Pratt: what media won’t tell you about the new zealand massacre

[LeafByNiggle]

DENNYINMI:

Your rights to gun ownership does NOT supersede the right to life.

my right to life is based on my right of gun ownership.

If you are speaking of a moral right (not just a legal right), there is no support for that statement in Catholic teaching, or indeed in any Christian teaching.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Good point.

Another is that unless a person has years of military or police training, what we imagine we will do in a shooting vs what our natural reactions are vary wildly.

Friend of mine is a pround gun owner, conceal to carry, has taken classes and goes to the range every other weekend to keep her skills honed. We even joke in a group that they will save us should a bad thing begin.

One day they were in a department store and there was the sound of gunfire. They told me how it was so much different than the drills and the practice. That when it actually happened all they wanted to do was grab the people near and hide with them behind some shelves, then take the first opportunity to exit. In the end, it was not gunfire but some sort of mechanical mishap that made those bangs.

The point is, remember that it takes a serious amount of re-conditioning to overcome our natural desire to hide or run when the doo doo begins to go down.

 

[RuthAnne]

That sort of shoots down the claim of being there to protect the public, doesn’t it?

Not at all. Cops aren’t everywhere. Does that shoot down their claim to protect the public?

Fortunately, I live in an area where we don’t have many fruitcake gun control advocates. Cops love us. They encourage concealed carry. They regularly give classes to the public on gun ownership and gun safety. We all work together to stop crime. Crime around here is very low. I rarely lock my doors. I go on walks alone very late at night.

You can go to any gun shop around here with an ID, fill out a little paperwork and be a gun owner in less than a half hour—as it should be.

ATF should be the name of a convenience store, not a department.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That sort of shoots down the claim of being there to protect the public, doesn’t it?

Not at all. Cops aren’t everywhere. Does that shoot down their claim to protect the public?

The reason it doesn’t shoot down the police’s claim to protect the public is that we give police professional training, so adding more police is just a matter of paying more salaries. But adding more citizens carrying guns carries a much higher price tag - the increase in accidents that would necessarily result from having a large group of untrained people carry guns. And don’t tell me that some are very well trained, but what matters is the ones who are not trained and don’t want to bother getting trained. That fraction will necessarily go up as a wider group of people become armed.

Fortunately, I live in an area where we don’t have many fruitcake gun control advocates.

Fortunately, I live in an area where we don’t have very many gun-worshippers.

 

[RuthAnne]

Fortunately, I live in an area where we don’t have very many gun-worshippers.

So do I. Our neighbors all worship God.

 

[GKMotley]

Holy Water pistols, I think.

 

[RuthAnne]

Not sure. Probably a Sig Sauer but I’ll ask him next time I speak to him.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

Just because Pollak says Breitbart is not “alt-right” does not mean it isn’t “alt-right.”

Well you asked why they would expect an on-air correction and I told you.

You don’t opine on a news presentation.

If your guest does, admittedly that is different.

But clarification at least that Breitbart has distanced themselves from alt-righters (whatever that is as the definition changes from person to person) on his own program no less should have benn stated. It wasn’t.

(Actually Breitbart has attacked the “alt-right” movement because I have heard them do it.)

 

[upant]

Dublin is not London!

That sort of shoots down the claim of being there to protect the public, doesn’t it?

laws have to change for that to happen

How do you know? If you cannot guarantee me a certain number then I cannot rely on them to protect the public.

why would you rely on random chance and it would always be a random chance even if it was required. this is why I consider it a personal requirement and consider it a personal attack when someone wants to limit my freedom of weapons choice.

It means being able to get to your gun and use it before the shooter you want to stop does much more damage. Having a gun in the trunk of your car in the parking lot does no good if the shooter is inside the building and you have to run outside to get your gun.

a perfect reason for no gun-free-zones

No, there have been plenty of shootings in areas where concealed carry is legal and where no one of that sort stopped the shooter.

absolutely, see random chance above and why the individual should protect his own person and family

There are many factors affecting the suicide rate.

yes, but those intending to do it will find a way unfortunately, God rest their souls.

Yes, but try making that training mandatory, and the NRA will scream bloody murder. It does not do any good to have training available if those with the guns don’t choose to take the training.

you have to remember, most gun control laws were created to deny certain groups of people guns and they were not denied for safety reasons but for discriminatory reasons. many pushing these laws still allow the rich man to overcome these obstacles and obtain the guns being outlawed, usually by paying a high priced permit. For example, Bloomberg would outlaw all guns but yet keep his armed detail.

If you are speaking of a moral right (not just a legal right), there is no support for that statement in Catholic teaching, or indeed in any Christian teaching.

you are right I should have added: “in certain circumstances”. For the below to work, you need a tool.

"The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."ccc2263

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not saying Breitbart is alt-right. I’m just defending Inskeep for not engaging in an argument about it with Rudd. Perhaps Rudd is wrong and Pollak is correct. But it still a matter of opinion, and not a universally accepted fact. So Inskeep in under no journalistic obligation point out that Pollak has denied the allegation. Perhaps you are more familiar with the the Fox News style of interviewing where the interviewer takes every opportunity to engage in debate (if he disagrees) or voice his support (if he agrees) with the interviewee, and expect all journalists to follow that pattern.

 

[Cathoholic]

TheLittleLady . . .

Another is that unless a person has years of military or police training, what we imagine we will do in a shooting vs what our natural reactions are vary wildly.

Ex-miltary people are being barred from being armed in certain circumstnces too.

I’ve given example in New York City doing that here on CAF before.

I am also not aware of NZ allowing arms for ex-military there. They may. I just haven’t heard of it.

.

Friend of mine is a pround gun owner, conceal to carry, has taken classes and goes to the range every other weekend to keep her skills honed. We even joke in a group that they will save us should a bad thing begin.

One day they were in a department store and there was the sound of gunfire. They told me how it was so much different than the drills and the practice. That when it actually happened all they wanted to do was grab the people near and hide with them behind some shelves, then take the first opportunity to exit. In the end, it was not gunfire but some sort of mechanical mishap that made those bangs.

Actually running and hiding is the first step they are taught.

It is only if there is no reasonable alternative with a life-threatening situation at hand, when a good guy is taught to engage the bad guy with force.

I think your friend’s first reaction sounds good.

But I know what you mean.

Practice and real-life situations are certainly different.
Different for police.
Different for military.
Different for guards.
And different for citizens.

Agreed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

How do you know? If you cannot guarantee me a certain number then I cannot rely on them to protect the public.

why would you rely on random chance and it would always be a random chance even if it was required.

That was my point. Society can’t count on random chance that there will be a concealed carry guy present when the occasion arises. Thus my assertion that concealed-carry is not a benefit to society.

this is why I consider it a personal requirement and consider it a personal attack when someone wants to limit my freedom of weapons choice.

Thanks for proving that the only argument left to gun-worshippers is their personal freedom to do what they want for their own benefit. The claims that it benefits society at large is bogus and cannot be supported.

It means being able to get to your gun and use it before the shooter you want to stop does much more damage. Having a gun in the trunk of your car in the parking lot does no good if the shooter is inside the building and you have to run outside to get your gun.

a perfect reason for no gun-free-zones

No, because even in areas where it is not a gun-free zone, shootings happen, because even when it is allowed to carry a gun, no one is carrying a gun. The gun-free zones are ineffective to either encourage or discourage shootings. It would not make any difference if they went away. In fact, I would like to see them go away just so that gun-worshippers can stop using their existence as a scapegoat.

No, there have been plenty of shootings in areas where concealed carry is legal and where no one of that sort stopped the shooter.

absolutely, see random chance above and why the individual should protect his own person and family

See above where I agree random chance is insufficient, and that gun-worshippers only want to protect themselves and their family and have no particular regard for society at large.

continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

continuing…

There are many factors affecting the suicide rate.

yes, but those intending to do it will find a way unfortunately, God rest their souls.

Statistical studies prove that to be wrong.

Yes, but try making that training mandatory, and the NRA will scream bloody murder. It does not do any good to have training available if those with the guns don’t choose to take the training.

you have to remember, most gun control laws were created to deny certain groups of people guns and they were not denied for safety reasons but for discriminatory reasons. many pushing these laws still allow the rich man to overcome these obstacles and obtain the guns being outlawed, usually by paying a high priced permit. For example, Bloomberg would outlaw all guns but yet keep his armed detail.

None of which addresses what you quoted just above your remark, which makes it a non-sequitur.

If you are speaking of a moral right (not just a legal right), there is no support for that statement in Catholic teaching, or indeed in any Christian teaching.

you are right I should have added: “in certain circumstances”. For the below to work, you need a tool.

"The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."ccc2263

This gives the moral justification for acting in self defense at the time of the act. It does not give moral justification to take any and all measures in anticipation of such an event. That is, ccc2263 says nothing about the right to own any kind of weapon you might think is good to have.

 

[RuthAnne]

Society can’t count on random chance that there will be a concealed carry guy present when the occasion arises. Thus my assertion that concealed-carry is not a benefit to society.

Substitute the word cop for concealed carry.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

More to the original point of all the gun grabbers focusing myopically on one thing, how about the NZ police force focus on why it took 36 minutes to respond to the shooting? Because currently they think that was an excellent response time. I can tell you one reason right off the bat, and that is an over reliance on small centralized Armed Response Teams. It would be like having to wait on the one city SWAT team for every violent incident in a US city. But nah, let’s not focus on improving police force policies.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Not sure. Probably a Sig Sauer but I’ll ask him next time I speak to him.

Interesting choice but it is actually Berretta:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Or perhaps Springfield

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Well, it’s Boston. They already sent all their rifle money to the IRA.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Society can’t count on random chance that there will be a concealed carry guy present when the occasion arises. Thus my assertion that concealed-carry is not a benefit to society.

Substitute the word cop for concealed carry.

Cops may not be perfect, but they are better than any alternative I have seen offered here.

 

[RuthAnne]

Society can’t count on random chance that there will be a concealed carry guy present when the occasion arises.

Again, substitute cop for concealed carry.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Society can’t count on random chance that there will be a concealed carry guy present when the occasion arises.

Again, substitute cop for concealed carry.

Again, what alternative do you offer?