Fort Worth Church Shooting

[LargeBreastFan]

Chung,

"Ace of Spades Poppycock!"........ is that some kinda Voodoo Curse?

Chung, why do I think that any form of gun control could happen in the USA? Look at California. Get enough liberal/Democrats in power and it will happen.

You know your providers better than anyone on ECCIE, but you don't know guns/gun control from Shinola. Excuse me while I take my weekly trip to the indoor gun range. And no, I don't believe in the Anti-Christ, "666" or the Apocalypse. But I do believe Epstein didn't kill himself.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by LargeBreastFan

Chung,

"Ace of Spades Poppycock!"........ is that some kinda Voodoo Curse?

Chung, why do I think that any form of gun control could happen in the USA? Look at California. Get enough liberal/Democrats in power and it will happen.

You know your providers better than anyone on ECCIE, but you don't know guns/gun control from Shinola. Excuse me while I take my weekly trip to the indoor gun range. And no, I don't believe in the Anti-Christ, "666" or the Apocalypse. But I do believe Epstein didn't kill himself.

Ha! "Ace of Spades Poppycock" means my version of poppycock is more authoritative, the high card. California and a few others have strict gun control, but even those places don't take your legal gun away. the "Right" tries to frame the argument as "all or nothing", to avoid sensible gun legislation. no way in Hades will US Citizens ever be stripped of gun ownership. reduced, sure. if we blocked the most undesirable 10% of gun owners who now carry, I suspect violent gun crimes would be reduced by 80%.. worthy goal, IMO.

we agree that Epstein didn't kill himself

[GastonGlock]

"If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that citizens can effectively fight back against a tyrannical government, then we are already way behind. We are not generally allowed to own mortars, hand grenades, howitzers, rocket launchers, tanks, 50 caliber armored personnel carriers, military grade drones, etc."

" if you think stockpiling weapons will help against a rogue government, you need to exit the 18th century."

They're not needed. Look at Vietnam and Afghanistan. Villagers with fighting spirit, rifles, and improvised explosives do horrific things to professionally trained armies with ROE. The only reason we haven't left Afghanistan, is that the second we do it returns back to Taliban control, and we lose. Furthermore, if the US government turned its weapons against its populous the UN would get involved, and every country in the world that dislikes the US would turn immediately to help arm the insurrection, just as the US has done numerous times.

"I still say the Head Security guy should have asked the killer to remove his coat. my argument is sound.. the Killer wore a bulky coat and an obvious disguise. I'll bet anyone here that a Synagogue or Mosque would not have endured this shooting. their Security team would not have waited around, concerned about his "right" to be left alone on private property."

I agree with your method, but I think you would have just moved the shooting from the chapel to the entry hall. I don't think that guy went in with an exit strategy, I think he was just there to sow discord. Whether it would have been better or worse, I can't say.

"We don't have sufficient laws that stop dangerous folks from obtaining guns. the thinking needs to steer away from "you have your gun, I have mine, let's see who wins the shootout", to eliminating the need for guns where possible."

It was illegal for him to have the gun he had. Didn't matter. The problem with the overall argument is that you would need a law that meaningfully prevents people who are not allowed to have guns from having them. A law that punishes someone for having a gun after they've already used it does nothing, as most of these guys who engage in these shooting don't go into these acts expecting to surrender.

We already have universal background checks, the only 2 weaknesses for it are 1.) It relies on agencies to upload to the database to keep it current and correct. 2.) Private sales are not subject to background checks because there is no way to meaningfully enforce it.

When I say "meaningfully enforce", I mean that if you and are were at my house having beers, and you said you'd give me $400 for my shotgun, and with my knowing you can't legally own a gun because of a criminal record, I sell it to you anyway, I now have $400, and you now have a shotgun that no one knows about. Even though it's illegal, police officers do not just materialize out of thin air to arrest us.

The other side of the argument - How do you LEGALLY "pre-crime" people who own guns, never did an illegal thing in their life, and suddenly something bad happens in their life and they decide they've had enough? This is what red-flag laws try to do, but unfortunately, they're unconstitutional because they violate due process and also rely on hearsay testimony.

"The "carefully thought out and executed gun control" is step-by-step plan for gun control for all citizens."

"Gun control vs gun banning? Only difference is time. Pass one gun control law, it doesn't work, then pass another, then another, then another until you have gun banning."

Agreed.

"...England, Vietnam, many places have a near-zero gun murder rate."

They have bombings, stabbings, and machete attacks instead. Aggregate murder and assault rates aren't very different when population size is equaled.

"why do you think that could ever happen in the USA? consider that any form of gun control has stiff opposition.. what could ever occur that would systematically eliminate guns, to where the (I assume Federal) Government has control of them all?"

The plan is to use escalating gun control measures to strip things back as the majority of gun owners only see them as an expensive hobby. Then they'll utilize identity politics to alienate and vilify those who refuse to comply. With public opinion on their side, this gives the government carte blanche to do as they please. Examples of this can be found with the alcohol prohibition and the process of how marijuana was vilified and made illegal in the US, and policies such as the Philippine Drug War.

"California and a few others have strict gun control, but even those places don't take your legal gun away."

False. California specifically has made mandated changes that no longer allow folks with weapons of certain descriptions (NOTE: DESCRIPTIONS, not make, model, function, etc.) to be grandfathered in. The weapon must be modified so it no longer meets the description, registered with the state for inventory, where a law enforcement officer can randomly show up at your home and request to see the weapon, or destroyed. Failure to comply is jail time and confiscation of all weapons.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

"I still say the Head Security guy should have asked the killer to remove his coat. my argument is sound.. the Killer wore a bulky coat and an obvious disguise. I'll bet anyone here that a Synagogue or Mosque would not have endured this shooting. their Security team would not have waited around, concerned about his "right" to be left alone on private property."

I agree with your method, but I think you would have just moved the shooting from the chapel to the entry hall. I don't think that guy went in with an exit strategy, I think he was just there to sow discord. Whether it would have been better or worse, I can't say.

you are the first person to agree with the method, at least.. all the right-wing nut jobs who posted in the Political Forum REFUSE to concede that it's anything but a gross violation of a civil liberty!

even if it moved to the entry hall, there may be fewer than 10 people present, not 240 in the Church sanctuary. you would not have a way to create space, as the Killer did, by moving AWAY from Security to receive communion, thus allowing him to open fire!

"We don't have sufficient laws that stop dangerous folks from obtaining guns. the thinking needs to steer away from "you have your gun, I have mine, let's see who wins the shootout", to eliminating the need for guns where possible."

It was illegal for him to have the gun he had. Didn't matter. The problem with the overall argument is that you would need a law that meaningfully prevents people who are not allowed to have guns from having them. A law that punishes someone for having a gun after they've already used it does nothing, as most of these guys who engage in these shooting don't go into these acts expecting to surrender.

We already have universal background checks, the only 2 weaknesses for it are 1.) It relies on agencies to upload to the database to keep it current and correct. 2.) Private sales are not subject to background checks because there is no way to meaningfully enforce it.

When I say "meaningfully enforce", I mean that if you and are were at my house having beers, and you said you'd give me $400 for my shotgun, and with my knowing you can't legally own a gun because of a criminal record, I sell it to you anyway, I now have $400, and you now have a shotgun that no one knows about. Even though it's illegal, police officers do not just materialize out of thin air to arrest us.

The other side of the argument - How do you LEGALLY "pre-crime" people who own guns, never did an illegal thing in their life, and suddenly something bad happens in their life and they decide they've had enough? This is what red-flag laws try to do, but unfortunately, they're unconstitutional because they violate due process and also rely on hearsay testimony.

totally agree.. it is not an easy process to reduce guns, taking them from the bad people, while leaving good people a way to defend themselves. but we should TRY.. many people don't want to do that much.

"The "carefully thought out and executed gun control" is step-by-step plan for gun control for all citizens."

"Gun control vs gun banning? Only difference is time. Pass one gun control law, it doesn't work, then pass another, then another, then another until you have gun banning."

Agreed.

disagree

"...England, Vietnam, many places have a near-zero gun murder rate."

They have bombings, stabbings, and machete attacks instead. Aggregate murder and assault rates aren't very different when population size is equaled.


absolute Poppycock! that argument is a gun nut's salvation, and it is complete Horse shit. the murder rate in Vietnam is near ZERO, regardless of method. your side likes to bring up the Terrorist stabbings in London, but the murder rate is far less than the US!

read this and retract your absurd statement!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

"why do you think that could ever happen in the USA? consider that any form of gun control has stiff opposition.. what could ever occur that would systematically eliminate guns, to where the (I assume Federal) Government has control of them all?"

The plan is to use escalating gun control measures to strip things back as the majority of gun owners only see them as an expensive hobby. Then they'll utilize identity politics to alienate and vilify those who refuse to comply. With public opinion on their side, this gives the government carte blanche to do as they please. Examples of this can be found with the alcohol prohibition and the process of how marijuana was vilified and made illegal in the US, and policies such as the Philippine Drug War.


who drew up this "plan"? I think you are way off base, it is a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, logic, or credulity.


"California and a few others have strict gun control, but even those places don't take your legal gun away."

False. California specifically has made mandated changes that no longer allow folks with weapons of certain descriptions (NOTE: DESCRIPTIONS, not make, model, function, etc.) to be grandfathered in. The weapon must be modified so it no longer meets the description, registered with the state for inventory, where a law enforcement officer can randomly show up at your home and request to see the weapon, or destroyed. Failure to comply is jail time and confiscation of all weapons.

ok.. splitting hairs, but technically yeah.. I mean California and the rest will not seize ALL guns, and leave Citizens unarmed, like other conspiracy-minded Individuals believe.

[GastonGlock]

"you are the first person to agree with the method, at least.. all the right-wing nut jobs who posted in the Political Forum REFUSE to concede that it's anything but a gross violation of a civil liberty!"

I'm very "a man's home is his castle", so while I don't like the idea of getting frisked to gain entry to somewhere, I'll concede that if it's private property, you're beholden to the rules of the property owner. For example, I don't like Coca Cola in my house, and if you show up with a a couple 2-Liters of it, I don't have to let you in.

"even if it moved to the entry hall, there may be fewer than 10 people present, not 240 in the Church sanctuary. you would not have a way to create space, as the Killer did, by moving AWAY from Security to receive communion, thus allowing him to open fire!"

I used to work the door and greet folks at the small town church my dad preached at when I was a teen. Depending on the time, Either as everyone was going into the chapel or leaving, I'd say you'd have easily over 50 people in a shaped space with several exits, but the main one being occupied by a would-be gunner. The number of people in such a small space possibly not paying attention to those behind them creates a very good "fish in a barrel" scenario where the shooter could have done more damage if they had wanted, and also have been right next to the exit. But again, that's all supposition.

"totally agree.. it is not an easy process to reduce guns, taking them from the bad people, while leaving good people a way to defend themselves. but we should TRY.. many people don't want to do that much."

People ARE trying, they just haven't found a good way to do it without infringing on the rights of the innocent. Everyone from the people who want to change nothing to the folks that want to round up every weapon in the country believes they have good intentions. Just no one will agree with their plan.

"absolute Poppycock! that argument is a gun nut's salvation, and it is complete Horse shit. the murder rate in Vietnam is near ZERO, regardless of method. your side likes to bring up the Terrorist stabbings in London, but the murder rate is far less than the US!

read this and retract your absurd statement!"

I honestly have no idea about crime in Vietnam, I can't speak to it whatsoever. And not to besmirch Vietnam's good name, but I'm skeptical of any numbers published because I don't know their method. As an example, the reason why the murder rate is so low in Japan is because it's a common practice to label a murder as a suicide if they cannot find a suspect or "death by natural causes" when they can't find the murder weapon and a suspect. Those murders make up ~25% of the ~30,000 suicides a year. So having details is very important. However, you've peaked my interest, and I'll read up on crime in Vietnam.

On the UK side - There are far less deaths by stabbing because the attackers are aiming to maim and humiliate, for example by trying to stab victims in the colon so they have to be on a colostomy bag their whole lives.

On the US Side - The data has to be carefully parsed because much of the data is lumped together for the purposes of fulfilling an agenda. For example, 60% of the annual "gun deaths" reported in the US each year are suicides.

For bonus points, Mexico - Despite Mexico having extremely strict gun laws and next to 0 access because there is only 1 sanctioned firearm store in the whole country, Mexico has a higher rate of gun homicides a year than the US.

Really what I care about are homicides and assaults regardless of weapon perpetrated by criminals, as a good majority of gunshot wounds and stabbings are survivable in countries with well developed medical care.

Generally, when you look at that data, you can make a correlation between countries that have high incidences of violence with that country's economic disparity between classes.

"who drew up this "plan"? I think you are way off base, it is a conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, logic, or credulity."

This is just a rough idea I pulled together based on how prohibitions have gone in this country previously as well as other places around the world that I'm personally aware of. it's less of a "how exactly it's going to happen" and more of a "what I would do, because this has worked in the past".

[Chung Tran]

for the Hell of it, I brought up this Church Shooting at work today, with a Co-Worker.. she agreed with me that the Killer should have been asked to remove his coat.

I told her she was the very first person to agree, that many were worried about the "rights" that should be afforded to the Killer, to be left alone, to not be "harassed". she agreed with me that argument is Poppycock!

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I mean California and the rest will not seize ALL guns, and leave Citizens unarmed, like other conspiracy-minded Individuals believe.

How generous of you.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-2.xls


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...a-table-11.xls


https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lco...lack/index.htm

[rexdutchman]

The Constitution is not a Live doc and was never , ( that's liberal media bs ) ideas can be added , The Fed papers were ideas the distilled down to what is the constitution.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

The Constitution is not a Live doc and was never , ( that's liberal media bs ) ideas can be added , The Fed papers were ideas the distilled down to what is the constitution.

indeed.. I never understood that "living document" nonsense. why bother with such a precise document born of great minds, if the document is so fluid?

[smokedog01]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

indeed.. I never understood that "living document" nonsense. why bother with such a precise document born of great minds, if the document is so fluid?

Well I'm sure most Trumpers would like a world where women csn't vote and you could still own slaves but civilizations evolve and our founders realized that. I can not understand what is difficult to comprehend about that.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by smokedog01

Well I'm sure most Trumpers would like a world where women csn't vote and you could still own slaves but civilizations evolve and our founders realized that. I can not understand what is difficult to comprehend about that.

not true.. hyperbolic beyond credulity.

you should stick to the Football thread, where you think you are superior to everyone else in knowledge.

[Poppa_Viagra]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Complete horseshit.

https://everytownresearch.org/masssh...ica-2009-2019/

The numbers refute your argument, see any of the work written by John Lott, Jr.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

indeed.. I never understood that "living document" nonsense. why bother with such a precise document born of great minds, if the document is so fluid?

The Constitution isn’t precise, not should it be. Otherwise, it would nit have enough motion in its joints to survive the constantly changing needs of a nation. Chief Justoce Marshall commented on this exact point in a McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819:

“A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language.”

Or as Jefferson put it in a letter three years earlier:

“ But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

And if you think that the living Constitution is a bad thing, yiu have thought about it in any depth at all. Judge Richard Posner:

“ A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.”

[smokedog01]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

not true.. hyperbolic beyond credulity.

you should stick to the Football thread, where you think you are superior to everyone else in knowledge.

Thats hardly hyperbolic. Those are two of the most easy to understand examples of our country evolving and the necessity of a government that evolves with it. Our founding fathers realized that and so, yeah, living document.


I dont think that I am superior in knowledge to everyone in the football thread. Mostly just you.