Dozens killed at a Texas church shooting.

[Megumi]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41880511

 

 

 

The suspect is dead.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Donatello

[Voodoo]

I've already had to hide the first three replies to this topic. If you don't have anything constructive or worthwhile to contribute here, stay the hell out.

 

Condolences for the victims and their families. This is some f*cked up sh*t.

[iiConTr0v3rSYx]

Will always wonder what reason would one have, to have to do things like this. Why not just blow your own head off and let those that are innocent continue on with their lives. The Vegas shooting, the rundown in New York and now this.

 

Condolences to the families and friends.

Edited November 5, 2017 by iiConTr0v3rSYx

[sreyazsec]

As I always say, I hope all involved can move past this and recover.

Edited November 6, 2017 by ceszayers

[Big_Smiley]

Condolences for the victims and their families. This is some f*cked up sh*t.

I mean...in a church?? For f*ck sake people why....

 

My the innocent victims rest peacefully.

[Megumi]

The shooter has been identified as 26 year old Devin Patrick Kelley.

[raebbitos]

this is really hard to process,why would anyone do this?

[No Use For A Name]

this is really hard to process,why would anyone do this?

Because some people are crazy. Sad reality of the world we live in.

 

Gun violence in America cant be stopped. Another sad reality of the world we live in

[Tchuck]

this is really hard to process,why would anyone do this?

 

Lack of mental care across the country? Stupid media stoking fires? Trying to make a name for himself seeing all the attention other shooters got? Easy access to firearms? Perfect cover being a young white male?

 

Who knows. We don't question the motives in these cases.

 

Sad that it happened, and condolences to the victim. Too bad nothing will come out of this either, as it will always be too soon to talk about gun control in wake of a massacre.

[HeavyDuke]

Sigh, what a jackass.

[GTA3Claude]

Condolences to the families, even if this won't help.

 

This has already being said, but people can act foolishly sometimes....

I'm not an American, but I think ways to get a weapon should be more tedious, people should get a psychological evaluation before getting a weapon but also several ones after the purchase.

Edited November 6, 2017 by GTA3Claude

[Paisan™]

Condolences to the vic's families, but hey:

The suspect is dead.

So I'm happy.

[Chiarii]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41884342

 

So this guy is a militant atheist. I'm guessing that had a hand in helping him decide between shooting up a Baptist church or a Wendy's. Starting to sound a lot like terrorism to me.

 

E: hearing some pretty disturbing stuff about the incident. Most sources are saying the age of the vics range from 5 all the way up to 72. Another said this guy killed 8 members of one family.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Chiari

[Raavi]

I'm guessing

 

You shouldn't.

 

"This was not racially motivated, it wasn't over religious beliefs Mr Martin director for the Texas Department of Public Safety said.

There was a domestic situation going on with the family and in-laws, he said, adding that Kelley had sent threatening texts to his mother-in-law.

We know that he expressed anger towards his mother-in-law, who attends this church, Mr Martin said"

It's literally in the article right next to the one you linked.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41892838

[Chiarii]

Yah, it's a convenient (and extremely hopeful) attempt to weasel out of calling it what it is. I bet the shooter never would have guessed his anger towards his mother-in-law would've been uncovered if he killed all those other people with her. I mean, he could've drove to her house and done what he felt he needed to do. Yet, he didn't. He got her at church.

 

You don't expect me to believe he killed 25 other people to make sure the 26th was dead. Lol... you don't even believe that.

[Raavi]

I'll take the word of the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety who has intimate knowledge of the investigation over that of some guy on the internet without any knowledge of the investigation to speak of. No offence.

[make total destroy]

Yah, it's a convenient (and extremely hopeful) attempt to weasel out of calling it what it is. I bet the shooter never would have guessed his anger towards his mother-in-law would've been uncovered if he killed all those other people with her. I mean, he could've drove to her house and done what he felt he needed to do. Yet, he didn't. He got her at church.

 

You don't expect me to believe he killed 25 other people to make sure the 26th was dead. Lol... you don't even believe that.

Yeah, I'm sure the guy that was willing to murder at least one person out of anger would be rational enough to also not kill other people.

[Chiarii]

That's good for you. Maybe he'll release some evidence to back up that claim.

[Dragon_Of_Tragedy]

this is really hard to process,why would anyone do this?

Because the world is totally screwed up.

 

Haven't you heard about the parents who kept a baby rotting corpse or maybe the young couple who were collecting a disability check from a roommate who was mummified on the floor and they were just walking over top of him?

[We Are Ninja]

I'm not an American, but I think ways to get a weapon should be more tedious, people should get a psychological evaluation before getting a weapon but also several ones after the purchase.

That's the thing. Stricter gun laws will only restrict law-abiding citizens. The bad guys don't care about laws (gun laws included). The harder it is for law-abiding citizens to have guns, the easier pickings for the criminals. From what I understand, it was another gun owner that chased him away/took him down. If the hero guy hadn't been able to acquire his weapon for whatever reason, we could have been looking at more deaths. It's a precarious position to be in. I live in Texas, and people here take the second amendment as gospel.

 

What's more, you can't really stop crazy. If all the guns on earth disappeared tomorrow, people would still kill with swords, knives, rocks, sharp sticks, etc. Killers gonna kill.

Edited November 6, 2017 by We Are Ninja

[No Use For A Name]

For the people saying more gun control...

 

First off, I agree with you in principle. Look at Australia, Canada and countries in Europe; yes, gun control cuts down on mass shootings, but that only tells half the story. Those countries never had a ton of firearms in circulation in the first place. There are roughly 300 MILLION guns in circulation in the United States...an average of more than one per citizen.

 

Now, before reading further, hop on Facebook and look at the comments section of Fox News or any right-wing patriotic bullsh*t page. Look at how f*cking ignorant and stupid these people are.

 

Now that youre back, heres the problem: banning future firearm purchases doesnt address the 300 million already in circulation. Im from Texas and Ive know these types of people my entire life. They will not give up their guns without a fight, and that fight will likely involve said guns. These rednecks will literally fight to the death for their right to bear arms.

 

Just a wild guess, but Ill surmise that 50% of the firearms in America are owned by these types of people. Whatever the exact number is, youre likely looking at an arsenal of 50,000,000 to 150,000,000 weapons that can and will be used if the government tries to confiscate them. Remember, these people are uneducated and largely distrusting of the government.

 

Any attempt at a large-scale weapon confiscation will result in a civil war. Sorry, but thats the sad reality.

 

We got ourselves into this. Theres no way out.

 

Were f*cked.

[WHAT!?]

At this point its all been said. One leads into another and then another and another. Nothing will be done about it. We'll all bounce ideas off of each other in some vain effort to get a handle on how this occurs and what can be done to stop it. Then we'll put what we learned right in our front pocket so we can pull it out and try to deal with it all just that little bit better come the next time. It's the argument we'll remember. We'll all forget about the actual event soon. The only thing that will remain is the statistical data, along with whatever fantastical ideas the Alex Jones of the world want to sell you after the fact.

 

Nobody will remember anyone's name. Hell in a week you won't be able to even name the town this happened in. It'll just be "The Texas Church Massacre™".

 

 

We're doing it guys. We're the pinnacle of modern society.

Edited November 7, 2017 by WHAT!?

[sivispacem]

Stricter gun laws will only restrict law-abiding citizens. The bad guys don't care about laws (gun laws included). The harder it is for law-abiding citizens to have guns, the easier pickings for the criminals

Can someone explain to me why this remains the default retort of people when additional firearm restrictions are mooted, when it isn't even remotely close to being true?

 

Placing licensing restrictions on firearm ownership, banning straw purchases and private firearm sales without background checks, and enforcing regulations on safe storage do not affect law abiding citizens more than they do criminals. In fact, all three have explicit and obvious knock-on effects at reducing availability of firearms to criminals by linking weapons to individuals, preventing grey market sale which represents a significant proportion of firearms used in crime, and making obtaining guns through burglary significantly more difficult.

 

Moreover, most criminals are opportunistic. They don't care about firearms laws because they don't fundamentally affect them; laws in place to prevent convicted criminals owning firearms are poorly enforced. Firearms are employed in crime because they're easy to obtain and impactful. Making them more difficult and costly for criminals to obtain reduces their likelihood of use in violent crime. That's basic mathematics.

[ten-a-penny]

Remember, when we say "gun control", we don't refer to your everyday pistol or shotgun. We're talking about heavy-artillery sh*t, like Assault Rifles. Basically, anything that can kill dozens in a short time.

[We Are Ninja]

 

Stricter gun laws will only restrict law-abiding citizens. The bad guys don't care about laws (gun laws included). The harder it is for law-abiding citizens to have guns, the easier pickings for the criminals

Can someone explain to me why this remains the default retort of people when additional firearm restrictions are mooted, when it isn't even remotely close to being true?

 

Placing licensing restrictions on firearm ownership, banning straw purchases and private firearm sales without background checks, and enforcing regulations on safe storage do not affect law abiding citizens more than they do criminals. In fact, all three have explicit and obvious knock-on effects at reducing availability of firearms to criminals by linking weapons to individuals, preventing grey market sale which represents a significant proportion of firearms used in crime, and making obtaining guns through burglary significantly more difficult...

 

LOL. It's the default argument because it's true. I don't know where you grew up, but it clearly wasn't where I grew up. They put "restrictions" on crack cocaine too, and I could have literally acquired enough to f*ck up your entire life in under five minutes. I could get my hands on a gun of unknown origins in ten. I'm not implying that I'm some badass gangster, but I grew up in a less-than-ideal environment, and laws don't carry as much weight for people that don't follow laws. Legality doesn't deter junkies. Or pushers. Or thieves. Or murderers. Or street racers. Tell a junkie that he can't obtain heroin through "approved" channels, and he'll obtain it through other channels. Tell a stick-up kid that he can't obtain a gun through "approved" channels, and he'll obtain it through other channels.

Edited November 7, 2017 by We Are Ninja

[GTA3Claude]

I don't think banning them would help. My best buddy is Swiss and does have a pistol, he had a s'load of paperwork to do before being granted to buying one. Having it holstered is a big no however; only cops are allowed to do it. I don't know about France (I'm French) but I guess it's the same thing, yet I had NEVER heard about killing sprees that could have occured either in France or Switzerland (aside various terror attacks).

 

Confiscating weapons is not the solution, civilians should keep those concealed and lock them up into a safe.

Edited November 7, 2017 by GTA3Claude

[sivispacem]

It's the default argument because it's true.

It isn't, though. If it were true you'd be able to cite evidence to support it, yet all evidence actually points to the inverse. Draconian restrictions introduced in the UK and Australia during the eighties and nineties resulted in substantial drops in firearm enabled violent crime. States with more restrictive firearm legislation have significantly lower violent crime on average.

 

Both of these are correlative rather than clearly causal relationships but can you point to a single example of a correlation between increasing firearm restrictions and increasing violent crime?

 

I don't know where you grew up, but it clearly wasn't where I grew up.

Where I grew up is irrelevant; as is most of this section of your response. If you can't comprehend how a legislation that makes grey market firearms harder to acquire, mandates licencing and safe storage reduces criminal access to grey and black market firearms (which are mostly stolen or straw purchases in the first place) the I don't really know what else to say.

 

laws don't carry as much weight for people that don't follow laws. Legality doesn't deter junkies. Or pushers. Or thieves. Or murderers. Or street racers.

This is besides the point. The impact comes not from the legislation itself but from the effects the legislation has on the supply side. If buyers undergo mandatory registration and licensing, and private sales and straw purchases are banned without subsequent reregistration, then firearms can be correlated with individuals and difficult questions can be answered when those weapons are found in the hands of criminals. Stolen guns become less prevalent if secure firearm storage is mandatory.

 

None of this is rocket science.

[No Use For A Name]

America: the land of gun care and health control

[_47_]

If no law abiding citizen had a firearm at the time, there would have been a lot more casualties.

 

FYSA - The US Airforce failed to put the gunman's info into the gun registry. Nothing to do with gun control.

 

Criminals want to kill someone, they will do it regardless of what law you throw in their faces, all that will happen is make the average citizen a lamb for the slaughter.

Edited November 7, 2017 by _47_

[sivispacem]

If no law abiding citizen had a firearm at the time, there would have been a lot more casualties.

Maybe in this instance, but even that is largely speculative.

 

FYSA - The US Airforce failed to put the gunman's info into the gun registry. Nothing to do with gun control.

That's absolutely a firearm control failure. Because of lax practices and organisation failure, the gunman managed to acquire a firearm that, had the proper process been followed, he could not have done so. That's about as fundamental a gun control failure as you can imagine.

 

Criminals want to kill someone, they will do it regardless

The vast majority of murders are not premeditated. That goes especially for those perpetrated in the commission of other crimes. Ease of access to firearms is largely what gets victims of crime fatally shot in the heat of confrontation. Mass shootings are shocking and astonishingly common in the US, but most victims of violence are not planned or premeditated.