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.
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
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?
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...
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 . . .
that is acceptable "gun control"
we need more gun control legislation like this.
well, other states do. texas is doing alright
cheers
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.
So even with a 'security team' two people die and it's considered a 'win'.
Wow.
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.
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.
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...
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.
every life not lost is a win.
problem?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
If that's what you think is prudent.
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.
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.
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?
Happy New Year, Tacos! No further comment.
Happy New Year, Dulay!
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....
No, I think they should make everyone drop trou. /s
How big are their pockets?
How big are their purses?
Ya, since that law allows open carry of just about anything and CC of handguns, everyone that could be hiding a long gun.
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.
I prefer a leg holster but I guess that would mess up her outfit.
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.
Mine is all black with extra mag pockets.
Oh geez.
Any piece of clothing could conceal a gun. They can be tiny.
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.
Also not useful.
Same.
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?
Oh jeez.
Depends on the shotgun. Auto shotguns have magazines Tacos!.
So you think that guns are 'tiny' enough to fit into a watch pocket do ya?
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...
You forgot that dropping trou part...
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.
This is me being serious.
Yes, I’m sure that’s what you were thinking of at the time.
Mmm hmm. Handgun. Shotgun. What’s the difference, right?
What do you think?
The possibility of the reaction is a deterrent. Nothing is 100% of course. Lunatics are still crazy.
That includes dropping trou and watch pockets?
You're right, I was talking about handgun magazines yet YOU made a false statement about shotguns anyway.
Didn't you say:
Yep, that was YOU. The deflection MO backfired.
I stated what the difference is Tacos!
That was ME.
That's also why your deflection about pockets and purses is just that, deflection.
I think your comment about 'tiny' guns was a pathetic reach and silly.
Yes as it's just as serious as frisking EVERYONE and tiny guns.
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.
The ONLY thing I have been critical of is the 'security team'.
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!?
You asked questions, I answered them.
Now your just making personal accusations, in short, devolving to your MO.
Yep! Just like even with laws, cops, courts, and jails, people commit evil deeds.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It wouldn't surprise me if he either stole the gun or got it from someone who knew he was a felon.
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!
Mr. Wilson operates a local firearms academy south of White Settlement
Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night as well ......
I'll take my odds in the states with the least gun violence. Guess who has the worst?
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!
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.