• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

El Paso TX Shooting. 10+ dead.

Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
Appeals to emotion lad.
It sure fucking does. Seeing kids crying who had to walk past their dead teachers will do that.

They aren't changing the numbers that much, not enough to consider fundamental changes to firearm laws that probably isn't addressing the root of the problem.
Yeah, 292 mass shootings so far in 2019. Totally normal. It effects a lot more people than just those who were shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MB1

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
Yeah, 292 mass shootings so far in 2019. Totally normal. It effects a lot more people than just those who were shot.
Control for Race and Socioeconomic status, compare the US homicide rate to countries with similar demographics. Nothing it out of the ordinary, firearm ownership itself, of any type currently available has no meaningful effect upon the country's homicide rate.
If mass shootings is baggage that comes with the freedom to bear types of arms, so be it. The actual amount of mass shootings occurring yearly is lesser, they've just been more deadly, but there's nothing available now that wasn't in the past 60 years.
So what is the cause, will restricting firearms actually have a meaningful impact upon the occurrence of these events?
What was the change in mass shootings during the assault weapons ban? Was it a 5-15% change?
I would say that's probably a fair assessment of the efficacy and variance attributable to tighter firearm laws. In real numbers, maybe that saves 60 people a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod and finowns

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,252
851
890
Appeals to emotion lad.
They aren't changing the numbers that much, not enough to consider fundamental changes to firearm laws that probably isn't addressing the root of the problem.
Agreed. This doesn't change the behavior of the average American which is why we get over these incidents without fundamental changes. The media's coverage of this stuff is a bigger concern of mine because of the political landscape these shooting are looked as an opportunity.
 
Last edited:

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
210
54
495
My argument was that the behavior and mindset inspiring these attacks and other elements of violence would happen regardless to whether these weapons were available, and that we should not be giving up freedoms for the failed results of leftists.

However, to address your link, there was a letter written to the editor of the journal in which this study was published.
I won't write it all out here, but it draws serious doubt on the validity of the study due to the definition of mass-shootings.



The gangbangers in Chicago and Baltimore are actually a little more sympathetic to me in this case because at least those scum don't try to shift the blame to feminism or marxism. Not to mention they are more likely to further ruin their own communities & families rather than indiscriminately kill innocents in random locations.
They are both the result of failed policies of the left, which is my point. Just because they haven't identified this does not change this fact. Beyond that, the location doesn't really matter as a death is a death. In fact I might argue the locality of constant nihilistic behavior is a far grander, pervasive issue as it is all encompassing and cyclical.

For example, policies which encourage single motherhood have detrimental affects on young men which remove them from society and their potential children which create a need for more social services encouraging more single motherhood, etc.

The incrementalism that Marxists have adopted has been allowed to slow roll for decades unabated and it has been disastrous for this country because their theories are destructive to everything that defines a nation -from family to people.

The only -ism relevant to this terrorist attack involving a white dude driving 10 hours to kill Mexican immigrants is racism. You're making it way more complex than it is.
Racism has always and will always exist. What we are seeing now across the board is the result of things decades in the making. I will reiterate that we should not be giving up fundamental God given rights for what is a largely a recent phenomenon.


This is a long video but gets at what I'm talking about if you are interested.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
Is there actual proof this guy is a white supremacist or is the media jumping the gun to push their anti-white male agenda like usual?
According to his manifesto he's more of a white separatist than a white supremacist. Doesn't believe people with distinctly different cultures can peacefully coexist, but recognizes the value they bring and the lives they created, so wants the country basically segregated along ethnic lines / balkanized and immigration basically frozen to prevent job loss and allow for socialism via UBI and universal health care so we can save the environment.

Basically, very similar to Christchurch. Dangerous far left end game ideology mixed with end game far right rhetoric mixed with delusion and hopelessness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pramod

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
Are you honestly going to tell me that mass shootings have not increased since the ban expired?
It depends on how you're defining mass shootings, the common approach in discourse is defining them according to the FBI's definition in the 1980's which was 4 or more casualties excluding the perpatrator. This method doesn't account for injuries though if fewer than 4 are killed, which leads to Researchers crafting their own way of defining it. Lott and Landes (2000) defined it as 2 or more people injured, while the Gun Violence Archive defined it as 4 or more people injured.
To give an example of the discrepancies these different definitions can create, in 2015 there may have been 7, 65, 332, or 371 Mass shootings in the US. With those larger numbers, Domestic gun violence accounts for a potential 80%.(Krouss and Richardson 2015)
Mother Jones tends to omit the Domestic and Criminal events in favor of a more restrictive definition while Mass Shooting Tracker has a broader definition that catches more organized/gang/domestic gun violence.

So what this means is that even if we enact Firearm Legislation and we see positive results, how we define this type of crime makes a large difference. What if we aren't seeing the end of high profile Mass Shootings, but instead the drop in "Mass Shootings" would be attributable to a drop in domestic or criminal violence rather than the Shootings the Media reports on?

We need a definition going foreward. If we defined Mass Shootings as 4 or more fatalities then Mass Shootings are on a downward trend, but that omits wounded and means some mass shootings might be missed.(not pleased with that definition)
If we defined it as 4 or more injured, we run the risk of getting more Domestic and Gang activity in the data which is not exactly what we think of in relation to what we're discussing.
 
Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
If we defined it as 4 or more injured, we run the risk of getting more Domestic and Gang activity in the data which is not exactly what we think of in relation to what we're discussing.
So because it was gang activity, it doesn't count as a mass shooting? How about we try to stop them all by reducing access to guns? Seems like common sense to me.
 

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
210
54
495
Are you honestly going to tell me that mass shootings have not increased since the ban expired?
I'm saying the study you linked was questionable due to it not properly adhering to the definition of mass-shootings that it defined. Your argument being that mass-shootings were lowered due to banning assault weapons does not seem to be the case.

It would seem to me the shootings have increased or at least the reporting of them, but my argument is that they have little to do with the types of weapons available and more about the culture we've allowed to be fostered by the elements I've spoken about.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja
Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
It would seem to me the shootings have increased, but my argument is that they have little to do with the types of weapons available and more about the culture we've allowed to be fostered by the elements I've spoken about.
Culture doesn't fire 40 bullets in one minute.
 

Zangiefy360

Member
Aug 30, 2018
872
1,472
375
According to his manifesto he's more of a white separatist than a white supremacist. Doesn't believe people with distinctly different cultures can peacefully coexist, but recognizes the value they bring and the lives they created, so wants the country basically segregated along ethnic lines / balkanized and immigration basically frozen to prevent job loss and allow for socialism via UBI and universal health care so we can save the environment.

Basically, very similar to Christchurch. Dangerous far left end game ideology mixed with end game far right rhetoric mixed with delusion and hopelessness.
Appreciate the reply. Looks like we got another made up narrative to make white people look as bad as possible by the mainstream media.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
So because it was gang activity, it doesn't count as a mass shooting? How about we try to stop them all by reducing access to guns? Seems like common sense to me.
What we think of as "Common sense" doesn't always work out.

In the case of gang violence, the cities in the USA with the highest gun crime and gang violence also have some of the most restrictive gun laws. If reducing access to guns could address the issue, it would've already been addressing the issue f. Wouldn't you agree that is "common sense"?

Conversely, if gun restrictions have not reduced gang activity, then why would we assume stricter laws would have an impact? This is also "common sense".
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
So because they're black they don't matter?
What is being said is that when you control for race and compare like terms, say American Europeans to Germans, their homicide rate is very close and it's hard to say how much of the variance between the two could be attributable to access to Firearms.
African Americans find their average homicide rate very close to other African Countries where Firearms are more restricted.

Firearm ownership or availability is independent of a country's Homicide rate.
 
Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
What is being said is that when you control for race and compare like terms, say American Europeans to Germans, their homicide rate is very close and it's hard to say how much of the variance between the two could be attributable to access to Firearms.
Depends on which country. Compared to Russia we are much lower.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
Who could be contributing to that homicide rate that European and East Asian countries don't have.
Oh, Source is the CDC.


Remember to compare like terms before trying to demonstrate something nonsensical.
And which race brought the blacks here? Must've been some real neanderthals, that race, to forcibly import a foreign population and proceed to incessantly mistreat and complain about said population for decades on end.
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
And which race brought the blacks here? Must've been some real neanderthals, that race, to forcibly import a foreign population and proceed to incessantly mistreat and complain about said population for decades on end.
I don't think have any disagreement about the damage slavery caused during and after. The irreconcilable differences between the European American and African American populace is talked about often to this day with no solution on the horizen.
African Americans have been the beneficiaries of American life for some time though, many would not have been born had their fellow Countryman in Africa not sold them into bondage because Middle Eastern and African Slavery was a death sentence.
 

Sign

Member
Jun 4, 2012
210
54
495
So let's keep him from getting a fucking gun.
Guns are just the canary in the coal mine -one of many really. The increasing suicide rates of
teens, the drug epidemic, the hopelessness of inner cities, etc. It is all just the messenger trying
to let us know that something is wrong with our society.

Excising the canary because it is inconvenient won't fix the problem. I believe that it is possible to solve the issues we face and protect our rights as they stand, but we just may be in disagreement about that.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
all gun control laws will do is increase resentment among the to-be killers

they'll turn to bombs and vehicles
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
the drug epidemic
Actually, you brought up a great point. We have people dying from opiates EVERY DAY. And one of the goals from President Trump's opiate task force was specifically to reduce demand and over prescription of the drugs. He doesn't blame other factors or claim personal responsibility. He readily acknowledges the objective is to reduce the number of the dangerous drugs by reducing access.

So why not use the same logic for guns?
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,252
851
890
And which race brought the blacks here? Must've been some real neanderthals, that race, to forcibly import a foreign population and proceed to incessantly mistreat and complain about said population for decades on end.
Blacks were actually born here they aren’t foreign.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: ConnorDuffy1977

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,252
851
890
Actually, you brought up a great point. We have people dying from opiates EVERY DAY. And one of the goals from President Trump's opiate task force was specifically to reduce demand and over prescription of the drugs. He doesn't blame other factors or claim personal responsibility. He readily acknowledges the objective is to reduce the number of the dangerous drugs by reducing access.

So why not use the same logic for guns?
We do use that logic we reduce access to guns.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
the drug problem is a bit different because when men lose their jobs or get hurt and diagnosed with chronic pain syndrome they turn to painkillers and then harder shit (passed over the boarder)

we've been fighting pill pushing hard in florida and i don't think we're winning

Ok sounds good. Bombs aren't sold anywhere and vehicles are a lot harder to purchase than a gun.
access to vehicles is much easier than guns, you can steal your dad's car or your friend's or jack some schmuck's keys at church

steal a school bus, whatever
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
Oh yeah, silly me. All these mass car killings going on, I almost forgot.
ease of access is not use, firearms are weapons of war and the theatrical element cannot be ignored

chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country, what do you wanna do there?
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
Earth. How much does a gun cost? Hundreds. Do you need to register the sale with the state? Nope. Do you need a valid license to operate that gun? Nope.

Cars cost thousands, even shitty ones. You don't have to register the sale with the state and you don't need a license to operate one.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,388
1,340
Because Chicago is a great city with great people. I was just there for work and took my children to Shedd's. And let's not be naive, it's the proliferation of guns from states with weaker laws flooding our cities. Why don't you care?
dude my point is that chicago has the toughest gun laws and the worst gun violence

it's not the guns
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and JordanN

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
Because Chicago is a great city with great people. I was just there for work and took my children to Shedd's. And let's not be naive, it's the proliferation of guns from states with weaker laws flooding our cities. Why don't you care?
Doesn't this just tell us criminals wont stop to get access to guns?
 

CaptainAnchovie

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
369
410
350
it's the proliferation of guns from states with weaker laws flooding our cities. Why don't you care?
Here's an alternative hypothesis, the population of Chicago has a higher tendency to commit homicide and firearms just happen to be the method used. Nearly everyone in Rural America owns at least one firearm, but we didn't 60 homicides over the weekend.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
I think both sides of the argument make really good points, the only way we'll know for sure if any difference is made is if new gun laws are enacted. Maybe at some point there will be a meeting in the middle. Assault rifle ban, bump stock ban, large capacity mags ban(these are legal, yes?Admittedly I'm not up on gun laws). Keep handguns and bolt action hunting rifles. Shotguns? No idea what should be done with those or what common people generally use them for.

And then see if we see a decrease in mass shootings. Then both sides will have more data and information to back up their side based on that.

Most gun owners I think would be happy being able to own a handgun for protection and hunting rifles to still hunt, but I could be wrong. Then we at least get to see what, if any changes happen in regards to these shootings.
 
Last edited:

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
724
1,110
380
Earth. How much does a gun cost? Hundreds. Do you need to register the sale with the state? Nope. Do you need a valid license to operate that gun? Nope.

Cars cost thousands, even shitty ones. You don't have to register the sale with the state and you don't need a license to operate one.
Cars do not cost thousands. Decent cars do.

On Earth, you can buy a piece of shit for $100 bucks off some guys front lawn and drive it without insurance.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

JordanN

Gold Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,193
4,621
795
Brampton, Ontario
I think both sides of the argument make really good points, the only way we'll know for sure if any difference is made is if new gun laws are enacted. Maybe at some point there will be a meeting in the middle. Assault rifle ban, bump stock ban, large capacity mags ban(these are legal, yes?Admittedly I'm not up on gun laws). Keep handguns and bolt action hunting rifles. Shotguns? No idea what should be done with those or what common people generally use them for.

And then see if we see a decrease in mass shootings. Then both sides will have more data and information to back up their side based on that.

Most gun owners I think would be happy being able to own a handgun for protection and hunting rifles to still hunt, but I could be wrong. Then we at least get to see what, if any changes happen in regards to these shootings.
Why ban assault rifles and not handguns?

Do people forget Virignia tech? He still killed 33 people with just two pistols.



Meanwhile, the Columbine guys with the "scary" weapons did less damage.



In fact, even the Columbine killers admitted they wanted to kill more people with their home made propane bombs. They were only going to use their guns to shoot at the survivors. It's only after their bombs failed did they enter the school and commit the massacre.

I know it sounds morbid I'm comparing kill counts nor is it my intention to try and glorify them, but we have to face the facts. It's not "scary guns" that leads to more deaths.
 
Last edited:

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
I think both sides of the argument make really good points, the only way we'll know for sure if any difference is made is if new gun laws are enacted. Maybe at some point there will be a meeting in the middle. Assault rifle ban, bump stock ban, large capacity mags ban(these are legal, yes?Admittedly I'm not up on gun laws). Keep handguns and bolt action hunting rifles. Shotguns? No idea what should be done with those or what common people generally use them for.

And then see if we see a decrease in mass shootings. Then both sides will have more data and information to back up their side based on that.

Most gun owners I think would be happy being able to own a handgun for protection and hunting rifles to still hunt, but I could be wrong. Then we at least get to see what, if any changes happen in regards to these shootings.
Handguns are responsible for most killings. Even in Texas you can buy a semi automatic rifle at 18 but have to wait until 21 to buy a handgun. Any comprehensive gun control measure would have to include a flat out ban on all semi automatic firearms, or at least require more numerous hoops to jump through.

A shotgun is generally recommended for home protection anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConnorDuffy1977
Jun 26, 2018
2,028
1,288
380
Milwaukee, WI
On Earth, you can buy a piece of shit for $100 bucks off some guys front lawn and drive it without insurance.
Not legally. You have to register that sale and transfer the title. And you have to be licensed to operate that vehicle.

Finally, please, please, please show me a car that costs $100 that you can drive away. I'll buy it.
 

DragoonKain

Member
Nov 13, 2013
1,947
1,194
795
I know handguns are responsible for most homicides in America. Just saying if we want to see if any changes are made and we are going to meet in the middle we have to make concessions somewhere. Handguns are obviously never going to be banned, that's just not going to happen, so what I'm trying to argue as someone who hasn't really chosen a side in this debate, give something to the gun control advocates. Give them their assault rifle ban, bump stock, large capacity mags ban. And see if it decreases mass shootings.

Then we go from there.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
What we think of as "Common sense" doesn't always work out.

In the case of gang violence, the cities in the USA with the highest gun crime and gang violence also have some of the most restrictive gun laws. If reducing access to guns could address the issue, it would've already been addressing the issue f. Wouldn't you agree that is "common sense"?
Think about it. If the city of Chicago bans guns, but the counties and states outside of Chicago don't, guns can easily still be taken into Chicago. This is happening now

Conversely, if gun restrictions have not reduced gang activity, then why would we assume stricter laws would have an impact? This is also "common sense".
No. Because if every corner of this country was on the same page (as well as manufacturers domestic or import), that would change the availability of weapons reaching criminal hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConnorDuffy1977