# At least 20 people killed in shooting at Texas church



## knight1fox3 (Nov 5, 2017)

Seriously, whiskey...........tango...........foxtrot?!

Is this BS going to be a weekly $%^&amp;*#@ occurrence??? 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html


----------



## ptatohed (Nov 6, 2017)

26 dead now.


----------



## MA_PE (Nov 6, 2017)

this is pretty unreal.  Small town of less than 400 people.


----------



## csb (Nov 6, 2017)

Happened to catch a clip on Fox News while purchasing doughnuts this morning and they were going on about how the real issue is how churches are set up to be soft targets. You know, people enter through one spot in the back and they are all seated facing an open front area and WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT MAKING CHURCHES ACTIVE SHOOTER PROTECTIVE INSTEAD OF STOP SHOOTING PEOPLE. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

532 people killed in mass shootings in 2017. 1,625 people injured in mass shootings in 2017.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 6, 2017)

my question is, why is is the media not talking about how the neighbor who heard what was going on and interrupted the scene by opening fire on this wacko? That guy is the real hero. More would have died.


----------



## goodal (Nov 6, 2017)

Our church took some steps to increase security a few years ago.  All but two doors are locked during service, we have about 10 cameras around the property and several men have beepers that tell them which door to go to should something funny go on outside during service.  Not to mention, including me and my wife, I suspect 15-20% of adults in the building are armed.  Short of posting a guard outside, I think we are as ready as we can be.  I do hate that we have to prepare for this, but desperate times...  As far as why are churches arming themselves instead of stopping bad guys from doing bad things, we can do something about one of them.  The other takes a change of heart for the entire population.


----------



## csb (Nov 6, 2017)

I would much rather meet Jesus than lock the doors to prevent people from finding Jesus.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 7, 2017)

csb said:


> I would much rather meet Jesus than lock the doors to prevent people from finding Jesus.


Also have to remember that the historically number one source of conflict is over which form of Jesus you're supposed to find...


----------



## akwooly (Nov 7, 2017)

NJmike PE said:


> my question is, why is is the media not talking about how the neighbor who heard what was going on and interrupted the scene by opening fire on this wacko? That guy is the real hero. More would have died.


I am hearing about it a lot. It's all over the news.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 7, 2017)

akwooly said:


> I am hearing about it a lot. It's all over the news.


I am now too. and funny how gun reform is not a topic here


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 7, 2017)

On the flip side, it's that "he's a hero for shooting back" mentality that builds upon the confirmation bias for the pro-2nd amendment crew. He's the hero for being armed. But the bad guy is not the bad guy for being armed, he's simply a bad guy who would have been a bad guy with any number of things.

It's a way to glorify and justify the constant need to identify with guns. This is what is built into the American psyche and what needs to change if there is to be any progress in how guns are productively used in the US.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 7, 2017)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> Also have to remember that the historically number one source of conflict is over which form of Jesus you're supposed to find...


In this case the shooter was one of those in-your-face Facebook atheists:



> "He was also posting a lot of non-God beliefs, atheism, a lot of gun violence and a lot of weapons that he was into," Longoria told CNN's Don Lemon


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 7, 2017)

For this particular case this guy should have never been able to purchase a firearm (thanks chAir Force).. But if its one thing we have seen, crazy people going to do what crazy people going to do (home depot truck?)  The las vegas shooter also owned two airplanes, but I don't believe he intended to get caught so maybe he wasn't brave enough to load his planes with extra fuel and crash kamikaze style into the concert.

most people that own guns do use them productively.

I'd be willing to place a small tax on ammo to fund additional ATF agents who show up and help ensure that former convicted felons don't have any guns in their possession?  And also it would be nice if we started enforcing the existing laws on the books in the process...


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 7, 2017)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> On the flip side, it's that "he's a hero for shooting back" mentality that builds upon the confirmation bias for the pro-2nd amendment crew. He's the hero for being armed. But the bad guy is not the bad guy for being armed, he's simply a bad guy who would have been a bad guy with any number of things.


Yes he is a hero for shooting back. And the bad guy.... He's a piece of garbage. And let's face it, these guys mental or not, are evil at the core. And they don't respect the laws. That is obvious enough. I truly believe that had more of these incidents occurred where someone armed was nearby to act in defense, 1) there would far less casualties; and 2) these incidents might be far and few between.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 7, 2017)

Just a few thoughts:

1) 2nd Amendment needs to go. Owning a gun is not and should not be a natural born right. I'm not saying guns need to be banned, but the starting point in any gun debate should not be "I have the right to one, prove why I shouldn't". The gun control discussion should be, "prove to society that you are a physically and mentally capable person, then you can have one". Self defense is not a legitimate reason. Australia has actually criminalized self defense with a gun. They also have a gun mortality rate one third of the US.

2) There are entirely too many guns in the US. Under current estimates, there are literally one gun for every man/woman/child in the US. Next closest one: Serbia with 1 gun per 2 people (just over half the rate). Most European countries are around 30 guns per 100 people. With this many guns available, it should be of absolutely no surprise that anyone can get one if they want one. The US has doubled the amount of guns per capita over the last 40 years and the only thing that has proven is that more guns do not solve the problem. When tools are available, said tools are used. 

3) Mental health in the US is abysmal. Yes, the US has some of the best medicine available in the world. But there is a difference between being available and genuinely accessible. Lamborghini's are available, but only select few have access to them. Why is healthcare the same way? People have to make the daily decision between food and buying their meds. Bankruptcy should not be a consequence of getting sick. You want to know what socialized medicine provides? It provides help those who need help. I don't care if you're healthy and don't need it, your current health is just one mental break away from being a victim from someone who can't afford their meds. Healthcare should not be a capitalist commodity to be profited from on the stock market.

The United States has 10 gun-related deaths per year per 100k people (6.3 of that is suicide). This is worse than South Africa, Philippines, Mexico, Serbia, and Israel. Compared to other developed countries (mostlly European), Americans are 10x more likely to die by a gun.

"How are we to protect ourselves from an oppressive government?" Oh, you mean the government that spends almost $600b PER YEAR on a military force? Good luck with that.

"But I am safe with my firearms." Good for you. 



NJmike PE said:


> Yes he is a hero for shooting back. And the bad guy.... He's a piece of garbage. And let's face it, these guys mental or not, are evil at the core. And they don't respect the laws. That is obvious enough. I truly believe that had more of these incidents occurred where someone armed was nearby to act in defense, 1) there would far less casualties; and 2) these incidents might be far and few between.


Exactly proving my point. With a gun, he's a hero. No one else is identified as a hero. If a police officer arrives on site to see two people shooting each other, who's the bad guy? Most people who conceal carry won't even un-holster their weapon because 1) they don't want to become the target of the bad guy and 2) they don't want to be labeled as the bad guy when the police show up.

The bad guy is a bad guy, it's nothing to do with poor mental health treatment options, nothing to do with access to the largest array of weapons in the world, and definitely not society's fault for fostering the whole situation. Right?

At the end of the day, what the US is doing is not working. De-regulating guns (per the NRA goal), is not working. Everyone having the right to own one is not working. When is the US going to start looking outside it's own borders to see what other countries are doing? Why is suggesting what other countries are doing being met with such resistance? I'm not saying the rest of the world has it perfected, but it's significantly safer out here...


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 8, 2017)

What a bunch of BS that is...


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 8, 2017)

So the US isn't as bad as Central/South America? How about comparing gun ownership vs deaths against more developed nations?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

"At least it's not" is probably the biggest straw man there is. At least it's not heart disease (number one cause of death), so by comparison guns are safe? You're more likely to die by a vending machine falling on you than getting bitten by a shark, does that make sharks safe? Should we all have the right to own sharks now?


----------



## matt267 PE (Nov 8, 2017)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> Should we all have the right to own sharks now?


Only if they have lasers.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 8, 2017)

so more legislation, bigger government, those are the answers? That will resolve this issue? Ask the citizens of Chicago how that is working out. because the bad guys obviously pay attention to the laws.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 8, 2017)

If you had a shark with a big enough laser beam to take out LA and Chicago crime
Numbers would drop to below Switzerland numbers in the US... addition by subtraction...


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 8, 2017)

I like this thought process. great point


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 8, 2017)

Why does it have to be more legislation, instead of different legislation? Even if it is more, I agree that the Second Amendment is the hinge on which all of this rests. As long as that is still in place, and the NRA exists with its current goals remaining as such, gun control will never seriously be pursued in the U.S.

I think what Australia was able to do is amazing. I really, really, really wish the U.S. had already done the same thing. But good grief, it doesn't seem to matter how many people die via gun shots (whether it be suicide, homicide, self-defense, what have you). Congress just doesn't seem to be able to effectively do anything.

I mean, seriously, what happened with outlawing the bumpers? Did that ever actually become law? Even when members of Congress are hurt, nothing gets done. Even when the president of the country is assassinated via a gun, nothing gets done. I am not saying I'm giving up on the hope of gun control in the future, but I just don't know what on earth it will take to convince all the people in this country that less accessibility to guns (whether by outlawing at the extreme end, or by creating stricter guidelines on who can purchase what and how many of what, vs. the existing laws being followed) is in every way going to make for a safer society on the whole. Does it take every single person being directly or indirectly affected by gun violence? I certainly hope not. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

Yes, if a person wants to get access to one or many guns, they will find a way to do so. But if it is just generally harder to get said guns, I simply cannot see how that would more dangerous.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 8, 2017)

prohibition worked too


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 8, 2017)

Oh, we're changing the subject to talk about alcohol? What about it, use? Abuse? Binge drinking? Underage drinking? Drinking and driving? Those are worthy topics too.


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 8, 2017)

Gun control is not the only issue that is pressing in this country. It's just one we get reminded of over and over again, every time there is another mass shooting.

Yes, there are things that kill more people than guns. But does that mean we should forget about gun control entirely?


----------



## Dleg (Nov 8, 2017)

I think the answer to the 2nd Amendment is to legalize everything - flamethrowers, 50 caliber crew-served machine guns, 20mm automatic Gatling cannons, howitzers, tanks, and nuclear weapons. Why not?  How can we protect ourselves against our government, per the 2nd amendment, unless we can arm ourselves at an equivalent level?

If we do that, the absurdity of the NRA's stance will probably run off most of their own members. Because this exposes the fallacy in their logic: they clearly support SOME level of restriction, otherwise all of these things would be in our hands already. So if they support SOME level of restriction, then they are obligated to discuss and negotiate what that level of restriction is.  I grew up in a gun and NRA household in the 70s and 80s, went to gun shows, etc. and AR-15s were extremely uncommon. Most NRA members I grew up knowing were pretty much primarily thinking about the bolt-action hunting rifles they owned when you would discuss the right to own weapons.  That and basic handguns and shotguns. It was only in the late 80s and onward that they became the paramilitary nuts that we have now, and gun shops transitioned from selling primarily hunting weapons and basic self-defence guns like pistols, into these militia armories that they are now.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 8, 2017)

I never said ban. I'm talking top-down restructuring of the gun laws. Obviously the laws in place are not effective, un-enforceable, and/or impractical.

We need to change our thinking from "I have it now prove why I shouldn't" to "I would like one, let me demonstrate why I should be allowed one". The only way for that change to happen is to eliminate the natural born "right" to own one.

Have buy-back programs to help remove this surplus of weaponry from the general public. Limit the amount of guns individuals can own. Limit the amount of weapons retailers can sell. This isn't about punishing the law-abiding citizens, it's about reducing the overall pool of weapons available.

From an accountability standpoint, make gun owners carry insurance for anything/everything that happens with the weapon they purchase until it is legally sold to another. If it's stolen, they're still on the hook for it.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 8, 2017)

How about the folks that run the cities with the highest crime rates - Detroit, chiRaq,LA, etc, actually do something to reduce the amount of existing felons illegally owning guns and see what effect it has on crime? This can be done without new laws. Basically "do your job".

Enforce the existing laws on the books...get some results, then come talk... because anything being proposed is just going to impact the majority 99% that are not doing anything illegal with their firearms...


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 8, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> How about the folks that run the cities with the highest crime rates - Detroit, chiRaq,LA, etc, actually do something to reduce the amount of existing felons illegally owning guns and see what effect it has on crime? This can be done without new laws. Basically "do your job".
> 
> Enforce the existing laws on the books...get some results, then come talk... because anything being proposed is just going to impact the majority 99% that are not doing anything illegal with their firearms...


this

we don't need big government, just people to do their jobs


----------



## Dleg (Nov 8, 2017)

Yeah but seriously, why stop at semi-auto assault rifles?  Let's let people own fully auto and belt-fed machine guns. Grenades. And why can we be trusted with semi-auto assault rifles, but not be trusted with ricin or sarin gas dispensers?  Those would be far more effective at protecting against both personal attack and overreaching government.


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 8, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> How about the folks that run the cities with the highest crime rates - Detroit, chiRaq,LA, etc, actually do something to reduce the amount of existing felons illegally owning guns and see what effect it has on crime? This can be done without new laws. Basically "do your job".
> 
> Enforce the existing laws on the books...get some results, then come talk... because anything being proposed is just going to impact the majority 99% that are not doing anything illegal with their firearms...


That's a great start! Yes, why don't people enforce the laws and regulations as they are now? That's a question that seems to be a no-brainer.

But I think @Dexman PE PMP makes very strong and good points. These two in particular:



Dexman PE PMP said:


> We need to change our thinking from "I have it now prove why I shouldn't" to "I would like one, let me demonstrate why I should be allowed one". The only way for that change to happen is to eliminate the natural born "right" to own one.
> 
> Have buy-back programs to help remove this surplus of weaponry from the general public. Limit the amount of guns individuals can own. Limit the amount of weapons retailers can sell. This isn't about punishing the law-abiding citizens, it's about reducing the overall pool of weapons available.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 8, 2017)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> Exactly proving my point. With a gun, he's a hero. *No one else is identified as a hero*. If a police officer arrives on site to see two people shooting each other, who's the bad guy? Most people who conceal carry won't even un-holster their weapon because 1) they don't want to become the target of the bad guy and 2) they don't want to be labeled as the bad guy when the police show up.


And for the record, this is an incorrect statement. Every single human being who ran towards that incident when logic tells you to do otherwise was a hero that day. Not just for the obvious either, but because they saw things that day. Things that WILL haunt them if not for the rest of their lives, for a long time. I know. I've experienced it too. But they ran in to help, regardless. The training prepares them for the save, not the salvage. No amount of training prepares them for what they saw.


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 8, 2017)

So why not put efforts toward limiting the amount of people who have to become such heroes by such acts of terror?


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 8, 2017)

I don;t need big government. I need the government in place to do their job


----------



## Dleg (Nov 8, 2017)

So what's the difference between "big government" limiting the amount of people who ahve to become heroes (as stated by leggo) and the "government in place" doing their job? I don't get it. 

Unless you agree that everyone should be able to carry around mustard gas and flamethrowers, then you must agree that there is a line SOMEWHERE that has to be drawn in what "arms" may be carried.  Are you against discussing where that line should be drawn?


----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 8, 2017)

leggo PE said:


> I think what Australia was able to do is amazing. I really, really, really wish the U.S. had already done the same thing.


Have to set the record straight on this one because I tend to hear people make this argument frequently without actually looking at the facts. And usually they also immediately assume that a model like this that works for that particular region is automatically going to work in a completely different region such as the US.

Australia has had mass-shooting incidents, its just not as prevalent in US media and therefore most are uninformed in that regard. In 2011, there was a mass shooting in Hectorville. In 2014, one in Hunt, and again in 2014 one in Wedderburn (which was a 4 hour siege of a neighborhood). But let’s dig deep into numbers rather than just reading headlines. Australia only has 23 million people living in it (with a large amount of those very very spread out). But let’s just stick to quantity and not density. The United States has nearly 14 times as many people, at nearly 320 million. So if you compare apples to apples, if Australia had as many people as the United States and the ratio of mass killings to total populace remained the same, Australia would have 42 mass killings compared to 29 in the United States. That is 13 more! It is also worth noting that I am currently unaware of any study that directly links the gun restrictions in Australia with a corresponding decline in mass shootings.

I'm not suggesting that nothing be done or the issue be ignored. But let's not blindly adopt one model that works in one region and assume that will be a good fit in this region. I agree with some of the posts above that we first start by better enforcing some of the laws that are already currently in place to remove weapons from criminals and their corresponding illegal activities.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 8, 2017)

We have the lines, but the big cities that generate crime would rather spend their time and money being sanctuary cities and making cops the bad guys....

Until the gun grabbers show me they can do something about the crime they indirectly create then I am not willing to have much of a discussion.


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 8, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> We have the lines, but the big cities that generate crime would rather spend their time and money being sanctuary cities and making cops the bad guys....


Again, I don't think being a sanctuary city has much to do with gun control. Except that perhaps sanctuary cities have a population that might support gun control on the whole? But that is purely my own speculation.


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 8, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> Have to set the record straight on this one because I tend to hear people make this argument frequently without actually looking at the facts. And usually they also immediately assume that a model like this that works for that particular region is automatically going to work in a completely different region such as the US.
> 
> Australia has had mass-shooting incidents, its just not as prevalent in US media and therefore most are uninformed in that regard. In 2011, there was a mass shooting in Hectorville. In 2014, one in Hunt, and again in 2014 one in Wedderburn (which was a 4 hour siege of a neighborhood). But let’s dig deep into numbers rather than just reading headlines. Australia only has 23 million people living in it (with a large amount of those very very spread out). But let’s just stick to quantity and not density. The United States has nearly 14 times as many people, at nearly 320 million. So if you compare apples to apples, if Australia had as many people as the United States and the ratio of mass killings to total populace remained the same, Australia would have 42 mass killings compared to 29 in the United States. That is 13 more! It is also worth noting that I am currently unaware of any study that directly links the gun restrictions in Australia with a corresponding decline in mass shootings.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that nothing be done or the issue be ignored. But let's not blindly adopt one model that works in one region and assume that will be a good fit in this region. I agree with some of the posts above that we first start by better enforcing some of the laws that are already currently in place to remove weapons from criminals and their corresponding illegal activities.


I'm not saying that what was done in Australia would work exactly the same if implemented in exactly the same way in the U.S. That's absurd, for the exact reasons you stated. If it works in one place, one cannot depend on it working in the same way in a different place.

That being said, I can still admire a certain type of policy in another country, can I not?

Additionally, I agree with Dex. We need to fundamentally change our thinking. There are certainly reasons to have one, or maybe a few. Hunting, military, police force, be the prime reasons that come to my mind. But really, why shouldn't people have to prove that there is a need for owning one?

If the government can somehow figure out a way to reduce the number of guns out on the streets of the entire country (I'm not talking about just the cities that are associated with high rates of crime, which are easy to just jump to and blame for having said high crime), and help to take guns out of the hands of people who are not likely to use them responsibly, please explain to me how this is a bad idea.


----------



## kevo_55 (Nov 8, 2017)




----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 8, 2017)

leggo PE said:


> That being said, I can still admire a certain type of policy in another country, can I not?


Surely you can. But you didn't necessarily state for which reasons you admire their methods. Because as I pointed out above, it surely isn't about the numbers. And if it isn't about the numbers, then I have to wonder what particulars about Australia are so attractive, other than their low and very spread out populace.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 8, 2017)

Delta is always ready....


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 8, 2017)

3 shootings in the last 20 years in Australia versus how many in the United States? @knight1fox3claims there were *only* 29 in the US. Maybe in the last 6 months... I would like to see where those figures come from because the sources I'm seeing note "317 mass shootings in the US from 1999-2013". The Mass Shooting Tracker shows 378. To adjust for population, that would mean Australia would have needed at least 22 in that same time frame (1999-2013, assuming US was always 14x more populated than Australia) but: Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996 and No mass shootings in Australia in 20 years say otherwise.  I should note the last link to NBC included commentary that they feel Australia's success is unlikely to be possible in the US due to cultural differences.

Current figures are showing gun-related homicides in the US at approximately 3.6 per 100k citizens.  Compare that to 0.0 in the UK, or 0.2 in Australia (Reposting link).

It is not a scaled problem in terms of population. It is a scaled problem in terms of # of guns per capita.

But back to a simpler point: the US is still in the mindset that "it's not as bad as..." implying that it isn't bad and doesn't need addressing, or at a minimum using it to trivialize the need to do something. Enforcing the laws on the already on the books...how is that working out? Why not change the laws to something that is more easily enforced?

Believe me, I will be the first to admit if I'm called out on incorrect data. I encourage it. I would actually love to be proven wrong and that mass shootings are not a problem.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 8, 2017)

The only next logical solution for society:


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 8, 2017)

Let's look closer at the mass shootings KF identified:

"In 2011, there was a mass shooting in Hectorville." - Correct. 3 dead, 3 more injured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege - guy was later found not-guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to life in hospital care.

"In 2014, one in Hunt"  - Partially correct. It was actually the Hunt family killed by the father who then turned the gun on himself. It was not a public mass-shooting. - http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hunt-family-murders-witness-describes-final-night-at-family-home-20151006-gk2vo5.html

"2014 one in Wedderburn (which was a 4 hour siege of a neighborhood)" - Technically correct. It was an elderly man who killed his also elderly neighbor, wife and son over an argument who then holed up in his house for 4 hrs. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-23/three-dead-man-arrested-after-siege-in-victoria/5834800

While technically they all match the criteria of mass shooting "more than 4 people hurt/killed by a gun in a single act", none of these are even close to the bi-weekly shit the US is seeing.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 9, 2017)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> While technically they all match the criteria of mass shooting "more than 4 people hurt/killed by a gun in a single act", none of these are even close to the bi-weekly shit the US is seeing.


So based on your rationale above, "This is ok because it's not as bad as...."

The hypocrisy is strong with this one...


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 9, 2017)

I bought two new over under shotguns yesterday. going to go murder some pheasants this weekend!


----------



## akwooly (Nov 9, 2017)

Over under? Side by side is where it's at!


----------



## Dleg (Nov 9, 2017)

I'll take an over-under, myself.


----------



## matt267 PE (Nov 9, 2017)

over-under, side-by-side, I'm more worried about poor peasants.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 9, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> So based on your rationale above, "This is ok because it's not as bad as...."
> 
> The hypocrisy is strong with this one...


Yep. I provided a bad comparison. That means everything is equally fucked all around the world and nothing can be done. Guess we'll just keep sending thoughts and prayers...


----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 9, 2017)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> That means everything is equally fucked all around


I need to start using this line when I have a project that is not going well. LOL :thumbs:


----------



## akwooly (Nov 9, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> I need to start using this line when I have a project that is not going well. LOL :thumbs:


Don't forget to offer thoughts and prayers.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Nov 9, 2017)

akwooly said:


> Don't forget to offer thoughts and prayers.


For who? The project manager?? LOL

:lmao:


----------



## akwooly (Nov 9, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> For who? The project manager?? LOL
> 
> :lmao:


To whoever is going to get their ass chewed!


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 9, 2017)

In all serious, I apologize for the "not as bad as" hypocrisy. 

Those events in Australia were horrible events. They do show that the Australian model isn't perfect, and I never claimed it was. I was trying to illustrate that Australia had bad things happen after enacting the gun ban but they as a society did something about it. They had a couple really bad shootings in 1996 (very similar to Sandy Hook), came together as a society and did something about it. They supported wholesale gun legislation that drastically reduced the chances of more bad events from happening.

I was also trying to point out that what KF showed as "mass shootings" in Australia would have barely even made the local news in the US. The US has devolved to the point that a man killing his family and then himself doesn't even register as news anymore. So by American society standards, Australia really isn't "as bad as" the US is.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 9, 2017)

I actually found a place that sells side by sides but only in 12 GA (JAX)  these are 20 GA Christmas gifts for my younger two kids (16 &amp; 14) but I am going to try them out first, you know to make sure they work


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 9, 2017)




----------



## akwooly (Nov 9, 2017)

I have a over under 12 ga and a 20 ga side by side. Upland birds is too easy with a 12 ga so I like my 20 or 28 ga semi auto for upland birds.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 10, 2017)

So let's look at it from a different perspective, 

http://nypost.com/2017/11/09/hero-dad-stops-attempted-kidnapping-of-daughter-police/



> A father in Florida is being credited with thwarting an attempted kidnapping of his 17-year-old daughter, firing shots as four teen suspects tried to break into his garage, police said.
> 
> “A short time later her father heard his dogs barking and saw his front motion-activated flood lights come on,” the statement continued. “He also heard what sounded like his car door closing and went to get his gun.”
> 
> He saw some people trying to force their way into his garage and fired three shots, sending the would-be intruders scurrying into the woods, police said. The homeowner later discovered that some security lights at his home had been unscrewed.


Now, I know that a few of us here have kids, even some with daughters. That said, put yourself in this guys position. He did what was right, you all know it. If the law abiding citizen here (father, not thugs) didn't have a weapon, there is no way that he stops this. None. But if there were a change to the gun laws as suggested by some here, there IS a possibility that this guy doesn't have a weapon and therefore, cannot protect his family.  

See, my biggest argument through all of this is that the law abiding citizen are the one who will get screwed. Evil is out there and it knows no bounds. The "bad guys" will find a way to inflict harm. So great, you take away guys to some more strict level. Let's suppose that it works. That is not going to stop them. They will move on to some other form of a weapon. Knives, hammers, vehicles, they won't stop. So what's next, harsher regulations on being a licensed operator of a car because of a spike in vehicle-related mass casualty scenarios, background checks to purchase tools? In the end, even though the added laws are intended to "protect" the "good guy" citizen, it ends up stripping their civil liberties.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 10, 2017)

I don't think anyone here has argued that guns should be outlawed. Did the father in that case use an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine?  I don't know, but I guarantee he could have accomplished the same with a pump action shotgun, handgun, semi-auto hunting rifle with a 10 round magazine, etc.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 10, 2017)

Dleg said:


> I don't think anyone here has argued that guns should be outlawed. Did the father in that case use an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine?  I don't know, but I guarantee he could have accomplished the same with a pump action shotgun, handgun, semi-auto hunting rifle with a 10 round magazine, etc.


No, but you are arguing that stronger restrictions should be put on the purchasing of a gun, and that has more of an effect on on the "good guy" than anyone else. Not just because it will limit what they can/cannot purchase but also WILL impact the hoops that will need to be jumped through.

I live in a state where it is extremely difficult to obtain a hand gun, yet the slightest variation form the letter of the law, my weapon gets seized and I'm looking at real jail time. Making it any more difficult than it already is in this state is ridiculous. 

The fact remains that ANY change to a law will only impact the law abiding citizens. To all the rest it's just noise.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 10, 2017)

I disagree. It takes a lot of effort in addition to special connections to buy an illegal handgun or other weapon. You forget I lived in a place that had very strong gun control laws, and as a result gun crimes were extremely uncommon. Just about the only ones that did occur were organized crime - chinese gang killings of other chinese gang members. Everyday crazies, family disputes, drunken brawls would escalate only to the level of the weapons available (fists, bottles, machetes, and .22 rifles int he rare instances where the person had access to one). Now, you make semi-auto high capacity weapons available, suddenly you have a new option for anyone feeling aggrieved.  So I completely disagree with you because I have lived it. You're just talking the NRA party line.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 10, 2017)

Dleg said:


> I disagree. It takes a lot of effort in addition to special connections to buy an illegal handgun or other weapon. You forget I lived in a place that had very strong gun control laws, and as a result gun crimes were extremely uncommon. Just about the only ones that did occur were organized crime - chinese gang killings of other chinese gang members.


again, with NJ's law as they are, crime in inner cities like Paterson, Newark and Trenton, albeit are related to gangs, run rampant. And these are gun related crimes. Chicago- same. bad guys will get the guns because they don't care about the laws. Everyone else has to hope that no one will shoot within a "gun free zone."


----------



## Dleg (Nov 10, 2017)

I still do not understand your point.  Are you just going off on the old NRA straw man that people are coming to take all yer guns?  Because I am pretty sure that we (=US society in general) are mostly just talking about ways to limit the ability to purchase high capacity assault style weapons.


----------



## goodal (Nov 10, 2017)

I guess I should be sure to get my AR-10 varmint special this Christmas then.  20" with stainless bull barrel in case anyone wants to tell Santa.


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 10, 2017)

And meanwhile here I am, getting stainless steel bike pedals for my birthday.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 10, 2017)

Much better for your health!


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 12, 2017)

Statistically speaking, that father who saved his daughter from getting kidnapped was more likely to have been shot by her...

I guess you could spin my words to say that I am after all yer guns, but my intent is to reduce the shear volume of weapons. Yes, the vast majority of those weapons that would be obtained would be legally purchased ones. 

But remember, legally purchased weapons are used for crimes too. All 3 of the Australia examples KF posted were done with legal guns. Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Aurora Theater. All legally purchased guns.

At the end of the day, these shootings all had something in common: the availability of a gun.


----------



## Supe (Nov 13, 2017)

Dleg said:


> I disagree. It takes a lot of effort in addition to special connections to buy an illegal handgun or other weapon. You forget I lived in a place that had very strong gun control laws, and as a result gun crimes were extremely uncommon.


While that may be so, I'm not sure its apples to apples.  You have 100+ years of heavy manufacturing and sales of firearms in the US, likely more than any other country by a long shot.  If you stopped sales and manufacturing today, it would likely take that long to eradicate them, if ever, assuming you don't get to a point where people are printing them at home (which already is happening, and is just going to get easier).  I can guarantee that if I wanted to, I could have an "illegal" firearm in my hands, unregistered to me, by 5PM this evening by doing nothing more than browsing a few local message boards and making a few phone calls, without even dealing with a shady person.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 13, 2017)

So by that logic, why don't we just legalize all drugs?  Child pornography?  There's so much of it out there, and the criminals are going to get their hands on it anyway. So why bother?


----------



## Supe (Nov 13, 2017)

Dleg said:


> So by that logic, why don't we just legalize all drugs?  Child pornography?  There's so much of it out there, and the criminals are going to get their hands on it anyway. So why bother?


Didn't say we would "legalize all guns", either.  But do you think that any amount of legislation is going to get rid of drug use or child porn beyond where it is today?  One can kill you, one can land you life in jail, yet the users of both still carry the risks due to the personal or financial gain associated with both.  To that point (excluding soft drugs, e.g. marijuana for the sake of the argument), I think if you legalized "hard" drugs and child pornography, your demographics of users would stay consistent within a few percentage points.

That said, I think eradication of drugs would probably be the most easily achievable of the three, since they are a single-use item, which even with the advancement of technology, would not be easily reproducible in the home.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 13, 2017)

I spent the weekend in a crazy rural area in a bank turned bed and breakfast / hostel. No locks on any of the doors and everyone was armed to the teeth with handguns, "assault rifles" and shotguns. There were no issues with anyone getting shot or anyone getting anything stolen?


----------



## Dleg (Nov 13, 2017)

Supe said:


> Didn't say we would "legalize all guns", either.  But do you think that any amount of legislation is going to get rid of drug use or child porn beyond where it is today?  One can kill you, one can land you life in jail, yet the users of both still carry the risks due to the personal or financial gain associated with both.  To that point (excluding soft drugs, e.g. marijuana for the sake of the argument), I think if you legalized "hard" drugs and child pornography, your demographics of users would stay consistent within a few percentage points.
> 
> That said, I think eradication of drugs would probably be the most easily achievable of the three, since they are a single-use item, which even with the advancement of technology, would not be easily reproducible in the home.


So we're back to my original argument (that was ignored): If you're not talking about legalizing all types of weapons, then clearly you support drawing the line somewhere.  Which is my whole point - what makes you think that we're at the "ideal" point where assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines are OK?  When I was a kid, nobody was clamoring to be allowed to have AR-15s. They were available but they were a novelty, a military-type weapon that was not considered necessary. A shotgun or handgun was (and still is) an infinitely better suited personal defense weapon, and no hunter or homeowner needs the military firepower capability of an AR-15 with a large capacity magazine.  They weren't illegal, but they also weren't in every gun store and certainly weren't the NRA "must have" toy that they are now. Times have changed, largely due to the firearms industry pushing these weapons as consumer products and the consumers eagerly taking the bait. I'll admit that I think they are cool and I'd like to have one. I also think miniguns are cool and I'd love to play around with one, but I don't think I should be able to legally own one.  Same thing with flamethrowers, tanks, grenades.  I also understand as well as anyone how these weapons work and I acknowledge that there are plenty of semi-auto rifles that have the same potential rate of fire, and that's why I don't necessarily support a band on "assault weapons" but I definitely support previously proposed (and implemented) bans on magazines larger than 10 rounds. I also fully support any move to increase the vetting requirements for gun purchases and to cut off the gun show loopholes.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 13, 2017)

The challenge with magazine limits is that it indirectly bans specific guns. For example, Colorado enacted a 15-round limit which means almost all 9mm handguns aren't legal unless you buy the aftermarket smaller magazine (very hard to find depending on make/model of gun). From the factory most 9mm and smaller guns have magazines that hold 15 (or more) but Colorado includes the additional round in the chamber which means the factory mags are illegal. The law grandfathered in previously purchased magazines, but they could not be sold within the state again. Because of this, I cannot sell my Beretta (has 17-round mags) without going to another state.

Most gun manufacturers actually completely stopped selling smaller-caliber handguns in CO because it was too much of a burden to break-up their factory setups.

So instead of buying a 9mm with 15 rounds, buyers will get a .40 or .45 cal because they only hold 12 rounds (or less). Bigger gun, less rounds.

A full-size .22 handgun has a magazine with 20 rounds because the rounds are so small.

For hunting purposes, shotguns are prohibited from carrying more than 3. So if I want to take my shotgun out, it needs a plug because it's actually designed to hold 6 (grandpa bought it back in the 50's).

Hunting rifles rarely hold more than 5 or 6 rounds.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 13, 2017)

There already are "lines" 

In 94 the logic on semi automatic rifles was that the police are being gunned down a- claim which was never supported in crime statistics and currently they are responsible for an incredibly small number of crimes (not gonna look it up but i guess 1% or so)

They should make it a crime to sell a gun for less than $500. Make it so the 1% can only afford them... talk to any cop and most crimes are committed with cheap guns not "semi automatic rifles"

I don't own one but will probably grab one just to irritate the anti constitution / huff post crowd.


----------



## csb (Nov 14, 2017)

^ My father-in-law buys a gun every time there's a big mass shooting because the NRA tells him guns are going to be outlawed. 

Then he realized he had too many guns, so after the last few, he's been buying my son guns. 

The NRA is the best marketing tool the gun industry has and they operate totally on fear.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 14, 2017)

Dleg said:


> So we're back to my original argument (that was ignored): If you're not talking about legalizing all types of weapons, then clearly you support drawing the line somewhere.  Which is my whole point - what makes you think that we're at the "ideal" point where assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines are OK?  When I was a kid, nobody was clamoring to be allowed to have AR-15s. They were available but they were a novelty, a military-type weapon that was not considered necessary. A shotgun or handgun was (and still is) an infinitely better suited personal defense weapon, and no hunter or homeowner needs the military firepower capability of an AR-15 with a large capacity magazine.  They weren't illegal, but they also weren't in every gun store and certainly weren't the NRA "must have" toy that they are now. Times have changed, largely due to the firearms industry pushing these weapons as consumer products and the consumers eagerly taking the bait. I'll admit that I think they are cool and I'd like to have one. I also think miniguns are cool and I'd love to play around with one, but I don't think I should be able to legally own one.  Same thing with flamethrowers, tanks, grenades.  I also understand as well as anyone how these weapons work and I acknowledge that there are plenty of semi-auto rifles that have the same potential rate of fire, and that's why I don't necessarily support a band on "assault weapons" but I definitely support previously proposed (and implemented) bans on magazines larger than 10 rounds. I also fully support any move to increase the vetting requirements for gun purchases and to cut off the gun show loopholes.


I did not ignore it, just forgot about it. that said, where is my line? My line is not drawn with the weapons but with the current vetting, specifically those conducting it. How many people have slipped through the cracks because someone got laxed and was asleep at their desk? Plenty. Often it's as simple as the parents. There are signs and people miss them. IMO, just another attempt to shift the blame onto someone else, and in this case the govt is forced to make stricter rules to envelop all issues.

And as RG posted above, it's not "military-style Assault rifles" which is causing most of the problems, but instead the everyday handguns. how many times you hear about hand grenades, flamethrowers, tanks, etc? You don't. But in your attempt to prove your point, just like the media used sensationalism to do so. See it's juicier to report if its a AR-15 because of it's appearance.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 14, 2017)

We started this discussion about the Texas church shooting. That event, as well as all the other high--profile mass shootings since Columbine, were all carried out with military-style assault weapons. Those weapons (and venues) were apparently chosen by the perpetrators as a means to maximize casualties. They were, for the vast majority , carried out using legally purchased assault weapons (I can't think of any exceptions). The killers did not go to the black market to buy belt-fed machine guns, grenades or flame throwers, despite the fact that those would have undoubtedly caused even greater casualties. So in other words, gun control laws did have an effect - it prevented them from seeking machine guns, even though as you say a determined criminal can get their hands on them. Bottom line, these types of mass shootings were vastly less common in the days prior to the commercial popularization of assault weapons. Laws DO have an effect, otherwise why don't we just give up on drugs?

That said, I don't disagree with any other attempts to regulate the sale of "ordinary' weapons. Sure, increase the price to where they aren't affordable to the criminal class. Restrict the location of gun shops. I'd even say restrict the ownership of guns to people who pass a class and even then only for specific purposes - a hunter's shooting license for a rifle or shotgun, a home defense license for a handgun or shotgun, and membership in the State National Guard to be able to utilize the issued assault weapon (aka "a well regulated militia".)


----------



## Dleg (Nov 14, 2017)

Oh and



NJmike PE said:


> How many people have slipped through the cracks because someone got* laxed* and was asleep at their desk?


----------



## csb (Nov 14, 2017)

Has anyone else watched the show "Active Shooter" on Showtime? Two of the episodes/incidents featured a shooter who was mentally ill and in each case the family knew about it. It's interesting to watch, because even though THE PARENTS™ knew that their sons were ill, they were helpless to get them "fixed."

What happens when you realize your child is severely mentally ill? Who do you call? Do you know right now? Where do you send them? Do you keep them at your house forever? 

This isn't a matter of Timmy's a little spoiled and he's acting out by shooting people. Many of these are instances of people crippled by mental illness.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 14, 2017)

True, but I don't know the answers to your question. Because there aren't very many resources. Decades ago, the mentally ill were locked away in institutions where they couldn't hurt anyone, but these were awful places and society rightfully shut them down. Unfortunately they weren't really replaced with anything, and the general populace apparently doesn't agree to paying to even continue the current, minimal public mental health programs that are in existence.


----------



## NJmike PE (Nov 14, 2017)

I believe the treatment of the mentally ill is the greater of the solutions here though. I can imagine that families become so overwhelmed with the regular, day in and day out situations that they begin to overlook some bigger signs in changes of behavior


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 14, 2017)

This isn't an either-or situation, it's both.  Too many guns available to a population with too many people dealing with mental health issues. Both need to be addressed. Considering the current administration has absolutely no intention of creating any semblance of a responsible healthcare system (and also tearing up whatever little there is), perhaps we look at the gun side of things.

To me, the US is one big childhood playground. Kids get into fights, don't have the mental capacity to handle it, look around for the easiest weapon and then unleash. Meanwhile, the "adults" are off drinking coffee in the other room. "Didn't involve me or my kid, why should I care?"


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 14, 2017)

Ugh.

"Red Bluff shooting spree leaves 5 dead, including gunman, multiple others injured at 7 locations in Tehama County": http://abc7.com/2647030/

CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/california-tehama-county-shootings/index.html


----------



## P-E (Nov 14, 2017)

Is there no end to this.   Why children?


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 14, 2017)

I normally dislike putting too much stock in opinion-based articles, but these words struck a chord with me (sorry in advance for the funky formatting):



> Until gun violence impacts your family directly, you won't care enough to do something about it. There's a ton of research to explain this apathy.
> 
> [SIZE= 12px]After World War II, the famous Cambridge psychologist J.T. MacCurdy studied an interesting phenomenon about the bombings in London in 1940 and 1941.[/SIZE]
> 
> ...




From this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/opinions/why-we-dont-give-a-damn-about-mass-shootings-robbins/index.html


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 14, 2017)

@leggo PE, this is the one that struck a chord with me (yes, I know it's Huffington Post):

Another Mass Shooting and More Prayers. America has officially given up.


----------



## Road Guy (Nov 15, 2017)

The news seems to be dancing around the story of the killer But it sounds like he had a restraining order out and he was not supposed to be in possession of weapons and also had an auto theft conviction? Looks more like the republic of Kalifornia not doing its job and continuing its stance that the inmates are the victims - maybe there is more to the story but that's what I read from the CNN article...

Around 800 people were murdered in Chicago last year but people only seem to care about these killings that have "shock value". I don't know why that is. 

As far as those opinion pieces - I had a relative shot and killed in the front doorway of his home- while his kids were having friends over. 

6 rounds from a revolver to the chest- they say that is done so that the victim doesn't die immediately and is told why he was killed.

The only suspect is his wife's brother and his wife's other brother is a Houston police officer where the murder occurred, it's been 6 years with no "leads" - imagine that... so I am not going to jump on the only the police should have guns line anytime soon. &amp; I think most of left America had the same opinion a year and half ago.....


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 15, 2017)

Here is an interesting piece from the NYT that I feel is pretty relevant to the discussion of number of guns in this country:

https://nyti.ms/2hODjP5


----------



## Supe (Nov 15, 2017)

Dleg said:


> Which is my whole point - what makes you think that we're at the "ideal" point where assault-style weapons and high capacity magazines are OK?


I personally believe we've reached the point of diminishing returns.  Someone can unload 100 10 round magazines before police show up, just like they can unload 67 fifteen round magazines before police show up.  My point is, it's not a hardware issue that can be readily addressed at this point, creating a need to focus on it as a mental health issue.  The former has so many laws we don't enforce them as it is, and the latter is drastically lacking in attention.  

I have no problem with stiffer background checks, but I think they're moot anyways.  You're only going to get flagged if you have a criminal record, at which point you're not obtaining them legally to begin with.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 15, 2017)

leggo PE said:


> Here is an interesting piece from the NYT that I feel is pretty relevant to the discussion of number of guns in this country:
> 
> https://nyti.ms/2hODjP5





> “In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 15, 2017)

Yep, it's pretty depressing.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 15, 2017)

Supe said:


> I personally believe we've reached the point of diminishing returns.  Someone can unload 100 10 round magazines before police show up, just like they can unload 67 fifteen round magazines before police show up.  My point is, it's not a hardware issue that can be readily addressed at this point, creating a need to focus on it as a mental health issue.  The former has so many laws we don't enforce them as it is, and the latter is drastically lacking in attention.
> 
> I have no problem with stiffer background checks, but I think they're moot anyways.  You're only going to get flagged if you have a criminal record, at which point you're not obtaining them legally to begin with.


Same argument applies to giving up on regulating drugs. So why do we continue to outlaw most narcotics?


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 15, 2017)

leggo PE said:


> Here is an interesting piece from the NYT that I feel is pretty relevant to the discussion of number of guns in this country:
> 
> https://nyti.ms/2hODjP5


I should also stress that this article seems to do a pretty good job. using several references, of debunking other reasons for the high rate of gun related deaths in the U.S. compared to other countries.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 15, 2017)

Yeah but it's from the Lying NY Times, so no Republican will even read it.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Nov 15, 2017)

Dleg said:


> Yeah but it's from the Lying NY Times, so no Republican will even read it.


It also uses "statistics" and "facts". Everyone knows the only numbers worth learning are bible verses.


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 15, 2017)

Dleg said:


> Yeah but it's from the Lying NY Times, so no Republican will even read it.


Unfortunately, you're probably right. I should do some research and see who else out there has put together a similar comparison, but by someone that those who refuse to read the NY Times will actually give a chance.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 15, 2017)

Won't happen.


----------



## Supe (Nov 15, 2017)

Dleg said:


> So why do we continue to outlaw most narcotics?


Because they are a perceived detriment.  However, saying we outlaw "most" narcotics is untrue.  There are far more prescription drugs on the market than there are banned substances.  Much like guns, there are already class systems in place for those which are "outlawed" based on how they are perceived as "unhealthy".  Yet interestingly enough, despite increases in "illicit" drug use, we are looking to decriminalize some of them (e.g. marijuana).


----------



## Dleg (Nov 15, 2017)

Gun ownership is beyond debate, as mentioned before. Our founding fathers royally fucked that one up. For some interesting reading sometime, check out some of the Supreme Court opinions on the 2nd Amendment. The majority has always held that the language pertains to more than just arming the National Guard ("a well regulated militia") AND that it does not exclude military-type weapons, but both the majority and minority opinions note that the original language is very vague, and they even 'wish" here and there that the founding fathers had inserted just one or two more words (e.g., "self defense") to make it more clear what they were implying. 

Regardless, this isn't the early 19th century and an semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine is not comparable to a muzzle-loading rifle. There's still room for legal debate.


----------



## Dleg (Nov 15, 2017)

Supe said:


> *Because they are a perceived detriment.*  However, saying we outlaw "most" narcotics is untrue.  There are far more prescription drugs on the market than there are banned substances.  Much like guns, there are already class systems in place for those which are "outlawed" based on how they are perceived as "unhealthy".  Yet interestingly enough, despite increases in "illicit" drug use, we are looking to decriminalize some of them (e.g. marijuana).


Exactly.


----------



## leggo PE (Nov 15, 2017)

Dleg said:


> Won't happen.


Also very, very unfortunate.


----------



## Dleg (May 22, 2018)

One of the most convincing (and potentially hopeless) explanations of mass shootings yet:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-do-mass-shootings-happen-best-explanation/



> The Best Explanation for Our Spate of Mass Shootings Is the Least Comforting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Road Guy (May 22, 2018)

I read Eric Harris mothers book a few months ago - pretty depressing yet intriguing, I found it alarming that both Killers were arrested the year before for breaking into a van and stealing several thousands of dollars in electronic equipment &amp; other stuff - but they got out of doing jail time for some some type of "program / counseling" for first offenders (progressive agenda)... I don't know who the judges / DA's / Attorneys were for that deal but I hope they have as many sleepless nights as the victims families.. might be time to stop looking at first offenders as the victims of society and lock their asses up for a few months instead of going to counseling..


----------



## frazil (May 22, 2018)

Road Guy said:


> I read Eric Harris mothers book a few months ago - pretty depressing yet intriguing, I found it alarming that both Killers were arrested the year before for breaking into a van and stealing several thousands of dollars in electronic equipment &amp; other stuff - but they got out of doing jail time for some some type of "program / counseling" for first offenders (progressive agenda)... I don't know who the judges / DA's / Attorneys were for that deal but I hope they have as many sleepless nights as the victims families.. might be time to stop looking at first offenders as the victims of society and lock their asses up for a few months instead of going to counseling..


Interesting.  A long time ago (1998!) in Casper, WY I worked for exactly one of those “programs/counseling for first offenders”.  Kids, usually around 12-13, who did something illegal we’re allowed to go through the program instead of getting anything permanent on their record for a first offense.  Some kids it genuinely seemed to help - the ones who were acting out because they had no supervision after school and just wanted attention.  They were the ones who just kept coming because they liked hanging out and doing the activities.  But there were others who obviously had criminal careers ahead of them.  They hated being there - they just did their time and moved on.


----------



## Dean Agnostic (May 22, 2018)

Dleg said:


> How can we protect ourselves, unless we can arm ourselves at an equivalent level.


I Agree.


----------



## csb (May 23, 2018)

I watched the Showtime Active Shooter episode on Columbine and it was interesting how they showed the differences between Harris and Klebold. Harris was homicidal- he wanted to kill people. Klebold was suicidal- he wanted to die and was willing to go along with whatever. 

The article Dleg posted is interesting to think about, but also a little like The Onion article that pops up for this. https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1823016659


----------



## canadagoose (Jun 11, 2018)

As I have never been to all the churches in Texas, I find this mysterious.


----------



## canadagoose (Jun 11, 2018)

csb said:


> I watched the Showtime Active Shooter episode on Columbine and it was interesting how they showed the differences between Harris and Klebold. Harris was homicidal- he wanted to kill people. Klebold was suicidal- he wanted to die and was willing to go along with whatever.
> 
> The article Dleg posted is interesting to think about, but also a little like The Onion article that pops up for this. https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1823016659


I need a Klebold chick.


----------

