/ Texas shooting

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Pete Pozman - on 06 Nov 2017
How does Trump know that the shooting was about mental health issues, and so quickly? My first question was : was the shooter a Muslim? Was he Black? Trump would have been incandescent if he had been and would have castigated the legal system for being too slow in dealing with the problem.
Compare his reaction to last week's truck attack.
After the las vegas carnage somebody from the gun lobby said that the victims were paying the price for freedom.
I suggest the real price for that sort of freedom is that everybody wear body armour all the time everywhere.
What's it going to take?!
2
jkarran - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> How does Trump know that the shooting was about mental health issues, and so quickly?

I suspect he just has an NRA envelop marked 'read and don't improvise in the event of mass shooting' stashed in his desk.
jk
1
pasbury on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

The Vegas shooter's brain is to microscopically dissected at Stanford University in an attempt explain his motives as a neurological problem.
The American gun lobby will blame absolutely anything apart from guns in gun crime.
yorkshireman - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Its interesting that Trump made those comments from Japan, a country that has almost eradicated gun crime and more importantly, gun deaths. Even criminals in Japan rarely use guns.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

Obviously enough, they've done this by limiting gun ownership. Sadly this will never happen in the US even if the public decided its what they wanted. I think this is a difficult issue to solve even in 'normal' times but with the issue of gun control being so closely linked to people's political affiliation, and politics being so divisive right now I don't think there's any potential for people to listen to each other, let alone change their minds.
1
drunken monkey - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Even by his own standards, Trumps response to this latest tragedy in the States is utterly shameful.

What a seriously deluded world he must live in
4
Tony Jones - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to drunken monkey:

I dunno.

He is quoted as saying "This is a mental health problem at the highest level". An unusually accurate statement from him if my interpretation is correct.
2
David Martin - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to yorkshireman:

To be fair, Japan has a super low crime rate anyway. Which could awkwardly make the case for many countries reconsidering the merits of racial homogeneity, super strict policing and societal compliance as much as it does for gun ownership restrictions.

There was a report popping up in my feed yesterday about a shooter on the loose in Norway. With the very initial reports saying it wasn't terror related, I expected people to get up in arms for the usual reasons of apparent unfairness.

But it don't think we should necessarily be offended. If someone is running down the street shooting and shouting "Allahu Akbar!" it strikes me as idiotic to pretend radical Islam probably isn't an overwhelming factor in the crime. If a black kid in Baltimore shoots another black kid then it seems likely to be gang related homicide. If a Norwegian is ranting incoherently while brandishing a rifle it would be fair to assume some sort of mental breakdown is in process. And if a guy with a history of mental instability and priors for assaulting his wife and kids shoots up a church, it seems justified to highlight that and not assume he is a terrorist or in a gang.

I likewise can't see guns being ever removed from the US - it's like asking we remove Israel to solve the Palestine crisis. They are as central to US life as the royal family are to British life. The cost is one they seem prepared to pay. Arguably, the guns and the culture around them contribute to the US military being the impressive fighting force it is today, so to a certain extent there is a logic to claiming it keeps them safe.
14
drunken monkey - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Tony Jones:

Indeed. Scary aye
richlan - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to drunken monkey:

I don't think he's deluded, he's just a imbecile.
1
john arran - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I can't help thinking that attributing any peacetime mass shooting incident to mental illness is stating the bloody obvious.
1
Roadrunner5 - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> The Vegas shooter's brain is to microscopically dissected at Stanford University in an attempt explain his motives as a neurological problem.

> The American gun lobby will blame absolutely anything apart from guns in gun crime.

This is just incredible yet true.. they are turning themselves inside out to blame mental health for both these shootings..

So will they actually put funding into mental health??
Roadrunner5 - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to David Martin:

Guns will never be removed but they can reduce fire rate, reduce magazine sizes, tighten regulations. There's a lot that can be done.
4
Hat Dude on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

And the next question Donald is - "How come anybody with mental health issues can get hold of a gun so easily?"
1
baron - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Making most firearms difficult to own doesn't stop gun crime.
We seem to be lucky in the UK that we don't seem to have many people intent on mass murder.
25
David Martin - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Hat Dude:

I don't think mental health checks will ever be effective if you have anything other than draconian gun laws. And that isn't going to happen, so any health checks that exist do little more than catch low hanging fruit.
Jimbocz - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:
> Making most firearms difficult to own doesn't stop gun crime.

What evidence do you have for that? What about Japan, Scotland and the UK, all of which have seen gun crime go down after making firearms difficult to own?
Post edited at 14:33
2
Ridge - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Jimbocz:
> What evidence do you have for that? What about Japan, Scotland and the UK, all of which have seen gun crime go down after making firearms difficult to own?

Is that correct? IIRC gun crime may have increased since handguns were banned.

EDIT. Hard to find anything concrete. Looks like gun crime increased from 1997 (handgun ban) to 2005, dropped off, and now increasing.

Doesn't help that replicas are included in statistics, and Police like to describe an airgun and a tin of pellets seized from a yob as a "massive haul of arms and ammuntion"
Post edited at 14:53
pasbury on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:


> So will they actually put funding into mental health??

I think you know the answer to that!

pasbury on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Ridge:
It did increase, now down again: https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

second chart

Note the rates = pretty low.
Post edited at 14:54
Ridge - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

Cheers. I think theres been a spike post 2009 when that chart ends.

The correlation between number of police officers is an interesting one, given the cutting of numbers at present.
baron - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Jimbocz:

Gun crime has increased since the last firearms act.
Luckily most shootings are gang related.
1
Xharlie on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to richlan:

Strue. But he's an imbecile who is undoubtedly being controlled. By the NRA and others.

This is why I am afraid for the world. I do not fear Trump because he's a right muppet, I fear what might be precipitated by the agencies steering and goading him.

In the case of Russia, you have a bloody genius dictating the moves. (Whatever you say about Putin, you can't cast aspersions at his intelligence.) In the case of North Korea, you have an equally unstable and unpredictable idiot. In the case of Wall Street, you have money plotting the course and the NRA are motivated by the profit of the arms industry.

Where is the bigger threat? Might as well roll a die to see how it ends!

Trump is like a free supermarket shopping bag: blowing in the wind, bad for the environment, weak, doesn't hold water and out of date. Should have been banned, decades ago.
Stuart en Écosse - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I can't help but think that if this happened somewhere like Pakistan, Congo or Myanmar, no-one would bat an eyelid and if anyone started a thread about it on here most wouldn't even click on it. What I can't fathom is why there is shock and surprise when this happens in the US, and why America is still talked of in terms of it being an advanced and civilised country as opposed to a backward and chaotic tin-pot kleptocracy, albeit a large and powerful one, led by a man like Trump who was even democratically (sort of) voted in.
4
tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> How does Trump know that the shooting was about mental health issues, and so quickly?

Because it in prime Trump voting country and he knows his own base.

I love the Texas Attorney General saying that it was great they had a concealed carry law and more people should bring guns to church so they could shoot back.

1
galpinos on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:

> Gun crime has increased since the last firearms act.

> Luckily most shootings are gang related.

We had a couple of gang shootings in Manchester and initial shooting, plus the retaliation shooting ended up involving the same gun, rented from the same intermediary. Despite the fact there were shootings, it was mildly comforting that between them, the two gangs only had access to one, rented, antiquated firearm.....
baron - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to galpinos:

Yes, the joy of the rented gun and most of our gangsters don't drive but ride mountain bikes.
They're not quite as sophisticated as their US counterparts.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:

> Yes, the joy of the rented gun and most of our gangsters don't drive but ride mountain bikes.

> They're not quite as sophisticated as their US counterparts.

Yeah, I remember a while back in Miami there were so many folk getting carjacked coming out the airport in a rental car that Hertz briefly had an offer to rent you a gun with the car. If you were a #1 club gold member you got upgraded to an Uzi.
1
Spartacus on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
The thing common to all countries of the world is mental health issues. People will always go mad. The difference is in the USA they can do do with an assault rifle.

Unfortunately in this instance a ‘hero’ with a rifle has apparently chased and shot this loser. I hope not but suspect this will affirm the corrupted logic that ‘what stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’.
1
galpinos on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

> I hope not but suspect this will affirm the corrupted logic that ‘what stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’.

The question remains though, are YOU the good guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T41M7cCqsU


Pete Pozman - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to galpinos:
Very funny.
Why doesn't someone call for a complete shut down of people with mental health problems being allowed to have guns. Or they could have extreme vetting of people with mental health issues owning guns...
It seems to me that a Muslim driving a truck into people is very very likely to have significant mental health problems before they commit themselves to such a cataclysmic course of action.
What if it turns out that this bloke in Texas was a different sort of Christian who didn't like baptists.
Post edited at 18:31
1
pasbury on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:

I wish I knew what point you are trying to make.
1
baron - on 06 Nov 2017
In reply to pasbury:

I was replying to galpinos who made the point that many gun crimes are commited with the same gun unlike the US were many gangsters have their own.
The fact is most gang members in the UK don't even own a car let alone a gun.
Big Ger - on 07 Nov 2017
wbo - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:
According to Fox yesterday the guy was an atheist, and his computer had atheist propaganda though they've toned that down now.

David Martin - what shooter in Norway? He didn't get on Norwegian news media.
Xharlie on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

The "good guy with a gun" is actually on the wrong side of the law. Anyone who believes that the modern law is right would have him in front of a court, tried for murder. Murdering a "bad guy" is still murder and it's not up to him to discriminate good from bad, anyway. He's not a judge and, if he were, he necessarily wouldn't have any executive role.

Circumstance could sway the court to lenience, perhaps, but the point should still be made -- he killed someone and killing is against the law.

Without this, society degenerates into anarchy. There is, in effect, no law because individual "good guys" are tasked with acting in both judicial and executive roles at once. The third part of the trinity of modern governance, legislature, is rendered irrelevant, replaced by popular opinion and on-the-spot consensus on which guy is "good" and which is "bad".

If I, without perfect knowledge of the situation, observed the "good guy" of this story chase and shoot the "bad guy", how should I act? If I see a police officer gunning down a black man before the eyes of the man's family, will shooting the police officer be a heroic deed?

This is not civilisation. This is chaos and, frankly, I'm extraordinarily thankful that I don't have to live it every day. I pity those who do -- particularly those who oppose this status quo.
3
tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to Xharlie:
> The "good guy with a gun" is actually on the wrong side of the law. Anyone who believes that the modern law is right would have him in front of a court, tried for murder. Murdering a "bad guy" is still murder and it's not up to him to discriminate good from bad, anyway. He's not a judge and, if he were, he necessarily wouldn't have any executive role.

Obviously he is not on the wrong side of the law. The law in question is the law of the US and the state of Texas under which he is entitled to have a gun. He then hears gunfire from the church and on investigation sees someone shooting people. At that point he has a cast iron legal justification under self-defence laws to shoot at the guy. The perpetrator runs out and tries to get away in his SUV and the citizen follows him in another truck. Around about this point maybe in the UK there could be less justification for shooting at the guy, but it would still be arguable because someone with an automatic weapon who has just shot and killed many people is clearly an imminent threat to others. Also it is Texas law that matters not UK law. However, this is moot because the indications are the perpetrator shot himself - if the citizen didn't hit him at all or didn't hit him after he stopped shooting and started running then I don't see how he could possibly be on the wrong side of the law.

Since the Attorney General of Texas went on TV to recommend that more people brought guns to church it seems pretty certain the prosecuting authorities in the state view his actions as within the law.
Post edited at 11:39
1
Bob Kemp - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to wbo:


> According to Fox yesterday the guy was an atheist, and his computer had atheist propaganda though they've toned that down now.

Anything Fox say needs to be treated with a large pinch of salt - apparently he'd liked a few Facebook postings on one or two atheist pages. Police locally are saying the shooting related to a domestic situation.

David Martin - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to wbo:

> David Martin - what shooter in Norway? He didn't get on Norwegian news media.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-oslo-man-opens-fire-cathedral-downtown-live-am...
Ridge - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to Xharlie:

> The "good guy with a gun" is actually on the wrong side of the law. Anyone who believes that the modern law is right would have him in front of a court, tried for murder. Murdering a "bad guy" is still murder and it's not up to him to discriminate good from bad, anyway. He's not a judge and, if he were, he necessarily wouldn't have any executive role.

> Circumstance could sway the court to lenience, perhaps, but the point should still be made -- he killed someone and killing is against the law.

I take your point regarding the potential to descend into Anarchy. However, as tom from edinburgh pointed out, all legal systems allow for the use of reasonable force in a number of scenarios. Reasonable force in some circumstances includes killing the other party. Killing someone is not automatically 'murder', nor is it necessarily against the law, including UK law.
wbo - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I thought it an 'interesting' political spin. Fox are extremely biased.
1
Bob Kemp - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to wbo:

> I thought it an 'interesting' political spin. Fox are extremely biased.

Yes - a propaganda machine not a news outlet now.
Spartacus on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to Ridge:
I understand the legal status of self defense and defense of others, its their (the US) mindset I struggle with.

A few months ago after another US shooting a man was interviewed after he shot the 'Bad Guy' . His statement went along the lines of " I heard shooting in the town so I went to my home and got my gun and went down there to sort it out". He subsequently joined in with the shooting.

It's like the wild west really still isn't it? Instead of calling the Police or helping, you join in. Why does an Office worker (or anyone for that matter) in Texas feel the need to wear cowboy clothes, including the hat, unless they work on a Ranch?
Post edited at 17:16
Eric9Points - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

Re introducing mental health checks before issuing licences would go some way to reducing these sorts of atrocities.

Making bullets cost 10 dollars each and have 1000 dollars minimum pricing for all guns would be a start.
1
baron - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus: as far as clothing (and guns) goes it's part of their culture.
Who's next for some criticism?
How about some of those West African women and their colourful outfits?

3
Roadrunner5 - on 07 Nov 2017
In reply to wbo:
Fox are worse than ever, they are effectively state news now. Peddling Trumps bullshit in return for interviews with him.
Spartacus on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:

> as far as clothing (and guns) goes it's part of their culture.

> Who's next for some criticism?

> How about some of those West African women and their colourful outfits?

Just wow! How’s the hangover?
2
baron - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

How's your sense of ridiculing a large group of people for the way they dress?
Unless I misinterpreted your intent in which case I'll apologise.
3
tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

> I understand the legal status of self defense and defense of others, its their (the US) mindset I struggle with.

I don't think there is a US mindset, the US is far too big and diverse for there to be just one mindset. Even within Texas you wouldn't find the same attitude to guns in a city like Austin which is a base for high tech industry and a small town miles out in the country near the Mexican border. If you can't rely on the police responding quickly and there is a severe crime problem you want laws which allow you to protect yourself. We can't assume that because strict gun control works well in the UK it would be a workable solution in Texas.

David Martin - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

He has a fair point. Maybe you meant your comment differently, but it comes across as a bit of a double standard:

Yanks we probably don't like - the white ones, from the south, probably voting Trump - have a historical dress style.
We can therefore take the piss out of it in a way that we wouldn't dare to if it was probably any other culture.
1
Bob Kemp - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:
> as far as clothing (and guns) goes it's part of their culture.

> Who's next for some criticism?

> How about some of those West African women and their colourful outfits?

You need to be careful with cultural relativism - it can be used to excuse all kinds of behaviour. Widow-burning, cannibalism, FGM, slavery, racism, you name it. Once you accept the logic of cultural relativism it undermines any moral case you care to make, and makes it impossible to make moral judgements. That's not to say that you can't try to have a cultural perspective and try and understand cultural variations in morality of course, but that's very different.

timjones - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:


> It's like the wild west really still isn't it? Instead of calling the Police or helping, you join in. Why does an Office worker (or anyone for that matter) in Texas feel the need to wear cowboy clothes, including the hat, unless they work on a Ranch?

Is Spartacus your real name or an affectation?

Pete Pozman - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to timjones:

> Is Spartacus your real name or an affectation?

If you meet him and he's wearing a gladiator helmet and carrying a trident and a net then he'll probably be the real Spartacus.
FactorXXX - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to timjones:

Is Spartacus your real name or an affectation?

He's Spartacus.
baron - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:
I haven't got a clue what cultural relativism is.
I do know that many US citizens wear clothes that their ancestors wore.
That they don't ponce about in goretex jackets and brand name training shoes does not entitle anybody to ridicule them.
2
claire14 on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:
I’m Spartacus and so’s my wife.
Spartacus on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to claire14:
No, I’m Spartacus.....
Spartacus on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:
> I do know that many US citizens wear clothes that their ancestors

I generally understand it’s not polite to ridicule how groups of people dress. We climbers would have a hard time of it if that were the case, especially in the ‘Ron hills’ years.
I don’t mind the cowboy outfits so much as the mindset of guns, shooting and taking the law into your own hands as in the days of the old West that accompanies it. I understand an Office worker in Dallas does not generally have a holster and six shooter but the levels of gun use and ownership are mad.

A good many people in the US think guns solve problems, they don’t they cause them. This is sold to them from birth in films, Tv games and in the national all invasive mentality.

Sadly the next act of madness with a firearm in America will be along on the News shortly.
Post edited at 18:56
Bob Kemp - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:

> I haven't got a clue what cultural relativism is.

You were justifying Texan clothing and gun choice because it's part of their culture. That's cultural relativism.
baron - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Isn't that culture?
Eric9Points - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The mindset is that it is a citizen's right to own a gun. People get very upset when Governments take their rights away.
Bob Kemp - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to baron:
> Isn't that culture?

Not quite. When you defend Texan clothes choice and gun wearing as being justified by the local standards held in Texan culture you're using a cultural relativist form of argument. The culture itself is separate from the justification that's based on the culture.
baron - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Bob Kemp:
Jeez that's too complicated for me!
Thanks for the education.
Pete Pozman - on 09 Nov 2017
In reply to Spartacus:

> I generally understand it’s not polite to ridicule how groups of people dress. We climbers would have a hard time of it if that were the case, especially in the ‘Ron hills’ years.

Hey watch that. These are the Ron Hills years. Leave my trousers out of this.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.