Sorry, the source of information threw me off.
*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Look, this isn't the time to make hasty, emotional decisions.In before the obligatory "hold a gun to the gub'mint's head" jerking off. You people are sick in the head, ya know that?
Oh yeah, "appeal to emotion."
Let's talk about something else, like...Russia?
No, not that, ummm...Samurai! Yes! Let's talk about samurai! And swords! And missiles!
I wonder how this will play out for the guy who attacked the shooter: 'Defenceless people': 26 shot dead at Texas church
Haven't heard much about them yet other than that line.
fade
Staff member
In Texas? He'll get a commendation. Even the left-leaning Today show called him a hero, so I doubt it will mean anything negative for him.[DOUBLEPOST=1509987328,1509987090][/DOUBLEPOST]Here's what bugs the shit out of me: when someone brown or Muslim shoots, it's because they're brown or Muslim. When white dudes blow a bunch of people away, it's because of "mental illness".
GasBandit
Staff member
Reading the article, it sounds like the armed citizen exchanged gunfire with the killer, and must have hit him pretty badly, and he bled out while trying to get away. The killer drove off, the citizen and another got into the other's truck to follow him, and after a while the killer "lost control of his vehicle" and rolled off the road, where he lay motionless - with the citizen holding the body at gunpoint - until police finally, eventually, got there and declared him dead.
Yes, this has been stated in a variety of tones and ways a LOT. It's partially white privilege, partially it's an easy narrative.
Well, we have motive now: Texas gunman had threatened mother-in-law, who was not at church during shooting
GasBandit
Staff member
The gunman actually had a criminal record, that, under current gun control laws, should have prevented him from being able to buy the gun he used in the shooting. However, the Pentagon dropped the ball and didn't put it in the database for when a background check would be done.
And this was not from "by-gone days of yore," here, this was 2012/14.
And this was not from "by-gone days of yore," here, this was 2012/14.
figmentPez
Staff member
So, how many other dangerous individuals aren't properly listed in the system? Is this a case of one file folder got skipped during data entry, was it an entire file cabinet, or is this a systematic problem where not just the Air Force, but other organizations are also failing en masse to properly communicate? And what is causing this oversight? Is this just not considered important?
GasBandit
Staff member
Whenever you hear somebody say the phrase "close enough for government work," they are not praising how thorough and completely something has been done.
Last edited:
How serious was his domestic violence case for the military to even give a fuck about it?
GasBandit
Staff member
A 12 month old with a fractured skull, from what I read. He got 12 months and a bad conduct discharge.
If he'd been given the maximum sentence for his conviction, he'd have still been in prison now. Also, he'd have been given a dishonorable discharge which would also (SHOULD also, perhaps) have prevented him from being able to purchase the firearm under current law.
I agree in principal, though IMO just about any legal consequence should require a conviction. Of something. But extra-judicial "justice" is as bad as "law through executive order" IMO. Not a factor in this specific case, as he WAS convicted.
GasBandit
Staff member
This one's for all the people that sneered derisively about how the shooter would be called "mentally ill" -
He was literally an escaped mental patient.
Texas Church Gunman Escaped Mental Facility in 2012
He was literally an escaped mental patient.
Texas Church Gunman Escaped Mental Facility in 2012
Wow. That this guy was allowed to own guns looks like quite the bureaucratic failure.
I agree. There is no way this guy should have had legal access to a gun. This is one of those times I agree with the "just enforce the laws we already have" argument.
figmentPez
Staff member
I'm not sure where you're getting extra-judicial from. Threatening someone with a firearm is assault. You can be convicted of that. I would assume that being convicted of assault with a firearm would make someone ineligible for owning a firearm, but I guess not?
There's a number of laws (often surrounding Drunk Driving) that don't require a conviction (side-of-the-road stuff) and there's consequences IMMEDIATELY. The OP talked about threatening your wife with a gun. I think that would be INCREDIBLY hard to get a conviction on if not in public, and thus I made the (in my mind) reasonable leap that the accusation of such would be enough, which I would be against. It'd still be "judicial" if a judge issued the "order" for such, but I guess I more mean "restriction without trial."
Basic reason he didn't get more time was a plea deal that let him avoid the Dishonorable discharge. The kid he hurt was his wife's son, not his. This is something that I hope was a one off mistake, but I doubt it was (reporting the crime correctly) and hopefully everything this clerk dd is now being reviewed.
At least 5 dead (including gunman) plus injuries in northern California (Rancho Tehama) - appears to have started as a domestic dispute, but includes the gunman shooting at an elementary school. Supposedly over 100 gunshots heard at the school...
Per this link at CNN- the school went into lockdown (due to a parent rushing to the school after the gunman apparently tried to shoot her a ways away) and he never actually got in... So it could have been much worse.
Finally, we agree on this. Having gun-free zones right next to areas where guns are readily available ruins their effectiveness, and makes it so the constant droning about Chicago crime and gun laws are stupid at best, and racist at worst.
It's California, one of the least "readily available" gun state in the USA.
Not a big fan of sarcastic arguments since it's ambiguous, but since you started it:
If waiting periods are ineffective, we can get rid of them, right?
So you don't know how laws work...
Sure as long as they're replaced with a much more restrictive set of gun laws like they have in every other western country where the response to 5 people killed in a shooting like this isn't "that's it?"