Mass Shooting in Texas leaves 10 people dead

[Goetia]

As you can see people, the left once again dodging my actual retorts to focus on such a little aspect as ''grammar''. As if grammar is the main conversational treasure here, i think its funny that both of you keep yelling at me that i'm off topic but in reality you're the one talking about grammar and i'm here talking about murderers which is the actual topic at hand.

Oof this is awkward.

Because your point is mute from the start, you're referencing that a mass murderer is different than a serial killer but the word ''serial'' literally means a series and or repeated action to which a mass murder is within concept. You don't call someone a mass murderer, that's bad English, you would call them a serial killer because that's what they're. I think it's funny that you're here arguing with how i call these pieces of trash yet you don't wanna talk about my actual counter debate about people like Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer who killed i believe 30 or more people with their bare hands alone or a sharp object. How about a recent tragedy where Mark Conditt mailed bombs in texas and killed people that way? My whole argument is that the left is so ignorant to believe the media and or popular false belief that ''guns'' are the problem yet it really isn't, its the psychos that roam freely on the streets. Keep dodging the clear truth i spit out of my mouth by repeating the same one liner ''b-but ... that's not the topic, sir. '', yet in reality it is, the topic is murderers.

Just stop talking. You're not conducting actual debate, its pointless semantics to try and one-up the other person. Pointless, because Lightbringer brought a point to the table in reply to your "argument" (lol), and now you want to be like "ha look at this retard debating semantics and not my argument". That was your "argument" and it was dumpstered. Knowing right-wing conservative talking points and throwing around political terms doesn't make you a debater, or intelligent. It makes you ignorant. Just like Fountain, just like all the rest who would naturally be against sensible laws and policy.

 

[WalksInShadows]

Well I'm not in favor for banning all firearms, but certain guns should not be in the hands of civilians. People seem to forget that when the second amendment was established there only existed single-shot firearms. The concept of a mass shootings from one individual was foreign to them nor could they have perceived that weapons would evolve to such a point where one person can mow through hundreds of people..

you couldn't be more wrong on this if you tried. There were automatics & semi automatics that were made during or before the American Revolution like the Puckel gun and at least some of the Founding Fathers were avid gun fans, so they were aware that advancements in gun technology could be made over time. What they weren't aware of was that ppl would become irresponsible.

If ppl are going to argue using those kinds of presumptions about the Founding Fathers' intent when they wrote the Constitution, then someone could just as easily say social media, texting, emailing, and message boards shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment since those forms of communication didn't exist back then and ppl are equally irresponsible with speech and expression. The 2nd Amendment was intentionally designed for blanket protection, just like the 1st one.

 

[Lightbringer]

you couldn't be more wrong on this if you tried. There were automatics & semi automatics that were made during or before the American Revolution like the Puckel gun and at least some of the Founding Fathers were avid gun fans, so they were aware that advancements in gun technology could be made over time. What they weren't aware of was that ppl would become irresponsible.

If ppl are going to argue using those kinds of presumptions about the Founding Fathers' intent when they wrote the Constitution, then someone could just as easily say social media, texting, emailing, and message boards shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment since those forms of communication didn't exist back then and ppl are equally irresponsible with speech and expression. The 2nd Amendment was intentionally designed for blanket protection, just like the 1st one.

We have libel laws don't we? That's already one example of how we changed the 1st amendment through time.

The Constituion was created to be a "living document" for a reason. The Founding Fathers understood that the standards of their day would change and so would the laws that would better help govern.

 

[Onii Chan]

Oof this is awkward.



Just stop talking. You're not conducting actual debate, its pointless semantics to try and one-up the other person. Pointless, because Lightbringer brought a point to the table in reply to your "argument" (lol), and now you want to be like "ha look at this retard debating semantics and not my argument". That was your "argument" and it was dumpstered. Knowing right-wing conservative talking points and throwing around political terms doesn't make you a debater, or intelligent. It makes you ignorant. Just like Fountain, just like all the rest who would naturally be against sensible laws and policy.

No my point was in bold

'' Because your point is mute from the start, you're referencing that a mass murderer is different than a serial killer but the word ''serial'' literally means a series and or repeated action to which a mass murder is within concept. You don't call someone a mass murderer, that's bad English, you would call them a serial killer because that's what they're. I think it's funny that you're here arguing with how i call these pieces of trash yet you don't wanna talk about my actual counter debate about people like Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer who killed i believe 30 or more people with their bare hands alone or a sharp object. How about a recent tragedy where Mark Conditt mailed bombs in texas and killed people that way? My whole argument is that the left is so ignorant to believe the media and or popular false belief that ''guns'' are the problem yet it really isn't, its the psychos that roam freely on the streets. Keep dodging the clear truth i spit out of my mouth by repeating the same one liner ''b-but ... that's not the topic, sir. '', yet in reality it is, the topic is murderers. ''

yeah i believe that bold is more sizable than what you referenced so in turn that would be my main statement, not what you nitpicked out to save your ass. And no, i'm sorry to break it to ya kid but calling people ''retard'' doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you look like a childish douchebag. But of course you wouldn't understand what i'm talking about here so let me spell it out for ya, you subconsciously called me a ''retard'' by falsely referencing the fact that i was somehow acting like i thought everyone was in your eyes but in reality i was merely trying to have a regular mature debate and i never used insults either or at least nothing of that extreme. And so by using this word to describe what i somehow acted like therefore you're in turn calling me that.. which i don't appreciate at all.

 

[Onii Chan]

To neglect casualties when deciding if a weapon should be accessible to citizens is ridiculous because it has no limits itself. It's very obvious something is wrong when the same could be said of nukes. Someone has to press that big, red button and take responsibility for it.



I don't think you understand why it's relevant. You can point out serial killers who didn't use guns, BUT the distinction matters. A mass murder(a bunch of deaths at once) cannot easily be committed with bare hands. In order for a serial killer, one that abstains from using guns at that, to rack up as many bodies as a mass murder, they would have to evade arrest or suspicion multiple times. Because of that fact, the rise of a serial killer is much harder than a mass murderer's.

If 5 people die within seconds by a gun but 5 people die over a weeks time doesn't make a lick of difference, people still died. By banning guns it'll only raise the murder ratio per year as they'll simply find other ways. My WHOLE point ... which i'm very disappointed no one has figured out yet, is guns aren't the problem to these murders, its the people. Take away a babies fork and they use their hands, have you not noticed that? Humans, if enough desire is built up, will always find a way to do something. If there would be any solution at all, is to have a mandatory deep mental check ups via per citizen that has any relation to a gun at all and or anyone attaining school membership regardless of their relationships with guns but even then it fringes upon our rights as americans. Its not easy to find a real, good solution for something like this. America is the only place on earth that has something to protect the citizens from the government but i suppose in turn its all cons and pros.

 

[Punk Hazard]

If 5 people die within seconds by a gun but 5 people die over a weeks time doesn't make a lick of difference, people still died. By banning guns it'll only raise the murder ratio per year as they'll simply find other ways. My WHOLE point ... which i'm very disappointed no one has figured out yet, is guns aren't the problem to these murders, its the people. Take away a babies fork and they use their hands, have you not noticed that? Humans, if enough desire is built up, will always find a way to do something. If there would be any solution at all, is to have a mandatory deep mental check ups via per citizen that has any relation to a gun at all and or anyone attaining school membership regardless of their relationships with guns but even then it fringes upon our rights as americans. Its not easy to find a real, good solution for something like this. America is the only place on earth that has something to protect the citizens from the government but i suppose in turn its all cons and pros.

This shows such a lack of critical thinking on so many points.

First off, that five in five seconds vs five in five weeks. It doesn't happen concurrently like that. The ACTUAL difference is you have guns that can kill five in one day. And when that happens again the next day, and the next day, and the next day, it adds up to far more than five people dying over a week.

The gun control debate isn't about elimination. Your viewpoint on the matter is restricted by a narrow point of view where you're looking at the gun control argument through the lens of "This won't eliminate the problem though." Yes, people will still find ways to kill, but the gun control argument is about LESSENING their opportunities to do so. Yes, the problem is rooted in the people, and something needs to be done about that, but to say we shouldn't do something to reduce their capacity to commit these atrocities while we figure that out is asinine and naive.

 

[Goetia]

No my point was in bold

'' Because your point is mute from the start, you're referencing that a mass murderer is different than a serial killer but the word ''serial'' literally means a series and or repeated action to which a mass murder is within concept. You don't call someone a mass murderer, that's bad English, you would call them a serial killer because that's what they're. I think it's funny that you're here arguing with how i call these pieces of trash yet you don't wanna talk about my actual counter debate about people like Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer who killed i believe 30 or more people with their bare hands alone or a sharp object. How about a recent tragedy where Mark Conditt mailed bombs in texas and killed people that way? My whole argument is that the left is so ignorant to believe the media and or popular false belief that ''guns'' are the problem yet it really isn't, its the psychos that roam freely on the streets. Keep dodging the clear truth i spit out of my mouth by repeating the same one liner ''b-but ... that's not the topic, sir. '', yet in reality it is, the topic is murderers. ''

yeah i believe that bold is more sizable than what you referenced so in turn that would be my main statement, not what you nitpicked out to save your ass. And no, i'm sorry to break it to ya kid but calling people ''retard'' doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you look like a childish douchebag. But of course you wouldn't understand what i'm talking about here so let me spell it out for ya, you subconsciously called me a ''retard'' by falsely referencing the fact that i was somehow acting like i thought everyone was in your eyes but in reality i was merely trying to have a regular mature debate and i never used insults either or at least nothing of that extreme. And so by using this word to describe what i somehow acted like therefore you're in turn calling me that.. which i don't appreciate at all.

I consciously called you a retard because that's what you are lmao. Here's how you make an actual argument.

Your Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer examples are invalid because they didn't take place recently. Bundy's crimes took place about 40 years ago, and Dahmer's 27 years ago respectively. Legislation would've since been enacted that covers for scenarios like theirs, thus making their power in an argument considerably lesser, if not nil. Conditt's case, though recent, needs to be examined closely to understand why it isn't a valid argument for anti-gun control sentiment. Conditt made a video explaining how he made the bombs. The materials he used could be found in hardware stores. Batteries and the like. Now, lets deconstruct the popular, albeit moronic, argument of "are you gonna ban [insert hardware object/vehicle] here because it was involved in a crime?". First of all, good luck trying to ban batteries. You need them to power all kinds of equipment and appliances. Good luck trying to ban mousetraps, because they're a form of pest control. Good luck trying to ban vehicles like vans and trucks, even cars, since people need them to get around and halting transport is enough to cause financial crisis. Good luck trying to ban materials used to make any of these things, as you now need to find substitute materials and methods for making these appliances and objects that also don't pose the same risk to civilians as the aforementioned banned materials and objects.

I'll keep this part short since I could be here for hours unpacking everything. See why legislation and policy to control firearms is actually effective in curbing deaths caused by them. Maybe you and your country would learn a thing or two.

You must be registered for see links

- stats from 1991 - 2001

^ government intervention and policy resulted in a decline in homicide incidents that involved a firearm. In fact, across the board, there was a decrease in the number of deaths related to firearms, not just homicide.

You must be registered for see links

- research report on gun seizing scheme

^ seizing guns is effective. Not much to say here,

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Skimming the abstracts and conclusions should give you the idea by now. And if that's not enough, I'll remind you that Trump revoked Obama-era legislation that would've prevented the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Your president, who touts the same position as you do, was indirectly responsible for a massacre. See if you can down that one.

You're the second lucky one today to get a present from me, so have fun with this as well.

[video=youtube;CEPFCLMEP8I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEPFCLMEP8I[/video]

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

If 5 people die within seconds by a gun but 5 people die over a weeks time doesn't make a lick of difference, people still died. By banning guns it'll only raise the murder ratio per year as they'll simply find other ways. My WHOLE point ... which i'm very disappointed no one has figured out yet, is guns aren't the problem to these murders, its the people. Take away a babies fork and they use their hands, have you not noticed that? Humans, if enough desire is built up, will always find a way to do something. If there would be any solution at all, is to have a mandatory deep mental check ups via per citizen that has any relation to a gun at all and or anyone attaining school membership regardless of their relationships with guns but even then it fringes upon our rights as americans. Its not easy to find a real, good solution for something like this. America is the only place on earth that has something to protect the citizens from the government but i suppose in turn its all cons and pros.

Did you completely read what I wrote? You understand that guns are being singled out with the intent of lessening casualties, so it's insane that you think this could be a good argument in my eyes. @Bold, I told you that serial killers have a harder time rising, which also means a harder time racking up a large body count. They and, by extension, their murders should be more uncommon is what I'm getting at. Exactly what the goal is. Taking away guns would force a would be mass murderer into a potential serial killer, and that fact means interrupting their murders would be easier. Just how efficient is a baby's hands opposed to a fork, which is literally designed to pick at food?

People would resort to alternatives, but they'd never hold up to the real thing. The only real argument against controlling guns more imo is the fact that there's already too many. Even then I don't think it makes sense to let the problem worsen because of the fact. It'll just snowball more.

@Blue, no. There's other solutions that come to mind but either rights, preferably just guns, or the hatred of funding things beyond the military will have to give. A lot of people already make mention of mental help, but I think we shouldn't overlook the fact that guns are involved in much more than just mass murder and serial killings or go about assuming that even one-fourth of killers are mental.

@Red, what the hell?

 

[Onii Chan]

Spoiler

This shows such a lack of critical thinking on so many points.

First off, that five in five seconds vs five in five weeks. It doesn't happen concurrently like that. The ACTUAL difference is you have guns that can kill five in one day. And when that happens again the next day, and the next day, and the next day, it adds up to far more than five people dying over a week.

The gun control debate isn't about elimination. Your viewpoint on the matter is restricted by a narrow point of view where you're looking at the gun control argument through the lens of "This won't eliminate the problem though." Yes, people will still find ways to kill, but the gun control argument is about LESSENING their opportunities to do so. Yes, the problem is rooted in the people, and something needs to be done about that, but to say we shouldn't do something to reduce their capacity to commit these atrocities while we figure that out is asinine and naive.

I consciously called you a retard because that's what you are lmao. Here's how you make an actual argument.

Your Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer examples are invalid because they didn't take place recently. Bundy's crimes took place about 40 years ago, and Dahmer's 27 years ago respectively. Legislation would've since been enacted that covers for scenarios like theirs, thus making their power in an argument considerably lesser, if not nil. Conditt's case, though recent, needs to be examined closely to understand why it isn't a valid argument for anti-gun control sentiment. Conditt made a video explaining how he made the bombs. The materials he used could be found in hardware stores. Batteries and the like. Now, lets deconstruct the popular, albeit moronic, argument of "are you gonna ban [insert hardware object/vehicle] here because it was involved in a crime?". First of all, good luck trying to ban batteries. You need them to power all kinds of equipment and appliances. Good luck trying to ban mousetraps, because they're a form of pest control. Good luck trying to ban vehicles like vans and trucks, even cars, since people need them to get around and halting transport is enough to cause financial crisis. Good luck trying to ban materials used to make any of these things, as you now need to find substitute materials and methods for making these appliances and objects that also don't pose the same risk to civilians as the aforementioned banned materials and objects.

I'll keep this part short since I could be here for hours unpacking everything. See why legislation and policy to control firearms is actually effective in curbing deaths caused by them. Maybe you and your country would learn a thing or two.

You must be registered for see links

- stats from 1991 - 2001

^ government intervention and policy resulted in a decline in homicide incidents that involved a firearm. In fact, across the board, there was a decrease in the number of deaths related to firearms, not just homicide.

You must be registered for see links

- research report on gun seizing scheme

^ seizing guns is effective. Not much to say here,

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Skimming the abstracts and conclusions should give you the idea by now. And if that's not enough, I'll remind you that Trump revoked Obama-era legislation that would've prevented the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Your president, who touts the same position as you do, was indirectly responsible for a massacre. See if you can down that one.

You're the second lucky one today to get a present from me, so have fun with this as well.

[video=youtube;CEPFCLMEP8I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEPFCLMEP8I[/video]

Did you completely read what I wrote? You understand that guns are being singled out with the intent of lessening casualties, so it's insane that you think this could be a good argument in my eyes. @Bold, I told you that serial killers have a harder time rising, which also means a harder time racking up a large body count. They and, by extension, their murders should be more uncommon is what I'm getting at. Exactly what the goal is. Taking away guns would force a would be mass murderer into a potential serial killer, and that fact means interrupting their murders would be easier. Just how efficient is a baby's hands opposed to a fork, which is literally designed to pick at food?

People would resort to alternatives, but they'd never hold up to the real thing. The only real argument against controlling guns more imo is the fact that there's already too many. Even then I don't think it makes sense to let the problem worsen because of the fact. It'll just snowball more.

@Blue, no. There's other solutions that come to mind but either rights, preferably just guns, or the hatred of funding things beyond the military will have to give. A lot of people already make mention of mental help, but I think we shouldn't overlook the fact that guns are involved in much more than just mass murder and serial killings or go about assuming that even one-fourth of killers are mental.

@Red, what the hell?

Thanks for all of yalls replies, i do appreciate it and i did read all of these in the spoilers. I agree with some of it but in turn i do believe that still just taking away guns would not only kinda worsen a problem in america but also infringe upon the rights of the citizens. Just think theres other ways of doing this without infringement upon the constitution because without the constitution there'd be more protection against the government.

 

[Yeah right]

Why wouldn’t single or very limited magazines/ chambers work as gun reform? Yes, new guns should be single use only. Does that infringe on your rights?

New guns have a function that locks after a certain number of bullets pass. Something like that.

I am aware of the headache this will cause.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Why wouldn’t single or very limited magazines/ chambers work as gun reform? Yes, new guns should be single use only. Does that infringe on your rights?

New guns have a function that locks after a certain number of bullets pass. Something like that.

I am aware of the headache this will cause.

???? This sounds like the worst thing ever. It doesn't solve anything anyone addressed and isn't even a compromise. At best, some twat will pick one up thinking they'll going to ham with it.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

you couldn't be more wrong on this if you tried. There were automatics & semi automatics that were made during or before the American Revolution like the Puckel gun and at least some of the Founding Fathers were avid gun fans, so they were aware that advancements in gun technology could be made over time. What they weren't aware of was that ppl would become irresponsible.

If ppl are going to argue using those kinds of presumptions about the Founding Fathers' intent when they wrote the Constitution, then someone could just as easily say social media, texting, emailing, and message boards shouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment since those forms of communication didn't exist back then and ppl are equally irresponsible with speech and expression. The 2nd Amendment was intentionally designed for blanket protection, just like the 1st one.

The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock[1] revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest,[2] though its operation does not match the modern use of the term. However, the Puckle gun was never used during any combat operation or war.[3][4] Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns.

i dont think George Washington had 1 of the 2 puckel guns made. and any gun like it wouldn't be made for another 100 years

As for your second point. by all means. If it comes to a point where social media and new forms of interactions have to be reviewed for its protection under the first amendment then we shall do so. Bringing up a whataboutism does not change the initial argument.

 

[WalksInShadows]

We have libel laws don't we? That's already one example of how we changed the 1st amendment through time.

The Constituion was created to be a "living document" for a reason. The Founding Fathers understood that the standards of their day would change and so would the laws that would better help govern.

as true as that is, changing the 2nd amendment around to make ppl feel safer is a placebo, not a solution. All of the gun laws made over the past several years hasn't done anything but punish responsible gun owners. The real issue nobody seems to want to address is what's going on at these ppl's schools.

 

[Lightbringer]

as true as that is, changing the 2nd amendment around to make ppl feel safer is a placebo, not a solution. All of the gun laws made over the past several years hasn't done that. The real issue nobody seems to want to address is what's going on at these ppl's schools.

Yet creating stricter gun laws has worked for other countries. Australia, before it's current gun laws was incredibly lax and had a severe gun violence problem; almost as severe as the U.S. But after they implemented their current gun laws, there hasn't been a mass shooting in over 20 years. That's one example among many.

There are also studies which show that people with violent and suicidal tendencies are far more likely to act on those impulses when they have access to a firearm, as opposed to something like a knife.

It is a solution and 97% of all gun owners support at least having a universal background check.

 

[Onii Chan]

Yet creating stricter gun laws has worked for other countries. Australia, before it's current gun laws was incredibly lax and had a severe gun violence problem; almost as severe as the U.S. But after they implemented their current gun laws, there hasn't been a mass shooting in over 20 years. That's one example among many.

There are also studies which show that people with violent and suicidal tendencies are far more likely to act on those impulses when they have access to a firearm, as opposed to something like a knife.

It is a solution and 97% of all gun owners support at least having a universal background check.

australia doesnt have the second amendment

 

[Lightbringer]

australia doesnt have the second amendment

So because we have the second amendment we can't have responsible gun laws?

 

[Onii Chan]

So because we have the second amendment we can't have responsible gun laws?

You already have to contact the FBI directly before buying a gun.... what do you want from us? A semen sample?

 

[Lightbringer]

You already have to contact the FBI directly before buying a gun.... what do you want from us? A semen sample?

There aren't universal background checks and people on terrorist watchlists aren't prohibited from buying guns either.

People are still able to buy guns in gun shows without even having to go through a background check and can just get it on the spot.

So no, they don't.

 

[Onii Chan]

There aren't universal background checks and people on terrorist watchlists aren't prohibited from buying guns either.

People are still able to buy guns in gun shows without even having to go through a background check and can just get it on the spot.

So no, they don't.

That cant be anymore false... cnn who told you all that is complete liars. Shit, a few years ago you couldn't get a gun if you were muslim let alone a actual terrorist so that alone debunks your statement there.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[Lightbringer]

That cant be anymore false... cnn who told you all that is complete liars. Shit, a few years ago you couldn't get a gun if you were muslim let alone a actual terrorist so that alone debunks your statement there.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

I love the assertion that I'm wrong and that I listen to CNN. Yet here's a reality check for you. In the wake the Orlando shooting in 2016, there was a proposal made to prohibit suspected terrorists from buying guns and it was blocked by a Republican led senate. So again, you are wrong.

You must be registered for see links

There are countless videos that also show people proving how easy it is to get a gun at a gun show.

Here is a recent one from three weeks ago where a congress candidate/army vet is exposing the gun show loophole.

You must be registered for see links