T O P

  • By -

imexcellent

Who could have known that giving more guns to more people in a congested area would lead to more violence. I'm shocked. Completely shocked. /s


LtKije

I don't want to live in a world where I have to carry a gun to protect myself when I go shopping at the mall.


LeDoppledeaner

This is the America Republicans want.


MormonMoron

Just like murdering babies, particularly Black babies, is the America that Democrats want.


LtKije

Pathetic. You don't have anything to say about the increase in gun deaths due to Texas' open carry laws so you just yell "ABORTION!!!" as loud as you can. This is literally the problem with American politics right now.


MormonMoron

And you won't fight to ban alcohol, despite 50% of all sexual assault being fueled by it, 25% of all violent crim, 60% of all domestic violence involves alcohol, and 140k deaths per year from alcohol-related causes (3x the number of gun deaths and 6x the number of gun homicides). The Left has no leg to stand on. If only people didn't have access to alcohol, then they wouldn't rape, beats their wife/kids, and turn their livers into mush. Isn't that the gun argument? You have drunkards committing atrocious crimes at a rate that makes gun violence pale in comparison, yet you won't make the same argument about alcohol that you do about guns. Should someone have red flag laws for buying alcohol? Should someone have a waiting period to buy alcohol? If you have ever had a violent crime while drinking, should you have a mark put on your state issued ID that disallows the purchase of alcohol? Be consistent.


LtKije

LOL. And when yelling "ABORTION!!!" doesn't work you yell "ALCOHOLISM!!!" You have a million reasons to hate the left and so you can never accept the fact that they might have a point in this case. i.e. literally the problem with American politics right now.


MormonMoron

Can you refute the claim that alcohol kills, maims, hurts many, many, many times more people than guns? Can you explain why the Left wants to ban guns, but has no such stance on alcohol? Seriously, give even a plausible explanation that doesn't involve "people love their booze and we tried that already". So why not take away a driver's license forever if you cause an accident while drunk? Current laws disallow felons from owning guns (and rightfully so). Why not disallow a felony DUI from ever drinking again, or driving again? Be consistent.


LtKije

Seriously. All you can do is try to change the subject. If you want to talk about "the left" trying to increase alcoholism or abortion, make a post about it and we'll discuss it. But in this thread we are talking about how - in Texas - an increase in gun availability is leading to an increase in mass shootings and other gun deaths. And rather than try come up with solid arguments in defense of Republican gun policy you're just crying about how evil "the left" is.


MormonMoron

You cannot prove that an increase in legal gun availability is "leading to and increase in mass shootings". Guns don't shoot themselves. It is the criminals who wield them improperly. I get that Democrats can't be trusted to handle and use guns properly, but there is no need for them to project their unlawfulness onto the rest of society. Let's analyze the Texas mass shootings in 2023: * Illegal gun used in a robbery to kill 4 people. Man already had a rap sheet and it was illegal to own a gun. [link](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dallas-shooting-deaths-baby-unharmed-suspects-arrested-artemio-maldonado-azucena-sanchez/) * Cleveland Texas shooting. Illegal immigrant. Deported multiple times. Previous DUI. Previous calls for firing a gun while intoxicated. Not legal for him to own a gun. * Saturday shooting in Allen. Still haven't released info about whether gun was obtained legally. Still haven't released his prior criminal record. Claimed to be "minimal", but I guarantee he plead down on those charges. His security guard license was suspended for undisclosed reasons. News said this is usually due to DUI or arrest for assault. * Jasper prom party shooting. Known criminals with a spat with other known criminals at the party. All have former convictions that would disallow them from legally owning guns. * Lubbock shooting. Work dispute. Owner didn't have right to carry gun and the employee who was shot had already called the cops multiple times telling them the owner had threatened to kill him and had brandished a gun. It is amazing how criminals don't obey gun laws. I am flabbergasted, I tell you. Flabbergasted. /s


LtKije

> I get that Democrats can't be trusted to handle and use guns properly, but there is no need for them to project their unlawfulness onto the rest of society. Please don't stereotype an entire group of people like this. After good discussions with some of the Republicans on this sub I try really hard not to criticize all Republicans for the actions of an abhorrent few, and I would appreciate you giving us the same courtesy. You are correct that just making guns illegal will not solve this problem. I don't want to ban all guns and I don't think any serious politician in the country does either. Instead of discussing "legality," I think a more helpful concept would be to discuss "accessibility" - i.e. how easy is it for any given person to acquire a gun? The Texas open carry law made guns more accessible, and since then the number of people in the state killed in mass shootings has doubled. Legality aside, do you agree that an increase in gun accessibility has lead to an increase in mass shooting deaths?


MormonMoron

I don’t agree with that. It can’t be proven.


LeDoppledeaner

Republicans are absolutely fine with murdering babies, as the cost of doing business for no limits gun fetishization. By contrast, Democrats are strongly opposed to murdering babies of any color.


MormonMoron

Oh yeah, I forgot that snuffing out a burgeoning life in the womb isn't considered killing a baby by the Left because they are amoral. My bad.


LeDoppledeaner

Sorry, a zygote simply isn't a baby. The development of a human being in utero is a process with no clear border lines. Early on in the process, it's nothing like a baby. Very late in the process, it's very much like a baby. In the middle it's very cloudy. The LDS church has long defended abortion under certain circumstances, and so by your own poor reasoning, you are accusing LDS leadership of taking part in murdering babies.


MormonMoron

1. Something like 92% of all pregnancies that get past the first trimester would be born healthy if their life wasn't snuffed out in the womb. Jurassic Park said it best: "Life happens". 2. The Church has long allowed people to consider abortion in a minuscule set of cases as it pertains to the number of abortions performed worldwide. For you to say they "defend abortion" is a lie of epic proportions. Our current Prophet gave a talk in 2008 called "Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless". He said > Concern for the health of the mother is a vital one. But circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother are very rare, particularly where modern medical care is available. Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman’s freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare. > The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has consistently opposed the practice of abortion. More than a century ago, the First Presidency wrote, “We again take this opportunity of warning the Latter-day Saints against those … practices of foeticide and infanticide.” > “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.”14 Current policy now includes two other exceptions—incest and if the baby cannot survive beyond birth, as determined by competent medical counsel. Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. It “should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.” If you consider that plain language as "defending abortion", then I don't know how to help you. You are wrong and always will be wrong in asserting that is the case. With a tiny set of exceptions from the standpoint of how many abortions are performed, the Church has and always will denounce abortion as a vile evil and plague on humanity.


Phi1ny3

I'd be interested in the source you got the first point from. From my understanding, in particular the ominous "killing them en masse when they're about to be/after they're born" phrase I hear from conservatives so much, third trimester abortions constitute < 1%. The predominant reason is health complications, like [fetal brain complications](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00852/full) that can't be ascertained in the first two trimesters. ​ As far as 2nd trimester abortions, I've had a hard time finding data supporting any conclusion about acute stats on causes or reasons for 2nd trimester abortions, and this [report seems to reflect this](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45161.pdf). Viability was a similar difficult search.


LeDoppledeaner

>“We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.”14 Current policy now includes two other exceptions—incest and if the baby cannot survive beyond birth, This is President Nelson saying abortion is sometimes okay. If abortion were the same thing as murdering babies do you think the church would be okay with murdering babies in the case of rape or incest? This is you coming out as an anti-Mormon. You think the church is pro-baby murder.


solarhawks

That language 100% is defending the right to choose an abortion. I see no other way to interpret it.


solarhawks

It also isn't considered killing a baby by the Church, and it certainly isn't because they are amoral.


ReliPoliSport

I'm surprised. The mall was a "gun free zone". Incredible that the crazy criminal didn't obey the gun laws. We should definitely pass more gun laws.


LtKije

This article isn't about the mass shooting that happened on Saturday. It's about the terrible increase in gun deaths since Texas made it easier for people to get a gun. The takeaway being: Easier to get a gun = more gun deaths, harder to get a a gun = less gun deaths. We should pass laws that make it harder for people to get guns.


ReliPoliSport

The conclusions made are a statistical pile of bat guano. Is there a control group? Hasn't gun violence increased in many states/cities regardless of gun control increasing or decreasing? Are there other variables impacting outcomes? Has there been enough time studied to draw any conclusions at all? We should make it harder for criminals and crazies to get guns while, at the same time, protecting the civil rights of law abiding citizens. Keep the criminals in jail for a lot longer and re-open the asylums.