Author Topic: Texas church shooting  (Read 2280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2017, 02:30:24 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7804
  • Tommy Points: 875
Broken clock Ted Cruz bumbles into the explanation of America's gun problem:

“Evil is evil is evil,” Cruz said on CNN, “and will use the weaponry that is available.”

This, it turns out, is exactly the point made by gun control advocates. There are bad people in every society in the world. The US is not unique in this regard, and I don’t think Cruz is saying that America is uniquely evil.

What Americans seem to have, instead, is extra stock of — and way more access to — incredibly deadly weapons in the form of firearms. And this stock and access give bad people an easier way to commit mass atrocities — more so than they’d be able to if they only had access to, say, a baseball bat or a knife.

According to Cruz, he actually is [basically] calling Americans more evil than people from other countries since the United States has far more mass shootings than any where else in the world.

The United States has 270 million guns and had 90 mass shooters from 1966 to 2012.

No other country has more than 46 million guns or 18 mass shooters.

Of course I agree with your point about these high powered weapons being available for these 'evil' individuals, but that is just an asinine thing to say by the Senator (big surprise).

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2017, 02:35:22 PM »

Offline rondohondo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10656
  • Tommy Points: 1082
For anyone who cares, Mr Willeford weighs in with a pretty lengthy interview on Louder with Crowder...

Says he had the exact same gun the mass murderer had...

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2017, 02:49:00 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19143
  • Tommy Points: 905
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.

Just a simple Google search will give you examples of police shooting bystanders.

My criticism is that your argument provided reasons why citizens should not defend with arms, without providing evidence of those things actually happening WHILE saying the police should handle it for those very reasons when we actually have evidence of police causing the problems you listed. The argument as stated doesn't make sense.

I agree with you. It sounds like a job for the police. But I'm not opposed to trying to determine whether that intuition is in fact true.
I did a google search before I asked and nothing came up with respect to mass shootings (I realize bystanders get shot in other situations, but those are vastly different situations).  That is why I asked you for these situations you aware of.

I didn't limit my search to mass shootings because I didn't see why it would be relevant which type of conflict was involved. Can you tell me why it would be relevant?

I'm saying we have evidence that police can mess up in the ways you assumed citizens might. If police already mess up in situations other than in mass shootings, why wouldn't they also mess up during mass shootings (or more so)? I'm looking for proof that police handle these situations better than a theoretical citizen on the scene. Sounds right, but we can't overvalue our assumptions especially when we have glaring evidence that police make the very mistakes we're afraid of citizens making.
Because mass shootings are a very distinct type of crime and other crimes are not.  For example, many accidental bystander shooters by police are in high speed chases, on highways, etc.  By the time police arrive to a mass shooting, the bystanders are also often gone (or more limited), which certainly isn't always the case when the police show up to a different sort of crime.  Mass shooters are often more open and less likely to take hostages (because they are dead or have left).  Mass shooters are also often more prone to just killing themselves then getting into a shootout with police.

A mass shooting is a very different type of crime then your normal every day police work, even that more normal every day police work involving murderers.   

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2017, 03:18:00 PM »

Offline danglertx

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
  • Tommy Points: 206
I'll throw my 2 cents in here, being from Texas.  Banning guns isn't going to stop these things from happening.  Maybe better mental health services and/or forced institutionalization, longer sentences for criminals, and some other things could curtail these a bit, but we have 325million people in the United States.  Some of them are going to just be bat crap crazy.

Even if we magically got rid of every gun in America, not just the guns from the law abiding citizens who would follow the law and turn them in, do you really think those people at the concert in Las Vegas would have all gone home that night?  As it stands, guns aren't great at mass killings.  Maybe a tripod mounted M50 but your normal rifles are worse than much easier methods to create death.  The problem/good thing about firearms is that as soon as you shoot, people start running away.  That is why every mass shooting but two since 1950 has been done in a gun free zone where mobility is somewhat hindered, or there are just so many people that they can't leave fast enough.   As soon as the gunman shoots, everyone knows basically which direction he is.

This Paddock dude owned a plane and had a pilot's license.  You don't have to get super creative to think of ways this guy could have killed hundreds or even thousands of people crammed into that concert.  There were 22k people squished into basically a city block or less.

Do gun control advocates just believe that if guns didn't exist that Paddock guy would have just gone about his life like he had the previous years?  But for guns, he just lives out his life of gambling and high living until the luck runs out and he goes to an old folks home broke?  If you force people to get creative, they will.  And there are much more effective ways to kill innocent people than with a gun.

Also, on another theme I saw in this thread.  Why do we need armed citizens OR police?  Can't we have both?   Police don't stop a crime, they arrest the person who commits the crime.   Even in best of circumstances they are often 10 or more minutes away from responding to an emergency call.  Unfortunately, that just isn't good enough in many cases.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2017, 03:24:32 PM »

Offline danglertx

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
  • Tommy Points: 206
Just to add on one point I forgot, maybe Timmothy McVeigh and the 911 hijackers couldn't get guns so they had to be more creative.  Perhaps Mcveigh just wanted to shoot up the FBI offices.  Not that I am for lifting restrictions on getting guns, but banning guns doesn't really solve anything.  To do that we are going to have to address the path our society has taken since the 70s, get back to two parent households, and get back to the values our country had for 200years when these kind of events were exceedingly rare while households with guns were the norm.

Re: Texas church shooting
« Reply #65 on: November 09, 2017, 12:31:26 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41665
  • Tommy Points: 2343
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
That's a whole lotta 'well what if...' that only serves your overall point. What if the guy in Texas hadn't been able to get a gun, had cooled down a bit, and 20+ people aren't dead today? Why is the only choice between 'they either get guns and use them to be crazy and kill people or they will do something worse without guns'? False choice.

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