Poll of the Day > At least 27 dead in a church shooting in Texas

(+) Yeah! (+)

That wall of paint samples is missing the best one, "good guy with a gun...until the moment he opened fire on innocents."
It's the NRA's favorite color.

streamofthesky posted...

That wall of paint samples is missing the best one, "good guy with a gun...until the moment he opened fire on innocents."
It's the NRA's favorite color.

That's way too long; it'd ruin it.
---

faramir77 posted...

It's too bad there aren't more people in Texas with guns. That would have stopped this.

Exactly. Everyone needs to just walk around, safety off, pointing them in front of themselves at all time. Hell of a deterrent with no possible way it could backfire.
---

Less than 30 people die in america
What about the hundreds bombed everyday in middle eastern countries
More to the point....
What are the media trying to washover, whos going to spot the crisis actors on the news and how many eyewitnesses will be murdered as did the ones from the LA shooting
Come on people stop following and start thinking
---

CH3SH posted...

Less than 30 people die in america

I'm pretty sure more than 30 people have died in America.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

CH3SH posted...

Less than 30 people die in america

I'm pretty sure more than 30 people have died in America.

Every day
---

SinisterSlay posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

CH3SH posted...

Less than 30 people die in america

I'm pretty sure more than 30 people have died in America.

Every day

Yes, 30 deaths every day. Plus an extra 6,500 deaths or so.
---

CH3SH posted...

Less than 30 people die in america
What about the hundreds bombed everyday in middle eastern countries
More to the point....
What are the media trying to washover, whos going to spot the crisis actors on the news and how many eyewitnesses will be murdered as did the ones from the LA shooting
Come on people stop following and start thinking

imagine being so deluded you actually think like this
---

CH3SH posted...

Less than 30 people die in america
What about the hundreds bombed everyday in middle eastern countries
More to the point....
What are the media trying to washover, whos going to spot the crisis actors on the news and how many eyewitnesses will be murdered as did the ones from the LA shooting
Come on people stop following and start thinking

Huh?

YahooPoster posted...

https://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

+1
---

darkknight109 posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Apparently, in Texas, carrying in places of worship is forbidden, even for licensed concealed carry permit holders.
If it were allowed, it is likely that at least a couple of the congregation would carry, and could have stopped him.

It's weird how none of the several hundred mass shooting incidents this year were stopped by a good guy with a gun, don't you think?

Man, those shooters must just have really good luck.

It's coming out that a nearby neighbor confronted this guy using his rifle and shot him, causing the shooter to flee. Police aren't sure if he died from a self-inflicted wound, or if he died due to being shot by this good Samaritan.

BeerOnTap posted...

darkknight109 posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Apparently, in Texas, carrying in places of worship is forbidden, even for licensed concealed carry permit holders.
If it were allowed, it is likely that at least a couple of the congregation would carry, and could have stopped him.

It's weird how none of the several hundred mass shooting incidents this year were stopped by a good guy with a gun, don't you think?

Man, those shooters must just have really good luck.

It's coming out that a nearby neighbor confronted this guy using his rifle and shot him, causing the shooter to flee. Police aren't sure if he died from a self-inflicted wound, or if he died due to being shot by this good Samaritan.

Wow, so that means this guy actually prevented a tragedy! That's...!

No, wait, that means he still killed 26 people, which is just the latest in a line of mass shooting incidents several thousand long (and counting) that "Good guys with a gun" have failed to prevent.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Wow, so that means this guy actually prevented a tragedy! That's...!

No, wait, that means he still killed 26 people, which is just the latest in a line of mass shooting incidents several thousand long (and counting) that "Good guys with a gun" have failed to prevent.

Civilians don't carry guns to "prevent tragedy." They carry guns to protect themselves and the ones they love. That's not my opinion. That's the actual law. The people who have concealed carry permits are NOT allowed to simply start shooting whenever someone else goes berserk in some attempt to "be a hero." Simply put, if I (or any non-officer) shoot someone and can't articulate how it was directly to prevent severe bodily harm to me or a loved one with me, then I'm the one who's going to face criminal charges.

Most people who actually have a concealed carry permit would already know this. Of course, some states allow "open carry" without any permits, but even then many of the same laws still apply when it comes to self-defense.
---

darkknight109 posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

darkknight109 posted...

BeerOnTap posted...

Apparently, in Texas, carrying in places of worship is forbidden, even for licensed concealed carry permit holders.
If it were allowed, it is likely that at least a couple of the congregation would carry, and could have stopped him.

It's weird how none of the several hundred mass shooting incidents this year were stopped by a good guy with a gun, don't you think?

Man, those shooters must just have really good luck.

It's coming out that a nearby neighbor confronted this guy using his rifle and shot him, causing the shooter to flee. Police aren't sure if he died from a self-inflicted wound, or if he died due to being shot by this good Samaritan.

Wow, so that means this guy actually prevented a tragedy! That's...!

No, wait, that means he still killed 26 people, which is just the latest in a line of mass shooting incidents several thousand long (and counting) that "Good guys with a gun" have failed to prevent.

I wonder how many more would have died had the neighbor not engaged him?
---

shipwreckers posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Wow, so that means this guy actually prevented a tragedy! That's...!

No, wait, that means he still killed 26 people, which is just the latest in a line of mass shooting incidents several thousand long (and counting) that "Good guys with a gun" have failed to prevent.

Civilians don't carry guns to "prevent tragedy." They carry guns to protect themselves and the ones they love. That's not my opinion. That's the actual law. The people who have concealed carry permits are NOT allowed to simply start shooting whenever someone else goes berserk in some attempt to "be a hero." Simply put, if I (or any non-officer) shoot someone and can't articulate how it was directly to prevent severe bodily harm to me or a loved one with me, then I'm the one who's going to face criminal charges.

Most people who actually have a concealed carry permit would already know this. Of course, some states allow "open carry" without any permits, but even then many of the same laws still apply when it comes to self-defense.

this was in Texas. A state noted for having far more shooter rights than many. it has Stand-Your-Ground law

A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) is a justification in a criminal case, whereby defendants can "stand their ground" and use force without retreating, in order to protect and defend themselves or others against threats or perceived threats. An example is where there is no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be, and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death. One case describes "the 'stand your ground' law... a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an unlawful intruder."

Justification using stand-your-ground laws may be limited when "[the defendant] was engaged in illegal activities and not entitled to benefit from provisions of the 'stand your ground' law". This may be the case even if the illegal conduct the defendant was engaged in had nothing to do with the threat which instigated his use of deadly force (e.g., being robbed and beaten while smoking marijuana inside at the home of a friend).

Stand-your-ground laws effectively extends the castle doctrine, from the home (whether a house, apartment, mobile home or any other regular place of abode), to any place a person has a legal right to be.

At common law, self-defence claims are not valid if the defendant could have safely retreated from danger. The castle doctrine is an exception to this duty to retreat. It gives immunity from liability to individuals who acted in self-defence in the home even if they could have safely retreated from the threat and failed to do so.

Stand-your-ground laws eliminate the retreat requirement at any location the defendant has a legal right to be.

http://www.davidbreston.com/blog/2016/07/when-is-it-legal-to-shoot-someone-in-texas/

you can get away with shooting someone in texas for so many reasons...
---

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas/

On Christmas Eve in 2009, Ezekiel Gilbert paid an escort he found on Craigslist $150 for what he thought would be sex. Instead, according to the San Antonio Express-News, 23-year-old Lenora Frago left his apartment after about 20 minutes without consummating the act. Gilbert, now 30, followed her to a car with a gun and shot her in the neck through the passenger-side window. Frago became paralyzed, and died about seven months later. Gilbert admitted to shooting her but contended that he did not intend to kill.

Gilbert was tried for murder. Last Wednesday, a Texas jury ruled that his actions were legal. Thats because Texas penal code contains an unusual provision that grants citizens the right to use deadly force to prevent someone who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property.

like what the fuck
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

you can get away with shooting someone in texas for so many reasons...

It's great not being hampered by the law and being able to defend yourself legally if need be.
---

This was a shooting where the shooter was taken down by an actual citizen seeing the individual flee as opposed to getting away while someone called the police and waited a half hour for them to show up. How ironic is it that it's Texas where this happened for the first time? It should be legal to carry a gun openly just for this type of situation. If someone barged into a church with 30+ people who are all openly carrying a gun, they would turn back around instead of opening fire on the congregation.

The only downside to this type of situation is what was pointed out during the Las Vegas shooting recently. There were people who said they were carrying a concealed weapon and had a permit to carry, but weren't able to shoot back. It wasn't that they didn't know where the shooter was or that they didn't think they could hit him. It was for the fact that if they started to shoot back, the chaotic crowd and police on scene might confuse the Samaritan for the original shooter and shoot him instead.
---

Another "lone wolf, he was so quiet but nice" white mass shooter?

Man, if only someone were to do more than nothing at all.
---

NightShift posted...

nothing can be done.

NOTHING

Apart from, you know, make guns considerably harder to get. Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

But that is a stupid idea right? and cannot be why countries with strict gun control just don't get mass shooting attacks.....
---

NOTHING

(caps)
---

Babbit55 posted...

Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

the ones that can do that are illegal to own.
---

helIy posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

the ones that can do that are illegal to own.

You sure about that? I hear the AR 15 is one of the most popular guns sold in the US.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4RgJXsm89c
---

helIy posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

the ones that can do that are illegal to own.

They're not illegal, they're just massively expensive and a pain in the ass to own.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

helIy posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

the ones that can do that are illegal to own.

They're not illegal, they're just massively expensive and a pain in the ass to own.

please see the above in regards the AR 15....
---

Babbit55 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

helIy posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

the ones that can do that are illegal to own.

They're not illegal, they're just massively expensive and a pain in the ass to own.

please see the above in regards the AR 15....

That's not about ARs, it's about bumpfire, which has had legal challenges for a long time despite not being used in shootings.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

helIy posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

the ones that can do that are illegal to own.

They're not illegal, they're just massively expensive and a pain in the ass to own.

please see the above in regards the AR 15....

That's not about ARs, it's about bumpfire, which has had legal challenges for a long time despite not being used in shootings.

oh right, so not adding the stock suddenly makes these things perfectly safe, and means that someone still cannot empty 30 round mags in a very short manor of time, into potential target rich environments and cause a hell of a lot of damage.......

(That is sarcasm encase you missed it)
---

Babbit55 posted...

NightShift posted...

nothing can be done.

NOTHING

Apart from, you know, make guns considerably harder to get. Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

But that is a stupid idea right? and cannot be why countries with strict gun control just don't get mass shooting attacks.....

The Bataclan ring a bell?

Also, take away guns and they just start plowing vehicles into populated areas instead. We've seen plenty of that in Europe lately.

BeerOnTap posted...

Babbit55 posted...

NightShift posted...

nothing can be done.

NOTHING

Apart from, you know, make guns considerably harder to get. Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

But that is a stupid idea right? and cannot be why countries with strict gun control just don't get mass shooting attacks.....

The Bataclan ring a bell?

Also, take away guns and they just start plowing vehicles into populated areas instead. We've seen plenty of that in Europe lately.

Okay... so just let it keep happening, because it might happen a different way?
---

shipwreckers posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Wow, so that means this guy actually prevented a tragedy! That's...!

No, wait, that means he still killed 26 people, which is just the latest in a line of mass shooting incidents several thousand long (and counting) that "Good guys with a gun" have failed to prevent.

Civilians don't carry guns to "prevent tragedy." They carry guns to protect themselves and the ones they love. That's not my opinion. That's the actual law. The people who have concealed carry permits are NOT allowed to simply start shooting whenever someone else goes berserk in some attempt to "be a hero." Simply put, if I (or any non-officer) shoot someone and can't articulate how it was directly to prevent severe bodily harm to me or a loved one with me, then I'm the one who's going to face criminal charges.

Most people who actually have a concealed carry permit would already know this. Of course, some states allow "open carry" without any permits, but even then many of the same laws still apply when it comes to self-defense.

In many cases, you actually can shoot someone if they are actively targeting the public. In most states that offer concealed carry, you would be justified in stopping a person from shooting innocent people.
That's precisely what happened in Texas when a neighbor shot the assailant.

Babbit55 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

helIy posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

the ones that can do that are illegal to own.

They're not illegal, they're just massively expensive and a pain in the ass to own.

please see the above in regards the AR 15....

That's not about ARs, it's about bumpfire, which has had legal challenges for a long time despite not being used in shootings.

oh right, so not adding the stock suddenly makes these things perfectly safe, and means that someone still cannot empty 30 round mags in a very short manor of time, into potential target rich environments and cause a hell of a lot of damage.......

(That is sarcasm encase you missed it)

You can do an awful lot of damage with virtually anything, note acid throwing in the UK.

You can't ban everything that could be dangerous, the issue is people misbehaving, not people being free.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

helIy posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Especially the ones that can shoot hundreds of rounds a min.....

the ones that can do that are illegal to own.

They're not illegal, they're just massively expensive and a pain in the ass to own.

please see the above in regards the AR 15....

That's not about ARs, it's about bumpfire, which has had legal challenges for a long time despite not being used in shootings.

oh right, so not adding the stock suddenly makes these things perfectly safe, and means that someone still cannot empty 30 round mags in a very short manor of time, into potential target rich environments and cause a hell of a lot of damage.......

(That is sarcasm encase you missed it)

You can do an awful lot of damage with virtually anything, note acid throwing in the UK.

You can't ban everything that could be dangerous, the issue is people misbehaving, not people being free.

As per a previous post. Yes lets keep those mass shootings happening because they might find other ways!

That is why we have all those lorry attacks here.... (Wait 1 in like 4/5 years maybe? Compared to a mass shooting a week it feels in the US) They are a lot more premeditated and a lot easier to stop than a random walking into a church/school/night club/festival, and shooting.....
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEExlz7YktI

disgusting
---

Shogun2049 posted...

This was a shooting where the shooter was taken down by an actual citizen seeing the individual flee as opposed to getting away while someone called the police and waited a half hour for them to show up.

No, it wasn't. The guy shot himself while fleeing; the guy who confronted him with his own gun at best scared him off, after the damage had already been done.

Shogun2049 posted...

It should be legal to carry a gun openly just for this type of situation. If someone barged into a church with 30+ people who are all openly carrying a gun, they would turn back around instead of opening fire on the congregation.

Honestly, if this is your viewpoint, you're dramatically underselling it. You think a few handguns are going to scare a guy with an AR-15?

If you really want to stop someone coming into a church with a high powered weaponry, I'd recommend a perimeter of foxholes and machine gun nests, ringed by razorwire and crewed by at least one squadron of trained infantry. Each church should have heavy support in the form of either sea- or land-based artillery or - for those locations to remote for artillery to be practical - drone or air support. Parishioners should be instructed to come to worship dressed in full combat gear, including ballistic vests and helmets, and should be trained and drilled in acting under fire.

This will solve the issue, though I can't help but feel like it misses a bit of the point of the problem...

BeerOnTap posted...

The Bataclan ring a bell?

Also, take away guns and they just start plowing vehicles into populated areas instead. We've seen plenty of that in Europe lately.

The number of dead to deliberate vehicle attacks in the entirety of the developed world is dwarfed by the number of mass shooting deaths in America (to say nothing of the "garden variety" shootings and suicides that make up the vast majority of gun deaths).

The vehicle comparison, though, is an apt one, because vehicles kill about as many people a year as guns, though the overwhelming majority of vehicle deaths are unintentional. But look at how we treat vehicle safety compared to gun safety. Since recognizing that vehicles are responsible for a great deal of death and destruction, we have taken enormous steps in making them safer. Each vehicle must be registered with the government, with that registration renewed regularly, and its operators must be tested and licensed to prove that they are capable of operating it safely and are free from any physical or mental defects that would cause them to be a liability on the road. People who have proven, through their actions, to be a threat to others on the road can lose their right to drive altogether and may even have their vehicles seized.

Safety features are added and constantly improved - from seat belts to air bags to roll cages to crumple zones - in order to reduce the lethality of car crashes, and new designs - like lane departure detection or blind spot warnings - are constantly being added. When new threats to safety emerge, like texting and driving, laws are rapidly updated to deal with the issue. Every year the bar is raised on what constitutes "acceptably safe", and as a result vehicle deaths per miles traveled is perpetually decreasing and has done so for decades.

If guns followed this model, America would be a much better place. But no, whenever there's a mass shooting like this, the gun apologists just throw their hands up and say "Nope, there's no way this could have been prevented, even though everyone else somehow manages to do so."
---

darkknight109 posted...

Shogun2049 posted...

.

No, it wasn't. The guy shot himself while fleeing; the guy who confronted him with his own gun at best scared him off, after the damage had already been done.

Shogun2049 posted...

It should be legal to carry a gun openly just for this type of situation. If someone barged into a church with 30+ people who are all openly carrying a gun, they would turn back around instead of opening fire on the congregation.

Honestly, if this is your viewpoint, you're dramatically underselling it. You think a few handguns are going to scare a guy with an AR-15?

If you really want to stop someone coming into a church with a high powered weaponry, I'd recommend a perimeter of foxholes and machine gun nests, ringed by razorwire and crewed by at least one squadron of trained infantry. Each church should have heavy support in the form of either sea- or land-based artillery or - for those locations to remote for artillery to be practical - drone or air support. Parishioners should be instructed to come to worship dressed in full combat gear, including ballistic vests and helmets, and should be trained and drilled in acting under fire.

This will solve the issue, though I can't help but feel like it misses a bit of the point of the problem...

BeerOnTap posted...

The Bataclan ring a bell?

Also, take away guns and they just start plowing vehicles into populated areas instead. We've seen plenty of that in Europe lately.

The number of dead to deliberate vehicle attacks in the entirety of the developed world is dwarfed by the number of mass shooting deaths in America (to say nothing of the "garden variety" shootings and suicides that make up the vast majority of gun deaths).

The vehicle comparison, though, is an apt one, because vehicles kill about as many people a year as guns, though the overwhelming majority of vehicle deaths are unintentional. But look at how we treat vehicle safety compared to gun safety. Since recognizing that vehicles are responsible for a great deal of death and destruction, we have taken enormous steps in making them safer. Each vehicle must be registered with the government, with that registration renewed regularly, and its operators must be tested and licensed to prove that they are capable of operating it safely and are free from any physical or mental defects that would cause them to be a liability on the road. People who have proven, through their actions, to be a threat to others on the road can lose their right to drive altogether and may even have their vehicles seized.

Safety features are added and constantly improved - from seat belts to air bags to roll cages to crumple zones - in order to reduce the lethality of car crashes, and new designs - like lane departure detection or blind spot warnings - are constantly being added. When new threats to safety emerge, like texting and driving, laws are rapidly updated to deal with the issue. Every year the bar is raised on what constitutes "acceptably safe", and as a result vehicle deaths per miles traveled is perpetually decreasing and has done so for decades.

If guns followed this model, America would be a much better place. But no, whenever there's a mass shooting like this, the gun apologists just throw their hands up and say "Nope, there's no way this could have been prevented, even though everyone else somehow manages to do so."

Seriously, this site needs a like button...... I do like that comparison to vehicles.... Also the bigger and more dangerous the vehicle, the greater the licence requirements, including specialist training
---