Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rcwitness said:
40.png
Roseeurekacross:
Ok, we all need to learn from New Zealand. They have no mass shootings and no gun laws. Every second shop on the South Island is a gun shop.

Of course, they love jumping out of choppers onto livestock too, hmmm
Click to expand...
I agree with finding answers to why Americans are routinely committing these awful crimes.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the ability to get guns is why some of these people choose to use them to commit mass murder.

They decide they want to commit mass murder because they have been deceived by demons. Then, they find out how to murder a bunch of people and themselves.
Click to expand...
There is a higher crime rate in the U.S. than in New Zealand, much of which is linked to drugs/gangs. And there are also socio-economic factors to consider.
 
Facts can’t be disputed, it’s epistemologically impossible.

p.s. I will change my stance if and when the evidence/facts support that change. Simple.
 
Last edited:
If it is fact, as per what the definition of what that words means, it cannot be disputed.
 
Last edited:
josie_L said:
40.png
rcwitness:
40.png
Roseeurekacross:
Ok, we all need to learn from New Zealand. They have no mass shootings and no gun laws. Every second shop on the South Island is a gun shop.

Of course, they love jumping out of choppers onto livestock too, hmmm
Click to expand...
I agree with finding answers to why Americans are routinely committing these awful crimes.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the ability to get guns is why some of these people choose to use them to commit mass murder.

They decide they want to commit mass murder because they have been deceived by demons. Then, they find out how to murder a bunch of people and themselves.
Click to expand...
There is a higher crime rate in the U.S. than in New Zealand, much of which is linked to drugs/gangs. And there are also socio-economic factors to consider.
Click to expand...
Which is why I wouldn’t think of making more restrictions of guns in any place where there isn’t an epidemic of gun violence
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
Because your whole “balance of rights” concept in this case is nonsense. The right to self defense, the right to bear arms, is not contradictory to the right to life and property. In fact, the right to bear arms exists partly to protect the right to life and property. The fact that some people use firearms to take life or commit armed robbery does not invalidate the right to bear arms- if anything it strengthens it.

Someone can use any number of deliberate means to take your life or your property, Jig-Saw. All of them are illegal. Just because the potential exists for someone to take those away from you, does not mean your rights to life and property are diminished.
Click to expand...
If the costs of people having military grade weapons which are far beyond what is necessary to protect life and property are expenses that are passed onto the taxpayer, then, yes, it does infringe on my rights to life and property. It will happen in the Las Vegas case, as it has happened with most mass shootings. Your failure to acknowledge that means that you don’t respect my rights.
 
But if you read the article from the Journal of Harvard Law that I quoted from, those countries with high gun crime who imposed gun bans and/or extreme gun control saw an increase not a decrease in overall crime thereafter.
 
ucfengr said:
You can’t quantify the cost so you deflect by assuming one and saying I’m okay with stealing it. Nice try.

I wonder, do you think all cell phone owners bear a corporate responsibility for the death and injuries caused by texting while driving?
Click to expand...
Actually, I made no attempt to quantify it because it was a deflection from the true argument. If it is one penny, it is still my one penny and you have no right to it.

Again, with cell phones, we are seeing the natural evolution on how to deal with the issue through technology and law enforcement. In many newer cars, it is set up to make the cell phone act through the car’s speaker system without requiring the user to do much of anything. That will reduce distracted driving. Furthermore, in my state, it is illegal to text and drive and I did get asked once by an officer if I was texting at a stoplight (I was changing disks in a CD player). You can bet that this will continue if people continue to cause accidents when texting.

On the other hand, it is interesting that gun owners think that nothing should change if something happens with a gun.
 
The constitution was certainly a document limiting the powers of the federal government. But individual states could do and did things which the federal government did not. For instance states had religious tests and state churches.

At the same time there was in general a different conception of the state. There was a more democratic view towards justice. You can see this in the power of juries. And there was not an expectation that the duties of the state would only be carried out by agents of the state. You can see this again with private prosecutors, bounty hunters, and not having a standing army.

Ironically the interpretation of the 14th amendment is what makes it so no government, state or federal, should be able to in any way infringe the right to own weapons.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Looking only at the second amendment, it is clear that it is not universally accepted as a transcendent moral truth, since the constitutions of other nations do not include it and their laws, in fact directly contradict it. 4% of the world’s population lives under a second amendment. 96% do not recognize the moral authority of that amendment. More importantly for this forum, the Catholic Church does not recognize the transcendent moral authority of the second amendment. As far as the Church is concerned, gun policy is a prudential judgment matter that the faithful may decide for themselves. The closest that Church teaching comes to this matter is an affirmation of the right and duty of self defense. But nowhere in that teaching is there any mention of the right to specific means of self defense. That is purely a matter for prudential judgment.
Click to expand...
‘When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe.’ – Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your swordback into its place; for all who take the swordwill perish by the sword.
 
exnihilo said:
‘When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe.’ – Jesus of Nazareth.
Click to expand...
So curious that you cite a verse referring to Satan, who, in the next verse, is overcome by the greater strength of the Lord…
 
Last edited:
So are we not to have police and military? Are we supposed to sit back and watch as our wives and daughters are raped and killed? There have always been advocates of extreme pacifism as a demand on all Christians. This has always been rejected. You can resist violence with force. You can also choose not to.
 
The second amendment concerns a right to self defense. The right to self defense is a transcendental moral truth. If it isn’t a moral truth then we can never resist violence. We couldn’t as individuals and we couldn’t collectively as in police, courts, and armies.
 
exnihilo said:
The second amendment concerns a right to self defense.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I thought that it concerned the idea that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
Where could I have gotten that idea?
 
exnihilo said:
So are we not to have police and military? Are we supposed to sit back and watch as our wives and daughters are raped and killed? There have always been advocates of extreme pacifism as a demand on all Christians. This has always been rejected. You can resist violence with force. You can also choose not to.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t mean that. I was just showing that Jesus said other things, more directly, about the use of weapons.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
exnihilo:
The second amendment concerns a right to self defense.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I thought that it concerned the idea that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
Where could I have gotten that idea?
Click to expand...
I think the Ammendment is meant to be more general than that. We have a right to possess guns for our protection against whatever… animals, intruders, attackers, etc.
 
rcwitness said:
I think the Ammendment is meant to be more general than that. We have a right to possess guns for our protection against whatever… animals, intruders, attackers, etc.
Click to expand...
We may indeed have that right, but that cannot be inferred from a fair reading of the second amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top