'Mass shooting' reported at Sutherland Springs church in Texas

[txradioguy]

Some thoughts on the " Good guy with a gun" Stephen Willeford who put two bullets into the shooter. Thank God for him. Who knows how many more may have died. Maybe he was planning on hiting another church, or maybe police hurt in a shootout, who knows.   But a lesson to be had here. Once his gun safe was open he had to grab a box  of bullets and load the empty magazine to his AR-15. How many people were killed with the pop pop pop sound he said he was hearing as he loaded the magazine? I' sure that thought was rolling in his head as well, for what must have seemed like an eternity.   
A gun in a safe is perfectly fine, essecially if you have kids, but have it ready to rock as soon as the safe is open.  Empty magazines make no sense.

QFT!

Well said.

[bigheadfred]

Maybe if murder were against the law, these senseless killings would stop.

Too many senseless people.

[Smokin Joe]

So you're against keeping a data base of folks with felony convictions that gun stores must check before selling a firearm?   According to Hoodat, that law prevents 48,000 legal sales per year.

GIGO. It didn't work because it wasn't followed by the agencies which should have reported the problem in the first place, so the firearm could not have been legally purchased. A relatively minor impediment, but one that may have heralded a problem that was developing. That would not have stopped the determined criminal form getting one, but it would have stopped him from purchasing the rifle legally.

However, that law didn't work. Because his priors had not been reported by the Air Force, and likely another law (HIPAA) prevented the release of the mental Health information that also could have been enough to prevent that sale or flag the attempt.

We don't need any more stinking laws. We need for the people who are charged with enforcing those laws to do so, with the laws we have.

In the mean time, If I want to buy, sell, or trade my legally owned firearms with another person, someone who is not a criminal or mentally deficient, I am free to do so.  If something seems sketchy about that, i am always free to nix the deal, and would feel morally obligated to not conduct a private deal.

Concentrating on the tool ignores the hand that wields it, and imho, that is the problem here, not the same type of rifle that ended the rampage, but the type of person behind it.

[Cyber Liberty]

So you're against keeping a data base of folks with felony convictions that gun stores must check before selling a firearm?   According to Hoodat, that law prevents 48,000 legal sales per year.

How many illegal sales did it prevent,  @Jazzhead?  I can think of a few right now, can you? 

[Smokin Joe]

Suggesting that those who favor laws that reasonably restrict the right of felons and domestic abusers to legally purchase firearms "don't support the Constitution" is exactly the sort of extremism that hurts the pro-RKBA cause.

You ignore that the Lautenberg Amendment was an ex post facto law, when it came to those convicted of even misdemeanor domestic violence prior to the passage of the law. That's specifically forbidden by the Constitution. So there was a problem from the git-go with that. Had it been from the date the law took effect, it would have been copacetic, despite not encompassing those abusers who had been convicted prior to the passage of the Amendment.

[Smokin Joe]

Sorry, but I don't believe a moment of it - Likely opportunist criminals telling them what they want to hear fr an expected reward. It is SO simple to buy second hand, and even more simple to commit a burglary, that the reference you make can only be baloney.

I think it depends on the crime. Some urges to commit a criminal act are flashes in the pan, so to speak, and hampered, even for a little while, just might not happen. Crimes of passion might be curtailed, or just forced to use a different weapon.

The ones which will not be deterred were smoldering for a bit before the flames came along. Those are hatreds developed and nursed over a period of time, and allowed to become obsessions. Someone with a longstanding grudge is more patient and will do what it takes to settle the score. Others will just supply themselves with the tools they think they will need for a robbery, etc.; just something else to check off on the supply list.

[Smokin Joe]

@austingirl, I just watched this video of Johnny Langendorf.  I had seen him interviewed before and thought, well, he's a little funny looking, but he speaks OK.  This is a better interview, and may just restore a bit of faith in humanity.  Well worth watching all the way through. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9xyY0wbcKo

Some folks instinctively run toward the sound of trouble.

The CNN guy cracks me up, saying it is uncertain whether the shooter died of wounds inflicted near the church or by his own hand. (If he had already died of previously inflicted wounds, how would he have shot himself?)

[roamer_1]

I think it depends on the crime. Some urges to commit a criminal act are flashes in the pan, so to speak, and hampered, even for a little while, just might not happen. Crimes of passion might be curtailed, or just forced to use a different weapon.

Perhaps, but the point is whether gun registries and criminal registries literally stop criminals from getting guns. That my friend, is utter fallacy... a position which your sojourns dressed in gypsy leather, if no other reasons, should have left you readily disabused of any modicum of truth it may pretend...

It disheartens me that our fellows express astonishment rather than ire that the system works at all - a tribute to a naivete built of gossamer threads, oblivious to the heaving masses just below, that await nothing more than the day that they can rise up against an undefended people...

And I know you know it.

[Suppressed]

Some folks instinctively run toward the sound of trouble.

The CNN guy cracks me up, saying it is uncertain whether the shooter died of wounds inflicted near the church or by his own hand. (If he had already died of previously inflicted wounds, how would he have shot himself?)

Can't watch video, but...couldn't the guy have bled out from earlier wounds?

[Idiot]

When I heard about this shooting, it made my physically ill.  I can't imagine the hate this man must have had. 

May God wrap His loving arms around these precious people.

[Smokin Joe]

Can't watch video, but...couldn't the guy have bled out from earlier wounds?

My point being that if he'd bled out, how would he shoot himself? Sure, something killed him, but it's tough to shoot yourself after you're dead (unless you have been hanging out with the Clintons).

[Smokin Joe]

Perhaps, but the point is whether gun registries and criminal registries literally stop criminals from getting guns. That my friend, is utter fallacy... a position which your sojourns dressed in gypsy leather, if no other reasons, should have left you readily disabused of any modicum of truth it may pretend...

It disheartens me that our fellows express astonishment rather than ire that the system works at all - a tribute to a naivete built of gossamer threads, oblivious to the heaving masses just below, that await nothing more than the day that they can rise up against an undefended people...

And I know you know it.

Sure I know it. I was just looking for crimes that the NICS might, once in a while, prevent.

We both know that if a serious criminal wants a gun, they'll have one within 24 hours or be back in custody over trying to, and the smart money is on the former. Crazy people aren't stupid, they're crazy. They can plan and scheme and do some pretty elaborate stuff--as elaborate as the delusions that drive them.

[Jazzhead]

GIGO. It didn't work because it wasn't followed by the agencies which should have reported the problem in the first place, so the firearm could not have been legally purchased. A relatively minor impediment, but one that may have heralded a problem that was developing. That would not have stopped the determined criminal form getting one, but it would have stopped him from purchasing the rifle legally.

However, that law didn't work. Because his priors had not been reported by the Air Force, and likely another law (HIPAA) prevented the release of the mental Health information that also could have been enough to prevent that sale or flag the attempt.

We don't need any more stinking laws. We need for the people who are charged with enforcing those laws to do so, with the laws we have.

In the mean time, If I want to buy, sell, or trade my legally owned firearms with another person, someone who is not a criminal or mentally deficient, I am free to do so.  If something seems sketchy about that, i am always free to nix the deal, and would feel morally obligated to not conduct a private deal.

Concentrating on the tool ignores the hand that wields it, and imho, that is the problem here, not the same type of rifle that ended the rampage, but the type of person behind it.

In the context of this particular crime,  I agree that there was already a law in place and the lack of enforcement of that law (i.e., the Air Force's failure to provide the information to fill the data base) is the issue.   

But the larger issue,  as you and roamer have cited,  is ease at which bad guys can illegally obtain guns.  I've heard the response that no new laws are needed because criminals can "always" get the guns they need.   In a nation where the number of guns far outstrips the number of people, illegal transfers of firearms are simply a fact of life, and the carnage caused by illegal guns is the price we pay for living in this country. 

I can't agree with that.  That is why I continue to advocate a similar regime as we require for motor vehicle ownership - registration and insurance.    Own as many guns as you want, so long as they are registered and insured.   

The insurance I'd propose is similar to PIP insurance that most states require of car owners.   Simple no-fault insurance that will pay the medical bills and restore lost income to the victims of injury caused by an insured gun.   The way I'd work it is to require insurance up until the time when a gun is legally sold, transferred or reported lost to the police.   That will provide a monetary incentive to report sales, transfers and losses, and to keep guns safely stored so as to prevent losses.   It would help address the abuse where sellers don't have your sense of moral obligation not to conduct a private sale when the buyer is "sketchy".   Conduct a private sale or swap,  but only upon such conditions that permit your obligation to continue to insure that gun to be lifted.   

We live with such requirements routinely with our cars - useful but potentially deadly implements just as guns are.   The burden of insurance causes us to make sure unauthorized use is monitored, and that transactions take place with proper transfer of title and registration.     

[thackney]

In the context of this particular crime,  I agree that there was already a law in place and the lack of enforcement of that law (i.e., the Air Force's failure to provide the information to fill the data base) is the issue.   

But the larger issue,  as you and roamer have cited,  is ease at which bad guys can illegally obtain guns.  I've heard the response that no new laws are needed because criminals can "always" get the guns they need.   In a nation where the number of guns far outstrips the number of people, illegal transfers of firearms are simply a fact of life, and the carnage caused by illegal guns is the price we pay for living in this country. 

I can't agree with that.  That is why I continue to advocate a similar regime as we require for motor vehicle ownership - registration and insurance.    Own as many guns as you want, so long as they are registered and insured.   

The insurance I'd propose is similar to PIP insurance that most states require of car owners.   Simple no-fault insurance that will pay the medical bills and restore lost income to the victims of injury caused by an insured gun.   The way I'd work it is to require insurance up until the time when a gun is legally sold, transferred or reported lost to the police.   That will provide a monetary incentive to report sales, transfers and losses, and to keep guns safely stored so as to prevent losses.   It would help address the abuse where sellers don't have your sense of moral obligation not to conduct a private sale when the buyer is "sketchy".   Conduct a private sale or swap,  but only upon such conditions that permit your obligation to continue to insure that gun to be lifted.   

We live with such requirements routinely with our cars - useful but potentially deadly implements just as guns are.   The burden of insurance causes us to make sure unauthorized use is monitored, and that transactions take place with proper transfer of title and registration.   

It seems to be contradictory line of thought.  The ease of buying stolen or illegal property negates the effectiveness of registering and insuring guns.  Especially the insuring part.  Your existing insurance is not going to cover you for illegals actions on your part.  It will be the same guns.  Do you think the owner of a stolen car is responsible to provide the medical insurance for the people the thief runs over?

[Cyber Liberty]

I can't agree with that.  That is why I continue to advocate a similar regime as we require for motor vehicle ownership - registration and insurance.    Own as many guns as you want, so long as they are registered and insured.     

Registration of all guns?  Nope.  And your concept of "insurance" is just a back-door way of inflating the cost.

[Jazzhead]

It seems to be contradictory line of thought.  The ease of buying stolen or illegal property negates the effectiveness of registering and insuring guns.  Especially the insuring part.  Your existing insurance is not going to cover you for illegals actions on your part.  It will be the same guns.  Do you think the owner of a stolen car is responsible to provide the medical insurance for the people the thief runs over?

I'm suggesting a simple no-fault rule - insurance to pay for the medical bills of persons caused by a gun under your ostensible custody and control.

I believe the rule is that you can be held liable for the damage your car causes to others,  including by reason of unauthorized use, unless and until the car is reported stolen or missing.   That's what I'm trying to get at here -  a regime of liability for damage done by a gun under your custody and control provides an incentive to report thefts (and to keep a gun stored safely to deter thefts), since the filing of a police report absolves you of liability.

From an insurance company website:

 

Informing your insurance carrier of the vehicle theft could help protect you if the thief causes damage to others with your car.  Your liability coverages normally don't cover damages that your stolen car does to others since you cannot usually be held liable when the car is under the control of a thief.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It seems to be contradictory line of thought.  The ease of buying stolen or illegal property negates the effectiveness of registering and insuring guns.  Especially the insuring part.  Your existing insurance is not going to cover you for illegals actions on your part.  It will be the same guns.  Do you think the owner of a stolen car is responsible to provide the medical insurance for the people the thief runs over?

Seems eminently logical, which is why a liberal will never agree.

Some people continue pounding the idea that guns are the problem and it is that bad people are the problem instead.

This guy would have killed more people if he had simply locked the doors of the church and torched it.

[Jazzhead]

Registration of all guns?  Nope.  And your concept of "insurance" is just a back-door way of inflating the cost.

Yes, insurance carries a cost.  I know that twice a year when I cut a check.  But my car is both useful to me and potentially dangerous to others.   So I must both register and insure it.   

[Jazzhead]

Some people continue pounding the idea that guns are the problem and it is that bad people are the problem instead.

Both are the problem.   You cannot deny that a gun - like an automobile - is an inherently dangerous implement.   Registration and insurance can be an effective means of helping to deter guns from falling into the hands of bad people.   

[libertybele]

Some thoughts on the " Good guy with a gun" Stephen Willeford who put two bullets into the shooter. Thank God for him. Who knows how many more may have died. Maybe he was planning on hiting another church, or maybe police hurt in a shootout, who knows.   But a lesson to be had here. Once his gun safe was open he had to grab a box  of bullets and load the empty magazine to his AR-15. How many people were killed with the pop pop pop sound he said he was hearing as he loaded the magazine? I' sure that thought was rolling in his head as well, for what must have seemed like an eternity.   
A gun in a safe is perfectly fine, essecially if you have kids, but have it ready to rock as soon as the safe is open.  Empty magazines make no sense.

  Excellent point Navy!

[Hoodat]

So you're against keeping a data base of folks with felony convictions that gun stores must check before selling a firearm?   According to Hoodat, that law prevents 48,000 legal sales per year.

How many illegal sales did it prevent,  @Jazzhead?  I can think of a few right now, can you?

@Cyber Liberty

Just to be clear, I never said that the law prevents 48,000 'legal' sales per year.  I am saying that failure to prosecute these felonious attempts is the reason there were 48,000 attempts.

@Jazzhead , look at it this way.  For the sake of argument, let's say the background checks have a 98% success rate.  So for the 48,000 who got caught, there were another 980 who did not.  That's 980 convicted felons who made it through the background check process and 'legally' purchased firearms.

So considering your 2% failure rate, would you rather have 49,000 felons attempting to purchase firearms each year, or would you rather have only 500.  I don't know about your math, but 2% of 500 is a hell of a lot less than 2% of 48,980.  And what is the best way to reduce that 49,890 number?  Start prosecuting felons who get caught lying on Form 4473.

Because catching 490 out of 500 felons trying to purchase guns should be the target here instead of catching 48,000 out of 48,980.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, insurance carries a cost.  I know that twice a year when I cut a check.  But my car is both useful to me and potentially dangerous to others.   So I must both register and insure it.

There isn't a constitutionally affirmed right to a car.  Your car analogy is invalid.  it's just another attempt to boost the cost of asserting a constitutional right.

You have been pulling our legs about being "pro-Second Amendment."  It's a shame, too.

[Hoodat]

Registration and insurance can be an effective means of helping to deter guns from falling into the hands of bad people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

[Bigun]

There isn't a constitutionally affirmed right to a car.  Your car analogy is invalid.  it's just another attempt to boost the cost of asserting a constitutional right.

You have been pulling our legs about being "pro-Second Amendment."  It's a shame, too.

And how come we continue to insure inanimate objects (cars) which can do absolutely nothing without human intervention?  Shouldn't we be insuring drivers instead of cars?  Except for the insurance lobby we would be!

[Restored]

You cannot deny that a gun - like an automobile - is an inherently dangerous implement. 

So is drain cleaner, steak knives and boiling water.