Multiple people shot at church in Sutherland Springs

What kind of firearm did the neighbor use? Also an assault rife?

 

Out of all the mass killings, there is one pattern. Or maybe coincidence? They are all deranged people.

All of those would have been just as deadly, if not more, with a handgun....except for the las vegas shooting.

 

Hey, don't you understand simple facts? If a crazed dishonorably discharged man uses an assault rifle to murder 25 innocents in a church, so what? Don't touch our guns! If we pass legislation to make it extremely difficult to own semi-automatic assault rifles, then the fellow across the street wouldn't have been able to own his shotgun! As if there is an equivalency there. That is the madness spouted day after day by the highly paid leaders of the NRA and their avid sycophants. There is no logic there. None. It is as if the country is going mad, driven by Mr. trump, the Far-Right, the NRA, greedy billionaires who don't give a good ******* about the deficit, and a Republican Congress made up of a majority of cowards. Willing to go along in order to get along in an attempt to keep their seats, country be damned.

It is well and truly sickening.

 

So you are saying I can have a mini-14, Tavor, Stayer Aug, SRS, FAMAS, F2000, P90 and on and on and on I could go.... but no AR-15? Or do you even know what you're talking about?

 

Rocket River

 

27 dead 27 injured . . . .to 1

Rocket River

 

They just said it was a rifle, my guess would be something like a .30-06 hunting rifle but that's just a guess. I would think if he was using an assault rifle, they'd have specified.

 

I am going to move to Europe eventually. Within the next year or two you are going have someone kill hundreds with guns. The thread for that tragedy will look like this one, and the last one, and the one before that etc etc etc

I don’t know what it will take. But people will eventually become determined to try something. There is no certainty it will work, you AT LEAST have to try something.

 

If you are a dishonorably discharged former service member you can't legally own any firearm....see what good that did in this case. I mean, even when people don't have 2nd amendment rights you still can't stop them from illegally obtaining firearms and going on shooting sprees. Fortunately the guy living across the street from the church did have 2nd amendment rights and he put an end to the rampage instead of just being defenseless and waiting for cops to show up.

This incident really shoots a hole in the notion that more legislation would prevent shootings given that the guy broke many laws as it was. I doubt he'd have cared about breaking a few more.

 

I wonder if Trump will call him ANIMALS..... Hmmmm....

 

I wonder if lone wolf qualifies as animals for Trump

 

Don't be a ****ing smartass here. People just lost their lives, there is no reason for any citizen to need an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. Your pride and your gun fetish aren't worth the lives of countless people lying in the balance of some lunatic. You go insure that some idiot won't do this with the guns you so defend and maybe you can talk. I'm not against the right to bear arms at all, but if you want to broaden that definition and wish to protect yourself from some sort of tyrrany, missiles and armed tanks should be sold as well.

 

Is there any information on how he got this gun?

Edit:

It's as easy as that, huh? Good work, Academy.

 

Flawed arguments.

So lets play this out. After you banned such assault rifles the black market price for such guns is going to skyrock. Jefferies made a great point in his gun control scetch. The Sandy Hook rifle costs 1000 bucks at Walmart. Same gun in australia on the black market over 30000$.

So yeah you cant stop nutjobs from TRYING to get such a rifle, but hell you can make it as hard as possible. Or impossible if they dont have the ressources. Sure, someone like Paddock still buys them on the black market and goes on. But you think the Sandy Hook kid, Colorado kid or the guy from today had this amount of cash available? For semi automatic weapons on a black market?

Yeah you still dont stop them because they probably buy a handgun for a few thousand on the black market then....but then probably just a handful of people die and not 30....40....50...

But now BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment the market (legal and illegal) is flooded with dirt cheap assault rifles and every nutjob has the financial ressources to buy one legal or illegal...but you praise the 2nd amendment because of the neighour who had a gun and "stopped" the guy...after "just" 27...

 

It's not about this guy, this incident, or even the citizen who used the gun to get him. It's that you have countless statistics worldwide and in the US about societies with guns vs. without guns and examples of place like Australia that became safer after getting rid of guns YET SOMEHOW gun advocates have a ridiculous belief that they know better - that their vision of a carrying society trumps (har) what numerous case studies have shown.

That's not just foolish and prideful, it's plan ignorant.

There's no libtard bogeyman in rainbow shorts and abortion stickers ready to force other agendas on you. It's just simple statistics and human history and the want to save more American lives.

 

when they were previously banned here, they didn't cost that much, so that's a pretty gross exaggeration. Also, it's not like an assault rifle equals a shooting spree. At the "Draw Muhammad" event in Dallas a few years back you had 2 terrorists with AK's and body armor that were taken out by a single person with a handgun. People that know how to use firearms can manage to kill a large number of unarmed civilians in a crowed area without easy access to exits with a large number of weapons.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter because the 2nd amendment does exist and it's not going anywhere, you might as well be preaching against the first amendment.

 

You could be safer if we got rid of all civil liberties and just lived in a police state....still not a reason to do so.

 

So you acknowledge, then, that we could in theory be safer with more gun regulations, but it's a matter of not wanting to sacrifice liberty for it?

If that's your position, fine. But I don't agree with this sort of "slippery slope" argument you're making here that if one is willing to trade some liberty for additional public safety that they should also be willing to live in a police state for even more safety. That doesn't follow.

 

In theory we could be "safer" without having any liberty at all, the point I'm making is that it's irrelevant if we could be "safer" in theory, fundamental liberties are the bedrock of society and when you erode them, you are putting all of society in a different kind of danger.

Now, I know nothing will stop the anti-civil liberties crowd from trying to take from the people in order to empower the federal government, but as long as enough people realize why that's a terrible idea, things will be fine.

 

Owning a gun isnt anymore a fundamental liberty that a society "need". You dont need it (anymore) for "liberty". Okay, maybe you got a DeLorean at home and you like to time-travel.

Well, i could now argue this with pretty much every crime statistic of every western country but you allready proved that statistics are irrelevant for you, so its pointless to argue with you.