Texas Church Shooting : Thread

a reply to: dragonridr

I wasn't surprised. Of course I live here so it seems normal.

a reply to: roadgravel


Right, and I think this is bad even though I love the second amendment, own a machinegun and carry a firearm daily.

Like I said, lets start with expanding these to private sales (and gun shows) and see how much crime goes down.

Our shooting rates may be high, but our national murder rates are ranked 52nd out of a 100 and some total ranked countries. Given our population, this is very reasonable compared to other causes of death (which take wayyyyyy more lives yearly).

I don't believe such a change would majorly impact these numbers, but it is worth the shot. My main interest is making it even harder from criminals to acquire weapons which could be used against law abiding armed Citizens.

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Why is it again that civilians need semi-automatic assault rifles with clips of ammo?

Can someone who knows guns help me out with this? Thanks.

Whats a clip ?

a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also :a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: dragonridr

I wasn't surprised. Of course I live here so it seems normal.

Tell me this wasnt the airforces fault.

The El Paso police report warned that Kelley "was a danger to himself and others as he had already been caught sneaking firearms" onto the base, where he "was attempting to carry out death threats that (he) had made on his military chain of command."

www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: dragonridr


Agreed!

They both deserve the biggest gold medal we can pin on their chests though. The one driving said he did what anyone would have done, and I believe that. Although they are heroes, no doubt about it, I believe many lawfully armed Citizens would have done the same in their position.

I personally would have. Although I carry in Church, along with around the house. Different guns for different environments of course. I also wear body armor when I go outdoors most days. Although I realize an encounter with an armed criminal (knife/gun/bat/etc) at close range could still result in mortal wounds, my hope is that the body armor will allow me to stay in the fight long enough to put the attacker down. Preservation of my family is top priority.

a reply to: JBurns

My main interest is making it even harder from criminals to acquire weapons which could be used against law abiding armed Citizens.

Agree. That is what the whole system is meant to be. But potential law breakers will go around the law.

During this morning's news conference, the CNN reporter asked the Sheriff if a Bump Stock was used, because so many rounds were fired inside the church. Was that a dumb question? Sheriff answered in a considerate manner, but he looked at the reporter like the reporter was stupid.

a reply to: carewemust

Sheriff answered in a considerate manner, but he looked at the reporter like the reporter was stupid.

Good. Reporter working of buzz words.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You make many assumptions.

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.

ODD is not defined as a tendency toward violence; it is a tendency to oppose authority. There's a big difference between the two.

...people who are not just mentally ill, but criminally insane also live in those places.

Well, I'm glad you make a distinction between "mentally ill" and "criminally insane." In actuality, "criminally insane" is an extreme form of "mentally ill."

Since you can make that distinction, surely you can extend that distinction to see the difference between someone like Charles Manson (the poster boy for "criminally insane") and the guy who just really doesn't like others telling him what to do. The former is already locked up safely away from society, while the latter may have no need to be separated from others. Both are classified as "mentally ill."

The issue is quantitative, not qualitative. How mentally ill does one have to be in order to raise that red flag? And who determines both the threshold for someone being a problem and the level a certain person is experiencing? There is no accurate method known to mankind to quantify mental illness with anything even close to accuracy.

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.

What you seem to be proposing is a new level of prison for non-offenders that might offend in the future.

You may find that offensive, or objectionable...

I find it horrific.

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.

I'm glad you can simplify psychiatry to such an extent. Please, publish some of your vast knowledge of the intricacies of human behavior to some psychiatric journals, because no one else has been able to simplify the science, despite years, decades of exhaustive research and study.

[/sarcasm]

The truth is that blanket statements like the one you just made are why your proposal not only will not work, but why it would be an absolute disaster for so many. People are not machines; they each have unique experiences and talents that separate them from a standardized form of diagnosis. Each person will manifest symptoms that can match a known dangerous form of actual mental illness at some point in time during their life, but that does not qualify them as mentally ill. Only by a vast preponderance of evidence can anything approaching an accurate diagnosis be made.

TheRedneck

So, previously on-line ranting atheist nerd who said all Christians are total idiots, he dresses up in body armor, goes into a small, local church, and kills or wounds almost everyone within it, while shouting "die, motherf'ers!"

and then the authorities provide an "update" that the shooting was not religiously or anti-religiously motivated in any way, that this was just some sort of family dispute.. and a whole lot of crazy, nothing more.

Do they think we, and honest atheists, are IDIOTS?!

This isn't a rant against atheism, just fake news BS.

The guy was motivated in part due to his form of atheism. It was religiously motivated, but not in the traditional Islamic terrorist sense.

What's wrong the authorities these days? What's wrong with the MSM, and what's wrong with atheism in general that this can't be mentioned as forming part of his motive. It just is what it is, that's all. It doesn't say anything about atheism in general.

WTH?!

a reply to: AnkhMorpork


Amen to that, I didn't see how this wasn't a clear factor either. I have no idea how they reconcile the domestic-uninvolved victims with that theory. It is also clear to me he was lashing out against religion.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

The question is did he attack / kill people in the church because they are religious or did he go there to kill family and anyone else in the way?

I can see how his actions could be considered as not targeting religion / religious people if his established motive was to kill family members over something unrelated to religion. Killing them in a church could be seen as an opportunity to get multiple family members in one place and grouped into one area.

As for others who were killed if the guy knows he is going to commit a murder and knowing Texas law puts in an express lane for a needle in his arm for the manner in which he commits the crime what does he have to lose by going beyond family?

We would need to know more details about his family life and what the issues were with other family members. By more details I mean information that the media does not have.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Yes ArmaLite (note the manufacture's marketing use of the "AR" as a dual meaning)

In the past month we had Las Vegas (The biggest mass murder in US history)
Now Sutherland (the biggest mass murder in TX History)
Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton? (20 Children)
Pulse nightclub in Orlando? (49 killed),
Aurora Theater Shooting?

All of them Armalite "AR" weapons.

So no, I am not referring to simply semi-automatic weapons.

I am referring to specifically to the AR platform.

I looked at their site and I don't actually see that at all. It seems pretty clear to me. They even have an AD that talks about what AR really means.

Well according to what I googled, the AR platform has become the most popular selling rifle in the US, so that's likely your answer right there.

As for why it's the most popular? reasons vary, but generally, customizable, adaptable, reliable, accurate. Versatile for sports shooting, hunting and self-defense. All in one with a few changes.

Personally I think it might be because people are so scared of it, it makes it look that much more attractive to a mass killer. They want their 15 minutes of infamy and the big scary AR will definitely extend it another 5 minutes.

And that's ultimately probably a good thing, since the AR-15 for instance, is generally considered under-powered by most police. It's less likely to penetrate interior walls, unlike the AK-47 and it's variants, which usually use a larger caliber round than the AR-15.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: JBurns

My main interest is making it even harder from criminals to acquire weapons which could be used against law abiding armed Citizens.

Agree. That is what the whole system is meant to be. But potential law breakers will go around the law.

I'd like to think increasing sentences for firearm crimes would help, but honestly the criminals that get caught think so little of life (even their own), that it may make 0 forward movement.

It's not a gun problem as much as a criminal problem. And what exactly can we do that we aren't already?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: AnkhMorpork


Amen to that, I didn't see how this wasn't a clear factor either. I have no idea how they reconcile the domestic-uninvolved victims with that theory. It is also clear to me he was lashing out against religion.

Exactly. It's some weird atheist bias in the mainstream media who are somehow worried that this crazy mofo will give atheists a bad rap.

How about some honest reporting!

So now the world itself goes frick'n bat$hit crazy and makes up reality, to cover over something that no one wants to talk about for fear of creating some sort of atheist vs. Christian schism?

We're not idiots, neither the Christian or the atheist. Just tell is straight please and thank you.

That was absurd that update by the authorities. Rest assured everyone - no religious motivation or intent whatsoever. And his grandmother in-law was among those killed, had nothing to do with his form of atheism, atheism of the hateful, seething variety.

The whole of society is f'd if we are not committed to the truth and reality as it really is.

It's one of the four tools of discipline that upholds any civil society

1) Dedicated to truth and reality.

Oh this makes me angry.

We must be permitted to learn from these things.

Note how facebook took his page down right away. Why can't we see what made this guy tick?

I'm getting real tired of this CIA mockingbird infiltrated MSM, many of whom are atheists and some, theistic Satanists.

In their insisting that there was no motive tied to a very hateful form of atheism, they betray their own bias. It's pathetic!

a reply to: Xcathdra


Why are you towing the same line?

He went there to fire up the whole church and kill everyone in it, and then maybe even another church down the road.

He was obviously motivated by a form of religious hatred.

WTF?!!!

Forgive me for asking this, but are you atheist, and if so, why the disingenuous desire to deflect from the obvious while echoing the MSM?

Has everyone gone out of their minds?

This pisses me off to no end, because of it's lack of fealty to the truth, to maybe even help prevent such a thing from happening again for the same bull# insane reasons..!

It will escalate, and we'll see what happens.

Easy gun access + crappy mental illness awareness and crappy processes + growing population = more of the same.

I really believe many of you want a throwback to the old west. Everyone has a holster.. a couple of 6 shooters.. and when danger rears its head, you heroes come out with guns a'blazin'. "If everyone was FORCED to have training and have a gun there would be no problem, guhuh!" Pathetic.

Many will blame a sinister agenda.. NWO.. a removal of guns from society from a goverment that wants to evilly take over the country.. whatever. Ignoring facts won't fix the problem. More guns.. more people.. more people with mental issues.. will equal more shootings. And all your gun-toting heroes won't fix the problem. The fix isn't that everyone from 10 to 77 has a gun on their person and ready to blow holes in anyone who dares raise a ruckus.

How about more serious vetting for guns. Omg.. you have to wait another 2 WEEKS for a gun!?! Gasp! U.S. citizens with easy access to guns and mental health issue is the problem. The Old West isn't the fix. Immigrants from certain countries are not the problem.

But what could I expect from Trump.. who cuts pathetically minuscule programs to get back millions.. when literally trillions go unaccounted for in the Pentagon. Instead he throws the biggest offenders billions more. Brilliant.

For the love of God (or not, to each their own), if the truth is glossed over, then it makes victims of the victims a second time, while including the rest of us.

No religious or religiously biased motivation...

Huh?!

The conversation that could have ensued, if everyone was honest, could have involved a greater sense of mutuality and love between Christians and atheists, and that might have done the victims justice in the world.

But this insecure and fearful and disingenuous falsehood.....

Yes there was some sort of family angle, but to say that his motive in part was not in any way an anti-Christian or religious hatred, is just pathetic and imho, an OUTRAGE!

Does this mean I want to paint atheists as f'd up evil gun toting mofo's on the hunt for Christians (they tend to gather at Church)..?

Of course not!!!!

The false assumptions and disingenuous denials of the truth that people are willing to promulgate and consume are just too much to take.

Civilization has fallen.

No one cares anymore about the truth, to run cover for their own biases, fears and insecurities and the unwillingness to have an honest and authentic conversation about events that we would like to try to understand and to prevent, because at bottom, surely our love for one another, no matter what our beliefs or convictions matters more than our own comfort level based on predetermined conceptions and apparently rules, about what you can and cannot talk about, in this case a certain type of atheist hatred for Christians, and in many cases, vice versa.

Let's be honest and come together, and properly mourn, and wherever possible forgive, which is a long long road, and it's by far too early for that.

What, did they think that atheists and Christians would start running out and shooting each other?

Just how STUPID do they think we are?!!!

Some whimp-asss atheists authorities maybe thought that was the smarter way to go, so that became the talking point.

I'm calling it out for what it is. Cowardice and a lack of faith in the American people.

a reply to: fleabit

You seem to have this fascination with the "Wild West"... along with a lot of propaganda-fed ignorance.

Yes, people tended to more likely than not be armed. That was in response to the fact that criminal behavior tends to flourish in two places: where law enforcement is loose and where there is little societal structure. Both these situations existed in the Wild West. Yet, murders were actually not as common as most people think. The Hollywood ideal of "10 paces at high noon" was exceedingly rare. It was largely due to the fact that most people were armed that the West was settled so quickly and society became established as fast as it did. Without self-protection and in the face of a lack of law enforcement and a plethora of bandits, one simply had to be armed to expect to survive.

We will not go back to that time period as long as society is maintained.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcathdra

As for others who were killed if the guy knows he is going to commit a murder and knowing Texas law puts in an express lane for a needle in his arm for the manner in which he commits the crime what does he have to lose by going beyond family?

We would need to know more details about his family life and what the issues were with other family members. By more details I mean information that the media does not have.

He could have just went to their house and killed those he felt did him wrong in his weird way, but he decided to kill or try to kill EVERYONE in the church. How does that fit in any mold other than attack against the church too.

Sick puppy that it seems many knew this...