[POLITICS] Two Mass Shootings in 15 Hours, and O'Rourke on Trump

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT
 

I thought about specifying that this was in the U.S., but at this point, that goes without saying.

First, in El Paso, Texas, a man with a rifle opened fire in a Walmart near the Cielo Vista Mall. At least 20 people have been killed, with another 26 injured. The suspect, who was captured alive, has been potentially linked to a 2,300 word online anti-immigrant manifesto. The manifesto was posted minutes before the shooting, blames immigrants and first-generation Americans for "taking our jobs". Because of the likely motivation, the FBI is treating this as a domestic terrorism case, and is strongly pursuing the death penalty for the shooter, who is cooperating with authorities after his capture.


But wait, there's more! About 15 hours after that mass shooting, another man with a rifle opened fire at a nightclub district in downtown Dayton, Ohio. Law enforcement responded "in less than a minute", according to the Dayton mayor, but in that time, the man was able to kill 9 people and injure 26 others. He was killed as well by the responding officers. While that sounds like quite a few people, the Dayton police have said on record that there are "thousands of people" in that particular area on an average Saturday night, so while still tragic, a slower response would have made things much worse.


This is out of control. In the last week, there have been 3 mass shootings (I didn't discuss one that actually happened about an hour from my house, in Gilroy, CA). That is 3 too many. I also want to point out that, in the case of the El Paso shooting, the suspect was legally allowed to walk down the street with his rifle in plain sight.

Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate Beto O'Rourke has gone on record, by the way, as laying at least some of the blame at the feet of Trump and his rhetoric, stating that the rise in hate crimes over the last three years indicates some sort of link between Trump's words and others' actions. He even provided a specific example: a mosque in Victoria, Texas getting burned to the ground the day he signed an executive order that would have banned Muslim air travel. He also pointed to the Greenville "send her back" chants as a sign that Trump's rhetoric "fundamentally changes the character of this country and it leads to violence".

I wish that O'Rourke hadn't been asked that question, because while I feel that his answer is actually less reactionary than I expected, he will likely still receive some shame for using the shootings to make his point.

Source for the El Paso shooting and O'Rourke's comment

Source for the Dayton shooting

'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

America has two choices:
1. Actually do something.
2. Formally declare to the world and themselves that they are an unchangeably savage race who cannot be stopped from killing.

I suspect that they'll choose option 3, which I didn't list because it's stupid, which is to go "oh dear" and then do nothing. Again.

I'm surprised it took this long for a thread. I was going to post one, but I was busy thinking and praying; apparently God is okay with the status quo though.

Nothing is going to change. There'll be thoughts and prayers, and because the shooters were white we'll worry about their mental health.

Baffle2:
I'm surprised it took this long for a thread. I was going to post one, but I was busy thinking and praying; apparently God is okay with the status quo though.

Nothing is going to change. There'll be thoughts and prayers, and because the shooters were white we'll worry about their mental health.

Not invest in improving mental health, mind you, just worry about it.

Another day in America, I see?

09philj:

Not invest in improving mental health, mind you, just worry about it.

I vote we blame video games or foreigners. If only polls weren't broken!

(You'll note I'm being flippant, but no less flippant, and possibly more genuine, than everyone offering thoughts and prayers.)

sandy Hook was the crossing of the Rubicon of mass shootings. If 20+ toddlers getting massacred by a psychopath wasn't enough to force lawmakers to take action, nothing ever will be.
Hell in a nation where stray bullets are considered an every day hazard what could we possibly expect?

Anyone who says 'This is too soon' or 'Don't politicize this', you are the problem.

What the fuck is wrong with people!? I am so fucking sick and tired of this shit...

image
image (last one is satire)
ETA bonus meme
image

An audience member at a Donald Trump rally in Florida yelled 'shoot them' in reference to migrants at the border. Trump had asked the crowd: 'How do you stop these people?' After laughing at the response, he added: 'Only in the panhandle can you get away with that statement'

At this point, the only thing separating Trump from being a leader of a terrorist organization is the fact that the GOP isn't officially recognized as one. But make no mistake, they absolutely are a terrorist organization.

thebobmaster:

Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate Beto O'Rourke has gone on record, by the way, as laying at least some of the blame at the feet of Trump and his rhetoric, stating that the rise in hate crimes over the last three years indicates some sort of link between Trump's words and others' actions. He even provided a specific example: a mosque in Victoria, Texas getting burned to the ground the day he signed an executive order that would have banned Muslim air travel. He also pointed to the Greenville "send her back" chants as a sign that Trump's rhetoric "fundamentally changes the character of this country and it leads to violence".

As unpleasant as it is that some bad and/or crazy people are seemingly using Trump's acts in office as a springboard for their own acts of self-destructive bloodshed -

1) I don't believe we can establish a causal link, at least not without setting the bar so low that the usual standards for establishing a call to violence are thrown out of the window.

2) You guys hate Trump, I get it. But let's not kid ourselves he has horns just because it matches our preconceptions. Trump is a populist, no doubt, but an ideologue? A far-right one at that? I don't think so.

3) What do you propose we do in response to this, aside from the usual thoughts, prayers and gun control arguments? Stop having frank, forthright discussion about immigration, border security, and so on, because it's a sensitive subject and the oft-cited "rhetoric" tends to make the crazies come out of the woodwork? No. We cannot allow terrorists to set the agenda or limit the discourse. Immigration was one of the key issues Trump was elected on; the conversation will not stop.

Saelune:
Anyone who says 'This is too soon' or 'Don't politicize this', you are the problem.

If anyone honestly says that, just respond with asking how long the period in which it is too soon is, and then talk about one of the mass shootings that occurred one too-soon-window ago. There ought to be one, sadly.

Batou667:

thebobmaster:

Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate Beto O'Rourke has gone on record, by the way, as laying at least some of the blame at the feet of Trump and his rhetoric, stating that the rise in hate crimes over the last three years indicates some sort of link between Trump's words and others' actions. He even provided a specific example: a mosque in Victoria, Texas getting burned to the ground the day he signed an executive order that would have banned Muslim air travel. He also pointed to the Greenville "send her back" chants as a sign that Trump's rhetoric "fundamentally changes the character of this country and it leads to violence".

As unpleasant as it is that some bad and/or crazy people are seemingly using Trump's acts in office as a springboard for their own acts of self-destructive bloodshed -

1) I don't believe we can establish a causal link, at least not without setting the bar so low that the usual standards for establishing a call to violence are thrown out of the window.

I do agree that saying that Trump CAUSES these behaviors is going too far. There's a difference, however, between correlation and causation. At the very least, there is a correlation, as shown by the fact that people felt quite comfortable chanting "send her back" at a Trump rally in response to Ilhan Omar, a naturalized citizen from Somalia. He may not cause people to be violent or racist, but he doesn't do much to discourage it...as shown by him telling several members of Congress to "go back" to their original countries (while ignoring that 3 of the four were natural-born citizens, and the fourth was naturalized as a refugee) and did nothing to stop the "send her back" chants.

2) You guys hate Trump, I get it. But let's not kid ourselves he has horns just because it matches our preconceptions. Trump is a populist, no doubt, but an ideologue? A far-right one at that? I don't think so.

I think what Trump is, more than anything to these people, is a symbol. If the leader of the US is saying these things, that now makes it all right.

3) What do you propose we do in response to this, aside from the usual thoughts, prayers and gun control arguments? Stop having frank, forthright discussion about immigration, border security, and so on, because it's a sensitive subject and the oft-cited "rhetoric" tends to make the crazies come out of the woodwork? No. We cannot allow terrorists to set the agenda or limit the discourse. Immigration was one of the key issues Trump was elected on; the conversation will not stop.

...what's wrong with having arguments over gun control? I mean, the El Paso shooter was able to buy and carry his rifle legally through the street. It wasn't illegal until he opened fire. I'd argue, in fact, that by focusing purely on immigration in response to the shooting, we are doing just what you say we cannot do: allowing the terrorist to set the agenda. He wants us all to focus on immigration policies, as shown by his 2,300 word manifesto.

Immigration is a discussion that should happen, by all means. I just can't see how you can say that immigration is a discussion that must happen, while saying that the terrorists shouldn't be allowed to set the agenda...when it's clear that the terrorist's agenda WAS immigration.

Batou667:

thebobmaster:

Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate Beto O'Rourke has gone on record, by the way, as laying at least some of the blame at the feet of Trump and his rhetoric, stating that the rise in hate crimes over the last three years indicates some sort of link between Trump's words and others' actions. He even provided a specific example: a mosque in Victoria, Texas getting burned to the ground the day he signed an executive order that would have banned Muslim air travel. He also pointed to the Greenville "send her back" chants as a sign that Trump's rhetoric "fundamentally changes the character of this country and it leads to violence".

As unpleasant as it is that some bad and/or crazy people are seemingly using Trump's acts in office as a springboard for their own acts of self-destructive bloodshed -

1) I don't believe we can establish a causal link, at least not without setting the bar so low that the usual standards for establishing a call to violence are thrown out of the window.

2) You guys hate Trump, I get it. But let's not kid ourselves he has horns just because it matches our preconceptions. Trump is a populist, no doubt, but an ideologue? A far-right one at that? I don't think so.

3) What do you propose we do in response to this, aside from the usual thoughts, prayers and gun control arguments? Stop having frank, forthright discussion about immigration, border security, and so on, because it's a sensitive subject and the oft-cited "rhetoric" tends to make the crazies come out of the woodwork? No. We cannot allow terrorists to set the agenda or limit the discourse. Immigration was one of the key issues Trump was elected on; the conversation will not stop.

Stop supporting Trump.

This seems appropriate.

Granted the episode was a good number of mass shootings ago.

thebobmaster:

This is out of control. In the last week, there have been 3 mass shootings (I didn't discuss one that actually happened about an hour from my house, in Gilroy, CA). That is 3 too many.

Bit nuts when it's so close, isn't it? San Bernardino is an hour away and it was so surreal as I'm pretty sure I was very close to the specific locations just a few weeks prior. In all, it's been a hell of a day.

Kwak:
image

I had to see for myself if that was real, and it is. It's finally come to pass.
image

I heard about the walmart one and my first thought was "Wait, how was no one in a walmart in TEXAS packing? How did no one shoot back?"

I was then told that apparently walmart is a gun free zone.

How can walmart be a gun free zone when it literally sells guns?!

Leg End:

Kwak:
image

I had to see for myself if that was real, and it is. It's finally come to pass.
image

Big thonk voice: You don't have to regret your bad ideas if you're dead.

thebobmaster:

Batou667:

thebobmaster:

Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate Beto O'Rourke has gone on record, by the way, as laying at least some of the blame at the feet of Trump and his rhetoric, stating that the rise in hate crimes over the last three years indicates some sort of link between Trump's words and others' actions. He even provided a specific example: a mosque in Victoria, Texas getting burned to the ground the day he signed an executive order that would have banned Muslim air travel. He also pointed to the Greenville "send her back" chants as a sign that Trump's rhetoric "fundamentally changes the character of this country and it leads to violence".

As unpleasant as it is that some bad and/or crazy people are seemingly using Trump's acts in office as a springboard for their own acts of self-destructive bloodshed -

1) I don't believe we can establish a causal link, at least not without setting the bar so low that the usual standards for establishing a call to violence are thrown out of the window.

I do agree that saying that Trump CAUSES these behaviors is going too far. There's a difference, however, between correlation and causation. At the very least, there is a correlation, as shown by the fact that people felt quite comfortable chanting "send her back" at a Trump rally in response to Ilhan Omar, a naturalized citizen from Somalia. He may not cause people to be violent or racist, but he doesn't do much to discourage it...as shown by him telling several members of Congress to "go back" to their original countries (while ignoring that 3 of the four were natural-born citizens, and the fourth was naturalized as a refugee) and did nothing to stop the "send her back" chants.

2) You guys hate Trump, I get it. But let's not kid ourselves he has horns just because it matches our preconceptions. Trump is a populist, no doubt, but an ideologue? A far-right one at that? I don't think so.

I think what Trump is, more than anything to these people, is a symbol. If the leader of the US is saying these things, that now makes it all right.

3) What do you propose we do in response to this, aside from the usual thoughts, prayers and gun control arguments? Stop having frank, forthright discussion about immigration, border security, and so on, because it's a sensitive subject and the oft-cited "rhetoric" tends to make the crazies come out of the woodwork? No. We cannot allow terrorists to set the agenda or limit the discourse. Immigration was one of the key issues Trump was elected on; the conversation will not stop.

...what's wrong with having arguments over gun control? I mean, the El Paso shooter was able to buy and carry his rifle legally through the street. It wasn't illegal until he opened fire. I'd argue, in fact, that by focusing purely on immigration in response to the shooting, we are doing just what you say we cannot do: allowing the terrorist to set the agenda. He wants us all to focus on immigration policies, as shown by his 2,300 word manifesto.

Immigration is a discussion that should happen, by all means. I just can't see how you can say that immigration is a discussion that must happen, while saying that the terrorists shouldn't be allowed to set the agenda...when it's clear that the terrorist's agenda WAS immigration.

Trump is clearly inciting this due to his fueling the ignorant and false rhetoric he has been promoting. He chose to make " non white immigrants" the enemy and making up complete and total lies about them to distract from the true cause of people's economic problems to invoke their rage to propel himself and get them to rally behind him.


This is nothing new and we already know where it leads. Trump is not the first one to do this nor will he be the last. He is however, responsible for the incitement of racial violence. O'Rourke is right on this, Trump needs to own his rhetoric and take responsibility for the repercussions of his actions. He wont do that, he cares nothing about what happens to anyone else but himself. I honestly do not believe Trump cares how many people are killed due to his actions, I do not think he is really capable of caring about others to begin with as his actions have shown us throughout his lifetime that he only sees other people as objects to be used to promote himself. The way he has treated former business partners, people who he has done business with, military families, refugees, The children from the Parkland Highschool shooting, the many families that have survived mass shootings has shown he does not understand what empathy and compassion really mean. He cares for nothing and no one but himself and takes no issue lying to anyone and everyone every single day to get what he wants and the cost is irrelevant to him.

It is not that "people dislike Trump so they will blame him" it is that People dislike trump because HE IS TO BLAME for his own actions and he never takes responsibility for anything he ever does. Trump is the embodiment of all of mankind's worst qualities. but that is not why we blame him for his rhetoric, we blame him for his rhetoric because of what that rhetoric is and causes as we already knows how this ends.

Dirty Hipsters:
I heard about the walmart one and my first thought was "Wait, how was no one in a walmart in TEXAS packing? How did no one shoot back?"

I was then told that apparently walmart is a gun free zone.

How can walmart be a gun free zone when it literally sells guns?!

From my understanding, there were armed police officers already at the Walmart when it started, it is just how do you stop a shooter in a crowded busy shopping area with so many civilians in time before many are killed? No one has time to get to the exact spot and respond in time before so many are already dead is the reality with guns. It takes just seconds to kill so many people so easily IS why we need better regulation.

EDIT: In addition, There are people with guns in Walmart all the time, I think you are incorrect about it being a " gun free zone". I know for a fact that I saw a man on actual horseback INSIDE WALMART here in Texas with his rifle after they were rounding up cattle on horseback during that 150 acre fire. I have seen numerous firearms on people inside Walmart in Texas over the years, so I think we would have heard about that here after Target banned them and all those people protested.

Dirty Hipsters:
I heard about the walmart one and my first thought was "Wait, how was no one in a walmart in TEXAS packing? How did no one shoot back?"

I was then told that apparently walmart is a gun free zone.

Really makes you think, huh?

How can walmart be a gun free zone when it literally sells guns?!

I have no fuckin clue anymore, man. I can only imagine the amount of people that just carry concealed and get away with it, because there is no way you can enforce that in Texas without strip searching every customer.

09philj:

Big thonk voice: You don't have to regret your bad ideas if you're dead.

Gotta live free or die hard, my man.

Leg End:

Dirty Hipsters:
I heard about the walmart one and my first thought was "Wait, how was no one in a walmart in TEXAS packing? How did no one shoot back?"

I was then told that apparently walmart is a gun free zone.

Really makes you think, huh?

How can walmart be a gun free zone when it literally sells guns?!

I have no fuckin clue anymore, man. I can only imagine the amount of people that just carry concealed and get away with it, because there is no way you can enforce that in Texas without strip searching every customer.

I don't think Walmart is a gun free zone. I think that is inaccurate, and have not yet found anything saying otherwise.

ALL I have seen thus far says that Walmart employees are responsible for making sure that the person carrying the firearm has a license and that they have to carry their permits on them to show to staff.
Apparently having to carry a permit to show to staff pissed off "Open Carry Texas" a while back:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/open-carry-texas-activists-are-very-upset-with-walmart-right-now/

EDIT:There are also a number of people claiming there were multiple people who were armed inside Walmart at the time in addition to police being armed, but the reality of a mass shooting is the person shooting can kill many before they can even get to where they can even be able to respond, even when on site. The person already in the process of shooting people has the upper hand here.

Silentpony:
sandy Hook was the crossing of the Rubicon of mass shootings. If 20+ toddlers getting massacred by a psychopath wasn't enough to force lawmakers to take action, nothing ever will be.
Hell in a nation where stray bullets are considered an every day hazard what could we possibly expect?

Then conservatives went on to say how Sandy Hook didn't even happen...

We won't have change until people start caring more about humans than their guns.

Smithnikov:

Silentpony:
sandy Hook was the crossing of the Rubicon of mass shootings. If 20+ toddlers getting massacred by a psychopath wasn't enough to force lawmakers to take action, nothing ever will be.
Hell in a nation where stray bullets are considered an every day hazard what could we possibly expect?

Then conservatives went on to say how Sandy Hook didn't even happen...

Right and elect the man president who was promoting the guy claiming Sandy Hook didn't happen conspiracies. Not only did Trump give interviews to Jones and legitimized them, he also gave them a White House Press Pass. This is how Trump treats the child survivors and families of mass shootings. Go figure.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-praises-9-11-truther-alex-jones/index.html
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/05/22/infowars-temporary-press-pass/
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/remember-when-donald-trump-appeared-on-alex-jones-infowars-1.5443723
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/infowars-got-banned-by-facebook-so-trump-just-gave-it-a-huge-boost/

Smithnikov:

Silentpony:
sandy Hook was the crossing of the Rubicon of mass shootings. If 20+ toddlers getting massacred by a psychopath wasn't enough to force lawmakers to take action, nothing ever will be.
Hell in a nation where stray bullets are considered an every day hazard what could we possibly expect?

Then conservatives went on to say how Sandy Hook didn't even happen...

To be fair didn't that alex jones guy get sued into oblivion?

Silentpony:

Smithnikov:

Silentpony:
sandy Hook was the crossing of the Rubicon of mass shootings. If 20+ toddlers getting massacred by a psychopath wasn't enough to force lawmakers to take action, nothing ever will be.
Hell in a nation where stray bullets are considered an every day hazard what could we possibly expect?

Then conservatives went on to say how Sandy Hook didn't even happen...

To be fair didn't that alex jones guy get sued into oblivion?

Not before Trump promoted him, defended him, and tried to help him of course. Facebook bans him, Trump gives him White House press credentials and rants about how Facebook is being " partisan".

Silentpony:
To be fair didn't that alex jones guy get sued into oblivion?

More or less. Probably going to be even further down the line, so more like some kind of negative-reality entity of lawsuit.

Leg End:

Silentpony:
To be fair didn't that alex jones guy get sued into oblivion?

More or less. Probably going to be even further down the line, so more like some kind of negative-reality entity of lawsuit.

You haven't really given your opinion on this issue here yet.

Saelune:
You haven't really given your opinion on this issue here yet.

Kinda already have with the comic up there, but it wasn't really clear it was my opinion so I'll put it seriously. Terrible shit it happened, need more guns to shoot lunatics with and let them know we're not taking their shit. They want a war, we'll give em a war they won't believe. To the one I'm aware of that is dead, may he enjoy Hell for all eternity.

That about covers it while being fully on-topic. Though while I'm on it,

Worgen:
This seems appropriate.

Granted the episode was a good number of mass shootings ago.

Great series, but this might be the one episode that falls short, because it feels like it's building up to something great, and then... just goes apeshit in the last, what, five or ten minutes? I think it fell victim to wanting to do too many things in one episode, or just giving up and dropping the ending on us. I don't even hate the episode, I just don't get it. A better episode of a show that took guns and talked about em from a neutral perspective would be The Simpsons with The Cartridge Family. I highly recommend anyone wanting to have an entertaining half an hour with guns as the key subject while remaining pretty neutral, to go see the episode. Just not the supposed UK cut which neuters the entire thing.

Leg End:

Saelune:
You haven't really given your opinion on this issue here yet.

Kinda already have with the comic up there, but it wasn't really clear it was my opinion so I'll put it seriously. Terrible shit it happened, need more guns to shoot lunatics with and let them know we're not taking their shit. They want a war, we'll give em a war they won't believe. To the one I'm aware of that is dead, may he enjoy Hell for all eternity.

That about covers it while being fully on-topic.

I just wanted your statement in writing.

Leg End:

Saelune:
You haven't really given your opinion on this issue here yet.

Kinda already have with the comic up there, but it wasn't really clear it was my opinion so I'll put it seriously. Terrible shit it happened, need more guns to shoot lunatics with and let them know we're not taking their shit. They want a war, we'll give em a war they won't believe. To the one I'm aware of that is dead, may he enjoy Hell for all eternity.

That about covers it while being fully on-topic. Though while I'm on it,

Worgen:
This seems appropriate.

Granted the episode was a good number of mass shootings ago.

Great series, but this might be the one episode that falls short, because it feels like it's building up to something great, and then... just goes apeshit in the last, what, five or ten minutes? I think it fell victim to wanting to do too many things in one episode, or just giving up and dropping the ending on us. I don't even hate the episode, I just don't get it. A better episode of a show that took guns and talked about em from a neutral perspective would be The Simpsons with The Cartridge Family. I highly recommend anyone wanting to have an entertaining half an hour with guns as the key subject while remaining pretty neutral, to go see the episode. Just not the supposed UK cut which neuters the entire thing.

While watching this live on Television when it happened, they stated there were already armed police at the scene when the shooting broke out at the Walmart in EL Paso. They also have a number of people say they were armed and had reports from others they saw multiple armed people in the Walmart at the time of the shooting. So this is one of the circumstances that they had armed people at the location and still were not able to save the lives of those who were killed. It is important to remember that the person already shooting will have the upper hand here and it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to stop them before they kill anyone due to existing gun laws already being too lenient. Adding more guns does not make this any better. Hell the one guy from the army who was also armed stated that the police thought HE was the shooter rather than him being someone trying to help and he is lucky he didn't get killed by police for trying to help. According to police, the more people armed on a scene like that the more confusing it is for them to find the actual shooter. Having more people armed very well could likely get themselves killed while allowing the actual shooter to get away. "More people with guns" is the opposite of a solution.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here