Do you support the second amendment?

[LeafByNiggle]

No, no it isn’t.

Regulate: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

There is nothing in the examples you’ve discussed that would meet the criteria of “well-regulated” because there is nothing to ensure that a consistent and appropriate standard of training is being applied and provided in every circumstance. Would you consider it “well-regulated” if that was the standard for driving? That your neighbour or community group or spouse provide all the training, and there be no further check to see if (a) they were actually capable of providing quality instruction or (b) you were capable of learning?

I personally agree with your characterization of the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately (and do mean unfortunately) the Supreme Court currently disagrees with your (and my) interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the Heller decision.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

IF the perps think (what are now “soft-targets”) are not such a soft target anymore because of possibly armed people . . . because (in the sphere of a qualified adult) people MAY be concealing and carrying, the perps might not be so quick to rush into school zones and other gun-free zones (which are soft targets) and wreak havoc.

Admittedly the Texas Baptist Church has not been reported (to my knowledge anyway) as a “Gun-Free Zone”, and I also admit that bad guys MAY still attack not-so-soft targets, there MAY be a better chance to save lives by ridding many of these public soft-target Gun-Free Zones.

Also concerning the recent Texas massacre, we now are pretty sure it was stopped by good guys with a gun.

Cute memes. But there is no evidence that killers would target schools, etc. any less if those places just got rid of their gun free zone designation. Soft targets are soft targets, with our without the signs.

 

[Rhubarb]

A bystander exchanged fire with the shooter. The area around the church was not a gun-free zone.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A bystander exchanged fire with the shooter. The area around the church was not a gun-free zone.

That proves my point. Having a guns-allowed zone around the church did not prevent the killer from attacking it.

 

[Rhubarb]

I knowz it. I was giving you support.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That proves my point. Having a guns-allowed zone around the church did not prevent the killer from attacking it.

The counter-attack saved lives. Where was the great and haughty government that’s supposed to “help” the people?

 

[upant]

Rhubarb:

A bystander exchanged fire with the shooter. The area around the church was not a gun-free zone.

That proves my point. Having a guns-allowed zone around the church did not prevent the killer from attacking it.

off base here . he targeted this church because of the in-law; not the zones.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

Having a guns-allowed zone around the church did not prevent the killer from attacking it.

.
No but having a guns-allowed zone around the church almost certainly DID PREVENT the killer from attacking the people in and around the church MORE than he did.

---

VIDEO: ‘My God Protected Me,’ Says Man Who Shot Texas Church Killer

by Bob Price 6 Nov 2017 Sutherland Springs, TX Breitbart News Service

The Sutherland Springs man who came face-to-face with a madman who killed 26 people in a Texas church says God protected him and gave him the skills he needed to stop more deaths. The former NRA instructor engaged Devin Patrick Kelley as he exited the church. . . . .

. . . “I just wish I could have gotten there faster,” Willeford said in an emotional interview. . . .

. . . . “I kept hearing the shots, one after another, very rapid shots – just ‘pop pop pop pop’ and I knew every one of those shots represented someone, that it was aimed at someone, that they weren’t just random shots,” Willeford explained. “He saw me and I saw him.”

He said he took cover and did what he had to do.

Texas officials reported in a press conference Monday night that Devin Patrick Kelley, the killer of 26 in the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, was struck by Willeford’s gun fire two times–once in the torso and once in the leg.” He then dropped his rifle, got in his car, and fled the scene before he could shoot any other people who were outside the church. . . .

(emphasis mine)

VIDEO: 'My God Protected Me,' Says Man Who Shot Texas Church Killer

 

[JonNC]

A bystander exchanged fire with the shooter. The area around the church was not a gun-free zone.

Two bystanders
Thank goodness they were there, with their firearms

 

[JonNC]

This thread has kind of turned into “Commandos for Jesus”. I don’t think any further intelligent conversation is possible now.

That is a remarkably ridiculous mischaracterization of the members participating on this thread.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That proves my point. Having a guns-allowed zone around the church did not prevent the killer from attacking it.

The counter-attack saved lives. Where was the great and haughty government that’s supposed to “help” the people?

That was not the point I was disputing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Rhubarb:

A bystander exchanged fire with the shooter. The area around the church was not a gun-free zone.

That proves my point. Having a guns-allowed zone around the church did not prevent the killer from attacking it.

off base here . he targeted this church because of the in-law; not the zones.

Exactly so. And he would have done so even if it was a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones do not encourage more shootings.

 

[upant]

Exactly so. And he would have done so even if it was a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones do not encourage more shootings.

you can not make any claims about gun free zones in this case because the motive was different. this was a domestic dispute. he went where he probably thought the targets were.

it would not have mattered if it was a gun free zone or not.

unfortunately and as crude as it sounds, the lack of available guns to stop him allowed for a larger body count.

 

[F_Marturana]

This attack was one of the worst ever. Columbine is no longer on the list of 10 worst shootings.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Exactly so. And he would have done so even if it was a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones do not encourage more shootings.

you can not make any claims about gun free zones in this case because the motive was different. this was a domestic dispute. he went where he probably thought the targets were.

it would not have mattered if it was a gun free zone or not.

unfortunately and as crude as it sounds, the lack of available guns to stop him allowed for a larger body count.

There are two question here. One is the role of gun-free zones in preventing shootings. The other is the role of armed citizens to confront a shooter. So we agree there is no evidence that the “gun-free zone” designation affects determined shooters one way or the other. As to the second question, there is no doubt that the presence of armed citizens kept the shooter from shooting even more people in this case. What is not clear is what side-effects there may be (and already are) due to increased gun presence. Since these high-profile mass shootings account for a small fraction of the total number of people killed by guns, it makes sense to ask the question of what the proliferation of guns may do to affect the overall death rate.

 

[MonteRCMS]

People who were severely mentally ill used to be able to be reported to the courts and then confined in a mental hospital and medicated.

That is no longer permitted, even when family members and the police all agree that the defendant is a danger to himself and to the community.

Thanks to the ACLU.

So, regardless of circumstances, you now have to wait until they commit some heinous offense.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

JonNC:

You’ve said it: you want to reduce firearms. In one sense, Cathaholic is right. You don’t want to go into homes and collect firearms. You want to prevent citizens from having them in the first place. It is really more about timing than a different end result.

Jon, there’s an enormous difference between taking something from someone once they have it VS. making it difficult for them to obtain in the first place. This is why grandfathering laws exist.

The effect ends up being the same.

But the means are very different.

Both a man who died of old age and a baby aborted en utero ended up dead. But the means were very different.

The means by which it happens is important too. I think I’ve got ya here, even if you won’t admit it.

 

[Vonsalza]

This attack was one of the worst ever. Columbine is no longer on the list of 10 worst shootings.

“Just remember, boys; these attacks and their bodies counts are just the cost of freedom!”

Disgusting.

 

[JonNC]

But the means are very different.

Both a man who died of old age and a baby aborted en utero ended up dead. But the means were very different.

The means by which it happens is important too. I think I’ve got ya here, even if you won’t admit it.

The problem is your analogy is faulty. If, instead, the old man dies because a government healthcare system withheld care so that he would die, saving the state money, that is not comparable.
The intent then is the same.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

But the means are very different.

Both a man who died of old age and a baby aborted en utero ended up dead. But the means were very different.

The means by which it happens is important too. I think I’ve got ya here, even if you won’t admit it.

The problem is your analogy is faulty. If, instead, the old man dies because a government healthcare system withheld care so that he would die, saving the state money, that is not comparable.
The intent then is the same.

As I look at the headlines of all the doctors committing Medicare fraud, it appears that the opposite of “the old man dies because a government healthcare system withheld care” seems to be what actually exists.

But here we’re back to your personal boogey-men. You’re afraid of being denied care by the government. As fears are typically irrational, nothing I can really do about that.