Mass shooting thread

[M3J]

And all we get is prayers from the goddamn politicians. No action but just prayers and thoughts while this keeps happening over and over. Not even the second time a place of worship was attacked, so clearly prayers aren't doing anything. RIP to all the victims, man.

[maskedmaniac]

Pretty sad sign of the times when we not only have an official mass shooting thread in here,but also seem to be relieved when it's a white person who did the shooting.

[Bdon]

Pretty sad sign of the times when we not only have an official mass shooting thread in here,but also seem to be relieved when it's a white person who did the shooting.

Who the hell is relieved it was a white person?

[LEGION]

 

Pretty sad sign of the times when we not only have an official mass shooting thread in here,but also seem to be relieved when it's a white person who did the shooting.

Who the hell is relieved it was a white person?

Because, in theory, that means that the gun debates can't be pushed aside in favor of Islamophobia

[Bushy.]

[Creepy Bro]

Ive honestly run out of things to say at this point.

 

That makes two of us.

[M3J]

Pretty sad sign of the times when we not only have an official mass shooting thread in here,but also seem to be relieved when it's a white person who did the shooting.

Yeah, and even Muslims and people of color aren't happy with the fact that they're relieved that it wasn't a person of color who committed the tragedy, but given the reaction after a Muslim or Islamist commits an act of terrorism, you can't blame them. we live in a world where Muslims are so scared of a xenophobic/racist backlash that they're relieved when the shooter isn't a Muslim.

 

 

Pretty sad sign of the times when we not only have an official mass shooting thread in here,but also seem to be relieved when it's a white person who did the shooting.

Who the hell is relieved it was a white person?

 

Muslims primarily and people of color because it means white right wing Americans can't blame Muslims or go after them this time. If a Muslim did it, the right wing would have another field day, talking about extreme vetting of Muslims and how they're all evil terrorists who shouldn't be allowed in the US. All they have to do now is just see the injustice of the shooter not be demonized entirely by the media and Trump talk about prayers and thoughts instead of "extreme vetting" of people who buy guns or saying all white people are bad like he does with Muslims.

 

But "relieved" is probably not the right word, because none of the people are happy that lives were lost.

[Generations]

It's sad that the NRA and gun fanatics will end up just getting what they want (the normalization of these types of shootings)...but there's no use in arguing anymore. I clicked onto this story when I first heard about it...and the first comment I saw was this woman claiming that the "NRA has never created a terrorist", and the shooter was "stopped by a person with a gun". Smh. A terrorist is a terrorist. Shooting dozens of innocent people in a church makes you a terrorist...whether you're a Muslim, a white male, a 7 year old girl, or a koala bear. And one person shooting another person with a gun does not negate the damage done by the first person.

 

But, this idea that absolutely no one is inspired by gun culture to go out and murder people is truly astounding. And, while I've heard nothing about any ties to the NRA in this story, it's just disturbing to me how people always feel the need to defend the NRA whenever something like this happens. I've said it before...and I'll say it, the NRA needs to be done away with. The second amendment is fine. Owning guns is fine. But an entire organization built around the concept of pushing guns on as many people as they can...and normalizing and romanticizing gun culture...none of that is okay, IMO. And I know some pretty big gun fanatics who agree with me that the NRA is bullshit. The organization hangs on by claiming that they teach people how to be responsible gun owners...but that's nonsense, and everyone knows it. Again, I know some pretty big gun fanatics who say the same thing. Apparently the NRA's "how to be a responsible gun owner" tips only go about as far as not shooting yourself in the foot. The organization exists to sell guns. Period. It's comparable to McDonalds putting apple slices and milk on the kid's menu and claiming that they're health conscious...

[Mango kid]

So I guess he was going after the mother in law who attends that church

 

What scary is that 4% of the population died there when u think about for a town that size

[Generations]

So I guess he was going after the mother in law who attends that church

 

Bullshit. You don't kill almost 30 people if you're "going after" one specific person. What, did they all form around her like a human shield? Not buying it. He could have walked up behind her in the pew and put her down execution style. That's bullshit.

 

Also, Trump defending guns makes me ill...literally ill. It's one thing to say that it's a mental health issue (it is in part)...but, you don't get to excuse the gun industry as the president of the United States. There's something fundamentally wrong about that. Definitely one of those situations where you say half the statement and leave the other part unsaid. The president of the United States should not be publicly defending guns for any reason. If you don't want to speak out against guns...thats cool...don't do it. But defending them is too far. Way too far.

 

Defending the gun industry after a mass shooting has about as nice of a ring to it as defending big pharma after someone dies from cancer...by saying "the cancer killed the person...not the price of the meds they needed". Like I said...just one of those things that you don't say.

 

Not to mention, Trump and the GOP have done everything in their power to put firearms into the hands of the mentally ill and to scrap healthcare for the mentally ill. So...now he's playing both sides of the coin, or what? Which is it...dammit?

[Mango kid]

 

 

So I guess he was going after the mother in law who attends that church

Bullshit. You don't kill almost 30 people if you're "going after" one specific person. What, did they all form around her like a human shield? Not buying it. He could have walked up behind her in the pew and put her down execution style. That's bullshit.

 

Also, Trump defending guns makes me ill...literally ill. It's one thing to say that it's a mental health issue (it is in part)...but, you don't get to excuse the gun industry as the president of the United States. There's something fundamentally wrong about that. Definitely one of those situations where you say half the statement and leave the other part unsaid. The president of the United States should not be publicly defending guns for any reason. If you don't want to speak out against guns...thats cool...don't do it. But defending them is too far. Way too far.

 

Defending the gun industry after a mass shooting has about as nice of a ring to it as defending big pharma after someone dies from cancer...by saying "the cancer killed the person...not the price of the meds they needed". Like I said...just one of those things that you don't say.

 

Not to mention, Trump and the GOP have done everything in their power to put firearms into the hands of the mentally ill and to scrap healthcare for the mentally ill. So...now he's playing both sides of the coin, or what? Which is it...dammit?

 

She wasn't at the church at the time but he did constantly make threats to her though text that her church. So seems,like that the motive

[M3J]

Trump and politicians get paid by NRA to say "prayers and thoughts" instead of doing something to reduce gun violence. And the logic that a gun stopped mass shooting is dumb, especially if the mass shooter bought the guns legally. It took multiple losses of lives to stop a shooter. Can't see how that's good.

[Bdon]

 

So I guess he was going after the mother in law who attends that church

 

Bullshit. You don't kill almost 30 people if you're "going after" one specific person. What, did they all form around her like a human shield? Not buying it. He could have walked up behind her in the pew and put her down execution style. That's bullshit.

 

Also, Trump defending guns makes me ill...literally ill. It's one thing to say that it's a mental health issue (it is in part)...but, you don't get to excuse the gun industry as the president of the United States. There's something fundamentally wrong about that. Definitely one of those situations where you say half the statement and leave the other part unsaid. The president of the United States should not be publicly defending guns for any reason. If you don't want to speak out against guns...thats cool...don't do it. But defending them is too far. Way too far.

 

Defending the gun industry after a mass shooting has about as nice of a ring to it as defending big pharma after someone dies from cancer...by saying "the cancer killed the person...not the price of the meds they needed". Like I said...just one of those things that you don't say.

 

Not to mention, Trump and the GOP have done everything in their power to put firearms into the hands of the mentally ill and to scrap healthcare for the mentally ill. So...now he's playing both sides of the coin, or what? Which is it...dammit?

 

First of all. LOL!!

 

Secondly people wouldn't be defending their rights to own guns if they weren't automatically attacked every time this happens. And third, he's not putting guns in the hands of mentally ill people. You are way off base on that one.

 

Trump and politicians get paid by NRA to say "prayers and thoughts" instead of doing something to reduce gun violence. And the logic that a gun stopped mass shooting is dumb, especially if the mass shooter bought the guns legally. It took multiple losses of lives to stop a shooter. Can't see how that's good.

You realize the NRA doesn't sell guns, right? I'm not saying whether they should exist or not. You can hate them all you want but at least know wtf you are talking about. Also I've seen you say that "prayers" shit several times. Just want to tell you how much of a leftist nonsensical argument that is. You're just whining at this point. You're attacking the right is nothing new but now you're attacking Christians and others because they offer prayers over a tragedy? I bet you weren't saying that when Obama offered love and prayers in Charleston. Oh but he was also for banning of these weapons like you (which by the way he didn't. he actually sold more with his fear mongering). So it's ok. Disgusting.

 

Also the logic is that another armed civilian confronted and potentially stopped him from killing anyone else after. There have been many cases where a gun has stopped criminal action and even cut down loss of life. No one with common sense would believe it would stop it fully.

[Generations]

Oh...Bdon. Predictable, "snowflake", Bdon...

 

Complaining about being a victim, and stating the obvious...

 

Yes, I know that the NRA doesn't sell guns...but they still exist solely to bolster the gun industry. Secondly...oh, you're the victim now? Every time there's a mass shooting, gun owners are heartlessly attacked? I feel so bad for you. Hey, you know...I love knives. You know how many times I feel personally attacked when there's a stabbing? Absolutely zero...because I know that no one is trying to take my blades away. Just like no one is trying to take your guns away...but you still feel compelled on a personal level to defend guns. Why?

 

Again...the bottom line here is stricter screening for things like mental health. Why do you disagree with this? Is it that hard for you to just agree with something and admit that it's a problem? Also, do you know what is illegal to carry where I live? Switch blades (and all other types of assisted-open blades)...do I want one? No. Do I care? No. Because I don't need one of those...they are a weapon, not a tool. I rest my case. When something is illegal, there is due reason for it. Grow up, and stop defending weapons.

 

The problem with this particular shooting is absolutely that gun regulations are too lax, and this piece of shit was able to legally purchase weapons that he used to murder people. These aren't illegally obtained guns...these aren't guns that someone already owned before they became unstable. This is a dude who was a piece of shit...who was able to buy guns because the system failed. Period. Where have most of these shootings occurred? Florida, Texas, Nevada...places that have lax gun laws. It speaks for itself. It's not a conspiracy.

[M3J]

tbh you're better off ignoring him. Gun control laws could be done away with, and people like him would still say our gun control law is to strict. We literally have proof that a lot of guns are bought legally, and yet somehow lax gun control laws aren't the issue.

 

Seems like they prefer to have their guns like AR-15 over people having a right to live.

[Bdon]

Oh...Bdon. Predictable, "snowflake", Bdon...

 

Complaining about being a victim, and stating the obvious...

 

Yes, I know that the NRA doesn't sell guns...but they still exist solely to bolster the gun industry. Secondly...oh, you're the victim now? Every time there's a mass shooting, gun owners are heartlessly attacked? I feel so bad for you. Hey, you know...I love knives. You know how many times I feel personally attacked when there's a stabbing? Absolutely zero...because I know that no one is trying to take my blades away. Just like no one is trying to take your guns away...but you still feel compelled on a personal level to defend guns. Why?

 

Again...the bottom line here is stricter screening for things like mental health. Why do you disagree with this? Is it that hard for you to just agree with something and admit that it's a problem? Also, do you know what is illegal to carry where I live? Switch blades (and all other types of assisted-open blades)...do I want one? No. Do I care? No. Because I don't need one of those...they are a weapon, not a tool. I rest my case. When something is illegal, there is due reason for it. Grow up, and stop defending weapons.

 

The problem with this particular shooting is absolutely that gun regulations are too lax, and this piece of shit was able to legally purchase weapons that he used to murder people. These aren't illegally obtained guns...these aren't guns that someone already owned before they became unstable. This is a dude who was a piece of shit...who was able to buy guns because the system failed. Period. Where have most of these shootings occurred? Florida, Texas, Nevada...places that have lax gun laws. It speaks for itself. It's not a conspiracy.

Wow. Now you're using cringe words like M3J. I thought you were "above" all that. If someone called you a snowflake you would have said the same so just a weird choice for you. Funny you call me a snowflake though. Coming from a guy that just said it made you "literally ill". Lol.

 

And I just explained why guns were defended. And not once have I said they were coming to take my guns. But they don't need more regulation. A bunch of dumb asses with little to no knowledge of guns come out and start attacking guns and gun owners after something like this. So instead of discussing something we have to defend bullshit arguments that distract from any real one. And you don't rest your case. You just gave an opinion. And just like guns, switchblades are still obtained even though illegal. Reasons vary and are subjective. The no fly list for example is a bullshit list with no due process and yet you hear countless dumbshits regurgitate that lie.

 

I'm not playing a victim. What you can't seem to explain is how they would go about stricter screenings. For one, who determines the line in which you could be mentally incapable of owning a weapon? Because that would vary. You wouldn't be able to find a common ground. And how much privacy of one person needs to be invaded to find out their history just to own a weapon? You are talking about a system that can and will be fully abused. Ours now may not be perfect but where do you draw the line?

 

tbh you're better off ignoring him. Gun control laws could be done away with, and people like him would still say our gun control law is to strict. We literally have proof that a lot of guns are bought legally, and yet somehow lax gun control laws aren't the issue.

 

Seems like they prefer to have their guns like AR-15 over people having a right to live.

That literally makes no sense.

 

Why don't you tell the bolded on bottom to those that are pro abortion? I usually don't have a dog in that fight but what you said is no different in each case. It goes both ways. We have a right to both. It can't be one or the other.

[Generations]

You do realize that I used snowflake sarcastically/ironically, yes?...Because that is a GOP thing to do? It was obviously said in jest, and not my personal vocabulary. But, sure. - And yes, the laws DO need to be stricter...because this is a guy who violently assaulted his girlfriend and fractured the skull of a baby...and was allowed to LEGALLY purchase a firearm after that. THAT IS A PROBLEM.

 

How is that not a problem?

 

Again...why is it hard for you to just say that you agree with the laws being against someone who does something like that?

 

Like I said...I am a blade collector and fanatic. But if there was legislation against owning swords, switch blades, and battle axes...I would be fine with that. Those are weapons. As the laws stand in NJ (where I live)...you can own those, but you can't carry them in public. However, if the law was against people even owning them, I wouldn't argue against it; It makes sense. And I definitely wouldn't argue against people being mentally screened before purchasing a blade. This is where the "right to bear arms" loses ground. It's all on the GOP to be responsible and to realize where the line should be drawn. When they refuse to draw that line, and claim that nothing (and no one) should be outlawed...that is a problem.

 

Consider for a moment...that there are places where you can't drink alcohol on the street (most of the US), but you can carry a weapon that can end people's lives. That is some broken shit.

[Bdon]

You do realize that I used snowflake sarcastically/ironically, yes?...Because that is a GOP thing to do? It was obviously said in jest, and not my personal vocabulary. But, sure. - And yes, the laws DO need to be stricter...because this is a guy who violently assaulted his girlfriend and fractured the skull of a baby...and was allowed to LEGALLY purchase a firearm after that. THAT IS A PROBLEM.

 

How is that not a problem?

 

Again...why is it hard for you to just say that you agree with the laws being against someone who does something like that? Like I said...I am a blade collector and fanatic. But if there was legislation against owning swords, switch blades, and battle axes...I would be fine with that. Those are weapons.

 

If I believed it would work then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I don't believe it will. Laws wouldn't have stopped him. He would've just found another way. It would then only hinder another person or make it more difficult for someone good to get one. That would be a bigger problem.

 

So you are saying that if someone else deemed them too bad to own even as a collector, you would just willingly be ok with that? To have someone else tell you how to think? Cause that's pretty much what you sound like right now.

 

[Generations]

What do you even mean when you say "if I believed it would work"? Why don't you believe it would work? Prime example right here. Guy with previous record of assaulting wife and child...able to legally buy a gun. Probably dumb as a *censored*ing brick. Probably not capable of finding a gun otherwise. What better example do you need that stricter screening would work? Even if it works SOMETIMES, then it works. Most people are likely to abandon their search for a firearm if they can't legally buy one. Most people don't have the connections to buy one illegally. Most people can't even buy weed on the streets...they rely on friends of friends. You mean to tell me that if a dude with a previous record of beating his wife and his baby tried to find a gun through "friends of friends", they're going to give him one? I don't think so.

[FulGore]

You do realize that I used snowflake sarcastically/ironically, yes?...Because that is a GOP thing to do? It was obviously said in jest, and not my personal vocabulary. But, sure. - And yes, the laws DO need to be stricter...because this is a guy who violently assaulted his girlfriend and fractured the skull of a baby...and was allowed to LEGALLY purchase a firearm after that. THAT IS A PROBLEM.

 

How is that not a problem?

 

Again...why is it hard for you to just say that you agree with the laws being against someone who does something like that?

 

Like I said...I am a blade collector and fanatic. But if there was legislation against owning swords, switch blades, and battle axes...I would be fine with that. Those are weapons. As the laws stand in NJ (where I live)...you can own those, but you can't carry them in public. However, if the law was against people even owning them, I wouldn't argue against it; It makes sense. And I definitely wouldn't argue against people being mentally screened before purchasing a blade. This is where the "right to bear arms" loses ground. It's all on the GOP to be responsible and to realize where the line should be drawn. When they refuse to draw that line, and claim that nothing (and no one) should be outlawed...that is a problem.

 

Consider for a moment...that there are places where you can't drink alcohol on the street (most of the US), but you can carry a weapon that can end people's lives. That is some broken shit.

Blame the Air Force, Genny boy.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/texas-church-shooting-bad-conduct-discharge/index.html

[Generations]

Well, that's even worse...

 

That just means that there were two levels of ineptitude.

[Bdon]

What do you even mean when you say "if I believed it would work"? Why don't you believe it would work? Prime example right here. Guy with previous record of assaulting wife and child...able to legally buy a gun. Probably dumb as a *censored*ing brick. Probably not capable of finding a gun otherwise. What better example do you need that stricter screening would work? Even if it works SOMETIMES, then it works. Most people are likely to abandon their search for a firearm if they can't legally buy one. Most people don't have the connections to buy one illegally. Most people can't even buy weed on the streets...they rely on friends of friends. You mean to tell me that if a dude with a previous record of beating his wife and his baby tried to find a gun through "friends of friends", they're going to give him one? I don't think so.

How would it work exactly? I don't believe more laws stop shitbags because they don't do it now. Just like it doesn't stop people from drinking and driving or speeding. The rest of your paragraph is like you are living in a fantasy world. Just because he was an abusive piece of shit doesn't mean he wouldn't be smart enough to obtain a weapon by other means. That is a wild assumption on your part. That isn't even an example of screening. You just assumed something. What kind of background check or information do they need to acquire from us to satisfy you? What is the line in which you determine someone is mentally incapable?

 

And again you are assuming that someone would abandon their search. If someone wanted to kill a lot of people they would find a way to do so. At that point it would be too late. You act like there is a type of 'sunday shooter' or something. Things like this boil over and are pre-planned. That last sentence is just preposterous. Doubtful this guy or most would have went to friends or 'friends of friends' to get a gun. Even if so, you're assuming that some contact or acquaintance wouldn't have got him one for the right price. Some people are just shit heads. His past wouldn't matter to someone on the black market. So yes. He could have gotten one no matter what.

 

Also have to point out how ridiculous the "if it works SOMETIMES, then It works" thing is. Couldn't you say that now? Just because the system is flawed (and always will be) doesn't mean it doesn't work most of the time. What you are saying for more control laws applies to current ones. I already know how it would go. Say we add a few more restrictions because you're so desperate to make something/anything work that even if it helps 'sometimes' according to you, it should be legislated in. Then when it doesn't work again and again, you'll want to go back to the drawing board and chip away more and more. Because you are under the false impression that it will eventually work. And you will just continue to use the excuse that "even if it works here and there it will be better". It's an illusion. People just want it to work so bad that they'll try anything. Slightly commendable but not realistic.

 

You have been asking why I can't just agree on this or that or accept this or that. But you aren't capable of accepting that it's just a horrible part of life that sucks. And you can't stop it.

 

Well, that's even worse...

 

That just means that there were two levels of ineptitude.

How so exactly. If you are talking about the background check process by the FBI and the Air Force then No, it's not. Kind of hard for one to do their job when the other didn't report it. That would be on the Air force. The background check would have caught it otherwise. If you were talking about something else then you'll have to elaborate.

 

 

You do realize that I used snowflake sarcastically/ironically, yes?...Because that is a GOP thing to do? It was obviously said in jest, and not my personal vocabulary. But, sure. - And yes, the laws DO need to be stricter...because this is a guy who violently assaulted his girlfriend and fractured the skull of a baby...and was allowed to LEGALLY purchase a firearm after that. THAT IS A PROBLEM.

 

How is that not a problem?

 

Again...why is it hard for you to just say that you agree with the laws being against someone who does something like that?

 

Like I said...I am a blade collector and fanatic. But if there was legislation against owning swords, switch blades, and battle axes...I would be fine with that. Those are weapons. As the laws stand in NJ (where I live)...you can own those, but you can't carry them in public. However, if the law was against people even owning them, I wouldn't argue against it; It makes sense. And I definitely wouldn't argue against people being mentally screened before purchasing a blade. This is where the "right to bear arms" loses ground. It's all on the GOP to be responsible and to realize where the line should be drawn. When they refuse to draw that line, and claim that nothing (and no one) should be outlawed...that is a problem.

 

Consider for a moment...that there are places where you can't drink alcohol on the street (most of the US), but you can carry a weapon that can end people's lives. That is some broken shit.

Blame the Air Force, Genny boy.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/texas-church-shooting-bad-conduct-discharge/index.html

 

Kind of ironic that it wasn't even the the actual process or system of purchasing a gun that failed here like many want to believe. It was complete negligence on someone else's part. Yet the NRA and NICS is being blamed. The only organization (NRA) on the planet that is blamed so often for something they didn't even commit. Unless you're M3J. Then it's all the rights fault ALL the time, lol.

[LEGION]

Dude. The NRA is in favor of more liberal gun laws. This dude easily got a gun and you don't see the connection?

[Bdon]

Dude. The NRA is in favor of more liberal gun laws. This dude easily got a gun and you don't see the connection?

 

I think you may need to specify more. The first statement while not true entirely, does not seem related to the second. What connection are you referring to? Are you saying that the NRA made sure that situations like this shooters history are purposely left off of records? What is your point exactly?

 

[Mango kid]

Is he was dishonorably discharged that right there disqualifies you you from being allowed to buy any weapon ever again

 

Even if they didnt tell them it would show up on a background check