Breaking- Church shooting in TX

[MomentsofSanity]

well now you're just talking like an insane person, stop being insane.

You threatening me?

 

[mikeymikec]

We enjoy a free society here in America. One of the rights guaranteed to citizens is the right to own firearms. We have a bunch of legal restrictions on that already. I'm saying that further restricting gun ownership, enough to actually accomplish an end to mass shootings, would not stand up to a Second Amendment challenge because it would have to involve basically banning all civilian ownership in one way or another. Nothing less has a chance of working because it would only put restrictions on law abiding gun owners who aren't the problem.

But that doesn't mean I advocate doing nothing. We have a clearly defined process by which a persons violent actions or mental state can result in a judge removing their rights to have guns. It works okay, but we could implement it much better, especially by the Air Force as shown by their failure to report the Texas church shooter to the FBI database.

And please stop lying. What I said was: "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." We don't strip our citizens of their Constitutional rights here in America until they do something wrong to legally justify doing so, no mater how safe it makes you feel, got it?

Or just write FREEEEEEDOMMMMMMM again if that's all you've got.

As usual: More statements, no justifications for any statements you've made, more of your opinion without actually responding to any of my points, some of your points aren't even compatible with each other, and you have the gall to accuse me of lying when you're the one straw-manning your way through a discussion*. I'm done trying to get something of substance out of you.

* - Though it might well be the case that you simply don't understand that if you respond to someone with an apparent counter-point that most people will assume that you wish to discuss a point they've made, whereas what I think you might actually be doing is using this thread as a platform for your opinion without wanting any form of discussion.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You threatening me?

Yea, you gotta problem with that tough guy?

 

[Paladin3]

Some of the “gun-nutters” could be compared to drug addicts. Those are the one I worry about, not hunters.

Drug addiction is self-destructive and you are likely to take others down with you. You can spend every last dollar you have buying and shooting guns, but as long as you do no harm and are responsible it's nobody's business or a cause for concern.

My stepfather Marvin was the best man I ever knew. I love my father, but few men were as genuinely loving, caring and upstanding as my stepfather was. My father-in-law was a close second. Marvin died owning ~50 guns and carried one almost every day of his adult life. Guns don't corrupt the morals of a good person like drugs addiction does.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Drug addiction is self-destructive and you are likely to take others down with you. You can spend every last dollar you have buying and shooting guns, but as long as you do no harm and are responsible it's nobody's business or a cause for concern.

My stepfather Marvin was the best man I ever knew. I love my father, but few men were as genuinely loving, caring and upstanding as my stepfather was. My father-in-law was a close second. Marvin died owning ~50 guns and carried one almost every day of his adult life. Guns don't corrupt the morals of a good person like drugs addiction does.

As a recovering alcoholic myself, I have to say that the first step is admitting there's a problem, until you can do that, no progress can be made.

 

[Paladin3]

As usual: More statements, no justifications for any statements you've made, more of your opinion without actually responding to any of my points, some of your points aren't even compatible with each other, and you have the gall to accuse me of lying when you're the one straw-manning your way through a discussion*. I'm done trying to get something of substance out of you.

* - Though it might well be the case that you simply don't understand that if you respond to someone with an apparent counter-point that most people will assume that you wish to discuss a point they've made, whereas what I think you might actually be doing is using this thread as a platform for your opinion without wanting any form of discussion.

I think you need to justify your statements that my statements need justification.

 

[zinfamous]

No discrepancy.

The original law requiring background checks as originated in 1993 was never meant to apply to anyone other than those that sell firearms for a profit and thus must require a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell firearms for a profit and or to sell firearms regularly.

The FFL was originally introduced in 1968 to keep track of firearm retail sales. Never used sales between private parties. In 1993, a law was introduced to make all FFL holders have prospective buyers fill out a form 4473 and call the FBI for a National Instant Criminal System (NICS) background check.

There was no loophole. There was no discrepancy. There was never a law, nor an intent to force background checks on all sales previously at all. The call for Universal background checks are a new thing. It is not something I am opposed to at all. However, I do find it dumb when people are trying to fear monger by calling it a "loophole" as if it is something wrong, shady, or borderline illegal.

Want a new Universal Background Checks law? Sure. Fine with it. But call out for what it is in clear language. Don't try to convince others that there should be a universal background check law because there is a "gunshow loophole" that allows "criminals" to buy guns through a "loophole" in the law. That sort of nonsense is just trying to use the fear of idiots with a gunphobia.

Is the bolded actually true? I'm not the familiar with the horsetrading to get the Brady Bill passed, but was the current division in the law handling private sales as some special concession to be absolved from the laws governing licensed sales a stipulation of getting the bill passed? I honestly don't know. Asking for a friend.

 

[soundforbjt]

Drug addiction is self-destructive and you are likely to take others down with you. You can spend every last dollar you have buying and shooting guns, but as long as you do no harm and are responsible it's nobody's business or a cause for concern.

My stepfather Marvin was the best man I ever knew. I love my father, but few men were as genuinely loving, caring and upstanding as my stepfather was. My father-in-law was a close second. Marvin died owning ~50 guns and carried one almost every day of his adult life. Guns don't corrupt the morals of a good person like drugs addiction does.

Was he afraid of the government coming to take his guns? That’s why I used the qualifier Some, there’s always exceptions.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well, all you have to do is get sufficient voters to agree with you and change the 2nd Amendment. Then figure out some way to seize all those guns. That's how it works in a democracy.

Don't forget, 99.9%+ of guns in America never hurt a single person. But please continue to judge all gun owners by the actions of a tiny, tiny few.

The 2nd amendment as written supports my worldview. The Founding Fathers qualified the 2A as conditional to a well regulated militia. The gun lobby managed to take control of the narrative by exploiting a fetish fantasy, but that precedent won't stand for much longer.

Don't have to seize all the guns. Just need to put all the necessary deterrants in place that they never see the light of day.

I wish the Democrats would grow a fvcking pair and go after the gun lobby. They would earn my vote on this issue alone.

 

[Paladin3]

As a recovering alcoholic myself, I have to say that the first step is admitting there's a problem, until you can do that, no progress can be made.

Oh, there is a problem, with a tiny, tiny small number of sick/evil individuals who criminally misuse guns. 99.9%+ of all guns in the US are never used to hurt anyone.

You can call judge us all sick based on the actions of a few evil individuals but it's just not true.

 

[Svnla]

The good guy did not do anything, eh? The bad guy was about to leave in a vehicle with several guns inside to go fishing, right?

Let see what the Sheriff said about that.

Tackitt said he has spoken with the man who confronted Kelley.

“He doesn’t believe he’s a hero, but I believe he is,” Tackitt said, adding that the man doesn’t want to speak to any media.

“If he hadn’t been there, the guy could have possibly gotten away, you know because, I mean no one would have seen what type of vehicle he was driving,” he said. “There’s another church two miles down the road over there. He could have stopped in there, too.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-attended-services-targeted-church/835133001/

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Oh, there is a problem, with a tiny, tiny small number of sick/evil individuals who criminally misuse guns. 99.9%+ of all guns in the US are never used to hurt anyone.

You can call judge us all sick based on the actions of a few evil individuals but it's just not true.

lol, that number again, and yes, I get your claim that you got to it through a very scientific and mathematical process, but still. lol.

 

[brycejones]

*Citation needed

Call it benefit of the doubt.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Oh, there is a problem, with a tiny, tiny small number of sick/evil individuals who criminally misuse guns. 99.9%+ of all guns in the US are never used to hurt anyone.

You can call judge us all sick based on the actions of a few evil individuals but it's just not true.

I'd argue there's also a problem with the fetishism of violence in the US, which is likely a major contributor to murders (guns and otherwise). I don't think it's a real contributor specifically to mass shootings, but 'everyday shootings' which make up the vast majority of the murders, it's probably the primary contributor.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The good guy did not do anything, eh? The bad guy was about to leave in a vehicle with several guns inside to go fishing, right?

Let see what the Sheriff said about that.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-attended-services-targeted-church/835133001/

more speculation, but since it fits your story, run with it boy, run!

 

[zinfamous]

Drug addiction is self-destructive and you are likely to take others down with you. You can spend every last dollar you have buying and shooting guns, but as long as you do no harm and are responsible it's nobody's business or a cause for concern.

My stepfather Marvin was the best man I ever knew. I love my father, but few men were as genuinely loving, caring and upstanding as my stepfather was. My father-in-law was a close second. Marvin died owning ~50 guns and carried one almost every day of his adult life. Guns don't corrupt the morals of a good person like drugs addiction does.

Everything you said in the first paragraph could be said about any addiction, including this weird gun fetish that seems to be spreading. Not likely to take others with you? Seriously? It seems those hell-bent on ending it and going out famous are really into murdering lots of people, more than any addict could possibly ever do. Obviously, there are far, far, far more drug addicts out there causing far more havoc, but potential death and destruction from individual to individual isn't even close.

 

[Svnla]

more speculation, but since it fits your story, run with it boy, run!

I have the statements of the Sheriff on my side, and what do you have to dispute it? Anything about your accusations? Still nothing but more speculation the meaning of my sig? LOL.

Another little boy with a big mouth. Keep it up, little boy, because it is all you have. Empty accusations and a lot of hot air. Zero substance.

 

[ivwshane]

No discrepancy.

The original law requiring background checks as originated in 1993 was never meant to apply to anyone other than those that sell firearms for a profit and thus must require a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell firearms for a profit and or to sell firearms regularly.

The FFL was originally introduced in 1968 to keep track of firearm retail sales. Never used sales between private parties. In 1993, a law was introduced to make all FFL holders have prospective buyers fill out a form 4473 and call the FBI for a National Instant Criminal System (NICS) background check.

There was no loophole. There was no discrepancy. There was never a law, nor an intent to force background checks on all sales previously at all. The call for Universal background checks are a new thing. It is not something I am opposed to at all. However, I do find it dumb when people are trying to fear monger by calling it a "loophole" as if it is something wrong, shady, or borderline illegal.

Want a new Universal Background Checks law? Sure. Fine with it. But call out for what it is in clear language. Don't try to convince others that there should be a universal background check law because there is a "gunshow loophole" that allows "criminals" to buy guns through a "loophole" in the law. That sort of nonsense is just trying to use the fear of idiots with a gunphobia.

Oh, so you are aware of exactly what those who are asking for the "loophole" to be closed are asking but you are just choosing to be a semantic dick about. Good job sjw.

 

[Paladin3]

Was he afraid of the government coming to take his guns? That’s why I used the qualifier Some, there’s always exceptions.

My father-in-law was not the exception, but more the rule. Gun owners who can be compared to drug addicts are rare and absolutely the exception.

And he wasn't afraid the government would come take his guns, he just loved guns. There was a beauty, history and use to every individual firearm he owned. It's hard to explain to someone who only thinks of guns as evil implements of death, just like it would be hard to explain the difference between a '56 and '57 Chevy to someone who doesn't enjoy cars.

 

[Paladin3]

The 2nd amendment as written supports my worldview. The Founding Fathers qualified the 2A as conditional to a well regulated militia. The gun lobby managed to take control of the narrative by exploiting a fetish fantasy, but that precedent won't stand for much longer.

Don't have to seize all the guns. Just need to put all the necessary deterrants in place that they never see the light of day.

I wish the Democrats would grow a fvcking pair and go after the gun lobby. They would earn my vote on this issue alone.

Murder is already punishable by death in many states. Isn't that deterrent enough to stop folks from going on killing sprees? You got some other deterrent you think would work better?

 

[mikeymikec]

I think you need to justify your statements that my statements need justification.

Not sure if you're just plain trolling now or you simply have no idea how a discussion works.

In this post:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/breaking-church-shooting-in-tx.2525785/page-38#post-39160676
You responded to some assertions I made. In your response you did not once provide justification for your assertions, which would go in a format such as:

"You said such-and-such. I believe such-and-such is wrong because <insert logical reasoning here and/or evidence>. I believe this instead because <insert further logical reasoning and/or evidence>".

What you did was:

"You said such-and-such. I believe this instead."

Repeatedly. If I wanted to have a discussion with a 4-year-old about which cars are better, red ones or blue ones, that's the level of discussion I'd expect. It doesn't challenge the validity of the first assertion in any way, it simply provides an opposing assertion.

Another example: For some reason you think that the UK's laws are too restrictive particularly for a hunter. I supplied evidence that shows that it would be possible for a deer hunter to legally do that in the UK, and you responded with "don't you think that's terribly restrictive". I then prompted you to elaborate (for example, why do you think restrictions in this context are a bad thing?), and you didn't. Hence my criticism for you supplying lots of statements of opinion and zero justification.

Another example: You apparently believe that any further gun control laws would be pointless unless they were for an outright ban, despite the fact that I've repeatedly pointed out that most developed countries have not implemented an outright ban. There's no justification for your statement, or for why you think that amending the second amendment would be a bad/pointless thing, or why you keep making the outright ban comment despite my counter-point, which was literally in my first response to you.

I discuss topics largely because I'm interested in learning something. There's nothing to learn from an assertion.

 

[sandorski]

The good guy did not do anything, eh? The bad guy was about to leave in a vehicle with several guns inside to go fishing, right?

Let see what the Sheriff said about that.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-attended-services-targeted-church/835133001/

He wasn't just shooting up Churches. He was targeting specific people.

 

[Svnla]

He wasn't just shooting up Churches. He was targeting specific people.

The ones (his ex family members) he really wanted to kill were not there (original church), he could go hunt for them (therefore, more guns/ammo in his vehicle).

I am not here to claim that I was able to read the killer mind. What my main original point was the good guy (the old silver hair guy) did help a lot in this case and not just a nobody that did not do much like some of the posters in this thread claimed. That's my argument.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I have the statements of the Sheriff on my side, and what do you have to dispute it? Anything about your accusations? Still nothing but more speculation the meaning of my sig? LOL.

Another little boy with a big mouth. Keep it up, little boy, because it is all you have. Empty accusations and a lot of hot air. Zero substance.

"the guy could have possibly gotten away"

Look up the definition of the word "possibly".

 

[SlowSpyder]

Good thing there was a good guy with a gun or there could have been 26 more dead.