Mass shooting in Southern Texas Church

[UKMikey]

They're both Fox News personalities, so they're lying if they say it happened and they're lying if they say it didn't.

Considering Mr Hannity is an avowed martial arts practitioner, I'd be surprised if he felt the need to draw a weapon on Williams in the first place.

 

[RC45]

Crikey. I hope this unreliable account is as untrue as it sounds:

https://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/...count-sean-hannity-pulling-gun-juan-williams/

This story is so patently false as to be outright laughable on its face value.

Brandishing (pointing) a weapon is a crime.

Had this actually happened as described, complete with laser dot and all, there would be a legal paper trail of the entire event from arrest to conviction.

 

[TetsuKobura]

This conversation isn't even fun to discuss anyone when random people join in with actual bait posts.

 

[TexRex]

This conversation isn't even fun to discuss anyone when random people join in with actual bait posts.

Option 1: Disregard said posts and carry on as countless others manage to do in just about every other thread on every other forum on the rest of the internet.

Option 2: Report posts that you feel have nothing to offer and, if a moderator agrees with you, they will either advise involve parties cease this activity, delete said posts or both.

Option 3: Whine.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Brandishing (pointing) a weapon is a crime.

Sometimes is, sometimes isn't.

How many minutes per day do you think the average American spends pointing a gun? Three minutes a day over the course of a year? More? Less?

 

[RC45]

Sometimes is, sometimes isn't.

How many minutes per day do you think the average American spends pointing a gun? Three minutes a day over the course of a year? More? Less?

No, any instance of weapon brandishing is a crime. The crime you will be charged with could range from simple assault to attempted murder, depending on the jurisdiction. If the brandishing was ruled unjustified you will face prison time.

Whether you actually stand trial will be the decision of the DA or Grand Jury, again, depending on the Jurisdiction.

if the particular case of brandishing is determined to be justified by the officer on the scene then they may decide at that point to simply include the event in the report but take no further action - but again, the DA may decide at a later stage to press charges.

An example of justified brandishing might be a shop keeper that drew his weapon on a burglar that then ran out of the store - or other similar event where the presentation of the firearm is the actual defensive use of the firearm. Either way, presenting a firearm in a threatening manner (i.e. Pointing, brandishing, waving and in some instances merely showing) is most definantely a crime - whether you get charged with it or not is another story.

Some jurisdictions have special provisions that allow exposure while transporting to your vehicle, accidental exposure of concealed weapon in waistband or exposed carry on your own property.

But point, or bring the weapon to bear on someone, then you better be very sure of your justification.

Your childish trolling question as to how many minutes per day law abiding Americans spend pointing a gun is indicative of your ignorance of and arrogance against the simple natural rights and freedoms enjoyed by people in these United States.

 

[Biggles]

I don't care if you or anyone else believes me, I am correct - period. My statements stand as correct.

What you seeing on this forum thread is emblematic of the problem with gun violence in the US. There's a significant chunk of the US population that is obsessed with guns - their right to own them, the government's wish to take them away. They are encapable of engaging in rational discussion of the subject.

 

[RC45]

I note in your response you where not able to prove my statements to be incorrect.

You still upset that the real gun violence problem is not the average bloke in the corn belt but rather violent gangs in the inner cities?

I don't see you or anyone else discussing that problem - that is the real gun violence problem.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, any instance of weapon brandishing is a crime.

Pointing a weapon in the privacy of your own home is not a crime. Pointing a weapon at a target in the confines of a range is not a crime. A warranted law enforcement official who points a weapon may do so perfectly legally. It doesn't matter if that's calmly or excitably, I include the second definition to justify your peculiar use of the antique 'brandishing', and I'm sure I could go on with many more legal examples that disprove your claim that it's always illegal to point a weapon.

I'm not sure which statutes you're referring to in support of your utterly bizarre claim, maybe you could enlighten us?

Your childish trolling question as to how many minutes per day law abiding Americans spend pointing a gun is indicative of your ignorance of and arrogance against the simple natural rights and freedoms enjoyed by people in these United States.

It's a serious question that shouldn't be too mentally taxing for anybody. How you see such a question as impinging upon your "natural" rights or freedoms is quite beyond me.

Perhaps you'd like to take a deep breath and have another go? How many minutes per day do you think each American spends pointing a gun, on average? You know a lot about guns and the rights around them, this should be quite simple.

 

[TexRex]

What you seeing on this forum thread is emblematic of the problem with gun violence in the US. There's a significant chunk of the US population that is obsessed with guns - their right to own them, the government's wish to take them away. They are encapable of engaging in rational discussion of the subject.

He isn't merely seeing that sort of behavior; he's demonstrating it perfectly. "My opinion is right, I have no obligation to justify it and I offer no solutions."

 

[RC45]

What you seeing on this forum thread is emblematic of the problem with gun violence in the US. There's a significant chunk of the US population that is obsessed with guns - their right to own them, the government's wish to take them away. They are encapable of engaging in rational discussion of the subject.

Now is your chance to explain why my right to keep and bear arms and my right to self defense must be infringed upon to solve the real gun violence problem.

Inter and intra gang gun violence <----- the real gun violence problem.

15 shot and 2 dead this weekend in Chicago gang land.

Please enlighten me as to how removing my legally owned and acquired guns from circulation addresses the issue in Inner City Chicago?

How would you propose keeping the Chicago death toll down?

Now, remember, they already have the harshest anti-gun laws on the books in Chicago.

No sir, the folks incapable of rational discussion are the anti-gun crowd.

 

[TexRex]

Now is your chance to explain why my right to keep and bear arms and my right to self defense must be impinged upon to solve the real gun violence problem.

So that you can disregard it.

Please enlighten me as to how removing my legally owned and acquired guns from circulation addresses the issue in Inner City Chicago?

Why bother when you're just going to disregard it?

How would you propose keeping the Chicago death toll down?

"Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago...

...

...Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago. I have nothing of value to contribute, not that I need to because I know my opinion is right and I don't need to defend that to anyone, so I'll just keep bringing up the place that gets talked about most on the right-wing blogosphere when the topic of gun control is brought up. As Chicago goes, the country goes...some crazy how. Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago."

@Northstar has the right idea...

 

[UKMikey]

Not sure whether this constitutes an "actual bait post" but a rational discussion should perhaps contain links supporting one's side of the argument rather than consisting almost entirely of dispensing infallible opinions from the mountaintop and daring everyone else to prove one wrong. With that in mind:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html

 

[TetsuKobura]

Chicago, Chicago, Chicago

Chicago is the perfect example of why gun control on the level a lot of the left wants won't work. Every single weekend there are double digit victims/shootings. Instead of dodging by saying Chicago seventy times, how about giving a solution?

 

[Joey D]

I'm not even sure why Chicago is being discussed so heavily either @TexRex. Especially when if you look at the numbers on a per capita bases, Chicago isn't even close to being the city with the highest amount of gun violence, New Orleans is. Detroit is also up there as well and Michigan has fairly lack gun laws.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/

Also when you look at states with the highest gun violence rate, those scored by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence are ranked the lost. This means some states with lack gun laws also have some of the highest numbers of gun-related deaths. The most notable is Lousiana. It ranks 2nd in overall gun-related deaths and it's ranked 43rd overall in gun laws.

 

[TetsuKobura]

highest gun violence rate

It is impossible to take this link seriously when Texas has F for gun "laws" and a bunch of blue states with B+ and higher.

 

[RC45]

Pointing a weapon in the privacy of your own home is not a crime. Pointing a weapon at a target in the confines of a range is not a crime. A warranted law enforcement official who points a weapon may do so perfectly legally. It doesn't matter if that's calmly or excitably, I include the second definition to justify your peculiar use of the antique 'brandishing', and I'm sure I could go on with many more legal examples that disprove your claim that it's always illegal to point a weapon.

I'm not sure which statutes you're referring to in support of your utterly bizarre claim, maybe you could enlighten us?

It's a serious question that shouldn't be too mentally taxing for anybody. How you see such a question as impinging upon your "natural" rights or freedoms is quite beyond me.

Perhaps you'd like to take a deep breath and have another go? How many minutes per day do you think each American spends pointing a gun, on average? You know a lot about guns and the rights around them, this should be quite simple.

Your question is not serious. It is asinine and childish, I would almost suggest childlike in its giddy naivete.

It is rather a perfect example of a childish question "ooh ooh ohhh he said all pointing illegal....!11111 nOT!!1111 in your own home its not... HA! HA see... the policeman pointing is Not1111 OOHhOHhOHH oohhh misss! miss! misss!! I win.. he said so !!!!1"

Guns are serious tools and require serious attitude and handling. They are not toys. You don't play with them and wave and point them around and do cool movie moves with them.

When you have serious appropriate gun related questions, come back, but I will not spend my time debating or discussing childish statements and questions.

I'm not even sure why Chicago is being discussed so heavily either @TexRex. Especially when if you look at the numbers on a per capita bases, Chicago isn't even close to being the city with the highest amount of gun violence, New Orleans is. Detroit is also up there as well and Michigan has fairly lack gun laws.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/

Also when you look at states with the highest gun violence rate, those scored by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence are ranked the lost. This means some states with lack gun laws also have some of the highest numbers of gun-related deaths. The most notable is Lousiana. It ranks 2nd in overall gun-related deaths and it's ranked 43rd overall in gun laws.

Do you not care that black people are being killed? I have seen some doozies on these forums but never such blatant disregard for black lives.

Last Week’s Totals (11/5 – 11/11)
Shot & Killed: 6
Shot & Wounded: 34
Total Shot: 40
Total Homicides: 6

There is 1 more added to the tally since last night.

BTW, instead of just knee jerking with "not true more die more die waaahhaahhaha" - how about discussing the inter and intra gang gun violence.

 

[Joey D]

It is impossible to take this link seriously when Texas has F for gun "laws" and a bunch of blue states with B+ and higher.

They explain how they get their score by clicking on "Analysis". Just because you don't like their conclusion, doesn't mean it's invalid.

Do you not care that black people are being killed? I have seen some doozies on these forums but never such blatant disregard for black lives.

Last Week’s Totals (11/5 – 11/11)
Shot & Killed: 6
Shot & Wounded: 34
Total Shot: 40
Total Homicides: 6

There is 1 more added to the tally since last night.

BTW, instead of just knee jerking with "not true more die more die waaahhaahhaha" - how about discussing the inter and intra gang gun violence.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion since New Orleans is over 60% African American, Detroit is over 80%. Chicago is 32%. So want to try again instead of attempting to paint me as a racist when I'm clearly not?

Also, I'm not sure how merely showing statistical data is in anyway a knee-jerk reaction. I'm just providing supporting evidence for the discussion point I'm making, something you're incapable of apparently since I'm yet to see any source from you.

 

[TexRex]

Violent crime rate in Chicago is high, and as a result, gun violence is high.

The position that I've long held is that making it more difficult for those who ought not have access to firearms to get them legally (let's face it, they can) will ultimately make it more difficult for those individuals to get them illegally. Regulations governing the sale of firearms, however that may be, and enforcement of said regulations, is necessary.

I own guns that I use in a recreational capacity, but should I no longer wish to own them and would rather they not be destroyed, I can sell them with nobody but the immediately involved parties being aware of the sale--this should not be the case. This could be hindered immensely by requiring a living registration, one that needs to be maintained, and one where proof of possession or notification of sale and subsequent maintained registration carried out by the new owner is required. Add penalties that make conforming to these regulations worthwhile and you've restricted access to firearms for those who ought not have access.

Cue the "Y'all better not take my Got dang guns. *spit*" rebuttal.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Your question is not serious. It is asinine and childish, I would almost suggest childlike in its giddy naivete.

It's a serious question. For how many minutes each day do you think the average American holds a firearm? If you can't answer then maybe we should just go with 3 minutes?

 

[UKMikey]

In a way it's a shame he's gone as I was looking forward to seeing how his "I'm never wrong" statement tallied up with his "take away Chicago gang violence and guns hardly kill anybody" theory.

 

[EamerRed]

Yeah I visit this forum every few days, very rarely post as you can tell, but this thread was gold for me.

I love America, I've been travelling there and it's great, the people are great, the place is great, you get the picture. But it's Americans, and only Americans, who seem to have this bizarre need for owning a gun and get oddly defensive and even patriotic in their defence of what is not only a dangerous weapon, but a completely unnecessary 'tool' which they seem to think they need.

 

[UKMikey]

Yeah I visit this forum every few days, very rarely post as you can tell, but this thread was gold for me.

I love America, I've been travelling there and it's great, the people are great, the place is great, you get the picture. But it's Americans, and only Americans, who seem to have this bizarre need for owning a gun and get oddly defensive and even patriotic in their defence of what is not only a dangerous weapon, but a completely unnecessary 'tool' which they seem to think they need.

Oh no... here we go again...

I don't agree or disagree with your statement but don't think it'll be received well.

 

[EamerRed]

I thought general consensus was anti-guns in here just by skim reading. If I've sparked something off again I do apologise! Feel free to skip over my comments, it's only opinions at the end of the day.

 

[McLaren]

Yeah I visit this forum every few days, very rarely post as you can tell, but this thread was gold for me.

I love America, I've been travelling there and it's great, the people are great, the place is great, you get the picture. But it's Americans, and only Americans, who seem to have this bizarre need for owning a gun and get oddly defensive and even patriotic in their defence of what is not only a dangerous weapon, but a completely unnecessary 'tool' which they seem to think they need.

Completely unnecessary is a mere assumption; you may be right that we don't need it. But, a lot of gun owners hold weapons only for the sole purpose of defending themselves, mainly their homes/families because they don't trust police reaction times or the person's intent when breaking into their home. You'll find many of these people also became gun owners because they either went through a traumatic event once before or, due to recent events, fill the need to protect themselves at a last resort. A friend of mine is of the latter who recently purchased a handgun after the church shooting, keeping it locked in his glove box, & will be going after his CHL because he no longer trusts others to do so for him. For him, it's at least a last chance to defend himself in a dire situation.

 

[UKMikey]

A friend of mine is of the latter who recently purchased a handgun after the church shooting, keeping it locked in his glove box, & will be going after his CHL because he no longer trusts others to do so for him. For him, it's at least a last chance to defend himself in a dire situation.

It took me a while to realise you were talking about a concealed handgun licence and not the Canadian Hockey League. Thank you Urban Dictionary.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It took a while to realise you were talking about a concealed handgun licence and not the Canadian Hockey League. Thank you Urban Dictionary.

Usually they're referred to as a CCW (concealed carry weapon license) but I usually see that as counter clock wise for specific reasons.

As for what @EamerRed said, @McLaren summed it up nicely. I own my guns for competition purposes, defense and collecting, with the hope of potentially getting back into hunting. I know other people from other countries do this as well and actually participate on this forum. I do agree American's are the most vocal, because they've never known in the 200+ year of this country a time frame in which they couldn't protect themselves with a weapon legally. When people on a small scale decide to undermine that, is when it suddenly becomes an issue for many, which I always find strange because the many ten fold murders committed by organized crimes, and others seem to never be a justification for stricter gun laws.

I get annoyed simply out of the fact that there are many perpetuated notions on the topic, that people who are anti-gun cling to because they really don't know the subject and go off what they hear in a just as misinformed at times media. And then jump on and say whatever without merit. I have no issue with your comment you simply stated you don't understand the need which is fine. I myself don't understand why laws can't be more strict.

 

[EamerRed]

Fair enough to you both for your responses, I don't agree with everything but given the tone of my initial comment you could have responded much more aggressively, so 👍.

@McLaren, your explanation makes a lot of sense and sorry to hear some of the circumstances of course. But why is it that it's only the US in the western world who feels the need to defend themselves in such a way? Is it purely because you have guns legalised or is it more? And I'd argue, that unless you have your weapon on you at all times, all day, every day, then in 90% of the situations where you might need that as a defence, it's useless; you simply won't be able to access it in time. Unless you're sleeping with it, wearing it all day, etc.

@LMSCorvetteGT2, I'm against hunting personally but your explanation provides justification for a 'need' at least. I would disagree with your reference to 'people on a small scale'. I'm pretty certain that in the Westernised world (for want of a better team), people are overwhelmingly anti-gun in Europe and in Australia/New Zealand. And it's very difficult to argue against the stats with regard to gun murders, though granted, you did suggest that gun laws could be stricter.

 

[Biggles]

Completely unnecessary is a mere assumption; you may be right that we don't need it. But, a lot of gun owners hold weapons only for the sole purpose of defending themselves, mainly their homes/families because they don't trust police reaction times or the person's intent when breaking into their home. You'll find many of these people also became gun owners because they either went through a traumatic event once before or, due to recent events, fill the need to protect themselves at a last resort. A friend of mine is of the latter who recently purchased a handgun after the church shooting, keeping it locked in his glove box, & will be going after his CHL because he no longer trusts others to do so for him. For him, it's at least a last chance to defend himself in a dire situation.

The thing is, you can't have it both ways, you can't, like RC45, dismiss the statistical probability of being killed or injured by gun violence (if you don't live in Chicago!) & then claim you need a gun to protect yourself from gun violence. But I understand the point, that faced with traumatic & sensational acts of violence like the Texas church shooting, or the Las Vegas shooting, people feel the need to arm themselves for protection.

That's the trouble with RC45's position: yes, it's true that the majority of gun homicides are a result of urban drug & gang related violence, but the psychological effect of mass shootings is far more significant than just the numbers of killed & injured. Consider, that the number of American citizens killed by terrorism in the US in the last decade is statistically insignificant - much lower than the number of people killed in mass shooting incidents - but the government spends billions & introduces all kinds of restrictive measures to combat the potential threat of terrorism.

The fact that there are already so many firearms in the US makes it an very difficult problem. I really don't know what the solution is, but without more "extreme vetting" of gun purchases the problem is just going to get worse.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMSCorvetteGT2, I'm against hunting personally but your explanation provides justification for a 'need' at least. I would disagree with your reference to 'people on a small scale'. I'm pretty certain that in the Westernised world (for want of a better team), people are overwhelmingly anti-gun in Europe and in Australia/New Zealand. And it's very difficult to argue against the stats with regard to gun murders, though granted, you did suggest that gun laws could be stricter.

When I said small scale I was actually referring to the statistical data showing that mass shootings are very minimal even in the U.S.

In the same way where people say that terrorist attacks in Europe always happen, yet the stats show that the likelihood of you being a victim of one is next to nil, same with mass shootings. Now that doesn't mean laws for either or them shouldn't be more precautionary to prevent them, but it shouldn't be done in a way that takes away or inhibits rights of everyone to "protect" others. That's as simple as I can put it, also I understand the dislike of hunting, I only partake in it for population control or when certain species are invasive, similar to fishing. It's a source of food, some see it as a trophy game, I personally don't agree with that.