Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
At least 27 dead in Texas shooting

#1

Story

Evidently the shooter is also dead. 

People suck. Thoughts and prayers for those who have been affected.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2

This world is crazy.
Reply

#3

Terrible.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#4

I can't believe this is happening again. Thoughts and prayers...
Reply

#5

The world is a sick, sick place, full of evil people.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

The pastor's 14 year old daughter was killed.  Sad What fresh hell is wrong with people??
Reply

#7

The shooter was a 26 year old white male, dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force, which (according to what I read) disqualifies him from legal gun ownership. If that's true then his Facebook photo of a rifle should have resulted in his arrest.

The most common factor in the mass murders (although maybe not in LV) seems to be that the authorities knew about the killers being dangerous but did not keep close tabs on them.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#8

You would think church would be the one place you could feel safe. The world is becoming so messed up. My heart goes out to the victims and their families. This is such a senseless act. The only solace here is that the shooter ensured his place in Hell.
Reply

#9

(11-05-2017, 11:45 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: The shooter was a 26 year old white male, dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force, which (according to what I read) disqualifies him from legal gun ownership. If that's true then his Facebook photo of a rifle should have resulted in his arrest.

The most common factor in the mass murders (although maybe not in LV) seems to be that the authorities knew about the killers being dangerous but did not keep close tabs on them.

In order to arrest him: they would have had to know he was dishonorably discharged, someone would need to tell them he had a gun, and prove that the rifle was actually in his possession and not just a picture of a rifle.

But first, and foremost, someone has to tell them about it. There's no way they find out on their own unless you know something about it that I don't.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10

(11-05-2017, 11:45 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: The shooter was a 26 year old white male, dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force, which (according to what I read) disqualifies him from legal gun ownership. If that's true then his Facebook photo of a rifle should have resulted in his arrest.

The most common factor in the mass murders (although maybe not in LV) seems to be that the authorities knew about the killers being dangerous but did not keep close tabs on them.

(11-06-2017, 01:10 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:
(11-05-2017, 11:45 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: The shooter was a 26 year old white male, dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force, which (according to what I read) disqualifies him from legal gun ownership. If that's true then his Facebook photo of a rifle should have resulted in his arrest.

The most common factor in the mass murders (although maybe not in LV) seems to be that the authorities knew about the killers being dangerous but did not keep close tabs on them.

In order to arrest him: they would have had to know he was dishonorably discharged, someone would need to tell them he had a gun, and prove that the rifle was actually in his possession and not just a picture of a rifle.

But first, and foremost, someone has to tell them about it. There's no way they find out on their own unless you know something about it that I don't.

It depends on if he was discharged with an Administrative OTH (Other than Honorable) Bad conduct or dishonorable must be through a Courts Martial...administrative OTH does not stop you from owning a firearm...Administrative is basically saying you aren't the kind of person we want as an employee and being fired in the civilian world
Reply

#11

(11-05-2017, 11:45 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: The shooter was a 26 year old white male, dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force, which (according to what I read) disqualifies him from legal gun ownership. If that's true then his Facebook photo of a rifle should have resulted in his arrest.

The most common factor in the mass murders (although maybe not in LV) seems to be that the authorities knew about the killers being dangerous but did not keep close tabs on them.

Should have, but didn't. He bought the gun last year with a fake address, presumably to cover up his identity and circumvent that disqualification.

He was discharged after assaulting his spouse and their child.

Yes, their child. His child.

Ok, fine, I'll be the guy to take it there: before anyone starts arguing that there's no way to prevent this, all the laws worked as intended, nothing could have stopped this, negligence because the government isn't trolling Facebook looking for pictures of dishonorably discharged vets holding a gun, whatever, let's consider two simple facts:

1. A more thorough background check and a lengthy waiting period to give it time to come back would have stopped him from buying a rifle.
2. Without a rifle, he doesn't walk into a church and shoot 26 people.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not say anything about the length of time you have to wait to purchase them, and the extent of the background check done to ensure you're not using them to do harm. You want to own a gun? Fine. Here's the background check. It takes a week while your name (and the names of your spouse, children and anyone else living with you) is scrubbed against all available records to ensure that you are who you say you are and you're able to own a gun. It's going to cost 50% of the purchase price of the weapon, with any amount not used to facilitate the background check going to a domestic violence or victims of violent crime charity of your choice. Your firearm will be available in a week or when the background check is satisfactorily completed, whichever comes last. Here's the registry that your serial number goes into linking it to you as the owner, and if any crimes are committed using that gun, you get to answer for how it ended up there.

Sound unfair? Tough [BLEEP]. As the person purchasing a gun, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you are not going to use this gun to shoot up a church, a concert, a school, whatever. If you can't afford the background check fee, you need the gun now or you don't want your gun's serial number registered, then you really don't need it anyway.

If the only way to ensure responsible gun ownership is to price the irresponsible out of the market, fine.
Reply

#12

(11-06-2017, 01:25 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(11-05-2017, 11:45 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: The shooter was a 26 year old white male, dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force, which (according to what I read) disqualifies him from legal gun ownership. If that's true then his Facebook photo of a rifle should have resulted in his arrest.

The most common factor in the mass murders (although maybe not in LV) seems to be that the authorities knew about the killers being dangerous but did not keep close tabs on them.

Should have, but didn't. He bought the gun last year with a fake address, presumably to cover up his identity and circumvent that disqualification.

He was discharged after assaulting his spouse and their child.

Yes, their child. His child.

Ok, fine, I'll be the guy to take it there: before anyone starts arguing that there's no way to prevent this, all the laws worked as intended, nothing could have stopped this, negligence because the government isn't trolling Facebook looking for pictures of dishonorably discharged vets holding a gun, whatever, let's consider two simple facts:

1. A more thorough background check and a lengthy waiting period to give it time to come back would have stopped him from buying a rifle.
2. Without a rifle, he doesn't walk into a church and shoot 26 people.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not say anything about the length of time you have to wait to purchase them, and the extent of the background check done to ensure you're not using them to do harm. You want to own a gun? Fine. Here's the background check. It takes a week while your name (and the names of your spouse, children and anyone else living with you) is scrubbed against all available records to ensure that you are who you say you are and you're able to own a gun. It's going to cost 50% of the purchase price of the weapon, with any amount not used to facilitate the background check going to a domestic violence or victims of violent crime charity of your choice. Your firearm will be available in a week or when the background check is satisfactorily completed, whichever comes last. Here's the registry that your serial number goes into linking it to you as the owner, and if any crimes are committed using that gun, you get to answer for how it ended up there.

Sound unfair? Tough [BLEEP]. As the person purchasing a gun, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that you are not going to use this gun to shoot up a church, a concert, a school, whatever. If you can't afford the background check fee, you need the gun now or you don't want your gun's serial number registered, then you really don't need it anyway.

If the only way to ensure responsible gun ownership is to price the irresponsible out of the market, fine.

As a responsible gun owner, I agree with you 100%
Reply

#13

The 2nd Amendment says something entirely different than your premise that makes all the rest of what you said a violation of it.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#14

(11-06-2017, 07:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: The 2nd Amendment says something entirely different than your premise that makes all the rest of what you said a violation of it.

Ok. How do you propose we stop these from happening?
Reply

#15

(11-06-2017, 01:10 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:
(11-05-2017, 11:45 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: The shooter was a 26 year old white male, dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force, which (according to what I read) disqualifies him from legal gun ownership. If that's true then his Facebook photo of a rifle should have resulted in his arrest.

The most common factor in the mass murders (although maybe not in LV) seems to be that the authorities knew about the killers being dangerous but did not keep close tabs on them.

In order to arrest him: they would have had to know he was dishonorably discharged, someone would need to tell them he had a gun, and prove that the rifle was actually in his possession and not just a picture of a rifle.

But first, and foremost, someone has to tell them about it. There's no way they find out on their own unless you know something about it that I don't.

In this case you may be right. Keeping an eye on the Facebook posts of people of concern should be a no brainer, but I don't know whether or not this guy fell into that category. 


You don't have to arrest these people, just keep a close enough watch so they can't amass an arsenal of weapons. For several of the other mass murderers, there was good reason to keep close tabs on them.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#16

(11-06-2017, 09:44 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(11-06-2017, 07:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: The 2nd Amendment says something entirely different than your premise that makes all the rest of what you said a violation of it.

Ok. How do you propose we stop these from happening?

Well violating the second amendment is not an option. Are you suggesting we repeal it?


This is the only case where excessive screening of gun purchases that you suggested might have worked ... or maybe he just gets someone else to buy the gun for him. There are already laws against proxy purchases, but they are rarely enforced.

Keeping closer watch on people of concern would have stopped more than one mass murder, and several of these mass murders would have been stopped by better vetting of immigrants. Those ideas work better than your suggestion, and are not unconstitutional.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#17
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2017, 11:27 AM by Kane.)

(11-06-2017, 09:44 AM)TJBender Wrote:
(11-06-2017, 07:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: The 2nd Amendment says something entirely different than your premise that makes all the rest of what you said a violation of it.

Ok. How do you propose we stop these from happening?

How do we stop bad people from doing bad things?

You can't. You really can't. You can't stop people from blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, you can't stop hateful racist people from hating people for looking different than they do... You can't stop hate.

People think there is some rule or law you can implement that is going to stop bad people from doing bad things... but there isn't.
Why? Because bad people don't follow rules and laws.

The only thing we can do is be better. Teach our next generation to be better. Protect ourselves, hope, and pray.
That's it.

Pass whatever legislation you want... terrorists, domestic and foreign, won't follow your rules.
The shootings and killing, the run away cars, the guns, the knives, the hate... it isn't going away.

EDIT: BTW... from a news article
....The gunman was also denied a Texas gun permit, according to Abbott.
"He was rejected either because he did not fully answer all the questions that are required to get a Texas gun permit, or he answered those questions wrong, that we still don't know," he said.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#18

(11-06-2017, 07:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: The 2nd Amendment says something entirely different than your premise that makes all the rest of what you said a violation of it.

How is a lengthier waiting period and more thorough vetting of potential gun owners, a violation of the 2nd amendment? As a gun owner myself, I have no problem with this. If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem waiting or purchasing a firearm. If you have something to hide, you shouldn't have a gun at all. It's common sense.
Reply

#19

(11-06-2017, 11:41 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(11-06-2017, 07:57 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: The 2nd Amendment says something entirely different than your premise that makes all the rest of what you said a violation of it.

How is a lengthier waiting period and more thorough vetting of potential gun owners, a violation of the 2nd amendment? As a gun owner myself, I have no problem with this. If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem waiting or purchasing a firearm. If you have something to hide, you shouldn't have a gun at all. It's common sense.

Meanwhile... bad guys don't apply, just buy their guns on the street.

Like I said before... this shooter applied for a gun license, was denied, still ended up shooting up a church.

You can make it longer for regular joe to get a gun all you want. Bad guys will get em illegally to do illegal things.
Reply

#20

(11-06-2017, 11:45 AM)Kane Wrote:
(11-06-2017, 11:41 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: How is a lengthier waiting period and more thorough vetting of potential gun owners, a violation of the 2nd amendment? As a gun owner myself, I have no problem with this. If you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem waiting or purchasing a firearm. If you have something to hide, you shouldn't have a gun at all. It's common sense.

Meanwhile... bad guys don't apply, just buy their guns on the street.

Like I said before... this shooter applied for a gun license, was denied, still ended up shooting up a church.

You can make it longer for regular joe to get a gun all you want. Bad guys will get em illegally to do illegal things.

Was it a gun permit he was denied or a conceal and carry? I've heard it both ways and I just wanna be clear. 

You'll never stop every bad person from creating a mass shooting, but if we can stop just one, by making things harder for them to get a gun, it would be worth it. If it would help, I don't mind being inconvenienced a while on my next purchase by having to wait longer.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!