Why were 20 people shot dead and 24 injured in El Paso today, and what’s causing the recent trend since the 90s of mass shootings and massacres.

[Love Mountain]

Well, the money in the firearm industry really isn't as significant as the political support behind the 2nd amendment. It is a very valuable political point that Republicans can reliably gather support around. The fact that Democrats have been incapable of fracturing Republican unity around the 2nd amendment, is telling of how flawed some elements of their strategy are.

[Aexodus]

Well, we can at least try to find ways to limit the damage these people can do, even if we don't necessarily know how to eliminate their attitude. Tighter gun control laws might help, even if they only eliminate a quarter of these mass shootings, that might still help, and make it worthwhile to implement tougher laws. Maybe restrict the kind and number of guns a person can have. A single glr 6 shot revovler should be adequate for self defense, yet I think it would be difficult to kill 22 people if a you had was a single revovler that he had to reload. Likewise, a single shot rifles should be sufficient for hunting, but I woild think that would make it difficult to kill large number of people if you went on a rampage. After 911 tougher airport security was implemented that was frankly a pain at times, but I think everyone agrees it was needed, and we may need to make similar sacrifices with gun ownership for the common good

No-one here happens to know what gun he used do they?

There other thing conservstives can do is conduct marches demonstrating they reject this kind of violence. Most conservatives sy they are not racist and against this kind of violence, but saying it isn't enough. By having conservative demonstrating that these attitudes are unacceptable and not to be tolerate, perhaps they can reach some of these angry racist. It might not do much, but it is at least something that should be tried, so we can honestly say we tried everything. These marches and demo strations need to be done and led by conservatives, it won't do any good if done and led by the left. Trump leading a million man march by Trump supporters would send a powerful message to these would be terrorist. One can be opposed to illegal immigration, but reject the racism and violence advocated by the shooters.

I agree totally. The current and past political climate has pushed some parts of the immigration debate into places it should never go. To be blunt, using the UK as an example, immigration was a taboo subject in politics for a long time. It was the reserve of the National Front and anyone talking about it was called racist. Even now people do it, but I think it’s nowhere near as bad it used to be. The British Conservative Party 2005 slogan is sort of evidence to this in my opinion.



What I’m saying is, or trying to say with nuance here, is that associating any negative discussion of immigration with racism, which let’s not lie, happens, actually plays into the hands of the real far right white nationalists. In the United Kingdom, some were so fed up with the mainstream parties, they voted for the goddam BNP. At their height in 2009 they had 55 councillors and one million votes in the MEP elections. Nick Griffin was elected an MEP, as well as another BNP. I find it difficult to believe that every single person who voted for them was a straight up Nazi. I believe that they held their noses to vote for the only anti-immigration party, leaving the BNP as soon as moderate parties began to embrace anti-mass immigration policies.

What I mean is, if everyone regardless of their affiliation could actively disassociate immigrstion criticism with racism, it would help how we all frame immigration a lot. So your idea of an anti-racism march by conservatives is a great idea.

The problem is, 1) They understandably won’t want to appear to indicate the extremists were ever a part of their ‘side’, and 2) Trying to appeal to people who currently hold racist beliefs seems to be a taboo for some. Both these things are results of the tribal ‘your side, my side’ bickering we see up and down Western Democracies, and also the growing prevalence for people to be married to their ideas in an identitarian way. Not dissimilar from identity politics at all in fact. Therefore some people don’t find it easy to believe white supremacists can change their ideas, they assume they too, must be married to them.

I think that, aside from the preliminary part I discussed earlier in this thread, there's also a case to be made linking some economic ideas that have not been put to rest yet to conspiracy theories. I've been rehashing lately a lot on alt-right, trying to better discern their side of the argument and more and more I get the idea that their main argument on population is based on economics, not demographics. Take for example Malthusian economics, a theory presenting 'preventive' and 'positive' checks as part of a population control schema fearing that the introduction of greater population than what's necessary in place will deplete the finite resources of that location, leading to destruction, war and death.

This is an idea widely disproved for at least two hundred years now, especially with the mechanization process that allows for exponentially greater production of good, services and foodstuff necessary for the widening of the population, as well as due to the fact that when presenting populations to different environments their reproduction strategies alter - thus presenting the same plateau as the majority population.

Yet, Malthus hasn't been put to rest.

I'm going to use a cultural reference to make the example of how Malthus' idea of population control could be tied to terrorist acts, and I am going to use an example all of us have seen already but probably missed. I know many will roll their eyes to that, but it's late here and I am tired. So, deal with it.

Thanos, dudes. His plan was to eradicate half of the population on the universe, not out of hate according to him, but out of necessity to preserve life as everyone knows it. Thanos acts under the principles of Malthusian economics, thinking that overpopulation is bound to lead to devastation, famine and death. So, he takes it on himself to 'spare' those he disappears, and 'save' those who will remain. The only thing that doesn't really make the connection so obvious is Thanos' insistence on a balanced system, where everyone get a 50/50 chance to survive.

I think the question why do they hate is beyond the point. It seems more likely that the people targeted are simply seen as more expendables on the eyes of their attackers, since they are at the bottom of the totem pole. I may be rambling here, but do you think we ought to seek some answers to theories such as these?

This is a good nuanced muse on the topic. The perception of immigrants taking jobs is a part of the malthusian idea you mention, also in a way there is no ‘space’ in a country’s identity for other groups if they don’t assimilate for some people. Take Northern Ireland. We got Irish Catholics, Ulster Protestants, you could divide it further down to Gaelic speakers and Ullans speakers. Basically those are the native groups that are I suppose, expected to be the groups living here as their own communities. When for example, a self sufficient Polish community appears in for example Dungannon, people feel uncomfortable, even threatened. I would cautiously suggest these fears are exaggerated but not unfounded. I hear Eastern European languages on the street more and more, and they’re not tourists.

I would be lying if I said it doesn’t make me uneasy that four times as many people speak Polish at home than Irish. This isn’t simply about skin colour. There’s something more complicated than that going on.

What I mean here, is that there is an identity issue it would be solved by assimilation. That means marrying into the native community, or one of them anyway.

Edit: Here’s a couple of youtube channels I’ve started watching recently. If you’re not American and want to understand American gun culture it’s honestly not a bad place to start.

[Heathen Hammer]

No new responses here.

The US is soaking in guns. The gun makers are rich and have bought a lot of politicians.

Even if the US could implement sensible gun laws, or even overly strict ones like in Australia the sheer amount of guns lying around would mean it would take years to see any amelioration. I don't think there's much chance of that, the two party system is pretty corrupt and for most of them gun control is a shibboleth rather than a real problem, something to be spun or deflected for a margin or an increment.

US society is controlled by people increasingly tolerating, dogwhistling and inciting hate. There's a case to be made that Trump has emboldened the terrorists.

I have to say its deeply sickening to read apologists for racism deflecting a hate crime into blame for a Canadian or the environmental movement. Thats intellectually dishonest not to mention disturbingly inhuman and uncaring.

Saying that gun control would help against violent crime is like saying that banning toothpaste would help against dental diseases.
One thing to consider is that mass shootings are prevalent in media, but not in overall violent crime statistics. One way to tackle those is to get rid of "gun free zones" or at least have armed guards in such areas.
Another is to get rid of laws that disarm law-abiding citizens. If there is a psycho in supermarket would you rather shoot him or tell him that his gun is illegal? Exactly.

[Vanoi]

So what you're saying is high gun ownership and liberal gun laws prevent gun related murders?

[Heathen Hammer]

You just gonna ignore the fact that your link purposely left out key details to push a narrative? If you have something that refutes the info on Snopes, by all means share it.

I think his own statements on social media speak for themselves:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So what you're saying is high gun ownership and liberal gun laws prevent gun related murders?

The question you must ask yourself is would you prefer to be armed or unarmed if someone attacks you.

[Vanoi]

Oh armed of course but funny enough not everyone always even carries a gun on them who do own them. Like long guns are usually a bad choice unless you have open carry laws. So its usually a handgun. Or at least its the best option especially if you want it concealed.

Problem is that we can look up gun ownership per state and compare them by guns laws and gun related murders and violemt crime to see if your claim is true and its probably not going to be.

[The spartan]

Edit: Here’s a couple of youtube channels I’ve started watching recently. If you’re not American and want to understand American gun culture it’s honestly not a bad place to start.

I watch Hickok45 from time to time. He is pretty good, though I cringe when he mentions the NRA. May I suggest Forgotten Weapons as that is a pretty good example of proper gun enthusiasm, and it's relation to history enthusiasm, in the US.

[Heathen Hammer]

It seems that shooter was a very vocal supporter of antifa and described himself as a "leftist".
He also referred to antifa terrorist that tried to bomb ICE facility as "martyr". It seems that "white supremacist" narrative just fell apart.

Oh armed of course but funny enough not everyone always even carries a gun on them who do own them. Like long guns are usually a bad choice unless you have open carry laws. So its usually a handgun. Or at least its the best option especially if you want it concealed.

Problem is that we can look up gun ownership per state and compare them by guns laws and gun related murders and violemt crime to see if your claim is true and its probably not going to be.

So in a situation where someone attacks you, you'd prefer to be armed or unarmed?

[mongrel]

What I’m saying is, or trying to say with nuance here, is that associating any negative discussion of immigration with racism, which let’s not lie, happens, actually plays into the hands of the real far right white nationalists. ]

Are you suggesting it was wrong to criticise the Home Office for it's part in the Windrush scandal, that we would turn a blind eye lest it offend Tommy Robinson? Cowardice.

It seems that shooter was a very vocal supporter of antifa and described himself as a "leftist".
He also referred to antifa terrorist that tried to bomb ICE facility as "martyr". It seems that "white supremacist" narrative just fell apart.

Geography fail, Dayton isn't in El Paso. The El Paso shooter remains a racist.

If your intent was to comment on the other shooter , well he seems to be pro-Satan, if the press is to believed. But as he killed his sister I'll wait for the police to figure out a motive.

Nonsense. Read the manifest, HH.Read the manifest. Read the bloody manifest.It's not fake, apparently. El Paso shooter's manifesto: 'This is the last generation of white babies Jerusalem Post.

Sound like yet another Basil post doesn't it?

So in a situation where someone attacks you, you'd prefer to be armed or unarmed?

Logic fail,if the attacker is unable to obtain firearms, such an attack is infinitely less likely to be lethal.

That is quite an interesting question. It's a shame I don't see it being discussed much and instead we have the usual alt-right/alt-left bickering. From answers given, I don't believe it has to do with psychotropic drugs, but I do believe, like Kritias said, that this is a result of rising economic woes, of classism if you will. Conspiracy theories aside, I do find this relative lack of prominence of wealth inequality matters in social discourse suspect.

There are poor people the world over, yet they dont seem to be motivated to kill Mexicans. Being poor doesn't make one racist.

What can be done to stop people like the shooter, who harbour deeply racist views, from killing people? This guy has some pretty extreme ideas about the world. I wonder how those people can be reached and pulled back from their worldview.

How about not having the ' deeply racist views' of Replacement Theory cultists broadcast on the internet, encouraging nutters to kill lest they be replaced by synths , sorry, Mexicans.

[Cyclops]

Saying that gun control would help against violent crime is like saying that banning toothpaste would help against dental diseases.
One thing to consider is that mass shootings are prevalent in media, but not in overall violent crime statistics. One way to tackle those is to get rid of "gun free zones" or at least have armed guards in such areas.
Another is to get rid of laws that disarm law-abiding citizens. If there is a psycho in supermarket would you rather shoot him or tell him that his gun is illegal? Exactly.

Very strange response, you don't seem to actually address a single point I raised. Why would someone quote a post and blow smoke?

Off topic comments serve to cloud the debate in rancour. Its part of the reason its difficult for people in the US to actually discuss gun law rationally, there's always some screeching about "ZOG not gunna take muh weapons" or "gun laws don't do anything and I haven't cited any actual facts because its self evident".

Terrorists in the US are loaded with weapons. Even with gun law reform this will remain the case for the forseeable future. I expect more racist or bigoted gun nuts excited by the dogwhistling of their leaders to go on killing sprees and there's very little to be done about it.

[95thrifleman]

This is the thing. Americans who advocate for guns claim that a good guy with a gun is the answer to a bad guy with a gun.

Yet none of these massacres have been stopped by this mythical good guy with a gun.

Basicly these Americans are happy to watch their children die just so they can keep their shiny boomstick. I like living in a nation in which I will never have to worry about my daughter being shot at school.

[mongrel]

I see that 8chan has lost its cybersecurity support..Did it really require the actions of 3 racist mass shooters to get to this sensible point?

[Commissar Caligula_]

Ad hominem much? You seem to be cherry-picking his beliefs to fit your agenda. You seem to have environmentalist views so your obvious attempt to imply that I support mass shootings could be easily reversed against you.

B.W.'s post kinda debunked that, as the guy had more in common with watermelon parties in US and Canada, while links to right-wing stuff turned out to be a mainstream media hoax (i.e. changing his affiliation from Democrat to Republican, etc.). So yeah, his beliefs are quite more similar to our dumbass prime minister here in Canada, rather then some mythical "white supremacy". The guy just read one too many sensationalist articles about "climate emergency" and went nuts. It happens.

The guy was a global warming fanatic who was also a green weenie who had racist inclinations,not to mention he was a democrat. Oh yeah, he was white. That's the most important thing. Never mind that blacks are killing primarily blacks to the tune of several hundred a week. That doesn't seem to be a problem.

How exactly does having environmentalist views = being a mass shooter?

[Mithradates]

No-one here happens to know what gun he used do they?

The El Paso guy used a semi-auto rifle.



The Dayton shooter used a semi-auto rifle too, with a 100-round drum magazine. Im not anti gun, and I know its the US, but civilians have access to drum magazines? Why?

[Love Mountain]

The El Paso guy used a semi-auto rifle.



The Dayton shooter used a semi-auto rifle too, with a 100-round drum magazine. Im not anti gun, and I know its the US, but civilians have access to drum magazines? Why?

Why not? Even if you outlaw high-cap magazines, there's already a huge amount in circulation. Not to mention manufacturers will just make magazines that can be easily modified...

[Prodromos]

Contrary to popular belief, a handful of rounds is nowhere near enough to stop a determined attacker. It's not like in the movies where one shot can send a guy flying into the air. A ban on "high-capacity" magazines would significantly diminish a law-abiding citizen's ability to protect himself.

(Not sure if a content warning is in order. It looks fine to me but it might be a little stressful. Mods can edit out the video if they want)

Video: LEO fatally shoots knife-wielding man attacking cop

[95thrifleman]

Contrary to popular belief, a handful of rounds is nowhere near enough to stop a determined attacker. It's not like in the movies where one shot can send a guy flying into the air. A ban on "high-capacity" magazines would significantly diminish a law-abiding citizen's ability to protect himself.

(Not sure if a content warning is in order. It looks fine to me but it might be a little stressful. Mods can edit out the video if they want)

Video: LEO fatally shoots knife-wielding man attacking cop

So you walk around with an AR-15 and a 100 round drum magazine for self defence?

[Ludicus]

obvious attempt to imply that I support mass shootings...

I don't think so. Your aim is different, I firmly believe that you don't support mass shootings. That's not my point. Trump certainly doesn't not support mass shootings, but we cannot ignore Trump's indirect role- as President of the US- in mass shootings. Allow me to rephrase my question: in general lines, do you agree or disagree with the Political manifesto? (1)
-----
-----

It isn't that complicated, Gaidin spoke it true near the beginning of the thread; Americans don't really care about mass shooting victims... As Donald Glover said: "This is America."

Yep. Adam Winkler,-a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law- tells us,

Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today. Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.

As a side note, on February 28, 2017,Trump signed a law making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns.
But,
what is at stake is much more than gun control. J' accuse...(where is Emilio Zola when we need him?) Trump's inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and incites violence, feeding and legitimizing the beast of the white supremacy extremism.

Trump to a rally crowd in Florida in May: "But how do you stop these people" from crossing the border? Rally attendee: "Shoot them!" Crowd laughs. Trump smirks and makes a joke about it.
(1) Trump compares immigrants to snakes, animals, coming from " countries", repeatedly said that immigrants are bringing infectious diseases to the U.S, accusing Mexicans of being responsible for "tremendous infectious disease"… pouring across the border"(sic),and also pushed a conspiracy theory about migrants representing an invasion of the country.

An ABC News investigation in November 2018 has found that 17 criminal cases involving mostly white men where Trump's name or rhetoric was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.
Trump played down any threat posed by racist white nationalism after the gunman accused of the New Zealand mosque massacre called the president "a symbol of renewed white identity".
-----
The sad thing is, his approval rating in the Republican party regularly tops 90%. On 26 August 2018, Trump tweeted, "Over 90% approval rating for your all time favorite (I hope) President within the Republican Party"

The GOP's silence about Trump's tweets reveals party's ingrained racism, there is no other possible explanation.
------
The Divided United States of America | Harvard Political Review
Just How Divided Are Americans Since Trump's Election? - HISTORY

[Prodromos]

So you walk around with an AR-15 and a 100 round drum magazine for self defence?

So you only support magazine restrictions for rifles? You don't think people can commit mass shootings with handguns?

[TheLeft]

I'm so glad I live in a civilised country, because America just seems like such a messed up place.

Let's face facts, there is no stopping mass shooting. There's no political will to do anything useful, so people will carry on getting murdered. It seems that people would rather innocents be murdered than edit one clause of a 243 year old document.