Terrorism in America.... just your neighbor going nuts

Pete

Pete

Member
Location
Texas
c3.jpg

​
….no quaint little personal story to start this one off, today I offer only a splash of mental ice water to wake up those still believing that it is the firearms that are the problem not the people behind them. Though not done in the name of religious terrorism like we witnessed in: San Bernardino (14 killed 22 wounded), Orlando (49 killed 58 wounded) or New York where 8 people were run over by a supporter of isis.... right here outside of Dallas Texas 26 people were killed while at Sunday church service and another 20 taken to the hospital. Yes just like the mad man in Las Vegas who killed 52 and injured 527 people both attackers had semi-automatic weapons but if you truly believe it is the fault of the firearm then maybe you should leave this country because there are millions more firearms in the hands of American citizens.

Having 26 people murdered while attending church service is truly saddening to hear
but hearing our politicians once again call for new gun laws is also disturbing.

New gun laws would not have stopped the Las Vegas carnage
because the gunman bought his guns legally!

New gun laws would not have stopped those senseless murders
at a church here in Texas
 because the gunman bought the guns legally!


​
Now in the case of the gunman here in Texas he should never have been able to buy any guns because as the Air force says they made a mistake! In 2012, while he was in the U.S. Air Force, he was court-martialed for assaulting his then-wife and stepson. He served a year in confinement at a Naval facility in California after a plea bargain, and under federal law his conviction disqualified him from legally possessing a firearm, yet the Air Force never notified federal authorities.
So once again it is not a matter of needing new gun laws but the enforcement of the ones already on the books. However I do agree we need some form of law placing the names of people diagnosed with mental disorders on the 'no buy' list, but I can not believe that one doesn't exist already. I think it is more a matter of Psychiatrist's and mental health workers concerned they will be sued if they notified the federal authorities.

…...even if you are staunchly anti-gun (please) consider this, in the gunman's vehicle were more weapons and ammunition and when he left that church he was on his way to kill more people because he had nothing to loose. If it wasn't for an armed citizen living across from the church, who pursued and shot the gunman, the death toll may have been much higher.

You want to see an end to mass shootings

by disturbed individuals

then tell your representative before they enact more gun laws

you want un-balanced individuals

bared from owning firearms!
​
 

Last edited:
Pete, what if this guy and the one in Las Vegas had been holding a knife instead of an assault weapon? How many more people would still be alive now?
 
chic said:
We should all be armed maybe?
Click to expand...

That's impossible. You can't have children armed to protect themselves and they are the most vulnerable.

What the U.S. has now isn't working.

Keep making the same mistakes and expect different results?

Time to change the focus from blaming agencies and individuals to the weapons that they use in mass murders.
 
Camper6 said:
That's impossible. You can't have children armed to protect themselves
Click to expand...

'Camper6' I feel that 'chic' did not mean children should be armed, but her comment was directed at the adults that are responsible for the children's safety. However after 20 years living in the Alaskan bush I have found that most families do not keep their firearms away from their children but instruct them how to safely handle and fire them. Of course up here it is out of necessity that they learn early about firearms because for them it is a question of not only food but safety.
 
I like to hunt so not anti-gun. I agree with Pete on better checks for mentally ill people but also think they should be tighter control over military type guns. If you want to use one with more than 5 shots it be used at a certified gun range and gun stays there.
 
todalake said:
I like to hunt so not anti-gun. I agree with Pete on better checks for mentally ill people but also think they should be tighter control over military type guns. If you want to use one with more than 5 shots it be used at a certified gun range and gun stays there.
Click to expand...
When I read that, I know what's coming next. It's getting old though. The antigun organizations have been telling members to post just what you did for years.

The Founding Fathers didn't write the Second Amendment because of hunting. They didn't do it because of crime. They did it as a protection against government. The American Revolution had just ended a few years before. Everyone remembered the British attempted to seize our arms at Lexington and Concord.

Our nation wouldn't exist if it weren't for privately owned guns.
 
Pete said:
'Camper6' I feel that 'chic' did not mean children should be armed, but her comment was directed at the adults that are responsible for the children's safety. However after 20 years living in the Alaskan bush I have found that most families do not keep their firearms away from their children but instruct them how to safely handle and fire them. Of course up here it is out of necessity that they learn early about firearms because for them it is a question of not only food but safety.
Click to expand...

Yes Pete but I don't think you can spend all day in school with your children. They should be safe in school.

My thrust and comments are because my family lives in the United States.

I'm not against all guns. I am against rapid fire AR-15 rifles. Those are the weapons of choice in mass murders.
 
Big Horn said:
When I read that, I know what's coming next. It's getting old though. The antigun organizations have been telling members to post just what you did for years.

The Founding Fathers didn't write the Second Amendment because of hunting. They didn't do it because of crime. They did it as a protection against government. The American Revolution had just ended a few years before. Everyone remembered the British attempted to seize our arms at Lexington and Concord.

Our nation wouldn't exist if it weren't for privately owned guns.
Click to expand...


That's true.
Except that the Second Amendment does mention militia.

The Founding Fathers also struggled with having a standing army.

So now the U.S. has the Armed Forces.

And the militia from what I understand is the National Guard.
 
Camper6 said:
Yes Pete but I don't think you can spend all day in school with your children. They should be safe in school.

My thrust and comments are because my family lives in the United States.

I'm not against all guns. I am against rapid fire AR-15 rifles. Those are the weapons of choice in mass murders.
Click to expand...

Those guns used in Los Vegas were absolutely illegal. The shooter added an accessory to allow rapid fire. Not sure how those things ever got to be legal or usable. No guns for the public that can fire any faster than the shooters finger can pull the trigger. And that is not as fast as a rapid fire gun shoots by a large number.
 
BobF said:
Those guns used in Los Vegas were absolutely illegal. The shooter added an accessory to allow rapid fire. Not sure how those things ever got to be legal or usable. No guns for the public that can fire any faster than the shooters finger can pull the trigger. And that is not as fast as a rapid fire gun shoots by a large number.
Click to expand...

The bump stocks are legal.
Only one state has banned them. Massachussets.
 
Last edited:
@Pete
…...even if you are staunchly anti-gun (please) consider this, in the gunman's vehicle were more weapons and ammunition and when he left that church he was on his way to kill more people because he had nothing to loose. If it wasn't for an armed citizen living across from the church, who pursued and shot the gunman, the death toll may have been much higher.
Click to expand...
Amen buddy a lot more dead if it wasn't for that armed neighbor. Those anti gun people won't consider it from all I heard, it gets in the way of their agenda.
 
Eric said:
@Pete

Amen buddy a lot more dead if it wasn't for that armed neighbor. Those anti gun people won't consider it from all I heard, it gets in the way of their agenda.
Click to expand...

The armed neighbour did not stop one killing or one wounded in the church.

He was accosted after he was leaving the church. The shooting was all over and done with. The only one that died after the shooting was the shooter who committed suicide.
 
Eric said:
@Pete

Amen buddy a lot more dead if it wasn't for that armed neighbor. Those anti gun people won't consider it from all I heard, it gets in the way of their agenda.
Click to expand...
Camper6 said:
The armed neighbour did not stop one killing or one wounded in the church.

He was accosted after he was leaving the church. The shooting was all over and done with. The only one that died after the shooting was the shooter who committed suicide.
Click to expand...

Of course not he didn't stop one killing in the church because he wasn't in the church would be a good trick if he did. If anybody in the church was carrying then maybe they could have stopped him in the act but as usual it was a soft target gun free zone perfect place for a killer. If the armed neighbor didn't act fast and shoot him when he did he wouldn't have gotten injured and dropped his weapon. Unless he would go home after that with his semi auto and other guns and order a pizza and watch a movie on tv, most people would suspect he'd go on another killing spree. If he didn't that day he'd be a ticking timebomb until he had another gathering of sitting ducks. Like I told Pete, the anti gun people won't consider it no sense askin', it gets in the way of their agenda. They can make up their own reality not my problem. The neighbor was a hero.
 
Eric said:
Of course not he didn't stop one killing in the church because he wasn't in the church would be a good trick if he did. If anybody in the church was carrying then maybe they could have stopped him in the act but as usual it was a soft target gun free zone perfect place for a killer. If the armed neighbor didn't act fast and shoot him when he did he wouldn't have gotten injured and dropped his weapon. Unless he would go home after that with his semi auto and other guns and order a pizza and watch a movie on tv, most people would suspect he'd go on another killing spree. If he didn't that day he'd be a ticking timebomb until he had another gathering of sitting ducks. Like I told Pete, the anti gun people won't consider it no sense askin', it gets in the way of their agenda. They can make up their own reality not my problem. The neighbor was a hero.[/QUOTE

Thanks for that. People keep insisting that the good neighbor was in the church and stopped the carnage. He wasn't.

You are depending on pure luck for a good neighbor to show up.

Pure speculation on what he would have done next. Most of these guys put a bullet in their own head after they have done the deed.

That approach is never going to work. Not everyone can defend themselves.

It's just repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results. It's time for some politicians with guts to stop it, not depending on good neighbors to show up.

The gun lobby wants no restrictions at all on weapons.

They even suggest that a felon should be able to buy guns because their rights are being violated. Sheer madness. They want no background checks.

The guy belonged in the loony bin. To suggest he should have access to weapons after he got out?

Sitting ducks is right just waiting to happen again. I don't live in the U.S. My immediate family does. People here suggest it's none of my business. I'm going to make it my business.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top