PDA

View Full Version : Shootings in Austin Texas


ORAC
31st Jul 2016, 08:25
Multiple shootings in Austin, incident still ongoing - "active shooter" reported to be roaming town, multiple locations.

I suppose we will have to wait to see which of various reasons sparked this one - religion, race or other.

vapilot2004
31st Jul 2016, 10:07
Seems to be all the same thing. Another nut with a gun.

SASless
31st Jul 2016, 12:54
Police cancelled the precautionary "Active Shooter" Alert and report two unrelated shooting incidents in close proximity to one another.

1 Dead, 4 Injured in Austin, Texas, Following 2 Separate Overnight Shootings - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/active-shooter-leaves-multiple-victims-austin-texas-police/story?id=41025191)


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/31/austin-active-shooter/87882128/

Austin....suburb of Chicago was not to be outdone by its Sister City in Texas.

http://abc7chicago.com/news/woman-fatally-shot-3-wounded-in-west-side-fight/1450576/

Lonewolf_50
31st Jul 2016, 13:01
In regards to the first incident, police received a call at 2:17 a.m. about multiple shots fired in downtown Austin. The suspect fired into a crowd on 6th Street, police said, adding that it is unknown if the shooter had a connection with any of the victims.
Sixth street is "the happenin' place" in Austin on weekends. Bars and night clubs up and down the street. The time of the event looks like just after closing time. (But I think there are some bars on 6th street that stay open after "closing time" though I've not been out late in Austin in over a decade.

One person -- a woman in her 30s -- was fatally shot and died at the scene. Three other females -- all in their 30s -- who were shot and injured were transported to University Medical Center Brackenridge in Austin with serious, but not life-threatening injuries. The fifth person is a male who was injured but refused care, police said. Not sure I understand that, maybe uninsured?

Then, at 2:24, police received a call of an individual being assaulted in a parking garage elsewhere in downtown Austin. A weapon was pulled out and shots were fired, police said. But witnesses stopped the suspect, and took him down. The suspect, believed to be in his 20s, was then transported to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries. No one was struck by any bullets.

The only person injured in this incident is the suspect. Any bets that various drugs and / or alcohol are involved in this one?

SASless
31st Jul 2016, 13:11
I bet the illegal handgun sneaked into the guys pocket and when he went to pull his Cell Phone out and make a Selfie....the evil pistol tried to murder five people. It then ran on its tiny little legs to the Car Park and again forced its way into yet another innocent persons grasp and continued its efforts to murder people devoid of human interaction with its triggering mechanism.

Yes, Lone....as usual in these tragedies we should slow down and examine the facts, evidence, and other factors that are so common in these kinds of Saturday night affairs.

Age, Sex, Race, Criminal Records of both Perp and Victim, Gang involvement, Drug and Alcohol use, and perhaps "Motive" all should be considered before the usual Rants are made.

We should at least know who and what we are talking about first....then make our views about this incident be known.

SMT Member
31st Jul 2016, 14:21
The real news is, that the US is slightly ahead in the statistics compared to previous years. Fair chance they'll break 35.000 people killed by guns this year, especially as they're currently averaging more than one mass-shooting per day.

SASless
31st Jul 2016, 14:39
SMT,

Care to study the details of those Stats you just threw out and explain to all of us the true story of what those numbers represent?

For a start....why don't you take a few minutes and study up on Chicago and its Murder Statistics....the Police Department publishes very detailed breakdowns of the various factors that play a role in their horrendous Murder Rate.

Take into consideration their Gun Laws are so strict....there is not a Gun Shop in the City as they are outlawed. Possession of hand guns is very tightly restricted and ordinary folk cannot get the legal authority to possess or carry one inside the City Limits.

When you take a very broad brush to the topic as you did....you grossly misrepresent the truth of the situation.

Rough numbers....Chicago alone has over 500 Gun Murders per Year all by itself. Then we add in Washington DC, Flint, Detroit, Saginaw, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Baltimore and other large urban areas and all of a sudden the rest of the country begins to have very few Murders by Gun in comparison.

I know I am pissing in the Wind to again raise this notion that Non-American's have all the answers despite not understanding the issues but one can hope over time through sheer reputation they might take note and at least consider the FACTS.

Do we have too many killings....and too much violence....absolutely.

Before we can look to reduce the level of violence we have to first genuinely and with objectivity research the underlying issues that lead to the violence we see manifesting itself as a result of those causal factors.


For instance....a quick article that will suggest what i am saying is important when considering the explanation for what is going on in Chicago currently.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/01/murders-shootings-soar-chicago-through-first-three-months-2016/82507210/

obgraham
31st Jul 2016, 15:56
I'm sure the usual suspects will be along soon to make their same tired arguments about what should be done in a country not their own.

While ignoring all the dead Chicagoans since the last time.

Chesty Morgan
31st Jul 2016, 16:33
More likely to be a toddler than a terrorist. Sadly.

Hempy
31st Jul 2016, 16:38
I'm sure the usual suspects will be along soon to make their same tired arguments about what should be done in a country not their own.

Spot on, 100% right. No one should make tired arguments about what should be done in a country not their own!

Sort of like how people shouldn't make arguments about what should be done in other countries not their own e.g Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Laos, Cambodia, Zaire, El Salvador, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, Panama, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Yemen, Haiti, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan etc etc?

Krystal n chips
31st Jul 2016, 16:52
" I know I am pissing in the Wind to again raise this notion that Non-American's have all the answers despite not understanding the issues but one can hope over time through sheer reputation they might take note and at least consider the FACTS.

Well, since you raised the issue about facts.....how about, from a purely neutral observer to save any confusion, and there may be several million others in the world, plus a few million enlightened Americans....30000 plus deaths per annum. Seems factual enough would you not say ?


Do we have too many killings....and too much violence....absolutely.

Yes, but, lets be honest, when law enforcement resorts to violence as a matter of course, and when Hollywood has for years shown the world "how the West was won", then violence is rather entrenched in the psyche of many Americans.

Before we can look to reduce the level of violence we have to first genuinely and with objectivity research the underlying issues that lead to the violence we see manifesting itself as a result of those causal factors.

Education may prove beneficial here.

ExXB
31st Jul 2016, 18:14
Hempy :ok:

obgraham
31st Jul 2016, 18:55
Perhaps I should list all the countries in which England attempted to impose their way of life?
It would be a much longer list. You taught us well!

But you've still got Gibraltar, so no worries.

Wingswinger
31st Jul 2016, 19:07
I seriously object to that, obgraham, it should be Britain. Don't forget we Scots, the Welsh and the Irish who were all extremely enthusiastic empire builders.

Hempy
31st Jul 2016, 19:08
Perhaps I should list all the countries in which England attempted to impose their way of life?
It would be a much longer list. You taught us well!

Ah, but the English aren't the ones sayingI'm sure the usual suspects will be along soon to make their same tired arguments about what should be done in a country not their own., it's just you.

To be a hypocrite is one thing. To be a hypocrite and then deny it is another thing all together...

SMT Member
31st Jul 2016, 20:47
Care to study the details of those Stats you just threw out and explain to all of us the true story of what those numbers represent?

You can spin it anyway you like, 35.000 killed by guns every year speaks for itself.

Here's another one for you: On an average day in 2015, 36 Americans died from firearms, excluding all suicides. Or how about this one: From 2005 to 2015, 71 Americans died from terrorism. In the same time period 302.000 were killed by firearms in the US. I'm just going to give you two more, which should bring a tear to the eyes of anyone who's a parent: In 2015, on average, a toddler shot someone once a week. On average 7000 children in the US are either wounded or killed by guns. Any society who fails to take the obvious consequence of such horrifying statistics, a society which apparently is happy to let children die so grown-ups can behave like idiots, has frankly lost its way.

Speaking of Chicago: On average the police there removes an illegal gun every 74 minutes. Since interstate travel is not illegal, and state cross-border checks are almost unheard of, it really matters naught if this city or that has a ban on guns, if the next one over doesn't. It requires little to no brains circumventing such a ban, and bringing it up as an argument why gun control won't work is inane at best, but much more likely to be wilful ignorance.

galaxy flyer
31st Jul 2016, 21:08
Cite your authority that 1 in 3 deaths is the result of police action, please. That would mean, by your 35,000 number including suicides, that every murder in the US is by the police.

GF

SMT Member
31st Jul 2016, 23:48
Cite your authority that 1 in 3 deaths is the result of police action, please. That would mean, by your 35,000 number including suicides, that every murder in the US is by the police.

GF

Checked the source, couldn't find anyone else to back-up the claim - rather the opposite actually. Number did seem very high, but I fell for it anyway. My apologies for using false numbers, I've edited my previous post to reflect.

SASless
1st Aug 2016, 01:04
SMT....you got caught using cooked up numbers (not saying you cooked them up....just you used bad info)....and admitted that when cornered....which is a refreshing start. Keep up the good work.

Did I not say we needed to be objective and research the causes of the problem using good Data and evidence?

You reckon there might just be some other "Facts" you have grabbed on to that might not be as sound as you would hope?

As you do not seem inclined to do that bit of research I suggested re Chicago.....perhaps I will offer some to you each evening for a while and see if they correlate with what you have accepted to be Gospel.

You are correct there are not many Road Blocks or Checkpoints between cities, towns, states and the like here in this Country of ours. There are a lot of reasons for that.....some legal, some administrative, and some because of financial cost.

Our system of Justice is based upon the notion of voluntary compliance by the vast majority of the People. Perhaps that notion is getting a bit thread worn of late what with the Clinton Scandals (but then I digress I suppose) and other events.

The other notion we have is that a Law must be morally acceptable to those it applies to or it will not work.

Now a few facts....rough numbers....87% of all murders in Chicago are Black on Black. In those murders, a vast majority of both Perp and Victim each have Criminal Records with at least one Felony.

As Hand guns are illegal in Chicago....the shooter is committing a State Gun Crime, and if that shooter is a convicted Felon...he is also committing both a Federal Gun Crime and a State Gun Crime.

What do you make of that set of facts?

vapilot2004
1st Aug 2016, 01:16
Any discussion of Chicago gun laws (or any city, state, or municipality within the US) is worthless. Why? We have an open society in the US and border crossings are not a thing within the contiguous states - unless we are talking agriculture. So toss out Chicago if we want to have a discussion based on reality.

SMT pulls one bad statistic out of about a dozen accurate ones. So you think you can throw his entire argument away?

Scandals: I would leave Clinton out of it, unless you would like to talk about the pedophile Republican Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, the treasonous actions of Scooter Libby, low-life felon Casino Jack and his White House connections... I could go on (and on and on) but I do hope you get my point, SAS.

Meanwhile a perfectly fine thread on gun control in the states is available for perusal here, http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/581361-where-were-they.html, started by our own Chesty Morgan. There was another recent and highly informative thread on the US gun problem started by you, SAS, but as thread starter, you had the power to delete it and you did for reasons unknown.

obgraham
1st Aug 2016, 01:41
You probably don't really want to go there, VAP, listing Repubs in the slammer.

Prison seems overloaded with Demo politicians, particularly from Obama's adopted home state of Illinois, where a prison term is apparently the norm for a career politician.

vapilot2004
1st Aug 2016, 01:47
Most of the National Politician's crimes against humanity, and those involving the lack of moral turpitude seem to fall more in the GOP column lately OBG.

Orange future
1st Aug 2016, 13:43
"before we can look to reduce the level of violence we have to first genuinely and with objectivity research the underlying issues that lead to the violence we see manifesting itself as a result of those causal factors."

The problem is not the lack of research, there have been plenty of studies done. The problem is the results are not acceptable to the political machine that carries way too much power.

How long are you willing to put up such an argument?

SASless
1st Aug 2016, 14:48
I have been involved first hand with many of these issues for a lot of years.

There is some good research but there are far too many false conclusions some folks have latched on to and political agendas have applied poor policies and concepts.

Far too many sacred Cows when it comes to dealing with the reality of it all.

"before we can look to reduce the level of violence we have to first genuinely and with objectivity research the underlying issues that lead to the violence we see manifesting itself as a result of those causal factors."

The problem is not the lack of research, there have been plenty of studies done. The problem is the results are not acceptable to the political machine that carries way too much power.

How long are you willing to put up such an argument?

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Aug 2016, 06:51
Far too many sacred Cows when it comes to dealing with the reality of it all.

There is without doubt 1 sacred cow at the heart of it all.

The BBC is today reporting that Texas is now allowing students to carry guns on campus. A country where you need a gun to be safe in school, not sure it gets more [email protected]$&ed up than that!

bcgallacher
2nd Aug 2016, 06:56
Anybody taking bets as to when the obvious result of this will happen?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
2nd Aug 2016, 09:01
There is without doubt 1 sacred cow at the heart of it all.
In a country where where being educated, being fed, or being healthy are not enshrined as basic rights, but carrying a gun is, what do you expect?

SASless
2nd Aug 2016, 12:36
SFP....I agree with you.

Why would One need a Gun on a School Campus as we all know they are (prior to recent changes in some States and remain so in the rest) Gun Free Zones and thus there should never be any shootings of any kind beyond perhaps a Competition Shooting Team.

So perhaps you might explain all this to us....why would One need a Gun in a Gun Free Zone?

Are Guns showing up like Transformers and becoming Homicidal Maniacs as in some futuristic Sci-Fi Thriller?

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 13:17
In a country where where being educated, being fed, or being healthy are not enshrined as basic rights...... Hmmm. Does the UK have ANY rights "enshrined as basic rights?". Or are the "rights" UK citizens have accommodations by the government to the citizens which can be withdrawn at the whim of Parliament?

Geordie_Expat
2nd Aug 2016, 13:22
Hmmm. Does the UK have ANY rights "enshrined as basic rights?". Or are the "rights" UK citizens have accommodations by the government to the citizens which can be withdrawn at the whim of Parliament?

You really are getting stunningly boring with your stock rant about the UK about which it is becoming more apparent by the post you have no idea.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 13:22
The BBC is today reporting that Texas is now allowing students to carry guns on campus. A country where you need a gun to be safe in school, not sure it gets more [email protected]$&ed up than that! Here in the US those students have several other civil rights. ZERO civil rights are "needed" (including the bearing of arms) "to be safe in school". You have (predictably) completely mischaracterized this law.

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Aug 2016, 13:22
Or are the "rights" UK citizens have accommodations by the government to the citizens which can be withdrawn at the whim of Parliament?
There's no such thing as an absolute "right". "Rights" are what society decides they are, from time to time and place to place.


In the UK they are changed through the democratic process (as opposed, say, to the whim of a dictator), which yes, means decisions of parliament. And parliament can, and does, withdraw "rights" from time to time - for example I no longer have the "right" to own slaves.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 13:24
You really are getting stunningly boring with your stock rant about the UK about which it is becoming more apparent by the post you have no idea. It is indeed "stunningly boring" when such a question is consistently met with obfuscation. Answer the question and we'll see how "boring" the subject is.

Are "being educated, being fed, or being healthy" "enshrined as basic rights" in the UK as was implied? My opinion, is no, they are not. Further, it is my stated opinion there are NO rights "enshrined as basic rights" in the UK. My challenge was for you to show my opinion wrong. Not up to the challenge? Yup, that is indeed "stunningly boring."

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 13:46
There's no such thing as an absolute "right". "Rights" are what society decides they are, from time to time and place to place.Sounds reasonable. To a European ear. However, here in the US we consider some rights to be "natural" and "unalienable" rights that cannot be granted by government nor granted from "time to time and place to place" by society. They are a birthright, not a societal granted right. We view the role of government to be to protect/secure those rights, not grant them.

In the UK they are changed through the democratic process (as opposed, say, to the whim of a dictator), which yes, means decisions of parliament. And parliament can, and does, withdraw "rights" from time to timeIn the US, the rights enumerated in the Constitution were not granted by the government to the people, but are natural rights held by the people. They cannot be "changed" and must not be infringed by either branch of government. We have a limited government, with limited powers. Among its limitations are its power to infringe upon the civil rights enumerated in the Constitution. One of the enumerated civil rights is the right to keep and bear arms.

Geordie_Expat
2nd Aug 2016, 14:08
KenV,


I truly do not understand what the hell you are on about. Your 'natural' rights are anything but ! There is nothing 'natural' about carrying a gun, not by any definition of the word. You are utterly obsessed by this, to an unhealthy degree IMO. I cannot understand how someone who is obviously intelligent in most other matters is so blind in regard to guns and your precious 2nd amendment, regardless to what is going on around you.


Just to add; how can these not be changed when, by definition, the 2nd amendment is in itself a change ?

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 15:08
KenV, I truly do not understand what the hell you are on about. Your 'natural' rights are anything but!Really? You have provided zero to back up that claim. However, the concept of natural "unalienable" rights is the very basis of the founding of our nation beginning with the Declaration of Independence. "Natural unalienable rights" have been the very basis of our nation and our government far far longer than your government has existed.

There is nothing 'natural' about carrying a gun, not by any definition of the word.I never claimed it was. I said the right to "keep and bear arms" is a natural right. That MAY include "carrying a gun". Or not. In Texas, it includes carrying a gun (with a government issued permit) even on a school campus.

You are utterly obsessed by this, to an unhealthy degree IMO.May I suggest that the "unhealthy obsession" lies with the self righteous (and usually clueless) reformers (like you) who have taken it upon themselves to tell another nation's citizens what civil rights they can and cannot have.

KenV, I truly do not understand....I cannot understand how someone who is obviously intelligent in most other matters is so blind in regard to guns and your precious 2nd amendment, regardless to what is going on around you.Cannot understand? That's abundantly obvious. And since you "cannot understand," don't preach to us until you obtain just a small smattering of understanding of the basic governing philosophy of our nation and the laws that have resulted.

Just to add; how can these not be changed when, by definition, the 2nd amendment is in itself a change ? Yet another example of a gross lack of understanding. The Bill of Rights does NOT grant a single right. It prohibits Congress from infringing certain rights. When the constitution was written, the people ALREADY held ALL the rights in the Bill of Rights and many many more. The amendments in the Bill of Rights were included to ensure that the government could never infringe on certain specific rights the people already had. And to make sure there was no confusion about that fact and to preclude some politicians from claiming that if some right was not enumerated in the Constitution that it did not exist, the ninth amendment was included which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Geordie_Expat
2nd Aug 2016, 15:22
There are so many of your own interpretations in that last post that it is obviously pointless trying to have any sort of sensible discussion with you, Ken.


And, please, do not resort to insults. It does your argument no good at all.
I have never in any post told you what 'civil rights' you can have. Absolutely never. And to say your "Natural unalienable rights" have been the very basis of our nation and our government far far longer than your government has existed utterly defies belief.

Toadstool
2nd Aug 2016, 15:29
KenV

Hmmm. Does the UK have ANY rights "enshrined as basic rights?". Or are the "rights" UK citizens have accommodations by the government to the citizens which can be withdrawn at the whim of Parliament?

You are right, our laws based on the Magna Carta are not rights that you have in your Bill or rights. That said, only an absolute idiot would think that our citizens's rights are at jeopardy. Patriot act anyone :ok:. We have been free for longer than your country has been around and there has been no instance where any of us have not felt free.

You need something to tell you that you're free. I don't. You need guns because you feel threatened. I don't. Up until a wee while ago (compared to the length of our history), you had slaves, who were then given rights but still treated as second class. We didn't.

I will take my freedom any day. When you constantly go on about your rights and freedom, its almost like you are trying desperately hard to convince yourself.

We don't need to.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

VH-UFO
2nd Aug 2016, 15:32
May I suggest that the "unhealthy obsession" lies with the self righteous (and usually clueless) reformers (like you) who have taken it upon themselves to tell another nation's citizens what civil rights they can and cannot have.

Pot, this is kettle, over......

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Aug 2016, 15:41
Really? You have provided zero to back up that claim. However, the concept of natural "unalienable" rights is the very basis of the founding of our nation beginning with the Declaration of Independence. "Natural unalienable rights" have been the very basis of our nation and our government far far longer than your government has existed.
Ah, so is the USA going start taking the "rights" to "life" and "liberty" seriously one day soon then?

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 16:07
There are so many of your own interpretations in that last post...Really? Then you have clearly not read our Declaration of Independence, nor our Constitution. They are quite plain and there is a plethora of scholarly writing upon which I based my post. Your charge of me making "your own interpretation" is more correctly pinned on you because you have made several strong assertions while simultaneously stating (repeatedly) "I don't understand."

And, please, do not resort to insults. The phrases "what the hell you are on about", "you are utterly obsessed", "unhealthy" obsession, "someone who is obviously intelligent....is so blind" are indeed insulting and offensive. Sadly, they were all phrases used by you.

I have never in any post told you what 'civil rights' you can have. Absolutely never. Not in so many words. But your meaning was abundantly clear. You forcefully declared there is no such thing as a natural right. You then went on to say that "There is nothing 'natural' about carrying a gun, not by any definition of the word." The facts are undeniable: You have forcefully declared that an unalienable civil right Americans hold dear is no right at all. Does that not put the lie to your claim of innocence?

And to say your "Natural unalienable rights" have been the very basis of our nation and our government far far longer than your government has existed utterly defies belief. Utterly defies belief? Then you clearly refuse to believe that which is an incontrovertible fact. The Declaration of Independence was formally ratified on July 4, 1776, the birthdate of our nation. The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 and the government formed under that Constitution on March 4, 1789. That SAME government has been running continuously, without interuption, ever since. Only the folks who administer that government have changed over those centuries.

The United Kingdom was created in January 1801. It was not until the Parliaments Acts of 1911 and 1949 that today's UK government took form. That was significantly changed in 1972 when European Community law was incorporated into UK law. But because of BREXIT, that will change yet again. And finally, do you even know what happens with each of your national elections? After each such election, the majority party (or coalition of parties) is granted the authority by the monarch to form a government. In other words, the UK technically forms a new government after every national (general) election. When was your last national election? Was it before July 4, 1776? Or "far far" later than that?

May I suggest you get a little "understanding" of your OWN government before trying to tell the people of another nation how their government should operate?

Lonewolf_50
2nd Aug 2016, 16:33
Seems that we have lost interest in the shootings in Austin, but fortunately the cops in Austin are still interested.


1. The guy in the parking lot shooting (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/crime-law/authorities-man-charged-arrested-in-sunday-nightcl/nr73M/), who didn't hit anyone, was arrested.


2. The other fellow has been identified (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/affidavit-alleged-downtown-gunman-intended-to-shoo/nr76T/), an apparently meant to shoot another man but missed and hit the lady who died (and a few other people). (Gee, it being after 2AM, what are the odds he was sober?
Someone shoved him, so he decided to shoot that person ... is the story so far.




Austin police have identified Endicott McCray, 24, as a person of interest in a early morning shooting in Sixth Street on Sunday, July 31, 2016, that killed one woman and injured four others. McCray, a San Marcos resident, has multiple burglary convictions, court records show.

Police said one of those shots hit Teqnika Marie Moultrie, 30, in the head. She was pronounced dead shortly after the incident.
“Four surviving victims were transported via Austin-Travis County EMS to UMC Brackenridge hospital with both life-threatening and non-life threatening gunshot wounds to the chest, thigh, ankle and buttock,” the affidavit said.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 16:38
You are right, our laws based on the Magna Carta are not rights that you have in your Bill or rights. That said, only an absolute idiot would think that our citizens's rights are at jeopardy.Indeed. And I never remotely suggested otherwise. I just stated a few facts, to wit:
1. US citizens have natural unalienable rights
2. Some of those rights are enumerated in the Constitution
3. Congress is prohibited from infringing those rights.

1. UK citizens have no natural unalienable rights (indeed, many of you insist such rights do not even exist)
2. Your rights are granted to you as an accommodation by your government
3. Your government can alter or completely remove those rights at a whim.

Any conclusion that the above facts mean that UK "citizens's rights are at jeopardy" was yours, not mine. YOU drew that conclusion on your own based on the facts. You folks trust your government. That's fine, perhaps even commendable, and results in a government with unlimited power. We generally don't trust ours and so have a system that places significant limits on our government. I say once again, I have made zero conclusions about which system results in more or less "citizens's rights" being "at jeopardy" or even which is "better." I'm just pointing out how our system is fundamentally DIFFERENT from yours, why it is different, and why that difference makes your demands for "sensible gun control laws" in our nation virtually impossible.

You need something to tell you that you're free....Utterly false. As I've stated repeatedly and YOUR side has denied is that I have natural unalienable rights. That includes freedom and liberty. What I "need" (and I have and you do not) is a Constitution that prohibits the government from infringing those rights. Do you "need" what I have? Maybe. Maybe not. That's up to you. Far be it from me to tell you how to run your nation.

You need guns because you feel threatened. Utterly false. No one in the US "needs" guns. And because they are a natural unalienable right which Congress cannot infringe upon, the majority of citizens have none.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 16:45
Pot, this is kettle, over...... Where have I even REMOTELY suggested, much less stated, what civil rights "another nation's citizens can and cannot have." For the record, you are welcome to have whatever rights you actually or perceive you have, and whatever government you decide to have. You are welcome to include European Community law into your national law, or decide to remove European Community law from your law, as you just did. That's totally up to you.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 16:58
Gee, it being after 2AM, what are the odds he was sober? Thanks for the update, Lonewolf. But this does beg the question: was the alcohol or the gun more at fault for this tragedy? We've tried banning both guns and alcohol at various points in our history. Neither worked. "Simple" solutions to complex problems seldom (never?) do.

Geordie_Expat
2nd Aug 2016, 17:42
OK Ken, there is obviously no point in trying to debate with you so I'm going to leave it there. You put your own interpretations on everything so it becomes pointless. No doubt you will have some reposte to this but that is it for me.

Orange future
2nd Aug 2016, 18:01
"US citizens have natural unalienable rights"

Really?

Where were they found? Scrawled into a rock by the hand of god?

I have a really nice bridge I would like to sell........

FakePilot
2nd Aug 2016, 18:40
Seriously guys?

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unalienable+rights)

Maybe you should be thanking KenV for taking the time to educate y'all.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Aug 2016, 18:44
Here in the US those students have several other civil rights. ZERO civil rights are "needed" (including the bearing of arms) "to be safe in school". You have (predictably) completely mischaracterized this law.

If this gun carry thing is enshrined as some sort of right that no man can put asunder how come these Texas children couldn't carry guns in school till now?

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 18:45
Really? Where were they found?
Found? Rights aren't "found."

Scrawled into a rock by the hand of god?
Funny you should ask. Thomas Jefferson answered that nearly two and half centuries ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men....are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.....

This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language", containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history". Congress ratified that sentence and it is one of the founding principles upon which our entire government is based.

Sorry if that offends some of you folks, but people being offended that people in another nation have rights they don't have and claim they don't want is clearly par for the course in this discussion. And once again, you are free to accept or reject whatever rights your government deigns to grant its citizens. I have no problem with that. That being said, I will point out that's its rude to tell the citizens of another nation what rights they should or should not have and downright offensive to tell them that ALL the unalienable rights they hold dear are imagined and not rights at all.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 18:46
OK Ken, there is obviously no point in trying to debate with you so I'm going to leave it there.

Agreed.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 18:58
If this gun carry thing is enshrined as some sort of right that no man can put asunder how come these Texas children couldn't carry guns in school till now? Yet another mischaracterization. The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. The states are free to regulate how that is accomplished, so long as those regulations don't infringe on the basic right. In the State of Texas, open carry has recently become legal for those who hold a government carry permit. And for those with such a permit, it is now legal to carry on a school campus. In other states, open carry is legal without a carry permit. In other states, open carry is not legal under any circumstance. Texas was that way until recently. And the law does not extend to "children" in any event. The students referred to are college age who have qualified for a Texas carry permit.

Orange future
2nd Aug 2016, 19:04
"are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

"....but that's clearly par for the course in this discussion"

So now we get to the meat and potatoes of the debate. Guns are a guaranteed right by none other than a sky fairy?

“Rights aren't found."

Well, if these rights are “natural” given by the “creator” then they must have been found somewhere. If they were drawn up by some sexist white men in the US then they are hardly gifts from god!

And why were they found in the US? Why don’t these “natural” rights exist in . . . . New Zealand? Grass is natural and appears everywhere as apparently given by the “creator”.

There is a massive disconnect in the US between making cars, planes, hospitals as safe as possible with zero tolerance for accident and yet guns are an issue that you guys appear to not want to tackle at all.

Cazalet33
2nd Aug 2016, 19:16
"are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Only in a theocracy.

KenV
2nd Aug 2016, 19:20
Orange, clearly the notion of human beings have rights you don't agree with offends you and so you have gone out of your way to be flippant, rude, and offensive. This shall be my last reply to you. In answer to your question: And why were they found in the US? Why don’t these “natural” rights exist in . . . . New Zealand?
You aren't paying attention, but that's willful, isn't it? All men, in 21st century terms, ALL HUMANS everywhere (including New Zealand) have these rights. The USofA is somewhat unique in that it is founded on that principle and its government has enumerated some of those rights and prohibited government infringement of them.

SASless
2nd Aug 2016, 19:56
Ken,

You will have to excuse those on the eastern side of the Great Saltwater Divide as some just have no notion what the American Concepts of Freedom and Human Rights is all about.

Some have no notion of propriety and are abetted by the finger resting on the Balance Scale known to exist hereabouts.

This is an internet forum....and far too often there are those who frequently say obnoxious comments to those of us on the western side of that same divide and do so with great immunity from censorship......so you will have to get used to it or when it becomes genuinely offensive....do as you have....assign them a seat to in your own Peanut Gallery.


I am glad to see I was not let down by the Race and Criminal Record of the Shooter. Naturally, it could have been a Female Oriental Divinity Student from the local Buddhist Temple that found a Handgun lying on the sidewalk who experienced an accidental discharge due to her unfamiliarity with firearms as she attempted to surrender the thing to Police....but reality saw fit to destroy that forlorn hope.

John Hill
2nd Aug 2016, 20:21
You aren't paying attention, but that's willful, isn't it? All men, in 21st century terms, ALL HUMANS everywhere (including New Zealand) have these rights. The USofA is somewhat unique in that it is founded on that principle and its government has enumerated some of those rights and prohibited government infringement of them.

However the government of the US does not hesitate to infringe on the rights of people everywhere.

Lonewolf_50
2nd Aug 2016, 20:22
Naturally, it could have been a Female Oriental Divinity Student from the local Buddhist Temple that found a Handgun lying on the sidewalk who experienced an accidental discharge due to her unfamiliarity with firearms as she attempted to surrender the thing to Police.. Naw, she'd have had the wisdom to NOT be on sixth street at 2 AM while the clubs were letting out. :E (By the way, Slasher would demand pictures of her. Got any?)

FakePilot
2nd Aug 2016, 20:24
However the government of the US does not hesitate to infringe on the rights of people everywhere.

We're infringing so you don't have to. Seriously, how long would a certain English speaking spot of the Pacific last without a big brother?

SASless
2nd Aug 2016, 20:28
Ah... the Mouse that Roared.

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Aug 2016, 20:29
Thomas Jefferson answered that nearly two and half centuries ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men....are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.....
So it's one long dead guy's view of his personal sky fairy.


Personally I'd rather go with democracy.

FakePilot
2nd Aug 2016, 20:34
So it's one long dead guy's view of his personal sky fairy.


Personally I'd rather go with democracy.

So Gertrude, who is your Creator?

Orange future
2nd Aug 2016, 20:34
“The USofA is somewhat unique in that it is founded on that principle and its government has enumerated some of those rights and prohibited government infringement of them.”

So enumerating these unalienable rights has done what exactly for the citizens of the US, in a practical sense?

The right to bear arms has resulted in the least amount of personal safety of any developed country.

“….no notion what the American Concepts of Freedom and Human Rights is all about”

Really? Have you asked an Iraqi what the concept of American human rights is? What about someone from Guatemala. Or Honduras. Perhaps Laos. Vietnam.

Lonewolf_50
2nd Aug 2016, 20:40
Really? Have you asked an Iraqi what the concept of American human rights is? What about someone from Guatemala. Or Honduras. Perhaps Laos. Vietnam. Their opinion is irrelevant to the general American view of civil liberties and human rights. While I am not sure why I bothered to answer your blatant troll, I'll remind you that the UN and its declaration of human rights could not exist without the US deciding that it was in our interest to establish and support the UN since 1945. Without us, it simply does not happen.
The rest of you freeloaders are welcome.

John Hill
2nd Aug 2016, 20:44
We're infringing so you don't have to.
So how come whenever your military goes rampaging around the world you always try to inveigle NZ in going along for the ride?

Seriously, how long would a certain English speaking spot of the Pacific last without a big brother?

You talking about NZ? The last time NZ found ourselves in a real war with a real enemy who made direct attacks on these green islands the US rushed to our aid and arrived on the scene two years later.

Lonewolf_50
2nd Aug 2016, 20:47
So how come whenever you military goes rampaging around the world you always try to inveigle NZ in going along for the ride? Always is an overstatement, and I'll note that the Kiwis showed up in Afghanistan. What's the matter, you upset that your government went in on that op? (I had a good experience working with the Kiwis in some stuff for that one ... )


Write to your own government and kvetch at them.

John Hill
2nd Aug 2016, 20:51
Their opinion is irrelevant to the general American view of civil liberties and human rights. While I am not sure why I bothered to answer your blatant troll, I'll remind you that the UN and its declaration of human rights could not exist without the US deciding that it was in our interest to establish and support the UN since 1945. Without us, it simply does not happen.

Why are you introducing the UN? Surely this Great Sky Fairy outranks the UN? The GSF gave ALL MEN rights which the US has chosen to disrespect in so many countries that I fear it would be impossible to make an accurate list.

John Hill
2nd Aug 2016, 20:56
Always is an overstatement, and I'll note that the Kiwis showed up in Afghanistan.

Yes, the NZ military did join in in A'stan and if I recall correctly they were there before the US military but we were smart enough to stay out of the invasion of Iraq.

(Not that it is relevant but I was in A'stan several times both before and after the second modern day American attack on the country and I was also in Iraq where we lost three colleagues on the airport road.)

SASless
2nd Aug 2016, 20:58
Odd....I don't recall ever really caring much what other folks from around the World think about our core beliefs and values that we base our Nation upon.

I just assume the vast numbers of Immigrants...Legal and Illegal....tells the real story of what millions of folks saw this country to be and remains.

Envy is such a sad thing when on display.

FakePilot
2nd Aug 2016, 21:00
The right to bear arms has resulted in the least amount of personal safety of any developed country.

The safety of the developed world was a fleeting moment in history created by the power and wealth of the US. Personal safety may well take a different definition shortly.

Gertrude the Wombat
2nd Aug 2016, 21:02
So Gertrude, who is your Creator?
Sorry, don't understand the question. If you can clarify I might be able to answer - problem is that I don't know what you mean by "Creator".

John Hill
2nd Aug 2016, 21:04
Odd....I don't recall ever really caring much what other folks from around the World think about our core beliefs and values that we base our Nation upon.

But you do seem to spend a lot of money and young lives trying to change the core beliefs and values of other nations.

Seldomfitforpurpose
2nd Aug 2016, 21:35
The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. The states are free to regulate how that is accomplished, so long as those regulations don't infringe on the basic right. In the State of Texas, open carry has recently become legal for those who hold a government carry permit.

A couple inconsistencies there it would seem.

If the constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms how come individual states get to infringe that constitutional right by restricting the when and the wear of an individual's right to bear arms?

How come states get to further infringe that constitutional right by requiring someone to need a permit to bear arms?

How come states get to further infringe the constitutional right to bear arms by declaring gun free zones?

Which makes the solution to all the gun nuttedness quite simple, if states can legally and without fear of infringing anyone's constitutional right to bear arms declare certain areas gun free zones then why not declare the whole of the US a gun free zone?

FakePilot
2nd Aug 2016, 23:26
The point I'm getting to is all systems of law have a mandate somewhere, what's yours?

Cazalet33
2nd Aug 2016, 23:35
The right to bear arms has resulted in the least amount of personal safety of any developed country.

Two reasons for that:

One is that it is one of the least well developed countries socially.

Another is that the mouth-breathing drongos repeatedly fail to connect the "well regulated militia" bit with the bit about arming bears,