At least 27 dead in Texas church shooting

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by ATJ-Lucko, Nov 5, 2017.

  1. Cat--Smasher

    Cat--Smasher Putting the stamp on kids Staff Member

    Reputation:
    2,373,019,399
    How about the guarded boarder and enforcement.

    Sure some would get through but not as much as somewhere without an enforced check point (Chicago).

    Eg. Canada USA boarder keeping guns out of Canada.
     
    Trodden likes this.
  2. Trodden

    Trodden Talk louder, I cant hear you

    Reputation:
    2,202,252,490
    that may be the situation of Ca, but that doesnt mean other states would play out the same way

    the fact is the conversation needs to be had no matter what sides youre on

    this type of violence is unique in the US compared to other countries. we need to find out why and fix it.

    theres no reason to keep having this same discussion after every incident

    its always something other than the guns, and when guns arent used people who dont want gun control bring guns into the issue to point out it was something other than guns


    this is never going to get anywhere and people will keep dying in droves and no one will ever care cause were too busy talking about the newest mass murder and were all too jaded to the pictures and until it happens to someone you know it doesnt seem that big an issue

    this is a national cancer and we cant stop smoking the barrel
     
  3. SickNasty

    SickNasty Now that's a tasty burger.

    Reputation:
    539,248,684
    Appropriate discussions on the bad guy with the gun and on the easy access to said gun are definitely needed.
     
    0mega1 and Trodden like this.
  4. Bran

    Bran The wolf dead.

    Reputation:
    1,552,174,913
    This is entirely inaccurate. A lot of the guns on the black market are purchased legally in places like Indiana where it's impossibly easy to get a gun. Because it's so easy to get a gun in some places and there is no followup once it's registered, you can then sell those legally purchased guns illegally to people that have nothing but criminal intentions for said guns. If you take away the ability to stockpile weapons that easily, that means fewer guns on the black market and fewer guns in the hands of criminals, therefore fewer gun-related crimes.
     
    ATJ-Lucko likes this.
  5. ATJ-Lucko

    ATJ-Lucko MMAtheist Survival Pool Champion

    Reputation:
    1,360,944,706
    yes and make it like a car, you have to register your guns and if you sell your guns the person you are selling it to has to also register them and pass a background check.
     
    ChuckBooty 2.0 likes this.
  6. ChuckBooty 2.0

    ChuckBooty 2.0 The downgraded upgrade Site Donor

    Reputation:
    216,935,146
    See the anti-gun people hate this argument because it's a staple in the gun debate. But it IS true. Murder is illegal but murderers don't follow the laws. The only way to prevent a maniac from shooting up some place is to prevent them from getting a gun. At this stage in American history, there are zero pieces of legislation that will prevent would-be mass murderers from getting a gun.

    One thing you rarely hear come up in the debate though is the fact that (somebody correct me if I'm wrong but) every mass shooting since the 80's was carried out by somebody who was currently on, or recently withdrawing from prescription anti-depressant medication or mood stabilizers or anti-psychotic medication. I don't know why this isn't part of the debate...I get it that correlation doesn't always equal causation but let's at least have the discussion. There's a disassociation quality to brain pills that probably make it easier to kill a bunch of people and then kill yourself.

    Like I keep saying, it's a complicated issue that banning guns won't solve.
     
  7. ChuckBooty 2.0

    ChuckBooty 2.0 The downgraded upgrade Site Donor

    Reputation:
    216,935,146
    Okay but how? It's easy to say that if you take away guns, nobody would be able to shoot anyone. But the actual nuts and bolts of "taking away guns" is an insurmountable task. So how do we do it?
     
  8. Bran

    Bran The wolf dead.

    Reputation:
    1,552,174,913
    I never said that nobody would be able to shoot anyone. I said that with fewer guns on the black market, there are fewer opportunities for criminals to purchase guns, therefore fewer criminals with guns and fewer gun-related crimes. I'm not talking about a be-all-end-all quick fix. I'm talking about common-sense laws that would make a definite impact on gun violence in this country. Yes, there will still be gun violence. But there will be less and if less gun violence sounds like a bad thing to anyone here, I'd love to hear that argument.
     
    Poindexter likes this.
  9. 0mega1

    0mega1 Well-Known Member

    Reputation:
    241,202,378
    Okay, lets just say for the sake of argument you're right. Less guns = less gun violence. Lets just say there is a decrease in gun violence but an increase in homicides where a gun wasnt used i.e. knifes, bats/clubs, etc. Lets say that gun homicides go down from 13K to 10K but homicides other than guns increases from 5k to 7k. Then what? People are not going to stop killing each other just because they dont have a gun; they'll find other means to inflict harm.
     
  10. ChuckBooty 2.0

    ChuckBooty 2.0 The downgraded upgrade Site Donor

    Reputation:
    216,935,146
    That's a silly argument though. People will definitely still commit murders, but they won't be as efficient as they are when they have guns which WOULD equal less murders. The thing that Bollock is talking about would technically work but I feel like it wouldn't really put a dent in the mass shootings. Less guns simply means less guns, it doesn't mean a would-be mass murderer won't be able to get them. So maybe it takes them longer to find one. I've seen no indication that it would prevent them from ultimately carrying out their plan.
     
  11. 0mega1

    0mega1 Well-Known Member

    Reputation:
    241,202,378
    So, is the problem mass shootings or gun violence as a whole?
     
  12. ChuckBooty 2.0

    ChuckBooty 2.0 The downgraded upgrade Site Donor

    Reputation:
    216,935,146
    Good question. It seems that every time there's a mass shooting, the debate starts about gun legislation, which is silly because nobody has suggested (on this site, in our government, on any talk shows, etc) anything that would have prevented any of the mass shootings. So maybe the reason that there are so many mass shootings is partly because America never discusses ways to prevent it.

    For ME, I'm talking about mass shootings.
     
  13. 0mega1

    0mega1 Well-Known Member

    Reputation:
    241,202,378
    For me, the bigger issue is gun violence as a whole. Im of the opinion that if somebody wants to inflict harm on a larger scale they will always be able to find a way and preventing such things is going to be damn near impossible.
     
  14. Bran

    Bran The wolf dead.

    Reputation:
    1,552,174,913
    If someone wants to kill a lot of people, like 25+, there's really only so many ways they feasibly can. A bat or knife isn't going to do the trick, explosives aren't as easy to get one's hands on without bringing attention to oneself. Guns are the most efficient way. Take them off the table and the odds of that potential tragedy goes down. It's a numbers game.
     
  15. Trodden

    Trodden Talk louder, I cant hear you

    Reputation:
    2,202,252,490
    but that doesnt make a lot of sense

    "someones gonna wanna kill a bunch of people anyways, so why ban guns?"

    if someones going to do that, why wouldnt you want to limit the ways in which they can?

    why not take guns on planes? why not let every student older than 4 to carry a gun all the time?

    why not make every drug and weapon legal?




    because people are stupid is why
     
  16. 0mega1

    0mega1 Well-Known Member

    Reputation:
    241,202,378
    Are you guys for banning guns outright? Fuck that. I dont care if there is an increase in gun related deaths or mass shootings. Its my right to own a gun and i dont want my right infringed upon just because some lunatic shoots a bunch of people or some fucking idiot gangbanger shoots another gangbanger or worse an innocent bystander. Shit happens, it sucks but it happens. Im not going around shooting people so why should I lose my rights? Why should I be punished?

    As for mass killings or shootings. Its my opinion but 1 person being killed isnt any less tragic than 5 people being killed; 5 people being killed isnt any less tragic then 10 or 15 people. Either way its fucked up and a tragedy regardless of the number.

    Students in high schools used to bring their guns to school and leave them in their truck on their rifle rack. My dad gave me my first shotgun at 10 years old (I still have it); I never brought it out or waved it around or showed it off in front of my friends. I understood what guns were and the damage they could do at a young age. So 4 is a little extreme but 10 - 11 years old is just fine IMO.

    I think drugs should be legal. I dont think you or I or the Govt should have any say in what a person does to/with their own body. If somebody wants to get high who am I to tell them they cant. If a law abiding citizen wants to own a gun then I have no right to tell them they cant.
     
  17. Trodden

    Trodden Talk louder, I cant hear you

    Reputation:
    2,202,252,490
    banning all guns and trying to raise a discussion about what guns people should have and examining how easy it can be to get a weapon of war are two very different things

    what about the rights of others to go out in public and come home alive and in once peace?

    does your desire to own a weapon outweigh their desire to live without the threat of a shooting?

    americans dont care if gang bangers get shot because they assume they accept some of the risk

    but a bunch of children huddled in the corner of a church getting shot as they cried for help is different

    if you view keeping innocent people safe as a punishment to you, then you need a therapist

    its not all about you. why not drive around drunk without insurance? is it a punishment that you cant do that?

    the brain isnt even fully developed until someone reaches their 20's. just because you didnt shoot anyone doesnt mean no one else would

    I would never use a nuke, but I realize no one else should be able to have one

    drugs kill you, guns kill others

    some junkie ODing isnt going to kill your kids. some psycho with a gun, who should never have one, could

    maybe thats a risk youre OK with, Im not
     
  18. 0mega1

    0mega1 Well-Known Member

    Reputation:
    241,202,378
    Sorry i dont know how to piece out the quotes like you have it so bare with with me.

    With how many guns there are and how many gun owners there are the number of shooting we have (especially mass shootings) in minuscule. So lets not pretend that this is some place where you cant walk down the street without fear of being shot at.
    Yes, My rights dont end where your fears begin.

    Of course its different. Innocent children being killed is a tragedy. Gang bangers... not so much. The guy could have just as easily thrown a Molotov cocktail and killed just as many if not more. Lets focus on the person and not the tool in which he used.

    Taking away my rights because something that somebody else did is a punishment to me. Just because people having guns makes you feel uncomfortable doesnt mean I should lose the right to own a gun. Again, my rights dont end where your fears/comfort level begins.
    Technically, I can drive around drunk without insurance. There is just a law against it. Just like there's laws against shooting people.

    So, you mean to tell me that you didnt know that shooting someone and possibly killing them wasnt wrong until you were 20 years old? Then it was definitely a good thing you didnt have one.

    They can. They can if in the wrong hands. So can knives, bats, cars, etc. Am I going to lose my ability to own any of those things too because somebody else misuses them?

    I am okay with that risk because I know the odds are in my favor and the chances of me being shot are very slim.

    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. This latest mass shooting is a perfect example of that. This lunatic had the means to kill many, many more people but he was stopped by a good guy (not a cop) who had his own gun. So taking guns away from law abiding citizens isnt going to make the US a safer place. This of course is just my opinion.

    Im not sure what you're proposing though. Are you proposing an outright ban on all guns? Are you proposing stricter gun laws across the board? If so, what kind? Im all for background checks, psych evaluations, waiting periods. Im against an outright ban.
     
  19. Ninjastix

    Ninjastix Damn Gina Site Donor

    Reputation:
    2,283,431,523
    I'm all for an outright ban on semi automatic rifles and hand guns greater than 22 caliber. I think hunting for food is perfectly fine, but can be accomplished with bolt action rifles. Shotguns and small caliber hand guns can be used for home defense. I'm all for concealed carry permits, but let's get some of that smartphone tracking in guns. Let them record usage feedback and statistics into a black box like mechanism.

    Combine that with a gun tax, an ammo tax, a database that tracks gun registration ownership (not unlike what the DMV uses for cars and licenses) and the ability for victims of gun violence to sue gun sellers, manufacturers, or any entity failing to disclose criteria for which an individual should be denied a firearm.

    I do not agree that firearms ownership is an unalienable right. Because clearly... not all guns are equal. So if it's about defending yourself sure.. we can, through the dollar vote, spur manufacturers to make better defensive weaponry for your average person without endangering the public at large.

    We have the technology. And we've had it for some time. Too bad we don't have dick pills that work otherwise we may not have such a gun problem.
     
  20. Trodden

    Trodden Talk louder, I cant hear you

    Reputation:
    2,202,252,490
    it isnt minuscule with around 93 people being shot to death per day, on average

    gun violence has always been bad, but thats no reason not to do something

    and even if the numbers seem small to you, why would even one be OK?

    again, this goes back to the argument, 'he could have used a lawn mower, so why stop him from getting guns?'

    he would have killed a LOT less people with any other weapon he could have bought at the store

    yes he could have made a bomb. yes he could have used an auto. yes he could have poisoned them.

    but why on Earth would you want a person capable of such things to have even worse weaponry? focusing on the person and not the weapon will only ensure more people will die

    it isnt a punishment if it keeps people alive. Im sure there are people who want to take weapons on airplanes, but they cant. Im sure they view that as a punishment, but it isnt.

    and again, understand this. No one is saying get rid of all guns

    NO

    ONE

    IS

    SAYING

    BAN

    ALL

    GUNS

    NOT ONE PERSON! this isnt about banning all guns, but EXAMINING what guns people shouldnt have and expanding background checks, which is what LAW MAKERS have failed to do at every turn even though over 90% of americans want that

    Im not talking about me, Im talking about other people

    I trust myself not to go out and kill people, but I dont trust others. especially young people

    I wouldnt give an air soft gun to a 10 year old. I wouldnt give someone younger than 21 a gun

    its already happened

    you cant own a double sided knife in most states. you cant buy fertilizer or racing fuel. you cant take a knife on a plane.

    theres tons of examples. most of the things you listed are tools or things vital to the economy so banning them isnt even feasible

    banning semi-automatic guns is feasible and wont crash the economy

    again this isnt about you

    its about all of us and the risk in your neighborhood might be better than others

    but whats to stop some psycho with an ar-15 with a bump stock shooting up a store your wife and kids are at?

    theres no assessing the risk factor there

    this latest shooting isnt an example of good guys vs bad guys with a gun. and statistically the 'good guy with a gun' scenario doesnt play out to the public's favor

    not to mention making it harder for law enforcement to properly assess the scene

    plus the good guy didnt stop the bad guy

    the bad guy took off and shot himself in his car away from the scene

    Im for closing the 'boyfriend' loophole. Im for instituting background checks for private sellers. to name a couple things

    Im not for banning all guns. but I am in favor of strongly looking at the issue to see how we can all be safer



    this happened in a church

    this can happen to anyone anywhere

    you, me, our families

    gone, like that. one day theyre going out the door to the store or somewhere, and a few days later youre figuring out what to bury them in



    but hey, it doesnt matter as long as we have our guns
     

Share This Page