Texas church shooting leaves at least 26 dead

Dannie

/
Immortal
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
47,159
Kin
1,640💸
Kumi
35💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
It doesn't really matter how many lives are saved, whether it be 10 or 100, these are still human lives. Stricter laws, or even revising the 2nd amendment will definitely help this current state. The 2nd amendment was created as a hope that the United States becomes a strong and firm country that can use these weapons to secure and defend our people, i.e the military, which is why they made this amendment, but all it has done is the exact opposite of that. These weapons are not "securing" or defending anyone. They are harming us. People are afraid to revisit the 2nd amendment for the sole purpose that they don't want their constitutional rights to be distorted, but that is senseless logic when the purpose of guns has been lost.

Someone brings up the argument to ban guns from the US, so then the retort is to bring up a bunch of other items and tools as if those items were made to serve the same purpose as guns? So childish. Trucks, cars, and knives were not designed to kill. Yes, people choose to use them for their own twisted schemes, but they were never designed to kill. This obsession with the 2nd amendment, it's actually quite ironic that people will go so far as to defend and support the idea to bear arms, while not even fully understanding the meaning behind why it was even created or what the purpose of a gun is. Guns were never meant to defend, their sole purpose was made for war.

*The more reasonable course of action for solving this issue, if even a little, is to issue tighter background checks, mental health records, or if they have had any possible criminal records in the past.

In other countries such as Japan, Switzerland and Australia, gun violence and suicide rates are very low. Why? Because they have very strict and tighter gun control laws compared to the US. In Japan, I believe citizens are only allowed to carry a gun if they are hunting. This stereotype about the US being more naturally violent than other countries is not because we are more naturally violent, it's because our laws suck and we are too loose and ignorant with how we handle things here compared to other countries, which is why you don't see a maniac in Poland shooting up an elementary school with a pistol, or some scum in Italy killing 40 people in a night club. Here, just any normal citizen who is mentally healthy with no criminal records can just purchase a gun at the age of only 16, and even buy a rifle at just the age of 18(at least in my state). If you don't see anything wrong with this, then that is definitely a problem. Who even decides who is allowed to have a gun? Just being a normal citizen with no mental illness or bad records and over the age of 16 can get me a gun easily in my state.

And no, I'm not saying that doing something about guns will completely get rid of deaths, when we have shit organizations such as ISIS killing people with vehicles, but guns are definitely a MAJOR issue and has been in these past 3 years or so.
 

7th Biggest OP Fan

Active member
Regular
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
1,370
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Since we are having the gun debate instead of mourning a tragedy, I think this video shows some valid points on both sides of the isle and gives you a better understanding as to why each side believes what they do.

[video=youtube;APC2jnOSfhQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APC2jnOSfhQ[/video]
 

Belserion

Active member
Elite
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
5,795
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You realise there arent that many gun deaths in america right? Majority are suicides
Excuse me?

Each and every victim to firearms is one victim too many.
Past month almost 60 people died and yesterday 26 died.

They are not very good at it then, because Breivik still holds the record.
Breivik actually planned his mass shooting for months/years.
Mass shooters in America most likely plan to commit suicide and while they are at it, they shoot up a place for whatever reason.

The only guy who came close to the Breivik's number of casualties is the Las Vegas shooter.
 
Last edited:

Uzumaki Macho

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
6,663
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
It doesn't really matter how many lives are saved, whether it be 10 or 100, these are still human lives. Stricter laws, or even revising the 2nd amendment will definitely help this current state. The 2nd amendment was created as a hope that the United States becomes a strong and firm country that can use these weapons to secure and defend our people, i.e the military, which is why they made this amendment, but all it has done is the exact opposite of that. These weapons are not "securing" or defending anyone. They are harming us. People are afraid to revisit the 2nd amendment for the sole purpose that they don't want their constitutional rights to be distorted, but that is senseless logic when the purpose of guns has been lost.

Someone brings up the argument to ban guns from the US, so then the retort is to bring up a bunch of other items and tools as if those items were made to serve the same purpose as guns? So childish. Trucks, cars, and knives were not designed to kill. Yes, people choose to use them for their own twisted schemes, but they were never designed to kill. This obsession with the 2nd amendment, it's actually quite ironic that people will go so far as to defend and support the idea to bear arms, while not even fully understanding the meaning behind why it was even created or what the purpose of a gun is. Guns were never meant to defend, their sole purpose was made for war.

*The more reasonable course of action for solving this issue, if even a little, is to issue tighter background checks, mental health records, or if they have had any possible criminal records in the past.

In other countries such as Japan, Switzerland and Australia, gun violence and suicide rates are very low. Why? Because they have very strict and tighter gun control laws compared to the US. In Japan, I believe citizens are only allowed to carry a gun if they are hunting. This stereotype about the US being more naturally violent than other countries is not because we are more naturally violent, it's because our laws suck and we are too loose and ignorant with how we handle things here compared to other countries, which is why you don't see a maniac in Poland shooting up an elementary school with a pistol, or some scum in Italy killing 40 people in a night club. Here, just any normal citizen who is mentally healthy with no criminal records can just purchase a gun at the age of only 16, and even buy a rifle at just the age of 18(at least in my state). If you don't see anything wrong with this, then that is definitely a problem. Who even decides who is allowed to have a gun? Just being a normal citizen with no mental illness or bad records and over the age of 16 can get me a gun easily in my state.

And no, I'm not saying that doing something about guns will completely get rid of deaths, when we have shit organizations such as ISIS killing people with vehicles, but guns are definitely a MAJOR issue and has been in these past 3 years or so.
Unfortunately, some politicians think that saving the lives of as many Americans as possible isn't worth losing their donations from the NRA.
 

Ansatsuken

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Jul 23, 2014
Messages
27,345
Kin
4,798💸
Kumi
649💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
The massage here is for trump. He think terrorist came from outside world and from middle east but that's not the actual reality and Trump needs to acknowledge that.

Trump think its easy to catch/recognize a terror practitioners aka terrorists, but he's wrong. Terrorist from the meaning is not religious act but an act to cause fear and destruction. Everyone be it religious believer or atheist can be a terrorist.
 

Chikombo

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
7,420
Kin
9,371💸
Kumi
1,003💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
The massage here is for trump. He think terrorist came from outside world and from middle east but that's not the actual reality and Trump needs to acknowledge that.

Trump think its easy to catch/recognize a terror practitioners aka terrorists, but he's wrong. Terrorist from the meaning is not religious act but an act to cause fear and destruction. Everyone be it religious believer or atheist can be a terrorist.
I know I have said otherwise but I don't think you need religion to be a bad person even though snobs likes to make that argument. I don't believe nazism was a religion.
 

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
It doesn't really matter how many lives are saved, whether it be 10 or 100, these are still human lives. Stricter laws, or even revising the 2nd amendment will definitely help this current state. The 2nd amendment was created as a hope that the United States becomes a strong and firm country that can use these weapons to secure and defend our people, i.e the military, which is why they made this amendment, but all it has done is the exact opposite of that. These weapons are not "securing" or defending anyone. They are harming us. People are afraid to revisit the 2nd amendment for the sole purpose that they don't want their constitutional rights to be distorted, but that is senseless logic when the purpose of guns has been lost.

Someone brings up the argument to ban guns from the US, so then the retort is to bring up a bunch of other items and tools as if those items were made to serve the same purpose as guns? So childish. Trucks, cars, and knives were not designed to kill. Yes, people choose to use them for their own twisted schemes, but they were never designed to kill. This obsession with the 2nd amendment, it's actually quite ironic that people will go so far as to defend and support the idea to bear arms, while not even fully understanding the meaning behind why it was even created or what the purpose of a gun is. Guns were never meant to defend, their sole purpose was made for war.

*The more reasonable course of action for solving this issue, if even a little, is to issue tighter background checks, mental health records, or if they have had any possible criminal records in the past.

In other countries such as Japan, Switzerland and Australia, gun violence and suicide rates are very low. Why? Because they have very strict and tighter gun control laws compared to the US. In Japan, I believe citizens are only allowed to carry a gun if they are hunting. This stereotype about the US being more naturally violent than other countries is not because we are more naturally violent, it's because our laws suck and we are too loose and ignorant with how we handle things here compared to other countries, which is why you don't see a maniac in Poland shooting up an elementary school with a pistol, or some scum in Italy killing 40 people in a night club. Here, just any normal citizen who is mentally healthy with no criminal records can just purchase a gun at the age of only 16, and even buy a rifle at just the age of 18(at least in my state). If you don't see anything wrong with this, then that is definitely a problem. Who even decides who is allowed to have a gun? Just being a normal citizen with no mental illness or bad records and over the age of 16 can get me a gun easily in my state.

And no, I'm not saying that doing something about guns will completely get rid of deaths, when we have shit organizations such as ISIS killing people with vehicles, but guns are definitely a MAJOR issue and has been in these past 3 years or so.
If deporting all immigrants reduced the amount of homocides committed in the U.S. annually, would you be in favor of doing so? Let's say, hypothetically, immigrants didn't even contribute a significant amount to the homocide/murder statistics (>.05% of the overall statistics), meaning that immigrants are not the not the source of the issue of homocide, but their deportation would still reduce the overall amount of deaths in the U.S, would the costs (means) be worth the pay off (ends)?
 

Dannie

/
Immortal
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
47,159
Kin
1,640💸
Kumi
35💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You realise there arent that many gun deaths in america right? Majority are suicides
*facepalm*

You don't even know what you are talking about not to mention that you are pretty much contradicting yourself in your very own post. You say that there aren't that many gun deaths in the US(which is wrong), and then bring up suicides as if suicides are not mainly used with firearms.

You must be registered for see images


Almost 50% of people who commit suicide use a gun, while the other half make up other means of methods. Also, it's really funny how you can bring up the suicide argument as if just removing guns will totally diminish the suicide problem. If we were to remove guns, the other 50% will either hang themselves or use poisons.

People just like to bring up the suicide argument to escape from the gun argument as if that isn't the core issue here.

1. Your information is wrong and you tried to pass off that suicides are not used with the very same thing that you are dismissing(guns).

2. You are trying to use the suicide argument as an escape goat because you don't see guns as an issue when most suicides are used with guns.


If deporting all immigrants reduced the amount of homocides committed in the U.S. annually, would you be in favor of doing so? Let's say, hypothetically, immigrants didn't even contribute a significant amount to the homocide/murder statistics (>.05% of the overall statistics), meaning that immigrants are not the not the source of the issue of homocide, but their deportation would still reduce the overall amount of deaths in the U.S, would the costs (means) be worth the pay off (ends)?
No, because then this would effect others who are not even involved in the homocides. I don't see this really comparable or fair when it comes to removing certain weapons that wouldn't effect anybody.
 

kimb

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
4,499
Kin
67💸
Kumi
703💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
*facepalm*

You don't even know what you are talking about not to mention that you are pretty much contradicting yourself in your very own post. You say that there aren't that many gun deaths in the US(which is wrong), and then bring up suicides as if suicides are not mainly used with firearms.

You must be registered for see images


Almost 50% of people who commit suicide use a gun, while the other half make up other means of methods. Also, it's really funny how you can bring up the suicide argument as if just removing guns will totally diminish the suicide problem. If we were to remove guns, the other 50% will either hang themselves or use poisons.

People just like to bring up the suicide argument to escape from the gun argument as if that isn't the core issue here.

1. Your information is wrong and you tried to pass off that suicides are not used with the very same thing that you are dismissing(guns).

2. You are trying to use the suicide argument as an escape goat because you don't see guns as an issue when most suicides are used with guns.




No, because then this would effect others who are not even involved in the homocides. I don't see this really comparable or fair when it comes to removing certain weapons that wouldn't effect anybody.
This is where I believe you're wrong. My hypothetical scenario can be mapped over to the argument for gun control; people advocate for gun control in response to mass shootings, where in which legal restrictions will be put in place that will only effect legal gun owners. Mass shootings committed with legally owned fire arms only represent 4 to 7 percent of mass shootings, meaning that legislation will have an immensely insignificant effect on the amount of mass shootings committed per capita, while having an unnecessary and massive effect on legal gun owning citizens who, as you explained in the hypothetical, "aren't even involved.

In the Texas shooting, the shooter was ineligible to own or carry a legal firearm on two fronts
(1) He was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. Dishonorable discharge from any military branch grants you ineligibility to purchase, carry, or own a legal fire arm.

(1a) The gun used already requires registration, a permit to carry, and a license, which the shooter had none.

(2) He was charged with a felony; criminal charges make you ineligible to purchase, carry, or own a legal fire arm

On top of this, there its also important to take into consideration that he was stopped by a legal gun owner. When it comes to solutions that have a significant effect on the issue of massing shootings, gun control is the most ineffective and most costly. You accomplish very little at the cost of people's ability to combat against potential government tyranny, and in my humble opinion, I believe that is a bad trade off.

I ask this to everyone who advocates for gun control; if we manage to pass legislation on gun control, what do you think is the best course of action in dealing with the remaining 96% of all other mass shootings?
 

demon of the leaf

Active member
Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
1,875
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Lol kinda does tbvh
So if a black man is a gang member does that represent all black men if one white man is a kkk member does that represent all white men i hope you can make out the difference

I know I have said otherwise but I don't think you need religion to be a bad person even though snobs likes to make that argument. I don't believe nazism was a religion.
It wasnt and it killed millions
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BusinessManTeno

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
20,808
Kin
2,903💸
Kumi
10,493💴
Trait Points
60⚔️
Awards
So if a black man is a gang member does that represent all black men if one white man is a kkk member does that represent all white men i hope you can make out the difference
Its the stereotype brother.
The fact of the matter is.. All black ARE seen as thugs to white people and lately to me, a lot of white people are seen to be racist.. or atleast undercover.. Not saying All but damn near majority.. So yes.. As of now, America is showing to be that one country is known to be a mass murder country.. point blank..
 

demon of the leaf

Active member
Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
1,875
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
A month after the Las Vegas shooting and absolutely no legislative action has been taken. I wonder when enough will be enough? My guess is never and we'll all just keep pretending like everything is hunky dory.
And just so you know a gun owner shot the killer had that guy not shot him the fatallitys then the 26 killed im very thankful that guy had his gun in his car in a place where that church was the police were hours away thw gunman would have killed the whole church and been on his merry way to mexico
 

demon of the leaf

Active member
Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
1,875
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Its the stereotype brother.
The fact of the matter is.. All black ARE seen as thugs to white people and lately to me, a lot of white people are seen to be racist.. or atleast undercover.. Not saying All but damn near majority.. So yes.. As of now, America is showing to be that one country is known to be a mass murder country.. point blank..
Not really from where i stand i work in a fast food and im a good reader on a persons character and let me tell you a racist could give a shit if you knew he was one he would call you a slur or kill you with a smile. 70% of people rather be left alone and not be bothered you are speaking from a very biased stand point the few do not make the majority.
 

Lightbringer

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
14,169
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
This is where I believe you're wrong. My hypothetical scenario can be mapped over to the argument for gun control; people advocate for gun control in response to mass shootings, where in which legal restrictions will be put in place that will only effect legal gun owners. Mass shootings committed with legally owned fire arms only represent 4 to 7 percent of mass shootings, meaning that legislation will have an immensely insignificant effect on the amount of mass shootings committed per capita, while having an unnecessary and massive effect on legal gun owning citizens who, as you explained in the hypothetical, "aren't even involved.

In the Texas shooting, the shooter was ineligible to own or carry a legal firearm on two fronts
(1) He was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. Dishonorable discharge from any military branch grants you ineligibility to purchase, carry, or own a legal fire arm.

(1a) The gun used already requires registration, a permit to carry, and a license, which the shooter had none.

(2) He was charged with a felony; criminal charges make you ineligible to purchase, carry, or own a legal fire arm

On top of this, there its also important to take into consideration that he was stopped by a legal gun owner. When it comes to solutions that have a significant effect on the issue of massing shootings, gun control is the most ineffective and most costly. You accomplish very little at the cost of people's ability to combat against potential government tyranny, and in my humble opinion, I believe that is a bad trade off.

I ask this to everyone who advocates for gun control; if we manage to pass legislation on gun control, what do you think is the best course of action in dealing with the remaining 96% of all other mass shootings?
@Bold: I've already pointed out that this statistic is not true in an earlier comment which you never replied to. Based on a database of all mass shootings from 1982-2017, over 80% of mass shootings are from legally bought firearms.



You're arguing that a gun owner stopped the shooter, but that shooter wouldn't have been able to massacre others if he didn't have a gun to begin with.

Apparently the gunman in the Texas shooting shouldn't even been able to buy a gun in the first place.

 
Last edited:
Top