Texas church massacre: Man hailed a hero for chasing gunman after killings (1 Viewer)

[Lursa]

Who needs gun control. An armed citizenry will stop the gunman after he's killed 26 people. Problem solved.

It stopped the shooter from killing the citizen with a gun....see...carrying a firearm worked. Perfectly as intended. (No one is obligated to save others, not even cops.) It goes to the citizen's credit that he tried.

It's disturbing to see such glee from people that the citizen was unable to get there sooner to possibly save others and *imagine* that this makes some kind of point.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why not. You guys carry the water for the rich on a daily basis. Getting behind a repeal of the estate tax that only hurts 5000 families. Conservatives are the Gunga Din's of Rich peoples lobbying efforts

proving that your dislike of gun owners is based on your hatred of the politics you think gun owners support. I guess your hatred of the rich is consistent with disliking gun owners too. at what point, in terms of numbers, should a law be repealed based on the number of people it hurts. Saying the death tax only hurts 5000 people is based on what?

 

[TurtleDude]

Really did not know that was the topic. Please don't pretend to know my positions on anything.

do you actually know your own positions on anything? All I have seen in your posts is contrarian nonsense that is devoid of logical consistency. talking about the death tax in this thread, for example

 

[Lursa]

And if he wasn't armed due to gun laws, no one would have been killed.

He shouldnt have been able to buy guns, laws are in place to stop that.

So why dont we just enforce the laws in place?

 

[Lursa]

Even the left-leaning local networks here are calling the citizen outside the church a hero.

 

[Lursa]

in other words-you would have prevented the guy who stopped the rampage without stopping the criminal who was already banned, from having a firearm

gun control=safe working conditions for mass murderers

This ^^^

(my bold)

 

[TurtleDude]

The guns in Chicago are purchased across state lines in the Great state of Indiana where they allow gun shows with citizens set up who are not subjected to doing background checks on people buying guns from them. How about this all gun purchasers who buy guns should have a background check. If a citizen sells a gun and sets up in the show the promoter shall have a area designated for consumer background checks where they get a pass that allows them to purchase guns at the show. This ain't rocket science. Gun shops routinely sell a bunch of guns to a person who then turns around and sells them at a gun show with no background checks required. How about this....require the purchaser to keep the weapons a minimum of one year.....before selling them

Yet those areas where there isn't bannerhoid gun laws like there are in chicago, have MUCH lower rates of crime. And its a federal felony to do what you claim the gun runners do. You don't know much, if anything, about gun shows. its already a federal felony to sell guns without a license unless its bona fide private sale. in other words, there are plenty of laws to prosecute people who do what you whine about

most criminals get guns from people who KNOW they are criminals. straw purchasers especially Those people are all committing federal felonies. background checks are worthless because few criminals are actually buying guns from people who DO NOT KNOW that the buyer is a felon.

 

[TurtleDude]

Try buying a bunch of fertilizer after Oklahoma City and see what happens today. Moreover, the murder rate in the United States is 5 times what it is in China.

I am gun owner. I own multiple guns, but this notion that all the guns we have in circulation doesn't result in a much higher murder rate is nonsense.

then maybe you can explain why we have

1) more than 30 million more guns now than in 93

2) millions more people carrying concealed weapons NOW than in 93

and yet the rate of gun violence has gone DOWN

 

[TurtleDude]

We are not talking about farmers. The FBI started monitoring large fertilizer purchases for non-agricultural use after the Oklahoma bombing. Why do you think terrorists don't use fertilizer truck bombs anymore in the United States?

other than McVeigh, how many fertilizer bombs were used for mass destruction prior to that incident. Its not like Fertilizer bombs were killing people left and right until after the Murrow building incident

 

[Lursa]

Given the fact he was leaving, and given the fact he could have returned fire, I think we can assume his killing spree was over.

Poor assumption but it's all yours.

There are many many instances where shooters have left and gone to shoot others.

Here are 2 from this area:

Ian Stawicki: Seattle Cafe Racer Shooter Kills 5, Shoots HImself After Citywide Manhunt - ABC News

Man Charged With Killing Six in Washington State - The New York Times

And of course, Adam Lanza.

 

[Lursa]

Given the fact he was leaving, and given the fact he could have returned fire, I think we can assume his killing spree was over.

Poor assumption but it's all yours.

There are many many instances where shooters have left and gone to shoot others.

Here are 2 from this area:

Ian Stawicki: Seattle Cafe Racer Shooter Kills 5, Shoots HImself After Citywide Manhunt - ABC News

Man Charged With Killing Six in Washington State - The New York Times

And of course, Adam Lanza.

Personally, I'd play it safe and *assume* they werent done and want them stopped...but you're welcome to hang out and see....maybe you could even ask them? :doh

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I know that. My point is that it would be very easy for me to:

a. Buy it from a private party in Missouri.

b. Get a friend to buy it for me.

State level gun control is pointless for that reason. When you have more guns in circulation than people, then its pretty hard to police gun sales at a state level when no one checks your vehicle when you drive across state lines. Moreover, the government doesn't even know what most people have. Hell we got a house full of guns down at our family home place in Arkansas. I doubt the government knows about any of them.

For example, up until a few years ago, Missouri had Sunday liquor sales while Kansas didn't. If I wanted a 6 pack on a Sunday, I would drive the 2 miles over the state line to get it. Technically, that wasn't legal, but everyone did it anyway.

is it illegal? I do frequent work in Oregon and occasionally my job takes me to British Columbia, Washington liquor taxes are insane so I'll stock up duty free at the border or in Portland Oregon when I'm coming home from there.

 

[Lursa]

I’m not saying he didn’t do anything, but I think the effect of his actions seems pretty exaggerated here. He chased a guy that did his deed. He may have also shot him, which seems both illegal and not helpful since police were already on their way.

We shall see when more info comes out.

You dont know the law obviously. So you post about something in a great deal of ignorance.

You dont seem to know the legal conditions for the use of lethal force....the TX citizen was compliant with the law when he shot the shooter.

AND now that we have more facts, we now know he DID STOP the shooter.

He shot him, chased him, the wounded shooter crashed his vehicle, called his father telling him he was wounded, and killed himself.

We dont know for sure if he would have killed again, but we know for a fact that the armed citizen STOPPED HIM.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Another subject you haven't done your due-diligence on. Example 1 would be, Jesus spoke about 'wolves in sheep's clothing."

You are not God and you have no idea what that guy, anyone on his FB page, or anyone else was thinking or what is/was "in their heart". Your assumptions are just that. Pretty presumptuous of you, but I guess you need to defend/deflect.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You dont know the law obviously. So you post about something in a great deal of ignorance.

You dont seem to know the legal conditions for the use of lethal force....the TX citizen was compliant with the law when he shot the shooter.

AND now that we have more facts, we now know he DID STOP the shooter.

He shot him, chased him, the wounded shooter crashed his vehicle, called his father telling him he was wounded, and killed himself.

We dont know for sure if he would have killed again, but we know for a fact that the armed citizen STOPPED HIM.

someone remains armed while fleeing remains a threat, especially after conducting a mass shooting, there is a clear and present danger to the public if allowed to escape while armed.

even if it's technically illegal, no DA in their right mind would put that in front of a grand jury.

 

[HowardBThiname]

some gun banners see owning a gun as a crime-especially if the gun owner is zealous in protecting his rights through the ballot box. Its the gun culture that many of the leftwing gun restrictionists hate. Trust me, the election of NRA endorsed Trump has sent many on the left into a spiral of hatred towards gun owners

I've noticed this very thing. It's as if you can't reason with them, they're going to verbally attack and try to shame everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment. It's almost as if they think crime will end if guns are gone.

They're simply not paying attention. I understand how easy it is to get upset over these shootings -- they're horrific, after all -- but along with the increase in concealed laws by the states and the increase in the purchase of guns, gun-related crime has seen a BIG decline overall.

While no one can prove that more guns in the hands of honest citizens is what is driving the gun-related crime rates down, it's certainly obvious that it's not driving it up.



I'm not sure what to say to get them to see sense.

 

[faithful_servant]

Do other countries not teach you anything? Give me your explanation why other countries don't have this problem.

A culture where problem are resolved though force. The glorification of violence through a wide number of medias. A lot of emotionally immature people who can't handle being told that they can't have something, they can't handle when they realize that they really aren't all that special and a tolerance for behavior that most places would find intolerable. I can go on like this all day, but none of it will matter on bit to you. You have already decided that it's guns that are the problem and you won't even consider any other conclusion. You'll ignore the real problems for no other reason than you've got an axe to grind and no one going to tell you any different.

 

[Casca XV]

Another dead hand pryer, I take it. You have no clue what the left wants. Mabe the left wants a reduction in the appalling death toll di=ue to the free availability of killing machines. Even crazy people have a right to one in the USA.

Like every group of Totalitarians and their Useful Idiots The Left wants power. Freedom loving Individualist on the Right keep them form getting this power, especially when armed.

 

[Lursa]

But he didn't did he. Honest non violent citizens carrying weapons are no threat to any of us. .

Exactly. Just like in the recent Walmart shooting...there were a number of armed citizens there. And not a single one started shooting up the place when the shooting occurred. They probably never even saw the shooter but they didnt just run around playing 'cops.' They readied their firearms to defend themselves and perhaps others, but there was no 'blood in the aisles' of that Walmart (except sadly, that of the shooter's victims).

 

[Moon]

They try to, but Republicans fight them on that one too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ll-people-to-get-guns/?utm_term=.579c4e581709

What the Republicans did was correct. It did away with a regulation that restricted people's constitutional rights without due process. There are certainly instances when rights can and should be taken away, but that should never happen due to an administrative action by a bureaucrat.

 

[Lursa]

I asked this before in another thread....if the Good Samaritan shot the wrong guy (another good samaritan with a gun)....should the good Samaritan be criminally punished?

I am not trying to be difficult, just wondering.

I come from a family with a strong history of hunting and recreational shooting (with multiple awards) and I do not think outside of a deep respect for firearms and skill with their weapons......they would have any skill or ability to judge such a situation adequately.

Under current laws, yes. Any citizen is held responsible for every bullet they shoot. And that puts the law-abiding at a disadvantage, because we cannot just shoot...we have to check for bystanders, check our backstop (what's behind the attacker), we have to take the time to shoot safely.

Now the judge may take other things into consideration during sentencing but most likely he or she would be charged.

Dont know if alot of people realize it, esp. anti-gun people, but this is one *very big* reason why law-abiding citizens take the time to consider their position on this and decide just how far they'll go in the defense of others. We are not out there to protect other people. Our primary purpose is self-defense.

The laws in most states allow shooting to stop gross bodily harm and to prevent a forcible felony but you had better be damned sure you are right if you do so. And not hit anything besides the attacker.

It happens to cops...they shoot innocent bystanders, but in most cases it's chalked up to 'part of the job.'

 

[Lursa]

Is there a scenario where democrats decide to address mental health instead of guns?

I do, all the time. I did so in the other thread on this topic.

 

[Lursa]

FWIW, we had a guy shoot up the local Unitarian Church, and he was stopped by unarmed people. So maybe being armed helps, maybe it doesn't.

And yet if I have a choice, armed or unarmed, I would choose to be armed there.

How about you?

 

[Logicman]

You are not God and you have no idea what that guy, anyone on his FB page, or anyone else was thinking or what is/was "in their heart". Your assumptions are just that. Pretty presumptuous of you, but I guess you need to defend/deflect.

I never claimed to be God, but I know his Word, and there's nothing presumptuous about that.

Here's example #2 for you: "You shall know them by their fruits (works)." Jesus, Matthew 7:15-16.

Now, what kind of fruits (works) did the Texas Church shooter have? He was jailed for assaulting his wife and child and kicked out of the military. He sent hateful messages to his Mother-in-Law. And he killed 26 people, including children, and wounded some 20+ more. So, were those 'good' fruits or rotten fruits? And that's why your "no true Scotsman" argument fails. And there's even more than that.

So Like I said, you haven't done your due diligence and adequately studied this issue, or most others, when you go up against the Bible and Christianity.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I do, all the time. I did so in the other thread on this topic.

Mental health is an important issue but the debate never addresses the taboo issue: should mental illness be a factor that determines wether a person is competent enough to access a gun.