Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[Nihilo]

Our conservative friends are quick to jump to the conclusion that this was perpetrated by "terrorists"

Because it is always a terrorist who commits these terrorist acts. :duh:
And there's no "quote" needed around the word TERRORIST.

and the country needs to take action!

We need to NOT kowtow to terrorists, is what I'm saying.

The reality, however, is that it was not perpetrated by some foreign terrorist, but a former member of the Air Force who received a discharge for "bad behaviour" for assault and served jail time!

I never said anything different. He was a terrorist, just like Paddock was a terrorist, just like all the Americans who've committed terrorist attacks like this. They're all terrorists, and we are under constant terrorist attack here.

Given that this yet another in a long list of tragic domestic incidents

TERRORIST ATTACKS, or ACTS OF TERROR.

, that doesn't appear to be terrorist inspired

False, and manifestly so.

, but the result of a disturbed citizen

No, a TERRORIST.

having access to semi-automatic weapons

, conservatives will all express their sincere condolences and then proceed to sit on their collective hands rather than address the underlying issues!

That's what I'm talking about, the underlying issue, or TERRORISM and TERRORISTS.

 

[Nihilo]

If this had been perpetrated by an Islamic "terrorist," the President, Republican Congress and their supporters would all be demanding immediate action!

That's right! And that's why we need to start referring to these people as what they are, TERRORISTS.

When it brings into question the wisdom of allowing the proliferation of semi-automatic weapons that can provide just one misguided American

Stop babying these people you rank liar. They are and always have been TERRORISTS. "Misguided" my foot.

with the opportunity to kill/wound 100's of innocent men, women and children, however, all we receive are excuses to justify the "status quo!"

We have a terrorism problem. We are not at peace.

 

[Nihilo]

The shooter was trusted to have a gun.

Well it turns out he wasn't. :idunno:

Everyone who has a gun [lawfully] is trusted with a gun

That was my point.

until they shoot someone unlawfully.:idunno:

Which makes them a capital criminal.

 

[Nihilo]

Yes war is the answer:

Matthew 26:52
Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

We're at war with terrorists whether we want to accept or believe that, or not.

 

[Nihilo]

. . . how do we, as a people respond to this? Enact rational and enforceable legislation? Or knuckle under to the lobby for gun manufacturers?

I gather that you'd prefer we knuckle under to the terrorists.

 

[Nihilo]

- a gun owner-simple 22 rifle.

Yep, fill 'em with pellets. Maybe you'll get lucky and him 'em in the eye.

 

[Nihilo]

Twice this week the problem is solved by armed plainclothes/responsible citizens. We need them EVERYWHERE. The NSA should announce everywhere that they are deployed in every population center. These free-for-alls can then decide if they will take the risk of quick response.

Concealed carry is no answer. Pistols are stopgaps until you can get your hands on a rifle.

 

[Nihilo]

If anything, this just shows that it would have ended sooner if everyone in the church had a gun.

Especially rifles.

 

[exminister]

In my opinion, he should have been shot when he assaulted his wife and child.

Might be in more agreement than not. But how much abuse to you have to do to have the military lock you up for one year. They tend to go easy on their own.

Sounds like at least her parents attended that church. I wonder if the church was telling her to stay away from him and this was his retaliation.

Very sad event. Whatever made this guy this way he sure brought on a whole lot of suffering to a many innocent people.

 

[exminister]

Yep, fill 'em with pellets. Maybe you'll get lucky and him 'em in the eye.

A well placed shot is better than a spray. Cleaner and limits bystanders.

 

[exminister]

Reported so far:

As investigators try to determine a motive, they are also probing how the attacker obtained his gun. Kelley had sought a license to carry a gun in Texas but was rejected, Abbott said.
“By all of the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun, so how did this happen?” Abbott said in an interview on CNN. “We are in search of answers to these questions.”

I heard that as well. Being rejected to carry is not the same as legal right to own. Isn't that right?

 

[Nihilo]

A well placed shot is better than a spray. Cleaner and limits bystanders.

You mean a rifle then. The most popular chambering for an AR "military style" "assault weapon" is .22 caliber, BTW.

 

[Tambora]

I heard that as well. Being rejected to carry is not the same as legal right to own. Isn't that right?

I'm sure they will look into it further.

But regardless, all the blame is on the shooter himself, not any gun laws.

It's the same as legally owning a vehicle or not.
What would that matter if someone runs down a crowd with a vehicle?

Sometimes folks with vehicles use them inappropriately, but most don't.
Sometimes folks with guns use them inappropriately, but most don't.

You're not safe anywhere from someone that turns nuts.
Best to be carrying protection at all times because you just never know when someone will turn bonkers.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Well it turns out he wasn't. :idunno:
That was my point.
Which makes them a capital criminal.

Perfect, all we need now is to know which people with guns are going to go crazy and the system will be perfect.
:Grizzly:linger::banned:

 

[Nihilo]

Perfect, all we need now is to know which people with guns are going to go crazy and the system will be perfect.
:Grizzly:linger::banned:

And that's the problem. And knuckling under to the terrorists would mean that we strip everybody of their freedom, just to strip the terrorists of theirs.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

We're at war with terrorists whether we want to accept or believe that, or not.

This thread isn't about terrorism:

"Officials wouldn't describe a motive but said there had been a "domestic situation" between the shooter and his mother-in-law before the massacre in which the suspect had sent the woman threatening texts.

They wouldn't detail the texts but said the shooting wasn't related to race or religion. Officials have previously said Kelley had no apparent links to terrorist groups."

 

[Nihilo]

This thread isn't about terrorism:

Every one of these mass shootings certainly is terrorism, and this thread therefore certainly is about terrorism.

"Officials wouldn't describe a motive but said there had been a "domestic situation" between the shooter and his mother-in-law before the massacre in which the suspect had sent the woman threatening texts.

They wouldn't detail the texts but said the shooting wasn't related to race or religion. Officials have previously said Kelley had no apparent links to terrorist groups."

Terrorists don't need to be linked to a group.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Every one of these mass shootings certainly is terrorism, and this thread therefore certainly is about terrorism.
Terrorists don't need to be linked to a group.

Yes but how can we have a war against individuals who go crazy. Unless you mean war as a metaphor. In which case it comes back to the gun problem.

 

[Nihilo]

Yes but how can we have a war against individuals who go crazy. Unless you mean war as a metaphor. In which case it comes back to the gun problem.

There's no metaphor about this. People are not metaphorically dying, they are really dying, just like in non-metaphorical war. The trick here is how to do we wage this war without stripping innocent people of their freedoms. Because that's just knuckling under to the terrorists.

 

[Nihilo]

individuals who go crazy

Terrorists. Who cares if they're crazy or sane? Besides the point, most leftists lump terrorists together with "individuals who go crazy" anyway, there's no distinction, so why are we calling them "individuals who go crazy" instead of terrorists?

This is the result of this latest terrorist attack upon America, from C-N-N: "Pastor's wife: 'Most of our church family is gone'"

Was this not anti-Christian terrorism, when "most" of a Christian church is "gone?"