User Tag List

Page 32 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2229303132
Results 466 to 475 of 475

Thread: Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

  1. #466
    Over 500 post club WatchmanOnTheWall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    624
    Thanks
    27
    Thanked 42 Times in 37 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3291
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusha View Post
    Glad that I have your word on that. Thanks.

    The next step *could be* ... losing the ability to properly defend your family and yourself from a violent aggressor.

    And yet here you are posting in it ...
    Well it quite fun, but seriously your comment proves my point - no imagination.

  2. #467
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    193
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 107 Times in 75 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    33359
    I know I owe some of you some replies but I haven't been feeling good, and haven't had the energy to reply. I'll do that as soon as I feel good enough to have the energy to put forth the kind of thoughtful replies your posts deserve.

    This is addressed to no one in particular. Its genesis lies in the video of Susan Hupp Gruptia, at least I hope I got that right, testifying before a Senate subcomittee on the 2nd Amendment. Her testimony was so powerful it has been stuck in my head ever since. And today my mind made a connection to a poem I learned probaby 50 years ago, and probably haven't thought of 40+ years.

    This poem helped shape my idea of what a woman is really supposed to be. A sort of ideal woman. And Gruptia's testimony showed her to be what I see as what God created women to be. Smart, articulate, knowledgable, and courageous as a lioness in defending what she thinks is right. As I said, thinking about her and her testimony, especially the last few moments of it where she tells those Senators the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment is what brought this John Greenleaf Whittier poem to mind. It is titled, Barbara Frietchie.
    UP from the meadows rich with corn, Clear in the cool September morn,
    The clustered spires of Frederick stand Green-walled by the hills of Maryland.
    Round about them orchards sweep, Apple and peach trees fruited deep,
    Fair as the garden of the Lord To the eyes of the famished rebel horde,
    On that pleasant morn of the early fall When Lee marched o'er the mountain-wall;
    Over the mountains winding down, Horse and foot, into Frederick town.
    Forty flags with their silver stars, Forty flags with their crimson bars,
    Flapped in the morning wind: the sun Of noon looked down, and saw not one.
    Up rose old Barbara Frietchie then, Bowed with her fourscore years and ten;
    Bravest of all in Frederick town, She took up the flag the men hauled down;
    In her attic window the staff she set, To show that one heart was loyal yet.
    Up the street came the rebel tread, Stonewall Jackson riding ahead.
    Under his slouched hat left and right He glanced; the old flag met his sight.
    "Halt!" - the dust-brown ranks stood fast. "Fire!" - out blazed the rifle-blast.
    It shivered the window, pane and sash; It rent the banner with seam and gash.
    Quick, as it fell, from the broken staff Dame Barbara snatched the silken scarf.
    She leaned far out on the window-sill, And shook it forth with a royal will.
    "Shoot, if you must, this old gray head, But spare your country's flag," she said.
    A shade of sadness, a blush of shame, Over the face of the leader came;
    The nobler nature within him stirred To life at that woman's deed and word;
    "Who touches a hair of yon gray head Dies like a dog! March on!" he said.
    All day long through Frederick street Sounded the tread of marching feet:
    All day long that free flag tost Over the heads of the rebel host.
    Ever its torn folds rose and fell On the loyal winds that loved it well;
    And through the hillgaps sunset light Shone over it with a warm good-night.
    Barbara Frietchie's work is o'er, And the Rebel rides on his raids no more.
    Honor to her! and let a tear Fall, for her sake, on Stonewall's bier.
    Over Barbara Frietchie's grave, Flag of Freedom and Union, wave!
    Peace and order and beauty draw Round thy symbol of light and law;
    And ever the stars above look down On thy stars below in Frederick town!

  3. #468
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    981
    Thanks
    728
    Thanked 250 Times in 204 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    93508
    Quote Originally Posted by WatchmanOnTheWall View Post
    I agree totally and would point out that it has taken a non-pro-gunner to point out what the pro-gunners here have failed to pointout.
    I would say that it isn't a gun control advocate pointing out what no else has, but that you dismiss facts that disprove your claims.

    Which adds weight to my point that they don't have the intelligence/imagination. In my mind this (and more) is just obvious. As I've said before US educational standard are lacking.
    This is kind of an arrogant statement. Which is better: to be an uneducated idiot or an educated idiot? I would say the latter; for they think they are intellectual, yet they fail to grasp the vastness of their ignorance.

  4. #469
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    981
    Thanks
    728
    Thanked 250 Times in 204 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    93508
    Quote Originally Posted by This Charming Manc View Post
    Due to time I and keeping posts relativity pithy can we address one Issue at a time?
    Sure. That works for me. (I thanked this post due to the very civil nature of our discussion)

    Which agrees with the main point I make. I believe your gun liberty introduces significantly more risk and personal danger than the positive effects it can have on personal safety.
    Yet, that is not what statistics show.

    Each year, guns are used 80 times more to protect lives, than to take them. Concealed carry states had reduced murders, rapes, assaults, and robberies. In fact, every public mass shooting since the 50's has occurred only in areas where guns were banned.

    Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound their attacker.


    When we look at figures like this we tend to look at deaths per 100,000 people, so the different numbers of people taken into consideration.

    I will take the UK and USA as two examples, similar cultures, similar levels of industrialisation, urbanisation, multi culturalism, general crime is slightly higher the UK, but the significant difference when it comes to homicide is guns. The US population is roughly 5 times that of the UK ( we are crammed in here ).
    Excellent comparison.

    The US has more than 1 gun per head the UK about 4 gun for every 100 people, but virtually no handguns.
    That could be the issue in UK, as handguns are the primary gun for self-defense.

    The murder rate per 100,000 people

    • in the US 4.88 per 100,000 or 15,696 people total
    • in the UK it is 0.92 per 100,000 or 594 people total,

    If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 3,000 homicides per year.

    If you look at the gun homicide rate

    • in the US 3.54 per 100,000 or 11,208 people total
    • in the UK it is 0.04 per 100,000 or 23 people total (2013 figures)

    If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 100 gun homicides per year.

    If you look at the gun death rate which includes suicides & accidents as well as homicides;

    • in the US 10.63 per 100,000 or 33,636 people total
    • in the UK it is 0.22 per 100,000 or 122 people total (2013 figures)

    If you increased the UK population to the size of the US, but kept the same rate per 100,000 people it would be around 600 gun deaths per year.

    From the above stats it is not hard to a see why I believe the UK situation brings significantly better outcomes than the current US situation.
    Great points. I do not dispute these statistics at all. But let us consider these statistics for a moment.

    Where do these gun related deaths occur in the US? A high majority occur in cities with the strictest gun laws, or even gun bans. The highest total number of these gun crimes occurs in the largest cities, most of which are attributed to gang related homicides. Once again, these places have the strictest of gun laws and even bans in some of them.

    Immediately, we can infer that strict guns laws, or even bans, do not stop criminals from using guns.

    There is another observation comparing the UK and the US: There are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. Compare that to 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the US.

    Kitchen knives are being used in as many as half of all stabbings in the UK. It has gotten to the point that some are calling for the ban of knives. Are the knives to blame for the stabbing?

    [*]There is a strong coloration between the difference between the two homicide rates and the number of gun homicides in the US.
    Naturally. It is easier to kill with a gun than a knife, bat, hands, etc. Also, this is also, once again, attributed to gang violence.
    [*]Rates for other methods of murder such as poison, knives, suffocation, assault are similar enough to make think that Americans are not more murderous or have more evil intent than Brits.
    I would argue that Americans are more murderous. But, that could just be because of more people/gangs/overall crime.
    [*]Thankfully all murder rates have been dropping on both sides of the Atlantic the past few years
    This is something that should give us all hope.

    Let us consider the murder rates are dropping in the US. There are more guns sold each year than the year before. So, while gun supplies are increasing, murder rates are decreasing. Logically, that cannot mean that guns are the source of crime.

    Excellent sources.

    Do you feel i did that ?
    I think you adequately gave supporting statistics for your position. However, I do not think that your claim is solidified by basic rates and averages, as (correct me if I am wrong) you are attributing murder rates directly to guns.

    Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

    https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/bl...er-rate-cities

    2010 CDC Report. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

    Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995): http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm

  5. #470
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 18 Times in 16 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    This tragedy was horrific. Love is growing colder and colder.

  6. #471
    STAND UP Tambora's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    43,120
    Thanks
    131,206
    Thanked 38,600 Times in 23,993 Posts

    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2148079
    Quote Originally Posted by Grip Docility View Post
    This tragedy was horrific. Love is growing colder and colder.
    True.
    But in this case, it was only one that was cold blooded.
    And because of neighbors that cared for the community and chased him down and ended his life, we have one less cold blooded killer in the world.

    We the people can do much to protect our communities if we band together and take action when threatened.
    Stand up America.
    Arm yourselves and charge full steam ahead when thugs arrive.

    God Bless America

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Tambora For Your Post:

    patrick jane (November 17th, 2017)

  8. #472
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 18 Times in 16 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
    True.
    But in this case, it was only one that was cold blooded.
    And because of neighbors that cared for the community and chased him down and ended his life, we have one less cold blooded killer in the world.

    We the people can do much to protect our communities if we band together and take action when threatened.
    Stand up America.
    Arm yourselves and charge full steam ahead when thugs arrive.
    No-one, who harms the innocent, should harm them without resistance. James 1:20; 1 Peter 3:9-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 15 carry a reminder that what violence does occur is a very delicate matter. Society has become grandiose about the taking of life. Ecclesiastes 3:3 is a very important verse to keep in heart.

    The lead poisoning that the shooter died of, was a firm fulfillment of Revelation 13:9-10.

  9. #473
    Over 4000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    4,903
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,158 Times in 942 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    249920
    Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
    . . .Stand up America.
    Arm yourselves and charge full steam ahead when thugs arrive.
    Amen. It's easiest to remove freedoms when people do not avail ourselves of them.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Nihilo For Your Post:

    Tambora (November 17th, 2017)

  11. #474
    Over 1500 post club This Charming Manc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Congleton, cheshire, england
    Posts
    1,593
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 96 Times in 68 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    213965
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    Sure. That works for me. (I thanked this post due to the very civil nature of our discussion)
    Hopefully we can keep it that way, this however became a long brambly point by point rebutall.

    Yet, that is not what statistics show.
    You didn't quote any statics, you made a number of claims I have heard made by supporters of the gun lobby many times, but provided no statistical evidence or reference points.

    I hadn't before but I tried researching sources on this to see how statistically viable these claims are.

    Each year, guns are used 80 times more to protect lives, than to take them
    OK this statistic came from a 1992 phone survey study where, 56 respondents out of 5000 claimed to have used there guns to prevent a crime. The 'research' then extrapolated that minute and unscientific sample to create the 80 to 1 figure.

    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...han-to-take-it

    The numbers can at best be described as a 'gross estimate' but I could use more colourful language. If that is the 'best scientific' research a multi billion dollar industry can quote to justify its position,its case must not be very strong.

    The figures I quote come from actually figures compiled by law enforcement agencies of based off actual events

    Concealed carry states had reduced murders, rapes, assaults, and robberies.
    First i've never argued about open or closed carry, i argue about the sheer numbers and availability of firearms in circulation. So the point not relevant>

    I'm sure i will repeat myself discussion. but my stance is limited gun controls that do nothing about supply expects people with harmful and criminal intent to obey a gun law once they have a gun in there hand is at best well intentioned but ineffective.

    There is lots of arguments about the claim as well(there is over everything in this debate), but i can find anything completely damning about it either.

    In fact, every public mass shooting since the 50's has occurred only in areas where guns were banned.
    Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound their attacker.
    The stats comes from same highly flawed study mentioned above. The "National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year.". We also know there are 259 justifiable homicides each year.

    "Compare that with 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings, according to the FBI." - figures more recent that the one I used in the first post.

    That could be the issue in UK, as handguns are the primary gun for self-defense.
    I'm not sure what the Uk issue is. is it being less likely to be shot or less likely to murdered?

    Great points. I do not dispute these statistics at all. But let us consider these statistics for a moment.
    Always a but

    Where do these gun related deaths occur in the US? A high majority occur in cities with the strictest gun laws, or even gun bans. The highest total number of these gun crimes occurs in the largest cities, most of which are attributed to gang related homicides. Once again, these places have the strictest of gun laws and even bans in some of them.
    Immediately, we can infer that strict guns laws, or even bans, do not stop criminals from using guns
    I'd agree that once someone has a gun in there hand and criminal intent, gun law matters little.

    There is another observation comparing the UK and the US: There are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. Compare that to 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the US.
    Again a highly misleading stats thrown around by the pro gun lobby

    the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

    The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

    https://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...t-than-the-us/

    I will reply to the rest of you post later.

    But please don't post 'facts' and 'stats' pulled of gun memes and sites as truth. As i've shown above, they are usually are not.

    We will have a much better and more meaningful discussion if you research facts from neutral sources.

    Sources

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opini...619-story.html
    http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...es-open-carry/
    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...han-to-take-it
    Last edited by This Charming Manc; November 17th, 2017 at 01:35 PM.
    SJKW Extraordinaire

  12. #475
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    981
    Thanks
    728
    Thanked 250 Times in 204 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    93508
    Quote Originally Posted by This Charming Manc View Post
    Hopefully we can keep it that way, this however became a long brambly point by point rebutall.
    That is my fault. I try to address too many issues at once. My apologies; I will attempt to keep better focus from here on out.

    You didn't quote any statics, you made a number of claims I have heard made by supporters of the gun lobby many times, but provided no statistical evidence or reference points.
    Most of my "statistics" are found in either your or my sources. Other claims I make are simple logical deductions made from evidence. Such as "The figures I quote come from actually figures compiled by law enforcement agencies." Just being honest.

    OK this statistic came from a 1992 phone survey study where, 56 respondents out of 5000 claimed to have used there guns to prevent a crime. The 'research' then extrapolated that minute and unscientific sample to create the 80 to 1 figure.

    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...han-to-take-it

    The numbers can at best be described as a 'gross estimate' but I could use more colourful language. If that is the 'best scientific' research a multi billion dollar industry can quote to justify its position,its case must not be very strong.
    The stats comes from same highly flawed study mentioned above. The "National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower
    I put these two quotes of yours together to illustrate an immediate hypocrisy.

    I will take your point that my source was flawed. I did not research it adequately. Yet, you argue against it with a survey. Surveys are grossly inaccurate. If you had said Pew Poll, I would have accepted it readily, as they have shown to be a prestigious, unbiased source for reports. But a survey which asks people about their personal opinion on "victimhood?!" That is paradoxical.


    Always a but
    Americans have the largest buts.

    I have "buts" in my responses in order to widen the gaze of a statistic. It isn't to disprove, but to show scope of a truth/fact.


    the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

    The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”
    I should have added a disclaimer that it is hard to compare various "violent crimes" for different countries, as they define "violent crime" differently. You are right on that.

    https://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...t-than-the-us/

    But please don't post 'facts' and 'stats' pulled of gun memes and sites as truth. As i've shown above, they are usually are not.

    We will have a much better and more meaningful discussion if you research facts from neutral sources.

    Sources

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opini...619-story.html
    http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...es-open-carry/
    https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...han-to-take-it
    First, I never get any information from memes. Memes rarely contain a shred of fact.

    Secondly, you say I need research from neutral, factual sources, but every source you used in the above response was a blog or left-leaning news source. Neither of which give neutral, factual research. Hold yourself to the same standard. And I shall do the same. That is how we can progress.


    I'd agree that once someone has a gun in there hand and criminal intent, gun law matters little.

    First i've never argued about open or closed carry, i argue about the sheer numbers and availability of firearms in circulation. So the point not relevant>

    I'm sure i will repeat myself discussion. but my stance is limited gun controls that do nothing about supply expects people with harmful and criminal intent to obey a gun law once they have a gun in there hand is at best well intentioned but ineffective.

    There is lots of arguments about the claim as well(there is over everything in this debate), but i can find anything completely damning about it either
    Okay, this is a good point to really have our discussion.

    The reason I mentioned concealed carry was because of the fact that more guns are in circulation every year. This is based on your first source used, which gave statistics based on country. Thus, logically, if guns are correlation all to increases of crime, crime should have gone up in the last decade, in the U.S. But it hasn't. Concealed carry laws being mentioned only strengthened that point.

    So, let's discuss gun laws. You argue that strict gun laws will reduce crime, correct? I argue that laws are not obeyed by criminals. You even said, "I'd agree that once someone has a gun in there hand and criminal intent, gun law matters little." Right there, it demonstrates that laws do not affect intent, as criminals are already intending to commit criminal acts.

    So, to progress the discussion: 1.) How would gun laws affect intent?

    2.) what gun laws do you suggest be implemented?


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us