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

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

You seem to have it in your head that I claimed a "majority want an outright ban". How do you get from 10% to a majority?

 

I went on to state: "I don't imagine there is much of an interest in studies that show what percentage of citizens support confiscation. Who would fund it?"

 

To which you responded with a link to a USA Today poll that DOES NOT show what percentage of citizens support confiscation. Do you not think the next logical question after handgun ban be full ban?

 

While I think the poll is generally useless, I love the title of the article and the questions. What I think is interesting is that up until at least 2014, the percentage of people that want to ban handguns has been declining. I have to guess this is a result of the focus on "assault rifles". The big push for gun control when I was a kid was handguns, and it looks like from 1959-2015 support for a handgun ban declined from 60% to 24%.

Take a closer look at the link.  51% supported a ban on "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles" while 24% supported a ban on hand guns except for the police.  That leaves 27% of people who support a ban on assault rifles who don't support a ban on handguns.  It also means a maximum of 24% of people might support confiscating all guns, but almost certainly less than 24%.  There are probably a significant number of people supporting a ban on handguns who would not want to ban hunting rifles.

 

To put it succinctly, the majority of people who support a ban on assault rifles do not want to confiscate all guns, as you assumed.  Less than a quarter of Americans want to ban hand guns, so less than a quarter of Americans want to ban all guns.

 

So long as America remains a democracy and the majority do not support a ban on guns, guns will not be banned.  Of course keeping America a democracy means guarding against foreign election interference, defending the right to vote, defending a free press and other first amendment rights, etc.  But that goes well beyond this topic.

[usviphotography]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Take a closer look at the link.  51% supported a ban on "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles" while 24% supported a ban on hand guns except for the police.  That leaves 27% of people who support a ban on assault rifles who don't support a ban on handguns.  It also means a maximum of 24% of people might support confiscating all guns, but almost certainly less than 24%.  There are probably a significant number of people supporting a ban on handguns who would not want to ban hunting rifles.

 

To put it succinctly, the majority of people who support a ban on assault rifles do not want to confiscate all guns, as you assumed.  Less than a quarter of Americans want to ban hand guns, so less than a quarter of Americans want to ban all guns.

 

So long as America remains a democracy and the majority do not support a ban on guns, guns will not be banned.  Of course keeping America a democracy means guarding against foreign election interference, defending the right to vote, defending a free press and other first amendment rights, etc.  But that goes well beyond this topic.

What percentage of tho those 51% even know what an "assault rifle" is? The most popular civilian rifle in America is the AR-15, which the media frequently demonizes as an "assault rifle". Is that included in this proposed "assault rifle" ban? If so, if you just asked people, "Should the most popular selling rifle in America be banned?" do you think you'd get anywhere near the same level of support? I think we both know the answer to that. Poll people who know nothing about a particular topic and it is easy to game the answer to whatever you want by simply phrasing the question this way or that. Garbage in, garbage out. And Constitutional Rights aren't subject to the whims of the masses in any event.  

 

In a country where there is a dedicated movement that seeks to ban the sale and use of all guns, there can be no "compromise" when it comes to gun control. Every proposal, no matter how small or "reasonable" must be resisted to the maximum extent possible. None of these proposals currently floating around would have been likely to prevent the two latest shootings. Even if they did, we can easily find examples from recent history that they clearly wouldn't have prevented. So if we pass gun control in the wake of this shooting, and there is another shooting (as there is sure to be eventually) then what? The same people calling for regulation now will be calling for new regulation on top of that. And so on and so end. It never ends, which why you can never, ever, concede so much as an inch. Adam Carolla explained it beautifully with his smoking analogy:

 

 

[mogandave]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Take a closer look at the link.  51% supported a ban on "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles" while 24% supported a ban on hand guns except for the police.  That leaves 27% of people who support a ban on assault rifles who don't support a ban on handguns.  It also means a maximum of 24% of people might support confiscating all guns, but almost certainly less than 24%.  There are probably a significant number of people supporting a ban on handguns who would not want to ban hunting rifles.

 

To put it succinctly, the majority of people who support a ban on assault rifles do not want to confiscate all guns, as you assumed.  Less than a quarter of Americans want to ban hand guns, so less than a quarter of Americans want to ban all guns.

 

So long as America remains a democracy and the majority do not support a ban on guns, guns will not be banned.  Of course keeping America a democracy means guarding against foreign election interference, defending the right to vote, defending a free press and other first amendment rights, etc.  But that goes well beyond this topic.

1. How does a significant percentage constitute a majority? We seem to be going on and on about this. I've already said that I think about 10% of the population would support confiscation. It could be higher, it could be lower.

2. I do not assume the majority of people who support a ban on assault rifles want to confiscate all guns, I am not sure what it is I have to do to make that clear.

3. If 10% of the population support a ban of all guns (a guess) and 50% support banning assault rifles, it follows that 20% of the people that support banning assault rifles support banning all guns. In my opinion, 20% is a significant percentage.

4. This is a magazine poll of about a thousand people that has a large margin of error. Fifty years of historic data was also used to produce the data sets, and there is not indication of where that data came from. 

6. Yes, I understand Trump is trying to circumvent the election process and shut down the press, but yes, this is not in the scope of this discussion.

 

 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, usviphotography said:

What percentage of tho those 51% even know what an "assault rifle" is? The most popular civilian rifle in America is the AR-15, which the media frequently demonizes as an "assault rifle". Is that included in this proposed "assault rifle" ban? If so, if you just asked people, "Should the most popular selling rifle in America be banned?" do you think you'd get anywhere near the same level of support? I think we both know the answer to that. Poll people who know nothing about a particular topic and it is easy to game the answer to whatever you want by simply phrasing the question this way or that. Garbage in, garbage out. And Constitutional Rights aren't subject to the whims of the masses in any event.  

 

In a country where there is a dedicated movement that seeks to ban the sale and use of all guns, there can be no "compromise" when it comes to gun control. Every proposal, no matter how small or "reasonable" must be resisted to the maximum extent possible. None of these proposals currently floating around would have been likely to prevent the two latest shootings. Even if they did, we can easily find examples from recent history that they clearly wouldn't have prevented. So if we pass gun control in the wake of this shooting, and there is another shooting (as there is sure to be eventually) then what? The same people calling for regulation now will be calling for new regulation on top of that. And so on and so end. It never ends, which why you can never, ever, concede so much as an inch. Adam Carolla explained it beautifully with his smoking analogy:

 

 

 

Lefty's typical responses:

 

So you don't care about children's lives?

 

So you think anyone any where at any time should be able to buy any kind of weapon including chemical and nuclear devices?

 

Another brain dead supporter of the idiot in chief. 

 

My apologies. I didn't realize I was speaking to someone who doesn't know the difference between a lethal weapon that can kill twenty innocent children in a minute and a cigarette. I won't make that mistake again.

 

Stop deflecting, the issue is gun control. 

 

Smoking bans save millions of children and food-handlers from death related to second hand smoke every year. (This would include a link to a scientific "study" funded by Vox}

 

Smoking should be banned in the restaurant AND the park,

 

The topic is the Walmart shooting, not smoking in restaurants. Please see section 5 article 12 paragraph 13 line 7.

 

Can you post a link to a study that proves it?

 

Faux News, seriously? 

 

etc.....

 

 

 

[sukhumvitneon]

Overall, it's a mental health/economic issue.  The vast majority of gun owners and carry permit holders are law abiding citizens.  Do you see people with decent jobs and careers, serious dating partners, and families doing this kind of thing?

[mogandave]

I was very disturbed until i heard it was in a walmart now not so much

Classy

[Jingthing]

29 minutes ago, sukhumvitneon said:

Overall, it's a mental health/economic issue.  The vast majority of gun owners and carry permit holders are law abiding citizens.  Do you see people with decent jobs and careers, serious dating partners, and families doing this kind of thing?

That's silly. If people in any situation can't get access to the most destructive most rapid mass killing machines even if they do crack, there will be fewer casualties. Yes, it's the GUNS. Every other country has stressed people but the difference in the USA is the situation with GUNS. 

[Credo]

3 minutes ago, sukhumvitneon said:

Overall, it's a mental health/economic issue.  The vast majority of gun owners and carry permit holders are law abiding citizens.  Do you see people with decent jobs and careers, serious dating partners, and families doing this kind of thing?

Except the percent of those with mental illness among mass shooters is around 20%.   

 

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, Credo said:

Except the percent of those with mental illness among mass shooters is around 20%.   

 

Another problem with blaming it all on mental illness is that the vast majority of people with mental health problems are not potentially violent at all. This stigmatizes people that are already unfairly stigmatized.

[tlandtday]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Another problem with blaming it all on mental illness is that the vast majority of people with mental health problems are not potentially violent at all. This stigmatizes people that are already unfairly stigmatized.

There is some truth to this.  I think the medications some are on must also be studied in more depth as there may be links.  However, this guy does sound like a nut job for sure.

[Chomper Higgot]

39 minutes ago, tlandtday said:

There is some truth to this.  I think the medications some are on must also be studied in more depth as there may be links.  However, this guy does sound like a nut job for sure.

There's solid evidence he's a white supremicist terrorist. 

 

Hatred and racism are not mental health issues. 

 

[Jingthing]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

There's solid evidence he's a white supremicist terrorist. 

 

Hatred and racism are not mental health issues. 

 

Yes. Absolutely. But in fairness a person could sometimes be BOTH. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes. Absolutely. But in fairness a person could sometimes be BOTH. 

Agreed, but it is the racism and hatred that motivated this terrorist’s actions.

 

 

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Agreed, but it is the racism and hatred that motivated this terrorist’s actions.

 

 

Yes, I get that. For example Fox's Tucker Carlson made a splash recently saying white supremacism is a myth and a hoax. Of course that's totally wrong. So  the "trump" core loyalists will tend to label an incident that is obviously white supremacist terrorism such as El Paso as just another blame it on mental illness case.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Jingthing

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

just another blame it on mental illness case

You think he's just as sane as you?

[Jingthing]

Just now, ThaiBunny said:

You think he's just as sane as you?

Bait ignored. Try games like that on someone else. 

[Opl]

a hoax, they say….

" A man who authorities say worked as a security guard has been arrested and accused of plotting to firebomb a Las Vegas synagogue or a bar catering to LGTBQ customers, officials said Friday. Conor Climo, 23, of Las Vegas, was arrested Thursday by an FBI-led anti-terrorism task force. ."

Conor Climo  was connected to white supremacists though encrypted online conversations

 

"On August 8, authorities searched Climo’s home, finding an AR-15 rifle, bolt action rifle, bomb-making materials"

The 23-year-old allegedly said that he left the neo-Nazi group after becoming “bored” with “their inaction.”

 

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Opl

[Chomper Higgot]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

The blood soaked evidence proves you wrong.

 

And if that isn’t enough, Trump

himself has recognised and (at least verbally) condemned white supremacy.

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The blood soaked evidence proves you wrong.

 

And if that isn’t enough, Trump

himself has recognised and (at least verbally) condemned white supremacy.

 

 

Yeah, he did, with the passion of someone being forced to give a hostage speech. The real "trump" sees white supremacists and their ilk (white nationalists, garden variety white racists) as an important part of his core base.

[heybruce]

On 8/9/2019 at 1:57 AM, mogandave said:

Generally, the same people pushing for restrictions on "assault rifles" would confiscate all guns if it were within their power. Just need to get a toe in the door first.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

1. How does a significant percentage constitute a majority? We seem to be going on and on about this. I've already said that I think about 10% of the population would support confiscation. It could be higher, it could be lower.

2. I do not assume the majority of people who support a ban on assault rifles want to confiscate all guns, I am not sure what it is I have to do to make that clear.

3. If 10% of the population support a ban of all guns (a guess) and 50% support banning assault rifles, it follows that 20% of the people that support banning assault rifles support banning all guns. In my opinion, 20% is a significant percentage.

4. This is a magazine poll of about a thousand people that has a large margin of error. Fifty years of historic data was also used to produce the data sets, and there is not indication of where that data came from. 

6. Yes, I understand Trump is trying to circumvent the election process and shut down the press, but yes, this is not in the scope of this discussion.

 

 

First, please reconcile the underlined portions of your two post.

 

Second, please explain why your assumed numbers in statement 3 above are relevant.

 

Third, what magazine poll?  I provided a link to a Gallup poll.  Gallup is a respected polling organization.

 

BTW, usviphotography is a rabid pro-Trump, pro-Putin poster who, I think, was trying to support the "right's" side of the argument.  Though his rationale, such as it is, can be difficult to follow.

Edited August 10, 2019 by heybruce

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, usviphotography said:

What percentage of tho those 51% even know what an "assault rifle" is? The most popular civilian rifle in America is the AR-15, which the media frequently demonizes as an "assault rifle". Is that included in this proposed "assault rifle" ban? If so, if you just asked people, "Should the most popular selling rifle in America be banned?" do you think you'd get anywhere near the same level of support? I think we both know the answer to that. Poll people who know nothing about a particular topic and it is easy to game the answer to whatever you want by simply phrasing the question this way or that. Garbage in, garbage out. And Constitutional Rights aren't subject to the whims of the masses in any event.  

 

In a country where there is a dedicated movement that seeks to ban the sale and use of all guns, there can be no "compromise" when it comes to gun control. Every proposal, no matter how small or "reasonable" must be resisted to the maximum extent possible. None of these proposals currently floating around would have been likely to prevent the two latest shootings. Even if they did, we can easily find examples from recent history that they clearly wouldn't have prevented. So if we pass gun control in the wake of this shooting, and there is another shooting (as there is sure to be eventually) then what? The same people calling for regulation now will be calling for new regulation on top of that. And so on and so end. It never ends, which why you can never, ever, concede so much as an inch. Adam Carolla explained it beautifully with his smoking analogy:

 

Ok, so you maintain that most Americans don't know what an assault rifle is, so aren't qualified to participate in a poll.  Therefore all attempts at gun control should be rejected because....

 

That's where I lost you.

 

I don't accept your facts, but even if I did, wouldn't accept your logic.

Edited August 10, 2019 by heybruce

[heybruce]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

Why don't you give your and Tucker Carlson's definition of "White Supremacist"? 

 

Merriam Webster defines "white supremacist" as:  " a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white supremacist

 

If you think these people are rare, you need to get out more.

[mogandave]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

First, please reconcile the underlined portions of your two post.

 

Second, please explain why your assumed numbers in statement 3 above are relevant.

 

Third, what magazine poll?  I provided a link to a Gallup poll.  Gallup is a respected polling organization.

 

BTW, usviphotography is a rabid pro-Trump, pro-Putin poster who, I think, was trying to support the "right's" side of the argument.  Though his rationale, such as it is, can be difficult to follow.

 

First, I don't know how to reconcile this. I have told you several times I don't think it is a majority, that I think it is a significant percentage, and estimated it to be 10%. 

 

Second, if I can't convince you that I don't think it's a majority, than it is not relevant.

 

Third, the USA Today poll that you linked to. You understand how the polling business works, yes? Someone (in this case USA Today) contracts a polling company (in this case Gallop) to do a poll on a whatever topic they want.  How much do you think USA Today spent to have Gallop question 1,038 people?

 

BTW, Please explain why your condescension toward usviphotography  is relevant.  

 

[mogandave]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Ok, so you maintain that most Americans don't know what an assault rifle is, so aren't qualified to participate in a poll.

 

To be honest, there is no clear description. You could a fair percentage of the population a Remington 700 with a black, pistol-grip stock, black-oxide finish, a barrel shroud and a muzzle break and they would ban it. Show the same people the same weapon with a blued barrel and a checkered walnut stock and they would not.

 

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts removed.   Please don't feed trolls.

 

[usviphotography]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Ok, so you maintain that most Americans don't know what an assault rifle is, so aren't qualified to participate in a poll.  Therefore all attempts at gun control should be rejected because....

 

That's where I lost you.

 

I don't accept your facts, but even if I did, wouldn't accept your logic.

No one said one thing relates to the other. A poll of an issue made up of people who know nothing about particular topic would in fact be irrelevant, would you not agree? So it is silly to talk about polls even if we assumed polls mattered when it comes to fundamental Constitutional Rights which of course they do not. The reason the right rejects any gun control is spelled out pefectly in the Adam Carolla analogy. Even if we didn't think a particular piece of regulation was all that onerous we'd still fight it tooth and nail because it just gets us one step closer to a piece of regulation that is onerous and unacceptable. 

Edited August 10, 2019 by usviphotography

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

First, I don't know how to reconcile this. I have told you several times I don't think it is a majority, that I think it is a significant percentage, and estimated it to be 10%. 

 

Second, if I can't convince you that I don't think it's a majority, than it is not relevant.

 

Third, the USA Today poll that you linked to. You understand how the polling business works, yes? Someone (in this case USA Today) contracts a polling company (in this case Gallop) to do a poll on a whatever topic they want.  How much do you think USA Today spent to have Gallop question 1,038 people?

 

BTW, Please explain why your condescension toward usviphotography  is relevant.  

 

You posted:

 

" Generally, the same people pushing for restrictions on "assault rifles" would confiscate all guns if it were within their power. "

 

and:

 

" I do not assume the majority of people who support a ban on assault rifles want to confiscate all guns, I am not sure what it is I have to do to make that clear. "

 

You claim people pushing for restrictions on assault rifles would confiscate all guns but you do not assume the majority who support an assault rifle ban want to confiscate all guns.  Do you not see a conflict between these two statements?

 

The article I referenced is published by the Gallup organization and describes the outcome of a Gallup poll.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx  I don't know why you are hung up on USA Today.  What makes you think the poll lacks credibility?

 

usviphotography's post has been deleted along with your reply, but your reply indicated that you thought his post was a view from the left.

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

No one said one thing relates to the other. A poll of an issue made up of people who know nothing about particular topic would in fact be irrelevant, would you not agree? So it is silly to talk about polls even if we assumed polls mattered when it comes to fundamental Constitutional Rights which of course they do not. The reason the right rejects any gun control is spelled out pefectly in the Adam Carolla analogy. Even if we didn't think a particular piece of regulation was all that onerous we'd still fight it tooth and nail because it just gets us one step closer to a piece of regulation that is onerous and unacceptable. 

By that logic people should not be polled about socialism if they can't define socialism.  And people should not post about white supremacists if they can't define a white supremacist.

 

Can you explain why the second amendment refers to "arms", not "guns", yet gun advocates only oppose restrictions on guns, not other arms.  If the second amendment were interpreted as broadly as you seem to think it should be, shouldn't people be allowed to make explosives and chemical weapons in their homes, cranky old people be allowed to keep the neighbor's kids off his lawn by planting land mines, and rich people be allowed to fund their own fully equipped armies and navies?  Do you advocate these rights?

 

BTW, I don't assume everyone who has political views on the right is a gun advocate.

[wayned]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, I get that. For example Fox's Tucker Carlson made a splash recently saying white supremacism is a myth and a hoax. Of course that's totally wrong. So  the "trump" core loyalists will tend to label an incident that is obviously white supremacist terrorism such as El Paso as just another blame it on mental illness case.

And as always happens on FOX, he's now on vacation for 10 days in hopes that his "hoax" message will be lost in the daily Trump disasters!

 

Congress is on vacation, Trump's on vacation and so is Carlson and I'm on permanent vacation.

 

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, wayned said:

And as always happens on FOX, he's now on vacation for 10 days in hopes that his "hoax" message will be lost in the daily Trump disasters!

 

Congress is on vacation, Trump's on vacation and so is Carlson and I'm on permanent vacation.

 

I think Tucker just might be the most annoying person in the world.

 

Quote

It’s not just David Duke and the KKK anymore: It’s Tucker Carlson and Fox News Network who sell hate

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/10/its-not-just-david-duke-and-the-kkk-anymore-its-tucker-carlson-and-fox-news-network-who-sell-hate/