Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[Nihilo]

Perhaps criminals forfeit their right to privacy also, and their right against illegal search and seizure, along with their RKBA, when they choose to commit a crime.

I don't like that.
If a person has acquired cash and property legally, then they shouldn't have to forfeit it.
They should only be penalized for the nature of the crime they committed, not for what they did legally.

I'm only saying that criminals have forfeited their RKBA. If they own guns before they choose to become a criminal, then they no longer have the right to own them once they're guilty of committing a crime, and must somehow divest themselves of the guns, through selling them or giving them to someone else. In order to enforce this, maybe these criminals have forfeited their right to not have police examine their homes, to check that they indeed do not possess any guns. I disagree with registration.

 

[Tambora]

One point in this video says that after the church shooter sprayed the crown with shots he walked around checking people on the floor to see if they were still alive and shoot them.
One lady said the shooter was about to shoot her crouching on the floor when he was distracted by the citizen coming with his gun to help.
This was told to squelch the media response of some that the citizen coming with his gun to help saved no one because the shooting was already over.

 

[Tambora]

I'm only saying that criminals have forfeited their RKBA. If they own guns before they choose to become a criminal, then they no longer have the right to own them once they're guilty of committing a crime, and must somehow divest themselves of the guns, through selling them or giving them to someone else. In order to enforce this, maybe these criminals have forfeited their right to not have police examine their homes, to check that they indeed do not possess any guns. I disagree with registration.

OK, I see what you mean.
Thanks for clarifying it to me.

 

[glorydaz]

They are all pro-gunners and therefore support the 'foolish' gun owners by default.

All these parents thought they we're responsible enough to own a gun: https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw.......0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.dcM2Z72z3So

Put up a list of the parents who let their kids drown, get run over, drink poison, choke on small objects....I'm thinking it will be a much longer list.

 

[patrick jane]

Steve Crowder interviews the man that shot at and chased the killer.

I just watched this video. Very moving.

 

[Tambora]

I just watched this video. Very moving.

It was.
He knew what he needed to do.
But once it's over, he will have to accept that no matter how tragic it was to have to what he did, he did the right thing.
And he did mention that he would probably need some counselling to work through the emotions of it.
Very level headed man.

A man with a AR-15.
An NRA instructor.
That's who stopped the shooter.

And the left is against both those things.
The left is stupid.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Put up a list of the parents who let their kids drown, get run over, drink poison, choke on small objects....I'm thinking it will be a much longer list.

Would that get you off?

 

[Gary K]

I'm only saying that criminals have forfeited their RKBA. If they own guns before they choose to become a criminal, then they no longer have the right to own them once they're guilty of committing a crime, and must somehow divest themselves of the guns, through selling them or giving them to someone else. In order to enforce this, maybe these criminals have forfeited their right to not have police examine their homes, to check that they indeed do not possess any guns. I disagree with registration.

And some of this stuff is nuts. I was at a trial as an alternate juror where a guy with a record was sent back to jail for a few years because he had the barrel of a 22 rifle in a box of junk. And he had never been convicted of any violent crimes. Sometimes these laws are used to "get" someone the cops and prosecutors just don't like. The guy was a pretty sleazy guy, but years for a rifle barrel? It seemed, and still seems after a few years, nuts to me.

Have you ever heard Bernard Kerik tell his story of what he learned in jail? It's a fascinating story. Here's a link to a talk he gave on what he learned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9nAnEegryk

 

[patrick jane]

Would that get you off?

You sick vulgar moron.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

You sick vulgar moron.

I am a sick vulgar moron. Hands up, don't shoot!

 

[jsanford108]

I am a sick vulgar moron. Hands up, don't shoot!

You know the "hands up" shooting was proven to be another false application by leftists, right?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

You know the "hands up" shooting was proven to be another false application by leftists, right?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

What I know is that people with guns kill others and themselves. They are of the Devil.

 

[jsanford108]

What I know is that people with guns kill others and themselves. They are of the Devil.

Is this also your stance with cars? If not, then it is an illogical position.

Also, more people are saved by guns than killed with guns. So, your entire premise is false.

 

[Nihilo]

So what you're saying is, rather than jump to change the gun laws, to make them stricter, that we should focus on enforcing the current laws, that have been on the books already for many years, and that if we did that, then that alone would significantly address the criminals-getting-guns problem?

:think:

Yes, now your starting to talk sense. This would be a start. I would not think taking away guns immediately (as you assume I think) would help, that would just cause a violent uproar, but by 'chipping' away at the current problem by taking small steps like that would help.

Enforcing current law is a standard conservative answer to this problem. I didn't realize that the FBI background check procedure is already so fraught with problems, that this standard conservative answer is an idea with legs.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Is this also your stance with cars? If not, then it is an illogical position.

Also, more people are saved by guns than killed with guns. So, your entire premise is false.

Cars are not as bad but still of the Devil, they should run on water and air and be made of sponge so they don't hurt people.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

​

Enforcing current law is a standard conservative answer to this problem. I didn't realize that the FBI background check procedure is already so fraught with problems, that this standard conservative answer is an idea with legs.

Yes that's right we need more legs, less guns.

 

[Nihilo]

Yes that's right we need more legs, less guns.

Whenever the day comes where no police nor military feels that guns are needed, then we'll be able to discuss what the right to keep and bear arms means at that point, but obviously we are not there right now.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Whenever the day comes where no police nor military feels that guns are needed, then we'll be able to discuss what the right to keep and bear arms means at that point, but obviously we are not there right now.

I've been trying to communicate just that from the beginning. It will take hundreds of small steps on both sides (law enforcement and the public) to reduce the number of guns. In the UK there is a constant battle to do this as the UK is pressured by the infiltration of weapons, mainly from abroad. Just today there was another gun amnesty announced:

https://www.itv.com/news/2017-11-13...s-uk-targeting-gang-weapons-and-war-trophies/

A good thing.

 

[jsanford108]

Cars are not as bad but still of the Devil, they should run on water and air and be made of sponge so they don't hurt people.

No, cars are much worse.
Cars: Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.

Guns: 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (Note that deaths do not include intent), 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries.

So, cars are much worse than guns. And we allow 16 year-olds to operate cars.

 

[Nihilo]

There is no question that the US has a extremely high homicide rate. The question is, is the homicide rate so high because of guns or because of people.

Murderers murder. More murderers = more murders.

I haven't confirmed the accuracy of this data, but there's obviously a big "hump" from the mid-1960s to the end of the 1990s, and recently we're back to the murder rate from 1950 to the mid-1960s.

I can say that the number of guns per capita in the US from 2000 to now has done nothing but increase. Now, there are about 100 civilian owned guns in the US per 100 people, and before President Obama's election, it was closer to 90 per 100, and back in 2000 I believe it was even less. So right here, in this chart, if the data is good, we can see zero correlation between more guns and more murders.

So you anti's should shut up, is my thought. :think:

In 1968, there were about 6 murders in America per 100,000 Americans. From 1968 until the mid 1990s, the murder rate went up to 8-11 per 100,000 Americans, and recently it's back to about 6 per 100,000.

In 1968, there were about 50,000 civilian owned guns in America per 100,000 Americans.
Now, there are about 100,000 civilian owned guns in America per 100,000 Americans.

If guns caused murders, we should be at about 12 murders per 100,000 Americans, and we see this is completely wrong.

Do the math. The math doesn't add up. Murderers murder, not guns.

Also, 100,000 guns per 100,000 Americans! Only 6 murders per 100,000 Americans. It would be nice if America had less murderers.