Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass shooting in Texas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    Are there any restrictions on convicted criminals having guns in Texas?

    Kelly had domestic violence convictions.
    Same as anywhere in the USA. He wasn't allowed to have firearms or body armor.

    However, that only stops the honest people. Over half of all murders are committed by people who were not supposed to have firearms.

    Of course, they weren't supposed to be committing murder, either.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
      Who will decide if/when someone is crazy?And, is it possible to prevent a crazy one to have a gun ? And, is it important ? If a crazy one wants to kill himself, someone else, he will do it, even if he has no gun .
      Only a court can rule that a people is too unbalanced to exercise their civil rights. And that is a tough standard to meet.

      Nor is it in any way effective, because anyone with cash and a little patience can obtain any firearm they want.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • Well technically he wasn't supposed to be legally able to buy firearms but it seems the the Air Force screwed the pooch
        http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/06...-buy-guns.html
        Too Much To Do Too Little Time

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          Only a court can rule that a people is too unbalanced to exercise their civil rights. And that is a tough standard to meet.

          Nor is it in any way effective, because anyone with cash and a little patience can obtain any firearm they want.


          Even when the person is clearly mentally incompetent, it can be a long process.


          Good to see you back too.
          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
            Even when the person is clearly mentally incompetent, it can be a long process.


            Good to see you back too.
            Thanks, it's good to be back.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • Ok well time to wrap up the gun control debate again until the next mass shooting. As I may be away then let me sum up the government response to the next mass shooting : "Our thoughts go out to the victims and we wish to thank first responders, that is all"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                In NY City, maybe.
                Are you presuming to tell me the regs in my own state -- a state in which I've purchased a number of firearms over three decades?

                Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                These kinds of guns are easy to get and you don't need to go to Mexico to get them.
                Not much of a reader, are we. How did you miss the caveat, repeated more than once, that "as Federal regs tighten, which I fear they ultimately will, Mexican sources will become more attractive than local sources"?

                Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                Didn't say you couldn't.
                So you're admitting that more restrictive Federal firearms laws will not impede the ability of the prospective wrongdoer to acquire military-grade weapons. Rather negates the purpose of this debate now, doesn't it.

                Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                I merely said:

                1) You can also get them in the U.S.
                Legally, and only for the time being. I'm predicting that that will change in the not-too distant future.

                Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                2) You don't really need them to create mass carnage.
                Never said you did. Indeed, the US' two bloodiest mass murders were perpetrated with nothing more exotic than 19 box cutters, a can of gasoline, and a book of matches. Not a firearm was in sight in either incident.

                Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                If you want to take about the dangers of NAMBLA, I suggest you start another thread.

                This thread is about the mass shootings in Texas. But perhaps reducing the culture of violence in general will have the effect you desire on NAMBLA.
                Whoa cowboy! Aren't you the one who introduced the "culture of violence" issue? Did I miss something? Did you not want to discuss our culture of violence -- which I believe to be a real thing, not just some asinine talking-point? Are you now wanting to take that one back -- or do you merely wish to discuss the issue on your terms only?

                And therein lies the rub: laws banning narcotics, organized crime, gambling, child pornography, illegal immigration, etc, etc, etc have done absolutely nothing to ameliorate those social ills. The Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack should clue you in to the existence of a criminal network that rather easily circumvented France's more restrictive firearms regulations by importing cheap AK type weapons from current and former war zones on three continents. Indeed, we're currently experiencing a bi-partisan effort to render obvious the "War on Drugs" into the absolute joke that it always was. If ours is a violent culture, a culture given to vice and mayhem, haven't we long ago abundantly proven that legislative bans are patently ineffective at addressing those issues? That indeed, moralistic legislation, policies enacted in knee-jerk fashion meant to soothe the panicky masses and the moral blowhards -- aren't they amply proven to make the situation worse, the way that Prohibition turned two-bit street gangs into Organized Crime?

                And this is a critique that applies as much to conservatives as it does to liberals: the belief that engagement of the political process can eradicate particular issues that one group or the other view as social ills, but which in reality are merely hang-ups. Like it or not, drugs are here to stay. Prostitution is here to sty. Firearms are here to stay. Crime is here to stay. The only way out is to do what Ned Beatty celebrated in Network: build a social structure that maintains order by deriving profit from an unholy state-corporate hybrid.

                We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies Mr. Biel.
                The world is a college of corporations.
                Inexorably determined by the
                Imutable bylaws of business.
                The World is a business Mr. Biel.
                It has been since man crawled out of the slime.
                And our children will live Mr. Biel
                To see that
                Perfect world
                In which there’s no war,
                Or famine,
                Oppression,
                Or brutality.
                One vast ecumenical holding company.
                For who all men will work to serve a common profit,
                And which all men will hold a share of stock.
                All necessities provided.
                All anxieties tranquilized.
                All boredom amused.


                Sound attractive?

                The truth is we're already losing, little-by-little, all the rest of our Bill of Rights rights: freedom of speech, assembly, religion, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, our right to a speedy trial, deprivation of property and liberty without trial, legal counsel, etc, etc, are slipping away by dribs and drabs in our eternal search for security. As we seek security from drugs, from terrorism, etc, we've empowered our governments to disregard the Bill of Rights. We've urged our governments to take away our rights. So the ceding of our Second Amendment rights should be just as natural as our ceding of the other nine. In time we'll be issued government leashes at birth.

                All because we're afraid. All because we're willing to trade freedom for security. All because we've grown too lazy to educate people on how to live in a free society.

                No, the Second Amendment is no more important than the other nine -- but like the other nine, it is slipping away, because people are scared. And that's pretty lame.

                Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                Feel free to take that comment, fold it five ways and stick it where the sun don't shine...er, "pal."
                If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure some of our right-wing folk secretly celebrated last week's demise of three Greasers from south of the Rio Grande and one smelly Belgian at the hands of an ISIS truck driver cum terrorist in Lower Manhattan. They won't admit it, but you know that they smiled, too.

                Let's level here: we've grown so perverse that we're far more likely to view our own compatriots as enemies than we are genuine wrongdoers from abroad. Does it get any weirder than that . . . . . . . . Christ! We're turning into 1939 France.
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  Only a court can rule that a people is too unbalanced to exercise their civil rights. And that is a tough standard to meet.

                  Nor is it in any way effective, because anyone with cash and a little patience can obtain any firearm they want.
                  Thus the answer is NOT to deprive people from their right under the Second Amendment, but to prevent them from using their gun in an illegal way, for illegal aims .

                  And this can only be done by very harsh punishments .

                  Those who want to kill someone will always have a weapon that they can use : if they don't have a gun, they will use a knife, ....

                  Should one ban all knifes ?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                    Ok well time to wrap up the gun control debate again until the next mass shooting. As I may be away then let me sum up the government response to the next mass shooting : "Our thoughts go out to the victims and we wish to thank first responders, that is all"


                    The problem is that all too often after these tragedies, those in government use them to advance their own agendas rather than anything that would actually help.

                    The left's "go to" solution is always to seek a ban on all guns while claiming that isn't what they are seeking. As a result, we get nowhere in the debate.

                    This guy got a gun, not because there weren't enough laws, but because of a failure to properly enforce the very ones that would have denied him the right to own a gun legally.
                    Rather than look at ways to address that failure, we will hear about banning the guns.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                      Are you presuming to tell me the regs in my own state -- a state in which I've purchased a number of firearms over three decades?
                      If you think high velocity weapons with large capacity magazines firing in semi-automatic mode are difficult to come by in the United States, you know nothing about the current state of the gun culture.

                      Not much of a reader, are we. How did you miss the caveat, repeated more than once, that "as Federal regs tighten, which I fear they ultimately will, Mexican sources will become more attractive than local sources"?
                      Get back to me when they tighten up.

                      So you're admitting that more restrictive Federal firearms laws will not impede the ability of the prospective wrongdoer to acquire military-grade weapons. Rather negates the purpose of this debate now, doesn't it.
                      It impedes, it just doesn't make it impossible.

                      Unfortunately, as I've mentioned several times now, you don't need to worry about the difficulty of acquiring a fully automatic weapon since a semi-automatic weapon does the job just fine, thank you.

                      Now, if semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines were as difficult to obtain as fully automatic weapons, that would be a big step in the right direction.

                      Get the idea?

                      Never said you did. Indeed, the US' two bloodiest mass murders were perpetrated with nothing more exotic than 19 box cutters, a can of gasoline, and a book of matches. Not a firearm was in sight in either incident.
                      I think a couple of planes may have been involved.

                      But I can't argue with your logic: why search for a cure for cancer when many more people die from heart attacks?

                      Whoa cowboy! Aren't you the one who introduced the "culture of violence" issue? Did I miss something?
                      Yes, you missed something. I'm discussing the culture of violence as it pertains to guns. You (seemingly) are discussing the culture of violence as it pertains to NAMBLA.

                      Fixing one may help fix the other, but the fixes are probably different. E.g. Eliminating high capacity magazines probably won't have any impact on NAMBLA.

                      But don't let me stop you from talking about NAMBLA to your hearts content.
                      "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                      -The President of the United States of America.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                        Ok well time to wrap up the gun control debate again until the next mass shooting. As I may be away then let me sum up the government response to the next mass shooting : "Our thoughts go out to the victims and we wish to thank first responders, that is all"
                        Welcome to the inferno.
                        "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                        -The President of the United States of America.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                          Should one ban all knifes ?
                          I think I can state with full confidence that the Vegas shooter would have been far less effective had he only been armed with a knife.

                          He also would have been far less effective if he was restricted to:

                          1) Clips, not magazines.
                          2) Maximum 5 round clip.
                          "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. I just kiss. I don't even wait. You can do anything... Grab them by the [redacted]. You can do anything."
                          -The President of the United States of America.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                            I think I can state with full confidence that the Vegas shooter would have been far less effective had he only been armed with a knife.

                            He also would have been far less effective if he was restricted to:

                            1) Clips, not magazines.
                            2) Maximum 5 round clip.
                            Or a rock.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              If you think high velocity weapons with large capacity magazines firing in semi-automatic mode are difficult to come by in the United States, you know nothing about the current state of the gun culture.
                              But they're very difficult to purchase and own legally within the State of New York. Of course criminals will and do acquire all manner of contraband: that's what criminals do. I, on the other hand, am not interested at this time in challenging the law, even if I do think it stupid. I'm not inclined to take those kinds of risks for the purpose of making a political point, much less for the purpose of committing crimes. So how does amending the law to restrict my heretofore legal activity curtail criminal conduct?

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              Get back to me when they tighten up.
                              If Democrats can get their act together, anytime between Jan 2019 and Jan 2031.

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              It impedes, it just doesn't make it impossible.
                              But in the meantime the heretofore generally acknowledged constitutional rights of millions of Americans will be abridged. So why not abridge the freedom of speech while you're at it? That works for Hillary Clinton, even if it is detrimental to an ostensibly free society.

                              Again, you're good at proposing restrictions for law-abiding citizens, not so much for criminals.

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              Unfortunately, as I've mentioned several times now, you don't need to worry about the difficulty of acquiring a fully automatic weapon since a semi-automatic weapon does the job just fine, thank you.
                              So what other weapons would you like to see banned? Box-cutters? Gasoline? Matches?

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              Now, if semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines were as difficult to obtain as fully automatic weapons, that would be a big step in the right direction.
                              Says you. Fortunately, yours is only one opinion, and is no more influential than anyone elses. So unless you'r voting today more than once, I needn't concern myself too much with your opinion.

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              Get the idea?
                              The idea is that you've got a bug up your ass about firearms. Motor vehicles kill more people, but you're silent about that. Tobacco kills more people, but you're silent about that. So clearly your objective is not to save lives. That means that you're pursuing some other objective. What is it?

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              I think a couple of planes may have been involved.
                              Box-cutters were the means by which the hijackers gained control of the airliners.

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              But I can't argue with your logic: why search for a cure for cancer when many more people die from heart attacks?
                              When viewed like that, it is a questionable investment of finite resources.

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              Yes, you missed something. I'm discussing the culture of violence as it pertains to guns. You (seemingly) are discussing the culture of violence as it pertains to NAMBLA.
                              Missed a lot. What percentage of kids are abused sexually? 20%? 25%? Might such cruelties -- for which the perprs overwhelmingly escape justice -- have something to do with our current mass production of maniacs? When teachers are fighting to keep perverts in the classroom, what message might the kids be receiving -- that they don't count at all, that they're nothing but meat?

                              And you wonder where some of our maniacs are coming from?

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              Fixing one may help fix the other, but the fixes are probably different. E.g. Eliminating high capacity magazines probably won't have any impact on NAMBLA.
                              Only if pedophiles were lined up first.

                              Originally posted by armor11 View Post
                              But don't let me stop you from talking about NAMBLA to your hearts content.
                              Right, 'cause we should surrender the floor to you, let you frame the debate, dictated as it is by your hang-up about firearms.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment


                              • Even today, making your own high capacity magazines is simple. All you need is a 3D printer and an existing magazine of whatever capacity is allowed. The only thing you will need to add is a longer spring, and those you can have made or make yourself on a jig using spring steel you can purchase at any steel supplier.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X