Gunman opens fire at Texas church, killing at least 20

[buick]

gun control and immigration have something in common in america.  they both got totally out of control and now it is very difficult to turn the clock back (so to speak).  they needed to be dealt with a long time ago.  honestly, i think it is too late.  we have what we have, unfortunately.  lots of people that should not have guns have them.  lots of people that shouldn't be in the country, are in the country.  all because our politicians can't agree on a logical solution to the issue(s).  so they just let it go. 

 

maybe the republicans could 'give a little' on gun control if the democrats 'gave a little' on immigration.  but no.  coming to a comprise and cutting a deal is not the way of our leaders in america.  they are totally selfish (trump, obama, the tenured leaders of the house and the senate, etc... !!!).

Edited November 6, 2017 by buick

[Jingthing]

This says it all --

 

[55Jay]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

How can anyone not feel uncomfortable in a situation like this?

Looks like 2nd Amendment open carry guys?

 

My first impression is they are displaying their weapons seeking attention.  That's one of their Pavlovian motivations;  normalization, trying to condition the public to not freak out if/when they see a big scary firearm. 

 

What I also see is <deleted> failing to maintain positive control and discipline over their weapons.   I could grab one of those rifles or the shotgun, which is most likely Condition 3 already, rack a round and get the first shots off before these knuckleheads could draw their sidearms..... because you know they've got them on too.  LOL. 

[baboon]

4 hours ago, carmine said:

All very true.  I believe the founding fathers would have been the first to be steaming for stricter control.   Yet for years politicians have failed to address this.  Maybe guns, the NRA are more important to US politicians than children being murdered.  And as i have said earlier, most Americans i have spoken to have a peculiar personality change as soon as gun control is starting to be discussed.  

 

As the rest of the 1st world looks on in bewilderment and disbelief......... 

To be honest I think these massacres have become so common that most of the rest of the 1st world simply shrug and move on to the next story. 'Oh, in America again. Let 'em get on with it...'

Edited November 6, 2017 by baboon

[dick dasterdly]

19 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

Yep. Beware the well organized, vocal minority. I would think the majority of US citizens want a continuation of gun ownership. But it is the extreme that prevents stronger, and as you point out, enforced background checks. The right wingnuts put forth the claim that citizens are to be armed to prevent being treated roughshod by a tyrannical government. My view is that if you are that worried about your nation's government, you have already lost your country. Ha! But in these days and times, I will confess concern of having my rights trampled underfoot ... seizing firearms is not one of my fears.

"The right wingnuts put forth the claim that citizens are to be armed to prevent being treated roughshod by a tyrannical government."

 

I'm probably close to the opposite of a "right wingnut", and (as a Brit.) it always seemed lunacy to allow pretty much anyone and everyone to own guns - until an American pointed out the 'defending from tyrannical govt.' argument.

 

"My view is that if you are that worried about your nation's government, you have already lost your country."

 

Agree entirely.  The populace of most (every?) country has little 'control' over their govts., and they never have had 'control' - but it was easier for politicians to fool the populace previously.

 

Consequently, nowadays, I'm in two minds about Americans' attitude towards guns.

 

Clearly the laws need to be tightened - but this wouldn't have stopped many of the killings.

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"The right wingnuts put forth the claim that citizens are to be armed to prevent being treated roughshod by a tyrannical government."

 

I'm probably close to the opposite of a "right wingnut", and (as a Brit.) it always seemed lunacy to allow pretty much anyone and everyone to own guns - until an American pointed out the 'defending from tyrannical govt.' argument.

 

"My view is that if you are that worried about your nation's government, you have already lost your country."

 

Agree entirely.  The populace of most (every?) country has little 'control' over their govts., and they never have had 'control' - but it was easier for politicians to fool the populace previously.

 

Consequently, nowadays, I'm in two minds about Americans' attitude towards guns.

 

Clearly the laws need to be tightened - but this wouldn't have stopped many of the killings.

Not being an arse... but is there any country in the world where armed citizens defended themselves from a tyrannical government successfully?

[PREM-R]

There are those who say that taking away the guns from 'good'  Americans will mean the 'bad' Americans will have the upper hand.  In all of the years I have read and seen reports of incidents such as this one in Texas, I don't recall one occasion where a 'good' American, carrying a legal  firearm of his own, has stepped in and shot the 'bad' American and prevented a tragedy.   Surely if a 'good' American had ever prevented mass murder we would have had the NRA shouting about it from the rooftops.... but I have seen..... nothing.

[Jonnapat]

And nobody will do a thing about it. Why? Because the NRA have control and because weak kneed politicians care more about retaining their lofty positions than these regular massacres by gun owning loonies.

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Not being an arse... but is there any country in the world where armed citizens defended themselves from a tyrannical government successfully?

Very good point, but then again there are v few countries where a large (?) percentage of the population were armed, that had to defend against an obviously tyrannical govt.?

[55Jay]

8 minutes ago, PREM-R said:

There are those who say that taking away the guns from 'good'  Americans will mean the 'bad' Americans will have the upper hand.  In all of the years I have read and seen reports of incidents such as this one in Texas, I don't recall one occasion where a 'good' American, carrying a legal  firearm of his own, has stepped in and shot the 'bad' American and prevented a tragedy.   Surely if a 'good' American had ever prevented mass murder we would have had the NRA shouting about it from the rooftops.... but I have seen..... nothing.

I'm not disagree with the sentiment but.... in this case, if you read some of the earlier provided links from Scott and others, the moron in question was confronted by someone armed with a shotgun.  Shooter found in his vehicle later, not clear if he topped himself or succumbed to wounds from the earlier gunfight.  None of which prevented anything, sounds like the confrontation occurred after the damage was done.

[mikebike]

9 minutes ago, buick said:

there is no way the house and senate would work with HRC (i assume that is what you are referring to, she would be president but the election was rigged ?).  they didn't work with obama why would they work with HRC.

 

i sure hope you are right.  as we sit today, i don't see any hope on changes to gun control or immigration for many, many years.  if ever.

 

 

Ah - no. HRC bought the DNC in 2015. Without that there is every reason to believe that Bernie would've won the primary and every reason to believe he would have won the presidency. HRC's entitlement issues and the DNC's complicity are much of the reason why we now have the 45 we have.

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Don't be silly

 

Even drug addicts would not expect to get enough cash to be worthwhile. Burglars are after your high value electronics. 

 

Just give them them up and claim on insurance

 

Have some balance!

But I do have balance. Do not threaten me or my family by breaking into my home or you have broken the social contract between us as citizens. I have fear for my life and well being due to the perp's actions? We are reduced to my right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"  and another's individual actions saying they do not care. Better luck next time. Under the laws of the US, you might well be sued by the perp if you only wound him/her. Nope, I do not cede my right as a human allowing another to put my life (or those I care about) in danger.

[mikebike]

19 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Very good point, but then again there are v few countries where a large (?) percentage of the population were armed, that had to defend against an obviously tyrannical govt.?

So a bit of a red herring then...

 

Required: 1. a country where a VERY large percentage of the population is armed; 2. a patently obvious tyrannical government; 3. citizen organization, cooperation and training; 4. the government's military is incompetent or complicit.

 

Question: how long do you think the Bundy militia would have lasted in Oregon if the government hadn't been so nice?

[Thakkar]

6 hours ago, isaanbanhou said:

The parishioners of The First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs Texas have already been accepted to the Kingdom of God. 

   

They are the victims of a man tormented to the point of insane behaviour. To immediately blame the 2nd Ammendmant right to keep and bear arms is a sad commentary of our times. The Republic is under attack from  ISIS at this very moment. A well armed militia is the true backbone of our defense in this assault.  Those that want to trample on the constitution are the ones with blood on their hands. 

 

God Bless America

 

1. What militia did this shooter belong to?

2. Was ISIS hiding in that church?

[samran]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

 

and...

 

Australia Enjoys Another Peaceful Day Under Oppressive Gun Control Regime

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by samran

[dunroaming]

Absolutely no point in calling for change in gun control in the USA while you have this moron as POTUS.  Actually very little point in calling for gun controls anyway.  The Americans seem to like the fact they can easily get assault weapons and kill each other.  Who needs terrorists when the locals do a much better job of it!

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Absolutely no point in calling for change in gun control in the USA while you have this moron as POTUS.  Actually very little point in calling for gun controls anyway.  The Americans seem to like the fact they can easily get assault weapons and kill each other.  Who needs terrorists when the locals do a much better job of it!

Sadly, I'm sure you're right. Seriously addressing gun control is a third rail of politics type thing. Even though there is majority public support for at least a moderate level of improved gun control, the actors opposed are just too powerful. 

[55Jay]

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

In the article linked earlier, this guy apparently bought this assault rifle at the local sports shop. By simply checking the 'No' box on the purchasers questionnaire, thus claiming he wasn't in any way restricted from buying guns, he was able to flaunt the regulations and walk out with the weapon. He had a court martial in 2012 which apparently red-flags gun purchasing. If he had been more honest (yeah right), and the enforcement of the rules more rigorous than a gun buyer checking a box on a questionnaire, he would have been prevented from buying it.

Yes, I agree he should have been tagged ineligible for firearm purchase/ possession based on his reported dishonorable discharge status.  There's some confusion in initial reporting whether it was a DD or a BCD, but that is irrelevant under 18 USC 922(g) question #6.

(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

 

He was convicted of V.UCMJ Article 128 x 2.  Assault.   It was reportedly domestic violence against his then wife and daughter.   Problem is military system doesn't have a specific violation/crime code for domestic violence assault like many States have enacted in recent decades.  128 is non-specific.  The other problem is, the military system doesn't use crime categories of Infraction, Misdemeanor and Felony like the civilian system does.  You would have to query deeper to find out the details of the case, and to determine equivalent crime category, find out what his confinement sentence was.  In this case, he was apparently awarded 1 year in the brig, which is right at the top of Misdemeanor category.    If the Domestic Violence classification had been crystal clear in the NICS system during the gun seller's background check, he would have been disqualified again under 922(g), question #9.

(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

 

So he either lied on the background check, or he slipped through the cracks caused by vagaries between military and civilian language and terminology.   Or both. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by 55Jay
Formatting

[impulse]

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Ask Australia's government, they did it there years ago.

"But that leaves them defenseless against the bad guys who can declare open season to burglarize all the undefended homes."

Don't start that bull, it works in every other country.

 

How many mass shootings did Australia prevent?  How many burglaries are prevented every year in the USA because the burglars know the homeowners may be armed?

 

Answer those questions and you qualify as an expert on the topic...  But show your work.  Burglaries and home invasions that didn't happen don't get counted very well.

 

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And Magna Carta dates back to 1215!

 

 

And... has almost completely been repealed.... bad example... or a good example of how outdated laws can be changed by successive generations.

 

in medieval England, by and large, only the lords and their men had the right to bear arms

 

common folk could be put to death for carrying weoponry, without the protection of a “coat of arms” ( heraldic devise of their master), which is one of the reason for fighting with sticks ( sticks and stones may break my bones), which led to martial art use of the staff ( quarterstaff)

 

but most significantly... the Magna Carta was an agreement between the king and his lords, about controlling the power of the king, and as such, had very little to do with individual freedom for the people

[dunroaming]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sadly, I'm sure you're right. Seriously addressing gun control is a third rail of politics type thing. Even though there is majority public support for at least a moderate level of improved gun control, the actors opposed are just too powerful. 

The vast majority of the Americans I know personally believe there should be stronger gun controls.  

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

The vast majority of the Americans I know personally believe there should be stronger gun controls.  

There is polling to support that. That's another reason this is such a sick situation. What there is popular support for can't be done. Extremely dysfunctional. 

[Foozool]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

President Donald Trump said he was monitoring the situation while in Japan on a 12-day Asian trip.

??

keep monitor and tweet. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Foozool

[farcanell]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

How many mass shootings did Australia prevent?  How many burglaries are prevented every year in the USA because the burglars know the homeowners may be armed?

 

Answer those questions and you qualify as an expert on the topic...  But show your work.  Burglaries and home invasions that didn't happen don't get counted very well.

 

I gotcha.... lots

 

easy answer and many studies into this that can be verified by going outside on a cloudless night, preferably during an equinox, when you need to study the star field between Libra and Scorpio, taking especial note the lux levels of the stars, then subtract low lux from high lux, and bidda bang... there’s your answer. ?

[Grouse]

44 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

But I do have balance. Do not threaten me or my family by breaking into my home or you have broken the social contract between us as citizens. I have fear for my life and well being due to the perp's actions? We are reduced to my right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"  and another's individual actions saying they do not care. Better luck next time. Under the laws of the US, you might well be sued by the perp if you only wound him/her. Nope, I do not cede my right as a human allowing another to put my life (or those I care about) in danger.

And there you have it

 

As a Brit, I don't really care if someone goes to the trouble of breaking in while I'm not there and taking the TV. I'll get a new one on insurance.

 

As an American, you would rather kill.

 

Maybe in another couple of hundred years you'll think differently.

 

 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Not being an arse... but is there any country in the world where armed citizens defended themselves from a tyrannical government successfully?

Lol.... unfortunately... yes

 

the revolutionary forces (militia) of the American colonies, against their British masters.... who where the tyrants referenced in the second amendment 

 

sorry... that really didn’t help ????

[bdenner]

Bottom line is WE, as human beings, are always going to find a way to exterminate each other, gun control or not. We are top of the food chain so who or what else is going to control our "OUT OF CONTROL" population growth and ability to F#%K the environment.

 

What a sad species we are!

[55Jay]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

And there you have it

 

As a Brit, I don't really care if someone goes to the trouble of breaking in while I'm not there and taking the TV. I'll get a new one on insurance.

 

As an American, you would rather kill.

 

Maybe in another couple of hundred years you'll think differently.

I think he meant when he's home and somebody breaks in.  Not being at home is, obviously, a different scenario.

 

Apart from that, having your home burglarized, even when you're not there, is very unsettling. 

[ilostmypassword]

37 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

How many mass shootings did Australia prevent?  How many burglaries are prevented every year in the USA because the burglars know the homeowners may be armed?

 

Answer those questions and you qualify as an expert on the topic...  But show your work.  Burglaries and home invasions that didn't happen don't get counted very well.

 

But they can be measured simply by noting variations among the states' rules and variations within the states based on changes in law.

[mikebike]

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

How many mass shootings did Australia prevent?  How many burglaries are prevented every year in the USA because the burglars know the homeowners may be armed?

 

Answer those questions and you qualify as an expert on the topic...  But show your work.  Burglaries and home invasions that didn't happen don't get counted very well.

 

Looking specifically at mass shootings Australia has had one since 1996 - a guy killed his wife, kids and himself with a gun. Two other incidents left 2 and 3 people dead. Seems pretty good.

 

Regarding your argumentum ad ignorantiam no need to be an expert. Are you seriously postulating the veracity of your statements simply because they haven't be proven false? Good luck with that.

 

With your logic we can, with a straight face, ask, "How many deaths did the Allies winning WWII really prevent? Show your work - deaths that didn't happen don't get counted very well." Sheesh. Facepalm.