What Stops A Bad Guy With A Gun In Texas?

[Lancaster]

https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/geographic-evidence-that-gun-deaths-are-cultural-277cb90fa06d

This is a very good read for those interested in firearm death/violence and relations to socio-economic, geographic, cultural, ethnic, etc factors.

 

A few notable synopsis.... poverty is a driving factor, with blacks more likely to use firearms against each other, but whites are more likely to use firearms for suicide.  

Locations with high rate of firearms related suicide has lower homicide... but places with higher homicide with lower rates of firearm suicides.  Eg. Portland with high suicide, but low homicide.  

 

[RUPERTKBD]

59 minutes ago, Kragar said:

 

Has enough info been published to confirm this?  And whether it would have helped?  From what I have seen, and I think OP mentions this as well, the attacker used a shotgun, which IIRC are easier to get.  Unless evidence comes out to support that he bought the gun right before the event, I don't think it is a textbook example at all (however good the idea it might be).

 

Your last paragraph leans towards an extreme camp, IMO.  All too often, the anti-gun lobby defense is critical of gun ownership because it is not 100% effective, as you point out in the church shooting.  But, nothing is 100% effective, so while it is a nice goal to strive for, realism needs to come into play.  Sadly, two were shot while the attacker was engaged, and died in the hospital.  In a span of a few seconds.  If this happened in a nice safe place with strict gun control with law-abiding citizens obeying gun-free zone laws, how many others would have died before the police arrived on the scene, even if they can arrive within a few minutes?

 

Who advocates for arming "everyone"?  Even a majority of NRA members support universal checks  And, since no one can keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, clearly allowing citizens to choose to be armed is not always less effective.

I think it's a little difficult to prove that Universal background checks would be effective, because there is no requirement for this, but I guess it comes down to what you believe would be considered effective. IMO, if it saves any lives at all, it's worth doing. I don't buy into the theory that you're "punishing" responsible gun owners by making them wait.

 

Secondly, I disagree that my position is "extreme". I'm not, nor have I ever, suggested 100% effectiveness. My point is that if the shooter had been subject to a background check, he might have been denied access to the weapon he used.

 

Finally, I'm well aware that many of the measures I advocate are supported by the majority of Americans....yet they never seem to happen. It's pretty clear that the NRA and it's supporters enjoy an inordinate amount of influence over lawmakers in the US.

[Kragar]

35 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think it's a little difficult to prove that Universal background checks would be effective, because there is no requirement for this, but I guess it comes down to what you believe would be considered effective. IMO, if it saves any lives at all, it's worth doing. I don't buy into the theory that you're "punishing" responsible gun owners by making them wait.

 

Secondly, I disagree that my position is "extreme". I'm not, nor have I ever, suggested 100% effectiveness. My point is that if the shooter had been subject to a background check, he might have been denied access to the weapon he used.

 

Finally, I'm well aware that many of the measures I advocate are supported by the majority of Americans....yet they never seem to happen. It's pretty clear that the NRA and it's supporters enjoy an inordinate amount of influence over lawmakers in the US.

I'm not suggesting the wait period is punishment.  It could be argued in a handful of cases or theoreticals that it would be, but for the large majority of cases you are right.  I'm just suggesting that your "textbook case" is not clear when all the facts are not known.  If he had acquired the gun months ago, the waiting period wouldn't have made a difference.  If he got the gun illegally, then the background check wouldn't have mattered either.  That's all I am pointing out there... too soon to tell whether it is textbook or not.

 

You claim your position is not extreme, and that is true.  I still stand by what I said, about your comment.  You are critical of pro-gun people/media counting this situation as a win because two people were killed, despite the fact that it is clear that the quick action of the civilians at the church has easily prevent the loss of more life.  You just said "if it saves any lives at all, it is worth doing", so doesn't that mean that having some armed citizens is worthwhile?  So which is it?

[RUPERTKBD]

16 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I'm not suggesting the wait period is punishment.  It could be argued in a handful of cases or theoreticals that it would be, but for the large majority of cases you are right.  I'm just suggesting that your "textbook case" is not clear when all the facts are not known.  If he had acquired the gun months ago, the waiting period wouldn't have made a difference.  If he got the gun illegally, then the background check wouldn't have mattered either.  That's all I am pointing out there... too soon to tell whether it is textbook or not.

 

You claim your position is not extreme, and that is true.  I still stand by what I said, about your comment.  You are critical of pro-gun people/media counting this situation as a win because two people were killed, despite the fact that it is clear that the quick action of the civilians at the church has easily prevent the loss of more life.  You just said "if it saves any lives at all, it is worth doing", so doesn't that mean that having some armed citizens is worthwhile?  So which is it?

Maybe I wasn't clear. I think the actions of the security guard were good and that it was a good thing that he was in position to do what he did. Where I disagree with some people (not necessarily anyone ITT) is with the idea that this was the best solution. I stand by my assertion that denying him access to the weapon would have been preferable.

 

I made the point in my original post that I couldn't guarantee that background checks would have prevented this particular attack, but they certainly might have. Unfortunately, we'll never know and while I'm happy that the security guard prevented further loss of life, I'm sad that two innocent people lost their lives, when common sense regulation might have saved them.

[Alflives]

10 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Maybe I wasn't clear. I think the actions of the security guard were good and that it was a good thing that he was in position to do what he did. Where I disagree with some people (not necessarily anyone ITT) is with the idea that this was the best solution. I stand by my assertion that denying him access to the weapon would have been preferable.

 

I made the point in my original post that I couldn't guarantee that background checks would have prevented this particular attack, but they certainly might have. Unfortunately, we'll never know and while I'm happy that the security guard prevented further loss of life, I'm sad that two innocent people lost their lives, when common sense regulation might have saved them.

Absolutely.  Won’t everyone agree with you?  

[kingofsurrey]

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

 just said "if it saves any lives at all, it is worth doing", so doesn't that mean that having some armed citizens is worthwhile?  So which is it?

Arming citizens and allowing personal possession of hand guns will only lead to more deaths / shootings / suicides / stolen hand guns......

 

The more hand guns taken out of the general population is the best way to save lives.  No one "needs"  a handgun in 2019/2020.  

 

Hunters should be able to obtain hunting weapons with the a wait period and proper storage and coursework taken....

[JM_]

4 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

So I'll ask again gang problem or gun problem?

https://nationalpost.com/news/illegal-guns-sourced-in-canada-surge-compared-to-those-smuggled-from-u-s

 

its both, imo. Acting on just one won't solve it, if it is solvable. 

[RowdyCanuck]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its both, imo. Acting on just one won't solve it, if it is solvable. 

Okay I was thinking if you deal with the gangs then maybe instead of picking up a gun they pick up a basketball or a hockey stick. 

Which means there would be less gang deaths there for less guns....

i rather see the government spend that money and man hours on helping the school systems and bettering that class of people( sorry I don't know what to call them)

 

[Kragar]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

No one "needs"  a handgun in 2019/2020.  

And yet if you look closely, there is no use of the word "need" when it comes to our basic rights.  Same for Canada, btw.  There are billions of people who live full lives without ever having the freedom of speech.  I guess we do not need that either?

 

Need has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or any other one for that matter.

 

And, more directly, I'm guessing the majority of the people in that church disagree with you, most strongly.

 

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

Arming citizens and allowing personal possession of hand guns will only lead to more deaths / shootings / suicides / stolen hand guns......

Well, most of whom want to be already are armed.  Do you know how many deaths, rapes, robberies, assaults and other crimes will occur if handguns are taken away from law-abiding citizens?

 

On a side note, I'm curious how many people in favor of restricting guns are in favor of legalizing drugs.  If enough restrictions are in place, people who want guns will still find a way to get them.  Other countries, especially those less cooperative with the US, will take up the slack.  Guns can be printed, too.  Just like hard drugs, if there is a market for them, they will persist.

[Kragar]

2 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Maybe I wasn't clear. I think the actions of the security guard were good and that it was a good thing that he was in position to do what he did. Where I disagree with some people (not necessarily anyone ITT) is with the idea that this was the best solution. I stand by my assertion that denying him access to the weapon would have been preferable.

 

I made the point in my original post that I couldn't guarantee that background checks would have prevented this particular attack, but they certainly might have. Unfortunately, we'll never know and while I'm happy that the security guard prevented further loss of life, I'm sad that two innocent people lost their lives, when common sense regulation might have saved them.

Sure, it would have been preferable.  I just don't think it is realistic to depend on laws to solve even a decent piece of the problem, especially today when people can more easily make their own guns, or find someone who can make or supply them.  That is why I favor going after the underlying causes that lead people to do crap like this, or take a truck and run people over, or go on a stabbing spree, or blow up a building... and work to prevent them all.

 

In the meantime, while there are too many people out there willing to senselessly kill people, I appreciate those who are able to take steps to prevent it from happening.

[RUPERTKBD]

19 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Sure, it would have been preferable.  I just don't think it is realistic to depend on laws to solve even a decent piece of the problem, especially today when people can more easily make their own guns, or find someone who can make or supply them.  That is why I favor going after the underlying causes that lead people to do crap like this, or take a truck and run people over, or go on a stabbing spree, or blow up a building... and work to prevent them all.

 

In the meantime, while there are too many people out there willing to senselessly kill people, I appreciate those who are able to take steps to prevent it from happening.

Actually, i agree with this. But that doesn't mean that it won't make a difference. I'm sure the families of the two people who were killed would agree.

[Kragar]

54 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Actually, i agree with this. But that doesn't mean that it won't make a difference. I'm sure the families of the two people who were killed would agree.

Dunno... they are (likely) Texans, after all.

 

Cheers to all, have a safe and Happy New Year!

[JM_]

15 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Okay I was thinking if you deal with the gangs then maybe instead of picking up a gun they pick up a basketball or a hockey stick. 

Which means there would be less gang deaths there for less guns....

i rather see the government spend that money and man hours on helping the school systems and bettering that class of people( sorry I don't know what to call them)

 

yup thats an area that needs a lot of help in the US for sure. Sad that Trump scares people with "MS13" yap and cuts school funding domestically  

 

it could be one hell of a scary year in the US depending on how the impeachment thing goes and how some far right militia groups react if things don't go how they like it. Yes gangs are a major problem, but those guys that stockpile weapons freak me out. 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yup thats an area that needs a lot of help in the US for sure. Sad that Trump scares people with "MS13" yap and cuts school funding domestically  

 

it could be one hell of a scary year in the US depending on how the impeachment thing goes and how some far right militia groups react if things don't go how they like it. Yes gangs are a major problem, but those guys that stockpile weapons freak me out. 

And that’s why I haven’t been across the line in 20 years.  The tension down there is palpable.  Where their economy takes its next downturn, they are going to implode.  

[RowdyCanuck]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yup thats an area that needs a lot of help in the US for sure. Sad that Trump scares people with "MS13" yap and cuts school funding domestically  

 

it could be one hell of a scary year in the US depending on how the impeachment thing goes and how some far right militia groups react if things don't go how they like it. Yes gangs are a major problem, but those guys that stockpile weapons freak me out. 

Don't get me wrong from what I've been able to learn about the ms13,  isn't even a states based gang , the  members came from civil war countries , that started it. 

But we can agree that trump is an dumbass for cutting school funding and actually with how trump has been treating the USA like a company , it should be flourishing. 

I go to the states all the time have been since I've been knee high and honestly I never really gave much thought about the guys stock piling guns cause well if they were going to do something it's outs of your control , just like getting hit by a car. 

Why miss out on some of nicest people you'll meet( depends on where you go) or some of the most stunning views , don't get me wrong b.c s beautiful but Georgia has views that could rival b.c and so could a lot of places down there. 

Also those guys stock piling weapons legally would need a collector's license , so the government already knows who to watch and if they are doing it illegally , I'm sure the FBI is already watching them. 

It okay if that freaks you out but just because something freaks you out isn't a reason to push for more control and rules for gun owners.....

 

 

[RowdyCanuck]

28 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And that’s why I haven’t been across the line in 20 years.  The tension down there is palpable.  Where their economy takes its next downturn, they are going to implode.  

Alf your missing out ha. 

But have you've been to Alberta or s.k or m.b lately? 

We have our own tension just like them , both countries hate their leaders right now. 

Crime has also taken a jump over the pasted couple years and every city in Canada has a gang proud so how are we different?

cause we don't have mass shootings? 

 

[ItsAllOursBoys]

On 12/29/2019 at 11:37 PM, kingofsurrey said:

#BrokenAmerica

#BrokenPeople

[kingofsurrey]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yup thats an area that needs a lot of help in the US for sure. Sad that Trump scares people with "MS13" yap and cuts school funding domestically  

 

Did you know the BC government funds BC students 1800 dollars per year less than the Canadian average student ?

 

For a school of 1000 students ... that is close to 2 million per year in funding....  

 

Do you find this odd or concerning ?

 

https://www.leg.bc.ca/content/CommitteeDocuments/41st-parliament/3rd-session/fgs/submissions/FGS-Budget2019-1009-03075.pdf

 

BC lags behind the rest of Canada in terms of spending per student, growth in education expenditures since 2008-2009 and student to educator ratio. In the five-year period 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, the average expenditure per student in Canada increased 14.1% whereas BC increased only by 6.5%.

Edited January 1, 2020 by kingofsurrey

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Alf your missing out ha. 

But have you've been to Alberta or s.k or m.b lately? 

We have our own tension just like them , both countries hate their leaders right now. 

Crime has also taken a jump over the pasted couple years and every city in Canada has a gang proud so how are we different?

cause we don't have mass shootings? 

 

All good points RC.  I think there are something like 10,000 homeless in Vancouver, and they are mostly downtown.  The petty crime rate is crazy.  And that’s with many of them not even getting attention from the cops.  I heard (not too sure if true) a lot of those homeless types carry knives.  It’s maybe to to carry (illegally) here.  Gun beats knife. 

[Alflives]

28 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Did you know the BC government funds BC students 1800 dollars per year less than the Canadian average student ?

 

For a school of 1000 students ... that is close to 2 million per year in funding....  

 

Do you find this odd or concerning ?

 

https://www.leg.bc.ca/content/CommitteeDocuments/41st-parliament/3rd-session/fgs/submissions/FGS-Budget2019-1009-03075.pdf

 

BC lags behind the rest of Canada in terms of spending per student, growth in education expenditures since 2008-2009 and student to educator ratio. In the five-year period 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, the average expenditure per student in Canada increased 14.1% whereas BC increased only by 6.5%.

Maybe the way we treat the kids is too soft?  I hear few kids can fail a class, or a year.  They get coddled, when they should be held accountable.  We seem to have a lot of recent grads, who don’t really know work and responsibility.  Maybe those kids are turning to gangs, violence, and guns?

Edited January 1, 2020 by Alflives