Texas Church shooting - 27 dead - 30 injured

[mazrim]

Apparently the Air Force failed to submit his domestic violence offense to the database.

[obsidian]

get rid of the guns. it's not fkin rocket science. have an amnesty, possibly 2 years or whatever. government buys the guns back after that period 10 year mandatory prison for illegal possession of a firearm.


they did it in australia following a similar massacre and it has worked very well.

Hi Cucker,

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.

[obsidian]

Of course it was, because everything what happen is USA is part of the conspiracy to kill all of the people in USA. Nothing happens randomly, it is always your government who are killing the people, and next they will be killing all of the tin foil hat morons like you. who make average morons look smart.

Ropoo!!!! Hi!

Lol so now shootings happen randomly? Some guy just decided hey I am going to go shoot up a church for no reason?? Nothing is random. Yes, sure maybe not everything is a conspiracy by a treasonous government. Just keep your eyes and ears open Ropoo and don't believe everything you are told. Ok?!

[Ropo]

I'm not interested in debating gun control (I don't see how it works in the US), but let's be clear.  If you think you actually have a point with that pissant, fuckhead wool-over-eyes attempt at statistical manipulation, kill yourself now, so there is one less moron in your country.

I don't think you're a moron.  I think you're a statistics weasel.  A member of the group of gun lovers who can't just tell the truth and seek to lie to further their cause.

Start telling the truth

Homocide Rates
US per 100k 4.88
UK per 100k 0.92

26 Gun murders (equiv. 130) in England vs. *11,004* in US Annually

You're safer in the UK without guns, period.  Stop talking shit and start admitting that guns, when available, increase the homocide rate.  It's okay.  We all know they do.  You don't have to post dickhead stats like the one you did to try to lie about that.  Guns are fun, too, right?  Guns make people feel like they have chance.  It's not wrong to want to keep guns in your country.  Just quit the bullshitting and keep to the truth.  How do you get rid of 300 million guns in as long as time as it takes for a new regime to move in and repeal it?  How do you stand tough when some people still die from guns and the media turns to spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt to sell their papers, popularising the idea that the populace is not safe - having given in their guns, whilst the criminals maintain theirs?

Repulsive use of weak ass statistics not needed.

Well, you are an idiot, no doubt about that, and believer of the anti gun propaganda. Please read again what I wrote: "They ban guns in UK at 1997, and mass murders increase, so there has been about equal amount mass murders between 1900- 1997 (97 years)than 1997 -2017(20 years)". What this has to do about annually gun crime statistic? Now concentrate and read slowly so you understand the point of the matter: You can ban the guns only from the people who are abiding the law, and these people doesn't do crimes, in fact there is good chance they are more likely preventing crimes by owning the gun.

In USA there news about average of 1500 cases per year, where citizen has used fired a gun at self defence, and average of 20% of these criminal is shot to dead. What you don't realize is the fact that at the same time there is millions of cases which ends without any shots fired only because victim has a gun for self defence. These cases you don't see in the statistic because they do not get in the news, but even highly dismissive estimation gives millions of cases, because it is quite obvious that these things happen.

In same time at Estonia there is something like 80% drop of homicides just because at the start of the independence they allow the CCW permits to their citizens. Please tell me another country on this planet which has similar results by any means? Point is that criminals doesn't have fear for the police, because police has rules, but gun in the hand of citizen who protect his life is completely different case. In UK only criminals and police have guns and there is still fair and increasing share of homicides, in Estonia there is - 80% of homicides because they has done right decisions about the matter.  Banning gun from the good guys will make bad guys happy, because they don't have nothing to fear after that, and this is a fact.

[Ropo]

Did you read that post that explained the whole anti-gun logic? How do you intend to get rid of more guns than American people? Use force? Well, that means use guns. Who has the guns, the police and military. And many members of LE and military are gun owners, as well as their family members. So, you want them to be on board with this as well? And what about the criminals? So, basically you are suggesting that only the people in power have guns, as well as the criminals..

Australia and America have a different culture, different history, you know what with the whole Revolutionary War, Civil War, and a massive military industrial complex.. What work there, definitely won't work here.

Only way to get rid of all guns is quite simple: when criminal has a gun, kill him with no mercy. When this is done, just order all law abiding citizens to hand over their guns, and you have safe police state to live in. If you want to test how easy it is to get criminals hand over their guns, just find some gang and try to ask them politely?  Then, if you are still living, come here and tell what happen?

[Ropo]

Ropoo!!!! Hi!

Lol so now shootings happen randomly? Some guy just decided hey I am going to go shoot up a church for no reason?? Nothing is random. Yes, sure maybe not everything is a conspiracy by a treasonous government. Just keep your eyes and ears open Ropoo and don't believe everything you are told. Ok?!

Well, that depends your definition of random, of course. It is quite random when some moron decide to revenge some xxx shit happen to him by going to church and start killing people, because if it wouldn't be random act, there would be some police to stop him...so the word "random" means that you cannot anticipate how these morons act, so you can't prevent these kind of massacres. Quite simple, but too difficult to understand if you are a tin foil hat imbecile as you are.

[Ropo]

Hi Cucker,

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.

Or in the other hand, you just read statistic of the party which have their own agenda which demands that citizens have no rights to own guns. As long there isn't any means to rule ownership and use of the guns of criminals, gun ban is meaningless bullshit. If there would be means to rule criminals and how they use their guns, there wouldn't be just about any gun related homicides at all in gun ban countries, but that's not the case. Homicides is forbidden by the law in every fucking country on this planet, but does it prevent people to kill each other?  Miraculously, it isn't, so how your gun ban law would be any different? Well, it isn't. Law is just a piece of paper, and those who obey it, they are more likely using their guns to uphold the law than using them for crime.

[phreak]

lol you people really love playing dumb.

"So, basically you are suggesting that only the people in power have guns, as well as the criminals.."

yes that's exactly what i'm saying . this is the model that exists in the rest of the developed world. amazingly it works remarkably well. go look at the murder rates. no random massacres (well very very rarely)

and unless you guys are well stocked with surface to air missiles your guns won't do fk all if those in "power" decide to turn on you. as the good people in philly found out when they were bombed out of their homes. prolly use drones these days.

so that old argument holds zero water.

also australia and the US are actually culturally pretty similar. both countries "founded" by genocidal europeans.

What is your definition of "working remarkably well"? Is that based purely on a utilitarian view of homicide rates? Can you also conceive that there is an ethical consideration to make? Several people have made it but so far you have refused to address the question whether or not you believe in the right to defend oneself against criminals. So, again, do you consider it ethical for law abiding citizens to by law have viable means of self defense taken away from them?

That is certainly what I gather from your post I quote, where you seem pleased that upstanding citizens do not have guns yet criminals do.

[Conker]

I can see that you are completely ignorant to what's been going on in Europe the last several years.  Nice, France.  Guy in a truck kills 84.

you wanna compare the numbers killed in europe deliberately by trucks to those killed in mass shootings the US?

 

I mean, I can see what you're saying. If there are no guns, then there will be no gun deaths. That can be extended to most things: If there are no drugs, there are no more drug deaths. If there are no more cigarettes, there is a large reduction of lung cancer. If there isn't junk food, there is a large reduction of many diseases.

This is the cost of living in a free society. People have access to drugs and there will die of an overdose. Guns exist, so some people may use them in bad ways. I don't agree with punishing millions of people because of a few bad people.

you're talking as if this is hypothetical...we know what happens in the developed world when there is strict gun control. you don't have a problem with gun crime and murder rates are very low. there are plenty examples of this.

your society is no more free than anywhere else in the first world. drugs are illegal, you still even have "dry counties" where alcohol is banned! internet gambling is prohibited. you have many prohibited items. you just have ridiculous gun control laws which is tearing your society apart at the seams. but you're too stupid to do anything about it.

Hi Cucker,

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace? For the answer, it is best to look at a nation that has had long-time gun bans that is currently relaxing their laws. Russia recently relaxed its firearms laws. For the first time in recent memory, a Russian citizen can carry a firearm. The prohibited items speak volumes about what a government’s motive behind disarming the population is. Russia has allowed “smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas.” That’s almost everything, what is still banned? Rifles. So the Russian government has made it clear that the real objective is to remove rifles from civilian hands. The reasoning is pretty clear: you need rifles to overthrow a government.

hi homo. australia never had a problem with homicide rates per se because guns were still nowhere near as prevalent as they are in the US. what they had was a problem with random massacres. they had 13 massacres in 18 years pre ban. zero in 20 years post. the effects would be much greater in the US because the overall problem is far worse. the fatter you are the quicker the weight drops when you diet.

“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”

“In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”

“In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”

“[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

[Conker]

What is your definition of "working remarkably well"? Is that based purely on a utilitarian view of homicide rates? Can you also conceive that there is an ethical consideration to make? Several people have made it but so far you have refused to address the question whether or not you believe in the right to defend oneself against criminals. So, again, do you consider it ethical for law abiding citizens to by law have viable means of self defense taken away from them?

That is certainly what I gather from your post I quote, where you seem pleased that upstanding citizens do not have guns yet criminals do.

having a society full of guns does not protect society from criminals. it's a fallacy. if it was the case how comes the one country in the entire developed world that has by far the most legally owned guns is also the one country with by far the highest murder rate and gun crime problem?

i would say it's more of an "ethical consideration" to ask why should everyday people feel the need to arm themselves to feel safe going about their daily business? you live in europe do you feel the need to be armed?

if you cut the number of guns in circulation the number of guns in criminal hands will dwindle too. the evidence is there. very few criminals in europe, japan, australia etc have guns.

[phreak]

having a society full of guns does not protect society from criminals. it's a fallacy. if it was the case how comes the one country in the entire developed world that has by far the most legally owned guns is also the one country with by far the highest murder rate and gun crime problem?

That is a complete non sequitur. I never claimed guns protect a society from criminals. Nothing does. My statement was clear and unambiguous: Is it ethical to take a measure that guarantees only criminals will have weapons?

i would say it's more of an "ethical consideration" to ask why should everyday people feel the need to arm themselves to feel safe going about their daily business?

A good question to ask, but nothing to do with ethics.

you live in europe do you feel the need to be armed?

Not where I live, because I do not choose to live in shit holes. Plus I am hardly the average person. Does the average woman feel the need to be armed in many "urban" areas? I am fairly sure many do.

if you cut the number of guns in circulation the number of guns in criminal hands will dwindle too. the evidence is there. very few criminals in europe, japan, australia etc have guns.

If the evidence is there, please do share it with me. My experiences so far are that I can walk out of my office and get a handgun in less than 30 minutes. And this is not even in the ghetto.

[Pray_4_War]

you wanna compare the numbers killed in europe deliberately by trucks to those killed in mass shootings the US?

No simpleton, it was posted to demonstrate that even though they have strict gun laws Europe is far from safe.

84 people killed with a Truck, a bunch of little girls blown up at a Ariana Grande concert.  British soldier hacked to death with a machete on a sidewalk in broad daylight.  Just a few examples.  Fuckign great.  Cops are doing a bang up job protecting people over there.  Terrorists running wild raping and killing, meanwhile they are putting Brits in prison for fucking Facebook posts.  Brilliant.

[calfzilla]

Interview with the neighbor that shot the bad guy.

[Conker]

That is a complete non sequitur. I never claimed guns protect a society from criminals. Nothing does. My statement was clear and unambiguous: Is it ethical to take a measure that guarantees only criminals will have weapons?
A good question to ask, but nothing to do with ethics.
 Not where I live, because I do not choose to live in shit holes. Plus I am hardly the average person. Does the average woman feel the need to be armed in many "urban" areas? I am fairly sure many do.
If the evidence is there, please do share it with me. My experiences so far are that I can walk out of my office and get a handgun in less than 30 minutes. And this is not even in the ghetto.

this is your quote

"So, again, do you consider it ethical for law abiding citizens to by law have viable means of self defense taken away from them?"

as i said, all the stats prove that guns do not protect "law abiding citizens" . when you own gun you and your family actually become more at risk of death. FACT.

if guns are actually good for "self defense" wtf does the US have by far the highest murder rate in the entire developed world?

how is a matter of ethics to ask if citizens should be allowed to own guns to "protect" themselves but not to ask if citizens should have the right to live in a gun free society? i think you are somewhat confused.

as i've said about 10 times now the evidence is there re gun control just by looking at the stats for murder/gun crime/ random massacres in the US and then the rest of the developed world.  

i call bs on you being able to go and get a handgun in holland in 30 mins unless , a) you have a gun licence. b) you're quite a serious criminal.

anyway i'm done discussing this. you people are really stupid as fk and deserve to continue living in ignorance.

[Twaddle]

Interview with the neighbor that shot the bad guy.

Wow, just watched the whole video.  This guy seems to be the epitome of a selfless, humble, hero.  Just your average Joe, doing the right thing.  Unfortunately, his life will be turned upside down, because of this event.  Hopefully, when he is dead and gone, the town's people will erect a bronze statue in memory of him, and his heroic events. 

It takes a hero to save a life.  It goes beyond heroism to voluntarily get in a shoot out with a bad guy, when you're not required. 

[werewolf operative]

this is your quote

as i've said about 10 times now the evidence is there re gun control just by looking at the stats for murder/gun crime/ random massacres in the US and then the rest of the developed world.

The problem is blacks and hispanics are the ones who make up 70% of those numbers. Mass shootings and homicides commited by white males with a firearm are a drop in the bucket.



Blacks are 14% of the population, half of which are male and 1 out of every 15 black men are incarcerated. So between 6-7% of the country is responsible for half the murder rate. Mestizo and other mongrels making up another 20%.

Get rid of the subhuman scum, not guns.

anyway i'm done discussing this. you people are really stupid as fk and deserve to continue living in ignorance.

Good, you've stated multiple times you don't care about your own country so why should it matter to you what goes on in ours?

You engage in homoerotic behavior and your leftist opinions are irrelevant when discussing these matters.

[rangerwil]

Apparently the Air Force failed to submit his domestic violence offense to the database.

Watch the lawsuits coming down the pipe.
The families will get MILLIONS over a clerical error.
Good for them.

[Thin Lizzy]

The problem is blacks and hispanics are the ones who make up 70% of those numbers. Mass shootings and homicides commited by white males with a firearm are a drop in the bucket.



Blacks are 14% of the population, half of which are male and 1 out of every 15 black men are incarcerated. So between 6-7% of the country is responsible for half the murder rate. Mestizo and other mongrels making up another 20%.

Get rid of the subhuman scum, not guns.


 

Good, you've stated multiple times you don't care about your own country so why should it matter to you what goes on in ours?

You engage in homoerotic behavior and your leftist opinions are irrelevant when discussing these matters.

Leftists don’t give a shit about these incidents. They just want to spout their bullshit narrative about how white Europeans are the only people throughout history who have ever mistreated anyone:




http://originalpeople.org/the-arab-muslim-slave-trade-of-africans-the-untold-story/

While the European involvement in the Transatlantic slave trade to the Americas lasted for just over three centuries, the Arab involvement in the slave trade has lasted fourteen centuries, and in some parts of the Muslim world is still continuing to this day. A comparison of the Muslim slave trade to the American slave trade reveals some interesting contrasts.

[phreak]

this is your quote

"So, again, do you consider it ethical for law abiding citizens to by law have viable means of self defense taken away from them?"

as i said, all the stats prove that guns do not protect "law abiding citizens" . when you own gun you and your family actually become more at risk of death. FACT.

if guns are actually good for "self defense" wtf does the US have by far the highest murder rate in the entire developed world?

how is a matter of ethics to ask if citizens should be allowed to own guns to "protect" themselves but not to ask if citizens should have the right to live in a gun free society? i think you are somewhat confused.

as i've said about 10 times now the evidence is there re gun control just by looking at the stats for murder/gun crime/ random massacres in the US and then the rest of the developed world.  

i call bs on you being able to go and get a handgun in holland in 30 mins unless , a) you have a gun licence. b) you're quite a serious criminal.

anyway i'm done discussing this. you people are really stupid as fk and deserve to continue living in ignorance.

Now I am starting to understand the miscommunication. You view everything from a monolithic societal view, communist essentially. My views are based on individual choice. You feel that if it is best for the average, it should be enforced for all. Mine is based on personal liberty. That, my crustacean friend, is where the ethics discussion comes in.

[Thin Lizzy]

Apparently the Air Force failed to submit his domestic violence offense to the database.

So, essentially the only reason this guy was able to buy these guns legally is because of a government fuck up. Yet, we’re supposed to consent to allow the government to have a monopoly on firearms ownership.

[HTexan]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16618992/fbi-texas-church-shooting-encryption

I hope the government doesn’t blow a million bucks trying to unlock this guys phone. It is pointless.

[SF1900]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16618992/fbi-texas-church-shooting-encryption

I hope the government doesn’t blow a million bucks trying to unlock this guys phone. It is pointless.

If its an iphone, won't everything get erased after a certain amount of failed attempts?

[HTexan]

If its an iphone, won't everything get erased after a certain amount of failed attempts?

10 tries, but that feature isn’t set on by default. Most people don’t have it on. It will start making the person wait a ridiculous amount of time before you can try another passcode after about 4 attempts.

[SF1900]

10 tries, but that feature isn’t set on by default. Most people don’t have it on. It will start making the person wait a ridiculous amount of time before you can try another passcode after about 4 attempts.

You can bet, they are going to spend as much money as they have to in order to get into his phone.

[Nails]

Is that why apple went with the face unlock feature now? cus they were pressured by the GOV. to use it so when the kill a terrorist they can just put his dead face on the phone and unlock it?