Mass shooting Sutherland Springs church

[Spurtacular]

Would you buy a bump fire stock for the purpose of defending yourself?

Why wouldn't I?

BTW, one of your liberal re friends mocked the idea of defending against a tyrant govt. with "rifles" the other day. You idiots don't even know when you're arguing against each other.

[Spurtacular]

If you would have responded any other way than " but muh 2nd amendment " I'd have been stunned

[boutons_deux]

TX is a ing disaster of state that elects assholes like Abbott and other Repugs

Texas Governor Abbott on How to Stop Mass Killings: 'You Do That by Working With God'

(And Supporting the NRA Right Down the Line)

You can't have it both ways. Eight times Gov. Abbott helped push the NRA agenda.



1. He cynically exploited children murdered at Sandy Hook to further his pro-gun agenda.

2. Joked about shooting reporters.

3. Suggested America needs more Bibles and guns.

4. Was 'embarrassed' Texas was second in gun sales.

5. Expanded open-carry, made it easier for mass shootings to take place on college campuses.

6. Proudly used social media to announce you can be shot at any moment in Texas.

7. Also used social media for this kind of toxic ammosexual macho posturing (and conspiracy mongering) because President Obama proposed we consider reducing the number of killing machines in this country.

8. Actively stopped a Texas county from trying to keep guns out.


https://www.alternet.org/right-wing/...ting-nra-right

working with the fictional, feckless, disinterested God (who's FAILING horribly) while imposing his Christian (only) Sharia

AND

working FOR the real BigGun donations and profits

[Blake]

That taught me

[DMC]

Would you buy a bump fire stock for the purpose of defending yourself?

You aren't required to be vetted to by accessories. You know already that he wasn't referring to the bump fire stock, something most here never heard of before the Vegas shooting.

[Blake]

Dmc gotta break down and dissect the sinister motive behind a simple question. It's what super sleuths do huh

[DMC]

Here's where psychopaths and sociopaths diverge though. A psychotic person feels no empathy or emotional pressure, whereas a sociopath does. The sociopath is the kind of person you describe, that 'snaps' due to environmental pressure/stress. While neither should have access to a weapon, the sociopath isn't really born one, but it's built as part of the societal environment. Which means anybody can turn into one at any given time (there's a buildup process though). So any attempts at dealing with this from a mental health angle has to include periodical checks for mental health. Especially for people that have large collections or are stockpiling (legal weapons anyways). Yes, it might be a hassle for collectors/enthusiasts, but we do a lot of the same with driver's licenses, etc (and before somebody points out the obvious, that driving is not a right, it doesn't matter: most states regulate rights like the 2nd amendment through licensing, gun free zones, etc, so it's perfectly legal. We have regulations and exceptions even for the 1st, 4th amendment, etc).

On the pure social side, we just can't tolerate these shootings to become the new normal. Yes, this happened a lot in the Far West, or during the Mafia days, when twitter wasn't around and nobody really found out, but we evolved in our social compact to root that out, have a better protected society with a justice system to sort out disagreements through non-violence.

Arguments about black markets, etc, are lazy, IMO. Nobody I know is arguing for a full ban on guns, so comparisons with the war on drugs is just ridiculous. It'd be more like talking about driver's licenses black market, which exists, but most citizens that can obtain one legally, go the legal route. And any black market should be fought vigorously, just as vigorously as defending your right to own a gun for self-defense.

It's no so much the fear of a ban on guns, maybe some of that is true but by and large it's the fact that, in order to regulate firearms at that mental health level retroactively, a highly invasive vetting process would need to occur that requires everyone register the weapons they own. That's only a law, not a physical barrier, so only law abiding people would register.

Let's assume for sake of arguendo that the shooter obtained the firearm illegally. Would it have changed the outcome?

I wouldn't care if the military style guns were never sold to the public. Even if another was never sold, you cannot go back in time and mentally check everyone who now owns a gun and probably shouldn't just like you cannot preemptively take the license from the guy in NY who decided to run over a bunch of Argies.

And like I said, with all the talk about gun laws, no one seems to be moving at all on mental health issues. Imagine the feds scoured facebook and twitter to find everyone who posed with a firearm. You'd have half the gangsta wannabes mixed with the nutjobs who show off their hardware, and with those you'd have the collectors and hunters and maybe even LEO and military folks. Again, we all know people who are a few microns off bubble, but we haven't done anything about it. They might even own guns. There are probably people on this forum who we wouldn't be shocked to learn they killed a few people in a fit of rage. Yet here we are, poking the bear.

[DMC]

Dmc gotta break down and dissect the sinister motive behind a simple question. It's what super sleuths do huh

"Taking a few extra steps to get a gun" has nothing to do with bump fire stocks. It's a red herring by CD to start a new narrative.

Like you, he doesn't offer anything, just rhetoric and schtick.

[TDfan2007]

It's no so much the fear of a ban on guns, maybe some of that is true but by and large it's the fact that, in order to regulate firearms at that mental health level retroactively, a highly invasive vetting process would need to occur that requires everyone register the weapons they own. That's only a law, not a physical barrier, so only law abiding people would register.

Let's assume for sake of arguendo that the shooter obtained the firearm illegally. Would it have changed the outcome?

I wouldn't care if the military style guns were never sold to the public. Even if another was never sold, you cannot go back in time and mentally check everyone who now owns a gun and probably shouldn't just like you cannot preemptively take the license from the guy in NY who decided to run over a bunch of Argies.

And like I said, with all the talk about gun laws, no one seems to be moving at all on mental health issues. Imagine the feds scoured facebook and twitter to find everyone who posed with a firearm. You'd have half the gangsta wannabes mixed with the nutjobs who show off their hardware, and with those you'd have the collectors and hunters and maybe even LEO and military folks. Again, we all know people who are a few microns off bubble, but we haven't done anything about it. They might even own guns. There are probably people on this forum who we wouldn't be shocked to learn they killed a few people in a fit of rage. Yet here we are, poking the bear.

I've gone through all 11.5 pages of this thread, and I really appreciate your thoughtful takes. Imo it would be nice if we attacked this issue on both fronts. This "either, or" mentality that has been sweeping through politics through most of the last 10 years is really getting out of hand. Reasonable gun laws should be considered, and so should expanding access to mental health.

A few mental health issues that not many people are talking about:
-Psychiatry is a very underrepresented field in medicine. In Texas alone, there are over 185 COUNTIES without a psychiatrist.
-Insurance companies are notorious for not reimbursing psychiatry well, so many psychiatrists have switched to fee-for-service, which many people can't afford. So you're already limited pool of psychiatrists becomes even more limited by the cost of going to the ones who are actually around.

[Blake]

"Taking a few extra steps to get a gun" has nothing to do with bump fire stocks. It's a red herring by CD to start a new narrative.

Like you, he doesn't offer anything, just rhetoric and schtick.

Why do you care

[Splits]

[spurraider21]

That's you when gun legislation is brought up. Thanks for the share.

[Pavlov]

Why wouldn't I?

BTW, one of your liberal re friends mocked the idea of defending against a tyrant govt. with "rifles" the other day. You idiots don't even know when you're arguing against each other.

Why would you buy a bump fire stick for self defense? Give the scenario in which you would use that strictly for defense.

[Pavlov]

You aren't required to be vetted to by accessories. You know already that he wasn't referring to the bump fire stock, something most here never heard of before the Vegas shooting.

We were talking specifically about bump fire stocks. Sorry it offends you.

[Big Empty]

I dont think there is much that can be done about guns anymore. If u outlaw guns such as AR-15s criminals will still be able to obtain one. Personally, my views are starting to change. There is never going to be a gun free America. I think we could limit fire arms to pistols, bolt action rifles and shot guns. People are still going to kill. But it would be alot less killings if someone was shooting up a church with a pistol than an assault rifle. Here’s the truth, unless a group of black dudes and mexicans pull off a Las Vegas style shooting, and thats not what i want, but thats the only way conservatives will think about any type of gun legislation.

[Pavlov]

Why do you care

He's trying to make friends by acting as a defense lawyer pro bono.

"Don't answer that."

[pgardn]

You're not putting that worm back into the can though...

Nope.

And mutually assured destruction does not work on this leve.

[TSA]

No one is saying "ban all guns", but banning military assault style rifles really should not offend any non-crazy ers

So you are good with these not being banned correct?

[Pavlov]

And now we will get bogged down in technicalities and jargon.

[Trill Clinton]

Did anyone know any of the victims?

[TSA]

And now we will get bogged down in technicalities and jargon.

Blame Chumpdumper 2.0 for steering it that way

No one is saying "ban all guns", but banning military assault style rifles really should not offend any non-crazy ers

[Pavlov]

Blame Chumpdumper 2.0 for steering it that way

Nope. I blame you.

You always go the jargon and technicalities route.

Always.

Keeps you from talking about real issues, so mission accomplished.

[TSA]

Nope. I blame you.

You always go the jargon and technicalities route.

Always.

Keeps you from talking about real issues, so mission accomplished.

Technicalities are important. Blakes idea of banning military assault style rifles wouldn't have stopped this shooting or made it any less lethal. Military style assault rifles aren't the issue.

[Pavlov]

Technicalities are important. Blakes idea of banning military assault style rifles wouldn't have stopped this shooting or made it any less lethal. Military style assault rifles aren't the issue.

Of course that's your position.

The only ultimate answer will be moar guns.

We've all been down this road before.

[TSA]

Of course that's your position.

The only ultimate answer will be moar guns.

We've all been down this road before.

Never said the answer is more guns and your are avoiding addressing my point.

If military assault style rifles didn't even exist could the Texas shooter have pulled off the exact same attack killing the exact same number of people yes or no?