At Least 1 Dead in Shooting at Texas Church

Crocodile said:
So, shootings in an open carry state, hmm? Face it assholes, you aren't going to fulfill your wet dream of armed churchgoers. Bringing such things before the lord is beyond sacrilege. I'd rather die.
Click to expand...

If you go to South Chicago, that can be arranged.
 
archives said:
Very difficult, just as it is stopping a drug addict from getting drugs, does that mean we just give up and live with thirty thousand plus Americans a year dying from gun violence?

And it often isn't criminals doing these shootings, as I noted above, Stephen Paddock wasn't a criminal till the moment he pulled the trigger
Click to expand...

Implementing psychological background checks is about the only thing you can do, unless you want to operate under the logic that all should have their rights eroded over the actions of the few.

We've already gone down that path with the surveillance state, but I don't think doing that more really helps anything. Various countries have strict gun laws but still vast amounts of gun violence. There are a dozen or so Latin American countries that fit this, including Mexico.
 
archives said:
Arduous process?

Make it similar to autos, we all jump hurdles to get a car on the road, but that hasn't stopped those who really want one, anything is worth the effort unless you want to live with mass shootings, school shootings, and church shootings as routine
Click to expand...

Getting a gun, in a lot of states, is actually more arduous than getting a car or driver's license. Many of the states with this approach have higher gun homicide rates than the states with looser gun laws.
 
Crocodile said:
By the way, do you gun nuts not know how to use a gun as a deterrent? Why is it in every one of these situations it goes right to blasting the person. Shoot first worry about details later. Killing someone is for when all other options are exhausted. Somehow you people seem to get a hard on when even minor criminals such as petty thieves get blown away.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's what most conceal carry courses teach. And any gun owner that knows the law well should understand that even states with stand your ground laws do not suggest shooting as a first resort.
 
archives said:
"not allow you to purchase a gun," probably none, just make it difficult for you obtain the weapon giving you time to reconsider "shooting someone"

Think of it this way, there exists three elements to every mass shooting: the shooter, the target, and the weapon. There is little we can do about identifying the next Stephen Paddock, and the targets are so numerous we can't defend them all, but we can act on the weapon that makes it all possible
Click to expand...

Some states do implement waiting periods, but so far, there is no evidence that suggests this has an effect on mass shootings or single homicides in the affected state.
 
archives said:
Make it more difficult for anyone to get guns, as is often the case, it is a "good guy" with a gun who does the shooting, Stephen Paddock wasn't a criminal till the moment he opened fire
Click to expand...

How would you go about making it more difficult to get guns?

Was Paddock a good guy with a gun? Yeah, you libtards probably thought he was, didn't he target those toothless, uneducated deplorable country music fans anyway?
No, he wasn't a criminal until he started shooting, how would anyone know what his intentions were before he started shooting? What law would have prevented it?
 
archives said:
Lets get real, how many times have you been attacked by someone with a gun? You have a better chance getting hit by lightning, does that mean we should all stay indoors preparing for the worse?

New York, with one of the biggest urban population in the US, has one of the lowest murder rates by guns in the country, think there might be a relationship
Click to expand...

A lot of changes happened in the 90s for NYC. Gun policies were involved in part of it, but a lot of other things were as well.
 
Crocodile said:
So, shootings in an open carry state, hmm? Face it assholes, you aren't going to fulfill your wet dream of armed churchgoers. Bringing such things before the lord is beyond sacrilege. I'd rather die.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt the Lord was concerned with church goers carrying their (assault) swords back then. And it's no "wet dream" that church goers should be armed, but it's a good thing they were today.

Sacrilege? How so? You'd rather die? Where should I send the rope?
 
archives said:
That is true, they are still wrong, thirty thousand gun deaths a year in the developed country with the highest number of guns circulating prove it, more guns do not equal less shootings
Click to expand...

60% of which are suicides. That makes the issue a bit more difficult to handle than just passing more gun laws.

By comparison, there are countries with higher gun homicide rates than us with substantially fewer guns per 100 people (like Mexico).

People love to group together suicides and homicides to get the large gun death numbers, but doing so muddles the issue.
 
domer76 said:
The barrel strokers keep asking the moronic and binary question, “What law would have prevented........”

You know what laws have diminished and/or prevented access to fully automatic weapons? Strict regulations that make access quite difficult. Ones that were enacted years ago. Quite effective.

The point being that no regulation will prevent ALL gun deaths. The idea is to decrease them from the highest gun death rate in the civilized world to something more normal for a western culture.

Nationalize and federalize all gun crimes. Not a hodgepodge of state and local laws. Make it a federal penalty for gun related crimes, including third party purchases. Comprehensive, cradle-to-grave tracking. 100% background checks. Use of social media and other resources to identify those who are at high risk or cannot manage their affairs. Track ammo purchases.

Will strict gun regs have an immediate effect? Possibly some. But, as with the auto weapons regs, the long term effects are the goal.
Click to expand...

Actually, what we've seen is that confiscation is the long term goal. This has been shown by the red flag laws in certain states and will be shown soon in Virginia.

And America would not be the first country to go that route. Australia ended up doing that. They never really had a gun death problem to start with, but one mass shooting happened, and that was the end of most gun rights afterwards.

Something similar happened in Scotland, and that was the end of most gun rights in the UK.

America did not follow suit. Yeah, we have more mass shootings than a lot of countries, but we also had much looser gun laws in the 50s and 60s yet few shootings then.

Today, laws are much stricter than back then, but we have more shootings.

Ultimately, laws didn't make the difference. Culture did. We have a more violent culture now, and we don't properly handle mental health. In the 50s and 60s, we committed a lot more people to institutions, so it kept homeless numbers down and it kept most unstable people out of open society.

Bring back better public mental healthcare facilities and funding, and you'll see shootings and homelessness go down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top