• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA executive suggests slain Charleston pastor to blame for gun deaths

uh that is because the few times someone tried to do something stupid in the USA the passengers beat the living crap out of him. The remain passive and comply with the hijacker protocol went out the window

BTW those bans really worked on all those jihadi pilots who have taken out several hundred in the last couple of years hasn't it

So what do you suggest....ban pilots? How about we start taking mental illness a lot more seriously, instead?
 
So what do you suggest....ban pilots? How about we start taking mental illness a lot more seriously, instead?

I am all in favor of taking mental illness more seriously

but you all apparently ignore the balancing act

we have a thing called Doctor-Patient privilege

we also want people getting treatment

you see if a guy who owns guns knows that if he tells his doctor he has some issues-be they ones that indicate he really could be a threat or not-that the doctor is going to tell the police and the police are going to take his guns away do you think it might deter people from seeking mental health treatment?

a doctor has a duty to tell the authorities (I know, I defended a VA doctor who was being sued for telling the VA police that one patient told the doctor that he wanted to kill another patient and how he was going to do it) if a patient is a clear and present danger to another such as the case i described. but a doctor cannot tell the authorities that someone merely is suffering PTSD or depression

and lots of privacy advocates oppose making non-court ordered mental health records part of the NICS data base.
 
I carry a SIG or a SW.

You allegedly carry one of those. I've seen no proof of it....

a helmet interferes with your ability to see what is going on in a car. It cuts down on your vision. so your suggestion is moronic. I don't have any detrimental effects from packing a gun to my ability to survive an attack

You're doing it wrong - the open part of the helmet goes in front. Worn that way you can see all your mirrors just fine, and a small turn of the head is all that's needed to check your blind spot. And the helmet protects your head in a crash, hence why racers all wear them.
 
You allegedly carry one of those. I've seen no proof of it....



You're doing it wrong - the open part of the helmet goes in front. Worn that way you can see all your mirrors just fine, and a small turn of the head is all that's needed to check your blind spot. And the helmet protects your head in a crash, hence why racers all wear them.

LOL driving on a track is far different than driving in a city environment. and I couldn't care less what you find as legitimate proof. and i know how a helmet works far better than you understand anything to do with guns or gun laws.
 
I am all in favor of taking mental illness more seriously

but you all apparently ignore the balancing act we have a thing called Doctor-Patient privilege
Of course it's a balancing act, I never said it wasn't.

we also want people getting treatment

you see if a guy who owns guns knows that if he tells his doctor he has some issues-be they ones that indicate he really could be a threat or not-that the doctor is going to tell the police and the police are going to take his guns away do you think it might deter people from seeking mental health treatment?

..a doctor has a duty to tell the authorities (I know, I defended a VA doctor who was being sued for telling the VA police that one patient told the doctor that he wanted to kill another patient and how he was going to do it) if a patient is a clear and present danger to another such as the case i described. but a doctor cannot tell the authorities that someone merely is suffering PTSD or depression

and lots of privacy advocates oppose making non-court ordered mental health records part of the NICS data base.
As a private person I can understand why they wouldn't....but I think it should depend on the severity of the diagnosis. Depression and PSTD patients seem to be more of a threat to themselves whereas a diagnosis of psychosis and depending on the severity can become a threat to an entire community if not treated and monitored regularly.
 
Of course it's a balancing act, I never said it wasn't.

As a private person I can understand why they wouldn't....but I think it should depend on the severity of the diagnosis. Depression and PSTD patients seem to be more of a threat to themselves whereas a diagnosis of psychosis and depending on the severity can become a threat to an entire community if not treated and monitored regularly.

judicial determination of mental incompetence has the requisite safeguards of due process and the ability to be heard. I like it that way

and if a patient tells a doctor he plans on say killing his boss or ex wife, the doctor has a duty to consult the authorities
 
judicial determination of mental incompetence has the requisite safeguards of due process and the ability to be heard. I like it that way

and if a patient tells a doctor he plans on say killing his boss or ex wife, the doctor has a duty to consult the authorities
I think I can agree with that.
 
If it is wrong to blame all gun owners and constitutional gun ownership rights for the criminal and mental actions of a few, why is it okay to blame someone who's a victim and who chose to exercise his rights by not having guns around for the criminal and mental actions in this incident?

Again, I don't think "blame" is the proper word. As others have said, the blame lies squarely with the perp. I don't view it as "blaming the victim" for merely pointing out these people might still be alive today if they had had a realistic means of defense.

Right now, in America, you have the most divided citizenry I've seen in a long time and rather than a new age of racial harmony since the election of President Obama, you seem to have greatly heightened racial tensions in many areas of your country.

Ironic, isn't it? Obama was supposed to be this unifying force for racial harmony, but he seems to have a penchant for inserting a heated dagger into the race card he plays at every opportunity, beginning with the Henry Louis Gates incident in 2009 when it would have been better if he'd just kept his mouth shut. Nelson Mandela he's not. If Obama had been the President of South Africa the Springboks would have been toast.
 
Live by the gun, die by the gun.

I dunno about. The Israelites built their kingdoms through general ass kicking and plundering, albeit with swords instead of guns and an assist where necessary from God. When they died it was usually because their enemies had more swords than they did.
 
True, but if things go south don't blame the gun and the larger society and say that we should all be lambs to be led to slaughter while "forgiving" the wolf. Personally, I'll leave the forgiveness part to God and Jesus.

I don't blame the gun. It is not the gun's fault. The gun is nothing but a tool. The fact that these things happen more frequently, these days, DOES denote that something larger is going on. And remember... when things go south, don't blame the victims of the incident. They have no responsibility in getting killed.

Relevancy and blame are separate issues.

Yes and I separated them.

I don't see pointing out a logical truth as laying blame. On the other hand, being alive instead of dead is relevant even if it's just based on speculation.

Your point is not logical since it is speculative. If someone there had a gun, that does not mean that what happened would not have happened. If that was not a gun-free zone, it does not mean that what happened would not have happened. If that was not a gun free zone, it does not mean that anyone would have decided to carry. Your speculation has far too many ifs and steps for it to have any kind of secure logic.
 
Short answer? No. I don't think anyone wants to live in an uncivil society where they feel a need to be armed. They also probably wish we didn't need firemen and emergency rooms and all the other things we hope we'll never use. But we should keep in perspective that, even as open carry and castle doctrine laws have proliferated, violent crime, including homicide, has been trending down. While these mass shooting are still relatively rare, a common thread in many of them is that the perpetrator was "troubled" or suffered some sort of mental illness. That's where we should be focusing our efforts.

In bold. Here we completely agree. Something I've been saying for a long time. That's part the larger issue that I was suggesting in my other post.
 
I don't blame the gun. It is not the gun's fault. The gun is nothing but a tool.

No its actually a weapon designed and constructed to make killing easier, which of course it does in the US far more frequently than in other developed nations
 
No its actually a weapon designed and constructed to make killing easier, which of course it does in the US far more frequently than in other developed nations

What you've described is still a tool.
 
Cotton might be "insensitive" and a "monster," but he's got a point: Another mass shooting in a "gun free zone."

Yes, why not allow a gun in a house of worship. That must be the most normal thing, right? Jesus must have said this, arm yourself to the teeth in the house of the lord. I doubt Jesus, a man of peace would have thought it was the right thing to bring an instrument of death into a church.

And these people where surprised by the actions of this idiot, no person with a gun would have most likely stopped him. Maybe it would have given him another weapon to turn on people.

So sad that they actually try to blame the priest for not allowing gun in his church. Sick, totally and utterly sick.
 
What you've described is still a tool.

A tool for what exactly ? Moving small pieces of lead around at high velocity into people ?

Sorry but thats a weapon. Most infants here when shown a gun know that its a weapon and what its for.

Trying to make it seem somehow more benign by describing it as a tool is being wilfully disingenuous about its true purpose. Its often used in order to try and justify the guns bizarre pseudo religious status within your society.
 
Ok now you've truly baffled me. You'll accept that barring guns from certain places means there will be nobody armed to stop the bad guy, or you'll accept the opposite?

Can't do both without violating causality and sending the entire Universe down a wormhole, so answer carefully. :D

What I am saying is this - we as a people have a right to decide that there are places like schools where no person other than armed security should bring guns there. Airports and government buildings like courts would be another such example. In addition, there are private buildings that can decide for themselves that issue.

If a person attempts to kill people in that setting and a customer or visitor stops them with their own gun that they were not suppose to have I would welcome their intervention if it saved lives, hurt no other people and look at it as a practical and realistic event which happened despite the written law.

Did they violate the law? Yup. Did they do what they were not suppose to do? Yup. But given the circumstances of an emergency situation and the positive result that ensued in saving lives - that can be overlooked.

I would consider such an event to be the rare exception to the rule and something which is fairly rare and not something which should guide us in setting policy because of that.

However, as a matter of law and as a matter of what kind of society we live in - I support such designations where appropriate. I am on record as agreeing with the NRA that there should be armed security on duty at every school in America. I support such a proposal and think it is a way to avoid turning American and every place in it into some 21st century version of the mythic Old West where everybody walks around armed until they end up on Boot Hill. I believe that - in the end - such society will only have more deaths and more killings and more suffering and the policy would do more harm than good.

Is that a contradiction? perhaps it is in a way if you are looking for a "gotcha" moment. I think not however. What I advocate as public policy and what I can tolerate and look the other way at in a very rare exception turned out positively - I believe - are two different things that are simply practical and pragmatic.

I can think of other examples - I support speed limits and enforcement of them but if a person is rushing someone in great distress to a hospital and they exceed that speed limit - I can look the other way providing they injure nobody in the process.

I believe in realistic pragmatism and looking at exceptions as rarities and not something to set public policy by or for.

I hope that answers your question.
 
Last edited:
LOL driving on a track is far different than driving in a city environment. and I couldn't care less what you find as legitimate proof. and i know how a helmet works far better than you understand anything to do with guns or gun laws.

Sure it's different on a race track, but it doesn't affect whether a helmet greatly reduces the risk of death in a crash (it does), and about 30,000 people die each year in car accidents off the race track, versus statistically zero per year in church attacks in "a Loughner." So if you're trying to reduce your risk of death, which activity should a rational person focus their attention on - driving or sitting in a church pew?
 
Sure it's different on a race track, but it doesn't affect whether a helmet greatly reduces the risk of death in a crash (it does), and about 30,000 people die each year in car accidents off the race track, versus statistically zero per year in church attacks in "a Loughner." So if you're trying to reduce your risk of death, which activity should a rational person focus their attention on - driving or sitting in a church pew?

your argument is ridiculous-next you will say kids drowning in buckets can be stopped with SCUBA gear.

lets get back to the silly anti gun nonsense

BTW do you support the HUGHES AMENDMENT

lots of people who say the statistics of church shootings do not justify parishioners being armed support a ban based on two crimes in 50 years of the 250K legal machine guns in civilian (Non LEO Civilian) Hands
 
Your point is not logical since it is speculative. If someone there had a gun, that does not mean that what happened would not have happened.

It's logical that if one has a means of defense an attack can be halted in its tracks, because we've seen it happen, most recently in the Texas cartoon attacks in which we ended up with two dead perps and zero dead cartoonists. An outcome does not have to be certain to make sense. It's speculation that the Secret Service can prevent the assassination of the President, so would it be logical to remove his detail? :confused:
 
your argument is ridiculous-next you will say kids drowning in buckets can be stopped with SCUBA gear.

LOL. You're trying very hard to ignore a simple point. BY FAR the greatest risk you'll take going to church is getting in your car and driving there, which is 1000s of times greater than the risk of attack by anyone while in the pews or during Bible study.

lets get back to the silly anti gun nonsense

BTW do you support the HUGHES AMENDMENT

lots of people who say the statistics of church shootings do not justify parishioners being armed support a ban based on two crimes in 50 years of the 250K legal machine guns in civilian (Non LEO Civilian) Hands

OK, so you'll do anything to avoid responding to a simple point. But to answer your question, I'm indifferent to the Hughes Amendment. I haven't given the issue 1 minute of reflection in the past decade.
 
LOL. You're trying very hard to ignore a simple point. BY FAR the greatest risk you'll take going to church is getting in your car and driving there, which is 1000s of times greater than the risk of attack by anyone while in the pews or during Bible study.



OK, so you'll do anything to avoid responding to a simple point. But to answer your question, I'm indifferent to the Hughes Amendment. I haven't given the issue 1 minute of reflection in the past decade.

I drive safely, have a top rated car for that -have fire extinguisher in it etc. I have taken defensive driving seminars and I don't text etc while in a car. I also think its moronic to say because there is something else that causes you danger you should ignore another threat

I play the odd for both cars and attacks so your Simple point is just plain silly
 
I am all in favor of taking mental illness more seriously

but you all apparently ignore the balancing act

we have a thing called Doctor-Patient privilege

we also want people getting treatment

you see if a guy who owns guns knows that if he tells his doctor he has some issues-be they ones that indicate he really could be a threat or not-that the doctor is going to tell the police and the police are going to take his guns away do you think it might deter people from seeking mental health treatment?

a doctor has a duty to tell the authorities (I know, I defended a VA doctor who was being sued for telling the VA police that one patient told the doctor that he wanted to kill another patient and how he was going to do it) if a patient is a clear and present danger to another such as the case i described. but a doctor cannot tell the authorities that someone merely is suffering PTSD or depression

and lots of privacy advocates oppose making non-court ordered mental health records part of the NICS data base.

There is a natural tension between privacy rights and public safety. In the case of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), both HIPAA and FERPA requirements were at issue. I think this may have been true in Jared Loughner's case too; I remember reading a NY Times piece at the time of the Arizona shootings that indicated that just as in Cho's case, a professor had recognized a problem and reported it but could do little else.

I don't want to live in a Minority Report society, and I guess we all need to ask ourselves whether the potential for increased safety is worth the loss of privacy.
 
It's logical that if one has a means of defense an attack can be halted in its tracks, because we've seen it happen, most recently in the Texas cartoon attacks in which we ended up with two dead perps and zero dead cartoonists. An outcome does not have to be certain to make sense. It's speculation that the Secret Service can prevent the assassination of the President, so would it be logical to remove his detail? :confused:

The point to me isn't whether trained, qualified gun owners present might have stopped an attack. Of course. And if they'd hired armed guards for every meeting, that might have stopped the attack. If they'd all been wearing body armor, maybe no one is killed. If they'd trained in martial arts, and a black belt attended, he might have taken out the shooter without the use of a gun. I recall reading he reloaded more than once - plenty of time for a physical, non-firearm response.

So, to pick one example of the what ifs above, does it make sense for you to wear body armor all day, every day, since it could keep you safe if a mad gunman shoots you? Or does it make sense to hire armed guards at the church doors to frisk all who attend every gathering of people?

Or to use the example I keep using with Turtle, does it make sense to wear a helmet on your daily commute? Why not? Helmets save lives and 30,000 are killed per year in the U.S. in traffic accidents.....

And with the POTUS and Secret Service, you've reduced the speculation quite a bit - it's really apples and acorns or whatever. POTUS is the target of endless death threats, and Secret Service POTUS detail is an elite, highly trained force. Some grandma with a revolver is far more likely to panic when faced with an armed killer firing live rounds than successfully take him out.
 
The point to me isn't whether trained, qualified gun owners present might have stopped an attack. Of course.

But that's the point I was addressing. Apparently, it's not obvious to some that people who assert their right to defend themselves just might succeed.

And if they'd hired armed guards for every meeting, that might have stopped the attack. If they'd all been wearing body armor, maybe no one is killed. If they'd trained in martial arts, and a black belt attended, he might have taken out the shooter without the use of a gun. I recall reading he reloaded more than once - plenty of time for a physical, non-firearm response.

So, to pick one example of the what ifs above, does it make sense for you to wear body armor all day, every day, since it could keep you safe if a mad gunman shoots you? Or does it make sense to hire armed guards at the church doors to frisk all who attend every gathering of people?

Or to use the example I keep using with Turtle, does it make sense to wear a helmet on your daily commute? Why not? Helmets save lives and 30,000 are killed per year in the U.S. in traffic accidents.....

Now you're getting into questions of probability and what's reasonable or appropriate to counter a particular threat. Different issues. While a person's chances of being raped, assaulted, robbed, murdered, or otherwise becoming a victim of a violent crime on any given day are statistically slight, we also know that more than one million violent crimes occur in this country every year (FBI Violent Crime Offense Figures). So is it reasonable for average people to strap on full body armor after they have their morning coffee but before they begin their daily commute? Probably not. On the other hand, is it reasonable for a person to strap a handgun to his thigh after he puts on his pants and socks? Apparently, it's not that inconvenient or uncomfortable, because millions of people across the country do just that or something similar. Same principle with helmets or anything else.
 
I know these nine people are dead. As the NRA board member so indelicately noted, they might be alive today if someone had used a weapon to defend them.



If a police force and army armed with fully-automatic SIG assault rifles is good enough for the Pope at the Vatican, it should be good enough for everyone else, but practical people should take whatever they can get.



In the rest of the developed world, only the rich, politicians, and other notable dignitaries are worthy of the protection offered by firearms, while the peons are left to fend for themselves.

Why does the rest of the developed world not have the problems that are endemic in the US?
 
Back
Top Bottom