BBC-A man accused of shooting dead two people in a Tennessee church was motivated by hatred of liber

[Xela]

Pardon the double posting (I haven't found mention of this in the gungeon).

I'm surprised it hasn't caused a stir in here yet.

Senator Obama: This to me (as a liberal) is just more proof that the 2nd is NOT about hunting.

Xela

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7529450.stm

""It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Chief Owen said.

"It appears that the church had received some publicity in the recent past regarding its liberal stance on things and that is at least one of the issues we believe caused that church to be selected."

The Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church describes itself on its website as working for social change since the 1950s, including desegregation, racial harmony, fair wages, women's rights and gay rights. "

Other thoughts:
http://progunprogressive.com/?p=1011#comments

[Arctic Dave]

1. Wher did you find this?

"Senator Obama: This to me (as a liberal) is just more proof that the 2nd is NOT about hunting."

I do not see a link for it.

[Xela]

3. My message

Those are my thoughts to the senator.

Xela

[Arctic Dave]

4. Oh, I was confused.

[varkam]

2. At least the media has dropped...

the whole "hatred of Christianity" angle.

[comtec]

5. Yeah, just a hatred of lubruls, who cares about them

[varkam]

10. Oy.

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. I think it may be a little deeper.

The guy apparently really doesn't like Liberals or Christians. His ex-wife was a member of the church and had a restraining order against him. Not really clear at this point if his hatred of liberals is somehow related to his wife leaving him after joining a liberal church or if it was a more long standing issue. Regardless they will execute him.


David

[virginia mountainman]

6. Even more proof of the utter failure of...

"gun free zones"


They are ONLY gun free, for the law abiding.

[iverglas]

9. ya think?

Do you have any reason to believe that any person in that church would have been carrying a firearm at the time, if it had not been a "gun free zone"?

I'd like to know what you know.

Because I have grave doubts that anyone at all attending an event at a Universalist Church would ever be carrying a firearm.

I think we can pretty much dismiss your proof of the utter failure of "gun free zones" as utter crap.

[aspergris]

14. I've never carried a gun at a UU church

But I have carried one while attending a Quaker (society of Friends) meeting.

The pesky thing about those of us who carry is you don't know we are here. But we are.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aspergris]

17. You do. Since you responded

1) It does have something to do with your post. The CW would be that them leftist UU's wouldn't be carryin' at church. Quakers are similarly leftist, and yet at least ONE was carrying when I was there

2) you second statement is based on the false premise that carrying a gun = being a conservative. Since your premise is unsound, your argument fails.

[iverglas]

20. too bad, so sad

you second statement is based on the false premise that carrying a gun = being a conservative. Since your premise is unsound, your argument fails.

No, it's based on the premise that observant Friends (even of the Conservative persuasion -- note the capital "C", and note that the word has bugger all to do with "being a conservative") do not carry weapons. So perhaps you were there as a guest only, and chose to violate what I am pretty sure would be at least an unwritten rule against carrying weapons in the meeting place.

[aspergris]

24. good point

About the Conservative quakers.

My point was that at that quaker meeting, there was at least one gun.

What would make you think that a UU church wouldn't have one (or more) people carrying a gun?

[iverglas]

27. do let's remember

The question on the table is what would make virginia mountainman say that this incident is proof of the failure of "gun-free zones".

I'd be willing to assume that a Universalist Church is a "gun-free zone" by its policy.

What I'm needing is some proof that someone there would have been carrying a firearm had there not been a policy against it.

Of course, then we'd be needing proof that the deaths that occurred would not have occurred had someone else in the church been carrying a firearm.

Strikes me that regardless of how many people in a location have firearms, they're never going to *prevent* anyone from shooting anyone.

We'll be wanting to keep in mind here that this individual had previously indicated an intention "to blow my brains out and then blow his own brains out" -- i.e., like many individuals who commit mass murders like this, was in fact suicidal. So deterrence ain't a factor.

[aspergris]

28. I'd be curious to know one way or the other

Whether the UU church, as a whole, or this particular church has a no gun policy.

There is no doubt that in mass shootings the shooter often gets one or several shots off before being stopped by another gun owner (in cases where other gun owners stop the shooter).

Nobody denies that even in a place where others have guns, a person intent on homicidal mayhem can frequently get shots off.


"Strikes me that regardless of how many people in a location have firearms, they're never going to *prevent* anyone from shooting anyone."

you are kidding? of course they can. and do. in some cases, they shoot the person. in others they get the person to drop their gun.

sometimes successful. sometimes not

[iverglas]

30. yes, I misspoke

I'm sure you were completely confused and totally unable to get the point.

Strikes me that regardless of how many people in a location have firearms, they're never going to *prevent* anyone from shooting anyone someone.

Nobody is going to pull out his/her trusty sidearm and shoot the bad man/woman unless and until s/he has already shot someone. Unless s/he is stupid enough to stand there making a speech first.

[aspergris]

31. demonstrably not true

Generally speaking, I agree that USUALLY the bad guy will get a shot off.

1) getting a shot off =/= hitting somebody. so , even if they do get a shot off, it doesn't necessarily mean they are going to successfully shoot anybody
2) I know one specific counterexample, involving my friend. She was wrestling for her life with a armed robber over control of a gun, and another guy (a permittee) shot him in the head.
but thanks for acknowledging you misspoke.

it comes down to this.

in some circs, an armed good guy won't be able to do anything at all
in some circs, an armed good guy will stop the bad guy, but some carnage will ensue first.
in some circs, an armed good guy will stop the bad guy before he hurts anybody.

in the case i mentioned, the guy DID get a shot off at my friend. it missed.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Quite likely.

You can possibly minimize damage. Though in the case of the Church Shooting, I'm not convinced someone with a gun could have reacted any faster than the people that dogpiled the shooter. What may be true of the response in this incident doesn't always go down the same way in others.

Generally any gunman clever enough to conceal the weapon until the moment of attack, is going to get at LEAST one free shot off, no matter how well trained and equipped one of the potential victims may be.


Until someone 'goes off' you can't even really know if you are perhaps facing an undercover officer, intent on preventing some crime, rather than a shooting rampage.

[tburnsten]

39. Deterrence isn't really the goal

Deterrence is sort of unobtainable through concealed carry, except in specific incidents where an individual has already approached and threatened the carrier. For mass shootings, almost all of the shooters are indeed suicidal so the threat of being shot is pretty irrelevant. However, if at least one member of the crowd of would-be victims is armed, they have the ability to return fire on the shooter and neutralize his ability to cause harm to others. Either he will have to take cover, since he is trying to hurt as many people as he can BEFORE he dies, or he will be hit and the fight will stop quite quickly.

Concealed carry can't prevent or deter people from comitting horrific acts of violence, but what it can do is allow some of the intended victims to mitigate the harm inflicted, and reduce the number of people who are wounded by the gunman. Still not a "happy" ending, but much better than the ending where the police arrive on scene five or ten minutes after the shooting has started to find lots of wounded and murdered people and a suicide.

[beevul]

33. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it.

Do you have any reason to believe that any person in that church would have been carrying a firearm at the time, if it had not been a "gun free zone"?

I'd like to know what you know.

Because I have grave doubts that anyone at all attending an event at a Universalist Church would ever be carrying a firearm.

I think we can pretty much dismiss your proof of the utter failure of "gun free zones" as utter crap.

Virginia Mountainman says "Even more proof of the utter failure of... "gun free zones" - referring to yet another gun free zone that wasn't gun free after all - and then comments "They are ONLY gun free, for the law abiding".

And you go off on a rant about about whether or not he has any reason to believe that any person in that church would have been carrying a firearm at the time, if it had not been a "gun free zone", rather than simply acknowledge that the "gun free zone" in question was indeed NOT a "gun free" zone after all. Whether someone would have had a firearm if the place had not been a gun free zone, is not relevant to whether the gun free zone actually succeeded in being gun free or not, but of course you know this.

But wait, theres more:


You go on to say "I think we can pretty much dismiss your proof of the utter failure of "gun free zones" as utter crap", in spite of the fact that the gun free zone in question FAILED, as most of them do when someone with bad intentions takes a gun into one and shoots people, which was ENTIRELY the point that Virginia Mountainman made.


You sure can muddy the waters of intelligent discourse, I grant you that.

[virginia mountainman]

35. Yep, Beevul, and another thing..

Just a while back, a shooter entered a church.....AND WAS STOPPED, WELL SHORT of the worshipers by an armed parishioner.

[TPaine7]

37. "Any evidence that supports gun rights...

is not admissible in this court"

Or something like that.

Them's the rules.

[TPaine7]

36. Hat tip

Well done.

[gorfle]

7. The reason why.

I'm surprised it hasn't caused a stir in here yet.

Here's why:

He used a shotgun. This is typically one of the weapons on the "reserve list" that the anti-gun folks say it's OK for people like hunters to own. Kind of hard for the antis to go ballistic over a hunting weapon without revealing their true agenda.

He bought it a month in advance of the shooting from a pawn shop. This means that neither a waiting period nor the NICS background check that he had to pass made any difference in the shooting, and it means that he used a legally-purchased firearm in his crime. So again, it's kind of hard to get angry about all the things that should have been done to prevent him from getting a gun when he obeyed all the laws to obtain his firearm.

So in short, there's nothing to argue about because there's little to discuss about his case. He's one of the rare sub-2% of firearm owners who commits a crime every year with his firearm. Not much you can do about it without unreasonably impacting the rights of the other 98% of firearm owners.

[iverglas]

8. pretty much true

Marc Lépine, who killed 14 women at the Montreal Polytechnique, was using a firearm that he had legally acquired (a mini-14). This was before Canada had the licensing/registration requirements it now has. He did it because he hated feminists, he said.

Kimveer Gill, who killed one woman at Dawson College in Montreal (and was prevented from killing other people, although he did very seriously injure some, because police were already on the scene and shot him), was using a firearm he had legally acquired (a Beretta CX4 Storm) -- although it was a restricted firearm and he had had to qualify as a member of a shooting club first.

Edward Paredes, who killed a bystander on a Toronto sidewalk this winter, was using a handgun he had legally acquired, again by qualifying as a member of a shooting club (he was prohibited from carrying/using it for other purposes).


It's possible that a licensing process -- as compared to a simple NICS check for disqualifying factors -- would have caught this individual. It didn't catch Gill or Paredes, even though both of them were subject to the more rigorous screening for restricted firearms in Canada.

No one ever suggests that any measure taken by any society to address any problem is going to solve the problem / prevent any harm from occurring.

The risk of harm occurring can in many cases be reduced by various measures, that must then be assessed in a process that includes weighing their various other likely effects.

As long as there are uses of firearms that a society considers to be necessary or legitimate -- which would include pest/predator control and hunting, in the case of shotguns -- then there are likely to be people who acquire and use those firearms for improper purposes, like killing somebody, or who subsequently use them for such purposes.

Just as, the use of motor vehicles for economically necessary purposes and for recreation being regarded as legitimate in our society, there are likely to be people who acquire and use them for improper purposes, like street racing, or who subsequently use them for such purposes.

Nobody is promising or expecting any iron-clad guarantees. Nobody promises or expects such guarantees from any other regulatory measure a society takes.

However, with a firearms licensing/registration scheme, some people like this individual might be prevented from causing harm. Some would likely simply be prevented from acquiring firearms legally. Others could have their authorization to possess firearms revoked and their firearms removed. If Kimveer Gill's parents had had the sense to realize their son was mightily disturbed, they could have called the local police to express their concerns about his firearms possession and his licence might have been revoked, and firearms removed. If someone gives indications of violent intentions or ideation, as this individual might have done, ditto.

Regulations in Canadian cities requiring that keys not be left in motor vehicle ignitions have undoubtedly resulted in fewer vehicle thefts than would otherwise have occurred, and less of the mayhem often associated with vehicle theft. Vehicle theft has not been stopped, but the risk has been reduced and likely the associated harms have been reduced.

The goal of firearms regulation like licensing/registration is the same.

[DemOkie]

12. That's the real truth of it

There really is nothing to be done about folks that go batsh*t crazy. They can cause mayhem with whatever is at hand, on whomever they decide is "at fault".

The fact that this lunatic chose to label us " libruls" as a target matters not. He could have just as easily labeled "consertives", or "churchie people", and it would have not made him any less crazy.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Restraining Order.

Here, that would have disqualified him from purchasing a firearm. Not sure about that state.
I'm curious how old the restraining order was, perhaps it was obtained after he purchased the firearm. This is one of the reasons I support working out some sort of licensing and registration scheme, so the police know who to come seize weapons from, in the event of a legal restraining order.

Two things I think would help with that, one, a grandfathering provision, so no firearm is ever suddenly declared illegal based on functionality, and confiscated. Only new sales should be banned. Secondly, requiring police departments take responsibility for the storage of personal property like firearms when seized.



One of my co-workers was murdered this morning by her estranged husband, using a .357 revolver. He then shot himself. She was apparently staying with a friend, possibly because she considered him a danger. I'm more than a little pissed off about this murder-suicide bullshit. Apparently that's what that church shooter was planning.

[slackmaster]

16. It's a federal law

Go to http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

Search for "subject to a court order that restrains such person"

The UU church shooter was prohibited by federal law from even possessing a firearm of any kind. Anyone who transferred one to him broke the law.

[iverglas]

19. query

How did he pass a NICS check? The order was old enough that

- it never got into the database because of lax reporting at the time?
- it had expired (it could have been interlocutory/interim or been for a specific time period)?

[gorfle]

21. Good question.

I would like to know the answer also.

[slackmaster]

25. I don't know when or where he acquired the shotgun

- it never got into the database because of lax reporting at the time?

That is certainly possible.

- it had expired (it could have been interlocutory/interim or been for a specific time period)?

Could be, but I have heard of similar orders being permanent. In California there are basically two kinds - A temporary one that lasts for 30 days and is very easy to get, and a permanent one that requires serious evidence to obtain but lasts until it is rescinded by the court.

The other two possibilities:

- He owned the gun prior to the RO being issued,

- He bought the gun illegally in a private-party transfer (which would be trivially easy in Tennessee and most other states).

[gorfle]

34. CNN says

CNN says he obtained the shotgun about a month ago from a pawn shop.

[slackmaster]

38. Pawn shops have to be 01 FFLs

Even if you retrieve a weapon that you pawned, you get a background check.

[tburnsten]

41. Actually

"From the BATFE Website:

Types of FFL's

Type 01 - DEALER IN FIREARMS
Type 02 - PAWNBROKER
Type 03 - COLLECTOR OF CURIOS AND RELICS

Type 06 - MANUFACTURER OF AMMUNITION FOR FIREARMS
Type 07 - MANUFACTURER OF FIREARMS
Type 08 - IMPORTER OF FIREARMS / AMMUNITION

Type 09 - DEALER IN DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES
Type 10 - MANUFACTURER OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES
Type 11 - IMPORTER OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES

BATFE - Types of FFL's

I wonder what the missing Types 4 and 5 are?"

From The High Road's current thread on "how do pawn shop FFLs differ from normal?"

[iverglas]

18. I hadn't seen that

http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=215693

Court records from a neighboring county indicate Jim Adkisson threatened violence against his spouse several years ago. In March 2000, his then-wife, Liza Alexander, obtained an order of protection against him. She told a judge that Adkisson had threatened "to blow my brains out and then blow his own brains out."

... Police said according to a signed, four-page letter, Adkisson indicated he targeted the church congregation out of hatred for its support of liberal social policies.

The ability to identify and remove firearms from the possession of people against whom restraining orders have been issued is of course one of the signal benefits of licensing/registration.

On the "liberal" aspect, I would just note that group-based hate and hate-motivated violence does seem to be the exclusive preserve of the racist/misognyist/bigoted/right-wing assholes/psychos of the world.

In his own suicide note, Marc Lépine blamed "feminists" for his inability to gain acceptance to engineering school.

[gorfle]

22. Why?

I'm more than a little pissed off about this murder-suicide bullshit.

I figure at least they are saving us all the trouble and expense of trying them and housing them forever.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I believe it encourages more of the same.

I want them tried for murder, and punished accordingly. I do not want them to 'get their way'. Not Murder-Suicide, not 'Suicide By Cop'.

Nothing discourages like complete failure.

[gorfle]

23. 2000

The restraining order was from 2000. He bought the shotgun about a month ago.

[slackmaster]

26. It looks like a Title 36 Protection Order in Tennessee has to be renewed annually

If that's the type of order his estranged wife or ex had.

http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=800#statute-top

[tburnsten]

40. Why not just a mandatory search

of anyone's home who gets (with due process) a restraining order put on them? There must be a good way to keep preventative measures for the protection of victims from getting out of hand and impacting people who haven't done anything wrong before. Maybe allowing law enforcement to use previously untouchable documents like 4473s, only after a restraining order is enacted, would help as well. I am very leery of any broad licensing or registration scheme, just because of how horribly awry they have gone almost without fail.

Police needing to be accountable for private property they are custodians of is highly important as well, since all things can be reversed and sometimes a restraining order must be put in place immediately, but later turns out there wasn't really any grounds for it. I would hate to see someone have their restraining order nullified because there was no threat and then still have the same loss of property and lifestyle penalties that he would have from an active restraining order anyway.


Sorry about your co-worker, it's terrible the husband didn't just dive off a bridge instead.