Multiple Victims Reported in Texas Mall Mass Shooting

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Science?

Lol
...k

AR15s are the gun involved in our Country’s most deadly mass shootings in the last 20 yrs

So, your goal by banning the AR 15 is to save lives, right? Otherwise why would you emphasize "most deadly?

So, I tell you that fists kill more people per year tham the AR15. And your ...um..scientific reaaoning is..."but pugulism exists!".
As does a myriad of shooting sports.......

So your point is moot. Also, its demosntrably not about saving lives for you, its about the weapon.


Why not handguns?
Why 10 rounds?



Look man, Ive been having this same argument for a long time. Youre going to have to up your game quite abit....or I can continue to make you look like a fool.

Your delusions know no bounds .
Dunning Kruger is your mode of argument.

Ill have you know that Im this sites 4 time runner up for the Dunning-Kruger award and am 1 rung above a full fledged moron.

Now, lets get back to the topic where you were trying to argue that saving lives starting with the weapon that accounts for under 2% (all rifles combined) of murders.

Because that is fascinating.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Science?

Lol
...k

AR15s are the gun involved in our Country’s most deadly mass shootings in the last 20 yrs

So, your goal by banning the AR 15 is to save lives, right? Otherwise why would you emphasize "most deadly?

So, I tell you that fists kill more people per year tham the AR15. And your ...um..scientific reaaoning is..."but pugulism exists!".
As does a myriad of shooting sports.......

So your point is moot. Also, its demosntrably not about saving lives for you, its about the weapon.


Why not handguns?
Why 10 rounds?



Look man, Ive been having this same argument for a long time. Youre going to have to up your game quite abit....or I can continue to make you look like a fool.

Your delusions know no bounds .
Dunning Kruger is your mode of argument.

Ill have you know that Im this sites 4 time runner up for the Dunning-Kruger award and am 1 rung above a full fledged moron.

Now, lets get back to the topic where you were trying to argue that saving lives starting with the weapon that accounts for under 2% (all rifles combined) of murders.

Because that is fascinating.

You won’t accept reality in any form just as the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages .
Look at me as your personal guide into the Enlightenment.

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Science?

Lol
...k

AR15s are the gun involved in our Country’s most deadly mass shootings in the last 20 yrs

So, your goal by banning the AR 15 is to save lives, right? Otherwise why would you emphasize "most deadly?

So, I tell you that fists kill more people per year tham the AR15. And your ...um..scientific reaaoning is..."but pugulism exists!".
As does a myriad of shooting sports.......

So your point is moot. Also, its demosntrably not about saving lives for you, its about the weapon.


Why not handguns?
Why 10 rounds?



Look man, Ive been having this same argument for a long time. Youre going to have to up your game quite abit....or I can continue to make you look like a fool.

Your delusions know no bounds .
Dunning Kruger is your mode of argument.

Ill have you know that Im this sites 4 time runner up for the Dunning-Kruger award and am 1 rung above a full fledged moron.

Now, lets get back to the topic where you were trying to argue that saving lives starting with the weapon that accounts for under 2% (all rifles combined) of murders.

Because that is fascinating.

You won’t accept reality in any form just as the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages .
Look at me as your personal guide into the Enlightenment.

You keep typing words.


None of them factual or logical however.


Do you have a point somewhere?

So how come when a rightwing, cis-male shoots a bunch of people, nobody here makes anything of it, but when some leftwing trans person does, that's the main topic of conversation concerning the story? There are some major double standards here.

And I've yet to see a thread about the Texan (also apparently rightwing and cis-male) who plowed his Range Rover into a bunch of Venezuelan migrants at a bus stop, killing 9 and injuring at least 10 more.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

So how come when a rightwing, cis-male shoots a bunch of people, nobody here makes anything of it, but when some leftwing trans person does, that's the main topic of conversation concerning the story? There are some major double standards here.

I wonder if it has to do with the framing and placement of blame and how it's peppered with non sequiturs and ill defined terminology?

And I've yet to see a thread about the Texan (also apparently rightwing and cis-male) who plowed his Range Rover into a bunch of Venezuelan migrants at a bus stop, killing 9 and injuring at least 10 more.

Well, fire one up!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: MrInquisitive

So how come when a rightwing, cis-male shoots a bunch of people, nobody here makes anything of it, but when some leftwing trans person does, that's the main topic of conversation concerning the story? There are some major double standards here.

I wonder if it has to do with the framing and placement of blame and how it's peppered with non sequiturs and ill defined terminology?

And I've yet to see a thread about the Texan (also apparently rightwing and cis-male) who plowed his Range Rover into a bunch of Venezuelan migrants at a bus stop, killing 9 and injuring at least 10 more.

Well, fire one up!

It most certainly has to do with framing and placement of blame, but I don't know what you're getting at regarding non sequiturs and ill-defined terminology, unless you're referring to the term "cis-male", which I don't particularly care for either, but when people are making a big deal of a trans-male mass shooter, it seems only proper to delineate a biological male shooter as a cis-male for context. And from news reports, it does sound like this guy was a right winger.

As for starting a thread of my own on the not-so-distantly related subject of the homicidal driver killing immigrants, perhaps another day. I just got back into posting here after years away, and only recently got back into reading threads here -- much to my consternation, as this site has taken a drastic swerve to the right -- and felt obliged to respond to a few threads/posts that particularly bothered me. Give me a little more time, and I might start a thread of my own, but that takes a slight bit more effort. But thanks for the encouragement.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

It most certainly has to do with framing and placement of blame, but I don't know what you're getting at regarding non sequiturs and ill-defined terminology, unless you're referring to the term "cis-male", which I don't particularly care for either, but when people are making a big deal of a trans-male mass shooter, it seems only proper to delineate a biological male shooter as a cis-male for context. And from news reports, it does sound like this guy was a right winger.

Non sequiturs include:
"nobody" and "cis-male"

So we can agree that the framing and placement of blame is a credible point. Ok, what was the massive difference between the recent trans shooter and this excrement? The targets and targeting, the location, and of course the media coverage. The predisposition of any shooters political bend is not important typically but do provide some focus to motive and mental state.

As for starting a thread of my own on the not-so-distantly related subject of the homicidal driver killing immigrants, perhaps another day. I just got back into posting here after years away, and only recently got back into reading threads here -- much to my consternation, as this site has taken a drastic swerve to the right -- and felt obliged to respond to a few threads/posts that particularly bothered me. Give me a little more time, and I might start a thread of my own, but that takes a slight bit more effort. But thanks for the encouragement.

You do you, I just don't see the rationale of complaining about the lack of something in which the complainer shows interest in seeing but does not yet exist.

a reply to: infolurker

Now find out who gave him the guns( three letter alphabet agency) and who fabricated his online presence. White supremacist my ass.

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Nobody is arguing with you that the "AR15 is used in the deadliest mass shootings in the US" We all very well understand that. But that is not what we were discussing here.

"The echo chamber this site has become"

You have been here a whole, what, week at most?

If you were up for an actual conversation, instead of the bs you have been pulling the last 16 hours, maybe someone would have a decent back and forth with you. But you want to dismiss any facts that aren't yours and use your "logic" to try and make an argument that you know little to nothing about.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: infolurker

77 people murdered by gun every day. Hundreds wounded.

Amazing how a clump at one location gets so much press attention.

So it’s the gun, not the person that you claim does the murder? Asking for a friend.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

Nobody is arguing with you that the "AR15 is used in the deadliest mass shootings in the US" We all very well understand that. But that is not what we were discussing here.

"The echo chamber this site has become"

You have been here a whole, what, week at most?

If you were up for an actual conversation, instead of the bs you have been pulling the last 16 hours, maybe someone would have a decent back and forth with you. But you want to dismiss any facts that aren't yours and use your "logic" to try and make an argument that you know little to nothing about.

Logic is upsetting to those in closed systems.
That’s on you & not me .
Your unoriginal pride is blocking the exit off the highway of closed loop thinking that is supported by other disenfranchised people who can’t accept reality.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
So how come when a rightwing, cis-male shoots a bunch of people, nobody here makes anything of it, but when some leftwing trans person does, that's the main topic of conversation concerning the story? There are some major double standards here.

And I've yet to see a thread about the Texan (also apparently rightwing and cis-male) who plowed his Range Rover into a bunch of Venezuelan migrants at a bus stop, killing 9 and injuring at least 10 more.

You won’t find many members here that aren’t ultra conservative or right wing radicals.
Open thought or reasoning is usurped for political ideology & identity.
This site is full of right wing radicals.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
a reply to: infolurker

Now find out who gave him the guns( three letter alphabet agency) and who fabricated his online presence. White supremacist my ass.

Yet if the shooter had a computer filled with Antifa & BLM propaganda , you would buy that without blinking.
Double standards & hypocrisy is not cool .

a reply to: Whiskermegistus

You have no logic, your ideology is based on "I am a hunter, I have blah blah blah gun, AR15 has no place in society, SBR good, Suppressors good, all right-wing here"

If you had bene here for more than a couple days you would know that there are a pretty good mix of left and right on this forum. Open your eyes and your mind to see that nothing here is personal unless you make it that way.

Again, nobody has told you that your numbers are wrong, we have asked for links and data to prove your theory. You have given us broken links and data that we never asked for.

When challenged to hold a competitive conversation you resort to pointing fingers at "right-wing radicals" and personal attacks that are not warranted. You don't know when to admit you were wrong or that you are out of your scope of knowledge. I know at least 5 guys(or gals) on here right now that if asked would give you all the data you could ever dream of seeing on mass shooting statistics, type of gun used, personal info about the shooter, locations, reasoning for doing so, etc. You are so focused on the "AR-15 being the deadliest weapon used in mass shootings" that you can't open your eyes and see that the bigger picture here is not about just one gun. And, when confronted with actual data to show you that handguns are actually used more than any other weapon in mass shootings you go back to spouting of YOUR "data" about deadliest bs.

Like I said before, whenever you want to have an actual competitive argument and can back up your "data" and numbers with real links or evidence, we will be here to talk.

Looking at your responses in other threads, you have a lot to learn about being here. Personal attacks and not welcome and will be met with hostility in return, if you can't take that then you should probably not attempt them. If you can hold an actually conversation people are more apt to talking to you and interacting. If you show that all you want is to argue without facts, they will simply brush you off and you will get no traction in anything.

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
So how come when a rightwing, cis-male shoots a bunch of people, nobody here makes anything of it, but when some leftwing trans person does, that's the main topic of conversation concerning the story? There are some major double standards here.

And I've yet to see a thread about the Texan (also apparently rightwing and cis-male) who plowed his Range Rover into a bunch of Venezuelan migrants at a bus stop, killing 9 and injuring at least 10 more.

You won’t find many members here that aren’t ultra conservative or right wing radicals.
Open thought or reasoning is usurped for political ideology & identity.
This site is full of right wing radicals.

So I've noticed... A bit of a right-wing/conspiracy echo chamber, if you will, around here these days. It wasn't nearly so bad a decade or so ago. I guess most of the sensible people gave up and left.

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: Dutchowl
a reply to: infolurker

Now find out who gave him the guns( three letter alphabet agency) and who fabricated his online presence. White supremacist my ass.

Yet if the shooter had a computer filled with Antifa & BLM propaganda , you would buy that without blinking.
Double standards & hypocrisy is not cool .

BINGO!!!

Mmm, strong is the cognitive dissonance is around here.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

If you had bene here for more than a couple days you would know that there are a pretty good mix of left and right on this forum.

You have got to be kidding. In terms of posts, there is an overwhelming preponderance of conservative, if not down-right right-wing, rhetoric, and plenty of conspiracy theory thrown in to boot (it's all gub'mint psyops!).

I've been a member for a while. Went away for my sanity, checked in several times over the years to confirm my suspicions, and then recently, out of morbid curiosity, started checking in daily while lurking. Finally had to call out some of the posts here.

You're right about one thing, most of the discussion is not personal, but some people really do get into the ad hominem attacks against groups that they disagree with ideologically. And some people really come off as racist as well. Not a good look.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: Whiskermegistus

You have no logic, your ideology is based on "I am a hunter, I have blah blah blah gun, AR15 has no place in society, SBR good, Suppressors good, all right-wing here"

If you had bene here for more than a couple days you would know that there are a pretty good mix of left and right on this forum. Open your eyes and your mind to see that nothing here is personal unless you make it that way.

Again, nobody has told you that your numbers are wrong, we have asked for links and data to prove your theory. You have given us broken links and data that we never asked for.

When challenged to hold a competitive conversation you resort to pointing fingers at "right-wing radicals" and personal attacks that are not warranted. You don't know when to admit you were wrong or that you are out of your scope of knowledge. I know at least 5 guys(or gals) on here right now that if asked would give you all the data you could ever dream of seeing on mass shooting statistics, type of gun used, personal info about the shooter, locations, reasoning for doing so, etc. You are so focused on the "AR-15 being the deadliest weapon used in mass shootings" that you can't open your eyes and see that the bigger picture here is not about just one gun. And, when confronted with actual data to show you that handguns are actually used more than any other weapon in mass shootings you go back to spouting of YOUR "data" about deadliest bs.

Like I said before, whenever you want to have an actual competitive argument and can back up your "data" and numbers with real links or evidence, we will be here to talk.

Looking at your responses in other threads, you have a lot to learn about being here. Personal attacks and not welcome and will be met with hostility in return, if you can't take that then you should probably not attempt them. If you can hold an actually conversation people are more apt to talking to you and interacting. If you show that all you want is to argue without facts, they will simply brush you off and you will get no traction in anything.

Ive been a member of ATS since the early 2000s . Guess who I am ?
I don’t exist . Lol lol lol
A Fork In My Road Is Only A Two Dimensional Problem
I Transcend Your Thoughts Through The Apis Bull
Sun Gates Have Shined Past You .
AR15s are the weapons used in our Countries most deadly shootings . www.ncja.org...
Make sure you really study the last paragraph.
There is zero evidence that supports AR15s AREN’T the most death causing weapons in mass shootings.
www.nbcnews.com...
www.britannica.com...
www.britannica.com...
abcnews.go.com...
www.elpasotimes.com...
www.texastribune.org...
www.nbcnews.com...
abc7.com...
www.nytimes.com...
All of these were done with AR15 or other semiautomatic assault rifles ( AK47 & Sig MXC)
I will not entertain you obvious rejection of reality.
Best of luck

a reply to: MrInquisitive

If you only look at topics that us "right-wing radicals" talk about, yes you are going to see a lot of right wing people. Just as though, if you only look up statistics you want to see, you will only see the numbers that follow that.

If you branch out and look across the board, you will see, yes a lot of right wing, but a lot of left wing or center viewing people.

a reply to: Whiskermegistus
"guess who I am"

I will take "Single minded, narrow viewed individual for 500 please"


You are obviously so focused on being right you are not reading what I type.

I have never disagreed with you that AR15s have been used in the deadliest shootings. And yes, you are looking at the same shootings you have tried to link to several times, we know they exist, and we know that they were bad and the shooter used an AR.

But again, that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the gun used across the board, not just on the deadliest ones.