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

[Apachedriver]

THIS IS WRONG AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS. Church carry is legal.

You must include all of the law...

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
...
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

So, church concealed carry by LTC is perfectly legal so long as there are no 30.06 signs.

eraozor55's post doesn't say what you think it says. Read it again. I had to as well because his wording is different.

"erazor55 said: ↑
In Texas:

A license holder may carry a handgun anywhere in Texas that is not expressly prohibited by law. Those prohibitions appear in several provisions of the Texas Penal Code.

For example, §46.035, Texas Penal Code prohibits carrying of handguns and other weapons:

...

• On the premises of a church, synagogue, or other place of worship (if effective notice of prohibition is given per Penal Code Chapter 30)"

 

[TomJ]

Gun control wouldn't have stopped this, but less availability of assault rifles might have decreased the numbers of dead. Either way, this is terrible.

Good on the armed citizen taking him on. That seems to be the only way to end these rampages.

Maybe we can give the families of those killed time to grieve before we use the death of their loved ones to push a political agenda.

 

[Blacksmoke]

Are you sure that if you’re dishonorably discharged you can’t own a gun? That doesn't sound right. I can see for domestic assault, but just a DD? There are a lot of things you can be DD’d for.

From what I read, his conviction of Domestic Abuse made it illegal for him to own a gun. The Bad Conduct Discharge on its own was not a disqualifier. Sorry, I did not save the link to the website.

 

[chicharrones]

eraozor55's post doesn't say what you think it says. Read it again. I had to as well because his wording is different.

I'm sure it was a copy and paste via smart phone error, but I couldn't interpret it well either.

 

[Guitarmike]

We don't. The risk of something like this is vanishingly small, but in a nation the size and population of the United States we will see these murders more frequently than in a much smaller population. The RATE of these is tiny therefore the risk to any of us is tiny.

You are correct, the risk is small. Unfortunately the only way to minimize the risk is by the individual being trained and armed or society committing to finding the root cause. Historically our society does not want to do a root cause failure analysis, we want quick easy solutions. Quick and easy never does anything other make things worse. Therefore, if you are concerned about your safety, arm up and train.
If enough people were armed mass shootings would lose most of their effectiveness and the crazies would have to do something else.

 

[caribou]

Well, here we go with ''gun free zones''....schools, churches.....Im wondering when a wacko is gonna hit a Hospital.........


We can ''ban'' all the guns we want to, criminals dont care....its allready illegal to murder people......

 

[CoalTrain49]

Probably meant to be rhetorical but I'll answer anyway, it is because incompetence is the norm in government.

The NCIC obviously doesn't have the military records they need. If a person is convicted of domestic violence by a military court you would think that information would be in there.

Don't take away my right because of some bureaucratic snafu or 20th century records system that can't keep up. This isn't about restriction of semi-auto rifles, it's about a prohibited person being able to purchase a firearm by getting a proceed from a federal agency (FBI) that should have nailed this guy on the first pass. Seems to be all to common these days.

Edit.
Appears that the AF didn't give the FBI the records of Kelly's conviction. So not the FBI's fault but still it's on the DOD.

 

[hso]

Just confirmed that the murderer had been hit twice by the citizen and that he eventually killed himself.

Also confirmed that the USAF did not pass the Domestic Abuse info on for NICS to list him as a prohibited person.

 

[AlexanderA]

The propaganda value of this incident to the antigunners is limited, because the good guy used a similar weapon (an AR-15) to stop the murderer. So, from the point of view of the gun debate, this is a wash.

The antigunners are not grounded in reality. With so many AR's and similar weapons already in private hands, no amount of legislation is going make them disappear. The best we can hope for, then, is parity of force between the malefactors and the good guys. It is better for AR's to be widely distributed rather than be concentrated in the hands only of lawbreakers -- which would be the result of a draconian "assault weapons" ban.

 

[MedWheeler]

Aim1 writes:

He could have most likely done the same damage when a semi—automatic pistol.

Exactly. Virginia Tech comes to mind. Two handguns were used in that incident. One was a Glock 9mm pistol; the other, a Walther in .22LR.

I've yet to see where Rocketmedic has argued for the prohibition of those as well (perhaps we should all be restricted to the Heritage Rough Rider line?)

 

[MedWheeler]

Aim1 asks:

Are you sure that if you’re dishonorably discharged you can’t own a gun? That doesn't sound right. I can see for domestic assault, but just a DD? There are a lot of things you can be DD’d for.

Yes. It's an automatic disqualifier. You really have to work at being bad to get a dishonorable discharge. Virtually anything that can get you so discharged is equivalent to a felony at least somewhere "on the outside." As this case is testament to, they don't hand them out easily.

 

[old lady new shooter]

the USAF did not pass the Domestic Abuse info on for NICS to list him as a prohibited person.

Which makes clear that what allowed this monster to obtain his firearms was FAILURE TO ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Interview with the good Samaritan, he is actually a former NRA instructor and in the video is still quite emotional about the experience.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/06/texan-who-engaged-shooter-shares-his-story-video/
His cousin is interviewed at the same link and provides further information.

 

[Dudedog]

Gun control wouldn't have stopped this, but less availability of assault rifles might have decreased the numbers of dead.

sigh.....
Right, better stop renting Assault pickups as well. Maybe limit them to 5 gallon gas tanks and have top speed limited to 35 MPH........

a five-gallon bucket of gasoline would have been even deadlier

I don't own an AR, but I don't think banning my relatives' ARs would make me safe from madmen or fanatics.

Tragic, but "gun control" is not the answer.
I shot a USPSA match the other day and one gentleman using a revolver with clipped rounds was pretty darn quick.
Cowboy gals/guys are pretty darn quick with a lever action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute
15rnds bolt rifle 300 yard target.

Where there is a will there is a way, be the will good or bad/evil.

Tragic, but "gun control" is not the answer.

 

[Aim1]

Update:


New articles states the the suspect went through 13 AR mags and had 3 gunshot wounds. I’m suspecting 2 from the Good Samaritan and 1 from himself.


https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedne...ire-in-texas?utm_term=.ekBRXzqLEz#.ekBRXzqLEz

 

[jjones45]

A person intent on doing evil will accomplish that goal one way or another. People have to be smart enough to stop blaming the tools they use to do these atrocities. And it doesn’t help our cause when these psychos keep committing mass murder with freaking ar15’s. Notice a lot of these mass shooters have ballistic vest on? I wonder when they’ll want to take that away from the public as well. As far as the comment about not wanting to be living in a society where you have to be armed and ready to go when attending church, it’s more to it than that. There isn’t one truly safe public place in this whole world you’re safe from a terrorist attack or a deranged lone wolf psychopath. That’s the world we live in no matter what society and it would be wise to face reality.

 

[Slamfire]

I read threads on concealed carry in church, thought the posters were nuts, because I could never conceive of someone going into a church and shooting up the parishioners. Well I was wrong. 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. Now, I am of the opinion, conceal carry away, just make sure it does not drop out on the floor when you are kneeling!

 

[jjones45]

Gun control wouldn't have stopped this, but less availability of assault rifles might have decreased the numbers of dead.

Wait, am I missing something here? Isn’t limiting availability of rifles a form of gun control. Please stop using the term assault rifle. It’s a semiautomatic rifle and AR originally stood for armalite rifle. Just wondering from your comments where exactly do you stand because I see a lot of conflicting statements from you

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Update:


New articles states the the suspect went through 13 AR mags and had 3 gunshot wounds. I’m suspecting 2 from the Good Samaritan and 1 from himself.


https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedne...ire-in-texas?utm_term=.ekBRXzqLEz#.ekBRXzqLEz

That is what NPR reported this morning so it seems confirmed. Apparently he had 15 AR mags total. Haven't heard anything about pistol mags, but he had more guns in his vehicle.

The propaganda value of this incident to the antigunners is limited, because the good guy used a similar weapon (an AR-15) to stop the murderer. So, from the point of view of the gun debate, this is a wash.

The antigunners are not grounded in reality.

While I agree with you in a calm and logical thought process, anti gun people are typically not logical or calm at a time like this. The media reports I am hearing is about the number of magazines he had and how many rounds he had on tap. It wouldn't surprise me if they try to argue that a mag size limit would have helped, or a semi auto rifle ban would help. Of course at this point in time it wouldn't, and at no point in time is limiting the rights of law abiding citizens an ok thing.

I am disgusted at the media coverage at every one of these. It is propaganda in its truest form.

Which makes clear that what allowed this monster to obtain his firearms was FAILURE TO ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS.

Absolutely. Lawsuits seem likely.

 

[Doc7]

Here is the interview with the good guy who stopped further locations from being engaged (or reloads or whatever the guy returned to the vehicle for).

Praise God for this American Hero.

 

[Rocketmedic]

I think a lot of gun culture overemphasizes the 'power' one derives from a high-powered assault rifle, that the tools have evolved to the point where nearly anyone physically capable of manipulating the tool can literally shoot a building full of people very quickly, and that the cost and effort required to do these things have placed these tools in reach of essentially everyone. I think that regulations like the AWB that effectively raised the cost of assault weapons priced them out of the reach of guys like this (Vegas is an aberration due to that guys wealth), and the added regulations ensure that guys like this have a far harder time legally obtaining weapons. Could it be done illegally? Sure, but criminals aren't generally using their guns for mass shootings. The goal is no shots fired for the overwhelming majority of criminals.

The simple fact is that this guy, and the mass shooters before him, used rifles and handguns with deep magazines, cheaply available and quickly changed, to shoot a lot of people really fast. Those are the weapons evolved on battlefields across the planet. They weren't Garands, Springfields or Mausers or whatnot ( although Austin showed us how deadly those could be too). They use legal, easily-obtained, popular modern rifles with low recoil, easy aim, rapid-fire and deep magazines.

I personally think that I'd rather live in a society where these are legal, but harder to obtain than small pistols and less-combat-capable long rifles. I really don't want a society where there are no guns, nor do I want a monthly mass murder. Will there still be gun crime and death and even mass killings with a renewed AWB? Yes. But instead of a full church, we would likely only be burying a quarter of a church.

-as to those "well he could have done something else"....yes, he could have. He could have rammed the building, or started a fire, or made a car bomb or tried to poison or stab everyone, but he didn't. Paddock could have tried to Kamikaze the crowd but he didn't. A modern rifle was easier, quicker and more powerful in their hands and twisted senses of satisfaction. In their shootings, with that rifle in their hands, they became God in terms of what they could do to individuals, and the peculiar ease of use of the AR helped them do it.

 

[Sam1911]

I think that regulations like the AWB that effectively raised the cost of assault weapons priced them out of the reach of guys like this (Vegas is an aberration due to that guys wealth), and the added regulations ensure that guys like this have a far harder time legally obtaining weapons.

Do you EVER research anything you think before you talk about it?

The AWB did NOT raise the cost of "assault weapons". Go look up what it actually did and then back up your logic train and start over again.

And if it had, well, gee... you just said the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be for the average citizen, but only for the wealthy!

Wow... way to go, you elitist snob. Yeah, the average man doesn't need his rights. Only the wealthy should be allowed to exercise their freedoms! Or, to use your line of argument, to have the chance to easily "mow down" lots of his fellow citizens.
Nice. In these days where we're all so concerned that the "1%" are getting wealthier and more powerful, and supposedly the rest of us, "99%" are being held down and condemned to some sort of modern day serfdom --- you want to make sure that only the rich can afford the most effective weapons, too? What a brave cultural warrior you are.

Why would that be ok? You have some reason to believe the wealthy are less susceptible to mental illness? I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. Or do you just naturally gravitate to and trust rich people more than the middle class or poor? Hey, it's ok to admit that. Many people throughout history have instinctively deferred to their "betters."

Just not Americans.

Could it be done illegally? Sure, but criminals aren't generally using their guns for mass shootings.

Could it be done illegally?

Hey, hellooooo...it WAS done illegally. The TX church shooter was a prohibited person under federal law. The existing laws were not followed and did not work to prevent him from getting a gun.

This line of reasoning seems no better than any of the others you've shoveled out here over the years.

 

[entropy]

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."-Benjamin Franklin.

You, Rocketmedic, are playing right into the anti's hands. Divide and Conquer, oldest trick in the book.

Or, to paraphrase Deitrich Bonhoeffer-
"They came for the machine guns, but I didn't own any, so I didn't say anything. They came for the AR's, and I spoke out loudly against AR's because I didn't own any and don't like them. Then they came for my 'I can carry the TCP wearing pretty much anything, along with a spare magazine. The same is not true of my 1911, and seven rounds of 380 beats a sharp stick. With that being said, I also reckon that maybe a 9x19mm somewhat higher-capacity piece might not be a bad plan. Any thoughts on the Taurus 709 and the SCCY?' handguns, but by then it was too late-there was nobody to speak out for me. "
-possible future quote by Rocketmedic.

Will there still be gun crime and death and even mass killings with a renewed AWB?

Because the first one worked so well?

Yes. But instead of a full church, we would likely only be burying a quarter of a church.

Or if only one parishoner had been carrying, there would could have been much less mayhem. If one well-trained parishoner had been carrying, the death toll could well have been one; the perp.

"“Eternal vigilance is not only the price of liberty; eternal vigilance is the price of human decency.” -Aldous Huxley

 

[Rocketmedic]

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.

The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding from some of the members here, as is the attacks on any opinion other than UNLIMITED SECOND AMENDMENT FOR EVERYONE! espoused by members like Sam1911.

I want to keep my TCP, but there's a world of difference between a pint sized 380 and a modern rifle. Personally, I think that there is some pretty strong evidence that decreasing the availability of assault weapons will decrease their frequency of use in crime.

 

[Sam1911]

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

A few hundred dollars. Do you actually know what the AWB did?

Basically, you couldn't buy a new AR-15 that had both a collapsible stock AND a bayonet lug. That's it. There were a few other features that you could swap and mix, like flash hiders and such, but for the most part the rifles legally sold during the AWB were functionally IDENTICAL to those sold today, or before.

The AWB was effectively a farce. It accomplished NOTHING. It didn't save any lives. Didn't make anything better. Was at most a minor annoyance to those of us who wanted "correct" cosmetic features on their rifles, but made not one iota of difference to the functionality of the firearms themselves.

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

I think history has shown that most of the mass shootings avoided during the AWB didn't happen because the killers couldn't mount a bayonet. Or maybe it was because they couldn't fold or collapse the stock. I forget which. One of those two things saved MILLIONS of lives.



Dude, you're a hoot!

The level of cognitive dissonance is astounding from some of the members here, as is the attacks on any opinion other than UNLIMITED SECOND AMENDMENT FOR EVERYONE! espoused by members like Sam1911.

You attack my or our "cognitive dissonance" when you can't come up with a single proposal that even passes a simple test of logic?

And when you base many of your hypotheses on the fact that you don't even bother to figure out what you're talking about before you start making your pronouncements?