KillerMovies - Movies That Matter!

REGISTER HERE TO JOIN IN! - It's easy and it's free!
Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » Sutherland Springs, TX shooting

Sutherland Springs, TX shooting
Started by: cdtm

Forum Jump:
Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (15): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » ... Last »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread
Surtur
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Chicago

quote: (post)
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.


__________________
But we all got a Chicken-Duck-Woman thing waiting for us.

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 02:53 AM
Surtur is currently offline Click here to Send Surtur a Private Message Find more posts by Surtur Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
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"


__________________

Last edited by dadudemon on Nov 6th, 2017 at 03:02 AM

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 02:59 AM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Flyattractor
Senior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: B.F.K

quote: (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"


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


__________________
Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
Happy Dance Happy Dance Happy Dance Happy Dance

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:03 AM
Flyattractor is currently offline Click here to Send Flyattractor a Private Message Find more posts by Flyattractor Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
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:

quote: (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.


__________________

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:05 AM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Firefly218
Browncoat

Gender: Male
Location: Austin

quote: (post)
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
Ok no, gun control does not need to be relaxed. I'll just keep pointing to the Australia example until someone addresses it, there is hard evidence that suggests gun control legislation decreases gun massacre rates.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gu...tralia-updated/

After the buyback program in Australia:

“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.”

“In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”

“In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”

“[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”


Australia is not alone, there's evidence everywhere that gun policy makes a difference. The problem in America is unique because NRA is exploiting a gun culture that is tightly intertwined around our patriotism.

And I agree mental health should be covered, progress can be made on two fronts. Better healthcare for the mentally ill AND better gun control. No?

quote: (post)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Didn't the Vegas shooter use guns that could not shoot rapidly but were modified to become automatic? See why your idea is misinformed?
Once again, any gun that is capable of being shot rapidly needs to be banned. That includes semi-automatics that can be modified.

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:06 AM
Firefly218 is currently offline Click here to Send Firefly218 a Private Message Find more posts by Firefly218 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Firefly218
Browncoat

Gender: Male
Location: Austin

quote: (post)
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...nths/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.

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:16 AM
Firefly218 is currently offline Click here to Send Firefly218 a Private Message Find more posts by Firefly218 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Firefly218
Ok no, gun control does not need to be relaxed. I'll just keep pointing to the Australia example until someone addresses it, there is hard evidence that suggests gun control legislation decreases gun massacre rates.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gu...tralia-updated/

After the buyback program in Australia:

“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.”

“In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”

“In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”

“[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”



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.

quote:
...

The fight for more stringent gun control laws derives in part from the idea that more guns mean more violence. As it turns out, though, in the United States and the rest of the developed world, total murder and suicide rates, from all causes, do not increase with rates of gun ownership -- or drop under tougher gun laws [sources: Killias, van Kesteren and Rindlisbacher; Liptak].

The effect of gun laws on gun-related violence is fuzzier and far more controversial but, in general, more guns mean more gun-related violence [sources: Killias, van Kesteren and Rindlisbacher; Liptak; Luo]. We'll examine this further below.

...

...Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to "gun-light" developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany's murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: Kates and Mauser].

Statistics within countries paint a similar picture: Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm].

Does this mean that guns prevent crime? Not necessarily. After all, the most violent areas are also the most likely to pass stringent gun laws. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, the violent crime or the gun laws? There's no simple answer. It does appear that high gun-ownership density does not imply high rates of violent crime, and that stringent gun controls do not reduce murder rates across the board [sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo]. However, the data involved in these assessments are often mismatched and tricky to compare.



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.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Firefly218
Australia is not alone, there's evidence everywhere that gun policy makes a difference. The problem in America is unique because NRA is exploiting a gun culture that is tightly intertwined around our patriotism.


What difference? Be specific on the difference you're referring to, here. We can debate facts and statistics. I cannot debate your feelings.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Firefly218
And I agree mental health should be covered, progress can be made on two fronts. Better healthcare for the mentally ill AND better gun control. No?


Sort of. I feel you about 70% of the way on this. Some gun control laws are a bit excessive and do not make anyone safer and just make it harder on law abiding citizens. I agree that conceal and carry licenses should require you to take and pass a class including a targeting shooting class. And that you should have to periodically retake that class every 3 years (similar to drivers licenses: I think you should have to retake the test every few years so that people whose health changed can no longer legally drive...won't stop the illegal drivers which amount to 13% of drivers).


__________________

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:21 AM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Firefly218
Browncoat

Gender: Male
Location: Austin

quote: (post)
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.

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:29 AM
Firefly218 is currently offline Click here to Send Firefly218 a Private Message Find more posts by Firefly218 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Firefly218
Please read this article

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nths/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".

quote: (post)
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.


__________________

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:39 AM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Robtard
KMC's #1 Rated Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: Captain's Chair, CA

quote: (post)
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.


__________________


You've Just Been Kirked To The Curb

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:43 AM
Robtard is currently offline Click here to Send Robtard a Private Message Find more posts by Robtard Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
dadudemon
Senior Member

Gender: Male
Location: Bacta Tank.

quote: (post)
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.




quote: (post)
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?


__________________

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:44 AM
dadudemon is currently offline Click here to Send dadudemon a Private Message Find more posts by dadudemon Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Flyattractor
Senior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: B.F.K

quote: (post)
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.


__________________
Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
Happy Dance Happy Dance Happy Dance Happy Dance

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:47 AM
Flyattractor is currently offline Click here to Send Flyattractor a Private Message Find more posts by Flyattractor Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Robtard
KMC's #1 Rated Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: Captain's Chair, CA

quote: (post)
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


__________________


You've Just Been Kirked To The Curb

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:48 AM
Robtard is currently offline Click here to Send Robtard a Private Message Find more posts by Robtard Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Firefly218
Browncoat

Gender: Male
Location: Austin

quote: (post)
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.

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:50 AM
Firefly218 is currently offline Click here to Send Firefly218 a Private Message Find more posts by Firefly218 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Firefly218
Browncoat

Gender: Male
Location: Austin

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...

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 03:55 AM
Firefly218 is currently offline Click here to Send Firefly218 a Private Message Find more posts by Firefly218 Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Flyattractor
Senior Member

Gender: Unspecified
Location: B.F.K

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


__________________
Banned 30 days for the Crime of "ETC"... and when I "ETC" I do it HARD!!!
Happy Dance Happy Dance Happy Dance Happy Dance

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 04:04 AM
Flyattractor is currently offline Click here to Send Flyattractor a Private Message Find more posts by Flyattractor Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Adam_PoE
Prince of Eternia

Gender: Male
Location: Royal Palace

(please log in to view the image)


__________________

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 04:11 AM
Adam_PoE is currently offline Click here to Send Adam_PoE a Private Message Find more posts by Adam_PoE Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Rockydonovang
freedom fighter

Gender: Male
Location:

"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.

Last edited by Rockydonovang on Nov 6th, 2017 at 04:25 AM

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 04:11 AM
Rockydonovang is currently offline Click here to Send Rockydonovang a Private Message Find more posts by Rockydonovang Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
Rockydonovang
freedom fighter

Gender: Male
Location:

quote: (post)
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.

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 04:12 AM
Rockydonovang is currently offline Click here to Send Rockydonovang a Private Message Find more posts by Rockydonovang Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
cdtm
@#$%

Gender: Unspecified
Location: United States

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..


__________________

Old Post Nov 6th, 2017 04:19 AM
cdtm is online now! Click here to Send cdtm a Private Message Find more posts by cdtm Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote Quick Quote
All times are UTC. The time now is 12:46 PM.
Pages (15): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » ... Last »   Last Thread   Next Thread

Home » Community » General Discussion Forum » Sutherland Springs, TX shooting

Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread
   Post New Thread  Post A Reply

Forum Jump:
Search by user:
 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON

Text-only version
 

< - KillerMovies.com - Forum Archive - Forum Rules >


© Copyright 2000-2006, KillerMovies.com. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by: vBulletin, copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.