Texas Church Shooting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-11-2017, 06:21 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 07:06 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  In point of fact I don't see anything worth the effort.
So it's not worth responding when you have your idiotic and demonstrably false statements challenged but it is worth your time to be a snide asshole who refuses to answer basic questions? That a standard of conduct you wanna set for yourself? Really?

(09-11-2017 04:11 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Do I need to use lethal force as my only means of response in a fist fight?
No one said that you did. For fuck sake, I gave you an example of where I used a gun and NO FORCE AT ALL...let alone lethal force as a response to violence. I specifically said pulling the trigger is the last resort but you want to pretend we are talking about using lethal force as the ONLY means to respond to violence.

You, sir, are a categorically dishonest person.

(09-11-2017 09:01 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  I never implied it was immoral, just not a good strategy.
Well..... that's a complete and utter lie. Please do show me where you made the argument that it is not good strategically. While you are at it please tell me your vastly superior form of defence when some is holding you down and stabbing you repeatedly that doesn't require the use of force by you or someone else.

Feel free to put those goal posts down any time I bet they are getting mighty heavy.

(09-11-2017 09:01 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  People do love to get outraged over things I never said.
You can save this little bit of fake indignation for when you're not actively being dishonest about what you said.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
09-11-2017, 06:25 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
Ever debated without the whisky? Consider
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 06:37 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 01:16 PM)abaris Wrote:  Let's play that defend yourself scenario through for a moment. Let's take the recent shootout in Vegas.

I'm curious why we aren't using, as an example of a good guy with a gun, the Texas shooting which is what this thread is about......where a good guy armed with an AR-15 rifle shot the shooter and kept him from escaping until police arrived and saved the lives of at least three people as he interupted the shooter while he was int he process of walking the pews and finishing peopel off.

Inside the Texas church, she thought it was her turn to die. Then outside, a man appeared.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 06:40 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(09-11-2017 06:25 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Ever debated without the whisky? Consider

[Image: never-heard-that-one.gif]
What I love about that joke is it's a tacit admission that apparently I can outdebate you while drunk.

(09-11-2017 06:21 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  but it is worth your time to be a snide asshole who refuses to answer basic questions? That a standard of conduct you wanna set for yourself? Really?
Apparently the answer was yes, you are seemingly perfectly happy being a dishonest cunt. Hazzah for you.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 06:42 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
Quote:Eventually, as the gunman was leaving the church, a local resident who was armed with a rifle confronted the shooter, said Freeman Martin of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/suther...at-we-know
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 06:59 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(09-11-2017 06:42 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
Quote:Eventually, as the gunman was leaving the church, a local resident who was armed with a rifle confronted the shooter, said Freeman Martin of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/suther...at-we-know

A statement put out by Mr. Martin the day of the shooting and not congruent with updated information provided by witnesses. Miss Brown, the woman in the article, didn't give a statement or describe what had happened to her until the day after that statement was released. Your source is outdated.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 07:03 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(09-11-2017 06:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 06:42 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  http://www.wxyz.com/news/national/suther...at-we-know

A statement put out by Mr. Martin the day of the shooting and not congruent with updated information provided by witnesses. Miss Brown, the woman in the article, didn't give a statement or describe what had happened to her until the day after that statement was released. Your source is outdated.

Or the tale grew in the telling.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 07:30 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(09-11-2017 07:03 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 06:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  A statement put out by Mr. Martin the day of the shooting and not congruent with updated information provided by witnesses. Miss Brown, the woman in the article, didn't give a statement or describe what had happened to her until the day after that statement was released. Your source is outdated.

Or the tale grew in the telling.

Your source is outdated, was put out mere hours after the shooting, while the survivors were in surgery, and a full day before they gave their official statement to police, and before a full police investigation had been concluded.

Yes, surely that is the definitive source and we should treat with suspicion any new information that comes out that doesn't agree with the first press release put out the day of the shooting. Are you being a twat to just be a twat at this point?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2017, 11:16 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(08-11-2017 05:34 PM)Dom Wrote:  I believe AR-15 is what has been used a lot by these nitwits...
Sure, lots use them. An AR-15 was also used by the guy who stopped the Texas Church shooting. They are used because they are common, not because they are somehow extra killy. Lots use pistols as well, the US's 3rd largest mass shooting was carried out exclusively with a set of pistols, and there are plenty of mass shootings with rifles that don't result in dozens and dozens of fatalities.

If you could magically remove every single semi-automatic gun from the country you would still have mass shootings they would just be done with pistols, they would still be statistically as deadly, and you would have accomplished nothing.

(08-11-2017 05:34 PM)Dom Wrote:  There is no need for a weapon with it's capabilities to be in the hands of people who have not been vetted properly and who cannot prove that this type weapon is needed by them for? whatever such a reason could be.
According to who and by what metric was that conclusion arrived at?

(08-11-2017 05:34 PM)Dom Wrote:  Stop with the damn classifications. It's a freaking smoke screen and does not address the issue at all.
Um....I was asked to explain what those classifications actually mean. And no Dom it's not a smokescreen to offer clarification to people when they ask or when they use terms they don't understand. You are not going to find the solution to the issue at all when you don't even understand what your proposed solution actually means or involves.

(08-11-2017 05:34 PM)Dom Wrote:  Nobody needs a weapon that can kill hundreds of people in short order. No one.
Ok well first off no mass shooter has ever gotten close to killing hundreds of people, secondly semi-automatic pistol fires at the same rate as a semi-automatic rifle (one pull one shot), and lastly says bloody who? Not the law currently, not the Constitution currently. Why do you get to make that decision for other people?

(08-11-2017 05:34 PM)Dom Wrote:  Hunters need rifles, people need handguns for self defense, I am fine with that. But we don't need weapons that are killing so many people in short order.
This thread is literally about a shooting where a man used an AR-15 in self-defence, and again the 3rd worst mass shooting in the US involved a handgun. You are fine with hunters needing rifles and people needing handguns for self-defence, I'm fine with hunters needing rifles, with people needing handguns for self-defence, and I'm fine with people using shotguns or semi-automatic rifles for self-defence.

(09-11-2017 08:15 AM)Dom Wrote:  True, but there is something more human about face to face combat or violence.
The effective range on my old colt 1911 pistol chambered in .45ACP was 50 yards and its maximum range was 500 yards. I don't really consider half a football field to be face to face combat let alone 5 football fields.

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people and injured 17 others and he used a .22 pistol and a 9mm pistol and that's it.

On top of that most of these shootings take place indoors in close quarters so these guys with rifles, for the most part, are face to face. the guy in the church was most definitely face to face with his victims and it didn't slow him down one bit. Shit man he shot crying babies point blank and he woudl ahev done so had he had a rifle or a pistol.


(09-11-2017 08:15 AM)Dom Wrote:  Being able to mow down masses depersonalizes it and makes it much easier.
Actually, it doesn't. Drone operators suffer PTSD at about the same rate as soldiers in combat and they are on another continent from the people they kill. If having a rifle made it easier to depersonalize we would expect to see much much higher rates of homicides done by these weapons instead of them being the lowest.

(09-11-2017 08:15 AM)Dom Wrote:  And I would not count gangs shooting it out among those gun deaths - that is a whole other societal issue that needs totally different approaches.
That seems like...an arbitrary distinction to me, though I agree that it's not gonna be solved with gun control, and I agree it's a societal problem but the point I made earlier still stands. I do not believe people who say we need to ban rifles because they are too dangerous and kill too many people but we don't need to ban handguns despite the fact that rifles are responsible for 3% of gun homicides and handguns over 80%, ad can kill just as many people if the shooter is determined to do so.
I believe that you Dom don't wanna go after handguns I do, but if we banned rifles and it worked to stop mass shootings (I don't think it would) you better believe the go-to solution for gun-control proponents to handgun violence would be a ban. It absolutely would, there are already people that advocate for just that.

(09-11-2017 08:15 AM)Dom Wrote:  I am talking about mass killings and weapons that take out large numbers of people in short succession. The mass killings that limit the nonviolent citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These can be controlled by making such weapons unavailable.
How do you make them unavailable? Banning them won't make them unavailable, heroin, meth, and cocain are illegal to produce or own but you can find them in nearly every town in America. Alcohol consumption went up during prohibition. Hell I live in Canada and as I've said before I can get a handgun in less than an hour. You rightly say later that you can't solve gang violence with a handgun ban cause that would just create more violence cause it would lead to a black market. How would a semi-auto rifle ban not create a black market?

(09-11-2017 08:15 AM)Dom Wrote:  Gang violence is a sociological issue and needs to be approached from that angle.
Gang culture is a sociological issue, a very complex one but do you really think the people who are for gun control are going to respect that and not try and ban handguns? They already are.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2017, 12:35 AM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(09-11-2017 10:13 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Good point, and one I agree totally with. It's of critical note that Devin Patrick Kelley was not properly vetted, and slipped under the radar all too easily. How many other sociopaths are out there with a trunk full of firearms, and just waiting to pull off a similar deadly exploit as vengeance for some perceived slight(s)? And it doesn't matter whether it was the Navy, or the police, or the gun dealer who seriously fucked up—what happened was preventable from the start.
Yes it was preventable. By the laws the US already has. Had the Air Force done its job he would not have passed the background check and would not have been able to purchase his guns.

(09-11-2017 10:13 AM)SYZ Wrote:  The people who're muddying the waters here with their definitions of firearm types or deployment
In what bizarro world is providing an accurate explanation of terminology "muddying the waters"? Clarifying terminology is literally the opposite.

(09-11-2017 10:13 AM)SYZ Wrote:  are mostly those defending their outmoded 2nd Amendment gun "rights".
Well considering I'm the only(?) one actually providing definitions that's me your talking about and well...I'm an Irish immigrant to Canada so I don't even have a 2nd Amendment right to defend, not for myself anyway.

(09-11-2017 10:13 AM)SYZ Wrote:  Rights that were built around woefully inaccurate, single shot muskets more than 200 years ago, and 120 years before the BAR was deployed during WWII.
There were many multishot firearms in existence already when the 2nd Amendment was written. The Puckle Gun, which was developed some 60 years before the Constitution as written. The Girandoni Air Rifle which was the first repeating rifle in history built in 1779, had a 20 round magazine that could be fired in about 30 seconds, saw service for decades with the Austrian Militry and was the rifle Thomas Jefferson outftted the Lewis and Clark Expedition for their personal defense. Or the Belton Flintlock which was a rifle capable of firing 16-20 shots in as little as 5 seconds. Hell there are 8 shot matchlock firing revolvers from the 1500's.I could go one. The idea that the Founding Fathers had no idea that weapons could possibly get to the point where they fire faster and more accurately in the future is just silly, firearms were always getting better. The Wheellock was developed around 1500 and was superseded by the snaplock by the 1540's, that as superceded by the snaphance by the 1560's, that was superseded by the flintlock by 1600. The Founding Fathers were well aware of weapons tech well beyond "woefully inaccurate, single shot muskets" and actively encouraged advanced weapons development.

Besides this is just a bad argument anyway. The Founding Fathers definitely never envisioned the internet which was built 300 years after the 1st Amendment which was built on parchment and quill but that doesn't mean the 1st doesn't apply to the Internet.

(09-11-2017 10:13 AM)SYZ Wrote:  That the NRA and its supporters cling solely to the literal wording of the 2nd Amendment
Well, I'm not a member of the NRA and don't even own a gun, but I support the 2nd Amendment because of the literal writing. Oh and also because of the private correspondence of the authors that explains their intent and reasoning. Oh and also the Continental Convention transcripts which further explains why the 2nd Amendment is the way it is. Oh and also the Federalist papers. Oh and also the fact it's in accordance with centuries of English Law. Oh and also because the right to self-defence goes back literally thousands of years to ancient Roman Law, vim vi repellere licet.

The 2nd Amendment was written with technological improvements in mind which makes sense as the 2nd amendment is the codification into American law the concept of the right to self-defence which already existed to some degree in English law at the time. The founders recognized, as did most people during the time, that to hold true that people had an inalienable human right to their own defence while barring them from the means to defend themselves is a right in name only but not in reality. If tech advanced to the point we no longer used firearms then whatever weapons we did use for defence would be covered under the 2nd Amendment.

(09-11-2017 10:13 AM)SYZ Wrote:  is similar to the theists who also cling—with some desperation—to another embarrassingly outdated set of rules.
You're right the 1st Amendment IS outdated Congress should have the right to prohibit the exercise of certain religions. Some are demonstrably more harmful than others after all.
The 3rd Amendment is also, equally, outdated and the government should have the right to force you to house soldiers against your will. Soldiers.....and their guns.
The 4th, 5th, and 7th are also as outdated as the 2nd so I guess unreasonable searches are fine now and we can finally do away with these annoying concepts of probable cause, due process, and trial by jury. Wouldn't wanna cling to these embarrassingly outdated set of rules after all.

The right to self defense is not outdated.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: