Sutherland Springs Shooting

[Horns11]

http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-nichols-mass-shooting-irrational-20171108-story.html

While I think I would appreciate having Shaark around if **** went down and he was packing, the average person is unable to make a difference. Nichols is no bleeding liberal, and he has stated these opinions with other mass shootings before. A good guy with a gun is only as good as his ability to assess risk. We think the sense of control it lends to any situation is a substitute for challenges.

 

[ShAArk92]

my experience is dated which is why I don't feel qualified.

OK ... fair enough. Thanks for answering.

I'm not expecting to legislate morality

well, yes you are. You are suggesting legislation will fix the problem of "bad" (criminal) behavior, I'm simply restating the proposed solution from the other direction ... and from the other "side."

There is no way our founding fathers could have fathomed that when they emblazoned our right to bear arms and form militias when drafting our founding documents.

Ah there it is ... nor could they have fathomed a communication apparatus like the one we've been using now for over 20 years ... but hey. If it makes ya feel better, fine, understand the philosophy of freedom and liberty isn't limited by technology.

I've stated over and over that we've put reasonable limits on many of the rights with my example of the free speech right. What I don't understand it the inference that the 2A somehow is immune from reasonable limits when we already have limits on it. It's as if the NRA and its supporters have picked some irrational point to draw a line in the sand and say "no more" despite the carnage that has ensued.

Yes ... yes you have and you're addressing with an inane point. The comparison isn't limits, it's permits. It's expecting/requiring the authorization by the government to exercise the right. How is it a right if the government administers it?

Yes, you're right again ... we already infringe on 2A rights. That doesn't justify increased infringement, it only declares we've been willing to accept erosion of our American rights for whatever reason/feeling/excuse.

Irrational ... or arbitrary. There's nothing irrational about seeking to adhere to 2A rights.

How does limiting access assault rifles suddenly mean our Republic is lost?

Well, you define "assault rifle" and then we can discuss the degree to which the Republic, as it was Founded, is lost.

Sacrifice? Like the 28 people in Sutherland Springs?

this tells me you're not willing or are unable to have a rational discussion about this. Of course that's not my reference ... when I used the term "sacrifice" it was in reference to the creation of this nation ... and its keeping. IE ... SINCE we are on 11/11 Veteran's Day ... sacrifices of our military personnel and families to keep this nation the freest on the planet. Yes, there's a cost. A substantial one.

just so some individual can shoot some feral hogs.

I was serious when I identified your position as trolling. I obliged ya once just for fun and education. If you think that's the only purpose behind the Founder's including this restriction on government ... you're not able or willing to have the conversation despite your personal military service.

 

[ShAArk92]

A good guy with a gun is only as good as his ability to assess risk.

From the article: "You are highly unlikely to die in one. Besides, civilians who think they're going to be saviors at the next church shooting are more likely to get in the way of trained law enforcement personnel than they are to be of any help as a backup posse."

Those who are willing to accept the responsibility of carrying a firearm in public make a habit of it. Error comes when it's "sometimes yes, sometimes no" and yes, that is the case for all of us as firearm carriage is prohibited in places we all visit. Perhaps the instructional point there is ... if legal here, why illegal there? A person is either deemed certifiable to carry (concealed) or he's not ... nor, then, is the non-LEO population.

Why must a civilian "think (he's) going to be (a) savior?" ... getting in the way of trained law enforcement??? Huh?

This guy is addressing potential scenarios and mixing 'em is the only thing I can figure. The Sutherland scenario is that the attack was WAY over before police arrived. IN the case where a CHL happens to be in the same place as police when a shooting occurs, "getting in the way" is clearly something to which THE VAST MAJORITY of firearm carriers would be sensitive .. and offer to follow the officer's command.

 

[Horns11]

Did you read the Denver article? It had nothing to do with cops giving commands to civilians. It said that "good guys with guns" delayed the investigation for the police because they had to track each one before ruling each out as a suspect. I get that it's definitely not the same as Sutherland Springs, as a Walmart dwarfs that structure.

The LA Times article was referring more to the control aspect of it all. Some people are scared of flying because going down in a fiery death spiral is outside of one's control, except maybe a pilot. But I think the most pointed quote towards your VIGILANCE requirements of everyone else comes down to this:

"That impulse, however, has now rotted into a paranoid, grandiose belief that every citizen is a hero in waiting. We absorb this message in our popular culture, and we reinforce it by assuring each other on social media that any of us can be the hard-eyed gunslinger in our own personal action movie."

And I think this is what a lot of people hear when you say things like that. Maybe you're right... for a percentage of gun owners.

 

[ShAArk92]

Did you read the Denver article?

I see only the LATimes link ... So ... no.

Delayed the investigation? That happens after the threat is stopped or has escaped, but in any case ... is no longer an immediate threat. Investigation is interviews, chalk drawing, forensics. Perhaps "investigation" was a wrong choice of words. If the author of this article (I cannot see) is addressing a situation (in walmart) whereby there are multiple armed people; there are good guys and there are bad guys ... It's real simple. The guy who obeys the identified LEO is a good guy. The guy who doesn't ... probable bad guy. That's making a mountain out of a mole hill ... aka straw man.

"hero in waiting?" I don't discount the possibility there is that element ... but again, it's a focus on the exceptional/marginal/rare ... in an attempt to apply that element to the aggregate and that's simply not true. It lives only in the minds of fiction writers.

AFA what others "hear" when I "say" things like 'be vigilant.' That's a receiver problem quite frankly. Be alert. Same thing. If someone is going to be "triggered" because of the shared base word with vigilante ... then that's precisely the person who needs to stay in their safe space and not "come-out." Leave the adult things to adults. I don't mean to offend, but neither will I be hamstrung by verbiage which is accurate because someone might be scared.

We're not talking about irritations in a process of exchanging muffin recipes ... we're talking about life ... and in these scenarios, life lives or dies in the matter of seconds. At risk of sounding like Jack Bauer ... "there's no time" to appeal to sensitivities ... and in a discussion about those kinds of scenarios, there's accurate language and there's allusive language. Why would I use allusive language which CERTAINLY could be misinterpreted when there is ACCURATE language???

Thanks.

 

[old65horn]

you sure about the political views point?

I’ve seen a reasonably complete collection of “mass shootings” recently ... all registered democrats/voted democrat.

 

[old65horn]

I’ve seen a reasonably complete collection of “mass shootings” recently ... all registered democrats/voted democrat.

 

[ShAArk92]

ah ... was there a question here?

 

[old65horn]

I’ve seen a reasonably complete collection of “mass shootings” recently ... all registered democrats/voted democrat.

ah ... was there a question here?

yes, I would like to see a source to this claim. Sounds like total BS.

 

[ShAArk92]

well, it twas a compilation of sources ... FBI (crimes) ... and Sec of State (elections). cross referenced ... I'll search for it again, but the bottom line is ... seems like those who support the left are the greatest threats to public safety ... for whatever reason.

 

[old65horn]

well, it twas a compilation of sources ... FBI (crimes) ... and Sec of State (elections). cross referenced ... I'll search for it again, but the bottom line is ... seems like those who support the left are the greatest threats to public safety ... for whatever reason.

I asked for a source link, not your biased opinion.

 

[Garmel]

If it was me, ShAArk I wouldn't give him a thing because of his nasty attitude.

 

[ShAArk92]

I asked for a source link, not your biased opinion.

Mister ... I don't know you and you don't know me ...

I said I'd search for it again and that's what I will do when I get back on the big computer at the casa.

This obviously struck a nerve in you and you may have to deal with, as one of what I presume is "your side's" heros ... an "inconvenient truth."

These things are going to escalate as long as we continue to look to another for our provision. As long as the ideal that someone owes me something other than basic respect (Until I demonstrate I'm not worth it) ... this trend of violence will continue.

I give us 1 chance in 3 ... we have trouble being civil on a BBS for crying out loud.

 

[old65horn]

Mister ... I don't know you and you don't know me ...

I said I'd search for it again and that's what I will do when I get back on the big computer at the casa.

This obviously struck a nerve in you and you may have to deal with, as one of what I presume is "your side's" heros ... an "inconvenient truth."

These things are going to escalate as long as we continue to look to another for our provision. As long as the ideal that someone owes me something other than basic respect (Until I demonstrate I'm not worth it) ... this trend of violence will continue.

I give us 1 chance in 3 ... we have trouble being civil on a BBS for crying out loud.

OK, I hope this is the 1, I apologize and I should have remained silent. I will do that. I hope you will accept it and you can forget my request. I take it back. I am the problem here, not you. I will continue reading and not posting. I agree with a lot of what you post, not all, but a lot. I am sorry.

 

[ShAArk92]

OK, I hope this is the 1

Sir ... if you start "the one" ... that would be HUGE! I hope to continue it in that hope.

I actually meant our society, but hey, perhaps it could start with a BBS exchange between two people who don't really know one another, but share a common goal of civility between us and for all of us.

The reference I made earlier stemmed from a compilation of mass shootings. Of course, like everything else, DEFINITION of mass shooting is the first place necessary to start ... but even if the definition can be as broad as 4 (not including the shooter) ... this starts to paint a reasonably distinct picture. Snopes is on record as debunking the statement: Mass Shooters are Democrats. The first compilation I saw, Snopes listed as one Ted Nugent made famous, it tried to debunk (and had to say "mostly false" ... of course, what is "mostly false?") is a list which included POTUS assassinations of Lincoln to begin (though clearly, that's somewhat less than 4 in the mass shooting definition)

Here is the link to their effort (which, by the way, the Mikklesons have been debunked as "not objective" so this is why their declarations are suspect at best, but they DO compile data)

There is a seemingly good compilation of these 90-some odd tragedies by "mother goose" here which starts in '82 ... I've searched a good while for a direct cross reference of these perpetrators on their political leanings, but no "pigeon-hole" data to yet. However, a perusal of this data doesn't suggest any NRA members populate it, but it DOES reveal known/suspected mental health issues dominate the list. That shouldn't be surprising.

A firearm enthusiast site has this member author which has done this number crunching ... of hard data and correlated those and those groups basic tendencies.

I think on this very thread, there is this array of data drawn from FBI, CDC ...

===========================================
"
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed.

The U.S. Population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws That is why they are called criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ……………. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?
It’s pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.” We now know what they’re trying to do, rule the defenseless."

==============================================

While the 4 cities listed are clearly dominated by democrats, that doesn't necessarily mean democrats are pulling the trigger ... but certainly have fostered the environment for that very thing.

So ... until I can run-down the mother jones data to include political party membership/affiliation outright ... that claim isn't DEBUNKED by anyone with critical thinking skills.

Thanks again for recognizing I promised to return to this. Perhaps I should have simply avoided responding until I could do what I intended to do.

All The best!

 

[old65horn]

For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Wow, that is shocking. I would have thought that living in Alabama would be enough for massive suicides by self inflicted gun shot. Please note that I am in no way disputing this fact.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Wow, that is shocking. I would have thought that living in Alabama would be enough for massive suicides by self inflicted gun shot. Please note that I am in no way disputing this fact.

Alabama ranked #3 in murder rate in 2016 according to this article: http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/09/alabamas_murder_rate_3rd_in_us.html

The "1" looked suspicious to me as it should for anyone. Not sure how many of the 407 deaths from "murder and manslaughter" were from gun but clearly more than 1 in any given year.

What Shaarks data shows is an urban vs. Rural problem. It should also be noted that a study of guns used in Chicago crime showed that well over 75% of them originated from states with lax gun laws, Indiana, Louisiana and Texas. Yes, the guns are being purchases in these states and ending up used for criminal activity in Chicago. Like any commodity guns travel so a strict Chicago gun law is offset by their lack of strictness elsewhere.

 

[ShAArk92]

Hey SH .. welcome back.

Yes, the function of gun prohibition to Chicago/Illinois being "imported" from other states with greater adherence to the Constitution certainly is a factor with the issue of quantity ... but it doesn't change the problem of the criminal behavior to use them.

In the gun controlists "utopia" that means gun prohibition ... and therefore a repeal of the 2A is the only way to realize the "benefit" of an aggravated murder-free nation.

Even if this was done legislatively ... does anyone think that will substantially mitigate, let alone eliminate ... this risk?

Has not our sanctuary city laws and immigration failures not proven this ... with FOREIGN NATIONALS???

 

[Seattle Husker]

Hey SH .. welcome back.

Yes, the function of gun prohibition to Chicago/Illinois being "imported" from other states with greater adherence to the Constitution certainly is a factor with the issue of quantity ... but it doesn't change the problem of the criminal behavior to use them.

In the gun controlists "utopia" that means gun prohibition ... and therefore a repeal of the 2A is the only way to realize the "benefit" of an aggravated murder-free nation.

Even if this was done legislatively ... does anyone think that will substantially mitigate, let alone eliminate ... this risk?

Has not our sanctuary city laws and immigration failures not proven this ... with FOREIGN NATIONALS???

You are correct that criminal behavior is not imported. Of course, if you normalize Alabama's 4.9m inhabitants for Chicago's 9.5m then the formers murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate outpaces Illinois in 2016 per the FBI: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-3

 

[ShAArk92]

That may be true ... but it's not a gun violence issue ... it's simply a violence issue.

We each have a responsibility for ourselves ... to feed/clothe/defend. That's not the dictate of the government. The government IS to defend the border's integrity against invaders/intrusion. I know folks in ICE/CBP ... there are PLENTY of good troops in the effort, but on a macro scale --- the Fed is failing miserably ... while we should suppose to shift more responsibilities upon it?

Nope.

I think the reason firearms are an issue is because it's uniquely American and America isn't supposed to be unique; according to the media and leftists. If we can manipulate the narrative against firearms, then the rest of the goal to homogenize America with the rest of the world is a piece of cake.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I absolutely agree that we each have a responsibility to feed/clothe ourselves. The "defend" is where we may differ depending on your definition. What are police for? This may also be an urban vs rural thing too since vigilantes don't work well in urban environments. That doesn't mean I'm not on guard to be aware of trouble sparking but rather you'll the escalation is something left for police who are always 2-3 minutes away.

I think we also differ on what makes America unique. Yes, our love of guns is one attribute but I'd point to the fact that 25% of Swedish residents moved to the US in the latter half of the 19th century as a unique characteristic for the US. 20% of Irish did the same. 10% of Japanese and on and on. Literally, our strength is our diversity which stands out on the world stage as unique. It's that lens which liberals view this latest immigration debate through.

As I said already. Limiting access to guns (assault weopons) won't stop crime. It would go far to limit the volume of impact 1 person can have.

As an aside, this idea that any militia could/should take up arms against their own dencratic government in the 21st century is lunacy. Those that do, like the Bundy's deserve jail time.

 

[ShAArk92]

I think we also differ on what makes America unique. Yes, our love of guns is one attribute

The reason the rest of that array regarding immigration ... FREEDOM. The legal ability to keep and bear arms establishes the level of freedom we have. Clearly we have less freedom now than we did when the ink was drying on the Constitution out of the "Philadelphia group con."

As an aside, this idea that any militia could/should take up arms against their own dencratic government in the 21st century is lunacy.

Tell that to the Texans on the Red River who were just about there defending their homesteads against an out of control Fed (BLM) Oh, in case you're curious ... it didn't come to that, but ... there's always tomorrow ... encroachment seems to be "the way" of the Fed ... isn't it odd you'd mention Bundy and the Govt ... SAME ISSUE ... BLM!

 

[ShAArk92]

As I said already. Limiting access to guns (assault weopons) won't stop crime. It would go far to limit the volume of impact 1 person can have.

you're right .. the law itself made great strides in mitigating the carnage in Sutherland Springs.

Oh wait.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Did you get your numbers from @Joe Fan?

When stats seem to defy common sense, they are usually wrong. I don’t have time to go through all of the numbers you give, but the first two I checked were way off:

For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/List_of_Birmingham_homicides_in_2017
Do you really believe Alabama had just 1 gun-related murder last year? So far in 2017, there have been many more than that in Birmingham alone. https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/List_of_Birmingham_homicides_in_2017
https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/List_of_Birmingham_homicides_in_2017

The U.S. Population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925%

I did the math. It’s .00926%. Still small, but significant — almost 1 person in 10,000. So if you attend a sporting event with 80,000 people in attendance, odds are 8 of them will be killed by a gun in any given year.
https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/List_of_Birmingham_homicides_in_2017

 

[Joe Fan]

Did you get your numbers from @Joe Fan?

you like numbers?

 

[ShAArk92]

Do you really believe Alabama had just 1 gun-related murder last year? So far in 2017, there have been many more than that in Birmingham alone. https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/List_of_Birmingham_homicides_in_2017

IIRC, the list was based on 2016 ... or was published in 2016 of 2015's data.

Thanks for correcting the record ...

While that compilation may not be precise in the data ... and I'm sorry for contributing to that (I didn't verify every stat in the list) ... the philosophy in the summary is sound. That's not personal preference, that's truth.

Freedom. Personal freedom ... and with it responsibility on a personal level. not "contracted-out" to some other person/entity.

 

[Clean]

you like numbers?

Why is Mr. Rodgers giving little kids everywhere the finger -- and on b&w TV no less. Was "The Finger/The Bird" not an insult yet?

 

[Joe Fan]

Why is Mr. Rodgers giving little kids everywhere the finger -- and on b&w TV no less. .....

Why am I getting schitt in an argument I am not even participating?

 

[ShAArk92]

Why am I getting schitt in an argument I am not even participating?

tactic.

NJ evidently believes your data is skewed or whatever ... and having caught one in a massive array of data sought by our own old65horn ... he apparently thought fragging you would enhance his statement.

 

[Joe Fan]

...NJ evidently believes your data is skewed or whatever ... ..

What data?