20+ killed at a church outside San Antonio today

[Enfuego]

Not the first time you've said this. Gotta be your coldest take ever.

If you walk into a crowded location and start killing babies, you are a fucking psychopath. Or at a minimum having some sort of psychopathic episode.

Stop making it out like this is some decision that normal people make. Well-balanced people with normal functioning brains just do not do things like this. Period, end of story.

Maybe I didn't articulate the point right but you made it for me. A psychopathic episode is what I'm talking about.

I believe a man can be totally sane and logical with no history of run-ins with the law or mental health officials and just snap for whatever reason and have a psychopathic episode as you describe it. The episode doesn't necessarily make them insane per se.

 

[HarryCaray]

You are way off here. The gun grabbers did not even wait for the bodies to be cold to cry for gun control. The same people crying for it are the hypocrites who are watched over by people carrying guns. If you can't see the correlation, you seriously don't get it.

Gun grabbers. Hahahaha. You realize how ridiculous that makes you sound right?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QGmhLtsK2ZQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[HarryCaray]

Maybe I didn't articulate the point right but you made it for me. A psychopathic episode is what I'm talking about.

I believe a man can be totally sane and logical with no history of run-ins with the law or mental health officials and just snap for whatever reason and have a psychopathic episode as you describe it. The episode doesn't necessarily make them insane per se.

OK. I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure there is evidence of completely normal people snapping. What's the point?

 

[Enfuego]

OK. I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure there is evidence of completely normal people snapping. What's the point?

That's the point.

Not all people have a mental illness prior to committing violence. They don't always show a pattern of mental instability prior to an episode. Sometimes you just can't explain why a person does what he/she does.

 

[Willie99]

A few thoughts about this common argument, and also your previous post.

1) Just because someone breaks other laws doesn't mean they "don't give a fuck about any laws period", and will automatically go out and buy assault weapons. Any deterrent is good. Totally feasible that common gangsters and drug dealers will stick to a handgun because if they get caught with an AR it is life in prison, even if they flaunt other laws. In other words, I'm not convinced there is a correlation that people who break other laws (i.e. "criminals") would automatically break this law, if the deterrent is strong enough.

2) Most of these mass shooters are not career criminals anyway. The fact that these people are walking around with a screw loose, able to legally build a pile of arms capable of killing thousands, is mind-boggling. How can we, as a country, justify or explain the fact that someone like Stephen Paddock was able to legally stockpile what he stockpiled? You have to try to stop these people. Make it more difficult. I can't see how you can just shrug your shoulders and say "oh well".

3) I'm so sick of these fucking hunting arguments. Maybe this type of hunting is a "sport" this country is better off without. I don't know much about hunting, but why do they need more than a rifle in a stand?


I guess bottom line to me is this. If (God forbid) your family was wiped out in one of these types of events, don't you think you would WISH we had done everything possible to keep that whacko from acquiring the means necessary to carry that out? That some sort of resistance was offered? Some sort of roadblock put up?

Or would you just shrug your shoulders and say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "yep, he got us. oh well, at least law abiding US citizens didn't give up our freedom to stockpile a large arsenal for ya know, hunting".

I guess I just don't get it.

I'm sorry, it you're a mass murderer, no gun control law is going to stop you. We'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose

I assume we can accumulate a database and look twice at a guy like Paddock. I'm not against regulations limiting ownership, and if somebody is accumulating an arsenal maybe that's an indicator light. At least worth a look

I don't think taking guns away from 10's of millions of people who own them legally is the answer, not even close to being a solution. I don't believe you can legislate utopia, I don't think you should harm millions of people in a vein attempt to do so. Tragedy happens, from plane crashes to automobile accidents to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Shit happens

Nobody really mentions hunting, not with respect to automatic rifles, that's just a straw man. I know I never have.

The argument I do make is constitutional. (1) The founder fathers have said people have a right to won guns to protect themselves from tyranny and to defend their freedom. That standard still exists today. (2) There's only one way to change the Constitution, and that's with a Constitutional Amendment. Anyone who wants limit the right to own guns has to take this path, nothing more and nothing less. We're either a land of laws or we're not, I prefer we don't discard the Constitution just because we don't like something. That diminishes everything it represents.

My value system never changes, it's what makes me tick, and that stuff about my values changing if something happens to somebody being close to me is red herring poppycock in my world.

 

[HarryCaray]

I'm sorry, it you're a mass murderer, no gun control law is going to stop you. We'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose

My point is maybe a lot of these shooters don't become mass murderers if it is not so easy. Perhaps part of the reason they snap is that they are pursuing this strange fantasy world, and it starts to become reality, and nobody or nothing is standing in their way.

I assume we can accumulate a database and look twice at a guy like Paddock. I'm not against regulations limiting ownership, and if somebody is accumulating an arsenal maybe that's an indicator light. At least worth a look

Phenomenal idea here.

I don't believe you can legislate utopia, I don't think you should harm millions of people in a vein attempt to do so.

How would a realistic ownership limit harm innocent people?

Tragedy happens, from plane crashes to automobile accidents to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Shit happens

Are we really going to give up and just start lumping mass murder in with automobile accidents in the "tragedies happen" category?

 

[JohnnyMac]

why haven't the democrats stopped murders in Chicago, a city they've controlled for centuries, it's up to 600 already which dwarfs these mass murders which get so much attention

doesn't Chicago have tough gun control laws? how can they be failing so miserably?

You didn't even try to answer the question. Does the NRA even care that mass-shootings with AR-15s occur on a regular basis?

 

[HarryCaray]

You didn't even try to answer the question. Does the NRA even care that mass-shootings with AR-15s occur on a regular basis?

Shit happens Johnny. You can't legislate utopia.

 

[Willie99]

You didn't even try to answer the question. Does the NRA even care that mass-shootings with AR-15s occur on a regular basis?

since I don't agree with the conclusion your question already arrives at, that's called "begging the question" and not worthy of a response

but what I did do is mock the people who think they know how to fight crime, when they've managed the biggest crime invested communities in our nation for generations and despite all their self-proclaimed brilliance, things under their control and under their policies keep getting worse

democrats advising the rest of the country how to fight crime is akin to the Cleveland Browns telling the rest of the NFL how to run a successful franchise, and that's no joke

when you suck at something, when all your efforts have failed, maybe you need to try a new direction

 

[Willie99]

Shit happens Johnny. You can't legislate utopia.

Simple truths, lest you believe you can legislate a perfect world and you know how to prevent tragedies. I don't waste my time thinking about such

most of the gun regulations proposed by "gun grabbers" (yes, it's a legitimate description when you're taking their guns) will harm law abiding citizens by taking both their guns and their constitutional rights

I don't group nor do I separate the tragedies in life, I'm merely presenting a realistic and healthy state of mind. I don't try to fool myself, I don't believe politicians, I actually laugh at them and I don't believe in silly lies either

 

[HarryCaray]

Simple truths, lest you believe you can legislate a perfect world and you know how to prevent tragedies. I don't waste my time thinking about such

It's not about perfection or preventing all accidental tragedies. It's about changing something in an effort to remedy a problem which most would deem unacceptable and trending worse.

most of the gun regulations proposed by "gun grabbers" (yes, it's a legitimate description when you're taking their guns) will harm law abiding citizens by taking both their guns and their constitutional rights

Let's say a sensible limitation on ownership is defined. I fail to see hose you are "harming people by taking their guns". If someone owns 30 handguns and a law is passed that each adult can only legally own 5 handguns, I am not going to shed a tear for the guy who has to sell back 25 of guns and keep 5. There is no reason for any common citizen, law abiding or not, to own 45 weapons. You are never going to convince me of that.

As far as the constitutional part of it, just seems like a largely outdated remnant from militia days that doesn't really have much relevance today with regards to its original intent.

I don't group nor do I separate the tragedies in life

Complete nonsense to lump this type of thing in with automobile accidents. Come on man.

 

[Mobdeeper7239]

why haven't the democrats stopped murders in Chicago, a city they've controlled for centuries, it's up to 600 already which dwarfs these mass murders which get so much attention

doesn't Chicago have tough gun control laws? how can they be failing so miserably?

Yeah it's just black people dying. Suprised anyone would be making a point in their defense(not really in their defense). Didn't think you cared about black people dying. It's the cultures fault according to most here.

 

[guitarjosh]

The majority of mass shootings don’t use ar-15s but hand guns. You need a semi automatic gun and large cap mags because rats tend to travel in packs, you’re probably going to have to hit them multiple times to neutralize them, and you have to take an account that you might miss.

 

[NBAcapper08]

government will never completely take over as long as theres people that own 50 guns

 

[Acebb]

And, the shooter in Texas that slaughtered the 26 church-goers unloaded 15 magazines of 30 rounds each. He got off 450 rounds in four minutes. If that is not an automatic weapon, you are just playing semantics.

Facts are not "semantics"

It is not anyone's fault but your own that you don't know what an automatic weapon is.

 

[Acebb]

Intellectually dishonest argument. The bump stock used in Las Vegas to slaughter all those people effectively transformed his semi automatic weapon into an automatic weapon.

You had never heard of a bump stock before 6 weeks ago.

Further, you can simulate bump fire by tying a belt around your hip. Do you want to ban belts or hips?

You are cartoonishly ignorant on this topic yet here you are...

 

[Acebb]

Lots of good discussion but not a single explanation as to why citizens need to have automative weapons.

For the 2nd time: People don't have automatic weapons and nobody has used an automatic weapon in a mass shooting in your lifetime.

 

[Acebb]

Outlaw semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

Have a penalty-free trade-in period.

After that, increase the penalty for possession of these types of firearms to something ridiculous. A criminal might think twice about illegally owning an AR-15 if the penalty is life in prison. What is the counter argument to this by the gun folks? What is the need for a civilian to be armed with an AR-15?

Automatic weapons are not a problem in America. Very few people have them, nobody has ever used one in a mass shooting since you've been alive, so can we agree to stop talking about them?

Semi-automatic firearms are the most common type in the world. Somewhere around 75% of the handguns in America are semi-automatic. You aren't going to ban them. Aside from the fact it is a silly idea, it isn't practical.

The great part about living in a free society is that I don't have to tell you why I need something. Your rights aren't defined by needs.

Imagine if we told Jay Leno: too many people die in car accidents, sorry, you don't need all those cars. We're going to ban them.

Same for books.

The fact of the matter is that a large scale gun ban/attempted confiscation will lead to bloodshed that will make what happened in Las Vegas seem like warm ups. The people calling for gun bans hilariously don't get this. But I can assure you, nobody is ever coming to my home to take any weapon I own without facing death. So, the people who want to ban guns are effectively saying "start the civil war, I don't give a shit because I'm not the one who will get shot, it is the poor sheriff's deputies who have to enforce my dumb idea."

 

[guitarjosh]

So, the people who want to ban guns are effectively saying "start the civil war, I don't give a shit because I'm not the one who will get shot, it is the poor sheriff's deputies who have to enforce my dumb idea."

That’s the problem, it shouldn’t be the sheriff’s Deputies that are shot at, it should be the people that are voting for gun bans that are shot at.

 

[HarryCaray]

The great part about living in a free society is that I don't have to tell you why I need something. Your rights aren't defined by needs.

Sure you do, in certain circumstances. Prescription drugs come to mind. Building permits. I'm sure there are other examples.

Even guns right now require "application" and "approval" to legally own, no?

We're just talking about a common sense limit.

Saying "it's a free country so I shouldn't have to tell you why I need 42 guns" is akin to saying "it's a free country so I will drive 100 mph through your neighborhood and I don't have to tell you why. Fuck your speed limit." When it affects the general population, sometimes there need to be controls.

Freedom is not the same as anarchy.