Texas Church Shooting : Thread

a reply to: Dfairlite

This is a fact.

And, this should ultimately be the determining factor.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Justoneman

Why?

Do I strike you as the sort of person who would agree with the following statement:

"If people did not want their brains smashed in, they would not make hammers so easy to purchase".

?

Yes, you do to be perfectly honest. Shame on you for allowing that to even have a chance to occur is my stance. Now, go and think more logically and I am good to go.

It is fair to say that by you TB not living here, you are not understanding what it is like having the whole planet want to take you out because of Power.

The power mongers don't like letting us slip from their control is a fact because:

1) here we get to do and say a lot of things that they can't do in other country's and keep your life because of FREEDOM, real freedom as long as you aren't hurting others.

2) we have guns because the old gov, yours mind you, were willing to treat people of America as property much as Rome did it's citizens. Slavery in the States being a thing we had to learn to throw off when we had a few slave owners after the split.
3) We are HOPE for the people that THEY TOO can be FREE. and that sucks for the Elite.

You should be on a much more moderate team and not on the lefty team. I am and I just want more to be logical through dialogue.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: face23785

I think the biggest sticking factor is what they consider and who makes the determination. What if they simply go by medications or a history of same? How many have taken medications used for things other than mental issues that are primarily used for mental issues?

I know I have.

What constitutes something that would qualify you as a mental risk?

I'm not gonna pretend it's an easy issue at all. But certainly there's some room for improvement, and when Republicans introduced a bill to improve it Democrats blocked it because "it didn't go far enough". So I don't believe they really want to fix anything. They love having it as a perpetual issue to fundraise and campaign on with gullible people.

If the things we're hearing about his domestic violence past are true, yes he shouldn't have been able to pass a background check. But if he already owned the guns before that, I don't think it would have made a difference.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, okay we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one (at least for now). The reason being; if we start going down this path of debate, we're going to get waist deep into defining things like "war" vs. "terrorism", and this will take us 'over the horizon' in terms of being off-topic.

originally posted by: face23785
If the things we're hearing about his domestic violence past are true, yes he shouldn't have been able to pass a background check. But if he already owned the guns before that, I don't think it would have made a difference.

In Texas, previous owned fire arms are not allow to be possessed by a felon. It's no fire arms near enough to be considered in possession.

a reply to: Justoneman

Again, you have totally failed to take into account anything I have said in this thread, other than the part you really did not like.

I am all for the second amendment, and I understand fully why it was that the founding fathers inserted the thing into the constitution, and further, that the reasoning did not become pointless with age, but still has an entirely valid reason to be present, in its current form, as part of that document.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: face23785

I think the biggest sticking factor is what they consider and who makes the determination. What if they simply go by medications or a history of same? How many have taken medications used for things other than mental issues that are primarily used for mental issues?

I know I have.

What constitutes something that would qualify you as a mental risk?

I'm not gonna pretend it's an easy issue at all. But certainly there's some room for improvement, and when Republicans introduced a bill to improve it Democrats blocked it because "it didn't go far enough". So I don't believe they really want to fix anything. They love having it as a perpetual issue to fundraise and campaign on with gullible people.

The perpetual fund raising item is making it worse with the idiots who hate wanting to use that to raise money for political gains.

I have an outreach as a white person to the black church's in my area because I am Welsh decent with the music gene and as a Methodist I love the choir. Because of that music gene plus choral background, I happen to know a few musicians who sometimes hire me to sing at their church. I give the funds back most of the time unless i am driving a long way. I get to hear their opinion from the pulpit and it isn't what is in the news.


ETA

They are calling out that we need Love.. Like The John Lennon said, "all you need is love"

That is worthy theme to pass along.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes, we need to be able to commit the mentally ill against their will again. That will solve much of the issue.

I doubt TrueBrit is calling for the detention of all mentally ill people, just the ones defined as a clear danger to themselves or others.

That's how it already works.

But the thing is, funding sucks. It really does. Trump has mentioned a few times mental illness in association with mass shootings, and I can't disagree with him.

From my own perspective I've seen services fail people time and time again, some of these people genuinely engaged mental health services, some even willfully tried to be sectioned.

That's in the UK of course, though I can't see it being too different in the US, it may be worse. If the mental health services don't tackle the issue, eventually it'll fall upon the police and other services.

Of which it usually does, suicide by cop?

How much do you reckon it costs saving a suicidal person? Probably more than it would cost helping them before they become criminal or dead.

Mental illness is a serious issue, it needs tackling because leaving it ends in situations like this.

A recent case near where I live had a man kill his wife, he was going to turn the blade on himself... I bet he wish he did as he sits in his jail cell.

I reckon all parties involved wish he temporarily lost his freedom and seek to sought his mind out, but now a woman is dead and he is in jail.

It's sad, really sad.

a reply to: face23785

Just a data point for you...

The Ruger AR-556 was introduced in 2014, the same year this POS was discharged with a Bad Conduct discharge for spousal abuse.

Seems unlikely he could have owned it prior to his discharge. Not impossible, but unlikely.

edit...and the rifle pictured so far is not one of the SR-556 variants (all discontinued prior to 2014), nor could one be converted to look like an AR-556 because the action was different.

From news

Man taking naps hear gun fire. Gets his AR type rifle and confronts shooter who now has hand gun. Both exchange fire. Second calls to third man, Johnny with truck, and he and second man chase shooter in truck and have a stand off until police arrive.

A better version of this info should pop up some where so.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: face23785

Just a data point for you...

The Ruger AR-556 was introduced in 2014, the same year this POS was discharged with a Bad Conduct discharge for spousal abuse.

Seems unlikely he could have owned it prior to his discharge. Not impossible, but unlikely.

edit...and the rifle pictured so far is not one of the SR-556 variants (all discontinued prior to 2014), nor could one be converted to look like an AR-556 because the action was different.

Ah, gotcha. Good point. I actually own that same gun. Anti-gun nuts think it's 37 times deadlier than an AR-15.

a reply to: roadgravel

Conflicting reports (again...go figure). Sheriff is claiming "self inflicted", and witnesses claiming local crack-shot "plumber" hit the POS in the side and he bled out after the chase.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: face23785
If the things we're hearing about his domestic violence past are true, yes he shouldn't have been able to pass a background check. But if he already owned the guns before that, I don't think it would have made a difference.

In Texas, previous owned fire arms are not allow to be possessed by a felon. It's no fire arms near enough to be considered in possession.

I was unaware of how they handled that. Appreciate the info. How do they know you have previously owned firearms though? There's no registry.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Justoneman

Again, you have totally failed to take into account anything I have said in this thread, other than the part you really did not like.

I am all for the second amendment, and I understand fully why it was that the founding fathers inserted the thing into the constitution, and further, that the reasoning did not become pointless with age, but still has an entirely valid reason to be present, in its current form, as part of that document.

Oh i read you loud and clear. I am addressing your attitude about it as you continually whine about why why why no more logical gun laws in your estimations? Unless you know why yet?

To me, there is little solid logic in your position and we have collectively challenged the comments that were off base. Not expecting a leftist to change it's spots is, dangerous I know. We have too much in common and need those avenues.

One important thing about having freedom from tyranny is that some stuff people don't like will still occur. That is why we agree on the laws so that all are treated fairly and when not so, we have the Supreme Court to review the law and decide the outcome as fairly as possible.

People are human and all laws here are there to make us safe. These laws are from those agreed upon by the people as to what is an act of crime, like the obvious ones of 'murder, theft, rape and conspiracy'. Freedom comes with the price of due diligence and power being by shared by the people is a nasty thing but much better than a world where a Khan, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot can do a Caligula and go thumbs down on your life. Fat lil Kim used a cannon at close range on one such life.

ETA

Yes, mentally ill I agree we need some better method. TB is right there.

a reply to: face23785

He's talking about 'purchasing'. I believe TX is one of the states which require background checks on both new and used firearms.

(correct me if I'm wrong on this TX persons). Not from TX personally so I can't swear to this.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: roadgravel

Conflicting reports (again...go figure). Sheriff is claiming "self inflicted", and witnesses claiming local crack-shot "plumber" hit the POS in the side and he bled out after the chase.

A person(s) at end of chase location said they didn't hear shots. So I tend to think he died from earlier wound and it was the reason he went of the road. The chase driver said no gun shoots there, I believe.

It wasn't because of guns...

Guns are just inanimate tools. No gun has ever pointed itself at a person and pulled its own trigger. They may be tools of high convenience for criminals, but then it is the criminal's actions, not the gun's actions, that cause the problem.

It wasn't about mental health...

Mental health has become a catch-all term for "someone who thinks differently than I do." According to some of the comments in this thread, anyone who commits a crime is obviously suffering from a lack of mental health; therefore everyone who has the capability to commit a crime as an indicator for mental health issues. That's everyone who has the ability to breathe.

What it is about is respect for life.

• In Charlotte, Dylan Roof had no respect for the lives of those who he senselessly and callously murdered. He just wanted to "kill black people."
  
  
• Steve Scalise was shot and almost died because one person wanted kill Republicans so badly he drove from Ohio and camped out in his vehicle for an extended time just to be in the right place at the right time to do so.
  
  
• In Charlottesville, the driver of the car had no respect for the lives of those he endangered, including the woman he hit directly. He was simply trying to kill.
  
  
• In Las Vegas, the shooter had no respect for the lives of innocent people who he had no knowledge of or interaction with. He simply wished to end the lives of that crowd of people.
  
  
• In New York, the driver of the truck had no respect for the lives of individuals he mowed down with absolute abandon. He simply wished to kill people.
  
  
• Yesterday, the shooter had no respect for the lives of those he butchered. We don't know the motive yet (there is a rumor he had in-laws who attended that church), but he certainly was not picky about whose life he ended.

This problem has been ongoing for some time and its getting worse. Taking away guns won't work; the would-be criminals would still have them (they are criminals, after all) and the innocents wouldn't. Locking up people for mental health issues won't work; we don't have enough jails to house the entire population... and who would be left to run the prisons? No, these easy ways won't work. The only thing that will work is to respect people again.

Sadly,that is extremely hard to do. People, even as evidenced in this thread, care more about some perceived bias against the 'enemy' than they do about people. They care more about possessions, those material things that money buys, than people. They care more about some manufactured fantasy concept of 'fairness' than they do about people.

Just look at some of the issues of our time if you want proof:

• Gun control advocates care nothing about actually saving lives... they care more about easing their own misguided fears about a tool they do not understand.
  
• Obamacare advocates care more about their solution, a solution that has caused many like myself to be denied any chance of health care coverage and caused many others to have to pay much more for less coverage than they once had, than they do even fixing the problem, evidenced by the continual refusal of the Democrats in Congress to even debate the issue and the support of this by their supporters.
  
• The biggest complaint about tax reform is not that it won't help the average person, but that someone else might somehow benefit. The lack of any benefit for one class is sufficient reason for the intense suffering of an entire other class.
  
• Abortion advocates care absolutely nothing about the lives of an unborn child, even up to the moment before it exits the birth canal.
  
• Black Lives Matter advocates claim to care about black lives, but their actions indicate they only care about those lives that are in danger from white policemen. Those who die from other causes are ignored.
  
• Antifa claims to be 'anti-fascist,' but their actions regularly indicate they themselves are the fascists, using fascist techniques such as violence and denial of freedom of speech toward their 'opponents.'
  
• Many news outlets are literally calling for violence against anyone who they proclaim is a 'white supremacist,' with the yardstick for that label apparently being simply white-skinned and having opposing political views.
  
• Some atheists hate religion so much they will do anything, even cheer on the killing of Christians or support radical Muslim terrorism, to 'get even' with the 'evil' Christians in this country. At least one poster in this very thread has openly laughed about the dead church members because they were Christians!

That is the issue. The life of others matters nothing to us. Only our own existence, our own philosophy, our own agenda, our own selfish desires. We have become, as has been prophesied, "lovers of self." And as lovers of only self, we have become haters of everything and everyone else.

My God help us all.

TheRedneck

So what do we know about the shooter?
26 year old, dishonorably discharged, strong athiest to the point he likes to connect with other athiests on Facebook, had a beard but some long story he won't mention made him recently shave it, not attached to that town,.

Questions-
Did he have a child? If so where is the mom and child
Did he have friends?- what did they think about him
Why was he dishonorably discharged?
Did he have a diagnosed mental issue and meds?
What was his political idiology?
Antifa calendar for Sunday was for church reachout! Coincidence?


Can we add questions and answers to this post? I have not read all the pages in this thread.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You left out San Bernadino and Dallas.