Welcome to M1911.ORG
The M1911 Pistols Organization Forums Site


Happy Thanksgiving


Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from Brownells, Cabela's, TandemKros or Tekmat, please use their banners in our sites. Whatever you buy from them, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Also, don't forget to visit our other sponsors sites, click-throughs are appreciated by our advertisers. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Another mass-shooting

  1. #1
    Join Date
    29th May 2004
    Location
    Athens, Greece, Earth
    Posts
    27,800
    Posts liked by others
    58
    Blog Entries
    2

    Another mass-shooting

    Another mass-shooting, this time in a church in Texas.

    Our thoughts are with the people of Sutherland Springs, TX.

    Our condolences to the families and friends of the victims.
    John Caradimas SV1CEC
    The M1911 Pistols Organization
    http://www.m1911.org

  2. #2
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,611
    Posts liked by others
    161
    As usual, the anti-gun liberals didn't even wait for the bodies to cool before they began their hysterical cries for more "common sense" gun control laws.

    They also didn't wait for any facts about whether or not more laws would have made a difference. It has already been learned, for example, that the shooter was an Air Force veteran who was court-martialled and given a dishonorable discharge. For those who don't know, a DD is a federal firearms disqualifier (question 11.g on Form 4473). Rather than screeching about needing MORE laws to make it even more unlawful for this guy who was already disqualified from possessing firearms to have a gun, why aren't they (1) asking how it is that he was able to get a gun; and (b) why the laws that are already on the books didn't work; and (c) what was the underlying motive?

    They screech about "GUN violence," but "gun violence" is just violence with a gun. The New York City attack a few days ago was rent-a-truck violence, but there's no outcry from the liberals in Congress to ban Home Depot rent-a-trucks. Why in one instance do they focus on the attacker and the motive, but in another case they ignore the attacker and the motive, and focus only in the inanimate implement?
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside
    Last edited by Hawkmoon; 5th November 2017 at 20:24.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    21st September 2008
    Posts
    9,474
    Posts liked by others
    73
    That, plus more laws might have made it difficult or impossible for the neighbour, i.e. the guy who STOPPED the shooting, to own a gun, with which to stop the shooting.

    So let's recap:

    - Laws are already in place that should have stopped the murderer from having a gun.
    - They didn't.
    - The crime was halted by another guy who owned a gun. I'm going to go on a limb and assume this gun was owned legally (no details yet). If so, the crime was stopped by a responsible armed citizen, who had exercised his right to be armed.

    Yeah, more gun laws, that's clearly the answer.
    Too many people miss the silver lining because they're expecting gold.
    M. Setter

  4. #4
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,611
    Posts liked by others
    161
    In December of 2007, in the New Life Church shooting incident in Colorado, the casualties were limited to 4 killed and 5 wounded -- and that included two sites. When the shooter arrived at the church, he was met in the foyer by an armed, volunteer parishioner, who stopped the shooting by stopping the shooter. What was it Wayne LaPierre said a couple of years ago? Oh, yes: 'The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

    What the anti-gun zealots fail to acknowledge is that ALL mass murders are acts of crazy people. Guns are not the problem, crazy people is the problem. By focusing on the tools, the liberals are failing to address the problem. Some of the worst mass murders in the history of the United States have been carried out by means other than guns.

    • 1927, Bath Township, Michigan: 44 killed, 58 injured. Weapon used -- dynamite.
    • 1973, Upstairs Lounge, Louisiana: 32 killed, 15 injured. Weapon used -- fire (arson).
    • 1990, Happy Land Nursing Home, New York: 87 killed, 6 injured. Weapon used -- fire (arson).
    • 1993, World Trade Center, NY: 6 killed, 1042 injured. Weapon used -- truck bomb
    • 1995, Murrah Building, Oklahoma: 168 killed, 680 injured -- Weapon used -- truck bomb.
    • 2013, Boston Marathon, MA: 3 killed, 264 injured. Weapons used -- pressure cooker bombs.
    • 2017, Bike Path attack, New York City: 8 killed, 12 injured -- Weapon used -- truck


    And let's not forget the vehicle attacks in England and France. Where are the politicians calling for more motor vehicle control?

    If a person who is intent on killing others, he/she will use whatever tools are available. Hysterical screeching about GUNZ! simply ignores the problem and distracts the discussion from addressing the problem.
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside

  5. #5
    Join Date
    29th May 2004
    Location
    Athens, Greece, Earth
    Posts
    27,800
    Posts liked by others
    58
    Blog Entries
    2
    Exactly!

    The tool is not the issue, the fact that he was crazy is. And the fact that he managed to get a gun, when he shouldn't have in the first place.

    And from what I learn, he was an antifa, those who planned attacks, in order to make Trump go away.
    John Caradimas SV1CEC
    The M1911 Pistols Organization
    http://www.m1911.org

  6. #6
    Join Date
    29th May 2004
    Location
    Athens, Greece, Earth
    Posts
    27,800
    Posts liked by others
    58
    Blog Entries
    2
    From the Facebook wall of our own 1911Tuner:

    https://www.facebook.com/john.travis...14719319883060
    John Caradimas SV1CEC
    The M1911 Pistols Organization
    http://www.m1911.org

  7. #7
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,611
    Posts liked by others
    161
    Tuner's comments are right on.

    It appears that our U.S. background check system is imperfect. First off: early reports say the shooter had received a dishonorable discharge. That was the original sentence at his court martial, but courts martial are all subject to automatic appeal. On appeal, his sentence was revised to a bad conduct discharge. The Form 4473 only asks if you have a dishonorable discharge, so ...

    Next, the shooter did spend a year in military confinement for a domestic violence conviction. But -- the 4473 doesn't ask about military convictions. Technically, as I understand it, his conviction wasn't a felony, nor was it a misdemeanor under state or federal law. So none of the questions on the 4473 actually address his particular circumstances. And the Air Force probably didn't report the conviction to the NICS system, so he didn't ring any bells during a background check.

    So what new law would have prevented this? Universal background checks? Oops -- he apparently bought the gun through a sporting goods store and passed whatever background check they have in Texas for long guns. Reduced magazine capacity? That's a joke -- it takes a second or two to dump a magazine and slap in another. Would not have made any difference. Bans on "assault weapons"? His rifle was a scary-looking thing that bears an outward resemblance to a military M16 (or M4). So what? It was a Ruger. The Ruger Mini 14 is also semi-automatic and fires the same 5.56x45 ammunition. But it doesn't look all black and evil and scarey-like, so it's not an "assault weapon."

    So ... ban semi-autos? You can't compete with a machine gun, but a lever-action carbine can be made to run pretty fast.

    The problem isn't guns. The problem is crazy people who want to kill other people. It's beginning to appear that this attack was aimed at his wife (ex-wife?) and her mother, who were members of this church. If the attack was for revenge or retribution, if he couldn't have gotten guns you can bet he would have used a bomb, or burned the church, or driven a truck through the parishioners as they departed the chapel.
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside
    Likes (2) :
    John (6th November 2017), ncviking (7th November 2017)


  8. #8
    Join Date
    2nd June 2004
    Location
    Terra
    Posts
    20,611
    Posts liked by others
    161
    My letter to the editor of the local birdcage liner supplier:



    Texas, and the rest of the United States, has just seen the worst mass murder in a house of worship in U.S. history. The enormity of the tragedy is still unfolding and is difficult to grasp. In a community smaller than all but the smallest of most states' rural towns, entire families were decimated in a few minutes of chaos and mayhem.

    Predictably, liberal politicians, including both of my U.S. senators, couldn’t even wait for the bodies to cool before beginning their usual, hysterical cries for GUN CONTROL! Naturally, these demands didn’t wait for any facts to come out as to whether or not more gun control laws could or would have prevented or mitigated the massacre. A mere 24 hours later, however, facts are emerging, and those facts tell us that more useless gun control laws would NOT have made a difference. (Nor would they have made a difference in regard to the Las Vegas shooting.)

    The shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas, was convicted by a military court martial of a domestic violence charge in 2012. He served a year in military prison, after which he was given a bad conduct discharge. Under federal law, he was legally prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. As in previous incidents, if EXISTING laws had been effectively enforced, the individual would not have been allowed to possess firearms.

    But, as President Trump said, "This isn't a guns situation. This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It's a very, very sad event." This was not a random incident. The shooter’s wife and mother-in-law worshipped in the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church. The county sheriff referred to them as the shooter’s “ex-“ in-laws, suggesting that the wife (his second wife) may have left him. Consequently, we can expect that the motive will eventually be shown to have been revenge and retribution.

    History has shown that angry, crazy people act out using whatever means and methods are available. The worst school massacre in the United States (Bath Township, Michigan, in 1927) killed 44 people and injured 58. Guns were not involved. The weapon in that incident was dynamite.

    A bellweather incident in the American debate over gun control was Columbine, in 1999. The two shooters at Columbine used firearms. What most people don’t know (or conveniently “forget”) is that the guns were only the back-up plan. The weapon of choice was supposed to be two propane bombs. But the bombs didn’t detonate, so the two teenagers resorted to guns. If their bombs had exploded, the casualties would have been much greater.

    In response to the Sandy Hook school shooting here in Connecticut, NRA President Wayne LaPierre said that, “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Mr. LaPierre was widely criticized for that statement, and accused of being out of touch and “tone deaf.” But … he was correct, as history (again) has shown us. Two church shootings demonstrate this very clearly.

    In December of 2007, almost exactly ten years before Sutherland Springs, a gunman attacked the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Before arriving at the church itself, the gunman had killed two people at a religious youth center remote from the church itself. Arriving at the church, the shooter killed two people in the parking lot and then entered the building. Immediately upon entering, he was confronted by an armed parishioner, who was a member of the church’s organized, volunteer security team. The volunteer ordered the shooter to drop his weapon. When he didn’t comply, she shot him and ended the threat.

    In contrast, at Sutherland Springs there were no armed parishioners inside the church, so the shooter there had a free fire zone. He killed 26 people and wounded 20 more. It was only when he exited the church that he was confronted by an armed neighbor, who ended the threat by shooting the gunman. The gunman dropped his rifle and fled the scene, pursued by the armed neighbor and another member of the community, who happened to be in his truck and ready to roll.

    The inherent truth of Wayne LaPierre’s words is plainly evident in these two incidents, separated by a decade in time. In both incidents, what stopped the bad guy with the gun was a good guy (or gal) with a gun. In both incidents, the good guy with a gun was a private citizen, not a police officer. It is often said that, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” The police responded but, in both incidents, by the time they arrived the incident itself was finished.

    The difference between the two incidents is that in Colorado Springs, the shooter never reached the church sanctuary because he was met at the door by an armed parishioner. In Sutherland Springs, there was apparently nobody in the church who was armed and prepared to defend the church against the attack.

    In researching mass murders in the history of the United States, I have discovered that since the notion of gun-free places was initiated, the concept has been an abject failure. The numbers I have compiled show that guns have killed three times as many people in “gun-free” zones as in places where guns were not prohibited. And guns have wounded (or resulted in injuries to) EIGHT times as many people in “gun-free” zones as in places where guns are not prohibited.

    The bottom line: As President Trump has said, "This isn't a guns situation. This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It's a very, very sad event." The empty, scripted cries from my U.S. senators for more gun control when more gun control demonstrably would not have prevented the incident are callous and unfeeling. Such statements, especially when issued before any facts have been released, are nothing but political grandstanding, an attempt to use a terrible human tragedy to advance their own anti-Constitutional agenda. The people of this state deserve better than this, and the United States deserves better than this.

    As the facts emerge, it is becoming plain that the attacker targeted this particular church because it is the church where his wife (ex-wife?) and mother-in-law worship. Had he been denied access to firearms (as the laws already in effect require!), history has shown that he more than likely would have simply resorted to other weapons to attack the church, such as bombs or arson. The problem is not guns, the problem is people with sick minds. Politicians like my U.S. senators do us a tremendous disservice with their constant screeching about gun control, because they divert discussion from the real problem. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer, because guns are not the problem.
    Hawkmoon
    On a good day, can hit the broad side of a barn ... from the inside
    Likes (4) :
    1911end (7th November 2017), John (6th November 2017), ncviking (7th November 2017), Spyros (7th November 2017)


  9. #9
    Join Date
    29th May 2004
    Location
    Athens, Greece, Earth
    Posts
    27,800
    Posts liked by others
    58
    Blog Entries
    2
    Good work man!
    John Caradimas SV1CEC
    The M1911 Pistols Organization
    http://www.m1911.org

  10. #10
    Join Date
    8th August 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,824
    Posts liked by others
    25
    I will echo what John has stated.....outstanding Hawk!

    To add to the facts that are already known, the good guy with the gun happened to be a former NRA instructor.
    Beauty is skin deep but ugly goes right to the bone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Sponsors Panel
If you intend to buy something from Brownells, Sinclair or Police Store, please use their banners above. Whatever you buy from them, gives us a small commission, which helps us keep these sites alive. You still pay the normal price, our commission comes from their profit, so you have nothing to lose, while we have something to gain. Your help is appreciated.
If you want to become a sponsor and see your banner in the above panel, click here to contact us.

Non-gun-related supporters.
Thank you for visiting our supporters.