'Many killed' in shooting at Walmart in El Paso; suspect in custody

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, albertik said:

 52 shot and wounded, and 7 shot and killed in Chicago over the past weekend. None of those stats are politically valuable for fundraising or other political reasons. (unable to blame Trump)

Are you going to bring up deaths in Syria, the Philippines, Thailand,....I mean, what the freak?  This thread is about the shooting at a Walmart in El Paso. 

[bristolboy]

Trump officials have redirected resources from countering far-right, racism-fueled domestic terrorism

 Last year, every extremist killing in the United States involved a follower of far-right hate groups or ideology, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. The FBI has noted a sharp increase in domestic terrorism cases involving white supremacists...

...Under Trump, 85% of the “countering violent extremism” grants awarded by Homeland Security explicitly targeted Muslims and other minority groups, including immigrants and refugees, more than under the Obama administration, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy institute at the New York University School of Law.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-05/trump-officials-have-redirected-resources-from-countering-far-right-racism-fueled-domestic-terrorism

 

[watcharacters]

19 hours ago, meand said:

There are only two ways to put a stop to stuff like this as far as I am concerned. 

 

1) is the post 9-11 approach. Invade everyone's privacy so much that potential killers can never get past square one. 

 

2) is to take them alive when possible and <deleted> them up the likes of which nobody can even speak about. We could train people who love this type of shit and send seal type units in when there are shooting reports. There are guys that live for shit like this, let their dreams come true. 

 

We live in a democracy. I am betting if there is a vote #2 is winning by a landslide. 

 

Again, we live in a democracy. I guarantee you if you ask people "would you rather 50-100 innocent people get killed in mass shooting this year, or would you rather subject mass shooters to cruel and unusual punishment", we all know what is winning. 

 

I realize your post is  emotion filled but rationally it's simply preposterous.

 

[mogandave]

Trump officials have redirected resources from countering far-right, racism-fueled domestic terrorism

 Last year, every extremist killing in the United States involved a follower of far-right hate groups or ideology, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. The FBI has noted a sharp increase in domestic terrorism cases involving white supremacists...

...Under Trump, 85% of the “countering violent extremism” grants awarded by Homeland Security explicitly targeted Muslims and other minority groups, including immigrants and refugees, more than under the Obama administration, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy institute at the New York University School of Law.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-05/trump-officials-have-redirected-resources-from-countering-far-right-racism-fueled-domestic-terrorism

 

 

Wow, the ADF and the LAT, no bias there...

 

I wish they would shine some light on “Organizing for Action”

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Wow, the ADF and the LAT, no bias there...

 

I wish they would shine some light on “Organizing for Action”

Sure because the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization, definitely wants to minimize Islamist terrorism. And the LAT has distorted the ADF's findings how?

[xylophone]

13 hours ago, candide said:

 

What a moron! ????????????

“May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo,” the president said, referring to a city more than 100 miles away from Dayton, the location of a massacre on Sunday. “May God protect them. May God protect all of those from Texas to Ohio. May God bless the victims and their families. May God bless America.”

 

I nearly pissed in my pants! ????

Dumb and dumber and he proves it over and over again. God help America with this idiot in charge!!

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke is a lying POC

And of course Donald Trump is a fine upstanding man who doesn't tell lies, who doesn't hire illegals to work for him, who pays his debts to his subcontractors instead of going into bankruptcy thereby cheating them out of their monies and who is a fine upstanding paragon of virtue in the company of women and young girls.

 

Calling Beto" O'Rourke out after knowing what Trump is about sure takes some twisted logic.

 

PS. Pressing the ignore button on you as cannot take an more of your "one-eyed" views.....this esp as I am neither a Democrat or a Republican but a realist.

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, xylophone said:

E-Verify was originally established in 1996 as the Basic Pilot Program to prevent illegal immigrants and other people who have violated immigration laws from obtaining employment illegally in the United States.

 

If it works then use it!

 

Well here's the answer, anyone who wants to get a driver's license has to be legal, along with anyone who gets arrested being checked, and if anyone wants to apply for food stamps and free medical, then they also have to be legal.

 

There are ways around this illegal immigrant problem and this would go some way towards reducing the problem......not shooting them!

 

Easy to see why the rhetoric from this orange clown is disowned by his followers, because perhaps they are ashamed of it too.?

 

On July 5, Trump said: “The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc”.

 

Really??? Mexico is forcing these undesirables to go to the US??????

 

As recently as May 30, a statement by Trump started with the following sentence: “As everyone knows, the United States of America has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico and entering our country illegally.”

 

This manifesto shows up in the president’s official White House remarks to the press, too.

 

“We’re talking about an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs,” Trump said on Feb. 15.

“At this very moment, large, well-organized caravans of migrants are marching towards our southern border. Some people call it an ‘invasion.’ It’s like an invasion. They have violently overrun the Mexican border,” he said on March 1, 2018.

 

The El Paso terrorist said he was afraid of an “invasion,” a central theme of the Trump presidency.

 

Thousands chanted “Send her back! Send her back!” about Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Black Muslim woman, after Trump goaded them at a July 17 rally in North Carolina. He looked smug as they cheered. Afterward a cashier in Illinois told a Mexican-American family that they “need to go back to their country.”

 

No doubt many other incidents of freshly emboldened racism are happening all over the country.

 

It's here, it's real, it's happening and it is a sad state of affairs..........and it is plain to see by all except the hard-line trump followers.

 

E-Verify absolutely works, but many states, California for example, have blocked companies from using it.

 

We agree that for anyone to get a driver license they should be in the country legally. Unfortunately, many states, California for example, does not require one to be in the country legally to get a driver license or an official state ID.

 

We also agree that (generally) anyone that gets arrested and it in the county legally they should be deported.

 

I don't agree that people should be refused medical services or "welfare" based on their legal status.

 

In the same statement Trump said: "Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally," wrote Trump. "I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it."

 

So do you think the press sensationalizing and often misrepresenting what Trump says is helping the draw the county together?

 

 

[mogandave]

8 minutes ago, xylophone said:

And of course Donald Trump is a fine upstanding man who doesn't tell lies, who doesn't hire illegals to work for him, who pays his debts to his subcontractors instead of going into bankruptcy thereby cheating them out of their monies and who is a fine upstanding paragon of virtue in the company of women and young girls.

 

Calling Beto" O'Rourke out after knowing what Trump is about sure takes some twisted logic.

 

PS. Pressing the ignore button on you as cannot take an more of your "one-eyed" views.....this esp as I am neither a Democrat or a Republican but a realist.

Yes, you sound like a real 'Independent". 

 

I'll take being ignores as a complement. 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

E-Verify absolutely works, but many states, California for example, have blocked companies from using it.

 

We agree that for anyone to get a driver license they should be in the country legally. Unfortunately, many states, California for example, does not require one to be in the country legally to get a driver license or an official state ID.

 

We also agree that (generally) anyone that gets arrested and it in the county legally they should be deported.

 

I don't agree that people should be refused medical services or "welfare" based on their legal status.

 

In the same statement Trump said: "Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally," wrote Trump. "I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it."

 

So do you think the press sensationalizing and often misrepresenting what Trump says is helping the draw the county together?

 

 

You think that statement from Trump is praiseworthy? Really?

It kind of a mirror image statement of the one where Trump said of those undocumented Mexicans "They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

How exactly are undocumented Mexicans here in the USA hurting the documented ones? Because bigots can't distinguish between them?

And you gotta love his closing statement about Mexicans working for him. Didn't the Trump organization just fire many undocumented workers? In fact, I think it's happened a few times recently. Maybe Trump needs convincing about the benefits of e-verify.

[chokrai]

 

[metisdead]

A post containing unsubstantiated information has been removed.  

[albertik]

3 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Are you going to bring up deaths in Syria, the Philippines, Thailand,....I mean, what the freak?  This thread is about the shooting at a Walmart in El Paso. 

This thread, unfortunately devolved at times into a political opportunity for the left to blame the current administration.

[mogandave]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You think that statement from Trump is praiseworthy? Really?

It kind of a mirror image statement of the one where Trump said of those undocumented Mexicans "They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

How exactly are undocumented Mexicans here in the USA hurting the documented ones? Because bigots can't distinguish between them?

And you gotta love his closing statement about Mexicans working for him. Didn't the Trump organization just fire many undocumented workers? In fact, I think it's happened a few times recently. Maybe Trump needs convincing about the benefits of e-verify.

 

You do know a lot of states (like California) block many employers from using E-Verify, yes?

 

Illegal aliens hurt legal immigrants in any number of ways. If nothing else, they put downward pressure on wages and add strain to social programs.

 

Are you arguing none of the illegal aliens are rapists?

[mogandave]

9 minutes ago, albertik said:

This thread, unfortunately devolved at times into a political opportunity for the left to blame the current administration.

Actually, the left has turned the actual event into a political opportunity to attack Trump

[rabas]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

How many cars are sold in the US to people who don't intend to use them?  However if it makes my post clearer, anyone in the US who wants to use a gun should be trained and licensed.  Guns should be registered.

 

Safety training would cut down on the number of accidental shootings, especially if carelessness with guns was prosecuted as criminal negligence.  Making people responsible for properly securing guns when not in use would cut down on gun thefts, and so the number of stolen guns illegally traded on the streets.  Making it easier for the police to seize unregistered guns and unlicensed people carrying guns would reduce the number of guns and criminals in circulation.

 

In general, requiring people to demonstrate they understand gun safety will reduce the number of irresponsible idiots with guns.  Licensing gun users and registering guns would not eliminate gun crimes and accidents, just as licensing drivers and registering vehicles does not eliminate vehicle crimes and accidents.  However I think most people agree that the roads are safer with some limitations on who can drive and what can be driven.  Doing something similar with guns would reduce, but not eliminate, the gun carnage.

 

I don't disagree. But to clarify the comparison between cars and guns,  a license is not required to buy a car. A license is not required to drive a car on your own land, farm, etc. A license is not required to drive a car on any private land with permission of the landowner, including parking lots where many people learn to drive. A license is required to drive any car on public roads whether or not it's your car.

 

Also note, a person gets a drivers license. Car registration is only mandated for vehicles to be driven on public roads. It is a public issue that does not infringe on private lives. Maybe that provides some insight.

 

Random mass shootings though is a societal issue. Our social structure and environment are badly eroded due to many factors. To focus on gun control first and foremost is like giving an ebola patient pain killers and telling him to go have fun.

 

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, mogandave said:

How many people buy guns that never intend to use them? Quite a lot I think.

 

Why the deflection? I've already agreed training is a good and I don't doubt it will reduce the number of accidental shootings. 

 

What I asked is how any of this will reduce the number of mass shootings? You know it will not.

 

Bonus question: Why is it the left is so concerned about white people killing brown or black people, but they don't seem to give a whit about black people killing each other?

 

Why is the left concerned about black kids being kicked out of school at a higher rate than white kids, but they don't seem to care that the leading cause of death for young black men is homicide, while the leading cause of death young white men is car accidents?

 

Selective outrage.  

 

You think a lot of people buy guns they never intend to shoot.  I disagree.

 

As I explained before, requiring people to have safety training in order to get a license and registering guns will reduce the number of unstable people who get guns and reduce the number of guns illegally traded and carried on the streets.  That will reduce gun crimes and accidents.  Whether that reduces the number of mass shootings remains to be seen, but it's worth trying to find out.

 

You're deflection about black on black crime is obvious nonsense.  Do you want people to get outraged about everything at once?  Ok, how's this:  Trump assigned Jared to solve the opioid crisis, yet more people are still dying of drug overdoses than gun violence.  Why isn't the right outraged about that?

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

So it's "...been on a sharp upward trend for 20 years..." but according to the left, this is all Trumps fault.

According to the "left", Trump and the Republicans have thwarted all meaningful efforts to do anything about mass shootings.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

I don't disagree. But to clarify the comparison between cars and guns,  a license is not required to buy a car. A license is not required to drive a car on your own land, farm, etc. A license is not required to drive a car on any private land with permission of the landowner, including parking lots where many people learn to drive. A license is required to drive any car on public roads whether or not it's your car.

 

Also note, a person gets a drivers license. Car registration is only mandated for vehicles to be driven on public roads. It is a public issue that does not infringe on private lives. Maybe that provides some insight.

 

Random mass shootings though is a societal issue. Our social structure and environment are badly eroded due to many factors. To focus on gun control first and foremost is like giving an ebola patient pain killers and telling him to go have fun.

 

 

I did not wish to complicate my post with distracting qualifications.  How's this:  A license should be required to use a gun in any area in which the bullet may leave to property in which the user has permission to use the gun, or in any area above which the bullet may enter into legal airspace where aircraft operate.

 

Obviously licensing people who use guns and registering guns will not be done exactly the same as licensing drivers and registering vehicles.  I want restrictions that are similar, not identical.

 

I also stated that licensing and registering requirements will not eliminate all gun crimes and accidents, but will reduce them.  It's a start.  Before attempting to solve the root cause driving a person to pyromania, it's a good idea to restrict that person's access to matches and gasoline..

[mogandave]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You think a lot of people buy guns they never intend to shoot.  I disagree.

 

As I explained before, requiring people to have safety training in order to get a license and registering guns will reduce the number of unstable people who get guns and reduce the number of guns illegally traded and carried on the streets.  That will reduce gun crimes and accidents.  Whether that reduces the number of mass shootings remains to be seen, but it's worth trying to find out.

 

You're deflection about black on black crime is obvious nonsense.  Do you want people to get outraged about everything at once?  Ok, how's this:  Trump assigned Jared to solve the opioid crisis, yet more people are still dying of drug overdoses than gun violence.  Why isn't the right outraged about that?

Oh, the defection card again, I'm shocked. Black on black killings are a crisis every day. The left wasn't outraged about last week, nor will they be outraged about it next week. In all fairness, they did get outraged when Trump brought it up, because talking about it apparently makes you a racist. Once they can pin it on Trump they'll be all over it.

 

So getting back on topic, how is safety training and background checks going to have any significant impact on the number of mass shootings?

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You think a lot of people buy guns they never intend to shoot.  I disagree.

 

I said never use them. They will have to either try it out or learn how to use it. You think their are not a lot of guns in cabinets and drawers that never get fired?

 

Again, I am not against background checks and safety training. I took NRA Hunter Safety in High School, still have the patch. Qualified with a 0.22 and the M1, did not make the team though.

 

The percentage of households with guns has not really gone up, and guns are harder to get than ever. 

 

 

[mogandave]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I did not wish to complicate my post with distracting qualifications.  How's this:  A license should be required to use a gun in any area in which the bullet may leave to property in which the user has permission to use the gun, or in any area above which the bullet may enter into legal airspace where aircraft operate.

 

Obviously licensing people who use guns and registering guns will not be done exactly the same as licensing drivers and registering vehicles.  I want restrictions that are similar, not identical.

 

I also stated that licensing and registering requirements will not eliminate all gun crimes and accidents, but will reduce them.  It's a start.  Before attempting to solve the root cause driving a person to pyromania, it's a good idea to restrict that person's access to matches and gasoline..

 

If I understand correctly, your feel anyone that only shoots at indoor ranges would not need a license, correct?

 

Again, I do not think the cost of government mandated training and licensing should be absorbed by the gun owner. These cost should be the responsibility of the government.  

 

The trick is figuring out who the potential pyromaniacs are with some level of certainty and without infringing on their rights. The government will be deciding who gets gas and matches and who doesn't. 

 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Oh, the defection card again, I'm shocked. Black on black killings are a crisis every day. The left wasn't outraged about last week, nor will they be outraged about it next week. In all fairness, they did get outraged when Trump brought it up, because talking about it apparently makes you a racist. Once they can pin it on Trump they'll be all over it.

 

So getting back on topic, how is safety training and background checks going to have any significant impact on the number of mass shootings?

The topic is about the mass shooting in the Texas Walmart.  It made a reasonable expansion into how gun control might prevent such mass shootings.  Gun control would also reduce gun crime in general, including black on black violence. 

 

You want to interject your perceptions about the left's lack of emotional response to black on black violence in this topic.  That is a blatant deflection.

 

I don't know how much has been revealed about the background of the Walmart shooter, so I don't know if better background check's could have prevented him from acquiring a gun.  Better security of guns, which would be emphasized in any decent safety course, might have prevented the unstable Sandy Hook Elementary school shooter from stealing his mother's gun.  Better background checks might have prevented the Parkland shooter, who had a history of disciplinary and mental problems, from legally buying the AR-15 he used.  If you were to examine every mass shooting in detail you would find some cases in which background checks and better gun security would have made a difference and some in which it would not.

 

Of course an even better solution would be banning assault rifles for civilian use.

[heybruce]

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I said never use them. They will have to either try it out or learn how to use it. You think their are not a lot of guns in cabinets and drawers that never get fired?

 

Again, I am not against background checks and safety training. I took NRA Hunter Safety in High School, still have the patch. Qualified with a 0.22 and the M1, did not make the team though.

 

The percentage of households with guns has not really gone up, and guns are harder to get than ever.

Yes, a lot of guns are used briefly after purchase then put away and never used again.  The person using them should have a license.  Background checks and safety training should be mandatory.  What is the issue?

[ravip]

Honestly, when one hears about these shootings in the US, doesn't the story about the Ostrich and the sand come to mind? 

Gotta think honestly for a proper reply. 

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

If I understand correctly, your feel anyone that only shoots at indoor ranges would not need a license, correct?

 

Again, I do not think the cost of government mandated training and licensing should be absorbed by the gun owner. These cost should be the responsibility of the government.  

 

The trick is figuring out who the potential pyromaniacs are with some level of certainty and without infringing on their rights. The government will be deciding who gets gas and matches and who doesn't.

If someone only shoots at an indoor shooting range the person should not be required to have a license.  However if that person intends to carry his own guns to and from that range the person should have a license or have the gun in an obviously disable/disassembled state outside of the range.

 

Interesting view on the government paying for gun training.  Do you have a similar view about the government paying for college education? 

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

The topic is about the mass shooting in the Texas Walmart.  It made a reasonable expansion into how gun control might prevent such mass shootings.  Gun control would also reduce gun crime in general, including black on black violence. 

 

You want to interject your perceptions about the left's lack of emotional response to black on black violence in this topic.  That is a blatant deflection.

 

I don't know how much has been revealed about the background of the Walmart shooter, so I don't know if better background check's could have prevented him from acquiring a gun.  Better security of guns, which would be emphasized in any decent safety course, might have prevented the unstable Sandy Hook Elementary school shooter from stealing his mother's gun.  Better background checks might have prevented the Parkland shooter, who had a history of disciplinary and mental problems, from legally buying the AR-15 he used.  If you were to examine every mass shooting in detail you would find some cases in which background checks and better gun security would have made a difference and some in which it would not.

 

Of course an even better solution would be banning assault rifles for civilian use.

 

I agree safety training would likely reduce accidents.

 

Most states already have background checks, but expanding them may stop a few shootings, but to take away someone's rights, you would have to have something pretty solid. 

 

I think a comprehensive study should be done, and what benefits can reasonably be expected at what cost before legislation is pushed through. 

 

I don't disagree with the idea of and assault rifle ban, but it get difficult when you start trying to define it. How would you define an assault rifle? Had the guy had a 9mm and a box of clips he might have done as much damage.  

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Most states already have background checks, but expanding them may stop a few shootings, but to take away someone's rights, you would have to have something pretty solid. 

What is more important to you; the right to own a gun or the right for innocent people not to be shot dead whilst going about their innocent daily business like shopping?

[mogandave]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If someone only shoots at an indoor shooting range the person should not be required to have a license.  However if that person intends to carry his own guns to and from that range the person should have a license or have the gun in an obviously disable/disassembled state outside of the range.

 

Interesting view on the government paying for gun training.  Do you have a similar view about the government paying for college education? 

Many states already mandate you have a trigger lock and carry it in a locked box back and forth from the range, but as always, it's not law abiders they are going to cause the problem. I think if one guy has to have a license, everyone should have to have a license.

 

I thought you would go with the car analogy, but no, I see it as different. A citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, they do not have a right to higher education. A few hundred dollars is not much to a lot of people, but ti a single mother in a bad neighborhood, it's a chunk. Someone like this would most benefit from the training, but would be least likely to be able to afford it.  

 

Once higher education is free, who decides who goes to Harvard, who goes to Cal Poly and who doesn't go at all? 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Many states already mandate you have a trigger lock and carry it in a locked box back and forth from the range, but as always, it's not law abiders they are going to cause the problem. I think if one guy has to have a license, everyone should have to have a license.

 

I thought you would go with the car analogy, but no, I see it as different. A citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, they do not have a right to higher education. A few hundred dollars is not much to a lot of people, but ti a single mother in a bad neighborhood, it's a chunk. Someone like this would most benefit from the training, but would be least likely to be able to afford it.  

 

Once higher education is free, who decides who goes to Harvard, who goes to Cal Poly and who doesn't go at all? 

People may have a right to bear arms.  If they choose to exercise this right they have to do so responsibly.  The government has no obligation to train them, they have an obligation to get trained, at their own expense.

 

Universities already have methods to screen applicants.  Didn't you know that?