Armed Citizen stopped church shooting in Texas by shooting at suspect perhaps killing him

[Sam1911]

Those deaths don't count! They aren't important! Only mass-murder deaths from assault rifles are important.

That's why it's ok to ban guns that are statistically-speaking almost never used in wrongful deaths but we have to leave his carry gun alone.

 

[Guitarmike]

I’m all for common sense gun violence protection. If it is illegal for you to process a gun due to a prior felony conviction and you get caught with one, life in prison with no possibility of parole. Rebuild some of our old factories into Alcatraz type prisons and let them rot. Do that for a year and watch our crime rate drop. That’s less painful than losing a loved one.

 

[Robert]

Possession of a weapon by previous offender has a sadly low penalty, at least here in CO, unless it is used in a crime. But even then the crime itself may carry a stiffer penalty than the possession. We need to make it hurt when a felon gets caught with a gun.

 

[Sam1911]

Possession of a weapon by previous offender has a sadly low penalty, at least here in CO, unless it is used in a crime. But even then the crime itself may carry a stiffer penalty than the possession. We need to make it hurt when a felon gets caught with a gun.

While I've no argument against that (aside from a few legal nipicks about how those are sometimes administered), I don't know how to expect even very harsh enforcement of such laws would have any effect on situations like this one, or the one in Vegas.

None of these guys can have much realistic expectation that they're going to live through it, or very long after it. The common expectation appears to be a violent end at the hands of responding police or -- very likely -- their own hands when they decide the event is over. Fear of arrest or imprisonment seems irrelevant.

(And if some do manage to be delusional enough to expect they'll escape after a mass killing, I'd expect they'd be delusional enough to expect they'll escape arrest and imprisonment as well.)

Zero tolerance laws about felons with firearms may actually have some impact on average street criminals (I really don't know) but these one-in-ten-million crazies seem immune. That is...if they even had a criminal record to begin with.

 

[MachIVshooter]

How much were full, capable AR-15s during the AWB? How bad were those mass shootings in comparison? I don't recall monthly double-digit death tolls from single incidents.

Do you know what hyperbole is? Two isolated incidents about a month apart is only "monthly" in the context of two months. When you get sick twice in a two month period, do you declare that you get sick monthly, even though the other times you fell ill were months or years earlier and spaced much further apart? If you don't drink often, but happen to get drunk two days in a row, do you consider yourself a lush? I doubt it.

But by all means, continue posting. It's highly amusing to watch you step on your own feet incessantly, undeterred by having your arguments torn apart stem to stern by other members Normally I put our resident Quislings on my ignore list, but the entertainment value of your musings is far too high

 

[CoalTrain49]

Those deaths don't count! They aren't important! Only mass-murder deaths from assault rifles are important.

That's why it's ok to ban guns that are statistically-speaking almost never used in wrongful deaths but we have to leave his carry gun alone.

The truth is restricting firearms has no real effect on total homicide rates. The AG crowd wants to focus on firearm homicide rates but they never focus on the total homicide rate. The reason is total homicide rates in states that heavily restrict firearms are the same as states that don't. The only real difference is that more homicides involve firearms in states with lesser restrictions. So what it gets down to for the AG crowd is the weapon that was used, not the actual act of killing someone.

I think our anti "assault rifles" poster has an ax to grind.

 

[Robert]

While I've no argument against that (aside from a few legal nipicks about how those are sometimes administered), I don't know how to expect even very harsh enforcement of such laws would have any effect on situations like this one, or the one in Vegas.

None of these guys can have much realistic expectation that they're going to live through it, or very long after it. The common expectation appears to be a violent end at the hands of responding police or -- very likely -- their own hands when they decide the event is over. Fear of arrest or imprisonment seems irrelevant.

(And if some do manage to be delusional enough to expect they'll escape after a mass killing, I'd expect they'd be delusional enough to expect they'll escape arrest and imprisonment as well.)

Zero tolerance laws about felons with firearms may actually have some impact on average street criminals (I really don't know) but these one-in-ten-million crazies seem immune. That is...if they even had a criminal record to begin with.

You are absolutely right. There is no way to stop acts such as these. But we must also enforce punishments that are not a joke. Most of the guys I send to prison are more comfortable and enjoy prison better than their life on the outside.

 

[pintler]

How much were full, capable AR-15s during the AWB?

I may be missing the point. A flash hider, fixed stock, or bayonet mount would only affect a mass shooting if the shooter was adjusting the stock during the incident, using a bayonet, or shooting in conditions where a flash hider matters. So I don't get the 'full, capable' part.

How bad were those mass shootings in comparison? I don't recall monthly double-digit death tolls from single incidents.

You know what started in the mid 90's? 24 hour news. Food for thought:

Abstract: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion.aspx
Full article: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion-effect.pdf

It's a long article, but worth reading if stopping mass shootings matters to you.

 

[Rocketmedic]

That's why I think we need a real AWB based on function- no semi-autos without significant barriers to entry, not on cosmetics.

 

[Deanimator]

That's why I think we need a real AWB based on function- no semi-autos without significant barriers to entry, not on cosmetics.

NO, I REFUSE.

Better think of something else.

 

[CoalTrain49]

That's why I think we need a real AWB based on function- no semi-autos without significant barriers to entry, not on cosmetics.

That's wonderful. You want another AWB. The problem is you aren't going to get one anytime soon. The last one that was floated right after Sandy Hook failed in the senate. But hang in there, you're chances may improve in about 3 years. If you can't wait that long you can always move to CA.

 

[Sistema1927]

Twice evil people have gone into churches and killed good decent God fearing people, one a racist in Charleston, and this evil person in Texas.

Twice?

Count again, and again, and again, and again, and.....

The first one that I was close to was the Wedgewood Baptist shooting back in the 1980s.

 

[Sam1911]

That's why I think we need a real AWB based on function- no semi-autos without significant barriers to entry, not on cosmetics.

Well we aren't getting one.

If we couldn't have one back in 1994, and yet again didn't manage to end up with one after Sandy Hook, it seems vanishingly unlikely we're going to get one now. So there's really not any reason to carry on a line of discussion over whether such a thing makes any sense.

But that should give you plenty of time for your emotional pendulum to swing back the other way yet again and you can start another thread in a few weeks on how much you want an AR-15.

 

[Sam1911]

And we're starting to have to do some thread printing to hold down the negative feedback on some ideas here so let's call this closed.

If anything of value arises regarding the church shooting I'm sure we can have another thread on it then.