Mass shooting in Southern Texas Church

[Blood Eagle]

In that logic somebody should have the freedom to own drugs or own nuclear weapons. There are laws and rules for a reason.
A weapon should not be owned by the general public. Its use is solely to kill. It should only be accessible to people with training (cops, military, professionals etc.) and have no place out in the open.

I served in the US Marine Corps for 8 years and literally have years of training and lots of US Taxpayer money invested into me for those purposes. I also took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I've been out for several years. Does that mean I get a free pass because I have training or since I'm not technically employed by the US Government I should not have access to weapons because I'm part of the general public now? Do you think there is an expiration date on an oath? Did the Oath only apply for me during my service and now has expired? I know there are a lot of people who think it's a viable solution but it's not and Americans will never give up certain rights and this one is a big one. It's hard for non Americans to understand but the disarming of American Citizens isn't going to happen and if it was attempted, look the 🤬 out!

 

[Northstar]

Is everyone ignoring the fact that he still thinks an automatic weapon was used?

I gave up when he forgot Mexico existed.

 

[Tecticles]

Whoa folks, I'm not here to suggest we all be Sheeple. I'm not saying the discussions and differing views shouldn't be shared. I'm saying why here? In this thread.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Whoa folks, I'm not here to suggest we all be Sheeple. I'm not saying the discussions and differing views shouldn't be shared. I'm saying why here? In this thread.

It was explained to you already. This is GTP, any thread that has ANYTHING to do with firearms turns into a gun control debate. It's really simple. You'll see if you continue to read the opinion section of GTP.

 

[PocketZeven]

Congratulations, you’ve just stated why the 2nd Amendment exists to begin with.

@Famine pointed out a great example of an unarmed society vs an armed govt with what happened in Spain earlier this year; police forced their way into voting polls to confiscate the votes and those citizens had no way of fighting back for a freedom they wanted. Otherwise, if there was someone armed, that police force would’ve given 2nd thought to just busting in.

The amendment was written in another time.

Spain is a bad example since it would have been very violent if each side had guns. A lot of people would have died in Spain.

 

[Northstar]

Spain is a bad example since it would have been very violent if each side had guns. A lot of people would have died in Spain.

That is actually what makes it a good example. Nothing gets the international press wound up like a government forcing their will via bloodshed.

 

[GBO Possum]

Here's an offer US gun lovers surely can't refuse

1. We reduce the number of guns owned per head of population in the US to be in line with comparable countries
2. I'll send my thoughts and prayers to said gun lovers if they feel bad. That's a tried and proven* remedy

* (Proven to be the preferred response of gun lovers to deaths and injuries, not just injured feelings)

 

[Danoff]

Whoa folks, I'm not here to suggest we all be Sheeple. I'm not saying the discussions and differing views shouldn't be shared. I'm saying why here? In this thread.

Here's why. Mass-killing occurs, GTP thread is started, it turns out guns were used, gun bans are proposed. We now have a choice, let those proposals go uncontested out of respect for the thread, thereby tacitly lending credence to that reaction, or respond to it. However tasteless the immediate political discussion may be (and it's becoming more and more commonplace in the US), it is technically on topic. So I hold my nose and participate in what is a worthy discussion in its own right - gun control.

Here's an offer US gun lovers surely can't refuse

1. We reduce the number of guns owned per head of population in the US to be in line with comparable countries
2. I'll send my thoughts and prayers to said gun lovers if they feel bad. That's a tried and proven* remedy

* (Proven to be the preferred response of gun lovers to deaths and injuries, not just injured feelings)

I'm an atheist gun owner. Try again.

 

[Blood Eagle]

The amendment was written in another time.

So was the 1st but I don't see people complaining about fully automatic printing presses that are flinging out 1,000 newspapers a minute. Drop the "it was written in a different time" argument. Amendments were written as a protections of rights and not singling out specific weapons like people want to base their argument around the 2nd Amendment. It's pure and simple protection of rights.

 

[Dennisch]

I'm an atheist gun owner. Try again.

Thoughts and spaghetti!

 

[rono_thomas]

A curious question:

How many deaths are there because someone was acting in self defence, protecting themselves with a gun?

 

[Danoff]

A curious question:

How many deaths are there because someone was acting in self defence, protecting themselves with a gun?

Deaths or wrongful deaths?

 

[rono_thomas]

Deaths or wrongful deaths?

Inclusive of all, a death that has been caused by a gun in self defence, I guess during the agressive act.

 

[GBO Possum]

I'm an atheist gun owner. Try again.

I'm an atheist too, so should I just send "thoughts"? I'm sure many of the politicians who say they are sending prayers have never had a conversation with a god either, so it doesn't matter. I'm still offering both.

Plus some reading - http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarks...alias-gun-laws-shows-one-thing-they-work.html

 

[Danoff]

I'm an atheist too, so should I just send "thoughts"? I'm sure many of the politicians who say they are sending prayers have never had a conversation with a god either, so it doesn't matter. I'm still offering both.

Plus some reading - http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarks...alias-gun-laws-shows-one-thing-they-work.html

I'm pretty sure that argument has been addressed on every single page of this thread, sometimes more than once. If not, it seems that way.

 

[PocketZeven]

That is actually what makes it a good example. Nothing gets the international press wound up like a government forcing their will via bloodshed.

What I meant was that there was no bloodshed. No guns prevented deaths. I’m from Europe so I know some details around the Catalan revolt. So please be free to google it. Essentially it is a rich province that wants more independence in decision making. Like the states have in us. Not government forcing their will.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Here's an offer US gun lovers surely can't refuse

1. We reduce the number of guns owned per head of population in the US to be in line with comparable countries

Funny you mention that. Heard someone say that in Japan you are 100x less likely to get shot than in the US. 50x less in the UK and so on. I don't know if the statistics are real or pulled out of a hat but in a Country like the USA where there is more guns than people you'd figure Americans are 300,000,000% more likely to get shot than a country without guns but it's not that way. 2m guns in the UK and 300m in the US and we are more likely to get shot? Sounds like a pretty good gamble to me for something as trivial as Civil Liberties. It's amazing I've never been shot in pushing 40 years as an American Citizen. I'm amazed you are living to post on GTP on account of the American flag in your location. But I'm willing to bet that you, like most Americans do not live in constant fear of being shot even with the massive numbers of guns in the States. I feel like a lot of Europeans think of the US as some sort of war zone wild west where there are firefights on every corner. It's actually pretty funny to think about.

 

[GBO Possum]

I'm pretty sure that argument has been addressed on every single page of this thread, sometimes more than once. If not, it seems that way.

And so it should!

Until the issue is addressed with more than platitudes and diversions.

If we become inured to the carnage, we are not a civilized nation. By pointing this out, do you wish to silence opposition to the US gun problem?

 

[Danoff]

And so it should!

Until the issue is addressed with more than platitudes and diversions.

If we become inured to the carnage, we are not a civilized nation. By pointing this out, do you wish to silence opposition to the US gun problem?

I suspect you have not read those responses... if you have, your post doesn't make much sense.

 

[GBO Possum]

But I'm willing to bet that you, like most Americans do not live in constant fear of being shot even with the massive numbers of guns in the States

True. That's because I live in one of the most regulated states (Massachusetts) and the gun death rate (and ownership) here is low. Approximately equal to Canada. Also, it doesn't hurt that politically, people in my vicinity lean to the left (if you can call Democrats "left"!)

So I feel safe where I am. When I travel southwards, I do so with a watchful eye, and avoid risk-taking.

 

[Famine]

What I meant was that there was no bloodshed. No guns prevented deaths.

But there was bloodshed.

The police had guns. They even had illegal ammunition for them. Their guns - and a disarmed population - acted as an enabler. It enabled them to savagely assault innocent people, and even other public servants like firefighters who tried to protect them, free from any fear of retaliation.

The people they assaulted were voting. That's literally all that they were doing. The police not only assaulted them, they broke into polling stations and stole the ballot boxes.


So that's a disarmed population and a militarised police force interfering with basic democratic process and rights. We have a word for regimes like that. And we usually ask the USA to go into those countries and execute "regime change".

 

[Northstar]

I'm an atheist too, so should I just send "thoughts"? I'm sure many of the politicians who say they are sending prayers have never had a conversation with a god either, so it doesn't matter. I'm still offering both.

Plus some reading - http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarks...alias-gun-laws-shows-one-thing-they-work.html

Gun laws would have stopped this incident and in fact said laws are already in place. They are meaningless if the government doesn't do their job though, which is what happened here.

So that may be why some of us are unwilling to give them even more control.

What I meant was that there was no bloodshed. No guns prevented deaths. I’m from Europe so I know some details around the Catalan revolt. So please be free to google it. Essentially it is a rich province that wants more independence in decision making. Like the states have in us. Not government forcing their will.

I'm going to try this once more.

Had there been a bloodbath, Spain would be the subject of a lot more than some scrutiny, so they may have thought twice about going to polling stations and messing with people.

 

[RC45]

The amendment was written in another time.

If that is the case then perhaps we need to reign back freedom of expression and freedom of the press and freedom of religion... after all, those where different times.

While you are at it, how about we just appoint a king and let the people be serfs again

Spain is a bad example since it would have been very violent if each side had guns. A lot of people would have died in Spain.

That is the point - a government is violently oppressing an unarmed people - simply because they can - the people are unarmed. Had they been armed, perhaps the government would take seriously their desire to be independent.

 

[Danoff]

True. That's because I live in one of the most regulated states (Massachusetts) and the gun death rate (and ownership) here is low. Approximately equal to Canada. Also, it doesn't hurt that politically, people in my vicinity lean to the left (if you can call Democrats "left"!)

So I feel safe where I am. When I travel southwards, I do so with a watchful eye, and avoid risk-taking.

Like... to DC? Which is left leaning, and has tons of gun regulations, and tons of gun crime?

 

[rono_thomas]

Ok this quotes that there was 1 justifiable homicide to 38 murders, suicides and accidental deaths in a five year period ending in 2012.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.la...lf-defense-charleston-20150619-story,amp.html

Is this figure trustworthy?

The 2nd amendment is to enusre a free state?

Do Americans fear that without bearing and keeping weapons the free state is likely to change?

 

[Carbonox]

What I want to know is how many people who claim their thoughts and prayers are with the victims are actually praying for them.

 

[RC45]

Funny you mention that. Heard someone say that in Japan you are 100x less likely to get shot than in the US. 50x less in the UK and so on. I don't know if the statistics are real or pulled out of a hat but in a Country like the USA where there is more guns than people you'd figure Americans are 300,000,000% more likely to get shot than a country without guns but it's not that way. 2m guns in the UK and 300m in the US and we are more likely to get shot? Sounds like a pretty good gamble to me for something as trivial as Civil Liberties. It's amazing I've never been shot in pushing 40 years as an American Citizen. I'm amazed you are living to post on GTP on account of the American flag in your location. But I'm willing to bet that you, like most Americans do not live in constant fear of being shot even with the massive numbers of guns in the States. I feel like a lot of Europeans think of the US as some sort of war zone wild west where there are firefights on every corner. It's actually pretty funny to think about.

Such a good gamble that many people have immigrated to the US (as I did in the 1990's) to live in the light of these Civil Liberties rather than continue to live under the shadow of an oppressive regime.

 

[Danoff]

Ok this quotes that there was 1 justifiable homicide to 38 murders, suicides and accidental deaths in a five year period ending in 2012.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.la...lf-defense-charleston-20150619-story,amp.html

Is this figure trustworthy?

Maybe, not sure. Wouldn't tell the whole story though. Not sure this figure is trustworthy either but here you go:

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
...
[1] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology. Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.

Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).

As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.

 

[rono_thomas]

Maybe, not sure. Wouldn't tell the whole story though. Not sure this figure is trustworthy either but here you go:

Thats a huge number. But as a percentage of population I figure its pretty small.

 

[McLaren]

What I meant was that there was no bloodshed. No guns prevented deaths. I’m from Europe so I know some details around the Catalan revolt. So please be free to google it. Essentially it is a rich province that wants more independence in decision making. Like the states have in us. Not government forcing their will.

How is the govt raiding polling places and confiscating votes not forcing their will? They don’t want those people to gain independence.