Texas Mass Murderer Was Deported THREE Times

That is what I had been asking.

 

So what? Homicides are only a tiny percentage of deaths, from all causes-- does that mean there is no value in trying to limit the number of homicides? There is no logic, to your argument.

LOL-- May I see your, no doubt, copious research, supporting these purported statements of fact?

Wow. Only 2000 lives-- I hadn't realized what a meaningless number of people, we were trying to keep from being killed. But now that you put it that way, I get your point: hardly seems worth the trouble.

If you want to play the comparison game, here's another one: using your guesstimate of 1500 - 2000 lives saved, that would be over half, to more than two-thirds, of the lives lost in the 9-11 attacks (2,977 + 19 hijackers). And, of course, this would be multiplied, every year.

 

Sure, I didn't pull those numbers completely out of nowhere.

Take the number of gun homicides, multiply by 0.14, and then multiply again by 0.4

The 0.14 is because only (at the most) 14% gun homicides were in incidents involving the death of 4 or more victims. The majority in that group of course involve exactly 4 victims. A smaller number of 5 victims, and then it drops off exponentially from there. This is just normal statistical distribution.
So I tried to imagine what would happen if severe gun restrictions (on type of gun) made it more difficult for a murderer to kill multiple people. I think it's reasonable to assume those restrictions would do nothing to prevent him from killing 1 or 2 people, I think you will agree. Probably 3 will be easy and not too difficult. It might save the fourth victim's life.
So I was generous and assumed it might cut the number of deaths by 40% (which explains the 0.4 ).

(We could of course consider incidents involving 6 or more victims, but in the majority of years that is statistically irrelevant, because they are so rare, compared to cumulative death totals from the 4s and 5s)

 

Well thank you for the explanation. I was honestly expecting that you had pulled your figures more or less from thin air, so I will admit that you surprised me, with your calculations; nonetheless, you should have mentioned your method, when you suggested your estimate.

I do think that you have overlooked something, though. To many of these types of killers, the idea of going out in a blaze of glory, greatly appeals to them. But if they don't imagine they will be able to create that much carnage, they might not go through with their attack, at all, upon a business or school, or other crowd of people, as at a club or concert, thinking that they might only kill a couple, before they're taken out. It is the assault style rifle itself, which not only boosts a prospective assaulant's confidence, but which can convey an intoxicating sense of power, to the user.

 

I think there's one important element you're forgetting to consider.

The media loves to splash these incidences all over national media for days and days. ( But usually only if the killer was white and especially if they can imply that he was conservative and most especially so if the victims are considered minorities)

And so now the sick bastards that take the idea take up the idea that they'll get the limelight if they can break the old record.

I truly believe the media inspires copycat killers.

I don't think the gun itself is really all that important.

You can get Glock pistols with double stack magazines and just as easily do the same thing with several magazine changes.

Look what the guy in the bell tower of a Texas university did with a bolt action rifle.

What do you think his magazine size was? Probably five at most as most bolt action rifles certainly don't hold any more than that, if any of them do. I haven't done a bunch of research on both actions but it seems that most of them hold three to five rounds at most

 

The State of Texas can't enforce Federal law.

 

yeah, I know he doesn't know, I don't either which is why I ask questions when someone acts like they know

 

is that what happened, link?

if an employer "knowingly" hires an illegal, it should be a felony - in your example they did not know, thus not a felony

 

agree, never said it did, I just said we need to figure out how he got the gun and address the issue

 

very logical, I can go to another country legally, overstay my visit and at that point I am there illegally - sounds logical to me

 

My example happens all the time. That's why it's senseless to only go after the employer.

 

you only go after the employer if they knowingly hired illegals, which happens all the time and why they come here

 

Other than that, don't worry about enforcing the law?...lol

 

so you don't want to enforce the law on the employers?

the biggest bang for the buck comes from removing the reason they come here.. for the jobs

 

I don't want to ONLY enforce the law for employers. Obviously, you do.

 

never said that, I just said we also have to go after the employers, the ones that bring them here for the jobs

 

You only said go after the employers. Dry up the jobs, you said. You never mentioned any other options.

 

You can try to make it about something else, but when a guy can buy an AR (private sales) and routinely use it for target shooting in his front yard and nothing is done, then it still comes back to lax laws and enforcement. Texans idolize guns, so when people blast away in their front years, no one blinks an eye. In this case the neighbor complained because the guy was doing it at 11PM.

 

that is the most bang for the buck, this is true

so when you catch an illegal, such as in this example, you throw the book at the illegal, and you also investigate the employer - and if they knowingly hired an illegal.... throw the book at them too

 

The ATF should be all over this neighborhood, looking for illegal firearms. Why aren't they?

 

But, the book isn't being thrown at the illegals.

 

when this guy is caught, sure it will be... or do you want him deported again?

 

Because its Texas, and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

People means people, not just citizens.

Ask around. Some people feel very strongly about the 2A being absolute and any attempt to stop illegals, criminals or mentally insane from keeping guns is an attempt to harass law abiding gun owners. Worse, they argue its a BAN

 

Illegal aliens don't have a right to keep and bear arms in The United States. And, I'm referring to the Feds, not state law enforcement. It's the ATF's job to enforce Federal gun laws.

 

he couldn't have unless the dealer committed three or four felonies or serious regulatory offenses