Wasn't sure where to put this

https://abc13.com/houston-crime-possible-mass-shooting-galleria-sergeant-thwarted-shootings/12054469/

I wonder if he can still legally own a gun in Texas.  

8 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Wasn't sure where to put this

https://abc13.com/houston-crime-possible-mass-shooting-galleria-sergeant-thwarted-shootings/12054469/

"Once under arrest, police took inventory of what he carried. Besides the rifle and Bible, they also found 120 rounds of ammunition and a handgun. However, since Herrera didn't actually shoot anyone, he did not commit a felony offense under Texas law."

Dude brought a rifle, 120 rounds, ballistic vest, and a bible to children's dance competition and only got 6 months cause the gun never went off. 

What's really insane is the last part. So he has 2 incidents just this year. They need to watch him

Herrera was charged with a misdemeanor for the Galleria incident. Then, on March 18, he showed up at the Houston FBI headquarters asking to meet with the director of the agency. In that incident, he had a gun in the car. However, because no shots were fired and he didn't point the weapon at anyone, he was again just charged with a misdemeanor.

17 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

"Once under arrest, police took inventory of what he carried. Besides the rifle and Bible, they also found 120 rounds of ammunition and a handgun. However, since Herrera didn't actually shoot anyone, he did not commit a felony offense under Texas law."

Dude brought a rifle, 120 rounds, ballistic vest, and a bible to children's dance competition and only got 6 months cause the gun never went off. 

That's why I wonder if he can still legally own a gun.  It doesn't sound like he has ever been charged with a felony.  This guy is a great candidate for why red flag laws should be a thing.

Good guy with gun stops another mass shooting.

On 7/5/2022 at 3:50 PM, DEagle7 said:

My comment is on assault rifles in general.  I just pulled out the AR and Glock as 2 examples for my hypothetical. Confusing wording sorry. We can disagree on what to do about it, but we can at least agree that assault rifles are more deadly than pistols. "They'll just use something else" is only a legitimate grievance if that "something else" is as deadly. 

Virginia Tech shows that to not be the case. any modern firearm/caliber is many times over lethal

now we just had a concealed carrier out here kill a gunman in a mall food court. this was yesterday. 22 year old kid with a carry permit by everything I am seeing reported out here.

17 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

"Once under arrest, police took inventory of what he carried. Besides the rifle and Bible, they also found 120 rounds of ammunition and a handgun. However, since Herrera didn't actually shoot anyone, he did not commit a felony offense under Texas law."

Dude brought a rifle, 120 rounds, ballistic vest, and a bible to children's dance competition and only got 6 months cause the gun never went off. 

Texas will throw a parade for him and the GOV. will invite him over for a celebratory dinner. 

17 hours ago, Eaglesfandan said:

That's why I wonder if he can still legally own a gun.  It doesn't sound like he has ever been charged with a felony.  This guy is a great candidate for why red flag laws should be a thing.

agree but imagine the lawsuits...

to deny an enumerated constitutional right the risks will have to be blatant and obvious. I would say there are for this psycho. there will also have to be sound due process to challenge the flag which will be a colossal mess

10 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Virginia Tech shows that to not be the case. any modern firearm/caliber is many times over lethal

now we just had a concealed carrier out here kill a gunman in a mall food court. this was yesterday. 22 year old kid with a carry permit by everything I am seeing reported out here.

Once again I'm not arguing there aren't exceptions. But if we're talking about relative lethality of pistols vs rifles in a vacuum it isn't really a debate. Pistols are by far the more common cause of shootings overall and yet 8/10 of the deadliest mass shootings in US history involved rifles. There's a pretty simple reason for that. 

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/17/greenwood-park-mall-shooting-indianapolis/65375408007/

A lone man with a long gun killed three people before an armed bystander killed him in the Greenwood Park Mall food court Sunday evening, according to Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison. Two people were injured.

"It appears that he had a rifle with several magazines of ammunition, entered the food court and began shooting," Ison said.

The "good Samaritan" who shot the man with the rifle was a 22-year-old man from Bartholomew County, Indiana, Ison said.

3 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Once again I'm not arguing there aren't exceptions. But if we're talking about relative lethality of pistols vs rifles in a vacuum it isn't really a debate. Pistols are by far the more common cause of shootings overall and yet 8/10 of the deadliest mass shootings in US history involved rifles. There's a pretty simple reason for that. 

Sure its a debate. Range you would have a point but thats rarely a factor. Lethality is a threshold. Doesnt matter how far past you go. They arent extra dead.

2 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2022/07/17/greenwood-park-mall-shooting-indianapolis/65375408007/

A lone man with a long gun killed three people before an armed bystander killed him in the Greenwood Park Mall food court Sunday evening, according to Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison. Two people were injured.

"It appears that he had a rifle with several magazines of ammunition, entered the food court and began shooting," Ison said.

The "good Samaritan" who shot the man with the rifle was a 22-year-old man from Bartholomew County, Indiana, Ison said.

Must not have been an ar15…

19 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Must not have been an ar15…

Police have only released that it was a long gun with several mags

20 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Sure its a debate. Range you would have a point but thats rarely a factor. Lethality is a threshold. Doesnt matter how far past you go. They arent extra dead.

It absolutely is not a debate. Range, rate of fire, caliber, and capacity all contribute to the ability to kill more people quicker in a given scenario.  This really isn't that hard.

Put 2 nutjobs in a crowd, give one a pistol and give another an assault rifle and the vast majority of the time the person with the rifle comes out with the higher kill count. 

RIP to the 3 innocent victims.  that's 3 too many.  

1 hour ago, mr_hunt said:

RIP to the 3 innocent victims.  that's 3 too many.  

Would have been a lot more if there wasn't a good guy with a gun there. 

4 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

It absolutely is not a debate. Range, rate of fire, caliber, and capacity all contribute to the ability to kill more people quicker in a given scenario.  This really isn't that hard.

Put 2 nutjobs in a crowd, give one a pistol and give another an assault rifle and the vast majority of the time the person with the rifle comes out with the higher kill count. 

Nope sorry. All of them are 100% effective basically. Only variable would be capacity

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Nope sorry. All of them are 100% effective basically. Only variable would be capacity

You're really trying to argue that muzzle energy, rate of fire, accuracy, and range have zero effect on how effective a weapon is at killing?  You're really stubborn enough to argue against basic physics? This is a new low for you. 

22 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

You're really trying to argue that muzzle energy, rate of fire, accuracy, and range have zero effect on how effective a weapon is at killing?  You're really stubborn enough to argue against basic physics? This is a new low for you. 

I don't know why you're going back and forth with him. His stance is obviously idiotic. 

13 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I don't know why you're going back and forth with him. His stance is obviously idiotic. 

It's just boggling my mind that I've had to have this argument with 2 separate people in here. Our ability to discuss gun violence has become so dishonest that we can't even recognize that kinetic energy is a thing. 

Maybe the bug scientist didn’t take physics.

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

You're really trying to argue that muzzle energy, rate of fire, accuracy, and range have zero effect on how effective a weapon is at killing?  You're really stubborn enough to argue against basic physics? This is a new low for you. 

Im not the one saying there is no debate with some fake appeal to authority. There is a relevant debate bc its largely emotional nonsense meant to get people against said weapons

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Maybe the bug scientist didn’t take physics.

Going to lecture me on terminal ballistics now, fraud? Think i know a tad more than the faux intellectual community college clown

18 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Im not the one saying there is no debate with some fake appeal to authority. There is a relevant debate bc its largely emotional nonsense meant to get people against said weapons

What "authority" am I appealing to? Physics 101? I'm not the one being emotional here. One weapon is objectively much more effective at killing than the other. Period.

From a statistical, physical and frankly common sense perspective. Pretending otherwise is simply moronic.