'Mass shooting' reported at small town church in Texas - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52859895][media]https://twitter.com/wilw/status/927293181804273664[/media] I don't know why y'all are shitting on Wil Wheaton[/QUOTE] Its less the point he's making, its how he went about it. He could have initially worded it much better, so it wouldn't be able to take the wrong way.

Apparently the dude was dishonorably discharged within the last five years (apparently felons can apply to be able to own firearms after 5 hears of being out in Texas) so the guns he used had to have been illegal. In other words gun control wouldn't have done anything to prevent this

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52859895][media]https://twitter.com/wilw/status/927293181804273664[/media] I don't know why y'all are shitting on Wil Wheaton[/QUOTE] "I'm not talking about religion or faith" When you talk about prayers being worthless that's talking about religion/faith, he might have meant it a different way but he phrased it in the worst way possible

[QUOTE=TheHydra;52859924]still, making a tweet like that is in pretty bad taste considering the people murdered were church-goers practicing their faith[/QUOTE] He acknowledged that and apologized for it [editline]5th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;52859920]I don't agree with basically anything Wil Wheaton says but that specific tweet seemed to be more aimed about congressional inaction than an attack on anyones faith. If that's the worst tweet we get out of this, we should consider ourselves lucky.[/QUOTE] Nope twitter is a cesspool

[QUOTE=Amber902;52859937]Apparently the dude was dishonorably discharged within the last five years (apparently felons can apply to be able to own firearms after 5 hears of being out in Texas) so the guns he used had to have been illegal. In other words gun control wouldn't have done anything to prevent this[/QUOTE] Points like this always seem silly because I really don't think the proposition of having gun control exists under the impression that literally every attack, shooting, or act of gun violence will be prevented by it. Rather, the amount of times it occurs would be less. So no, maybe gun control wouldn't have stopped this particular situation, but there might be other instances where it could have. You can't really say for sure one way or another.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52859956]Source ?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/who_is_devin_kelley_26-year-ol.html[/url] It also seems he was stopped by a bystander with a firearm. [editline]5th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Pascall;52859965]Points like this always seem silly because I really don't think the proposition of having gun control exists under the impression that literally every attack, shooting, or act of gun violence will be prevented by it. Rather, the amount of times it occurs would be less. So no, maybe gun control wouldn't have stopped this particular situation, but there might be other instances where it could have. You can't really say for sure one way or another.[/QUOTE] Actually in this particular instance it seems that the lack of gun control stopped the shooting before he killed more people.

I think America has gone long past the point of reforming the 2nd amendment. In my eyes the best thing to do is to reform the mental health sector and make it stronger, accessible and paid for by the tax payer. In Australia, I can go to my GP and request a mental health care plan and the government pays for 6 of my sessions. It has helped me so much especially when I couldn't afford fuel and I didn't want to ask my parents for handouts If we all had a place for a yarn and a place for support, I'd argue gun violence would rapidly decrease

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52859895][media]https://twitter.com/wilw/status/927293181804273664[/media] I don't know why y'all are shitting on Wil Wheaton[/QUOTE] Doesn't change the fact that the way he started the conversation was dreadful. He needed an intro that isn't " This religion stuff doesn't work, those folks are dead even after praying".

I hope we hear a motive from the shooter this time, maybe a record he left before he snapped or started this.

[QUOTE=Pascall;52859965]Points like this always seem silly because I really don't think the proposition of having gun control exists under the impression that literally every attack, shooting, or act of gun violence will be prevented by it. Rather, the amount of times it occurs would be less. So no, maybe gun control wouldn't have stopped this particular situation, but there might be other instances where it could have. You can't really say for sure one way or another.[/QUOTE] If we go down that line of thought, it would be plausible to say what gun control we have installed already has possibly stopped a number of shootings or decreased them already.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52859985]I think America has gone long past the point of reforming the 2nd amendment. In my eyes the best thing to do is to reform the mental health sector and make it stronger, accessible and paid for by the tax payer. In Australia, I can go to my GP and request a mental health care plan and the government pays for 6 of my sessions. It has helped me so much especially when I couldn't afford fuel and I didn't want to ask my parents for handouts If we all had a place for a yarn and a place for support, I'd argue gun violence would rapidly decrease[/QUOTE] I agree with this, it's impossible anyone in their right of mind would commit such a terrible crime without having some kind of mental issues beforehand. How many mass murders were caused by someone completely sane? None of them, even though having access to a weapon may make it easier the weapon is not the cause of these killings, just the tool. If it's impossible to remove the tool the least we can do is treat the cause of their abuse.

[QUOTE=slapdown3;52860020]I agree with this, it's impossible anyone in their right of mind would commit such a terrible crime without having some kind of mental issues beforehand. How many mass murders were caused by someone completely sane? None of them, even though having access to weapon may make it easier the weapon is not the cause of these killings, just the tool. If it's impossible to remove the tool the least we can do is treat the cause of their abuse.[/QUOTE] I still think that someone who is mentally sound could commit a crime with a gun but it wouldn't be a massacre it'd more than likely be directed at one or two people.

[QUOTE=slapdown3;52860020]I agree with this, it's impossible anyone in their right of mind would commit such a terrible crime without having some kind of mental issues beforehand. How many mass murders were caused by someone completely sane? None of them, even though having access to weapon may make it easier the weapon is not the cause of these killings, just the tool. If it's impossible to remove the tool the least we can do is treat the cause of their abuse.[/QUOTE] He may not have showed signs. Paddock in Vegas didnt and look at what he did. More accessible mental health would be great but who knows if it will actually help curb these acts.

I really fail to see how gun control is an effective method for stopping mass violence anyways. Guns are a mechanism of action, not a motivator of action. Removing a mechanism simply means someone is going to seek out another, equally deadly one. Recent attacks with large trucks have more then proven that everyone with more then a couple of hundred dollars has access to an equally deadly instrument of mass murder. Banning guns will just make people resort to trucks and other equally destructive devices. So how about we go after crux of the problem (motivation) instead of using a dumb bandage solution (banning guns)?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52860018]If we go down that line of thought, it would be plausible to say what gun control we have installed already has possibly stopped a number of shootings or decreased them already.[/QUOTE] Well sure. I'm not arguing against that either.

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860054]I really fail to see how gun control is an effective method for stopping mass violence anyways. Guns are a mechanism of action, not a motivator of action. Removing a mechanism simply means someone is going to seek out another, equally deadly one. Recent attacks with large trucks have more then proven that everyone with more then a couple of hundred dollars has access to an equally deadly instrument of mass murder. Banning guns will just make people resort to trucks and other equally destructive devices. So how about we go after crux of the problem (motivation) instead of using a dumb bandage solution (banning guns)?[/QUOTE] Well, I mean, because vehicles have a primary purpose of transportation and civilization relies on them. They're also cumbersome, hard to sneak into places, easier for the police to track and stop, etc. Had it crashed into the church, likely would have killed less unless the entire structure collapsed which they generally don't, and would be incapacitated after the initial ram. (That's speculation of course, but y'know just trying to think logically about how much damage you could do to a church with a car or truck. usually the building puts up enough force that they don't get too far) A gun on the other hand is specifically made to make killing people as easy as possible. Arguing 'hey you can kill people with things OTHER than guns!' is stupid. A gun will always be capable of doing more damage, and from a distance. You can't distance yourself from the car you're driving. Guns suck yo. And before anyone says that a gun also killed the perpetrator, sure, but after 30 lives were already lost. More guns aren't bringing people back to life. Good gun v bad gun doesn't even cancel itself out. All they do is end lives. They're not cool. So I mean, I agree with looking at other solutions. But in addition to (eventually) getting rid of guns. It doesn't have to be one or the other. For America it would be a long, gradual road. But starting down that path is better than shrugging your shoulders and saying 'well I guess we add more guns?'. How has that worked out so far? Reminder. Australian mass shootings since we banned guns: 0

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860089]Well, I mean, because vehicles have a primary purpose of transportation and civilization relies on them. They're also cumbersome, hard to sneak into places, easier for the police to track and stop, etc. Had it crashed into the church, likely would have killed less unless the entire structure collapsed which they generally don't, and would be incapacitated after the initial ram.[/quote] If his intent was to kill and he was using a vehicle instead of a firearm, I think the obvious solution to his problem is to wait for the church service to end when everyone leaves the building. [QUOTE=Rusty100;52860089]And before anyone says that a gun also killed the perpetrator, sure, but after 30 lives were already lost. More guns aren't bringing people back to life. Good gun v bad gun doesn't even cancel itself out. All they do is end lives. They're not cool. [/quote] As oppose to possibly preventing 60 or more people from being gunned down by the shooter? [QUOTE=Rusty100;52860089]So I mean, I agree with looking at other solutions. But in addition to (eventually) getting rid of guns. It doesn't have to be one or the other. For America it would be a long, gradual road. But starting down that path is better than shrugging your shoulders and saying 'well I guess we add more guns?'. How has that worked out so far? Reminder. Australian mass shootings since we banned guns: 0[/QUOTE] Cookie-cutter approach won't work. If it worked for Australia, great. But it's not going to work in the US. Gun culture [I]is[/I] American culture.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860089]All they do is end lives. They're not cool.[/quote] I own 14 guns, not one has ended a life [quote]How has that worked out so far? Reminder. Australian mass shootings since we banned guns: 0[/QUOTE] This is blatant falsehood and a shameless lie and I'm not going to let it go uncalled: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis[/url] [url]http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunt-family-murders-witness-describes-final-night-at-family-home-20151006-gk2vo5.html[/url] You get chain shootings in Aus, but [url=http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunt-family-murders-witness-describes-final-night-at-family-home-20151006-gk2vo5.html]most of your massacres are conducted with other means[/url] Given our population is 14 times larger than yours and we are considerably more affected by issues such as poverty, racial discontent, gang violence, and drugs (which are all connected[!]) it's not surprising that we have more violence in general You've always been an irrational, over-emotional arguer but don't start lying - you will not win that way either. For my closing argument I present the same graph I always present when arguing with you: [img]https://i.imgur.com/lp0TgV8.png[/img] It's tough to find an American equivalent to compare with directly but we also have a downward trend (curiously, sharper than yours in spite of everything): [img]https://i.imgur.com/cSBhljs.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52860100]I own 14 guns, not one has ended a life This is blatant falsehood and a shameless lie and I'm not going to let it go uncalled: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting[/URL] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis[/URL] [URL]http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunt-family-murders-witness-describes-final-night-at-family-home-20151006-gk2vo5.html[/URL][/QUOTE] did you just google 'gun deaths australia' deaths by event: 2, 3, 5 (his own family including himself) these are tragedies for sure, but it's pretty insane to compare these to almost any american mass shooting. that's more dishonest that you're claiming me to be. in your graph, you will notice, after an initial spike after the buyback, it slowly decreases and has continued to do so. as i said, it's a slow solution, you don't get immediate results, but it's not ineffective in a longer run. after the first article you posted, handgun restrictions were made even tighter too. whether or not these graphs are accurate, you can point to your downward trend too but you're still conveniently ignoring that mass shootings are becoming incredibly frequent. are we just pretending they don't matter? my question to you is: why do you own 14 guns? for what purpose? why is it okay to own something that's made to take lives? because they're cool or something? because then it sounds like your motivation for not restricting guns comes down to 'i'm more upset about the possibility of losing my cool guns than i am about the continued death they cause'.

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860054]I really fail to see how gun control is an effective method for stopping mass violence anyways. Guns are a mechanism of action, not a motivator of action. Removing a mechanism simply means someone is going to seek out another, equally deadly one. Recent attacks with large trucks have more then proven that everyone with more then a couple of hundred dollars has access to an equally deadly instrument of mass murder. Banning guns will just make people resort to trucks and other equally destructive devices. So how about we go after crux of the problem (motivation) instead of using a dumb bandage solution (banning guns)?[/QUOTE] Equally deadly? Says who?

[QUOTE=Sharkcheater;52858846]and? It's to bad she wasn't armed. or anyone there. you would think someone in Texas would be. maybe they felt the church wasn't a place to carry. I hope not.[/QUOTE] Actually someone there was armed, because they shot the fucking shooter. [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/church-shooting-texas.html?_r=0[/url] paragraph 9

I agree with some kind of mental health reform (and universal health care while we're at it), but I feel as if that's an argument used by pro-gun advocates as some sort of illusory, distant goal that nobody really intends on hitting or is doing anything about, and is just a deflection so that everyone can keep their guns (for some reason). At least restricting guns would actually be doing something. And I don't see anything getting better on a mental health side of things with your current president. So like, what exactly is going to happen? Here's a hint: it's more shootings.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860089]Well, I mean, because vehicles have a primary purpose of transportation and civilization relies on them.[/quote] Modern civilization also at some level still requires firearms and weapons to enforce the law, keep the peace, and to hunt or cull animals so your argument about firearms being unnecessary to modern civilization is rather poorly thought out. Furthermore the average person does not need to have access to large motor vehicles to keep civilization running, and yet I can go rent one for a couple hundred dollars no problem. [quote] They're also cumbersome, hard to sneak into places, easier for the police to track and stop, etc.[/quote] Large motor vehicles are also conpletely innocuous and less likely to arouse suspicion then a firearm. Furthermore the cumbersome nature of a large vehicle would simply mean that such an individual would switch the venue of their attack (ex. Running over the crowd of people leaving the church) [quote] Had it crashed into the church, likely would have killed less unless the entire structure collapsed which they generally don't, and would be incapacitated after the initial ram. [/quote] Or he could just wait for people to start leaving. This line of debate is meaningless unproductive speculation. [quote] A gun on the other hand is specifically made to make killing people as easy as possible. [/quote] They're also designed for this thing called "hunting" which generally does not include harming other people. [quote] Arguing 'hey you can kill people with things OTHER than guns!' is stupid. A gun will always be caable of doing more damage, and from a distance.[/quote] What about private aircraft? The average person doesnt need one of those, and yet if aimed properly even a small aircraft can kill hundreds. [quote] You can't distance yourself from the car you're driving. Guns suck yo.[/quote] You can remotely control a car you know, and it can be as simple as just dropping a brick onto your gas pedal when aimed at a large gathering of people and booking it. [quote] And before anyone says that a gun also killed the perpetrator, sure, but after 30 lives were already lost.[/quote] Thats a dumb argument. By the same logic I could say "cops aren't cool, sure they stopped the perp but not until after he killed 60 people" [quote] More guns aren't bringing people back to life. [/quote] What dumb argument is this even??? Cops dont bring dudes back to life either, neither does anythingl except CPR [quote] Good gun v bad gun doesn't even cancel itself out. All they do is end lives. They're not cool. [/quote] My family has owned guns for multiple generations without using them to kill people, and they are in fact pretty cool. But I guess that was a pretty good attempt at the classic "dismissive zinger" argument. [quote] So I mean, I agree with looking at other solutions. But in addition to (eventually) getting rid of guns.[/quote] Why would we need to get rid of guns if we tackled the core motivations behind massed violence??? If anything doing so would give us impetus to deregulate firearms. [quote] It doesn't have to be one or the other. For America it would be a long, gradual road[/quote] A road that we will likely not need to go down or be willing to go down. [quote] But starting down that path is better than shrugging your shoulders and saying 'well I guess we add more guns?'.[/quote] Are you addressing me here or an invisible third party? I genuinely fail to see how you could boil my argument down to that statement without willful misinterpretation. [quote] How has that worked out so far? Reminder. Australian mass shootings since we banned guns: 0[/QUOTE] Australia also lacks the rising tensions and social problems of the US so I fail to see how you could compare the two like that.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52860098]If his intent was to kill and he was using a vehicle instead of a firearm, I think the obvious solution to his problem is to wait for the church service to end when everyone leaves the building. [/QUOTE] I kind of highly doubt that he would have managed to kill 27 people in one vehicle ramming in what would have been a relatively small and dispersed group of people.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;52860180]I kind of highly doubt that he would have managed to kill 27 people in one vehicle ramming in what would have been a relatively small and dispersed group of people.[/QUOTE] Everyone is going to funnel down one exit at a church like that, likely at the same time.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860127]did you just google 'gun deaths australia'[/quote] That's what I did, yes. That's more than you did. [quote]deaths by event: 2, 3, 5 (his own family including himself) these are tragedies for sure, but it's pretty insane to compare these to almost any american mass shooting. that's more dishonest that you're claiming me to be.[/quote] That's the same criteria used by American 'mass shootings'. [quote]in your graph, you will notice, after an initial spike after the buyback, it slowly decreases and has continued to do so.[/quote] ... following the same overall trend it had been following before the ban (with 90-93 being a statistical anomaly caused by the larger shootings then). [quote]as i said, it's a slow solution, you don't get immediate results, but it's not ineffective in a longer run. after the first article you posted, handgun restrictions were made even tighter too.[/quote] ... okay... [quote]whether or not these graphs are accurate, you can point to your downward trend too but you're still conveniently ignoring that mass shootings are becoming incredibly frequent. are we just pretending they don't matter?[/quote] I wouldn't say they're becoming 'incredibly' frequent. The definition of 'mass shooting' has loosened considerably due to media sensationalism. This morning's event definitely qualifies, but a gang shootout in Detroit does not, in my eyes, constitute a 'mass shooting'. [quote]my question to you is: why do you own 14 guns? for what purpose? why is it okay to own something that's made to take lives? because they're cool or something? because then it sounds like your motivation for not restricting guns comes down to 'i'm more upset about the possibility of losing my cool guns than i am about the continued death they cause'.[/QUOTE] My guns are part of an expansive private museum with artifacts dating back to before Christ. The oldest functional firearm in my collection was made in 1886, with most of them being made before 1945. Many are military arms so yes, they are made to take lives. They don't. I am not personally aware of any deaths caused by the antique and relic guns in my exhibits but if you should happen to discover any data pertaining to that I hope that you forward it to Dallas PD as soon as possible. As far as my modern arms go, they are exclusively target guns which have never been pointed at a person and in all likelihood never will be.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;52860180]I kind of highly doubt that he would have managed to kill 27 people in one vehicle ramming in what would have been a relatively small and dispersed group of people.[/QUOTE] Not sure if you attend church services, but it's fairly common for members of the congregation to collect out the front door and talk a bit in groups before heading to their cars to go home. I see it all over my town every Sunday. 27 killed that way? Maybe not, but it's plausible.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52860137]Equally deadly? Says who?[/QUOTE] Says the Nice and New York truck attacks.

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860167]Large motor vehicles are also conpletely innocuous and less likely to arouse suspicion then a firearm. Furthermore the cumbersome nature of a large vehicle would simply mean that such an individual would switch the venue of their attack (ex. Running over the crowd of people leaving the church) Or he could just wait for people to start leaving. This line of debate is meaningless unproductive speculation.[/QUOTE] So you can justify your argument against banning guns with repeated, unsupported claims that vehicles are equally as deadly, but once someone else starts to go over the effectiveness of vehicles, it's suddenly meaningless speculation? Fucking what? [editline]6th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Amber902;52860188]Says the Nice and New York truck attacks.[/QUOTE] What argument are you proposing here? Attacks with trucks have happened... therefore they are equally as deadly as firearms?

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860188]Says the Nice and New York truck attacks.[/QUOTE] Yeah and some guy shot ~500 people out of a window. Why are you arguing a single car or truck is as deadly? It's so dishonest. Just be up front and say 'I think my guns are cool and I wan't to keep them and that's why we shouldn't ban them'.