Texas Church Shooting

[Davita]

I'm sure we've all seen the news of the terrible killing and maiming of those in the Baptist church in Texas.

The CNN (Anderson Cooper) interview today of the elderly gentleman, who happened by and shot at the killer who sped off, who then jumped into a young man's truck at a gas station and both chased the murderer.... is telling of the Americans I knew when I lived there.

Those two gentlemen are the ordinary folks who understand what is right and wrong.

The story from the very articulate young man, who was asked "would you do the same again?" and his response "I'd do it a hundred times over, Sir!" is emotional and compelling.

They are heroes and I hope the USA recognize them as such so others may grow up with an idea of what noble and loyal citizenry means.

 

[Nimbus]

The system fails this time. The Air Force neglected to report to the FBI that the guy was court martialed, sentenced to 12 months in custody, and given a bad conduct discharge. He shouldn't have been able to buy a gun legally.

He could have targeted his in-laws, as they belong to that church. Sad situation all around.

I think the two guys did the right thing. It's not exactly legal for a civilian to shoot a fleeing suspect, but I don't think there's any district attorney, jury, or judge in Texas willing to put them in jail for it. In the same situation, I might shoot too. However, it was right to chase the guy while reporting to the cops at the same time.

 

[Anglian]

They say he was an officer in the AirForce, surely not

 

[R Cameron]

I think the two guys did the right thing. It's not exactly legal for a civilian to shoot a fleeing suspect, but I don't think there's any district attorney, jury, or judge in Texas willing to put them in jail for it.

Even with an aggressive DA I think this would be an easy self-defense case! Even as the situation was unraveling it was likely obvious this was a killing spree and not a targeted murder, and he was still armed, so I think it would be reasonably argued that anyone in sight was in life-threatening danger and had the right to defend themselves and others!

 

[scouser59]

And so the massacre in the US goes on , a grim reality of life there , and still they choose to do nothing about it when the answer is before there eyes ,very sad .

 

[William King]

To early since the last shooting to talk about gun control...

 

[scouser59]

I dont understand "a people" who have a serious problem with gun violence , who know very well what the solution is , but dont take the step to solve the problem , it is illogical. So therefore the misery will continue with the mass "wringing of hands" , ad infinitum .

 

[rabbit_39]

I dont understand "a people" who have a serious problem with gun violence , who know very well what the solution is , but dont take the step to solve the problem , it is illogical. So therefore the misery will continue with the mass "wringing of hands" , ad infinitum .

It is a never ending debate. Gun controls exist but not implemented properly causing these things to happen is one argument.

Another side will say only total gun band will work.

Yet another will argue for stronger gun control.

Etc etc

 

[R Cameron]

There's an estimated 300 million guns in America. Many million belonging to people who would barricade their homes and kill authority trying to take those guns.

There is no easy way out of this mess.

A total ban is a pipe dream when they can't even pass legislation that 80% of Americans support banning certain types of guns and clips.

The NRA's control of the Republican party is a huge part of the problem. Any R politician who gives even an inch on the subject knows there's a good chance the NRA will finance someone to primary against them, and will make their vote to outlaw bazookas sound like they want to forcibly confiscate all guns.

 

[Jamu]

Another huge massacre by a white American, another yawn story... It only matters if death is caused by a non-white foreigner, a Muslim, or even better a non-white foreign Muslim, then it's a 24/7 newsworthy event and the public demands government action to close the borders, do extreme vetting, etc etc because they have been brain-washed to be afraid of 'radical islamist terrorists' taking over the country. Ol' Billy Bob from Jerkwater, USA with his automatic weapons, mental illness, opioid addiction and history of violence doesn't seem to be a concern in the slightest. Weird country and certainly no example for the rest of the world...

 

[waarmstrong]

Nobody's perfect.

 

[Nimbus]

Did I hear a call for extreme vetting for gun buyers from Trump?

Nah, didn't think so. It's only for Muslims.

 

[Scooterindo]

So another nut case guns a load of people down in America - wow never heard that headline before have we ??

Guns don't kill people .........

 

[R Cameron]

Guns don't kill people .........

....but they sure make it easy!



Is that how you finish the quote?

This guy doesn't seem to have had any significant plan or strategy, but a gun let him kill 26 people. Apparently the New York truck attack was very premeditated and "only" killed 8.

You have to pass tests and be licensed to drive a car, your car has to be registered every year, and in many places insurance is required also. But the machine that is literally built for killing has none of those requirements.

 

[steveandpenny]

So I have a idea ....with all the gun related deaths in the United States.....And since guns don't kill people.....it must be those little bullets then.
You can't tell Americans they can't have guns cause it's there right in the constitution, but it does not say anything about bullets in the consitution...So make bullets illegal and everyone will be happy and love one another.

 

[Asun]

So I have a idea ....with all the gun related deaths in the United States.....And since guns don't kill people.....it must be those little bullets then.
You can't tell Americans they can't have guns cause it's there right in the constitution, but it does not say anything about bullets in the consitution...So make bullets illegal and everyone will be happy and love one another.

That's Chris Rock's school of gun control.

 

[Nimbus]

So I have a idea ....with all the gun related deaths in the United States.....And since guns don't kill people.....it must be those little bullets then.
You can't tell Americans they can't have guns cause it's there right in the constitution, but it does not say anything about bullets in the consitution...So make bullets illegal and everyone will be happy and love one another.

Actually the constitution doesn't say "guns", it says "arms". The rights protected are to keep (own) and to bear (use). Since a gun is next to useless without bullets, then by extension bullets are also "arms", thus afforded the same constitutional protection.

 

[R Cameron]

It's almost (almost!) silly to talk about Constitution in this context. (a) They were writing about muskets that took a minute per shot, (b) the direct context is regulated militias, not individual rights, and (c) there are already many forms of arms that are already banned.

The reason it's easy to buy guns in America is not because of some strict constitutionalism, it's because that's what is politically expedient in the present.

 

[Scooterindo]

 

[Nimbus]

It's almost (almost!) silly to talk about Constitution in this context. (a) They were writing about muskets that took a minute per shot, (b) the direct context is regulated militias, not individual rights, and (c) there are already many forms of arms that are already banned.

The reason it's easy to buy guns in America is not because of some strict constitutionalism, it's because that's what is politically expedient in the present.

I respectfully disagree, it is about strict constitutionalism for the most part. You are far from the first person making the argument about muskets. The constitution is only one part of it. The law is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they have decided that the musket argument has no merit.

The first clause of the 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", which means arms are allowed as a means of national self defense. In this context it applies to all military weapons. Since the 2nd amendment still stands, then it applies to military weapons of today.

The debate at the supreme court was whether the right is inseparable from service in a militia, or the military. The latest decision says that the militia comprises of everybody (everybody can be called to serve), so the right to keep and bear arms is individual.

This amendment was written when USA was just a collection of tiny weak states. They needed every person for national defense, like practically every small country today. They also had a strong suspicion against a standing army (a permanent professional armed force), so they wanted an armed citizenry instead. The concept of the government providing arms to warriors are fairly recent, for most of history each soldier brings his own weapons and equipment.

Logically you can say that a law written for 13 little states isn't necessarily suitable to govern the 3rd most populous country on earth. However, until it is overturned by the people or interpreted differently by the Supreme Court, it stands as is.