• 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.

Responsible Gun Owner Texas Edition

Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
skynews-trump-melania-el-pas_4741406.jpg


perfect baby president
 
The victims were shot at from the grassy knoll...

Witnesses said the mother of one of the players became upset when a fight broke out between some of the players on the field. The woman then called her older son, who arrived with a gun and started to shoot, police said. The gunman, whose age was not immediately available, was on a small hill overlooking the field and fired between 10 and 30 shots, witnesses said.
Click to expand...

It's Fort Worth so that hill is a knoll and I'm just guessing that it's grassy because Texas and grassy knolls just belong together. It seems that this happened at a peewee football game, which I guess is serious shit for parents in Texas. Looking at this from the gunhumper point of view, it's too bad that everyone in the bleachers wasn't armed because they would have nailed the shooter for sure if they all opened up on him at once.

Just forget about everyone and everything behind him, that's not important in Texas!
 
This is my one and only post in this thread, and I am using it to beg anyone who is pro-gun to not engage in debate here. Nobody posting here has any desire for fair debate. They want to the hold the law-abiding responsible for the criminal actions of two idiots. It's simply not worth our time to engage in debate with those who judge an entire group based on the bad actions of a tiny, tiny minority. It's called racism, sexism, homophobia and many other names, but if you do it to gun owners it's suddenly okay. In many of their minds pro-gun = pro-murder, and there is no reasoning with that.
 
Last edited:
Paladin3 said:
This is my one and only post in this thread, and I am using it to beg anyone who is pro-gun to not engage in debate here. Nobody posting here has any desire for fair debate. They want to the hold the law-abiding responsible for the criminal actions of two idiots. It's simply not worth our time to engage in debate with those who judge an entire group based on the bad actions of a tiny, tiny minority. It's called racism, sexism, homophobia and many other names, but if you do it to gun owners it's suddenly okay. In many of their minds pro-gun = pro-murder, and there is no reasoning with that.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, because you're so honest in your engagement of fair debate.

The fact that you're trying to conflate calling you out for your shitty behavior in regards to your choice to fetishize guns to people's race, gender, and sexual orientation should be all anyone needs to see how dishonest you are.

Not that I'm surprised you'd run off after doing exactly what you're complaining about.

Its interesting that you've now become a full on coward though.
 
Well, voting is completely broken and causes millions of people to suffer and die, yet we havent suggested getting rid of that.

Of course, there are clearly no legit militias left so maybe nobody should have guns either.
I'd support banning firearms but only if cops cant have them either. They already shoot too many civilians every day.
 
Paladin3 said:
This is my one and only post in this thread, and I am using it to beg anyone who is pro-gun to not engage in debate here. Nobody posting here has any desire for fair debate. They want to the hold the law-abiding responsible for the criminal actions of two idiots. It's simply not worth our time to engage in debate with those who judge an entire group based on the bad actions of a tiny, tiny minority. It's called racism, sexism, homophobia and many other names, but if you do it to gun owners it's suddenly okay. In many of their minds pro-gun = pro-murder, and there is no reasoning with that.
Click to expand...

You live in north Idaho? My old stomping grounds were Spokane, Coeur d'alene, Sandpoint, Ponderay, Bayiew, Colville, Newport and the like. I know the area like the back of my hands, lived there for more than three decades, stomped all over the mountains and woods there and never once felt it necessary to carry a gun anywhere for safety and I'm a gun owner. Why do you carry there? What do you fear around there that makes you do so? I'm just curious since I know the area really well and in fact will be traveling up there in a couple of weeks to see family..

Sans weapons. I'm pro gun, I'm just not your kind of pro gun...lol
 
Last edited:
Paladin3 said:
This is my one and only post in this thread, and I am using it to beg anyone who is pro-gun to not engage in debate here. Nobody posting here has any desire for fair debate. They want to the hold the law-abiding responsible for the criminal actions of two idiots. It's simply not worth our time to engage in debate with those who judge an entire group based on the bad actions of a tiny, tiny minority. It's called racism, sexism, homophobia and many other names, but if you do it to gun owners it's suddenly okay. In many of their minds pro-gun = pro-murder, and there is no reasoning with that.
Click to expand...

I'm not expecting a response from you given your feelings about discussing this issue, yet I did feel a response to you was needed (and I also have at the moment the time and compunction to make an effort in this regard.) As well, I've noticed that you've made an honest effort to express your thoughts in previous gun related threads so I thought I'd "give it a shot."

Right up 'til the moment before those shots were fired at the field, the shooter was an integral part of the law-abiding folks you're referring to. After the shots were fired, he was suddenly separated from the responsible folks he was and was with like he had the plague, yet he is still identified as a person who has legal possession of a firearm (assumed) just like all those other "responsible folks" who own firearms, myself being one of them. IOW, there is no separating him from every other gun owner just because he all of a sudden became "the guy with the plague".

Pragmatically speaking, all we really need is a more efficient way to winnow out those folks that can't be trusted to bear those arms they now have in their possession or would like to own. If it takes the same effort as it takes to own a vehicle and run it on the public thoroughfares with yearly registration, notification of sale/transfer of ownership and re-licensing as needed along with a robust enforcement apparatus to "make it all real" and of which I feel is sorely absent at this time I'd be all for it. Holding a person accountable for their ownership of firearms is, IMHO, not violating their rights to own them. In a sense, if a person does not want to be a responsible owner, then they must be compelled to do so or face consequences commensurate with the risks they pose to the public at large.

However, it seems that a very influential sector of the gun owner crowd and the NRA do not want ANY kind of sensible regulations that aren't on the books no matter how full of fatal gaps there are and no matter how many more lives are lost from these existing gaps and lax enforcement/regulations.

There is common ground to be had.
 
Paladin3 is pretty reasonable and seems like a good guy, he's just wrong with the facts on this topic and has a fairly emotional attachment to firearms. Happens to us all.
 
Paladin3 said:
This is my one and only post in this thread, and I am using it to beg anyone who is pro-gun to not engage in debate here. Nobody posting here has any desire for fair debate. They want to the hold the law-abiding responsible for the criminal actions of two idiots. It's simply not worth our time to engage in debate with those who judge an entire group based on the bad actions of a tiny, tiny minority. It's called racism, sexism, homophobia and many other names, but if you do it to gun owners it's suddenly okay. In many of their minds pro-gun = pro-murder, and there is no reasoning with that.
Click to expand...

Holy projection Batman.
 
Paladin3 said:
This is my one and only post in this thread, and I am using it to beg anyone who is pro-gun to not engage in debate here. Nobody posting here has any desire for fair debate. They want to the hold the law-abiding responsible for the criminal actions of two idiots. It's simply not worth our time to engage in debate with those who judge an entire group based on the bad actions of a tiny, tiny minority. It's called racism, sexism, homophobia and many other names, but if you do it to gun owners it's suddenly okay. In many of their minds pro-gun = pro-murder, and there is no reasoning with that.
Click to expand...

Everyone is law abiding, until they are not, such as this story. There is no difference between a law abiding citizen with a gun, or a criminal with a gun. All it takes is one second to go from one to the other.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who commits harm to another with a gun should do life in prison. Only exception is if someone was actually trying to take your life while you shot them. Anyone who does property damage without malicious intent to harm another should do time and never be permitted in the same building as a gun ever. If guns are supposed to be treated with respect and as if they are always loaded then everyone should be on board with these ideas.

Any weapon capable of mass causalities in a short amount of time should be banned and confiscated. Compensation can be debated.

I'm still fine with people owning some guns if they use them responsibly. People who want to keep their guns should do what it takes to get them out of the hands of the idiots and people with bad temperments while putting distance between you and those idiots. Otherwise I want the two above ideas implemented because I'm tired of my fellow Americans dying for a stupid cause while you keep saying "Oh well. That's the price of freedom."
 
Paladin3 said:
This is my one and only post in this thread, and I am using it to beg anyone who is pro-gun to not engage in debate here. Nobody posting here has any desire for fair debate. They want to the hold the law-abiding responsible for the criminal actions of two idiots. It's simply not worth our time to engage in debate with those who judge an entire group based on the bad actions of a tiny, tiny minority. It's called racism, sexism, homophobia and many other names, but if you do it to gun owners it's suddenly okay. In many of their minds pro-gun = pro-murder, and there is no reasoning with that.
Click to expand...

because your arguments are daft

its always the no true scotsman fallacy. always.
 
JSt0rm said:
because your arguments are daft

its always the no true scotsman fallacy. always.
Click to expand...

I really don't get the people saying he's tried to have honest debate. He's regularly absolutely not done that at all. For instance he holds the attitude that any regulation of guns = outright ban of all guns (he's posted that type of argument multiple times in threads where there was earnest discussion happening with regards to gun regulations). He's the one that often starts the nonsensical arguments and then people react because he's shown he's every bit as childish as the arguments he claims has led him to no longer discuss the issue any more. He will at times try to make his nonsense arguments more in depth (that doesn't make them more valid though and I hope people can discern the difference).
 
darkswordsman17 said:
I really don't get the people saying he's tried to have honest debate. He's regularly absolutely not done that at all. For instance he holds the attitude that any regulation of guns = outright ban of all guns (he's posted that type of argument multiple times in threads where there was earnest discussion happening with regards to gun regulations). He's the one that often starts the nonsensical arguments and then people react because he's shown he's every bit as childish as the arguments he claims has led him to no longer discuss the issue any more. He will at times try to make his nonsense arguments more in depth (that doesn't make them more valid though and I hope people can discern the difference).
Click to expand...

Its because the pro gun argument isnt reality. It doesnt hold up to real debate.
 
Paladin3 said:
This is my one and only post in this thread, and I am using it to beg anyone who is pro-gun to not engage in debate here. Nobody posting here has any desire for fair debate. They want to the hold the law-abiding responsible for the criminal actions of two idiots. It's simply not worth our time to engage in debate with those who judge an entire group based on the bad actions of a tiny, tiny minority. It's called racism, sexism, homophobia and many other names, but if you do it to gun owners it's suddenly okay. In many of their minds pro-gun = pro-murder, and there is no reasoning with that.
Click to expand...
The guy who did the shooting was totally law abiding up until the first bullet left his gun. By your position, his gun rights should not have been violated up until that second when he's aiming people down in public.

You see, the reality is the transition from law abiding to not law abiding is less than 1 second. If you wait to deal with gun violence only after that transition has occurred (ie dealing with gun violence only when the law is actively being broken), you won't be saving anyone and won't be doing anything to reduce it either. Imagine if doctors had that approach to your healthcare, or if people waited till retirement to start saving or pilots only engaged the brakes when things are desperately out of control. There's the reason why they say " an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". At the end of the day, the way to address gun violence revolves around prevention, not reaction and prevention must by its nature affect people before they become criminals.
 
Simple question? What 'sensible regulation' would've prevented this?

tweaker2 said:
I'm not expecting a response from you given your feelings about discussing this issue, yet I did feel a response to you was needed (and I also have at the moment the time and compunction to make an effort in this regard.) As well, I've noticed that you've made an honest effort to express your thoughts in previous gun related threads so I thought I'd "give it a shot."

Right up 'til the moment before those shots were fired at the field, the shooter was an integral part of the law-abiding folks you're referring to. After the shots were fired, he was suddenly separated from the responsible folks he was and was with like he had the plague, yet he is still identified as a person who has legal possession of a firearm (assumed) just like all those other "responsible folks" who own firearms, myself being one of them. IOW, there is no separating him from every other gun owner just because he all of a sudden became "the guy with the plague".

Pragmatically speaking, all we really need is a more efficient way to winnow out those folks that can't be trusted to bear those arms they now have in their possession or would like to own. If it takes the same effort as it takes to own a vehicle and run it on the public thoroughfares with yearly registration, notification of sale/transfer of ownership and re-licensing as needed along with a robust enforcement apparatus to "make it all real" and of which I feel is sorely absent at this time I'd be all for it. Holding a person accountable for their ownership of firearms is, IMHO, not violating their rights to own them. In a sense, if a person does not want to be a responsible owner, then they must be compelled to do so or face consequences commensurate with the risks they pose to the public at large.

However, it seems that a very influential sector of the gun owner crowd and the NRA do not want ANY kind of sensible regulations that aren't on the books no matter how full of fatal gaps there are and no matter how many more lives are lost from these existing gaps and lax enforcement/regulations.

There is common ground to be had.
Click to expand...
 
So how do we do this? You could stretch your example to any criminal act. How do we stop people who legally are licensed to drive from blowing a gasket and committing an act of road rage? Or stop in stead of road rage, someone who insists and driving with their head buried in their effing phone?

I agree with you that the problem is with people transitioning from law abiding to criminal. Add to that law abiding to self-centered POS who's actions lead to tragedy.

What we have here is a PEOPLE problem.

Sunburn74 said:
The guy who did the shooting was totally law abiding up until the first bullet left his gun. By your position, his gun rights should not have been violated up until that second when he's aiming people down in public.

You see, the reality is the transition from law abiding to not law abiding is less than 1 second. If you wait to deal with gun violence only after that transition has occurred (ie dealing with gun violence only when the law is actively being broken), you won't be saving anyone and won't be doing anything to reduce it either. Imagine if doctors had that approach to your healthcare, or if people waited till retirement to start saving or pilots only engaged the brakes when things are desperately out of control. There's the reason why they say " an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". At the end of the day, the way to address gun violence revolves around prevention, not reaction and prevention must by its nature affect people before they become criminals.
Click to expand...
 
FerrelGeek said:
Simple question? What 'sensible regulation' would've prevented this?
Click to expand...


"Sensible". Where folks get to keep their guns so as to debunk the myth that "the gubmint is out to enslave the masses" while tightening up registration/ownership requirements so as to keep the nutjobs, criminal element and mass murderers from acquiring firearms down to the least number possible.

No system is perfect. There never will be one, yet some things need to be done that will require us gun owners and especially so the gun manufacturers to participate in meaningful dialogue that will result in us gun owners being more responsible and accountable with our hardware.

As things are, there is absolute rejection by certain influential gun industry people and the end users of their products of any and all possible solutions that would require us gun owners to be held more liable for the irresponsible and illegal handling/securing/transfer of ownership of our firearms.

That needs to change.

edit - Here's another way to look at the situation at hand: The more we mitigate the use of firearms as the weapon of choice for committing crimes the better our chances are of us gun owners having to keep and enjoy the use of our iron that go bang bang. I'd be a 'lil bit prouder and a feel a 'lil bit more confident and secure in the knowledge that I got qualified to own firearms even after passing a more realistic and pragmatic winnowing process toward owning them.

* - this is the last time I will be commenting on this topic of discussion.
 
Last edited:
Muse said:
"Responsible gun owner" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

This comment is why most gun owners dig in their heels and refuse to be part of the discussion. Your comment is imbecilic.


tweaker2 said:
"Sensible". Where folks get to keep their guns so as to debunk the myth that "the gubmint is out to enslave the masses" while tightening up registration/ownership requirements so as to keep the nutjobs, criminal element and mass murderers from acquiring firearms down to the least number possible.

No system is perfect. There never will be one, yet some things need to be done that will require us gun owners and especially so the gun manufacturers to participate in meaningful dialogue that will result in us gun owners being more responsible and accountable with our hardware.

As things are, there is absolute rejection by certain influential gun industry people and the end users of their products of any and all possible solutions that would require us gun owners to be held more liable for the irresponsible and illegal handling/securing/transfer of ownership of our firearms.

That needs to change.

edit - Here's another way to look at the situation at hand: The more we mitigate the use of firearms as the weapon of choice for committing crimes the better our chances are of us gun owners having to keep and enjoy the use of our iron that go bang bang. I'd be a 'lil bit prouder and a feel a 'lil bit more confident and secure in the knowledge that I got qualified to own firearms even after passing a more realistic and pragmatic winnowing process toward owning them.

* - this is the last time I will be commenting on this topic of discussion.
Click to expand...

I asked a legitimate question about what 'sensible regulation' would've prevented the situation and all you did was whine. This too is why most gun owners dig in their heels.

I'll say it one last time. The problem isn't the gun per se. The problem is in the minds and hearts of the people.

I'm done. Peace out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top