Another shooting rocks the world

[Glacier]

It's looking as though religion had nothing to do with this, reports now are saying it's very likely he was hunting for his mother in law whom he thought would be at the church.

Edit: add link
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bbc.com ... a-41892838

My first thought was, "why didn't he just show up at her house?" But then I remembered that his was a small town in Texas, so probably everyone has guns, thus he probably wouldn't even get close to the house before being shot dead. Church is a great place to commit mass murder since no one brings guns to church.

[Glacier]

Why Did Texas Church Shooter Devin Kelley Pass Background Checks?

[Farmmaa]

Reported screen capture of his FB page show under likes show various atheist groups, this being the main source of information about whether he was an atheist or not. And on the teaching at a bible camp, it was commented on by one of the people that went to school with him, that he attended "one" day as a counselor.

Here's the thing about him 'liking' a few atheist FB pages..... so what ?
It says absolutely zero about this beliefs or views.

There are probably just as many, if not more, right-wing Christian apologists on those pages as actual atheists.
In fact, it was one such woman who started this whole atheist blame thing when she saw his name on the page....which means that she was also following the same page.

It was also commented on that none of the people who commented were actual friends of his, therefore, just a bunch of speculation from people who didn't really even know him.

So, hey, here's a thought - lets wait for....facts.

[Glacier]

So, hey, here's a thought - lets wait for....facts.

Says the guy who called him a Christian...What I think you mean is, "let's wait until the facts fit my narrative."

Anyway, here's a better idea. Take the available facts, and construct a story from that. If new facts come to light which contradict your theory, adjust your theory until it matches with the facts.

[the truth]

that's what these people do

[Glacier]

[Farmmaa]

Well that's one thing that should be changed. No crazy atheists who beat their wives should be allowed own guns.

Facts like this Glacier ?
Are these the 'facts' you want to stick to ?

I did not call him a Christian. I stated that those who attend and teach bible camp are usually Christians.
I think, perhaps, it is a prerequisite to teaching kids about the Christian bible and word of the Christian god.
Usually.

I also have not stated that this was some sort of religious hate crime, attack against Christians or any other theory as to why this occurred.

[Verum]

Do you really believe this kind of BS?
He is repeating unverified information and then using it to make huge assumptions about the shooter. He basically equates modern psychiatry with communism. Assumes that those who want gun control only want it for people who can legally get guns. Equates getting a paid for education as "indoctrination against the only system that gives them the possibility of success, the free market". He seems to think that children receive medication "for failing to conform to these terrible schools". He even questions if we would have national debt "if we really loved our children". I do not have enough time to go through all of the reasons that this guy is wrong so the only response I can have to someone like him is this:

Anyone who honestly believes that this guy has a clue needs to hit the books, start reading and learn a little about medicine, economics, and education. Just an hour or so should be enough to put even the least educated people at a level far beyond this guy's.

[Poindexter]

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical for gun advocates, who accused others of politicizing the mass shooting in Vegas, to come out so quickly and politicize the mass shooting in Texas?

[Glacier]

Well that's one thing that should be changed. No crazy atheists who beat their wives should be allowed own guns.

Facts like this Glacier ?
Are these the 'facts' you want to stick to ?

This is NOT a fact. It's an opinion. I do NOT think anyone who has committed a violent act should be allowed to own guns. Period. This is NOT a fact. I repeat. This is an OPINION. You are free to disagree with an OPINION. I am not saying I'm right to think this and you are wrong to disagree. You are free to disagree with FACTS too, but they're still facts.

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical for gun advocates, who accused others of politicizing the mass shooting in Vegas, to come out so quickly and politicize the mass shooting in Texas?

Have you heard of fivethirtyeight? They used facts and data about guns, and realized that most of the gun laws anti-gun crowed like don't actually stop crimes. Those are facts. You are free to disagree with these facts and call them "political statements", but facts are facts no matter what you call them.

P.S. I do NOT agree with everything Stefan says in the video. I posted to add another voice to the conversation. He's an atheist, btw.

[Glacier]

[Snman]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/opinions/ ... index.html

I found this quite interesting.

[Queen K]

Wow, it sure is. Non-partison and proposing a solution at the same time.

[Verum]

Have you heard of fivethirtyeight? They used facts and data about guns, and realized that most of the gun laws anti-gun crowed like don't actually stop crimes. Those are facts. You are free to disagree with these facts and call them "political statements", but facts are facts no matter what you call them.

P.S. I do NOT agree with everything Stefan says in the video. I posted to add another voice to the conversation. He's an atheist, btw.

Actually, fivethirtyeight did not realise "that most of the gun laws anti-gun crowed like don't actually stop crimes", they were far less committal than you read it to be. It would be more accurate to say that the studies they examined did not, in their eyes, show that these laws actually did reduce crime. That's quite a different thing indeed. Failing to show effectiveness is not the same as showing ineffectiveness.

Adding a voice to the conversation is not always a good thing. Whether he is an atheist or not has no bearing on whether he has anything of value to add to this discussion and honestly, in the 10 minutes or so of his monologue that I could stomach, I found his empathy laudable and his content tragically laughable. Anyone who honestly claims that having a national debt means that we don't love our children is ignorant of what it means to love someone, and why we might accrue national debt. Hint, it's often for our children that we do it. That he would feel the need to bring up this kind of irrelevant manure in a discussion on a church massacre just shows that he doesn't want to miss a chance to express his ignorant opinion on issues he hasn't a clue about. So, I ask you, what point did he make that was actually of real value and contributes to the discussion and where in the video was it?

[Glacier]

The long and short of it is that we need better enforcement of gun laws, not more gun laws. This guy should NOT have been able to get a gun. He should have been in jail perhaps. Existing laws state he shouldn't have had a gun, and yet he did. Enforce existing laws. Adding new laws that are only applied to law abiding citizens who voluntarily obey them does not make anyone safer. http://www.dailywire.com/news/23280/why ... en-shapiro