11 thoughts on “More Than Half of Texans Polled Want Stricter Gun Laws. And That Was Before the Santa Fe School Shooting.

  1. Sample size: 1200. Skew: Not mentioned! Cabrones, we aren’t falling for “polls” anymore. Polls had Clinton at 92% likely to win the election!

  2. Not sure I believe these polls entirely. Every Hispanic and Black I know own guns. And they are not republicans in general, and not Trump supporters for sure.

    Did they only poll California translpants?

  3. Transguide signs all over town show that 1,138 people died on Texas roads last year. Guess we need to pass a law against using roads, or cars, or driving?

    ..or liberal democrats?

    • That tired old argument is a straw man. Vehicles exist for the sole purpose of providing transportation, while guns were invented to kill.

      • …providing food or protection, serving vital functions just like shelter or transportation.

        I suppose after 9/11 we should have banned airplanes and steel skyscrapers?

        Or after several incidents involving people being run down by vans in public we should ban anything larger than a scooter? Or walking in public squares where there could be vans?

        Or perhaps after 423,096 abortions so far in the USA 2018 alone we should maybe end the practice? Nah, that one is okay.

        Maybe since Heart Disease has already killed 238,030 in the USA 2018 alone so far we could stop selling salt, fat, and sugar.

        While were at it Obesity has claimed roughly 119,000 lives in the USA this year and the majority of Bexar county adults and over a 1/3 of children, we should ban being overweight? Maybe we should legally force these people to walk to work.

        Or perhaps after enough drunk drivers have killed innocents we should ban alcohol? We could call it, prohibition! Maybe we should make it illegal to drink and drive, that should stop the issue!

        Yours is an exhausted argument and it is exhausting to see it repeated constantly like it would solve anything.

        As if it wouldn’t immediately just skyrocket crime and the black market demand for arms, just as alcohol did a century ago and the war on drugs perpetuates today. Look at 5 DNT listed states in Mexico and tell me I’m wrong.

        Let the ever peaceful Chiraq be your guide on policy.

        Or maybe you could just look at how very deeply the Military Industrial Complex reaches into the fabric of our society and then just realize that no matter how much you complain it’s all a worthless dream.

        What it all comes down to isn’t the airplanes, the vans, the buildings, the cholesterol, the salt, the bullets, the bombs, the guns, the alcohol…its the people making decisions behind them, and until that problem is addressed, I will have to keep arguing people like you.

          • West, so simple minded and the core of the problem. The point is it doesn’t matter if an item was created to kill or not. It’s the mind controlling the item and it’s ability to process common sense and decency.

      • How about this. They were invented to protect. If it were not for my handgun, I would have been another victim in a string of rapes and murders in Memphis, TN (1998). If it were not for my handgun, I would not have been able to thwart a robber in Nashville, TN (2006). I would have been carjacked in El Paso, TN (2014). I never once killed anyone. It was a visual deterrent.

  4. Texans split along party lines on gun control. I’m gobsmacked.

    Turn the stats around and what do you have? 71 percent of Hispanics say gun violence is not a big problem.

    Cruz Smith (I have the misfortune of being in his district) is predictable. On any question his response will be as far left and totalitarian as imaginable.

  5. We have seen in recent years horrible acts of murder commited by students and minors who have obtained weopons from parents or guardians who have left firearms/weapons readily accessible.

    These same parents/gaurdians may have witnessed or have had concerns regarding the distraught feelings or mental condition of these young people in days prior to such incidents.

    As to the readily accessibility of firearms by a determined young person intent on committing such heinous crimes, I would suggest that legislation consider an immediate charge of negligent homicide with a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years to be imposed on anyone, parent or guardian, who should, through no thought to commit malice themselves, inadvertently provide such weapons.

    Perhaps a locked and secure gun safe/cabinet would have provided a deterren, or time to cool down and reconsider the consequences.

    A charge of negligent homicide would provide an incentive to parents/guardian to reconsider such easy access to potential weapons.

  6. I’m in favor of gun control, mostly on assault rifles, since even the name refers to it being offensive rather than defensive as our Constitution is written for. But at the same time, I recognize that a law on assault rifles wouldn’t have mattered in the latest tragedy since one wasn’t used.

    Then I start to think about all the people who would say that means all guns should be outlawed. Then I read how bombs were also a weapon during the Santa Fe incident. It makes me wonder, if we outlaw all guns, would we just be dealing with a lot of improvised pipe bombs instead?

    This article mentions universal background checks, which I’m not against. But would that have prevented Santa Fe either? The guns were legally purchased by a parent; belonged to the parent. Background checks wouldn’t have prevented this young man from taking his father’s legally purchased guns.

    I know less doors at schools is definitely not the solution. I can already see a shooter sniping out students who are waiting for their turn to escape out a limited amount of exits. The congestion created by less exits would be a shooters dream-come-true. Not to mention, how many students would die being trampled in a crowd’s desperate attempt to escape through limited exits. Deaths due to crowd trampling have happened in situations that weren’t supposed to be life threatening, so why not when it’s a life-or-death situation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *