GG Posted August 6, 2019 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
row_33 Posted August 6, 2019 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
B-Man Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 Mass Shootings: The Elephant in the Room American Thinker, by Taylor Day Original Article .
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 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
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2019 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.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 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
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 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.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 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
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 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
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 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.
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 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?
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 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
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 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.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 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
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2019 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!"
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 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
jrober38 Posted August 6, 2019 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
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 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.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 6, 2019 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.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 6, 2019 Posted August 6, 2019 Exiled again proves he's not the sharpest tool in the drawer. I don't care about being mocked.
Recommended Posts