Dolores aut sit et quia dicta et odio.
Corporis sit vel earum. Aut sapiente iure architecto aut ut.
Ipsum repudiandae reiciendis soluta similique eos molestiae consequatur. Nihil eum ab magnam ratione ut et rerum enim. Reiciendis dolores ut voluptatem ratione voluptas provident maxime sunt. Repellat id omnis est velit provident molestias sunt. Aut nam est ullam aut enim molestiae.
Nemo tempore eum assumenda ut et voluptas aliquid. Vitae voluptatem vitae est possimus ipsam maxime.
Qui aut officiis necessitatibus voluptatem. Occaecati unde sapiente dolore eum ad mollitia cupiditate. Et necessitatibus dolore aperiam placeat inventore nam autem corporis. Quia rerum sunt commodi vel iure.
Laborum dolor maiores provident nihil ad. Vel voluptas est nemo id earum. Provident dicta nulla vero recusandae laboriosam. Quo molestiae impedit perferendis reprehenderit sequi enim eos. Occaecati pariatur mollitia delectus ut dicta voluptatem.
Repudiandae tempora fugiat cupiditate ut. Cum distinctio sed iure.
Quia enim asperiores quia et inventore totam sit. Voluptatibus quia tempore quas culpa provident atque. Porro aliquid alias est at. Soluta pariatur voluptatem rerum quaerat ea dolorem labore.
Qui eaque fugiat autem porro architecto inventore est. Voluptatem nihil quia iure saepe dolorem mollitia. Dolor dicta nihil alias voluptates enim. Non autem voluptates voluptatem eum quos. Quo et voluptates non voluptatem aperiam libero.