Texas Church Shooting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-11-2017, 03:54 AM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(09-11-2017 07:30 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 07:03 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  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Your source is outdated, was put out mere hours after the shooting, while the survivors were in surgery, and a full day before they gave their official statement to police, and before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?
I don't give any account precedence over another. I'll wait to see what they're saying in a year. And I'll look at that carefully.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2017, 04:07 AM
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 Your source is outdated.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.

Or the facts don't go along with your agenda, so you dismiss them.

....

I'm a double atheist. I don't believe in your god or your politician.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
10-11-2017, 11:18 AM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(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.

Should freedom of speech not apply to us because we're typing on a computer? After all, those didn't exist then either.

(09-11-2017 10:40 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Nah, people will keep on doing just what you're doing.

If you don't want to communicate clearly, you shouldn't expect others to understand you ... and that renders your "communications" impotent.

Enjoy your irrelevance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
10-11-2017, 11:34 AM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
The more we post the more there is to quibble about. I keep things short for a reason.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2017, 12:08 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(06-11-2017 05:13 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(06-11-2017 04:11 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Why do we need long guns that have more than one round capacity?

Why do you think you're more qualified to decide what other people need? Don't like repeating firearms? Don't buy one.

It's not really a matter of "qualifications" about what other people need, and you've fallen into a trap of your own making here... what qualifies you to decide what other people need—or don't need—in the way of firearms?

And to glibly suggesting that people who are against certain types of firearms simply don't buy them is totally avoiding the underlying thrust of this thread—the massive firearms deaths scenario in the US. And Gawdzilla's perfectly legitimate question about single shot rifles—what exactly's wrong with a good old bolt action anyway?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2017, 12:45 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(09-11-2017 06:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  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...

Sorry, but this is the type of absurd, defensive argument that the NRA uses over and over again. And it's a bogus argument. It fails to address the fact that the bad guy with the rifle did kill 26 innocent people, whilst overstating that the good guy (Stephen Willeford) with the rifle may have saved 3 lives—which is obviously a false premise. It proposes that those three people were bound to die, with no possibilities for survival other than the good guy "saving" them. Which is of course nonsensical.

And even if we do accept that the good guy saved three people (who?) from death, it doesn't negate in any way the horrific fact that the bad guy killed more than eight times that number. Which is ultimately what this thread's all about.

Quote:...and kept him from escaping until police arrived and saved the lives of at least three people as he interrupted the shooter while he was in the process of walking the pews and finishing people off...

I understood from the news reports that Willeford shot and wounded Kelley when he (Kelley) ran outside the front door of the church, that is, he'd stopped shooting and was making for his vehicle—as he did successfully—and drove off. I saw no news reference to Willeford keeping him from escaping (which he actually managed to do) and/or "interrupting the shooter".

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2017, 12:59 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
Ya'll must be watchin' that there fake news, junior! The real facts are over at Infowars!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
10-11-2017, 01:50 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(10-11-2017 11:34 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  The more we post the more there is to quibble about. I keep things short for a reason.

Perhaps you should stick to Twitter, then. Complex issues kinda need more than snide brevity if you want to have an adult discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
10-11-2017, 02:00 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(10-11-2017 01:50 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(10-11-2017 11:34 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  The more we post the more there is to quibble about. I keep things short for a reason.

Perhaps you should stick to Twitter, then. Complex issues kinda need more than snide brevity if you want to have an adult discussion.

See? Quibbling again.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-11-2017, 02:18 PM
RE: Texas Church Shooting
(10-11-2017 12:45 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 06:37 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  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...

Sorry, but this is the type of absurd, defensive argument that the NRA uses over and over again. And it's a bogus argument. It fails to address the fact that the bad guy with the rifle did kill 26 innocent people, whilst overstating that the good guy (Stephen Willeford) with the rifle may have saved 3 lives—which is obviously a false premise. It proposes that those three people were bound to die, with no possibilities for survival other than the good guy "saving" them. Which is of course nonsensical.

And even if we do accept that the good guy saved three people (who?) from death, it doesn't negate in any way the horrific fact that the bad guy killed more than eight times that number. Which is ultimately what this thread's all about.

Quote:...and kept him from escaping until police arrived and saved the lives of at least three people as he interrupted the shooter while he was in the process of walking the pews and finishing people off...

I understood from the news reports that Willeford shot and wounded Kelley when he (Kelley) ran outside the front door of the church, that is, he'd stopped shooting and was making for his vehicle—as he did successfully—and drove off. I saw no news reference to Willeford keeping him from escaping (which he actually managed to do) and/or "interrupting the shooter".

Considering the homicidal fuck didn't kill his original target - his ex mother in law, it's a safe bet that if he' d been left to his own devices, more people would have died.

The good guy with h a gun very likely saved lives.

To suggest otherwise is stupidity colored by bias.

....

I'm a double atheist. I don't believe in your god or your politician.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: