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

[QUOTE=Orkel;52859588][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzlZbi2z1g[/media][/QUOTE] If Sam Hyde ever did commit a mass shooting no would would believe it.

Let's not forget, the bigger the vehicle capable of more damage, ie truck, the slower and easier to get out of the way from. As oppose to say, automatic rifle fire. Stop comparing them. It's baffling. Trucks transport things. We need them. Guns are either shooting at living things, or hanging on a wall, for some reason being admired, or used for target shooting. Every time you compare them to a vehicle you just look more and more like you're doubling down because you like them.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52860193]So you can justify your argument against banning guns with repeated, unsupported claims that vehicles are equally as deadly[/quote] Have you just ignored modern events? Nice ended with 86 dead, more then the deadliest mass shooting in US history. New York killed 12. [quote] , but once someone else starts to go over the effectiveness of vehicles, it's suddenly meaningless speculation? Fucking what?[/QUOTE] Its meaningless speculation to ask what would have happened in this situation because there is no way to substantiate it. Its like asking "What if the Nice truck attackers used guns instead". [editline]5th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Rusty100;52860199]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'.[/QUOTE] The truck killed more people then the shooter in the two incidents your bringing up. Stop using dumb misleading numbers.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860199]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'.[/QUOTE] In terms of death count, Vegas was by far an outlier, not the average.

The perpetrator was dishonorably discharged. That means it is illegal for him to have firearms.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860205]Let's not forget, the bigger the vehicle capable of more damage, ie truck, the slower and easier to get out of the way from. As oppose to say, automatic rifle fire. Stop comparing them. It's baffling. [/QUOTE] What kind of truck do you have driving around you? A lot don't have great acceleration but plenty can go pretty damn fast. The truck that drove into the crowd in Germany last year (two years ago?) was going 65 miles per hour. At a speed of 30 miles an hour, being hit by a truck can be deadly.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860205]Let's not forget, the bigger the vehicle capable of more damage, ie truck, the slower and easier to get out of the way from. As oppose to say, automatic rifle fire. Stop comparing them. It's baffling. [/quote] Then why did the people at Nice not simply run out of the way? [quote] Trucks transport things. We need them. [/quote] the average person has no need for trucks, should we thus restrict them? [quote]Guns are either shooting at living things, or hanging on a wall, for some reason being admired, or used for target shooting. Every time you compare them to a vehicle you just look more and more like you're doubling down because you like them.[/QUOTE] I'm doubling down because your arguments are atrocious nonsense laced with condescension.

I don't think a truck attack is intrinsically more deadly than a gun attack, so I wouldn't try to base an argument off of that. The death toll in Nice is probably a fluke; I wouldn't expect anywhere near that many under most circumstances. What the Nice attack (and similar attacks) does show is that people who are bent on committing violence are going to do it. I am not concerned with the mechanism these people choose to inflict violence on others. I am concerned with their motives, their circumstances, and how to flag them before they do it. My argument is the same as it has always been: addressing critical problems in American society will have a marked impact on not just gun crime but violence in general. Poverty, drugs, gangs, mental health, et cetera are the root causes for violence. You can't account for Jim fooling around with John's wife and getting shot, but you can address gang violence with outreach, education, and inclusion. You can address poverty from many angles. Mental health care is so fucked in this country that literally any step toward improving that situation would be better than what we have. Stable countries do not have these problems no matter how many guns they have. America is not the only country with gun freedom. America is not even the country with the laxest firearm laws. Yet America is a country that regularly experiences mass scale violence. Why? Hint: if it was the presence of guns, Canada, Israel, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, Czech Republic, etc. would be embroiled in violence. They aren't. To argue that guns are responsible for the violence issue in the US is missing the forest for the trees. Theft doesn't occur because people have hands, jaywalking doesn't occur because people have feet. These things occur because people are inclined toward committing them. It is more important to me to figure out why and how to address that inclination responsibly than to one-by-one ban or restrict every method used to commit violence until people are back to bludgeoning one another to death with rocks.

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860227]Then why did the people at Nice not simply run out of the way? the average person has no need for trucks, should we thus restrict them? [/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's easy, or blaming them for not having done so, but you've got a better chance than dodging or outrunning a bullet. Your average person does have a need for trucks? Small business owners, anyone involved in mail or transportation, anyone who works in literally any industry at all. Or is a person who drives a truck not an average person? Why are we STILL talking about trucks? (I know why, because it's still a deflection. Guns excel at killing.)

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860236]I'm not saying it's easy[/QUOTE] Uh [QUOTE=Rusty100;52860205]Let's not forget, the bigger the vehicle capable of more damage, ie truck, the slower [B]and easier[/B] to get out of the way from. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52860251]Uh[/QUOTE] When does 'easier than dodging bullets' mean easy?

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860254]When does 'easier than dodging bullets' mean easy?[/QUOTE] Why don't you drop the truck argument since you keep complaining about how stupid it is and respond to my posts?

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860207]Have you just ignored modern events? Nice ended with 86 dead, more then the deadliest mass shooting in US history. New York killed 12. Its meaningless speculation to ask what would have happened in this situation because there is no way to substantiate it. Its like asking "What if the Nice truck attackers used guns instead". [/QUOTE] Meaningless speculation isn't the reason why you don't want to argue it, it's because you know damn well what the differences between the events are. This small Texas church was not a packed Bastille Day celebration in a lengthy, mostly straight, pedestrianized zone, where a truck indeed works as a very deadly weapon. Just because vehicles CAN have as destructive an effect, doesn't make them half as lethal or as practical as guns in most scenarios. And this latest shooting is one where your claim of "equally deadly" is total horseshit

I think the truck vs. Gun argument is stupid because a truck being used to kill is doing something that's completely unrelated to what it's designed for. While a gun being used to kill people is within it's scope of use. Limiting access to trucks (technically you already need a license to drive, so..) because they can be used to run people over would hurt society overall. Restricting access to guns really wouldn't have a negative impact on society in a sterile world. I just feel like America already has so many guns that trying to remove and/or ban them would be a Sisyphean task that would incite anger, and put people who are not prone to crime at risk.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52860251]Uh[/QUOTE] Easier means it is easy [B]in comparison[/B] to something, not that it is easy as a whole. Just like saying "a snail is faster than a microbe" isn't the same as calling the snail fast.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;52860159]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] It will will probably take a change in both fields, in guns, mental health. It's the combination of the two and the stigma of the latter that's causing these attacks to happen again and again. Good luck getting Trump to fix any of that though

[QUOTE=OvB;52860274] (technically you already need a license to drive, so..) [/QUOTE] People drive without a license (or a suspended license) all the time, so that's rather moot.

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860227] the average person has no need for trucks, should we thus restrict them? [/QUOTE] we do restrict trucks, it's called a heavy vehicle license :v:

Let me break down me reasoning in detail to avoid misunderstanding. Every action requires three things, motivation (why you do something, method (how you do something), and means (what you do it with.) We have two ways of restricting mass murder as method is essentially unregulatable. The means method requires us to restrict all possible means of mass violence to truly be effective. This is quite difficult as the average person has access to a variety of things usable as means. We saw common household appliances be turned into means of Mass death in Boston. We saw trucks be used in Nice. We have seen several successful and unsuccessful attempts at using household chemicals to make bombs and poisons. To stop the issue of mass violence with the means method we'd have to eliminate all potentially useful objects, as well as guns, and I dont really see how thats possible. The other method is to go after motivations. For the US that means fixing our mental health system and making progress on our various social issues. This is possible, albeit through a nigh Herculean effort. In short, banning guns is a half solution that still allows for equally devastating attacks. We either go all out and ban everything usable as a vector for a massed attack or we tackle the motivations behind massed violence. To ban guns alone doesn't really help anything. [editline]5th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=MrBunneh;52860285]we do restrict trucks, it's called a heavy vehicle license :v:[/QUOTE] I can rent a large moving truck without any special license. The truck used in the New York attack was rented from home depot.

[video]https://youtu.be/rwYd2kIZxk4[/video] So not only did a townsperson shoot at the suspect, they exchanged gunfire and then he flagged down a motorist and together they chased the son of a bitch until he came to a stop and waited for police to respond. God damn Texas.

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860298]equally devastating attacks.[/QUOTE] And again with this? You bring it up as a fact, but you also shut down people who want to debate it because "you don't wanna speculate". Yet this argument is a whole fucking load of speculation in itself. Are you the only one allowed to claim what the efficacy of other methods is?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52859050]Aaand yet knife killings are far less severe... and far less often[/QUOTE] knife killings are less severe? a gun doesnt kill you more dead than a knife

[QUOTE=butre;52860323]knife killings are less severe? a gun doesnt kill you more dead than a knife[/QUOTE] Come on. You know what he means, no one is this oblivious. Knives do not have the range or practicality that guns have, this is obvious to anyone with half a brain and a functioning pair of eyeballs. Why do we need to start this argument from such a retarded ass place?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52860263]Meaningless speculation isn't the reason why you don't want to argue it, it's because you know damn well what the differences between the events are.[/quote] No its because speculation on alternative variables in past events is not conducive to a good argument. [quote]~ This small Texas church was not a packed Bastille Day celebration in a lengthy, mostly straight, pedestrianized zone, where a truck indeed works as a very deadly weapon. Just because vehicles CAN have as destructive an effect, doesn't make them half as lethal or as practical as guns in most scenarios. And this latest shooting is one where your claim of "equally deadly" is total horseshit[/QUOTE] Its not horseshit. Can you tell me the average density of people in both events? Can you tell me the likelihood that each individual in both events will be limber and aware enough to jump out of the way of the truck or take cover from the bullets? Guns likely wouldve killed the same if not more in Nice, and its entirely plausible that a truck could've killed the same number of people in this attack. But neither of these speculations is a good basis for an argument as neither of them are concrete or provable.

[QUOTE=Amber902;52860334]No its because speculation an alternative variables in past events is not conducive to a good argument. Its not horseshit. Can you tell me the average density of people in both events? Can you tell me the likelihood that each individual in both events will be limber and aware enough to jump out of the way of the trick or take cover from the bullets? Guns likely wouldve killed the same if not more in Nice, and its entirely plausible that a truck could've killed the same number of people in this attack. But neither of these speculations is a good basis for an argument as neither of them are concrete or provable.[/QUOTE] You're asking me to prove that a Bastille Day celebration is denser than sunday church in a town of 8k? Are you serious?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52860340]You're asking me to prove that a Bastille Day celebration is denser than sunday church in a town of 8k? Are you serious?[/QUOTE] If you actually read the argument for more then a millisecond then you'd be able to see exactly what I asked you.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52860333]Come on. You know what he means, no one is this oblivious. Knives do not have the range or practicality that guns have, this is obvious to anyone with half a brain and a functioning pair of eyeballs. Why do we need to start this argument from such a retarded ass place?[/QUOTE] knives have all the practicality of guns and more, and in certain situations a knife wielding assailant will always win against someone with a gun. that one you have to have a whole brain for it to be obvious to you

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;52860319]And again with this? You bring it up as a fact, but you also shut down people who want to debate it because "you don't wanna speculate". Yet this argument is a whole fucking load of speculation in itself. Are you the only one allowed to claim what the efficacy of other methods is?[/QUOTE] Im talking about past events if you'd actually bother to read~

[QUOTE=butre;52860356]knives have all the practicality of guns and more, and in certain situations a knife wielding assailant will always win against someone with a gun. that one you have to have a whole brain for it to be obvious to you[/QUOTE] I suppose someone with a knife would win against someone with a gun if they were fighting in space, yes.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52860373]I suppose someone with a knife would win against someone with a gun if they were fighting in space, yes.[/QUOTE] It's been fairly extensively tested, actually. Within a certain envelope (of roughly 10 feet and out to 21 feet in some conditions) someone with a knife will almost always win against someone with a gun assuming both are starting from a relaxed state. The short of it is the knife is easier and faster to bring to a fighting state and unlike a gun, any movement made with a knife is potentially deadly. Once you're within arms reach of someone with a gun, their odds of injuring you with the gun approach zero. I don't think all of that really makes a solid argument that knives are more deadly than guns (or else we wouldn't have invented guns), but there's some truth to it in a lot of specific situations. We have seen that people with knives are capable of injuring vast quantities of people with careful planning, but it's more physically taxing than using a gun and puts the attacker within grappling range, meaning his odds of being interdicted early on are greater. One thing is true, though: knives are no joke. I'd rather be shot with almost any gun than stabbed with any substantial knife. Knife wounds are ugly: they damage more flesh, causing more bleeding and exposing more flesh to infection. They are more likely to break/damage bones and organs, and much harder to protect against. Guns can inflict more injuries, but knives inflict worse injuries.