Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Texas church shooting

  1. #31
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Do I keep a list of laws on the books and the ways in which the GOP very much does not act to see them rigorously enforced? No. I read. I see material about inaction by the GOP in Congress, in various states whose news I pay attention. I see it again and again. But you've just demonstrated that you are going to quibble and wriggle with any examples any of us do bother to come up with. Your mind is, in fact, quite made up.

    "Rigorously enforce what's already on the books" is an empty slogan. Even if taken at face value it's pretty much just a means of passing the buck because legislatures have very little to do with enforcement besides giving actual enforcers sharp teeth to use. . . and you think that counts as "new laws" in the first place.
    If by any examples you mean the single example that was provided by OG, then sure, I've quibbled and wriggled my way out of them all. I'm not quite sure I understand or appreciate your animosity, and I'm sorry you seem to feel as though further discussion would be unproductive. That was hardly my intent, though you clearly feel otherwise. For what it is worth, my mind is hardly made up. I have quite strong opinions about liberty and the second amendment, but would be open to legislation that would more proactively and aggressively keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill. A view which I believe is likely shared by most Americans, left, right, and center. The devil, as always, seems to be in the details. I don't believe the Obama rule that was presented as evidence in this thread would have been a good or effective rule; it represented an incredibly small population, many of which are likely not dangerous in any meaningful way, and would have prevented few if any of the mass shootings that I can think of, but maybe I'm missing something.

  2. #32
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    If you are asking why more mass shootings aren't being prevented by armed citizens when armed citizens aren't allowed to carry in the areas most mass shootings take place, then I do agree with you. However, I don't think it's necessarily a point that favors your argument.
    My argument is that it's very difficult for an armed citizen to prevent a mass shooting before the shooter has already killed or wounded a whole bunch of people, and you've come up with another reason that it's very difficult for an armed citizen to prevent a mass shooting that I hadn't mentioned.

    How doesn't that help my argument?
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    My argument is that it's very difficult for an armed citizen to prevent a mass shooting before the shooter has already killed or wounded a whole bunch of people, and you've come up with another reason that it's very difficult for an armed citizen to prevent a mass shooting that I hadn't mentioned.

    How doesn't that help my argument?
    It doesn't take a lot of time for an armed citizen to draw a weapon and return fire, especially if they aren't one of the first victims. Granted, the murderer is working at a distinct advantage, but if they have had any kind of defensive training it can be done in a matter of moments, even accounting for the understandable initial shock of the situation. What is far more difficult, usually impossible, is for that same individual to return to a vehicle where a weapon has been stowed, or back home to their gun safe, and return in a reasonable amount of time to provide any material assistance. It's rarely an issue of capability - drawing, aiming, and shooting can be done with relative ease and speed, (and when I say relative, I mean relative, shooting with any degree of accuracy at a moving target, let alone one that is also shooting at you is far from easy) it's far more often a case of inability due to federal, state, or local laws with the individual being armed in the first place.

    You'll note that often times when these kinds of shootings have been stopped, it has been by an off duty police officer. There are certainly any number of reasons for this, (including them working as off-duty security for the venue) but one that I find personally compelling is their ability to carry firearms in places your average citizen can not.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-09-2017 at 10:26 PM.

  4. #34
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
    What is far more difficult, usually impossible, is for that same individual to return to a vehicle where a weapon has been stowed, or back home to their gun safe, and return in a reasonable amount of time to provide any material assistance.
    ... so we can't rely on armed private citizens to prevent mass shootings.

    Got it.

    Well, I'm convinced.



    Oh, and if this is some elaborate way of blaming local fire-arm restrictions on the inability of private citizens to intervene in mass shootings, I'll not that you mentioned private owners in your opening post.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    ... so we can't rely on armed private citizens to prevent mass shootings.

    Got it.

    Well, I'm convinced.
    In places they are prohibited from legally carrying firearms that seems to be a pretty reasonable conclusion.

    Oh, and if this is some elaborate way of blaming local fire-arm restrictions on the inability of private citizens to intervene in mass shootings, I'll not that you mentioned private owners in your opening post.
    I believe strongly that property owners should have the final say in whether or not firearms are allowed on the premises. I don't have to agree with those decisions, but as a firearm owner I respect them. When possible I choose to avoid those places and take my business elsewhere.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-10-2017 at 06:58 PM.

  6. #36
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    The US has liberal gun laws, supported by the 2nd Amendment. We have more guns in circulation than people living in the US.

    I think the argument that "guns don't kill people, only people kill people" has been roundly dismissed as a justification for more guns.

    The notion that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun, is propaganda from the gun industry and its lobby, the NRA.



    Ghost, if we already have more guns than people, and legal gun ownership is concentrated in a small demographic, yet we have more gun deaths per capita than any other developed nation....how would more people with more guns make the situation better?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •