Jump to content

Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.


Mother Cocanuts

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They did. Just not all of them.

Hadn't he already been in the process of get-away when the neighbor took aim?

The good guy with the gun didn't save anybody, if that was the case.

Though like just about everybody else, I'm surely glad the shooter is dead, however he is dead.  Though I'd rather he'd done to trial and been convicted and life imprisoned.  That may be a contradiction, but our national crazy makes it impossible not to contradict oneself at this point it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Hadn't he already been in the process of get-away when the neighbor took aim?

The good guy with the gun didn't save anybody, if that was the case.

He was leaving the church when the other guy started shooting. It's unclear where he was going after that or what he was going to do, but we do know that he was unable to do anything other than get in his car and speed away, into a ditch, where he was found dead by (likely) self-inflicted wound.

It is reasonable to assume his plan was not to speed away at high rate while being chased by other people and shoot himself miles away. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Speak for yourself. If the people had access to military hardware they'd be able to deal with domestic and foreign invasions better, as well as domestic and foreign tyranny. 

I don't want untrained people to have access to these things, mind you - but I absolutely want people to have them. 

All of this is entirely against the 2nd amendment and quite possibly privacy rights. Good luck with that.

Who knows maybe you're right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

He was leaving the church when the other guy started shooting. It's unclear where he was going after that or what he was going to do, but we do know that he was unable to do anything other than get in his car and speed away, into a ditch, where he was found dead by (likely) self-inflicted wound.

It is reasonable to assume his plan was not to speed away at high rate while being chased by other people and shoot himself miles away. 

 

Why is that reasonable to assume?  There's nothing reasonable about that.  He had expended hundreds of bullets, killed and injured entire families and then he was leaving the church.  The neighbor shooter didn't hit or kill him.  He easily could have driven him straight back into the church where he could have injured or harmed more.  This idea that the vigilante neighbor shooter did anything to stop more killing after an entire church was shot up is ludicrous.  You're better than this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here is the real, detailed story, straight from the man who engaged the shooter.

To summarize, Stephen Willeford was resting in his bedroom a block away from the church. Upon realizing what was happening, he grabbed his AR-15 from his safe, and grabbed a handful of ammunition. He didn't finish loading his rifle because each shot he heard he kept thinking was another human being dying. So he ran out barefoot with only a few rounds loaded, and ran to the church where he engaged the shooter as he was coming out of the church.

They found numerous weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in the car, so who knows where the shooter was heading next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, this is what I get from breitbart (yeah, they have my email, I like to live on the edge):

 

Quote

 

Just about everyone has heard that you can make an unregistered AR-15 rifle at home, but did you know you can also make an unregistered Glock handgun too?

Yes, you read that right, you can build your own Ghost Glock and it takes less than an hour and costs less that a new one from Bass Pro!

No Paperwork, No Serial Number, And 100% Legal

You can make as many as you want for personal use.

With just a drill, file and hacksaw and an hour in your garage you truly can have you own Ghost Glock…

Protect your family, protect your home and keep the Feds off your back…

And I’ll show you how for FREE how right here.

Always Safe, Always Prepared,

Frank Mitchell

Founder

P.S. This is currently 100% legal in all 50 states and I’d love to give it to you for free right now…

 

Moare guns, moare bullets, moare moare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Why is that reasonable to assume?  There's nothing reasonable about that.  He had expended hundreds of bullets, killed and injured entire families and then he was leaving the church.  The neighbor shooter didn't hit or kill him.  He easily could have driven him straight back into the church where he could have injured or harmed more.  This idea that the vigilante neighbor shooter did anything to stop more killing after an entire church was shot up is ludicrous.  You're better than this.  

The neighbor shooter did, in fact, hit him - twice. Once in the leg and once in the torso. In addition to that, the murderer called his father as he was driving away. 

I also think that it's preposterous to think that the shooter's plan was to miss his exit and roll his truck in a ditch, and then shoot himself. 

Again, facts matter, even when said facts do not support your narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't see this mentioned here -- 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/11/06/the-air-force-says-it-failed-to-follow-procedures-allowing-texas-church-shooter-to-obtain-firearms/?utm_term=.10b4e1b90283

Quote

The Air Force says it failed to follow procedures, allowing Texas church shooter to obtain firearms

Firearms retailer Academy Sports also confirmed Monday that Kelley purchased two weapons from its stores after passing federal background checks this year and last. It remains unclear whether those were the same weapons used in Sunday’s massacre, but his ability to buy guns at all highlights the Air Force’s failure to follow Pentagon guidelines for ensuring that certain violent offenses are reported to the FBI.

Directing outrage at the military for dropping the ball here. Laws on the books would have prevented or -- at least -- made it difficult for the shooter to purchase his weapons.

Thanks to Breitbart and others (per above) -- laws on the books will be less and less effective as 3d printing and other technologies improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, facts matter, even when said facts do not support your narrative.

What narrative are you talking about? One way or the other a lunatic with a gun had enough time to kill 26 people, including children, before being stopped.
For once, he was actually stopped by a "good guy with a gun" who probably prevented the moron from shooting more people.
26 people still died. That's not a narrative but a fact.
You seem to be playing devil's advocate and suggesting that we are supposed to look at the glass half-full and cheer because he might have killed more. No offense, but that's f***ing ridiculous. Whoever thinks 26 dead is good news on some level or the other needs a brain check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Whoever thinks 26 dead is good news on some level or the other needs a brain check.

PLEASE!? CAN WE GET ONE??

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/11/07/trump-says-hundreds-more-might-have-died-in-texas-shooting-if-gun-laws-were-tougher/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trump-shooting-440am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.31313e424bc6

Quote

President Trump on Tuesday asserted that tougher gun laws would not have stopped the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Tex., last weekend and that “hundreds more” would have died had another man not been able to “neutralize” the alleged killer with a gun of his own.

HUNDREDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Normally I would side with Week, Dr. Pepper and Rippounet, but in this particular instance I believe Kalbear is correct. These two vigilantes blew up the second half of this guys plan.

 Specifically to Rippounet, it's not reasonable to expect that a vigilante is going to be able to prevent the initial attack. You'd have to have armed security for that expectation to even approach rationality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Specifically to Rippounet, it's not reasonable to expect that a vigilante is going to be able to prevent the initial attack. You'd have to have armed security for that expectation to even approach rationality. 

Which is kind of my point. At best an armed population might limit the casualties in some mass shootings, I'm not denying that this is the case here. But that's a really low standard for collective security.

Meanwhile, there are several studies showing that defensive gun use is a rather minor phenomenon:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262_Page2.html
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

Also, according to this article in French, gun owners are unlikely to be able to use their weapon in self-defense against a mass shooter:
http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/11/07/les-statistiques-le-confirment-aux-etats-unis-plus-d-armes-a-feu-en-circulation-entraine-plus-de-morts_5211448_4355770.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1510062423
Unfortunately the article does not provide the references for the studies and simulations that supposedly proved this. But there is an interesting point in this nonetheless: the "good guy with a gun" might actually have an impact, but it's probably best if he is not himself the target of the shooter in the first place.
Which leads me to wonder whether any people in the church armed... If we're supposed to discuss the "good guy with a gun" narrative on this one data point, might as well do it thoroughly, eh?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further institutional failures -- to me, this is a direct result of out of control gun culture. The inertia -- fear at times -- to abridge the constitutional right to a gun despite the clear and present threat to the lives and well-being of others.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/07/as-texas-town-mourns-details-emerge-on-gunmans-methodical-tactics-in-church-massacre/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_texasshooting-739am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f6086a2de05b

Quote

The gunman who opened fire in a church outside San Antonio, killing at least 26 people, escaped from a mental health facility in 2012 after he was caught sneaking guns onto an Air Force base and “attempting to carry out death threats” made against military superiors, according to a police report.

The report said that officers with the El Paso, Tex., police were dispatched to a bus terminal after Devin P. Kelley‘s escape from a behavioral facility about seven miles away in New Mexico.

Officers wrote that they were told Kelley “was a danger to himself and others” at the time and noted that he “was also facing military criminal charges.” Kelley was court-martialed that same year and convicted of abusing his wife and her son.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Which is kind of my point. At best an armed population might limit the casualties in some mass shootings, I'm not denying that this is the case here. But that's a really low standard for collective security.

Meanwhile, there are several studies showing that defensive gun use is a rather minor phenomenon:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262_Page2.html
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

Also, according to this article in French, gun owners are unlikely to be able to use their weapon in self-defense against a mass shooter:
http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2017/11/07/les-statistiques-le-confirment-aux-etats-unis-plus-d-armes-a-feu-en-circulation-entraine-plus-de-morts_5211448_4355770.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1510062423
Unfortunately the article does not provide the references for the studies and simulations that supposedly proved this. But there is an interesting point in this nonetheless: the "good guy with a gun" might actually have an impact, but it's probably best if he is not himself the target of the shooter in the first place.
Which leads me to wonder whether any people in the church armed... If we're supposed to discuss the "good guy with a gun" narrative on this one data point, might as well do it thoroughly, eh?
 

It's the same sort of thing as when people say "where were the police?" You can't reasonably expect the police to just be driving by your house the moment some maniac breaks in and tries to kill your family.

I'm not defending the "good guy with a gun" narrative as a matter of course. In this particular instance however, unless you think this guy was just going back to his car to kill himself, I think you have to give it some credence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zorral said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?

The only reason the USA has more mass shootings than any other country is because it has more guns than any other country.

 

It's honestly like some cruel cosmic joke that this point even has to be mentioned, let alone debated. It's like going back in time to when some doctors were advising patients to smoke for blood pressure and lung ailments, and then the decades of 'debate' as to why so many smokers had these issues.

1) It does seem that a lot of smokers have lung cancer.

2) There's a lot of conflicting information out there. I've seen studies that say it's coincidental, even ones that smoking prevents lung cancer. Is there a connection? Who knows, it's possible, but certainly not clear enough to state. We'll probably never know. 

1) Those studies are funded by the cigarette companies, and they try to prevent independent studies from happening. Why would they do that unless they want to hide the truth?

2) Yeah, like I said, it's all very murky and unknowable.

For the love of God, the US national bird shoukd be neither Eagle nor vulture, it ought to be a fucking ostrich. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm not defending the "good guy with a gun" narrative as a matter of course. In this particular instance however, unless you think this guy was just going back to his car to kill himself, I think you have to give it some credence.

Giving it credence obscures the fact that 26 people died.

And I have a personal bone to pick with the "good guy with a gun" narrative.
Remember two years ago, after the Paris attacks, the now moron-in-chief posted this shit:

Quote

When you look at Paris -- you know the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris -- nobody had guns but the bad guys. Nobody had guns. Nobody. They were just shooting them one by one and then they (security forces) broke in and had a big shootout and ultimately killed the terrorists.

Thing is, this was inaccurate. In both of the 2015 Paris attacks armed cops arrived on the scene within minutes. In the case of the November attacks, two cops shot one of the three terrorists less than fifteen minutes after the shooting started, effectively ending it. The two remaing terrorists then took about twenty people hostage. About 15 to 30 minutes later, the anticommando brigade arrived, secured the building, and started negotiations that ended with the two terrorists being killed without any further victims.
But that was not the story told in the US. No one pointed out that the swift response of police officers ended the mass shooting in less than fifteen minutes, effectively saving many hundreds of lives. Instead, some moron used the attack as an excuse to push a so-called "good guy with a gun" narrative.
Meanwhile, French people chose to focus on the victims. Some medals and honors were discreetly awarded, but it took some time for anyone to think about what had gone right and what gone wrong that day. And to this day, no one knows who the policemen who ended the mass shooting and saved hundreds of lives were. You see, all this time, everyone saw the entire attack as a tragedy, thinking about the loss of life that had occurred. No one in their right mind would ever have spun it as a win for the police or for guns.
I like to think it is basic human decency. Or perhaps it's what happens in a country where mass shootings are not a common occurrence. Perhaps this is what Americans have been reduced to, finding solace in the rare case when things are less bad than they presumably could have been. But if that's true, no offense, but I sincerely pity you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Giving it credence obscures the fact that 26 people died.

And I have a personal bone to pick with the "good guy with a gun" narrative.
Remember two years ago, after the Paris attacks, the now moron-in-chief posted this shit:

Thing is, this was inaccurate. In both of the 2015 Paris attacks armed cops arrived on the scene within minutes. In the case of the November attacks, two cops shot one of the three terrorists less than fifteen minutes after the shooting started, effectively ending it. The two remaing terrorists then took about twenty people hostage. About 15 to 30 minutes later, the anticommando brigade arrived, secured the building, and started negotiations that ended with the two terrorists being killed without any further victims.
But that was not the story told in the US. No one pointed out that the swift response of police officers ended the mass shooting in less than fifteen minutes, effectively saving many hundreds of lives. Instead, some moron used the attack as an excuse to push a so-called "good guy with a gun" narrative.
Meanwhile, French people chose to focus on the victims. Some medals and honors were discreetly awarded, but it took some time for anyone to think about what had gone right and what gone wrong that day. And to this day, no one knows who the policemen who ended the mass shooting and saved hundreds of lives were. You see, all this time, everyone saw the entire attack as a tragedy, thinking about the loss of life that had occurred. No one in their right mind would ever have spun it as a win for the police or for guns.
I like to think it is basic human decency. Or perhaps it's what happens in a country where mass shootings are not a common occurrence. Perhaps this is what Americans have been reduced to, finding solace in the rare case when things are less bad than they presumably could have been. But if that's true, no offense, but I sincerely pity you.

I'm not attempting to obscure anything. I have often ridiculed the "good guy with a gun" narrative in the past, and I'm sure i will again in the future. The Trump Tweet/Statement you forwarded regarding Paris is a good example of that.

I take no solace in a circumstance where 26 people (15 of those being children) are murdered in cold blood. That said, to ignore that in this particular case, a third party with a gun may have mitigated the death toll to some degree is to wear blinders against facts that you don't particularly care for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

What narrative are you talking about? One way or the other a lunatic with a gun had enough time to kill 26 people, including children, before being stopped.
For once, he was actually stopped by a "good guy with a gun" who probably prevented the moron from shooting more people.
26 people still died. That's not a narrative but a fact.
You seem to be playing devil's advocate and suggesting that we are supposed to look at the glass half-full and cheer because he might have killed more. No offense, but that's f***ing ridiculous. Whoever thinks 26 dead is good news on some level or the other needs a brain check.

The narrative is that 'guns never, ever help'. And there are some cases in which they do. They're rare, and unlikely, and certainly not worth the cost overall - but there are cases in which they do.

Saying that the neighbor didn't shoot the guy is factually wrong.

Saying that the two men who pursued the murderer didn't stop more killings is almost certainly wrong. 

This isn't good news, not by a longshot, but stating these things as false doesn't do you any favors. You can acknowledge their existence and then say 'yeah but' very effectively; as I've pointed out, this is possibly the best example of 'good guy with gun' scenario that you can possibly have and STILL 26 people were killed and another 20 injured. Based on that, all a good guy with a gun can do is possibly prevent more damage - but they won't prevent these outcomes. 

Whereas if the Air Force had followed protocol and reported this guy to the NIC database as legally obligated to do so, chances are quite decent that he would not have had these weapons at all. He certainly would have been flagged on his concealed carry permit, which of course he wasn't - though it's weird that he wasn't ANYWAY, as that requires an actual background check. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...