Sutherland Springs, TX shooting

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

What to do, what to do...

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

What a Hypocrite.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]What a Hypocrite. [/B]

No need to flagellate yourself in public.

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.

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?

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. 🙁

WTF?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
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?

Maybe?

The US has a lot of social conflict. They call it "dog eat dog" or "rat race" for a reason. We're less a community, and more a number of warring factions all trying to get ours, exploiting whoever we can and burying whoever we can't.

And then there's the intelectual classes, and ultimately the media fanning the flames every which way they can to sell their books and shore up their consumerism/ratings/viewership/clicks..

If you're one of the many "losers" in this mess, that can drive someone to murder, easily. If the guns aren't there, they'd resort to something else.. Build a bomb, mass poison, attack a hospital wing with a knife.

I mean, yeah, guns make it easier, but these attacks are hardly inflamed passion. They're planned. Calculated. Over months/years.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I didn’t say that he obtained the gun legally I said that he passed the tests, do you deny that he passed the tests needed to aquire a gun?

I do deny that. He didn't "pass the tests."

Originally posted by Beniboybling
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?

This is the correct line of reasoning, in my opinion.

👆

Originally posted by Darth Thor
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?

It's possible it would have more if you use Glasgow, Jamaica, and other places as examples of increasing homicides after gun bans.

It's also possible that it is far too complicated to ask simple questions like yours. Likely, some areas would see homicide spikes, some would see decreases, and some would see shifts in where homicides and violence occur.

If this forum just had Dadudemon replying to himself post after post the overall quality of the arguments would significantly rise.

And yet we'd be as wrong as we are now biscuits

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the correct line of reasoning, in my opinion.

👆

Pretty sure if this guy was a Muslim the responses in this thread would be different.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
Pretty sure if this guy was a Muslim the responses in this thread would be different.

In what way?

Originally posted by dadudemon

I love how they continually misrepresent the thing about mental illness and guns, too.