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

a reply to: vonclod

I understand the argument, I'm just not convinced a bunch more unqualified people packing makes it better, sometime I'm sure it would, but there of course would be times it would go sideways. But that is just my opinion, I do understand where you're coming from.

The inherent argument there is that people are "unqualified." That's a difficult thing to show. I consider myself qualified to have a firearm, as I also consider most of the people I know as qualified. No one I know (including myself) has any sort of 'certificate' that was provided by any organization, but that's irrelevant IMO.

"Qualification" comes from familiarity with the tool and its proper use. I use several tools to do the things I do... a chainsaw is extremely dangerous... it can literally behead someone if used improperly. Am I "qualified" to use a chainsaw? Yes! I am qualified to use it because I was taught from an early age how to use it and how to respect it so I am as safe as possible when using it. My table saw can take a hand off in under a second. Am I qualified to use it? Yes! My father taught me how to use them safely. I have been using both tools for 40 years now, and never lost a body part.

Now, there are certain people I know who I will not allow to use my chainsaw. Why? Because I have seen them act carelessly around tools and thus I do not trust them with a tool that powerful. That does not mean I think they should be required to jump through some hoops before being able to buy their own chainsaw; it simply means I am not going to be around them when they are using one.

Now, let's apply that principle to guns. Most people I know, as I said, I have no problem with having guns... indeed, we target shoot and occasionally hunt together. I am lucky enough to have my own target range. But there was this one guy I knew in my youth - let's call him "Billy" (not his real name) who was not safe with a firearm.

A friend from out of town had brought his guns up to do some target shooting (he was a big gun collector). One of them was this absolutely sweet little German-made Walther PPK .380 (yes, the "James Bond gun"). Billy wanted to try it, and we all figured it would be the easiest for him to handle. Of course, he didn't think about the slide coming back and gripped it way too high on the stock. We did get the bleeding stopped before having to call for help, but we wouldn't let him shot anything except a revolver or lever action after that. To be honest, he didn't want to anyway.

Billy was not safe with a gun. He was heavily, and I do mean heavily, supervised after that by everyone involved. Now, if Billy were to call me up later and tell me he had bought a gun and wanted to target shoot, would I have replied that yes, he was welcome to come up and practice? No! I would want others around to help me supervise him. Would I allow him to hunt here? Hell no! So the result is that Billy is accepted around his friends only when he is unarmed. People like to be around friends, so Billy will likely never buy a gun, at least until he learns the proper way to use them safely.

That works, and has worked well for untold generations, as long as the majority of people were trained in firearm safety. That used to be (and still is around here) done by their parents. It was/is as much a part of raising children as explaining the birds and the bees. The problem is that more and more people each generation are not taught about firearm safety, and thus the number of people who are safe with firearms has been decreasing. This is particularly true in more progressive cities where people, grown adults, are literally terrified of an inanimate object. The only thing they teach their children about guns is that they are to be feared and avoided at all costs... and what to children do when they learn something is a mysterious taboo? They seek it out!

That's just human nature.

This goes back to the parents and the community. The parents who do not teach their children about firearm safety are neglecting their duty and literally placing their own children in harm's way. In my opinion it is bordering on child neglect. No matter who someone is, there is always someone around who knows firearm safety well enough to teach their children... even if it be a shooting range with instructors who do it for a living.

The real issue is between those who see the tools needed for a comfortable, safe life as simply tools, and those who see the exact same tools as some sort of evil demon. Mankind has been making and using tools for untold eons... yeah, someone is gonna chop off a finger in a table saw; someone is gonna lose a leg to a chainsaw; someone is gonna get all dead from a gunshot... but that is no reason to stop the use of tools for everyone. It is a cause for education and supervision while learning.

Not intending to be disrespectful of the deceased, but in some ways it can be seen as the final "survival of the fittest" obstacle we face as a society. The victims were not less fit in these shootings, obviously, but the shooters are. As long as we allow human nature to take them out, we not only minimize the damage to society, but we also allow that society to advance... hopefully to a place where we can finally have real, lasting peace along with individual freedom.

I find it ironic that the "conservatives" (which literally is defined as resisting change) are the ones who see this as an opportunity for societal advancement due to individual responsibility, while the "progressives" (literally defined as those in favor of change and progress) are the ones who desire to hold society back by limiting what we are able to do for fear someone might get hurt. The truth is that someone is going to get hurt no matter what... people have been killed by exploding water heaters! We need to minimize the dangers, yes, but not at the expense of advancement. Allowing others to use the tools they need, all the tools they need, is the only way we will ever advance.

TheRedneck

This is likely to distract from the turf war stabbing between the Jews and the blacks in New York.

a reply to: chr0naut

Then we should all embrace the inevitable right now? What sort of reasoning is that. Of course danger can be reduced with a little thought and intelligent action.

Hyperbole doesn't work for you.

If I am driving and see someone weaving and driving erratically, I don't try to get restrictions passed on who can buy a car... I avoid them as much as possible and let law enforcement know. I also don't just ignore them and figure the imminent crash is just "God's will." If I am going to potentially be in a situation where a gun is needed for defense, I keep a gun loaded and close at hand. I actually have loaded guns in my home, in easy reach, right now. That's minimizing the danger. I never know when a rabid critter will show up; better to have a loaded gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Your proposals are that no one can have a loaded gun legally, so there is no chance to reduce the danger to oneself with that "little thought and intelligent action."

A little thought would actually tell any thinking person that they have no control over the actions of others who refuse to be controlled. Someone could walk up in my yard in the next 60 seconds with a gun and start firing at my house. Chances are they won't, but they could; criminals exist. Worrying about that slim possibility would be an over-reaction, but I'm not worrying about it. There's a gun here that I can get to quick enough to return fire, and my dog would bark if that happened (or if he didn't have time to bark, I would hear the shot). I'm as prepared as I can reasonably be, so it's not an issue.

There's a higher probability that a rabid coon will wander down out of the mountain. That's pretty dangerous too: any rabid animal will attack and their bite can be fatal if untreated and quite painful if treated. If that happens, again, I will hear the dog, look out the window, see the critter, grab the gun, and kill it. That's what I consider "intelligent action."

I'm not sure how you can consider waiting around unprepared, knowing there is a possibility of a rabid animal biting and/or killing my dog, my chickens, my ducks, my cats, myself, or my wife as "intelligent." That seems about as un-intelligent as one can get to my thinking.

If I go out in public, I can see by the news reports that the chances I will be confronted by someone with a gun who wishes to do me harm are increasing. Therefore, a little thought tells me that I should take some intelligent action to protect myself should that happen. I cannot remove the possibility that I may be shot before being able to react, but I can do something about being able to react one the shooting starts: I can have a gun to defend myself with. That is "intelligent action" based on a "little thought." In the shooting that started this thread, that little thought that led to intelligent action likely saved the lives of dozens of parishioners.

Sitting around wishing that guns did not exist because one is terrified of them, and trying to pass laws to make criminals not have them... that's a position that is devoid of any thought and is definitely not intelligent.

TheRedneck

a reply to: vonclod

If you are pushing gun safety... I agree 100%!

In Alabama, a hunting permit is issued upon completion of a free NRA-sponsored guns safety class for those under a certain age (will eventually be for everyone since they are not changing the date before which one must be born). I have no issue with that at all; I actually support it. A hunting permit around here is a rite of passage; most have one, and almost everyone wants one.

I think something similar would work well in other areas: a firearms safety course that would circumvent those extensive background checks, or perhaps as a prerequisite for a CCP. Almost everyone would want that, so most would take the course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: CthruU

Im not interested in serving any lord. FULL STOP.

Then please stop telling those of us who are how to do so.

Otherwise, why can we not tell you who to serve and how to serve them?

TheRedneck

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.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Hyperbole doesn't work for you.

But it does for you?

If I am driving and see someone weaving and driving erratically, I don't try to get restrictions passed on who can buy a car... I avoid them as much as possible and let law enforcement know. I also don't just ignore them and figure the imminent crash is just "God's will."

So, by that logic, it is OK to sell a car to someone who you know does not hold a valid drivers license, or necessary insurance, or who will not transfer registration to themselves through the DMV?

If I am going to potentially be in a situation where a gun is needed for defense, I keep a gun loaded and close at hand. I actually have loaded guns in my home, in easy reach, right now. That's minimizing the danger.

I hope you don't ever have children in your home. It sounds like you, or they, could die of your 'protection'.

Also, I thought responsible gun owners were supposed to store guns and ammo separately, both under lock and key?

I never know when a rabid critter will show up; better to have a loaded gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Your proposals are that no one can have a loaded gun legally,

That is incorrect.

I propose:
- that one cannot own a gun unless they have a very good reason.
- the carrier undergoes periodic psychological re-evaluation.
- all weapons are cataloged and registered fully and individually.
- the carrier is licensed for the class of weapon and the license is linked to the registered weapon/s.
- the carrier has had accredited training on safety with firearms.
- the carrier has no previous convictions of any sort.
- the carrier stores the weapons and ammunition separately and under lock and key when in transit or not in direct use.
- the carrier agrees to be subject to spot checks for compliance by police or personnel authorized for the task.
- the carrier has no known affiliation with a criminal or terrorist organization.
- the carrier joins a local militia or accredited gun club and participates in social and service meetings at least quarterly
- the carrier must clearly show they are armed, with the gun, bag or holster clearly visible at all times in public.

so there is no chance to reduce the danger to oneself with that "little thought and intelligent action."

A little thought would actually tell any thinking person that they have no control over the actions of others who refuse to be controlled. Someone could walk up in my yard in the next 60 seconds with a gun and start firing at my house.
Chances are they won't, but they could; criminals exist. Worrying about that slim possibility would be an over-reaction, but I'm not worrying about it. There's a gun here that I can get to quick enough to return fire, and my dog would bark if that happened (or if he didn't have time to bark, I would hear the shot). I'm as prepared as I can reasonably be, so it's not an issue.

But if you arm everyone, then some of those whom you arm will be criminals. Some will be mentally unbalanced.

You need to reduce the numbers of criminals and nutcases with guns, to increase safety from attack by guns. You don't disarm criminals or the insane by giving them guns freely.

There's a higher probability that a rabid coon will wander down out of the mountain. That's pretty dangerous too: any rabid animal will attack and their bite can be fatal if untreated and quite painful if treated. If that happens, again, I will hear the dog, look out the window, see the critter, grab the gun, and kill it. That's what I consider "intelligent action."

That would be a valid reason to own a gun, and specifically a rifle.

It would not be a valid reason if you lived in a 3rd floor apartment in a large city.

I'm not sure how you can consider waiting around unprepared, knowing there is a possibility of a rabid animal biting and/or killing my dog, my chickens, my ducks, my cats, myself, or my wife as "intelligent." That seems about as un-intelligent as one can get to my thinking.

The Second Amendment is used as justification to arm everyone, not just yourself. As a justification for a civic wide law, your situation is not typical and therefore valid.

If I go out in public, I can see by the news reports that the chances I will be confronted by someone with a gun who wishes to do me harm are increasing. Therefore, a little thought tells me that I should take some intelligent action to protect myself should that happen. I cannot remove the possibility that I may be shot before being able to react, but I can do something about being able to react one the shooting starts: I can have a gun to defend myself with. That is "intelligent action" based on a "little thought." In the shooting that started this thread, that little thought that led to intelligent action likely saved the lives of dozens of parishioners.

Sitting around wishing that guns did not exist because one is terrified of them, and trying to pass laws to make criminals not have them... that's a position that is devoid of any thought and is definitely not intelligent.

TheRedneck

I respect guns, but I am not terrified of them. To explain this:
I have participated in some hunting with firearms in my youth and several of my friends owned guns for that purpose.
I trained with guns during my national service.
I also have been shot at and disarmed my assailant (It wasn't because I am anything special defensively, it was because I was lucky, it was dark, my assailant was unhinged and they obviously were crap with guns).
Just this year asked for the help of an armed neighbor for some animal control on my property.

There is a time and place for guns. There is no justification for a free-for-all.

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

a reply to: chr0naut

So, by that logic, it is OK to sell a car to someone who you know does not hold a valid drivers license, or necessary insurance, or who will not transfer registration to themselves through the DMV?

Sure is. I've bought many cars like that in my youth. There was never a need to show a driver's license (although I did have one), there was no requirement for insurance (and we somehow all survived, imagine that!) and all the transfer that was needed was a Bill of Sale.

All those requirements are recent, and unnecessary restrictions.

I hope you don't ever have children in your home. It sounds like you, or they, could die of your 'protection'.

They didn't.

Also, I thought responsible gun owners were supposed to store guns and ammo separately, both under lock and key?

Yeah, right, so if someone decides to break in in the middle of the night, I am supposed to ask them politely to wait while I find my keys, unlock both cabinets, and load the guns before they proceed?

If a rabid animal comes into the yard and is attacking my animals, I am to tell them to please wait while I go through all that?

You are a funny man. No, that is not how it works. There has always been a loaded gun within easy reach here, and my kids both knew it was not a toy and not to be touched unless I was with them. That's how it works.

I propose:

...enough restrictions to make it almost impossible to legally own a gun. Of course, the criminals and mentally unbalanced will abide by all that, right?

Are you sure you're not a comedian in real life?

But if you arm everyone, then some of those whom you arm will be criminals. Some will be mentally unbalanced.

You need to reduce the numbers of criminals and nutcases with guns, to increase safety from attack by guns. You don't disarm criminals or the insane by giving them guns freely.

Where did I mention giving people guns freely? I must have missed that... strange since I wrote the posts it was supposedly in.

I am for allowing anyone without a violent criminal history to own a firearm as they see fit. It is not possible to prevent criminals from doing anything by passing laws, Criminals do not follow laws; that's why they are criminals. Nutcases will not follow laws; that's why they are nutcases. Only law-abiding citizens will follow laws, and those law-abiding citizens are the ones who are capable of handling a gun safely... and of taking down an active shooter with an illegal gun.

There was a thread about that very thing a while back... something about a church shooter in Texas... oh, wait! It was this thread!

On the other hand, since you brought it up, there is a small town in Georgia who actually passed a city ordinance that required every household to possess a firearm. There were a few exceptions (religious mainly, but also obviously the inhabitants could not be felons either), but others who could not afford one would be issued a .38 Special handgun. You would probably expect crime to go up as everyone went about their daily activities of shooting each other in the streets, but the opposite happened. Their crime rate for all crimes went to practically zero. The criminals moved out.

That would be a valid reason to own a gun, and specifically a rifle.

It would not be a valid reason if you lived in a 3rd floor apartment in a large city.

Now that brings up an interesting point. So if I can own a gun out here, does that mean I can't move to a 3rd floor apartment in a city? What if I take a trip and have to stay in the 3rd floor of a hotel in the city. Does that count? Do I have to give up my gun and get another one when I get back?

And you're forgetting that in a city, the chances of being broke into and attacked by a two-legged critter rise drastically as the chances of coming across a rabid coon drop.

By the way, a handgun is much more useful for small critters than a rifle, and specifically a rabid critter. They attack immediately, and one needs to be able to aim and fire quickly. Rifles work better for ambush hunting and larger critters. Anyone familiar with firearms would know that.

The Second Amendment is used as justification to arm everyone, not just yourself. As a justification for a civic wide law, your situation is not typical and therefore valid.

Not typical? Really?

Got news for ya, hoss... my situation is VERY typical here. I find it funny that you tend to try to paint yourself as the kind of guy who is able to live in the country, but then think that only a precious few people do not live in cities.

I respect guns, but I am not terrified of them.

Oh, that was a good one! Thanks; I needed a laugh.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself... you certainly are NOT convincing me.

TheRedneck

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

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Kennesaw! Thank you; the name was on the tip of my fingers, but I couldn't quite get it to come out.

It's actually not far from me... drove through a few times. Very nice place... streets are clean, nice homes, businesses in good repair, and plenty of business. People seem to get along with each other and be happy, although I don't see how that is possible. Shouldn't they all be out shooting each other or something? That's what guns do to people, right?

[/mega-dose of extreme sarcasm] (in case anyone didn't get that...)

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Sure is. I've bought many cars like that in my youth. There was never a need to show a driver's license (although I did have one), there was no requirement for insurance (and we somehow all survived, imagine that!) and all the transfer that was needed was a Bill of Sale.

All those requirements are recent, and unnecessary restrictions.

What, like with seat belts? Perhaps the legislation was put there, because, over time, they closed up the loopholes, to prevent dangerous lapses in safety and to prevent crime?

They didn't.

Leave Your Gun Out, Go to Jail - Carelessly stored firearms kill two children a week. That won’t change until we start prosecuting parents. - Slate

Looks like you may have dodged a bullet, there... These writers would hold you criminally negligent and charge you.

However, if someone were injured with the firearms that you have failed to adequately 'safety', then you could potentially be sued for criminal negligence according to my reading of Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-2-2 & 3.

See, your guns can be a threat to you, even if you don't use them!

Yeah, right, so if someone decides to break in in the middle of the night, I am supposed to ask them politely to wait while I find my keys, unlock both cabinets, and load the guns before they proceed?

... and these housebreakers could never just pick up the loaded weapon/s?

(Hey, and the crooks could even claim they didn't know the gun was loaded, because, you know, who just leaves loaded guns lying around)?

If a rabid animal comes into the yard and is attacking my animals, I am to tell them to please wait while I go through all that?

Few animals understand our language. I don't think a gun will help with that.



The law also tends to favor safety over convenience, every time... but it's your call.

You are a funny man. No, that is not how it works. There has always been a loaded gun within easy reach here, and my kids both knew it was not a toy and not to be touched unless I was with them. That's how it works.

Gun rules according to the NRA.

I propose:

...enough restrictions to make it almost impossible to legally own a gun. Of course, the criminals and mentally unbalanced will abide by all that, right?

It allows legal gun ownership and open carry but only for really good reasons, and with controls.

They aren't supposed to be optional.

Are you sure you're not a comedian in real life?

I know some really funny things but I can't think of anything funny about the gun carnage that is occurring. It's a slow day...

Where did I mention giving people guns freely? I must have missed that... strange since I wrote the posts it was supposedly in.

I am for allowing anyone without a violent criminal history to own a firearm as they see fit. It is not possible to prevent criminals from doing anything by passing laws, Criminals do not follow laws; that's why they are criminals. Nutcases will not follow laws; that's why they are nutcases. Only law-abiding citizens will follow laws, and those law-abiding citizens are the ones who are capable of handling a gun safely... and of taking down an active shooter with an illegal gun.

Or, the law abiding citizen will misunderstand some situation, say a plainclothes officer taking down a criminal, and will shoot at the wrong guy.

Or, a criminal, shooting at a plainclothes law enforcement officer will call out "FBI" and will actually get an unwitting accomplice in that eager law-abiding citizen.

Or, A situation may arise where there is no actual initial shooter, say a car backfires, and the law abiding citizen fires upon someone who they think may be armed, or on another armed law abiding citizen.

There was a thread about that very thing a while back... something about a church shooter in Texas... oh, wait! It was this thread!

Wow, really, small world, eh!

On the other hand, since you brought it up, there is a small town in Georgia who actually passed a city ordinance that required every household to possess a firearm. There were a few exceptions (religious mainly, but also obviously the inhabitants could not be felons either), but others who could not afford one would be issued a .38 Special handgun. You would probably expect crime to go up as everyone went about their daily activities of shooting each other in the streets, but the opposite happened. Their crime rate for all crimes went to practically zero. The criminals moved out.

5 towns.

Now that brings up an interesting point. So if I can own a gun out here, does that mean I can't move to a 3rd floor apartment in a city? What if I take a trip and have to stay in the 3rd floor of a hotel in the city. Does that count? Do I have to give up my gun and get another one when I get back?

Are you expecting rabid raccoons?

And you're forgetting that in a city, the chances of being broke into and attacked by a two-legged critter rise drastically as the chances of coming across a rabid coon drop.

By the way, a handgun is much more useful for small critters than a rifle, and specifically a rabid critter. They attack immediately, and one needs to be able to aim and fire quickly. Rifles work better for ambush hunting and larger critters. Anyone familiar with firearms would know that.

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

Not typical? Really?

Got news for ya, hoss... my situation is VERY typical here. I find it funny that you tend to try to paint yourself as the kind of guy who is able to live in the country, but then think that only a precious few people do not live in cities.

I respect guns, but I am not terrified of them.

Most Americans live in big cities. They just do.

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.

Oh, that was a good one! Thanks; I needed a laugh.

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself... you certainly are NOT convincing me.

TheRedneck

Yeah but you aren't even addressing the topic any more. You have devolved into trying to denigrate me personally. I take that to mean you can no longer think of cogent argument. In a polite debate, that means you have lost.

a reply to: chr0naut

What, like with seat belts? Perhaps the legislation was put there, because, over time, they closed up the loopholes, to prevent dangerous lapses in safety and to prevent crime?

Funny... closing loopholes before there is a law to have loopholes.

Looks like you may have dodged a bullet, there... These writers would hold you criminally negligent and charge you.

These writers have opinions... opinions are not law. They're closer to... well, you know the saying.

I will point out one thing in the article:

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.

What ignoramus is leaving young children at home alone unsupervised? There's your problem.

However, if someone were injured with the firearms that you have failed to adequately 'safety', then you could potentially be sued for criminal negligence according to my reading of Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-2-2 & 3.

Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-2-2 defines the meaning of the terms "intentionally," "knowingly," "recklessly," and "criminal neglect." Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-2-3 establishes the minimum requirement for criminal liability and defines the terms "strict liability" and "mental liability." Neither says anything about firearms. The fact that you think they do is simply more evidence that you consider a gun in the hands of a law-abiding person a threat to you personally. That makes me wonder just how many people do you normally try to tick off per day to the point you think they would want to shoot you?

You might be interested to know that a citizen of Alabama is entitled to a CC permit unless law enforcement (usually the Sheriff) can find good cause to deny it. Open carry is completely legal (but will have the police watching you in the cities).

... and these housebreakers could never just pick up the loaded weapon/s?

Sure, if I were to show them where they are. I'm not going to do that. I know my home a bit better than a criminal breaking in. "Within easy reach" is not the same as "laying around in the open." Different letters, you know.

The law also tends to favor safety over convenience, every time... but it's your call.

I am discussing safety. You may not realize this, but an unloaded gun in a locked cabinet is sorta hard to fire. Fact.

I do not care what the NRA thinks. I know how to handle a gun. Been doing it likely longer than you've been alive.

It allows legal gun ownership and open carry but only for really good reasons, and with controls.

For what? 10% of the population? 5%? 1%? Less?

Under your restrictions, even if someone had that "good reason" to carry a gun, they would have to spend so much time complying with the training and social constraints they wouldn't be able to hold a full-time job!

I know some really funny things but I can't think of anything funny about the gun carnage that is occurring. It's a slow day...

Don't sell yourself short. You've already had me laughing hysterically a few times.

Or, the law abiding citizen will...

My God, man, are you reading this stuff? How often has that happened? I have never heard of any of those situations happening here, and I have been watching for over a half-century in an area where at least 50% of everyone you meet is packing heat. You must lay awake at night and try to think of things that might possibly go wrong.

Must be a horrible existence being that afraid of everyone all the time. Maybe if you tried not being overbearing when you're lying through your teeth... just a suggestion.

5 towns

100% success rate. More than 5 towns with very strict gun control laws and massive criminality... why do you think they call Chicago "Chiraq"? Some of the harshest gun control laws in the nation and the worst gun violence in the nation, while every location that requires firearms has a ridiculously low crime rate.

The experiment is over; the results are in. They say you're wrong.

Are you expecting rabid raccoons?

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

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.

Most Americans live in big cities. They just do.

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

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."

Seen it, heard it all before.

Yeah but you aren't even addressing the topic any more. You have devolved into trying to denigrate me personally.

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

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

Actually there are 5 towns that have mandatory gun ownership. Kennesaw and Nelson in Georgia, Gun Barrel City in Texas, Nucla in Colorado and Virgin in Utah.

I suppose the six Fedex workers shot in Kennesaw, aren't in the figures yet? Or perhaps, you only recall the Facebork post and didn't bother to check if it was bogus (like so many posts 2014 - 2017). CRIME STATISTICS - City of Kennesaw Also, since the number of gun homicides in Kennesaw before the gun ordnance was zero, the present numbers indicate that gun crime has actually increased.

Mandatory Gun Ownership in Kennesaw, Georgia - Snopes

My guess is, the crime rate is about the same as in all small towns.

a reply to: chr0naut

That would be a valid reason to own a gun, and specifically a rifle.

You sure seem to have a strange understanding of what a right is.

Question: which of the rest of the bill of rights or other amendments would you be okay placing this level of restriction and control on?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

That would be a valid reason to own a gun, and specifically a rifle.

You sure seem to have a strange understanding of what a right is.

Question: which of the rest of the bill of rights or other amendments would you be okay placing this level of restriction and control on?

True human rights are based on the necessities of human life.

No other country in the world makes a claim that carrying a weapon is a right. The ability to inflict death is not a right, it is an accident of circumstance. Made worse by poor legislature which increases the destructive potential.

Also, the original drafts of the 2nd Amendment clearly indicate that it was about military service and militia membership for national defense. Here's the original text: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The bit about "the right of the people to keep bear arms" isn't even a whole sentence in the current ratified 2nd. See all those commas? They tie all the conditions together into the same sentence. In laws, all the conditions and stipulations within a clause must hold, you can't just cherry pick the bit you want it to say. Any reading that discards the rest of the clause or other caveats and sub clauses, is invalid.

The US was born at the hands of rebels, smugglers and criminals. They included and allowed some really obnoxious, if not downright evil, things as so called 'rights'. Things such as slavery (which has still not been fully abolished in the Constitution), discrimination on sexual and other grounds, no clear right of privacy, no health related rights, no clear rights for those convicted of crimes (even minor ones)...

The US crime rate is very high (and yet they blame immigrants, a tiny portion of their total population). No other country imprisons more citizens or a higher percentage of its citizens - where's the liberty in that?

The whole "Truth, Justice and the American Way" is from a comic book.

The US had 33,636 gun deaths in 2013. There are probably significantly more now. It overrides all other argument.

And yet

It is a 100% guarantee that the 2nd amendment will not be infringed upon within the next century

Much to the dismay of the weak and the gutless and much to the dismay of those who are AFRAID of guns

Whinge and whimper all you want

Guns are a RIGHT. Guns PREVENT crime. Guns save lives. That’s a fact.

Butthurt libs be damned

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?

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

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Funny... closing loopholes before there is a law to have loopholes.

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.

These writers have opinions... opinions are not law. They're closer to... well, you know the saying.

I will point out one thing in the article: What ignoramus is leaving young children at home alone unsupervised? There's your problem.

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

I would imagine that many of those parents who leave their children at home unsupervised consider the children mature enough. I also imagine that they have to work at hours that preclude them being there for some of the time. That's the way the world works, it isn't ideal.

Perhaps if adequate child supervision was a right under the Constitution and supported by statute it would not be a burden that the average parent cannot meet all of the time?

However, if someone were injured with the firearms that you have failed to adequately 'safety', then you could potentially be sued for criminal negligence according to my reading of Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-2-2 & 3.

Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-2-2 defines the meaning of the terms "intentionally," "knowingly," "recklessly," and "criminal neglect." Alabama Code Title 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-2-3 establishes the minimum requirement for criminal liability and defines the terms "strict liability" and "mental liability." Neither says anything about firearms.

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?

The fact that you think they do is simply more evidence that you consider a gun in the hands of a law-abiding person a threat to you personally. That makes me wonder just how many people do you normally try to tick off per day to the point you think they would want to shoot you?

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

You might be interested to know that a citizen of Alabama is entitled to a CC permit unless law enforcement (usually the Sheriff) can find good cause to deny it. Open carry is completely legal (but will have the police watching you in the cities).

Sure, if I were to show them where they are. I'm not going to do that. I know my home a bit better than a criminal breaking in. "Within easy reach" is not the same as "laying around in the open." Different letters, you know.

Burglars are very definitely going to be looking through all your stuff for whatever is valuable. The guns don't have to be in the open. They can also be stolen from you to be used in the commission of other crimes.

I am discussing safety. You may not realize this, but an unloaded gun in a locked cabinet is sorta hard to fire. Fact.

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.

I do not care what the NRA thinks. I know how to handle a gun.

You clearly don't.

Been doing it likely longer than you've been alive.

For what? 10% of the population? 5%? 1%? Less?

Under your restrictions, even if someone had that "good reason" to carry a gun, they would have to spend so much time complying with the training and social constraints they wouldn't be able to hold a full-time job!

Nonsense. 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. It's worth it.

Don't sell yourself short. You've already had me laughing hysterically a few times.

I'm glad it had you straining against the straps. Laughter inflates the lungs while it empties the head.

My God, man, are you reading this stuff? How often has that happened? I have never heard of any of those situations happening here, and I have been watching for over a half-century in an area where at least 50% of everyone you meet is packing heat. You must lay awake at night and try to think of things that might possibly go wrong.

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.

Must be a horrible existence being that afraid of everyone all the time. Maybe if you tried not being overbearing when you're lying through your teeth... just a suggestion.

100% success rate. More than 5 towns with very strict gun control laws and massive criminality... why do you think they call Chicago "Chiraq"? Some of the harshest gun control laws in the nation and the worst gun violence in the nation, while every location that requires firearms has a ridiculously low crime rate.

The experiment is over; the results are in. They say you're wrong.

Those 5 towns all currently have statistics showing gun deaths.

I could guarantee that there are hundreds of similarly sized New Zealand towns with zero gun deaths, ever. We don't have anything as stupid as the 2nd Amendment and have always had gun control.

Also, 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.

Tell me again about the experiment and the results?