58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[Town Heretic]

The people in the church in Texas would have been safer had they been armed.

Those people would have been safer if the shooter hadn't been able to easily purchase the weapon he walked into that church with. And other churches and vacations spots and schools would be safer too.

The rules said nobody in the church was allowed a weapon. Your precious regulations cost lives.

I live in a community where we don't have that prohibition. I don't know of anyone who carries a gun to church. And my laws aren't on the books yet, so no. Because I favor law it doesn't follow that I'm a fan of every law.

If there had been just one good man who was willing to ignore your death-trap regulations, 27 lives could have been saved.

Just to really underscore your essentially creative narrative here, the regulation in place wasn't mine. I didn't vote on it and I haven't supported it.

What I do support is universal gun laws banning certain types of weapons and the aids that make other weapons more likely to be effective as a means of killing large numbers of people in short order.

But you want more.

Rather, I want the right sort of restrictions and laws and I want them universally applied, because I also want the much lower incidents of what happened in Texas, and Florida, and Las Vegas, in schoolyards and on university campuses, etc.

 

[Stripe]

Those people would have been safer if the shooter hadn't been able to easily purchase the weapon he walked into that church with.

Just to really underscore your essentially creative narrative:

Those rules already exist.

He ignored your regulations; the dead people followed them.

You want more rules that would have hindered outsiders from intervening.

I live in a community where we don't have that prohibition. I don't know of anyone who carries a gun to church. And my laws aren't on the books yet, so no. Because I favor law it doesn't follow that I'm a fan of every law.

You have no understanding of the law.

Regulations that say people cannot own things are not laws.

The regulation in place wasn't mine. I didn't vote on it and I haven't supported it.

No. You want more stringent ones.

What I do support is universal gun laws banning certain types of weapons and the aids that make other weapons more likely to be effective as a means of killing large numbers of people in short order.

This would do nothing to lower the homicide rate.

It might shift some numbers around, but it will improve nothing; it will only make the situation worse.

That's what happens when you ignore the law and justice, instead asserting your own regulations as a cure. You make things worse.

Regulations do not protect people. Pretending your rules are the law destroys people.

Rather, I want the right sort of restrictions and laws and I want them universally applied, because I also want the much lower incidents of what happened in Texas, and Florida, and Las Vegas, in schoolyards and on university campuses, etc.

You have the appeal to emotion well practiced.

Got anything rational?

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Just to really underscore your essentially creative narrative:
Those rules already exist. He ignored your regulations; the dead people followed them.

Parroting my form really doesn't help if you don't get the substance right. I'm for universal gun laws that aren't currently on the books and that would take the sort of weapon used out of the hands of people like the killer. Without universality the best of intentions works an unintended harm.

You want more rules that would have hindered outsiders from intervening.

I want universal laws that will make it harder and harder for people like that killer to possess weapons that would allow for what happened in that and other churches.

You have no understanding of the law.

I'm a U.S. lawyer licensed to practice and teach the law. You're some foreigner with an attitude. But thanks for the chuckle.

Regulations that say people cannot own things are not laws.

lain: You're just having all sorts of internal conversations, aren't you.

No. You want more stringent ones. This would do nothing to lower the homicide rate.

To believe as Stripe would have you is to believe the 547 people who've died in mass shootings or the 1,854 people wounded in mass shootings so far this year would somehow be killed or wounded by another means. Now he can say, as Yor did, that he finds the number (among the much larger national homicide and violent crime victims tally) statistically insignificant, but that's just a poor way to calculate the human cost and bad math in nearly every meaningful sense.

Regulations do not protect people. Pretending your rules are the law destroys people.

Rather, laws can help or hinder. Gun laws that vary from place to place, state to state, undermine the efficacy of any. We need universal and strong gun laws. When we have them we'll have the corresponding drop over time in mass shootings and a commiserate decline in the loss of life and value they inflict here.

 

[Stripe]

Without universality the best of intentions works an unintended harm.

And with universality you get universal harm.

I want universal laws that will make it harder and harder for people like that killer to possess weapons that would allow for what happened in that and other churches.

You will not get what you want.

I'm a U.S. lawyer licensed to practice and teach the law. You're some foreigner with an attitude. But thanks for the chuckle.

Racist.

The law is not confined to the US. And people do not need a license to understand it.

To believe as Stripe would have you is to believe the 547 people who've died in mass shootings or the 1,854 people wounded in mass shootings so far this year would somehow be killed or wounded by another means.

Nope.

Making things up doesn't help you.

Your regulations helped keep them in harm's way.

Now he can say, as Yor did, that he finds the number (among the much larger national homicide and violent crime victims tally) statistically insignificant, but that's just a poor way to calculate the human cost and bad math in nearly every meaningful sense.

Nope.

We're both looking for solutions, remember?

Quit playing silly games.

Rather, laws can help or hinder.

The law is always good.

Regulations can help, but when you do not know the difference between them and the law, you are unqualified to comment.

 

[Town Heretic]

And with universality you get universal harm.

All evidence to the contrary in literally every Western democracy where it's in effect.

You will not get what you want.

Did you lower your voice and point a finger at the screen when you pecked that out? :think: Scary.

Racist.

Something else you don't know anything about then. Good to know.

The law is not confined to the US.

Our law is. The laws we can alter that will impact the problem here are too.

 

[Stripe]

All evidence to the contrary in literally every Western democracy where it's in effect.

No? You don't see those nations being harmed? Oh, of course not. You avoid anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

Did you lower your voice and point a finger at the screen when you pecked that out?

Something else you don't know anything about then. Good to know.

You think my ability to comprehend or comment on the law is ruled by where I was born and where I live.

What else are we going to chalk that up to?

Our law is.

Your regulations are.

More regulations will not solve anything.

You will not start being a useful part of this conversation until you stop conflating the law with US regulations.

 

[Town Heretic]

Meanwhile, today in California:

Five people are dead and two others were left wounded in a shooting spree that began at a home in Northern California on Tuesday and ended at an elementary school, officials there say...​

​

Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said authorities recovered a semiautomatic rifle and two handguns they believe the gunman used. Yahoo News​

The definition of insanity is also doing nothing and hoping for different results.

 

[Town Heretic]

Edit, because this is too serious to play around with.

No? You don't see those nations being harmed? Oh, of course not. You avoid anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

I think you believe in a harm where I'm speaking of an actual one that doesn't require my philosophical agreement to manifest.

More regulations will not solve anything.

Doing nothing changes nothing. Doing something will involve the law, as every other Western democracy has learned to their good.

 

[Stripe]

Doing nothing changes nothing.

Again with the false accusations?

Can you name someone who advocates doing nothing? Thought not.

Doing something will involve the law.

But all you ever talk about are regulations.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Again with the false accusations?

That's funny.

Can you name someone who advocates doing nothing?

I can name a number of people here whose position will accomplish nothing. Like Yor and his unspecified/mystery laws. Or we could do what you have in mind and...do...what again?

But the whole quote was: Doing nothing changes nothing. Doing something will involve the law, as every other Western democracy has learned to their good.

Thought not.

It really comes through.

But all you ever talk about are regulations.

Laws. I want Congress to pen them.

 

[Nihilo]

Is what Paddock did a war crime? If we were at war, and he was a combatant, was that a war crime?

As far as I can tell, yes. Attacking noncombatant civilians is a war crime.

The people in the church in Texas would have been safer had they been armed.

Absolutely. And we've learned further, that had the civilian hero with an AR, kept his magazines loaded (empty magazines are useless; he had to take the time when seconds mattered to load them), he would have saved more lives.

The rules said nobody in the church was allowed a weapon. . . .
If there had been just one good man who was willing to ignore your death-trap regulations, 27 lives could have been saved.

Even if only one or two would have been saved....

Those people would have been safer if the shooter hadn't been able to easily purchase the weapon he walked into that church with. And other churches and vacations spots and schools would be safer too.

And we know now that the problem was that the FBI background check system failed. Kelley should not have been able to purchase any guns, let alone an AR.

I don't know of anyone who carries a gun to church.

I do. Laws in most states forbid open carry anyway, and even states where it isn't forbidden, it's practically illegal, because the police will be called, and the person openly carrying can be deemed unsuitable to own guns. So you wouldn't know by looking at them, whether they are armed or not.

(States like Bernie Sanders' Vermont, and Alaska, don't have any limits on carrying, either concealed or openly.)

What I do support is universal gun laws banning certain types of weapons and the aids that make other weapons more likely to be effective as a means of killing large numbers of people in short order.

This is your whole issue. 'Not dismissing it, just making it clear for everybody.

. . .I also want the much lower incidents of what happened in Texas, and Florida, and Las Vegas, in schoolyards and on university campuses, etc.

The Virginia Tech mass shooting shooting rampage terrorist war criminal only had handguns.

 

[annabenedetti]

Meanwhile, today in California:

Five people are dead and two others were left wounded in a shooting spree that began at a home in Northern California on Tuesday and ended at an elementary school, officials there say...​

Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said authorities recovered a semiautomatic rifle and two handguns they believe the gunman used. Yahoo News​

The definition of insanity is also doing nothing and hoping for different results.

I went to Drudge to see how the story was being handled and I can't even find it on the page. The shooter not being a Muslim, a person of color or an immigrant may have something to do with that.

Drudge does have a map of UFO sightings, if anyone's interested.

 

[Stripe]

I can name a number of people here whose position will accomplish nothing. Like Yor and his unspecified/mystery laws. Or we could do what you have in mind and...do...what again?

So you don't know what he proposes, but you're sure it won't work.

And you do not know anyone who proposes doing nothing, which is the false accusations you made.

Laws. I want Congress to pen them.

Too late. The law has already been written. Congress can make regulations only.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

No? You don't see those nations being harmed? Oh, of course not. You avoid anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

Did you lower your voice and point a finger at the screen when you pecked that out?

You think my ability to comprehend or comment on the law is ruled by where I was born and where I live.

What else are we going to chalk that up to?

Your regulations are.

More regulations will not solve anything.

You will not start being a useful part of this conversation until you stop conflating the law with US regulations.

No, it's based on your lack of even a layman's understanding of it. You surely haven't forgotten the thread you started where you were embarrassingly schooled on just the basics?

 

[Stripe]

No, it's based on your lack of even a layman's understanding of it. You surely haven't forgotten the thread you started where you were embarrassingly schooled on just the basics?

Who are you? :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Yorzhik]

There's less reason to insist on tyranny without evidence of it and every reason to stem the tide of needless, violent death in our country.

It won't "stem the tide" as the data shows. There might be other reasons why the tide is stemmed, as we've seen gun ownership rates going up in a number of places and crime going down at the same time in the same place.

That's how you make criminals out of innocent people.

No, it's how potential victims make the world they live in a little safer and saner.

Just like prohibition made criminals out of innocent people, it won't make the country safer or saner in the long run for the same reasons.

That it will make us safer in our concerts, in our churches, and children safer in their schools.

You never did address the question of what concerts, church services, and mass events have been cancelled because of mass shootings. Do you suppose the huge drop in NFL attendance is due to mass shootings?

You can defend your castle with a breech loader.

Well, at least we know you'd go this far.

So far on your list of how far you'd go we have: mandatory training, check if the person is crazy (although you'll have to define this better), check if the person is or was a criminal of a certain threshold (will that ever change in a persons lifetime?), register all transfers, and any guns beyond breech loaders are illegal. Is that it or are you willing to go farther if mass homicide isn't quelled enough, seeing as you admit your laws won't actually stop mass homicide.

buying alcohol isn't wrong.

And I didn't say buying either was wrong.

Yes you did. When you said the laws have to be tougher and universal, you compared that to dry and wet areas where tough laws were up against people with free reign to buy and carry alcohol as they pleased.

 

[Yorzhik]

I can name a number of people here whose position will accomplish nothing. Like Yor and his unspecified/mystery laws.

Whoa there Hoss. Before you said "more nothing in hopes of a miracle" after I had proposed solutions that would save more people. So now you admit that I'm not saying we should do nothing?

And after you admit that, how do you square the claim that my solutions are a mystery and also claim they would accomplish nothing?

And after you get done admitting that, we'll move on to how my solutions aren't a complete mystery as your revised claim proposes.

 

[Town Heretic]

Whoa there Hoss. Before you said "more nothing in hopes of a miracle" after I had proposed solutions that would save more people.

No, you haven't Yor, and it makes me wonder that you keep insisting on that while every time I ask for a specific law you go back to some general line about needing to deal with single mothers and black markets, etc.

And after you admit that, how do you square the claim that my solutions are a mystery

You don't have solutions, Yor. You have a declaration about your belief concerning the root and some vaguely paranoid musings about the state. I've asked, repeatedly, for specific ideas to impact the problem.

It won't "stem the tide" as the data shows.

Literally untrue. I've noted the mass shootings before and after those laws in Australia and the remarkable difference between every other Western democracy and our own on firearm related homicides.

Just like prohibition made criminals out of innocent people

No, people who willfully chose to break the law made themselves into criminals. I have no sympathy for anyone who cares more for their AK than they do the law and the safety of others.

it won't make the country safer or saner in the long run for the same reasons.

It absolutely will. It's not a coincidence that we have more guns than people and do a worse job of protecting our citizenry from gun violence, especially mass shootings.

You never did address the question of what concerts, church services, and mass events have been cancelled because of mass shootings.

What's the point?

Well, at least we know you'd go this far.

You haven't gotten me anywhere new, Yor. I never held another opinion. In fact, within this thread and more than once I've noted that I'm not trying to end gun ownership and that I am, on the point, a gun owner.

So far on your list of how far you'd go we have: mandatory training, check if the person is crazy (although you'll have to define this better), check if the person is or was a criminal of a certain threshold (will that ever change in a persons lifetime?), register all transfers, and any guns beyond breech loaders are illegal.

I've gone along with Kat (or resident expert) on the psych eval. I'm fine with the current laws regarding felons and gun ownership. And I'm okay with hunting weapons that can't be easily modified into automatic ones.

Is that it or are you willing to go farther if mass homicide isn't quelled enough, seeing as you admit your laws won't actually stop mass homicide.

No law stops all of the conduct it aims to, but that's no argument against law. I'm not trying to accomplish the impossible, only the possible, which is making mass shooting less likely and reducing firearm deaths and accidental injuries. That we can absolutely do.

Re: a moment to undo another misread.

Yor: Buying alcohol isn't wrong.
Me: I didn't say buying either was wrong.

Yes you did.

No, which is why you won't quote me saying either.

When you said the laws have to be tougher and universal, you compared that to dry and wet areas where tough laws were up against people with free reign to buy and carry alcohol as they pleased.

What I said was that not having universal gun laws, having them vary from place to place, undermines the efficacy of the laws. To illustrate that I compared it to the problem with wet and dry counties being next to one another or a dry county with a wet city. It undermines the attempt of the dry county.

Neither of my statements can be rationally reduced to "Buying alcohol is wrong," or "Buying guns is wrong."

 

[Town Heretic]

So you don't know what he proposes,

He hasn't proposed any law or specific ideas despite being asked to repeatedly.

but you're sure it won't work.

I'm sure nothing changes nothing.

Too late.The law has already been written. Congress can make regulations only.

Maybe you'll have a better chance or understanding someone else on the point.

"Laws are the products of written statutes, passed by either the U.S. Congress or state legislatures. The legislatures create bills that, when passed by a vote, become statutory law.

Regulations, on the other hand, are standards and rules adopted by administrative agencies that govern how laws will be enforced." Christopher Coble, from Law & Family Life, 2015

So while they're often used interchangeably they aren't the same thing. And even foundational law, as with Constitutional provision, is subject to amendment/alteration.

 

[Town Heretic]

And we know now that the problem was that the FBI background check system failed.

It did, though the larger problem remains access to the sort of weapons that make the subsequent massacre possible.

Kelley should not have been able to purchase any guns, let alone an AR.

Agreed.

I do.

Okay. I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing one into a church and I've never met anyone who did, but I'm sure more than a few do.

This is your whole issue. 'Not dismissing it, just making it clear for everybody.

Not a problem.

The Virginia Tech mass shooting shooting rampage terrorist war criminal only had handguns.

True. He also had mental issues that were in part shielded from the university by privacy laws. His mental state should have precluded his possession of a firearm.