Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: Texas church shooting

  1. #1
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,256

    Default Texas church shooting

    Beginning to think there should be a mega-thread for this topic.

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...d-12333530.php

    Seeing reports of at least 27 people killed

    This is abominable. How the US can countenance one massacre after another without taking meaningful action--or even starting a serious dialogue--is beyond me. It's always either too soon or too late--never the right time to do right by victims or take measures to protect future victims. I can't even begin to imagine the horror and the sense of loss. I hope the survivors and the victims' loved ones don't have to put up with additional suffering like we've seen in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,207
    If they're determined to believe that having deadly weaponry available to everyone and his dog has nothing to do with with having an appalling massacre every other week, then there's pretty much nothing anyone can do about it.

    You could institute gun controls that managed to cut these things by like 90%, but the very first shooting that happened post-gun control would instantly be taken as "proof" that gun control doesn't work, plus the usual fantasies about intervention by members of the public who just happen to be carrying a fire-arm.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  3. #3
    ======== Timbuk2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,804
    It's alright. Trump has said this isn't a 'guns situation'.

    He has subsequently offered buckets of sand for all who agree with him to bury their heads in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    "Scientists raise alarm: bananas can cause EU"

  4. #4
    This is why nothing ever changes around here. This is how your average Trump supporter thinks.

    Click to view the full version

    There is no "discussion" that can fix this level of conspiracy driven head in the sand stupidity.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    plus the usual fantasies about intervention by members of the public who just happen to be carrying a fire-arm.
    Ironic

  6. #6
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Ironic
    Except... not. It really just highlights what a fantasy it is. Even in an example where there did happen to be someone else with a firearm at the right place and time (which almost never happens), the shooter was still able to shoot 27 people before the other guy was able to intervene.

    I am not aware of a single example of one of these mass shootings being stopped before they got going by a civilian with a gun, and if there were such an example (lets face it, the data set is pretty large so there might have been), that would still be just one success against dozens of failures.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Except... not. It really just highlights what a fantasy it is. Even in an example where there did happen to be someone else with a firearm at the right place and time (which almost never happens), the shooter was still able to shoot 27 people before the other guy was able to intervene.

    I am not aware of a single example of one of these mass shootings being stopped before they got going by a civilian with a gun, and if there were such an example (lets face it, the data set is pretty large so there might have been), that would still be just one success against dozens of failures.
    He shot 46 people. He killed 26. He was only confronted after leaving the church, so an armed civilian did absolutely nothing to stop or stem the massacre.


    Only a sick individual like lewk would consider such an loss of life as an acceptable trade.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  8. #8
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,207
    It's possible he would have shot more people after leaving the church - these guys usually continue shooting people until the police stop them or they decide to kill themselves - so I don't think him being confronted did absolutely nothing, but it's clearly not a serious solution.
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  9. #9
    Possibly, but I'm not leaning towards it. This appears to be another domestic dispute. A common theme among mass shootings. He may have driven down to the local Walmart and tried something, or driven around until he found his intended target. But largely these types of attacks are usually no more complex than a fuckton of collateral damage.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 11-08-2017 at 03:33 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Except... not. It really just highlights what a fantasy it is. Even in an example where there did happen to be someone else with a firearm at the right place and time (which almost never happens), the shooter was still able to shoot 27 people before the other guy was able to intervene.

    I am not aware of a single example of one of these mass shootings being stopped before they got going by a civilian with a gun, and if there were such an example (lets face it, the data set is pretty large so there might have been), that would still be just one success against dozens of failures.
    There have been plenty of cases (typically home invasions to be fair) where people have used their 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves.

    In any event the point is incredibly mute - it doesn't matter how many mass shootings occur when it comes to the legality of owning firearms. We have the 2nd amendment and until a constitutional amendment changes that it will always be possible to obtain guns in America.

    Another bit of irony about 'tougher gun laws' is that the person who did the mass shooting? Wasn't even able to legally own guns. Gosh darn it if only criminals would follow the law!

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    He shot 46 people. He killed 26. He was only confronted after leaving the church, so an armed civilian did absolutely nothing to stop or stem the massacre.


    Only a sick individual like lewk would consider such an loss of life as an acceptable trade.
    I said it was an acceptable trade? Where?

  12. #12
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    There have been plenty of cases (typically home invasions to be fair) where people have used their 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves.
    Home invasions are obliviously completely different from mass shootings.

    Another bit of irony about 'tougher gun laws' is that the person who did the mass shooting? Wasn't even able to legally own guns.
    Do you think the ease of which you can obtain guns in a state legally might have something to do with how easy it is to obtain guns illegally. Like, if there are minimal checks, it's probably a lot of easier to get hold of things you shouldn't have?

    Gosh darn it if only criminals would follow the law!
    Gosh darn it, you're right, they don't follow the law!

    Let's get rid of laws completely, then, since they're obviously pointless and criminals just ignore them.

    You've sold me on this. Let's go full anarchy!
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  13. #13
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Except... not. It really just highlights what a fantasy it is. Even in an example where there did happen to be someone else with a firearm at the right place and time (which almost never happens), the shooter was still able to shoot 27 people before the other guy was able to intervene.

    I am not aware of a single example of one of these mass shootings being stopped before they got going by a civilian with a gun, and if there were such an example (lets face it, the data set is pretty large so there might have been), that would still be just one success against dozens of failures.
    Well, you wouldn't. Because except in even rarer circumstances you can't identify whether someone would have been a mass-shooter (as opposed to looking for a single target for a single homicide, murder-suicide, or suicide-by-cop) unless they've already gotten past that hurdle you ask about them being stopped at.

    It's a rather peculiar presentation but when you think it through this is a chicken and egg situation.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  14. #14
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Except... not. It really just highlights what a fantasy it is. Even in an example where there did happen to be someone else with a firearm at the right place and time (which almost never happens), the shooter was still able to shoot 27 people before the other guy was able to intervene.

    I am not aware of a single example of one of these mass shootings being stopped before they got going by a civilian with a gun, and if there were such an example (lets face it, the data set is pretty large so there might have been), that would still be just one success against dozens of failures.
    Again, many, (most?) of these shootings occur in places where law abiding citizens can not legally carry a gun, or are otherwise prevented from carrying a gun by the property owner, including schools, workplaces, casinos, and depending on the state, places of worship. The monsters who plan these shootings are looking to give themselves every possible advantage, including picking soft targets and areas where they likely would not be confronted with force.

  15. #15
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,256
    Given the GOP:s eternal resistance to ensuring stricter enforcement of gun laws and the fact that this criminal slipped through the net because of poor enforcement I'm not sure Lewk's point is as good as he thinks it is.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  16. #16
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Given the GOP:s eternal resistance to ensuring stricter enforcement of gun laws and the fact that this criminal slipped through the net because of poor enforcement I'm not sure Lewk's point is as good as he thinks it is.
    Eh? One of the mantras of GOP congress critters is that they want to enforce existing laws on the books.

  17. #17
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Eh? One of the mantras of GOP congress critters is that they want to enforce existing laws on the books.
    That may be an empty political slogan of theirs but they've also repeatedly demonstrated they don't really mean it.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  18. #18
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    That may be an empty political slogan of theirs but they've also repeatedly demonstrated they don't really mean it.
    That may be - I'm not exactly current on what the GOP opposition to enforcement measures are. Can you provide any more details?

  19. #19
    right off the bat, the senate and house voted, and trumped signed, a bill to revoke the restrictions Obama placed on the mentally ill from owning guns. or are you going to weasel out and only want the laws that the current session hasn't worked to remove?

    Well damn, your stance was already called out by Sen. Chris Murphy when Trump signed the above mentioned bill:

    "Republicans always say we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. But the bill signed into law today undermines enforcement of existing laws that Congress passed to make sure the background check system had complete information,"
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 11-09-2017 at 04:22 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  20. #20
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    right off the bat, the senate and house voted, and trumped signed, a bill to revoke the restrictions Obama placed on the mentally ill from owning guns. or are you going to weasel out and only want the laws that the current session hasn't worked to remove?

    Well damn, your stance was already called out by Sen. Chris Murphy when Trump signed the above mentioned bill:

    "Republicans always say we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to enforce the laws already on the books. But the bill signed into law today undermines enforcement of existing laws that Congress passed to make sure the background check system had complete information,"
    My stance was pretty clearly stated as being one rooted in my own self professed ignorance, so I'm not certain where your attitude is coming from. You may also want to check your link.

    However, from a cursory examination and reading of the proposed rule, I can see some pretty big issues for civil libertarians with it. Does it seem right to strip constitutionally protected freedoms from citizens because they claim a social security disability, have a representative payee, and have an eating disorder or autism? What other constitutionally guaranteed rights should be removed from people who meet this criteria? And that is further ignoring that the rule wouldn't have impacted any of the recent high profile mass shootings that have occurred. It seems like the wrong cudgel to use to me. Additionally, it was hardly a law on the books, it was a rule that never really went into effect.

  21. #21
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    it was a rule that never really went into effect.
    So it was a rule that never really got enforced. Wouldn't that make it EXACTLY what the GOP says they want to fully enforce and hence an example of what I countered with?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  22. #22
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    So it was a rule that never really got enforced. Wouldn't that make it EXACTLY what the GOP says they want to fully enforce and hence an example of what I countered with?
    It was a new rule that was set to go into effect after the 2016 election; a rule with seemingly dubious efficacy and obvious concerns for civil libertarians. Are you suggesting that unless one is in favor of every rule, they are then in favor of none?

  23. #23
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,455
    So evidence has been proferred to more or less prove the negative. You've chosen to reject it. This for something that even originated with a Republican-controlled Congress. Mind providing evidence for your positive claim to show they're actually forcing the rigorous application of the gun control laws? Wait, you've already declared you won't be doing anything of the kind because you're personally in a state of ignorance on the matter.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  24. #24
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    So evidence has been proferred to more or less prove the negative. You've chosen to reject it. This for something that even originated with a Republican-controlled Congress. Mind providing evidence for your positive claim to show they're actually forcing the rigorous application of the gun control laws? Wait, you've already declared you won't be doing anything of the kind because you're personally in a state of ignorance on the matter.
    I'd be happy to look into it for you Fuzzy, your snark notwithstanding. Having made an assertion about repeated bad faith demonstrations by the GOP, I was hoping that you were speaking from a more informed position and might have knowledge that went beyond one bad regulation that the Obama administration proposed that never really went into effect. I admittedly am not currently in the know on the topic, but would be willing to spend some time researching it.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    My stance was pretty clearly stated as being one rooted in my own self professed ignorance, so I'm not certain where your attitude is coming from. You may also want to check your link.

    However, from a cursory examination and reading of the proposed rule, I can see some pretty big issues for civil libertarians with it. Does it seem right to strip constitutionally protected freedoms from citizens because they claim a social security disability, have a representative payee, and have an eating disorder or autism? What other constitutionally guaranteed rights should be removed from people who meet this criteria? And that is further ignoring that the rule wouldn't have impacted any of the recent high profile mass shootings that have occurred. It seems like the wrong cudgel to use to me. Additionally, it was hardly a law on the books, it was a rule that never really went into effect.
    Link fixed and the attitude was from knowing that despite clear evidence of the GOP saying one thing and doing another you were going to do your usual dance of talking in circles with your fingers in your ears.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  26. #26
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Link fixed and the attitude was from knowing that despite clear evidence of the GOP saying one thing and doing another you were going to do your usual dance of talking in circles with your fingers in your ears.
    I haven't for one second questioned the willingness of a politician to do one thing and say another. Perhaps you could offer a more full throated defense of the proposed regulation and how you believe it would help.

  27. #27
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Well, you wouldn't. Because except in even rarer circumstances you can't identify whether someone would have been a mass-shooter (as opposed to looking for a single target for a single homicide, murder-suicide, or suicide-by-cop) unless they've already gotten past that hurdle you ask about them being stopped at.

    It's a rather peculiar presentation but when you think it through this is a chicken and egg situation.
    I think the same things that make that true are what makes it hard for an armed civilian to effectively stop a mass shooter before they're able to kill anyone: they don't look like a mass shooter until they start, well, shooting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Again, many, (most?) of these shootings occur in places where law abiding citizens can not legally carry a gun, or are otherwise prevented from carrying a gun by the property owner, including schools, workplaces, casinos, and depending on the state, places of worship. The monsters who plan these shootings are looking to give themselves every possible advantage, including picking soft targets and areas where they likely would not be confronted with force.
    So, are you agreeing with me, or...?
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  28. #28
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    So, are you agreeing with me, or...?
    If you are asking why more mass shootings aren't being prevented by armed citizens when armed citizens aren't allowed to carry in the areas most mass shootings take place, then I do agree with you. However, I don't think it's necessarily a point that favors your argument.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 11-09-2017 at 06:06 PM.

  29. #29
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'd be happy to look into it for you Fuzzy, your snark notwithstanding. Having made an assertion about repeated bad faith demonstrations by the GOP, I was hoping that you were speaking from a more informed position and might have knowledge that went beyond one bad regulation that the Obama administration proposed that never really went into effect. I admittedly am not currently in the know on the topic, but would be willing to spend some time researching it.
    Do I keep a list of laws on the books and the ways in which the GOP very much does not act to see them rigorously enforced? No. I read. I see material about inaction by the GOP in Congress, in various states whose news I pay attention. I see it again and again. But you've just demonstrated that you are going to quibble and wriggle with any examples any of us do bother to come up with. Your mind is, in fact, quite made up.

    "Rigorously enforce what's already on the books" is an empty slogan. Even if taken at face value it's pretty much just a means of passing the buck because legislatures have very little to do with enforcement besides giving actual enforcers sharp teeth to use. . . and you think that counts as "new laws" in the first place.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  30. #30
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I think the same things that make that true are what makes it hard for an armed civilian to effectively stop a mass shooter before they're able to kill anyone: they don't look like a mass shooter until they start, well, shooting.
    Oh, I quite agree. The fact that most mass-shooters are stopped with a gun in the end provides very little comfort.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •