Texas mother, a vocal gun rights advocate, killed by police after fatally shooting her two daughters - Polidicks

Are you guys really gonna say that guns don't make murder easier? It DOES matter because an otherwise normal violent confrontation where the worst that could happen is someone getting injured will turn into a fatal one when guns are involved. And you're gonna deny that, because it somehow harms your hobby. Go figure. No one is saying that the entire blame lies on guns. They are just saying that they ARE part of the problem to a certain extent.

[QUOTE=Rainboo;50598601]Are you guys really gonna say that guns don't make murder easier? It DOES matter because an otherwise violent confrontation where the worst that could happen is someone getting injured will turn into a fatal one when guns are involved. And you're gonna deny that, because it somehow harms your hobby. Go figure. No one is saying that the entire blame lies on guns. They are just saying that they ARE part of the problem to a certain extent.[/QUOTE] Can you point to where I denied that? Or would you rather stop strawmanning and point to where I acknowledged that but questioned how one person abusing a privilege should cost an overwhelming majority of people who don't abuse it so that we can actually have a conversation?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50598603]Can you point to where I denied that? Or would you rather stop strawmanning and point to where I acknowledged that but questioned how one person abusing a privilege should cost an overwhelming majority of people who don't abuse it so that we can actually have a conversation?[/QUOTE] I'm talking about these. Not necessarily your posts. [QUOTE=Kylel999;50598560]Either way it's murder/attempted murder... Itd still be murder if you stabbed someone to death 4,195 times with a paperclip[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50598401]In court, does method of crime trump motivation or outcome?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TestECull;50597731] Everything you said is 100% irrelevant to what catbarf said. Someone hell bent on murdering someone else over an argument needs only their bare hands and pure unbridled rage.[b] Having a weapon does not change the train of thought that leads to the use of that weapon.[/b][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50596134]I don't see how in this particular situation a gun exacerbated it where any potential weapon could have. [b]If they were in a heated enough argument to put a bloodlust in one of them, a bat or a knife would have resulted in the same scenario.[/b][/QUOTE] It does not change the train of thought nor will it change the overall scenario but the presence of a gun definitely makes it easier to actually kill someone.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50598598]Lots of countries practice legal firearms ownership - some are even less regulated than the US - yet they don't have an associated gun crime rate. So is it possible that guns aren't whispering in people's ears and convincing them to commit crimes? Is it possible that [B]other factors that are clearly addressable[/B] are responsible for these crimes? Or should we just go for the easy, feel-good solutions until we eventually run out, and [I]then[/I] actually address the problem?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that, and I've never said that guns [i]cause[/i] crime. I'm saying that [i]all else being equal[/i], a situation involving guns is more dangerous than one that does not.

Scapegoat guns and let mental illness run rampant while catering to the loud and ever growing special snowflake people who don't understand or like guns in the first place. The Second Amendment exists for the possibility of a tyrannical government or invasion. Stop trying to destroy America.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50598549]I don't understand how this makes a difference. I'd rather have people not attempting murder to begin with, wouldn't you? Or does attempted murder only bother you when it's attempted with a firearm?[/QUOTE] It does matter, though, because when guns are involved a [B]violent[/B] confrontation is far more likely to turn into a [B]lethal[/B] confrontation. As always I admire your optimism and goodwill in wanting to eliminate the "root causes" of attempted murder but I highly doubt that will ever be possible. Mitigated yes, but I dont see why we cant both improve mental health, decrease poverty rates and break the cycle of gang violence while still addressing gun control problems because, as you yourself have admitted in the past, the current system just does not work.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50597731]Everything you said is 100% irrelevant to what catbarf said. Someone hell bent on murdering someone else over an argument needs only their bare hands and pure unbridled rage. Having a weapon does not change the train of thought that leads to the use of that weapon.[/QUOTE] It is very hard to kill, with your bare hands, someone who does not want to die. It also takes a while, and the physical effort required means that if you kill them, you [i]really, really meant to.[/i] Grabbing someone, physically overpowering them and strangling them to death over the course of 60-90 seconds or beating their head against a wall or however else, while they are screaming and struggling, is not something you do without [b]100% wanting them to die.[/b] With a handgun all you have to do is put a little pressure on the trigger in a moment of anger without thinking of the consequences. It's as easy as slapping someone. Saying "oh but you can kill with a pencil too ban pencils :^)" is intentionally ignoring everything about the situation. It's easier to stop someone with knives/fists, it's easier to flee from them, [i]it's easier for the attacker to realize "wait a minute, holy shit, I'm killing my own child, I was angry but I didn't mean to do [b]this[/b]."[/i] It's not even a valid argument.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50598194]Dead by strangled = dead by stabbed = dead by run over = dead by shot = dead by snapped neck = dead by hammer blow = dead by <insert literally every other method possible>. It's no different. You kill someone with your bare hands [b]you still killed someone.[/b] The how is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] A gun is an arguably easier killing tool than a knife, a hammer or your bare hands not only from the way you "use" it but makes psychologically a HUGE difference. I once was in a situation when I was younger when I had to use a knife on someone in self defense. I did hit his shoulder and stopped the moment I realized that I have pierced his flesh. I was unsure on what to do next. Luckily... he was shocked aswell so he stopped right dead in his tracks. If I had a gun in that situation, I would have just shot him and probably would have killed him (no matter of intended or not) because a firearm is a very abstract in it's function. It requires to aim it at a person and pull the trigger and he will fall over, while a knife or a hammer require full body contact and is arguably more "intimate" in it's usage. I am not anti-gun, quite on the contrary, but it baffles me how ignorant people throw the argument around that a person who means harm can do the same damage with another object. It's an invalid argument and not a realistic comparison... it never is.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50598623]I'm not saying that, and I've never said that guns [i]cause[/i] crime. I'm saying that [i]all else being equal[/i], a situation involving guns is more dangerous than one that does not.[/QUOTE] [quote][i]all else being equal[/i][/quote] And that's where the whole thing falls apart. Suppose you manage to remove firearms from the world, what do you get? You get might-makes-fucking-right. You get hardened street bastards easily triumphing on the poor sods that have never practiced whacking skulls with a brick. Guns make it easier for criminals, as much as they give a fighting chance to would-be victims whose physical strength just can't match their attackers'. I'd rather live in a world that mourns freak accidents such as this one but keeps innocents and criminals on a more equal footing, than in one where victims can only bend over and take it up the ass. And not in the fun way.

[QUOTE=DMGaina;50598678]A gun is an arguably easier killing tool than a knife, a hammer or your bare hands not only from the way you "use" it but makes psychologically a HUGE difference. I once was in a situation when I was younger when I had to use a knife on someone in self defense. I did hit his shoulder and stopped the moment I realized that I have pierced his flesh. I was unsure on what to do next. Luckily... he was shocked aswell so he stopped right dead in his tracks. If I had a gun in that situation, I would have just shot him and probably would have killed him (no matter of intended or not) because a firearm is a very abstract in it's function. It requires to aim it at a person and pull the trigger and he will fall over, while a knife or a hammer require full body contact and is arguably more "intimate" in it's usage. I am not anti-gun, quite on the contrary, but it baffles me how ignorant people throw the argument around that a person who means harm can do the same damage with another object. It's an invalid argument and not a realistic comparison... it never is.[/QUOTE] This too. Listen, most of us refuting this tired and shitty argument of "someone who wants to kill will do it no matter what they have!" are not out to ban guns or anything. I know better than that, the US is a very unique nation in its size, population, moral values, culture, etc. that gun control is a very tall and rocky mountain to climb that isnt as straight forward as just stepping on the gas until you reach the top. It is going to take years of research and experimentation until we find something that works uniquely for us. Sadly congress continues to shoot down anything that even tries.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50598702]Sadly congress continues to shoot down anything that even tries.[/QUOTE] Such as? The only recent examples I can think of right now are Feinstein's AWB, the private sale background checks, and the terror list one. And those would only have result in a massive waste of money with little to zero impact on crime, or straight up pissed on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Meanwhile retarded bills like NY SAFE pass with cheers and applauses, while still doing jack shit.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;50598742]Such as? The only recent examples I can think of right now are Feinstein's AWB, the private sale background checks, and the terror list one. And those would only have result in a massive waste of money with little to zero impact on crime, or straight up pissed on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Meanwhile retarded bills like NY SAFE pass with cheers and applauses, while still doing jack shit.[/QUOTE] The CDC funding bill that was just shut down, which would have allowed for research on gun violence and possible control measures [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=jimhowl33t;50598686]And that's where the whole thing falls apart. Suppose you manage to remove firearms from the world, what do you get? You get might-makes-fucking-right. You get hardened street bastards easily triumphing on the poor sods that have never practiced whacking skulls with a brick. Guns make it easier for criminals, as much as they give a fighting chance to would-be victims whose physical strength just can't match their attackers'.[/QUOTE] This is probably one of the most unrealistic scenarios for a world without guns I can imagine. Why havent nations like Australia become these primitive and barbaric wastelands?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50598763]The CDC funding bill that was just shut down, which would have allowed for research on gun violence and possible control measures [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] This is probably one of the most unrealistic scenarios for a world without guns I can imagine. Why havent nations like Australia become these primitive and barbaric wastelands?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html[/url] The CDC did the study in 2013. It didn't meet the needs of the anti-gun lobby. So it was buried. And in Australia the gangs did not magically disarm. And the homicide rate continued its already existing decline. The gun grab did NOTHING to alter their homicide rate.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50598763]The CDC funding bill that was just shut down, which would have allowed for research on gun violence and possible control measures[/QUOTE] You mean the openly anti-gun biased organization? Makes sense, I wouldn't want any agenda-pushing organization to get law-making influences and taxpayer money either. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;50598763]This is probably one of the most unrealistic scenarios for a world without guns I can imagine. Why havent nations like Australia become these primitive and barbaric wastelands?[/QUOTE] [del]Wait, they aren't?[/del]Because its population density is a tiny fraction of the US', its economy and urban areas are a tad nicer, and they have decent healthcare? And why haven't nations like Italy, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Norway, you name it, become primitive and barbaric wastelands despite their gun laws being nowhere remotely as pointlessy tight as Australia's? Why is England one of the most violent countries in Europe despite having the harshest gun control among them?

[QUOTE=Rainboo;50596810]He isn't saying that guns are entirely the problem. He's just saying that a normal violent confrontation can escalate to a lethal one with the presence of guns. It isn't rocket science.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;50597746]No, but it certainly makes the outcome worse.[/QUOTE] I don't care how much more lethal a gun is, the fact is that you very rarely see people getting sent to the ER because an argument turned into a shootout, a baseball bat beating, or a stabbing. Normal people don't have domestic arguments end with reaching for a weapon of [i]any kind[/i] and attacking their own children with intent to kill. The gun didn't escalate an argument to violence, the crazy mother did. You seem to be seriously trying to say that the woman wouldn't have tried to [i]murder her children[/i] if it weren't for the availability of a gun, and that's just plain ridiculous.

Here was my suggestion to control private gun sales without criminalizing trades among friends and family: Allow anyone access to the NICS. Don't require background checks on private transfers, but have the option there. If you run a background check on someone for a sale and they come up green, and then they commit a crime with that weapon, you are federally covered as you did everything in your power to make sure they were OK to receive the weapon. However, if you went with option B and didn't run a background check on them, and that weapon is then used in a crime and traced back to you (and it will be - investigators are very good at this), you will be held as an accomplice. So know who you're selling to if you don't want to run afoul of the law. Anti-gunners will probably decry this as "not enough!!!" but that's the kind of reasonable gun control we can institute. Couple it with enhanced background checks and [B]requiring the FBI to actually respond to them[/B] and you will see an improvement.

I believe this snippet from Stephen Fry is pretty relevant to some of the reactions of such an article. Some of these points anyway. [media]https://youtu.be/eJQHakkViPo[/media]

It's kinda sad and somewhat funny how many gun-advocates on this thread seem to have forgotten that a gun's designed purpose is to kill things from a distance.

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;50599862]It's kinda sad and somewhat funny how many gun-advocates on this thread seem to have forgotten that a gun's designed purpose is to kill things from a distance.[/QUOTE] *One of a gun's purposes

[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;50599862]It's kinda sad and somewhat funny how many gun-advocates on this thread seem to have forgotten that a gun's designed purpose is to kill things from a distance.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone here forgot what a gun was designed to do. It's the implication that comes with stating the obvious that rustles peoples jimmies.

The whole thing here is that domestic disputes and violence are very common. As are firearms in the states. You are more likely to shoot a family member with a household firearm than not. Let's break it down for those who don't get it - pulling a trigger is the easiest thing in the world. When people get angry, they get irrational and impulsive. Grabbing a gun, aiming at someone from a distance, and pulling the trigger in a fit of rage, is a lot more passive than swinging something or plunging a knife into someone - yes it happens still, but it's less likely for an angry person to do those things as they take effort and usually your brain goes hey wait a sec, i shouldn't be doing this! But with a gun, that moment may not happen until after you've pulled a trigger. It's just such a simple, longer ranged, and impersonal way of hurting a person, that it happens more frequently. They are simply just more unsafe than anything else in the house. Yep, people have chainsaws and lawnmowers on their residence. But they're harder to operate and unwieldy and nobodys going to use them to hurt a family member unless it's premeditated or accidental in their normal use. The gun is made to kill. The gun makes it easy to kill. People's mental states can be fragile during heated arguments. Those who have access to a gun have and will continue to use them in these circumstances. One person isn't ruining it for the rest of you. I'm positive, considering her stance, this woman would never have imagined she'd use a firearm on a family member. But just look at what can happen when the method of enacting horrible bodily harm is so quick and effortless. And before you say 'well if it's locked up, people can cool down before they get to it!' Then what good is it as self defense? [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] i am not flaming or trolling, this is just my opinion, that guns suck and exist to do harm, and that's not cool.

rusty once again your argument only holds water in the sense that your projection makes me question whether or not guns should be accessible [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] like if you think it's a natural response to try to or even wish to kill someone who you're having an argument with (no matter how easy it is) you need to get help because that's not normal arguments happen all the time, and when they get messy it's just a brawl 99.99% of the time, not "i'm gonna kill this guy" the vast majority of people have more restraint than you seem to, rusty, is all i'm saying

[QUOTE=Rusty100;50601264]And before you say 'well if it's locked up, people can cool down before they get to it!' Then what good is it as self defense?[/QUOTE] Erm....only carry it around with you when you're outside? If you're in your own home, there's no need to be carrying it all around, because you'll only be using it in your own home in the event of a break-in. In which case, it should be relatively easy to get to your gun, depending on where it is.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50599026]I don't care how much more lethal a gun is, the fact is that you very rarely see people getting sent to the ER because an argument turned into a shootout, a baseball bat beating, or a stabbing. Normal people don't have domestic arguments end with reaching for a weapon of [i]any kind[/i] and attacking their own children with intent to kill. The gun didn't escalate an argument to violence, the crazy mother did. You seem to be seriously trying to say that the woman wouldn't have tried to [i]murder her children[/i] if it weren't for the availability of a gun, and that's just plain ridiculous.[/QUOTE] She would have TRIED to murder her children, yes. That's the key word there. TRIED. And she wouldn't necessarily have succeeded without the gun. She can't as easily kill her two children(who are pretty much adults) without a gun than with a gun. The outcome could've been very different. One of them could've been able to escape. Both of them could've been able to escape with severe injuries but alive. Or they could have physically restrained her. In the worst case scenario, being chased with a melee weapon is preferable to being shot at with a gun. You seem to be ignoring that fact and that's just plain ridiculous.

Guns may be part of the problem but I dont think they are the biggest part. I think that if guns were regulated further it would decrease armed murder rates but not as much as people would hope. I bet that there are larger problems that contribute to this, and I think that the reason why guns are getting so much attention is that it makes this whole thing seem like a simple issue when it really is not.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;50601731]Guns may be part of the problem but I dont think they are the biggest part. I think that if guns were regulated further it would decrease armed murder rates but not as much as people would hope.[/QUOTE] Any decrease makes it worth it to me tbh

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50602026]Any decrease makes it worth it to me tbh[/QUOTE] you seem to give a little ground in each discussion but default to "BAN ALL GUNS" in each new thread whats the deal with that

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;50601731]Guns may be part of the problem but I dont think they are the biggest part. I think that if guns were regulated further it would decrease armed murder rates but not as much as people would hope. I bet that there are larger problems that contribute to this, and I think that the reason why guns are getting so much attention is that it makes this whole thing seem like a simple issue when it really is not.[/QUOTE] I agree with you. Specifically in that this problem, like most of life's problems, is complex. This means any solution will be complex, possibly even more complex than the problem itself. Complex solutions are costly and take time to implement, two things the public in general doesn't like. Meanwhile, passing a law is relatively simple and cheap. So it's easy to see why that approach appeals to people. Pass a gun control law- problem solved!

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50602026]Any decrease makes it worth it to me tbh[/QUOTE] Great idea, lets ban swimming pools because somebody let their toddler fall in. Nobody [I]needs[/i] a swimming pool right? Let's also ban any car with more horsepower than a Trabant, you don't [I]need[/I] a car that can break speed limits, speeding kills, and every life saved by every person being limited to slow cars mean that the ends justify the means right?

[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;50602562]Great idea, lets ban swimming pools because somebody let their toddler fall in. Nobody [I]needs[/i] a swimming pool right? Let's also ban any car with more horsepower than a Trabant, you don't [I]need[/I] a car that can break speed limits, speeding kills, and every life saved by every person being limited to slow cars mean that the ends justify the means right?[/QUOTE] You know that you need a license to drive a car, right? And that it can be revoked? Because cars can kill people? Do you see where I'm going with this?