More than 20 dead after shooting at Sutherland Springs church

[Dalia]

Latest:

Gunman in church attack was convicted of fracturing stepson’s skull

The gunman who killed at least 26 people in a church south of San Antonio was kicked out of the Air Force after cutting a plea deal in which he admitted to fracturing his stepson’s skull, the former head of Air Force prosecutors said Monday.


Devin Patrick Kelley faced at least five years in a military prison for attacking the baby and also his wife, the former top Air Force prosecutor, retired Col. Don Christensen, said.



An Air Force jury handed him a 12-month sentence in 2012, he said.

Maybe The motivation Why he shot four times Rylan Ward he was a child abuser asshole.


5 yr old Rylan Ward was shot four times today in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

I think you may be right--all that rage..directed at little kids. Meanwhile, contemptible wannabe 'patriots' want to make political hay...

THis little children who were scared and hurt it makes me crazy, those who hurt children are the worst human species on this earth they could all burn all in hell

 

[Lewdog]

No I think we will because this guy was younger and had a larger popular media usage... and he came from a small town where everyone knew everyone else's business.

it is not related to age and it was premedited in advance, it was not a blood shot.
All that is on the internet has been removed only those who have put in the favorites who have a backup can have access to information about the shooter.

You can't be serious about whether age matters. A person in their mid-20's will generally have a much larger presence on social media than a guy like Paddock.

No, it does not mean anything today everyone is on the internet. age does not matter, some people are older but go as much on the internet as the youngest.

Did Paddock even have a Facebook account?

He was on the internet, he plays live poker, he left traces

I asked if he had Facebook, not if he got on the internet. That's not the same thing. Kelley had a Facebook page and even put a picture of his rifle on it.

 

[Dalia]

it is not related to age and it was premedited in advance, it was not a blood shot.
All that is on the internet has been removed only those who have put in the favorites who have a backup can have access to information about the shooter.

You can't be serious about whether age matters. A person in their mid-20's will generally have a much larger presence on social media than a guy like Paddock.

No, it does not mean anything today everyone is on the internet. age does not matter, some people are older but go as much on the internet as the youngest.

Did Paddock even have a Facebook account?

He was on the internet, he plays live poker, he left traces

I asked if he had Facebook, not if he got on the internet. That's not the same thing. Kelley had a Facebook page and even put a picture of his rifle on it.

I know it is not the same thing , do you think that you get information from a person only on Facebook ?

 

[Lewdog]

You can't be serious about whether age matters. A person in their mid-20's will generally have a much larger presence on social media than a guy like Paddock.

No, it does not mean anything today everyone is on the internet. age does not matter, some people are older but go as much on the internet as the youngest.

Did Paddock even have a Facebook account?

He was on the internet, he plays live poker, he left traces

I asked if he had Facebook, not if he got on the internet. That's not the same thing. Kelley had a Facebook page and even put a picture of his rifle on it.

I know it is not the same thing , do you think that you get information from a person only on Facebook ?

How much information do you think you would get from a person based on them signing in to play online poker?

 

[edthecynic]

An Air Force jury handed him a 12-month sentence in 2012

Right when the "Atheist" was a bible school teacher's aide.

 

[leftwinger]

Massive amounts of money are taken from the labor of American Citizens, Corporations etc. Maybe 50% Fed State Local of all weath into this boondoggle. Millions of workers, 1000s of departments. They do a terrible job. They never stop anything. Then in come the lawyers, gum up the aftermath....slow ineffective courts......they all get rich. But Citizens are not protected. Criminals are protected after.

Let the shooters shoot at CA death row on the yard. See if that settles their need? 5 shots from 200 yds. BYOG.

 

[Weatherman2020]

An Air Force jury handed him a 12-month sentence in 2012

Right when the "Atheist" was a bible school teacher's aide.

THE “deranged” killer who killed 26 churchgoers in Texas was militant atheist who ranted on Facebook about “stupid” religious people.

Devin Kelley, 26, who opened fire on worshippers in First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs yesterday, was described as “creepy” and “weird” by former schoolmates.

Classmate Nina Rosa Nava wrote on Facebook that the mass murderer used to rant on the social network about his atheist beliefs.

She said: “He was always talking about how people who believe in God were stupid and trying to preach his atheism,” reports The Sun .

Fellow user Christopher Leo Longoria replied: “I removed him off FB for those same reasons! He was being super nagtive (sic) all the time (sic).”

Another Facebook friend of the killer added: “He was weird but never that damn weird, always posting his atheist sh** like Nina wrote, but damn he always posted pics of him and his baby — crazy.”


Sounds just like you.

Texas shooter described as a ‘creepy’ atheist

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[LittleNipper]

Police say 20 to 24 killed or wounded. The killer is dead.




At least 20 feared dead in mass shooting at Texas church

It seems odd to me that more isn't being said regarding the mass shootings at the Texas church and also at the Country Western Concert. Both shooter seem to have claimed to be atheists. Is this a trend that the government does not wish to see copied? Are atheists really mild manner sophisticates or is this all a pretense hiding a far more dangerous facade. It seems that the authorities are perhaps trying to cover up a trend that they fear might bring terrible repercussions across the country if word gets out. Will the government have to close churches unless they (churches) have security guards? Perhaps there will be copycat events among other atheists.The shooting at the black church was reported as racial, but in fact wasn't that shooter also an atheist?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I ask Confection Jesus to not let the Trump idiot go off half baked into some sort of furnace of Nuclear horror ...we send our thoughts and prayers meanwhile OK to the victims of the NRA in Texas

​

 

[MarkDuffy]

The Latest: 15 empty magazines of 30 rounds each at scene

Jesus, the scumbag went around afterwards execution style shooting everyone again and again

 

[eflatminor]

And then there's the morality of it. The idea of restricting my ability to defend myself and my family against thugs and crazies that couldn't give two shits about rules and laws is highly immoral.

A good guy with a gun prevented further massacre today. That only happens in a free society. The only way to prevent bad people from doing bad things is a tyrannous society. North Korean doesn't have mass murders. I'll take freedom ever time.

There are LOTS of other countries other than North Korea with lower gun violence crimes.

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a ******* military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

When that's what the bad guys will have, you bet your ass that's exactly what a homeowner needs.

Again, you are giving thugs and crazies a tactical advantage. That is insane and immoral.

Sounds like a reasonable argument, now please share with me how many home intruders used assault rifles over the last year, couple of years, or decade.

Irrelevant. One prepares for the worst and hopes for the best. I choose to be prepared for any eventuality, including more than one man intent on harm.

If you want examples of where an semi-auto rifle in the hands of a good guy proved tactically appropriate, you need look no further than the tragedy in Texas.

 

[Lewdog]

There are LOTS of other countries other than North Korea with lower gun violence crimes.

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a ******* military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

When that's what the bad guys will have, you bet your ass that's exactly what a homeowner needs.

Again, you are giving thugs and crazies a tactical advantage. That is insane and immoral.

Sounds like a reasonable argument, now please share with me how many home intruders used assault rifles over the last year, couple of years, or decade.

Irrelevant. One prepares for the worst and hopes for the best. I choose to be prepared for any eventuality, including more than one man intent on harm.

If you want examples of where an semi-auto rifle in the hands of a good guy proved tactically appropriate, you need look no further than the tragedy in Texas.

How is it irrelevant to ask for the number of times a high powered rifle has been used in home defense when the major defense of them is people saying they need them for home defense?

It's common sense...

Fact is, most will tell you that you shouldn't use a high powered rifle for home defense. The long barrel makes it difficult to use indoors. Not to mention if you fire it, it goes through walls... which if you have neighbors close by, you could be putting them in danger. The #1 gun in home defense? A pump-action shot gun. The sound of jacking a shell into the chamber is often enough deterrent alone.

I've been trained in doing room clearing, and doing so with a rifle or a shotgun is much more difficult than using a hand gun.

 

[eflatminor]

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a ******* military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

When that's what the bad guys will have, you bet your ass that's exactly what a homeowner needs.

Again, you are giving thugs and crazies a tactical advantage. That is insane and immoral.

Sounds like a reasonable argument, now please share with me how many home intruders used assault rifles over the last year, couple of years, or decade.

Irrelevant. One prepares for the worst and hopes for the best. I choose to be prepared for any eventuality, including more than one man intent on harm.

If you want examples of where an semi-auto rifle in the hands of a good guy proved tactically appropriate, you need look no further than the tragedy in Texas.

How is it irrelevant to ask for the number of times a high powered rifle has been used in home defense when the major defense of them is people saying they need them for home defense?

It's common sense...

Fact is, most will tell you that you shouldn't use a high powered rifle for home defense. The long barrel makes it difficult to use indoors. Not to mention if you fire it, it goes through walls... which if you have neighbors close by, you could be putting them in danger. The #1 gun in home defense? A pump-action shot gun. The sound of jacking a shell into the chamber is often enough deterrent alone.

I've been trained in doing room clearing, and doing so with a rifle or a shotgun is much more difficult than using a hand gun.

First, there is such a thing as a short barreled AR, sometimes called a carbine. With an easily mountable light, it makes a perfect home defense weapon. Further, it is a simple matter to acquire ammunition designed for indoor home defense situations (low velocity, low flash, quick expansion/fragmentation). I load my own. Lastly, one should NEVER fire any weapon such that the bullet could penetrate a wall. Good lord I hope I never live next to you and your shotgun.

Secondly, effectiveness against a burglar is not a "major defense" in the right to own a common firearm. You said that. The major reason is the 2nd amendment in which you'll find nothing about home defense.

 

[Lewdog]

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a ******* military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

When that's what the bad guys will have, you bet your ass that's exactly what a homeowner needs.

Again, you are giving thugs and crazies a tactical advantage. That is insane and immoral.

Sounds like a reasonable argument, now please share with me how many home intruders used assault rifles over the last year, couple of years, or decade.

Irrelevant. One prepares for the worst and hopes for the best. I choose to be prepared for any eventuality, including more than one man intent on harm.

If you want examples of where an semi-auto rifle in the hands of a good guy proved tactically appropriate, you need look no further than the tragedy in Texas.

How is it irrelevant to ask for the number of times a high powered rifle has been used in home defense when the major defense of them is people saying they need them for home defense?

It's common sense...

Fact is, most will tell you that you shouldn't use a high powered rifle for home defense. The long barrel makes it difficult to use indoors. Not to mention if you fire it, it goes through walls... which if you have neighbors close by, you could be putting them in danger. The #1 gun in home defense? A pump-action shot gun. The sound of jacking a shell into the chamber is often enough deterrent alone.

I've been trained in doing room clearing, and doing so with a rifle or a shotgun is much more difficult than using a hand gun.

First, there is such a thing as a short barreled AR, sometimes called a carbine. With an easily mountable light, it makes a perfect home defense weapon. Further, it is a simple matter to acquire ammunition designed for indoor home defense situations (low velocity, low flash, quick expansion/fragmentation). I load my own. Lastly, one should NEVER fire any weapon such that the bullet could penetrate a wall. Good lord I hope I never live next to you and your shotgun.

Secondly, effectiveness against a burglar is not a "major defense" in the right to own a common firearm. You said that. The major reason is the 2nd amendment in which you'll find nothing about home defense.

Bull. Most people on this forum say they need it for home defense, and then veil it under the idea that they need it in case the government gets to be too oppressive.

I sure am glad to see how you prove my point about using a rifle for home defense... it takes very particular rifles, with particular ammunition, in order for it to be safe and affective.

 

[leftwinger]

These people were no threat to anyone. Law abiding, taxpaying good decent Citizens.

I wish these shooters would find packs of no-good criminal types and gun them down. For a win-win If they insist on shooting? take out scum, not good. How about a Hollywood party? A NAMBLA meeting? Center for American progress.

 

[leftwinger]

I want a Gun for home defense and if the GOVT starts coming around saying "too many rooms, -we need to house immigrants here"

 

[Asclepias]

What the hell difference does it make if the murder rate is via a firearm or a other means? Dead is dead.

In that regard, there are well over 100 countries with higher murder rates than the US, and all of them have de facto bans on civilian firearm ownership. Hmm...

MORE IMPORTANTLY, you completely overlook the IMMORALITY of seeking to restrict my ability to defend myself and my family.

What kind of fool would purposely give a tactical advantage to people that are simply not going to follow your rules?

Has logic and reason completely evaded you?

Oh lord... again I have to say this. I'm not for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. I'm not for taking away your right to defend your family... but NO ONE needs a ******* military grade rifle to defend their home in the United States.

When that's what the bad guys will have, you bet your ass that's exactly what a homeowner needs.

Again, you are giving thugs and crazies a tactical advantage. That is insane and immoral.

Sounds like a reasonable argument, now please share with me how many home intruders used assault rifles over the last year, couple of years, or decade.

Irrelevant. One prepares for the worst and hopes for the best. I choose to be prepared for any eventuality, including more than one man intent on harm.

If you want examples of where an semi-auto rifle in the hands of a good guy proved tactically appropriate, you need look no further than the tragedy in Texas.

How is it irrelevant to ask for the number of times a high powered rifle has been used in home defense when the major defense of them is people saying they need them for home defense?

It's common sense...

Fact is, most will tell you that you shouldn't use a high powered rifle for home defense. The long barrel makes it difficult to use indoors. Not to mention if you fire it, it goes through walls... which if you have neighbors close by, you could be putting them in danger. The #1 gun in home defense? A pump-action shot gun. The sound of jacking a shell into the chamber is often enough deterrent alone.

I've been trained in doing room clearing, and doing so with a rifle or a shotgun is much more difficult than using a hand gun.

"The sound of jacking a shell into the chamber is often enough deterrent alone."
True. My friends mom experienced a home invasion by some meth heads and they ran like scared bitches when she pumped the shotgun. They were damn lucky she had the safety on or one of them would have died.

 

[Baz Ares]

Thanks down there.

Australian politician trolls US lawmakers with mass shooting stats: Guess when we passed our gun laws? Australian politician trolls US over mass shootings

See more information.
List of massacres in Australia - Wikipedia


Why does Canada not have these ****** MASS shooter Lottery LEAD Games?.

 

[Baz Ares]

After 35 were killed in 1996 Australian mass shooting, the country sprang into action to reform its gun laws How Australian lawmakers responded to the country's deadliest mass shooting