Texas Church Shooting : Thread

In my opinion most of the post here are not really about gun laws. They are about trust.
Who do you trust the safety of your family with?
The government or yourselves?
To me, those who would trust the government that much are immature.
IMHO, people who want bigger government and more oversight are like children who never fully matured.  They need the comfort of someone "looking out" for their well being.  They can not (or will not) take full responsibility for their lives and their choices.  
      They need a guardian.  Sadly, as they age the government takes on the roll where mommy and daddy left off.  I honestly believe this comes mostly from the way they were raised.
      Many were never allowed to fail as children and grew up thinking someone would always be there to stop the bad things from happening.
     This leads to a belief that laws will protect them and others. Yet, no law has ever prevented a crime.  Laws mean nothing to a lawless individual, only to the law abiding.
Just my 2 cents,
Quad

a reply to: Quadrivium

Where the hell have you been? lol

Trust indeed. I only ever trust myself and my abilities.

That's all I can trust.

originally posted by: fleabit
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.

It is funny that if you went back to the 70s and earlier there were gun clubs in schools... SCHOOLS lol I remember a rifle in the back window of every truck I would see.

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.

"more people with mental issues.. will equal more shootings." Or more running people over, or more whatever if a person wants to kill they will. You can bubble boy all of society and people will kill if that is their desire.

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. .

Still a mental illness issue that needs to be addressed. There are 330 million people in america... That is a lot of crazy people too. "Immigrants from certain countries are not the problem" As one runs people down and if he didn't hit a bus could have killed hundreds?

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.

Really need to bring Trump into this after 8 years of Obama not fixing it either...lol

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Quadrivium

Where the hell have you been? lol

Working mostly. Somebody has to pay for all this free stuff muhuhahahaha.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
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?!

Idd say its because authorities dont jump to conclusions like you do., Seems like the more likely reason hhe chose that church is his mother in law attended there. And the sheriff admitted they had an on going dispute.See police have to deal in facts not speculation.

a reply to: dragonridr


Quick question, and please don't take this the wrong way, but are you an atheist?

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: dragonridr


Quick question, and please don't take this the wrong way, but are you an atheist?

No im not in fact attend church regularly. Why? Does that somehow invalidate facts???

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your assertion that there is no method known to mankind which can assess mental health to the accuracy level required... I would argue that all the information required to make a very accurate assessment, already exists, for every single person who has ever entered mainstream education, for anyone who has ever entered into military service, the police force, or similar services administrated either by local or federal government.

What is lacking is an effective and efficient system for sifting this data to look for problems, which simply does not happen, and bloody well ought to.

With 27 dead, you'd think some of the 20+ wounded would have been heavily wounded, and would by now have succumbed to their injuries in the hospitals. But the death toll is not rising. Just like the Mandalay Bay massacre, once the death/wounded toll is announced, it does not move. More evidence of fakery?

a reply to: TrueBrit

I would argue that all the information required to make a very accurate assessment, already exists, for every single person who has ever entered mainstream education, for anyone who has ever entered into military service, the police force, or similar services administrated either by local or federal government.

All the information needed to cure cancer already exists. All the information needed to cure birth defects already exists. Information does not pop into and out of existence.

What is lacking is our ability to accurately assess that information.

If we had that ability, there would never be a disagreement among two psychiatrists over a patient's diagnosis or prognosis... but second opinions are sought out every day and quite often disagree with the first opinion. If we had that ability, there would never be another syndrome introduced, because we would know them all. But every year, psychiatric journals propose the existence of a new syndrome. If we possessed the level of ability you seem to think we do, there would never be a case of over-medication or misdiagnosis. But we both know that is a regular occurrence.

Your argument is invalid, made so by the very actions of the professionals you wish to place in power as some sort of God-like arbiter of who may and may not exist in which area of society. After all, that is your proposal: doctors and politicians able to say on a whim whether or not one should have human rights and be allowed to even exist.

And as I said before, I find that very concept horrifying.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
After all, that is your proposal: doctors and politicians able to say on a whim whether or not one should have human rights and be allowed to even exist.

And as I said before, I find that very concept horrifying.

TheRedneck

I agree, it is horrifying but in fairness to brit, we sort of do that anyway don't we? Capital punishment is a way of deciding who gets to exist. Human rights, well that's a grey area on whoever seems to be interpreting what a "right" is....some would say free access to water as an example is a basic human right, others would argue, yet here we are paying for it.

What I find most disturbing though, is that it seems people would believe that ALL fiction can become reality and in this particular case, in believing that a "Minority Report" world can exist....one in which pre-crime prevention becomes a thing. NO ONE, I repeat, no one can make a clear determination on what the human mind will do, and never will be able to do that...if we start letting ourselves believe that ALL BAD THINGS can be stopped or prevented, then honestly I do not know what to say about the state of humanity.

I prefer a world where you're still allowed to make a mistake where it won't ruin your life forever, than one in which people believe they have the power for perpetual peace....and frankly I will go on record stating I do not WANT perpetual peace, I wanna know that if I'm angry I CAN BE angry and not be medicated for it FFS.

Regarding the animal cruelty incident in August 2014 in Colorado Springs:

www.nydailynews.com...
"After a long standoff with police, Kelley was arrested. The case was later dismissed, and Kelley returned to Texas."

This guy got into a "long standoff" with the local police, and still had no problem passing a background check?

a reply to: TheRedneck


Well said TR. I find the potential abuse from such a system far outweighs any proposed hypothetical future benefit. Such a system causes real harm today, to law abiding Citizens requiring deadly weapons for defense.

way up!

a reply to: TrueBrit


But who does the sifting? Everyone has a bias, right? Therefore, expecting such a system to be entirely fair and transparent while preserving due process is unrealistic. You can't diagnose psychiatric conditions without a consensual examination - so how will such a system even work? Are we going to force people into getting medical/psych diagnosis then? Or will the rules of psychiatry be thrown out, allowing for remote invasive non-consensual examination/diagnosis?

We can not allow single points of failure to become arbiters of our civil rights. History has shown the side supporting civil rights always wins eventually - in this case the Pro-2A advocates are the ones defending civil rights.

Those who would trade a natural right for some fleeting illusion of safety deserve neither. Freedom is a gift that was paid ahead in the blood of our patriots. It is up to us to defend that freedom, because those who made the ultimate sacrifice for liberty are no longer here to do it.

All Americans should be ready, willing and able to give their lives if neccesary defending the Constitution as well.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Capital punishment is a way of deciding who gets to exist

True enough, but the bar is much, much higher than what TrueBrit is proposing. In order for someone to be subject to capital punishment, they must be found guilty of a crime punishable by capital punishment, by a jury of their peers. That crime must be a violation of a law that was passed by either a state legislature or the US Congress, then have a signature of approval from the Governor or the President depending on the venue. All these involved parties perform their duties at the pleasure of the majority; they can be voted out if the public chooses to do so. The law must then typically undergo review by the judicial branch(es) of government. A trial judge must decide that capital punishment is indeed warranted... all capital punishment offenses have alternate punishments available for that judge to consider. And finally, the trial itself must be verified through several levels of automatic appeal to higher level judges.

Even if the sentence passes all those hurdles, the Governor or President may, at his/her sole discretion, commute the sentence.

Under TrueBrit's proposal, any diagnosis of a mental illness by a person who has not been elected by the citizenry but has rather managed to get through school and pass a series of examinations would have the power to decide, almost unilaterally, that a person can be deprived of their freedom. That is an extremely different situation, and a lowering of the bar from a lofty position to a base one.

Human rights, well that's a grey area on whoever seems to be interpreting what a "right" is....some would say free access to water as an example is a basic human right, others would argue, yet here we are paying for it.

True again. I will agree with you that we need further enumeration of what a basic human right is. I would say a human right is the right to do whatever is necessary to live a free life, as long as such action does not unduly interfere with the same ability in others. To use the water example, one certainly has the right to potable water (such is necessary for life), but one does not have the right to force others to clean water for their use or the right to take water from others.

But that is straying from the topic at hand.

What I find most disturbing though, is that it seems people would believe that ALL fiction can become reality and in this particular case, in believing that a "Minority Report" world can exist....one in which pre-crime prevention becomes a thing.

This is exactly my point. Thank you!

I wish we could live in a world where crime and injury were non-extant as well. It would be wonderful if everyone were guaranteed to wake up tomorrow healthy and well, but we are simply not guaranteed that. A large part of freedom is that it must apply to everyone or it applies to no one. For it to apply to everyone, there will of necessity be conflicts, and those conflicts will occasionally turn violent. As a society we give up a small amount of freedom every day in return for peace; your comment on capital punishment above being a great example. The only question is where do we draw that dividing line?

I draw it close to the side of freedom, because I understand that just because someone is a doctor, a Senator, a judge, or any other title, it does not follow they will have my best interests at heart. Only I will do so, and without freedom,I will not be able to maintain the freedom I love.

TrueBrit thinks differently, it seems. He wants to draw the line more towards peace, so close IMO that it will return the opposite of what he desires.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JBurns

Another point many seem to have missed is that a person can easily be mentally ill (as in of a violent persuasion) while appearing completely normal during an examination. This happens frequently in Alzheimers and dementia cases; people close to the afflicted see the warning signs, but examinations, even random visits, do not bear them out. The afflicted still have the ability to appear well for short times; it is the continual day-to-day battle that causes them to lose their facilities for rational thought.

Only when the illness has progressed to the later stages can someone be easily and accurately diagnosed, and by then it is far too late to help them (other than make them comfortable).

Adding to the situation is that those close to them will not speak out. The reason is simply because no one will believe them unless they can independently verify in a quick examination... so people go un-diagnosed but dangerous to themselves and others for years sometimes. There were likely a lot of people who thought with good cause that Kelley was dangerous, but they also knew if they said something, he would be likely be visited and exonerated on the basis of one short visit. They, then, would be left with an even angrier psychopath and no way to get help because they had already 'cried wolf.'

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Under TrueBrit's proposal, any diagnosis of a mental illness by a person who has not been elected by the citizenry but has rather managed to get through school and pass a series of examinations would have the power to decide, almost unilaterally, that a person can be deprived of their freedom. That is an extremely different situation, and a lowering of the bar from a lofty position to a base one.

Even more scary, in my honest opinion to that is, who decides when those deciders are mentally ill? I mean they are equally as susceptible to the erred human mind as anyone else.

Here's to hoping that cooler minds prevail even in the wake of current events' tragedies. Somehow though I have a lot of reservations on
this...just as an example, in case you hadn't read it, there was an article this morning on MSN let me post an excerp:

said Tuesday he thinks it is “insane” for civilians to be able to purchase semi-automatic rifles like the one a gunman used to kill 26 people at a Texas church.
Dean Winslow, a professor at Stanford University and retired Air Force colonel, made his remarks during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Armed Service committee, according to the Washington Examiner.
“I may get in trouble with other members of the committee just say how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy a semi-automatic like an AR-15, which apparently was the weapon that was used,” Winslow said. “I think that's an issue not as much for this committee, but elsewhere.”

...note the use of keywords designed to elicit maximum emotional response from the audience "Semi-Automatic"...knowing full well that the vast majority ignore the "semi" part and only focus on the "automatic" part of that. But failing to mention that firearms like the Marlin .22 long-rifle is a semi-automatic that's been around for 54 years and looks thusly:



I own two of these, but it LOOKS a lot less scary so clearly it's not a "dangerous" semi-automatic weapon and not center-fire. You don't see images of people running around with rockchuck plinkers because it wouldn't generate enough fear.

I guess playing to an uninformed audience is still an extremely relevant strategy even WITH the "information superhighway".

a reply to: TheRedneck
The shooter fractured a toddler's skull in 2012. In my opinion that act, along with beating and choking his wife should have ended his participation in a civil society. He should have been locked up at that point and not ever let out again. These same mental health personnel who are supposed to be deciding who can function and who can't let him out. What does that say about the profession's ability to predict the future? The military and their mental health personnel failed our society in not keeping him locked up and then not reporting his crimes. How on earth those facts can be morphed into more gun control is beyond me.

Stephen Willeford was the answer to the system's mistakes because he practiced gun control---steady aim.

People who beat up other people and animals need to be kept away from civil society. There are a multitude of laws designed to do this but some mental health "professionals" apparently believe that they can be cured by a few pills. Perhaps they are far more delusional than the crazy killer. I might say the same for those who are currently calling for more gun laws. It should be obvious at this point that crazy, abusive people should be locked away because they don't care a fig for laws.

a reply to: diggindirt

he attended the halloween party at the church 5 days before he shot it up....the preachers 14 year old daughter was shot but still alive and moaning so he went over to her and finished the job......that i so twisted