Texas Church Shooting : Thread

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Irishhaf

You expect better from our best and brightest.

Then some lazy garbage like this happens, people get hurt, and some officer blames an airman for it and the # rolls down hill. They hand out article 15s and maybe even prosecute a clerk somewhere and nothing changes.

Not really, just wrapping up three years at a nato base watching my wife get harassed by a POS captain with the full knowledge of the upper level officers, so they are blocking any and all complaints.

This should not surprise me, but it does... sucks having been in when good leadership was around.

a reply to: Justoneman

Why no "more logical" gun laws?

Well, lets see... because the laws as they stand are logical. People dropping the ball, failing to enforce them, failing to follow them, and failing to make sure that people who are not sane enough to actually recognise them as more than guidelines, are not walking around among regular folk, however, are not something the law can account for, except after the dust has settled.

All the law does is work out who goes to jail or pay a fine, after events are done with. It does not PREVENT anything.

a reply to: RAY1990

Ray, this is exactly the issue.

The moment you say anything about detaining people on mental health grounds, they think you want to lock up the crazy cat lady and the hoarders, or those who have tin foiled their whole house to keep the government mind control devices from working.

I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting, is that everyone who has a condition which has devolved to the point of being dangerous to the individual or those around them, should however be detained under mental health grounds, not because mental health problems are some taboo that people should not have to deal with looking at the results of, but because people damned well kill people, when they are left to manage their own medication, left to manage their own nutrition, while being in the throws or on the approach to a psychotic break.

I am not suggesting some monstrous, draconian effort, like it was in the bad old days. I am suggesting that provision be made so that persons suffering this situation can be kept in pleasant, even beautiful surroundings, in PEACEFUL circumstances, with kind orderlies and attending physicians, not the brutal regimes of the past, for their own safety and the safety of others. You simply cannot have dangerously ill people, wandering around free, in a nation which has access to a firearm as a right enshrined in law. Its a one way ticket to a stupid way to die.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The moment you say anything about detaining people on mental health grounds, they think you want to lock up the crazy cat lady and the hoarders, or those who have tin foiled their whole house to keep the government mind control devices from working.

That's because the situation will devolve into exactly what you say you are not advocating. For example, take Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD):

ODD is a condition in which a child displays an ongoing pattern of an angry or irritable mood, defiant or argumentative behavior, and vindictiveness toward people in authority. The child's behavior often disrupts the child's normal daily activities, including activities within the family and at school.

If someone gets angry, they can be diagnosed as having ODD. ODD is a mental health disorder according to medical professionals and therefore,under your proposal, the patient can be sent away to the nice, beautiful place and pumped full of psychoactive drugs to make their lives so wonderful. And that's just one example. We know very little about the human mind, and are learning less and less every day, in my opinion... but that might be because I am experiencing something like Reality Confusion Syndrome (RCS)*...

No, thanks. I'm good.

TheRedneck

* Reality Confusion Syndrome (RCS) is a manufactured term used to illustrate that a disease may be created from imagination to explain undesirable behavior in others. It is not real. Give Google a break.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you!

We just got done fighting through a kindergarten year where the teacher was convinced our kid was poorly disciplined and likely had some form of ODD on top of some kind of ADD.

No.

Once we managed to finally get him some appropriate help and diagnostics, he has significant auditory processing disorder which does a good job at mimicking both when someone isn't prepared to accept something else may be wrong. After diagnosis and few simple interventions, he's topped the honor roll, citizenship roll and everything else he can do.

The problem with restricting anything legally in regards to "mental health status" is that it is going to be a very slippery slope, because we are trying to label and quantify conditions that are really more highly indivdual in nature. While you can slap a label on it, it doesn't change that two individuals under the same label can be vastly different as a risk assessment. So, when you are talking about the restriction of a basic top ten Constitutional right, you have to be VERY careful, and unfortunately, our legislators are ANYTHING but this.

But, it's all a moot point anyhow, because after a few more of these incidents in rapid succession, over the next few months, the public won't just give up their gun rights, they will DEMAND that they be taken away. Masterfully played NWO...masterfully (if ruthlessly) played...

originally posted by: projectvxn
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.

The guy I was responding to literally said " in Chicago more people die of gang related shootings yearly than all mass shootings combined (ever) in this country." That is just completely untrue, any way you cut it. Chicago has plenty of their own violence, most all gang related like you pointed out.

And no, there aren't "more wounded" by guns in Chicago than nationwide either. Chicago isn't the gun mecca people seem to make it out to be. Again, there are other cities that have worse rates of gun violence per 100K than Chicago. Chicago doesn't even make the Top-10.

So are you saying cordoned off gang violence is a bigger threat to society at large than these rampant mass shooting events? You said "one is ONE city and the other is the whole nation. so it kind of seems like your making Chicago seem more important than the nation. I personally think they're both horrendous, but one is a LOCAL problem (I live in Austin, TX and have absolutely no chance of being affected by anything going on in Chicago). The other is a National problem that affects everyone.

originally posted by: JBurns
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.

You're still factually inacurate you goof. You said " in Chicago more people die of gang related shootings yearly than all mass shootings combined (ever) in this country."

No, more people don't die of gang related shooting than all mass shootings combined ever in this country. It's just not true. Don't blame me for the numbers dude.

It's also apples to oranges.

For as bad as Chicago is, they have never had a day of over 20 murders (like we just witnessed here in Texas).

Also, you and I will NEVER be affected by the gang violence in Chicago. I have a 0% chance of that happening. My chances of being affected by a mass shooting (while infinitely small) are INFINITELY greater than that of being caught in gang crossfire on the South or West side of Chicago.

Not wanting to be too controversial here but over here in Scotland gun crime is nearly non existent, maybe

originally posted by: Hotdawg
Not wanting to be too controversial here but over here in Scotland gun crime is nearly non existent, maybe

.

Of course it was a failure of the laws already on the books. As an Air Force vet, I'm appalled the Air Force failed to enter this nutjob's info into the federal database so he would get flagged during background checks. Heads need to #ing roll.

Here is the main house to the property he lived on:



Owned by his father Michael Kelley, who is an accountant and programmer who runs a billing software company out of the home.

originally posted by: face23785
Of course it was a failure of the laws already on the books. As an Air Force vet, I'm appalled the Air Force failed to enter this nutjob's info into the federal database so he would get flagged during background checks. Heads need to #ing roll.

So it's the Air Force's fault? Sure, they dropped the ball, but this guy could have gone to any gun show and picked up what he needed free of the background check. I live 45 miles away, gun shows happen around Central Texas monthly.

a reply to: TheRedneck

First of all, if an adult has ODD, and indulges in it, rather than successfully fighting the condition and attaining mastery over themselves, and lashes out at someone, guess where they wind up? Its called jail. Its much worse than any mental healthcare facility in the world, because people who are not just mentally ill, but criminally insane also live in those places. They earned their place there by masterminding gang operations, ordering people assassinated from half a world away, basically being genuine, died in the wool killers and thugs. Thats not an environment for someone who has a problem with connecting with reality, not one in which they can get ahead. The best case scenario for a person in that situation, is that they join a gang and work their way up, because everyone else in there is going to be some kind of under extreme threat, at all times, from every single corner of the place.

Its bad enough throwing the otherwise decent potheads in with the real dirtbags, but the mentally ill do not belong in there with the full on gangsters and murderers and thugs, and people smugglers and what not. They just don't. But they should not be wandering around where they can get at regular people, IF they express a tendency towards violence as an adult, or if they express serious violence as a child. You may find that offensive, or objectionable, but it is still correct, no matter how offensive you find it, still a fact. Violent people are either violent because they are criminally minded, or because they are literally mentally incompetent to restrain their behaviour themselves, and neither of these subgroups is fit for regular society, in the slightest bit.

That would be the case, even in a country like mine, where gun ownership is so damned hard to achieve, and damned difficult to maintain, not to mention expensive. But its ABSOLUTELY the case in a country like the United States, where (quite rightly) you can pick up an AR-15 at your local supermarket, or just out the back of some fellows car boot, with ease.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785
Of course it was a failure of the laws already on the books. As an Air Force vet, I'm appalled the Air Force failed to enter this nutjob's info into the federal database so he would get flagged during background checks. Heads need to #ing roll.

So it's the Air Force's fault? Sure, they dropped the ball, but this guy could have gone to any gun show and picked up what he needed free of the background check. I live 45 miles away, gun shows happen around Central Texas monthly.

I never said it was the Air Force's fault. If he couldn't buy guns in the store, he could have gotten them other ways. Whether he would have or not we'll never know. He may have just decided to run people over or use a bomb. It's still a major screwup and it needs to be investigated. The killer alone is responsible for his actions.

And FYI even at gun shows any registered firearms dealer has to do a background check before they sell you the weapon. If you want to get one without a background check, you have to find a private seller. Or he could have tried to get a friend with no criminal record to buy one for him, what's known as a straw purchase. That's the primary method for criminals to get guns. About half of all guns used in crimes were obtained through straw purchases.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785
Of course it was a failure of the laws already on the books. As an Air Force vet, I'm appalled the Air Force failed to enter this nutjob's info into the federal database so he would get flagged during background checks. Heads need to #ing roll.

So it's the Air Force's fault? Sure, they dropped the ball, but this guy could have gone to any gun show and picked up what he needed free of the background check. I live 45 miles away, gun shows happen around Central Texas monthly.

I never said it was the Air Force's fault. If he couldn't buy guns in the store, he could have gotten them other ways. Whether he would have or not we'll never know. He may have just decided to run people over or use a bomb. It's still a major screwup and it needs to be investigated. The killer alone is responsible for his actions.

And FYI even at gun shows any registered firearms dealer has to do a background check before they sell you the weapon. If you want to get one without a background check, you have to find a private seller. Or he could have tried to get a friend with no criminal record to buy one for him, what's known as a straw purchase. That's the primary method for criminals to get guns. About half of all guns used in crimes were obtained through straw purchases.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

I agree it needs to be investigated and it's a big blunder. I guess this shooting hits closer to home and has me more emotional because my in-laws know some of the victims as they live in New Braunfels, TX.

I'll also say that I'm very much anti-gun so I do have bias in my feelings towards this whole situation.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785
Of course it was a failure of the laws already on the books. As an Air Force vet, I'm appalled the Air Force failed to enter this nutjob's info into the federal database so he would get flagged during background checks. Heads need to #ing roll.

So it's the Air Force's fault? Sure, they dropped the ball, but this guy could have gone to any gun show and picked up what he needed free of the background check. I live 45 miles away, gun shows happen around Central Texas monthly.

I never said it was the Air Force's fault. If he couldn't buy guns in the store, he could have gotten them other ways. Whether he would have or not we'll never know. He may have just decided to run people over or use a bomb. It's still a major screwup and it needs to be investigated. The killer alone is responsible for his actions.

And FYI even at gun shows any registered firearms dealer has to do a background check before they sell you the weapon. If you want to get one without a background check, you have to find a private seller. Or he could have tried to get a friend with no criminal record to buy one for him, what's known as a straw purchase. That's the primary method for criminals to get guns. About half of all guns used in crimes were obtained through straw purchases.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

I agree it needs to be investigated and it's a big blunder. I guess this shooting hits closer to home and has me more emotional because my in-laws know some of the victims as they live in New Braunfels, TX.

I'll also say that I'm very much anti-gun so I do have bias in my feelings towards this whole situation.

I understand your feelings. At least you are receptive to new information. Most anti-gun folks, when I tell them something they didn't know, they plug their ears and go "lalalalala". Also, straw purchases are already illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. I just wanted to clear that up because my previous post might leave the impression that it's legal to do that. It's not. I personally think the penalty needs to be stiffer if you straw purchase a gun for someone and then they use it in a crime. You should be charged as an accessory in that crime, especially if it's murder.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785
Of course it was a failure of the laws already on the books. As an Air Force vet, I'm appalled the Air Force failed to enter this nutjob's info into the federal database so he would get flagged during background checks. Heads need to #ing roll.

So it's the Air Force's fault? Sure, they dropped the ball, but this guy could have gone to any gun show and picked up what he needed free of the background check. I live 45 miles away, gun shows happen around Central Texas monthly.

I never said it was the Air Force's fault. If he couldn't buy guns in the store, he could have gotten them other ways. Whether he would have or not we'll never know. He may have just decided to run people over or use a bomb. It's still a major screwup and it needs to be investigated. The killer alone is responsible for his actions.

And FYI even at gun shows any registered firearms dealer has to do a background check before they sell you the weapon. If you want to get one without a background check, you have to find a private seller. Or he could have tried to get a friend with no criminal record to buy one for him, what's known as a straw purchase. That's the primary method for criminals to get guns. About half of all guns used in crimes were obtained through straw purchases.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

I agree it needs to be investigated and it's a big blunder. I guess this shooting hits closer to home and has me more emotional because my in-laws know some of the victims as they live in New Braunfels, TX.

I'll also say that I'm very much anti-gun so I do have bias in my feelings towards this whole situation.

I understand your feelings. At least you are receptive to new information. Most anti-gun folks, when I tell them something they didn't know, they plug their ears and go "lalalalala". Also, straw purchases are already illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. I just wanted to clear that up because my previous post might leave the impression that it's legal to do that. It's not. I personally think the penalty needs to be stiffer if you straw purchase a gun for someone and then they use it in a crime. You should be charged as an accessory in that crime, especially if it's murder.

I try never to plug my ears, but I do fall guilty at times.

I've never been to a gun show (get invited a bunch from my friends), and just assumed I can purchase whatever I want without a background check. Aren't private dealers at gun shows as well? You are saying that I can purchase from a private dealer without a background check, right?

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: face23785
Of course it was a failure of the laws already on the books. As an Air Force vet, I'm appalled the Air Force failed to enter this nutjob's info into the federal database so he would get flagged during background checks. Heads need to #ing roll.

So it's the Air Force's fault? Sure, they dropped the ball, but this guy could have gone to any gun show and picked up what he needed free of the background check. I live 45 miles away, gun shows happen around Central Texas monthly.

I never said it was the Air Force's fault. If he couldn't buy guns in the store, he could have gotten them other ways. Whether he would have or not we'll never know. He may have just decided to run people over or use a bomb. It's still a major screwup and it needs to be investigated. The killer alone is responsible for his actions.

And FYI even at gun shows any registered firearms dealer has to do a background check before they sell you the weapon. If you want to get one without a background check, you have to find a private seller. Or he could have tried to get a friend with no criminal record to buy one for him, what's known as a straw purchase. That's the primary method for criminals to get guns. About half of all guns used in crimes were obtained through straw purchases.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

I agree it needs to be investigated and it's a big blunder. I guess this shooting hits closer to home and has me more emotional because my in-laws know some of the victims as they live in New Braunfels, TX.

I'll also say that I'm very much anti-gun so I do have bias in my feelings towards this whole situation.

I understand your feelings. At least you are receptive to new information. Most anti-gun folks, when I tell them something they didn't know, they plug their ears and go "lalalalala". Also, straw purchases are already illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. I just wanted to clear that up because my previous post might leave the impression that it's legal to do that. It's not. I personally think the penalty needs to be stiffer if you straw purchase a gun for someone and then they use it in a crime. You should be charged as an accessory in that crime, especially if it's murder.

I try never to plug my ears, but I do fall guilty at times.

I've never been to a gun show (get invited a bunch from my friends), and just assumed I can purchase whatever I want without a background check. Aren't private dealers at gun shows as well? You are saying that I can purchase from a private dealer without a background check, right?

There are private dealers at some gun shows yes. However, even many private sellers, though not required, may partner with some of the licensed dealers to run background checks anyway, just because they want to be careful. And people at gun shows ask a lot of questions. There's a reason why criminals don't frequent them to get their weapons. It's only like 3% of guns involved in crimes were traced back to gun shows. Criminals don't want to go to something like that where people are asking a lot of questions and typically suspicious of anyone who appears shady. I encourage you to go to one with your friends and check it out.