‘America is killing itself’: world reacts with horror and incomprehension to Texas shooting

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I didn't miss anything. I listed the highest total deaths from guns.                 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/fatal-shootings-have-risen-in-sweden-despite-fall-across-europe-report-finds

Spot the odd one out must have a lot of mental illness in the US according to you:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/

 

 

[fredwiggy]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Spot the odd one out must have a lot of mental illness in the US according to you:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/

 

 

I imagine you wait for the next post so you can respond quickly , without actually reading the whole post and seeing what I've said about what can be done to help the problem. I have access to whatever anyone else does here, to try and rebut others posts because of emotions or lack of actual education on the subject. A lot here haven't even been to the US and only go by what they read online or hear from others. I lived there for 62 years, and never saw a gun crime, and was out and about daily, either driving or doing other things, and can say that the US is a safe place to live. Of course I, like everyone else, cannot be everywhere at the same time, so I missed those gun crimes and only read about them or see them on TV. Like watching TV here in Thailand. You see gun crimes almost daily, along with the daily road deaths, and could think it's happening everywhere. Again, I am all for seeing anything done that can stop these killings, and restricting sales to those that have a positive mental evaluation, are at least 21, with no domestic violence or felonies on their record, will stop most of this madness. As will doing the other things I mentioned many times. Banning guns again, is near an impossible task, and not fair to those who own them and aren't using them in crimes.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

6 minutes ago, jvs said:

It is Absolutely necessary but if you can not see that or refuse to see that then there is no point in discussing this.

Do you really think you have more personal freedom and choice then people from other countries?(apart from the gun thing)

No, there'd be no point in discussing it because you are absolutely wrong about it being "absolutely necessary. " But I suspect you're unlikely to ever acknowledge that. 

 

You're familiar with the phrase "The exception that proves the rule," I assume? 

 

As a kid, that confused me. How can an exception PROVE a rule? Wouldn't an exception DISPROVE a rule? 

 

I was well into High School when a teacher finally explained: "Yes, 'proof' is a confirmation. But the word proof/prove also means 'to test.' So, when you use the right understanding of the word 'proves,' you realize the phrase doesn't mean 'the exception that confirms the rule,' but rather, 'the exception that tests the rule.' " 

 

Suddenly, it all made sense! ???????????? (And yes, I was a little humiliated that I hadn't figured this out on my own, since I already DID know that prove/proof had this other meaning!) 

 

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution---The Right to Keep and Bear Arms---was based on a principle. That principle has been expressed and explained many times in this thread, already, so I'll refrain from doing so, again. (A highly unusual show of posting-restraint, on my part! ????????????)

 

The principle was very important to the Founding Fathers for one very simple reason: They had just used it themselves to win an unwinnable war; to win their independence from the tyrannical governance of Britain! (Was it "Great Britain" by this time? I forget! Lol) 

 

The oath taken by the President before assuming office............ and I believe taken by virtually every high official in our government........... is to [paraphrasing] "Protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." 

 

The Second Amendment is interestingly important in this regard, because the Second Amendment may be the only thing that allows us to defend against......... "enemies......... domestic!" 

 

250 years ago, the British citizens living in the New World viewed the British government across the ocean........... as a "Domestic Threat." And by the means later codified into the Constitution through the Second. Amendment, they were able to expell the tyrants and create their own government/country. 

 

This isn't just a description of "Hey, this is what happened." This explains a PRINCIPLE. It explains WHY the Second Amendment exists......... and WHY it should continue to do so!

 

The Second Amendment doesn't exist because "Hey, people want to have guns, so we should let them have them!" 

 

The Second Amendment exists because sometimes people NEED guns........... and not having them can lead to much, MUCH worse problems............. than the "exceptions" that have been testing The Rule!

 

If all you've got are the "Exceptions that prove the rule"............ without showing you have alternatives that are BETTER THAN The Rule............ while still addressing the things The Rule exists to address............. 

............ Well, then, you've really got nuthin'! 

 

Because the Second Amendment exists to address what could be............ and the Founding Fathers knew with certainty that it could be.......... because that's exactly what they had done themselves! 

 

So, if your solutions........ whatever they may be........... don't address what could be............ then they aren't solutions, at all! All they'd do is address the exceptions.......... while completely ignoring the PRINCIPLE that created The Rule in the first place!

 

Cheers!

[jvs]

14 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

No, there'd be no point in discussing it because you are absolutely wrong about it being "absolutely necessary. " But I suspect you're unlikely to ever acknowledge that. 

 

You're familiar with the phrase "The exception that proves the rule," I assume? 

 

As a kid, that confused me. How can an exception PROVE a rule? Wouldn't an exception DISPROVE a rule? 

 

I was well into High School when a teacher finally explained: "Yes, 'proof' is a confirmation. But the word proof/prove also means 'to test.' So, when you use the right understanding of the word 'proves,' you realize the phrase doesn't mean 'the exception that confirms the rule,' but rather, 'the exception that tests the rule.' " 

 

Suddenly, it all made sense! ???????????? (And yes, I was a little humiliated that I hadn't figured this out on my own, since I already DID know that prove/proof had this other meaning!) 

 

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution---The Right to Keep and Bear Arms---was based on a principle. That principle has been expressed and explained many times in this thread, already, so I'll refrain from doing so, again. (A highly unusual show of posting-restraint, on my part! ????????????)

 

The principle was very important to the Founding Fathers for one very simple reason: They had just used it themselves to win an unwinnable war; to win their independence from the tyrannical governance of Britain! (Was it "Great Britain" by this time? I forget! Lol) 

 

The oath taken by the President before assuming office............ and I believe taken by virtually every high official in our government........... is to [paraphrasing] "Protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." 

 

The Second Amendment is interestingly important in this regard, because the Second Amendment may be the only thing that allows us to defend against......... "enemies......... domestic!" 

 

250 years ago, the British citizens living in the New World viewed the British government across the ocean........... as a "Domestic Threat." And by the means later codified into the Constitution through the Second. Amendment, they were able to expell the tyrants and create their own government/country. 

 

This isn't just a description of "Hey, this is what happened." This explains a PRINCIPLE. It explains WHY the Second Amendment exists......... and WHY it should continue to do so!

 

The Second Amendment doesn't exist because "Hey, people want to have guns, so we should let them have them!" 

 

The Second Amendment exists because sometimes people NEED guns........... and not having them can lead to much, MUCH worse problems............. than the "exceptions" that have been testing The Rule!

 

If all you've got are the "Exceptions that prove the rule"............ without showing you have alternatives that are BETTER THAN The Rule............ while still addressing the things The Rule exists to address............. 

............ Well, then, you've really got nuthin'! 

 

Because the Second Amendment exists to address what could be............ and the Founding Fathers knew with certainty that it could be.......... because that's exactly what they had done themselves! 

 

So, if your solutions........ whatever they may be........... don't address what could be............ then they aren't solutions, at all! All they'd do is address the exceptions.......... while completely ignoring the PRINCIPLE that created The Rule in the first place!

 

Cheers!

Yes it is all good,250 years ago.

Cheers.

[Bkk Brian]

59 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I imagine you wait for the next post so you can respond quickly , without actually reading the whole post and seeing what I've said about what can be done to help the problem. I have access to whatever anyone else does here, to try and rebut others posts because of emotions or lack of actual education on the subject. A lot here haven't even been to the US and only go by what they read online or hear from others. I lived there for 62 years, and never saw a gun crime, and was out and about daily, either driving or doing other things, and can say that the US is a safe place to live. Of course I, like everyone else, cannot be everywhere at the same time, so I missed those gun crimes and only read about them or see them on TV. Like watching TV here in Thailand. You see gun crimes almost daily, along with the daily road deaths, and could think it's happening everywhere. Again, I am all for seeing anything done that can stop these killings, and restricting sales to those that have a positive mental evaluation, are at least 21, with no domestic violence or felonies on their record, will stop most of this madness. As will doing the other things I mentioned many times. Banning guns again, is near an impossible task, and not fair to those who own them and aren't using them in crimes.

You imagine a lot apparently, especially about what I read and see but thanks for the added personal information. Nothing of course to do with my post and facts within. It would not be fair to you to ban guns I know. ????

 

I'll wait for the next sad mass shooting event, not long I imagine.

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[ozimoron]

GOP Senator brags gun control ‘not gonna happen’ amid at least 60 separate shooting incidents in just one day

 

https://www.rawstory.com/gop-senator-brags-gun-control-not-gonna-happen-amid-at-least-60-separate-shooting-incidents-in-just-one-day/

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

GOP Senator brags gun control ‘not gonna happen’ amid at least 60 separate shooting incidents in just one day

 

https://www.rawstory.com/gop-senator-brags-gun-control-not-gonna-happen-amid-at-least-60-separate-shooting-incidents-in-just-one-day/

Brags ... seriously.   Simply stating a fact, but hey, people can read into what they want.

 

Maybe he was sorrowful and there was a sad tone, as posting ... 'That's not going to happen', as a tear ran down his face, and he hugged his family while watching the news of yet another shooting.

 

Had to be bragging.  Did he have dancing and laughing emojis. NO ... IF you read the tweek, he's simply replying  ... no bragging.  Post like above is how BS gets spread.

 

Hey, I heard the rep are bragging that will never happen on my watch ... 

 

A simply reply, no more, no less

 

 

[ozimoron]

33 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Brags ... seriously.   Simply stating a fact, but hey, people can read into what they want.

 

Maybe he was sorrowful and there was a sad tone, as posting ... 'That's not going to happen', as a tear ran down his face, and he hugged his family while watching the news of yet another shooting.

 

Had to be bragging.  Did he have dancing and laughing emojis. NO ... IF you read the tweek, he's simply replying  ... no bragging.  Post like above is how BS gets spread.

 

Hey, I heard the rep are bragging that will never happen on my watch ... 

 

A simply reply, no more, no less

 

 

 

 

It isn't a "fact", it's an intention to block it, hence "brags".

 

[KhunLA]

24 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It isn't a "fact", it's an intention to block it, hence "brags".

 

It IS a fact, as it's not going to happen.   

 

Not sure that's how I'd read it, going to block anything, simply saying it's not going to happen.  Nowhere did I read, he intends to block it.  Actually the opposite is implied;

"I'm told @JohnCornyn is open to making gun laws more restrictive. "

 

If you stated "LA is going to put me on his ignore list"  and I replied "Not going to happen"

 

How would you interpret that ?  

 

People should research a bit, before posting.  Sen. John Cornyn is very open minded, and apparently, bit by bit, has crossed the aisle and help pass gun regulations.   Will it happen all at once, of course not.  But he is far from opposed to any regulations, unlike some of his fellow Reps.

 

"Meanwhile, Texas’ senior senator, John Cornyn, has taken a different route. He’s quietly, but openly, leading the party to work with some Democrats to pass bipartisan gun legislation — a role familiar to him as he has a track record of moving small pieces of gun policy into law in the wake of mass murders."

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/26/ted-cruz-john-cornyn-gun-legislation-texas/

Edited June 2, 2022 by KhunLA

[Hanuman2547]

On 5/30/2022 at 3:20 AM, KhunLA said:

Do try to keep up, as most large cities / metro DO have automatic assault weapons, especially since 1997 N Hollywood shoot out.   Fast forward (01;40) & take note at the end.

 

Thanks for posting this video and proving my point.  At no time in the video do we see police officers using an automatic assault rifle.  If you listened to former LA police officer Rick Massa in the video he at no time states that they (the LA Police) train or use automatic weapons or automatic assault weapons.  He does state that they train with assault rifles and that is very standard.  These are semi-automatic assault rifles as shown in the video.  The difference between a fully automatic and semi-automatic assault rifle is that when you depress the trigger system on a semi-automatic assault weapon one round is discharged.  When the trigger system is depressed on a fully automatic weapon or assault weapon multiple rounds are discharged until the trigger system is deactivated.  Better yet, why don't you call up your local US police department and ask them if they use automatic or semi-automatic rifles, assault style or otherwise.

[KhunLA]

Apparently you didn't watch, till the end, or understand, or ignored the end, and simply trolling.  The police are sometimes geared up so much, they are criticized for being overly militarized.  But hey, keep trying to spin it anyway you like.

https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/12/police-departments-1033-military-equipment-weapons/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/20/where-do-police-departments-get-their-military-style-gear-heres-what-we-dont-know/

 

You really don't need full autos, as a decent semi auto is just fine, something most didn't have in their cruisers, 20-30 yrs ago.  Now most do have, even smalls-ville suburban force, as my hometown.  To think other wise is just ignorance showing.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/Michael Faucher - Putnam CT 2.pdf

 

Have a nice day.

[Hanuman2547]

59 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

 

 

 

 

You really don't need full autos, as a decent semi auto is just fine, something most didn't have in their cruisers, 20-30 yrs ago.  Now most do have, even smalls-ville suburban force, as my hometown.  To think other wise is just ignorance showing.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asaferconnecticut/tmy/0128/Michael Faucher - Putnam CT 2.pdf

 

Have a nice day.

Did you even read the links you posted?  

Here’s the manual’s conclusion: “The ideal choice for the patrol rifle is a semi automatic rifle chambered in 5.56mm or .223 Remington.” It continues, “The two most popular (police service) rifles chambered for this round are the Mini-14 and the many variants of the AR-15. Both rifles have an extensive line of after market accessories and have a proven track record. The Mini-14 may be attractive to those departments that find the AR-15 to (sic) ‘military’ looking.”

 

Go back and watch the entire video that you posted.  I know I did days ago.  There is an example shown of a semi-automatic AR-15 that the police train with.  No mention of full auto because it is a not a good choice in an urban/suburban environment.  Full autos are designed for the military battlefield, not for police work which you were advocating earlier.  

 

Good Day sir

[Bkk Brian]

I reckon some of the gun nuts on here must have got these memos

 

Talking points distributed to Republicans after Uvalde included: “Run the clock out.” “Scare some gun nuts.” “Change the topic to literally anything else.” “Talk about inflation.” “Thank law enforcement.”

 

‘Ignore Guns, Talk Inflation’: Memos Show GOP Strategy After the Uvalde Massacre

 

That’s the message the Republican Party, Donald Trump, and conservative leaders rapidly coalesced around after a series of mass shootings in recent weeks, including at one at a Texas elementary school. 

Several strategy memos and private communications, prepared for a variety of conservative candidates and organizations, reviewed by Rolling Stone in the days following the Uvalde school massacre were clear: change the topic to literally anything else, and let this news cycle run its course. 

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/uvalde-gop-trump-guns-strategy-1362970/

[SatEng]

And another sad story that shows exactly where criminals get their guns and why all guns are a problem

(CNN) Hundreds of mourners filled a baseball diamond about 30 miles south of downtown Houston Friday to remember Mark Collins and his four grandsons -- "bright, shinning stars" in the words of a family friend.

Collins, 66, was visiting the family's weekend ranch in Leon County with four of his seven grandchildren -- brothers Waylon, 18, Carson, 16, and Hudson, 11, and their cousin, Bryson Collins, 11 -- when they were killed by a convicted murderer who had been the subject of one of the largest manhunts for an escaped inmate in Texas history.

"He fired several rounds at officers and was armed with an AR-15 and a pistol," said Clark, adding the firearms were likely also stolen from the Collins' ranch.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/04/us/collins-family-killed-texas-gonzalo-lopez/index.html

 

So this family were probably killed by a criminal with their own legally-purchased guns

The takeaways are:

1) If they had not bought the guns they would not have been shot by them - maybe a slightly better chance of getting away or being injured rather than killed

2) The only way to keep guns out of criminal hands is to ban guns - if this family had not legally bought the guns the criminal could not have got hold of them

 

But for the gun lobby this family - including two 11-year-olds - are just "collateral damage"

 

[SatEng]

On 6/2/2022 at 12:45 PM, fredwiggy said:

I imagine you wait for the next post so you can respond quickly , without actually reading the whole post and seeing what I've said about what can be done to help the problem. I have access to whatever anyone else does here, to try and rebut others posts because of emotions or lack of actual education on the subject. A lot here haven't even been to the US and only go by what they read online or hear from others. I lived there for 62 years, and never saw a gun crime, and was out and about daily, either driving or doing other things, and can say that the US is a safe place to live. Of course I, like everyone else, cannot be everywhere at the same time, so I missed those gun crimes and only read about them or see them on TV. Like watching TV here in Thailand. You see gun crimes almost daily, along with the daily road deaths, and could think it's happening everywhere. Again, I am all for seeing anything done that can stop these killings, and restricting sales to those that have a positive mental evaluation, are at least 21, with no domestic violence or felonies on their record, will stop most of this madness. As will doing the other things I mentioned many times. Banning guns again, is near an impossible task, and not fair to those who own them and aren't using them in crimes.

And to take your last line do you think it is "fair" that innocent people continue to be killed by crazy people legally buying guns or criminals who acquire guns that were originally legally bought?

I don't think the Uvalde parents, grieving today, see how your "fairness" works

[SatEng]

On 6/2/2022 at 1:24 PM, KanchanaburiGuy said:

No, there'd be no point in discussing it because you are absolutely wrong about it being "absolutely necessary. " But I suspect you're unlikely to ever acknowledge that. 

 

You're familiar with the phrase "The exception that proves the rule," I assume? 

 

As a kid, that confused me. How can an exception PROVE a rule? Wouldn't an exception DISPROVE a rule? 

 

I was well into High School when a teacher finally explained: "Yes, 'proof' is a confirmation. But the word proof/prove also means 'to test.' So, when you use the right understanding of the word 'proves,' you realize the phrase doesn't mean 'the exception that confirms the rule,' but rather, 'the exception that tests the rule.' " 

 

Suddenly, it all made sense! ???????????? (And yes, I was a little humiliated that I hadn't figured this out on my own, since I already DID know that prove/proof had this other meaning!) 

 

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution---The Right to Keep and Bear Arms---was based on a principle. That principle has been expressed and explained many times in this thread, already, so I'll refrain from doing so, again. (A highly unusual show of posting-restraint, on my part! ????????????)

 

The principle was very important to the Founding Fathers for one very simple reason: They had just used it themselves to win an unwinnable war; to win their independence from the tyrannical governance of Britain! (Was it "Great Britain" by this time? I forget! Lol) 

 

The oath taken by the President before assuming office............ and I believe taken by virtually every high official in our government........... is to [paraphrasing] "Protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." 

 

The Second Amendment is interestingly important in this regard, because the Second Amendment may be the only thing that allows us to defend against......... "enemies......... domestic!" 

 

250 years ago, the British citizens living in the New World viewed the British government across the ocean........... as a "Domestic Threat." And by the means later codified into the Constitution through the Second. Amendment, they were able to expell the tyrants and create their own government/country. 

 

This isn't just a description of "Hey, this is what happened." This explains a PRINCIPLE. It explains WHY the Second Amendment exists......... and WHY it should continue to do so!

 

The Second Amendment doesn't exist because "Hey, people want to have guns, so we should let them have them!" 

 

The Second Amendment exists because sometimes people NEED guns........... and not having them can lead to much, MUCH worse problems............. than the "exceptions" that have been testing The Rule!

 

If all you've got are the "Exceptions that prove the rule"............ without showing you have alternatives that are BETTER THAN The Rule............ while still addressing the things The Rule exists to address............. 

............ Well, then, you've really got nuthin'! 

 

Because the Second Amendment exists to address what could be............ and the Founding Fathers knew with certainty that it could be.......... because that's exactly what they had done themselves! 

 

So, if your solutions........ whatever they may be........... don't address what could be............ then they aren't solutions, at all! All they'd do is address the exceptions.......... while completely ignoring the PRINCIPLE that created The Rule in the first place!

 

Cheers!

I think there is a great difference between having a militia or reserve to defend against an army (foreign or domestic) as opposed to allowing every citizen - crazy or not - to have a weapon and start shooting innocent people.

You assume that the founding fathers intent was what you have read into it - that is not fact

Many countries - Switzerland, some Nordic countries - have a reserve or armed militia in case of an attack on the country - but there are very stringent rules on who can have the guns, the training they have to have and the way in which the guns are stored

Laws restricting the sale of guns to only trained personnel, police checks on all people before a gun license is issued, regular checks on how the weapons are kept (locked, ammunition and weapon in separate storage) etc.

All of these restriction that you hate would be FULLY compliant with the second amendment

Edited June 5, 2022 by SatEng