Texas Church Shooting : Thread

a reply to: Irishhaf

Hmm. News early had a report saying the Air Force had done it. Wonder how many other entries are missing.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: soberbacchus

It's possible the feds screwed up, but it is also possible the sporting goods store that sold him the gun(s) screwed up.

Just saw this:

Wow...just wow!!!

So who is accountable for this?

Kind of gobsmacked really.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
... can anyone of the NRA crowd offer an explanation as to why ARs are the weapon of choice for mass murderers?

Because those are the ones the gub'mint wants to ban.

originally posted by: Stevemagegod1

originally posted by: recrisp

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: roadgravel
The news stated the Air Force said the information on the shooter was entered into the check system.

Right.
The shooter checked a box indicating he had never been convicted of a disqualifying crime.

What happened then?

Background Checks in Texas

Last updated November 3, 2017.




See our Background Checks policy summary for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.

Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm.

Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.)

Texas is not a point of contact state for the NICS.
Texas has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm.
As a result, in Texas, firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly.1

Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions.

As a result, handgun license holders in Texas are exempt from the federal background check requirement when purchasing a handgun.2 (Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state firearms licenses if the state fails to remove these licenses in a timely fashion.)

lawcenter.giffords.org...

The GIffords Law Center fooled you good. It states in there he doens't have to go through a background check if he holds a firearms license. He attempted to get one, and didn't get it. He did go through a background check, sorry to inform you.

Let's simplify this.
He walked into a sporting goods store and walked out with an AR-556. He also had a glock and second gun in the car.
How as he able to purchase those weapons if he was denied a license?

Yeah let's simplified this because you tried to insinuate he dodged the background check system and you were wrong. He bought them from a licensed gun store, meaning he was legally required to undergo a background check since he didn't hold a firearms license (which, to get, you have to go through a background check). The problem is, the background check system failed.

So your claim is that he underwent a background check? But the background check "system" failed?

Please support that claim with clear evidence.
And then please explain specifically what portion of the "system" failed and how?

You also claimed he was "Denied a license"? When and where and by whom?

Anyway, my point is that you are vetted by the FBI TWICE that I am aware of, and if the people on the other end don't do their job then that is a whole 'nother problem.

I will say that once I traded a Dan Wesson .357 Magnum for a (fairly expensive) bicycle, he took my drivers license info and I took his to cover our butts. It can be done that way, but it doesn't appear (at least now) that it was.]

So in other words he payed someone off because he new his History would show up on a Background check.

As I am pretty sure you know by now that the Air Force admits to their part in the wrong doing. At least that is what I just saw on the news from a sheriff and the FBI.

Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson — he had cracked the child’s skull — should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years.

“The Air Force has launched a review of how the service handled the criminal records of former Airman Devin P. Kelley following his 2012 domestic violence conviction,” the Air Force said in a statement.

The statement said Heather Wilson, the Air Force secretary, and Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, had ordered the Air Force inspector general to “conduct a complete review of the Kelley case.”

click link for full article...

a reply to: soberbacchus


Because the AR platform is very good at its job - being a lethal weapon that is moderately effective at stopping dangerous threats. People will always misuse things. Guns are designed for legal defense of self and state, not illegal murder.

For the record, AR's (long guns for that matter) are not the weapon of choice for most criminals. For example, in Chicago more people die of gang related shootings yearly than all mass shootings combined (ever) in this country. Those are largely carried out by the attacker using handguns.

I haven't heard a peep about Chiraq and its gang problem though. Even the Feds had to speak up and warn the city to get its territory under control.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Not calling for a ban, but can anyone of the NRA crowd offer an explanation as to why ARs are the weapon of choice for mass murderers?

I'm not part of the NRA, but everything I've eve read said that the majority of mass murders are committed with semi-automatic handguns...

I'm assuming by you saying 'AR' you mean 'AR-15' because AR means ArmaLite...not Assault Rifle...Assault Rifles are fully automatic rifles, AR-15's aren't.

And only a very small number of murders have been committed with fully automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons are definitely the projectile weapon of choice for killing.

So seems to me you are asking why semi-automatic weapons are the choice for mass murderer's (or murderers in general). The answer is obvious as they generally hold the most ammunition per magazine, are easy to switch out once empty and most generally produced anymore.

It kind of reminds me of this bit from My Cousin Vinny:
Q: Let me ask you this: What's the best selling single model tire being sold in the United States today?
A: The Michelin XGV.

Q: And what's the most popular size?
A: 75R14.

Q: ... All I'm asking you is if the most popular size of the most popular tire is on the defendant's car.
A: Well, Yeah.

www.ranting-gryphon.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

They are a common rifle.
Like a Winchester,but more so.
AND the shooters aren't trained to combat levels or a shotgun would be used at close range,its a more effective weapon in close.

originally posted by: TrueBrit

There are no solutions to this problem which do not involve correcting the parlous state of the mental healthcare system in the United States.

It would be foolish to hope that this situation does not repeat itself some time soon, because the frequency of these acts seems to be on the increase, the number of psychotics crawling out of the woodwork only seems to grow, never shrink in these times. But I will allow myself to hope that eventually, the argument will move away from the mere tools used to enact these horrors, and refocus itself on the desire to perform them, and correcting that desire in future generations of potential mass murderers.

We must also look at the drugs people pump into them daily as some kind of fix. I always love the ones for depression that may have a side effect of suicidal tenancies...lol really?

This guy should have had no legal right to guns being a registered violent criminal, but he never got loaded into the data base. So what do you do with 330 million people with many in some kind of drug loop that is pushed on them and many others just not in the system.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


Because the AR platform is very good at its job - being a lethal weapon that is moderately effective at stopping dangerous threats. People will always misuse things. Guns are designed for legal defense of self and state, not illegal murder.

For the record, AR's (long guns for that matter) are not the weapon of choice for most criminals. For example, in Chicago more people die of gang related shootings yearly than all mass shootings combined (ever) in this country. Those are largely carried out by the attacker using handguns.

I haven't heard a peep about Chiraq and its gang problem though. Even the Feds had to speak up and warn the city to get its territory under control.

Your statement about more murders in Chicago yearly being greater than all mass shootings combined (ever) couldn't be more factually inaccurate.

2016 Chicago murders - 758
2016 deaths from mass shootings - 606

2017 Chicago murders - 557
2017 deaths from mass shootings - 530

Mass shooting is defined as an incident where 4 or more people are shot. The number of murders in Chicago aren't even as high as they've ever been, and Chicago isn't even in the top-10 in the US in murder rates. You're almost 3 times as likely to be murdered in Baltimore than you are in Chicago.

I swear, with some people "Chicago" is some sort of buzz word when it comes to murder, yet most people don't even have proper facts to back up the gibberish they're spewing. I can still remember what it was like before we let people with less than a 5th grade education have a voice (the Internet) to reach potentially millions of people.


Let's not forget that these mass shootings also leave many people injured, some for life. Not everybody dies. A lot of gang violence doesn't have that affect.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

The difference is one is ONE city and the other is the whole nation.

Those numbers only count deaths. The don't count the thousands of wounded, which is also greater in Chicago alone in a given year than nation wide.

You're not making much of a case.

Baltimore is also another heavily gun controlled metropolitan area with a huge gang problem.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


Chicago, Baltimore... all gangland. And those numbers from the "gun violence center" are heavily distorted.

Factor out the gang violence and that number becomes quite low. My statement is factually accurate.

You would love to make this look like some major crisis, where thousands are dying daily. Fact is, far more people die from vehicular accidents (distracted drivers especially, cell phones), cancer and heart disease than gun related murders. I don't see a push to regulate McDonalds, that would be absurd.

Tell you what, lets assume for one second those numbers haven't been distorted by adding gang violence totals to the numbers. Compare those "mass shooting" numbers to the total number of murders in this country in a year. Go ahead, and tell me how factually inaccurate I am then. You won't look those numbers up though, because it would disprove this narrative you're trying to push.

originally posted by: Thanatos0042

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Not calling for a ban, but can anyone of the NRA crowd offer an explanation as to why ARs are the weapon of choice for mass murderers?

I'm assuming by you saying 'AR' you mean 'AR-15' because AR means ArmaLite...not Assault Rifle...Assault Rifles are fully automatic rifles, AR-15's aren't.

Well if you want to get technical, the AR-15 is basically just the civilian version of a firearm that was specifically designed to be a military grade "assault rifle"...

So even though its modified to only be a semi automatic, its still probably the best option for a person who's only objective is to accurately spray as much rounds as possible into a crowd of people, in the shortest amount of time possible...

a reply to: Jonjonj

Does it really make a difference if he could buy the guns legally or illegally?

Part of the argument for gun owners Is that they need guns to protect themselves from criminals who get guns illegally so I don't understand your line of thinking.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Thanatos0042

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Not calling for a ban, but can anyone of the NRA crowd offer an explanation as to why ARs are the weapon of choice for mass murderers?

I'm assuming by you saying 'AR' you mean 'AR-15' because AR means ArmaLite...not Assault Rifle...Assault Rifles are fully automatic rifles, AR-15's aren't.

Well if you want to get technical, the AR-15 is basically just the civilian version of a firearm that was specifically designed to be a military grade "assault rifle"...

So even though its modified to only be a semi automatic, its still probably the best option for a person who's only objective is to accurately spray as much rounds as possible into a crowd of people, in the shortest amount of time possible...

A shotgun is by far more dangerous luckily people doing these attacks havnt figured out but there is a reason they were called hand cannons in the old west. He reason ar15s show up is you dont need alot of experience to fire them the ammo is cheap compared toothers. And it scares people seeing one. But i could easily get more kills even using a glock inside a building. An ar 15 you have a good chance to survive if they miss major organs. Thats not the case with say 40s or even 9mms. To give you an idea these people inthe church were shot point blank range he killed 26 wounded 20. A 12 guage there would have been no wounded and 46 dead.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
Let's not forget that these mass shootings also leave many people injured, some for life. Not everybody dies. A lot of gang violence doesn't have that affect.

Clearly you haven't met many gang members or victims of gang violence.

I'd consider colostomy bags, limps bad enough to have to use crutches, paralysis, and loss of eyesight/hearing "injured for life."

Has anyone seen this? Paul ryan said the people need our prayers. And this is the response he got.

www.chron.com...-14497241

mobile.twitter.com...

The hate runs deep inmany.

edit...wrong poster.

originally posted by: sooth
If I'm looking for the root cause behind the psychology of the modern mass shooter the first step would be to trace it back to its point of origin. Where did the first modern mass shootings take place? Schools.

No. You must be to young to remember the McDonalds shooting back in the 80s, or where the term "going postal" came from. Just Google "San Ysidro McDonald's massacre." 21 dead. It was mind-numbingly shocking at the time (1984). The same with the post office massacre (1986--14 dead, I think twenty wounded). School shootings didn't become a thing till the 90s. Schools ARE brainwashing factories, true, but the mass shooting phenomena isn't something you can lay at their door. The...original, for want of a better word...mass shootings were done by disgruntled middle-aged men.