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.

[Kritias]

Most but for a few of the topic currently going in the ‘pit do not interest me, so to remedy the situation I’ll make a thread. I looked at what was on BBC and the headline was a grim but important subject. Hopefully we won’t screech and posture like I see elsewhere.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49221936


Now, anyone who says this has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment is deluding themselves. You donÂ’t see this for example, happening as much in Canada or in the UK. Now the UK is a much smaller country, but even when you adjust for population size there are much less shootings here.

Obviously more guns in circulation means more opportunity to shoot people. ThatÂ’s just a statistical fact. But I donÂ’t think it means that there will inevitably be mass murders. A discussion I find more interesting is why were there less mass shootings in the decades before the 90s, when gun laws in the US were either the same or more liberal than they are today.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the main issue is access to guns, even though limitation to access would certainly make these horrible incidents less likely to happen. Nor, even though many will try to say that the man was simply deranged -as is the case when the perpetrator is part of the majority population - or otherwise mentally troubled, I believe we can't pin this one on mental ailment. Having read the alleged document found on the site of the attack from the source Vanoi supplied, the reasons the attacker lists are mainly political.

According to the perpetrator, the liberals and the corporations are using the migrants to enfranchise them and dominate the elections in the US in the future. He assaulted people from the 'sizable' Mexican population living in Texas because, according to him, the Mexicans en mass have begun supporting the Democrats and if Texas is lost to the republicans, then the presidency is in peril to be lost forever.

The main problem I see here is that a group of people who, being in the majority population, hard-working, lawful (up to now), by-the-book Americans are seeing that their lives are not getting any better, even though everyone is telling them the crisis of 'o8 is successfully behind them and that the economy is doing splendidly. In other words, they are sensing what the IMF shown pretty recently. I quote from the economic outlook for 2019

The IMF’s annual article IV consultation said the US economy had shown extraordinary resilience, noting that unemployment was at its lowest in 50 years, but that the benefits from this decade-long expansion have not been widely shared”.

It singled out:


1) The impact of rising suicides and drug overdoses on falling life expectancy, now one of the lowest in the G7.
2) A rise of just 2.2% in inflation-adjusted incomes for the median US household since the end of the 1990s, even though per capita incomes have risen by 23%.
3) A decrease in wealth among the poorest 40% of the population since 1983.
4) The fact that 45 million Americans live in poverty.
5) An erosion of social mobility so that half of todayÂ’s young American adults earn less than their parents did at a similar age. Forty years ago the figure was 10%.
6) Poor education outcomes by international standards despite devoting a bigger slice of national income to schools and colleges.

So, according to the IMF, the wealth generated was spread even more unevenly, drug abuse and suicides are rising, cost of living is rising at rates much higher than the real wages, the poor are even poorer than the poor of '83 were, and the new generations of people are now projected to fare worse than their parents.

But the economy, they hear everywhere is doing good. So, what's wrong? And here comes the conspiracy theories. Some people are understanding of the fact that they are being gradually left behind by the system, even to the point of deprivation. At the same time, the public discourse has been about civil rights and human rights - completely ignoring their sad state of affairs.

But here is where it goes wrong. Instead of understanding that, yes, protecting the most vulnerable isn't easy but is every humane society's moral obligation, some people read between the lines to discover a plot. This plot encompasses a lot of different arguments, real and imagined, but goes mainly like so: the elites are trying to enfranchise those who currently cannot vote, and are trying to make them the majority in the country because that's the way they will depose the republic.

Of course, they seem to neglect the fact that the elites are very content with them thinking that since it doesn't really target them directly - the rage is pointed primarily towards those who have the least to do with anything and with the least influence to help themselves, the minorities.

The first step in in national tragedy is to find out what team the perpetrator is on and blame them for it.

A tragedy isn't some political tool to be used for votes, or impressions. Reading what happened was enough to leave scarring impressions. Don't play the same game with the alt-right. You won't win it and you'll loose your soul in the process.

[Prodromos]

Another channer, huh

[Gustav Mahler]

Gun ownership is a right and to maintain that right there must be payed price of possible mass shootings because the damage in other case is greater. On one side there is armed population, on another government. The more armed population the government is more uneasy. Normal Americans are not guilty because some idiot decides to kill mass of people. Many comments here are pushing lefty political agenda and it is clear that their only purpose is to use the tragedy for some kind of agitation and illusion about reality. If the shooter was of different race and different political leaning your rhetoric would be completely different. Still all the circumstances are not clear.

[95thrifleman]

looks like someone decided to "send them back"

[mongrel]

Farage said that Trump's 'send them back' speech was 'genius'. Would love to see him explain that in light of this massacre.

[Daruwind]

Well looks like there were yet another mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio, 9 dead +16 injured

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/shoot...BMJJ2n3yV1b7Lo

[Commissar Caligula_]

Gun ownership is a right and to maintain that right there must be payed price of possible mass shootings because the damage in other case is greater. On one side there is armed population, on another government. The more armed population the government is more uneasy. Normal Americans are not guilty because some idiot decides to kill mass of people. Many comments here are pushing lefty political agenda and it is clear that their only purpose is to use the tragedy for some kind of agitation and illusion about reality. If the shooter was of different race and different political leaning your rhetoric would be completely different. Still all the circumstances are not clear.

So you're outright saying that terror attacks mass shootings are "part and parcel" of living in a major city America, but its all for the greater good.

[athanaric]

Unfortunately, I don't think that the main issue is access to guns, even though limitation to access would certainly make these horrible incidents less likely to happen. Nor, even though many will try to say that the man was simply deranged -as is the case when the perpetrator is part of the majority population - or otherwise mentally troubled, I believe we can't pin this one on mental ailment. Having read the alleged document found on the site of the attack from the source Vanoi supplied, the reasons the attacker lists are mainly political.

According to the perpetrator, the liberals and the corporations are using the migrants to enfranchise them and dominate the elections in the US in the future. He assaulted people from the 'sizable' Mexican population living in Texas because, according to him, the Mexicans en mass have begun supporting the Democrats and if Texas is lost to the republicans, then the presidency is in peril to be lost forever.

The main problem I see here is that a group of people who, being in the majority population, hard-working, lawful (up to now), by-the-book Americans are seeing that their lives are not getting any better, even though everyone is telling them the crisis of 'o8 is successfully behind them and that the economy is doing splendidly. In other words, they are sensing what the IMF shown pretty recently. I quote from the economic outlook for 2019



So, according to the IMF, the wealth generated was spread even more unevenly, drug abuse and suicides are rising, cost of living is rising at rates much higher than the real wages, the poor are even poorer than the poor of '83 were, and the new generations of people are now projected to fare worse than their parents.

But the economy, they hear everywhere is doing good. So, what's wrong? And here comes the conspiracy theories. Some people are understanding of the fact that they are being gradually left behind by the system, even to the point of deprivation. At the same time, the public discourse has been about civil rights and human rights - completely ignoring their sad state of affairs.

But here is where it goes wrong. Instead of understanding that, yes, protecting the most vulnerable isn't easy but is every humane society's moral obligation, some people read between the lines to discover a plot. This plot encompasses a lot of different arguments, real and imagined, but goes mainly like so: the elites are trying to enfranchise those who currently cannot vote, and are trying to make them the majority in the country because that's the way they will depose the republic.

Of course, they seem to neglect the fact that the elites are very content with them thinking that since it doesn't really target them directly - the rage is pointed primarily towards those who have the least to do with anything and with the least influence to help themselves, the minorities.

Oh look, someone tried to introduce thought to the debate. I agree for the most part, I also think the differences in healthcare coverage mentioned earlier might be a contributing factor, along with the easy access to guns. And then there's the cultural factor; judging from the name of the culprit and the general tenor of the debate, I'm guessing he belongs to a subset of society that is constantly being told (via MSM, entertainment industry, education system, and tech companies infested with SJW ideologies) they are evil and racially inferior by default. Add to that other factors from the social environment, or mental issues...

[mongrel]

.exterminatory language against the native lower classes .

By that you mean antifa don't like Nazis who are prepared to sell their souls to foreign racist fairy tales? Fascists are an anachronism. Fascist influencers exist today predominently to suck money from gullible racists . It's a shame that more often or not some of their thralls believe the nonsense they peddle and go on to kill on masse.

So you're outright saying that terror attacks mass shootings are "part and parcel" of living in a major city America, but its all for the greater good.

I see what you did there.

[Aexodus]

1. If someone from the blue team commits mass murder, that doesn’t mean everyone on blue team or their goals are bad.

2. If someone from the blue team commits mass murder, this doesn’t mean the red team’s minority of crazies are any less guilty of their crimes either.

[Kritias]

There was a second one in Ohio

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...-mass-shooting

[Papay]

These incidents are not as isolated as most people might think. What is shocking here are not the views the perpetrators have but their willingness to die for these views. The second is rear but the first one is not. Millions in the west share similar beliefs with the killer(they just wont go to the extreme of killing others and themselves to prove they are right). Frankly i blame some "underground" media and some twitter accounts like Katie Hopkins account that want to create hatred against non-whites. A 20 year old can easily be influenced be those media

[Gaidin]

1. If someone from the blue team commits mass murder, that doesn’t mean everyone on blue team or their goals are bad.

2. If someone from the blue team commits mass murder, this doesn’t mean the red team’s minority of crazies are any less guilty of their crimes either.

I think you have a very weird analogy going on here for the string of posts you're replying to. Sure, if someone attached to the blue team goes on a shooting rampage, by all means if they survive charge them with murder however many times for however many people they killed. Maybe even a hate crime if appropriate. However, I don't think Antifa has gone on a shooting rampage yet. They've done, at most, Assault and Battery. Yet, Antifa's the terrorists according to the American Right? Not the ones that actually mow people down and leave towns quivering in fear?

Good logic Aex, as always. Good logic. Don't teach.

[TheLeft]

1. If someone from the blue team commits mass murder, that doesn’t mean everyone on blue team or their goals are bad.

2. If someone from the blue team commits mass murder, this doesn’t mean the red team’s minority of crazies are any less guilty of their crimes either.

Except one side isn't killing anyone and the other side is and yet somehow you've drawn a moral equivalence between them. Stupid post.

[alhoon]

Please remember that personal references are off topic outside the administrative forums

[Amagi]

A discussion I find more interesting is why were there less mass shootings in the decades before the 90s, when gun laws in the US were either the same or more liberal than they are today.

Those shootists often are drug users. By drugs I don´t mean drugs like cocaine or marihuana but psychotropic agents you get from a doctor. Those drugs were relatively rare in the 90ies and before that. That´s why.

[mongrel]

Those shootists often are drug users. By drugs I don´t mean drugs like cocaine or marihuana but psychotropic agents you get from a doctor. Those drugs were relatively rare in the 90ies and before that. That´s why.

Drugs makes one racist?

1. If someone from the blue team commits mass murder, that doesn’t mean everyone on blue team or their goals are bad.

2. If someone from the blue team commits mass murder, this doesn’t mean the red team’s minority of crazies are any less guilty of their crimes either.

The penalty and consequences for chucking a milkshake is a fine and a cleaning bill. You are seriously making it equivalent to the consequences of mass murder?

No, just been helping to destroy Europe

How is opposing an ideology that led to a catastrophic war and genocide 'helping to destroy Europe '? Some political education is in order.

[Amagi]

Hm, raciscm and drugs in combination can make one a shootist I guess.

[Common Soldier]

Most but for a few of the topic currently going in the ‘pit do not interest me, so to remedy the situation I’ll make a thread. I looked at what was on BBC and the headline was a grim but important subject. Hopefully we won’t screech and posture like I see elsewhere.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49221936


Now, anyone who says this has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment is deluding themselves. You don’t see this for example, happening as much in Canada or in the UK. Now the UK is a much smaller country, but even when you adjust for population size there are much less shootings here.

Obviously more guns in circulation means more opportunity to shoot people. That’s just a statistical fact. But I don’t think it means that there will inevitably be mass murders. A discussion I find more interesting is why were there less mass shootings in the decades before the 90s, when gun laws in the US were either the same or more liberal than they are today.

Violence is higher in the US than Britain, and guns are just one tool. Strict gun cont ol laws did not prevent mass shootings in Norway in 2011, nor the shootings in Munich. Take away guns, and persons will.find some other means of killings, like ramming a truck full of gasoline into a building. Many states have similar gun laws to Texas, yet still don't have the mass shootings.

While the availability of guns might make it easier to commit the mass shootings, it is questionable if guns were not available it would stop someone bent con killing a lot of people. The greatest school killing in US history did not ivovle guns, and 911 did not invovle guns either. Mexico's strict gun laws don't prevent the drug cartels from having guns and using them, either.


Whether tougher gun laws would prevent this mass killing would depend if the shootings were a spur of the moment thing, or if they were carefully planned out. If a planned out event, then the killers would likely switch to other means of guns were not available. If more spur of the moment action, after the person had been taking drugs or drinking, then tougher gun laws might prevent these kind of killings.

[Ludicus]

Trump said "many people agree" with his racist tweets. These white supremacists certainly do. According to the FBI, most domestic terrorism comes from white supremacists.

George P. Bush denounces 'white terrorism' after El Paso shooting ...

There have now been multiple attacks from self-declared white terrorists here in the US in the past several months

El Paso Shooting Hate Crime Investigation: What We Know | Time

Shortly after the shooting, a four-page manifesto expressing hatred of Hispanic immigrants and detailing a plan for an attack began to circulate online. It had been posted on an online message board that is popular with followers of conspiracy theories, including QAnon.