"Multiple fatalaties" in church shooting in Texas

FBI and ATF on scene; suspect has been killed by law enforcement

Not trying to "politicise" a tragedy but doubt Trump will do anything about it

Witnesses reported suspect reloaded several times and fired as many as 20 rounds

Some sources saying up to 24 dead 

27 dead estimated

WHEN WILL IT END!

People just seem to not care anymore. An attack by someone with a possible tie with Islam is investigated and on the news for weeks, a simple mass shooting is out of the news cycle in two or three days. Las Vegas was literally talked about for a week and then it was gone. Nothing ever changes, it's always "too soon". 

 

What people don't realize is that it's actually too late.  It's despicable.

Just now, thegreathah said:

People just seem to not care anymore. An attack by someone with a possible tie with Islam is investigated and on the news for weeks, a simple mass shooting is out of the news cycle in two or three days. Las Vegas was literally talked about for a week and then it was gone. Nothing ever changes, it's always "too soon". 

 

What people don't realize is that it's actually too late.  It's despicable.

Trump's response to this will proabably be "it was a very sick individual" and when it comes to gun control "when the time is right."

 

FFS! When it is a "terrorist" he can't get on Twitter quick enough!

1 minute ago, qwertyK said:

Trump's response to this will proabably be "it was a very sick individual" and when it comes to gun control "when the time is right."

 

FFS! When it is a "terrorist" he can't get on Twitter quick enough!

Unfortunately, he is not alone in that sentiment. The sentiment that as soon as someone Muslim does something, all Muslims need to be banned, but nothing should be done about guns is a long and widely held belief by a lot of Americans. 

 

It's saddening and sickening that people's lives are lost because of an inability for politicians and for the common people to stand up and stop the "American Carnage" as our president so gracefully puts it.

Just now, thegreathah said:

Unfortunately, he is not alone in that sentiment. The sentiment that as soon as someone Muslim does something, all Muslims need to be banned, but nothing should be done about guns is a long and widely held belief by a lot of Americans. 

 

It's saddening and sickening that people's lives are lost because of an inability for politicians and for the common people to stand up and stop the "American Carnage" as our president so gracefully puts it.

Apparently he went in in "full combat gear" and was killed after a pursuit with police. Seems ironic that in a state like Texas this could happen. 

6 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

Apparently he went in in "full combat gear" and was killed after a pursuit with police. Seems ironic that in a state like Texas this could happen. 

I'm sure tomorrow some politician will be saying, "That's the price we pay for our freedom". 

In one of the most armed states in the nation, the "good guys with guns" everyone talks about still didn't stop this. It's time for people to drop the act and face the facts. This is a state that doesn't require you to register a gun. The only permit to carry you need is with a pistol, which means you could take an AR and buy it without registering, and carry it around with no restrictions. It's so unbelievably gross.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/35/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

 

 

Just now, thegreathah said:

I'm sure tomorrow some politician will be saying, "That's the price we pay for our freedom". 

In one of the most armed states in the nation, the "good guys with guns" everyone talks about still didn't stop this. It's time for people to drop the act and face the facts. This is a state that doesn't require you to register a gun. The only permit to carry you need is with a pistol, which means you could take an AR and buy it without registering, and carry it around with no restrictions. It's so unbelievably gross.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/35/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

 

 

The laws need changing. TBH, I think even Trump want's a degree of gun control. If it wasn't for the stupid NRA. Times have changed since 1776. I hope that there will be a response to this that actually changes something, but I doubt anything will happen. I'll be interested to see who the shooter is, but we probably all know the background of him....

Most Americans, including myself, are in favor of more "common sense" (I hate using that term) gun laws. Stricter gun laws don't necessarily mean banning guns. Most Americans are in favor of background checks, a short waiting period between gun purchases, and that the weapon is registered with a local law enforcement agency.  Most Americans are against any sort of complete ban on guns, including assault weapons. Most Americans also believe that new gun laws won't have any impact on mass shootings.

 

Also, an interesting statistic: victims of crime are more likely to purchase firearms than non-victims. Maybe because they realize that if they would have had a weapon, to begin with, they probably wouldn't have fallen victim to the crime? Just a thought.

 

The 2nd amendment implies that I have the legal and constitutional right to personally own and keep a firearm, whether for a well-regulated militia or self-defense.

 

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Seems pretty straight-forward to me, not really much to interpret from that. Not only is it directly written in the constitution itself, but the US Supreme Court has also made this declaration. It's not up for debate. Certain guns will always be readily available for purchase across the country.

 

37 minutes ago, thegreathah said:

I'm sure tomorrow some politician will be saying, "That's the price we pay for our freedom". 

In one of the most armed states in the nation, the "good guys with guns" everyone talks about still didn't stop this. It's time for people to drop the act and face the facts. This is a state that doesn't require you to register a gun. The only permit to carry you need is with a pistol, which means you could take an AR and buy it without registering, and carry it around with no restrictions. It's so unbelievably gross.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/35/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas

 

 

I don't ever recall it being necessary for me to bring a gun into church. The church is the last place that I would expect someone to go on a shooting spree and that's probably exactly how the congregation felt. It's their place of worship. They all probably felt safe and secure, even without firearms. This just further shows that if they had actually brought their firearms to church, they would have likely been able to stop the shooter dead in his tracks. But since no one had firearms, there were mass casualties. Did the church even have an organized security team? Probably not. Maybe firearms in this church would have decreased the number of casualties. Would this gunman have shot up a gun show? Probably not right. He decided to shoot up a place where he knew the likelihood of weapons being present were low. A perfect example of how good guys NOT having guns is bad. A bunch of unarmed civilians sitting in a crowded place with no weapons turns into a shooting on a mass scale.

 

43 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

Apparently he went in in "full combat gear" and was killed after a pursuit with police. Seems ironic that in a state like Texas this could happen. 

It's not the state that's relevant when looking at the geographical location of a shooting. It's the exact location within that state. Shootings happen in Texas just as they happen in New York and California. I don't see your point.

 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

http://news.gallup.com/poll/199235/crime-victims-likely-own-guns.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/221117/direction-american-public-gun-policy.aspx

Edited November 5, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

49 minutes ago, thegreathah said:

Unfortunately, he is not alone in that sentiment. The sentiment that as soon as someone Muslim does something, all Muslims need to be banned, but nothing should be done about guns is a long and widely held belief by a lot of Americans. 

 

 I fail to see the connection. Islam is a religion and therefore more or less a choice. Yes, when someone who choose to belong to a certain group does an attack, it's natural others would like to take revenge on its group. I'm not saying it's justified, but I do say I understand it.

 

GUNS are not a religion, these are simple tools that people use. Before battling tools you may consider battling people that use them.  Some very sick people live in your country. Not trying to offend anyone as I like the US a lot, just sayin. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Hastings said:

 I fail to see the connection. Islam is a religion and therefore more or less a choice. Yes, when someone who choose to belong to a certain group does an attack, it's natural others would like to take revenge on its group. I'm not saying it's justified, but I do say I understand it.

 

GUNS are not a religion, these are simple tools that people use. Before battling tools you may consider battling people that use them.  Some very sick people live in your country. Not trying to offend anyone as I like the US a lot, just sayin. 

 

 

Apparently removing the tool will somehow convince criminals to pack up and go home. "Oh, they took our guns (somehow), let's just head home".

Edited November 5, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

So long as guns exist, this is never going to end.  Is your Second Amendment worth it?  Is it worth all these lives that are lost?  It's funny how people call for "stricter" gun laws as if that'll actually solve the problem.  Tell me, in all the years before guns were common, back in the olden days when switchblades were the thing, how many mass switchblade attacks were there?  How many knife attacks?  Funny how a lot of states in the US ban butterfly knives for how easy it is to conceal and whip them out, yet there's really nothing hindering people from getting guns and doing this.

 

How long will it be before someone is ballsy and does this at a police station?  A fire station?  A hospital? 

 

52 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

Trump's response to this will proabably be "it was a very sick individual" and when it comes to gun control "when the time is right."

 

Is anyone surprised?  Most presidents say apologetic shit when this happens, that's normal, but in Trump's case, he is so out of touch with his own presidency I doubt he's even trying to do anything to help this situation.

 

 

1 minute ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Apparently removing the tool will somehow convince criminals to pack up and go home. "Oh, they took our guns (somehow), let's just head home".

 

No, it won't convince them, they will just use weapons that take longer to kill, thus making it easier for someone to defend themselves or take down the assailant.

1 minute ago, Kallus Rourke said:

No, it won't convince them, they will just use weapons that take longer to kill, thus making it easier for someone to defend themselves or take down the assailant.

 

Or they'll just get the gun illegally, and leave the law-abiding citizens even more defenseless anyways.

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

Or they'll just get the gun illegally, and leave the law-abiding citizens even more defenseless anyways.

 

While it is true black market/dark web guns are obtainable, there is only a minority that actually know about the dark web and can traverse it.  There would still be gun crimes,  but not to the extent we are now.  Gun crimes would plummet.

6 minutes ago, Hastings said:

 I fail to see the connection. Islam is a religion and therefore more or less a choice. Yes, when someone who choose to belong to a certain group does an attack, it's natural others would like to take revenge on its group. I'm not saying it's justified, but I do say I understand it.

 

GUNS are not a religion, these are simple tools that people use. Before battling tools you may consider battling people that use them.  Some very sick people live in your country. Not trying to offend anyone as I like the US a lot, just sayin. 

 

 

True, however it seems to me that in the US if the shooter is white they are "sick" and if the shooter is brown they MUST be part of some extreme group of terrorists. This is simply not the case, but the media and the politicians will have us believing it is.

 

Battling the people that use the tools will unintentionally be battling the tools along with it. It's much easier to do a background on someone when they are purchasing guns rather than when they aren't doing anything out of the "norm"

Just now, Kallus Rourke said:

 

While it is true black market/dark web guns are obtainable, there is only a minority that actually know about the dark web and can traverse it.  There would still be gun crimes,  but not to the extent we are now.  Gun crimes would plummet.

Do you happen to have any sort of studies or statistics that can show that gun crime would plummet and that a minority know about the dark web? I can agree that it seems like common sense (I hate that term) that fewer guns = less gun crime, but something that seems like common sense isn't always necessarily what's true.

1 minute ago, thegreathah said:

Battling the people that use the tools will unintentionally be battling the tools along with it. It's much easier to do a background on someone when they are purchasing guns rather than when they aren't doing anything out of the "norm"

 

Not necessarily. Battling the perpetrator doesn't inherently mean that we're targeting the tool as well. We can look at cars. We are battling texting and driving by making it illegal to text and drive. Did we do anything to limit car access or car purchasing? No. We battle DUI by creating a legal toxication limit. Did we decide to ban cars or a certain type of car? No. We battle people flying through windshields by making it a legal requirement to wear your seatbelt. It goes on and on brother.

5 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Or they'll just get the gun illegally, and leave the law-abiding citizens even more defenseless anyways.

Completely false. If that were the case, countries like Australia, the UK, France, etc which initiated programs to stopping gun violence would be seeing mass shootings, or shootings in general, at a similar rate that we were.

 

How is it that many Americans (including myself) feel perfectly content with not owning a vast array of firearms. The only place they'd even be applicable is in my home, where by the time I even heard or got up to stop someone I would likely be dead, or the intruder would be gone. It's completely nonsensical to believe that in the chaos of a public mass shooting civilians will be able to figure out where the fire is coming from and effectively put that threat out, without harming others in their way.

 

5 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Do you happen to have any sort of studies or statistics that can show that gun crime would plummet and that a minority know about the dark web? I can agree that it seems like common sense (I hate that term) that fewer guns = less gun crime, but something that seems like common sense isn't always necessarily what's true.

 

There's no way to have said statistics on something that hasn't happened.  It is, however a fact that a majority of people, specifically Americans, have no idea the dark web exists.  Even if they've heard of it, I doubt they have any clue what goes in within it.  I can positively say if guns were banned in the US and people had to rely on the dark web only, there would be a huge downfall in gun crimes across the US.  Granted, people can still learn about the dark web from people who know people, but you get my point.

 

2 minutes ago, thegreathah said:

How is it that many Americans (including myself) feel perfectly content with not owning a vast array of firearms. The only place they'd even be applicable is in my home, where by the time I even heard or got up to stop someone I would likely be dead, or the intruder would be gone. It's completely nonsensical to believe that in the chaos of a public mass shooting civilians will be able to figure out where the fire is coming from and effectively put that threat out, without harming others in their way.

 

 

I'm positive that the majority of people who cry about losing their guns have NEVER owned or used one, they just cry because of the RIGHT possibly being taken away. 

3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Not necessarily. Battling the perpetrator doesn't inherently mean that we're targeting the tool as well. We can look at cars. We are battling texting and driving by making it illegal to text and drive. Did we do anything to limit car access or car purchasing? No. We battle DUI by creating a legal toxication limit. Did we decide to ban cars or a certain type of car? No. We battle people flying through windshields by making it a legal requirement to wear your seatbelt. It goes on and on brother.

Then how do you propose we find and eliminate all these "sick" people without restricting guns. America has one of the highest rates of mental disorder and disease in the world, it would be near impossible to properly diagnose and prevent those people from getting guns without having some sort of requirement at the point of sale. 

 

We may "battle DUI by creating a legal toxication limit" but that only works AFTER the person has driven drunk. That's not preventing something from happening. 

32 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

This just further shows that if they had actually brought their firearms to church, they would have likely been able to stop the shooter dead in his tracks. But since no one had firearms, there were mass casualties.

 

32 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

A perfect example of how good guys NOT having guns is bad. A bunch of unarmed civilians sitting in a crowded place with no weapons turns into a shooting on a mass scale.

 

I fail to see how someone with a firearm would ever help in these situations. Say everyone at the church had a gun - they all pull their guns at the sound of shots, now EVERYONE HAS A GUN OUT. They start shooting who they THINK was the assailant and end up killing innocents themselves. I'm sorry, but I absolutely hate the "if more people had guns they could have stopped this" argument. I do not want any old Billy-Bob-Joe without any training in identifying and neutralizing a threat "protecting" me.