Suspect in Houston killings handcuffed 8 victims, then shot them, authorities say

[Mr. Ambien]

The bad guy isn't surrounded by 5000 good guys. Its most often one mentally unstable individual who surprises a bunch of people who have no chance to fight back, then usually kills himself in a fit of psychosis or surrenders himself when he has calmed down/accomplished his task. The entire reason for having better restrictions is to make sure mentally unstable people who might use a gun on innocent people don't have easy access to a gun, that's all. I don't see what is so hard for people to understand about this. Usually the 'criminals' are just people who are messed up in the head, had a bad upbringing, have been brought up in a bad circumstance, or made a poor decision in a moment of rage. Does anyone seriously want these people to have guns readily at their disposal? There aren't many serial 'mass shooters', it's usually someone who has one big 'go' and then is put down one way or another when the authorities arrive.

You're obviously fitting scenarios around the anti-gun narrative. What is so scary about the real world that you have to be so imaginative?

Maybe you should actually engage yourself and find gun related news away from CNN/HuffPost/etc where gun or knife wielding perps are often chased away with guns. Not necessarily shot and killed. And the people who use and acquired guns legally are overwhelmingly people who follow the law. No surprise, those who tend to use guns illegally also acquired their gun illegally -- generally, theft, or smuggling. Those few who do legally own guns and murder people, for obvious reasons, are, in the eyes of the courts, no justification for hindering the right of people to acquire guns to protect themselves. Likewise, those few who steal from stores are no justification for forcing the vast majority of innocent shoppers when leaving a public store to submit to a search/empty their pockets/show receipt. In many cases, such restrictions (that have been tried before by the way) do not have the intended results.

[Ghostsof1915]

Ban Guns:

1 in 5000 people (criminals) who have illegal guns, can kill MANY innocent people who do not - due to ban.

Teach and Distribute Guns:

5000 in 5000 people own guns, 1 criminal starts shooting, 4999 people available to shoot back.

My buddy and I (He also owns firearms), discussed what would happen if Canada had open or concealed carry. We both were in agreement, the chances of you being in a tactical situation to shoot back at a criminal is rare to say the least. For example if you're in a bank getting cash from an ATM. An armed robber storms in. They have their gun already out, and ready to go. What are the odds you can:

1) Get your firearm out before he can turn on you.

2) You get a good shot at centre mass.

3) Depending on the situation (open carry) what's to stop the robber from shooting you first because you have a firearm in your holster?

4) Avoid hitting any innocent civilians.

It just means more casualties.

[Mr. Ambien]

My buddy and I (He also owns firearms), discussed what would happen if Canada had open or concealed carry. We both were in agreement, the chances of you being in a tactical situation to shoot back at a criminal is rare to say the least. For example if you're in a bank getting cash from an ATM. An armed robber storms in. They have their gun already out, and ready to go. What are the odds you can:

1) Get your firearm out before he can turn on you.

2) You get a good shot at centre mass.

3) Depending on the situation (open carry) what's to stop the robber from shooting you first because you have a firearm in your holster?

4) Avoid hitting any innocent civilians.

It just means more casualties.

If you're not in a position to actually fire at someone, why would you do it anyways? Having a gun doesn't inherently make people stupid.

And you guys are also debating two different countries. The suggestion that Canada has a violence problem that necessitates more people having a means of this type of self-defence (i.e. loosening restrictions, allowing CC/OC, etc. by gun owners) would be as dumb as the suggestion that they don't need guns in the US.

[BeefcakeBo]

I won't even make the "if they'd been armed joke" because I think by now everyone sees that as the f***ing joke it really is

I literally cannot open the news in any medium without reading about how some American has shot multiple people and sometimes them self in an act of rage.

If you don't want to ban guns fine. Then ban the damned bullets.

I'm not even sure how this applies to this story. This is clearly a case of premeditated murder. The guy was gonna kill the bunch of them no matter what he had to do it with.

[Lancaster]

My buddy and I (He also owns firearms), discussed what would happen if Canada had open or concealed carry. We both were in agreement, the chances of you being in a tactical situation to shoot back at a criminal is rare to say the least. For example if you're in a bank getting cash from an ATM. An armed robber storms in. They have their gun already out, and ready to go. What are the odds you can:

1) Get your firearm out before he can turn on you.

2) You get a good shot at centre mass.

3) Depending on the situation (open carry) what's to stop the robber from shooting you first because you have a firearm in your holster?

4) Avoid hitting any innocent civilians.

It just means more casualties.

My buddy and I (He also owns firearms), discussed what would happen if Canada had open or concealed carry. We both were in agreement, the chances of you being in a tactical situation to shoot back at a criminal is rare to say the least. For example if you're in a bank getting cash from an ATM. An armed robber storms in. They have their gun already out, and ready to go. What are the odds you can:

1) Get your firearm out before he can turn on you.

2) You get a good shot at centre mass.

3) Depending on the situation (open carry) what's to stop the robber from shooting you first because you have a firearm in your holster?

4) Avoid hitting any innocent civilians.

It just means more casualties.

My buddy and I (He also owns firearms), discussed what would happen if Canada had open or concealed carry. We both were in agreement, the chances of you being in a tactical situation to shoot back at a criminal is rare to say the least. For example if you're in a bank getting cash from an ATM. An armed robber storms in. They have their gun already out, and ready to go. What are the odds you can:

1) Get your firearm out before he can turn on you.

2) You get a good shot at centre mass.

3) Depending on the situation (open carry) what's to stop the robber from shooting you first because you have a firearm in your holster?

4) Avoid hitting any innocent civilians.

It just means more casualties.

Except if you're walking into a bank knowing that at least 50% of the people inside have a firearm, no matter how armed and armoured you are, as a criminal you are way out-gunned.

What makes criminal more threatening is the fact that they have leverage over others, meaning they have access to weapons and you don't. Assuming I'm not a nutjob and my intention is to make a quick buck, I wouldn't consciously choose to enter and rob a place that is heavily armed (security and gun carrying civilians). I would want to make sure I can still leave the place alive to enjoy the illegally obtained cash.

If you mean attacking someone individually like a guy late night withdrawing from an ATM..... it call comes down to what advantages a criminal will feel he has over the victim. If I'm planning to rob someone, I won't be targeting people that are open-carry or in places where conceal carry is legal. Sure, I might have the element of surprise, but I can't control factors like maybe the target is an ex-Navy Seals who could probably disarm me and crush my windpipe within 3 seconds. Maybe that guy is a trigger-happy guy who is more than willing to pump me full of lead without any disregards for the safety of others.

Once again, my ultimate goal for committing the crime is surviving the encounter to use the money.

Firearms are used as a deterrent against rational sane, would be criminal. As for this story, it appears the guy was willing to murder those innocent folks regardless of weapon. He could have easily just taken one of the children hostage with a knife, used the child to force others to tie themselves and each other up... and then continue on his evil deed.

[Warhippy]

just gonna leave this here

[taxi]

Give it a rest people. This is not a gun control issue. The guy was bent on killing this family and he already had them handcuffed before he murdered them. He could have just as easily have used a kitchen knife at that point.

[Mr. Ambien]

Give it a rest people. This is not a gun control issue. The guy was bent on killing this family and he already had them handcuffed before he murdered them. He could have just as easily have used a kitchen knife at that point.

If only guns were banned he would totally not kill them.

[Warhippy]

Give it a rest people. This is not a gun control issue. The guy was bent on killing this family and he already had them handcuffed before he murdered them. He could have just as easily have used a kitchen knife at that point.

just wondering. How did he get them handcuffed again? Did he politely ask them?

Or was it at gun point do you think

[BeefcakeBo]

just wondering. How did he get them handcuffed again? Did he politely ask them?

Or was it at gun point do you think

I'd bet he used a weapon and one of the kids as leverage to have one of them handcuff everyone. Doesn't really matter if he has a gun or not for that to happen.

[luckylager]

Dude, really... I think it's kind of funny how you went to your original post and edited it at the same time you made this comment in all likelihood to fix whatever grammatical errors you may have made.

But anyway..

I also laughed at the irony of my post-edited postpost, so I then editted the post in which I was complaining about grammar. The irony was and is intentional. Get it? Edit option is there for a reason, but yes, I was being bitchy.

[luckylager]

Lol.. DP

Edit-.

[hsedin33]

If only guns were banned he would totally not kill them.

If he used a knife, they could of at least have a chance of fighting chance, once a gun is pointed at you its game over. But you are also missing the point, you will always have some criminals with guns who will be willing to use them, the point is to minimize them as much as possible so stuff like this doesn't happen every other week.

Regarding a bank robbing scenario, even if you are carrying, once someone has their gun out or pointed at you, its over, regardless if you have a fully loaded m16 on your hip. Do you really want to risk your life to save your credit card, or to save the banks already insured money? There is nothing material worth risking your life over.

[BeefcakeBo]

If he used a knife, they could of at least have a chance of fighting chance, once a gun is pointed at you its game over. But you are also missing the point, you will always have some criminals with guns who will be willing to use them, the point is to minimize them as much as possible so stuff like this doesn't happen every other week.

Regarding a bank robbing scenario, even if you are carrying, once someone has their gun out or pointed at you, its over, regardless if you have a fully loaded m16 on your hip. Do you really want to risk your life to save your credit card, or to save the banks already insured money? There is nothing material worth risking your life over.

I'm curious about how one would go about carrying a loaded m16 on their hip?

[Mr. Ambien]

I'm curious about how one would go about carrying a loaded m16 on their hip?

Without ammo or with their leg/bollocks being blown off.

As you can see this is why people who know nothing about guns shouldn't be dictating to everyone else about guns.

[taxi]

If he used a knife, they could of at least have a chance of fighting chance, once a gun is pointed at you its game over. But you are also missing the point, you will always have some criminals with guns who will be willing to use them, the point is to minimize them as much as possible so stuff like this doesn't happen every other week.

Regarding a bank robbing scenario, even if you are carrying, once someone has their gun out or pointed at you, its over, regardless if you have a fully loaded m16 on your hip. Do you really want to risk your life to save your credit card, or to save the banks already insured money? There is nothing material worth risking your life over.

6 of the victims were children? It was a couple and their kids. Are small children really going to be able to fight a full grown man with a knife?

The point was that this is a tragic story and exploiting it for the purpose of furthering a political agenda really isn't appropriate. .

[Kragar]

If he used a knife, they could of at least have a chance of fighting chance, once a gun is pointed at you its game over. But you are also missing the point, you will always have some criminals with guns who will be willing to use them, the point is to minimize them as much as possible so stuff like this doesn't happen every other week.

Regarding a bank robbing scenario, even if you are carrying, once someone has their gun out or pointed at you, its over, regardless if you have a fully loaded m16 on your hip. Do you really want to risk your life to save your credit card, or to save the banks already insured money? There is nothing material worth risking your life over.

No, it's not. Odds may be likely, but criminals can miss even when they have their gun drawn first, especially in the heat of the moment. And even moreso if someone who bravely/stupidly decides to pull a gun on the criminal. I am not saying that is the right thing to do all the time, as every situation is different.

While someone is robbing a bank, another customer can enter the bank, pull a gun and fire (or threaten to). Similarly, a customer out of the line of sight of the robber could be armed.

Chances are, someone robbing a bank does not have the "safety" on (it happens, and we all laugh when it does, but I digress). In his heightened state of adrenalin, he could easily fire accidentally, perhaps injuring/killing someone he had no intention of harming. Taking down a criminal, under the right circumstances, may be the right thing to do. It could save lives.