Mass shooting at church in Texas, shooter dead, multiple victims

[tankbug]

So let's summarize. A guy come up, shoot 25 people, then is stopped by one other guy, and it's ''the proof'' that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.

Also that God sent the good guy to stop the killer.....after letting him kill a whole church full of people. People are so fucking insane.

[Machismo]

Well, I don't particularity care, but how's wanting less foreigners and wanting your gun at the same time is hypocritical? I'm not the one who justify my stance by moral stance on human's life or government's role in everyday life.

Well, you are the one who wants to take away the freedoms of those who have caused no harm in order to feel better. So much for that logical consistency...

You don't want someone to take away your freedom, but you have no problem taking away the freedoms of others... such a shame.

[Rucati]

Well, I don't particularity care, but how's wanting less foreigners and wanting your gun at the same time is hypocritical? I'm not the one who justify my stance by moral stance on human's life or government's role in everyday life.

Because people are saying they want less foreigners because foreigners are dangerous and it isn't safe for America to accept foreigners, but then those same people say they want guns even though guns are provably dangerous and not safe for Americans. That's why it's hypocritical.

[Deleted]

Trump: Guns are not to blame for Texas shooting
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=50950818

Yeah you're screwed

[GorkAndMork]

Well, you are the one who wants to take away the freedoms of those who have caused no harm in order to feel better. So much for that logical consistency...

You don't want someone to take away your freedom, but you have no problem taking away the freedoms of others... such a shame.

And it's perfectly consistent, I want freedom to kill be removed, but freedom to drive a car to remain. Oh how inconsistent of me. Also, since you're fan of logic and consistency, I assume you're for legalization of murder, since it takes away the right to kill people from potential killers (who did no harm yet), which is bad, right?

[Elim Garak]

Not super-honest, really. Scandinavia has seen one (1) mass shooting in as far as I can remember (correct me if I'm wrong), and that was a heavily planned, bona fide terrorist attack. Not just a run of the mill mass shooting. Which also prompted investigations into the gun laws, even if they were later deemed to be strict enough already (in terms of resulting gun violence in general).

That's just a "no true shooting" fallacy.

Yes, it's not foolproof. But it's better than doing nothing. That's the entire case we're making here.

Not foolproof? it's not at all proof, it will only make things worse. Why? Because it doesn't address the problem. It's just an overreaction over a symptom.

[Captain N]

Trump: Guns are not to blame for Texas shooting
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=50950818

Yeah you're screwed

There's a certain amount of irony that the guy who blames this on a Mental Health issue is also the same no-talent ass clown who just spent months trying to take healthcare away from millions of people.

Because people are saying they want less foreigners because foreigners are dangerous and it isn't safe for America to accept foreigners, but then those same people say they want guns even though guns are provably dangerous and not safe for Americans. That's why it's hypocritical.

Just a point of reference that you're more likely to be killed by your toddler wielding a gun than you are by a foreign-born terrorist:

[Machismo]

And it's perfectly consistent, I want freedom to kill be removed, but freedom to drive a car to remain. Oh how inconsistent of me. Also, since you're fan of logic and consistency, I assume you're for legalization of murder, since it takes away the right to kill people from potential killers (who did no harm yet), which is bad, right?

No, it's not consistent. One action causes harm, the other does not. Your hypocrisy has been demonstrated. You want to restrict immigration, yet not guns... such a shame. You are no different than the liberals you are trying to argue against.

[Deleted]

Because people are saying they want less foreigners because foreigners are dangerous and it isn't safe for America to accept foreigners, but then those same people say they want guns even though guns are provably dangerous and not safe for Americans. That's why it's hypocritical.

The argument is so nonsenical I very much doubt it is based on reason.

It is some kind of weird Freudian thing I think, some kind of fear of emasculation by having their phallic symbol taken away. Deeply pathetic obviously.

[tankbug]

Well, I don't particularity care, but how's wanting less foreigners and wanting your gun at the same time is hypocritical? I'm not the one who justify my stance by moral stance on human's life or government's role in everyday life.

I don't know the context of the previous poster, but I guess when you say that wanting a gun and also wanting less immigrants has nothing to do with each other, I think it relates to the conservative movement to focus on restrictive immigration based on the treat of muslim terrorists infiltrating the country, although introducing gun control would probably save a lot more lives.

[GorkAndMork]

Because people are saying they want less foreigners because foreigners are dangerous and it isn't safe for America to accept foreigners, but then those same people say they want guns even though guns are provably dangerous and not safe for Americans. That's why it's hypocritical.

Yeah, you missed the part where I stressed that it's only hypocritical in the presence of flawed justification, when everything else is ignored. Let's talk about trucks, they're clearly dangerous, right? Ban them too? "But trucks are useful and guns don't", sure, which means there are additional factors that can justify ban of a thing beyond moral arguments about freedom and danger of a thing.

[Deleted]

There's a certain amount of irony that the guy who blames this on a Mental Health issue is also the same no-talent ass clown who just spent months trying to take healthcare away from millions of people.

Not to mention passing a bill to allow the mentally ill to own guns

[Bodakane]

Alright. I'll get the heroin oreos.

I'm not saying no...its just....."learning" is the strongest drug.

[Unholyground]

Guns are the problem!

[Deleted]

As I said before until Americans take responsibility nothing will change and it's looking very unlikely that will happen this decade

[Allybeboba]

You don't keep up with immigration measures? That's sad, I guess you really don't care about the idea of losing liberty in the name of security. You really should try to be informed, especially when you talk about such things. I guess you don't give a damn about liberty, after all... sad!

They don’t directly effect me. Indirectly they may.
You have to realize, the city where I live is a Sanctuary City. Over half of the population of Houston is Latino. We have a large portion of Asian and Arabic immigrants too. I don’t know what percentage is illegal. I support some of the reasons why Houston is a Sanctuary City. So people that are illegal can report crimes without fear of being arrested themselves. Otherwise those people would be preyed upon by criminals because they know they would never have the police called on them.

If I happen to see something about immigration reform online I will read it. But I don’t go out of my way to look for it. I am not obsessed with it. No amount of bitching and moaning on a gaming forum is going to change the US’s policy on immigration. Even writing to your Congress members probably won’t change anything since they are so corrupt. Short of getting into office yourself there really isn’t much you can do.

[Rucati]

Yeah, you missed the part where I stressed that it's only hypocritical in the presence of flawed justification, when everything else is ignored. Let's talk about trucks, they're clearly dangerous, right? Ban them too? "But trucks are useful and guns don't", sure, which means there are additional factors that can justify ban of a thing beyond moral arguments about freedom and danger of a thing.

So what's the justification of banning foreigners? They're scary? I don't really think that counts. You're ignorant? While that may be true, it doesn't mean we should ban immigrants.

[sarahtasher]

BTW, folks, I happen to be a denizen from a country (Canada) that had twenty years before the Revolution a ''well ordained militia'' (1). Oddly, that meant something else than people with mental health issues conspiring about ''taking over the gubinment''

French Canadian (or at that time, simply Canadian) militias were auxiliary military units, commanded by officers designated by the Crown and fighting alongside regulars. They owned a musket, but mostly because Versailles was too cheap to pay for providing one. That system, which is for the record not very different than historical Minuteman (except that the Canadians were excepted to fight outside their parishes) is quite different, isn'it, from overweight dudes buying 20 guns to ''FIGHT DUH GUBINMENT''

(1) One that made circles around American and British outfits, should I say.

[GorkAndMork]

No, it's not consistent. One action causes harm, the other does not. Your hypocrisy has been demonstrated. You want to restrict immigration, yet not guns... such a shame. You are no different than the liberals you are trying to argue against.

Well since you claim it, then it probably is demonstrated lol.
You're the one using moral stance and philosophical view of government's role to define consistency. That's not my arguments, if they're inconsistent that means that you're inconsistent, not me, since I'm not the one using them. I hope you can follow the logic.

- - - Updated - - -

So what's the justification of banning foreigners? They're scary? I don't really think that counts. You're ignorant? While that may be true, it doesn't mean we should ban immigrants.

Well if you wish to talk about this sure.

First you obviously want to ban illegal immigration, because you want to control who comes in and who don't unless you don't care about longevity of your country.

Secondly, immigration is a good thing, it's profitable for a country to attract useful people (smart, who're willing to legally work and pay taxes, be involved in science, enrich your existing culture).

[Deleted]

The worst time to talk policy is when everyone is emotionally charge, ppl need to stop politicizing tragedy to push policies that often have nothing to do w/ the problem and wouldn't have stopped the shooting. It's disgusting

When is the correct time? You seem to have firearm related mass murders every fee weeks.