18 Reported Dead In El Paso Mass Shooting, Alleged Racist ‘Manifesto’ Posted

[Fad]

I'm not aware of any real factual support for this sweeping claim. The dreaded "assault weapon" is merely a semi auto rifle. You could ban them I suppose, and make criminals out of millions of law-abiding hunters and recreational shooters. But then logically you would also have to ban semi-auto shotguns and pistols. Let's be honest here, that is exactly what the anti-gun crowd want to do. They just are not honest enough to come out and say it.

The vast majority of mass murders in the US are made possible by the use off semi-automatic weapons. Remove them or do something, anything such as regulate who can obtain them and it is almost certain less people will die.

The anti-gun crowd just want to see a few thousand less people being slaughtered every year. That simple really.

I'm not American but if I was, I would have supported the anti-gun movement the minute I was old enough to understand that one mass shooting is one too many and guns should be removed entirely, or at least from sight or reach of untrained hands and unsteady minds.

 

[Overnight]

...

I'm not American but if I was, I would have supported the anti-gun movement the minute I was old enough to understand that one mass shooting is one too many and guns should be removed entirely, or at least from sight or reach of untrained hands and unsteady minds.

And since you are not an American, you do not know how sacred the right to carry a firearm to defend yourself is. Imagine a scenario here.

You are in the middle of a vast field, and you are a small person with a condition that prevents you from running. You notice a large person with a knife and an evil look approaching you, chanting "Blood...blood...blood...I'm going to kill you and eat your heart." You have nowhere to hide nearby. When he gets up to you within range for him to cut out your heart, should you just stand there and take it? Be killed? Or would you rather have a gun on you so you can repel the attack?

If you say that you would rather die so you can protect the children from gun violence, and would still be a part of the anti-gun movement, you do not exist in reality. You'd be a martyr for nothing noble.

Welcome to the 2A debate of America.

(And by the way, anti-gun leads to anti-self defense. So you wouldn't legally have a knife to defend yourself, either. or a rock. Or a stick. Or your hands. Because they are all weapons that can kill.)

 

[destriero]

Thing is, just like 911, it's rather useless after the deed is done. Personally I'd rather keep privacy over pretty long guns, but am likely in the minority

He was on 4Chan stating he was going to shoot up the WalMart. Every response from every IP will be monitored. Any email the dipshit has sent. Every like on FB, etc.

 

[destriero]

(And by the way, anti-gun leads to anti-self defense. So you wouldn't legally have a knife to defend yourself, either. or a rock. Or a stick. Or your hands. Because they are all weapons that can kill.)

But not engineered for the purpose of mass homicide. It's the fallacy used in the Toronto killings. Should we outlaw vans because the mullah used a van to run over and murder civilians?

The VAST MAJORITY of guns used in these crimes were purchased legally. I can't recall the last mass shooting in which the perp illegally obtained the gear.

 

[Fad]

You are in the middle of a vast field, and you are a small person with a condition that prevents you from running. You notice a large person with a knife and an evil look approaching you, chanting "Blood...blood...blood...I'm going to kill you and eat your heart." You have nowhere to hide nearby. When he gets up to you within range for him to cut out your heart, should you just stand there and take it? Be killed? Or would you rather have a gun on you so you can repel the attack?
(And by the way, anti-gun leads to anti-self defense. So you wouldn't legally have a knife to defend yourself, either. or a rock. Or a stick. Or your hands. Because they are all weapons that can kill.)

Honestly? Your argument for your 2A still being relevant 220 years later is a made up story about a large knife wielding person running through a field chanting blood blood blood?

 

[volente_00]

What has changed in the last 30 years that causes high school kids to slaughter their classmates?
Bullying has gone on forever. Back in the normal times you get into a fist fight and it was over after that.

So what has changed?

1- what percentage of sub 18 year olds are on some kind of medication for whatever??

2- The Internet, cell phones, social media. Kids used to be able to escape the harassment after school was over. Now they are attacked 24/7 on FB, TWTR, Instagram, etc.

3- Kids aren’t allowed to get in fist fights anymore. Just like the NHL, let the kids police themselves. Take a few punches, dish out a beating, etc and the bullying will stop.
Now they bottle everything up until it escalates into a massacre.

4- The Media GLORIFIES the shooters. Posts their names, pictures, manifestos, etc all over the TV, Internet, radio etc 24/7 for weeks.

Stop blaming “guns” and fix the bullshit above and the senseless shooting will cease.

First person shooter games brought on from internet expansion starting around 1995/1996


These kids grow up desensitized to graphic violence. Hell I've seen parents letting kids play these games as young as 5 years old.
When I was 5 years old I was playing PAC man and asteroid.

 

[Overnight]

But not engineered for the purpose of mass homicide. It's the fallacy used in the Toronto killings. Should we outlaw vans because the mullah used a van to run over and murder civilians?

I was speaking to the more over-arching issue the dude from "not America" doesn't understand about this whole mess. Once you take away the one, the arguments will then fall to taking away the others. And just like you point out, if anti-gun is the way to go, then anti-everything is the way to go, because everything can be used as a weapon.

I agree that semi-autos can be used for mass killings. Were they designed for that purpose by the manufacturer? Perhaps. But a deranged lunatic who is really good with a knife could run through any packed mall on a weekend with a sharp knife and kill just as many people. Maybe even more, because the deaths are silent.

The VAST MAJORITY of guns used in these crimes were purchased legally. I can't recall the last mass shooting in which the perp illegally obtained the gear.

And that's why the quote I listed from the article the OP has posted is moot. CCW, OC, the like. It all does not matter to a deranged person intent on killing a lot of people in a short amount of time.

 

[volente_00]

But not engineered for the purpose of mass homicide. It's the fallacy used in the Toronto killings. Should we outlaw vans because the mullah used a van to run over and murder civilians?

The VAST MAJORITY of guns used in these crimes were purchased legally. I can't recall the last mass shooting in which the perp illegally obtained the gear.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-da...got-gun-despite-domestic-violence-conviction/

https://www.click2houston.com/news/...gs-victims-sue-academy-over-illegal-gun-sales

 

[Overnight]

Honestly? Your argument for your 2A still being relevant 220 years later is a made up story about a large knife wielding person running through a field chanting blood blood blood?

No, it comes from giving people the training necessary to know when and when not deadly force is a feasible option, as a licensed firearms instructor for the state of Massachusetts, here in the USA, where you do not live, and are not a citizen of. It comes from probable scenarios, options for self-defense. Legalities, logistics, etc.

Don't mess with me on this, non-American dude.

 

[Fad]

But a deranged lunatic who is really good with a knife could run through any packed mall on a weekend with a sharp knife and kill just as many people. Maybe even more, because the deaths are silent..

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Are you said deranged lunatic?