Mass shooting in Southern Texas Church

[Johnnypenso]

Sounds like a legal and logistical nightmare to be quite honest. Changing the constitution and removing millions of firearms isn’t exactly what I call easy.

So, I guess Canada and the entirety of Central and South America doesn’t exist.

We like to keep a low profile

 

[McLaren]

We like to keep a low profile

So all those "politeness" & "sorry" stereotypes are just a fabrication & the Mounties will secretly invade us one day when sleeper agent Celine Dion gives the word.

 

[Azuremen]

4. Increase punishment for gun ownership (fines and prison) guns are more dangerous then drugs
5. Instead of drug raids, focus on weapons raids

Last I checked, opiate related deaths in the US were greater than gun related deaths in 2016. Of course, most of these deaths are from legal drugs but I feel you are vastly underestimating the severity of the opium epidemic. Along with vastly over simplifying the US gun situation.

 

[PocketZeven]

1. Ban guns how? By law? Decree? Magic potion? Then what?
2. Destroy how? Collect them? Buy them back? At full price? Using what money?
3. You mean reduce the production of guns made in Germany, Austria, Israel, Russia, Ukraine, Italy, Spain, Turkey, The Philippines, South Korea and many other countries that export billions of dollars worth of guns and ammo to the USA for private purchase? How will you replace those countries lost revenues?
4. Increase the punishment? You mean like how in the USA where all the fines and punishments for Federal Gun Crimes are already very harsh? Increase to what level - death?
5. Raid who? Private people who legally purchased and own guns currently? 299,999,000 of which have never killed any one? Or do you mean like the weapons raids that currently get carried out against known illegal gun traders?
6. Why? Why should I have to go to some expensive gun club to exercise my Constitutional Right to self defense and to keep and bear arms?
7. If the victims were armed they would not have been victims. The would have been able to fight back. This is fact.

Actually, black market prices will be far lower than the legal prices - currently black market guns sell for pennies on the dollar compared to legal weapons.

The last sentence makes no sense so I am not sure how to answer.

But in reference to the Church Shooting - we are all very glad that the legal civilian gun ended the massacre.

Would you have preferred that more people would have died while waiting for the authorities to arrive?

You guys can ignore my post. Essentially you already accept mass shootings as a risk of living in the US. Banning guns has worked in a lot of western countries, but you all seem to chose to ignore these facts and question every statement with very trivial questions.

Regarding your answer about the church shooting: my statements where to prevent these kind of shootings from happening. This guy shouldn’t have had access to an automatic weapon. You can not ban crazy people, but it would have been better if he just had a knife.

Last I checked, opiate related deaths in the US were greater than gun related deaths in 2016. Of course, most of these deaths are from legal drugs but I feel you are vastly underestimating the severity of the opium epidemic. Along with vastly over simplifying the US gun situation.

Don’t overcomplicate it. Ammending the 2nd amendment isn’t that complicated. It just lacks the votes.

The opiate problem is a whole other discussion. No other country prescribes so many overpriced legal prescription opioids like the US. Please compare us stat with the rest of the western world (per capita). You will be astounded!
I will not delve in too much detail to that.

Sounds like a legal and logistical nightmare to be quite honest. Changing the constitution and removing millions of firearms isn’t exactly what I call easy.

You’re right, but it is necessary to reduce gun violence. It is a sacrifice for a safer country and saving lives.

So, I guess Canada and the entirety of Central and South America doesn’t exist.

I only pointed out the us is jammed between 2 large oceans.

 

[Com Fox]

You guys can ignore my post. Essentially you already accept mass shootings as a risk of living in the US. Banning guns has worked in a lot of western countries, but you all seem to chose to ignore these facts and question every statement with very trivial questions.

From what I gather Australia is the only country in which it has worked and is likely thanks to our location making illegal ownership of guns much more harder. The US has examples of stricter gun laws in its own country like Chicago and it totally works there...

...wait.

 

[PocketZeven]

From what I gather Australia is the only country in which it has worked and is likely thanks to our location making illegal ownership of guns much more harder. The US has examples of stricter gun laws in its own country like Chicago and it totally works there...

...wait.

There is also Europe and Asia. People in the USA do live in a bubble. I’m from The Netherlands, one of the most densely populated countries in the world.

Well of course it doesn’t work if neighboring states have different laws. State laws is another crazy thing the US is unique in.

Based on? Several supreme court cases that have dealt with the second amendment have recognized that such weapons are legal and do so by addressing what the writers of the constitution had in mind. They couldn't see the future nor envision guns advancing this far, if we want to try and pretend what they meant for a modern society and go back to the original thought. Then anyone of color should not be allowed to own guns, people who speak out against the U.S. as U.S. citizens shouldn't own guns and so on. If we're going to be that reactionary and want to do a black and white wash over for what was said by the framers, then clearly the more clear parts on who should and should not own from back then should be supported.

It's hard to understand why we're going to cherry pick the founding father's voice on these subjects as if they were framed in perfection in the original point of time. As if simply "doing" what they "intended" this would be resolved. To say it is or even almost is is quite a claim.



Could you show us those finding? You're essentially saying that a global issue (terrorism on various levels) has caused less death on a significant scale to that of a single countries violence based on one form of enacting said violence. Considering bladed, and blunted weapon violence is higher than long gun violence, and the biggest issue has been hand guns. So unless terrorism has been outdone by gun violence by handguns then I'm confused where you're grabbing this info?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls

This is just murder, I don't believe it shows all violence murdered or not.

My apologies I didn’t clarify. I meant the US specifically. Other (western) countries do not have a gun violence problem to compare with.

 

[Com Fox]

So you think it doesn't work Chicago thanks to neighbouring states but think it'll work for all of America despite neighbouring Countries like Mexico?

Also Europe has been under massive terrorism fire recently. Also forgetting Switzerland is very open with its gun laws and barely gets any gun shootings (if I remember this decade so far they were only hit with 1 or 2) I'll admit, not sure on Asia laws but Asia is hardly shown as a power house of cases of shootings especially religious and political action compared to America or Europe.

 

[PocketZeven]

Your argument is to literally ban everything, even from legal citizens. if that isn't fascist then I don't know what is. If you honestly expect me to believe that criminals will stop trying to get guns due to a fairy tale system you want to set in place you're dead wrong. Criminals WILL USE WHATEVER MEANS TO CAUSE CHAOS. Banning everything will NEVER be the solution to this problem. Senator Feinstein, a hardcore leftist, said no gun law could've prevented what happened in Vegas, yet still pushes for the same bs moments later. We wouldn't even be talking about this tragedy if government incompetence didn't screw up.

I never said banning everything. Just weapons. You clearly exaggerating. It’s not fascist, but common sense. A weapon is a dangerous thing to have around.

In my country I’m considered right wing. But if I was too live in the US people would consider me far left. I’m all about economic freedoms, but the government should protect us people from gun violence. That isn’t fascism or even communism.

Again it works in other western countries so it is a proven fact. The us just chooses to ignore these facts. Like most in this thread who have no reasonable reaction to this known fact.

Another problem is the us just isn’t a real democracy. How can a 2 party system truly represent the people?

So you think it doesn't work Chicago thanks to neighbouring states but think it'll work for all of America despite neighbouring Countries like Mexico?

Also Europe has been under massive terrorism fire recently. Also forgetting Switzerland is very open with its gun laws and barely gets any gun shootings (if I remember this decade so far they were only hit with 1 or 2) I'll admit, not sure on Asia laws but Asia is hardly shown as a power house of cases of shootings especially religious and political action compared to America or Europe.

Yes state lines work differently then countryborders. It is a lot easier to smuggle across state lines.

Switzerland is an exception. (Like their laws on banking etc.) the country is mall and has always profiled itself as neutral and although they have their unique gun laws. Stats say there is a relative small number of gun ownership to necessitate the need for stricter laws. If the us didn’t have this high gun violence rate, we wouldn’t have this discussion.

Asian countries have their own problems with other kinds of violence. But not gun violence and/or mass shootings. That is the topic I am talking about.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

My apologies I didn’t clarify. I meant the US specifically. Other (western) countries do not have a gun violence problem to compare with.

They have a violence problem though...

You keep trying to pass this "fact" that other western countries don't have mass shooting problems and thus don't have gun problems and thus don't have a crime issues in general like the U.S. As if all U.S. violence is perpetrated solely by guns, but as I showed, the guns used in some of these mass shootings only make up a very small portion of the violent crime in the U.S. with knives and blunt objects being a more commonly used weapon than long guns by a good margin. The only thing to be worse is handguns. You at several instances took time to bring up Australia, now if your goal is to never see a news report of a Mass shooting, which is quite small in occurrence really then you ignore the bigger issue which is violent crimes in general.

And really shows you don't have a goal to make crime be a minimal issue, rather you just want to say your ideals on mass shootings, which ignores other mass attacks that unfold in western countries with just a different medium of destruction. If we look at crime in Australia the gun laws you tout and say show no issues, in general show that there is still some gun violence (since you can't buy guns and ownership has gone up), there is violence still and since the gun ban has been in placed hasn't significantly dropped off after or even before the NFA and stayed relatively in the same area.

Suicide rates are still there and even before the NFA, guns were never the tool to commit suicide, stats show hanging was and still is the common use. Thus showing mental health, not guns (as has been said across the globe) is a bigger issue rather than the tool used to kill oneself. These are the reasons for the act, the headline reason was due to the massacre that happened in Tasmania back in 96 but there were other reasons the NFA was passed as well.

Point is if your measurement of success is preventing a single form of killing people: mass shootings. Then fine, but if you actually care about curbing all forms of violent deaths I would have to wonder why you incorrectly state other western countries are seemingly safe and less violent than the U.S. simply because they have very strict gun laws.

 

[PocketZeven]

They have a violence problem though...

You keep trying to pass this "fact" that other western countries don't have mass shooting problems and thus don't have gun problems and thus don't have a crime issues in general like the U.S. As if all U.S. violence is perpetrated solely by guns, but as I showed, the guns used in some of these mass shootings only make up a very small portion of the violent crime in the U.S. with knives and blunt objects being a more commonly used weapon than long guns by a good margin. The only thing to be worse is handguns. You at several instances took time to bring up Australia, now if your goal is to never see a news report of a Mass shooting, which is quite small in occurrence really then you ignore the bigger issue which is violent crimes in general.

And really shows you don't have a goal to make crime be a minimal issue, rather you just want to say your ideals on mass shootings, which ignores other mass attacks that unfold in western countries with just a different medium of destruction. If we look at crime in Australia the gun laws you tout and say show no issues, in general show that there is still some gun violence (since you can't buy guns and ownership has gone up), there is violence still and since the gun ban has been in placed hasn't significantly dropped off after or even before the NFA and stayed relatively in the same area.

Suicide rates are still there and even before the NFA, guns were never the tool to commit suicide, stats show hanging was and still is the common use. Thus showing mental health, not guns (as has been said across the globe) is a bigger issue rather than the tool used to kill oneself. These are the reasons for the act, the headline reason was due to the massacre that happened in Tasmania back in 96 but there were other reasons the NFA was passed as well.

Point is if your measurement of success is preventing a single form of killing people: mass shootings. Then fine, but if you actually care about curbing all forms of violent deaths I would have to wonder why you incorrectly state other western countries are seemingly safe and less violent than the U.S. simply because they have very strict gun laws.

Violent deaths happen all over the world. I am stating my opinion on how to save innocent lives in cases where stricter laws and/lack of availability of guns would have prevented it interely.

For example police officers in the US have far more risque of potential criminals carrying a gun then anywhere else. That is one of the reasons that they receive so much criticism. They aggressive out necessity. In England most police officers don’t even carry a gun!

 

[TenEightyOne]

In England most police officers don’t even carry a gun!

True - but when a team from the 6% who do carry a gun are deployed they almost always manage to disarm/apprehend without resort to lethal force. Bear in mind that the bulk of those deployments are to firearm-known incidents, there's no "may have a weapon" about it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Violent deaths happen all over the world. I am stating my opinion on how to save innocent lives in cases where stricter laws and/lack of availability of guns would have prevented it interely.

For example police officers in the US have far more risque of potential criminals carrying a gun then anywhere else. That is one of the reasons that they receive so much criticism. They aggressive out necessity. In England most police officers don’t even carry a gun!

No it's typically because they lack in other areas through training and it's been a known issue. They're not aggressive out of necessity, wherever you got that is beyond me. @TenEightyOne highlights a good point too, with his example, it's strange how a task force of armed British police are able to solve situations without more blood shed, against armed suspects...

 

[KungFury]

You guys can ignore my post. Essentially you already accept mass shootings as a risk of living in the US.

I don't think anyone has said that here, or thinks it.

 

[PocketZeven]

No it's typically because they lack in other areas through training and it's been a known issue. They're not aggressive out of necessity, wherever you got that is beyond me. @TenEightyOne highlights a good point too, with his example, it's strange how a task force of armed British police are able to solve situations without more blood shed, against armed suspects...

You make good points. It is one of many factors. But being a police officer in the USA ads the risk of a higher probability a suspect is carrying a gun. The natural response is more fear. And “fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate” quoting Star Wars here! But you can understand what I mean. Fear leads to aggression.

I don't think anyone has said that here, or thinks it.

Except thoughts and prairs, no solution has been proposed though. And it seems they are only deregulating the existing gun laws! So it seems the us people, just accept It like a unsolvable problem.

 

[KungFury]

Except thoughts and prairs, no solution has been proposed though. And it seems they are only deregulating the existing gun laws! So it seems the us people, just except It like a unsolvable problem.

It might seem that way but it's not, it's not a matter of wanting gun rights enough to put up with mass shootings even though they are very rare and also on the decline. You are falling for the media's sensationalism it seems.

 

[PocketZeven]

It might seem that way but it's not, it's not a matter of wanting gun rights enough to put up with mass shootings even though they are very rare and also on the decline. You are falling for the media's sensationalism it seems.

That is my point by not wanting gun rights is accepting the statis quo. In my research deaths in mass shootings in the US have not declined but increased the passed decades. Where did you get the information it’s declining?

 

[KungFury]

That is my point by not wanting gun rights is accepting the statis quo. In my research deaths in mass shootings in the US have not declined but increased the passed decades. Where did you get the information it’s declining?

It's not accepting the statis quo at all, we want root issues addressed. I have to run but I'll get those statistics for you, they are declining but the news outlets are screaming to aid in the gun ban people's behalf. Even that crazy CA Senator lady knows that, she also knows no gun laws would have stopped this shooting. That is the point.

 

[Exorcet]

Except thoughts and prairs, no solution has been proposed though. And it seems they are only deregulating the existing gun laws! So it seems the us people, just except It like a unsolvable problem.

I proposed in this thread that gun sellers try to take more responsibility for sales. Other posters pointed to focusing on mental health. In the past I've also advocated for the use of smart guns which don't work for anyone other than their designated owner.

A gun ban is simply unacceptable because safety does not get to override people's property rights. The freedom to own guns doesn't force you to own any or be in contact with them anyway. If people are so concerned about them, they can form and live in gun free communities. That would be a much fairer solution than taking guns away from everyone.

 

[PocketZeven]

I proposed in this thread that gun sellers try to take more responsibility for sales. Other posters pointed to focusing on mental health. In the past I've also advocated for the use of smart guns which don't work for anyone other than their designated owner.

A gun ban is simply unacceptable because safety does not get to override people's property rights. The freedom to own guns doesn't force you to own any or be in contact with them anyway. If people are so concerned about them, they can form and live in gun free communities. That would be a much fairer solution than taking guns away from everyone.

In that logic somebody should have the freedom to own drugs or own nuclear weapons. There are laws and rules for a reason.
A weapon should not be owned by the general public. Its use is solely to kill. It should only be accessible to people with training (cops, military, professionals etc.) and have no place out in the open.

 

[Joey D]

Its use is solely to kill.

It's not though, I've never once killed anything with my pistol. While I do keep it loaded next to my bed in case someone breaks into my home, it's primary use is to target shoot.

 

[Exorcet]

In that logic somebody should have the freedom to own drugs or own nuclear weapons. There are laws and rules for a reason.

We have laws and rules as they exist today because of how we developed as a society. A lot of what we have now is baggage from where we've been. I'm very much for throwing out the things that we've done incorrectly. You don't need to enforce a total ban to ensure safety. Like I said above, people can group how they want. If people don't want to live with guns, drugs, or nuclear weapons they should be free to do so. They don't need to try to remove those things from everyone else.

A weapon should not be owned by the general public. Its use is solely to kill. It should only be accessible to people with training (cops, military, professionals etc.) and have no place out in the open.

Anything is a potential weapon, so you'd have to apply this to literally everything. Guns aren't solely used to kill, and it wouldn't matter if they were. Owning a gun doesn't make you a threat in anyway. There is no reason why a person can't own one if they want to. Beyond that scapegoating the tool used lets the underlying problems go unaddressed, and giving government more power over what people can and can't do just makes it easier for the government to abuse its citizens.

 

[McLaren]

In that logic somebody should have the freedom to own drugs or own nuclear weapons. There are laws and rules for a reason.
A weapon should not be owned by the general public. Its use is solely to kill. It should only be accessible to people with training (cops, military, professionals etc.) and have no place out in the open.

Congratulations, you’ve just stated why the 2nd Amendment exists to begin with.

@Famine pointed out a great example of an unarmed society vs an armed govt with what happened in Spain earlier this year; police forced their way into voting polls to confiscate the votes and those citizens had no way of fighting back for a freedom they wanted. Otherwise, if there was someone armed, that police force would’ve given 2nd thought to just busting in.

 

[Danoff]

You guys can ignore my post. Essentially you already accept mass shootings as a risk of living in the US. Banning guns has worked in a lot of western countries, but you all seem to chose to ignore these facts and question every statement with very trivial questions.

"Worked" how? By reducing mass shootings? That's not a purposeful goal. Reducing killing would be, but that's a different story.

Regarding your answer about the church shooting: my statements where to prevent these kind of shootings from happening. This guy shouldn’t have had access to an automatic weapon. You can not ban crazy people, but it would have been better if he just had a knife.

He didn't use an automatic weapon, and we literally just had a bunch of people killed in NY city with a truck. So... what's your point again? The most successful mass killings in US history have been carried out without guns. They were carried out with things that are not banned today.

I never said banning everything. Just weapons. You clearly exaggerating. It’s not fascist, but common sense. A weapon is a dangerous thing to have around.

If it's in the hands of someone who wants to use it to attack. A weapon is a wonderful thing to have around if it's in the hands of someone who needs to defend themselves.

the government should protect us people from gun violence.

I don't think anyone disagrees on that point.

Also, I don't think automatic weapons are legal anywhere in the US.

Not true for all states, I'll address that below.

In that logic somebody should have the freedom to own drugs or own nuclear weapons. There are laws and rules for a reason.
A weapon should not be owned by the general public. Its use is solely to kill. It should only be accessible to people with training (cops, military, professionals etc.) and have no place out in the open.

Yes, the purpose of a gun is to kill. That's why I own several, in case I need to kill in defense of my life or my family. It is legal to kill another human being in the US under the right conditions. Nobody wants to be in that position, but some of us want to be prepared for it.

In the US you can own a tank (Ahhhnold Schwarzenegger owns one). You can own automatic weapons, and bazookas. This licensing and restrictions for these things are intense, so nobody who carries out these crimes actually uses a tank, automatic weapon, or bazooka obtained legally. Without banning those items, we have made them unattractive for people who want to commit crimes while keeping them in the hands of law abiding citizens. This is not an impossible task. It would be absurd for the US to ban semi-automatic rifles while not banning automatic weapons, tanks, etc. which are not used in these attacks.

The only category I know of that you cannot legally own (no matter how many hoops you jump through) if you're non-military in the US is an explosive device. That doesn't stop them from getting used in attacks either. Explosives are so effective at killing people that they are still used, despite many of the weapons that you're so worried about being available legally.

I don't think you're trying to have an honest conversation here. You've made up your mind that you know what the right thing for the US to do is, and stick to that position despite what I would consider absolutely devastating arguments against your position. Violence in the US is a problem. I would even go so far as to say that ease of access to certain guns in the US is a problem. But discussing outright bans without understanding what exists right now, and how it's getting used, is intellectually lazy. It's the "easy" answer for someone who doesn't want to honestly assess the complexity of the discussion. The question is how do you curb violence without preventing people from defending themselves. The question is not "how do I keep sensationalist headlines out of the media".

 

[Blood Eagle]

Is everyone ignoring the fact that he still thinks an automatic weapon was used?

 

[Tecticles]

Why is there a gun control debate here instead of condolences?

 

[Danoff]

Why is there a gun control debate here instead of condolences?

I used to try to prevent that a few years back in threads like these. I gave up. There's an endless stream of anti-gun comments in every thread involving shooting. If you want condolences, visit a thread about lots of people being killed with a different weapon.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Why is there a gun control debate here instead of condolences?

This is GTP. Any thread that has anything to do with firearms turns into a gun control debate immediately. Welcome to the forum.

 

[Tecticles]

It has less to do with what I want, and more to do with what should be here. These debates never end with someone from either side saying "You know I never looked at it that way!" and changing their thoughts and stance on the subject.

 

[Exorcet]

It has less to do with what I want, and more to do with what should be here. These debates never end with someone from either side saying "You know I never looked at it that way!" and changing their thoughts and stance on the subject.

Don't say never. Personally I've had some changes of heart long after a debate. It can take some time.

I never really feel like my offering condolences on a random forum is helping. Maybe if someone deeply effected by the event was here it would be different. The debate over what to do is healthy in that it can lead to a solution, or new ideas. In practice it may or may not get there, but you won't get anywhere without trying.

 

[Danoff]

It has less to do with what I want, and more to do with what should be here. These debates never end with someone from either side saying "You know I never looked at it that way!" and changing their thoughts and stance on the subject.

There's a cognitive bias associated with a large group of people not arguing about something resulting in the assumption that everyone agrees. By not challenging an incendiary statement, you actually lend credence to it in the minds of others. This is how churches work, one person talks, nobody can argue, people assume everyone else agrees, worldview gets solidified.