search
top

Best I Can Tell About Texas Shooting

Early reports are often, and usually wrong. But in this case, it would appear that the shooter was a prohibited person, having been convicted by Court Martial for beating his wife and discharged from the military for bad conduct. Does the military report domestic violence convictions under UCMJ to NICS? I mean, they’ve bulk reported soldiers who had a fiduciary guardian for years, regardless of whether or not there was any finding of dangerousness. You’d think reporting wife beaters would be on that list too, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t report.

Death toll was high because the church only had one egress, and all the shooter had to do was control it. I’ve read he was decked out in body armor, but those reports almost always turn out to be bullshit. The shooter used an Ruger AR-15. He was confronted by an armed citizen unfortunately only after he had done the deed, seems like he may have been struck. Shooter fled in his vehicle. Armed citizen got himself a posse together and chased the after shooter like the dog he is. Shooter ended up ditching the car perhaps due to blood less.

Lessons:

  • Churches are juicy targets for whack jobs. Carry in church. Don’t buy this God’s sanctuary of peace shit. Carry in church. Get your friends to carry in church too.
  • Have a plan to deal with an armored opponent. A rifle is a very good plan to deal with an armored opponent, but it’s not practical to have one on you, and you never know when you might come across a whack job who bothered to actually put a plate in. So practice, practice, practice with your pistol. Learning to shoot at a moving target is eye opening.
  • Don’t mess with rural Texans. They will hunt you down like a dog and end you.

 

41 Responses to “Best I Can Tell About Texas Shooting”

  1. Stacey says:

    I found your blog a few months ago, and always come here when things like this happen. Thank you for your accurate reporting.
    My left leaning father has already called me this morning, smugly touting the need to confiscate and destroy all “assault rifles”.

    • Sigivald says:

      “Sure, it’s literally, directly unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent, but who cares about that? I have feelings!”

  2. RAH says:

    The gun control argument is invalid since a good guy with a rifle shot at the bad guy with a rifle Regrettably it was after the bad guy shot all the people and killed about half

  3. Joseph says:

    The Shooter’s Social Media Accounts were all scrubbed within 2 hours of the shooting being reported, but, this appears to be political violence, as called for by a certain leftist group, against the type of victims in the shooting that occurred yesterday.

      • Joseph says:

        Because CNN said so?!

        Sorry dude, but after the Las Vegas shooting, and the way that is was essentially covered up, this one looks like it’s gonna wind up like Vegas.

      • Joseph says:

        The fact that you cited Snopes, a media outlet that was exposed by Julian Assange and Wikileaks as being nothing more than a DNC propaganda outlet, is….not good, let’s just say.

        • Sebastian says:

          You have to be careful with Snopes. They have a bias. But they try to get things right most of the time, and the only evidence I’ve seen that he was an Antifa nut is from a renowned fake news site. No other credible news site is reporting that’s the case.

          I get emotionally that you want to believe it. It would be very satisfying if he was an antifa nut, wouldn’t it? But in this case it doesn’t seem to be true. Though, it’s looking like militant atheist might end up being true.

          • Richard says:

            British media tracked down a bunch of people that knew him. Said he was a militant atheist. May be bullshit since there was also stuff indicating church affiliation. I do wish I trusted the FBI more but that seems like a foolish thing these days.

          • Joseph says:

            “Militant Atheist” does look like the case. The UK Daily Mail has an article linked by DRUDGE depicting him, as said by those who knew him thoroughly, that he was, indeed, a Christian Hater. Also, his ex-wife is mentioned as a Practicing Christian.

            • Ian Argent says:

              Looks more like a domestic disputer gone horrifically wrong.

              • Will says:

                Somewhere it was reported that his in-laws used that church. No further data seen, yet.

              • Richard says:

                DV appears to have been involved but he didn’t have to shoot everybody in the congregation to act out his sick revenge on the family. That argues for the atheist theory.

  4. Nick L. says:

    “Have a plan to deal with an armored opponent.”

    A good piece of advice from Clint Smith that could be helpful in some situations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE9qooFUqsk

  5. Miles says:

    While a Dishonorable Discharge is automatically a disabler for gun possession, a Bad Conduct Discharge, even by sentence of a General Court Martial isn’t.
    This is where sentence to confinement and actual charge and specification comes into play

    His confinement was only 12 months, not more than 365 days as is required by Federal Law to be disabling.
    Also, his conviction was ‘assault’ not domestic violence.

    The Convening Authority for the Court Martial reduced the Dishonorable Discharge to a Bad Conduct and confirmed the confinement etc.

    The shooter buying the rifle may not have ‘lied’ on the 4473 and for sure the NICS system didn’t have him entered as a prohibited person.

    Problematic deal by from the General that should have been different? Sure, but that’s how the law plays out.

    • Joe_in_Pitt says:

      Actually, I believe the way it works is not the amount of time you were jailed/confined, but what the maximum sentence carries for the crime. I thought I read somewhere last night that despite the 12 month confinement, the assault of a child charge carried a 24 month sentence, which should have rendered him a prohibited person.

      • Miles says:

        Could be.
        My UCMJ knowledge is several years out of date now that it no longer is of personal concern to me. But I do know that everything hinges on the Charge and Specification. Uncle will need to be forthcoming with the specifics of the Court Martial proceedings.

        But still, if your belief is accurate, the NICS check didn’t come back ‘Deny’, so that’s something that may also need to be looked into.

      • ParatrooperJJ says:

        This is correct.

    • Sebastian says:

      It would be Lautenberg that would be the disqualified, not the bad conduct discharge. Lautenberg says “any court.”

  6. aerodawg says:

    One of my defensive pistol instructors teaches groin/pelvis shots if COM has no effect due to body armor, drugs or whatever. The spinal cord separates into a relatively loose bundle of nerves called the cauda equina at the base of the spine/top of the pelvis, distributing signals to the lower half of your body. A hit to this bundle will at least temporarily disrupt the nerve signals which will cause the target to hit the floor. Your legs basically go rag doll with a hit to those nerves.

  7. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    What I’m waiting to hear is if the Church was a 30.06 place.

    Its also amazing that a good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. It would be better if they could have stopped him sooner.

  8. Ian Argent says:

    I am given to understand, via a USAF lawyer, that the USAF reports Lautenberg disabilities to NICS, by his own experiences.

    What I haven’t been able to find out is if the disability for sentence time is a year or more, or more than a year.

    • Zermoid says:

      I’m pretty sure the Federal Laws say “if the sentence Could have been more than a year” not what was actually given.
      Been a while since I had an FFL and tried to keep up with the laws, so it might have been changed by now.

      • Ian Argent says:

        All my gun cultural osmosis and light research on the topic says it’s the potential sentence that governs, not the actual sentence. What I don’t know is: whether it’s “more than a year” vs “a year of more,” and whether he was sentenced to the max time for the charges. That may have come out by now.

    • Bitter says:

      The lawyer is probably noting that they have orders to report convictions. The Air Force has now come out and admitted they never forwarded either of the two convictions he pled guilty to on to the FBI. Having a rule to do it and actually doing it are two totally different things.

  9. Brad says:

    Four firearm purchases in two different States in two different gunstores over a period of four years.

    This seems more and more like a massive failure of the national background check system. Either the USAF or the FBI screwed up in a colossal way.

    • Bitter says:

      The Air Force admitted at the end of the day that they never sent his conviction information to the FBI as they were directed to do so.

      Now the question is how big is this problem?

      I mean this guy pled guilty to beating his stepson in a way to cause a major skull fracture and then beat his wife who tried to protect the baby, and somehow the military thinks it’s okay to not send this type of conviction on? They were apparently two different convictions and he was facing 5+ years just for beating his stepson. There were multiple disqualifiers here, yet they kept it quiet.

      • Brad says:

        I think this USAF problem is just a symptom of how unserious the entire background check system is.

        If the background checking system was taken seriously, not only would the records supporting it be vigorously updated, but violators exposed by failed background checks would be vigorously prosecuted.

        But then we can see from places like Colorado and California, that the real goal of the background check system is not to prevent crime. The real purpose is to punish and harass the American gun-culture.

  10. Brad says:

    As more information floods out about this crime, the details don’t appear to aid the anti-gun narrative but are sure to inflame the anti-gun demagogues anyway.

    Which in a coldly calculated political sense, is the exact worst outcome for the anti-gun crusaders. They won’t succeed in passing anti-gun legislation anywhere except perhaps some anti-gun States. But the gun-cultures reaction to the anti-gun press is likely to increase firearm sales everywhere and hurt the election of anti-gun politicians in purple States.

  11. Steve says:

    Update: NYTimes reporting that the Air Forced mistakenly didn’t report his disqualifying DV issues to the NICS DB. That’s why he was able to buy even though he was a technically a prohibited person.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html

  12. Padre says:

    Yes, carry in church. If the memebrs of the clergy specifically prohibit you, find another church. And then help make a plan for what happens in the case of an emergency, whether it’s an act of violence or, more likely, a medical emergency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top