Active Shooter Situation In El Paso, TX, Police Have 'Reports Of Multiple Shooters'

Both are examples of him not condemning violence. The second seems to encourage it.

 

Police departments can withhold identification. Or is it public info?

 

''you screaming white all the time'' I'd like to see the evidence that supports I do that.
My point which you have missed twice is that it doesn't matter what the nationality or ethnicity of the victims killer is to the freinds and family of the victim. Unless you are a racist, of course.

 

And yet he is indeed condemning violence, racism, and hatred.

 

Given that these shooters are seeking attention this isn't such a bad idea. I would further suggest that it might be helpful if the sensationalist lamestream media didn't give these shootings the saturation coverage they currently give them. Quite frankly, I find their excessive "if it bleeds it leads" modus operandi repulsive.

 

In cold, clear analytical terms, then, the dead are just as dead, no matter who kills them. BUT, it makes more sense to remove as many murderers as possible before they commit their crimes -- surely even America-hating Leftists "get" this. Thus, again, in cold, clear logical terms, it makes SENSE to remove as many criminals as we can from our midst as we can... and the removal of illegal aliens from our country is a LOGICAL choice to begin removing threats!

The horrors of El Paso and Dayton were committed by AMERICAN CITIZENS... yes. One was a Right-wing monster, and the other was a Left-wing monster. Too bad we couldn't have had some foolproof method to stop both of them before they committed their mass-murders. But, in many of the cases involving illegal aliens who committed murders in this country, the crimes could have been prevented IF ONLY WE HAD KEPT THESE CREATURES OUT OF OUR COUNTRY TO BEGIN WITH!

Instead, hyperliberal Leftists want throw open our borders, create "sanctuary cities", "sanctuary states", and all the rest of it. And murderers like Jose Garcia Zarate laugh in our faces!

Why is she dead, and he is ALIVE...?

 

Too little too late.

 

Since murders are more likely to be committed by US nationals than illegal immigrants your logic should lead you to believe that in fact it's them that should be removed not the ''invaders''.
Stupid logical conclusion of course but there you are...

 

I agree. The unwillingness on many people's parts to hold the shooters personally responsible for their own actions is a major problem. People wonder why this crap keeps happening and the orgy of red herrings that invariably follows these incidents is playing a major role in our inability to confront not only mass shootings but the rampant and unrelenting violence in our cities. In both cases, gun violence is a symptom, not the underlying disease, and I've come to realize that a lot of people don't want to address those underlying diseases.

Let's take, for instance, the gun violence in our cities. The reason why Democrats want to focus on the red herring of guns is because they don't want to address what Senator Patrick Moynihan warned them about in 1965 - the potentially disastrous consequences of their good intentions and social welfare programs:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.

Obviously, Democrats don't want to address this and never will. It would be an explicit admission of the failure of the social welfare programs that have become the party's raison d'être, and that poses an existential threat to the only thing they care about - power. If that means our cities become war zones like Chiraq in order to preserve their power, that's a price Democrats are willing to let their constituents pay.

The more you think about it, the more appalling it gets...

 

They don't care. They can't see past their own hatred.

The ironic part is that if you subscribe to their narrative about the rise of white nationalism in this country, it can be largely attributed to their own insistence on Trump's "racism" - an epithet they hurl at ALL their opponents. In this case, it would be yet another example of a lie taking on a life of its own.

 

No...what I said is that we should remove all the threats that we CAN. And, if Americans exerted control over our borders, then AT LEAST we could control the murders and other crimes committed here by ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Let me be clear -- 'domestic' murderers like Patrick Crusius should be given the death penalty -- and it should be carried out quickly (not dragged out for year after year). NO sympathy for this monster at all! And, if the 'domestic' Dayton murderer had been captured alive, I'd say exactly the same thing -- although both of them are American citizens. But we could not KNOW these creatures were criminals until they committed their crimes.

Which is easier to get rid of -- the criminal you KNOW about, or the one you don't know about? Illegal aliens are criminals the instant they set foot on U. S. soil illegally -- we should not have to 'agonize' over the decision to simply round them up and get them the hell OUT of here!

 

And yet it is actually being done. Such is far more than many politicians are willing to do with regard to other forms of terrorism.

 

Equating asylum seeking with being potential murderers.
Anything else in your manifesto we should know about?

 

The "asylum" fraudsters are a separate class. Their primary focus is not on killing people, but in using any kind of scam, lie, or pre-rehearsed script to manipulate our laws so that they can move in on our abundant Welfare State and, along with all the other hundreds of thousands of other worthless peasants, start sucking it dry! Whether these parasites move on to burglary, armed robbery, drug-dealing, and/or murder once they're planted in here is a thing that is determined later....

 

With the auto censor I have no clue what your statement means.

"Washington Post Glibly Dismisses Mental Illness as Cause of Mass Shootings.”

Why is someone this incompetent in a position of authority at the Washington Post?

 

You sound consumed with hate.
Mind if I ask whether you own an ArmaLite rifle?

 

The American Psychology Association states that mental illness is not to blame for mass shootings but access to dangerous weapons.

The Association states -

'As we psychological scientists have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. And there is no single personality profile that can reliably predict who will resort to gun violence.'

 

The Silly Post reporters William Wan and Lindsey Bever point to a study that found that 25 percent of “shooters” had been diagnosed with a mental illness. But this leaves open the question of how many had never been diagnosed or had been misdiagnosed.

The Post briefly acknowledges that another study found that a majority of mass shooters have mental illness and then seems dismissive of it.

Based on the studies it thinks favor its narrative, the Post ridicules the public, 57 percent of which believes that mass shootings are a reflection of failures to identify and treat people with mental health problems. But the main finding relied on by the Post — that 25 percent of shooters had been diagnosed as mentally ill — isn’t inconsistent with what the public believes. The public is correctly saying that we aren’t identifying, and diagnosing, potential shooters who are mentally ill.

Wan and Bever are so desperate to dismiss mental illness as a significant factor in mass shootings that they cite a forensic psychiatrist who says people kill for all sorts of reasons, including “profit or love or greed.”

Of course. But how many mass murderers kill for profit, love, or greed? There is no profit or material gain in mass murder, and surely very few mass murderers kill for love.

The Post’s final point is that mental illness is a global problem, whereas frequent mass shootings are a U.S. phenomenon. But the Post points to no study supporting this claim.

Wit just a bit of digging one finds a study that shows the U.S. 56th in the world (out of 86 countries analyzed) in mass shootings. According to this study, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland all have significantly higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States.

Does this study accurately compare the frequency of mass shootings around the world? I don’t know. I do know that the Post is showing a huge bias in its selection of studies on which to rely, and then reaching conclusions from its favored studies that the studies don’t truly support.

So if you are out of toilet paper, print it out and put it to use.

 

Suffice to say, innocent people are being killed with deadly weapons. The UK has it fair share of nut jobs in society, but their choice of deadly weapon is restricted and owning one means you are vetted.

This video explains all, Americans might be surprised how few guns the Brits can be bothered owning and which guns we can actually own

 

America is filled with too many paranoid Gun Nut jihadists...Worshipping their guns....Restricting any common sense law or regulation

 

Is the united states located within the united kingdom?

If not, then the comparison between the two is meaningless.

 

Indeed...The United Kingdom has some reason to call itself civilized...America?.........Not so much

 

Same with knife crime !

Thank you, that's blown your argument out of the water!!!!!!!

 

Tell it to the city of London, currently more dangerous than the city of New York.

 

After watching Britain do nothing, for years, as their daughters were systematically gang raped by Pakistani immigrants, you really aren't a role model for us.

The Rotherham child rape and organized child sexual abuse in the northern English town of Rotherham, South Yorkshire went on for over 20 years. The local authorities failed to act. The Fathers, Uncles and Bothers all failed to act. This didn't happen in a corner, in rhe early 1990s, care home managers investigated reports that children in their care were being picked up by taxi drivers. From at least 2001, multiple reports passed names of alleged perpetrators, several from one family, to the police and Rotherham Council. The first group conviction didn't occur until 2010, when five Pakistani men were convicted of multiple rapes against girls aged 12–16. From January 2011 Andrew Norfolk of The Times pressed the issue, reporting in 2012 that the abuse in the town was widespread, and that the police and council had known about it for over ten years.

So, no, we aren't impressed. If you can't protect your daughters from organized, systematic open and repeated rape, well, it doesn't speak well for the survival of your culture.

Republicans are ready to act on "red flag" legislation to help law enforcement take guns from those who pose an imminent danger — a measure that, if signed into law, would be the most significant gun safety legislation enacted in 20 years.

Democrats will sabotage it, just like they always do, they don't want solutions, they want the wedge issue.