Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday November 06 2017, @02:25AM   Printer-friendly
At Least 26 Dead After Gunman Opens Fire In South Texas Church

Federal authorities are responding to a shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, a small community southeast of San Antonio.

In a press conference Sunday night, an official from the Texas Department of Public Safety described the scene: Around 11:20 am, the suspect, dressed in black, approached the church and began firing an assault rifle. He then entered the church and continued firing.

Gov. Greg Abbott confirmed that at least 26 people were killed. A Texas Department of Public Safety official said the ages of the victims ranged from 5 to 72 years old. The AP reports that the pastor's 14-year-old daughter is among the dead.

The Department of Public Safety confirmed to NPR that at least 20 others were wounded. A DPS official said in the press conference that the gunman was confronted by an armed civilian outside of the church.

The shooter, who was found dead in neighboring Guadalupe County, has been identified as Devin Kelley, 26, a former Air Force member.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:25AM (21 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:25AM (#592795)

    Define "weapons of war". Does that include hob-nailed boots? Dogs? Horses? Sticks? Stones? Shrubbery? Trees?

    We should definitely ban horses. Use for thousands of years in every bloody war.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:34AM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:34AM (#592802)

    We should definitely ban horses. Use for thousands of years in every bloody war.

    Name a use for guns that doesn't involve killing.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:47AM (#592810)

      Target practice! To improve your skills at... Oh... Nevermind...

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:50AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:50AM (#592814)

      15 Olympic shooting competitions [olympic.org]

      Tens of thousands of non-Olympic competitive shooting events every year don't involve killing anything or anybody.

      Next!

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:07AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:07AM (#592823)

        How many of those Olympic events use semiautomatic rifles with 40+ round clips?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:41AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:41AM (#592855)

          None, hence why no one watches them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:51AM (#592815)

      There's a whole bunch:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports#Gun_shooting_sports [wikipedia.org]

      Are you a straw man or are you going to move the goalposts?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:56AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @03:56AM (#592818)

      Killing is reason enough. Some people need killing. Sorry, but this is how it goes. If you break into my grandma's house, she doesn't need to make it a "fair fight" and go at you with her fists.

      But just for fun, here is a non-killing use:

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/03/eagle-eyed-army-sharpshooter-frees-eagle-hanging-upside-down-in-tree.html [foxnews.com]

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/03/army-vet-rescues-bald-eagle-dangling-rope-75-foot-tree-mowing-branches-rifle-daily-mail/ [breitbart.com]

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:05AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:05AM (#592822)

        Fox News AND Breitbart! Well, that settles it, then.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:33AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:33AM (#592848)

          It's also at huffingtonpost but I prefer not to support such a biased site. I'll reconsider if they ever decide to support (or merely tolerate!) President Trump's effort to make America great again.

          Run the huffingtonpost news headlines through something that swaps the words "white" and "black". The result looks like Stormfront or Daily Stormer! This is not acceptable.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06 2017, @04:43AM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday November 06 2017, @04:43AM (#592857) Journal

            I agree huffpo has grown particularly pitiful. I used to read it and Drudge side by side daily to get a walk down both sides of the echo chamber, but nowadays it's a 5 second scan to see if they have posted anything but drivel. BBC and Der Spiegel are the only real news sources anymore. Everything else in the American media are trying to re-litigate the last presidential election.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Monday November 06 2017, @04:45AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @04:45AM (#592858) Journal

            Run the huffingtonpost news headlines through something that swaps the words "white" and "black". The result looks like Stormfront or Daily Stormer! This is not acceptable.

            Indeed, this is plagiarism. No, worse that that, it's a copyright crime!!!

            (grin)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:10AM (#592827)

        We Americans destroy the environment like we're paid by the acre to do it, but saving one (albeit majestic) bird justifies putting semiautomatic weapons in the hands of criminals? Your argument is not convincing.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06 2017, @04:02AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday November 06 2017, @04:02AM (#592821) Journal

      Hunting. Yes, that's killing, smart guy, but not humans. And many families I grew up with in the West relied on their kills for their meat all year. Also, guns are for protection. If you live in rural areas with bears and other large predators, bet you'd feel better knowing you had a way to fend them off. Then there are the human predators you can protect yourself from. People who have been blessed to grow up in gentler urban contexts can scarcely believe this now, but not too long ago many safe places were warzones.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @06:00AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:00AM (#592884) Journal

      Name a use for guns that doesn't involve killing.

      Self-defense. Most applications of guns in self-defense don't involve killing, say, if I scare off an intruder by brandishing a fire arm.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:09AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:09AM (#592825)

    Define "weapons of war".

    Standard issue infantry carbine? You know, the Model 16? The Colt AR-15? A military firearm? The kind of thing that attracts loonies?

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06 2017, @04:24AM (5 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday November 06 2017, @04:24AM (#592839) Journal

      I enjoy shooting assault rifles. At targets at a range. I'm not half bad at it. It's a challenge to hit something that small that far away. Controlling your breathing and weapon handling to choose the right moment takes practice and refinement. Am I a loonie for enjoying the sport of it?

      There's also an element of connecting with history and contemporary events by knowing what it is to fire a gun, to better appreciate all those who took up, and take up, arms to defend our country. Is that crazy, too?

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @04:57AM (#592864)

        2 x yes.
        Next!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:15AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06 2017, @05:15AM (#592872)

        That's not particularly crazy, but it also doesn't necessitate people owning their own firearms or having access to large amounts of ammunition.

        Target practice and hunting are the only legitimate reasons for a civilian to ever use a firearm. Self-defense is a bullshit excuse and rarely works out well. If you're wanting to protect your family, you're better off investing in stronger internal doors and carrying cellphones constantly. Because a firearm is far more likely to kill the owner or a close associate than to be used in self-defense.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @06:17AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @06:17AM (#592889) Journal

          That's not particularly crazy, but it also doesn't necessitate people owning their own firearms or having access to large amounts of ammunition.

          Then who does own those firearms? Leasing them from government? And target practice goes through ammunition quickly. An hour of intense target practice could easily go through as much ammunition as the shooting of the story.

          Self-defense is a bullshit excuse and rarely works out well.

          Apparently, it worked well in the story. And there are studies [cnsnews.com] indicating that firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times a year without significant injury to any party:

          The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

          A "use" doesn't mean shooting someone.

          If you're wanting to protect your family, you're better off investing in stronger internal doors and carrying cellphones constantly. Because a firearm is far more likely to kill the owner or a close associate than to be used in self-defense.

          500,000 to 3 million uses per year is much higher than all deaths from firearms by more than an order of magnitude.

          • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday November 06 2017, @09:52AM (1 child)

            by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 06 2017, @09:52AM (#592960) Journal

            And target practice goes through ammunition quickly. An hour of intense target practice could easily go through as much ammunition as the shooting of the story.

            An hour? It's been quite a few years since I shot regularly, but back then I remember we averaged about one shot every 4-5 seconds with an SA80 (if we were actually aiming to get close to the centre of the head or chest on the target, not rapid firing). Even target shooting with a bolt action rifle where you're aiming to hit a ring in the middle of the target that's about the same size as the bullet at the far end of the range averaged about one shot every 20-30 seconds. At that rate, an hour would be 120-180 shots. TFA doesn't say how many shots were fired, but shooting 120 times and hitting only 26 people is pretty poor, especially for someone with military training.

            --
            sudo mod me up
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06 2017, @03:31PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06 2017, @03:31PM (#593096) Journal
              Ok, so you mention an ammunition rate of 700 rounds per hour (which would be an enormous amount of ammunition for a mass shooting) and then talk it down to 120-180 rounds per hour. Meh. Then you observe that killing 26 people with 120 rounds of ammunition is really bad, though it isn't even for someone with military training (people tend to move and hide unlike stationary targets).

              So what is the point of your post?