A Mass Shooting That Didn’t Happen Today

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes, that’s my thread. I know what it describes. I’m not quite sure why you feel a need to explain what I thought in my posts and threads. I can guarantee you, I know what is going on there

However, I feel like you sidestepped my question. You say they want to feel safe. From your own words, I get the impression is they are afraid of you - not afraid for you. I’m not saying my perception is correct; but I think it is worth giving serious consideration to why people who love you and wish you no harm would want you disarmed.

At a minimum, it suggests they don’t think you are competent to own firearms. And that’s the kindest interpretation.

 

[Mainah]

You are clever. But you still haven't come up with anything to support this statement:

They’d rather see that whole church murdered because it is a double-win. Wrongthinking people dead and a new drum to beat to disarm the rest of us. It is time, more like way past time, to acknowledge a vast proportion of our opponents do not disagree with us out of goodwill differences on policy. They disagree with us because they want us dead.

Maybe examine your own fears.

 

[44 AMP]

They are reporting how the gunman had multiple arrests and a long criminal record but was still able to obtain or possess a gun because in spite of his record of criminal offenses and mental illness he was not on any kind of "watch list," there was no red-flag law that could have been used to strip him of his guns, and no universal background check to prevent him from possessing.

Despite my distrust of the accuracy of popular media reporting (repeatedly re-enforced), I am curious to know the answers to certain questions about this killer. And how they relate to the actual law, and the claims of the gun control zealots.

so, "multiple arrests and a long criminal history"... was he a legally prohibited person??

Where did the shotgun come from? legally purchased? WHEN? Illegaly purchased?? was the gun something this "homeless" man already had? had for years? got last week? things like that...

they say he had a drug problem and was out of touch with reality. Ok...so, he's begging for food at a church, getting mad when they don't give him money, and he has a shotgun he could sell for drug (or even food) money??

watch list? Red flag laws?? according to what some said, "we knew he was crazy, but didn't think he was that crazy"....one hears that often, when someone who is "off" flips out and does murder.

Background check? If the gun was bought from an FFL dealer a check was done. Unless the gun was bought long ago.

If the gun was bought "on the street" even a law requiring a check wouldn't be complied with.

For me, its just idle curiosity but I'd just like to know how close reality was to what is being claimed right now, as justification for more laws.

Seems to me no law of man will stop a person who commits murder in a church.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I’ve developed that position over almost 20 years now, Mainah. A lot of which you can see and read here as it changed. I haven’t explained how I arrived there with factual statements to support it because I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU. I’m stating my position. I don’t care whether you believe it.

And you mistake me. Those aren’t fears. I am very ready to quit pretending we are all just one big dysfunctional family and it will work out. We aren’t and it won’t.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That's a very good point and a great question. I have several close family members and several close friends who support gun additional gun control. Yet I love them and I know that they love me, and I know that they would never wish me harm.

However, are any of these close relatives and friends influential members of Congress, or nationally known politicians, or prominent media personalities? If not they belong in the group I described above as "people in the Yoo Ess of Ay who "support" gun control because they have been brainwashed to believe that gun control is the magic talisman that will make everyone safe and the world filled with pink unicorns."

The people I think Mr. Roberts is talking about are those I described as "the active proponents of gun control, the Chuck Schumers, the Michael Bloombergs, the Shannon Wattses, the media shill talking heads ..." I agree with Mr. Roberts ... I think the latter group would be VERY happy to wake up and find that everyone on the pro-2A side had dropped dead or been killed overnight. You don't have to accept that ... it's an opinion. Apparently Mr. Roberts and I are of one opinion on this point. The fact that you don't share this opinion does not in any way invalidate it.

 

[American Man]

I’ve developed that position over almost 20 years now, Mainah. A lot of which you can see and read here as it changed. I haven’t explained how I arrived there with factual statements to support it because I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU. I’m stating my position. I don’t care whether you believe it.

And you mistake me. Those aren’t fears. I am very ready to quit pretending we are all just one big dysfunctional family and it will work out. We aren’t and it won’t.

I don't know why some people are acting like we're all in this together. We are not. Rs still want to live in America... Ds? Out of all my extended family (not all are D) all but one of the radical leftists hated Bush so much, they were rooting for my death in Iraq... and I found this out from the one that still resembled an American. Would you ever wish that on your sister or brother's kids? ''

I guess some people just think they're just like good ole patriotic Americans that just want to be safe.

I bet some people think Obama and the Dems really wanted to provide healthcare to all Americans... anyway.

Here are the questions I want answered.

1. How do you stop a mentally ill, convicted felon from waking up one day and loading up 15 x 30 round magazines and entering a school, church or other venue from attacking and killing innocent people?

2. How do you stop a person with no criminal record, no mental illness and whose friends and family would never suspect were capable of waking up one day and loading up 15x 30 round magazines and entering a school, church or other venue from attacking and killing innocent people?

I guess it is wonderful that some people in this very day and age still choose to be unarmed and are champions of disarming everyone, including police in some places... wonderful for the future shooters that is.

I choose to be prepared to deal with it on a case by case basis as soon as someone involves me in their BS.

This might be a helpful realization to some, maybe something to argue about for others. But as soon as you realize the Political Class of Democrats in this country have absolutely no intention on solving any Gun Violence Crisis, the clearer you might understand their actions. The dems use phony sexual assault, phony cries of racism and hysterical outrage on convenient incidents involving gun violence to bludgeon conservatives with, as a political weapon. If they addressed gun violence and implemented a single viable solution, and it actually had an impact, they would be eliminating 50% of their political tactics. Why on earth would they solve a problem that they continually use as a cudgel to beat up republicans and make us seem like we don't care about the misery and violence in the US as along we get to buy a gun when we want?

The professional political class democrats are using the useful idiots to do their bidding and they bite hook line and sinker. They abuse a population that they have carefully crafted to be devoid of critical thinking and are unable to question their captors.... pretty much armies of this Greta Thundberg. They flood their brains with unicorn databases, universal background checks and how wonderful all these red flag laws are. But refer to my second question. How do you stop that person? Doesn't matter to them, their plan is working fine... it is American vs. American and we're fighting about solutions to violence that they know will never pan out... and dividing us is the goal all along so they have a chance at picking up a seat or two... so they can implement their bigger plans.

 

[USNRet93]

Look, I get the frustration. However this is a site full of advice on how to respond to deadly threats. When you describe everyone who disagrees with us on gun control policy as someone who wants us dead that's a concern for me.

The facts in this tragedy support our cause. The media has been unable to refute that so far. Why not take a breath, grieve the loss, and then use the facts to support our case?

Like any discussion like this, people that see this incident for what it IS, an armed person killing a 'bad guy' with a gun, DO use the facts to support that case. And like any discussion, there will be an 'other side' that refute these facts. BUT nobody is wishing the 'other side' was dead..IMHO.

Of COURSE, designating the church a 'gun free zone' would not have helped. Of COURSE in this instance, armed security was a GOOD thing.

BUT, castro and others don't want pro gun people dead. Any more than the vast majority of pro trump people didn't want Clinton 'dead' if she were elected..like I saw on a few interviews at rallies..

I would like to know how this guy, felon and documented as mentally ill, got a shotgun?
I see this

They are reporting how the gunman had multiple arrests and a long criminal record but was still able to obtain or possess a gun because in spite of his record of criminal offenses and mental illness he was not on any kind of "watch list,

He was convicted of at least 2 felonies over 5 YEARS ago..what happened? Why wasn't he on a 'watchlist'???

 

[Aguila Blanca]

He was convicted of at least 2 felonies over 5 YEARS ago..what happened? Why wasn't he on a 'watchlist'???

What "watchlist" do you think he should have been on? How many watchlists do you think the various levels of our government have?

He was (apparently) a prohibited person based on his status as a convicted felon. [Question: WAS he a convicted felon, or were all his convictions for misdemeanors?] That should put him in the NICS system and should have prevented his buying a firearm from an FFL, but that would not prevent him from making a face-to-face buy, either from a legitimate seller or on a street corner late at night. It also would not have prevented him from stealing a firearm.

Let's be clear: laws apply to honest people, those who obey the law. By definition, criminals are people who do NOT obey laws. The ONLY possible way to absolutely ensure that criminals can't obtain firearms is to completely eliminate firearms from the United States ... COMPLETELY.

 

[44 AMP]

Here are the questions I want answered.

1. How do you stop a mentally ill, convicted felon from waking up one day and loading up 15 x 30 round magazines and entering a school, church or other venue from attacking and killing innocent people?

2. How do you stop a person with no criminal record, no mental illness and whose friends and family would never suspect were capable of waking up one day and loading up 15x 30 round magazines and entering a school, church or other venue from attacking and killing innocent people?

#1) You stop them by physically removing them from society. And keeping them there. PERMANENTLY.

#2) You can't.

 

[American Man]

#1) You stop them by physically removing them from society. And keeping them there. PERMANENTLY.

#2) You can't.

You're right... not that I claim to have the solution, but I think it is realistic.

Since both categories of people can roam around freely and no one can read their minds or legislate their behavior, regardless of magical databases, ankle bracelets, parole status, FBI surveillance (Omar Mateen... cut short for political reasons during Obama's era) or the mighty sheet of paper known as a restraining order, you have to be prepared when they attack and then take them out. There is no way around it. Once people are outside in the real world you just have to be ready when something happens. How ready is TBD by the individual and is case by case. We go off what we think is predictable and throw in some worst case scenarios, and then go on living day to day. Living day to day is what we do anyway despite how far out our personal calendars go with all the stuff we want to do.

Legislation will not save anyone, if anything it will cause more harm than good. Just an example, felons are prohibited persons. This may be the biggest joke on the books. Someone getting out of prison will even take priority and have a gun already reserved for them. I can tell you everyone of my friend's families had many guns and shotguns and all out in plain view and none were legal... not everyone was a felon though, but the black market is Top Notch Reliable... same as crack and meth delivered to your door whenever you want it.

So why keep fighting over legislation and taking sides when the goal is to get us to fight and create physiological reactions that just piss you off even more, creating more division. If there was a democrat in office that wanted to do something about gun violence, they have their choice of hell hole to get started on. But they just continue to ask for their votes and do nothing for them... kid dies on the way to school in gang crossfire, republicans are the bad man... 8 shot outside night club in Brooklyn, republicans bad and southern states bad. It took them a while to get that effect, but that is reality today... the politicians and race hucksters have the oppressed right where they want them and the last thing they will do is accept help from Trump. And the saddest thing is that these are average everyday Americans that live in these urban areas. They deserve better. Some people want to make things better. But there is always a certain political party in the way. Not all democrats are playing checkers. A lot of this is by design.

The White Settlement outcome is much preferred over the Sutherland Springs outcome, not that it is any consolation for the lady yelling in the video. But that security mindset throughout that church that day is the best answer to my questions 1 and 2.

 

[Unclenick]

We won't know, for background check purposes, who is mentally ill as long as the HIPAA makes it an individual doctor's call whether or not to involve authorities and the law doesn't require that doctor to also inform the FBI to include that person's name in firearm purchase background checks. Currently, I believe it is only those who have been adjudicated mentally ill who can be found in NICS records for background check purposes, and then only if the local authorities got around to reporting it.

We are learning, very slowly, that reporting by students and readers of teen social media can actually stop the majority of school shootings well in advance. Even those with no criminal history or mental health history often reveal their intentions online or in conversations with schoolmates.

Expecting to stop every single person with no history either criminal or mental from committing occasional horrors is as Utopian an argument as the argument gun laws will stop them all. The Los Vegas shooter is the prime example. Millions of dollars in resources and no prior history issues. Even Senator Feinstein said she didn't think anybody could have stopped that one. A person with millions in resources can always get stolen military or police weapons on the black market. Enough money gets you any object you want, legal or otherwise. There will never be a complete end to these events, regardless of what laws are on the books.

Note that the seeming increase in public shootings is due to the news media having switched from the definition used by the U.S. Congressional Research Service and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, which is a shooting incident that results in four or more decedents, to the one pushed by the anti-gun groups which counts non-lethal woundings, which is most single-wound handgun shootings, so it suddenly increased the number of sensational newscasts on the subject quite a bit. They were there before, but not nearly so frequently mentioned before this version of the term "mass shooting" came to be applied to them.

 

[JohnKSa]

Just a caution about inserting politics into this thread. We don't do politics here because people just can't seem to be civil when it comes up.

 

[American Man]

Just a caution about inserting politics into this thread. We don't do politics here because people just can't seem to be civil when it comes up.

Roger that... certain questions came up and I got off track.

 

[44 AMP]

We won't know, for background check purposes, who is mentally ill as long as the HIPAA makes it an individual doctor's call whether or not to involve authorities and the law doesn't require that doctor to also inform the FBI to include that person's name in firearm purchase background checks. Currently, I believe it is only those who have been adjudicated mentally ill who can be found in NICS records for background check purposes, and then only if the local authorities got around to reporting it.

We have a bit of a can of worms here, because a Doctor's opinion does not deprive one of Constitutional rights. Only a court hearing, with full due process does that. So, while a doctor's report that they consider you a danger may start the process, it does not, and SHOULD not put you on the prohibited list, simply on their say so.

This is the claimed reasoning behind the push for "red flag" laws, so that one may be "legally" deprived of your property (and your rights) UNTIL a court hearing.

The HIPPA law further complicates matters.

I hold the opinion that we should not create "red flag" laws with their huge potential for abuse, but that if an individual is deemed a risk, they should be put through the existing system with full due process. If that isn't "fast" enough to make people feel safe, then they should put the money into expanding the existing system so it can handle the workload in a timely enough manner to meet public approval.

In other words, I think its wrong to create more laws and restrict rights because people are too cheap to spend enough money on the existing system to have it work properly.

And that's a big part of the problem, because given the choice, people will almost always choose the cheap way, over the best way...

 

[USNRet93]

What "watchlist" do you think he should have been on? How many watchlists do you think the various levels of our government have?

He was (apparently) a prohibited person based on his status as a convicted felon. [Question: WAS he a convicted felon, or were all his convictions for misdemeanors?] That should put him in the NICS system and should have prevented his buying a firearm from an FFL, but that would not prevent him from making a face-to-face buy, either from a legitimate seller or on a street corner late at night. It also would not have prevented him from stealing a firearm.

Asked and answered..he WAS a convicted felon, unless the reporting of it was wrong. He DID have documented mental health issues. It was reported that he bought the SG from a LGS, not off the street. "many' harp on no new laws, we have enough..Clearly the present system failed..again, if the reporting is accurate.

 

[thallub]

i can't find proof that the perp was convicted of a felony.

The perp was given free passes in three states, NJ, OK, and TX.

1. The perp was charged with felony assault with a dangerous weapon and arson
in Grady county, Oklahoma.

2. In 2012 the perp was declared incompetent to stand trial by an OK judge who ordered him into treatment.

3. In 2013 the perp was ruled competent to stand trial.

4. The Grady county prosecutor dropped the felony charges and allowed the perp to plead to misdemeanors.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Richard White was the man who stood up and drew against the shooter. He was the first man shot and was a member of the security team. I certainly commend him for his bravery--drawing while looking at the muzzle of a shotgun took a lot of guts. Unfortunately he had to clear two cover garments to make his draw, and that slowed his draw considerably and perhaps cost him his life. It also appears that he was carrying his gun SOB which may have accounted for why he stood to draw.

You and I had conversed elsewhere that White had a 4 second draw and as you note, that may have cost him his life.

Turns out, Wilson's draw was EVEN SLOWER. In watching the video over and over, White and Wilson are reaching for their guns (elbows cocked) at nearly the same time. This is after White stands up to start his drawn. For what looks like the better part of 2 seconds, Wilson has his hand on his gun, elbow cocked, and NOT drawing. In watching the video several times, it seems that Wilson is having trouble getting the gun from the holster. During that time, White pulls his hand from his holster (with gun?) and is bring his arm up when he is shot, everyone flinches downward in the room, and the gunman shoots the second person (most immediate threat to him), as Wilson manages to clear the holster and then fire on target.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We have a bit of a can of worms here, because a Doctor's opinion does not deprive one of Constitutional rights. Only a court hearing, with full due process does that. So, while a doctor's report that they consider you a danger may start the process, it does not, and SHOULD not put you on the prohibited list, simply on their say so.

This is the claimed reasoning behind the push for "red flag" laws, so that one may be "legally" deprived of your property (and your rights) UNTIL a court hearing.

The HIPPA law further complicates matters.

I hold the opinion that we should not create "red flag" laws with their huge potential for abuse, but that if an individual is deemed a risk, they should be put through the existing system with full due process. If that isn't "fast" enough to make people feel safe, then they should put the money into expanding the existing system so it can handle the workload in a timely enough manner to meet public approval.

In other words, I think its wrong to create more laws and restrict rights because people are too cheap to spend enough money on the existing system to have it work properly.

And that's a big part of the problem, because given the choice, people will almost always choose the cheap way, over the best way...

Well said.

Too many people favor these unconstitutional red flag laws because they assume they (the red flag laws) will only affect other people, never themselves. They choose to ignore the rampant possibility (make that "probability," if not "certainty") for abuse because they are sure it won't ever bite them in the butt. But our legal system was not supposed to be based on a program of Hoovering up bunches of people, depriving them of fundamental Constitutional rights, and then asking them to prove why their rights should not have been taken away. (And oh, by the way, can I please have my property back, Judge? Pretty please?)

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Asked and answered..he WAS a convicted felon, unless the reporting of it was wrong. He DID have documented mental health issues. It was reported that he bought the SG from a LGS, not off the street. "many' harp on no new laws, we have enough..Clearly the present system failed..again, if the reporting is accurate.

I have not seen any reports that he was convicted of any felonies. If you know of any credible reports stating such, I would appreciate your posting them.

But -- the prohibited person list at NICS is not a "watch list." There is no program of surveillance for people on the NICS list -- the list just sits there until the person tries to purchase a firearm through an FFL. The NICS list can't possibly prevent a convicted felon from buying a gun on a street corner at oh-dark-thirty, or prevent him from stealing one.

As to his "documented mental health issues" -- the prohibiting factor under federal law is that a person must have been adjudicated (that means a ruling by a judge pursuant to a hearing) as mentally defective. Absent a court hearing with such a ruling, his "documented mental health issues" don't mean anything. Was he ever adjudicated as mentally defective?

 

[USNRet93]

I have not seen any reports that he was convicted of any felonies. If you know of any credible reports stating such, I would appreciate your posting them.

https://davidharrisjr.com/doug/texa...the-laws-already-in-place-failed-to-stop-him/

The man who opened fire in a Texas church on Sunday, killing two before being shot dead by parishioners, was identified as Keith Thomas Kinnunen, a convicted felon who, under federal law, could not legally own a gun.

Online court records show Kinnunen pleaded guilty to felony aggravated assault and battery in a Grady County, Oklahoma court on August 15, 2013.

Kinnunen pled guilty to felony third-degree arson, also on August 15, 2013, according to court records.

As to his "documented mental health issues" -- the prohibiting factor under federal law is that a person must have been adjudicated (that means a ruling by a judge pursuant to a hearing) as mentally defective. Absent a court hearing with such a ruling, his "documented mental health issues" don't mean anything. Was he ever adjudicated as mentally defective?

In 2012 the perp was declared incompetent to stand trial by an OK judge who ordered him into treatment.