Type in Religious Shitwit and you'll get this asshole..... along with Chad.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/conserv...-get-shot/

Quote:Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot

Quote:Hans Fiene, a Lutheran pastor who is also a regular contributor to the right-wing website The Federalist, has written a new column in which he explains that allowing 26 people to die at the hands of a crazed gunman at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, this weekend was actually God’s way of answering their prayers.

Too bad he wasn't on the receiving end.

We should arm everyone and require they shoot anyone with a gun. Wait..

(November 6, 2017 at 1:41 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(November 6, 2017 at 1:26 pm)wallym Wrote: The goal is (nearly) no guns.  That's the actual endpoint.  We've seen it all over the world.  'No guns' is not 'marrying a horse.'  I am not going beyond the actual objective to some hypothetical nonsense which is what slippery slope fallacy is.  The goal is not a maximum of 5 kids killed per mass shooting at an elementary school.  It's 0 shootings at elementary schools.  You achieve this through the removal of guns.  It's obvious.  Australia and the UK figured it out with little difficulty.

Currently, it's not feasible or politically expedient in the US.  But that doesn't change the fact that is the objective for many, and that number is going to grow going forward.  

Now if I said "What's next, we can't have cars because you can kill someone with them?"  That would be a slippery slope fallacy.

You haven't been keeping up with the NRA propaganda if that's what you think.

The details of propaganda are for the unwashed masses to cry about on social media.  The crux of the issue is found in the objective of the propaganda.  Which is what I said in my first post.  NRA recognizes the rational endpoint of the opposition is no guns.  Their objective is to make sure it stays as far from that as possible.  What they are doing is how you do that.  

I've been lucky enough to watch the gay rights movement unfold as I've grown up.  It was masterful.  When I was young, not sure when, I remember Kurt Loder on MTv promoting 'alternative lifestyle.'  They weren't bad people, they were just different.  And that's all they wanted.   Then for it to be an accepted lifestyle.  Then it was civil unions.  We don't want marriage, just our own thing.  Then it was marriage.  Then you had to view their marriage as positive.  Then you had to bake a cake for their marriage by law, and now if you tried to call being gay an alternative lifestyle, you'd be a bigot.

The way they kept moving the goalpost as the young people they targeted grew older and took up a larger portion of the social defining demographic was genius.  And good on them.  But I'm sure when it all started someone said "Next thing you know, they'll be trying to get married."  And someone else said "Slippery slope fallacy!"

(November 6, 2017 at 1:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Type in atheist shooter in Google. Interesting what pops up.

I've seen reports that he used to teach Sunday School at that church.

(November 6, 2017 at 1:26 pm)wallym Wrote: The goal is (nearly) no guns.  That's the actual endpoint. 

Or, you know, effective gun regulations that drastically reduce the numbers of people dead-by-gun.

Quote:We've seen it all over the world.  'No guns' is not 'marrying a horse.'  I am not going beyond the actual objective to some hypothetical nonsense which is what slippery slope fallacy is.  The goal is not a maximum of 5 kids killed per mass shooting at an elementary school.  It's 0 shootings at elementary schools.  You achieve this through the removal of guns.  It's obvious.  Australia and the UK figured it out with little difficulty.

There would be greater difficulty here, but..if we got it down to..say, 5 people killed in a year from mass shootings...that;s a tenfold reduction in people dead from mass shootings a year....in texas alone....... (2015-45, 2016-39, 2017-57...thusfar, and we still have the holidays to go). 

It's not exactly surprising that Texas is a problem state as outlined in trace data.  Guns flow to other states from texas, they have no p2p restrictions..and they're in the top half of states as far as guns per captia...and that;s just what we know about.  There's no registration requirement.  They're an open carry state.  A castle doctrine state.  A stand your ground state.  A civil immunity state.  The ATF branch in Texas is overworked and understaffed, tasked primarily to combat gang violence..which is strange, because that's not who's shooting people or trafficking guns in Texas....but not given sufficient funding to do that anyway.  

OFC, most gun deaths aren't mass shootings, but boy oh boy would it be nice to limit ourselves to five dead, per state, per year.

Quote:Currently, it's not feasible or politically expedient in the US.  But that doesn't change the fact that is the objective for many, and that number is going to grow going forward.  

Strangely, the measures that are feasible and even on the books are the same ones the NRA and it's bought politicians in Texas campaign to defund or get stricken -from- the books.....

Quote:Now if I said "What's next, we can't have cars because you can kill someone with them?"  That would be a slippery slope fallacy.

I would say that we should license and register and insure them.......that there should be safety standards, in short, that we should regulate the shit out of them. Wonder of wonders, we do.

The reason that the NRA opposes gun control is that effective gun regulation would kill their ability to peddle influence and play kingmaker just as surely as a gun ban would. Their existence depends upon the gun debates existence. There is no gun debate if we're responsibly owning and regulating guns, just like there's no "car debate".

It would be nice if the US got off it's ass and at least did something, anything to start implementing stricter gun control.

If it came down to it I wouldn't like it if they came after mine, but I wouldn't resist either.

(November 6, 2017 at 2:36 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: It would be nice if the US got off it's ass and at least did something, anything to start implementing stricter gun control.

If it came down to it I wouldn't like it if they came after mine, but I wouldn't resist either.

What if the law was single-shot guns/rifles only?

(November 6, 2017 at 1:48 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Type in atheist shooter in Google. Interesting what pops up.

What, like your dick? Keep stirring that pot, NS.

(November 6, 2017 at 1:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Type in Religious Shitwit and you'll get this asshole..... along with Chad.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/conserv...-get-shot/

Quote:Conservative writer: God was ‘answering prayers’ of Texas victims by letting them get shot

Quote:Hans Fiene, a Lutheran pastor who is also a regular contributor to the right-wing website The Federalist, has written a new column in which he explains that allowing 26 people to die at the hands of a crazed gunman at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, this weekend was actually God’s way of answering their prayers.

Too bad he wasn't on the receiving end.

Wow.

Comments in that same vein here today garnered rebukes.

Funny Christians can have such different and opposing interpretations of the same event, but atheists comments on it, even when echoed by some actual Christians are always wrong.

(November 6, 2017 at 2:13 pm)wallym Wrote:

(November 6, 2017 at 1:41 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: You haven't been keeping up with the NRA propaganda if that's what you think.

The details of propaganda are for the unwashed masses to cry about on social media.  The crux of the issue is found in the objective of the propaganda.  Which is what I said in my first post.  NRA recognizes the rational endpoint of the opposition is no guns.  Their objective is to make sure it stays as far from that as possible.  What they are doing is how you do that.  

I've been lucky enough to watch the gay rights movement unfold as I've grown up.  It was masterful.  When I was young, not sure when, I remember Kurt Loder on MTv promoting 'alternative lifestyle.'  They weren't bad people, they were just different.  And that's all they wanted.   Then for it to be an accepted lifestyle.  Then it was civil unions.  We don't want marriage, just our own thing.  Then it was marriage.  Then you had to view their marriage as positive.  Then you had to bake a cake for their marriage by law, and now if you tried to call being gay an alternative lifestyle, you'd be a bigot.

The way they kept moving the goalpost as the young people they targeted grew older and took up a larger portion of the social defining demographic was genius.  And good on them.  But I'm sure when it all started someone said "Next thing you know, they'll be trying to get married."  And someone else said "Slippery slope fallacy!"

Wow, moving the goalpost to equality.  What demons.