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

[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] Hahahah come on butre This is trying to rescue a sunk ship. A knife can't quickly engage and hurt as many people as a gun can do. You just can't insta teleport behind everyone and stab them and so on. If anyone is willing to prove me wrong, I am more than willing to read about a dude in the US going into a place and stabbing AND killing more than 10 persons.

How about we - hear me out - give a damn about mental health treatment AND stop felons from owning firearms ever?

[QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;52860407]How about we - hear me out - give a damn about mental health treatment AND stop felons from owning firearms ever?[/QUOTE] Felons are not allowed to own firearms. What regulations would you introduce to prevent felons from obtaining firearms that can't just be ignored like the existing regulations? (This is not a zinger, I am inviting you to elaborate) My approach would be to make it easier to perform background checks for private transfers. Not required, but if you fail to perform a background check on someone who later uses that gun in a crime (to include possession, which itself is a crime) you are charged as an accessory to their crime. This would be a good incentive to run the background checks, but doesn't prevent family/friend transfers where you trust the person, either.

[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] Pretty sure if I'm holding a gun and somebody else is holding a knife, I'm gonna win that fight 10 times out of 10.

[QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;52860407]How about we - hear me out - give a damn about mental health treatment AND stop felons from owning firearms ever?[/QUOTE] You're asking too much. There's this political party...hell bent on keeping away health care from those who can't afford to pay it...that just won't act logically. And so you're shafted. It's called the Republican Party. [editline]6th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52860414]Pretty sure if I'm holding a gun and somebody else is holding a knife, I'm gonna win that fight 10 times out of 10.[/QUOTE] Depends on the distance. Oh you meant already drawn out, safety off and chambered? Well...if you don't hit him in a vital area, you are both going to die D:

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52860413]Felons are not allowed to own firearms. What regulations would you introduce to prevent felons from obtaining firearms that can't just be ignored like the existing regulations? My approach would be to make it easier to perform background checks for private transfers. Not required, but if you fail to perform a background check on someone who later uses that gun in a crime (to include possession, which itself is a crime) you are charged as an accessory to their crime. This would be a good incentive to run the background checks, but doesn't prevent family/friend transfers where you trust the person, either.[/QUOTE] Wait Didn't some states allow to buy guns without checks? Or as of now all states demand a previous check before buying a gun?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52860230][...] 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. [...][/QUOTE] You can add [URL="https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/guns-homicide-map-form/"][I]a lot[/I] more place[/URL][URL="https://archive.is/9Xe93"]s[/URL] to that list - and immediately scratch most of them because the storage requirements are usually [I]much[/I] stricter and you aren't allowed to carry weapons in a ready-to-use fashion [I]at all[/I] in most of these cases. 'Gun ownership' in the US doesn't have much to do with 'gun ownership' in Germany as far as availability of guns for crime goes. It's qualitatively different due to much more strict regulation.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52860413]Felons are not allowed to own firearms. What regulations would you introduce to prevent felons from obtaining firearms that can't just be ignored like the existing regulations?[/QUOTE] Oh, I read the part about felons in texas being able to get a firearm in five years earlier in this thread and assumed that's how he got his weapons. My bad. What if we have a major investigation into whoever sold him the weapons, and put them in a show trial that ultimately ruins their lives and forces gun sellers to put real thought into who they sell to.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;52860425]Wait Didn't some states allow to buy guns without checks? Or as of now all states demand a previous check before buying a gun?[/QUOTE] The current rules are that you don't need to run a check to perform a private transfer (between two unlicensed parties for non-business purposes) but any licensed dealer (e.g. gun stores) has to perform background checks on clients before selling them. Basically, you can't buy any [I]new[/I] guns without checks, but used gun transfers are basically unregulated. This is at the federal level. I think most states don't add any extra rules on top of that, but some do. [editline]5th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;52860430]Oh, I read the part about felons in texas being able to get a firearm in five years earlier in this thread and assumed that's how he got his weapons. My bad. What if we have a major investigation into whoever sold him the weapons, and put them in a show trial that ultimately ruins their lives and forces gun sellers to put real thought into who they sell to.[/QUOTE] You can apply to have your rights restored, but it's a pretty extensive process, and I think it's 9 years, not 5. You can't have reoffended in any sense after your charge, must be able to prove that you have your shit together, etc. and they can still deny it for any reason or no reason at all. One of my coworkers caught a felony drug charge, did time, and after getting out, was able to clean up, get a job, and regain possession of his children, but he will probably never be able to vote or own firearms again. Whether that's fair or not is a topic for a different discussion. Whoever sold him the gun probably didn't commit a crime. Right now it's only illegal to [I]knowingly[/I] sell to a felon. There'd be no charge. My proposition changes that. [editline]5th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tamschi;52860426]You can add [URL="https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/guns-homicide-map-form/"][I]a lot[/I] more place[/URL][URL="https://archive.is/9Xe93"]s[/URL] to that list - and immediately scratch most of them because the storage requirements are usually [I]much[/I] stricter and you aren't allowed to carry weapons in a ready-to-use fashion [I]at all[/I] in most of these cases. 'Gun ownership' in the US doesn't have much to do with 'gun ownership' in Germany as far as availability of guns for crime goes. It's qualitatively different due to much more strict regulation.[/QUOTE] That's fine. I am honestly surprised most of the US doesn't have storage laws. My only objection to storage laws is that gun safes are incredibly expensive and take up a lot of space. I don't have room or money for one that can hold all of mine. Most of mine live in a lockable display case, on display with other antiques. It is glass though and it would be easy to bypass the lock. Mostly it just keeps kids and annoying guests out of it. If the government subsidized safe purchases somehow I'd already have one, but good ones are really really expensive.

Surprised nobody shot back. After all of the recent shootings, everyone down here has been real tense. My heart lays with the victims and their families.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;52860425]Wait Didn't some states allow to buy guns without checks? Or as of now all states demand a previous check before buying a gun?[/QUOTE] It is federal law for federally firearms license'd dealers to conduct a NICS background check. You also have to fill out a form 4473. Now, you can perform a private sale person to person, and you don't do a background check then. However universal background check legislation would require an FFL transfer for such transactions. The problem with such legislation is that it is literally unenforceable.

[QUOTE=socks_;52860454]Surprised nobody shot back. After all of the recent shootings, everyone down here has been real tense. My heart lays with the victims and their families.[/QUOTE] Someone nailed him with a shotgun and chased him down in his truck when he fled. It's not clear if the shooter bled to death or shot himself, though it sounds like he passed out behind the wheel and bled out from the wound.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;52860455]It is federal law for federally firearms license'd dealers to conduct a NICS background check. You also have to fill out a form 4473. Now, you can perform a private sale person to person, and you don't do a background check then. However universal background check legislation would require an FFL transfer for such transactions. The problem with such legislation is that it is literally unenforceable.[/QUOTE] Yes it is...unless you put some kind of risk on the seller's side...but too many people could get caught in something they couldn't have foreseen.

[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 think you may have watched far too many action films are you going to start comparing snowplows and hammers to ak47's again?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52860373]I suppose someone with a knife would win against someone with a gun if they were fighting in space, yes.[/QUOTE] Ammunition contains an oxidizer, thus a gun will shoot in space since the gunpowder creates its own oxygen.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52860431][...] That's fine. I am honestly surprised most of the US doesn't have storage laws. My only objection to storage laws is that gun safes are incredibly expensive and take up a lot of space. I don't have room or money for one that can hold all of mine. Most of mine live in a lockable display case, on display with other antiques. It is glass though and it would be easy to bypass the lock. Mostly it just keeps kids and annoying guests out of it. If the government subsidized safe purchases somehow I'd already have one, but good ones are really really expensive.[/QUOTE] I don't think Germany requires specifically gun safes, actually: For long weapons it's just a properly locked (sturdy) steel locker with the ammo stored separately in a locked case. You're right though in that it's not legal to have functioning weapons on (constant) display here, which I assume is a pretty big issue for some collectors (aside from the limitation to one type of weapon). Safes that are legal for short weapons start at about 100€ here, according to a quick look-up. That thing's for wall-mounting and probably too small to store more than one, though. [editline]6th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;52860520]Ammunition contains an oxidizer, thus a gun will shoot in space since the gunpowder creates its own oxygen.[/QUOTE] What doesn't mix (well) is supersonic ammunition and water. The bullets usually shatter on impact it seems. I don't know what happens when a gun is fired underwater though.

[QUOTE=Wazbat;52858884]Has this ever actually prevented or mitigated a mass shooting/terror attack before though? People say this yet in an event like this the last thing you'd want to do is start shooting. What if you're shooting someone else who is shooting at the first guy? Is that guy over there holding a pistol the source of all this? What do the police do when they arrive at the scene of an active shooting and everyone's running around with pistols out? If anything, wouldnt it make it worse?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=-nesto-;52860309][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] There helped you out because you probably wouldn't see that otherwise.

[QUOTE=srobins;52860414]Pretty sure if I'm holding a gun and somebody else is holding a knife, I'm gonna win that fight 10 times out of 10.[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised. The first thing they teach you in CQC is that the knife will usually win. And if it's a situation where two people go for their weapons, the knife will win every single time.

Hard right news sites are reporting that the shooter was an antifa member who vowed to start a civil war. This shit is fucking disgusting, I guess after the Vegas shooting when they immediately said it was a Muslim terrorist, they've decided to shift the blame to the left if the perpetrator is white.

[QUOTE=srobins;52860414]Pretty sure if I'm holding a gun and somebody else is holding a knife, I'm gonna win that fight 10 times out of 10.[/QUOTE] Not exactly. Several police departments have classes which teach officers that if someone has a knife, you want to keep three seconds of distance between you and them. You also want to keep at the very least ten to fifteen meters between them and you. The reality is that unless you are purely going on muscle memory, it's very likely that someone with a knife will easily put you down, even if you have a gun.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;52860537]What doesn't mix (well) is supersonic ammunition and water. The bullets usually shatter on impact it seems. I don't know what happens when a gun is fired underwater though.[/QUOTE] the bullet pretty much stops dead in its tracks from the weight of the surrounding water, so even if it could work underwater it'd only be useful like, point blank

[QUOTE=J!NX;52860662]the bullet pretty much stops dead in its tracks from the weight of the surrounding water, so even if it could work underwater it'd only be useful like, point blank[/QUOTE] I think hydrostatic shock will blow up many (most?) guns when fired underwater, so there's that too.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52860520]Ammunition contains an oxidizer, thus a gun will shoot in space since the gunpowder creates its own oxygen.[/QUOTE] Confession: I know very little about guns

[img_thumb]https://i.redd.it/2qe4ludc1awz.png[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=Potus;52860691][img_thumb]https://i.redd.it/2qe4ludc1awz.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Human garbage. "Texas has a huge Muslim community problem"? Texan Muslims are perhaps some of the best integrated in the country. Lovely people. Fuck off rtd

[QUOTE=Potus;52860691][img_thumb]https://i.redd.it/2qe4ludc1awz.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] speculating he is antifa based on looks lmao

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52860600]You'd be surprised. The first thing they teach you in CQC is that the knife will usually win. And if it's a situation where two people go for their weapons, the knife will win every single time.[/QUOTE] I really can't believe we are having a gun vs knife argument and some of you are at the very least alluding that a knife has the same potential to cause widespread destruction as a rifle. Come on guys

[QUOTE=Potus;52860691][img_thumb]https://i.redd.it/2qe4ludc1awz.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] This is legit horrifying. This is a fucking cult.

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;52860743]This is legit horrifying. This is a fucking cult.[/QUOTE] That and most likely a bunch of paid propaganda.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;52860403]Hahahah come on butre This is trying to rescue a sunk ship. A knife can't quickly engage and hurt as many people as a gun can do. You just can't insta teleport behind everyone and stab them and so on. If anyone is willing to prove me wrong, I am more than willing to read about a dude in the US going into a place and stabbing AND killing more than 10 persons.[/QUOTE] those are some majorly arbitrary restrictions you're giving me, and they serve no purpose but to attempt to discredit me by limiting information I can put out. your restriction on location is the most baffling part, do you not think stabbings in other countries are a big deal? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Jerusalem_synagogue_attack[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Anne_Kindergarten_stabbing[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanping_school_massacre[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Tel_Aviv_stabbings[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_mall_stabbing[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Star_College–CyFair#2013_stabbing[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack[/url]