Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
Breaking News
posted by takyon on Monday November 06, @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.

Related Stories

Texas Rangers Serve Apple a Warrant for Mass Shooter's iPhone Data 28 comments

The Texas Rangers have served Apple a warrant for iPhone and iCloud data connected to the recent mass shooter Devin Patrick Kelley. However, it is unknown whether Kelley actually used iCloud to store data, and unlikely that Apple will be able or willing to help unlock the iPhone:

Texas Rangers investigating the mass shooting in Sutherland Springs have served a search warrant on Silicon Valley giant Apple Inc. and are seeking digital photos, messages, documents and other types of data that might have been stored by gunman Devin Patrick Kelley, who was found with an iPhone after he killed himself.

Court records obtained by the San Antonio Express-News show Texas Ranger Kevin Wright obtained search warrants on Nov. 9 for files stored on Kelley's iPhone, a second mobile phone found near his body and for files stored in Kelley's iCloud account — Apple's digital archive that can sync iPhone files.

The iCloud feature is an optional service. Obtaining such records, if they exist, directly from Apple could aid authorities investigating the worst mass shooting in modern Texas history. Apple's policy regarding iCloud content states that material may be provided to law enforcement agencies if they obtain search warrants.

In addition, the FBI may have already screwed it up.

Also at Engadget, BGR, and Fast Company.


Original Submission

FBI Bemoans Phone Encryption After Texas Shooting, but Refuses Apple's Help 52 comments

At a press conference, an FBI spokesman blamed industry standard encryption for preventing the agency from accessing the recent Texas mass shooter's locked iPhone. Reuters later reported that the FBI did not try to contact Apple during a 48-hour window in which the shooter's fingerprint may have been able to unlock the phone. Apple said in a statement that after seeing the press conference, the company contacted the FBI itself to offer assistance. Finally, the Washington Post reports (archive) that an FBI official acknowledged Apple's offer but said it did not need the company's assistance:

After the FBI said it was dealing with a phone it couldn't open, Apple reached out to the bureau to learn whether the phone was an iPhone and whether the FBI was seeking assistance. An FBI official responded late Tuesday, saying that it was an iPhone but that the agency was not asking anything of the company at this point. That's because experts at the FBI's lab in Quantico, Va., are trying to determine if there are other methods, such as cloud storage or a linked laptop, that would provide access to the phone's data, these people said. They said that process could take weeks.

If the FBI and Apple had talked to each other in the first two days after the attack, it's possible the device might already be open. That time frame may have been critical because Apple's iPhone "Touch ID" — which uses a fingerprint to unlock the device — stops working after 48 hours. It wasn't immediately clear whether the gunman had activated Touch ID on his phone, but more than 80 percent of iPhone owners do use that feature. If the bureau had consulted the company, Apple engineers would likely have told the bureau to take steps such as putting the dead gunman's finger to the phone to see if doing so would unlock it. It was unclear whether the FBI tried to use the dead man's finger to open the device in the first two days.

In a statement, Apple said: "Our team immediately reached out to the FBI after learning from their press conference on Tuesday that investigators were trying to access a mobile phone. We offered assistance and said we would expedite our response to any legal process they send us."

Also at Engadget.

Related: Apple Lawyer and FBI Director Appear Before Congress
Apple Engineers Discussing Civil Disobedience If Ordered to Unlock IPhone
Senator Dianne Feinstein Claims That the FBI Paid $900,000 to Break Into a Locked iPhone
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor


Original Submission

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.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @02:38AM (72 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @02:38AM (#592776)

    This was a guy who'd gotten a court marshal and dishonorable discharge. He couldn't legally own a gun.

    He was stopped by a law-abiding gun owner with a rifle.

    So he was subject to gun control already, didn't give a damn, and wouldn't have been stopped if gun control applied more widely.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 06, @02:50AM (39 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 06, @02:50AM (#592780)

      I'll take the bait:

      If guns are outlawed, not only will law abiding citizens be unable to get guns, outlaws will also have a much harder time obtaining guns due to their greater scarcity. Citizens carrying guns would be more readily detained based solely on possession of the firearm, and broadscale weapons detection could be deployed anywhere since all citizens are presumed not carrying firearms all the time.

      Like all politically charged issues, all the statistics collected and quoted are slanted to support one side of the argument or the other.

      Since the oft-repeated argument is: "without the citizen's militia, a lone gunman could kill many more people before being stopped..." maybe the citizens' militia should be permitted to arm themselves with non-lethal force. 26 dead isn't making a very good case for the citizens militia's effectiveness, in my book.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:15AM (32 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:15AM (#592789)

        Guns, trucks, bombs, aircraft, poison...

        People kill. It is only natural. You will not succeed in disarming the evil, but you can disarm the good.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06, @03:32AM (18 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @03:32AM (#592800) Journal

          Unfortunately, this is correct. Today was the New York marathon. A guy driving a garbage truck full speed into a crowd of spectators could easily have killed this many people or more, like a guy killed a bunch of people on the west side bike path mere days ago. So what are they going to do, ban all trucks also?

          A person intent on killing a lot of people will find a way. Could even be by flying a plane into the side of a building. Could be by placing explosives inside a pressure cooker.

          Getting rid of guns is an appealing idea because it's simple. But it won't work.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:25AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:25AM (#592842)

            If they ban pressure cookers I am going to give someone botulism.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:27AM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:27AM (#592845)

            > ban trucks

            In a way yes. Vehicular terrorism has only made it clearer that our cities need to be redesigned to serve and protect people, and not sacrifice more lives for slightly faster transport. The vehicle deaths from deliberate malicious acts (and terrorism in general) is dwarfed by the number of deaths we accept simple as part of our way of life. What should be the acceptable death toll? How are we so casual about so many deaths?

            For starters traffic calming measures will force drivers to go slower and do more to block them from certain areas and larger vehicle will very likely be banned except at special deliver times. Vehicle licensing and vehicle hire will likely come under greater scrutiny too.

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06, @04:37AM (1 child)

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @04:37AM (#592852) Journal

              I would dearly love to see all that happen, but brother you gotta concede we're dreamers on that one. After, what, 100 years of indoctrination people are not going to give up fast moving traffic or their cars or home delivery because of vehicular attack. The sheer size of the infrastructure shift argues against it. It's not gonna happen in 4 lifetimes.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:06AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:06AM (#592906)

                Why would they change their way of life in the name of safety? This is just stupid, and the same kind of thing supporters of nonsense like the Patriot Act say.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 06, @04:54AM (5 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @04:54AM (#592863) Journal

              For starters traffic calming measures will force drivers to go slower and do more to block them from certain areas and larger vehicle will very likely be banned except at special deliver times. Vehicle licensing and vehicle hire will likely come under greater scrutiny too.

              This wouldn't have helped in the situation where the perpetrator legally acquired a moving truck/van, took it to an area where the vehicle was banned, and proceeded to run people over.

              • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:10AM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:10AM (#592888)

                took it to an area where the vehicle was banned

                Don't just ban them; make it impossible to get the large powered vehicle where only bicycles|pedestrians are allowed to be.
                Bollards1 [archive.li]
                Bollards [archive.li]
                Bollard3 [godawn.com]
                A nearby city uses that last thing in multiples at intersection corners.
                They're concrete; 4 feet tall and 2 feet across.
                There's about 2 feet of space between them.

                When CalTrans guys are doing roadwork, between the traffic and the workspace they will set up a series of temporary concrete barriers that are 4 feet tall and 20 feet long.

                This stuff is not rocket surgery.
                The fact that cities have designated places as restricted areas and haven't actually done anything to assure that that is what happens speaks to crappy governments and citizens not holding the politicians' feet to the fire.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06, @06:36AM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @06:36AM (#592895) Journal
                  And those are fine when they work and when you have money to pay for them. The problem is now, you have to put in bollards everywhere that trucks can drive, not just the single NYC bike path.

                  The fact that cities have designated places as restricted areas and haven't actually done anything to assure that that is what happens speaks to crappy governments and citizens not holding the politicians' feet to the fire.

                  Crappy governments which might not have the resources to put in all those bollards, let us note.

                  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:50AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:50AM (#592900)

                    Oh, wow! Of course, they are more expensive than the wall! Can't afford them, but can afford a permanent militarized police. And prisons, lots of them.

                    Some priorities...

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06, @07:20AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @07:20AM (#592915) Journal

                      Oh, wow! Of course, they are more expensive than the wall! Can't afford them, but can afford a permanent militarized police. And prisons, lots of them.

                      Funny how you don't realize how true those words are. There's no end to the places that will need bollards (and beefier bollards). And of course, when they don't work perfectly, then you'll need the permanent militarized police and prisons to deal with the anti-bollard terrorists.

                      Some priorities...

                      Back at you.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:33PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:33PM (#593225)

                  This stuff is not rocket surgery.

                  I believe the correct term you are looking for is "brain science."

          • (Score: 2) by Snow on Monday November 06, @04:31PM (5 children)

            by Snow (1601) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @04:31PM (#593149) Journal

            Will banning guns completely eliminate gun violence? No, but it would greatly reduce it.

            The USA has nearly 10x the gun homicide rate when compared to Canada (and Canada doesn't have a gun ban, just restrictions):

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate [wikipedia.org]

            • (Score: 2) by aclarke on Monday November 06, @07:49PM (2 children)

              by aclarke (2049) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @07:49PM (#593271) Homepage

              I just pulled some numbers on this before reading your comment, I was curious about this too.

              US / Canada / multipler
              People: 323.1M / 36.29M / 8.9x
              Firearm murders: 11k / 158 / 70x
              Guns per 100 people: 101 / 30.8 / 3.28x
              Total guns: 326M / 11,200 / 29.2x
              Guns per murder: 29,700 / 70,700 / .419x

              So there you have it. Canadians have a little more than twice as many guns per firearm-related murder. Maybe banning guns more will help, but it seems like dealing with societal and cultural issues will help more.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Snow on Monday November 06, @08:21PM (1 child)

                by Snow (1601) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @08:21PM (#593285) Journal

                Definitely. I'm not a gun owner, so I could be wrong, but I think that most Canadians look at a gun as a tool, where a lot of Americans look at them as penis extenders.

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by Crash on Monday November 06, @11:04PM

                  by Crash (1335) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @11:04PM (#593348)

                  Most guns in Atlantic Canada are hunting rifles. People don't walk around with them; they are rarely even loaded. In 35 years the only handguns I've seen (in person) were in use by the RCMP or City Police.

                  I've never even heard anyone in Canada even talk about "Canadian gun rights", beyond a brief kerfuffle (decades ago) when registration of all owned firearms was required - which was deemed to be more of a govt tax overreach than anything else.

                  The firearm phenomenon in the US is beyond most any other first world countries' reckoning.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @10:40PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @10:40PM (#593337)

              >"The USA has nearly 10x the gun homicide rate when compared to Canada"

              But what is the comparative rate of homicidal psychopaths? You can't draw a conclusion without that information.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 07, @12:28AM

              by urza9814 (3954) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 07, @12:28AM (#593362) Journal

              Will banning guns completely eliminate gun violence? No, but it would greatly reduce it.

              The USA has nearly 10x the gun homicide rate when compared to Canada (and Canada doesn't have a gun ban, just restrictions):

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]

              Unless you think knife attacks or vehicular homicide are totally acceptable, you should probably be looking at OVERALL homicide rate. Less guns = less gun violence is practically a tautology. If it was your only goal you could probably reduce gun deaths greatly by freely distributing high explosives, but most people wouldn't consider that to be an improvement...

              I'll also note that Canada also has things like universal healthcare and better social services in general, which tend to make people less desperate. Better mental health and less desperation means less suicide (which are the VAST majority of gun deaths) and also less crime in general. Maybe try comparing to China next time, in this context they *might* be more similar politically... :)

              More seriously though...compare these three maps:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country [wikipedia.org]
              https://assets.weforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/1511B11-global-inequality-work-map-GINI.png [weforum.org]

              None of them line up perfectly...but it looks to me like the GINI index is a better predictor of overall violent crime than rates of gun ownership.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by evilcam on Tuesday November 07, @02:26AM

            by evilcam (3239) on Tuesday November 07, @02:26AM (#593417)

            Except literally everywhere else it's been tried, where it did work.

            You Yanks have had about 75% of a 9/11 so far this year in mass shootings - that's just the mass shootings (you have about 1 a day, btw). Include everyone else that was shot and killed this year and you've had over 13,000.
            Like I don't care if you don't want to change your laws, but stop pretending that there isn't a relationship between number of guns and number of people killed by guns because you just sound like a fool.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 07, @04:23AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 07, @04:23AM (#593465)

            Nothing will solve it altogether, but handguns are basically good for killing and intimidation, and intimidation doesn't really work (in the big picture.) Sure, some nut flew his Cessna into the IRS building in Tampa, I don't think he actually killed anyone besides himself. The IRA has been demonstrating urban bombing for decades, but they're usually pretty limited - Oklahoma city was impressive, but that level of commitment doesn't seem to repeat nearly as often.

            And, besides, 26 at a whack makes national news, but handguns kill 26 people every 5.5 hours 24-7-365 in the USA. Intentional killing with bombs, planes, cars, etc. happens, but at a much lower rate.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Monday November 06, @09:42AM (11 children)

          by ledow (5567) on Monday November 06, @09:42AM (#592955) Homepage

          To quote a Colin Mochrie tweet:

          Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So stop giving people guns.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @02:44PM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @02:44PM (#593056)

            You are never going to get rid of the guns. If you try the only ones who will give them up are the honest law-abiding citizens, leaving just the criminals to have them. In this latest attack the attacker targeted what until recently was a gun-free zone, a church. Somewhere where he knew there was little chance anyone there would be able to defend themselves. He killed 27 people, then when fleeing was engaged outside (not a gun-free zone) by a legal gun owning citizen, who very much likely stopped him from taking more lives.

            While guns are not specifically banned outright in churches anymore in Texas unless a 30.06/30.07 sign is posted, it's not generally known that this law changed recently, so it's highly unlikely many would have known they could carry in a church anyway. It's not clear if any sign was posted or not.

            So in this situation, in a place where guns are unlikely to be held by citizens, 27 died. Once the bad guy moved to a place where you can legally carry and there are plenty of citizens who do, he was stopped without taking more lives.

            This doesn't even consider the fact that this guy was dishonorably discharged from the military and could not legally purchase a gun in the first place. He was already under the restrictions of gun control so committed fraud to obtain it. So what what he did was already illegal, which was even before he committed murder, which is also already illegal. Gun control didn't stop him. The law didn't stop him. He didn't care. Further gun control is only going to affect those that care about the law. So why are we trying to ban guns again?

            • (Score: 5, Informative) by ledow on Monday November 06, @03:27PM (9 children)

              by ledow (5567) on Monday November 06, @03:27PM (#593095) Homepage

              That's more people than have been killed by guns than in the whole of the UK this year. In one incident.

              Stop your bullshit "if only EVERYONE had had a gun" justification because, as with the counter-argument "if nobody had a gun, everyone would have died", it doesn't hold water when you look at any statistic. Not one of those people with a gun "stopped" the 27 deaths, which is some 20-something more than other countries have experienced in a single gun-related incident this year (or even in recent memory).

              Literally, the US has a multiple-homicide-by-gun incident for every day of the year. In other countries, such things are news items they are so rare.

              The key is "restrict easy access to guns". And when you do that, spotting the people buying guns, carrying guns, selling guns, etc. is made much easier as they can't sell them on / be stolen by people, or obtained legitimately. Not one idiot on the planet suggests you'll be crime-free overnight, what we're suggesting is that you'll start feeling the difference almost instantly and it will continue to serve you well.

              As a counter-argument, the PREVIOUS incident (only a few weeks ago?) with the guy in the hotel? The guy bought all his guns legitimately and not one person in a crowd of thousands, nor a team of hotel security, nor any hotel guests, nor any member of the SWAT teams etc. was able to fire a single shot back in reply. But if the gun-vendor had been able to say "What the hell do you want all these for?" and refuse custom, he wouldn't have had anything to shoot.

              Sure, he "could have" gone to the black market. But that very act is illegal and arrestable, and therefore much more risky to try and plan in advance, before you even start. He could be arrested for even TRYING to obtain weapons that way, even with your current laws. However, he didn't even need to. He could walk into a shop and buy them and ship them around the country without any hindrance whatsoever.

              If you make things THAT easy, you've got to live with the consequences. Which are that a random stranger might gun down one gunman (you hope, how do you know it was actually the gunman anyway, if you're just a vigilante?) for every 27 / 50 / 100 / 1000 innocents gunned down. Those odds aren't in your favour. Make it more difficult for them to get assault rifles (COMPLETELY illegal in my country, so it's like trying to buy a rocket launcher or a working tank on the black market). And then you limit the damage they can do, and arouse suspicions over EVERY preparatory action, and have them set through any number of honeytraps, etc. before they do things.

              But that a normal guy can just walk into a shop and pop back later for a military assault rifle with a thousand rounds? That's just insane. Seriously, go look at the countries that you can do that in. Warzones, anarchist states, and America. That's it.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:00PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:00PM (#593126)

                "But that very act is illegal and arrestable"

                Murder isn't? Also, this guy was already not allowed to purchase a weapon and only did so by fraud. That's not illegal and arrestable?

                He was already breaking the law long before he stepped into the church. Making it double illegal wouldn't have stopped that.

                And using the UK as a comparison: Lets say we do find an unlikely way to get rid of that many guns. The UK has higher violent crime rates than the US, despite the lower number of guns. You just tried to focus on gun violence, which is ignoring the bigger picture. The criminals there just started preferring knives. They started cracking down on knives and they started throwing acid on people.

                Come on, people are the real problem, not the guns. We need better mental health care, not taking away the rights and safety of people who have done nothing wrong.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:57PM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:57PM (#593161)

                  We need better mental health care, not taking away the rights and safety of people who have done nothing wrong.

                  Somehow, I'm not feeling any safer with all the guns in our communities. I guess YMMV.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:23PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:23PM (#593217)

                    Somehow, I'm not feeling any safer with all the guns in our communities.

                    Perhaps you should take responsibility for your own safety? Maybe go buy one and take a class on how to store, practise, and use it safely?

                    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday November 06, @08:18PM

                      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday November 06, @08:18PM (#593283) Journal

                      You call buying more guns "taking responsibility"??

                      Do you know how many people are accidentally injured or killed by their own firearms? Like, that Idaho mother who was killed by her own gun when her toddler reached into her purse and accidentally fired it? How about the gun instructor who was accidentally killed by a 9 year old girl who couldn't handle the recoil from the automatic weapon he was trying to teach her to use? Yeah, a gun instructor, someone who ought to know better than that, if he wasn't such a gun nut that he thought children should be taught the use of such weapons. That's like putting a kid who's hasn't driven anything beyond a tricycle behind the wheel of a 18 wheeler.

                      If you want the world to be a safer place, you keep dangerous tools out of easy reach. And you tone it down. There is no need to murder someone when disabling them is enough to stop a problem. Nor are guns much use for many scenarios. No gun at that Las Vegas concert could have shot back at the mass murderer. Would've needed a sniper rifle just to get bullets anywhere near the murderer. What if a car goes out of control and heads for a crowd of people? For all you know, the car could be out of control because the driver just had a heart attack and died. Or it could be a mechanical problem. Obviously in those cases, shooting the driver will do nothing to stop the car. Shooting the car is very unlikely to stop it, even if you do manage to hit the tires. If you're especially unlucky, you could make things worse, say by hitting the gas tank and starting a fire. Or, suppose a terrorist plants a bomb hours beforehand? There's no one around to shoot when that bomb goes off. Or, suppose two people are having a heated argument that looks like it's about to get physical. Do you pull out your gun, and what? Threaten to shoot both of them? Tell them to back away slowly? By pulling the gun, you've make the situation much more dangerous. If the police show up about then, they might shoot you first because you're the one waving a gun around. What guns are great at is the cowardly, lethal surprise attack. None of these murderers offered a duel. No take ten paces, turn and shoot kind of stuff. No, they quietly got close, then, surprise! That's not a defensive weapon, that's the perfect tool to commit an impulsive murder. Without guns, it's a whole lot harder for an attacker to do serious damage to lots of people.

                      I rely on the society and law and order to deter murders. Yeah, anyone can be murdered in broad daylight in front of dozens of witnesses, but the murderer is going to have an impossible time getting away with it. If they were hell bent on murder-suicide, nothing, not guns nor the law, was going to stop it anyway.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:33PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:33PM (#593226)

                    We need better mental health care, not taking away the rights and safety of people who have done nothing wrong.

                    Somehow, I'm not feeling any safer with all the guns in our communities. I guess YMMV.

                    I didn't either, so I left the community.

                    Now I live in a very rural area of Canada. There's a (usually loaded) gun in the backseat of nearly every (usually unlocked) pickup or other vehicle. ...and nobody is dropping dead of bullet-related injuries.

                    People are the problem, sure, but the population density, along with the socioeconomic factors of those people has got to be a huge contributing factor. There are simply too many of us, shoved in too small a space. Even small cities aren't fit to live in.

                    Doing what I did isn't an option for everyone. It won't be too many more years before it's not an option for anyone. A world like The Caves of Steel [wikipedia.org] is not a world I'm interested in living in.

                    I don't have an answer to the problem, but I can recognize that it's there.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06, @06:48PM (3 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @06:48PM (#593236) Journal

                While you're busy rollling around all your favorite gun statistics - why don't you cite the statistics for those US cities with the strictest gun control laws.

                Oh - they're pretty much all liberal/democrat cities, aren't they?

                There you go - the laws are ineffective.

                --
                #Hillarygropedme
                • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Monday November 06, @07:22PM (2 children)

                  by ledow (5567) on Monday November 06, @07:22PM (#593262) Homepage

                  Totally baffled, mostly because I'm English so have no idea what your political grouping has to do with a city. London's a fucking big city, though, so thinking it's either of the two major political parties on its own is just... well... ridiculous. And I have absolutely no political interest whatsoever, thanks. Certainly not split down an US-centric geo-political lines, that's for sure.

                  However, I don't need to cite statistics for US cities with the strictest gun control laws.
                  Because they ALL pale in comparison to countries where they are gun control laws. All of them.

                  However, if you like stats: Highest gun deaths per capita:

                  Honduras
                  Venezuela
                  El Salvador
                  Swaziland
                  Guatemala
                  Jamaica
                  Colombia
                  Brazil
                  Panama
                  Uruguay
                  United States
                  ...

                  Some great company you're keeping there.
                  The UK is some pages and pages of countries later, 7th from the bottom.

                  Gun-related deaths per 100k population:
                  US 10.54
                  UK 0.23

                  That's some 40 times more gun-related deaths per person.

                  The UK has 0.06 guns per person on average.
                  The US actually has more than one gun per person on average (112 per 100 people).

                  If you think this isn't correlated, if this is somehow irrelevant, if this is just coincidence, I implore you to think for literally 2.5 seconds about it.

                  Because EVERY COUNTRY that has strict gun control laws has less gun-related deaths, lower murder rates, etc.

                  You literally have a multi-person gun killing every day of the year. Every single day. And your population is barely 5 times our population that has... almost none.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @08:11PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @08:11PM (#593281)

                    In the USA, cities: are run by democrats, are full of violent crime, have strict gun control

                    In the USA, non-city areas: are run by republicans, have very little crime, and have very little gun control

                    Based on this, you might suspect that there could be cause-and-effect relationships. Perhaps gun control causes violence, at least in the USA.

                    Also, if you ignore the cities, the USA is really non-violent. We're similar to the best parts of Europe.

                    Maybe the solution isn't gun control. Maybe the solution is democrat control, or some sort of city control. You could also look at the sorts of people who live in cities, and then decide to not let more of them into the USA.

                    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @11:55PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @11:55PM (#593354)

                      nah you just need your second amendment repealed. the sense of entitlement regarding owning firearms is the root of the problem.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @02:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @02:45PM (#593057)

          One pattern stood out pretty clearly: Lethal violence increased over the course of mammal evolution. While only about 0.3 percent of all mammals die in conflict with members of their own species, that rate is sixfold higher, or about 2 percent, for primates. Early humans likewise should have about a 2 percent rate—and that lines up with evidence of violence in Paleolithic human remains.

          The medieval period was a particular killer, with human-on-human violence responsible for 12 percent of recorded deaths. But for the last century, we’ve been relatively peaceable, killing one another off at a rate of just 1.33 percent worldwide. And in the least violent parts of the world today, we enjoy homicide rates as low as 0.01 percent.

          https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/human-violence-evolution-animals-nature-science/ [nationalgeographic.com]

          Basically, we are a violent family (primates), but lately, we have become much less violent.

          Overall, despite all the news you are hearing, these are pretty peaceful times we are living in. That is why we always hear about violence from far flung places, it is rare (and thus news) and so we have to go further away to find it. Yes, sometimes it happens close, but most of the violence you hear about is in a difference state, or different nation. This is because to get news of violence, they have to go that far. If we were really in a violent time, the news would either be talking about all the killings in your state/city that day, or ignoring it completely as it wasn't "news" anymore.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:22AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:22AM (#592791)

        Some folks in Paris might agree with you, but they are dead.

        But I'm with you, if the police and military give up their guns first. Then I will be 100% behind banning all guns.

        • (Score: -1, Touché) by jmorris on Monday November 06, @03:41AM (3 children)

          by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Monday November 06, @03:41AM (#592806)

          Not even then. Because we would need our guns even more to drive out the invaders who would decide to bust a move. And the gangs.

          Gun control is a stupid concept. We need Democrat control. Discounting the foreign invaders Democrats invite in, look how many of these mass murder incidents are Democrats vs Independents or Republicans. This is low grade civil war. So far my side is generally keeping their powder dry, let us all pray Trump DOJ / FBI can drop a hammer on this situation before this goes hot.

          • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:33AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:33AM (#592893)

            Gun control is a stupid concept

            So stupid that the entire civilized world practices it.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:10AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:10AM (#592910)

              Most of those same "civilized" countries punishment people for things such as hate speech. The mere fact that many/all of so-called "civilized" countries do something does not mean that something is okay. Now, with that said, the US is also an authoritarian country, just in different ways.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:58PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:58PM (#593162)

                The mere fact that many/all of so-called "civilized" countries do something does not mean that something is okay.

                No, it doesn't. But it does give us something to compare results against to decide whether a policy change would make sense. A couple examples:

                * In the case of gun control, those countries that have greater gun control have far, far less gun deaths. Maybe worth looking at?

                * Universal Healtcare, the vast majority of 1st world countries that have this, have cheaper and more effective healthcare. Maybe worth considering, heh?

                I'm sure we can find examples where current US policy look positive as well.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:08PM (#593253)

        no, you would have a civil war the likes of which the world has never seen before.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:55AM (13 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:55AM (#592816)

      He was stopped by a law-abiding gun owner with a rifle.

      We don't know anything about this individual yet. Though he probably is a legal gun owner we really have no idea yet.

      So he was subject to gun control already, didn't give a damn, and wouldn't have been stopped if gun control applied more widely.

      He didn't give a damn, but if background checks were required for private sales and gun shows we as a society may have prevented him from obtaining the semiautomatic riles he used.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:20AM (12 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:20AM (#592875)

        This argument is getting increasingly silly. It's getting to the point that you can fabricate weapons from 3D printing devices. And you can literally make a shotgun out of little more than two pipes. Seriously..

        And all that will happen is people will create new, perhaps even deadlier, ways of killing each other. Poison, explosives, vehicles, sabotage, etc.

        I'm not really a gun person, but the situation in the EU has made me very averse to gun control. The EU has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. And the only result there is that the 'bad guys' are free to kill people without any real concern of retaliation. If it wasn't for the armed 'good guy' in this story it's entirely possible this guy could have murdered every individual in this building and perhaps even expanded his rampage outward. And I imagine that was his plan. He was probably banking on the fact that a town of 600 is unlikely to have a top notch swat team on call. What he didn't count on was an armed citizen that saved one can only imagine how many lives. It's just a shame more people in the church weren't armed.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday November 06, @06:39AM (11 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @06:39AM (#592896)

          And the only result there is that the 'bad guys' are free to kill people without any real concern of retaliation.

          Really? Please feel free to link some statistics showing that EU is less safe a place to live than US, I'm sure the info will shut the mouth of those pesky Europeans. An easy job, I trust.

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:13AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:13AM (#592912)

            They are entirely different cultures, so even showing a lower murder rate in European countries would not be sufficient evidence to prove that gun control is all that effective. The US is fighting a very large-scale war on drugs, for example, so there are too many factors involved here.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 06, @08:20AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @08:20AM (#592924)

              They are entirely different cultures, so even showing a lower murder rate in European countries would not be sufficient evidence to prove that gun control is all that effective.

              If that is what you imply, I will agree with your assertion that, in the eye of a differently cultured European, the USians look like... well.. a bit on the savage side.

              But the question is: will such a statistic show that the AC to which I was replying actually need a gun to feel safer in Europe than in US?
              Refreshing the context, here's what AC was saying;

              The EU has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. And the only result there is that the 'bad guys' are free to kill people without any real concern of retaliation.

          • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday November 06, @07:29AM (6 children)

            by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @07:29AM (#592919)

            Actually, the places in Europe that are less violent are only the ones where there is a far higher concentration of people of the same race and culture. The more diverse it gets, the higher the incidence of acid and knife attacks and the like. This seems to be a very strong correlation, but I know you're not a racist, so there must be some other factor at play, here, right? What do you surmise it could be?

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 06, @07:48AM (1 child)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @07:48AM (#592923)

              Culture. There is nothing about being of Arab extraction per se that predisposes someone to being an acid attacker. There is everything about being a Muslim that does. Yes, i know, Islam is a religion, but it's very tightly integrated with aspects of life most people would refer to as culture.

              Nice try, Link.

              • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday November 06, @06:55PM

                by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @06:55PM (#593241)

                I actually used the word culture in my comment, but said nothing about muslims.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 06, @08:25AM (3 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @08:25AM (#592926)

              Actually, the places in Europe that are less violent are only the ones where there is a far higher concentration of people of the same race and culture.

              Coming from a guy with the 'linkdude64', I was sorta expecting to have at least one link supporting his assertion.
              Really, is an explicit [Citation needed] necessary?

              (bluntly speaking: do you expect me to accept you assertion without a shred of evidence? Because, lacking it, your invitation into surmising is an exercise in futility)

              • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:54PM (#593196)

                Yes he does, cause his preconceptions and personal beliefs are NOT TO BE QUESTIONED!

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Monday November 06, @06:57PM (1 child)

                by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @06:57PM (#593243)

                Do you require a citation that the sky is blue?

                How many truck, acid, and knife attacks did you hear about weekly in Europe before the refugee migration? Or were you born yesterday, and so you haven't ever known a Europe that was free of terrorist bombings and the like?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @10:07PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @10:07PM (#593329)

                  why have high school kids in europe been arrested for riding their bikes up to people they dont like and throwing acid on them and pedaling away? in regards to gangs and girl problems?

                  One 15 year old kid even said it is a lot easier and less stressful than actually knifing or fighting, just throw a cup of acid and run away. they won't be able to chase you. the only real fear is to get caught.

                  they arent even trying to get guns

                  you may be correct in that this was an imported behavior, but like all culture, people appropriate what works for them. and this helps them cause harm more effectively than the old way, of getting in a fight and possibly getting hurt during it as well as arrested. throwing acid has proven to be very effective in causing the most harm to a specific target--and being able to get away with it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:07PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:07PM (#593072)

            The EU was for quite some time mostly homogenous. I used to shudder at that 'homogeneity' which I thought was mostly lazy logic for racists since it mostly just relied on circular logic that assumed itself. However, the rapid and widespread migration within the EU has actually created a solid experiment. And the reality is that as countries like the UK have become more 'diverse', their crime rates have skyrocketed. Through the end of 2015 [telegraph.co.uk] in England/Wales sexual offenses were up 36%, violent crime up 27%, homicide up 14%, etc, etc.. Sweden saw [www.bra.se] overall crime victimization increase 19.5% with sexual offenses skyrocketing up 70% in a single year. The increases in crime seem to be bidirectionally linked to increases in 'diversity.' In other words countries less 'diversity' mapped to less crime as more diversity also mapped to higher crime.

            It's still quite evident that most of anywhere in the EU is safer than most of anywhere in the US, at least in aggregates. But on the other hand that's setting the bar quite low. America, again as an aggregate, is literally the most unsafe place in the developed world. It's like comparing your economic status to the guy under the bridge. By the time that's not an entirely ridiculous comparison, you're long since in some serious trouble.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06, @04:14PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @04:14PM (#593135) Journal

            https://soylentnews.org/~Runaway1956/journal/1674 [soylentnews.org]

            You can start with that. Factor in that the Home Office has changed definitions, and changed the way they do accounting to hide many murders from the statisticians. Also factor in that the UK is one of the better parts of the EU. Or, rather, Europe. There are hell holes in Europe, just as there are Chicagos in the US. As good or as bad as our own illegal aliens may be, those in Europe are much worse. Most of the US is indeed safer to live in than many parts of Europe. You've been buffaloed if you believe differently.

            --
            #Hillarygropedme
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:02AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:02AM (#592820)

      a guy who'd gotten a court marshal

      And I am lacking toast and intolerant. This sets a very bad president. Time to put a new leash on life. I did not even know that they had Marshals in the Air Force.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 06, @04:16PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @04:16PM (#593137) Journal

        Didn't Bush create an entire division of Air Marshals? *grin*

        --
        #Hillarygropedme
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Monday November 06, @04:36AM (6 children)

      by julian (6003) on Monday November 06, @04:36AM (#592851)

      So what you're saying is, even with our current gun regulations he was still able to get a deadly weapon and we need to make these restrictions even tighter.

      Thanks for signing off on gun control.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:35AM (#592877)

        Thanks to drug control, we have no drug abusers. Tight restrictions saved the day.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:36AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:36AM (#592878)

        Yeah, like we did with drugs! I mean we some brutal drug laws and have even sentenced nonviolent offenders to life imprisonment, have spent trillions of dollars tacking them down, and also have the largest per capita imprisonment rate in the entire world almost entirely due to nonviolent drug offense. All that's kind of bad.. but the drugs are gone, right.. right? ....

        Yeah, drugs aren't guns. It's harder to ban a weed than a weapon (though many of the drugs consumed today require extensive expertise and chemical knowledge to prepare) but ultimately you're unlikely to ever be able to ban guns in the US. There are already more guns than people. If you somehow magically managed to confiscate all of them they still regularly funnel in from our borders. And even if you managed to stop that it's increasingly simple to literally build a gun. And then even if you decide to ban all 3D printing, all access to knowledge of metalsmithing, and so on (because these are totally reasonable things to do...) then people would just jump in a car and kill people that way. Or blow them up with explosives. Or poison them. Or any of a million different possibilities.

        Ultimately the increase in apparent violence in the US is not being driven by anything other than a breakdown of mental health and increasing radicalism on all sides. The one thing that's true is that the main way a major act of violence is ended is a 'good guy' putting a bullet in the 'bad guy.' If we had even harsher gun control it's entirely possible this rampage could have been much much worse. He had ballistic armor and was carrying out this massacre in a town of 600. Had it not been for the armed civilian, it's entirely possible he could have entirely wiped out every individual in that church and then continued outward before special forces finally arrived.

      • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday November 06, @05:36AM

        by t-3 (4907) on Monday November 06, @05:36AM (#592879) Journal

        Has drug prohibition, or the earlier prohibition of alcohol taught you nothing? The more you attempt to control goods with the law, the more you promote the growth of black markets and illegal activity. I'm a felon, if I wanted to go buy a gun, it would be very easy to do so illegally, and that WILL NOT CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. As long as guns (or weapons in general) are made in the world, there will a market for them and people willing to pay any price to get them. Moreover, at this point in time, with the advent of cheap CNC machines, controlling the manufacture and distribution of firearms is impossible. If you want people to stop shooting people, keep wishing, it will never happen. Society, culture, and instinct promote violence, whether the motives are social, political, racial, gang, money, control, etc. We certainly could do better though. Stop promoting violence as a solution, stop promoting the capacity to inflict violence as a necessity, stop basing the construction of society upon violence, teach people to be self-aware and recognize and control their animal urges. This will never happen though.

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday November 06, @09:42AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 06, @09:42AM (#592954) Journal
        Restrictions on gun ownership are increasingly becoming like restrictions on encryption. Britain managed to phase out gun ownership about a hundred years ago, and it worked well because the equipment needed by a gunsmith was expensive and easy to track. If you made an unregistered gun and it was used in a crime, you had some legal liability. Gun smuggling was still an issue, but gun ownership among criminals didn't take off (guns were expensive before then, and the most common firearm anyone owned was their old service revolver from the first world war). Now, a typical Makerspace has the equipment required to mill a rifled barrel and the costs of this equipment will only drop from here. How do you regulate gun ownership in a world where a $1000 fabricator, found in most middle-class homes, can build all of the parts for one from blueprints on the Internet?
        --
        sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Monday November 06, @11:10AM (4 children)

      by jimshatt (978) on Monday November 06, @11:10AM (#592977) Journal

      He was stopped...

      But he really wasn't. It was only after the attack that he was killed by a citizen (presumably), so can we at least agree that gun ownership doesn't prevent mass shootings?

      BTW, he took the term 'mass' shooting pretty literal.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:05PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:05PM (#593070)

        Hard to say in this case because until last year it was illegal to carry in a church at all in Texas. Now it's only restricted if a 30.06/30.07 sign is posted, and I would argue still unknown and/or highly discouraged. There is a reason curches, schools, military bases and government buildings are targeted often as they are all soft targets. If it was commonplace to carry in a church I would argue that they wouldn't be targeted nearly as often.

        • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday November 07, @12:15PM (2 children)

          by jimshatt (978) on Tuesday November 07, @12:15PM (#593613) Journal
          Or you could argue that, if it were commonplace to carry in a church, you'd have to trust *all* churchgoers not to start shooting. And since churchgoers already suffer from delusional psychosis, churches full of gunslingers would be even more reason to avoid such places.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07, @10:41PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07, @10:41PM (#593858)

            Your ignorant bias is showing... Everyone has to feel, live and believe exactly as you do. Is that it?

            Also, most of the people I've met who are so anti-gun have never been around one, fired one, or learned about it. I've taught at least three how to shoot. None of them switched completely (or admitted to me at least) in their opinion, but they all did soften their rhetoric quite a bit.

            • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday November 08, @07:59AM

              by jimshatt (978) on Wednesday November 08, @07:59AM (#593984) Journal
              I've fired several guns, and it was awesome. I'm sure I would want to own a gun if I were living in the US because it's just neat! And... that's part of the problem. Wanting to own a deadly weapon because it's so cool isn't a good reason to allow it. Not because I can't handle it, but because it's a statistical certainty that some people can't. A few nutters like this guy is enough for me to be okay with not owning a gun if that means he can't either.

              Of course, you're free to believe whatever you like. Living however you like is already constrained by law and in my opinion 'not being allowed to own a gun' should be one of the constraints. Except maybe in a few cases, like hunting and sports (with extensive background checks and licenses and mandatory membership of a shooting range and so on). But that's just my opinion.
    • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Monday November 06, @11:47AM (1 child)

      by FakeBeldin (3360) on Monday November 06, @11:47AM (#592991) Journal

      This was a guy who'd gotten a court marshal and dishonorable discharge. He couldn't legally own a gun. He was stopped by a law-abiding gun owner with a rifle. So he was subject to gun control already, didn't give a damn, and wouldn't have been stopped if gun control applied more widely.

      So you're saying the system worked as intended? There's no need to fix the system - is that what you're saying?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:34PM (#593227)

        He is. And he's right.

        In The Netherlands, gun ownership is illegal (except for exemptions from the law by the police, to enable antique collectors/hunters/etc).
        Just on today's evening news: a person getting shot in the head at close range AND another person getting permanently paralyzed.
        Of course, when talking about this church shooting, the news tactfully fails to mention the guy's court martial and lack of legal route to obtain firearms (if I am to believe fellow Soylentils)

        So: If gun control worked, how come my country still gets a shooting about once every 2 weeks on the average?

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday November 06, @03:12PM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday November 06, @03:12PM (#593076) Homepage
      > So he was subject to gun control already, didn't give a damn, and wouldn't have been stopped if gun control applied more widely.

      Trooooollllll!!!!!

      Would he have been stopped if gun control had applied more *effectively*?
      --
      I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:43PM (#593270)

        you're an idiot and a fat ass. way to go!

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:04AM (34 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @03:04AM (#592784)

    Here we go, with loads of info:

    https://heavy.com/news/2017/11/devin-kelley-p-sutherland-springs-church-shooter-patrick-kelly/ [heavy.com]

    So he's a Bernie and Antifa fan who shoots up his mother-in-law's church. He seems to be a former churchgoer who went atheist.

    He got 12 months confinement in the Air Force, so a felon already.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday November 06, @03:11AM (9 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @03:11AM (#592788)

      As of now, the "loads on info spell":

      Despite rumors on social media, there is no evidence that he was a member of Antifa or carried out the attack on behalf of the far left group. There is also no evidence he converted to Islam and was a practicing Muslim, as other social media rumors have claimed. Although he liked multiple atheist-related pages on Facebook, it is not known if he considered himself to be an atheist or was simply interested in it. Some doctored photos have circulated on social media, and people identified the wrong people as suspects early on.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday November 06, @03:49AM (8 children)

        by jmorris (4844) Subscriber Badge <jmorrisNO@SPAMbeau.org> on Monday November 06, @03:49AM (#592812)

        Yea, I saw that #fakenews too. This is a problem, especially since the government has adopted a policy of holding a shooter's ID for a couple of hours while they scrub every bit of his online presence they can find, leaving an information vacuum that #fakenews is all too happy to fill up. But the evidence is actually slowly pointing toward him being a SJW and perhaps even Antifa, just wouldn't be prudent to report it yet. As usual the 48 hour rule is wise policy. Or in the case of the Vegas shooter 48 days might not be enough.... or in the case of JFK it was more than 48 years.

        Then there was the massive lulz when 4chan managed to troll the #fakenews boss monster, CNN, into reporting the shooter as Sam Hyde. Long running gag of faking everything as the responsibility of Hyde, they are still slapping themselves on the back for pulling it off.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Monday November 06, @04:12AM

          by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday November 06, @04:12AM (#592830) Journal

          Do we blame CNN for that, or Texas Congressman Vicente Gonzalez who said it on CNN?

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:24AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:24AM (#592840)

          reporting the shooter as Sam Hyde

          But it was him! Otherwise why would he try to hide Sam?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:40AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:40AM (#592881)

          It drives me mad how stuff just gets disappeared when it doesn't fit the narrative.

          FWIW, here is a discussion involving somebody who knew him, and yeah it's Antifa or at least a copycat admirer associate.
          http://archive.is/E5bLZ [archive.is]

          (will that be disappeared too?)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:18AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:18AM (#592890)

            Yeah, right, someone of 4chan says it, so it must be true.
            In the same page:
            How does he have so many virgin characteristics yet is not a virgin?

            was he a numale bugman leftycuck?

            What a stupid fucking question. Beer varies from like 1.5 to 10%

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:36AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:36AM (#592894)

            >Using an anonymous poster on /pol/ as a source

            You are a subhuman.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:53AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:53AM (#592901)

              And you are a 4chan cunt, still wet behind your ears.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:06AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:06AM (#592908)

                Maybe I'll quit showering and bathing so I can be more like you.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @09:25AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @09:25AM (#592945)

                  By all means, do so. The environment doesn't need to sustain scums like us.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06, @03:55AM (23 children)

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @03:55AM (#592817) Journal

      I don't know what his political affiliation was nor do I care. It doesn't make his crime and more or less heinous. I would simply point out he could have killed everyone in the church by blocking all the exits and setting the building on fire. If you're gonna do evil, you'll find a way.

      So maybe we ought to cut the crap and finally tackle the dysfunction underlying all of this. This is all symptomatic of fundamental societal stress that has built so high all the crazies are starting to pop off spontaneously. Do we want to recognize that as the quite serious warning sign it is, or bury our heads in the sand a little while longer until everything can really cut loose into a general bloodbath?

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:09AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:09AM (#592826)

        It will be interesting watching the 2018 riots as a bystander.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06, @04:30AM (1 child)

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @04:30AM (#592846) Journal

          What part of the world do you think will permit you to remain a mere bystander? Certainly not Europe. Not East Asia. The Middle East, perhaps? Venezuela? If you're thinking Canada, lemme just point out that big ships sick down everything near them when they plunge to the bottom.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:31PM (#593151)

            I'm not speaking from the perspective of the nations that existed before N-day. There were plenty of rural areas that were minimally affected by the chaos that started in 2018.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:41AM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @04:41AM (#592856)

        This is all symptomatic of fundamental societal stress that has built so high all the crazies are starting to pop off spontaneously.

        Profits shall not be stopped by a bunch of peons going crazy, you get me?

        Your masters (of political and/or economical nature) want you as dependent on their whim as possible; this runs contrary to letting you feel secure and stress-less.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06, @05:03AM (10 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @05:03AM (#592866) Journal

          I hear you, but is it because they're so unconcerned that they're installing panic rooms and building bunkers and travelling around in armored cars?

          When the French Revolution finally kicked off it didn't matter how armored the aristocracy's chateaus were.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06, @06:40AM (7 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @06:40AM (#592897) Journal

            When the French Revolution finally kicked off it didn't matter how armored the aristocracy's chateaus were.

            Unlike the French Revolution, it wouldn't take weeks of traveling in disguise to flee the country. Hop on a plane and you can be out of the country inside of six hours.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:55AM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @06:55AM (#592902)

              And then what?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06, @07:17AM (5 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @07:17AM (#592914) Journal
                And then you're out of the revolution.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @09:28AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @09:28AM (#592948)

                  So, good riddance, we'll manage easier without them.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06, @03:23PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @03:23PM (#593089) Journal

                    So, good riddance, we'll manage easier without them.

                    Yes, we didn't need that prosperity anyway. There's a reason most people aren't on board with revolution. It's because the revolutionists completely ignore the harm they cause and are perfectly willing to starve the populace (in the process creating more inequality than they attempted to fix) for frivolous ideological reasons.

                • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday November 06, @09:45AM (2 children)

                  by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 06, @09:45AM (#592958) Journal
                  And, more importantly, you have already passed laws / treaties allowing free movement of capital (sorry 'free trade treaties'), and spread enough of your wealth around the world that even if your country implodes you're rich as long as you can get to the plane.
                  --
                  sudo mod me up
                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06, @02:17PM (1 child)

                    by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @02:17PM (#593039) Journal

                    Currencies and markets totally wouldn't crash and erase that wealth immediately. Local warlords and gangsters totally wouldn't take advantage of the collapse of the American superpower to seize all that distributed wealth.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06, @03:25PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @03:25PM (#593092) Journal

                      Currencies and markets totally wouldn't crash and erase that wealth immediately.

                      Indeed. The wealth that couldn't be moved would probably be lost, but not everything outside of the country.

                      Local warlords and gangsters totally wouldn't take advantage of the collapse of the American superpower to seize all that distributed wealth.

                      There are other countries out there in the world.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 06, @06:45AM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @06:45AM (#592898)

            but is it because they're so unconcerned that they're installing panic rooms and building bunkers and travelling around in armored cars?

            That has to be the last incarnation of "pissing down economy" (grin)

            Cause the next step is recruiting a personal army against violent riots - war like, can't speak of economy in the social sense.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06, @02:14PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @02:14PM (#593036) Journal

              I know with an apocalypse breaking out my first thought as a highly paid body guard would be to lay my life down for the rich dude whose electronic bank account in the Caymans will be instantly worthless instead of taking the fancy body armor, weapons, and evac chopper out to rescue and protect my own family.

              I hope when that happens said body guards snap pics of the look on the rich dude's face as they lift off, because it would be the most shared image of all time.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06, @05:07AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @05:07AM (#592868) Journal

        This is all symptomatic of fundamental societal stress that has built so high all the crazies are starting to pop off spontaneously.

        Crazies have been popping off for a long time. Wikipedia mentions US examples going back to the mid-19th century.

        I think societal stress would go down (hint! hint!), if people stopped seeing imaginary trends in one-time events.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday November 06, @02:23PM (1 child)

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @02:23PM (#593044) Journal

          That's another thing, there's never been a time when Americans haven't had a lot of guns. They have always had them. So why are there more of these incidents now when there weren't before? Why aren't there mass shootings every day in Switzerland, where every adult has a military assault rifle in his closet? If prevalence of guns explains shootings like these, then why don't they have them?

          People calling for gun control want the killings to stop. I want them to stop, too. But taking the guns away will not stop the killing. It will only change the method of killing.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 06, @03:17PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @03:17PM (#593084) Journal

            So why are there more of these incidents now when there weren't before?

            More incidents than when? I don't actually see the alleged increase in these incidents. Keep in mind that we have almost 350 million people in the US now.

            Why aren't there mass shootings every day in Switzerland, where every adult has a military assault rifle in his closet?

            There are 40 times as many US residents as there are Swiss (even at the start 377 mass shoots would correspond to 9 mass shootings in Switzerland, thus no daily mass shootings even at US rates per capita). The US is much more diverse and divisive ethnically and doesn't have the common interest that a common culture like the Swiss have (including better relationships between law enforcement and citizens). The war on drugs is more perverse in the US, for example, and that is a big driver of both mass shootings and of mental illness contributing to mass shootings (I'm of the opinion that widespread recreational drug use, both legal and illegal, especially when coupled with binging behavior common in the US, tends to cause more mental illness than it helps).

            And maybe there's less mass shootings in Switzerland because everyone knows that every male adult has a military assault rifle in his closet?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:10AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @05:10AM (#592870)

        Probably not as most, if not all, churches have windows that could be broken in that kind of a situation. It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which the pro-murderers out there will concoct in their attempt to avoid responsibility for their irresponsible stance on the issue.

        The reality is that without access to a firearm of this type that it would have been far, far harder to commit this sort of crime than you're suggesting. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine, proper background checks, actually limiting firearms to weapons that are appropriate for hunting would all have made this crime impossible. Sure, he might have shot a few people, but if he was only able to shoot a half dozen rounds before reloading, that would have given at least some people time to escape.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:21AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:21AM (#592917)

          Pro-murderers? Are people who oppose the NSA's mass surveillance pro-terrorist? Some people believe that freedom is more important than safety. You might not agree with their stance, but that does not mean they are in favor of murder.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @09:32AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @09:32AM (#592950)

            You might not agree with their stance, but that does not mean they are in favor of murder.

            Yeah, I reckon in this case the correct term is "righteous killing" (large trollish grin)

        • (Score: 2) by AssCork on Monday November 06, @06:18PM

          by AssCork (6255) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 06, @06:18PM (#593213) Journal

          I'm not going to call you a troll, but I find it interesting that you speak to these views under the guise of the common good, but wont let your name be tied to them.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, @07:49PM (#593272)

        this is right. we need to be home schooling/neighborhood schooling children and teaching the hell out of them so that they graduate with skills that are useful and are cable of building a future for themselves. these people have no skills(except maybe shooting), no hope and are mentally ill.

(1) 2