Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[exminister]

Having a gun does not incompasitate your common sense.
If a guy has the drop on ya, ya give him your money.
And when he turns to run off with it, your shoot him in the butt a couple of times, and then the kill shot.
Then you get your money back, and his gun too.
Now you have what we call a 'throw away gun'.
That's a gun you can use to kill your brother-in-law for beating your sister, and the gun can't be traced back to you.

That's 2 criminals dead, and you didn't lose a dime.
And the bonus is that the taxpayers are not burdened with the cost of prison accommodations.

It's a win win win win win ......... all because a citizen was able to exercise his 2nd amendment right.
No paid police officer or military personnel required, so your city could cut back on that cost now.
Another win!

You are a crafty one.

 

[Tambora]

Do you walk around in public with a gun in your hand?

No, silly wizzy.
In my purse.
each:

 

[exminister]

Pence joins mourners in Sutherland Springs, promises swift review of how Texas gunman got firearms.

Vice President Pence pledged Wednesday to residents of Sutherland Springs, Tex., that the Trump administration would “find out why” a gunman was able to buy firearms in advance of his shooting rampage there despite his violent past and would work with Congress “to ensure that this never happens again.”

“Three days ago, evil descended on this small town and on this small church,” Pence said as he stood on the street in front of First Baptist Church, where 26 churchgoers were killed Sunday by Devin P. Kelley, who should have been barred from purchasing firearms because of a domestic violence conviction while serving in the Air Force.

“He lied on his application. He had a history of mental illness, and there were bureaucratic failures,” Pence said, promising an Air Force investigation of the matter would be completed “in days, not weeks.”

Pence said the Pentagon is also reviewing policies on how such convictions get entered into a national database used to screen gun purchasers.

Pence’s visit — which came while President Trump is on a 12-day trip to Asia — also included a hospital visit with some of those injured Sunday, meetings with law enforcement officials and an appearance at a nearby high school where a prayer vigil was held on the football field.

“The Bible tells us that the Lord is close to the brokenhearted, and that will be our prayer for you, for this whole community,” Pence said before leaving the church for the vigil.

Upon arriving at the high school, Pence, accompanied by his wife, went to the library where dozens of relatives of victims were waiting, many seated at tables.

Pence hugged many of them and asked about their connections to the attack.

“The whole country’s praying over you,” Pence told one man who had lost his sister-in-law. “This church family is touching the whole country.”

“If you would please tell the president we thank him,” a man asked Pence, who replied: “He wanted us to be here. He’s in Beijing, but I guarantee you his heart’s here.”

During the vigil, Pence spoke of the importance of faith in getting through difficult times.

“The voice of faith, the witness of faith in that small church in that small town now echoes across the world,” he said of First Baptist Church.

The vice president urged people in houses of worship across the country to devote prayers on Sunday to the people of Sutherland Springs affected by the rampage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ises-swift-review-of-how-gunman-got-firearms/


I am liking the follow up here by Pence. Hope it isn’t just empty words.

 

[Tambora]

You are a crafty one.

I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two.

 

[patrick jane]

 

[Tambora]

Pence joins mourners in Sutherland Springs, promises swift review of how Texas gunman got firearms.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ises-swift-review-of-how-gunman-got-firearms/


I am liking the follow up here by Pence. Hope it isn’t just empty words.

It is my understanding that the info the FBI had on him was not the problem.
The problem was the FBI did not respond to the application within 3 days.
If there is no response from the FBI within 3 days, the gun shop has no legal authority to deny the sale.

Now, that's not to say that the info the FBI had on him was accurate.
Just saying that the info makes no difference after 3 days with no response from the FBI, because the gun shop then has no legal right to refuse the sale.

There was a news video (I should have saved it) where some reporters went to several gun shops and found out that each gun shop owner showed them several application that were never responded to.

 

[Nihilo]

That’s why we discuss and weigh issues, which is a lost art in the US and Congress.
There is no room for discussion and FF’s response to me shows that. Many have been so stuck in their sphere, not opening up to the other side, that even to question something makes the other a Nazi or a Communist or a destroyer of the Constitution and the questioner wants the US to become North Korea or something like that. Not sure where the We The People went or if it will ever come back.

As I said I own a rifle and I wouldn’t want it to be taken away UNLESS I was abusive to my wife and kids. If I was convicted of a crime involving violence I lose my right to bear arms because I have demonstrated I am a menace. Such a thing happens to my driver’s license if I drive recklessly or driving under the influence.

If you were convicted (not just charged) of domestic violence do you believe you still have a right to have guns? I expect you to divert my question by asking a question, but hope I am wrong.

Criminals, do not have the RKBA.

The trick is how do we identify criminals before they commit their first crime. There must be something objective that can be reliably measured with acceptable false positive/false negative balance.

But until we find that, it's a good idea to get guns into peoples' hands and hope to God that they work it into their social activity, or, try to persuade them to do so somehow, like perhaps requiring at the federal level a mandate that from now on, everybody who graduates high school first has to pass an NRA handgun safety course, the same one the NRA offers now. Handgun safety. Maybe you can take a rifle safety course instead, but something like that.

Americans are peculiar in needing to decide how to welcome newly graduated youngsters into adulthood, because we've got so many guns. It's a terrible idea to every year, plow more and more newly minted adults into the world of America, with zero gun familiarity.

Other than that, I've got nothin.'

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

May I interject, and ask what are your top three reasons why civilians should not be able to own guns?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Stats show that countries that allow the general public to have guns increases the murder rate dramatically. That is reason enough.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

This is very interesting to me. I have guns and this is what I do with my guns. This is ALL I do with my guns. (That is not me, just a convenient picture.)

If you are a balloon, you have much to fear from me. If not, you have nothing to fear from me. Why am I a Satanist, owned by Satan, if all I do with my guns is participate in Cowboy Mounted Shooting? Your logic is puzzling.

I am against the general public owning guns, not military or law enforcement. Gun/rifle ranges are okay too but the guns stay at the range. Farmers and land rangers or those living in places with wild dangerous animals also are okay to own shot guns and non-automatic rifles. I guess if you're part of a wild west show type thing there could be some permissions. I can't think of any other reason to own a gun but there could be.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Ask the people of Racca how that worked for them. If you think that what happened there can't happen here, you are grossly mistaken.

You mean Raqqa in Syria? Well where ever you mean the same gun controls as I put forward to you in your last post should apply.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Why?

Stats show that countries that allow the general public to have guns increases the murder rate dramatically.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Perhaps he thinks his wife would be better protected using a kitchen butter knife to fend off a drug induced gang member that broke into the house while she waits for law enforcement or the military to show up. (And that's only if she is able to even make a call to them as she is fending off the attacker.)

As I have already said (please read the thread if you wish to interject) the US government should have amended the second amendment after there was no longer a threat from the British, and I will clarify this further by adding that more amendments could have and should have been made to reflect the changing threats to the country and to the individuals within the country but instead the US have gone on for over 300 years with the same stock ruling which is just madness and that's why there are 85+ murders a day compared to 0.01 per day in the UK.

Stats show that countries that allow the general public to have guns increases the murder rate dramatically. It's very simple.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

The difference, of course, is that Jesus came to die.

He never meant for us to offer ourselves to those who seek to kill us.

We are all going to die, or didn't you know that? It's how we die that matters but I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about the second amendment and its obvious problems as shown with the latest mass shooting.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I suggest that the law that gives you the weapon in your hand, almost certainly guarantees an attacker will also have a weapon in theirs.

In a situation where both are armed, the effectiveness and lethality(?)of a gun mans the tactical advantage which usually lies with the aggressor or criminal is heightened. ie the perosn who plans conflict and has a gun to ready, loaded and to hand holds all the cards.

Also looking at stats it would a seem that arming both parties actually increases risk to innocent of not only murder, but accidents and suicide.

I do not support gun control which would do nothing to remove guns from the hands of criminals. Thus the level of gun control I would suggest most would think draconian.

I'm not saying this is the most elegant argument, but since we must have about four times as many murderers in America per capita as you do over there, doesn't it seem rather barbaric to ponder stripping Americans of the freedom to possess guns to protect ourselves from them all?

 

[glorydaz]

We are all going to die, or didn't you know that? It's how we die that matters but I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about the second amendment and its obvious problems as shown with the latest mass shooting.

Oh, I know I will put off this tent and go be with the Lord, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself or my loved ones from evil men. That would be foolishness, and the Lord certainly doesn't want us to be foolish.

The problem isn't with the second amendment, it's with evil in this world, and it will get worse with each passing day. Preach the Gospel to those who will listen, and protect your family from those who are evil.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

What is it about law enforcement and the armed forces that might or would make them all more responsible with guns?
You don't have "reasoning" here. And it's "you're."
"Warped beliefs" being the rights to life, and to self defense. lain:
lain:

As I have already said the US government should have amended the second amendment after there was no longer a threat from the British, and I will clarify this further by adding that more amendments could have and should have been made to reflect the changing threats to the country and to the individuals within the country but instead the US have gone on for over 300 years with the same stock ruling which is just madness and thats why there are 85+ murders a day compared to 0.01 per day in the UK.

Stats show that countries that allow the general public to have guns increases the murder rate dramatically. That is why it's okay for military and law enforcement to have guns.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

If you are unwilling to defend your own life, and the life of your family, that's your issue, not ours. You can't bring yourself to permit others to disagree with you, without telling us we're satanists? You throw around the words warped and insane a lot---look in the mirror.

I answered this similar pov in my previous post.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Oh, I know I will put off this tent and go be with the Lord, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't defend myself or my loved ones from evil men. That would be foolishness, and the Lord certainly doesn't want us to be foolish.

The problem isn't with the second amendment, it's with evil in this world, and it will get worse with each passing day. Preach the Gospel to those who will listen, and protect your family from those who are evil.

Your first paragraph shows that you didn't understand what I said, I can't keep repeating myself.

And the problem is the second amendment, as I have already said in this thread the US government should have amended the second amendment after there was no longer a threat from the British, and I will clarify this further by adding that more amendments could have and should have been made to reflect the changing threats to the country and to the individuals within the country but instead the US have gone on for over 300 years with the same stock ruling which is just madness and that's why there are 85+ murders a day compared to 0.01 per day in the UK.

Stats show that countries that allow the general public to have guns increases the murder rate dramatically. That is why it's okay for military and law enforcement to have guns but not he general public.

 

[Stripe]

No because I looked at the figures and realised the total gun murders, were very similar to the difference in the number of murders between the two countries, over a number of years.

So the UK rate is around 1.2 the US is 4.88,you find figures for US gun homicides a year is around 3.5 to 4.00 depending on the year. So statistically the approximate difference between the figures is your gun homicide rate.

About 75 - 80% of US murder are committed with guns, now it would be sensible to assume that some of the murders would be committed by other means if guns were not available, but the comparison between the figures would suggest it may be smaller than we would first assume.

So you're just guessing.

Did you look at the legal definitions of murder and how they might affect the numbers?

Death is pretty much a binary state.

We're not talking about death.

I'd ask you not make wild assumptions that dismiss evidence against your preferred stance and examine your own arguments with a critical eye.

What wild assumptions? You declared guns to be the "main difference" between the homicide rates in the UK and the US. I asked you to defend your assertion.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Stripe]

The law that gives you the weapon in your hand, almost certainly guarantees an attacker will also have a weapon in theirs.

And the regulation that takes guns away from the good guys is ignored by criminals.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app