Sutherland Springs, TX shooting

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



cdtm
This time at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/05/mass-shooting-reported-at-texas-sutherland-springs-church.html

Surtur
An awful situation. RIP to the deceased. I am glad the piece of shit who did it is dead.

20 feared dead *smh*

Emperordmb
My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims. What a terrible tragedy.

cdtm
I don't know what to say. ANOTHER shooting. (Thanks to the mods putting a proper title.. It was more from disgust then laziness or insensitivity.)

But yes, my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

I wish the shooter was taken alive, if only to learn a clue on how to stop there, and so he could face justice properly.

Surtur
Apparently it is a very small town, only 400 people.

Emperordmb
Shit so they lost 5% of their total population? They have to be taking that pretty hard given how personal that would be for everyone.

Surtur
Latest number seems to be 27 dead.

And yeah it's probably one of those places where everybody knows everybody.

Darth Thor

Bashar Teg
i can tell from reading the comments here that it wasn't a muslim

Surtur

carthage
Sad

Just After the Walmart shooting and Vegas shooting. ****

carthage
Total is 27 now

Surtur
28 dead now, what an evil act.

Nuke Nixon
What a noob, if he had gone into one of the Megachurches in Texas he could have gotten a Vegas level high score.

It's not that it's a tragedy when these idiots murderdeathkill, it's a tragedy when they don't even try hard... that's just unprofessional.

I'm not impressed.

Tzeentch
Please remember that this was just a lone wolf one-off incident

Whites are a race of peace

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Please remember that this was just a lone wolf one-off incident

Whites are a race of peace


thumb up


Round up the Muslims!

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i can tell from reading the comments here that it wasn't a muslim

So does that make you happy or sad? This was a Chuch Shooting so it was probably a Leftist Atheist. So that half rules Surtur out.

And this was in Texas...Why weren't some of these Parishioners Packin?

Firefly218
Anyone interested in gun control yet?

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
Anyone interested in gun control yet?

Indeed, which gun legislation could have prevented this? What measure would you introduce after this, if you could?

Flyattractor
Already stated my view. Somebody in that Church shoud have shot back.

And You really don't watn Gun Control FireFly. You really want Totalitarian Control.

Surtur
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Already stated my view. Somebody in that Church shoud have shot back.

And You really don't watn Gun Control FireFly. You really want Totalitarian Control.

I saw a report saying an armed citizen shot the guy after he left the church.

Flyattractor
See. If we had Gun Control that wouldn't have happened.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, which gun legislation could have prevented this? Heavily regulate/ban every single gun that fires rapidly to any degree. Pistols, rifles and such are fine. Crack down on automatics, semi-automatics etc...

There's literally evidence that this works, buddy. Check out this clip about Australia

mVuspKSjfgA

Flyattractor
But it is the Daily Show. That means the facts will be all skewed to show a preffered view of what they want them to say....aka its all a Big Lie.

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
Heavily regulate/ban every single gun that fires rapidly to any degree. Pistols, rifles and such are fine. Crack down on automatics, semi-automatics etc...

There's literally evidence that this works, buddy. Check out this clip about Australia

mVuspKSjfgA

Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Semi-automatic weapons....most pistols you will find are semi-automatic, so what do you mean by "crack down" on semi-automatics?

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Surtur
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Semi-automatic weapons....most pistols you will find are semi-automatic, so what do you mean by "crack down" on semi-automatics?
Funny to listen to the Left ***** about guns when they don't even understand the terminology or how they even work.

Full on The Derp Face for them.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Flyattractor
But it is the Daily Show. That means the facts will be all skewed to show a preffered view of what they want them to say....aka its all a Big Lie. Here's a non-biased source

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Semi-automatic weapons....most pistols you will find are semi-automatic, so what do you mean by "crack down" on semi-automatics? I mean any semi-automatics that can be shot rapidly enough that the line between it and an automatic is blurred.

Flyattractor
But what if its found out the gun was snuck across the border from MEEHIICO?

What then?

Surtur
Originally posted by Firefly218
I mean any semi-automatics that can be shot rapidly enough that the line between it and an automatic is blurred.

But the number of deaths that will be caused by hand guns surpasses these other guns you are talking about by leaps and bounds.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Already stated my view. Somebody in that Church shoud have shot back.

And You really don't watn Gun Control FireFly. You really want Totalitarian Control. Oh sht I didn't see this stupid post. You think more guns make everyone safer, meanwhile a shooter can down a whole church before anyone has the reaction time to shoot back.

Gun regulation before YOUR child gets hit in the crossfire

Firefly218
Originally posted by Surtur
But the number of deaths that will be caused by hand guns surpasses these other guns you are talking about by leaps and bounds. Any gun that is capable of shooting rapidly needs to be banned. I don't care what type of gun it is.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Firefly218
Anyone interested in gun control yet?

Yes, gun control laws need to be relaxed in some states.

And we need universal healthcare that covers mental health.

Edit - "more gun control" is not a liberal position. It is a right-wing position. It's just that...Americans are so backwards that our have confused "more rights" with conservatives and "less rights" with liberals...at least on guns.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Any gun that is capable of shooting rapidly needs to be banned. I don't care what type of gun it is.

Didn't the Vegas shooter use guns that could not shoot rapidly but were modified to become automatic? See why your idea is misinformed?

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Firefly218
Oh sht I didn't see this stupid post. You think more guns make everyone safer, meanwhile a shooter can down a whole church before anyone has the reaction time to shoot back.

Gun regulation before YOUR child gets hit in the crossfire

But if it came across from ANOTHER COUNTRY how would Gun Control in The U.S have stopped this?

If you can't answer the question, then I will forgive you for being ignorant.

Firefly218
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, gun control laws need to be relaxed in some states.

And we need universal healthcare that covers mental health. Let me guess. Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

Surtur
Okay so I guess some "good" news, if you can call it that. The number of dead isn't 28, it is now being reported at 26.

I read that the shooter was in the military and was dishonorably discharged.

Also here is the story I mentioned earlier:

This man may have prevented the Texas mass shooting from getting any deadlier

"Were it not for a local resident who confronted the gunman, the deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives.
At a news conference Sunday night, investigators offered a preliminary timeline of the attack at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and laid out the role the resident played.
The gunman entered the small church in the rural town east of San Antonio, firing with an assault weapon at the congregation attending the morning service.
A local resident grabbed his own rifle and engaged the gunman, said Freeman Martin, the regional director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

"The suspect dropped his rifle, which was a Ruger AR assault-type rifle and fled from the church," Martin said. "

dadudemon
Originally posted by Firefly218
Let me guess. Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

That's irrelevant to my point. It is a red herring and a dodge from my point.

Go back to my post, I edited in more. And then reply directly to the content if you would like to provide a rebuttal. If you do not have one, then don't reply. It's simple. We don't have to get into stupid arguments that abound in the GDF.

Flyattractor
Or lets go with this angle. The Left says that the only "People"
that should have Guns are the Government and the Police?

But if that is so...

Don't the Left say our Current President is a Fascist, thus making the Current Government a Fascist Regime?
And don't the Left also say that the U.S Police are Extremely Racist?

You want only THOSE PEOPLE to have GUNS FiFLy?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so I guess some "good" news, if you can call it that. The number of dead isn't 28, it is now being reported at 26.

I read that the shooter was in the military and was dishonorably discharged.

Also here is the story I mentioned earlier:

This man may have prevented the Texas mass shooting from getting any deadlier

"Were it not for a local resident who confronted the gunman, the deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives.
At a news conference Sunday night, investigators offered a preliminary timeline of the attack at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and laid out the role the resident played.
The gunman entered the small church in the rural town east of San Antonio, firing with an assault weapon at the congregation attending the morning service.
A local resident grabbed his own rifle and engaged the gunman, said Freeman Martin, the regional director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

"The suspect dropped his rifle, which was a Ruger AR assault-type rifle and fled from the church," Martin said. "

How very interesting. So the shooting could have been much deadlier if the attendee to the church service was not armed?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Or lets go with this angle. The Left says that the only "People"
that should have Guns are the Government and the Police?

But if that is so...

Don't the Left say our Current President is a Fascist, thus making the Current Government a Fascist Regime?
And don't the Left also say that the U.S Police are Extremely Racist?

You want only THOSE PEOPLE to have GUNS FiFLy?


Couple of things:


1. Only "some" in each group of people you mentioned above have the attributes and labels you've applied to them.
2. That's why we have those pesky amendments: so we can violently overthrow our tyrannical government.


Some Americans like to forget that we founded this country on violence, bloodshed, and guns.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
How very interesting. So the shooting could have been much deadlier if the attendee to the church service was not armed?

Indeed, and I saw someone else saying it's illegal for you to own a gun if you were dishonorably discharged.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, and I saw someone else saying it's illegal for you to own a gun if you were dishonorably discharged.

Yes, you cannot legally possess a firearm if you have been dishonorably discharged.

Edit - Yup:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

"(g) It shall be unlawful for any person

...

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions"

Flyattractor
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, you cannot legally possess a firearm if you have been dishonorably discharged.

Edit - Yup:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

"(g) It shall be unlawful for any person

...

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions"

Well that must make poor Betty Bergdhal upset to no end...

dadudemon
Originally posted by Firefly218
Anyone interested in gun control yet?

Hey, Firefly218, the shooter did not possess those firearms, legally, because he was DD. So your gun control laws are in place that you wanted, already. See my below post:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, you cannot legally possess a firearm if you have been dishonorably discharged.

Edit - Yup:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

"(g) It shall be unlawful for any person

...

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions"



So, Firefly218, how do you propose we address this issue now that it has come to light that the person possess those firearms, illegally, and used them, illegally? Gun control didn't work. "more gun control" is not necessary because the gun control is already in place.

Firefly218

Firefly218
Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, Firefly218, the shooter did not possess those firearms, legally, because he was DD. So your gun control laws are in place that you wanted, already. See my below post:





So, Firefly218, how do you propose we address this issue now that it has come to light that the person possess those firearms, illegally, and used them, illegally? Gun control didn't work. "more gun control" is not necessary because the gun control is already in place. Please read this article

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/

If a seatbelt doesn't work, that doesn't mean we get rid of seatbelts in cars. The current Gun Regulation has loopholes and is a joke, we need improved regulation and better laws.

The Vegas shooter was able to legally stockpile dozens of rifles without any fire alarms going off. The Vegas shooter was able to legally buy devices known as "bump stocks" and was able to legally modify his rifles into deadly automatic weapons. I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS TTHREAD CAN AGREE THAT IS WRONG RIGHT???

Edit: Just to make it clear, your post is inaccurate. The shooter did, in fact, purchase rifles from a store legally.

dadudemon

Firefly218
Originally posted by dadudemon
The argument you have used (it is not your argument, you're using the argument of others which is good, so do not take my disagreement as a personal attack) is a very old and tired one that has long been destroyed.




That should be the end of it. You should never use the Australia example ever again as it is just not a good example for why we should increase gun control laws in the US. You've missed the purpose of the Australia example. It does NOT demonstrate a reduction in violent crime rates or murder rates, that's true.




What it does demonstrate is a complete and utter elimination of firearm massacres. A firearm massacre is defined as the killing of 4 or more people at one time.



Before the Australian gun legislation, there were around 13 firearm massacres in the span of 18 years that caused hundreds of deaths.

After the Australian gun legislation and up until present day 2017, there have been ZERO firearm massacres



Now that the argument is more clear, address it if you will. I haven't seen a good comeback to this ever.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Firefly218
Please read this article

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/

If a seatbelt doesn't work, that doesn't mean we get rid of seatbelts in cars.


This seat belt argument of yours makes 0 sense. It is nonsensical. Even a logical stretch is not good enough to even remotely come close to being a decent comparison. If a seatbelt doesn't work, you use science to figure out how to improve the purpose of the seatbelt. Since we have data that clearly shows stricter gun control laws does not equal less death but we DO have evidence that better mental healthcare, better education, and better quality of life DOES equal less crime, we should focus on that data. Not red herrings and strawman ideas that "no guns = no violence".

Originally posted by Firefly218
The Vegas shooter was able to legally stockpile dozens of rifles without any fire alarms going off. The Vegas shooter was able to legally buy devices known as "bump stocks" and was able to legally modify his rifles into deadly automatic weapons. I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS TTHREAD CAN AGREE THAT IS WRONG RIGHT???

Edit: Just to make it clear, your post is inaccurate. The shooter did, in fact, purchase rifles from a store legally.

Bump stocks are legal: I was wrong. I thought they were illegal.

As for the shooter in this thread, if Devin Kelley was dishonorably discharged, I cited the law, it says that they cannot do the firearm thing.

If Devin obtained a gun, it was done, illegally. No matter the circumstances or situation: anyway he obtained the gun would have been illegal.

Robtard
Originally posted by Firefly218
You've missed the purpose of the Australia example. It does NOT demonstrate a reduction in violent crime rates or murder rates, that's true.




What it does demonstrate is a complete and utter elimination of firearm massacres. A firearm massacre is defined as the killing of 4 or more people at one time.



Before the Australian gun legislation, there were around 13 firearm massacres in the span of 18 years that caused hundreds of deaths.

After the Australian gun legislation and up until present day 2017, there have been ZERO firearm massacres


Now that the argument is more clear, address it if you will. I haven't seen a good comeback to this ever.

Now is not the time to discuss our gun laws, we have to wait until people are not "emotional" over this shooting and that will take us right into the next shooting and we wash/repeat.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Firefly218
You've missed the purpose of the Australia example. It does NOT demonstrate a reduction in violent crime rates or murder rates, that's true.

No, I most certainly did not miss the point of the often used Australia example. However, and kudos to you, you did recognize my point so I think we can move on. We both agree that gun control should be in place: I think more gun control should be in place in some states as I'm sure you do, too.




Originally posted by Firefly218
Now that the argument is more clear, address it if you will. I haven't seen a good comeback to this ever.

Why? Why would I address an argument that I never argued against? Why would I address the counter to an argument I never made? It makes no sense. Do you know what this is? This is moving the goalposts. I don't want to argue about that. I don't want to debate about that. I think it's a useless argument. It's dumb. It's such a stupid argument to try to argue against because it doesn't apply to the US and the violence problem in the US.

Okay, I'll address: refer back to my post again that you just replied to. Plenty of other countries who do have firearm ownership.

Okay, so now that the argument is utterly destroyed, let's get back to a real discussion. How do we ACTUALLY solve the violence problem in the US?

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Robtard
Now is not the time to discuss our gun laws, we have to wait until people are not "emotional" over this shooting and that will take us right into the next shooting and we wash/repeat.

You live in Califunny Robbie. You already got some pretty strict Gun Laws. You are getting your Socialism on the Left Coast.

Leave Texas alone. They don't need any more Blue in their state.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
How very interesting. So the shooting could have been much deadlier if the attendee to the church service was not armed?

??

Seems someone grabbed the terrorist's rifle, forcing him to flee:

After leaving the gas station, the gunman crossed the street, got out of his car and sprayed First Baptist Church's right side with his rifle, Martin said. He then entered the church and continued to fire until a local resident grabbed Kelley's rifle, forcing him to drop it and flee. The resident pursued Kelley, who drove off the road and crashed, Martin said.

Kelley was later found dead, Martin said, although it was unclear how he died.

"We don't know if it was a self-inflicted gunshot wound or if he was shot by our local resident who engaged him in gunfire," he said -snip

Link

Firefly218
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I most certainly did not miss the point of the often used Australia example. However, and kudos to you, you did recognize my point so I think we can move on. We both agree that gun control should be in place: I think more gun control should be in place in some states as I'm sure you do, too.






Why? Why would I address an argument that I never argued against? Why would I address the counter to an argument I never made? It makes no sense. Do you know what this is? This is moving the goalposts. I don't want to argue about that. I don't want to debate about that. I think it's a useless argument. It's dumb. It's such a stupid argument to try to argue against because it doesn't apply to the US and the violence problem in the US.

Okay, I'll address: refer back to my post again that you just replied to. Plenty of other countries who do have firearm ownership.

Okay, so now that the argument is utterly destroyed, let's get back to a real discussion. How do we ACTUALLY solve the violence problem in the US? Oh my god, you're ducking like an absolute coward.

The topic of discussion in this thread is MASS SHOOTINGS. Not crime rates, not murder rates. It's MASS SHOOTINGS.

The Australia example applies to MASS SHOOTINGS. There have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia since the 1996 gun legislation. Meanwhile in America we've had more mass shootings than we can count.

If you're not gonna be intellectually honest there's no point continuing this discussion.

Firefly218
And by the way, dadudemon.

It's perfectly reasonable to see why banning rapid firing guns doesn't significantly decrease violent crime rates. Most murders/crimes don't involve high-powered weaponry.

The reason we need to ban rapid firing guns is NOT because it would decrease the violent crime rates, it's because it would decrease instances of mass slaughter.

Anyways, if any of that got through...

Flyattractor
God I hope the U.S can hold on to tis balls unlike places like Australia.

Adam_PoE
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVP96g5U4AAWpHD.png

Rockydonovang
"we need mental health" is not an appropiate answer to firearm regulation because regulating firearms does not hinder better treatment of mental health.

Furthermore, overall violence stats aren't relevant here, gun related violence is. The only question that needs to be answered here is if un regulations may reduce gun violence. If so, then they're worth trying.

Finally there are no rights being threatened here. The only right there ever has been is the right to well regulated use of firearms.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Firefly218
And by the way, dadudemon.

It's perfectly reasonable to see why banning rapid firing guns doesn't significantly decrease violent crime rates. Most murders/crimes don't involve high-powered weaponry.

The reason we need to ban rapid firing guns is NOT because it would decrease the violent crime rates, it's because it would decrease instances of mass slaughter.

Anyways, if any of that got through...
You forgot firefly, addressing mass slaughter will prevent us from addressing overall crime rates. We can't address both.

cdtm
Australia's mandatory buyback program isn't exactly feasible here, for obvious reasons.

Rapid fire bans might help, maybe.. Assuming they can't be worked around by modification..

Rockydonovang
background checks, we need better background checks

dadudemon
Originally posted by Firefly218
Oh my god, you're ducking like an absolute coward.

You cannot even remain slightly civil before you piss yourself with emotional outbursts. You're not capable of having an adult discussion which is why I do not indulge you and usually ignore you. erm

Please stop getting so emotional? Pretty please? Just keep it civil, dude. Don't make us like the others.

Originally posted by Firefly218
The topic of discussion in this thread is MASS SHOOTINGS. Not crime rates, not murder rates. It's MASS SHOOTINGS.

No, the topic of the thread is the Sutherland Texas Shooting. The topic you replied to and I replied to is more gun control. I said the gun control was in place: he did not legally possess that firearm.

So your response was to throw a red herring out there that is irrelevant. Then you pretended like it was the greatest argument ever made.

And now you're pretending like stopping less than .01% of violence in the US is a magical solution to the violence in the US.

And when I directed your attention to that, you got mad and now want to make this "ONLY ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS AND THAT'S IT. NOTHING ELSE. JUST MASS SHOOTINGS."

Okay, great. You care about mass shootings, only. But gun control laws clearly do not stop mass shootings in the US. You cannot use Australia because Australia is not an apples to apples comparison.

I've directed your attention to Russia which has much stricter gun control laws and far fewer guns in circulation than the US and yet has far far more homicides.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/09/19/224043848/the-u-s-has-more-guns-but-russia-has-more-murders

Originally posted by Firefly218
The Australia example applies to MASS SHOOTINGS. There have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia since the 1996 gun legislation. Meanwhile in America we've had more mass shootings than we can count.

If you're not gonna be intellectually honest there's no point continuing this discussion.

I don't want to be anything with you. You're unreasonable, get too emotional, and are very illogical.

I couldn't care less about your bad point regarding Australia. It's never a topic I addressed or wanted to talk about until I chose to indulge a post ago.

You "DEMANDED, BY GAWD!!!!!!!" someone address your bad point. Your very bad idea about doing an illogical comparison with Australia. You need to be intellectually honest with yourself: you're dead set on your Australia thing being the end all be all. You're not open for debate. You're not open to the idea that your example is a poor comparison to the US and can never work in the US. You're not looking for someone to provide a rebuttal (I did, but it made you very upset that I listed other countries with lots of gun ownership but far far less violent crime).

If you're not happy about that, then go to any of the other countries that researcher listed. How often do mas shootings occur there?

So let's directly guns and violence in Australia since 1996:

Murders went up in 1999, in Australia, which was after your high prized gun laws went into place.

Additionally, several mass murders took place in Australia since 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

And if you want to use Australia's numbers for homicide, then we can compare apples to oranges:

US Gun Homicides dropped more from 1993 to 2013 than Australia's murders did from 1996 until 2014:

USA: dropped 43%
Australia: dropped 23%

Again, that's an apples to oranges comparison. Actual homicide rates in the US dropped by more than half since 1980. That's an apples to apples to comparison. Murders peaked in the US in the early 1990s so whatever we did in the US is better than Australia who saw a 23% drop in homicides sense then, right? By your logic, we're doing better than Australia, right? Since I am actually being intellectually honestly, I'll tell you the answer: it is not an apples to apples comparison so I cannot pretend like the US' policy on how to address violence is better than Australia's, despite the data being able to support that idea.


Works Cited:

https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/crime-rate-united-states-1980-2014

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
background checks, we need better background checks

In some states, this is not done. Why? I have no idea.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/


The Universal Background Check idea is what I'm referring to.






How do we enforce gun control laws on private sales? You can't. Jaden was coming close to it with technology but people will always and easily get around technological barriers, even if you institute 'buy back' programs to de-circulate guns.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Firefly218
And by the way, dadudemon.

It's perfectly reasonable to see why banning rapid firing guns doesn't significantly decrease violent crime rates. Most murders/crimes don't involve high-powered weaponry.

The reason we need to ban rapid firing guns is NOT because it would decrease the violent crime rates, it's because it would decrease instances of mass slaughter.

Anyways, if any of that got through...

But even mass shootings in the US, the vast majority are not done with automatic or automatic-like firearms. Less than 10% are.

But we do agree on one thing: banning those types of guns doesn't significantly decrease violent crime rates. Or at all: it could increase it if you use Glasgow as an example when they hit a peak on violent crime and murder rates in 2005 for the Western World (bordering on rates similar to war-torn African countries). But I won't pretend that it was due to the loss of firearms: just making a point about statistical significance and improper correlations.


As I've cited, better, not more, but better gun control laws mixed with:
better and universal healthcare
reducing our poverty rates
increasing our education rates


Will actually have a meaningful and significant reduction on violence in the US. That includes the item you are laser focused on: mass shootings.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVP96g5U4AAWpHD.png
Certainly more helpful than whatever the **** you're doing in this thread tbh

Unless you actively gave to or participated in some charity that's helping in the aftermath of this tragedy, you're not being any more of use. I'm not exactly doing less than anyone else in this thread to help with the situation tbh, unless there's some charity shit I don't know of.

Could it be that you have some special contempt for and gripe with religion that you seized on this thread as an excuse to attack people for expressing empathy for the victims, or is this your way of morally grandstanding and suggesting anyone who disagrees with you on gun control policy is just uncaring towards the victims of these tragedies?

Dreampanther
No. More Americans killing each other with guns? This was completely unpredictable and totally unexpected. If only there had been some kind of warning.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Dreampanther
No. More Americans killing each other with guns? This was completely unpredictable and totally unexpected. If only there had been some kind of warning.

Shh . . . now's not the appropriate time to talk about that. Now's the time for thoughts and prayers.

Emperordmb
Again, no less useful than you bitching about people expressing basic empathy for other people.

Dreampanther
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Shh . . . now's not the appropriate time to talk about that. Now's the time for thoughts and prayers.

Pray as much as you like. Pretty sure that's what all those people in the church were doing as well just before they got shot.

Firefly218
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"we need mental health" is not an appropiate answer to firearm regulation because regulating firearms does not hinder better treatment of mental health.

Furthermore, overall violence stats aren't relevant here, gun related violence is. The only question that needs to be answered here is if un regulations may reduce gun violence. If so, then they're worth trying.

Finally there are no rights being threatened here. The only right there ever has been is the right to well regulated use of firearms. thumb up

marwash22
yeah yeah, thoughts and prayers (lol) and all that good stuff... i need y'all to have the same energy you have when a muslim does this shit.


Originally posted by Tzeentch
Please remember that this was just a lone wolf one-off incident

Whites are a race of peace #BuildThatWall... around white men with guns.

Rockydonovang
-

jaden101
I see the same old cyclical arguments being used on both sides of the gun control debate here.

Neither side listens to the other. It's as polarised and entrenched as everything else in US politics.

Zero changes will be made unless there's money to be made.

cdtm
Originally posted by jaden101
I see the same old cyclical arguments being used on both sides of the gun control debate here.

Neither side listens to the other. It's as polarised and entrenched as everything else in US politics.

Zero changes will be made unless there's money to be made.

Pretty much.

You just need to look at, say, airport security to see where their priorities are. Too cheap to invest in a proper security system, but willing to spend just enough on poorly trained, underpaid help to create the illusion of security to people keep buying those overpriced plane tickets and food concessions..

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Robtard
Now is not the time to discuss our gun laws, we have to wait until people are not "emotional" over this shooting and that will take us right into the next shooting and we wash/repeat.

http://replygif.net/i/440.gif

dadudemon
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"we need mental health" is not an appropiate answer to firearm regulation because regulating firearms does not hinder better treatment of mental health.

When you phrase it with a non-sequitur logical structure like that, of course it doesn't make sense. Anyone can form ridiculous structures like that and then pretend to defeat stupid arguments.

Mental healthcare will never be the answer to firearm regulation because they aren't the same thing. As Firefly pointed out, why not both? What you mean to say is that violence can be reduced by better gun regulation and better mental healthcare in the US.

As I pointed out, the stupid gun regulations in some states needs to go away. And the sparse or even lacking gun regulations need to be shored up in other states. That's in addition to all those other things I mentioned.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Furthermore, overall violence stats aren't relevant here, gun related violence is. The only question that needs to be answered here is if un regulations may reduce gun violence. If so, then they're worth trying.

Finally there are no rights being threatened here. The only right there ever has been is the right to well regulated use of firearms.

Wrong: violence needs to be addressed, not specifically gun violence. If other countries can do it, we can do it. You're make the mistake of a false dichotomy. It's not this or that. You don't have to make a choice between mutually exclusive poles. You can choose both at the same time. We agree that better gun regulation needs to be in place. I did not say more: I said better.

dadudemon
Originally posted by jaden101
I see the same old cyclical arguments being used on both sides of the gun control debate here.

Neither side listens to the other. It's as polarised and entrenched as everything else in US politics.

Zero changes will be made unless there's money to be made.

I don't see that at all in this thread. I see US Leftists using old, tired, and even ill-informed ideas on how to solve violence in the US and me, the most liberal person in this thread, knocking down the stupid ideas and using legit data to help steer people towards the proper solutions.


Has anyone in this thread represented the "other side" at all in this thread?


Or were you talking about US Americans and not this thread?

cdtm
I wonder if mental health services ever helped anyone?

I've spent most of my young life in the system. For "tourettes", back when it was barely understood. Sat in individual sessions. Sat in groups. Was given meds.

All I remember about that time is just wishing to get it over with. I wouldn't say it 'helped" in any way talking to these guys, who all seemed pretty aloof and unapproachable..

Bashar Teg
we have to somehow magically cure 100% of all mental illness, because it makes too much sense to just not allow the mentally ill to own guns.

Lestov16
3 terrorist attacks in the span of slightly over a month. Interestingly, the least deadly attack, and the only attack not performed by a Caucasian male, was also the only attack that received both consolatory and legislative response from the president.

Emperordmb
Could it maybe be because Trump agrees with counter terrorism and border security measures and doesn't agree with gun control measures? Kinda like how a lot of the same people who push gun control after shootings don't push the same measures Trump does after an Islamic terror attack. It is not disingenuous for someone to push policy in one instance when they agree with the proposed solutions but not in other instances when they don't.

I will say though that Trump using the terrorist attack as a cudgel to push for immigration policy is in the same boat as Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk using mass shootings as a cudgel to beat their political opponents over the head with emotional appeals and character attacks. And I oppose both of them on that strategy.

Robtard
Originally posted by jaden101
I see the same old cyclical arguments being used on both sides of the gun control debate here.

Neither side listens to the other. It's as polarised and entrenched as everything else in US politics.

Zero changes will be made unless there's money to be made.

To the contrary, money is made by the gun industry whenever an attack like this happens as gun and ammo sales spike. The Gun Industry will likely make record profits this quarter with these attacks seemingly increasing.

Rage.Of.Olympus
This is terrible.

So many guns are in circulation at this point that I'm not even sure how the US would go about solving the problem.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Certainly more helpful than whatever the **** you're doing in this thread tbh

It's actually not.

Shitting on your lawn in the name of peace would objectively be more helpful to the world.

Robtard
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Could it maybe be because Trump agrees with counter terrorism and border security measures and doesn't agree with gun control measures? Kinda like how a lot of the same people who push gun control after shootings don't push the same measures Trump does after an Islamic terror attack. It is not disingenuous for someone to push policy in one instance when they agree with the proposed solutions but not in other instances when they don't.

I will say though that Trump using the terrorist attack as a cudgel to push for immigration policy is in the same boat as Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk using mass shootings as a cudgel to beat their political opponents over the head with emotional appeals and character attacks. And I oppose both of them on that strategy.

Or could it be that Trump can't push his agenda because the skin color and religion of the terrorist in Las Vegas and here don't fit? So he does the the "meh, it's mental health".

Except of course one side is using "emotional appeals" as a means to possibly make changes to gun related violence, the other is using it to push a xenophobic policy that won't likely do/stop much.

Robtard
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
This is terrible.

So many guns are in circulation at this point that I'm not even sure how the US would go about solving the problem.



It's actually not.

Shitting on your lawn in the name of peace would objectively be more helpful to the world.

It's the same "American is the greatest country in the world, we can do anything" who take the "nope, there's nothing we can do about gun violence".

So we just wait until the next attack and have our "thoughts and prayers" cards ready, cos those cost nothing.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i can tell from reading the comments here that it wasn't a muslim

I love the way pieces of shit like this moron had to respond. thumb up

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Could it maybe be because Trump agrees with counter terrorism and border security measures and doesn't agree with gun control measures? Kinda like how a lot of the same people who push gun control after shootings don't push the same measures Trump does after an Islamic terror attack. It is not disingenuous for someone to push policy in one instance when they agree with the proposed solutions but not in other instances when they don't.

I will say though that Trump using the terrorist attack as a cudgel to push for immigration policy is in the same boat as Jimmy Kimmel and his ilk using mass shootings as a cudgel to beat their political opponents over the head with emotional appeals and character attacks. And I oppose both of them on that strategy.

Just accept how things are.l They're gonna throw a fit whenever anything is dared to be said about Muslims after they pull off a terror attack, but they will defend to the death any comments on "it's all Republicans!" if it's a white guy who did it.

It's why they are not to be taken seriously lol. Just look at how Rob responded to you. The message is clear: THEIR emotional appeals are the right ones, the conservatives emotional appeals are the wrong ones.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
I love the way pieces of shit like this moron had to respond. thumb up

something wrong, squirt?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
something wrong, squirt?

I'm amused by pathetic souls like you.

jaden101
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see that at all in this thread. I see US Leftists using old, tired, and even ill-informed ideas on how to solve violence in the US and me, the most liberal person in this thread, knocking down the stupid ideas and using legit data to help steer people towards the proper solutions.


Has anyone in this thread represented the "other side" at all in this thread?


Or were you talking about US Americans and not this thread?

I see the exact same "guns are/aren't the problem" arguments we've seen in every mass shooting thread we've had on the boards since I've been a member.

Yes there are countries with high levels of gun ownership but low levels of gun violence. (although the US has by far and away the highest per capita gun ownership) Yes there are countries with very strict gun laws yet still have high levels of gun violence.

The US isn't either of those but what we do know is that whatever the US is it isn't working.

There's so many pointless examples given on both sides that lack any context. Example: Chicago. A city with relatively strict gun laws but with high levels of gun crime. Nobody ever bothers to mention that its strict gun laws are utterly irrelevant and useless when the city is surrounded by a country with much less strict gun laws and no borders between the city and the rest of the country to stop guns getting into the city in the first place.

In this specific incident the perpetrator couldn't legally own a gun but still killed people regardless. Nobody mentions that he lives in a state where he could easily access someone else's legally owned gun. Would he have still got his hands on a gun as easily if that wasn't the case?

Then there's the culture and how people perceive guns. The glorification and romanticisation of owning a gun in the US.

My favourite is the "to fight against a tyrannical government" argument. Does anyone believe that the US military will follow a government that will order them to slaughter their fellow citizens? And even if they did does anyone believe their AR-15s are going to do anything against M1-Abrams battle tanks and supersonic bombers with precision guided missiles?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by jaden101
In this specific incident the perpetrator couldn't legally own a gun but still killed people regardless. Nobody mentions that he lives in a state where he could easily access someone else's legally owned gun. Would he have still got his hands on a gun as easily if that wasn't the case?
What gun control prevents you from accessing someone else's legally owned gun?

If I legally own a gun, I can take it, drive over to someone's house, be let into their house, give them the gun, take the money, walk out, drive home, and there's not much the police can do to stop that regardless of whatever legislation is in place.

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
What gun control prevents you from accessing someone else's legally owned gun?

If I legally own a gun, I can take it, drive over to someone's house, be let into their house, give them the gun, take the money, walk out, drive home, and there's not much the police can do to stop that regardless of whatever legislation is in place.

I'm just waiting for more people to just flat out say "ban guns". You know it is coming. Some in this country are already saying it.

Scribble
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just waiting for more people to just flat out say "ban guns". You know it is coming. Some in this country are already saying it. Ban all semi-automatic guns, maybe? So only bolt-action rifles and chambered handguns were legal. I dunno, I don't know enough about America's gun culture, other than it being immensely widespread.

Surtur
Originally posted by Scribble
Ban all semi-automatic guns, maybe? So only bolt-action rifles and chambered handguns were legal. I dunno, I don't know enough about America's gun culture, other than it being immensely widespread.

Most handguns are semi-autos so I don't think that would fly.

Scribble
Originally posted by Surtur
Most handguns are semi-autos so I don't think that would fly. Worth a shot though, no? (No pun intended)


Like I say, I don't know much about American gun culture, however I can see the prospect of impounding every semi-auto handgun to be a task perhaps too large to undertake

Surtur
Originally posted by Scribble
Worth a shot though, no? (No pun intended)


Like I say, I don't know much about American gun culture, however I can see the prospect of impounding every semi-auto handgun to be a task perhaps too large to undertake

I could see people making the argument for the semi-automatic pistols in situations of life and death where every second counts.

Emperordmb
I don't think it's unreasonable at all for somebody to have a semi-automatic for defense.

The reality of banning semi-automatics is that you'd be restricting the freedoms of every american in the country, you'd be confiscating a ****ton of people's legitimately obtained and purchased property (some of which might preseumably be family heirlooms, gifts, or hold some other strong sentimental value to the individual), you'd be removing the legal option of a very reasonable self-defense measure from the individual, and given the sheer quantity of semi-automatic weapons in the country (the majority of rifles and pistols) there's no way in hell the government would be anywhere near remotely successful at removing semi-automatics from the populace, so the idea that criminals having semi-automatic guns wouldn't be a common occurrence is a fantasy. It'd also likely create a profitable illegal arms market, which would be another issue to contend with.

All in all, banning semi-automatics doesn't seem remotely reasonable. It would create an incentive for an illegal market to form that is unregulated, untaxed, and would require law enforcement resources and taxpayer dollars to combat. It wouldn't be very effective at actually getting semi-automatics away from criminals given the sheer number of semi-automatics in the US. It would be successful however in restricting the liberty of every single American citizen, remove from Americans the legality of a pretty reasonable self-defense option, and require the confiscation of legitimately obtained property with likely sentimental value. Doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me.

Scribble
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't think it's unreasonable at all for somebody to have a semi-automatic for defense.

The reality of banning semi-automatics is that you'd be restricting the freedoms of every american in the country, you'd be confiscating a ****ton of people's legitimately obtained and purchased property (some of which might preseumably be family heirlooms, gifts, or hold some other strong sentimental value to the individual), you'd be removing the legal option of a very reasonable self-defense measure from the individual, and given the sheer quantity of semi-automatic weapons in the country (the majority of rifles and pistols) there's no way in hell the government would be anywhere near remotely successful at removing semi-automatics from the populace, so the idea that criminals having semi-automatic guns wouldn't be a common occurrence is a fantasy. It'd also likely create a profitable illegal arms market, which would be another issue to contend with.

All in all, banning semi-automatics doesn't seem remotely reasonable. It would create an incentive for an illegal market to form that is unregulated, untaxed, and would require law enforcement resources and taxpayer dollars to combat. It wouldn't be very effective at actually getting semi-automatics away from criminals given the sheer number of semi-automatics in the US. It would be successful however in restricting the liberty of every single American citizen, remove from Americans the legality of a pretty reasonable self-defense option, and require the confiscation of legitimately obtained property with likely sentimental value. Doesn't seem like a good trade-off to me. Honestly, these are all good and rational arguments that I understand. With that much of a gun culture in the US, simply banning certain types of guns won't change most people's minds, and like you say, it'd probably just encourage a black market. Pretty much the same deal as with cannabis: sure, it's legal, but who cares? It doesn't stop people owning and using it.


Plus, criminals would still have guns, so you'd just be taking away any form of defence that average citizens currently have. One of the things that annoys me about the UK is that I'm not even legally allowed to fight back against someone who's attacking me, let alone carry something to protect myself. Seriously, even just some pepper spray would put me at ease, y'know? So I see what you mean entirely with that point.

jaden101
Originally posted by Emperordmb
What gun control prevents you from accessing someone else's legally owned gun?

If I legally own a gun, I can take it, drive over to someone's house, be let into their house, give them the gun, take the money, walk out, drive home, and there's not much the police can do to stop that regardless of whatever legislation is in place.

That's my point. Being unable to legally own a gun in a city/state/country awash with legally owned guns doesn't stop people getting their hands on guns with ease.

As I've said before, you can do numerous things. Start by making it an offence to sell guns to anywhere but authorised second hand dealerships who then resell and reregister with new owners. Make guns have fingerprint locking so only the legally registered owner can fire it. If you can lock a phone with a fingerprint how hard can it be to lock a gun?

Surtur
Originally posted by Scribble
Honestly, these are all good and rational arguments that I understand. With that much of a gun culture in the US, simply banning certain types of guns won't change most people's minds, and like you say, it'd probably just encourage a black market. Pretty much the same deal as with cannabis: sure, it's legal, but who cares? It doesn't stop people owning and using it.


Plus, criminals would still have guns, so you'd just be taking away any form of defence that average citizens currently have. One of the things that annoys me about the UK is that I'm not even legally allowed to fight back against someone who's attacking me, let alone carry something to protect myself. Seriously, even just some pepper spray would put me at ease, y'know? So I see what you mean entirely with that point.

I used to be very much against guns until I actually got to know some people that owned them.

Thank god an armed citizen potentially prevented this guy from causing more harm.

Robtard
The Right spin machine has already started with the the shooter being a member of Antifa and/or a "Leftist", just like they did with the Las Vegas shooter. Not surprised.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Robtard
The Right spin machine has already started with the the shooter being a member of Antifa and/or a "Leftist", just like they did with the Las Vegas shooter. Not surprised.

what disgusting and vile lowlifes. thumb down

Surtur
Originally posted by jaden101
Start by making it an offence to sell guns to anywhere but authorised second hand dealerships who then resell and reregister with new owners.

I agree things like this should be enacted, though I will point out some states do take some measures. For instance in my state..it is only legal to privately sell a gun to someone who has a "Firearm Owners Identification Card". A person cannot get said card without a background check.



And this technology will indeed be a great safety measure to implement...once the process is perfected, of course. Since I'm sure you'd agree if there is a chance the gun might not unlock when a person needs it, like say when their life is in danger, that is a pretty big issue.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
The Right spin machine has already started with the the shooter being a member of Antifa and/or a "Leftist", just like they did with the Las Vegas shooter. Not surprised.

And some on the left already started the spin machine by blaming Republicans.

Bashar Teg
it's not like they're trying to keep guns in the hands of the mentally ill coz 'freedoms', right? RIGHT?

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's not like they're trying to keep guns in the hands of the mentally ill coz 'freedoms', right? RIGHT?

Did you feel what you just typed justifies blaming republicans for this? Adorable.

jaden101
Originally posted by Surtur
I agree things like this should be enacted, though I will point out some states do take some measures. For instance in my state..it is only legal to privately sell a gun to someone who has a "Firearm Owners Identification Card". A person cannot get said card without a background check.



And this technology will indeed be a great safety measure to implement...once the process is perfected, of course. Since I'm sure you'd agree if there is a chance the gun might not unlock when a person needs it, like say when their life is in danger, that is a pretty big issue.

Is there a mechanism for rescinding the card if a previously legal owner is banned from owning guns after being convicted of a felony? Do they have to hand that card over to the police? Are they easily counterfeited?

As for the technology. It not being "perfect" isn't a reason to not implement a safety feature. Brakes on cars fail on occasion. Is that a reason to not put brakes on cars?

Surtur
Originally posted by jaden101
Is there a mechanism for rescinding the card if a previously legal owner is banned from owning guns after being convicted of a felony? Do they have to hand that card over to the police? Are they easily counterfeited?

Yes there is, no idea about how easily counterfeited they are,also about gun shows too: Police must conduct background check on prospective buyer before firearms are transferred at gun shows. Seller must check validity of buyer's FOID card.

For a private sale, the seller needs to check for it. I'm not saying the laws can't be better, just saying some states do have some stipulations.

Robtard
Who's in control of all three branches of the government right now? Who has historically voted for fewer and fewer gun regulations? And if we're doing the standard "he's mentally ill" excuse cos he's a White man, who has voted to lesson restrictions on gun owners who have a history of mental illness?

The answer is indeed "Republicans".

Emperordmb
Originally posted by jaden101
As I've said before, you can do numerous things. Start by making it an offence to sell guns to anywhere but authorised second hand dealerships who then resell and reregister with new owners.
Good luck enforcing that... seriously. You can legislate it, and I don't think I'd be against that, but that would be such an easy law to circumvent it's ridiculous to suggest it would actually put a serious dent in gun homicide deaths.

Originally posted by jaden101
Make guns have fingerprint locking so only the legally registered owner can fire it. If you can lock a phone with a fingerprint how hard can it be to lock a gun?
And could you not see why many people would be opposed to this?

You'd be hurting the entire industry, you'd be putting seriously restrictive constraints on the manufacturers of the guns, which would drive production costs and prices up.

You'd also be making things more difficult for gun-owners, since these "smart guns" would require a power source to function, and since they aren't purely mechanical and have a "smart" function as well the upkeep and maintenance of the weapon would be significantly more difficult as well. Also if my friend is hunting with his dad, or I'm with my friend on his private property at a shooting range, would they not be able to share their private property with me in that instance? Seems like a pain in the ass for gun owners.

Not to mention, on numerous occasions I've had to rescan my fingerprint to access my phone because my finger had something on it, or I didn't hold it to the scanner in exactly the right way, or I was sweaty, or something like that. If this happens with my phone, no problem, I can rescan it or type in the code and it's fine. If it happens with a gun while I'm in a really tense life or death situation, then I'm ****ed. Seems like something that could reduce someone's chances of survival in a life death situation.

And then once again, are you proposing we confiscate all guns that don't have this measure, because if not you'd be leaving a ****ton of the regular guns in circulation and if so you'd be seriously infringing on the property rights of law abiding citizens and you'd fail to actually confiscate anywhere near all of them anyways.

And then of course, if someone can modify a gun with a bumpstock, if people can disassemble and reassemble guns, what's to stop a person whose good enough with this shit from removing or circumventing this modification?

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
Did you feel what you just typed justifies blaming republicans for this? Adorable.

i blame their voting record for the general trend, however i believe that this particular gunman had his firearms license revoked (despite the tireless effort of the GOP to preserve the right of the mentally ill to bear arms.)

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Who's in control of all three branches of the government right now? Who has historically voted for fewer and fewer gun regulations? And if we're doing the standard "he's mentally ill" excuse cos he's a White man, who has voted to lesson restrictions on gun owners who have a history of mental illness?

The answer is indeed "Republicans".

So just to be clear: it's perfectly reasonable to blame Republicans for this? Gotcha.

Surtur
People keep bringing up the mental illness thing, but as I recall that was because of the wide variety of things that could prevent one from getting a firearm.

You act like they are saying they want to put guns in the hands of mentally deranged people.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Surtur
the mental illness thing

that silly thing that has proven to be TOTALLY inconsequential, eh? (because imagination and fee-fees)

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
So just to be clear: it's perfectly reasonable to blame Republicans for this? Gotcha.

^ Avoids my facts, good

jaden101
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Good luck enforcing that... seriously. You can legislate it, and I don't think I'd be against that, but that would be such an easy law to circumvent it's ridiculous to suggest it would actually put a serious dent in gun homicide deaths.


And could you not see why many people would be opposed to this?

You'd be hurting the entire industry, you'd be putting seriously restrictive constraints on the manufacturers of the guns, which would drive production costs and prices up.

You'd also be making things more difficult for gun-owners, since these "smart guns" would require a power source to function, and since they aren't purely mechanical and have a "smart" function as well the upkeep and maintenance of the weapon would be significantly more difficult as well. Also if my friend is hunting with his dad, or I'm with my friend on his private property at a shooting range, would they not be able to share their private property with me in that instance? Seems like a pain in the ass for gun owners.

Not to mention, on numerous occasions I've had to rescan my fingerprint to access my phone because my finger had something on it, or I didn't hold it to the scanner in exactly the right way, or I was sweaty, or something like that. If this happens with my phone, no problem, I can rescan it or type in the code and it's fine. If it happens with a gun while I'm in a really tense life or death situation, then I'm ****ed. Seems like something that could reduce someone's chances of survival in a life death situation.

And then once again, are you proposing we confiscate all guns that don't have this measure, because if not you'd be leaving a ****ton of the regular guns in circulation and if so you'd be seriously infringing on the property rights of law abiding citizens and you'd fail to actually confiscate anywhere near all of them anyways.

And then of course, if someone can modify a gun with a bumpstock, if people can disassemble and reassemble guns, what's to stop a person whose good enough with this shit from removing or circumventing this modification?

I've addressed every single one of those points before in numerous threads.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Surtur
People keep bringing up the mental illness thing, but as I recall that was because of the wide variety of things that could prevent one from getting a firearm.

You act like they are saying they want to put guns in the hands of mentally deranged people.
Also what does that change? There could be republicans who don't want the mentally ill to be restricted from having guns, yet the mentally ill are restricted from having guns. Whether or not some republicans oppose certain reasonable gun control measures already in place is not valid or defensible evidence that we need more gun control measures. Let me repeat, this character attack does nothing to validate arguments for more gun control.

It's the same thing when pro-choice people go "Those damn republicans aren't in support of welfare and nationalized healthcare!" So ****ing what, a character attack is completely irrelevant to any discussion about anything other than the character. Maybe you can prove a point that someone's a piece of shit but it doesn't actually change the arguments as to whether a specific piece of policy or stance is valid or invalid.

Surtur
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that silly thing that has proven to be TOTALLY inconsequential, eh? (because imagination and fee-fees)

*sigh* You and your pals continually mislead people about this. If a person has been deemed as a danger to themselves OR to others they cannot legally purchase a gun.

Under the Obama rule(that got repealed), information from the Social Security Administration regarding mental disability benefits would be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database for use in firearm background checks.

Even liberal rags like Vox have articles like this:

Why disabilities rights activists like me sided with the NRA on an Obama gun control rule

Beniboybling
The shooter passed criminal background and fingerprint checks needed to purchase a gun despite being dishonourably discharged from the military for domestic abuse. So as far as solutions are concerned maybe you guys should start there.

Beniboybling
Ignore the above:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/texas-attorney-general-congregations-should-be-armed-after-church-shooting?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The obvious solution is that priests should start packing heat. sad

jaden101
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Ignore the above:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/texas-attorney-general-congregations-should-be-armed-after-church-shooting?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The obvious solution is that priests should start packing heat. sad

Tell churches to have 50 heavily armed guards or lose their tax exemptions. 😁

Robtard
Originally posted by jaden101
Tell churches to have 50 heavily armed guards or lose their tax exemptions. 😁

That will work until the first Mosque jumps on board.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Dreampanther
Pray as much as you like. Pretty sure that's what all those people in the church were doing as well just before they got shot.

thumb up

Beniboybling
Originally posted by jaden101
Tell churches to have 50 heavily armed guards or lose their tax exemptions. 😁 Originally posted by Robtard
That will work until the first Mosque jumps on board. laughing out loud

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Emperordmb

And could you not see why many people would be opposed to this?

You'd be hurting the entire industry, you'd be putting seriously restrictive constraints on the manufacturers of the guns, which would drive production costs and prices up.

You'd also be making things more difficult for gun-owners, since these "smart guns" would require a power source to function, and since they aren't purely mechanical and have a "smart" function as well the upkeep and maintenance of the weapon would be significantly more difficult as well. Also if my friend is hunting with his dad, or I'm with my friend on his private property at a shooting range, would they not be able to share their private property with me in that instance? Seems like a pain in the ass for gun owners.
Who says gun ownership should be easy or convenient?

The right to well regulated firearms isn't the same as the right to easily profit or use firearms.

Robtard
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Who says gun ownership should be easy or convenient?

The right to well regulated firearms isn't the same as the right to easily profit or use firearms.

The NRA and gun industry disagree with you, they're reaping profits

Beniboybling
God forbid we curb the profits of the firearms industry. sad

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Who says gun ownership should be easy or convenient?

The right to well regulated firearms isn't the same as the right to easily profit or use firearms.
Making things that much more difficult to people, restricting their liberty, and restricting their property rights is a net negative. It's something that is present in a cost-benefit analysis, it is one of the costs that has to be weighed against whatever is viewed as the benefit, and quite frankly I don't see this being effective or beneficial enough to justify the combination of these costs and the others I mentioned.

You yourself can and will argue that this cost is outweighed by the benefit, but you can't say this isn't something that needs to be considered as a factor.

jaden101
WEExlz7YktI

Sometimes there just aren't enough face-palms.

cdtm
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Ignore the above:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/texas-attorney-general-congregations-should-be-armed-after-church-shooting?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The obvious solution is that priests should start packing heat. sad

It works for Jesse Custer. thumb up

Surtur
Originally posted by Beniboybling
The shooter passed criminal background and fingerprint checks needed to purchase a gun despite being dishonourably discharged from the military for domestic abuse. So as far as solutions are concerned maybe you guys should start there.

So this means it was....human error. That is what caused this. The air force neglected to put his conviction into the database. So a clerical error.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by jaden101
WEExlz7YktI

Sometimes there just aren't enough face-palms. wow! foxnews never fails to lower the bar.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
we have to somehow magically cure 100% of all mental illness, because it makes too much sense to just not allow the mentally ill to own guns.

https://thelogicofscience.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/strawman.png

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by Firefly218
Heavily regulate/ban every single gun that fires rapidly to any degree. Pistols, rifles and such are fine. Crack down on automatics, semi-automatics etc...

There's literally evidence that this works, buddy. Check out this clip about Australia

mVuspKSjfgA

Let's talk about Australia, shall we! The International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences did a collected each study done on the effectiveness of Australia's gun control policy and concluded that their gun control legislation had any impact on firearm homicides.



- The International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences

The only reason the downturn in firearm homicides transpired was due to an already falling trend.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4kXqJg0MWMI/WgECT03P26I/AAAAAAAADeM/3jDdFbJQDrAprfMP84FFjH14cZAbQCSFACL0BGAYYCw/h350/2017-11-06.png

The Gun Buy Back program began in 1997 and notice the lack of any significant change after those programs enactment. If we look at the total homicide rate there is no real change other then the natural decline of homicides in a civilized society. This drop in homicides is congruent across most major nations around the world(including the US).

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_3dBjrlspZQ/WgEDrX84wcI/AAAAAAAADeY/2QiiALUHVAM8nhi0ceuCne4nggKBgeuQwCL0BGAYYCw/h288/2017-11-06.png



In the same article, it also says,



All statistical studies regarding Australia have found no causation regarding gun legislation and homicides.

Now, let's provide some actual statistics regarding the United States.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9QfKfPEUpT8/WgEFAXqnHGI/AAAAAAAADeo/W2qSq1CyJZAf26THSQmt10-pg7d20ur6ACL0BGAYYCw/h486/2017-11-06.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-A6Q0ZfaG1Z0/WgEFBSAArlI/AAAAAAAADes/jnKSr4homkgNbIxk6PDM1HKTwzC9IHQhQCL0BGAYYCw/h495/2017-11-06.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-yE1Nhok7KL0/WgEFCchw4CI/AAAAAAAADew/QewRM_aAqeAXCoOUaYEwDgq_6eUc4DV2gCL0BGAYYCw/h389/2017-11-06.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-IeULkdkIKXw/WgEFFYIcqlI/AAAAAAAADe0/f-bWEIq1QZgbxUlHgDjGaIo64ODEGiIbQCL0BGAYYCw/h375/2017-11-06.png

These graphs indicate that gun ownership actually helps to lower homicide rates.

If we are on the topic of statistical analysis's of other countries lets, look at Jamaica and Ireland. Their gun control policies have had nothing but deleterious effects.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ZHGTnWqOeIw/WgEFoX8-iiI/AAAAAAAADe8/MedipBVZuBo7fcYh_2LEXPTiw6dKqsORQCL0BGAYYCw/h714/2017-11-06.jpg

That is all I have to say on the subject.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
And this technology will indeed be a great safety measure to implement...once the process is perfected, of course. Since I'm sure you'd agree if there is a chance the gun might not unlock when a person needs it, like say when their life is in danger, that is a pretty big issue.

I feel that this excuse is a poor excuse. The solution I saw on this would send a message and/or e-mail to the gun owner when the batteries were low. And it unlocked very quickly. The only excuse for this technology not working is a shitty and lazy gun owner. And I don't want those types owning guns, anyway: it's how toddlers shot themselves dead (but with the finger locks...toddlers couldn't kill themselves...so maybe this is a win-win?)

dadudemon
Originally posted by Beniboybling
The shooter passed 1. criminal background

and 2. fingerprint checks needed to purchase a gun despite being dishonourably discharged from the military for domestic abuse. So as far as solutions are concerned maybe you guys should start there.

No he didn't.

Do you have evidence of 1 and 2?

DarthSkywalker0

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by dadudemon
No he didn't.

Do you have evidence of 1 and 2?

Ah, but he did. This was confirmed by the Academy Sports & Outdoors store. The reason he was not vetted was that the Air Force failed to submit the records to the FBI. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/06/562320017/the-texas-church-shooter-should-have-been-legally-barred-from-owning-guns?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202806

Background Checks would not halt this massacre.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Ah, but he did. This was confirmed by the Academy Sports & Outdoors store. The reason he was not vetted was that the Air Force failed to submit the records to the FBI. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/06/562320017/the-texas-church-shooter-should-have-been-legally-barred-from-owning-guns?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202806

Background Checks would not halt this massacre.

So he obtained this gun, illegally, by falsifying records and a clerical error from the Airforce allowed him to pass through the system?


So why do anti-gun people keep falsely saying that he legally obtained a gun? He clearly didn't. It's like me getting away with a traffic fine court date because my paperwork never got filed properly at the courthouse.

DarthSkywalker0
Originally posted by dadudemon
So he obtained this gun, illegally, by falsifying records and a clerical error from the Airforce allowed him to pass through the system?


So why do anti-gun people keep falsely saying that he legally obtained a gun? He clearly didn't. It's like me getting away with a traffic fine court date because my paperwork never got filed properly at the courthouse.

I did not hear about the falsifying of records, but yea I completely agree with you.

dadudemon
Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel that this excuse is a poor excuse. The solution I saw on this would send a message and/or e-mail to the gun owner when the batteries were low. And it unlocked very quickly. The only excuse for this technology not working is a shitty and lazy gun owner. And I don't want those types owning guns, anyway: it's how toddlers shot themselves dead (but with the finger locks...toddlers couldn't kill themselves...so maybe this is a win-win?)

I wanted to extend my comments on this:


Add tech to guns that allow only lawful citizens to own and operate them:

1. Criminals will remove the tech.
2. Use old guns.
3. Make their own guns.



It's absolutely ridiculous to think that banning all guns will get rid of the violence in the US. As Australia shows us, mass murders will still occur. Getting rid of the guns didn't really impact their murder rates. And if you look at places like Russia who have; much stricter gun control laws and enforcement than in the US, fewer guns in circulation, far fewer guns per capita; but still have much more gun homicides (raw) and much much more gun homicides (per capita); you can clearly see that the discussion shouldn't focus on just guns; it should be a minority focus for addressing the violence in the US.


lol, that last sentence is a monstrosity.

dadudemon
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I did not hear about the falsifying of records, but yea I completely agree with you.

I read on NPR that he did not check a box properly on his application (the one about dishonorably being discharged) which means he had to knowingly falsify records in his application.

Kurk
You can't fix societal decay. Address mental illness as a priority. That and the opioid crisis IMO.

Beniboybling

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
So this means it was....human error. That is what caused this. The air force neglected to put his conviction into the database. So a clerical error. Then the finger pointing should start there, 26 people losing their lives because of a clerical error is untenable, how many other people are walking around without criminal records because of similar mistakes?

Dreampanther
What to do, what to do...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN5yeMyVwAAH42P.jpg

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Dreampanther
What to do, what to do...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN5yeMyVwAAH42P.jpg

What a Hypocrite.

Dreampanther
Originally posted by Flyattractor
What a Hypocrite.

No need to flagellate yourself in public.

jaden101
Yes. Quotes from 250 years ago should settle the debate. Now I'm off to the apothecary on my horse and cart to pick up some poultices.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by dadudemon



It's absolutely ridiculous to think that banning all guns will get rid of the violence in the US.


Do you genuinely believe that a U.S. without guns would have just as many killings and murders happening as a U.S. with guns?

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>