world

26 killed, 20 wounded in Texas church shooting

189 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


189 Comments
Login to comment

"'No way to prevent this,' says the only nation where this regularly happens."

Yet again. And nothing will be done. Thoughts and prayers, y'all.

28 ( +28 / -0 )

Again!! When is the next one? RIP people but you were in America.

19 ( +19 / -0 )

More guns everyone! We need more guns!

18 ( +20 / -2 )

Didn't Texas recently enact legislation allowing guns in churches, (and universities, and schools, and everywhere other than the Texas capitol)?

17 ( +18 / -1 )

So far 27 confirmed deaths(BBC).

What is it with the USA and mass shootings?

16 ( +16 / -0 )

Just unbelievable. RIP the adults and KIDS that lost their lives. What what it sounds like, he had some type of fast firing gun and a get away car. Very similar to previous shootings imo

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Very sad but unless there is major gun reforms nothing will change.

20 ( +20 / -0 )

Thoughts and prayers.

Nothing will change.

18 ( +18 / -0 )

Guns are gods in Texas. The gun ownership issue is a religious cult in America. Blubbering Robiespears and rabble rousers howl so-and-so wants to take your guns away (and that doesn't happen) and we get a bunch of stupid hatemonger megalomaniacs slinging pistols who think they're macho, but they are nothing but trouble-makers. This is a dangerous religious cult. America claims to be a 'Christian' society but guns are bigger than Jesus Christ here. This is the result and it's a sad and sick phenomena.

22 ( +22 / -0 )

Many people are saying that the new NRA logo is now inscribed with the following motto: "No Lives Matter"

16 ( +16 / -0 )

lets see what excuses the pro-gun lobby wheel out this time.... they are like a broken record....

19 ( +19 / -0 )

President Donald Trump tweeted from Japan, where is his on an Asian trip, that he was monitoring the situation following the shooting

Your hypocrisy knows no ends!

14 ( +16 / -2 )

This is not a tragedy, it's not sad, but rather it's an American celebration and display of their love for guns. Mass shootings are part of the American culture and are thus expected, unless there's a strict gun policy enforced.

Thoughts and Prayers will not help, they never do, it's just an empty gesture.

20 ( +20 / -0 )

President Donald Trump tweeted from Japan,

The event demonstrated again that his country is a nation infested with terrorists. Japan should check him and his entourage well. Maybe deport them ?

we get a bunch of stupid hatemonger megalomaniacs slinging pistols 

And you have even sicker people that get guns instead of the mental treatment they would need. I think the Donald is not helping at all with his policies.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Guns can easily be obtained in many countries but those have none to little mass shootings.

I think the problem in the USA is not due to easy access.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

Didn't Texas recently enact legislation allowing guns in churches, (and universities, and schools, and everywhere other than the Texas capitol)?

I'm not sure, because if that were the case, the man would have never been able to murder so many innocent victims.

Many people are saying that the new NRA logo is now inscribed with the following motto: "No Lives Matter"

What a bunch of garbage, more like No Lives Matter if you DON'T have the capability to defend yourself.

Yes, in a place of worship you should never have to worry about someone coming in and shooting up the place, but once again, the anti-gun zealots are on the warpath saying IF you take the guns away, doesn't mean anything and it's not going to solve the problem in the States.

-27 ( +4 / -31 )

Guns can easily be obtained in many countries but those have none to little mass shootings.

Yes. Clearly the easy availability of firearms is not a good idea in the US.

Try telling that to people head over heels in love with these filthy things.

More innocent lives taken. Another monstrosity.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

doesn't mean anything and it's not going to solve the problem in the States.

Oh? What would solve the problem in the States?

16 ( +17 / -1 )

The pro-gun nuts will argue that he could have got a knife and stabbed people instead. Or alternatively got a car and driven up and down the pews of the church squashing worshippers.

How many must die in satisfying the adolescent gun fetish that grips this nation?

13 ( +15 / -2 )

I believe Texas does have a law allowing guns in churches but this congregation may have been so small members with their own security wouldn't necessarily have been expected (statistically). And yes, 'things do change' like the homicide rate that has dropped dramatically and remains near historic lows despite localized increases in some places.....just not in response to gun legislation. What IS going up unfortunately is the deadliness of mass shootings.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

RIP to the victims, condolences to their families and friends. Hopefully those injured will fully recover. 

Respect and thanks to the police and emergency responders for all they did and all they do on a daily basis. 

The gun apologists claim their ‘rights’ to own and use semi-automatic weapons outweigh the risks to non-gun owners, even when innocent people are slaughtered. I hope no one they know is murdered by a person - sane or not, terrorist or uber-‘patriot’ - with a gun, purchased legally or not. 

I know this was Texas, but hopefully the ‘good guy with a gun’ argument won’t be used here. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of handguns, which I assume would be the church-going gun-toter’s weapon of choice, would quickly recognize that firing a handgun in a crowd would put even more people at risk. But then it could be for the gun crowd that would be an acceptable risk.

Tax the gun industry and gun owners. Make them pay for the public service costs resulting from gun crimes.

Only the police and military should own handguns, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

gokai_wo_manekuToday  08:13 am JST

Technically its legal to own guns in Japan as in most developed countries, just the regulations in these countries are very heavy unlike in the USA

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Example on how easy gun access is in some places.

South Africa walk into a gun shop choose your model, grab application form(needs to be accompanied by 2 letters saying you are a good bloke and can be trusted. Drop off at police station, wait 2 weeks and pick up gun, I wasn't even on PR at that time.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

This is a terrible tragedy, similar to what you would expect in a war zone.

First of all I agree the gun laws in the U.S. are far too lenient and the U.S. has an unhealthy obsession with guns. The NRA defends this obsession and the violence that comes out of the entertainment industry adds fuel to the fire.

At this point in time this is a difficult problem to solve; the reason being that there are so many guns in circulation in the U.S. (more than there are people) and that there are so many illegal or unregistered weapons in the U.S. as well. The fact that people on both sides of this issue cannot have a civil discussion about this problem does not help (name calling, etc.).

I am an American living in Japan. In Japan, I am at ease I do not have to worry about becoming a victim of this insanity. On the other hand, it is easy to say "ban all guns". I am not sure this is a practical solution due to the sheer number of guns in circulation, the number of unregistered/illegal guns in circulation, and the unwillingness of many Americans to relinquish their guns. Solving this problem would require violating other Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (primarily the 4th).

When engaging in conversations about this issue I always has "how" and it either turns into an argument (I am called a "pro-gun nut" when I am actually the opposite) or the person I am speaking with does not have a logical (workable) solution how to solve this problem (I do not have the solution either by the way).

As the nation and people become more deeply divided and unable to talk about anything, I fear this is a problem that will not be solved in my lifetime nor my children's, if ever.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

more like No Lives Matter if you DON'T have the capability to defend yourself.

More like All Lives Matter if you don't have the capability to attack others. There, fixed that for you.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Another act of terror. Horrific and preventable.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Yes, in a place of worship you should never have to worry about someone coming in and shooting up the place

You shouldn't have to worry about it anywhere.

18 ( +18 / -0 )

Another day, another terrorist act of mass murder. Mental illness, religious extremism and guns; when all three intersect this is what happens. Very sad.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Wake up, read the news, another mass shooting in the U.S. No surprise. We come to expect it now. What a sad state of affairs. Condolences to those people concerned.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Automatic and semi automatic weapons need to be banned its that simple other Countries have done it and they dont mass shootings.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

@pacint - That is an interesting account. Not sure why you are down voted for merely posting something you experienced. I think it is likely down votes are directed at people rather than content. I have heard similar stories as yours as well.

One example in the U.S. (unrelated to legal sales): In Oakland, CA one can go down around Macarthur Boulevard and lay down $200-$250 and get a so called "Saturday night special" from someone with no paperwork and walk away with an unregistered weapon (likely with the serial number filed off). There are so many unregistered weapons in the U.S. now which makes this problem difficult to solve.

There is a huge black market for weapons in the U.S. which used to get talked about alot but it seems recently (in the last decade or so) I do not hear so much about this.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It seems once again that some people are shifting the blame onto anti-gun advocates.

This is the new normal.

This how deep the illness goes.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

@Toasted - I do not see anyone shifting blame here (unless I am missing something). Is this something you are seeing in the U.S.? By the way, I would probably be considered an anti gun advocate.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

RIP. My prayers are with the victims and their families.

US needs to do something about Gun Laws, How many more peopled need to die before they realize this.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Another week, another mass shooting in the US. Of course, the killer was a white male so he won't be called a terrorist.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

It would be interesting to know the cause of the shooting here, religious extremism or just another mass shooting? If the latter, I honestly don’t really care anymore as it happens basically daily there

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If this guy was dishonorably discharged from the military as is being reported he was already prohibited by federal law from owning a weapon of any kind. It isn't an issue of new gun laws or how he obtained the weapons but enforcing what is already on the books. We don't have the full story obviously but ex military receiving Court Martial is such a limited population there is no excuse for not keeping them under a strict social media watch at the least (no selfies with handguns....etc).

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

And yes, 'things do change' like the homicide rate that has dropped dramatically and remains near historic lows despite localized increases in some places.....

Homicide is at historic lows, yet the gun-nuts's need to be armed for protection is at historic highs. And violent crime is at historic lows in almost all well-off nations around the world, so it's not guns that brought them down.

just not in response to gun legislation.

Different solutions for different problems. And we have proof strict gun laws reduce the number of mass shootings. Despite what gun advocates believe, gun laws in America were very strict all the way up to the 1970s.

What IS going up unfortunately is the deadliness of mass shootings.

Agreed. And wouldn't you know it's almost entirely unique to the country with the loosest gun laws.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Getting bored of reading these wanton mass killings. I noticed trump didn't mention about banning guns either.I guess unless it's a Muslim he has nothing of consequence to say.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Lizz - if what you say is true then enforcing the existing laws would have prevented this. That is true (Not sure why you are down voted for this - perhaps someone could explain why). I do however believe much stricter legislation is necessary relative to gun ownership.

@Luddite - Actually many people were calling the Las Vegas shooter a domestic terrorist, and some of the left leaning media was saying he was not (such as the New Yorker).

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-we-should-resist-calling-the-las-vegas-shooting-terrorism

http://nypost.com/2017/10/08/vegas-shooting-proves-we-have-much-to-learn-about-domestic-terrorism/

The gun argument is such an emotional argument on both sides that I think it quickly devolves beyond the argument (bringing in Trump, white males, etc.).

Personally, I believe that those of us who wish to have much stricter gun laws and regulation of firearms to make a small dent in this problem need to remain focused on the problem itself. It is such an easy argument to make (the argument for more restrictive laws) if it is looked at with statistics and facts. However these events are (obviously) emotional and thus people's emotions get in the way of having a rational discussion on the issue.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@bass4funk - What a bunch of garbage, more like No Lives Matter if you DON'T have the capability to defend yourself.

There it is folks! The complete stupidity of the gun laws in the US. "I need a gun to protect myself (from other people with guns)" I guess that all the fools who believe this rhetoric refuse to acknowledge the fact that there have been 1.5 million gun related deaths in the US since 1968. That's an average of a little over 100 every day although, more than half of these deaths are suicide.

Australia is the perfect example of how tighter gun control does work. There has not been a mass-shooting in Australia since the gun laws were changed and the government initiated a huge buy-back program. Also, the rural youth suicide rate dropped by 70% in the first year after the buy-back. Yes, there will always be a criminal element with guns, but that does not mean everybody should have one. Guns are not banned in Australia, but you have to be able to prove you need one for vermin control (hunting) or gun clubs. You can't get one just because you want one, which is how it should be. When I was 16 (mid-1970's) I walked into an army disposal store in Australia and bought a shortened 303 bolt action rifle with ammo for under a hundred bucks. It was called, the 'pig special' for close-encounters only. All I had to do was, prove I was over 16 and I walked out of the store with it right then and there. I kept it for a few years and probably only fired ten rounds out of it. I realised I didn't need a gun and got rid of it. Hunting pigs with a rifle is for pussies anyway. It's much more fun with dogs and a big knife. Around 1990 I joined a gun club and had a few other rifles (308, 30/30 and 222) and a skeet shotgun. Again, I realised I didn't need a lot of rifles and sold them all, except for the skeet shotgun. I competed in many competitions and won many trophies for skeet. However, it was a sport, not a hobby. My point is, Joe Average does need to own a gun. Stating you need a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns is just absurd and defies logic.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@Disillusioned - That is a good post. Thanks for citing a specific example and statistics. I agree with your post and it sounds like I would agree with what Australia did. The statistics seem to point out that it worked.

Australia and the U.S. are quite different in my opinion so I want to ask a couple of questions related to your post and the U.S. (please remember we are in agreement here).

How did Australia deal with the illegal firearms in circulation? Or, was the problem not as extensive (as would be my guess) as it is in the U.S. It is estimated there are 10's of millions of illegal firearms in the U.S.

Were some people reluctant to give up their weapons? If so how was this dealt with. Were people thrown in jail?

How did the government verify that guns were turned in, or was the buy back program voluntary and not mandatory? (I should have asked about whether this was voluntary or not first).

Bass makes the argument that people need a weapon to defend themselves. In the current state of affairs in the U.S. one could argue there is some truth to this. There have been cases where someone having a gun did prevent a crime (I am jumping into the emotional territory on this so keep in mind I agree with you). How does one counter that argument?
1 ( +3 / -2 )

Readers, please keep the discussion focused on the U.S., not other countries.

This is horrible news. Of course Republicans and Christians have already been attacked over this as the politics can’t and won’t stop any time a gun is involved.

an active US senator attacked at his home by a Democrat, don’t hear anything much. But this, sadly the media search is on to identify if he is Republican or Democrat.

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

@Tokyo-Engr -

The buy-back had a 12 month amnesty on all firearms, legal or illegal. The tighter gun laws meant, if you kept your unregistered gun you would face severe penalties and possibly jail time. Of course, you were able to keep them if you registered them, could prove you needed them and had secure weapons vault to store them. However, pistols were always illegal in Australia unless you were in a registered pistol club. Yes, there were some objectors, of course. The pro-gun lobby's slogan at the time was, "If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns", which reflects directly onto the US stance on owning firearms. After twenty odd years there are very few gun related deaths in Australia and the rural youth suicide rate remains extremely low compared to before the buy-back. Even now in the US, more than half of the gun related deaths are suicides. In Japan that statistic is even higher with over 90% of gun related deaths being suicide, mostly police officers who have easy access to them although, there are only a handful of gun related deaths in Japan every year. I agree there is some truth to the point of needing a gun in the US to protect yourself from other people with guns, but if there were not so many guns there would be no need, as Australia has shown. This is what makes this argument fuzzy-logic. There are over twice as many guns in the US as people. Unfortunately, I fear it would be impossible for the US to reverse this and these mass-killings will continue just because there are so many guns and so many people having easy access to them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If what happened at Sandy Hook failed to change attitudes, nothing will. In America there are 113 guns for every 100 people. It's like a cancer with no known cure,

10 ( +11 / -1 )

i would start my search with antifa. They have been promoting attacks on white people and conservative churches for this weekend. Might be a Terrorism attack after all, antifa terrorism.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

@blacklab Republicans and Christians have already been attacked over this as the politics can’t and won’t stop any time a gun is involved.

Why should the 'politics' stop? Why do some posters continue to bifurcate, i.e. oversimplify issues, make them black or white, in attempts to keep people divided and at odds with each other?

an active US senator attacked at his home by a Democrat, don’t hear anything much.

You're obviously not paying attention or ignoring what the media are reporting - or else you're trying to fan the flames, attempting to keep people divided.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Not sure how gun registration works in the US, other countries it is 1 licence per firearm as it is linked to model, maker and serial number.

Back home easy to get an ownership licence(can't leave property), a carry licence is tough and needs to be fully visible at all times. All concealed weapons are illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is horrible news. Of course Republicans and Christians have already been attacked over this as the politics can’t and won’t stop any time a gun is involved.

Who's attacking anyone? I don't see any attacks on people here. Some of us are attacking stupid gun laws, but now that you mention it, Republicans do overwhelmingly support these stupid gun laws more than anyone.

an active US senator attacked at his home by a Democrat, don’t hear anything much.

By Democrat, you mean his neighbor? Why do we need to hear about Rand Paul's long-running feud with his neighbor?

But this, sadly the media search is on to identify if he is Republican or Democrat.

You're seriously misunderstand the attitude of anti-gun argument. I honestly don't care what his political affiliation was. I only care that once again, one person was able to kill this many people because a tool whose sole purpose is to kill/maim is so easily accessable. Politics only come into play when a political party actively avoids and tries to prevents others from even talking about the problem.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Who needs ISIS? Seriously: It is a war in the US, those that use guns against those that don’t use guns.

The Onion sums it up best for me:

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1820163660

Stop the madness.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"Officials didn't identify the attacker during a news conference Sunday night... not linked to terrorism"

Must be white, then.

In any case, just another day in 'Merika.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

i would start my search with antifa.

Start your search for what? The shooter who is now dead? Thanks for your input detective Blacklabel, we'll take it from here thanks.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

A ground-breaking study recently showed that shootings in California areas adjacent to Nevada spike nearly 70 percent following gun shows held in Vegas, where transactions between private parties do not involve a background check. Transactions between private parties do require background checks in California, whose gun shows are accompanied by no statistical increase in firearm use.

This is ground-breaking because it shows that firearm laws do work. Banning semi-automatic rifles would likely eventually lead to their disappearance. There are steps that can be taken. This is what Obama meant by his comment this morning,  "May God also grant all of us the wisdom to ask what concrete steps we can take to reduce the violence and weaponry in our midst." Screw prayers, man - we need action. 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171023182705.htm

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Britlover - Who needs ISIS? Seriously: It is a war in the US, those that use guns against those that don’t use guns.

Agreed! There have been 1.5 million gun related deaths in the US since 1968 when they started keeping count, which is more than all Americans killed in wars in the last 400 years. Seems a pretty convincing argument to get serious on gun control in the US, doesn't it?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

How much that since, once again, the mass shooter was a white guy, there's going to be demands that this "not be politicized" and "not make it about guns or talk about terrorism", etc.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Oh so because the shooter is dead we don’t want to find out anything about why he did it or who he was associated with?

as far as liberal attacks here you go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052567/Chelsea-Handler-slammed-tweet-Texas-shooting.html

i get it now being “divisive” means speaking up against the anti Republican, anti-gun, pro Muslim liberal narratives. Just accept it and stop being”divisive”, got it.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Oh? What would solve the problem in the States?

I would say, arm more people, I think we need more mental asylums. That would curtail a lot of the violence that’s running amok.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Oh so because the shooter is dead we don’t want to find out anything about why he did it or who he was associated with?

Yes, we do. And that includes 'how' he did it, which might inconveniently lead to the conclusion that it was due to him being able to get guns so easily

I would say, arm more people, I think we need more mental asylums.

Ok, so you seem to think there are enough mental people out there to justify more asylums. But arm these potential lunatics just in case. If only there were a more logical approach.... ROFL

5 ( +6 / -1 )

as far as liberal attacks here you go:

Well, which party is it that prevents stricter guns laws? Which party avoids/prevents people from even talking about the most central factor in gun violence? Which party prevents even the funding of studies that might show the actual effects of America's proliferation of guns? Which party is more in the pockets of the gun lobby?

You're right, there is a political divide on this issue. On side wants to actually do something to stop the problem, the other side sends its prayers and condolences.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@blacklab  Just accept it and stop being”divisive”, got it.

Thanks. That's a start. As long as the gun issue is so divisive and people continue to throw more fuel on a hot-burning fire like gun control, there's zero way for the issue to be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

However, I do understand that some are only able to see the world in black and white terms. They seem to want to see the gaps between conflicting sides expanded. What do you think their agenda might be?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Well, which party is it that prevents stricter guns laws?

You should be asking, which party wants to ban and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens and the right town and carry a gun?

Which party avoids/prevents people from even talking about the most central factor in gun violence? Which party prevents even the funding of studies that might show the actual effects of America's proliferation of guns?

Neither, but the left will always try to make an irrational argument and use any study to push their argument of why guns are bad, just like with healthcare, just like with the other disastrous failed policies that liberals hold so dearly to their chest.

Which party is more in the pockets of the gun lobby?

Both actually, because for all the big mouth talk the Dems Do, they would never even think of going against the NRA, they’re not that stupid.

You're right, there is a political divide on this issue. On side wants to actually do something to stop the problem, the other side sends its prayers and condolences.

Not really, exciting side doesn’t politicize this as the left do, the right want more people to be allowed have the right to decide for themselves as to how they can protect themselves.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

so its domestic terrorism that strikes again, let prey those in power label it as such and do something about it.

But this, sadly the media search is on to identify if he is Republican or Democrat. Hes white and a gun owner, that in itself should say enough

I would say, arm more people, I think we need more mental asylums. so if everybody had been carrying guns into this church it would have stopped this gunman from walking in and shooting everybody in the back as they prayed

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I just want to know is the issue to be solved the tool (gun, truck, bomb) or is the issue related to the individual (Radical Islamic terrorism, political affiliation, antifa, mental illness). That’s why I want to find out more about the thoughts behind all of these attacks. Easy to just blame the tool but none of those tools can act without humans choosing to use them.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

another dumb saying "monitoring the situation". but no action taken.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

White, veteran, not a terriorist. Move along folks.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It was Terrorism just not Islamic Terrorism (the new bogey man).

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Easy to just blame the tool but none of those tools can act without humans choosing to use them.

I agree. We all agree I'm sure. But the reverse MIGHT also be true, no? None of these humans can act without the tools. Maybe worth talking about, no? You can keep ducking and diving, but at some point you might have to accept that guns are a big part of gun related deaths. The clue's in the title.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

People forget previous incidents like guy going postal with a sword inside a church.

Myself have various sharpened MA weapons fully registered with the cops in japan, those will remove limbs.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Well it’s obvious that guns play a huge role in shootings. Were people never killed before guns? Have people not been killed recently with bombs and trucks?

Killers always have a tool.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Semi automatic gun, news said. He was discharged from military some years ago. Trump tweeted from Japan where anyone who possess a gun get life sentence. CIA protecting Trump and his family do not look like guns in their pocket. President may have different opinion in gun control law.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You should be asking, which party wants to ban and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens and the right town and carry a gun?

Yes, those god given rights that only existed in their current form since the 1970s.

Neither, but the left will always try to make an irrational argument and use any study

What studies? There are no studies. That's the point. And it's because of the Republicans:

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-gun-violence-cdc-study-charleston-south-carolina-119384

Studies are so irrational right? Makes much more sense to pray the problem away.

Both actually, because for all the big mouth talk the Dems

Do you understand what "more" means? They can't both be more than each other.

they would never even think of going against the NRA, they’re not that stupid.

How could they with a Republican Congress? Like I said, Obama couldn't even get funding for a study approved.

Not really, exciting side doesn’t politicize this as the left do

Which amounts to doing absolutely nothing. Even posters on the right here agree that mass shootings are getting out of control, but your solution is to arm even more people? Or have more mental asylums? What about mental cases where the shooting is the first offense? We could have better mental healthcare and screening, but you what that requires? Tax dollars. Republicans only talk about mental healthcare immediately after shootings to avoid talking about guns, but they know they'll never pay for it. Again, it amounts to doing absolutely nothing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

NRA's simple solution: armed security guards in every church. And teach the clergy how to shoot! Americans not bothered in the slightest by gun massacres.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@blacklab but none of those tools can act without humans choosing to use them.

And in the US it’s easy for just about any human, including those on terrorist watch lists and those with ‘mental’ problems to get these tools and use them. 

The gun industry, like all industries, pushes their products on the American public. They market them to a broad segment of the US population, including those who for whatever reason think they need a gun to protect themselves, perhaps to protect themselves from people with guns. It could well be someone who’s insecure, fearful and/or might have mental problems swallows the gun industry’s ads and thinks they need a gun to protect themselves.

And now there’s information showing Russians have been involved in pushing the NRA’s agenda, too. Why would Russia be pushing the NRA’s agenda?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Have people not been killed recently with bombs and trucks?

That's right! Which is why in the UK, for instance, the govt is looking at ways to make it harder for them to be rented by people who may want to use them in massacres.

You see, it needn't be that hard if you can acknowledge the problem.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@PTownsend, you stated, "However, I do understand that some are only able to see the world in black and white terms. They seem to want to see the gaps between conflicting sides expanded. What do you think their agenda might be?"

I am constantly asking myself the same question. My opinion is that if logic is used as well as statistics (such as the number of Americans killed by other Americans using guns vs. those in wars) this is a no brainer and not enough is being done about firearms in the U.S. However your question delves into a total different arena where cognitive dissonance will not allow many people to go into (i.e. what is being done by design - not necessarily the event - but the reaction).

@WtfJapan, I do not understand your comment "But this, sadly the media search is on to identify if he is Republican or Democrat. Hes white and a gun owner, that in itself should say enough" - What should it say? He is a Republican? I think this has been proven false on several occasions and perpetuating the Democrat vs. Republican argument does not help solve the problem.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What is it with the USA and mass shootings?

A question that has been asked countless numbers of times. The USA was founded on violence, and it continues today, over 240 years later!

Sad fact, it's not going to change either. People have become numb to these mass shootings.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I bought bullet proof vest sometime ago I am silly and I like hot weather.. But in southern Nevada, people walk with sleeveless top and bikini bottom then after Oct. .1 I found more people have heavy waste.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The gun psychosis will see hundreds, thousands more victims. Blame will be apportioned to those who oppose gun laws, democrats, liberals, left wingers, socialists, antifa, BLM etc.

Some want more mental asylums. Thus missing the point of what the US has, sadly, evolved into.

It is not a safe or friendly country. It is sick to the core and it seeks to spread its violent culture beyond its borders.

I don't want to become inured to such terrible terrorist acts as this one but where does it end? How to take the guns away from these maddened children?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I just want to know is the issue to be solved the tool (gun, truck, bomb)

It seems that way. Places with less guns have less mass shootings. Taking away guns seems the obvious solution. We kind of need trucks for other things, so they're here to stay (and there's arguably more hurdles involved with getting a truck than a gun in America). Bombs are already illegal (although they could be argued to be arms and therefore permitted under the 2nd amendment along with grenade launchers, nuclear weapons, anything really.).

is the issue related to the individual (Radical Islamic terrorism, political affiliation, antifa, mental illness).

These are all important issues, but issues that countries around the world deal with. The US is the only country that has to deal with mass shootings. You think it might be the guns?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@pacint - your information is way out of date.  apart from anything NOTHING takes 2 weeks to process in South Africa.

Shame to say, but seems that many of these types of mass shootings happen at churches.  Anyone conjecture why that might be?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Got to disagree many countries have high gun ownership, military trained populace(draft) and we don't see mass shootings there.

The problem lies in a place besides high gun count, something where few try to venture or acknowledge.

It is a sickness that festers uncontrolled as most people refuse to accept it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What happened to the people with protect guns in Texas? Only 8 people died in NY with fake guns

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

HRM, no 2 week cool off period.

Seen much during my time there, friends son got killed over his bicycle, watched a boy snack an earring from a cabriolet only to get hit with 2 45 dum dum rounds mid body.

Was offered an AK-47 in a back alley.

Even was shot at after I dropped a car between traffic lights, was on a Bike.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@lostrune2 - Here is an interesting article that might help to answer your question (if I understand you correctly). It does not change my stance on gun control / regulation but it is certainly part of this story.

http://nypost.com/2017/11/05/hero-neighbor-got-his-rifle-shot-at-texas-church-gunman/

Unfortunately this did not prevent the death of 26 (maybe more) innocent men, women, and children thus although this guy may have prevented more death than occurred it is futile to use this man's actions to rationalize how easy it is for people can get weapons in the U.S. Sure, he used a rifle to chase this guy down but it was already too late.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Got to disagree many countries have high gun ownership, military trained populace(draft) and we don't see mass shootings there.

America has nearly double it's closest rival, which is Serbia... Serbia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Regardless, when and if relatively armed countries like Finland and Canada have mass shootings like the US does, they might reconsider their gun laws (and probably would). So far they don't have a problem. America clearly does.

If it's not the guns, it's something more complicated that we might not even know about, so until we figure it out, what's wrong with reducing guns like the rest of those countries on that list that seem to be doing fine without guns?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yes, mass shootings happen, my country has a 70%+ ownership yet gun related crime is low.

Major recent news is about one guy killing 2 neighbours and having issued threads to some politicians.

What is the difference? High gun count don't explain it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Blacklabel: i get it now being “divisive” means speaking up against the anti Republican, anti-gun, pro Muslim liberal narratives. Just accept it and stop being”divisive”, got it.

Well, think of the bright side. You weren't involved in a church shooting today, so you have that going for ya.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Seriously how can America just sit back and do nothing about these shootings? Innocent families and children are regularly getting shot, it's a total shame on the nation, not to mention the tragedy it inflicts on the vicitms, their families and friends.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Rules on how to handle mass shootings in the USA.

Always say our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and the families of the loved ones at this time.

are2.  On gun control always say this is not the time to talk about this as are thoughts and prayers with the victims and the families of the loved ones at this time.

3.  One month later rinse and repeat.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yes I would not have been present in church with other white conservatives. Therefore I would not be the target of this atheist antifa type liberal (well at least that’s how he presents himself on social media) .

so I guess we will be ignoring the fact that Antifa proclaimed it’s good to attack white people and churches this weekend in particular, huh? He is white and had a gun the story stops there to keep it on track for the narrative.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Blacklbel: "Might be a Terrorism attack after all, antifa terrorism." So you are saying this this church must have been full of fascist redneck capitalist right-wing Trump supporters?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That some could be so foolish as to allow themselves to be swayed by social media Russian agitprop astounds me. Then there are those who swallow whole sudden claims that this shooter was an "atheist antifa type liberal."

Apparently his wife's family has ties to the church. Eruption of a long-simmering dispute since he lost his Air Force job for beating said wife and daughter is far more likely than baseless drivel about some right-wing self-imposed conspiracy of an Antifa proclamation that "it’s good to attack white people and churches this weekend in particular." (For the record: the group did no such thing; the story was invented by an alt-right site and spread like wildfire among their more feeble-brained supporters.)

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yes that is what a group such as antifa would “perceive” that religious white people would be. That’s what the liberal media tells them and this guy was a fan of CNN on his Facebook and supported liberal causes on his LinkedIn.

this is the danger of all this media that being “white” is bad and that ALL white people are obviously white supremacists and republicans who must be resisted at all costs.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

What did liberals say after the Las Vegas shootings? Country music concert full of white people who are obvious Trump supporters, wasn’t it?

Thats why your narrative about the shooter didn’t work and why it’s gone from the news. The shooter needed to be a conservative white Trump supporter, not the victims.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@blacklab s antifa would “perceive” that religious white people 

I thought you said you were finished pushing divisive politics. Or will Yevgeny Prigozhin let his employees, especially his team leaders, stop throwing fuel on the fires that keep Americans bickering with each other.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

so I guess we will be ignoring the fact that Antifa proclaimed it’s good to attack white people and churches this weekend in particular, huh?

First, the shooter was an Antifa terrorist, and now that that's been proven wrong, Antifa only encouraged people to shoot churches this weekend? Where do you get your crap information? I'm sure they tell you what you want to hear, but you ever think about trying different news sources considering how often they're so blatantly wrong?

And even if Antifa did proclaim it’s good to attack white people and churches (which I doubt), no one in Antifa listened. Once again, it was some nut who is clearly a gun supporter.

He is white and had a gun the story stops there to keep it on track for the narrative.

The fact that he's white means nothing to the anti-gun group. The story stops there for you and the right because if he was even vaguely Middle Eastern, you would be talking about travel/immigration bans. But now you're stuck talking about mental health, which the right doesn't want to pay for either.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

While you guys debate on gun laws, nobody wants to question what type of God would allow dozens of people to be massacred in a place to worship him?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

First, the shooter was an Antifa terrorist, and now that that's been proven wrong, 

Man, you guys 'prove things wrong' really quick. (But need years long investigations into Russia and cant prove anything yet). Snopes already has an article posted that it is false as well, nice job on keeping the 'gun nut' narrative going. But what happens when it is a LIBERAL gun nut? do you have to own him or do you just ignore/erase the LIBERAL part and focus just on the gun?

As i said the focus has to be on the ideology, not simply the tool used.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

It is just another incident in America. No wonder!  No surprise!  More will happen there in near future.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Man, you guys 'prove things wrong' really quick.

"You guys" claimed he carried an Antifa flag and was a communist even quicker. That claim is pretty easy to disprove and honestly, shameful.

But what happens when it is a LIBERAL gun nut?

Strict gun laws take guns out of their hands too. How many times do I have to say it? We don't care how the crazy guy with the gun votes.

As i said the focus has to be on the ideology, not simply the tool used.

So we should pass laws restricting ideologies? Because that would be easier? What was this shooter's ideology, and what do we do about it?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What was this shooter's ideology, and what do we do about it?

That is what we need to find out. Based on his social media he has liberal leaning ideology.

Lets see who he talks to and hangs out with in person and online then we will know.

We already know that the gun itself had no motivation, political affiliation or ideology. It only does what it is 'told to do' in the direction it is pointed by a person.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@blacklabel a nut is a nut no matter what side of the fence he sits on...there are no answers for this one nutjob with a semi automatic weapon that is it...those innocent people are gone dozens of families left to mourn their losses its a very sad day..you want to go get all political thats up to you but your just ranting more of the usual crud that you go on with..

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Agree but said nut used an assault rifle.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump has now stated that guns were not to blame for this killing.

I agree - it was bullets that caused the deaths not the guns.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Any place that people meet up is a potential target, church is easy as meetings are restricted to date/time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Based on his social media he has liberal leaning ideology.

Don't be so sure:

http://reverepress.com/news/trumpsters-making-fake-facebook-pages-texas-shooter-claiming-hes-antifa/

The fact is, we really don't know that much yet. But the Alex Jones crowd making claims about him being a liberal at this early stage is pretty disgusting.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Ah_so, Thanks. Here's a quote via CNN:

This isn’t a guns situation. This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It’s a very, very sad event. A very, very sad event but that’s the way I view it.

He's half right: it's a problem of mentally ill people with easy access to guns.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@WtfJapan, I do not understand your comment "But this, sadly the media search is on to identify if he is Republican or Democrat. Hes white and a gun owner, very simple it doesnt matter whether hes a democrat or Republican , the problem is its almost always a white man with a high powered semi auto or automatic weapon that does these massacres. Its impossible to remove all the white men from AMerica so what would be the next best option!? Australia has proven that removing these type of weapons from society has a dramatic effect on the reducing the number of gun massacres.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I can see the NRA rubbing there hands together saying "i told you so, we need more guns to protect our selfs!" this will give them ammo for there biennial argument, until this vicious cycle is broken these mass shooting will carry on, not only do the US need to alter the gun laws, but they need to change there perspective and attitude to guns

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Site is right what differentiates USA from other countries where gun ownership is common.

Like I said I lived/worked in SA where gun ownership is common, high crime rate(50% of females are raped) but no mass shootings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Crikes America really is a broken country when almost the main thing that pops up is the Trump vs Libs argument. The fact of the matter is, if it wasn't so easy to get your hands on those guns, there wouldn't be so many mass shootings!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Yes, those god given rights that only existed in their current form since the 1970s

The 2nd amendment? A bit longer than that.

What studies? There are no studies. That's the point. And it's because of the Republicans:

Yes, there are studies, don’t play the liberal, bleak outlook on firearms. Let's debunk this:

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Studies are so irrational right? Makes much more sense to pray the problem away.

I have more than just my prayers.

How could they with a Republican Congress? Like I said, Obama couldn't even get funding for a study approved.

Again, the Democrats would never, ever try, they know that a large portion of their constituents are gun holders and many of them liberal as can be.

Which amounts to doing absolutely nothing. Even posters on the right here agree that mass shootings are getting out of control, but your solution is to arm even more people?

I think so. Now having said that, We can argue about this day and night and we will never agree, but when the left thinks that everytime a shooting happens and they think they have leverage over the gun debate, they will lose every time.

Or have more mental asylums? What about mental cases where the shooting is the first offense? We could have better mental healthcare and screening, but you what that requires? Tax dollars.

We used to have them and the country was a lot safer, now we just take the mental to get a check up and if they are deemed to be mentally warped, they get meds prescribed and sent on their way, Free and without any supervision and when these people snap, good luck.

Republicans only talk about mental healthcare immediately after shootings to avoid talking about guns, but they know they'll never pay for it. Again, it amounts to doing absolutely nothing.

No, Republicans talk about mental care because they know it’s a serious problem, Democrats on the other hand think committing someone to a straight jacket is cruel and evil, just leave them be and when that happens, you have a recipe for disaster.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@bass does one really need semi autos or automatic weapons for hunting?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@bass No, Republicans talk about mental care

They do? If so, they must be very quiet about it. The only time I hear Republicans even mention mental health care is after a shooting, and that talk is all about deflecting from the 'roles' guns play in mass murders.

But then it was the Republican's hero Ron Reagan who led the charge to reduce funding for mental health care.

 Democrats on the other hand think committing someone to a straight jacket is cruel and evil, just leave them be and when that happens, you have a recipe for disaster.

I understand this is a deflection, but 'straight jackets'? What does that even mean?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@WTFJapan - Thank you for clarification. Political nor religious affiliation do not matter (i.e. Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.) in these mass shootings. You are right most of the mass shootings in the U.S. have been committed by white males (I am a white male American). Most gun violence is committed by black males so thus for gun violence overall race does not matter either. Also, it would be a travesty to remove all white males from the U.S. so yes, I do agree that in the end the Australian option (as I have previously stated) is a good one - or a modified version which would be suitable for the current problem that exists in the U.S.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The 2nd amendment? A bit longer than that.

Do some studying of your own. Please. No one really talked about the 2nd amendment until the 1970s. It was the excuse used loosen gun laws. Until then, very few people were allowed to have guns.

Yes, there are studies, don’t play the liberal, bleak outlook on firearms. Let's debunk this

That's talking about homicides and violent crime, which we've already established is at historic lows in affluent nations across the globe. I'm talking about mass shootings that are at historic highs only in America.

I think so.

You think the solution to mass shootings is for everyone to carry guns everywhere to protect us from people with guns... Even is "more guns" was not a completely ridiculous idea, it's completely baseless and unproven. "Less guns" has at least some examples and evidence of working in other countries.

when the left thinks that everytime a shooting happens and they think they have leverage over the gun debate, they will lose every time.

When is there not a shooting? When is the right time to do something about it?

We used to have them and the country was a lot safer

Not if you were mentally ill. And again, the country wasn't safer. It's safer now than ever before, there's just more random shootings.

No, Republicans talk about mental care because they know it’s a serious problem

They do a lot of talking about mental health care, but cut the tax spending and revenues that would pay for it.

Democrats on the other hand think committing someone to a straight jacket is cruel and evil

Seriously? That's not even a thing... Everyone knows Democrats want to tax the rich to pay for services for the poor (which the mentally ill tend to be when their father isn't a wealthy real estate magnate). That's kind of why you hate us, isn't it?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Shooter seems to be an Air Force veteran, court-marshaled and dishonorably discharged after assaulting his wife and child, that led to 12 months of confinement

He grew up in Texas in a rich household and briefly taught at a Bible school, but no apparent connection to the target church and area

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"This is unbelievable" - No, it very believable.

Call me cynical. But when I learn of these mass shootings, I'm not shocked or surprised, It just saddens me, the pointless waste of life.

This is the price of an unregulated second amendment. The NRA and conservative backbone of America have made it very clear that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct, this is just the price of that.

Mass shootings in America have become a side note in the rest of the dark news, much like other violent mass deaths around the World. 100 killed in Syrian Suicide car bomb.....50 killed in a Mogadishu bombing.....Towns People slaughtered in South Sudan.....Nigerians Students murdered by Islamic extremists....26 killed in a Texas church...they are fading into the same sad theme. Yes, America you are in the same category as war-torn and chaotic countries.

People will pray, they will cry for change, they will be outraged, and they will soon move on, and the next shooting will happen, and the cycle will continue.

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" - quote attributed to many smart people, including Einstein.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You should be asking, which party wants to ban and restrict the rights of law abiding citizens and the right town and carry a gun?

You care more about the right to own a gun than a child's right to live!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The terror that the gun lovers face is that their toys will be restricted and this fear leads to all sorts of conspiracy theories. The disgusting attacks on families of Sandy Hook victims or survivors of the Vegas massacre; for example. Now we have the antifa lie doing the rounds.

http://www.newsweek.com/antifa-waging-civil-war-november-4-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-681219

I don't see how the US can recover from this

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16588964/america-epistemic-crisis

The pro-gun narrative now is so shady, nefarious and bolstered by bare-faced lies.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Bass

No, Republicans talk about mental care because they know it’s a serious problem, 

Then I am sure you will agree that Trump signing an executive order giving the mentally ill easier access to guns was pretty pretty stupid, wouldn't you? ;)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Do some studying of your own. Please. No one really talked about the 2nd amendment until the 1970s. It was the excuse used loosen gun laws. Until then, very few people were allowed to have guns.

Times changed, in the 1970’s we used to also have civic classes and kids listened more to their parents, a lot of things were different in the 70’s.

That's talking about homicides and violent crime, which we've already established is at historic lows in affluent nations across the globe.

Because more people own guns.

I'm talking about mass shootings that are at historic highs only in America.

Mostly liberal Blue States where gangs and crime run amok even with some of the toughest gun laws.

You think the solution to mass shootings is for everyone to carry guns everywhere to protect us from people with guns... Even is "more guns" was not a completely ridiculous idea, it's completely baseless and unproven.

Not too sure about that. Wisconsin and most of the Southern States seem to be doing fine.

Not if you were mentally ill. And again, the country wasn't safer. It's safer now than ever before, there's just more random shootings.

No, the country was much safer, but if we really could reopen mental asylums then we would have less mentally disturbed people walking around, but now, they are not regulated to a confined area, when they end up with relatives, often they can’t handle the care that is involved with taking care of a mentally challenged person. If we could implement that, a lot of these gun tragedies would decline.

They do a lot of talking about mental health care, but cut the tax spending and revenues that would pay for it.

Thats something completely different from trying to cover “millions” of people with pre-existing conditions entirely.

Seriously? That's not even a thing... Everyone knows Democrats want to tax the rich to pay for services for the poor (which the mentally ill tend to be when their father isn't a wealthy real estate magnate). That's kind of why you hate us, isn't it?

That’s not helping the Democrats, the entire cradle to grave entitlements and over taxing Americans and the whole income redistribution is burying the Democratic Party, they lost over 1000 legislative seats and the robbing Paul to give to Peter won’t help them win elections unless they change and become the party for the people and not the party of ideologues.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

You care more about the right to own a gun than a child's right to live!

A lot of Americans do. In a more just world, fetuses would be provided with the fine print before agreeing to enter this world.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

No one really talked about the 2nd amendment until the 1970s. It was the excuse used loosen gun laws. Until then, very few people were allowed to have guns.

_____

How could these laws have been any looser ? Just out of curiosity. Before the late 1960's, you walked into a hardware store to buy ammo, put money down on the counter at Sears or JC Penney to purchase a rifle or ordered from a Montgomery Wards Catalog and it was mailed to your home address. Some states may have required a local judge's signature or minors may have had to get parental permission were about the only regulatory firewalls that I remember.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Times changed, in the 1970’s we used to also have civic classes and kids listened more to their parents, a lot of things were different in the 70’s.

And people weren't obsessed with guns. Funny how a lack of guns in the environment you live in does that to you.

Because more people own guns.

How do you explain the drop in violent crime in countries without guns? Look carefully at the numbers on the graph from the article you linked. What looks like big spikes are actually blips in already very low violent crime rates that go back down. If anything, their gun ban had no effect on homicide and violent crime, but again that's different from mass shootings we're talking about. You don't hear about those from countries that banned guns, do you?

Mostly liberal Blue States where gangs and crime run amok even with some of the toughest gun laws.

Again, we're talking about mass shootings, not "normal" violent crime. Second, criminals get their guns illegally, so it doesn't matter if their states have tough laws. Weak laws result in more guns in circulation, though, making it that much easier for criminals.

Not too sure about that. Wisconsin and most of the Southern States seem to be doing fine.

When it comes to mass shootings, southern states are not doing fine.

No, the country was much safer

Because you feel safer? I'm sorry, but statistics disagree with you.

if we really could reopen mental asylums then we would have less mentally disturbed people walking around

Deciding who gets committed and who doesn't is a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Should we deprive people completely of their freedom, because they might shoot people one day? Just so you can keep your small freedom of owning guns?

Thats something completely different from trying to cover “millions” of people with pre-existing conditions entirely.

Maybe so, but Republicans aren't exactly doing anything for the mentally ill either. Except giving them the same access to guns as the rest of us like takeda mentioned.

they lost over 1000 legislative seats

That happens a lot when one party wins the White House. And it's the electoral college, Russian propaganda, DNC shenanigans, a polarizing candidate, etc. that got in the way of the last presidential election, not liberal policies. Clinton emulating Bernie Sanders' liberal stance only helped her.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

America is no doubt cursed by guns. It seems that they can't get out of this curse forever as long as guns are there.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

the fact that the first thing that comes to mind of the president is that it isnt a gun law issue, it cant be a gun law issue, we cant talk about wheither it is a gun law issue, is the issue.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How could these laws have been any looser ? Just out of curiosity. Before the late 1960's, you walked into a hardware store to buy ammo...

You're right. Gun laws have gone back and forth throughout America's history, usually becoming stricter in response to tragedies up until now.

I was mainly referring in to the loosening of the 2nd amendment's interpretation which was instigated by the NRA's new leadership in the late 1970s. Look up the "revolt in Cincinnati." It was pretty much the beginning of the gun lobby, America's modern obsession with guns, and the country becoming flooded with them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The number of people killed in mass shootings has increased over the last 5 years or so, and 2 of the 5 deadliest over the last 6 weeks. Still the vast majority of these types of crimes occur inside the home. Where it’s a public shooting in a public place and it’s a stranger-on-strange crime might get the wall to wall coverage, but in truth that doesn’t happen very much. And is thus exceedingly difficult to prevent.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So when can we start talking about that huge elephant in the room now? We can't ignore it forever....

I'm talking about the travel ban on white.......oops, wrong kind of people. Never mind.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

And people weren't obsessed with guns. Funny how a lack of guns in the environment you live in does that to you.

Where I live most people have guns in the environment I live in.

How do you explain the drop in violent crime in countries without guns? Look carefully at the numbers on the graph from the article you linked. What looks like big spikes are actually blips in already very low violent crime rates that go back down. If anything, their gun ban had no effect on homicide and violent crime, but again that's different from mass shootings we're talking about. You don't hear about those from countries that banned guns, do you?

I don't see that at all and I have 20/20 vision, but I do see the stats where cities like Chicago with the strictest gun laws in the country are implemented and it has the exact opposite effect. Tell me, why are cities like Baltimore, Philly, Chicago, LA, Miami all have out of control gun violence, wait....I know why....

Again, we're talking about mass shootings, not "normal" violent crime. Second, criminals get their guns illegally, so it doesn't matter if their states have tough laws. Weak laws result in more guns in circulation, though, making it that much easier for criminals.

Great, you made my point for me, if you stopped ALL gun sales, the industry would move underground, don't you get it, you guys will never, ever get rid of guns, let alone, get rid of the 2nd amendment, either way, guns are here to stay, so I think all the Blue States where we have some of the most violent crimes by gangs and people that live more in impoverished areas are more prone to engage in crime and obtain firearms illegally. It's not about guns, but about how the left cannot properly govern any city and enforce the laws they already have on the books, if they want to take pride in having a sanctuary city and take pride in the Feds not cooperating with the Federal government, it's no wonder the crime rates in those cities keep going up.

When it comes to mass shootings, southern states are not doing fine.

How's South Chicago doing these days? Emanuel is such a fine mayor. How many Democrat mayors do we have in the country now? About 16? Gee, wonder why.

*Because you feel safer? I'm sorry, but statistics disagree with you.*

No, they actually don't. It's not about feeling safer, it's about, I have that right as an American citizen and as a hunter.

*Deciding who gets committed and who doesn't is a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Should we deprive people completely of their freedom, because they might shoot people one day? Just so you can keep your small freedom of owning guns?*

It depends, but I keep forgetting, the left wants to blame everyone else except the perpetrator.

Maybe so, but Republicans aren't exactly doing anything for the mentally ill either. Except giving them the same access to guns as the rest of us like takeda mentioned.

Maybe if the Democrats would stop blocking the Republicans at every turn when they come up with legislation to regulate the mentally challenged, we might be able to stop a lot of this. Funny, the Dems want healthcare for all, but building mental asylums, out of the question. Smh.

That happens a lot when one party wins the White House. And it's the electoral college, Russian propaganda, DNC shenanigans, a polarizing candidate, etc. that got in the way of the last presidential election, not liberal policies. Clinton emulating Bernie Sanders' liberal stance only helped her.

And she sabotaged his campaign as well.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@bass I have that right as an American citizen and as a hunter.So I will ask again not that you will provide an answer does one need automatic or semi automatic weapons to hunt?Please do your best we know how you are with straight questions and giving straight answers...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Ok, last time.

Where I live most people have guns in the environment I live in.

Sounds like a pretty gun-obsessed community. That was my point.

Tell me, why are cities like Baltimore, Philly, Chicago, LA, Miami all have out of control gun violence, wait

I've told you this before... Without border walls, guns move easily between strict-gun-law states and loose-gun-law states. The strict laws would have to be federal and nationwide to have any real effect.

Great, you made my point for me, if you stopped ALL gun sales, the industry would move underground,

Criminal gun sales are already underground. The lack of strict gun laws allows for a booming market and manufacturing industry that floods the market with guns. This makes it easier and cheaper for criminals to acquire guns too.

I think all the Blue States where we have some of the most violent crimes by gangs and people that live more in impoverished

Confiscate them from criminals, buy them back from civilians, and stop manufacturers from making more. You do those things, and eventually we'll have less guns in circulation. It'll be a long and hard process, but it's better than doing and nothing, and better than throwing anyone with a mental issue in an asylum.

How's South Chicago doing these days? Emanuel is such a fine mayor. How many Democrat mayors do we have in the country now? About 16? Gee, wonder why.

Chicago, Baltimore, Philly, LA, Miami... Gee, besides being blue, what do they have in common? They're big-ass cities. Crime rates are higher in big cities, even red ones which you conveniently leave out. Still at historic lows across the board though.

No, they actually don't.

Yes, they actually do. Numbers don't lie.

It depends, but I keep forgetting, the left wants to blame everyone else except the perpetrator.

Not true. Like I said, mental illness is a tough nut to crack. Even experts can't predict with 100% accuracy who is a threat. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work on it (and we actually are), but it's worth attacking the gun violence problem from the gun angle at the same time.

Maybe if the Democrats would stop blocking the Republicans at every turn when they come up with legislation to regulate the mentally challenged

LOL! Name one piece of Republican-led legislation to "regulate the mentally challenged" that Democrats blocked! "At every turn" my butt. Name just one. You can't just make stuff up.

And she sabotaged his campaign as well.

Seems that way. At least the Democrats are finally draining their swamp. When's that happening on the GOP side? You should start with the gun lobby and their blood money donations.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I've told you this before... Without border walls, guns move easily between strict-gun-law states and loose-gun-law states. The strict laws would have to be federal and nationwide to have any real effect.

MrBum- That is not an answer to the question, the question that is being asked is why is gun assaults so heavily concentrated in cities, why do rural areas/suburbs have a lower gun assault rate, keep in mind we are talking rates here, not grand totals.

They're big-ass cities. Crime rates are higher in big cities

Why?

So I will ask again not that you will provide an answer does one need automatic or semi automatic weapons to hunt?Please do your best we know how you are with straight questions and giving straight answers...

@northernlife - Faster follow up shots and if you have multiple tags, like for ducks that have a tendency to be in groups then it makes sense to hunt with them. Same with hog hunting.

People don't need to have a "need" to be able to own or use a semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm for recreation or other non-malicious reasons. The "need" question only works if we are saying that people in general should be prohibited from owning "wants".

You care more about the right to own a gun than a child's right to live!

@Yubaru - And? I mean in order for anything to be legal you have to say that objects, activities, etc. are more important than a person's right to live. I mean can you name a single product or service that you enjoy that has not once ever, either directly or indirectly, resulted in someone being killed? I mean books have killed people, eventually you will have a logger that gets killed or someone working in a paper mill operating the machinery, etc.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That is not an answer to the question, the question that is being asked is why is gun assaults so heavily concentrated in cities,

You kind of answered your own question. Heavy concentration. When hundreds of thousands are packed so closely together vs. thousands in wide open rural areas, does it really surprise you? The odds of bumping into someone, tensions arising, incentive for crime, etc. are just higher in cities.

But again violent crime (including gun assaults) are lower than ever as a whole, so it has little to do with the rise of mass shootings.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So I will ask again not that you will provide an answer does one need automatic or semi automatic weapons to hunt?

Again, it depends on the person, I will not make the call as to what a person needs or doesn’t need. If you are a law-abiding citizen, you should be allowed to make the appropriate decisions that you feel is right.

Please do your best we know how you are with straight questions and giving straight answers...

Always.

I've told you this before... Without border walls, guns move easily between strict-gun-law states and loose-gun-law states. The strict laws would have to be federal and nationwide to have any real effect.

I get it, but what does that have to do with these cities that have the strictest gun laws and the highest crime rate which are mostly in the Minorities areas, so what’s the reason? Why so high as opposed to White neighborhoods? Apparently, it’s not all about guns, there’s something more systemic.

Criminal gun sales are already underground. The lack of strict gun laws allows for a booming market and manufacturing industry that floods the market with guns. This makes it easier and cheaper for criminals to acquire guns too.

Yes, but banning them would further regulate the industry to a whole new level of Black market sales. So banning them is not the answer.

Confiscate them from criminals, buy them back from civilians, and stop manufacturers from making more. You do those things, and eventually we'll have less guns in circulation. It'll be a long and hard process, but it's better than doing and nothing, and better than throwing anyone with a mental issue in an asylum.

It will never happen, I can assure you as the sun rises and the tides roll in. Unless you want another civil war to break out.

Chicago, Baltimore, Philly, LA, Miami... Gee, besides being blue, what do they have in common? They're big-ass cities. Crime rates are higher in big cities, even red ones which you conveniently leave out. Still at historic lows across the board though.

Ok, so why don’t liberals EVER address the issue, do frisk and search and clamp down on illegal immigration, tighten our borders, create a zero tolerance policy for all illegal firearms, lengthy prison sentences for violators, increase them with every infraction, that should drastically reduce the crime rate in these neglected cities.

Yes, they actually do. Numbers don't lie.

Then I was right

*Not true. Like I said, mental illness is a tough nut to crack. Even experts can't predict with 100% accuracy who is a threat. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work on it (and we actually are), but it's worth attacking the gun violence problem from the gun angle at the same time.*

Nice excuse, typical liberal logic.

LOL! Name one piece of Republican-led legislation to "regulate the mentally challenged" that Democrats blocked! "At every turn" my butt. Name just one. You can't just make stuff up

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill

I never do.

Seems that way. At least the Democrats are finally draining their swamp.

How??? From what Donna Brazile just wrote in her book, it seems like the swamp just got thicker than a chocolate milkshake.

When's that happening on the GOP side? You should start with the gun lobby and their blood money donations.

As I said, we got Corker and Flake out, so that’s a great start, now if Trump can get all the WH holdovers out from the last administration, things should be looking good.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill

I never do.

Did you even read your own link? That's not even close to Republican-led legislation that Democrats blocked, it's almost the exact opposite. Face it, Republicans don't really give a crap about mental health. But congrats, they made guns available to more people according to that link. Because lack of availability is the problem, right?

It will never happen, I can assure you as the sun rises and the tides roll in. Unless you want another civil war to break out.

Just say this. Because your other points are barely comprehensible or just plain false information. You want to keep your guns no matter what. I got it. At least have the honesty to accept responsibility for the consequences though. People have to die in order to keep your "right." Stop with all the BS excuses and deflections.

How??? From what Donna Brazile just wrote in her book, it seems like the swamp just got thicker than a chocolate milkshake.

Duh... She wrote the book to expose that thick corruption in the party... Exposing corruption is the first step in cleaning it up... Why is this something that needs to be explained to you?

As I said, we got Corker and Flake out, so that’s a great start,

Please... Corker and Flake vote exactly the same as every other Republican and even support Trump in terms of legislative voting; i.e., for monied interests. The only reason they got out was personal disagreements with Trump. He's too big of a blowhard for them. Considering their party, that's saying a lot.

now if Trump can get all the WH holdovers out from the last administration,

And replace them with who? More Wall Street and fossil fuel executives? That's dumping sewage into the swamp.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why so high as opposed to White neighborhoods?

White areas have the crazies like this guy. White people are generally the crazy people who do the mass shooting.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You kind of answered your own question. Heavy concentration. When hundreds of thousands are packed so closely together vs. thousands in wide open rural areas, does it really surprise you? The odds of bumping into someone, tensions arising, incentive for crime, etc. are just higher in cities.

No I didn't answer my own question, the question deals with rates and the reason for that is to adjust and control for population size. To be more specific why is there a higher desire to harm people in cities versus out in the rural and suburbs? Plus the violence in cities is not equally distributed across the city, it is further concentrated in specific neighborhoods of a city. For example in Minneapolis most of the homicides are in North Minneapolis and not other parts of the city. Why?

You have to remember that with all the straw buying and gun smuggling that it is pre-planned event, which means it isn't a simple well he bumped into me so I'm going to go to the gun store and come back and shoot him. No they pre-planned to hurt people, hence why you have the gun smuggling and straw buyers, it isn't some spontaneous decision that is the result of being bumped into. So why the desire to do this?

Tensions arising from what? Economic policies? Poor city zoning? Cities that don't have adequate schools or social welfare programs? Poor health care systems? Inadequate housing? If it is those causing the tensions then that doesn't sound like a neighboring city/town/county/state that is responsible for that issue.

The argument that people make that it is the surrounding communities fault for the gun violence in a major city is really just the city not taking responsibility for the issue. It is the same argument that the US government has made to Mexico and Columbia and other nation states in blaming them for the drug problem in the USA. They are not responsible for why there is such a high demand for recreational drugs in the USA, like wise neighboring communities and states are not responsible for why cities have violence concentrated in them and more specifically why the violence is concentrated in specific neighborhoods of the city.

it really starts to sound like the gun is not the cause of the problem but rather a symptom of a problem.

If it was truly the fault of the neighboring communities then the neighboring communities should have higher crime rates than the city itself.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

it really starts to sound like the gun is not the cause of the problem

Then citizens should have access to modern military grade machine guns since the gun is not the cause of the problem

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Then citizens should have access to modern military grade machine guns since the gun is not the cause of the problem

@Nishikat - OK.......Civilians already have access to semi-automatics that can be bump fired without any additional attachments or modifications so........

If you believe that the gun is the cause of the problem and not a symptom of the problem then can you explain why gun violence is not more equal distributed among populations instead of being so highly concentrated among population demographics like poverty, high school or less educational attainment, males between the ages of 15-25 and concentrated so heavily in some geographic locations?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

More deflection by the gun junkies trying to justify their personal fear as a justifiable excuse to let more people be shot.

If if you think guns being taken away wouldn’t solve the problem, then explain how people can be mass shot without guns to do the shootIng.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Civilians already have access to semi-automatics that can be bump fired without any additional attachments or modifications so........

Nowhere near military grade. Not by a longshot. If common citizens can't have what the military can have without any restrictions (just a simple background check like with any other gun) then that is against 2A and is Liberal.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nowhere near military grade. Not by a longshot. If common citizens can't have what the military can have without any restrictions (just a simple background check like with any other gun) then that is against 2A and is Liberal.

@nishikat - How so? The gun is made out of the same materials as the military firearm, it shoots the same bullet types and it can accept the same magazines, and bump firing is able to effectively simulate fully automatic rates of fire.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The gun is made out of the same materials as the military firearm

Exactly. It doesn't make any sense that common citizens can't buy anything the military has as long as they have the money and a clean record. If so they could have neutralized the Las Vegas shooter and it would have saved lots of lives. It's against 2A. If the Mk 153 SMAW was allowed to be sold at the local gun shop just like Glocks Las Vegas would not have happened. Stephen Paddock would not have dared to make such an assault. And when (not if) the US government decides to start terminating all of its citizens in indiscriminate tyranny those bumped semi autos are not going to cut it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No I didn't answer my own question, the question deals with rates and the reason for that is to adjust and control for population size.

Most violent crime in the inner city is related to drugs and the drug trade. You really can't have turf wars in the rural areas without rival gangs.

Larger populations increase crime, yes even their rates. If you think of crime as a business, it does exponentially better when there are more consumers.

As far as some neighborhoods being worse than others, have you heard of income inequality & gentrification? Look it up.

Tensions arising from what?

Are you serious? Where are you from? Have you ever had to sit through hours of traffic? Stand in a crowded train? City life can be stressful, which is why a lot of people like to escape to the country when they can.

But AGAIN, crime rates are lower than ever, even in the cities. It's mass shootings like the one in Texas that are up. Talking about "high" crime rates anywhere is simply dishonest and a deflection.

The argument that people make that it is the surrounding communities fault for the gun violence in a major city is really just the city not taking responsibility for the issue.

The blame is firmly on the Republican politicians and gun industry that pays them to prevent any form gun control legislation from happening. The only fault in rural communities is that they tend vote for these Republican politicians overwhelmingly.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Most violent crime in the inner city is related to drugs and the drug trade. You really can't have turf wars in the rural areas without rival gangs.

Larger populations increase crime, yes even their rates. If you think of crime as a business, it does exponentially better when there are more consumers.

As far as some neighborhoods being worse than others, have you heard of income inequality & gentrification? Look it up.

Very good.

Are you serious? Where are you from? Have you ever had to sit through hours of traffic? Stand in a crowded train? City life can be stressful, which is why a lot of people like to escape to the country when they can.

Yes, see the point of the question I'm asking is to basically get you to list a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with gun availability as the root cause, it is to get you to list a whole bunch of reasons why neighboring communities less restrictive gun laws are not the root cause of why those locations have higher crime rates, especially gun crimes. You have done a fantastic job in proving my point that the gun crime is a symptom of an issue rather than the gun being the cause of the issue and that there are other issues that have a bigger impact on violent crime rates, especially gun crimes, than the availability of firearms.

But AGAIN, crime rates are lower than ever, even in the cities. It's mass shootings like the one in Texas that are up. Talking about "high" crime rates anywhere is simply dishonest and a deflection.

Absolutely agree, I think people like Strangerland, Smithinjapan, Cleo, Toasted Heretic, etc who make the USA to be basically this dangerous place where you have a very high probability of being shot or killed is well BS. It is basically extreme hyperbole.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Exactly. It doesn't make any sense that common citizens can't buy anything the military has as long as they have the money and a clean record.

@nishikat - Well then it is good that they can, you can buy a semi-automatic that is basically just as good as the militaries, you can buy fully operational tanks, fighter jets, rockets, grenades, warships, explosives, etc as long as you have a destructive device permit.

And when (not if) the US government decides to start terminating all of its citizens in indiscriminate tyranny those bumped semi autos are not going to cut it.

@nishikat - If there is a one to one ratio of fighters on either side you are correct but if you have lets say 30% of the adult population take up arms against US government, same amount that took up arms against the British in the war of independence for example, it will be enough. The US military if you include its reserves are around ~2 million in strength that governs 3.8 million square miles. You then factor in that the US military only has around 1,600 active tanks, now take those 1,600 tanks and spread them out across a nation that is 3.8 million square miles. Then you factor in that the US military has around 2,000 fighter aircraft(including bombers). Do the math....The US military is to small for the land area that is the USA and then compound that with a Adult population that is considered fighting age of 200+ million and you quickly start to realize that the US military might be able to hold pockets of the USA but it wouldn't be able to hold the vast majority of the land that is the USA.

Remember it was predicted that at the start of the Iraq war it would take over 400k+ troops to be able to occupy it successfully. That is a nation that is basically the size of California and basically has 10% the population size of the USA and would require nearly 20%+ of the total US military(Active and Reserve).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yes, see the point of the question I'm asking is to basically get you to list a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with gun availability as the root cause

Congrats, that's called deflection. Because all those things have nothing to do with the issue of mass shootings for which gun availability is undoubtedly a root cause. But I'll play along.

You have done a fantastic job in proving my point that the gun crime is a symptom of an issue rather than the gun being the cause of the issue and that there are other issues that have a bigger impact on violent crime rates, especially gun crimes, than the availability of firearms.

Yes, there are a host other issues that America has to deal with, each of them very complex. The issue of violent crime that you bring up, for example, is rooted in other issues like poverty, education, prison systems, mental illness, etc. that are each complex on their own, and as hard as we may try, there may be no clear-cut 100% solutions to many of them.

Comparatively speaking, reducing the number of guns is simple. Confiscate guns from criminals, buy back from law-abiding citizens, and stop manufacturers from flooding the country with more. It's won't be easy and it won't be done in a day, but it's a clear-cut measure we can get started on as we're figuring out how to deal with all those other issues.

I mean with all those problems you got me to list, why do you want a country awash in guns that gives easier access to everyone, including criminals and unlicensed loners? You got admit, it doesn't help. And for what? A hobby? A false sense of protection?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Congrats, that's called deflection. Because all those things have nothing to do with the issue of mass shootings for which gun availability is undoubtedly a root cause. But I'll play along.

@MrBum - Oh if I was talking about the issue of mass shootings I would agree. I was instead addressing your assertion that the reason why cities like Chicago have higher crime rates is primarily due to the neighboring communities gun laws. As I have pointed out the gun crimes are symptoms of other issues and not caused by neighboring states or towns or cities. You have done a fantastic job of listing all the reasons why cities have higher crime and none of them have anything to do with neighboring jurisdictions gun laws. As I asserted before the cities blaming neighboring jurisdictions is really the same thing as the US government blaming Mexico and other Latin American countries for this nation's drug usage.

Comparatively speaking, reducing the number of guns is simple. Confiscate guns from criminals, buy back from law-abiding citizens, and stop manufacturers from flooding the country with more. It's won't be easy and it won't be done in a day, but it's a clear-cut measure we can get started on as we're figuring out how to deal with all those other issues.

Historically this is something that has proven to not have much success, drug war and prohibition come to mind.

I mean with all those problems you got me to list, why do you want a country awash in guns that gives easier access to everyone, including criminals and unlicensed loners? You got admit, it doesn't help. And for what? A hobby? A false sense of protection?

Because the risk is low enough and yes for a hobby for most people. The casualty rate(suicides, homicides, accidents, criminal assault, etc) of firearms is 30 per 100,000 or three hundredths of one percent annually. So yes in general if someone went to me and said a product that 32-50% of the adult population owns for recreation resulted 99.97% of the population not being killed or wounded on an annual basis I would say that is acceptable.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Historically this is something that has proven to not have much success, drug war and prohibition come to mind.

No country on earth has figured out how to stop people from wanting to get f'd once in a while. That aside, the drug war and prohibition failed because we don't control the supply. Drugs are smuggled in from other countries and anyone can make bootleg alcohol if they put their mind to it.

Most guns in the US (and probably the world) are made by gun manufacturers in the US. They're not that easy to make, so restricting these manufacturers would make a big difference. That difference is big enough to give it a try. And unlike drugs and alcohol, people will probably get used to not having guns in time. Most countries do fine without them.

I would say that is acceptable.

Well if it was only the people who thought the risk acceptable that were dying, maybe the anti-gun group would leave you to it. Unfortunately, everyone has to deal with these "acceptable" occurrences.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Republicans don't really give a crap about mental health. But congrats, they made guns available to more people according to that link. Because lack of availability is the problem, right?

They don’t? Funny, coming from the people that support taking the rights from law-abiding citizens, but want to force us to pay the highest amount of premiums and force us to take on a healthcare system that does nothing but break the bank accounts of the majority of Americans.

You want to keep your guns no matter what. I got it. At least have the honesty to accept responsibility for the consequences though. People have to die in order to keep your "right." Stop with all the BS excuses and deflections.

Never, but I think the real BS comes in the form of liberals thinking that they have the moral authority to force people to do and to think as they do, if you don’t, you are a knuckle dragging troglodyte, but that’s not never going to happen.

Duh... She wrote the book to expose that thick corruption in the party... Exposing corruption is the first step in cleaning it up... Why is this something that needs to be explained to you?

So then why are the Democrats resistent to even acknowledging that. For all the smarts and brains the Dems supposedly should have, it seems like they’re dumber than a bucket of bricks. Lying is an art form for them.

Please... Corker and Flake vote exactly the same as every other Republican and even support Trump in terms of legislative voting; i.e., for monied interests.

Yeah, uh-huh an then when they noticed they can’t get elected, they decide to (lol) retire, the typical Washington rhinos. Not the less bit surprised.

The only reason they got out was personal disagreements with Trump. He's too big of a blowhard for them. Considering their party, that's saying a lot.

No, it’s saying ther constituents completely reject them, they thought they could go against Trump and the people would idolize them and vote them in for another term, that didn’t happen, especially for Flake who thought the Dems would embrace his attacks and they turned on him as well and now the guy become a joke, a pariah. Good that’s he’s gone, he saved himself from a lot of embarrassment.

And replace them with who? More Wall Street and fossil fuel executives? That's dumping sewage into the swamp.

Again, he’s trying to drain these holdovers, Podesta resigned, that’s a start.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The real threat, apparently, is liberals.

More guns and prayers, lots of prayers, is the answer.

How many days/hours before the next massacre?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

lets say 30% of the adult population take up arms against US government

This is Japan. No guns here (other than hunting and they have to be registered)

as long as you have a destructive device permit.

That's against 2A. Registration means future confiscation. The NRA says ".....shall not be infringed....". How can we defend against someone shooting from a hotel window like in Las Vegas with what you can get at the local gun shop?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And so the usual talking points start flying...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

 Drugs are smuggled in from other countries

@MrBum - So in other words even with proper borders that are patrolled and enforced, payment and supplying of local law enforcement and military in those countries to attack the smugglers and the suppliers it still won't work. So one conclusion that can be made is that cities blaming other neighbor states, counties, and cities really is just them not taking responsibility for the root causes.

anyone can make bootleg alcohol if they put their mind to it.

@MrBum - That is true with everything, including firearms.

Most guns in the US (and probably the world) are made by gun manufacturers in the US. They're not that easy to make, so restricting these manufacturers would make a big difference. That difference is big enough to give it a try. And unlike drugs and alcohol, people will probably get used to not having guns in time. Most countries do fine without them.

@MrBum - With the arrival of 3D printing I don't think that is going to be true much longer for firearms.

Well if it was only the people who thought the risk acceptable that were dying, maybe the anti-gun group would leave you to it. Unfortunately, everyone has to deal with these "acceptable" occurrences.

@MrBum - Then there fear of the risk is irrational in the same way people refuse to get into a plane even though the risk is minuscule and less than a car. If you truly believe that the risk of three hundredths of one percent is to high then my expectation is that you are saying that for everything. Not just only for the ownership of firearms for recreation.

Everyone always has to deal with the consequences from occurrences from all products and services.

God forbid anyone anywhere says that their right to own a product, purchase a service, enjoy a cultural activity, etc. outweighs someone's three hundredth of one percent risk of something bad happening to them on an annual basis.

If the only acceptable risk is zero dead or injured then we are all going to live very boring lives.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If the only acceptable risk is zero dead or injured

And how to achieve that in Las Vegas with the kind of light (non military grade) firepower you can only buy at the local gun shop. Americans deserve better. a destructive device permit is an infringement on the NRA 2A rights.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Ban them now

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So one conclusion that can be made is that cities blaming other neighbor states, counties, and cities really is just them not taking responsibility for the root causes.

Bass4funk brought up the "high" gun crime in cities despite their strict gun laws as a deflection. I merely brought up neighbor states, counties, and cities because their loose gun laws do in fact affect the availability and volume of guns in circulation, and strict laws would have to be nationwide to have an effect.

That is true with everything, including firearms.

Please... None of these mass shootings would have happened with rickety homemade firearms. And people can make bombs too, but we don't throw our arms in the air and say "We might as well make them legal!"

With the arrival of 3D printing I don't think that is going to be true much longer for firearms.

3D printing is not sci-fi magic. It looks like it'll be a long while until the technology reaches a point where it can replicate the types of weapons used in these shootings. Talk about irrational fears.

Then there fear of the risk is irrational in the same way people refuse to get into a plane even though the risk is minuscule and less than a car.

We accept those risks with cars, planes, even alcohol because they all perform a task we feel is valuable when used correctly. Guns were invented to kill with ease and efficiency, and don't provide any other function that we deem is worth the risk of mass shootings every month or so, however rare that may be to you. That's our opinion, but there's nothing irrational about it.

If gun-activists believe that the risk is acceptable, own up to it. Take responsibility and stop feigning concern for every other ill in American society whenever a shooting occurs.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Bass4funk brought up the "high" gun crime in cities despite their strict gun laws as a deflection.

Absolutely not, you and the left never want to confront the issue of these lawless and out of control problems that are destroying the minority communities.

I merely brought up neighbor states, counties, and cities because their loose gun laws do in fact affect the availability and volume of guns in circulation, and strict laws would have to be nationwide to have an effect.

We already have them, but I will submit to you, some States need to tighten their laws in the areas where it’s not as strict.

Please... None of these mass shootings would have happened with rickety homemade firearms. And people can make bombs too, but we don't throw our arms in the air and say "We might as well make them legal!"

I see, but we don’t need to entertain that thought because the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere. You’re making the “If argument” ok, if those 2 Samaritans didn’t have guns to stop that attacker more lives would have been lost. You can look at it from that angle as well.

The real threat, apparently, is liberals

No, just the progressive left wingers that want to rob us of our 2nd amendment

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Absolutely not, you and the left never want to confront the issue of these lawless and out of control problems that are destroying the minority communities.

There's that feigned concern... The left never wants to confront the issues according to the right, but when Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago they laughed at him.

So in other words even with proper borders that are patrolled and enforced, payment and supplying of local law enforcement and military in those countries to attack the smugglers and the suppliers it still won't work.

Forgot one... If you think smuggling guns is as easy as smuggling drugs, that's your opinion, but it's not rational. Also the drug trade has a distribution network in place once they arrive in the US with a vast consumer base. I really doubt most current gun owners would go through that trouble should guns be outlawed.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

There's that feigned concern... The left never wants to confront the issues according to the right, but when Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago they laughed at him.

Gee, how did that help the Blacks of South Chicago? Tell me, how many Blacks died this year so far in the Windy City?

Forgot one... If you think smuggling guns is as easy as smuggling drugs, that's your opinion, but it's not rational.

I’m from California, it not my opinion, it’s a known fact. Whatever happened the Fast and furious scandal? Was Holder ever prosecuted for that?

Also the drug trade has a distribution network in place once they arrive in the US with a vast consumer base. I really doubt most current gun owners would go through that trouble should guns be outlawed.

If they would do that for drugs, most gun enthusiasts and hunters that I know, including myself would do it in a heartbeat and that’s a fact. They did it with booze, so of course they would.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Was Holder ever prosecuted for that?

He should have if he was selling arms to the Mexicans. Just like Hillary selling plutonium to the Russians. What happened?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Gee, how did that help the Blacks of South Chicago? Tell me, how many Blacks died this year so far in the Windy City?

The point is he tried, which contradicts your claim that the left never wants to confront the issues. Not only did he try, he was ridiculed for it, which goes to show how genuine the right's concern for the Windy City is.

Whatever happened the Fast and furious scandal? Was Holder ever prosecuted for that?

Fast and furious was about the US government purposely allowing guns to be sold to Mexican cartels in order track them. I agree with you that it was a bad idea, but it has nothing to do with smuggling guns, which you have to agree is at least a little harder than smuggling drugs.

If they would do that for drugs, most gun enthusiasts and hunters that I know, including myself would do it in a heartbeat and that’s a fact.

Well then you and your friends would be criminals and punished if caught. I doubt most current gun owners would take that risk.

I see, but we don’t need to entertain that thought because the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere.

2nd amendment says "arms". Bombs are "arms," but we outlaw those. The 2nd amendment is already being interpreted to exclude certain arms, so there's no reason we can't exclude guns.

You’re making the “If argument” ok, if those 2 Samaritans didn’t have guns to stop that attacker more lives would have been lost.

OK, IF the shooter didn't have a gun, someone at the church could've tackled him and less or NO lives may have been lost. Sorry but removing the deadly weapon will always result in better IF scenarios.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The point is he tried,

Trying doesn’t mean anything. He didn’t try enough. Him and the Democrats implented Obamacare, shoved it on us like a foul sausage, so if the Democrats can make that a top priority, they could do the same for the Blacks, but we all know they just want their votes, nothing more, the party of tolerance is the party of racists.

which contradicts your claim that the left never wants to confront the issues. Not only did he try, he was ridiculed for it, which goes to show how genuine the right's concern for the Windy City is.

Obama and the Dems were ridiculed because they didn’t do enough and the Democrats in blue States with the highest of crimes didn’t do anything. Well, they tried. Wow. Funny, when the Dems want something they fight for it, when it comes to helping their biggest constituents in helping them battle crime and poverty, they just try. What a joke!

Well then you and your friends would be criminals and punished if caught. I doubt most current gun owners would take that risk.

Yeah, they said the same thing about Prohibition, that worked out so well.

2nd amendment says "arms". Bombs are "arms," but we outlaw those. The 2nd amendment is already being interpreted to exclude certain arms, so there's no reason we can't exclude guns.

It won’t happen at least not in the near future. I’m not even worried abou that one, but if the Dems want to try, especially in the States where they live and represent were they have a large hunting population. I would dare them to try it.

OK, IF the shooter didn't have a gun, someone at the church could've tackled him and less or NO lives may have been lost. Sorry but removing the deadly weapon will always result in better IF scenarios.

Not If had a truck or a crossbow or a bomb. Either way, the guy was on a mission o kill as many people as possible, the Jihadists use trucks and other means, take the guns away, the insane will improvise. Arm the people and allow them to determine the destiny of their lives.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Bass4funk brought up the "high" gun crime in cities despite their strict gun laws as a deflection. I merely brought up neighbor states, counties, and cities because their loose gun laws do in fact affect the availability and volume of guns in circulation, and strict laws would have to be nationwide to have an effect.

@MrBum - The argument that you put forward was that due to the fact that cities can't enforce borders means that the primary cause for gun crime is due to the neighboring jurisdictions. If that is the case then the neighboring jurisdictions that have the weaker gun laws and even shorter distances to travel to a gun dealer should have just as high of gun crime rates if not higher. They don't. So that means there is a demand in cities, more specifically within certain neighborhoods of places like Chicago, Minneapolis, LA, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc to want to hurt people maliciously. That demand does not exist in the suburbs or even more rural communities of the USA The guns don't drive it, they are but a symptom of the root cause of why these people want to hurt people maliciously. Those root causes are not being addressed.

Blaming other jurisdictions for their gun crime problem is the same argument that the US government has made in the past, and what you made just a few posts ago, when it comes to drugs which are in effect nationwide. US government just like those cities like NYC and Chicago are not taking responsibility, they are just blaming other people for their problems. Latin America is not responsible for America's drug consumption demand/problem. Likewise other states and towns are not responsible for Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore violent crimes problems.

So now your claim is that in order for the laws to be effective it has to be nationwide, hmm drug laws are nation wide, heck they are even global, doesn't seem to work when it is nation wide or even global. Well that is because the cities can't enforce borders...hmmm the USA has borders and it enforces those borders with other nations and yet drugs still get through....Well that is because we don't control the supply....Hmmm the USA arms, trains, and funds those other nations law enforcement as well as military, in addition it has DEA agents as well as FBI, NSA, CIA and other federal American law enforcement and intelligence services embedded with those forces to combat the supply in those other nations. Doesn't seem to work very well.

*Please... None of these mass shootings would have happened with rickety homemade firearms. And people can make bombs too, but we don't throw our arms in the air and say "We might as well make them legal!"*

Philippines would disagree. Besides mass shootings make up such a small portion of gun crimes within the USA it really is irresponsible to focus gun crime prevention efforts based off of mass shootings.

Bombs are legal in the USA.

3D printing is not sci-fi magic. It looks like it'll be a long while until the technology reaches a point where it can replicate the types of weapons used in these shootings. Talk about irrational fears.

I know it is not sci-fi magic, what pointing out does is show you that your assertion that guns are too difficult for the average person to make just doesn't hold water anymore. As for not being able to replicate rifles like AR-15....You might want to check out Vice's documentary on 3d printed firearms. Four years ago Cody Wilson successfully created a lower receiver for an AR-15 that could shoot hundreds of bullets without failure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

We accept those risks with cars, planes, even alcohol because they all perform a task we feel is valuable when used correctly. Guns were invented to kill with ease and efficiency, and don't provide any other function that we deem is worth the risk of mass shootings every month or so, however rare that may be to you. That's our opinion, but there's nothing irrational about it.

So you would agree then that people who refuse to ride in cars or planes are being irrational in their fear of being injured.

OK lets go with Alcohol, what does recreational consumption of Alcohol do that out weighs its 88,000+ deaths, over 3.8 million+ hospitalizations, over $750+ billion dollars in indirect and direct costs, and plays either the primary if not significant contributing factor in basically 50% of all violent crimes in the USA. Most people will tell you that the benefits of recreational alcohol consumption is for socialization and just simply enjoying the sensation of being intoxicated. Well most people own and shoot firearms for recreation because they enjoy the socialization at a gun range and they enjoy the sensations(sound, recoil, etc) of shooting a firearm and they enjoy the challenge of hitting a target at range. The cost of that is 30-35K+ gun deaths with basically 60-70K hospitalizations and a $200-300 billion dollars in direct and indirect costs. In other words guns offer the same benefits while at the same time being less costly to society than Alcohol.

Sounds like those wanting to restrict guns are being irrational when compared to Alcohol in terms of benefits and costs. In fact almost all of them who are OK with Alcohol but not with firearms basically need to get over themselves. They don't care about these people's lives. They justify their malicious attitude to firearms by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely them) participate in/own throughout society.

When you have a product that is claimed to do X but basically nearly everyone in society uses the product to do Y then at that point X use has been superseded by Y use.

The death rate(suicides, homicides, and accidents) of those who own firearms is around ~40-50 per 100,000. That means that over 99.9% of gun owners don't kill anyone much less themselves on an annual basis.

Harping on about how guns are designed to kill when you know that literally over 99.9% of its won't kill anyone much less themselves is really wasting everyone's time including yours.

What is so special about mass shootings that I should consider the victims to be worth more than people who die from other causes in similar numbers if not greater numbers but not in circumstance?

Finally it is an irrational fear, I can go right now and get you quotes from Cleo about how she is afraid of being shot while in the USA. I can get you quotes from people claiming the USA is not safe country and is a "dangerous" country because of guns. I can get you quotes from people claiming the USA is a dangerous country because its homicide rate is a grand total of four thousandths of one percent more or that the USA is a crime ridden country. Those are not statements of "I believe the costs out weigh benefits" those are "fear" comments.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Sounds like those wanting to restrict guns are being irrational

Then let teens (under 18 with clean records) carry Glocks as well as let anyone buy any military grade weaponry they can afford without the special permits and registrations needed (because registration brings confiscation and is against NRA 2A). OK, we get it! Guns are 100% not the problem and if there were more guns the world would be safer. The concert crowd would have been able to neutralize the Las Vegas shooter and it would have saved lives if people could buy military grade weaponry as easily as a handgun.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The argument that you put forward was that due to the fact that cities can't enforce borders means that the primary cause for gun crime is due to the neighboring jurisdictions. If that is the case then the neighboring jurisdictions that have the weaker gun laws and even shorter distances to travel to a gun dealer should have just as high of gun crime rates if not higher.

No that is not the argument. Mr Bum's argument, with which I agree, is that you cannot claim a high-crime city has 'very strict gun laws' when its borders are porous and its neighbours have very lax/non-existent gun laws.

It's been explained how and why some cities have higher potential for crime than others, and those places are going to have high gun crime rates regardless of any 'strict' gun laws that might be in place, if any bloodthirsty fool can just slip across into the next state, purchase his weapon(s) of choice and slip back again.

A reasonably healthy adult can withstand an infection that will kill an infant or elderly person. That is not a reason not to promote vaccines for the vulnerable. In the same way, stable, affluent areas of the country can get by with low levels of crime even if every bedside cabinet contains a loaded gun (and in those stable societies, the guns are unnecessary as a means of self-defence); that doesn't mean it's a good idea to allow less stable areas, neighbourhoods with high poverty levels and infested with gangs, to have free access to lethal weaponry. Or to allow the mentally sick to purchase weapons legally.

there is a demand in cities, more specifically within certain neighborhoods of places like Chicago, Minneapolis, LA, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc to want to hurt people maliciously.

Then why on earth would you want to feed lethal weapons into those places??

I can go right now and get you quotes from Cleo about how she is afraid of being shot while in the USA. 

I am not 'afraid of being shot while in the USA', primarily because I have no reason or desire to ever enter the USA. Not because the country is awash wth guns, but because roughly half the population appears to be crazy/dangerously criminal in one way or another. Or so certain Merikans on JT keep telling us.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@cleo, Thanks.

@Noliving, Jesus... You got to be irrational if you think I'm reading all of that, especially when you start by putting words in my mouth as cleo points out. But I'll respond to a few things that stood out.

So you would agree then that people who refuse to ride in cars or planes are being irrational in their fear of being injured.

Cars move us around and alcohol makes us feel good (and is here to stay after the failed prohibition you mentioned). But guns do absolutely nothing for the anti-gun person. We don't fantasize about stopping other gun-owners or taking down a tyrannical government one day, so we'd rather not die for the fantasies and/or easily replaceable hobbies of others, no matter how slim the odds, and envy other countries that don't have to deal with monthly shootings. Silly us, right?

They justify their malicious attitude to firearms by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense,

Yes, what nonsense to care about our own lives and those of others. You want faux concern, look to right-wing politicians who send thoughts and prayers while refusing to even talk about reducing access to high-powered arms in the slightest, because that gun-manufacturer money is just too good.

What is so special about mass shootings that I should consider the victims to be worth more than people who die from other causes in similar numbers if not greater numbers but not in circumstance?

Because they're senseless and preventable to the anti-gun person. You seem to think they're an inevitable fact of life in America.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

No that is not the argument. Mr Bum's argument, with which I agree, is that you cannot claim a high-crime city has 'very strict gun laws' when its borders are porous and its neighbours have very lax/non-existent gun laws.

Cleo - Yes it is, the idea that strength or strictness of any law is dependent upon whether or not it borders are porous with another jurisdiction is just moving the goal post and is really a non-sequitur. Just because a law is easy to break or is practical to break doesn't mean it isn't strict.

For example it is illegal nation wide to drive a motor vehicle while intoxicated or under the influence of a drug, everyone would agree that is a strict law. Guess what it is extremely easy/practical to break that law.

Everyone would agree the fact that possession, manufacture, distribution in civilian hands of LSD is illegal means it is a strict law but just because it is easily violated in the USA doesn't mean it isn't a strict law.

All you and MrBum are doing here is conflating that because a law is easy to violate or practical to break means that it isn't a strict law. That is now how a law is determined to be strict.

Then why on earth would you want to feed lethal weapons into those places??

Cleo - I don't, but if push comes to shove that the only options is a complete ban on a product(IE Assault weapon bans) or service(Prostitution) because one hundredth of one percent of the population dies because of said product or service while 32-50% of the population owns and uses the product or uses a service for non-malicious reasons then I would say they are an acceptable cost.

I would argue Cleo that the amount of enforcement being used trying to stop drugs and lethal weapons into those places is back firing in that it is consuming valuable resources that could have been used to address the root causes. The drugs and malicious gun use are symptoms of the root cause, the more you try to enforce the laws to tamp down on a symptom the more you are moving resources away from solving the issue.

I am not 'afraid of being shot while in the USA', primarily because I have no reason or desire to ever enter the USA. Not because the country is awash wth guns, but because roughly half the population appears to be crazy/dangerously criminal in one way or another. Or so certain Merikans on JT keep telling us.

Right Cleo, you are not afraid of being shot but you won't ever enter the USA because you are afraid of being the victim crime in the USA, especially guns...

Cars move us around and alcohol makes us feel good (and is here to stay after the failed prohibition you mentioned).

MrBum - So again you would agree that people who refuse to get into cars or planes because of fear of injury or death have an irrational fear of being wounded or killed?

Yes Alcohol makes us feel good, so you would agree then that 88,000 deaths, 3.8 million hospitalizations, $750+ billion dollars is an acceptable cost to feel good? Yes? If so that would then mean a precedent has been set as to what is an acceptable cost to enjoy a recreation/hobby.

But guns do absolutely nothing for the anti-gun person

MrBum - Gee I wonder how many teetotalers would say the same for Alcohol.

*We don't fantasize about stopping other gun-owners or taking down a tyrannical government one day, so we'd rather not die for the fantasies and/or easily replaceable hobbies of others, no matter how slim the odds, and envy other countries that don't have to deal with monthly shootings. Silly us, right?*

MrBum - Neither does the average gun owner fantasize about wanting to stop other gun owners or taking down a tyrannical government one day. That is why the vast majority of them own firearms for recreation and hunting.

A lot of people have the same sentiment about not wanting to die because other people want to get intoxicated or high.

Yes it is silly of you because it is irrational, that part about "no matter how slim the odds" is the same argument people who are against the legalization of marijuana use. It is the same argument people use to justify their bigotry against Muslims and their fear of terrorism.

Yes, what nonsense to care about our own lives and those of others.

MrBum - Let me repeat, special emphasis on the bold section:

They justify their malicious attitude to firearms by attempting to wrap it in some faux "caring about human life" nonsense, while purposefully ignoring any number of larger behaviors/ownership of products that many (and nearly definitely them) participate in/own throughout society.

You want faux concern, look to right-wing politicians who send thoughts and prayers while refusing to even talk about reducing access to high-powered arms in the slightest, because that gun-manufacturer money is just too good.

MrBum - Absolutely I agree with you that it is a faux concern.

Because they're senseless and preventable to the anti-gun person. You seem to think they're an inevitable fact of life in America.

MrBum - And the other causes of death are not just as senseless or preventable? Like deaths caused by Alcohol.

For example lets say you are walking while intoxicated and slip and fall and die because of your intoxication. What to you makes that death sensible or any less preventable than someone dying from a gun?

Death is an inevitable fact of life.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

is consuming valuable resources

Exactly so common citizens (including reliable teens under 18- especially in Chicago) should be able to defend themselves more effectively against dangerous people and the tyrannical governments with the latest and best military grade weaponry they can afford (without the special permits or registrations since it leads to confiscation) - would have saved lives in Las Vegas. The idea of more guns is to save more lives. More guns = more lives saved. Las Vegas proves this. That's the NRA 2A way.

taking down a tyrannical government one day.

yes, and I don't get the NRA 2A people coming to Japan where the government has all the guns and civilians just have guns (which are strictly regulated) for hunting. It's an NRA nightmare in Japan so I don't get why this paranoid group is willing to leave their guns in the USA and come to an entire gun free country.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am not 'afraid of being shot while in the USA', primarily because I have no reason or desire to ever enter the USA.

I understand, I feel the same about many countries as well, we all have the right to go and choose where we live or feel comfortable.

Not because the country is awash wth guns, but because roughly half the population appears to be crazy/dangerously criminal in one way or another. Or so certain Merikans on JT keep telling us.

Well, I feel the same about Europeans in general, although I like Europe, but leaving was the best decision my parents made. But we all have the choice to decide our own destiny. That’s what I love most about “freedom” the right to choose and carve out your own life and destiny, the way you see fit.

Cars move us around and alcohol makes us feel good

Not always, please don’t generalize.

(and is here to stay after the failed prohibition you mentioned). But guns do absolutely nothing for the anti-gun person. We don't fantasize about stopping other gun-owners or taking down a tyrannical government one day, so we'd rather not die for the fantasies and/or easily replaceable hobbies of others, no matter how slim the odds, and envy other countries that don't have to deal with monthly shootings. Silly us, right?*

Not silly, but as I said before, it’s a losing argument, I am not going to persuade you on the gun issue and vice versa. I love guns, I love hunting and I love collecting them, the 2nd amendment allows me that right and I’ve been an NRA member and supporter for 30 years and people that hate guns foreign or domestic really don’t have to understand it, I just don’t want them pushing me or try calling me every vile, rude and repugnant name in the book because they hate my personal and fundamental rights protected under the Constitution.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

in the book because they hate my personal and fundamental rights protected under the Constitution.

But not in Japan? How can a 2A NRA member protect himself against a samurai sword or a fast moving car. And these attacks do happen in Japan? In the USA you can shoot through the windshield. How about Japan?

pushing me

But it happens before stepping into the airport to board the plan to Japan (with no gun).

but leaving was the best decision my parents made

How about leaving Japan because no guns are allowed here?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Just because a law is easy to break or is practical to break doesn't mean it isn't strict.

Actually, yes it does. A law with no teeth is not a strict law. A law that can be easily got around is not a strict law. A law that is clearly not working as it is intended to work, is not a strict law.

one hundredth of one percent of the population dies because of said product or service while 32-50% of the population owns and uses the product or uses a service for non-malicious reasons then I would say they are an acceptable cost.

Would you make the same argument face-to-face with a family member of that 'one hundredth of one percent'? Or if a member of your own family were in that 'one hundredth of one percent'?

you won't ever enter the USA because you are afraid of being the victim crime in the USA..

Oh dear. Seems you're not that hot on sarcasm. Read the last sentence of the paragraph you are commenting on, and try again.

Neither does the average gun owner fantasize about wanting to stop other gun owners or taking down a tyrannical government one day. That is why the vast majority of them own firearms for recreation and hunting.

But, but but.... the sacred Second Amendment is all about the need for a well-regulated militia to guarantee the security of a free state. (i.e. stopping other gun owners who are attacking the state). There is no mention in the Second Amendment of hunting or recreation that I can see.

Death is an inevitable fact of life.

Gosh, no point striving for anything then, may as well just lie down quietly and wait for the End.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

People chose to get intoxicated. People don't chose to be massacred.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Oh dear. Seems you're not that hot on sarcasm. Read the last sentence of the paragraph you are commenting on, and try again.

I did, I was just stating my opinion.

But, but but.... the sacred Second Amendment is all about the need for a well-regulated militiato guarantee the security of a free state.

Which by definition means, in order to secure my safety, I am allowed to have and own a registered firearm.

(i.e. stopping other gun owners who are attacking the state). There is no mention in the Second Amendment of hunting or recreation that I can see.

That’s your interpretation of the Amendment, but you are not a constitutionalist and as stands now and in the past, I am allowed to hold a firearm and whether I use it to defend myself or hunt delicious deer or squirrels shouldn’t bother anyone, provided I am a legal and registered owner.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Strange, I reply to a comment made to me by Noliving, and bass claims it was his opinion....

Which by definition means, in order to secure my safety,

You are a state? Wow.

I am allowed to have and own a registered firearm.

As a member of which well-regulated militia?

you are not a constitutionalist

And you are?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

in order to secure my safety,

How in Japan? No guns here. Except hunting.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Are there Americans carrying guns in Japan? What the heck?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back on topic please.

Strange, I reply to a comment made to me by Noliving, and bass claims it was his opinion....

I just added my opinion, it’s a free world

As a member of which well-regulated militia

So what, Use whatever euphemism you like, I still get o keep my guns.

And you are?

No, but I do know the constitution allows me as a law-abiding citizen to own a firearm, God bless America!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

bass4funk: "Trying doesn’t mean anything. He didn’t try enough."

So... trying means nothing, and you wanted him to try. Well done, bass. I think Cleo and Mr. Bum pretty much mopped the floor with you on the rest of what you didn't do yourself. Then when you can't refute anymore:

"it’s a free world"

"So what, Use whatever euphemism you like, I still get o keep my guns."

Which is why there will be more massacres in a week than most nations have in years. And you'll say it's "not the guns", when it very clearly is. No one needs guns to protect themselves in a civilized nation, and only a moron thinks they need any, let alone... say... 24 or so.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Back on topic, it is. The Texas terror attack is a sad collision of guns and God. I'm not a religious expert but if members of a congregation are going to be tooled up - surely this goes against the love and peace tenet?

How many more innocents will we see being mown down by gun owners? Will we see all out shooting battles inside places of worship?

Will we just become inured to all of the mayhem?

And why, oh why, does America need guns?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Will we just become inured to all of the mayhem?

That’s the worst of it. Like famine in Africa, car bombs in Iraq or ferries sinking in the Philippines, mass shootings in the States are simply another reason to shrug a little and sigh....

Very sad.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So... trying means nothing, and you wanted him to try. Well done, bass. I think Cleo and Mr. Bum pretty much mopped the floor with you on the rest of what you didn't do yourself. Then when you can't refute anymore:

I totally disagree, not even close, it’s not a winnable argument.

No one needs guns to protect themselves in a civilized nation, and only a moron thinks they need any, let alone... say... 24 or so.

Ok, that’s your personal opinion, but I disagree.

How many more innocents will we see being mown down by gun owners? Will we see all out shooting battles inside places of worship?

I doubt it. As bad as this shooting was, I don’t think it will be anything near the norm.

I don’t think we need to worry, at least I don’t.

And why, oh why, does America need guns.

For many reasons and it’s also our right under the 2nd amendment.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

it’s not a winnable argument.

It is in Japan with the government having all the guns and citizens not having any...except for hunting. How do NRA 2A people feel about living in Japan with no guns? Recently there was a mass stabbing in Hokkaido. These things happen in Japan, so how to protect against a knife? Once a NRA 2A member decides to go to Japan he or she gives up the right to carry and must leave their firepower at home.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

For many reasons and it’s also our right under the 2nd amendment.

That doesn't explain why Americans need guns, its simply the loophole you use to defend your "right". The framers of the Constitution did not foresee that Americans would one day possess over 300 million guns and insist on the “individual right” to own assault rifles capable of killing dozens of people in seconds.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That doesn't explain why Americans need guns, its simply the loophole you use to defend your "right". The framers of the Constitution did not foresee that Americans would one day possess over 300 million guns and insist on the “individual right” to own assault rifles capable of killing dozens of people in seconds.

Straw man argument. You don't know that, how absurd.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites