• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Breaking- Church shooting in TX

Page 38 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Please explain that to all those who are dead and will die, because your right to a gun was more important then their right to live.

Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do.

Guns are the drug of choice for those who desire the thrill of power without earning it legitimately.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an armed militia could protect citizens. Today, the 2nd Amendment arms the criminals so they can kill the citizens
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a colossal failure. He fractures a child's skull, then pulls that !@#$. THEN is allowed to purchase / own guns.
Our existing laws were not enforced, and lack of enforcement lead to the Texas Church Massacre.

Dont forget his atheism, it allowed him to kill without fear of eternal consequences. Now he will have eternity to regret it.
 
But with the Gun Control Act of 1968 someone who was involuntarily confined to a mental institution would have restrictions and at least something on file after the fact.

I'll just accept what HHS said & figure it out from there. One needs to understand that checking oneself in is often offered as an easier & more pleasant alternative for everybody at the time. Anything having to do with involuntary commitment doesn't apply.
 
I'll just accept what HHS said & figure it out from there. One needs to understand that checking oneself in is often offered as an easier & more pleasant alternative for everybody at the time. Anything having to do with involuntary commitment doesn't apply.
I may be misunderstanding but I thought his committal was ordered as part of his court martial.
 

You can't make them acknowledge that in the slightest because they're freaks for the same thing that mass murders want- massive firepower. It's great fun at the range & for indulging dark if harmless fantasies, as well. Other than that there's no reason to have it because that's all it's good for in civilian life. If the widespread availability of such weapons results in more deaths in mass murder scenarios they're willing to pay that price to have their toys.
 
Last edited:
Please explain that to all those who are dead and will die, because your right to a gun was more important then their right to live.

Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do.


Guns are the drug of choice for those who desire the thrill of power without earning it legitimately.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an armed militia could protect citizens. Today, the 2nd Amendment arms the criminals so they can kill the citizens
Pure logic and truth...on the Internet?
 
Please explain that to all those who are dead and will die, because your right to a gun was more important then their right to live.

Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do.


Guns are the drug of choice for those who desire the thrill of power without earning it legitimately.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an armed militia could protect citizens. Today, the 2nd Amendment arms the criminals so they can kill the citizens
I don't know why I'm even going to try, but here goes...

Most guns, 99.9%+, are never used to hurt anyone so stop with this stupid characterization of gun owners as nutty, power hungry losers. Most of us just want to target shoot, hunt a bit and are very safe and responsible with our weapons. A very, very few have turned out to be nuts and used their guns to hurt others, but you can say that of any group. Should we judge Christians, Muslims, gays or any other group by the horrific actions of a tiny few?

Repealing the Second Amendment and banning private ownership of guns would in no way stop shootings like what happened to those poor folks in that Texas church because 1) law abiding citizens who would comply and turn in their guns are not the problem, 2) It would cause a civil war if you tried to forcibly disarm America, and 3) who would you get to try and take away all the guns to begin with?

It's emotionally soothing to call for gun bans and think that will make you safer, but it's just not realistic. America is too invested in the concept that this is the land of freedom and nobody can tell anyone else what to do. Culturally we have very little respect for our responsibilities to family, community and society. This is combined with our stupid war on drugs and the resulting violence associated with the illegal drug trade. Together it makes us some of the most dangerous folks in the developed world, but still, just a tiny fraction of us. Most Americans are damn fine folk who abhor violence.

If we every get our gun violence down in line with the rest of the developed world, it won't be because we sat around vainly trying to do the impossible and disarm everyone so they would play nice. Better health care, working harder to identify violent individuals so we can get them the help they need and remove their gun rights, along with teaching our children well would be a better use of our efforts.

Speaking specifically about the Texas Church Shooting, it would have been nice if the Air Force had reported the criminal conviction and bad conduct discharge of the shooter to the FBI database like they were legally required to do. Then this convicted wife and child beater wouldn't have passed the background check to buy is gun. It would also have been nice if the in-laws would have reported the threatening texts sent to them by the shooter. I'm not trying to make them out to be at fault in any way, but we do need to all be vigilant when it comes to spotting potentially violent individuals around us.
 
Last edited:
Please explain that to all those who are dead and will die, because your right to a gun was more important then their right to live.

Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do.

Guns are the drug of choice for those who desire the thrill of power without earning it legitimately.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an armed militia could protect citizens. Today, the 2nd Amendment arms the criminals so they can kill the citizens
By almost 2-1 gun deaths are owners killing themselves.

Hmm I'm unaware of the so called organized militia today. If gun ownership were strictly an individual right the whole militia premise would have been omitted.

Ever ask yourself back then who were the citizens being protected from? Just take one guess and it isn't the federal government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
23167632_2103565899654377_3605461596333968156_n.jpg
 
The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment so that an armed militia could protect citizens. Today, the 2nd amendment is used by the criminals so they can kill the citizens.

Where is the reasonable and sensible gun control to prevent that????

The mere mention of any control,,,you/they assume THEY ARE TAKING OUR GUNS AWAY
America is becoming a failed state due to it's laws that don't protect it's citizens...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tend to agree with your sentiment on this subject. It's criminal that the American people aren't willing to come up with a simple single-payer system so everyone has the best health care we can afford as needed.

But I do have to disagree with your comparison to gun ownership. The US Constitution guarantees you the right to purchase a firearm if you can afford to do so provided you comply with all other conditions to do so. Just like you are free to buy all the health care or health insurance you can afford as well.

Nobody is arguing that guns should be provided to citizens and paid for by government in any way. Everyone has the basic right to self-defense, but unless you can afford a gun or a bodyguard you don't get to enjoy one of the more effective means of self-defense.
 
The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment so that an armed militia could protect citizens. Today, the 2nd amendment is used by the criminals so they can kill the citizens.

Where is the reasonable and sensible gun control to prevent that????

The mere mention of any control,,,you/they assume THEY ARE TAKING OUR GUNS AWAY
America is becoming a failed state due to it's laws that don't protect it's citizens...
There is no "reasonable gun control" that can look into the future and tell us who will misuse a gun. We either take them away from everyone or accept that we can't always tell who will and won't go on a shooting spree. Fortunately, we live in a free society that doesn't take away it's citizen's Constitutional rights until we have legal reason to do so.

The Air Force clearly fudged up when they didn't report the violent felony conviction and unbecoming conduct discharge of the Texas church shooter. Legally he had no right to buy the weapons he owned. I'm just not sure what further law we could pass that would have stopped him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Paladin3

Your assumption when responding to NAC4EV is exactly as he stated ("they want to take away all our guns!"). He said one thing, you then immediately argued as if he was calling for a complete ban on gun ownership. If all the vast majority of gun owners wanted was to do a bit of target practice and a bit of hunting, then there would be a great deal of options on the table for gun control measures that such people would be absolutely fine with.

I live in the UK and I could do both of those things with a firearm legally if I wanted to.

So stop with the other silly straw men such as "there is no reasonable gun control that can look into the future". Loads of countries have managed to implement gun control laws without banning guns outright and they all have a factor in common that America doesn't: Mass shootings are rare.
 
Last edited:
@Paladin3

Your assumption when responding to NAC4EV is exactly as he stated ("they want to take away all our guns!"). He said one thing, you then immediately argued as if he was calling for a complete ban on gun ownership. If all the vast majority of gun owners wanted was to do a bit of target practice and a bit of hunting, then there would be a great deal of options on the table for gun control measures that such people would be absolutely fine with.

I live in the UK and I could do both of those things with a firearm legally if I wanted to.

So stop with the other silly straw men such as "there is no reasonable gun control that can look into the future". Loads of countries have managed to implement gun control laws without banning guns outright and they all have a factor in common that America doesn't: Mass shootings are rare.
The restrictions on firearms in the UK is much more sever than anything even proposed in the US. What, you guys can have a .22 rifle that holds no more than two rounds if you get a permit from your local police? Nothing in a centerfire caliber is allowed, and absolutely no pistols. You can access a shotgun in some areas if you belong to a club and they loan it to you to shoot skeet.

"To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, Firearm Certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.[46] The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years." <- -From Wikipedia

Those conditions would pretty much break our 2nd Amendment. Yeah, that's not going to fly here, so suggesting we would be reasonable to adopt something even remotely like that isn't.

And I'll take you up on your challenge...go harvest a deer to feed your family and let me know when you are done how easy it was to get permission to do so. Or is that a straw man argument?
 
Last edited:
Those conditions would pretty much break our 2nd Amendment. Yeah, that's not going to fly here, so suggesting we would be reasonable to adopt something even remotely like that isn't.

This argument has said nothing more than "I don't want rules like that". Zero justification.

And I'll take you up on your challenge...go harvest a deer to feed your family and let me know when you are done how easy it was. Or is that a straw man argument?

It's pretty easy actually, I would go to the supermarket and buy some venison.

But assuming that I needed to actually hunt a deer, here's the UK law on the topic:
https://www.gov.uk/hunting/mammals

So yes, it can be done legally in the UK. I'm not sure where an "ease" argument comes into this. I very much doubt that anyone has ever thought, "I fancy venison tonight, so therefore on my way home from work tonight I need to buy a rifle, find and stalk a deer, kill it in a way that makes it practical to eat, all in time for dinner". Or is it perhaps more of a case of one needing to learn how to hunt first, and so therefore it's a task borne out of necessity (so therefore so would acquiring a licence and a suitable firearm) or a major personal investment in a HOBBY.
 
This argument has said nothing more than "I don't want rules like that". Zero justification.

Why do I have to justify the current gun laws and rights guaranteed to US citizens by the Constitution? If you want things changed then you should have to justify why you want those changes made. I kinda like the current gun laws as they are, and don't believe much further in gun control short of complete restriction on private ownership will really accomplish what we all want, which is an end to evil/sick people using guns to hurt others.

It's pretty easy actually, I would go to the supermarket and buy some venison.

But assuming that I needed to actually hunt a deer, here's the UK law on the topic:
https://www.gov.uk/hunting/mammals

So yes, it can be done legally in the UK. I'm not sure where an "ease" argument comes into this. I very much doubt that anyone has ever thought, "I fancy venison tonight, so therefore on my way home from work tonight I need to buy a rifle, find and stalk a deer, kill it in a way that makes it practical to eat, all in time for dinner". Or is it perhaps more of a case of one needing to learn how to hunt first, and so therefore it's a task borne out of necessity (so therefore so would acquiring a licence and a suitable firearm) or a major personal investment in a HOBBY.
You should read the Wikipedia article I quoted about the many, many approvals one must obtain to even purchase a centerfire rifle capable of taking a deer in the UK. Then tell me it's not a terribly restrictive process that would violate the Second Amendment should that procedure be implemented in the US. And that's just to hunt or target shoot. I don't know what a UK woman would have to do to get a pistol to protect herself in her own home from something like a violent, estranged spouse.

Here, I'll repost it for you: "To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, Firearm Certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.[46] The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years." <- -From Wikipedia
 
Why do I have to justify the current gun laws and rights guaranteed to US citizens by the Constitution? If you want things changed then you should have to justify why you want those changes made. I kinda like the current gun laws as they are, and don't believe much further in gun control short of complete restriction on private ownership will really accomplish what we all want, which is an end to evil/sick people using guns to hurt others.
No since arguing with someone who will never know what its like to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Those guys think its normal to hook up a large travel trailer to a small car that can barely get out of its own way much less tow a trailer. I don't even bother with trying to engage them as they attempt to persuade you with their smoo.😛
 
And let's get this straight before I go to bed. I agree with you folks that fewer guns will make us safer and that more guns absolutely will not. I just don't believe we can enact enough gun control laws to sufficiently reduce the numbers of and easy access to guns in America without breaking the Second Amendment.

I believe we can better reduce gun violence through better health care, working harder to identify mentally ill and sick individuals who have no business owning guns and by teaching our children better. I'm not willing to give up our free society where we don't remove Constitutional rights from our citizens until they give us sufficient legal reason to do so. Not for any amount of perceived safety.
 
Why do I have to justify the current gun laws and rights guaranteed to US citizens by the Constitution? If you want things changed then you should have to justify why you want those changes made. I kinda like the current gun laws as they are, and don't believe much further in gun control short of complete restriction on private ownership will really accomplish what we all want, which is an end to evil/sick people using guns to hurt others.

I haven't asked you to justify the current gun laws in America, nor have you done so. You're participating in a thread which about yet another mass shooting in America. I would have thought the "why" was rather obvious, but apparently you don't.

You're not remotely interested in changing the gun laws, yet you keep straw-manning others' arguments into "they want to take away our guns", which means you're not interested in discussing others' viewpoints, only your own being "let's do nothing about gun control" or an extreme opposite (which you cannot possibly believe is the right thing to do), which as I said already, no developed country I'm aware of has implemented.

Don't claim that what you want is an end to evil/sick people using guns to hurt others while simultaneously advocating doing nothing, because that is just plain hypocrisy.

You should read the Wikipedia article I quoted about the many, many approvals one must obtain to even purchase a centerfire rifle capable of taking a deer in the UK. Then tell me it's not a terribly restrictive process

And?

All you've done here is consign yourself to a group of people on this forum who are only interested in talking about their own opinion. You've responded to me twice yet the only point of mine you've actually responded to is when I stated that I can do in the UK what you stated that most American gun-owners want to do yet mass shooting here are rare, and your general opinion appears to be, "but it should be easier" with no practical justification as to why.

I believe we can better reduce gun violence through better health care, working harder to identify mentally ill and sick individuals who have no business owning guns and by teaching our children better. I'm not willing to give up our free society where we don't remove Constitutional rights from our citizens until they give us sufficient legal reason to do so. Not for any amount of perceived safety.

Now to use your own straw-man argument against you:

There is no "reasonable gun control" that can look into the future and tell us who will misuse a gun.

Not to mention the fact that your latest post makes no sense: you advocated a number of measures which would restrict gun ownership for people who may be a risk to others, but as you say, there is no way to see into the future and tell us who will misuse a gun, then you go on to say that you're not willing to remove constitutional rights for any amount of perceived safety.

I also find it interesting that you used an expression "who have no business owning guns", yet your "business" for owning firearms is apparently "target practice and a bit of hunting", and don't forget: "FREEEDOMMMMMM!".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top