mass shooting

A new update is now available, introducing seasons and more!

    I don't understand turning this horrible event into a gun control argument. This terrorist was out to kill gay people. He was using a gun, (which could have been a hunting rifle or military issue, btw) but he also had a suicide belt on. He would have done his dirty work one way or another. Maybe if one of the patrons been armed he could have been stopped before so many innocent people lost their lives.


    just my two cents worth.

    BeamMeUp,


    It's ok, I'm not upset with Chris over that. I'm ok with talking about gun laws as long as we don't get too political. Some of the political responses to this tragedy are really what sickens me.


    The shooter was able to legally buy guns after being on the FBI's watch list mean that our current background check system is a joke. Just like with the guy who killed people in the church, the background system obviously failed. An issue like that has to be looked at logically and should not be divided by politics.

    But, zfoxfire, by talking about a terrorist attack by a radical Islamic extremist as a gun issue IS making this a political issue. It is NOT about guns. If there had been no guns, it would have been something else.


    And taking away our rights as free citizens would do nothing to stop those who have no respect for law and decency anyway. It's already against the law to commit murder. More gun laws would not be a deterrent for criminals. Many of the shooting that have occurred were in no-gun zones. Disarming people would just make more of them sitting ducks.


    Anyway, arguments about gun control are fruitless here. God bless the people who were killed and their families. Let us condemn any ideology that would call for such atrocities.

    It doesnt matter if he's a Muslim terrorist, a Christian terrorist, or just a guy who experiences hallucenations.


    I never suggested disarming free citizens. Most gun owners are responsible. My issue is with the current background check system. I've held a federal government job in the past and I can tell you from experience that it was a hell of a lot harder to pass that background check (in order to gain administrative access to a computer network at my job) than it was when I decided to purchase a gun. Clearly broken with that process. How did people like Dylan Roof pass his background? There were plenty of red flags that should have rejected his application.


    It took me almost 6 months to pass my background check to access government computers at my job because every time one little minor mistake or omission was found on a form somewhere, the form got rejected and send back to me for correction. When I purchased my gun, I had it in my hands in less than two weeks. That doesn't seem like a problem to you?


    I'm not wanting to start "argments" with you. I am open to discussions if they are rational. I'd like to know what you think is a feasible solution here, if not increased scrutiny on background checks.

    Show me where reduced availability of legal firearms has solved the problem - Chicago, DC, Baltimore, Paris? Schools are no gun zones, so you can't restrict them to less than zero guns.


    Gun control is citizen control by the government. I don't think the citizens need controlling as much as the government does.

    That is because you only want to have the discussion on your terms, that is: gun control. I have challenged your premise and gave you reasons why I found it invalid. You have not responded to my assertions, and just continued to insist that I cede you this point: that mass shooting are a result of lax gun laws, which should be made stricter. That I don't accept that premise does not make me unserious.


    Anyway, we will end our back-and-forth's as you wish, as they are fruitless, as I said earlier. No hard feelings.

    Quote from BeamMeUp

    That is because you only want to have the discussion on your terms, that is: gun control. I have challenged your premise and gave you reasons why I found it invalid. You have not responded to my assertions, and just continued to insist that I cede you this point: that mass shooting are a result of lax gun laws, which should be made stricter. That I don't accept that premise does not make me unserious.


    Anyway, we will end our back-and-forth's as you wish, as they are fruitless, as I said earlier. No hard feelings.


    I shared my thoughts on a solution, you disagreed so I asked what your thoughts were. You responded to my question with another question. But yeah, no hard feelings tho

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Create a new account now and be part of our community!

Create Account Login