Author Topic: Texas church shooting  (Read 1139 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2017, 09:31:06 AM »

Offline D Dub

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3059
  • Tommy Points: 241
A small city of 30,000 people die at the hands of firearms every year in the United States. Let that sink in the next time you drive through your local community. If it was your town, every person in that town would be dead at the hands of guns.

That's 750,000 Americans dead over the last 25 years due to guns. If a foreign country or terrorist group did that to America we would be in constant war to stop them. But Americans find those numbers acceptable somehow.

Just a sad indictment on American society, imho.

Yup,

As an australian who lives in a country where extremely strict gun controls have worked, it boggles my mind why more isn't done in the US.

Literally trading people's lives for money.

TP. 

If are not a hunter & own a gun — you quite simply are a coward. 

Pistol owners, ask yourself this: is your fear of the public scarier than losing ~30k American lives per year? 



Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2017, 09:40:03 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
  • Tommy Points: 123
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

They are interesting numbers. And, a lot of those stockpiling weapons are crazies, like the Vegas shooter.

At the same time, I know a lot of “normal” folks who own double digit firearms. They’re almost all police and military, who shoot for recreation and are quasi-collectors.  I personally don’t think they “need” all those weapons, but I also think they’re exceedingly unlikely to ever use those guns in an illegal manner.

I think there should be more sensible gun control, but I also don’t want to punish responsible owners. Here, the system failed, and the only reason this wasn’t worse is because a responsible owner engaged the mass murderer with a firearm of his own.

So, by all means, let’s regulate / ban bump stocks and other devices that modify fire rate, regulate magazine clips, require safety courses, close transfer loopholes, etc. However, in the end it’s likely that nuts and crazies will still end up with a weapon one way or another.

Gun rights advocates frequently (pretty much in every instance of this debate) cite the idea of how, "if only citizen X was armed they could have stopped the shooter!").  This is the argument for arming teachers in schools!!!!   So, of course they are all over this aspect of this event.

The fact is, this is like the only time I've ever heard of such an 'armed good citizen' ever actually being able to engage and stop such a shooter.   Out of how many such mass shooting events?   There is a 'mass shooting event' happening practically every day in this country.   There are millions of gun owners out there.  You'd think more would be playing hero.

And another fact is, while the "armed good citizen" here may have helped end the carnage, his presence and actions did absolutely nothing to prevent it.   Those totally innocent people in the church are still dead.

To be fair, according to one of the previous posts, a significant minority of people own all the guns. So if we actually redistributed those guns to citizens who don't have them, we'd have a higher probability of armed citizens in situations where there was an active shooter.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. But I think it's important if we're going to cite gun ownership statistics as evidence of one thing, we don't ignore what else those statistics are telling us.

If a minority of people own most of the guns. Most armed citizens won't be likely to be near an active shooter. This isn't an ineffectiveness of gun ownership for self-defense. This is an ineffectiveness of people to have guns for self-defense (according to the statistics above).

To be fair.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2017, 09:48:06 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17694
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Gun rights advocates frequently (pretty much in every instance of this debate) cite the idea of how, "if only citizen X was armed they could have stopped the shooter!").  This is the argument for arming teachers in schools!!!!   So, of course they are all over this aspect of this event.

The fact is, this is like the only time I've ever heard of such an 'armed good citizen' ever actually being able to engage and stop such a shooter.   Out of how many such mass shooting events?   There is a 'mass shooting event' happening practically every day in this country.   There are millions of gun owners out there.  You'd think more would be playing hero.

And another fact is, while the "armed good citizen" here may have helped end the carnage, his presence and actions did absolutely nothing to prevent it.   Those totally innocent people in the church are still dead.

It's happened in a few instances, though there are also plenty where armed security or police were on the scene as the shooting broke out and were unable to do much. Or as in Vegas where people very quickly figured out that if they wielded their guns they would likely be mistaken for the shooter by the police.

But it's a testament to how warped our thinking about guns has become that an incident where 26 people, including small children, were murdered in cold blood in a church becomes widely touted as an example of the positive impact of guns. And I say that as someone who doesn't support banning them.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2017, 09:53:44 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
  • Tommy Points: 123
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

Yes, guns are stockpiled. But the numbers of stockpiled weapons overall don't really reflect most of the gun violence in the country, do they? I mean, 9.7 million Americans aren't committing mass shootings even though they own 133 million guns.

Could be symptoms of the same problem in that access to guns allows both stockpiling and gun violence. But they are not the same thing. A great, great, great majority (almost all) of stockpilers are not committing mass shootings or any type of gun violence. It seems bizarre that they would need that many weapons. But almost all of them are not the problem, nor are they causing the problem.

I just don't think statistics that are meant to be alarming, but don't actually prove causation are beneficial to an honest appraisal of the problem. It doesn't seem to be effective at communicating to the other side since it can so easily be argued against.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2017, 10:31:05 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3015
  • Tommy Points: 453
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

Yes, guns are stockpiled. But the numbers of stockpiled weapons overall don't really reflect most of the gun violence in the country, do they? I mean, 9.7 million Americans aren't committing mass shootings even though they own 133 million guns.

Could be symptoms of the same problem in that access to guns allows both stockpiling and gun violence. But they are not the same thing. A great, great, great majority (almost all) of stockpilers are not committing mass shootings or any type of gun violence. It seems bizarre that they would need that many weapons. But almost all of them are not the problem, nor are they causing the problem.

I just don't think statistics that are meant to be alarming, but don't actually prove causation are beneficial to an honest appraisal of the problem. It doesn't seem to be effective at communicating to the other side since it can so easily be argued against.

The statistics paint a picture.  People will argue over how to interpret the picture.

However, the correlations here are extremely strong.   

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

At some point we have to stop assigning some sort of spiritual, axiomatic weight to "the god-given right to own guns" and ask real questions about why that should be a right and what the real impact of treating that as an unmitigated right is to our culture and safety.   The fact is, other modern civilized societies seem to function perfectly well _without_ treating gun-ownership as if it is some sort of god-given fundamental right that needs to be unfettered by any sort of mitigation.

What, exactly are we afraid would happen if we got magically rid of most of the 256 million guns that are out there?   What terrible thing is going to happen if 1 in 30 people in this country no longer had an average 13 firearms each?

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2017, 10:38:11 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32977
  • Tommy Points: -27981
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
A small city of 30,000 people die at the hands of firearms every year in the United States. Let that sink in the next time you drive through your local community. If it was your town, every person in that town would be dead at the hands of guns.

That's 750,000 Americans dead over the last 25 years due to guns. If a foreign country or terrorist group did that to America we would be in constant war to stop them. But Americans find those numbers acceptable somehow.

Just a sad indictment on American society, imho.

Yup,

As an australian who lives in a country where extremely strict gun controls have worked, it boggles my mind why more isn't done in the US.

Literally trading people's lives for money.

TP. 

If are not a hunter & own a gun — you quite simply are a coward. 

Pistol owners, ask yourself this: is your fear of the public scarier than losing ~30k American lives per year?

A coward?  For home defense? 


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2017, 10:44:39 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
  • Tommy Points: 123
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

Yes, guns are stockpiled. But the numbers of stockpiled weapons overall don't really reflect most of the gun violence in the country, do they? I mean, 9.7 million Americans aren't committing mass shootings even though they own 133 million guns.

Could be symptoms of the same problem in that access to guns allows both stockpiling and gun violence. But they are not the same thing. A great, great, great majority (almost all) of stockpilers are not committing mass shootings or any type of gun violence. It seems bizarre that they would need that many weapons. But almost all of them are not the problem, nor are they causing the problem.

I just don't think statistics that are meant to be alarming, but don't actually prove causation are beneficial to an honest appraisal of the problem. It doesn't seem to be effective at communicating to the other side since it can so easily be argued against.

The statistics paint a picture.  People will argue over how to interpret the picture.

However, the correlations here are extremely strong.   

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

At some point we have to stop assigning some sort of spiritual, axiomatic weight to "the god-given right to own guns" and ask real questions about why that should be a right and what the real impact of treating that as an unmitigated right is to our culture and safety.   The fact is, other modern civilized societies seem to function perfectly well _without_ treating gun-ownership as if it is some sort of god-given fundamental right that needs to be unfettered by any sort of mitigation.

What, exactly are we afraid would happen if we got magically rid of most of the 256 million guns that are out there?   What terrible thing is going to happen if 1 in 30 people in this country no longer had an average 13 firearms each?

What function does correlation have in the discussion though? It seems irrelevant.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2017, 10:47:31 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16940
  • Tommy Points: 805
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

They are interesting numbers. And, a lot of those stockpiling weapons are crazies, like the Vegas shooter.

At the same time, I know a lot of “normal” folks who own double digit firearms. They’re almost all police and military, who shoot for recreation and are quasi-collectors.  I personally don’t think they “need” all those weapons, but I also think they’re exceedingly unlikely to ever use those guns in an illegal manner.

I think there should be more sensible gun control, but I also don’t want to punish responsible owners. Here, the system failed, and the only reason this wasn’t worse is because a responsible owner engaged the mass murderer with a firearm of his own.

So, by all means, let’s regulate / ban bump stocks and other devices that modify fire rate, regulate magazine clips, require safety courses, close transfer loopholes, etc. However, in the end it’s likely that nuts and crazies will still end up with a weapon one way or another.

Gun rights advocates frequently (pretty much in every instance of this debate) cite the idea of how, "if only citizen X was armed they could have stopped the shooter!").  This is the argument for arming teachers in schools!!!!   So, of course they are all over this aspect of this event.

The fact is, this is like the only time I've ever heard of such an 'armed good citizen' ever actually being able to engage and stop such a shooter.   Out of how many such mass shooting events?   There is a 'mass shooting event' happening practically every day in this country.   There are millions of gun owners out there.  You'd think more would be playing hero.

And another fact is, while the "armed good citizen" here may have helped end the carnage, his presence and actions did absolutely nothing to prevent it.   Those totally innocent people in the church are still dead.
He also led to the death of the shooter, which may have harmed things like motive, finding co-conspirators, etc.  It seems like this was an isolated incident with a more personal motive, but that didn't have to be the case.  What if the death of the shooter led to a more horrific crime that otherwise might have been stopped had he been taken alive?  What if he had heard gun shots and saw a man with a rifle and shot that man, but what if that was another person like him or an undercover officer who was engaging in the shooter?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been luck.  What if he was engaging the shooter, and missed and killed some innocent bystander or multiple ones?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been dumb luck.  It is a slippery slope to have citizens performing police like functions with guns.  A lot of bad things can happen when we let citizens take the law into their own hand.  Just because it seemingly worked out this time, that doesn't mean we should be promoting it. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2017, 11:13:45 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
  • Tommy Points: 123
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

They are interesting numbers. And, a lot of those stockpiling weapons are crazies, like the Vegas shooter.

At the same time, I know a lot of “normal” folks who own double digit firearms. They’re almost all police and military, who shoot for recreation and are quasi-collectors.  I personally don’t think they “need” all those weapons, but I also think they’re exceedingly unlikely to ever use those guns in an illegal manner.

I think there should be more sensible gun control, but I also don’t want to punish responsible owners. Here, the system failed, and the only reason this wasn’t worse is because a responsible owner engaged the mass murderer with a firearm of his own.

So, by all means, let’s regulate / ban bump stocks and other devices that modify fire rate, regulate magazine clips, require safety courses, close transfer loopholes, etc. However, in the end it’s likely that nuts and crazies will still end up with a weapon one way or another.

Gun rights advocates frequently (pretty much in every instance of this debate) cite the idea of how, "if only citizen X was armed they could have stopped the shooter!").  This is the argument for arming teachers in schools!!!!   So, of course they are all over this aspect of this event.

The fact is, this is like the only time I've ever heard of such an 'armed good citizen' ever actually being able to engage and stop such a shooter.   Out of how many such mass shooting events?   There is a 'mass shooting event' happening practically every day in this country.   There are millions of gun owners out there.  You'd think more would be playing hero.

And another fact is, while the "armed good citizen" here may have helped end the carnage, his presence and actions did absolutely nothing to prevent it.   Those totally innocent people in the church are still dead.
He also led to the death of the shooter, which may have harmed things like motive, finding co-conspirators, etc.  It seems like this was an isolated incident with a more personal motive, but that didn't have to be the case.  What if the death of the shooter led to a more horrific crime that otherwise might have been stopped had he been taken alive?  What if he had heard gun shots and saw a man with a rifle and shot that man, but what if that was another person like him or an undercover officer who was engaging in the shooter?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been luck.  What if he was engaging the shooter, and missed and killed some innocent bystander or multiple ones?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been dumb luck.  It is a slippery slope to have citizens performing police like functions with guns.  A lot of bad things can happen when we let citizens take the law into their own hand.  Just because it seemingly worked out this time, that doesn't mean we should be promoting it.

I don't know. How's the police record on not shooting innocent people or preventing suicide by cop or taking active shooters alive? Seems less great than the "could have gone wrong" statistics we have of citizen defenders.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2017, 11:26:02 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17823
  • Tommy Points: 8763
A small city of 30,000 people die at the hands of firearms every year in the United States. Let that sink in the next time you drive through your local community. If it was your town, every person in that town would be dead at the hands of guns.

That's 750,000 Americans dead over the last 25 years due to guns. If a foreign country or terrorist group did that to America we would be in constant war to stop them. But Americans find those numbers acceptable somehow.

Just a sad indictment on American society, imho.

Yup,

As an australian who lives in a country where extremely strict gun controls have worked, it boggles my mind why more isn't done in the US.

Literally trading people's lives for money.

TP. 

If are not a hunter & own a gun — you quite simply are a coward. 

Pistol owners, ask yourself this: is your fear of the public scarier than losing ~30k American lives per year?

A coward?  For home defense? 
coward doesn't fit the situation.  can't see why it would.  I can see a lot of other adjectives: paranoid, fearful, delusional, terrified, etc...  ---> none really positive either because of issues with one self or issues with one's living environment.

The statistics provided about the proportions of people who own guns is informative.  I'm curious if anyone's looked at statistics for people who own guns supposedly for home defense that have actually used them successfully for home defense as opposed to those who used them unsuccessfully or were robbed/vandalized/etc... when they weren't home making having a gun moot or even having the gun stolen.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2017, 11:29:52 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17823
  • Tommy Points: 8763
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

They are interesting numbers. And, a lot of those stockpiling weapons are crazies, like the Vegas shooter.

At the same time, I know a lot of “normal” folks who own double digit firearms. They’re almost all police and military, who shoot for recreation and are quasi-collectors.  I personally don’t think they “need” all those weapons, but I also think they’re exceedingly unlikely to ever use those guns in an illegal manner.

I think there should be more sensible gun control, but I also don’t want to punish responsible owners. Here, the system failed, and the only reason this wasn’t worse is because a responsible owner engaged the mass murderer with a firearm of his own.

So, by all means, let’s regulate / ban bump stocks and other devices that modify fire rate, regulate magazine clips, require safety courses, close transfer loopholes, etc. However, in the end it’s likely that nuts and crazies will still end up with a weapon one way or another.

Gun rights advocates frequently (pretty much in every instance of this debate) cite the idea of how, "if only citizen X was armed they could have stopped the shooter!").  This is the argument for arming teachers in schools!!!!   So, of course they are all over this aspect of this event.

The fact is, this is like the only time I've ever heard of such an 'armed good citizen' ever actually being able to engage and stop such a shooter.   Out of how many such mass shooting events?   There is a 'mass shooting event' happening practically every day in this country.   There are millions of gun owners out there.  You'd think more would be playing hero.

And another fact is, while the "armed good citizen" here may have helped end the carnage, his presence and actions did absolutely nothing to prevent it.   Those totally innocent people in the church are still dead.
He also led to the death of the shooter, which may have harmed things like motive, finding co-conspirators, etc.  It seems like this was an isolated incident with a more personal motive, but that didn't have to be the case.  What if the death of the shooter led to a more horrific crime that otherwise might have been stopped had he been taken alive?  What if he had heard gun shots and saw a man with a rifle and shot that man, but what if that was another person like him or an undercover officer who was engaging in the shooter?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been luck.  What if he was engaging the shooter, and missed and killed some innocent bystander or multiple ones?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been dumb luck.  It is a slippery slope to have citizens performing police like functions with guns.  A lot of bad things can happen when we let citizens take the law into their own hand.  Just because it seemingly worked out this time, that doesn't mean we should be promoting it.

I don't know. How's the police record on not shooting innocent people or preventing suicide by cop or taking active shooters alive? Seems less great than the "could have gone wrong" statistics we have of citizen defenders.
just to clarify, is the point you're trying to make:
a) cops are armed and the record of using their weapons appropriately isn't as good as it should be so we should have an armed public because they'd do a better job?
OR
b) cops are trained professionals and have a less than desirable success rate in handling confrontations successfully so how would having an armed public possibly even do that well?
OR
c) something else entirely?

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2017, 11:33:47 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1148
  • Tommy Points: 123
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

They are interesting numbers. And, a lot of those stockpiling weapons are crazies, like the Vegas shooter.

At the same time, I know a lot of “normal” folks who own double digit firearms. They’re almost all police and military, who shoot for recreation and are quasi-collectors.  I personally don’t think they “need” all those weapons, but I also think they’re exceedingly unlikely to ever use those guns in an illegal manner.

I think there should be more sensible gun control, but I also don’t want to punish responsible owners. Here, the system failed, and the only reason this wasn’t worse is because a responsible owner engaged the mass murderer with a firearm of his own.

So, by all means, let’s regulate / ban bump stocks and other devices that modify fire rate, regulate magazine clips, require safety courses, close transfer loopholes, etc. However, in the end it’s likely that nuts and crazies will still end up with a weapon one way or another.

Gun rights advocates frequently (pretty much in every instance of this debate) cite the idea of how, "if only citizen X was armed they could have stopped the shooter!").  This is the argument for arming teachers in schools!!!!   So, of course they are all over this aspect of this event.

The fact is, this is like the only time I've ever heard of such an 'armed good citizen' ever actually being able to engage and stop such a shooter.   Out of how many such mass shooting events?   There is a 'mass shooting event' happening practically every day in this country.   There are millions of gun owners out there.  You'd think more would be playing hero.

And another fact is, while the "armed good citizen" here may have helped end the carnage, his presence and actions did absolutely nothing to prevent it.   Those totally innocent people in the church are still dead.
He also led to the death of the shooter, which may have harmed things like motive, finding co-conspirators, etc.  It seems like this was an isolated incident with a more personal motive, but that didn't have to be the case.  What if the death of the shooter led to a more horrific crime that otherwise might have been stopped had he been taken alive?  What if he had heard gun shots and saw a man with a rifle and shot that man, but what if that was another person like him or an undercover officer who was engaging in the shooter?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been luck.  What if he was engaging the shooter, and missed and killed some innocent bystander or multiple ones?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been dumb luck.  It is a slippery slope to have citizens performing police like functions with guns.  A lot of bad things can happen when we let citizens take the law into their own hand.  Just because it seemingly worked out this time, that doesn't mean we should be promoting it.

I don't know. How's the police record on not shooting innocent people or preventing suicide by cop or taking active shooters alive? Seems less great than the "could have gone wrong" statistics we have of citizen defenders.
just to clarify, is the point you're trying to make:
a) cops are armed and the record of using their weapons appropriately isn't as good as it should be so we should have an armed public because they'd do a better job?
OR
b) cops are trained professionals and have a less than desirable success rate in handling confrontations successfully so how would having an armed public possibly even do that well?
OR
c) something else entirely?

My post is a criticism of the preceding argument. I'm trying to get people to use better arguments in this thread.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2017, 12:02:31 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16940
  • Tommy Points: 805
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

They are interesting numbers. And, a lot of those stockpiling weapons are crazies, like the Vegas shooter.

At the same time, I know a lot of “normal” folks who own double digit firearms. They’re almost all police and military, who shoot for recreation and are quasi-collectors.  I personally don’t think they “need” all those weapons, but I also think they’re exceedingly unlikely to ever use those guns in an illegal manner.

I think there should be more sensible gun control, but I also don’t want to punish responsible owners. Here, the system failed, and the only reason this wasn’t worse is because a responsible owner engaged the mass murderer with a firearm of his own.

So, by all means, let’s regulate / ban bump stocks and other devices that modify fire rate, regulate magazine clips, require safety courses, close transfer loopholes, etc. However, in the end it’s likely that nuts and crazies will still end up with a weapon one way or another.

Gun rights advocates frequently (pretty much in every instance of this debate) cite the idea of how, "if only citizen X was armed they could have stopped the shooter!").  This is the argument for arming teachers in schools!!!!   So, of course they are all over this aspect of this event.

The fact is, this is like the only time I've ever heard of such an 'armed good citizen' ever actually being able to engage and stop such a shooter.   Out of how many such mass shooting events?   There is a 'mass shooting event' happening practically every day in this country.   There are millions of gun owners out there.  You'd think more would be playing hero.

And another fact is, while the "armed good citizen" here may have helped end the carnage, his presence and actions did absolutely nothing to prevent it.   Those totally innocent people in the church are still dead.
He also led to the death of the shooter, which may have harmed things like motive, finding co-conspirators, etc.  It seems like this was an isolated incident with a more personal motive, but that didn't have to be the case.  What if the death of the shooter led to a more horrific crime that otherwise might have been stopped had he been taken alive?  What if he had heard gun shots and saw a man with a rifle and shot that man, but what if that was another person like him or an undercover officer who was engaging in the shooter?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been luck.  What if he was engaging the shooter, and missed and killed some innocent bystander or multiple ones?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been dumb luck.  It is a slippery slope to have citizens performing police like functions with guns.  A lot of bad things can happen when we let citizens take the law into their own hand.  Just because it seemingly worked out this time, that doesn't mean we should be promoting it.

I don't know. How's the police record on not shooting innocent people or preventing suicide by cop or taking active shooters alive? Seems less great than the "could have gone wrong" statistics we have of citizen defenders.
I'm unaware of the police shooting an individual in a confrontation with a mass shooting suspect.  If you are aware of those, please post them.  And sure sometimes the mass shooters are killed by police or commit suicide, sometimes they aren't.  Depends a great deal on the shooter, but I would absolutely trust the trained police a lot more than some random citizen in those situations.  And there are absolutely citizen defenders that cross lines.  Perhaps you remember Trayvon Martin.  Or maybe you recall that lady that shot at someone in a Wal-Mart parking lot.  Situations like this are heated and bring out emotions, a trained officer is much more likely to deal with and control their emotions than an untrained civilian.   
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2017, 12:03:12 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32977
  • Tommy Points: -27981
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Until folks really confront the reality that the extreme volume of guns in this country is tightly correlated with our extreme rates of mass shootings, these conversations will tend to go nowhere.

There are solid studies that show high correlation between mass shooting rates and per-capita gun ownership -- even if you exclude the United States!   The U.S. just leaps off the chart in both categories.

Some bizarro numbers that paint a rather interesting picture of "our" sick, extreme obsession with guns:

  • The US currently has about 4.4 percent of the global population, yet owns 42 percent of the world's guns (non-military).    When you poke further, and realize that 32% of Americans own those guns, that means just about 1.4% of the world's population is holding 42% of the world's guns!
  • Even more extreme, consider that the vast majority of gun owners only own one gun.   Just 3% of the US population (or about .13% of the world's population) own half the guns in the U.S., or about 21% of all the guns in the world!
  • In absolute numbers, that means that about 9.7 million Americans own a combined ~133 million guns.
  • For that segment of 'heavy gun ownership' of the population (less than 1 in 30 people), that's an average of over 13 guns per person!
What the heck do those few people need ALL THOSE FREAKING GUNS FOR?????

Are they planning to repel a commie invasion?  Are they planning on forming a "militia" to take on the U.S. military in a coupe?  Preparing for the zombie apocalypse?  What?

This has gotten way past the insane point.

Do you know at least 30 people?  Do you find it a little unnerving to realize that chances are that one of those 30 people might have an arsenal of 13+ guns?  (Obviously, that's not evenly distributed geographically so the chances really vary from state to state).

When will the vast majority of the U.S. that actually _isn't_ obsessed with extreme hoarding of guns finally notice what is going on and stand up and say, "Enough!"?   

Sadly, probably never, given our complete lack of response to Sandy Hook.

It's as if the vast majority, some ~314M Americans ,are held hostage, forced to accommodate the manic obsessions of those few.

They are interesting numbers. And, a lot of those stockpiling weapons are crazies, like the Vegas shooter.

At the same time, I know a lot of “normal” folks who own double digit firearms. They’re almost all police and military, who shoot for recreation and are quasi-collectors.  I personally don’t think they “need” all those weapons, but I also think they’re exceedingly unlikely to ever use those guns in an illegal manner.

I think there should be more sensible gun control, but I also don’t want to punish responsible owners. Here, the system failed, and the only reason this wasn’t worse is because a responsible owner engaged the mass murderer with a firearm of his own.

So, by all means, let’s regulate / ban bump stocks and other devices that modify fire rate, regulate magazine clips, require safety courses, close transfer loopholes, etc. However, in the end it’s likely that nuts and crazies will still end up with a weapon one way or another.

Gun rights advocates frequently (pretty much in every instance of this debate) cite the idea of how, "if only citizen X was armed they could have stopped the shooter!").  This is the argument for arming teachers in schools!!!!   So, of course they are all over this aspect of this event.

The fact is, this is like the only time I've ever heard of such an 'armed good citizen' ever actually being able to engage and stop such a shooter.   Out of how many such mass shooting events?   There is a 'mass shooting event' happening practically every day in this country.   There are millions of gun owners out there.  You'd think more would be playing hero.

And another fact is, while the "armed good citizen" here may have helped end the carnage, his presence and actions did absolutely nothing to prevent it.   Those totally innocent people in the church are still dead.
He also led to the death of the shooter, which may have harmed things like motive, finding co-conspirators, etc.  It seems like this was an isolated incident with a more personal motive, but that didn't have to be the case.  What if the death of the shooter led to a more horrific crime that otherwise might have been stopped had he been taken alive?  What if he had heard gun shots and saw a man with a rifle and shot that man, but what if that was another person like him or an undercover officer who was engaging in the shooter?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been luck.  What if he was engaging the shooter, and missed and killed some innocent bystander or multiple ones?  Again, that wasn't the case this time, but it again could have just been dumb luck.  It is a slippery slope to have citizens performing police like functions with guns.  A lot of bad things can happen when we let citizens take the law into their own hand.  Just because it seemingly worked out this time, that doesn't mean we should be promoting it.

While I understand the concerns about a vigilante conducting police business, I think the positives clearly outweighed any negatives here. The citizen used his gun responsibly and appropriately.

Which option do you prefer:

1.  Citizen engages mass murderer, causing him to flee and die (losing potential evidence in the process); or

2.  Citizen calls authorities, allowing mass murderer sufficient time to kill other people. Police arrive and engage in a fire fight or hostage situation, at which point the shooter may or may not be killed?



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2017, 12:12:00 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41418
  • Tommy Points: 2291
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Reckless gun ownership isn't free. The costs are frequent events like these. Numb, is I think the word I'd use would be. The idea of sending 'thoughts and prayers' to the families of these people if you're content with current legislative leadership on the issue seems like an inherently ridiculous idea at this point. Either you want progress, change, now, or you're okay with these mass shootings.

But god it is so disgusting to see how motive or suspected motive are treated lately, especially since the Trump administration started running things. If you shoot 20 people dead in cold blood in a church during a service, I don't care who the mother in law is, that's sending a statement. That's terrorism. Domestic incident? Are you kidding me? I don't care if he didn't even know what terrorist ideals he wanted to terrify people with. He didn't shoot all those people because he didn't like his estranged wife's mom's tuna noodle casserole.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner