Local Plumber Fired Shot That Took Out Texas Church Shooter

originally posted by: rickymouse
Yup, if I saw someone doing something like that, I would go get my gun and shoot him too. It was obvious that this guy was shooting the people at the church, he needed to go down. It was probably luck that he hit the guy in a gap in the armour though, god must have helped with that a bit. The shooter who killed all those people was a loose cannon, how come nobody noticed that and helped him before he did this? The Military gave him a dishonorable discharge and abandoned all responsibility for trying to get him fixed, their policies actually made this happen. I wonder how many people the military breaks and gets rid of this way, how many of them go loose cannon?

These days, it's more likely O appointees in the VA pushing vets to extremes. I have heard ore than one account of people with stress issues being pushed into suicide, by those that are supposed to be there to offer help. The military discharging someone who isn't fit, for whatever reason, doesn't make the military responsible for that person for the rest of their life.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah, this guy should not have been able to own a gun from what you said. The fact that he did when he shouldn't have been able to kind of bothers me. They should start by enforcing what they already have, stop people who have been convicted of a crime from being able to buy a gun legally.

Illegal guns can be bought, but most people do not have the connections to get one. They are also a lot more expensive than you can buy them legally.

Do we know if the gun he used was legal or not?

As for expense, well, I once knew how to get hold of an illegal pistol for a fraction of what I'd have had to pay for a legal one, so that's not always true. And, no, I don't have a lot of criminal connections. Just had someone I knew who knew someone, sort of thing, that knew I wanted a gun and couldn't afford one at the time. Didn't go for that, because who knows to what crimes it could have been connected!

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

Good on him. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. That's why it is important to have properly trained armed citizens.

Armed citizens mean 50 people got shot and 26 died before " a good guy with a gun" could do anything.

If we didn't have guns, then maybe 1 or 2 people would have been stabbed instead, and probably less than that.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yea because criminals would never be able to get their hands on a gun right?

I mean look at drugs, they're illegal and IMPOSSIBLE to get.

a reply to: Aazadan

YES we already KNOW the complaint QUITE well.
IT WILL continue so get used to it,until we find out how you fix it.
Since our health pros are shot down by cash and insurance.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

Good on him. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. That's why it is important to have properly trained armed citizens.

Armed citizens mean 50 people got shot and 26 died before " a good guy with a gun" could do anything.

If we didn't have guns, then maybe 1 or 2 people would have been stabbed instead, and probably less than that.

Fact: We have guns. We can't put that genie back in the bottle, so this constant "if we didn't have guns" circle jerk you gun grabbers love to do is irrelevant. if we didn't have pools, no kid would drown. If we didn't have airplanes, nobody would die in airplane crashes. if we didn't have cars, no one would die in car crashes. If we didn't have alcohol, no one would be a drunk. If we didn't have gambling, no one would be in debt. I mean we can do this all night.

Getting rid of guns will never happen. Preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms will do nothing to stop criminals and those intent on harming others.

Texans say guns stop tyranny.......

In The Fine Texas Tradition.............just read about the chasers....Texas boys done good

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Aazadan

Yea because criminals would never be able to get their hands on a gun right?

I mean look at drugs, they're illegal and IMPOSSIBLE to get.

Look at other countries, a handful of criminals manage to get guns. On the budgets most people have to commit mass shootings, illegal weapons, and especially the ammo for mass shootings ends up getting priced out of their hands.

Market based restraint.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Getting rid of guns will never happen. Preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms will do nothing to stop criminals and those intent on harming others.

I'm for any solution that works. Whether that's a single extreme action like getting rid of all guns, or a combination of a bunch of different factors like better screening, and changes to mental health care.

I'm not necessarily saying we should (not that I would stand in opposition to it), but if we banned new gun sales and offered gun buyback programs at above market rate. Given 50 years, we could probably destroy enough guns that we would only have a handful of mass shootings per year. That's a solution, albeit an extreme one.

When it comes to the idea that everyone should be armed, we're looking at a lot of people pulling guns, cross fire happening, and several people being shot/killed at minimum any time a disagreement breaks out. Lets say for arguments sake, that that's the way we go about this. What happens when someone strolls up to a church in body armor, uses tear gas to immobilize people, and then shoots? It seems to me that all we're doing here is creating an arms race between mass murderers and citizens. Escalation won't solve this issue, the idea seems absurd.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Yup, if I saw someone doing something like that, I would go get my gun and shoot him too. It was obvious that this guy was shooting the people at the church, he needed to go down. It was probably luck that he hit the guy in a gap in the armour though, god must have helped with that a bit. The shooter who killed all those people was a loose cannon, how come nobody noticed that and helped him before he did this? The Military gave him a dishonorable discharge and abandoned all responsibility for trying to get him fixed, their policies actually made this happen. I wonder how many people the military breaks and gets rid of this way, how many of them go loose cannon?

Here's the problem with relying on mental health screenings. You cannot force someone to take health care. We can't force people to be on meds, and we can't forcibly restrain them in a hospital until they're feeling better. Often times we can't even catch them, because anyone can lie their way through a screening.

Mental health is something where we can only treat those who want to be helped. Not everyone wants to be helped, so no amount of screenings or access to doctors will fix things. Worse yet, some of the medicines we do use result in people becoming homicidal.

I don't think it's fair to blame the military here. What were they supposed to do? Indefinitely detain him and give him forced medical procedures based on a suspicion of what he might do in the future?

I was not surprised when the story broke on the news, it's Texas.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah, this guy should not have been able to own a gun from what you said. The fact that he did when he shouldn't have been able to kind of bothers me. They should start by enforcing what they already have, stop people who have been convicted of a crime from being able to buy a gun legally.

Illegal guns can be bought, but most people do not have the connections to get one. They are also a lot more expensive than you can buy them legally.

Do we know if the gun he used was legal or not?

As for expense, well, I once knew how to get hold of an illegal pistol for a fraction of what I'd have had to pay for a legal one, so that's not always true. And, no, I don't have a lot of criminal connections. Just had someone I knew who knew someone, sort of thing, that knew I wanted a gun and couldn't afford one at the time. Didn't go for that, because who knows to what crimes it could have been connected!

Long ago I knew a couple of people who sold pistols that were not legal. I held a couple, they were nice guns but the price was way up there compared to what I could buy them new for. I also had no problem getting a pistol, I didn't even want a gun that may have been used in a crime.

I have known all kinds of people in my life, I was honest and people trusted me. Some of the not so good guys I knew actually respected me for being trustworthy and not judging people. If someone was bad to the bone, I avoided them, but a lot of bikers were good people back in the eighties. They told me about people that I should avoid, some they knew were sort of psychopaths. Two of them left the angels in Milwaukee because of all the bad stuff they did and formed their own club. But, you wouldn't still want to screw these guys over. You can sense things about people, these bikers were loyal to their friends. I came from a different world, the only thing we had in common is our desire to party. I didn't do hard drugs at all, but they had no problem with that.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse
Yup, if I saw someone doing something like that, I would go get my gun and shoot him too. It was obvious that this guy was shooting the people at the church, he needed to go down. It was probably luck that he hit the guy in a gap in the armour though, god must have helped with that a bit. The shooter who killed all those people was a loose cannon, how come nobody noticed that and helped him before he did this? The Military gave him a dishonorable discharge and abandoned all responsibility for trying to get him fixed, their policies actually made this happen. I wonder how many people the military breaks and gets rid of this way, how many of them go loose cannon?

Here's the problem with relying on mental health screenings. You cannot force someone to take health care. We can't force people to be on meds, and we can't forcibly restrain them in a hospital until they're feeling better. Often times we can't even catch them, because anyone can lie their way through a screening.

Mental health is something where we can only treat those who want to be helped. Not everyone wants to be helped, so no amount of screenings or access to doctors will fix things. Worse yet, some of the medicines we do use result in people becoming homicidal.

I don't think it's fair to blame the military here. What were they supposed to do? Indefinitely detain him and give him forced medical procedures based on a suspicion of what he might do in the future?

He was a bad apple before he went into the military from what I gather. In this case, the military did not cause him to flip out. I do know someone who flipped out in the military, the guy shot himself when out on leave after he went to bootcamp. Not everyone is able to do the military, some people do not have the ability to take the verbal and physical abuse needed to complete bootcamp. The kid was actually a nice kid, I knew his parents. I haven't seen them in years now.

originally posted by: DerBeobachter

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

Good on him. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. That's why it is important to have properly trained armed citizens.

Without armed citizens nobody has to stop, with guns, lunatic armed citizens that go postal with firearms.
Or is that wrong?

Mass shootings have still occurred in Europe, funnily enough (not funny).

If both wouldn´t be armed, nobody got hurt and nobody had to stop somebody with weapon power.

I don't know if you've looked at a map of the U.S., let alone a map of Texas, to know that we aren't as condensed as Europe. In rural areas it takes Law Enforcement 15-20 minutes sometimes to respond to a call. Thank god you don't control us.

Btw, why is nobody talking about the perpetrator, that he was not allowed to buy guns, because of dishonorable discharge from the miltary?

We could talk about the possibility he was a militant atheist too. Did you catch the part where he already wasn't allowed to purchase guns? Gun grabbing hasn't even helped Europe recently.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah, this guy should not have been able to own a gun from what you said. The fact that he did when he shouldn't have been able to kind of bothers me. They should start by enforcing what they already have, stop people who have been convicted of a crime from being able to buy a gun legally.

Illegal guns can be bought, but most people do not have the connections to get one. They are also a lot more expensive than you can buy them legally.

Do we know if the gun he used was legal or not?

As for expense, well, I once knew how to get hold of an illegal pistol for a fraction of what I'd have had to pay for a legal one, so that's not always true. And, no, I don't have a lot of criminal connections. Just had someone I knew who knew someone, sort of thing, that knew I wanted a gun and couldn't afford one at the time. Didn't go for that, because who knows to what crimes it could have been connected!

Long ago I knew a couple of people who sold pistols that were not legal. I held a couple, they were nice guns but the price was way up there compared to what I could buy them new for. I also had no problem getting a pistol, I didn't even want a gun that may have been used in a crime.

I have known all kinds of people in my life, I was honest and people trusted me. Some of the not so good guys I knew actually respected me for being trustworthy and not judging people. If someone was bad to the bone, I avoided them, but a lot of bikers were good people back in the eighties. They told me about people that I should avoid, some they knew were sort of psychopaths. Two of them left the angels in Milwaukee because of all the bad stuff they did and formed their own club. But, you wouldn't still want to screw these guys over. You can sense things about people, these bikers were loyal to their friends. I came from a different world, the only thing we had in common is our desire to party. I didn't do hard drugs at all, but they had no problem with that.

I have heard of those sorts of sales as well, and suppose that pries will vary, depending on who is selling, and the guns themselves, perhaps. I'd have loved to have one, but didn't even have the cash for that, and didn't want to risk it. Some help that would be, if I had to shoot a home invader, and was arrested for some old murder or something! No way!!!

Yeah, some pretty cool bikers in those days. We had one that lived "behind" the parents, and down a little, one street over as it were. Good guy, and one we'd have gone to if there was a problem in the area. More trustworthy than a lot of the "upstanding" sorts, for certain! And, yeah, some of those still not anyone you'd want to cross! I can get that, though. I'd be a bear against anyone threatening one of mine, and have intimidated some who were bothering a friend. I am a bit protective, lol!

My brother knew some guys, though, that scared him, even. No threat to him, but they were scary. One in particular, who I a sure was involved in all sorts of shady dealings. That sort, I preferred to avoid! Wouldn't have been afraid of them, since they 'd have had no reason to dislike me, but avoiding trouble is usually best!

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

I'm glad they were there and put a stop the madness. Probably didn't require a gap in the armor though...most hunting rifles are armor piercing.

Its the round that's armour piercing, not the the rifle !

As I said to my wife, the only way someone could possibly shot up a church, killing one year old infants in addition to persons of all ages, would be if they were:

a) Entrenched in a Satanic delusion, having gone down a rabbit hole of mania rooted in conspiracies which speak against Christ & His nature, purpose & power.
b) A mind-controlled slave, someone who was totally unable to control what was happening to him, being controlled by fascist nazis who have taken over vast aspects of the Deep State.

Noting that he had a military background, the mind-controlled slave option may seem the most plausible - but either option is equally possible, and perhaps equally likely. We know that Nazis did infiltrate & maintain covert control over much of the CIA during its early years, well beyond the 'known' details of Operation Paperclip - so there are definitely persons within the deep state who do not value life in the same way that most ordinary people do. For them, there is no God, and to shoot infants & all ages like fish in a barrel, during a Sunday service of those who worship God, means nothing more than killing literal fish in a barrel, if it serves their purpose - and it makes their point most fully known, causing them to be feared by those in power who would oppose them. Such acts may well be intended to cement their hold on power - "This is what we'll do if you seek to uproot us" - a threat which may cause good people within the intelligence community to abandon their attempts to uncover & exterminate the infiltration. If there is no God, then there is no consequence. That is how they view the world. And somehow, they must be stopped.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Just because a church is involved doesn't necessarily make it about religion. Emotions at times know no boundaries.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

If we assume that the only way someone could do something so evil was if they were mind controlled, then how do you explain the person who did the mind control and ordered them to shoot? That's even more evil.

He shot himself in the head.