Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[HomeAgain]

{{hugs}}

I hear you. I've asked for the same thing in previous shooting threads. I think coming right off of Vegas everyone is still raw and pretty much continuing the conversations from those threads. We are all grieving still and angry that nothing has changed. Not even the minorest of law changes has been made. It's business as usual.

 

Massachusetts banned bump stocks following Vegas.  Though it's only at most 2 hours to a neighboring state, so I don't know it'll do any good.

[Liz CA]

My pov

 

We don't enforce the laws we have. I'm all for starting at that point.

 

I think a gun safety program and gun laws course should be required to get a permit.

I think a background check should be required to get a permit. And that anyone with a felony of any kind or a violent offense of any kind - should not be given a permit.

I think those who sell or give a gun to someone who does not have a permit or who fail to properly attain the permit - should be prosecuted as an accessory to any crime committed with that gun.

I think they should have to do that for EVERY gun purchase.

A 30 day permit turn around wouldn't hurt. No one NEEDS to buy a gun right now this very second or else. They can wait 30 days to get their permit/gun.

I think they should give financial incentive to register permits. (Bc I'm iffy on requiring a listing of gun owners.) For example, if you don't register your permit then the cost is $200. But if you do register your permit, it's 50.

A current gun permit should be required to buy ammo. And the permit could include an ammo limit per gun per season. Even a very liberal number of bullets and still not be what these mass killers are getting. Or a separate permit for ammo purchases. $50 for so many rounds bought in 4 months. $100 for so many more rounds. This would allow people to buy more during their favorite hunting season for example. And they could still stock pile, I suppose, but at considerable expense. Or instead of limited ammo permits. we could charge an ammo tax of say, .10 a bullet. Either way, the point is that it would be more expensive and thus their dollar wouldn't buy as much.

 

I don't know what to do about mental illness. We don't even provide mental health care in this country, so I'm dubious about how to even decide who is unfit mentally. Most of the obvious would hopefully be covered under the proposed background check. Such as drug use, domestic violence, and other either felonious or violent crimes. But most people with mental illness aren't interested in hurting anyone.

 

Useful suggestions to think about. I need some time to research some existing laws. I highlighted your last sentence because by and large I agree, however, for some people, untreated mental issues escalate into desperation and / or rage that sometimes precedes such acts as this one. I don't know anything about the shooter to decide one way or another regarding his mental issues.

 

 

[TCB]

No, they don’t. You’re just fitting what I say to the view you already hold, not understanding what I’m actually trying to communicate.

 

We have reasonable laws. We could add ten more and justify it all the day long. It will not stop unreasonable people, because the laws are not binding to those who will not obey them.

 

And the 1002th time has been reached.

 

Just because you've said it 1002 times doesn't make it true.

 

I don't think I've ever heard you explain why you think it happens with so much more frequency in the USA though. I'd be very interested in hearing what you think about that.

[HomeAgain]

Wow, that's a very hateful comment.

This shooter in Texas was an athiest who hated Christians. The church was also where his ex-in-laws usually attended. Christians ARE targeted by hateful rhetoric and have suffered attacks by haters. My own former church had an active shooter (a former Christian) who killed people in the parking lot, and inside. This chirch was also targeted by an ISIS sympathizer (now in prison.) It needs to stop. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

Um, no.  That's conjecture.  This was a targeted assault on his inlaws, not on Christianity.  And it's not even for sure he's an atheist.  It's not like he went to some random mega-church in Tx.  If someone hated Christianity, that would be a target, not the individuals who attend.

 

[TCB]

I am sick of hearing mourning people be berated for not having the same kneejerk gun control views feverishly advocated as the beraters.

 

There are no less than three issues here.

 

One is the straightforward mourning of senseless or even of purposeful violence.  That, IMO, should be respected enough not to be politicized.  If there is a political aspect to it that led to this action, that's part of the mourning for sure.

 

Another is the issue of gun control.  IMO, while that issue comes to the forefront when there is an incident like this, it should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

Another is the issue of why mass murder is so much more common than that it used to be, despite increases in gun control.  Like the gun control issue, that should be dealt with separately than in a mourning area.

 

The kneejerk reversion to screaming at mourners for not immediately advocating banning of guns is just like the Vietnam War protesters' practice of going to burn American flags at cemetery funerals of soldiers, or like the Westboro Baptists' demonstrations consigning gay people to hell at their own funerals. 

 

I just don't think what you've said is fair. I've been reading the thread and I have not seen anyone screaming at mourners for not advocating banning guns. Different points of view have been expressed, but the only castigation I've seen is that accusing people of talking about controlling guns so soon after a tragedy is wrong and gross. I kind of understand that, but as others have said, it's getting more and more difficult to time discussing this after a decent interval because there seems to hardly be a decent interval between events these days.

[Liz CA]

I think that Arctic Mama is a conservative Christian who believes the Bible, and interprets the different books/passages according to the literary genre. Some of the Bible is literal and should be read that way. The Bible speaks of the end times (which we’ve been in since Jesus’ time, so please don’t think I’m using the term like the world is ending tomorrow) and tells us that things will get progressively darker with regard to the behaviors of man as we abandon God and His truth/ways more and more. I understood Arctic’s pp to be indicating a lack of surprise that things like mass shootings are occurring more frequently, but NOT as her having a lack of care and concern about it. Christians shouldn’t sit idly by and do nothing about evil in the world. I don’t believe that Arctic Mama would condone that at all. (She can correct me if I am wrong.)

 

And it is perfectly fine to post this view point even if others interpret scripture differently. It should not result in ad hominem attacks. We accept that others have differing opinions and this can either make for a more interesting, thought-provoking discussion or descend into virtual name calling or being categorized on one side of the issue or another.

 

I am a Christian. I am not sure if banning all guns is the answer. Perhaps it is part of an answer. I have to do more research on some of these aspects. (I like what Murphy suggested - seems all reasonable to me). I also am interested in the "mental frame of mind" aspect (I work in this field so this comes to my mind automatically) and to what extent current lifestyles and loss of support systems / families/ friends / real relationships vs. online, etc come into play. To me, it seems like a more complex topic with more than one single answer.

 

[Murphy101]

Useful suggestions to think about. I need some time to research some existing laws. I highlighted your last sentence because by and large I agree, however, for some people, untreated mental issues escalate into desperation and / or rage that sometimes precedes such acts as this one. I don't know anything about the shooter to decide one way or another regarding his mental issues.

 

 

Which is why I prefaced with idk what to do bc this country doesn’t even treat mental health care.

 

But at the least, for those who have any kind of felony or have any kind of violent offense documented, regardless of mental illness factor, a background check should bar them from legally buying a gun.

[8circles]

Just because you've said it 1002 times doesn't make it true.

 

I don't think I've ever heard you explain why you think it happens with so much more frequency in the USA though. I'd be very interested in hearing what you think about that.

 

I've asked that question at least 3 times in this thread.

 

Nobody has answered.

[HomeAgain]

If he was "just" targeting his in-laws (who weren't there) then why did he shoot half the congregation including toddlers?

 

Because they were there.

Because they were an influencing community.

Because they were witnesses.

 

 

I don't know.  I do know that you're wrong in saying that his motive was to kill Christians.  He was too emotionally involved with his target to make it a generic one.

[TCB]

The shooter was denied a gun permit. The law "worked" but it didn't stop him from having a gun illegally. It was the shooting of the murderer by a regular citizen that stopped him. The police caught up with the suspect 8 min. later.

 

My understanding is that he bought the gun from a store. How is that getting a gun illegally? If he was denied a gun permit but then was able to buy a gun from a store then there may be a law but it is a laughable one that doesn't work. Before you say such laws won't ever work, I would like to point out, again, that other countries make them work.

[8circles]

I don't listen to Alex Jones, so don't try to smear me with some kind of tainted right-wing brush.

 

I'm not smearing you, I was letting you know who else shares your opinion.

 

Do with that information what you will. Do nothing, I don't care.

[Pawz4me]

The shooter was denied a gun permit. The law "worked" but it didn't stop him from having a gun illegally. It was the shooting of the murderer by a regular citizen that stopped him. The police caught up with the suspect 8 min. later.

 

That is false, at least as far as the authorities know now. It is being widely reported that the shooter died of a self inflicted wound.

[Lady Florida.]

Good lord. He was NOT dishonorably discharged. Domestic violence, allowed to own weapon.

 

Seriously. How many times does it have to be pointed out? I've been guilty of skimming threads so I imagine some of the people who said this didn't read either the thread or in depth reports. When I skim a thread I at least admit it and don't try to add "facts" I haven't verified.

 

When I was a child, I was taken to a super fundamentalist type church where we were frequently told we might grow up to have to face death for our faith. The minister would say something like, "Imagine armed men coming in here while we worship, ready to start shooting in the pews. They say if we will renounce Christ, they won't kill us. What will you do? Will you deny Him?" And every Sunday, someone would pray a prayer of thanks that we could "worship unmolested and without fear, in a free country."

 

That was in the 80s

 

Here's the point: If my childhood church's scare tactics have come true, only it's not communists, it's us,

 

 

In my case it was Catholic school in the 60s and nuns who put the fear in us. For years as a kid I imagined Communist in Castro style fatigues barging into my classroom demanding we denounce our faith. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Seriously. How many times does it have to be pointed out? I've been guilty of skimming threads so I imagine some of the people who said this didn't read either the thread or in depth reports. When I skim a thread I at least admit it and don't try to add "facts" I haven't verified.

 

 

In my case it was Catholic school in the 60s and nuns who put the fear in us. For years as a kid I imagined Communist in Castro style fatigues barging into my classroom demanding we denounce our faith.

 

Whyyyyyyy....just ugh. :(

[Carol in Cal.]

How about this...

 

One thread for people who just want to express their feelings of sadness but think there are no possible solutions except Jesus.

 

One thread for people who want to express their feelings of sadness AND ALSO want to discuss other feelings - including anger that so many people are unwilling to work towards solutions to our problematic gun culture which allows this to continue happening.

 

?

Neither of these would describe me.

[poppy]

The shooter was denied a gun permit. The law "worked" but it didn't stop him from having a gun illegally. It was the shooting of the murderer by a regular citizen that stopped him. The police caught up with the suspect 8 min. later.

 

He bought the gun at a gun store with no issue.   The law didn't work at all.  It is completely inadequate.  Plus, the 'regular citizen' didn't shoot him.

 

Check your sources. They are lying to you.

Edited November 6, 2017 by poppy

[Ausmumof3]

I think the normal response after a tragedy is to talk about what could have prevented it. Like the London tower fire. People were immediately talking about cladding and building codes. After the Boxing Day tsunami people talked about creating a tsunami warning system. After an earthquake people talk about construction laws.

 

Anger is also a frequent normal component of grief. Feeling anger toward those who are seen as contributing in some way to the tragedy.

[Lady Florida.]

Whyyyyyyy....just ugh. :(

 

It was the 1960s. Bay of Pigs. Communism was coming to get us.

[Twolittleboys]

The shooter was denied a gun permit. The law "worked" but it didn't stop him from having a gun illegally. It was the shooting of the murderer by a regular citizen that stopped him. The police caught up with the suspect 8 min. later.

 

Even if he had been denied a gun permit/couldn't buy a gun in a store (which apparently he did) the fact that there are so many guns floating around makes it much easier to get one. Just like it is easier to steal an apple than a durian.

 

If he was "just" targeting his in-laws (who weren't there) then why did he shoot half the congregation including toddlers?

 

Because he is crazy? Because he was frustrated? Because he didn't care and just wanted to unload his gun?

 

There is violence against Christians but as far as I can tell it is not a major issue in the US in general AND there is no indication it was the motivation in this case.

[Twolittleboys]

Honestly, I think the population and demographics of the US has a lot more to do with these things than people realize.

 

People talk about laws and stats in the UK, Australia, etc, as compared to the US and why are their gun crime statistics are lower.

 

 

The population of Australia is approx 25 million.  The population of TEXAS is approx 28 million.  So, if we want to compare stats, perhaps it's better to compare the STATE of Texas, to the country of Australia, as opposed to comparing Australia to a country with a population of 3.2 million. 

 

Also, Texas shares a land border with another country.  Australia does not.  I think that IS a factor in guns and gun crimes.  It doesn't mean all immigrants are criminals, but it does mean that smuggling firearms and other criminal activity is easier than it might otherwise be. 

 

 

Don't quite agree here (at least not with the second part). Most comparisons I have seen look at gun crime etc. per a certain number of citizens so the size argument doesn't quite work. 

 

And while Australia does not have a land border, countries in Europe definitely do!

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I think that Arctic Mama is a conservative Christian who believes the Bible, and interprets the different books/passages according to the literary genre. Some of the Bible is literal and should be read that way. The Bible speaks of the end times (which we’ve been in since Jesus’ time, so please don’t think I’m using the term like the world is ending tomorrow) and tells us that things will get progressively darker with regard to the behaviors of man as we abandon God and His truth/ways more and more. I understood Arctic’s pp to be indicating a lack of surprise that things like mass shootings are occurring more frequently, but NOT as her having a lack of care and concern about it. Christians shouldn’t sit idly by and do nothing about evil in the world. I don’t believe that Arctic Mama would condone that at all. (She can correct me if I am wrong.)

I've heard that a lot (my background is fundamentalist Christian), but it only makes me wonder what Jesus is waiting for, if the many and varied eras of genocide - I mean hundreds to millions of people at a time - were not dark enough that it couldn't get worse...and we are supposedly turning darker...than Hitler? And the rest?

 

I am out of fundamentalist friends to ask, because those former acquaintances have condemned me to hell for being too liberal. So maybe you or someone else could tell me how we are to be considered a more wicked generation than that of the Spanish conquistadors, for example...or why the only condemnation and hatred I've experienced lately has been from conservative Christians. I think their love has run cold...

 

This is not a snarky post. As a more liberal Christian, I am baffled by militant Christian dominionism, baffled by rejection from other believers, and baffled by the notion that the past was holier than now. For people who had fewer rights during America's golden years, or who were slaves or outcasts, today probably seems better. I would like to know what you think.

[Lanny]

As I write, this post, FoxNews.com has this headline:  "Texas church gunman had cracked infant stepson's skull, official says".

 

That's why the U.S. Air Force put him on trial (a Court Martial) and confined him for one year and gave him a Bad Conduct Discharge in 2014. 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

Honestly, I think the population and demographics of the US has a lot more to do with these things than people realize.

 

People talk about laws and stats in the UK, Australia, etc, as compared to the US and why are their gun crime statistics are lower.

 

 

The population of Australia is approx 25 million. The population of TEXAS is approx 28 million. So, if we want to compare stats, perhaps it's better to compare the STATE of Texas, to the country of Australia, as opposed to comparing Australia to a country with a population of 320 million.

 

Also, Texas shares a land border with another country. Australia does not. I think that IS a factor in guns and gun crimes. It doesn't mean all immigrants are criminals, but it does mean that smuggling firearms and other criminal activity is easier than it might otherwise be.

 

edited for numbers cause I mistyped

The statistics are usually per capita so this doesn't apply. Population density may be a factor though and I actually agree about the non porous border. It is harder for people to get stuff in here.

[Murphy101]

I get so frustrated by these threads.

 

People say what can we do?!

 

Pro gun people (like me) say they’d be okay with these changes and lists several possible options.

 

If I’m lucky, I get one response. Maybe two.

 

It makes me think no one actually cares about discussing change near as much as they care about nipping at each other.

 

So that’s why nothing changes and I sometimes wonder why bother. And why this will probably happen again.

[Ausmumof3]

I get so frustrated by these threads.

 

People say what can we do?!

 

Pro gun people (like me) say they’d be okay with these changes and lists several possible options.

 

If I’m lucky, I get one response. Maybe two.

 

It makes me think no one actually cares about discussing change near as much as they care about nipping at each other.

 

So that’s why nothing changes and I sometimes wonder why bother. And why this will probably happen again.

I think your proposed changes are generally sensible and reasonable. It just doesn't seem like many other pro gun people agree with them.

 

I mean I am kind of pro gun I guess. We are a farming and hunting family over here. But even my hubbies extremely pro gun buddies think American laws are kind of nuts. Although they are somewhat jealous too.

[Ausmumof3]

I started to post in regards to your post.

 

I agree with most of what you said, in some way or another. But I wonder how the details work out.

 

Like you talked about background checks for sales of firearms. Not opposed to this, but how does it work in terms of inheritance?

 

Also, gun permits and others in the house. There's a gun in our home. I have never even TOUCHED it. Let alone fired it. It belongs to DH (see question regarding inheritance.) Adam Lanza never bought the guns he used. They belonged to his mother. So does that mean that I, as someone who lives in the same house as the person who owns the gun, need to ALSO go through safety training/assessment? We don't require the same for driving cars, so............I dunno.

Here the gun owner has to have a locked gun safe and no one else is meant to know the pin code or have access to the keys.

 

With inheritance you got to the police station and it gets transferred into your name after death. It's a bit tricky if no one else in the house has a firearms license of course.

[J-rap]

I get so frustrated by these threads.

 

People say what can we do?!

 

Pro gun people (like me) say they’d be okay with these changes and lists several possible options.

 

If I’m lucky, I get one response. Maybe two.

 

It makes me think no one actually cares about discussing change near as much as they care about nipping at each other.

 

So that’s why nothing changes and I sometimes wonder why bother. And why this will probably happen again.

 

Oh, please don't stop talking!  We do need sane people from both sides.

[Ausmumof3]

Which of American's gun laws do they think are kind of nuts? I ask because....there are 50 states. And each state has different gun laws. So, they might think American Gun Laws are kind of nuts, but do they know what it is that they actually think are nuts?

 

For the record....I am not necessarily inclined to automatically disagree with them...there might very well be some gun laws across all our states that are nuts.....but because there are so many states....there are so many laws. It's just hard to know what to change.

States that don't require background checks and not requiring firearms to be secured in houses with kids specifically. I mean these are just general conversations so I don't totally know but those two I've heard mentioned. We have different laws from state to state too although they are all far stricter than yours. And some of what we have here just wouldn't work or apply where you are.

[Corraleno]

Wow, that's a very hateful comment.

This shooter in Texas was an athiest who hated Christians. The church was also where his ex-in-laws usually attended.

 

The police have said that there is no evidence of any political or religious motivation, and that this stemmed from a domestic issue.

 

The shooter was denied a gun permit. The law "worked" but it didn't stop him from having a gun illegally. It was the shooting of the murderer by a regular citizen that stopped him. The police caught up with the suspect 8 min. later.

 

He was denied a carry permit, but he was able to legally buy a gun at a regular sporting goods store because his DV conviction did not show up in the background check. So no, the law didn't "work," or he would not have been able to legally purchase the gun. 

 

If he was "just" targeting his in-laws (who weren't there) then why did he shoot half the congregation including toddlers?

Because he was an angry, unhinged guy with a history of violence, who was out for revenge. Besides assaulting his first wife and a child, he was also convicted of animal abuse, and at least two former girlfriends have said that he stalked and harassed them for months and even years after they broke up with him. One girl said she's had to change her phone number multiple times because he kept getting her new number somehow and would call and say "disturbing things." Both ex-girlfriends described him as sick and disturbed. People who live in Sutherland Springs say he had been friending people there on FB and purposely starting fights. It was his wife's hometown, if he had marital problems and thought that her friends and family there were contributing to those problems, then attacking a church service where many of them would be gathered in one place would allow him to exact maximum revenge. The police have said that he had been threatening his MIL and was specifically targeting her. He didn't know she wasn't there when he started shooting.

[poppy]

I get so frustrated by these threads.

 

People say what can we do?!

 

Pro gun people (like me) say they’d be okay with these changes and lists several possible options.

 

If I’m lucky, I get one response. Maybe two.

 

It makes me think no one actually cares about discussing change near as much as they care about nipping at each other.

 

So that’s why nothing changes and I sometimes wonder why bother. And why this will probably happen again.

 

Welcome to the land of common sense gun control. Here was your suggestion:

I think a gun safety program and gun laws course should be required to get a permit.

I think a background check should be required to get a permit. And that anyone with a felony of any kind or a violent offense of any kind - should not be given a permit.

I think those who sell or give a gun to someone who does not have a permit or who fail to properly attain the permit - should be prosecuted as an accessory to any crime committed with that gun.

I think they should have to do that for EVERY gun purchase.

A 30 day permit turn around wouldn't hurt. No one NEEDS to buy a gun right now this very second or else. They can wait 30 days to get their permit/gun.

I think they should give financial incentive to register permits. (Bc I'm iffy on requiring a listing of gun owners.) For example, if you don't register your permit then the cost is $200. But if you do register your permit, it's 50.

A current gun permit should be required to buy ammo. And the permit could include an ammo limit per gun per season. Even a very liberal number of bullets and still not be what these mass killers are getting. Or a separate permit for ammo purchases. $50 for so many rounds bought in 4 months. $100 for so many more rounds. This would allow people to buy more during their favorite hunting season for example. And they could still stock pile, I suppose, but at considerable expense. Or instead of limited ammo permits. we could charge an ammo tax of say, .10 a bullet. Either way, the point is that it would be more expensive and thus their dollar wouldn't buy as much.

 

This is lovely.

 

Here is the common refrain, this time from Arctic Mama: "We have reasonable laws. We could add ten more and justify it all the day long. It will not stop unreasonable people, because the laws are not binding to those who will not obey them."

 

The gun lobby's refrain is, it's hopeless, laws  don't work, more laws only help the bad guys,  arm yourself, yadda yadda .

 

And people vote to keep the lawmakers who support them into office.

 

Like I said, welcome to the land of common sense gun control, where you can bash your head against a wall all day long.  And the next time a mass shooting happens, if you make these suggestions again, you will get scolded for politicizing a tragedy. 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by poppy

[Murphy101]

I started to post in regards to your post.

 

I agree with most of what you said, in some way or another. But I wonder how the details work out.

 

Like you talked about background checks for sales of firearms. Not opposed to this, but how does it work in terms of inheritance?

 

Also, gun permits and others in the house. There's a gun in our home. I have never even TOUCHED it. Let alone fired it. It belongs to DH (see question regarding inheritance.) Adam Lanza never bought the guns he used. They belonged to his mother. So does that mean that I, as someone who lives in the same house as the person who owns the gun, need to ALSO go through safety training/assessment? We don't require the same for driving cars, so............I dunno.

What about inheritance? Just because it’s inheritated doesn’t mean there aren’t requirements. I could inherit a car and I still have to pay for a title transfer. Even if I never drive it.

 

And it wouldn’t stop everything. But it could hamper some.

 

And though it wouldn’t have stopped sandy hook, it might have reduce how much ammo or guns he had access to. Bc a permit per gun and for ammo for his mom would have limited her stash for him to access.

[Ausmumof3]

I am totally ok with requiring everyone who owns a gun to also own a safe. In fact, I would be ok with a situation similar to how hospitals give out car seats before the babies drive away. I am not sure of the details but yeah, I am good with that sort of requirement. I required it before the inherited gun came into our house. The single gun in our house is in a huge heavy safe behind a combo lock that only DH and I know the combo to, in our bedroom and the door itself is difficult to open simply due to it's location. Access to it is difficult....I am all for making access difficult.

 

I am the oldest of 4. My dad owns a few guns. Should our parents intend to pass those guns to all of us...that means all of us dealing with licenses etc, and how long is that going to screw up court (I am actually wondering....because dealing with FIL's estate took about 9 months, with no will and it was not complicated. If there are IRAs or multiple properties, it can take SO much longer...and that's without a firearms inheritance complication.

Here it was basically simple just a drive to the police station and transfer paper work. However there was no conflict over who inherited and value was too low to be taxable. Those things could complicate stuff for sure.

[Murphy101]

I’m not for making access to a gun they lawfully own difficult. To many, the entire point of owning a gun to feel safe disappears if access is difficult.

 

But again, we could incentivize safes. Making the use of them a part of the training courses. Especially with children in the home. Offer discounts on permits if they have a safe.

 

There’s many ways we could incentivize good gun practices, same as we incentivize good driving or other hazardous activities.

[Murphy101]

Actually....in my state....you don't have to do ANYTHING to the car until you intend to drive it. We could have picked up FIL's truck, drove it to our house and parked in the back yard, no questions asked.

 

But, paying for a title transfer....I don't have to take a test to transfer a title like I do to drive the car. I can own a car, in my name, and never ever drive it. In fact, there's a car in my driveway right now that is in my name, not DH's that does not run. I can have 15 or 20 cars on my property, and not have a drivers license.

 

And in fact there are many families where not everyone in the house is licensed to drive, but many cars are owned by one or more people in the house.

Sure. I’m simply saying there are various laws that could be implemented or made for gun inheritance to deal with this issue. It’s really not that terribly complicated. Inheriting something doesn’t mean one has no obligations to fulfill in order to keep that something. If I inherit a house, I have to deal with the property and pay taxes on it or what all else. So it’s not like inheriting something obsolves the state of any ability to legislate how it may be kept.

[Twolittleboys]

As I write, this post, FoxNews.com has this headline:  "Texas church gunman had cracked infant stepson's skull, official says".

 

That's why the U.S. Air Force put him on trial (a Court Martial) and confined him for one year and gave him a Bad Conduct Discharge in 2014. 

 

That is horrifying but I am not sure what it has to do with the question what should/could be done?

 

Well, yes and no. 

 

You said it doesn't "quite" work.  That, I agree is true.  But that doesn't mean it's not a factor.  ESPECIALLY when you look at media reporting today.  For example, the phrase I see tossed around in the media a LOT today is "the largest mass shooting in state history."  While yes, that is true, the wording is specifically chosen to make sure people hear "largest mass shooting."  Everyone KNOWS that the shooting in Vegas killed more, but that doesn't mean "largest mass shooting" doesn't have an effect. 

 

But also, on top of the idea that stats are often averaged out or per person etc......there's also the difficulty of enforcing laws across larger population.  Meaning, laws in Australia work across 24 million....but do they scale up times 12+?

 

Some countries in Europe have land borders.  The UK is an island (unless you count the small border in Ireland.)  But also, what is the SIZE of those borders...Texas is larger, in terms of square mileage, than the entire country of France.

 

The US is a whole other ball of wax when it comes to population, actual land size, including border size, and immigration.   There is a combination of all of these factors that other countries just don't have. 

 

 

I do agree that each country is different and there may be factors in the US that are different from other countries (culture, population density etc.). So I do think outcomes may be slightly different and it would take some work to find a combination of restrictions/tools that works.

 

Australia does have a comparatively small population. The population of some European countries is quite a bit larger and you could look at the EU as a whole. While each country has its own (gun or other) laws the overall incidence of gun crimes doesn't vary that much.

 

I don't think the border aspect plays much of a role (comparing European countries to the US) though I may be wrong. Obviously, the borders tend to be smaller if the country is smaller but many European countries (e.g. France, Spain, Germany etc.) have quite a bit of border and with several countries at that. There is also quite a bit of immigration/refugee movement...

 

I don't necessarily think the US should pass the exact same laws as another country but I do think there must be a way to reduce these horrifying incidents as other countries (which probably have just as many crazy, evil people) have better outcomes (not perfect of course).

 

I get so frustrated by these threads.

 

People say what can we do?!

 

Pro gun people (like me) say they’d be okay with these changes and lists several possible options.

 

If I’m lucky, I get one response. Maybe two.

 

It makes me think no one actually cares about discussing change near as much as they care about nipping at each other.

 

So that’s why nothing changes and I sometimes wonder why bother. And why this will probably happen again.

 

I too feel frustrated and do appreciate attempts to come up with possible options. It just seems so fruitless as even quite basic changes (e.g. bump stocks) seem impossible to pass. I think there needs to be some give/movement (not on the part of individuals but on a policy level) to make it worthwhile to discuss exactly what would be useful and just legislation.

[Murphy101]

One thing might be that home owner insurance have to notified of permit holders. They shouldn’t be allowed to refuse coverage, but they could charge a higher fee for it and offer discounts for safety measures like safes.

 

I’m not suggesting I have all the answers. But to act like there is no possible way is ridiculous. There’s many reasonable things we could do to make this safer without needing to ban anything or demonize anyone.

 

The biggest problem is money. That’s one reason I suggest the courses, permits and taxes. It should be onerous. But we need those funds to have staff to do background checks, give courses and such. Money to implement sound policy on anything is a problem these days.

[Butter]

The shooter was denied a gun permit. The law "worked" but it didn't stop him from having a gun illegally. It was the shooting of the murderer by a regular citizen that stopped him. The police caught up with the suspect 8 min. later.

 

Wherever you are getting your news is inaccurate.  He was denied a license to carry permit.  In Texas, you only need a license to carry for toting around your handgun (rifles don't need them).  We don't have concealed carry anymore because we have open carry.  When they added open carry they changed the license to be license to carry.  He did not obtain the gun illegally.  He obtained it 100% legally.  He couldn't *use* it legally without the LTC, but he bought it legally.  It is not known yet whether he was shot by a bystander or shot himself.  They actually think he shot himself.  He did exchange gunfire with a bystander outside, but that was before he fled in a vehicle.  He had already committed mass murder before that gunfire was exchanged.  Nothing stopped him from shooting the people in the church other than him deciding he was done and leaving.

[Corraleno]

I get so frustrated by these threads.

 

People say what can we do?!

 

Pro gun people (like me) say they’d be okay with these changes and lists several possible options.

 

If I’m lucky, I get one response. Maybe two.

 

It makes me think no one actually cares about discussing change near as much as they care about nipping at each other.

 

So that’s why nothing changes and I sometimes wonder why bother. And why this will probably happen again.

 

I agree with all of the things you suggested. Unfortunately I don't think there's a chance in hell of getting any of those regulations passed as long as the NRA gets to dictate the gun laws in this country. We're actually going backwards, not forwards. There is a bill in Congress right now (the SHARE Act) that would make it easier and cheaper to get silencers, would allow transport of guns across state lines, and allow people to carry guns in National Parks. They were all set to vote on the bill when the Vegas shooting happened, and they realized that would not look good, so it was quietly set aside for later. There is another bill that would allow people who live in states that permit concealed carry to CC in states that don't allow it (so much for "state's rights").  And they did pass a law in February that makes it easier for the mentally ill — specifically, people whose mental illness is so severe that they cannot work or manage their own financial affairs — to buy guns.

[Murphy101]

Okay. That’s just ridiculous.

 

Yes murder is illegal but that’s doesnt mean we don’t have laws to make various means of doing so more difficult.

 

There’s nothing to stop someone from taking a plane or truck and slamming it into buildings/people. Or making bombs out of fertilizer. But we sure as hell can and do make it a lot harder for those things to happen. And for the most part, without undo hardship on people in general.

[Butter]

Should my sister be restricted from owning firearms because she lives in the same house as him? 

 

If the Adam Lanza case is any indication, knee jerk reaction would be yes.  He stole his mother's guns.

 

However, it would make sense if there was a certain amount of time since any DV issue - say five years - then I don't think it should "count."  I have a friend who lost her nursing license due to DV with her ex (or, more specifically, conviction on her record).  They basically tried to kill each other.  They were just a horrible match.  A certain amount of time has gone by with no DV issues (she's not been with that particular man in years) and now she is eligible to renew her license again.  I think it should be the same for owning a gun/having a gun in the household.  It looks like, at least in TX, after a certain amount of time has passed, misdemeanors no longer affect license to carry eligibility.

[Butter]

Ok, so towards the bolded....that's kind of the whole point...is "knee jerk" really the best most sensible reaction?  Actually, I am not sure that Lanza even had DV arrests....did he?  I know he had documented mental issues, but actual arrests for violence?  (and I dunno, did he?)

 

Towards the rest....ok, I can see that.

 

That's all why I say the devil is in the details. 

 

 

That was my point, but clearly I was not clear enough.  No, the knee jerk reaction is NOT the most sensible one.

 

No, he has nothing DV related, but lots of documented mental health stuff.  He's just the first one I came up with that had issues indicating he should not have access to a gun.

[Murphy101]

If the Adam Lanza case is any indication, knee jerk reaction would be yes. He stole his mother's guns.

 

However, it would make sense if there was a certain amount of time since any DV issue - say five years - then I don't think it should "count." I have a friend who lost her nursing license due to DV with her ex (or, more specifically, conviction on her record). They basically tried to kill each other. They were just a horrible match. A certain amount of time has gone by with no DV issues (she's not been with that particular man in years) and now she is eligible to renew her license again. I think it should be the same for owning a gun/having a gun in the household. It looks like, at least in TX, after a certain amount of time has passed, misdemeanors no longer affect license to carry eligibility.

Make it 10 years and I’d take that deal.

 

Yes. The devil is in the details. But we have to start somewhere.

 

That’s how actual policy is actually made.

 

Someone A puts forth some possible solutions.

Someone B puts forth a counter solution.

Someone A takes that and considers how to work with it and recounters.

 

This everyone just yapping about policital parties and screaming about guns doesn’t seem to be working.

 

So maybe we should try something new.

 

Like genuine policy making efforts.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Murphy101

[hornblower]

I don't disagree.  But how do we restrict HIS access (his meaning Lanza AND others like him) without serious imposition on those who live with people like him.  Especially considering these people already have serious stress dealing with people like that.

 

Again....I don't have the answers, just musing on the details....because they are so much at issue in these things. 

 

We already do this in other cases.  People can get denied security clearances  and thus opportunity to work in certain branches of government for having relatives who are seen as too risky.  It's total guilt by association. 

[Murphy101]

I don't disagree. But how do we restrict HIS access (his meaning Lanza AND others like him) without serious imposition on those who live with people like him. Especially considering these people already have serious stress dealing with people like that.

 

Again....I don't have the answers, just musing on the details....because they are so much at issue in these things.

Define serious? I’m kinda okay with serious imposing on people who KNOW they live with someone unhinged and thinks it’s okay to stockpile an arsenal for that person to access.

 

But some of my suggestions might have helped. If nothing else, it might have reduced how much he had access to by limiting how much she could afford to get permitted for and how quickly she could get permitted for all of that.

 

Listen. It’s insane to keep doing something and expecting a different result.

 

Doing nothing doesn’t seem to be working.

 

Maybe we should try some of these entirely reasonable things that might reduce the problems.

[Daria]

Ok, so towards the bolded....that's kind of the whole point...is "knee jerk" really the best most sensible reaction? Actually, I am not sure that Lanza even had DV arrests....did he? I know he had documented mental issues, but actual arrests for violence? (and I dunno, did he?)

 

Towards the rest....ok, I can see that.

 

That's all why I say the devil is in the details.

 

You know what could help sort those details out? Research into gun violence. So, perhaps we start by allowing that.

 

Having said that, I'd have no trouble with a law banning guns in homes occupied by domestic abusers for life.

[Cindy in FL.]

I find it difficult to have these kinds of discussions online, because it’s not face to face and there isn’t the immediate back and forth for clarification, etc. That being said, I know that it is difficult to understand that God allows things like genocide and mass shootings to occur when He has the power to stop them. Why does Jesus delay His return if that is what will end all the pain and suffering and bring the new earth where everything is made right.

 

I understand that not to every one, including all Christians, has the same belief that I do regarding these things. I believe the Gospel story: God created the world, man rebelled, sin and death entered separating man from God, Jesus came, lived a perfect life, and was therefore able to die in man’s place to pay our debt, Jesus rose again and is with God in heaven and He will return at which time all will be made right.

 

God, being able to see all of eternity at the same time, knew from eternity past that man would rebel, and in His mercy He made a way for those who would accept the gift of His son to spend eternity in heaven with Him. I believe that none of us deserve that and that God is merciful to save anyone. I believe that Jesus tarrying allows for more people to come to saving faith. God allows the bad things to happen, but He does not cause them to happen. He allows man to have free will.

 

I think that God is light and the further we stray from Him the “darker†the world becomes. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we will all become like Hitler, but that to a greater degree, more broadly, we will do evil. That’s evil according to the truths of God, not man.

 

As far as your Christian friends condemning you to hell. They don’t have the power to do that, only God does. They can share with you their concerns, in love (like we might do with our kids if we saw them doing something that was concerning). Yes, the book of Revelation speaks to the situation with churches (and Christians) becoming lukewarm and their lampstands being removed, so you have a valid point there.

 

I don’t think the past was holier than now. Solomon even said that there was nothing new under the sun! Yes, for people no longer enslaved, outcast, marginalized, etc. now must seem better in many ways. I don’t think that everything that we view as progress, enlightenment, or evolution is actually movement in a positive direction. (I am not speaking of slavery or anything like that).

 

Anyhow, I probably did a terrible job trying to explain where I am coming from, so please be gentle!

 

I've heard that a lot (my background is fundamentalist Christian), but it only makes me wonder what Jesus is waiting for, if the many and varied eras of genocide - I mean hundreds to millions of people at a time - were not dark enough that it couldn't get worse...and we are supposedly turning darker...than Hitler? And the rest?

 

I am out of fundamentalist friends to ask, because those former acquaintances have condemned me to hell for being too liberal. So maybe you or someone else could tell me how we are to be considered a more wicked generation than that of the Spanish conquistadors, for example...or why the only condemnation and hatred I've experienced lately has been from conservative Christians. I think their love has run cold...

 

This is not a snarky post. As a more liberal Christian, I am baffled by militant Christian dominionism, baffled by rejection from other believers, and baffled by the notion that the past was holier than now. For people who had fewer rights during America's golden years, or who were slaves or outcasts, today probably seems better. I would like to know what you think.

[Barb_]

Living with someone convicted of DV while also owning firearms yourself increases the chances that weapon will be turned on you. If your husband has a sexual assault against a minor on his record, you aren't allowed to live in certain areas and your house will be listed on a registery. I think that is a similar situation. I think it's reasonable that anyone living with someone convicted of violence of any kind should be prohibited from keeping a gun on communal property.

 

A teacher at the school my kids attended briefly was shot in the back of the head by her husband. A law against keeping firearms on the property could have saved her life.

[Barb_]

Define serious? Well I dunno.

 

Which, is part of the problem in these threads. Once we get down to the nitty gritty of defining things and what laws might ACTUALLY work and so on....all of us are a bit fuzzy.

 

I dunno how serious is "serious" I dunno how "unhinged" is actually "unhinged." I dunno how much ammo is too much. And every single one of us has a different opinion of those things. THAT is why not much gets done. Because our opinions are all so different.

No we aren't lawmakers. It isn't our job to hammer out the details. Nothing is done because there is too much money to be made from keeping things exactly as they are.

[Corraleno]

However, it would make sense if there was a certain amount of time since any DV issue - say five years - then I don't think it should "count."  I have a friend who lost her nursing license due to DV with her ex (or, more specifically, conviction on her record).  They basically tried to kill each other.  They were just a horrible match.  A certain amount of time has gone by with no DV issues (she's not been with that particular man in years) and now she is eligible to renew her license again.  I think it should be the same for owning a gun/having a gun in the household.  It looks like, at least in TX, after a certain amount of time has passed, misdemeanors no longer affect license to carry eligibility.

 

Devin Kelley's DV conviction was 5 years ago (2012), but obviously he was still dangerous.

 

The Air Force has now admitted that the reason the DV conviction didn't show up on the background check was because they never entered it into the Federal database as they should have. That is now under investigation and they are looking to see if there are other convictions that also did not get properly entered.

 

As a side note, I don't understand how fracturing a child's skull, while also assaulting the child's mother, only counted as a misdemeanor and only warranted a bad conduct discharge instead of a dishonorable one.  

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Cindy in Fl. I can't quote on this phone so I hope you'll see this - thank you for taking the time to type your thoughtful reply. I truly appreciate it. ☺