Church of Christ Shooting: 2 Dead, 1 Critical In White Settlement, Texas

Gun ownership equals gun crime?!?!?!??

A lie

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

That was a really long-winded way of saying “I don’t think your rights are actually rights and since I don’t agree with your right, I’m not going to actually answer your question.”

See how much more succinct that was?

Your attempt at summary might be succinct but it lacks any explanation and support of the issues under the debate. Nor is it a true summation of my response.

You asked me a question which would require me to examine the rest of the US Constitution for flaws or errors. I could do so, but it doesn't actually address the issue of the 2nd. Such a question and answer is beside the point, off-topic, and you would, no doubt, disagree, or not even give my response the deep consideration that such things require.

I could, for instance, point out that the 13th Amendment, while ostensibly ending slavery, actually has a caveat where slavery for convicts is still allowed and that it also lacks definition about what sort of conviction warrants enslavement (jay walking? loitering?). Some states have redressed this in legislation but not all. The US at large still has legal slavery on the books.

Since I will be ignored, and it's a lot of work, for which I am disinclined, if you wish, you could look at: Essay: Problems with the current US Constitution - Rational Wiki which should give you hours of fun and contemplation. That is, of course, if you were actually serious about your question in the first place.

a reply to: chr0naut

US law statutory law was subsequent to the Constitution and bill of rights. The 2nd existed from within a year of the birth of the US. There already was law, with major loopholes, there from the start.

What are you babbling about now? I was responding to your attempt at a metaphor of car ownership. Did you nap between postings and wake up in a new reality or something?

The quoted text does not say 'young' children, you added that word in there.

I most certainly did not! I copy and paste every excerpt I post here. Here's your link, liar, and here is the exact copy/pasted excerpt:

Last week, in what’s actually become a pretty standard week in America, two young children shot two other children dead with unsecured guns. Nothing about this is a surprise, really—89 percent of unintentional shooting deaths of children take place in the home, when children are playing with a loaded gun while their parents are out. American children are 9 times more likely to be killed by a gun than are kids in other developed nations. There are more than 310 million guns in the United States, and more than 30 percent of Americans report that they have a gun in their home. Those guns are not always stored securely. A RAND Corporation study showed that about 1.4 million households (with an estimated 2.6 million children) had firearms stored unlocked and either loaded or with ammunition nearby.

Nothing added, nothing deleted. That's what it says.

So, does it occur to you that it could be applied to a case of potential personal injury through firearms, or do you think that a law has to explicitly list the tens of thousands of things that might possibly be covered?

That would depend on the circumstances. Having a loaded firearm is not illegal in any way, shape, form, or fashion here. So you might wanna stay there... another reason to celebrate the 2nd Amendment: it keep people like you where you are.

We have stricter gun laws, and a lower crime rate, here. I'm way safer than you and don't have to bother.

Well, at least we now know why you are so worried about someone shooting you. You go out of your way to deserve it, apparently.

Don't worry; folks around here wouldn't shoot you for, say, falsely accusing them of editing a source. Might beat the crap out of you... maybe you should outlaw hands.

Burglars are very definitely going to be looking through all your stuff for whatever is valuable.

Only if ghosts are real.

Guns are at their least safety, when firing. Bullets can ricochet and also can travel beyond a missed target. They are little packets of non-safety.

A decent shooter takes that into consideration. We're not big fans of "spray and pray" around here... too expensive. Better to practice true gun control and hit the target.

There are sporting pastimes that occupy several hours every weekend. An hour or so a month is not excessive especially if it saves a life.

You covered a lot more than an hour or so a month... mandatory participation in clubs, mandatory reporting of several items, mandatory ongoing training... what, you think those restrictions take 4 seconds each?

There are nearly 100 gun deaths a day in the US. How come you never hear about them on the news? However, you do hear about the times when the Police mistakenly shoot unarmed and innocent people. That's on the news a fair bit, even internationally. Those are cases very similar to the scenarios I proposed. I know you know about those.

Again, the vast majority of those "gun deaths" are either self-inflicted (suicide), criminal behavior, or from law enforcement. Only a tiny fraction are from actual shootings by legal gun owners. Out of that tiny fraction, most of those are in the bigger cities like Chi-raq. You know this already, as I have pointed it out to you at least three times now in this one thread, but you seem unwilling to even acknowledge it... why is that? Does it not match the narrative you want to project?

Chicago actually has gun ownership of about 243 per 100,000 residents. Perhaps that explains the high statistics and is more pertinent because it relates actual gun ownership to gun crime, rather than some statute/s.

That's 0.243% of the population that owns guns. Around here, with our low crime rate, it's more like 50% or more that own guns. Again, 0.243% ownership: nationally recognized crime-ridden area; 50+% gun ownership: almost no crime.

Tell me again about the experiment and the results?

I just did, but let me see if I can find a few statistics of my own...

Eight thousand people were interviewed for the Ministry of Justice’s crimes and victims survey, the country’s first, with 29% of New Zealanders saying they had been a victim of crime in the past 12 months.

The survey found 1.77m crimes were committed in the past year but only a fraction – 256,000 – were then reported to police and recorded officially.

Burglary, harassment and fraud were the most common crimes committed in New Zealand, and Māori people were more likely to be victims of crime, with 37% of indigenous respondents reporting being the victim of a criminal incident in the past year.

Wow... interesting... especially the title: New Zealand survey suggests real crime figures could be seven times official tally

It seems your little paradise isn't paradise, especially for brown people. Never realized you guys were so racist over there. Would you like the few KKK members we have left? They would apparently fit right in, and we don't really want them here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

I could, for instance, point out that the 13th Amendment, while ostensibly ending slavery, actually has a caveat where slavery for convicts is still allowed and that it also lacks definition about what sort of conviction warrants enslavement (jay walking? loitering?).

Imprisonment and forced labor are the methods we use here to punish criminals. In some respects, that can be seen as a type of slavery: the convict is prohibited from walking freely and forced to perform a service for no pay. So the exception is there to ensure that some dimwit doesn't try to make a case that criminal imprisonment is slavery and therefore prohibited by the 13th Amendment.

You know... like you just did.

I'm curious: how do you punish criminals over there? Give them a good talking to? Tell them they've been bad boys?

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

Nor is it a true summation of my response.

That’s your opinion, anyway. If you’re going to go on long winded rants about your opinion of other people’s rights, you can handle having your opinion given the same treatment. My opinion of your rant is that rather than answer the question posed, you ducked it.

You asked me a question which would require me to examine the rest of the US Constitution for flaws or errors.

As you should do when discussing things. Kudos to you for being upfront about not caring enough to do so.

I could do so, but it doesn't actually address the issue of the 2nd. Such a question and answer is beside the point, off-topic, and you would, no doubt, disagree, or not even give my response the deep consideration that such things require.

The question was which other rights in the BoR and amendments are you willing to treat as you would treat the second. It is very much germane to your treatment of the 2nd. But by all means, blame what you think I would do for your unwillingness to answer the question.

I could, for instance, point out that the 13th Amendment, while ostensibly ending slavery, actually has a caveat where slavery for convicts is still allowed and that it also lacks definition about what sort of conviction warrants enslavement (jay walking? loitering?). Some states have redressed this in legislation but not all. The US at large still has legal slavery on the books.

You could, but nobody asked you point out flaws in other amendments. The question asked was what other amendments would you treat the same way as you wish to see the 2nd treated.

Since I will be ignored, and it's a lot of work, for which I am disinclined, if you wish, you could look at: Essay: Problems with the current US Constitution - Rational Wiki which should give you hours of fun and contemplation. That is, of course, if you were actually serious about your question in the first place.

If you’re going to preemptively blame me for your unwillingness to answer a question, it seems awful silly to blame me for not answering it while simultaneously answering a question I didn’t even ask.

This was fun though, thanks.

More fake news for New Years... same old gun control psy ops and fear mongering by bad crysis actors using worse props.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
A “very good reason” for owning a gun IS ‘self defense’

Therefore, according to EVERY leftist

It’s perfectly acceptable for everyone to own a gun

In New Zealand, you will not be granted a gun license if your only reason is self defense.

You see, self defense is a possible reason only in some rare situations, but you do not have to defend yourself against anyone for most of the time. In fact even though you may have reasoned that you got the gun for defense, it may never come to pass that you use the gun for that reason, as the situation may never arise.

Self defense is an inadequate reason for gun ownership.

a reply to: chr0naut

Self defense is an inadequate reason for gun ownership.

only in nations in which the government fears its citizens
such governments are inadequate
as are their citizens

a reply to: chr0naut

Christians don't kill people

perhaps you should wiki the spanish inquisition?

a reply to: chr0naut
well now

Criminals have more motivation to get a gun than others who are just responding to the criminals.

we just invent these statements now? out of thin air?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Better to expect them and they not come, than to not expect them and they do come.

The situation i wrote about was in a multi level apartment in a city. Do you expect a rabid raccoon there?

The two legged kind know how to pick up and use guns.

They also know that in a gunfight they have a high probability of losing. The average criminal can't shoot worth a whit. The average legal gun owner is a pretty fair shot. Quite a few are literally marksmen.

There are criminals that are are ex-police and ex-military, they are in gun clubs and in the NRA. They go hunting, shoot at targets, they have families and drive cars. Everything else in their lives is law abiding and 'normal' to the way everyone else acts. The are criminals because the commit a crime, not because they are a type.

Criminals are not less deadly with firearms than 'the good guys'.

Do you think that criminals can't shoot based upon TV and movies? Consider that it would sort of ruin the story if the 'bad guy' killed the 'good guy' with one shot right at the beginning of a gun fight.

But in reality, that's the way most shootings occur. One round, one death. If the round is pointed at you, you would be extremely lucky to survive.

It takes zero skill to shoot someone fatally. The accidental death statistics are proof of that. An unskilled, first time shooter is far more deadly than a marksman, who may choose not to shoot someone fatally because they are aware of the implications.

On actual statistics, 'bad' shooters shoot multiple people and only one 'good guy' takes out that 'bad guy'. The 'bad guys' win on numbers of total deadliness with a firearm.

Most Americans live in big cities. They just do.

Big cities have more crime. More reason to have something to protect oneself with.

Some big cities, and some entire countries, don't have more crime. Go figure?

Aside from your previous non-fact, here's a page List of countries by firearm-related death rate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try sorting by 'total gun deaths' and then try sorting by 'guns per 100 residents'. See the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths? It's pretty obvious.

But you can always probably counter with an exception - taken from a country flooded with guns and with an extremely high gun death rate - that's valid, isn't it?

I live close to town and have always been fairly suburban. I'd have a hard go of it surviving in the desert but have done some survival training and have lived in the outback.

Translation: "I'm a city slicker who thinks country people are just backwards hicks and don't need to defend themselves. I couldn't last six months living in the country if my life depended on it, because I don't have any idea what it is actually like."

Where I live now, is rural. I even used to run cattle and horses (up until last month, the physical side of things is becoming too much as I age). I still have a goat and about 6 free-range chickens. I have lived here for 13 years. We are not connected to any town sewage system or town potable water supply, but do get power from the grid and have TV, phones and Internet.

Your assumptions about me not surviving in the country aren't correct. If you actually really lived in the country, yourself, than you'd know it isn't that hard a thing to do.

Seen it, heard it all before.

I don't know that TV counts?

Well, when you constantly argue against factual evidence, base your entire viewpoint on opinions of those you do not even know, and quote legal arguments you don't even understand... well, yeah, it's hard not to make fun of you.

It's sort of like when you're watching an old classic horror movie and the blonde bimbo with the bad attitude shows up... you're just sitting there on the edge of the seat waiting for her to get gobbled or chopped up or ripped apart.

As for me "losing"... I'm not the one basing my position on the opinion of some writer that I've never met.

TheRedneck

Despite your denial of it, I provide clear authentic statistics where I can and I seem to have countered every single point you have raised so far in this topic, with rational argument, valid scenarios (that do occur) and with actual data.

However, see that penultimate two paragraphs you just wrote. Were they actually speaking to the topic or were they, instead, a weak attempt at smearing my character?

This was the very thing I was describing previously and yet you responded with more of the same off topic impoliteness.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: CthruU

Actually it was DEFENSE OF ANOTHER,but it would had become self defense later after they turned around.

The Bible allows for defense of others as well btw. We are to protect those who cannot defend themselves as well.

Please cite the chapter and verse.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: TheRedneck

edition.cnn.com...

Exactly.

In Kennesaw, it is ‘required by law’ that every household MUST have a firearm. Because of scarcity of law enforcement, not because of wild animals coming down from the hills, not because of hunting or national defence, but for preventing crime (Very few exemptions like you said). And if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you

And you are correct, firearm crimes did NOT increase when this law was passed, they did the opposite. Decreased

Guns save lives

Guns PREVENT crimes

Kennesaw has numbers of gun deaths on record. In the year prior to the 1982 ordinance, they had zero gun deaths. Any increase on zero is actually a worsening of gun crime.

Also, since the gun ordinance was entirely voluntary, could not possibly apply to felons, or the insane, or others prohibited from having guns, and did not force those who could not afford guns to purchase one. I would say that as legislation it was a nothing. It had no force of law. According to the mayor and the Sheriff, the law was unenforceable.

As I pointed out in another post, In New Zealand, we have hundreds of similarly sized towns with zero gun crime, ever. I'm sure that even in the US there are towns with zero gun crime.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
Gun ownership equals gun crime?!?!?!??

A lie

Statistically, gun ownership correlates with gun crime.

The lie is taking a specific case (or cases) out of a broader and varied data set and saying it applies as the rule.

a reply to: chr0naut

Another lie

Self defense is a more-than-adequate reason for gun ownership

In EVERY state

a reply to: chr0naut

Psalm 82:4. Deliver the weak and needy from evil.

Nehemiah 4, the people are charged to fight for their brothers and family.

Luke 22, don’t have a sword? Sell something and get one.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
I think someone’s upset at the absolute total failure of the nz government to convince its citizens to hand over their semi-auto rifles.

It was an absolute failure.

Less than one third of projected numbers were handed in.

Absolute failure. The licensed firearm holders are laughing in the face of the government and the police.

But not as hard as the criminals are laughing. They’re the real winners of the law changes there. They get to keep 100% of their guns. Funny that.

If a low-iq, poorly-thought-out, knee-jerk ‘gun grab’ policy like that was ever attempted in the United States, it would be even more of a failure than it was in new zealand

The truth is that no-one knew the actual gun ownership figures in New Zealand. For this reason, they were reported as a range of possibilities.

While the figures at the top of that range might make it look like the actual surrendered guns fall way sort. The bottom figures of that range are very close to the number of surrendered guns.

The real proof of the success or failure of the legislation will be the changes in numbers of gun deaths. Since they were low from the start (partly due to previous legislation), it is far too early to call it a failure.

If you want statistical proof of the efficacy of gun restrictions, all you have to do is look at the 1000 deaths a day from a country where there is gun proliferation.

a reply to: chr0naut

It was a failure

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

Psalm 82:4. Deliver the weak and needy from evil.

This is a plea to God. It's also not the entire verse. Context!

Nehemiah 4, the people are charged to fight for their brothers and family.

But did they actually fight, or did they merely display that they were capable of defending themselves and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem? Again, context!

Luke 22, don’t have a sword? Sell something and get one.

In this instance Jesus said that the two swords that they already had were sufficient - among 11 disciples. In terms of actual use, they would clearly be insufficient, but in terms of a visible deterrent, they were enough.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: chr0naut

It was a failure

You only believe so because you want so hard to believe it.

The actual circumstances are already displayed clearly in US gun statistics.