Yet another mass shooting!

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
mykcob4's picture
So in his infinite wisdom,

So in his infinite wisdom, the Texas Attorney General (pseudo-macho-asshole) wants to make it mandatory that every church has an armed civilian in the church. Can you say STUPID? It is already legal to have a CONCEALED and even an OPEN CARRY firearm in a church, school campus, and bars. Now this idiot wants to make it mandatory.
This shit is so stupid. Most people with a gun, even if they are fantastic experts at the range, have never been in a firefight.
Let's assume a bunch of people carry a gun into a church....armed and ready.?!@#$%^&*()_+! A gunman with a single-minded focus to kill as many people as possible shows up and starts emptying magazines. In the mayhem several people start returning fire.....the returning fire people will endanger and possible kill, even more, people....the police show up and see a firefight going on....they have NO FUCKING IDEA WHO THE BAD GUY IS....SOOOOO they have to neutralize the immediate threat. That means YOU JOHN Q. CITIZEN!
Here is an idea. If no one can get a gun there will be NO mass shootings.

watchman's picture
@ Mykcob ....

@ Mykcob ....

I feel your frustrations...... but I shall not engage further on this subject as I do not know enough about US laws to make valid points....

BUT... I will point out this.... re your Texas Attorney General ....

Problem ...
Too many guns....

Solution ...
More guns ....

This line of reasoning makes no sense.

chorlton's picture
dunblane massacre in scotland

dunblane massacre in scotland
already tight gun laws tightened more

% shootings per head of population before & after ?

that's right nothing to do with easy access to guns
guns an easy way to die or kill
no gun less try

Sheldon's picture
The more difficult it is to

The more difficult it is to obtain guns the less likely gun crime becomes, it's not exactly rocket science. Of course you can never completely guarantee there will never be an incident, but as another poster said, more guns = more gun crime it's inevitable.

watchman's picture
OK Guys.....

OK Guys.....

Just found these ...... looks like there may be a storm coming ......

Watch your backs guys.....

"Texas church shooter once taught at Bible school but was really an atheist who once …"

Report: Texas Church Shooter Was Atheist, Thought ...

Texas church shooting – Facebook rants of ‘creepy’ gunman Devin Kelley, 26, who preached atheism before killing 26 churchgoers

Texas church shooter was a militant atheist | New York Post ....
Texas church shooter Devin Kelley was a “creepy” atheist “outcast” who never fit in and berated religious believers on social media,

Not wishing to be alarmist .... but the speed that these headlines are appearing looks "organised" ....

I think someone is "stirring the pot."

See .... it's not to do with guns after all...

algebe's picture
@Watchman: "I think someone

@Watchman: "I think someone is "stirring the pot."

LOL. Millions of murders committed by Christians are caused by Satan.

This murder committed by a mentally ill supposed atheist is caused by atheism.

mykcob4's picture
This guy in Texas actually

This guy in Texas actually taught bible school. I don't believe for a minute that he was an atheist.

Pitar's picture
The right to bear arms wasn't

The right to bear arms wasn't without good reason.

The founding fathers of the new United States of America could not help but reflect upon Great Britain's abusive treatment of the Scottish Clans and the Highlanders who rejected British rule. The Scots rebelled and the Brits retaliated. It went on until the Brits imposed a disarming act that prohibited any Scots from owning any device remotely capable of use as a weapon. The act was to simply disarm men from defending themselves and the rest of the world saw it that way. It did not work. So, the Brits decided to demoralize the Scots instead through a new Act of Proscription that forbade Scots from using any form of their family names that included Mc, or Mac prefixes, from wearing their Tartans (kilts) and generally attempting to eradicate all outward identity as Scotsman. This was imposed in 1747 following the Disarming Act of 1746, and repealed in 1782. This was concurrent with the forming of the United States whose forming members had kin in Great Britain, specifically Scottish territories, and could only empathize from afar the British cruelty as it imposed its will over the Scottish culture.

What we have now is an American nation founded on the principle of freedom to bear arms against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Sounds grandiose, but let's face it, when a nation is no longer served by the fat bellied government the vote cannot correct, that same government knows it so it lets the citizens own guns to feel somehow in control of their destinies. They aren't, but "happiness is a warm gun", doesn't cost the taxpayer directly and gets a lot of votes.

Watcher tactfully captures the picture from outside the fishbowl when he singles out the tactical weapon as a construct of war. But, I can't compartmentalize so easily. All weapons are tactical when not used for recreational purposes.

The so-called Assault Rifle is a MSM created notion. AR is not an abbreviation for Assault Rifle. It's the abbreviation for Armalite. It's a company that originally designed the infantry rifle design we know as the M15 and M16 series rifles. Their international equivalents such as the Russian Kalashnikov AK47 and others are also grouped by the main stream media as assault rifles. This is pure fairy tale stuff considering the MSM collectively can't understand much beyond the mantra: "If it bleeds, it leads", relative to their own use of sensation and hyperbole when competing for ratings. I believe nothing of importance from the MSM yet they fuel much of the public rantings and ravings because they know people like to rant and rave. So, they host it with their every word.

The weapons grouped as assault rifles differ little from any other weapon in purpose. They are designed to kill. All weapons will do this as effectively as the next. The most powerful weapon currently designed to do that fires a bullet with a diameter of 0.177 inch (4.5mm) and it's primary recreational use is varmint shooting. It's the same diameter as the little steel balls used in B-B guns. But, at 100 yards the high-velocity round can pass through a standard military helmet and keep going.

The point is, all weapons are used to kill people and singling out a particular weapon not only makes zero sense, it pretty much says something else entirely. To weapons enthusiasts the AR-series of rifles represents the pinnacle of efficient design and engineering. It's not for every enthusiast but all are pretty much in agreement about the design. I had to qualify with one and even became a marksman with the AR15, not that I remotely cared about using the weapon in a combat situation because I signed up to repair airplanes. Nevertheless, a soldier first, aircraft maintainer second, all personnel were tasked with learning how to handle a weapon. Banning this particular style of weapon is like banning the wearing of Tartans. It's meant to be more towards demoralizing gun owners than protecting the public from half-witted users of any weapon at their disposal, which includes those high caliber, high velocity trucks. And, like the Disarming Act of 1746 in Scotland, it won't work.

Disarming Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the Jacobite Rising of 1715 ended it was evident that the most effective supporters of the Jacobites were Scottish clans in the Scottish Highlands and the Disarming Act attempted to remove this threat.

"An act for the more effectual securing the peace of the highlands in Scotland" was passed by the Parliament of Great Britain, coming into effect on November 1, 1716 which outlawed anyone in defined parts of Scotland from having "in his or their custody, use, or bear, broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon" unless authorised.

This act proved ineffectual and in 1725 An act for the more effectual disarming the highlands in that part of Great Britain called Scotland; and for the better securing the peace and quiet of that part of the kingdom was passed and more effectively enforced by Major-General George Wade. Wade succeeded in confiscating a significant number of useful weapons, though the Highlanders still managed to hide many weapons for future use.

The success of Wade's efforts was shown by the rough assortment of weapons used by the Highlanders when Bonnie Prince Charlie raised the Forty-Five Rising, but the Jacobites' overwhelming victory at the Battle of Prestonpans provided them with a good supply of government firelocks and bayonets after the highlanders massacred the government forces. After that Jacobite Rising had been defeated the provisions of the Disarming Act were strengthened in the new Act of Proscription of 1747.


mykcob4's picture

Gun control has NOTHING to do with demoralizing or subj=gegating the public. It has EVERYTHING to do with common sense.
You act as if citizens would be able to overthrow the government because they have a few AR-15s. It's not like the day when citizens had muskets and claymores.
And automatic weapons are far different then revolvers and single shot shotguns.
But there isn't a single need for guns of any type in the first place.
You are right about one thing, guns are made to kill and nothing more.
But let's talk about certain weapons.
I was a Scout/Sniper. My primary weapon is civilian designated as a Remmington model 700. In the right hands that is an effective weapon, but it is a far cry from an AR-15 or AK47. Any yokel can take an AK or AR-15 and kill dozens of people in seconds/minutes. To do so with a conventional "hunting" rifle would take an experienced well-trained expert. So I don't agree with your assessment that all guns are the same in that regard.
Also if you just take into account how many people were killed in Vegas, and Texas versus the truck attack in NY you can see that a gun kills more people faster and easier then planning an attack with a truck. So you are wrong in that regard as well.
Now I know how to fight have been trained since I was 4 years old. Approaching a crazed maniac wielding a knife versus a nutcase with an AR-15 is EXTREMELY different. I would take on the knive guy with no hesitation. Not saying I wouldn't do my damnedest to disarm the gun guy, but I would have to think about it.
The fact is that guns actually have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. There is no way a civilian population could defend itself from the US Military just because they have a few guns. The fact is if the FBI or the police, or the military, know who you are and where you are, there is nothing you can do to stop them from getting you....NOTHING!

Sky Pilot's picture
This is America where we have

This is America where we have been settling disagreements with hot lead since 1620. When someone ticks us off it's ass kicking time and the odor of gun smoke fills the air. It can be a stranger, neighbor, friend, family member or someone on the other side of the world but there will be blood spilled. Right now our President is threatening to kill untold millions of strangers on the other side of the world if they don't kiss his ass. Maybe he could use some mental health treatment.

The whole reaction to mass shootings such as the one in Texas seems to be racially based, with the crowd getting hysterical when a group of white people get plugged. There have been at least 307 mass shootings in the US this year 307 mass shootings have occurred in the US so far in 2017 - ABC15 Arizona The two that got attention was in Las Vegas and in Sutherland. Heck, there were at least 30 in Chicago.

And remember, according to the biblical fairy tale Yeshua demands that a certain number of believers must be killed for their faith before he returns. So it shows a lack of faith on the part of believers to get upset when they get killed, especially when they are in church.

In my lifetime tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people have been shot dead. Most of them were killed for no real reason other than another nut job got ticked off at them. I've probably seen a million characters get killed in the movies and even cheered when some of them were shot. We have been brainwashed so thoroughly with the idea that the best way to solve problems is to use deadly force that we will have to change our entire culture in order to eliminate mass shootings and run of the mill murders.

Aposteriori unum's picture
As Sheldon said: more guns=

As Sheldon said: more guns= more gun violence, it's obvious (paraphrase) absolutely.

But is the violence because of the guns or is it because of the people (who just so happen to have guns)? Does someone who doesn't have a gun not want to commit violence... Then get a gun and suddenly want to commit violence? Is murder with a gun better or worse than murder with an Axe?

Or is the poblem more societal? Perhaps a general lack of education, economic issues, cultural prejudices, mental health or drug related?

~50,000 incidents in a year is a lot. No good. But out of 150,000,000 legal gun owners in the us that's like 1 in 2500. Still bad. But who's doing it? Humans or guns?but no guns= no gun violence... But does it equal no violence? Or less violence? And if not, what is better? Violence with guns, violence with hammers? Violence with knives or hands or rocks?

Perhaps the solution lies in a consciousness raising campaign.

And whatever the case may be, Americans are every bit as human as everyone else, just as susceptible to ignorance and immorality. Whether or not they have guns will speak little or nothing of their behavior.

Sheldon's picture
I was talking specifically

I was talking specifically about gun crime of course, when I said more guns inevitably lead to more gun crime. I don't imagine American's are genetically disposed to violence in a way other nations are not, but there may be cultural idiosyncrasies that explain the comparatively high rates of violent crimes when compared directly to other post industrialised democracies.

However I think we have to acknowledge that someone going nuts with a baseball bat is in no way comparable to someone going nuts with their cache of automatic and semi automatic weapons. It is also going be demonstrably harder to justifiably legislate against ownership of baseball bats and sharp knives for example, than it is to introduce strict laws against gun ownership. There is of course more than one problem here, the constitution that enshrines the right of people to "bear arms", the way this archaic and redundant right is abused by grotesquely rich and powerful gun manufacturers, and lastly by the cultural attitude of many Americans who think they "need" this right, and that it outweighs considerations of public safety, or even the perception that they would be generally less safe if guns were not easily available to the general populace.

Meanwhile people will continue to pay a tragic and horrible price. You can't of course stop all gun crime, but you can certainly make it vastly less likely.

CyberLN's picture
It is indeed a mental and /

It is indeed a mental and / or brain health issue. Until or unless mental and brain heath are a focus from early childhood, we will continue to see problems. To consider only gun control is short-sighted. Root cause for behaviors like these needs to be addressed.

chorlton's picture
only isn't proposed

only isn't proposed

its very simple.
if you are sad or angry its far easier to fire if you have a gun
if you are sad or angry its far harder to fire if you don't have a gun
don't think for a second the ease of access & ease of use isn't a major factor
killing self or others especially on the scale of Miami or vegas simply doesn't happen in other countries(excluding our allahu ackbar friends)

mass shootings in the uk after dunblane =__________?

CyberLN's picture
chorlton, Do you assume that

chorlton, Do you assume that because I advocate root cause analysis and mediation that I am not in favor of gun control?

chorlton's picture
if I said that then yes, but

if I said that then yes, but didn't so no.

you made a case for a holistic approach I believe, have I understood you right?
I made the case that reducing gun access/qty will very much help short term.

again look at the uk after dunblane
its harder to kill self or others without a gun...harder...not impossible

unless you do an isis bomb/truck you wont take out on mass like Miami or vegas
doing nothing will change nothing however

why not simply try it, it cant make the status quo worse than it has been the last decade


Attach Image/Video?: 

Sky Pilot's picture


Other countries don't have the type of culture America has. We have been responding to problems with violence since 1620. When someone ticks us off our normal reaction is to whack him upside the head.

chorlton's picture
murica aint special by a long

murica aint special by a long way with regards violent history

clan wars ?
a little before muricas time

if anything all you are saying is less reason guns should be near such retards
actually having been to over 65 countries there are a lot of cultural similarities to young murica

Sky Pilot's picture


As I've said before, Americans are a very vicious nationality. We are the top predators on the planet at this time. It's our culture. We use violence to solve problems. It might be a mental health issue since over half of the population is in fact nuts. It will take centuries to purge the people of their violent tendencies.

Watch this trailer from the 2010 movie "Operation: Endgame"

We are fed a constant diet of violence and mayhem.

CyberLN's picture
Well, fortunately, although

Well, fortunately, although being fed a constant diet of violence and mayhem as you say, I (and none in my circle) use violence to solve problems.

Sky Pilot's picture


Canadians are different from Americans.

Sheldon's picture
"It is indeed a mental and /

"It is indeed a mental and / or brain health issue. Until or unless mental and brain heath are a focus from early childhood, we will continue to see problems. To consider only gun control is short-sighted. Root cause for behaviours like these needs to be addressed."

As you say legislation and direct action can address all factors, but in the meantime do we think people with "mental health" issues should find it easy or difficult to buy and own firearms?

CyberLN's picture
I think people with mental

I think people with mental health issues should actually find it, not difficult, rather, quite impossible to buy and own firearms.

chorlton's picture
talking to theists seems to

talking to theists seems to rub off on many in here

there is zero need to write long winded comments & question who can answer based on pronouns used ffs

it isn't clever to weasel around & deflect

speak normally & drop the sam harris acts


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.