Church Shooting outside San Antonio

[EagleMBA]

I just saw this article and will pass along the link. This dude had many, many warning signs, based on his profile. Wow! NO law would have done anything about this guy. It was not the gun...it was the nutcase holding it. Too many people saw and heard things (and did and said nothing); they apparently just turned him off. "Weirdo...not my problem". He has been sending signals for years!! We have seen this common thread before.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/mental-health-now-focus-of-texas-church-shooting-investigation/

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by EagleMBA

[EagleMBA]

Oh! And there is more! This just in, an email headline from the Washington Post:

"Texas gunman should not have been able to buy a firearm, but the Air Force failed to alert FBI to his violent past"

"The Air Force says it failed to follow policies for alerting federal law enforcement about Devin P. Kelley, enabling the former service member, who killed 26 churchgoers Sunday in South Sutherland, Tex., to obtain guns before the shooting rampage." "Kelley should have been barred from purchasing firearms and body armor due to his domestic violence conviction in 2014 while serving at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. Kelley was sentenced to a year in prison and kicked out of the military with a bad conduct discharge following two counts of domestic abuse against his wife and a child, according to an Air Force spokeswoman."   What law are you going to cook up to address THIS issue? Looks like this dude got a pass from everyone.

Edited November 7, 2017 by EagleMBA

[UNTLifer]

5 hours ago, TheTastyGreek said:

I think, since he was in the military, that technically you are not supporting the troops. 

I also think we have to blame politics for this. In our current political climate, when a veteran sees all those people kneeling, can we really say we're shocked that he got so upset? 

#InsertTheMostRecentPlaceWithA MassShootingStrong

Could a unicorn outrun a Sasquatch? 

Cuteness has a place.  This isn't it.

[GangGreen]

6 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

@EagleMBA  I appreciate your willingness to tell a doctor it is none of their business -- and that is your right. You are not legally required to answer medical questions. It is insane that we have laws preventing the questions though. That is my point. We actually have laws preventing a medical professional from trying to determine risk when it comes to guns. 

Overdose on prescription drugs has killed almost 200,000 people over the last 15 years. Is this the fault of the doctor, the drug, or the user?

[MeanGreenTexan]

3 hours ago, EagleMBA said:

Oh! And there is more! This just in, an email headline from the Washington Post:

"Texas gunman should not have been able to buy a firearm, but the Air Force failed to alert FBI to his violent past"

"The Air Force says it failed to follow policies for alerting federal law enforcement about Devin P. Kelley, enabling the former service member, who killed 26 churchgoers Sunday in South Sutherland, Tex., to obtain guns before the shooting rampage." "Kelley should have been barred from purchasing firearms and body armor due to his domestic violence conviction in 2014 while serving at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. Kelley was sentenced to a year in prison and kicked out of the military with a bad conduct discharge following two counts of domestic abuse against his wife and a child, according to an Air Force spokeswoman."   What law are you going to cook up to address THIS issue? Looks like this dude got a pass from everyone.

The AF should be held accountable for their error.

[UNTFan23]

12 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

The AF should be held accountable for their error.

In what way?

[Censored by Laurie]

3 hours ago, GangGreen said:

Overdose on prescription drugs has killed almost 200,000 people over the last 15 years. Is this the fault of the doctor, the drug, or the user?

actually...namely the lack of common sense government regulations covering a potentially dangerous public health issue, in part the result of a deep-pocketed lobby exerting it's influence over our elected officials. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

11 hours ago, UNTFan23 said:

In what way?

I dunno, withold funding?   Court Marshall the person/people who did not follow the proper procedures?  There are many options, I'm sure.   I'm betting this oversight was not a one-off.

8 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

actually...namely the lack of common sense government regulations covering a potentially dangerous public health issue, in part the result of a deep-pocketed lobby exerting it's influence over our elected officials. 

Absolutely.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/26/justice-department-indicts-pharmaceutical-ceo-opio/

[GangGreen]

12 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

actually...namely the lack of common sense government regulations covering a potentially dangerous public health issue, in part the result of a deep-pocketed lobby exerting it's influence over our elected officials. 

Not gonna argue with you one bit about the nasty influence of lobbyists of any kind. Bribery is supposed to be illegal, but if you can call it a campaign contribution....

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by GangGreen

[KingDL1]

Can’t fix crazy and crazy will find a way. Illegal guns, explosives, biological agents, fire bombs, etc. 

Guns do not need to be the focus f’ing Crazy does. Part of it is the PC environment these days so much goes undetected and part is the way metal health is handled now. Instead of the asylums of the past these days they medicate and leave people to decide if they are going to take their meds. 

The laws on the books for gun sales are fine if enforced and better than more laws not enforced. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

6 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

Can’t fix crazy and crazy will find a way. Illegal guns, explosives, biological agents, fire bombs, etc. 

Guns do not need to be the focus f’ing Crazy does. Part of it is the PC environment these days so much goes undetected and part is the way metal health is handled now. Instead of the asylums of the past these days they medicate and leave people to decide if they are going to take their meds. 

The laws on the books for gun sales are fine if enforced and better than more laws not enforced. 

[KingDL1]

2 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Becuase the laws are good it usually comes back to a lack of funding, and man power.  Same thing with numerous topics. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 minute ago, KingDL1 said:

Becuase the laws are good it usually comes back to a lack of funding, and man power.  Same thing with numerous topics. 

Good is "good".     Can we do better?  Can anything be tightened up? 
Not saying "take away guns", but saying "make it difficult to get one".
And if the laws are indeed sufficient, there need to be clearly-defined standards, and if they are missed, there also need to be significant punishments clearly-defined to keep accountability.

And on the other side, in order to better-address mental health issues, it would probably help to have more funding available for identifying & treating this.

Most of these tragedies have 2 things in common:  high-powered rifles & people who are mentally-struggling.

It's not one or the other.   Both need to be examined.

[FirefightnRick]

The POTUS gets it.

"I think mental health is the problem here," Trump said during a news conference in Tokyo, saying the shooter in Texas was a "deranged" man who should have received treatment. "This isn't a guns situation."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/06/trump-mental-health-issue-behind-texas-shooting-not-guns/834879001/

 

Rick

 

[MeanGreenTexan]

23 minutes ago, FirefightnRick said:

The POTUS gets it.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/06/trump-mental-health-issue-behind-texas-shooting-not-guns/834879001/

 

Rick

 

I mean,  there's not much that this particular POTUS "gets".

I agree with the first part of it.  That is clearly an issue with this guy, as well as most other dudes who are doing this same thing.
He loses me when he says, "This isn't a guns issue", like we can just move on past any kind of examinations of our laws around guns.

[FirefightnRick]

5 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I mean,  there's not much that this particular POTUS "gets".

I agree with the first part of it.  That is clearly an issue with this guy, as well as most other dudes who are doing this same thing.
He loses me when he says, "This isn't a guns issue", like we can just move on past any kind of examinations of our laws around guns.

With Trump you gotta keep in mind he's no politician and doesn't always choose the best of words..  It drives me crazy too.  When I do find myself agreeing with him I liken it to that mechanic's shop down the street thats the filthiest hole imaginable, but everyone seems to use him because one, he's the only one close by  and two, he can fix your car.

Rick

 

 

[GTWT]

Rick, what would you do to fix this particular car.  Would you support a ban on bumper stocks?  Would you support a ban on assault weapons?  Would you support a ban on mega-magazines?  Would you support a ban on cheap handguns?

[MeanGreenTexan]

3 minutes ago, GTWT said:

Rick, what would you do to fix this particular car.  Would you support a ban on bumper stocks?  Would you support a ban on assault weapons?  Would you support a ban on mega-magazines?  Would you support a ban on cheap handguns?

"assault weapons" is an ambiguous term, and most likely heck-to-the-no to a flat-out BAN of them.   But SURELY that's not the only option, right?

[EagleMBA]

"Assault weapons" are, and have been, illegal. The use of the term always sets off an alarm that the user doesn't know his firearms very well. There is a reason why the scary-looking black rifle you can buy has a selector switch for "Safe" and "Fire" only, not to include "Burst". The weapon you buy that looks so scary can be bought in a not-so-scary configuration that functions the same. It is just a common semi-automatic rifle.

A handgun is a handgun; most are semi-automatic, some people like revolvers. The price of the handgun should not come up, unless you're trying to imply socio-economic discrimination should play a part in gun control. I don't buy cheap shit...but to each his own.

Shotguns are semi-auto or pump, usually limited to five or six rounds before reloading.

Unless you are a collector of old weapons, have given the Government tons of paperwork and paid huge sums in "Stamps", and waited for months, plus forked over thousands of dollars for the weapon itself, you have one of the above. One that goes bang once each time you pull the trigger. 

My opinion is that all of this drama has ultimate goals of infringing on the individual's right to keep and bear arms and creating a national registration database. This, while diverting attention from the mental health problem in this country and the bureaucrats' inability to enforce the existing laws and manage the data they already have accumulated.

Further affiant sayeth not.

 

[FirefightnRick]

2 hours ago, GTWT said:

Rick, what would you do to fix this particular car.  Would you support a ban on bumper stocks?  Would you support a ban on assault weapons?  Would you support a ban on mega-magazines?  Would you support a ban on cheap handguns?

I'd support punishing/court martialing the clerk that failed to enter Kelly's horrific background into the FBI data base.

Rick

[GTWT]

4 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

"assault weapons" is an ambiguous term, and most likely heck-to-the-no to a flat-out BAN of them.   But SURELY that's not the only option, right?

You're right.  It's hard to be sure what anyone means by 'assault rifle'.  When I see an AR-15 I think assault rifle.  When I see a Remington  Ranch rifle I don't think assault rifle.  They're both semi-automatic rifles but the perception is different.  Do people buy the two weapons for the same reason?

 

Question for all of you.  What restrictions in gun sales would you support?  

[EagleMBA]

1 hour ago, GTWT said:

You're right.  It's hard to be sure what anyone means by 'assault rifle'.  When I see an AR-15 I think assault rifle.  When I see a Remington  Ranch rifle I don't think assault rifle.  They're both semi-automatic rifles but the perception is different.  Do people buy the two weapons for the same reason?

 

Question for all of you.  What restrictions in gun sales would you support?  

If you mean the actual hardware, the current restrictions are sufficient when enforced.

If you mean restrictions on the buyer, I almost have to give the same answer. Perhaps they need to double down on mental health information. The information is out there, it is up to the FBI to be damned sure the NICS database is current. They and other agencies have fallen down on the job.

I have been checked out more than the average bear due to positions I've held in the past and holding a CHL for years. They must have a dossier on me going back to 1967 that rivals "War and Peace" in size. :) The last time I made a purchase, I filled out the form and the clerk took it to the office. He came back in about five minutes and said "You've been a good boy!". It might be different for a 22-year-old making his first purchase, I don't know. It better be different for someone with felonies and mental issues.

As for the reason for buying the weapons, that is personal preference. I like the AR for dimensions, weight, low recoil, accuracy, relatively low cost of ammo to practice, etc. I am no longer a hunter, so that is not a factor.

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by EagleMBA

[EagleMBA]

Here is an interesting article I received tonight in my email.  This speaks to the subjects we have been discussing and seems pretty "sane" to me.

http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2017/11/08/law-abiding-texans-gun-ownership-saving-lives/?utm_source=171109SRCDB2USDOMINO2&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=171109SRCDB2USDOMINO2

 

[Censored by Laurie]

On 11/6/2017 at 12:01 PM, Rudy said:

Well, at least this board waited until the next morning before making this political and calling for gun control. I guess that's progress.

how long do we have to wait now after another in California? it's getting so that if we wait too long, there will already be another mass shooting. 

man, this country sure does lead the world in untreated mental health issues, huh?

[EagleMBA]

5 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

how long do we have to wait now after another in California? it's getting so that if we wait too long, there will already be another mass shooting. 

man, this country sure does lead the world in untreated mental health issues, huh?

This article, if written by a credible journalist (appears so), sums up the situation pretty well.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/northern-california-gunman-kills-4-wounds-10-rampage-075324516.html

AGAIN, so many red flags! AGAIN, people dropped the ball...many people and organizations. This guy was clearly crazier than a shithouse rat! How can somebody shoot at a schoolhouse for six minutes without someone firing back? Oh...this happened in the Peoples Republic of California. Nevermind.