26 Dead including children at San Antonio Church massacre

[Imperializt Russia]

So many England guns in 1400s England, yup.

The state won the English civil war, you would do well to note. So what does the civilian ownership of firearms matter?

Rather the weapon of the day was a gun isn't of consequence.

Which is why after the war the royal family was still in power right? Oh, wait, no, there was this fellow, what was his name? Oliver? TWIST! Oh, fuck, no, CROMWELL! That's it!

How exactly have you managed to post the unedited version of a post edited five minutes before yours? No matter.

Oliver Cromwell was part of the British state before, during, and after the Civil War.
He was in no way a democratic leader.
It doesn't support your argument, and the civilian ownership of firearms - to whatever extent it existed - was not a significant element of the conflict.

[Xelsis]

But you brought up Norway, you tit.

I never made a 1-1 comparison to the United States, as if one mass shooting there equals one here. As I have repeatedly noted, the United States has sixty times the population, and that is where I make the comparison.

And in a similar vein, since we are talking about the US overall (as I don't feel it's controversial to argue that more states have seen a mass shooting than have not, since you only gave two counter-examples, later conceding both had one "mass shooting" in some form or another),
doesn't this very argument delegitimatise isolating individual states' statistics and claiming this somehow means something

Not particularly, given the difference in state's laws. I am certain that some states have an overall higher incidence of mass shootings per capita than Norway. The United States, as a whole, does by a marginal amount. The point being raised was that persons saying "Norway had only one mass shooting! The U.S. had eighty!" are making a ridiculous comparison thanks to the population difference, when the better comparison is along the lines of "Norway had one mass shooting, Tennessee had one" those two being actually reasonable close to each other in population.

Well I am talking about overall casualties, not fatalities. This obviously greatly raises the number of shootings to which I am referring because I don't fap to the bodycount, unlike the kind of people who commit these shootings, and the people who dismiss the severity of such because not enough people died.

One in 2016, one in 2015, zero in 2014, one in 2013, two in 2012, zero in 2011, zero in 2010, one in 2009, one in 2008, one in 2007, zero in 2006, zero in 2005, zero in 2004, zero in 2003, zero in 2002, zero in 2001, zero in 2000.

So even with your modified, lower number, the U.S. has never once had even three such events in a year, let alone four every year as you claim, with the majority of the years since the turn of the century having zero 20+ casualty shooting events, absent your extra one annually "Massive shooting"

You're far, far, off-base.

Then provide some primary sources to support your claims.

I have. Your claim of higher U.S. numbers needs backing itself.

Where did you provide sources to back your claims, after citing Politifact? (the FBI data you provided doesn't pertain to mass shootings)

And I was not talking about gang violence in an attempt to add it to the discussion, I was talking about the exclusion of gang violence from the data cited by Politifact as evidence that the data is flawed. Excluding mass shootings because of where they took place, or because of who was involved, is terrible research methodology.

All I need for my claim, and have cited, is the sole mass shooting in Norway, and the two in Finland, along with their population numbers. I hadn't thought you would challenge those, but I can re-source them with something more scholarly if it is a problem. Would you like me to do so?

You have criticized the data for excluding gang violence, which is a perfectly reasonable criticism. In order to back up your claim of higher U.S. mass shooting numbers, however, you need to show how those exclusions dramatically change the rate, as as it stands, Norway's rate is nearly nine times higher per capita.

[Thermodolia]

Fair enough, just checked and I was definitely wrong about that.

How would you reduce the number of mass-shootings then? There must be a way to make it harder for nutters to get guns that even the biggest gun lovers can agree to.

Process all transactions through an FFL. Increase funding to the system to close cracks. Modify what does and does not prevent firearms purchases, include BCDs for example, and other crimes that currently don't cause you to be a PP. Allow, create, and fund a more fluid mental health check system.

And INCREASE SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS! Desperate people commit crimes.

An FFL? How about nah

[Telconi]

It's not free speech, it's intellectual property. This, it falls under property laws instead of the first amendment.

Passing off something someone else owns the copyright to as something I own the copyright to sounds like speech or expression to me.

---

Well caffeine is a drug... and AR-15s are guns... so you can't say "ban all drugs" without including caffeine, and you can't say "allow all firearms" without including an AR-15...

If "actually spoken by actual people" involves dishonesty and hypocrisy, that's not my fault.

If you read any restriction on guns as a ban on all private gun ownership, that is your fault.

I've never stated "all" I read any ban on guns as a ban on guns, which is so straight forward I'm baffled that you can't understand that. The Democrats want to ban guns, they openly state such, and they enact such where they can. Trying to say otherwise with bullshit platitudes like "We respect the second amendment but..." is idiocy. It's the moral equivalency of me saying "I'm not a racist, but black people really shouldn't count as people" and then pointing to the "I'm not racist" part when I'm attacked for my blatantly racist views.

[Telconi]

Process all transactions through an FFL. Increase funding to the system to close cracks. Modify what does and does not prevent firearms purchases, include BCDs for example, and other crimes that currently don't cause you to be a PP. Allow, create, and fund a more fluid mental health check system.

And INCREASE SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS! Desperate people commit crimes.

An FFL? How about nah

-Shrug- I wouldn't mind it, so you meet your private seller customer at an FFL and they run a quick NICS, I don't really see the problem.

[Telconi]

Rather the weapon of the day was a gun isn't of consequence.

Which is why after the war the royal family was still in power right? Oh, wait, no, there was this fellow, what was his name? Oliver? TWIST! Oh, fuck, no, CROMWELL! That's it!

How exactly have you managed to post the unedited version of a post edited five minutes before yours? No matter.

Oliver Cromwell was part of the British state before, during, and after the Civil War.
He was in no way a democratic leader.
It doesn't support your argument, and the civilian ownership of firearms - to whatever extent it existed - was not a significant element of the conflict.

Not relevant, it functioned to modify the government, and it did so in a step towards democracy.

You keep saying firearms as if they were relevant in the 1600s to any great extent.

Civilian levies made up the vast majority of troops on both sides, and generally provided their own weapons.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not on the Roundheads' side. The new Model Army was a grand state venture to establish an official, politically-separated standing army for the first time in Britain. It recruited large numbers of conscripts, but conscripts aren't civilians.

Also, as I myself learned, the NMA tried to ensure all foot units had two musketmen to each pikeman, which surprises me.
And rather aptly demonstrates that these were not civilian weapons brought from home by conscript troops.

And "military dictatorship" is not a "meaningful step in the road to democracy". Again, there are many arguments one can make against Britain being a democracy as we would recognise today for another three centuries afterwards.

[Albrenia]

Forgive me if I missed anything since I just woke up, but I just heard on the morning news that the gunshot that killed the shooter was self inflicted. Is this confirmed?

[Telconi]

Not on the Roundheads' side. The new Model Army was a grand state venture to establish an official, politically-separated standing army for the first time in Britain. It recruited large numbers of conscripts, but conscripts aren't civilians.

Also, as I myself learned, the NMA tried to ensure all foot units had two musketmen to each pikeman, which surprises me.
And rather aptly demonstrates that these were not civilian weapons brought from home by conscript troops.

And "military dictatorship" is not a "meaningful step in the road to democracy". Again, there are many arguments one can make against Britain being a democracy as we would recognise today for another three centuries afterwards.

Not all of the roundheads were NMA. They had a great deal of skirmishers and auxiliaries. These men largely fought with whatever they had available. And while I'm in no way saying Cromwell was a democratic leader, or that perfect liberal democracy suddenly sprang up afterwards the series of conflicts that make up the English Civil War did propel England towards democracy.

[Telconi]

Forgive me if I missed anything since I just woke up, but I just heard on the morning news that the gunshot that killed the shooter was self inflicted. Is this confirmed?

Yes.

[Thermodolia]

An FFL? How about nah

-Shrug- I wouldn't mind it, so you meet your private seller customer at an FFL and they run a quick NICS, I don't really see the problem.

An FFL = more paperwork and I hate paper work

[Albrenia]

Forgive me if I missed anything since I just woke up, but I just heard on the morning news that the gunshot that killed the shooter was self inflicted. Is this confirmed?

Yes.

Thanks. Also, the motive wasn't Atheist at all but that he wanted to kill his mother-in-law is the motivation?

I mean, fuck, what an asshole.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes.

Thanks. Also, the motive wasn't Atheist at all but that he wanted to kill his mother-in-law is the motivation?

I mean, fuck, what an asshole.

Let's also add fucking creeper, to the mix.
Texas church shooter tried to bribe underage girls to date him

Texas church shooter Devin Patrick Kelley was so pathetic, he tried to bribe and threatened ex-girlfriends to take him back — and he stooped so low as to date a 13-year-old when he was 18, according to former flings.

[Telconi]

Yes.

Thanks. Also, the motive wasn't Atheist at all but that he wanted to kill his mother-in-law is the motivation?

I mean, fuck, what an asshole.

Ban mother in laws...

-Shrug- I wouldn't mind it, so you meet your private seller customer at an FFL and they run a quick NICS, I don't really see the problem.

An FFL = more paperwork and I hate paper work

It is annoying, but adding 15 minutes onto the process is IMO a small price to pay to legally prohibit face to face sales.

[Tovakestan]

Forgive me if I missed anything since I just woke up, but I just heard on the morning news that the gunshot that killed the shooter was self inflicted. Is this confirmed?

Yes.

The shooter was killed by a pair of good samaritans after a car chase. Where did you hear that it was suicide?
https://amp.usatoday.com/story/835018001/

[Camicon]

Then provide some primary sources to support your claims.

I have. Your claim of higher U.S. numbers needs backing itself.

United States firearm deaths per capita: 10.54 as of 2014
Norway firearm deaths per capita: 1.22 as of 2014

I already compared Norway to Indiana, specifically, which has experiences slightly more firearm deaths per capita than the United States as a whole.

Where did you provide sources to back your claims, after citing Politifact? (the FBI data you provided doesn't pertain to mass shootings)

And I was not talking about gang violence in an attempt to add it to the discussion, I was talking about the exclusion of gang violence from the data cited by Politifact as evidence that the data is flawed. Excluding mass shootings because of where they took place, or because of who was involved, is terrible research methodology.

All I need for my claim, and have cited, is the sole mass shooting in Norway, and the two in Finland, along with their population numbers.

That's not how you find per capita rates.

I hadn't thought you would challenge those, but I can re-source them with something more scholarly if it is a problem. Would you like me to do so?

I would like data on all mass shootings and firearm deaths in Norway and Finland, preferably in per capita rates, for the years 2015-2017. And similar data for the US, if you have a genie granting wishes.

You have criticized the data for excluding gang violence, which is a perfectly reasonable criticism. In order to back up your claim of higher U.S. mass shooting numbers, however, you need to show how those exclusions dramatically change the rate, as as it stands, Norway's rate is nearly nine times higher per capita.

I haven't made any claims as to whether or not the US experiences more mass shootings per capita than Norway. You did, specifically that Norway's is higher than the US. I challenged your assertion by asking for evidence, to back up statements like: "Norway's rate is nearly nine times higher per capita", which I have yet to see you provide.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yes.

The shooter was killed by a pair of good samaritans after a car chase. Where did you hear that it was suicide?
https://amp.usatoday.com/story/835018001/

I found this from the Mirror

An official said he had "grabbed his rifle and engaged the suspect".

Recalling his own heroic role in the incident, Mr Langendorff told KSAT 12 : "I pulled up to the intersection where the shooting happened and I saw two men exchanging gunfire, the other being a citizen of the community.

"The shooter of the church had taken off, fled in his vehicle and the other gentlemen came and he said, 'We need to pursue him, he just shot at the church'. And so that's what I did, I just acted and got him off road."

He described how Mr Willeford - a stranger to him - had come to his vehicle "in distress" and explained very quickly what had happened.

"He got in the truck and I knew that it was time to go," he said.

He continued: "[Kelley] got a little bit of a jump on us. So we were doing about 95 down 539 going around traffic and everything.
"Eventually he came to kind of a slow down and after that we got within just a few feet of him and then he got off the road.

"He just lost control and that's whenever I put the vehicle in park, because I was still on the phone with dispatch."

Mr Langendorff said Mr Willeford jumped out with his rifle drawn. Kelley "didn't move after that", said the courageous bystander.

He added that neither he nor Mr Willeford got close enough to the suspect in the SUV to see whether he was moving or injured.

Police reportedly arrived at the scene in Guadalupe minutes later.

[Telconi]

Yes.

The shooter was killed by a pair of good samaritans after a car chase. Where did you hear that it was suicide?
https://amp.usatoday.com/story/835018001/

Where in that article does it say the gunshot wound was inflicted by that fellow?

[Kubra]

Not on the Roundheads' side. The new Model Army was a grand state venture to establish an official, politically-separated standing army for the first time in Britain. It recruited large numbers of conscripts, but conscripts aren't civilians.

Also, as I myself learned, the NMA tried to ensure all foot units had two musketmen to each pikeman, which surprises me.
And rather aptly demonstrates that these were not civilian weapons brought from home by conscript troops.

And "military dictatorship" is not a "meaningful step in the road to democracy". Again, there are many arguments one can make against Britain being a democracy as we would recognise today for another three centuries afterwards.

And in any case, it's enough to say that the british army from then to Napoleon would not be amenable to recruits showing up with their own muskets (or even showing up at all, lol). Furthermore, where conscription does not exist significantly in the first place, it's a bit off to suppose that anyone would be keeping anything around on the off chance an administration comes along that figures conscription is a swell idea.
That said, the idea of the citizen-soldier militia was actually quite popular in britain, or at least trendy in british liberal circles, despite a lack of the practice over the next few centuries.

[Camicon]

Care to provide a source detailing those specificities?

All these are non-restrited, like the stereotypical hunting rifle.

I'd prefer to see the piece of legislation detailing what is and is not a restricted firearm. A web page from a firearms outlet doesn't give me specifics.

[Gig em Aggies]

All these are non-restrited, like the stereotypical hunting rifle.

I'd prefer to see the piece of legislation detailing what is and is not a restricted firearm. A web page from a firearms outlet doesn't give me specifics.

Well their is this

Subject/Law Long guns Handguns Relevant Statutes Notes
State permit to purchase? No No
Firearm registration? No No
Owner license required? No No
Assault weapon law? No No
Magazine capacity restriction? No No
Carry license required? No Yes GC Ch. 411.172[93] Licensed carry of a handgun requires a "shall-issue" license, and is subject to specific laws governing trespass while armed. People who are barred from licensing include those under age 21, felons, fugitives, people who are "chemically dependent" or "incapable of exercising sound judgment", and those in arrears for taxes or child support.
Open carry? Yes Yes PC 46.02 Long gun and black powder weapon (including handgun) open carry is not forbidden by law, unless in a manner "calculated to cause alarm."
Effective January 1, 2016, individuals with a handgun carry license will be permitted to carry openly, per House Bill 910 of the 2015 legislative session. Non-residents from states whose permits are recognized by Texas will also be allowed to open carry under the new law.
Concealed carry on college campus? No Yes May carry in parking lots, parking garages, outdoor walkways on campus.
Public four-year universities (as of August 1, 2016) and public two-year colleges (as of August 1, 2017) must allow concealed carry in campus buildings as well. Universities will be allowed to designate certain sensitive areas as "gun free zones"; these will be subject to legislative analysis.

State preemption of local restrictions? Yes Yes LGC §229.001. State law prohibits municipal governments from regulating the ownership, transfer, storage, or licensing of firearms, ammunition, or accessories. Local ordinances can regulate the discharge of firearms (such as for noise, nuisance or public safety), but not in contradiction of state law concerning justified use of a firearm.
NFA weapons restricted? No No PC 46.01, PC 46.05 Texas Penal Code Section 46.05 requires that "explosive weapons", "machine guns", "short-barrel firearms", and "firearm silencers", as defined in Section 46.01, be "registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice". Prior to May 22nd 2015, Section 46.05 called "registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act" a "defense to prosecution".[94]
Peaceable journey laws? Yes Yes PC 46.02, PC 46.15 A person may carry a loaded handgun without a permit while in or heading directly to a motor vehicle or watercraft they own or control. The statute does not specifically state the handgun must be concealed while heading to the vehicle or watercraft, and 46.02, which requires concealment of a handgun while in a motor vehicle or watercraft, is not applicable to a person while the person is traveling, pursuant to said activities. 46.15(b)(2).
Castle doctrine/ stand your ground law? Yes Yes PC 9.32 A person is presumed justified in using deadly force to protect themselves against an unlawful, forceful intrusion into their dwelling, or to prevent an unlawful, forceful attempt to remove a lawful occupant from the dwelling, or to prevent certain serious felonies such as burglary or arson. There is no duty to retreat from any place where the shooter has a legal right to be.
Background checks required for private sales? No No

[Kubra]

All these are non-restrited, like the stereotypical hunting rifle.

I'd prefer to see the piece of legislation detailing what is and is not a restricted firearm. A web page from a firearms outlet doesn't give me specifics.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm
RCMP's summary is a little easier reading than the criminal code

[Camicon]

I'd prefer to see the piece of legislation detailing what is and is not a restricted firearm. A web page from a firearms outlet doesn't give me specifics.

Well their is this
*snip*

Perhaps a link to the webpage, instead of copy-pasting it?

[Gig em Aggies]

Well their is this
*snip*

Perhaps a link to the webpage, instead of copy-pasting it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
I quoted the gun laws of Texas as this is where the shooting took place.

[United Muscovite Nations]

In terms of modern notions of democracy? That would probably be somewhat accurate.

I don't know how to break this to you, but firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise.

That wasn't what you asked.