25 dead in a mass church shooting in Texas

[tango]

Thats true, I honestly feel that a counter weapon would eventually replace guns if they banned them. The rock was the very first technology used for killing another man (Cain and Abel) and anyone can look online on how to make explosives out of household items. I suggested the bullet theory because I heard Chris Rock once going on about it after columbine. I always wondered if it could be actually taken seriously, they can always practise with blanks, yet I know man from the backwoods that makes his own bullets from sulfate compounds

Ultimately if someone has given up on their life to the extent they just want to take out a lot of people before they go down, they'll find a way whatever you make illegal. Since murder is illegal already the choice of weapon really isn't legally relevant - a gun might be a convenient way to kill a lot of people quickly but would a situation like the Pulse nightclub be any better had it been a nutter running around swinging a meat cleaver? It's more to the point to understand why and how people reach a place where an atrocity is something they actually want to create, rather than fussing over just what method they happen to use to achieve their goal.

Although it's something of a cliche, in England when some nutjob drove a truck into people on London Bridge and then apparently the driver was running around with a big knife (as is often the case with this sort of thing, reports vary), the weapon control legislation in England made absolutely sure nobody was able to fight back. The motto handed around at the time was "run, hide, tell" whereas it's more often said among gun owners that a faster approach may be "drop, draw, fire".

Needless to say it's not as simple as the one-liners from both sides. If we take the more left-leaning approach we end up with a ridiculous situation like in the UK where all sorts of things are banned, to the point it's impossible to effectively defend yourself against a dog or other animal, let alone an aggressive human. If we take the more right-leaning approach we end up with silly cliches where the solution to a bad guy with a meat cleaver is a good guy with a meat cleaver.

Personally, on balance, I'd rather have the right to defend myself using whatever force is necessary, rather than worrying that if I ever did defend myself the chances are I'd become a de facto criminal for having a weapon with which to do so in the first place.

 

[tango]

Yes that works in Holland to forbid weapons, but not in America. Anyone can get a weapon if they want to there. What if they all ban them? Some psycho can hide one and noone will find out.
They should have checked that guy. He had already been in prison a year for assaulting his wife and kid. In Holland they pay close attention to you then. We've had a bit too much dads killing their kids when the mom wanted a divorce. They treated me like the Gestapo because of that. I couldnt see my kids without supervision because I did a suicide attempt. Yet someone like that can walk free, be w his kid and buy weapons and post it on Facebook.

The idea that anyone can get a weapon in the US is quite widespread but not true. If you've been convicted of a felony you can't necessarily get a gun. I know a guy who has three convictions for drunk driving and on that basis alone is prohibited from owning a handgun.

Part of the problem is that the issue is far too politically charged to stand much chance of ever reaching a sensible conclusion. When some groups include things like suicides in the statistics relating to gun deaths (some sources list gun suicides as accounting anything up to 60-70% of gun deaths) it invariably makes a problem look far worse than it really is. Although a gun suicide is clearly a gun death it makes little sense to use the number of people who choose to end their own life using the convenience of a gun as justification to ban guns as if these were deaths inflicted on unwilling others. If someone wishes to end their own life a gun merely provides an easy way to do it, which means they don't need to jump from a tower block or leap in front of a moving train or whatever other means they may use. Then come things like hunting accidents and other accidents - again in an ideal world these would not happen but it's part of the risk of taking part in such activities. We don't call to ban cars every time a dozen people are killed in a pile-up, we don't call to ban mountaineering every time a group is lost in the mountains and later found dead, so why should hunting be so different?

 

[Stravinsk]

I think that everyone who feasts on animal flesh should work in a abattoir, armed only with a knife and their teeth.

Spilling the blood of piglets and chicks and cows and ripping into them with their raw flesh and savoring all the blood and pus and gore. Then arm them with guns, and let humanity end itself with it's own violence.

Rawr.

In other news, I understand that in India violent criminals get a diet that is almost exclusively vegetarian. I don't know the statistics on how effective it is, or if there are any, but it is interesting if true.

 

[MennoSota]

The problem with evil is a difficult subject.
Job 2
[10]Should we accept only good things from the hand of God and never anything bad?
As hard as it is to understand, the events that unfold in horrific evil are allowed by the hand of God. The first question is inevitably, "Why?", but the same question could be, "Why not?".
Human corruption at its core is bent toward evil. We see it in Cain and we see it in all humanity. Romans 1 tells us that God gives humans up to their own destruction and that means that both saints and sinners reap the consequences of this corruption.
As humans we are torn assunder by the physical end to a human life with whom we loved to share our time. A part of us dies when they die. We grieve that loss. We either curse God for the pain or we seek God through the pain. We ask God for peace and grace to express the goodness of God in the dark, dark threads that He has woven.
Jesus tells us that God prunes us so we might produce more and better fruit. How might the events of this past Sunday be a work of pruning? What might be the purpose of the Almighty in allowing his saints to be sacrificed on the path of the cross?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Getting rid of guns is not intellectually difficult but USA people like their guns and distrust their governments so USA is not likely to ever get rid of guns and will continue to have mass shootings until USA culture changes sufficiently to end the mass shootings.

 

[user1234]

The problem with evil is a difficult subject.
Job 2
[10]Should we accept only good things from the hand of God and never anything bad?
As hard as it is to understand, the events that unfold in horrific evil are allowed by the hand of God. The first question is inevitably, "Why?", but the same question could be, "Why not?".
Human corruption at its core is bent toward evil. We see it in Cain and we see it in all humanity. Romans 1 tells us that God gives humans up to their own destruction and that means that both saints and sinners reap the consequences of this corruption.
As humans we are torn assunder by the physical end to a human life with whom we loved to share our time. A part of us dies when they die. We grieve that loss. We either curse God for the pain or we seek God through the pain. We ask God for peace and grace to express the goodness of God in the dark, dark threads that He has woven.
Jesus tells us that God prunes us so we might produce more and better fruit. How might the events of this past Sunday be a work of pruning? What might be the purpose of the Almighty in allowing his saints to be sacrificed on the path of the cross?

Yes, and Ive already done both, (shaken my fist in anger at God...or the heavens, the sky, the devil, ppl, anything i could blame (and for much less valid reasons, shamefully)) and also sought Him through pain as well. (I recommend the latter, btw)

Similar to what I posted in another thread....I agree with Mennosota here, we have to seek the Lord in prayer, see if and how we can help in these situations, meeting physical needs if possible, and point ppl to our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, His promise to save all who trust in Him, His gift of eternal life and His Kingdom where there'll be no more sin, pain, and tears of sorrow.

We need to keep on lifting each other up to His throne of grace, to find His grace and mercy, strength and wisdom. There's no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved except Jesus, and He's given us the responsibilty to share His message of salvation, love, grace and truth, to a lost and hurting world. We need to stand together with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we need Jesus to help us.

 

[tango]

Getting rid of guns is not intellectually difficult but USA people like their guns and distrust their governments so USA is not likely to ever get rid of guns and will continue to have mass shootings until USA culture changes sufficiently to end the mass shootings.

Except unless you solve the underlying problem (i.e. why people decide to do this sort of thing in the first place) then getting rid of guns won't actually solve anything.

We've seen attacks elsewhere using trucks as weapons. The Boston Marathon was attacked with pressure cookers. The Tokyo subway was attacked with nerve gas. The London Underground was attacked with backpack bombs. A couple of London pubs were attacked with nail bombs. In the UK just about every time some nutjob went crazy with a particular tool there was talk of an outright ban on them, to the point that the pocket knife I routinely carry when in the US fails UK weapon control legislation on at least 3 counts and maybe more. To date my criminal activity consists of 0 assaults, 0 muggings, 0 robberies, 0 murders - the knife is a tool and nothing more. Yet in the UK my utterly uneventful criminal life counts for nothing against the fact that I might potentially harm someboy with my knife. This tool that nobody gives a second glance in the UK would almost certainly get me an automatic jail sentence in the UK just for carrying it in public.

If we can't figure out what it is that causes people to go on killing sprees like this we're doing nothing more than tinkering at the edges if the best solution on offer is to ban the current weapon of choice. Firstly if someone really wants to do something like this they will find a weapon (perhaps unsurprisingly criminals don't care if something is illegal) and if it's not a gun it will be something else. If the person concerned isn't expecting to live through their spree (given that they end with either suicide, or "suicide by cop", or the rest of their life in jail, it's clear that people choosing this path have basically given up on life and accept their life as they knew it is finished one way or another) they won't care how many crimes they chalk up along the way so the force of law will have no deterrent effect at all.

Getting rid of guns might not be intellectually difficult in concept. Good luck getting the criminals to hand in their unregistered guns. That's not going to happen any time soon.

 

[NewCreation435]

Getting rid of guns is not intellectually difficult but USA people like their guns and distrust their governments so USA is not likely to ever get rid of guns and will continue to have mass shootings until USA culture changes sufficiently to end the mass shootings.

Getting rid of guns isn't going to solve the problem except that terrorists will find out ways to kill with swords, trucks, planes, chemical weapons and improvised explosive devices. The problem is the evil in people's hearts, not a gun.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Getting rid of guns isn't going to solve the problem except that terrorists will find out ways to kill with swords, trucks, planes, chemical weapons and improvised explosive devices. The problem is the evil in people's hearts, not a gun.

The mass shooting in Las Vegas was not an Islamic terrorist inspired attack. The man who did it was in all likelihood just bad or insane or something else. He would not have been able to shoot from a room in a hotel high up with clear aim to the crowds without a gun. A truck would not have done it. Swords would not work from that distance. Chemical weapons may work but he had none he had guns. It was with guns that he killed so many. The same is true of the man who is the cause of the slaughter that this thread is about. He did it with a gun. He had more guns in his vehicle. He would not have been able to do it with swords. He would have failed with a truck because the building would have encumbered his ability to kill as he did. It was the ease with which a gun kills that enabled him to kill as many as he did in so short a time.

 

[NewCreation435]

The mass shooting in Las Vegas was not an Islamic terrorist inspired attack. The man who did it was in all likelihood just bad or insane or something else. He would not have been able to shoot from a room in a hotel high up with clear aim to the crowds without a gun. A truck would not have done it. Swords would not work from that distance. Chemical weapons may work but he had none he had guns. It was with guns that he killed so many. The same is true of the man who is the cause of the slaughter that this thread is about. He did it with a gun. He had more guns in his vehicle. He would not have been able to do it with swords. He would have failed with a truck because the building would have encumbered his ability to kill as he did. It was the ease with which a gun kills that enabled him to kill as many as he did in so short a time.

I'm aware of the history of those events. My point is, that if guns had not been available that evil people still find ways to destroy

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm aware of the history of those events. My point is, that if guns had not been available that evil people still find ways to destroy

Yes they do and nothing can completely stop them short of a total police state but the absence of guns or at least the absence of readily available guns may help the USA to reduce the frequency and severity of these mass shootings. Other forms of mass killing will continue unless there are viable and reasonable ways to stop them. I had a brief look through some video clips and it was scary how often a program would begin with a short eulogy for the people killed at such and such a place by a mass shooter.

 

[tango]

I'm aware of the history of those events. My point is, that if guns had not been available that evil people still find ways to destroy

Maybe we should just make it illegal to go out killing people.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Maybe we should just make it illegal to go out killing people.

It is but that hasn't stopped mass shootings.

 

[Josiah]

It is but that hasn't stopped mass shootings.

Thus you believe that changing the law isn't going to stop the killing..... I think you just confirmed Tango's point.


Yes, we could eliminate all things one might use as a tool to kill..... but I think we would be left with ice cream (wait, that could be used to kill someone, too). In the news recently was a young man killed with glasses of water, guess we should outlaw water. And of course, lots of people are killed by cars so we should eliminate those.


Yes, I think we should keep obvious weapons from the young, criminals and mentally ill - although we KNOW that doesn't accomplish much (ironically, the states with the toughest gun laws have the highest rates of murder with guns.... and the states with few such laws have the least - ah..... many point out murder BY ALL MEANS is largely cultural and has very little to do with murder laws in that jurisdiction). And in the case of this church, we realize the military blew it in not registering this man but I hope that process is being examined and changes made where necessary. I'm not against some level of "gun control" but guns are not the problem.

IMO, the liberals obsession with guns is part of their naivete, a nieve wish that if guns disappear killing will end. Of course, they don't know that there were killings (LOTS of 'em) long before guns were invented. Liberals love very simplistic "answers" - but only if it disagrees with Republicans. I am completely confident that if the NRA (etc) were aligned with the Democrats rather than the Republicans at this moment, all this "anti-guns" obsession by the liberals would disappear; I strongly suspect it's motivated almost 100% by pure politics.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thus you believe that changing the law isn't going to stop killing...

No. Far from it. The opposite in fact. The law against mass shootings already exists. There's no need to change it but changing the laws governing the availability of guns and the type of guns and the people who are permitted to own guns and the way that guns are stored could be changed with possible benefit to USA residents. But fundamentally it is the culture of gun ownership and other matters that appears to be a primary cause for the frequent mass shootings in the USA.

 

[tango]

It is but that hasn't stopped mass shootings.

Whoa there! You mean to say that criminals don't obey the laws?

 

[tango]

No. Far from it. The opposite in fact. The law against mass shootings already exists. There's no need to change it but changing the laws governing the availability of guns and the type of guns and the people who are permitted to own guns and the way that guns are stored could be changed with possible benefit to USA residents. But fundamentally it is the culture of gun ownership and other matters that appears to be a primary cause for the frequent mass shootings in the USA.

Sure, if you really want to follow the path the UK followed. Some nutjob shot up a school and guns were banned. Strangely the criminals didn't hand in their guns, but never mind, it was harder to get them. So the next time there was a massacre in a school it was a nutjob swinging a sword. Needless to say in the context of a classroom full of kids the difference isn't actually very much, an adult man with a sword doesn't encounter much opposition from a class of children and a teacher. So cue the clamoring to ban swords. One of the more recent attacks in London was a nutjob driving a truck into people then running around with a knife. Perhaps we should ban assault trucks. That'll fix it.

Now weapons control legislation in the UK is ridiculous. It has been said the new James Bond movie will be called "007: licensed to fish". Woe betide the citizen who merely wants to take steps to protect themselves from harm. Mugger in the street? Too bad. Dangerous dog running wild? Too bad. You can call the police and hope you're still alive when they finally show up. The police in the UK like to present the "if you see something, say something" line but if you ever do say something the chances are you'll wait on hold for 20 minutes before being told the police aren't interested.

In the US I routinely carry a spring-assisted blade which is perfectly legal, but would get me an all-but guaranteed jail term in the UK. In the UK I routinely wear steel-toed shoes, simply because my chances of outrunning trouble are slim (especially if it's a dog) and at least having something solid on my feet gives me the chance to put my foot through the ribs of an aggressive dog. I'd rather have a 9mm or a big knife but sadly in the UK if I do encounter a dangerous dog it's just too bad.

Having lived under both, I much prefer the US model. It feels much safer knowing I've got a sporting chance of protecting myself, and knowing that the people around me have a sporting chance of protecting me if they choose to help.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sure, if you really want to follow the path the UK followed. Some nutjob shot up a school and guns were banned. Strangely the criminals didn't hand in their guns, but never mind, it was harder to get them. ...

Have you seen UK shooting statistics compared to USA shooting statistics?

The gun homicide rate in England and Wales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.

In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.

 

[Josiah]

MC.

I think a more far comparison would be murder rates. Whether someone murders with a knife, gun or frying pan is pretty irrelevant.... The ancient Greeks and Romans were especially fond of poison. Lots of ways to kill...

But I'm pretty sure the murder rate in the UK (funny you pick that country) is significantly lower than in the USA. But the UK is not the USA and the USA is not the UK. Any comparison is worthless in this discussion because BOTH issues are variables (and it's impossible to compare with all the factors are variables). The people are different, the means are different, the laws are different - there's not one aspect that's the same. And the USA is still a more divergent culture than that of the UK (although it's catching up fast) - if you compared WHITES living in Salt Lake City with WHITES living in some British city - you might find the differences not as great as comparing the murder rates in intercity Detroit with some city in the UK. There are just FAR too many variables to make any comparison work. Liberals like nice SIMPLE, singular "solutions" that will be aimed at Republicans.... but it's not that simple. If strong gun laws prevented murder - Washington DC and Detroit would have the lowest murder rates in the USA, and Utah would have the highest murder rate. But if you checked it out, you'd find that's not the case.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC.

I think a more far comparison would be murder rates. ...

Murders with firearms per million

UK: 0.236 - Ranked 44th.
US: 32.57 - Ranked 10th. 138 times more than United Kingdom​

Murder rate per million people

UK: 11.68 - Ranked 94th.
US: 42.01 - Ranked 43th. 4 times more than United Kingdom​

Interesting isn't it?