- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Mass shooting in Southern Texas Church
- Thread starter ryzno
- 441 comments
- 17,634 views
- 11,118
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
You might want to do something about the attach files as it makes the NFSW spoiler tag redundant.My condolences to all families involved in this tragedy.
I do want to post the below (NSFW language):
Is this another terrorist attack?
Edit: To the staff - sorry about the self-report. I screwed up and figured out how to fix it.
Anyhow, this is just really bad news
, I can't really say anything of substance until we get more information on the who and the why.
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
Apparently local residents have stopped the attacker from shooting more people by grabbing their guns and returning fire (probably severely wounding him in the process), forcing the gunman to retreat and flee with his truck. They chased him until he lost control over his vehicle crashing into a ditch. They detained him at gunpoint until police arrived.
When seconds count help is only minutes away. So much for banning legal guns, who knows how many people would have died if those heroes didn't intervene, and thank the gods they were armed. Harsh language would not have stopped the attacker I'm sure. .
When seconds count help is only minutes away. So much for banning legal guns, who knows how many people would have died if those heroes didn't intervene, and thank the gods they were armed. Harsh language would not have stopped the attacker I'm sure. .
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,705
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
- 23,890
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
Those guns killed exactly 0 people since they are inanimate objects.
Also : Abusus Non Tollit Usum - Misuse of something is no argument against its proper use.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,705
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
Guns don't kill people. It's the person wielding them who's killing people.
Obelisk
Premium
- 9,705
- United States
- RMedia_Obelisk
From 2009-2016, 34% of all mass shootings in the U.S. were carried out by individuals not allowed to have firearms.
A write-up i found on the FBI page says a lot of these people were giving off obvious tells days before the shootings - increased violence, threats, erratic behavior.
I think perhaps the issue is less the guns and more catching the unstable people.
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
Guns also makes it easy to defend people and safe lives, thats why police carry guns. And thats why many people are still alive after this horrible incident, because two courageous guys stood up and defended those who could not defend themselves. And they were not policemen.
Mentally unstable people are the main problem, not the guns. If you ban guns the mentally unstable people will still be around with death in their eyes only waiting to cause harm in other ways, of which there are many. (Or get illegal guns, of which there is tons too) If you find way to deal with the mentally ill before something bad happens nothing needs to be banned and nobody needs to die anymore. Switzerland is a country with statistically more guns than the US and gun violence is incredibly low. There is also a lot of firearms in Finland but its a very safe country.
Mass shootings is a social, medical and economical problem in the US and if you think simply banning guns, or restricting them heavily, is going to do anything then you live in a very simple dream world.
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
- 86,656
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'm as pro-Second Amendment as anyone on here who isn't American but this:
Invoke the views expressed by the living. Don't invoke the dead's opinions - you cannot know what they are, unless they were clearly expressed in life.
is a ridiculous, and grossly unfair and impolite, thing to state.
Invoke the views expressed by the living. Don't invoke the dead's opinions - you cannot know what they are, unless they were clearly expressed in life.
- 11,947
- Australia
- I_Grayson_Fox_I
Well from what I understand
Average joe can sell a gun to Average joe, so no checks, it is up to the new owner to do all the proper work.
Why is this even legal?
A sane person could be selling to an unstable person and it is not the sane persons responsibility.
Guns can be sold to people at gun shows with no checks required.
Why is this even legal?
Could be selling to an insane person.
Adding laws to stop this would be a start, as it also does not violate peoples right to get a gun.
As they can still get one, you're just stopping the sale of firearms, you're just making it that you have to go through places where checks have to be done.
Making it compulsory to get a psychiatric exam before getting a gun would also help.
Gun owners should have no issue with this if it means guns are out of the hands of the unstable and they're sane.
Yes, people who are unstable can still get them through the black market.
But if you make it harder for these people to get a gun it might save lifes.
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
Yes, it was knives, my bad. My point still stands though. People died because the police on scene could not help and had to wait for armed backup to arrive. During those minutes defenseless people were killed and the police could not do anything.
I doubt you honestly prefer this scenario over armed police that can respond quickly and appropriately to such attack.
This is one of the very few positive approaches to this problem, in fact, here in Austria you need to pass a psychological test in order to get a firearms license.
Last edited:
- 86,656
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It depends on the state. I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of individual states' gun laws, but both could well be legal in some states - but probably not many.
That's the point of the Second Amendment - and indeed all of the Bill of Rights, and the USA itself. The USA is a merger of 50 small countries, that each have their own requirements on a number of subjects, for the purposes of a single market economy, freedom of movement and external defence. The Constitution recognises that and limits what "the USA" is and does, by limiting where and in what sectors it can operate and what laws it can pass. Every other lawmaking power is for the 50 small countries to decide what works for them, and what doesn't. What works in Maine doesn't always work in Wyoming, and vice versa, so it makes no sense for a power-on-high to say Maine and Wyoming have to do the same thing.
One of those rules is on gun control. "The USA" can't make any laws about it. But the states can - and do. Some states have very restrictive gun laws, which limit them to certain people at certain times and in certain situations (home defence, no carrying permits, no weapons of certain types), some have very loose gun laws (open carry of high-calibre and high-power weapons), most are in the middle somewhere.
But then this system of lawmaking trickles down too. Even if the state is relaxed on gun laws, a specific county doesn't have to be. Even if the county is relaxed, a city doesn't have to be. Even if the city is relaxed, a district doesn't have to be. Even if the district is relaxed, a HOA doesn't have to be. Even if the HOA is relaxed, you don't have to have a gun in your house.
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
The problem is, people are people. There will always be people who snap and we do not have proper procedures to find out when or even if it will ever happen. This is why there is shootings involving military personnel or police officers despite their thorough check-ups and clean background. In fact this is not even such a gun related problem because some years ago a pilot snapped and steered the plane into a mountainside killing everyone.
Also going hard on mandatory psychological checkups opens all kinds of nasty doors, advanced tests would then be used for many other things as well and you would be judged harshly. Like a mental evaluation program saying you are no longer fit to operate a vehicle safely because there is a 55% chance of you becoming a choleric over the next few months. Your drivers license has been terminated indefinitely. Take a bus. Have a nice day.
Kind of like in the movie minority report, just much less accurate.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
I've said it before and I'll say it again here:
My opinion on the prevention of these sort of incidents is that yes, stricter control over firearms and ammunition is needed to make it harder for people to obtain weapons which have been designed specifically to kill people (rather than for hunting or sport) at some range. I'm not knowledgable on guns so I'm not going to pretend to know how to classify these weapons, though assault weapons seems like a suitable term despite its political baggage. However, I believe that targeting guns is simply targeting a symptom and not the cause. As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, people can find other ways of killing other people. Few are quite as effective and easy to execute as shooting into a crowd, but it's not a hard thing to do if someone is really set on carrying out a terrorist attack. The issue is that these people exist in the first place. I personally feel that proper mental healthcare is a solid first step in beginning to reduce the frequency of these attacks in relation to other nations. By taking a three-pronged approach of A) doing a better job of educating people properly so that they can think critically and actually fight against propaganda that may promote such extremist action, B) providing better mental healthcare that is more accessible and changing the perception of mental health issues in the US so that people who do need help are given support by others and encouraged to take advantage of the professional help available, and C) reducing the ease of access to deadly weapons for mentally ill or extremist individuals in particular and the general public in general. I don't think that gun control alone is a solution which will work, although gun control should still be part of the solution.
But that's just like, my opinion, man.
My opinion on the prevention of these sort of incidents is that yes, stricter control over firearms and ammunition is needed to make it harder for people to obtain weapons which have been designed specifically to kill people (rather than for hunting or sport) at some range. I'm not knowledgable on guns so I'm not going to pretend to know how to classify these weapons, though assault weapons seems like a suitable term despite its political baggage. However, I believe that targeting guns is simply targeting a symptom and not the cause. As has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, people can find other ways of killing other people. Few are quite as effective and easy to execute as shooting into a crowd, but it's not a hard thing to do if someone is really set on carrying out a terrorist attack. The issue is that these people exist in the first place. I personally feel that proper mental healthcare is a solid first step in beginning to reduce the frequency of these attacks in relation to other nations. By taking a three-pronged approach of A) doing a better job of educating people properly so that they can think critically and actually fight against propaganda that may promote such extremist action, B) providing better mental healthcare that is more accessible and changing the perception of mental health issues in the US so that people who do need help are given support by others and encouraged to take advantage of the professional help available, and C) reducing the ease of access to deadly weapons for mentally ill or extremist individuals in particular and the general public in general. I don't think that gun control alone is a solution which will work, although gun control should still be part of the solution.
But that's just like, my opinion, man.
- 15,487
- UK
People die on scene in America in mass shootings because armed citizens or police don't get there fast enough, sure, they eventually stop it. But death tolls are much higher. The Las vegas shooting only lasted 10 minutes from what I'm reading. I think this whole idea of armed citizens protecting, is a bit of a myth, as the damage is already done from weapons that cause a high volume of damage in a very short time. There are plenty of records of attacks in the UK being foiled before they even happen.
The armed police responded to the London van knife attack in about 18 minutes? Regular cops shouldn't have guns, I think there are more armed cops in London on patrols than there have been, in certain areas, but I might be wrong.
Did local cops being armed stop the Vegas or Miami Shootings (Vegas guy killed himself before cops got to him iirc)? Both of which had death tolls 4-5x higher than the London Knife attack?
"Ban them gunz" as a response is useless for America, far too many guns are in circulation for that to have any impact. Stricter regulations are needed, your psychological test is a good one. Does that get repeated?
I also think controlling guns in a country the size of America is another big problem.
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
How you you differ between guns made for sport and guns that were ''designed to kill people?'' What exactly is a gun that was designed to kill people? You might not be aware of this but no civilian gun manufacturer make firearms for the purpose of killing people, the guns are officially advertised and optimized for accuracy, home defense and hunting.
And civilians buy those guns to shoot targets, to hunt and home defense, none of the firearms were manufactured to kill people.
You are definitely not knowledgeable because assault rifles are basically banned from civil ownership. An assault rifle is a fully automatic military rifle and civilians are not allowed to own these. (There are few exceptions but those guns run for 20k-100k bucks and more and you need a special permit).
So what is an assault rifle for you? Is it the shape of the stock? Its color? Magazine capacity? This is a total can of worms, and the Clinton Assault rifle ban got it totally wrong as it made very little logical sense, even its supporters admitted this later. Thats why it does no longer exist.
Its basically the same thing as banning sports cars * because they are used for speeding and thus must be banned.
Being on a car forum here everybody knows how impossible and ridiculous that would be. And how little impact it would have on traffic safety.
(Actually calling them racing cars would be more appropriate because assault rifles cannot be owned legally just as racing cars cannot be driven on public roads. ''Assault'' and ''racing'' just sounds more severe. )
Last edited:
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
I don't know, and I admit this. I feel that further limitations should be put on gun ownership in the US, but it will require a rational study of what the factors are in gun designs that make them well suited to attacking other humans rather than being used for sport, and I don't have the knowledge or statistics to define any of these factors.
