Mass shooting in small town Texas

[PhantomWolf]

It seems that it is never time for a solution.

That's because of the whole... "It inappropriate to talk about Gun Control right after a mass shooting happens" thing, but because these are now happening at a rate of nearly one a day with the larger ones happening every couple of weeks, it's always "inappropriate to talk about Gun Control"

 

[Tony]

Let the people who actually care offer sympathies. Folks like Paul Ryan do not, as evidenced by their complete inaction.

When the people with the power to change things offer only words, but no action, they clearly don't care to do a damn thing. They should just shut the **** up and get to work.

Yes. Ryan and his ilk (the majority of people in government) are lying sacks of dog ****. It's weird then that you would give such people more power over what weapons Americans can wield.

 

[Civet]

Internet is saying the killer was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. I believe that would bar him from being able to buy a gun legally. Be interesting to find out which illegal route he took to acquire a weapon.

 

[logger]

Doing it seems to be remarkably easy in other countries. It's convincing people in the US that it can be done that is hard.

Part of that is countering the entire "Guns are good" and "Guns protect" message that the NRA and others keep giving. In fact we know that you are more likely to be killed by a gun if you own one than if you don't.

Now yes I know that gun owners groups try and counter this with "But guns save lives, gun owners use their guns to save their lives over two and half million times a year!" but think about this for a moment. If gun owners really did have to use their guns 2.5 million times a year to protect their lives, why are they more likely to be killed than non-gun owners who don't? Does it mean that through some crazy fluke in the universe that gun owners get attacked more then 2.5 million times more than non-gun owners, do gun owners put themselves into more dangerous situations because they have a gun and so undertake more risky behavior resulting in more attacks on them, or might these self reported numbers be inflated by gun owners who are using their guns in situations were their lives aren't actually threatened?

We also know that domestic violence victims are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a gun, even when it is the victim's gun! That means that a woman who is the victim of domestic abuse actually increases her odds of being killed by her abusive partner if she buys a gun bringing one into the household! We also know Domestic Violence calls where the abuser is armed with a gun is responsible for the largest number of murders of police officers.

And yet the solution is easy. Increasing the vetting of gun owners.

Here to gain a licence to own a gun you have to have 2 non family referees who have known you for at least two years and a family referee who will all confirm that you are able to own a firearm. You also have to show that you understand and can perform basic gun safety, and that you have proper lockable storage for your guns and ammo.

Just by following that much of our gun controls, the US would start to see a decline in gun deaths, but we know it won't happen because any restrictions are considered to much of a restriction by the gun lobby.

One thing that these mass shootings have in common is these people doing this where they think there are no guns, we would all agree they are cowardly people, so I’m not interested in disarming the law abiding, I’m interested in arming the law abiding. People need to understand the government isn’t going to be there to save you.

 

[Agatha]

You’re not understanding the fact that we have hundreds of millions of guns in this country, they will never ALL be confiscated and I would fight that with every fiber of my being. at this time in our countries history it’s more important to focus on mental health, that would be a great start in solving some of these tragedies. The gun grabbers will never get what they want, too many on both sides of the isle [sic]want the protection of a firearm.

I understand that gun addicts will never surrender their guns, no matter how many people are slaughtered every day. Seriously, today is day 309 of 2017 and you've had 307 mass shootings plus innumerable 'minor' incidents where three or fewer people have died. But when will Americans ask yourselves the hard questions about your gun culture? The 95% of the rest of the world just doesn't have this kind of murder rate - when do you all say enough is enough?

 

[logger]

I understand that gun addicts will never surrender their guns, no matter how many people are slaughtered every day. Seriously, today is day 309 of 2017 and you've had 307 mass shootings plus innumerable 'minor' incidents where three or fewer people have died. But when will Americans ask yourselves the hard questions about your gun culture? The 95% of the rest of the world just doesn't have this kind of murder rate - when do you all say enough is enough?

Gun addicts? That’s interesting.

But I don’t think you understand, giving up my guns isn’t going to make me safer. The government coming for them, isn’t going to make me safer.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Internet is saying the killer was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. I believe that would bar him from being able to buy a gun legally. Be interesting to find out which illegal route he took to acquire a weapon.

Or the entirely legal route of buying from a dealer at a gun show.

Yes. Ryan and his ilk (the majority of people in government) are lying sacks of dog ****. It's weird then that you would give such people more power over what weapons Americans can wield.

I'm not suggesting they be given more power. I'm suggesting that they start using the power they already have.

 

[logger]

Some reports this perp was an alt left wing Antifa member.

 

[PhantomWolf]

One thing that these mass shootings have in common is these people doing this where they think there are no guns, we would all agree they are cowardly people, so I’m not interested in disarming the law abiding, I’m interested in arming the law abiding. People need to understand the government isn’t going to be there to save you.

I think that we saw in Las Vegas that if a shooter wants to take out a large number of people with little to no threat to themselves, they'll find a way to do so. A shooter is always going to have an advantage over those they target, whether those people are armed or not. Again, think about it. Police Officers and Soldiers regularly go up against armed people. They work on tactics and systems to minimise their own risks in doing so. Shooters are quite capable of the same.

Add to that, that the US has been arming more and more people over the last nearly 40 years. We're not seeing a decrease in these incidents, we're seeing an increase in them. Other countries where who has access to certain firearms has been tightened have seen dramatic declines in multiple and mass shootings.

I also agree with this... "I’m not interested in disarming the law abiding." What I am interested in is that those that are armed are in fact the law abiding, and also the responsible, and that they remain so while they have access to firearms. I have zero issue with a law abiding person who is responsible and mentally sound having a firearm.

What I do have a huge problem with, are those that are mentally unsound, suffer paranoia, serve depression, have intoxicant issues and addictions, or have anger issues having access to fire arms, because these are the people that snap and going on a shooting rampage.

Gun Control is not about banning all guns, it is about controlling who gets access to guns. By controlling for the dangerous criminals, the unstable, intoxicated, and angry people, then you make sure that those that aren't dangerous, unstable or angry can still have access to and use of firearms to use in a peaceful and lawful manner.

Honestly, I'd rather that a felon convicted of money laundering or some other non-violent offence was allowed to have a gun over someone with no criminal convictions who regularly gets plastered every friday night and goes on an angry tirade about the rest of the world keeping him down and being against him, because the second guy is the more likely to start shooting people!

 

[Agatha]

You are right, I don't understand.

I don't understand how America accepts a murder rate of 4.88/100,000 when in the Anglosphere Canada has a rate of 1.68/100,000, the UK has a rate of 0.92/100,000 and Australia has a rate of 0.98/100,000.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Some reports this perp was an alt left wing Antifa member.

Let me guess, these "reports" are from Alt-Right sources, because no-one else uses the term "alt left" since there is no such thing as the "alt left"

 

[Civet]

Or the entirely legal route of buying from a dealer at a gun show.

Buying through a private sale would still be illegal for him, just not usually for the seller. I'm wondering if it's a private sale, a straw purchase or even a stolen gun. Heavy.com indicates that he was showing off one of his weapons on social media a week before the shooting so it doesn't seem like he was being secretive about it.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It seems that it is never time for a solution.

It's such a stupid talking point, for two reasons: 1) as you allude to, the frequency of these incidents somehow manages to reset the countdown on when it's a good time to have that talk, and 2) any length of time sufficient to satisfy the talking point naturally reduces the sense of urgency or need for any action, providing an easy argument against, because "it's been so long since the last mass shooting; things are fine right now".

Utterly manipulative.

 

[Ranb]

Or the entirely legal route of buying from a dealer at a gun show.

I'm fairly certain that gun possession by a dishonorably discharged veteran (if he was) is illegal unless their civil rights are restored. This would mean there is no "entirely legal route of buying from a dealer at a gun show".

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Buying through a private sale would still be illegal for him, just not usually for the seller.

I'm fairly certain that gun possession by a dishonorably discharged veteran is illegal unless their civil rights are restored. This would mean there is no "entirely legal route of buying from a dealer at a gun show".

And who's job is it to make sure the dishonorably discharged don't own a firearm?

How does that saying go? "It's only illegal if you get caught."

 

[Tony]

I'm not suggesting they be given more power. I'm suggesting that they start using the power they already have.

 

[Craig4]

Because criminals will always have guns.



Sure, when the government asks for the perps gun I’m sure he’ll hand them over.

Then we can all become fish in a barrel, good job! Thanks but no thanks

Try not to step in the brains of the five-year-old child victim of this shooting on your way to the range next time.

 

[Trebuchet]

Color me very surprised that a DD disqualifies a person from owning guns. However, the Air Force has confirmed he was a member but not the condition of his discharge.

Alt-left? Antifa? Atheist? The usual suspects will want you to think so. Far more likely is that there was some sort of love triangle for which he blamed the church.

 

[Ranb]

And who's job is it to make sure the dishonorably discharged don't own a firearm?

If it's by passing legislation to make it illegal; Congress.
If it's by conducting searches of homes of paroled felons to ensure compliance with the law; probation officers.

 

[Craig4]

Someone come get me if we ever get to that brief window when we can talk about preventing these things and people still give enough of a **** to have a conversation.

Because not politicizing these events has such a great track record of not ending up with more walls being decorated with peoples' brains.