More than 20 dead after shooting at Sutherland Springs church

[Coyote]

Nobody can say that America was not warned!

Didn't Antifa said the 4th of November will start their crime spree ?

No evidence Antifa had anything to do with this.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but religion does not justify violence, and neither do guns. Many misguided people have attempted to do so in the past, but when you disregard the basic premises of your own religion then religion is not to blame. Does his apparently fervent belief in atheism justify his attack on those who believe in God, any God? I think not.

Yes, this guy apparently loved his guns, so what? That didn't make him a homicidal whack either. Lots of gun collectors out there, no?

I agree that neither justifies violence but both are tools used in violence.

There is no evidence to support the claim that he had a fervent belief in athesim either - he showed interest in atheist webpages yet also taught bible classes to kids...a weirdly contradictory outlook.

He loved his guns was just an observation.

And yes lots of gun collectors don't go around shooting people.

"yet also taught bible classes to kids"

For ONE MONTH and that was FOUR YEARS ago, I already posted this twice already in this thread.

Stop spinning, you are not very good at it. He wasn't a practising Christian, a Christian doesn't go into a Christian Church and murder 30 practising Christians. You being Godless of course cannot comprehend this.

That is a horrible spin yourself. You don't know if he was a practicing Christian or not.

A Christian doesn't go into a Christian church and murder practicing Christians? Does that mean a Catholic priest isn't a Catholic if he molests kids?...

Bad people of all religions, or non-religious, do bad things whether they are practicing or not.

"Does that mean a Catholic priest isn't a Catholic if he molests kids?..."

That is not the subject matter, stop deflecting.

It does matter, it simply reflecting your logic back at you.

This has nothing to do with paedophile priests though.

 

[Lewdog]

Yes.

Exactly.

And if he were Muslim it would be because of that - not because he was a homicidal whacko. Religion, like guns - is a tool to justify violence.

And...this loon was enamored with his guns.

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but religion does not justify violence, and neither do guns. Many misguided people have attempted to do so in the past, but when you disregard the basic premises of your own religion then religion is not to blame. Does his apparently fervent belief in atheism justify his attack on those who believe in God, any God? I think not.

Yes, this guy apparently loved his guns, so what? That didn't make him a homicidal whack either. Lots of gun collectors out there, no?

I agree that neither justifies violence but both are tools used in violence.

There is no evidence to support the claim that he had a fervent belief in athesim either - he showed interest in atheist webpages yet also taught bible classes to kids...a weirdly contradictory outlook.

He loved his guns was just an observation.

And yes lots of gun collectors don't go around shooting people.

"yet also taught bible classes to kids"

For ONE MONTH and that was FOUR YEARS ago, I already posted this twice already in this thread.

Stop spinning, you are not very good at it. He wasn't a practising Christian, a Christian doesn't go into a Christian Church and murder 30 practising Christians. You being Godless of course cannot comprehend this.

Not spinning anything. He is a contradictory entity. There is no evidence he was an athiest either beyond his interest in some athiest fb pages. Perhaps you're spinning things rather than looking at reality - he was interested in both. Perhaps he had a crisis of faith. More likely there are deeper issues that are reflected in his court martial and dishonorable discharge the details of which we don't know.

It suggests he had given up Faith and turned Godless aka Athiest.

You have NO IDEA if that is true. Your whole opinion is based on a couple groups he was a member of on Facebook. That's ridiculous.

 

[Lewdog]

I agree that neither justifies violence but both are tools used in violence.

There is no evidence to support the claim that he had a fervent belief in athesim either - he showed interest in atheist webpages yet also taught bible classes to kids...a weirdly contradictory outlook.

He loved his guns was just an observation.

And yes lots of gun collectors don't go around shooting people.

"yet also taught bible classes to kids"

For ONE MONTH and that was FOUR YEARS ago, I already posted this twice already in this thread.

Stop spinning, you are not very good at it. He wasn't a practising Christian, a Christian doesn't go into a Christian Church and murder 30 practising Christians. You being Godless of course cannot comprehend this.

That is a horrible spin yourself. You don't know if he was a practicing Christian or not.

A Christian doesn't go into a Christian church and murder practicing Christians? Does that mean a Catholic priest isn't a Catholic if he molests kids?...

Bad people of all religions, or non-religious, do bad things whether they are practicing or not.

"Does that mean a Catholic priest isn't a Catholic if he molests kids?..."

That is not the subject matter, stop deflecting.

It does matter, it simply reflecting your logic back at you.

This has nothing to do with paedophile priests though.

It has to do with your reasoning on how a person's actions are reflective of their faith. It is entirely relevant.

 

[pismoe]

Nobody can say that America was not warned!

Didn't Antifa said the 4th of November will start their crime spree ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------- i agree with your thinking that 'antifa' may be a possibility . antifa threatened war staring yesterday as you report Skye !!

 

[Coyote]

Yes.

Exactly.

And if he were Muslim it would be because of that - not because he was a homicidal whacko. Religion, like guns - is a tool to justify violence.

And...this loon was enamored with his guns.

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but religion does not justify violence, and neither do guns. Many misguided people have attempted to do so in the past, but when you disregard the basic premises of your own religion then religion is not to blame. Does his apparently fervent belief in atheism justify his attack on those who believe in God, any God? I think not.

Yes, this guy apparently loved his guns, so what? That didn't make him a homicidal whack either. Lots of gun collectors out there, no?

I agree that neither justifies violence but both are tools used in violence.

There is no evidence to support the claim that he had a fervent belief in athesim either - he showed interest in atheist webpages yet also taught bible classes to kids...a weirdly contradictory outlook.

He loved his guns was just an observation.

And yes lots of gun collectors don't go around shooting people.

"yet also taught bible classes to kids"

For ONE MONTH and that was FOUR YEARS ago, I already posted this twice already in this thread.

Stop spinning, you are not very good at it. He wasn't a practising Christian, a Christian doesn't go into a Christian Church and murder 30 practising Christians. You being Godless of course cannot comprehend this.

Not spinning anything. He is a contradictory entity. There is no evidence he was an athiest either beyond his interest in some athiest fb pages. Perhaps you're spinning things rather than looking at reality - he was interested in both. Perhaps he had a crisis of faith. More likely there are deeper issues that are reflected in his court martial and dishonorable discharge the details of which we don't know.

It suggests he had given up Faith and turned Godless aka Athiest.

Not necessarily Lucy.

A crisis of faith doesn't necessarily mean you turn Athiest though that can happen. Some of the most ferocious athiests are ex-Catholics and ex-Evangelicals.

But I'll put this out there...it's a bit of a personal story. My father was very religous (and conservative). He came from a conservative religious family background. He joined the Navy. He was eventually discharged - not dishonorable, but there is another kind of discharge (can't remember what it is but it isn't as bad). About that time he had a real crisis of faith...left the church and all. But he was still very religious he just quit going to church. To cut it short...after he died...we found out he was gay. I'm guessing his discharge and his crisis of faith had to do with that. He looked elsewhere and probably looked at atheism in an attempt to reconcile who he was with the dictates of the faith he believed in. He didn't go out and shoot a bunch of people nor did he become an atheist and when he died, he was able to talk with a pastor...and settle things I think. He never gave up his faith.

By the way, I'm not an athiest.

 

[skye]

Nobody can say that America was not warned!

Didn't Antifa said the 4th of November will start their crime spree ?

No evidence Antifa had anything to do with this.

I said Antifa wants war in America from the 4th of November on...

And that America has been warned.

I did not say who did this or who did't

Don't get ahead of yourself, coyote.

 

[Coyote]

Nobody can say that America was not warned!

Didn't Antifa said the 4th of November will start their crime spree ?

No evidence Antifa had anything to do with this.

I said Antifa wants war in America from the 4th of November on...

And that America has been warned.

I did not say who did this or who did't

Don't get ahead of yourself, coyote.

Then what on earth does it have to do with this thread Skye?

 

[skye]

Nobody can say that America was not warned!

Didn't Antifa said the 4th of November will start their crime spree ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------- i agree with your thinking that 'antifa' may be a possibility . antifa threatened war staring yesterday as you report Skye !!

Exactly.

That is the obvious way of thinking about this horror in Texas.

 

[JoeMoma]

Notice how the usual gun lover's first response to another horrific slaughter by gun is to defend the 2nd A.; there is not a hint of empathy for those murdered today, last week, last month and in the dozens of senseless crimes where guns take the life of innocents.

you are going to make the mods mad with your big red letters.

 

[task0778]

Funny how Wry forgets to mention how the usual gun grabber's first response to another horrific slaughter is to attack the 2nd amendment. Without waiting for the facts of the case and of course no empathy from them either.

 

[mdk]

Well, that took less time than I even thought...

Backlash after Chelsea Handler quickly blames Republicans for Texas shooting

What a dumb bitch. She should have blamed Chuck Schumer.

 

[JoeMoma]

I have no trouble talking about it right after....but don't fucking preach to us when a muslim terrorist murders people........

And again, he could have killed just as many with a rental truck.....driving through the crowd as they left the church.....

And what gun control laws do we need...again? It is already against the law to murder 26 people....he could have used pistols, like the Virginia Tech shooter who murdered 32 people......so then you would want those pistols banned too....

And of course there are 16 million semi auto rifles in private hands........they were not used to murder anyone.......

Cars killed 35,000 people in 2015 alone....you don't call for those to be banned...so what is the difference?

Mosquitoes kill more people world wide than any other, does that mean would should allow people to own exotic pets like bears and tigers?

Quit brining up car deaths to defend the right to own a rifle like the ones used in many of these mass shootings, it's not relevant.

So many people were killed in this church shooting because they were trapped inside, and it is impossible to know how many people he could have killed using a rental truck. If you want to make up imaginary situations then I could too. I could say that if there were tighter laws that banned ownership of these rifles, NO ONE would have been killed. See how that works? How about we stick to facts?

Car deaths....35,000 are relevant...because more people die from those every single year than all mass public shootings combined........especially by rifles....

And we know a rental truck actually did murder 89 people and injured over 450.....more than any mass public shooting in this country, which is why you want to stop talking about it.

I could say that if there were tighter laws that banned ownership of these rifles, NO ONE would have been killed

And you would be stupid for saying that, since the Virginia tech shooter used pistols and murdered 32 people...

I'll tell you this again, and if it doesn't sink in this time, then I'm done arguing with you because you refuse to use common sense... car deaths ARE NOT relevant to gun violence. Not even close to being relevant... at all. As proof, give me a list of times mass amounts of people were murdered by a car inside a church. I'm just using your reasoning here...

Car deaths are completely fucking relevant......more people are killed accidentally with cars....35,000 people every year, the leading cause of death for children........as opposed to mass shooters with guns...

In fact, knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every single year...mass shooters don't even come close...yet you want to use the rarest of these deaths to ban guns for the owners of 600 million guns...

That is why they are relevant....

And then there's the morality of it. The idea of restricting my ability to defend myself and my family against thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about rules and laws is highly immoral.

A good guy with a gun prevented further massacre today. That only happens in a free society. The only way to prevent bad people from doing bad things is a tyrannous society. North Korean doesn't have mass murders. I'll take freedom ever time.

NK does have mass murders, but its the government doing the mass murdering.

 

[pismoe]

most of these lefty libs don't understand or rejrct the reasons for the Second Amendment . ------------- just a comment

 

[ColonelAngus]

Funny how Wry forgets to mention how the usual gun grabber's first response to another horrific slaughter is to attack the 2nd amendment. Without waiting for the facts of the case and of course no empathy from them either.

We had someone claiming it was a racial motivated attack without any evidence as such on the first or second page of this thread.

Absolutely reckless and disgusting.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yeah...your post was crap so now you move on....there is no loophole. you can sell private property...which your own guns are....and a felon already knows they can't buy, own or carry a gun...yet that doesn't stop them, does it?

THEN HAVE MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EVERYONE!

Good lord you are fucking stupid.

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

What the fuck will it ever take for one of you leftardz to admit that you can NOT prevent CRIMINALS from committing their crimes by passing more and more fucking laws to restrict the rights and freedoms of the fucking law ABIDING?

 

[Esmeralda]

So when?

When you are able to suggest a law that would have prevented things like this, already against quite a few laws, while not infringing on my right to defend myself and my family.

The floor is yours.

Define "Infringe" with some detail.

You are wasting your breath.

No matter what you say, it will be interpreted as worst case scenario. You could say you want to limit a person to owning only 1,000 guns unless they are a gun dealer, and people on this forum will yell at you saying they need 1,001 guns to defend their home against someone trying to TP their house.

And if you have 1001 guns, and don't use them to hurt anyone or to commit any crime...what is the fucking problem...considering this guy couldn't legally own a gun because of his Dishonorable discharge, yet he still got one..dittos all the terrorists and criminals in Europe where fully automatic rifles, not AR-15s, are completely illegal...

Does a dishonorable discharge abrogate a person's right to own a gun? I thought only a convicted felon couldn't.

They just said on CNN he got it legally and passed a background check

 

[Lewdog]

THEN HAVE MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR EVERYONE!

Good lord you are fucking stupid.

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

What the fuck will it ever take for one of you leftardz to admit that you can NOT prevent CRIMINALS from committing their crimes by passing more and more fucking laws to restrict the rights and freedoms of the fucking law ABIDING?

I'm not a leftard, and when the fuck are you gun nutjobs going to learn that throwing more people in jail isn't going to deter crime? We put more people in jail than any country in the world and still have higher amounts of gun crime.

How about you quit bitching and propose an answer other than lock everyone up?

 

[Chuz Life]

Do you think that would have prevented this shooting or any other shooting?

Yes or no?

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

What the fuck will it ever take for one of you leftardz to admit that you can NOT prevent CRIMINALS from committing their crimes by passing more and more fucking laws to restrict the rights and freedoms of the fucking law ABIDING?

I'm not a leftard, and when the fuck are you gun nutjobs going to learn that throwing more people in jail isn't going to deter crime? We put more people in jail than any country in the world and still have higher amounts of gun crime.

How about you quit bitching and propose an answer other than lock everyone up?

Let me get this right. . .

You would like to take guns away from law abiding citizens and stop putting actual criminals behind bars. . .

At the same fucking time?

And you still claim NOT to be a leftard?

That's some funny shit right there.

 

[Lewdog]

No one can possibly answer that... but it is obvious what we are doing now isn't working, and we KNOW that in other countries with stricter gun laws have less deaths by firearms.

Let me ask you this. . . Let's say a person takes and passes a complete background test and they do so with flying colors. They buy themselves no more than a dozen guns over a period of a Dr a Dr or two. They enjoy shooting, hunting, collecting, etc. . . They are typical of the vast majority of gun owners in the country. No red flags.

With me so far?


So, what about that background check will keep him (or her) from later snapping? What is there to keep them from being radicalized at ANY point in time after they already have their guns?

Let me VERY clear about this. I don't care what laws you come up with, no matter what the penalty... nothing will be absolute.

That doesn't mean you quit trying to improve.

What the fuck will it ever take for one of you leftardz to admit that you can NOT prevent CRIMINALS from committing their crimes by passing more and more fucking laws to restrict the rights and freedoms of the fucking law ABIDING?

I'm not a leftard, and when the fuck are you gun nutjobs going to learn that throwing more people in jail isn't going to deter crime? We put more people in jail than any country in the world and still have higher amounts of gun crime.

How about you quit bitching and propose an answer other than lock everyone up?

Let me get this right. . .

You would like to take guns away from law abiding citizens and stop putting actual criminals behind bars. . .

At the same fucking time?

And you still claim NOT to be a leftard?

That's some funny shit right there.

No dipshit. I've SAID OVER AND OVER I'm not for taking away guns from people. Outlawing fucking assault rifles isn't taking guns from people.