Texas shows the country how to minimize the loss of life during a mass shooting attempt. (Warning Graphic Video)

  
By:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  one month ago  •  95 comments

Texas shows the country how to minimize the loss of life during a mass shooting attempt. (Warning Graphic Video)

Texas Senate Bill 535 went into effect on September 1st 2019 allowing for licences carry in places of worship. Joe Biden criticized Governor Abbott for signing the bill calling it irrational. The Bill was introduced after the 2017 Southern Springs Church shooting in New Braunfels that killed 23.

Yesterday tragedy struck in White Settlement Texas at the West Freeway Church of Christ. A lone gunman pulled out a shot gun and opened fire. The loss of life was minimized by the new law as 7 members pulled firearms. The suspect was shot in the head at 25 ft and died on scene. In the video linked below you will see 7 members of the church pull their weapons. 

We cannot eliminate mass shootings with gun free zone policies but this video is a clear example of how the loss of life can be minimized by responsible gun ownership. Hopefully other states will follow suite and allow citizens to take responsibility for their own security. Guns will always be available to those who want to cause the innocent harm. We cannot allow our Government to deprive us of our constitutional right to protect ourselves from these threats. It's time to put an end to the gun free zone as they have become nothing more than hunting grounds for evil. Strap up kids, we have a societal duty to stop these types of shootings.

The video appears to show 7 people responding to the shooter with their firearms..

Warning Graphic Video

Another Impressive shot by the Good guy with the gun. It appears that he made a clean head shot at 25ft.


Article is Locked by Moderator

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
The People's Fish
1  author  The People's Fish    one month ago

Ya gotta love Texas!

 
 
 
Texan1211
2  Texan1211    one month ago

Wait a minute.

This must be fake news.

We have been told and warned of all the shootings that will happen when someone who is armed attempts to stop a mass shooting event.

Surely there must have been at least 3 or 4 victims killed or shot by all that random gunfire, right?

 
 
 
The People's Fish
2.1  author  The People's Fish  replied to  Texan1211 @2    one month ago

Looks like most of the 7 who pulled their firearms followed CHL training to perfection. We do not have to be victims of bad government policy or those who chose to harm innocent.

This is the solution to minimizing loss of life during these horrific events. The police can't arrive on scene quick enough, gun free zones don't work because those who intend to harm ignore them. Prohibitions don't work either, you can buy any and every prohibited item in every city and state in the country.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  The People's Fish @2.1    one month ago

Surely the media is covering up the true number of victims. Someone MUST have been shot by one of the legally-carrying church members who opened fire. At LEAST one or two, right?

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.2  katrix  replied to  The People's Fish @2.1    one month ago
Looks like most of the 7 who pulled their firearms followed CHL training to perfection.

That's the key here - the guy who killed the shooter is a highly trained officer. Much different than letting any yahoo carry without proper training. The church seems to have a great training program for those who act as their security ... this officer apparently helped train a lot of them, which probably explains why they also followed proper procedures and nobody else got shot.

Good work.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @2.1.2    one month ago
That's the key here - the guy who killed the shooter is a highly trained officer.

Don't believe that as a rule.  Police have guns as required tools and often times those are department issued, and their training generally involves learning which end of the barrel the bullet comes out of and then how to shoot a stationary target on a controlled range and not shoot themselves or others on the range.  After their initial training, they generally have to qualify every six or twelve months and between those 'qualification' shoots, they probably don't even bother to clean their weapon much less get range time or practice.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.5  loki12  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.4    one month ago

It sad how accurate your post is, the range master used to love when my wife came in to qualify, and sometimes he would invite her in when he had someone he wanted to teach a lesson too, with the exception of a former Army ranger, who is now a judge, my wife with her little Smith chiefs special, 5 shot, would consistently out score the officers. She actually had proper training and practiced regularly. The police seem to think the uniform made them experts.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
That's the key here - the guy who killed the shooter is a highly trained officer.

Professionally Trained Officers (With an 's used numerous times) have missed perpetrators, even after firing 300 rounds !

This guy was a volunteer member of the church's security team. A "Reserve" Deputy Sheriff in the 80's. A Small Business Owner. 

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.7  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
Don't believe that as a rule.

I think it should be a rule if someone is going to carry. In this guy's case, his training could have made all the difference between more people getting hurt, and not. In my state, any yahoo can carry, without a permit or any training, and I just don't get it.

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.8  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.6    4 weeks ago
This guy was a volunteer member of the church's security team

Right, and he was highly trained. He also helped train other members of the church's security team.

I actually want the training more to keep them from shooting innocent bystanders.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @2.1.8    4 weeks ago
I actually want the training more to keep them from shooting innocent bystanders.

It's not hard !

You look for the guy with the gun, then shoot him/her.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.9    4 weeks ago
'You look for the guy with the gun, then shoot him/her.'

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Unbelievable.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.11  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.10    4 weeks ago
Unbelievable.  

Who would you shoot ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2  WallyW  replied to  Texan1211 @2    one month ago

It only took 6 seconds from first shot to killers death!

 
 
 
The People's Fish
2.2.1  author  The People's Fish  replied to  WallyW @2.2    one month ago

How much government do we need, how much taxes can we pay to get a 6 second response time?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3  KDMichigan    one month ago
Good guy with the gun.

OMG who does that guy think he is being the judge, jury and executioner? maybe the victim he shot was just having a bad day and needed a hug not a bullet to the head...

256

 
 
 
The People's Fish
3.1  author  The People's Fish  replied to  KDMichigan @3    one month ago

Beto could have saved us from this carnage.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  The People's Fish @3.1    one month ago

Last I heard he was busy in Mexico dealing with the cartels...….

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    one month ago

Are you people insane? You can't just start pulling out guns in a crowded place when there's a shooter! The crossfire will kill dozens of civilians. You'll make a bad situation ten times worse. Oh wait . . . 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
4.1  author  The People's Fish  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

Most chose to pick a straight line to the shooter with their firearm in the eyes view in the ready to fire position. 

If you come to Texas you will see people on the rifle range with their handgun. The most impressive shot though still goes to the officer who pulled up on the two Jihadist's at the Draw the Prophet Mohammed contest. They had Ak47's and he pulled out his hand gun with two head shots and put them down.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago
The video appears to show 7 people responding to the shooter with their firearms..

that is acceptable "gun control"

we need more gun control legislation like this.

well, other states do. texas is doing alright

cheers :)

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.1  XDm9mm  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @5    one month ago
that is acceptable "gun control"

As long as they hit what they aim at, yes, that's respectable 'gun control'.

 
 
 
CB
6  CB     one month ago

I agree with the ending in this case. It all worked for the good. However, do be mindful of one thing. I have watched news footage of the church member who got the shooter down. This man's "antics" were suspicious to them from the entrance to the facility; people were on alert.

Still, great job! Precious lives are saved and at the end of day precious lives is what it is all about! I am sad all day for the two victims upon whom the curtain of 2019 and this decade have collected unto itself. New Year's plans will have to be attended to by,. . .another.

 
 
 
Dulay
7  Dulay    one month ago

So even with a 'security team' two people die and it's considered a 'win'. 

Wow. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7    one month ago
So even with a 'security team' two people die and it's considered a 'win'. 

Who do you know that claimed it was a win?

it COULD have been far, far worse had the GOOD guys with guns not been there and acted so quickly and SAFELY.

Somehow I am betting that the survivors all consider it to be a pretty good thing that they are alive today, although I am sure they are mourning for their friends.

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.2  Ronin2  replied to  Dulay @7    4 weeks ago

As compared to the 5 that died due to the hands of a machete wielding nut job at a place of worship w/o armed security in a no gun zone? 

Both are unacceptable losses; but the no gun zone caused greater loss of life.

But that doesn't fit the anti gun mantra.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2    4 weeks ago
As compared to the 5 that died due to the hands of a machete wielding nut job at a place of worship w/o armed security in a no gun zone? 

WTF are you talking about? 

The machete attack occurred at the PRIVATE HOME of a Rabbi, NOT a place of worship.

Your claim that a 'gun free zone caused greater loss of life' is a load of crap. Especially since you can't deny the possibility that gun laws may have denied the assailant a gun of his own...

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2    4 weeks ago

Attempting to reason with this level of anti gun zealotry is a fools errand.    They will never be swayed, not with any logic or reason.   They are only zealots after all.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
7.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @7    4 weeks ago
and it's considered a 'win'

every life not lost is a win.

problem?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.4  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @7    4 weeks ago
So even with a 'security team' two people die

Oh right...….I am sure a big "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" sign would have prevented any loss of life. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.4.1  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @7.4    4 weeks ago
Oh right...….I am sure a big "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" sign would have prevented any loss of life. 

Strawman. 

Fail. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.4.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.4.1    4 weeks ago
Strawman.  Fail. 

Sealioning.

Fail.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.4.3  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @7.4.2    4 weeks ago
Sealioning. Fail.

Wow, 4 people that are clueless about what sealioning is. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.4.4  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @7.4.1    4 weeks ago
Strawman.  Fail. 

Strawman my ass, you want to criticize something that started and was ended in 6 seconds, but offer no solution that would have provided a better outcome, typical liberal.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.4.5  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @7.4.4    4 weeks ago
Strawman my ass,

Where did I make the argument for NO FIREARMS ALLOWED goose? 

Hint: I didn't. Therefore, you attempt to make me reply to that argument is a strawman. 

you want to criticize something that started and was ended in 6 seconds, but offer no solution that would have provided a better outcome, typical liberal.

I did offer a solution elsewhere. I note that YOU did not and have not.

Your comment drips with hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.4.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @7.4.3    4 weeks ago
'Wow, 4 people that are clueless about what sealioning is.' 

Not the only thing many here are clueless about.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.4.7  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @7.4.5    4 weeks ago
I did offer a solution elsewhere.

Of course you did.........

Where did I make the argument for NO FIREARMS ALLOWED goose

WTF are you talking about? Keep talking in circles Dulay.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.4.8  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @7.4.7    4 weeks ago
WTF are you talking about? Keep talking in circles Dulay.

I'm talking about your strawman argument goose:

Oh right...….I am sure a big "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" sign would have prevented any loss of life. 

That was YOU right?

Add deflection to strawman.  

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.4.9  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @7.4.8    3 weeks ago
I did offer a solution elsewhere.

Where is it?

Where did I make the argument for NO FIREARMS ALLOWED

Never said you made the argument, keep up.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.4.10  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @7.4.9    3 weeks ago
Where is it?

Read the thread.

Never said you made the argument, keep up.

More deflection. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.5  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @7    4 weeks ago

He was a homeless drug addict, maybe we should just jail all homeless and all drug addicts......there problem solved.

 
 
 
loki12
7.5.1  loki12  replied to  gooseisgone @7.5    4 weeks ago

Or we can just send Beto and Castro to the homeless camps to confiscate all their guns? And sell it on pay per view.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7    4 weeks ago
So even with a 'security team' two people die and it's considered a 'win'. 

So you are upset that more people didn't die so proglibs could exploit it as a talking point? Is that what it is?

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.1  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @7.6    4 weeks ago
So you are upset that more people didn't die so proglibs could exploit it as a talking point? Is that what it is?

The only thing that could lead you to that assumption is your own bias. 

One would think that a venue that had a 'trained security team' would have confronted that guy before he sat down. It's been reported that his hair and beard looked fake and that he had a duster on. There should have been alarm bells going off big time.

Hell, just stopping the guy at the door and asking him to open his coat could have saved EVERYONE. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
7.6.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @7.6.1    4 weeks ago
One would think that a venue that had a 'trained security team' would have confronted that guy before he sat down. It's been reported that his hair and beard looked fake and that he had a duster on. There should have been alarm bells going off big time. Hell, just stopping the guy at the door and asking him to open his coat could have saved EVERYONE. 

Ah...  the ever present "it's been reported" fact.

Having everyone come into the church naked would have worked even better.  See, we can all make suppositions about stuff.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.6.3  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.6.1    4 weeks ago
Hell, just stopping the guy at the door and asking him to open his coat could have saved EVERYONE. 

Ah yes what ifs sure are great aren't they.

Is this kind of like stop and frisk?

Don't shit yourself, you would be complaining if they had a stop and frisk at the door if a Republican was for it.

 
 
 
CB
7.6.4  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @7.6.3    4 weeks ago

Although I agree with the outcome as it stands and stated so above. The news does report that the security was paying specific attention to this man from the moment he entered the church in his "get up."

Therefore, Dulay's point is valid. And you should be fair enough to admit it is valid. A simple "pat down" would have exposed the hardware floating beneath his clothes.

It did not happen that way, but it does not make it wrong to consider a fake costume as probable cause for search before entering a controlled and watchful environment. Even now, I'd imagine the church leader, staff, and security team are reviewing best practices.

Happy New Year! Let's all do better and keep truth as the apple of our eyes!

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.6.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.6.1    4 weeks ago
Hell, just stopping the guy at the door and asking him to open his coat could have saved EVERYONE.

Maybe we should frisk everyone on their way in? Especially the people who look a little odd? We should assume criminal intent in anyone who looks different from the majority?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.6.6  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.6.4    4 weeks ago
A simple "pat down"

There's nothing simple about a pat down. The experience of New York City should have taught everyone that. We don't assume someone is a dangerous criminal just because they look different. We don't do it as Americans and we don't do it as Christians.

 
 
 
CB
7.6.7  CB   replied to  Tacos! @7.6.6    4 weeks ago

I don't need Christian-plaining things to me. No one mentioned doing anything not legal or beyond the pail. These are extraordinary times in religion-don. The man was plainly displaying some mental trouble by wearing articles of clothing and fake facial hair that should have sparked onlookers to questioned his sincerity for coming to church. After all, they placed him on a silent watchlist during the service. That aside, as you know the church has rooms where people can be pulled aside for talking to and a longer (deeper) look. 

Let's not make this exercise harder than it has to be. After all, had he come in smelling offensive (of alcohol or musk) or muttering incoherently or some such thing=somebody would have kindly taken stock of the man one way or the other.

Lastly, now that "faith" in those attending this specific church has been broken, you can bet best practices will change accordingly.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.6.8  Tacos!  replied to  CB @7.6.7    4 weeks ago

There are lines. That's all I'm trying to remind you of. You want to be offended by that? Close your mind to the idea that you might be overstepping?

You can take a look at a person or even go talk to them. But you start patting people down, you violate their person and their dignity. If you're not interested in the limits of intrusiveness and control, then you open the door to a tyrannical police state.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.9  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.5    4 weeks ago
Maybe we should frisk everyone on their way in? Especially the people who look a little odd? We should assume criminal intent in anyone who looks different from the majority?

If that's what you think is prudent. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.10  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @7.6.3    4 weeks ago
Ah yes what ifs sure are great aren't they.

Is this kind of like stop and frisk?

Don't shit yourself, you would be complaining if they had a stop and frisk at the door if a Republican was for it.

No one need have touched him. Asking the guy to open his coat isn't 'frisking' him. 

Experts are telling houses of worship to either hire security to vet those that enter or at least have parishioners [greeters] vet them.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.6.11  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.6.9    4 weeks ago

No, it's what I am suggesting your line of reasoning leads to. I am asking you if that's what you think is the proper course of action.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.12  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.11    4 weeks ago
No, it's what I am suggesting your line of reasoning leads to. I am asking you if that's what you think is the proper course of action.

I already stated what I thought was the proper course of action. You read into it whatever you want. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.6.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.6.12    4 weeks ago

So how do you determine who we are going to ask to open their jacket? Will you stop at jackets? Will people have to empty their pockets? Open their purses for inspection? Are you going to do this to everyone?

 
 
 
CB
7.6.14  CB   replied to  Tacos! @7.6.8    4 weeks ago

Happy New Year, Tacos! No further comment.

 
 
 
CB
7.6.15  CB   replied to  Dulay @7.6.12    4 weeks ago

Happy New Year, Dulay!

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.16  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.13    4 weeks ago
So how do you determine who we are going to ask to open their jacket?

The guy had a duster on Taco's, not a jacket. But ya, a trained security team would ask EVERYONE to open their jacket if is could conceal a gun. Of course, since they are all into open carry, I guess they can't 'discriminate' against the guy in a duster with fake hair and beard AND a handgun...

Although I would suggest they question someone who is carrying multiple magazines....

Will you stop at jackets?

No, I think they should make everyone drop trou. /s

Will people have to empty their pockets?

How big are their pockets? 

Open their purses for inspection?

How big are their purses? 

Are you going to do this to everyone?

Ya, since that law allows open carry of just about anything and CC of handguns, everyone that could be hiding a long gun. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.6.17  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @7.6.16    4 weeks ago

If you saw the actual video, the last person to pull out her weapon, had it in a purse that was apparently too small

and it was a struggle to extract her gun. By the time she was ready the event was over.

Better security would have asked her to put it in a more accessible spot, like her coat pocket.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.18  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @7.6.17    4 weeks ago
Better security would have asked her to put it in a more accessible spot, like her coat pocket.

I prefer a leg holster but I guess that would mess up her outfit. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.6.19  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @7.6.18    4 weeks ago

Mr White who was assigned to keep an eye on the shooter

had a loose jacket over an untucked shirt both of which covered his gun holster and prevented him

ever so slightly from drawing his weapon sooner. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.20  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @7.6.19    4 weeks ago

512

Mine is all black with extra mag pockets. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.6.21  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.6.16    4 weeks ago
The guy had a duster on Taco's, not a jacket.

Oh geez.

But ya, a trained security team would ask EVERYONE to open their jacket if is could conceal a gun.

Any piece of clothing could conceal a gun. They can be tiny.

Although I would suggest they question someone who is carrying multiple magazines....

I guess you’re assuming they’d just be hanging out? Regardless, the guy in the church had a shotgun, so there wouldn’t be magazines.

How big are their pockets? 

Also not useful.

How big are their purses?

Same.

Ya, since that law allows open carry of just about anything and CC of handguns, everyone that could be hiding a long gun. 

So rather than be a welcoming, trusting place inviting people to stream in, you want to take the time to shake down every last person from 4 year olds to grandmas on their way into church.

Do you really not think it’s more efficient - not to mention preserving the theme of the event and the dignity of people - to just have some people ready to respond in case something bad happens?

Is this something you honestly want to discuss seriously or is this just a big joke to you?

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.21    4 weeks ago
They can be tiny.

Oh jeez.

Regardless, the guy in the church had a shotgun, so there wouldn’t be magazines.

Depends on the shotgun. Auto shotguns have magazines Tacos!. 

Also not useful.

So you think that guns are 'tiny' enough to fit into a watch pocket do ya? 

Same.

It wouldn't matter anyway because of the CC law in Texas and none of the 2Aers  would lower themselves to ask to see a CC license. 

'Mame, do you have a license to carry a concealed weapon?' 

Never happen...

So rather than be a welcoming, trusting place inviting people to stream in, you want to take the time to shake down every last person from 4 year olds to grandmas on their way into church.

You forgot that dropping trou part...

Do you really not think it’s more efficient - not to mention preserving the theme of the event and the dignity of people - to just have some people ready to respond in case something bad happens?

One would think that deterrence would be preferable to reaction after the fact...In fact, I'm pretty fucking sure that's why many public buildings have metal detectors and security at the doors rather than stationed throughout the building waiting to react AFTER people are shot. 

Is this something you honestly want to discuss seriously or is this just a big joke to you?

This is me being serious.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.6.23  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.6.22    4 weeks ago
Auto shotguns have magazines

Yes, I’m sure that’s what you were thinking of at the time.

AND a handgun... Although I would suggest they question someone who is carrying multiple magazines...

Mmm hmm. Handgun. Shotgun. What’s the difference, right?

So you think that guns are 'tiny' enough to fit into a watch pocket do ya?

What do you think?

One would think that deterrence would be preferable to reaction after the fact

The possibility of the reaction is a deterrent. Nothing is 100% of course. Lunatics are still crazy.

This is me being serious

That includes dropping trou and watch pockets?

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.24  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.23    4 weeks ago
Yes, I’m sure that’s what you were thinking of at the time.

You're right, I was talking about handgun magazines yet YOU made a false statement about shotguns anyway. 

Didn't you say:

Regardless, the guy in the church had a shotgun, so there wouldn’t be magazines.

Yep, that was YOU. The deflection MO backfired. 

Mmm hmm. Handgun. Shotgun. What’s the difference, right?

I stated what the difference is Tacos!

Ya, since that law allows open carry of just about anything and CC of handguns, everyone that could be hiding a long gun. 

That was ME. 

That's also why your deflection about pockets and purses is just that, deflection. 

What do you think?

I think your comment about 'tiny' guns was a pathetic reach and silly. 

That includes dropping trou and watch pockets?

Yes as it's just as serious as frisking EVERYONE and tiny guns. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.6.25  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.6.24    4 weeks ago

The point is you come at this story with absurd, over-the-top responses, talking about stopping people and searching them, so that you can be critical of the church and the people in there. But you don't have any sensible, workable alternative that's actually superior to what happened in the church. Just nonsense. And then you want to banter back and forth on the details of your nonsense as if any part of it was useful.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.6.26  KDMichigan  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.25    4 weeks ago
And then you want to banter back and forth on the details

256

 
 
 
loki12
7.6.27  loki12  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.25    4 weeks ago

You have to understand, this is a double loss, It spoils a gun control talking point, seems a good guy with a gun does stop a bad guy with a gun, plus they lost a rare democrat voter in Texas, It's a day of morning for many on the left.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.6.28  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.6.25    4 weeks ago
The point is you come at this story with absurd, over-the-top responses, talking about stopping people and searching them, so that you can be critical of the church and the people in there.

The ONLY thing I have been critical of is the 'security team'. 

But you don't have any sensible, workable alternative that's actually superior to what happened in the church. Just nonsense.

IMHO, greeting the guy at the door and asking him to open his coat isn't nonsense and  is superior to allowing him to get all the way into the church with a shotgun under his coat. 

What's YOUR sensible, workable alternative Tacos!? 

 And then you want to banter back and forth on the details of your nonsense as if any part of it was useful.

You asked questions, I answered them. 

Now your just making personal accusations, in short, devolving to your MO. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.7  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7    4 weeks ago
So even with a 'security team' two people die

Yep! Just like even with laws, cops, courts, and jails, people commit evil deeds.

and it's considered a 'win'

Right. Because people with common sense understand that without those measures, the situation would likely have been far worse. We understand that even though we can't make things perfect, it's still worth the effort.

 
 
 
katrix
7.7.1  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7.7    4 weeks ago

Well, if we had decent gun laws, the shooter wouldn't have been allowed to get a gun in the first place. With his history of assault (both with and without firearms) and mental illness, there is no way he should have been able to get a gun. There's no reason why private sellers shouldn't have to do background checks before selling a gun.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.7.2  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @7.7.1    4 weeks ago
Well, if we had decent gun laws, the shooter wouldn't have been allowed to get a gun in the first place.

You have no idea how he got his gun. Very often in cases like these, the shooter has broken the law just acquiring his weapon.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.7.3  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @7.7.2    4 weeks ago

I posted his rap sheet twice.  he was arrested twice previously for having or using a shotgun in  the commission of a crime.

At least in one instance he was charged for possession as if he was a felon.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/12/keith-thomas-kinnunen/

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.7.4  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @7.7.3    4 weeks ago

It wouldn't surprise me if he either stole the gun or got it from someone who knew he was a felon.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8  Sparty On    4 weeks ago

Clean head shot under pressure at 25’?    That’s shit hot, not the target I would recommend aiming at but he pulled it off.

Great job!

 
 
 
Split Personality
8.1  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @8    4 weeks ago

Mr. Wilson operates a local firearms academy south of White Settlement

Jack Wilson, who’s the President of On Target Firearms Academy, and campaigning to be the Precinct 3 Commissioner, was the gunman who shot the Kinnunen. Wilson said on Facebook he didn’t want to “allow evil to succeed.”

https://www.yellowpages.com/fort-worth-tx/mip/on-target-firearms-training-academy-9696014

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @8.1    4 weeks ago

Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night as well ......

 
 
 
loki12
9  loki12    4 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
lib50
10  lib50    4 weeks ago

I'll take my odds in the states with the least gun violence.  Guess who has the worst? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

No part of the country has been spared mass shootings. The 10 deadliest incidents have occurred in Texas, California, Florida, Virginia, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Nevada.

When adjusted for the population size, five of the deadliest 10 states are in the South, and six are among the 10 poorest U.S. states. In all but five states, more than half of all firearm fatalities were suicides.

24/7 Wall St. reviewed data on gun violence by state based on the latest information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tracks the number of gun-related deaths in each state.
 
 
 
XDm9mm
10.1  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @10    4 weeks ago

Is there a point you're trying to make or do you just like listening to yourself?

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.1  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1    4 weeks ago

It's about the need to arm everybody.  Should I break it down more for you?

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  XDm9mm @10.1    4 weeks ago

Looks to me like another attempt to demonize people based on where they live. 

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.3  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.2    4 weeks ago

Facts are hard for Trumpers to process, but don't know how facts demonize anybody.  Care to explain? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @10.1.3    4 weeks ago
don't know how facts demonize anybody.  Care to explain? 

Sure, if you'll hear it.

When you submit facts like "[insert bad thing] happens more in [a certain place]," it implies that there is something about the place and - because this is a government of the people - the people who live there that promotes or permits the bad thing because they are bad people in some way. I see it now and then on this site, particularly when someone feels like boosting their self esteem by shitting on the South.

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.5  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.4    4 weeks ago

I'm beginning to see a problem.  All I did was post a link to states and their gun violence.  AFTER posts bragging about how arming anyone and everyone is a good thing.  I'm not getting how that insults people who live in those states.  If they don't like it, change it, FFS.  Good god, does everybody have a dose of Trump's paranoia?   I never said, nor do I think, everybody that lives in those states are bad.  Please don't read things into my words that aren't there.  And my dads family, which live in a small (unnamed)  town in Georgia, are just as beloved as my Ohio, West Virginia, Texas, Arizona, California...... families.   But it doesn't change their level of gun violence. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @10.1.5    4 weeks ago
All I did was post a link to states and their gun violence.

I think I said this, but I can say it more explicitly. If you post the link, it says you think that information is important. So you’re not “just sayin’” You’re sayin it for a reason.

BTW, You:

Please don't read things into my words that aren't there.

Also you:

AFTER posts bragging about how arming anyone and everyone is a good thing.

You know no one has said arming anyone and everyone is a good thing.

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.7  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.6    4 weeks ago

I was talking about theory that allows almost anybody to carry anywhere, which this seed discusses.  Because there is no other solution that actually deals with keeping weapons out of the hands of people who have nefarious intent.  'Good people with guns' only goes into effect after the violent incident, nothing to stop it from happening in the first place.  The problem is that some people refuse to stop them from starting and their only solutions are after the fact.  If you have a solution for dealing with keeping weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them in the first place, what are they? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @10.1.7    4 weeks ago
Because there is no other solution that actually deals with keeping weapons out of the hands of people who have nefarious intent.

Sure there is, but no system is perfect. This shooter had a significant criminal history and probably shouldn’t have had access to a gun at all - even under Texas law. But, as we have often seen, criminals don’t care about gun control laws.

Good people with guns' only goes into effect after the violent incident, nothing to stop it from happening in the first place. 

That’s true of lots of things. I’m still glad there were good guys with guns in that church, though. I wouldn’t undo that anymore than I’d get rid of cops and courts (which also failed to prevent this).

 
 
 
katrix
10.1.10  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @10.1.4    4 weeks ago
the people who live there that promotes or permits the bad thing because they are bad people in some way

Well, Texans could change their lax gun laws if they wanted to. That doesn't mean they are bad people - but maybe it's time they woke up and did more to keep guns out of the hands of people like this shooter. Just as my state (WV) lets any yahoo carry a gun without a permit, or any special training .. which is just asking for innocent civilians to get caught in the crossfire. This guy had very good training, and I think anyone who carries should be required to have specialized training.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @10.1.10    4 weeks ago
I think anyone who carries should be required to have specialized training

I support training, but Constitutionally, it's a tough thing to compel. Not impossible, though.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @10.1.5    4 weeks ago
'Please don't read things into my words that aren't there.'

That's his MO.

Plus, twisting, twisting, twisting, twisting

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
11  Thrawn 31    4 weeks ago

Armed guards, actual people desegnated as security personnel, stopped another massacre (one of them died). That is great! But how did a mentally disturbed homeless person aquire a firearm to begin with? 

Fuck addressing the actual problem!

 
 
 
katrix
11.1  katrix  replied to  Thrawn 31 @11    4 weeks ago
That is great! But how did a mentally disturbed homeless person aquire a firearm to begin with? 

That's the real question. Why did those two people have to die? The history of assault and mental illness ... but no, we can't require private sellers to run background checks before they sell guns. Better let innocent people keep getting mowed down than cause a minute of inconvenience.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Sparty On
Tacos!
CB
Sunshine
Ronin2
Tessylo
Wishful_thinkin
jungkonservativ111
Save Me Jebus
Dulay





22 visitors