20 people killed in mass shooting in El Paso, Texas

Dickey Amendment, what a surprise.

1. The Dickey Amendment does not ban research into whether private legal ownership of firearms causes higher levels of gun violence.
2. Even if it were the case that the Dickey Amendment did ban research into private legal gun ownership, it only applies to the CDC, it would not preclude any private organisation funding research and advocacy (advocacy being what is banned under the DA).

Have you watched it then?

9/11
Diana
Kennedy
David Kelly.
Boston

Join the dots for ****s sake.

So a bunch of muslims from Afghanistan had the technical and financial wherewithal to fly a plane in to the towers, rather than the military juggernaut that is Israel using nanothermite and explosives

i think you guys are just going off topic.

If you actually read the links I posted, rather than just assume you know it all from a glance, you'd see the NPR article lists more than just the Dickey amendment and talks about other legislation that made it hard to investigate and conduct research.

So ok, 'ban' isn't technically true per the law, but it's a pretty accurate way of explaining the practise.

That troll has been banned

I started reading it but it seemed to pretty much identical to the NY Times article so I stopped. The other amendment mentioned is the Tiahrt Amendment; despite this, there are still plenty of studies into whether guns used in crimes are legally owned. The statistics aren't favourable to your side of the argument.


It's not accurate at all. The ban is on the CDC advocating in favour of gun control which I don't see the problem with; the CDC should not be advancing political beliefs.

As I also said, the DA has nothing to with private individuals/companies.

I love the smell of banned trolls on a Monday morning.

It's 2pm... Get a job!

Why does this same boring argument get raised every time something like this happens; there is still no conclusive proof that legal gun ownership causes higher rates of homicide by gun.

Even if America had 10 mass shootings a day they wouldn’t do anything. Ever since they decided that the murder of 26 primary school children was worth it for mUh fReEdOm, I gave up on any hope of America enacting gun control. The future for gun control looks bleaker than ever.

One promising development is the wider growth of gun control groups and agendas across the country, with more money flowing into them and increasing pressure on both Dem and Rep senators and congressmen.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/04/us/politics/gun-control-laws-mass-shootings.html

There are struggles ahead and the NRA is as active as ever, but the opposition to the NRA is solid and growing.

I have little optomism.

Whenever there is a mass shooting, they tend to say the problem is that there aren't enough guns.

The Florida student protests mobilised opinion a lot more than on previous incidents. I agree that there is still fierce resistance from the gun pushers and in a nation with more guns than people, progress is going to be slow, but a great number of people are now regularly pressuring politicians on both sides. It's noticeable that the Republicans try to keep a low profile on this now, rather than coming out immediately to say they will defend the freedom to own guns. They are under more pressure than before.

Trump whips up racism and does everything he can as President to make it publicly acceptable. He directs hate at Mexicans. Right wing extremists then use assault weapons against said Mexicans. Where exactly does the other 'side' come into this??

The view which you express is the view expressed when people are trying to use some kind of tragedy for political gain, not saying thats you but that the view you seem to hold if you know it or not.

If someone sees something they dont agree with, in this case immigration, they try to combat it. However with the society we live in today simply saying you want less immigration and being white you WILL be called a racist, right-wing, facist etc etc by the leftists, ive seen this and been called this. Then you will be attacked emotionally (especially if you espouse such idea on a educational campus), lose your place at work or college (which is basically a left wing factory at this point in the US) and sometimes physically as in the case of ANTIFA goon sqauds in the US. All of the prior we have seen in the US especially just google for stories they show up a lot. So what the left have done with their fantacism and rhetoric in an attempt to stamp out something they see as a problem is create an individual who feels worthless, morally inferior, bitter, angry, vengeful and like they cannot be heard and/or their voice doesnt matter all because of their ideals, some people (thankfully very few) cannot handle this, they dont know how to opose these "enemies" and they either commit suicide or go batshit crazy and kill other people.

At this point the modern society has done its job and essentially created a someone with a load of anger towards a group, not much to live for and no hope. this is basically the perfect blank slate of a mass shooter.

Then you get the Trumps who as you puts it "whips up racism" so then the angry, vengeful and bitter individual created by leftists above sees this and essentially gets a right wing messiah. Trump as a right winger (who just fyi was elected entirely because of the above - equal and opposite reaction) espouses right wing and/or conservative ideas, such as boarder control, he will blame immigration for the poor state of affairs etc etc. You get the idea.

So what we have now is a recipe for disaster.
Bitter, resentful, vengeful and self hating individual + a "leader" in the individuals eyes who says its all X's fault = mass shooting.

This is simplyfying it as much as is possible for the purposes of brevity and things like "leader" should really be expanded to include all agreeable aspects of this socio-political duality but hopefully it gets the idea across.

You can see examples of the reverse in history 70's-80's especially when left ideals such as socialism were viewed with disdain and simply by supporting them you were likely to be ostracised. But the same pattern applies to any form of terrorism. Islamic terrosism of the west is the same pattern it is a direct result of people (middle eastern Muslims) who feel they have no options to further their goal + fanatical islamic rhetoric = people getting hurt. Its always the same pattern.

The ban also coincided with a colossal loss of funding, and with the other amendment making it harder to gain information, it had the effect of banning the practise, without actually going to the step of formally banning it.

Have to hand it to them, very clever politicking.

Yes you're correct. Scores of innocent people being shot dead with a gun has absolutely nothing to do with guns.

Obviously. I mean we have no guns and a far less people are shot dead. Amazing.

These mass shootings happen all the time, and the reaction now is a shrug of the shoulders. Nothing will ever change. If school children being shot dead isn't enough to convince people that having guns is bad, nothing ever will.

The gun lobby have succeeded though, becauss whenever there is a mass shooting people just accept it as part of American life.

I assume you are one of those who takes BBC/CNN etc as the gospel truth, rather than a propaganda outlet. Im not saying everything they put out is lies, but you have to read between the lines. Look at the people running UN, WHO, CFR, DARPA, the large banks, Boeing, Lockheed etc...The long term goal is depopulation and centralised command and control via a technocratic central (global) government.