Mass shooting Sutherland Springs church

[Blake]

Oh look. Kiddie cartoon memes

[DMC]

the pacification of SAWM's needs to end.

The gunman who killed more than two dozen people in a small church outside San Antonio on Sunday had a string of troubling episodes in recent years, including an escape from a mental health facility in 2012 after he was caught sneaking guns onto an Air Force base “attempting to carry out death threats” against military superiors, according to a police report.

All this yet a black man cannot reach for his wallet without being made into a cheese grater on a public roadway.

[DMC]

Nothing worse than conservative christians. some of the most demonic people on earth.


Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot

Hans Fiene, a Lutheran pastor who is also a regular contributor to the right-wing website The Federalist, has written a new column in which he explains that allowing 26 people to die at the hands of a crazed gunman at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, this weekend was actually God’s way of answering their prayers.

Fiene begins his column by attacking liberals who have mocked Republican politicians who only offer “thoughts and prayers” for shooting victims — and who don’t take any direct action that could prevent future shootings.

He then explains to liberals that it was part of God’s plan that over two dozen people would get shot up while in their own house of worship.

“It may seem, on the surface, that God was refusing to give such protection to his Texan children,” he writes. “But we are also praying that God would deliver us from evil eternally. Through these same words, we are asking God to deliver us out of this evil world and into his heavenly glory, where no violence, persecution, cruelty, or hatred will ever afflict us again.”

Fiene then says that, in order to fully defeat evil eternally, God has to let evil get some temporary victories, such as this weekend’s mass shooting.

“So when a madman with a rifle sought to persecute the faithful at First Baptist Church on Sunday morning, he failed,” Fiene says. “Just like those who put Christ to death, and just like those who have brought violence to believers in every generation, this man only succeeded in being the means through which God delivered his children from this evil world into an eternity of righteousness and peace.”

Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot

Everything that happens is God's plan to a Christian. This is a coping mechanism used by Christians. It's not unique to that writer. Whatever, the grief those families are dealing with is real, how they deal with it is up to them. Writing about it as if someone needs to be told God wanted their children dead is pretty ing stupid though.

[DMC]

Ban semi autos. It provides two things.

It eliminates fire arms that make mass murder easy and it neuters the NRA semantics argument that makes gun nuts feel special because they are in on the jargon. 90% of gun debates now devolve into that stupidity.

Sure the 2nd amendment will not allow the seizure of of owned weapons but it will get rid of new carbines that are doing the lionshare of these massacre. It will take decades for the issue to get better as guns are put out of service with no new ones to replace them. People will still have revolvers, pump actions, and such to protect themselves with.

Do you realize how many automobile debates "devolve" into technical aspects of the vehicles? It's not a sedan, it's a coupe. It's not a muscle car because it's a sedan. That's not a Hemi. The correct timing would be 3 degrees above top dead center. That's a bull question. Nobody can answer that, it's a trick question.

Decades? If a semi-auto is legal to own by the general population, then it's legal to own. Part of that means the thousands of receivers in warehouses and safes that aren't even on stocks, barrels and trigger groups yet. Oh but that's more technical mumbo jumbo, right?

Gun laws will be specific laws, regulating or outlawing specific aspects of the gun, the manufacture of the firearm and how they can be sold and to whom. They could all fall under a revised NFA. When that happened with subguns, you had x amount of time to register your subgun with the BATF. Past that you were illegally in possession of an unregistered NFA restricted weapon.

The problem is that your party is a lot like you in that they won't learn the facts and instead will push placebo legislation. The NRA will destroy it. They'll go back to the drawing board and come up with a neutered placebo version, where an evil feature like a 15rnd magazine cannot be sold (but can still be owned). That will make the magazines sell like hotcakes in anticipation of the price increase - half the people buying will be hoping to resell at the higher price. The market will be flooded with high capacity magazines again like it was the last time they were "outlawed".

You guys never learn.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have you on ignore DMC. You have nothing worthwhile to bring to a conversation and I don't see that changing. I got tired of your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and ad hominems.

Try a different account, dim.

[RedStripe]

Do you realize how many automobile debates "devolve" into technical aspects of the vehicles? It's not a sedan, it's a coupe. It's not a muscle car because it's a sedan. That's not a Hemi. The correct timing would be 3 degrees above top dead center. That's a bull question. Nobody can answer that, it's a trick question.

Decades? If a semi-auto is legal to own by the general population, then it's legal to own. Part of that means the thousands of receivers in warehouses and safes that aren't even on stocks, barrels and trigger groups yet. Oh but that's more technical mumbo jumbo, right?

Gun laws will be specific laws, regulating or outlawing specific aspects of the gun, the manufacture of the firearm and how they can be sold and to whom. They could all fall under a revised NFA. When that happened with subguns, you had x amount of time to register your subgun with the BATF. Past that you were illegally in possession of an unregistered NFA restricted weapon.

The problem is that your party is a lot like you in that they won't learn the facts and instead will push placebo legislation. The NRA will destroy it. They'll go back to the drawing board and come up with a neutered placebo version, where an evil feature like a 15rnd magazine cannot be sold (but can still be owned). That will make the magazines sell like hotcakes in anticipation of the price increase - half the people buying will be hoping to resell at the higher price. The market will be flooded with high capacity magazines again like it was the last time they were "outlawed".

You guys never learn.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That one is on ignore too. Try a different one.

[DMC]

I have you on ignore DMC. You have nothing worthwhile to bring to a conversation and I don't see that changing. I got tired of your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and ad hominems.

Try a different account, dim.

He responds to me after putting me on ignore.

Doesn't understand the concept of "ignore"

Calls facts "in on the jargon" but will berate someone for using a logical fallacy in a discussion.

[Blake]

Do you realize how many automobile debates "devolve" into technical aspects of the vehicles? It's not a sedan, it's a coupe. It's not a muscle car because it's a sedan. That's not a Hemi. The correct timing would be 3 degrees above top dead center. That's a bull question. Nobody can answer that, it's a trick question.

Decades? If a semi-auto is legal to own by the general population, then it's legal to own. Part of that means the thousands of receivers in warehouses and safes that aren't even on stocks, barrels and trigger groups yet. Oh but that's more technical mumbo jumbo, right?

Gun laws will be specific laws, regulating or outlawing specific aspects of the gun, the manufacture of the firearm and how they can be sold and to whom. They could all fall under a revised NFA. When that happened with subguns, you had x amount of time to register your subgun with the BATF. Past that you were illegally in possession of an unregistered NFA restricted weapon.

The problem is that your party is a lot like you in that they won't learn the facts and instead will push placebo legislation. The NRA will destroy it. They'll go back to the drawing board and come up with a neutered placebo version, where an evil feature like a 15rnd magazine cannot be sold (but can still be owned). That will make the magazines sell like hotcakes in anticipation of the price increase - half the people buying will be hoping to resell at the higher price. The market will be flooded with high capacity magazines again like it was the last time they were "outlawed".

You guys never learn.

How about outlawing the manufacture of high capacity quick fire guns

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I cannot read what you are writing, DMC. Have fun quoting my posts though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about outlawing the manufacture of high capacity quick fire guns

Banning semi-autos cuts through all that irrelevant nonsense he just spewed. If the gun loads itself after firing (re:semi-auto) then it should be banned. The tech was developed for war as it is.

[Spurminator]

So you can say that guns that can "mow down 100 people" should be priced out of reach, but you won't exactly define which guns, parts of guns or howitzers you're referring to? This is how placebo legistation gets introduced and passed, because those who are demanding something be done about it have zero idea if the new bill actually does anything meaningful.

I'm not introducing legislation, and I would expect any such legislation to be far more specific than my two paragraph message board opinion on the topic.

If you want to make an impact, you have to start with guns currently in existence. That means confiscation, buy back, whatever. You have to outlaw the production of ammunition and outlaw the sale to civilians, people aren't going to all go out and buy reloaders. The 2nd has nothing to do with the 1st amendment and could easily be done. No one seems to think about that though because no liberal news media shows the 5K rounds of ammo the shooter was in possession of.

Trying to regulate the sale of existing firearms is a fruitless endeavor. You have to simply outlaw them. You cannot force the market to artificially inflate the price of something that the market is flooded with. The reason subguns are so expensive is that they are very limited in supply, no new ones are being made. Meanwhile every sporting goods store in the US has AR-15 type rifles and accessories. Every shooter and gun enthusiast has one or two of them tricked out already. The serious ones reload their own ammo.

You have to stop being a pussy about it and just go for the brass ring of a total ban on firearms and firearm production, full on home searches and confiscation after a brief amnesty period for owners to visit centers of gun buyback and gun receiving centers. Anything short of that will just fuel more gun purchases. I made a thread about it already. I'm sure you scoffed at it then though.

I don't think a full ownership ban is necessary at all, and obviously that would be a huge 2nd Amendment issue. You basically illustrated my point with the subgun example. I want to make the same thing happen to the AR-15 and anything similar.

I do not recall your thread, sorry.

The fellow in Vegas was a wealthy collector. No transferable subgun has ever been used in a crime, much less a mass killing.

Your idea won't work. It involves too many leaps of magic to inflate prices and move firearms to the few wealthy people you think would want them. It has inherent, naive level flaws:

1. Once you make them illegal to own by "anyone" then you reduce the demand.
2. Once you reduce the demand you reduce the cost
3. Reducing the cost makes them just cheap guns, which they are basically.

Your idea ignores the market altogether. Who would sell the guns? Who would benefit from the sale?

It's an outright ban and confiscation and even that wouldn't show any positive trend in our lifetimes. Eventually it would curb gun related deaths, but probably not deaths overall.

I'm not sure you're following my idea at all, because none of your points apply to my premise. I haven't said anything about legality of ownership, nor does my premise at all involve a reduction of demand or lower costs.

It's simple. Define a legally acceptable limits to how fast a gun can be made to fire and how many rounds a magazine should be able to hold. Ban future production of any guns that exceed those limits or any enhancements that, when combined with a gun, exceed those limits. Allow the sale of anything currently in market (preferably also offer a buyback). The cost on new and used guns/accessories in this category will skyrocket, and will be cost prohibitive to most people.

This is good for current gun owners because the value of their assets increases dramatically. This is good for concerned citizens because it slows the influx of high-powered weapons into the market and makes them more difficult to get. Will it end all mass shootings in the US? I doubt it. But I would expect it to significantly slow the trend.

[DMC]

How about outlawing the manufacture of high capacity quick fire guns

Because there's absolutely not a single gun with that description anywhere in the manufacturing catalog.

[DMC]

I'm not introducing legislation, and I would expect any such legislation to be far more specific than my two paragraph message board opinion on the topic.



I don't think a full ownership ban is necessary at all, and obviously that would be a huge 2nd Amendment issue. You basically illustrated my point with the subgun example. I want to make the same thing happen to the AR-15 and anything similar.

I do not recall your thread, sorry.



I'm not sure you're following my idea at all, because none of your points apply to my premise. I haven't said anything about legality of ownership, nor does my premise at all involve a reduction of demand or lower costs.

It's simple. Define a legally acceptable limits to how fast a gun can be made to fire and how many rounds a magazine should be able to hold. Ban future production of any guns that exceed those limits or any enhancements that, when combined with a gun, exceed those limits. Allow the sale of anything currently in market (preferably also offer a buyback). The cost on new and used guns/accessories in this category will skyrocket, and will be cost prohibitive to most people.

This is good for current gun owners because the value of their assets increases dramatically. This is good for concerned citizens because it slows the influx of high-powered weapons into the market and makes them more difficult to get. Will it end all mass shootings in the US? I doubt it. But I would expect it to significantly slow the trend.

What you fail to take into consideration is that you have to first propose that in a bill. Once you do that you increase the sale of these items exponentially. Once your bill passes then sure you may have a starting point howeve once that bill fails now you have an exponentially greater number of the same weapon you're trying to get rid of in the hands of Americans. It's a ban or nothing.

Besides, a revolver can fire as fast as a semi auto even faster depending on who's using it. So you guys really need to understand the terminology and what you're talking about. You can't just lump everything into "bad gun" and try to put that on a bill.

There are tens of millions of semi Autos in the United States. I highly doubt they're going to become prized possessions in the next 100 years. This is true even if you were to no longer manufacture them from this point forward.

[Blake]

Because there's absolutely not a single gun with that description anywhere in the manufacturing catalog.

So you're saying it's impossible to make a gun that would be incapable of conversion to rapid fire?

[DMC]

Banning semi-autos cuts through all that irrelevant nonsense he just spewed. If the gun loads itself after firing (re:semi-auto) then it should be banned. The tech was developed for war as it is.

A revolver loads itself after firing. More ignorance rearing its ugly head. You'll never win if you don't understand what you're dealing with. You can put that on ignore but it's still going to be a fact.

[DMC]

So you're saying it's impossible to make a gun that would be incapable of conversion to rapid fire?

That's not what you said. You said hi capacity. There's a big difference between high capacity and rapid-fire. High capacity is reserved for how much ammo something can take and most guns take one round at a time. What you mean is high-throughput. Fully automatic weapons are already highly regulated. Semi-automatic weapons are legal but one trigger pull is one trigger pull. If you think you're going to defeat this one bite at a time you're wrong. You have to go for an outright ban on guns not an outright ban on features. If you think this jargon I'm using is to confuse then you are out of your depth. Anyone from the gun industry or anyone who knows anything about guns will completely bury you in technical details. If your legislation doesn't consider that then you will have nothing but a placebo again.

[DMC]

The trick is to introduce legislation without triggering a massive flow of guns and accessories to the general population. The only way to do that is to suggest an outright ban and confiscation. No one is going to go out and spend a ton of money anticipating losing all of it. They might get pissed off about it but they're not going to invest in it.

[Blake]

That's not what you said. You said hi capacity. There's a big difference between high capacity and rapid-fire. High capacity is reserved for how much ammo something can take and most guns take one round at a time. What you mean is high-throughput. Fully automatic weapons are already highly regulated. Semi-automatic weapons are legal but one trigger pull is one trigger pull. If you think you're going to defeat this one bite at a time you're wrong. You have to go for an outright ban on guns not an outright ban on features. If you think this jargon I'm using is to confuse then you are out of your depth. Anyone from the gun industry or anyone who knows anything about guns will completely bury you in technical details. If your legislation doesn't consider that then you will have nothing but a placebo again.

I meant both, tbh.

Is it not possible to make a low capacity/non-semi that would be incapable of being altered?

I'm asking you since you're in depth with it

[CosmicCowboy]

I meant both, tbh.

Is it not possible to make a low capacity/non-semi that would be incapable of being altered?

I'm asking you since you're in depth with it

Its called a bolt action rifle

[Blake]

Its called a bolt action rifle

It's not possible to upgrade a bolt action rifle at all?

[DMC]

It's not possible to upgrade a bolt action rifle at all?

A bolt action has a manual bolt in the receiver that requires you to eject the s and chamber another (if you have a clip, then the s s can stack below the bolt. This is a real clip, not a magazine). It cannot be modified to fire even semi-auto without breaking the law and basically totally rebuilding the gun. This is the most common rifle you will see hunters use. Rarely will you see a hunter using a semi-auto and never a .223 AR-15 unless he's varmint hunting.

Make no mistake, it's against the law to modify a semi-auto to full auto. There's nothing stopping a well funded criminal from building any gun he wants from CNC machined parts.

[Blake]

Well yeah, but we can stop high capacity/rapid fire guns from being legally sold and legally manufactured, right?

[Spurminator]

What you fail to take into consideration is that you have to first propose that in a bill. Once you do that you increase the sale of these items exponentially. Once your bill passes then sure you may have a starting point howeve once that bill fails now you have an exponentially greater number of the same weapon you're trying to get rid of in the hands of Americans. It's a ban or nothing.

The increase is temporary, as I'm sure it was for full-autos.

Besides, a revolver can fire as fast as a semi auto even faster depending on who's using it. So you guys really need to understand the terminology and what you're talking about. You can't just lump everything into "bad gun" and try to put that on a bill.

The revolver has a limited number of rounds in the chamber and requires a fairly slow reload. You're getting bogged down in exceptions that can be easily written in to legislation. It's going to be pages and pages long, no one is expecting the legislation to fit into a 140-character tweet.

There are tens of millions of semi Autos in the United States. I highly doubt they're going to become prized possessions in the next 100 years. This is true even if you were to no longer manufacture them from this point forward.

Their value will substantially increase. That's how the market works. It will increase supply and funnel towards people who are less likely to use them in a crime of passion or terrorism.

There is no perfect solution that prevents any further mass shootings. We've made that bed already through inaction and partisan gun nuttery. It's time to start somewhere.

[DMC]

The increase is temporary, as I'm sure it was for full-autos.

Huh? Full auto sales didn't increase. There was a ban on manufacturing. The increase is always temporary but the legislation never passes so the net effect is that more people have more guns.

The revolver has a limited number of rounds in the chamber and requires a fairly slow reload. You're getting bogged down in exceptions that can be easily written in to legislation. It's going to be pages and pages long, no one is expecting the legislation to fit into a 140-character tweet.

If your goal is to prevent an individual from having the power to kill a lot of other people in short amount of time, you cannot ignore speedloaders for revolvers.



If your goal is to introduce a placebo bill that talks about semi-autos, you're just being the cog in the machine that keeps this thing ramping up.

Their value will substantially increase. That's how the market works. It will increase supply and funnel towards people who are less likely to use them in a crime of passion or terrorism.

What will cause this, what law? No new manufacturing? How will that increase supply? Someone who wants a gun more will pay more for it. Sounds like it would have guns in the hands of people willing to pay everything for it.

There is no perfect solution that prevents any further mass shootings. We've made that bed already through inaction and partisan gun nuttery. It's time to start somewhere.

That's the problem, the "somewhere" is making it worse not better. You fuel fear and that creates more demand for guns. Either ban guns or don't. The first step is getting a candidate who can win an election who will not cater to the NRA, and a house and senate who will sign off on these things. Good luck with that.