Texas Church Shooting- Over 20 Casualties

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 hours ago, alexava said:

A gun to stop a gun is the weakest argument you can possibly make. 

Why is that a weak argument here? In this case, subjectively, it's a plausible observance. Salty qualified his assertion with Sunday's tragedy. 

[alexava 6,973]

8 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why is that a weak argument here? In this case, subjectively, it's a plausible observance. Salty qualified his assertion with Sunday's tragedy. 

Because it nearly never happens. This was the exception. Yet I am certainly glad it did. If all mass killings were cut short by a sane individual who happens to have a loaded assault rifle ready to go to battle I would be more fond of assault rifles. 

Hell, if I am driving along and a guy was in the road with an assault rifle trying to flag me down, I may run over him or shoot him myself. They are just not a defensive weapon. 

[homersapien 11,366]

Actually,  it didn't happen here either. The shooter was leaving, not arriving.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually,  it didn't happen here either. The shooter was leaving, not arriving.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html

(CNN)The deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives if it weren't for two strangers who jumped into action, authorities said.

When Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire inside First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs on Sunday, Stephen Willeford, who lives near the church, grabbed his own gun and ran out of the house barefoot to confront the gunman.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, alexava said:

Because it nearly never happens. This was the exception. Yet I am certainly glad it did. If all mass killings were cut short by a sane individual who happens to have a loaded assault rifle ready to go to battle I would be more fond of assault rifles. 

Hell, if I am driving along and a guy was in the road with an assault rifle trying to flag me down, I may run over him or shoot him myself. They are just not a defensive weapon. 

Yes but was not the argument in regard this specific event? Often, when a crazed individual is on a shooting spree, it takes a bullet to stop him (either his own or someone else's - i.e., 2016 Dallas shooter, Orlando shooter).

[wdefromtx 3,159]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually,  it didn't happen here either. The shooter was leaving, not arriving.

Yeah, but they could have saved future loss of life. He could have still done more damage there or somewhere else had they not intervened.

[homersapien 11,366]

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yeah, but they could have saved future loss of life. He could have still done more damage there or somewhere else had they not intervened.

I am not arguing against someone shooting back.  I am arguing that depending on such a strategy as a solution to reduce mass shootings is futile and specious. 

It's reactive by definition- the shooting is either in progress or has already occured by the time someone reacts to it.  It sounds like a good strategy but it doesn't prevent such events.  It's a last resort strategy that results from a lack of prevention in the first place.

 

 

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html

(CNN)The deadliest shooting in Texas history could have claimed even more lives if it weren't for two strangers who jumped into action, authorities said.

When Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire inside First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs on Sunday, Stephen Willeford, who lives near the church, grabbed his own gun and ran out of the house barefoot to confront the gunman.

That doesn't refute what I said.  Having someone engauge a shooter after the fact is not a way to prevent mass shootings.

Like I said, it's great that someone was nearby who responded, but the shooting had already occured.  Otherwise, there would have been nothing to respond to.  Response is not prevention.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

That doesn't refute what I said.  Having someone engauge a shooter after the fact is not a way to prevent mass shootings.

Like I said, it's great that someone was nearby who responded, but the shooting had already occured.  Otherwise, there would have been nothing to respond to.  Response is not prevention.

Stricter gun laws don't prevent gun violence. Any claim that they do lacks evidentiary support. Furthermore, it is erroneous to use such a small sample (mass shootings) as a basis for broad regulation.

Did the strict California gun laws stop the San Bernardino shooter? The argument then evolves to "well, we should sweep gun regulations on a national level." Such an argument maintains that law-abiding citizens should sacrifice their Amend. II rights in order to foot the actions of non law-abiding citizens. 

Why is that populations of people with more concealed-carrying individuals see less gun violence? Because you don't stop gun violence by taking guns. You stop gun violence by using guns, as we saw in the previously cited events. 

Additionally, there's no correlation that the amount of gun violence rises with the increased amount of guns. In that same vein, when gun violence has increased in the past, it does so not due to mass shootings, but rather increased violence in democratic cities such as Chicago and Baltimore - two cities that are vastly responsible for the nation's overall gun violence statistics.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not arguing against someone shooting back.  I am arguing that depending on such a strategy as a solution to reduce mass shootings is futile and specious. 

It's reactive by definition- the shooting is either in progress or has already occured by the time someone reacts to it.  It sounds like a good strategy but it doesn't prevent such events.  It's a last resort strategy that results from a lack of prevention in the first place.

 

 

I am just saying that even though he was leaving these guys probably saved lives because who knows what this nutjob would have kept doing. 

 

 

[alexava 6,973]

Good guys don't have 15 thirty round mags. Dude fired 450x killing 26 shooting 46 in a very short period of time. that is pure madness. Vegas even worse. Dude had thousands capable of firing about 300 rounds a minute. again i am glad the good guy came to the rescue and saved the last....what 4 or 5 people left unshot in the church? he did it with one mag im guessing. hell he was barefooted. NOBODY wants GUNS banned. Most Americans want better background checks and tracking systems. Many like myself want to limit the amount of destruction these damn things are capable of in the wrong hands. there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I don't think it ever will be, but there is no sanity in arguing that a good guy with a gun is the answer. at least the only answer. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

2 hours ago, alexava said:

Good guys don't have 15 thirty round mags. Dude fired 450x killing 26 shooting 46 in a very short period of time. that is pure madness. Vegas even worse. Dude had thousands capable of firing about 300 rounds a minute. again i am glad the good guy came to the rescue and saved the last....what 4 or 5 people left unshot in the church? he did it with one mag im guessing. hell he was barefooted. NOBODY wants GUNS banned. Most Americans want better background checks and tracking systems. Many like myself want to limit the amount of destruction these damn things are capable of in the wrong hands. there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I don't think it ever will be, but there is no sanity in arguing that a good guy with a gun is the answer. at least the only answer. 

 

Between a few different weapon types, I likely have closer to 100 30-round magazines...

Also, do not forget that I own a few of those terrifying automatic weapons.

[HVAU 673]

6 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

Between a few different weapon types, I likely have closer to 100 30-round magazines...

Also, do not forget that I own a few of those terrifying automatic weapons.

I really never have understood the need to collect this type of weapon.  It has always seemed to me a way to assuage insecurities about one's masculinity.  

I'm all for hunting rifles/shotguns, even a pistol for home protection.  AR style weapons are just a way to make oneself feel powerful.

[aujeff11 6,243]

10 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

Also, do not forget that I own a few of those terrifying automatic weapons.

[alexava 6,973]

22 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

Between a few different weapon types, I likely have closer to 100 30-round magazines...

Also, do not forget that I own a few of those terrifying automatic weapons.

If I didn't have so many other hobbies and money was not a consideration, I would too. It would be cool to blast occasionally. I just don't want to be the target. 

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 minute ago, HVAU said:

I really never have understood the need to collect this type of weapon.  It has always seemed to me a way to assuage insecurities about one's masculinity.  

I'm all for hunting rifles/shotguns, even a pistol for home protection.  AR style weapons are just a way to make oneself feel powerful.

 

People vary, and they cannot be categorized so simply.  Based on previous posts, I expected more from you.

AR's are fun at the range.  That is the accurate generalization for why people like them.  They look cool, have little recoil, have a huge accessory market, are accurate, are easy to use, and the ammo is cheap in comparison to all other rifle chamberings.

There are plenty of people like me, that have no interest in hunting, but avidly enjoy and regularly visit local shooting ranges.  You may not relate to it, and I completely understand that; shooting is not a hobby for everyone.  That said, implying that firearm type ownership or collecting is related to feelings of inadequacy is absurd.

[Strychnine 1,802]

4 minutes ago, alexava said:

If I didn't have so many other hobbies and money was not a consideration, I would too. It would be cool to blast occasionally. I just don't want to be the target. 

 

I do not want you, or anyone else, to be the target either.  On more than one occasion, I have openly stated that the ease of acquiring firearms in general is the real problem we have, not the type of firearms that can be acquired.  The fact that you can acquire a half dozen AR-15's, as many 30-round magazines as you want, and an unlimited supply of ammunition does not concern me.  The fact that you can do so, within a span of less than a half-hour, at the local sporting goods store does concern me.

[HVAU 673]

34 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

People vary, and they cannot be categorized so simply.  Based on previous posts, I expected more from you.

AR's are fun at the range.  That is the accurate generalization for why people like them.  They look cool, have little recoil, have a huge accessory market, are accurate, are easy to use, and the ammo is cheap in comparison to all other rifle chamberings.

There are plenty of people like me, that have no interest in hunting, but avidly enjoy and regularly visit local shooting ranges.  You may not relate to it, and I completely understand that; shooting is not a hobby for everyone.  That said, implying that firearm type ownership or collecting is related to feelings of inadequacy is absurd.

Sorry about that.  There were several negative gun related situations that occurred in my childhood.  I'm not a fan of firearms for fun.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Just now, HVAU said:

Sorry about that.  There were several negative gun related situations that occurred in my childhood.  I'm not a fan of firearms for fun.

 

No need for apology.  I get it, I really do.  If you would like to talk about it, my PM box is open.

[HVAU 673]

1 minute ago, Strychnine said:

 

No need for apology.  I get it, I really do.  If you would like to talk about it, my PM box is open.

Appreciate it, but it really is all in the past and probably not as traumatic as all that.  We've all been through similar situations, I'm sure.  At a fairly young age there were just several losses and a close call that really turned me off on guns.  As a result I react negatively to guns in general.

Cheers.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Just now, HVAU said:

Appreciate it, but it really is all in the past and probably not as traumatic as all that.  We've all been through similar situations, I'm sure.  At a fairly young age there were just several losses and a close call that really turned me off on guns.  As a result I react negatively to guns in general.

Cheers.

 

I suspected that was the case.  You are a good poster, and I would prefer you stick around.  The tone of the post struck me like a blunt instrument, and I responded in kind.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

On 11/8/2017 at 9:29 PM, alexava said:

Because it nearly never happens. This was the exception. Yet I am certainly glad it did. If all mass killings were cut short by a sane individual who happens to have a loaded assault rifle ready to go to battle I would be more fond of assault rifles. 

Hell, if I am driving along and a guy was in the road with an assault rifle trying to flag me down, I may run over him or shoot him myself. They are just not a defensive weapon. 

I feel the same way and even more so now. I live in North Austin and make the drive down 35 to downtown everyday going right through the area the guy with the assault rifle was targeting. A great Mexican food truck on N. Lamar I like after going out to hit and the guy was firing in that area.

I'm not trusting anyone standing around with an assault rifle.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

On 11/9/2017 at 9:57 AM, NolaAuTiger said:

Stricter gun laws don't prevent gun violence. Any claim that they do lacks evidentiary support. Furthermore, it is erroneous to use such a small sample (mass shootings) as a basis for broad regulation.

Did the strict California gun laws stop the San Bernardino shooter? The argument then evolves to "well, we should sweep gun regulations on a national level." Such an argument maintains that law-abiding citizens should sacrifice their Amend. II rights in order to foot the actions of non law-abiding citizens. 

Why is that populations of people with more concealed-carrying individuals see less gun violence? Because you don't stop gun violence by taking guns. You stop gun violence by using guns, as we saw in the previously cited events. 

Additionally, there's no correlation that the amount of gun violence rises with the increased amount of guns. In that same vein, when gun violence has increased in the past, it does so not due to mass shootings, but rather increased violence in democratic cities such as Chicago and Baltimore - two cities that are vastly responsible for the nation's overall gun violence statistics.

 

Chicago drops when you start talking per capita. Course there are more incidents with increases in population. Chicago's gun violence also occurs in two major neighborhoods. The two that Gangster Disciples and Latin Kings battle over corners for to control drug business. Opiods for the college and suburb kids is big business.

You can now conceal carry in Chicago, and I believe their rate is still on the rise. In fact many of Chicago's gun laws have been stripped and cities like Los Angeles and New York have tougher gun laws. No gun shops or ranges downtown will soon be gone also.

Having lived there prior to and after conceal carry, that conceal carry is not the reason less people are shot in Naperville/Downers Grove/Batavia/St Charles/Geneva vs. say Englewood, West Englewood, Fuller Park, etc.

Apparently concealed carry holders in Chicago act just like the gangs do:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/06/concealed-carry-permit-holder-fires-gun-amid-chicago-carjacking-locals-displeased-with-gun-owner/

I own a gun, and while I havn't yet will probably go get my conceal carry license. So I am not some anti-second person.

[Strychnine 1,802]

On 11/10/2017 at 10:27 PM, Texan4Auburn said:

I feel the same way and even more so now. I live in North Austin and make the drive down 35 to downtown everyday going right through the area the guy with the assault rifle was targeting. A great Mexican food truck on N. Lamar I like after going out to hit and the guy was firing in that area.

I'm not trusting anyone standing around with an assault rifle.

 

I most likely would not either.  It is why I think the open carry enthusiasts that like to make statements by showing up with AR's dangling from a one-point sling in front of the local Denny's are foolish and counterproductive.  Open carry of a pistol does not bother me, but open carrying an AR does nothing but frighten people and invite the wrong attention.

[Mims44 1,867]

On 11/9/2017 at 7:44 PM, HVAU said:

I really never have understood the need to collect this type of weapon.  It has always seemed to me a way to assuage insecurities about one's masculinity.  

I'm all for hunting rifles/shotguns, even a pistol for home protection.  AR style weapons are just a way to make oneself feel powerful.

I can 100% guarantee that there are people that fit that description out there, but If I were to purchase a firearm I would have to get an assault rifle. And they run 10k+ so I'm prolly never gonna own one.

But it would be laziness that motivated me more than anything, I already have 1000's of hours training with M16 series rifles, prolly less than a tenth of that time spent with the crappy M9 pistol... then very tiny bits of time with mossberg 500, AA-12, AK-47, and as a child a .22. Outside of that I have 0 experience with firearms.

 

Basically I would feel much more confident in my ability to protect my self and my family with an M16A2/3/4 than I would with some random pistol picked up from the store.