• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas church massacre: Man hailed a hero for chasing gunman after killings

Aristaeus said:
Of course I complain that the guy killed 26 people! You don't? I don't see anything wrong with the guy shooting him, but as a method of rampage prevention, it's clearly not very effective. You pro-gunners have been going on about gun-free zones for ages, and yet when we have your scenario where an armed citizen takes on the gunman, we are still left with 26 dead.
Click to expand...

No, we are left with zero more people shot after the citizen intervened. He shot him before police were there. He could have gone on shooting instead of being shot himself. Do you even read what you are posting?
 
MSgt said:
It's a shallow point that avoids the issue of the twenty-six. The issue is not hero with gun. The issue is nutcase that came from a bad gun culture that created a scenario where somebody had to play hero.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, I was just pointing out the... uh... point.
 
Crovax said:
You dont need "firepower" to kill 26 people, you can do it with a hundgun, or a knife or more easily a bomb. If you want to kill a lot of people the lack of an AR will not stop you.

Massacre at Virginia Tech leaves 32 dead - Apr 16, 2007 - HISTORY.com

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29 at China train station - CNN

Oklahoma City bombing - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
Click to expand...

That's dumb logic. So because someone can kill 26 with a gun, then why not allow the sale of pre-made pipe bombs? Why not make plastic explosives legally for sale at the local Home Depot or Walmart. After all, If someone wants to kill, then they can find a way.

Etc..............
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
We are not talking about farmers. The FBI started monitoring large fertilizer purchases for non-agricultural use after the Oklahoma bombing. Why do you think terrorists don't use fertilizer truck bombs anymore in the United States?
Click to expand...

McVeigh only used 200 pounds of material. That's 4 sacks. Good luck thinking the FBI is going to notice that purchase, even if you bought it all at one time.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They try to, but Republicans fight them on that one too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ll-people-to-get-guns/?utm_term=.579c4e581709
Click to expand...

That would be a lie. Or rather a half truth. That was not any kind of sweeping legislation other than dealing with people with issues handling finances due to mental illness.

Yep. Someone with anxiety or some other mental illness that makes them have trouble with money is a real danger to society. That hunk of **** bill did nothing to address the issue of anti social personality disorders or other issues that would make someone prone to violence/A danger to themselves or others. Try again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JasperL said:
That's dumb logic. So because someone can kill 26 with a gun, then why not allow the sale of pre-made pipe bombs? Why not make plastic explosives legally for sale at the local Home Depot or Walmart. After all, If someone wants to kill, then they can find a way.

Etc..............
Click to expand...

Didn't some just do exactly that in NYC?
 
HowardBThiname said:
If they can't get a gun, they'll rent a Home Depot truck and drive on a crowed sidewalk. You don't understand the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

And you're assuming things not in evidence. The terrorist in NYC killed 8. This guy killed 26, the guy in Las Vegas killed 58 and wounded over 500. I'll take my chances with the Home Depot truck.

"Almost." Yet he saved countless lives by interfering. He's as much a hero as the men who interfered in the Texas church shooting. We all have to put the lives of innocent people first when these kinds of things occur. But, the simplest, and safest, way to do that -- is to have good people armed and trained in how to use their own guns.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a great idea. And day before yesterday, the killer was a good guy with a gun, trained in how to use a gun designed to efficiently kill humans in combat, and you'd have cheered him on. Then he snapped, and this heavily armed good guy with a gun became a crazed killer, and now 26 people are dead. You'd have cheered the Las Vegas shooter the day before he killed 58 and wounded more than 500.

It's easy to forget the downside of encouraging everyone with a few hundred bucks to buy a gun. Now because everyone is armed, and a mental break from becoming a highly efficient armed mass killer, the rest of us need guns to protect from that guy who we wanted to be armed until right before he went berserk.

It's working great this year.

Mamby-pamby's need not apply.
Click to expand...

Right, gun owners are Real Men (TM). Forgot about that. :roll:
 
blackjack50 said:
That would be a lie. Or rather a half truth. That was not any kind of sweeping legislation other than dealing with people with issues handling finances due to mental illness.

Yep. Someone with anxiety or some other mental illness that makes them have trouble with money is a real danger to society. That hunk of **** bill did nothing to address the issue of anti social personality disorders or other issues that would make someone prone to violence/A danger to themselves or others. Try again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is no treatment for someone with anti-social personality disorder. All you can do is make it harder for them to purchase firearms if they have violent tendencies or a history of violence.
 
Logicman said:
It obviously didn't take. He resorted to atheism. He had a number of pro-atheist "Likes" on his FB page.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to add up the terrorist death toll of atheists and compare it to the terrorist death toll of those with religious motivations, then go ahead, but I don't think you will like the result.
 
blackjack50 said:
Is there a scenario where democrats decide to address mental health instead of guns?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this BS again. What have the GOP done? Where is the NRA actually lobbying for greater mental health access, or better/more effective ways to deny guns to the mentally ill? They're good at talking the talk then opposing any ACTUAL plan to address mental health and guns. As for broader mental health access, the GOP opposes that too, or at least opposes any effort to make mental health treatment more available to the poor. My red state turned down the Medicaid expansion and it's damn near impossible for a poor person to access real mental health services.

Every time this comes up the NRA ass kissers talk about the need for mental health solutions instead of gun control, but it's just a diversion to ride out the storm. We've seen the movie 100 times by now.
 
Fraggle Rock said:
Okay Militia Men point to ONE JUST ONE occurrence. Where the army in the USA or Government attacked a civilian compound and were Repelled and the civilians were allowed to spend the rest of their lives in piece and harmony. Just one example
Click to expand...

Just look at what the Antifa scumbags (unarmed) are accomplishing, and the firestorm they're causing. Imagine thousands of armed citizenry. Can a govt army have their way with unarmed citizen? Answer me that.
 
JasperL said:
And you're assuming things not in evidence. The terrorist in NYC killed 8. This guy killed 26, the guy in Las Vegas killed 58 and wounded over 500. I'll take my chances with the Home Depot truck.
Click to expand...

Bully for you -- take that chance. Just don't take away others' ability to defend themselves from any sort of attacker.

Yes, that's a great idea. And day before yesterday, the killer was a good guy with a gun, trained in how to use a gun designed to efficiently kill humans in combat, and you'd have cheered him on. Then he snapped, and this heavily armed good guy with a gun became a crazed killer, and now 26 people are dead. You'd have cheered the Las Vegas shooter the day before he killed 58 and wounded more than 500.
Click to expand...

Until a person does something wrong -- we cannot punish him -- our entire law rests upon that assumptions. All killers were little sweet babies at one time. That means nothing. Since we can't foresee when these guys go off, we must allow the citizens to protect themselves.

It's easy to forget the downside of encouraging everyone with a few hundred bucks to buy a gun. Now because everyone is armed, and a mental break from becoming a highly efficient armed mass killer, the rest of us need guns to protect from that guy who we wanted to be armed until right before he went berserk.
Click to expand...

We have a good example. Detroit. The Chief of Police there encourage all citizens to arm themselves a few years ago and the crime rate has been dropping ever since. You see, they discovered that criminals purposefully seek out the unarmed, and once homeowners were arming at higher rates, the criminals shied away.
 
Crovax said:
Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

As there would not be because its quite easily to just buy firearms in a neighboring state. Its kind of a dumb argument. For example, I live in the KC area. The metro is half in Missouri, half in Kansas. If they all of a sudden made it a pain in the ass for me to buy a new 870 express in Kansas, I would just drive 2 miles over into Missouri and buy it. The same would be the case if I wanted an AR. That has nothing to do with the problem in terms in terms of increased murder rates resulting from having so many guns in circulation in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. I think the cat is out of the bag. Gun control at this point is pointless precisely because there are so many guns in circulation. It might have made a difference 50 years ago, but its too late now. The fact is there are some guns out there that should have never been easily available for private citizens, but at this point, what is done is done.
 
MSgt said:
The statistics are everywhere and very clear. It says something about us when we take the facts of an issue and pretend that they don't exist.



Yes, 26 dead in a church. All fixed.
Click to expand...
Murder has always been illegal.
 
Aristaeus said:
And if he wasn't armed due to gun laws, no one would have been killed. Gun laws can never stop all gun crime or massacres, but they can make guns harder to obtain, even for criminals, and can reduce the warped gun culture that pervades US society.

Because arguing that an armed citizenry taking the gunman out after he's killed 5, 10, or 20 people isn't a viable solution. And having 5 armed churchgoers shooting up the place isn't viable either. When you have multiple armed people, the police don't know who is the bad guy.

The man who disarmed the Kathy Gifford shooter almost got shot himself by armed people who arrived on the scene after the initial incident.
Click to expand...

No, no he didn't that is a fabrication by anti-gun activists. the armed citizen who arrived stated in a witness statement and later interview that he arrived with weapon drawn, saw nobody shooting, realized the threat was down, and re-holstered. just like a cop would've done. that is not "almost getting shot"
 
Threegoofs said:
.............

He may have also shot him, which seems both illegal and not helpful since police were already on their way.

........
Click to expand...


Are you trying to minimize/downplay the actions of this hero because you're a gun grabber and the actions of this man hurt your arguments?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
As there would not be because its quite easily to just buy firearms in a neighboring state. Its kind of a dumb argument. For example, I live in the KC area. The metro is half in Missouri, half in Kansas. If they all of a sudden made it a pain in the ass for me to buy a new 870 express in Kansas, I would just drive 2 miles over into Missouri and buy it. The same would be the case if I wanted an AR. That has nothing to do with the problem in terms in terms of increased murder rates resulting from having so many guns in circulation in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. I think the cat is out of the bag. Gun control at this point is pointless precisely because there are so many guns in circulation. It might have made a difference 50 years ago, but its too late now. The fact is there are some guns out there that should have never been easily available for private citizens, but at this point, what is done is done.
Click to expand...

yes, but if your 870 express was made illegal in Kansas then driving to Missouri to purchase one would be illegal. you're only allowed to purchase long guns across state lines from an FFL provided the sale would be legal in both the state of residence and the state of business for the FFL dealer.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
yes, but if your 870 express was made illegal in Kansas then driving to Missouri to purchase one would be illegal. you're only allowed to purchase long guns across state lines from an FFL provided the sale would be legal in both the state of residence and the state of business for the FFL dealer.
Click to expand...

I know that. My point is that it would be very easy for me to:

a. Buy it from a private party in Missouri.

b. Get a friend to buy it for me.

State level gun control is pointless for that reason. When you have more guns in circulation than people, then its pretty hard to police gun sales at a state level when no one checks your vehicle when you drive across state lines. Moreover, the government doesn't even know what most people have. Hell we got a house full of guns down at our family home place in Arkansas. I doubt the government knows about any of them.

For example, up until a few years ago, Missouri had Sunday liquor sales while Kansas didn't. If I wanted a 6 pack on a Sunday, I would drive the 2 miles over the state line to get it. Technically, that wasn't legal, but everyone did it anyway.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I know that. My point is that it would be very easy for me to:

a. Buy it from a private party in Missouri.

b. Get a friend to buy it for me.

State level gun control is pointless for that reason. When you have more guns in circulation than people, then its pretty hard to police gun sales at a state level when no one checks your vehicle when you drive across state lines. Moreover, the government doesn't even know what most people have. Hell we got a house full of guns down at our family home place in Arkansas. I doubt the government knows about any of them.

For example, up until a few years ago, Missouri had Sunday liquor sales while Kansas didn't. If I wanted a 6 pack on a Sunday, I would drive the 2 miles over the state line to get it. Technically, that wasn't legal, but everyone did it anyway.
Click to expand...

Illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom