'Mass shooting' reported at Sutherland Springs church in Texas

[charmander 692]

2 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

Before or after a mass shooting starts?

[bcking 3,157]

37 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

Oh so 26 people didn't die because someone shot back?

[bcking 3,157]

I don't want to minimize the heroic actions of the bystanders that were involved.

 

That being said, they did not prevent the attack. I don't even think they prevented that much further bloodshed. From what we know so far (at least from what I've read), the guy targeted the church specifically. We have nothing to believe he was going to leave and go somewhere else and keep shooting. 

 

So while it's great that they were there, and maybe they prevented it from being worse, it was still 26 lives lost and many more injured.

 

You'd think we would all want to find ways to actually PREVENT the attack from happening in the first place, instead of focusing on what happens after 26 people are dead. I'm all for first responders, whether they are civilian or professional, but by their definition they are responding to something that has already happened. We need to look at ways of preventing in the first place so no one has to respond. 

 

The "praise" for first responders is similar to the "prayers" that are given out after these massacres. It's shallow and accomplishes nothing. 26 people are still dead. Prayer won't prevent that. First responders don't prevent that.

[Boiler 45,872]

When seconds count the Emergency Services are only minutes away.

[-Trinity- 513]

33 minutes ago, bcking said:

You'd think we would all want to find ways to actually PREVENT the attack from happening in the first place, instead of focusing on what happens after 26 people are dead.

I just had the courage to look up the victims, it's heartbreaking especially the little ones. This young lives should be reason enough to look for ways to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

The sickening part is that this particular shooting could have been prevented. There were so MANY, MANY red flags, and sirens for that matter. And there was no one who thought: hey, this guy has threatened his superiors, fled a mental health facility, ( where they found out he was ordering weapons online!)  fractured his baby stepsons skull, sexually assaulted his girlfriend....I wonder how much more proof is needed to come to the conclusion that he was not suitable for owning guns. Heck, he was even flaunting it on his Facebook and his buddies were cheering for him.

 

So yeah, I agree....prayers? Great if that gives people a good feeling but communities need to be protected against this type of loose cannon's.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Beachlover

[Boiler 45,872]

9 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

I just had the courage to look up the victims, it's heartbreaking especially the little ones. This young lives should be reason enough to look for ways to prevent this from happening in the future.

 

The sickening part is that is particular shooting could have been prevented. There were so MANY, MANY red flags and there was no one who thought: hey, this guy has threatened his superiors, fled a mental health facility, ( where they found out he was ordering weapons online!)  fractured his baby stepsons skull, sexually assaulted his girlfriend....I wonder how much more proof is needed to come to the conclusion that he was not suitable for owning guns. Heck, he was even flaunting it on his Facebook..

Yep, and they did nothing.

[-Trinity- 513]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Yep, and they did nothing.

I never know when you are being sarcastic or mean it. In this case I go with the last. 

 

But yeah they didn't. If half of what he has done and reported by media is true,  this guy should have never ever owned a weapon in his life ever again. This was a walking disaster, ready to happen.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Beachlover said:

I never know when you are being sarcastic or mean it. In this case I go with the last. 

 

But yeah they didn't. If half of what he has done and reported by media is true,  this guy should have never ever owned a weapon in his life ever again. This was a walking disaster, ready to happen.

Which suggests a pretty clear and obvious failure of our current system.

 

These "failures" don't happen in other places with stricter enforcement. They also have mentally ill people. We have to recognize where we are different.

[-Trinity- 513]

17 minutes ago, bcking said:

Which suggests a pretty clear and obvious failure of our current system.

 

These "failures" don't happen in other places with stricter enforcement. They also have mentally ill people. We have to recognize where we are different.

I think society needs to take responsibility as well. I understand that gun owners steer away from being labeled by a psychiatrist or any other mental health professional,  whether they are fit to carry a weapon or not. But people surrounding this individual should have known, there is no way they didn't. No one reported him. 

It's the mentality I mentioned before and as long as that doesn't change even stricter gun restrictions won't solve the problem. This guy has proven that with his background he had access to weapons.

 

I see that same mentality with young guys who are part of drugs gangs in the Netherlands. And although the weapon restrictions are very strict there, they still manage to get weapons and carry them around. Everyday someone gets killed.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Beachlover

[smilesammich 10,727]

i still can't believe this guy only ever did 12 months for fracturing a baby's skull. many americans do much longer time than that for non-violent crime, that's for sure.

[bcking 3,157]

13 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

I think society needs to take responsibility as well. I understand that gun owners steer away from being labeled by a psychiatrist or any other mental health professional,  whether they are fit to carry a weapon or not. But people surrounding this individual should have known, there is no way they didn't. No one reported him. 

It's the mentality I mentioned before and as long as that doesn't change even stricter gun restrictions won't solve the problem. This guy has proven that with his background he had access to weapons.

 

I see that same mentality with young guys who are part of drugs gangs in the Netherlands. And although the weapon restrictions are very strict there, they still manage to get weapons and carry them around. Everyday someone gets killed.

 

 

 

 

Why wouldn't greater restrictions for purchasing a gun not have prevented this?

 

If the media could find out all the red flags that we know now in less than 24 hours, why couldn't a process investigate prior to purchasing a gun?

 

What good is the "background check" that is done now? It seems rather pointless. Seems like it would have been easy to do a background check, see his history of violence, and deny him a license. Or require a greater evaluation that includes a visit with a mental health professional.

 

This is exactly the kind of situation that more organized and greater restrictions should be able to prevent.

[-Trinity- 513]

Just now, bcking said:

Why wouldn't greater restrictions for purchasing a gun not have prevented this?

 

If the media could find out all the red flags that we know now in less than 24 hours, why couldn't a process investigate prior to purchasing a gun?

 

What good is the "background check" that is done now? It seems rather pointless. Seems like it would have been easy to do a background check, see his history of violence, and deny him a license. Or require a greater evaluation that includes a visit with a mental health professional.

 

This is exactly the kind of situation that more organized and greater restrictions should be able to prevent.

I think someone with his state of murderous mind would have simply aquired the guns  illegally. 

 

The background check failed in his situation because his crimes weren't listed? As far as I know my husband has to undergo a background check whenever he buys a weapon. His criminal record gets checked and if something pops up he will be denied. Domestic violence is one of the reasons for denial.

Now the only thing I wonder is: what if someone purchases weapons before he commits a felony and he goes afterwards on a killing spree. The pre-purchase background hasn't solved anything in that case.

 

 I agree that it is strange that all the red flags didn't alarm anyone, yet the media found them one after another.

That brings me back to my earlier argument: mentality and culture.  There is a culture of violence and when that becomes something you are used to,it won't alarm people cause that's "normal" to them.

 

In the time that I lived here I noticed there is a lot of domestic violence, both women and men. Everyone I met is either a victim or the perpetrator, yet a lot of them don't press charges or end up in jail. It makes me wonder whether there is a correlation with massacres like this.

The murderer has a similar background with domestic violence.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

While I like the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of mental ill people, realize that some not-ill people will lose their rights to own a gun too.  I posted a link earlier today about the VA keeping thousands of vets from being able to purchase a gun just because they asked for, and got help, for their finances.  Often, the person helping the vet is a family member.  Just someone to help them balance their budget every month.  That’s a travesty that such a thing could happen.  But it has.

 

Unfortunately, the reaction to that is to NOT prevent vets from owning guns, even if they are mentally ill.  Thanks to the VA’s screw up, now there may be a bill introduced that WON’T keep guns out of the hands of those with PTSD who really shouldn’t own guns.  What a mess.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

I think someone with his state of murderous mind would have simply aquired the guns  illegally.

 

The background check failed in his situation because his crimes weren't listed? As far as I know my husband has to undergo a background check whenever he buys a weapon. His criminal record gets checked and if something pops up he will be denied. Domestic violence is one of the reasons for denial.

Now the only thing I wonder is: what if someone purchases weapons before he commits a felony and he goes afterwards on a killing spree. The pre-purchase background hasn't solved anything in that case.

 

 I agree that it is strange that all the red flags didn't alarm anyone, yet the media found them one after another.

That brings me back to my earlier argument: mentality and culture.  There is a culture of violence and when that becomes something you are used to,it won't alarm people cause that's "normal" to them.

 

In the time that I lived here I noticed there is a lot of domestic violence, both women and men. Everyone I met is either a victim or the perpetrator, yet a lot of them don't press charges or end up in jail. It makes me wonder whether there is a correlation with massacres like this.

The murderer has a similar background with domestic violence.

 

Unfortunately, this has been proven again and again.  And there seems to be no way to stop it.  More gun laws or restrictions will NOT stop those with murderous intent, or even common criminals, from obtaining guns.  Whether thru a black market supplier or simply by stealing them, people who want guns but cannot buy their own WILL get them.

 

I mentioned him owning guns prior to the domestic violence, but a couple of peeps came back and said it has been verified that he bought them after the crimes, and was able to do so due to a failure of him being entered into a database somewhere.  (I think that blame falls upon the Air Force, from what I have gathered.)

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

I think someone with his state of murderous mind would have simply aquired the guns  illegally. 

 

The background check failed in his situation because his crimes weren't listed?

 

Not listed where?

 

As I said - Media was able to find out his "history" fairly quickly. It's not like it was hidden that deeply. A more thorough background check would have picked it up. I don't think it would have been very difficult.

 

The argument that people in a state of murderous mind would "acquire guns illegally" I think it is best to compare us to other countries. If that were true, places like Australia and the UK would still see mass shootings from people with murderous intent who acquired guns illegally. They haven't, which to me suggests that there is something unique about the US. The clear and obvious "unique" aspect is the ease with which we can acquire weapons. I haven't see anyone provide a logical argument for why we uniquely have more murderous people.

 

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

While I like the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of mental ill people, realize that some not-ill people will lose their rights to own a gun too.  I posted a link earlier today about the VA keeping thousands of vets from being able to purchase a gun just because they asked for, and got help, for their finances.  Often, the person helping the vet is a family member.  Just someone to help them balance their budget every month.  That’s a travesty that such a thing could happen.  But it has.

 

Unfortunately, the reaction to that is to NOT prevent vets from owning guns, even if they are mentally ill.  Thanks to the VA’s screw up, now there may be a bill introduced that WON’T keep guns out of the hands of those with PTSD who really shouldn’t own guns.  What a mess.

Any action you do will miss some, and include some people accidentally. Any intervention would have a "false negative" rate and a "false positive" rate. Nothing is 100% perfect and typically if you make your intervention more sensitive (you don't miss mentally ill people), you will make it less specific (you will include some people who are not).

 

It just depends on where we feel comfortable setting the threshold. 

 

For me, I would prioritize sensitivity over specificity in this case. Meaning - I would rather us have a screening protocol that catches everyone who is mentally ill and not fit to carry a weapon, even if it means including a small minority of people who actually ARE capable of safely carrying a weapon, but they are picked up in our screening. If your sensitivity is too low, and you miss a mentally ill crazy person, you can end up with what we've seen in Texas. Dozens of people won't die because a mentally sane person was disqualified.

 

You could also have a multi-layered system. Whatever screen you set up could be the first stage that flags people for deeper evaluation. That doesn't mean they would all be rejected in the end, it just means they need more scrutiny.

 

If I was a sane person who wanted a gun for sporting reasons I don't think i would mind growing through a few extra hoops in order to get a license, if it means making sure the mentally unstable don't have easy access to firearms.