Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link

That insane group of cult members overpowered a man who was only exercising his right to bear arms and defend himself.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That insane group of cult members overpowered a man who was only exercising his right to bear arms and defend himself.

You have evidence they are democrats? Link me.

Originally posted by Surtur
You have evidence they are democrats? Link me.


lol


I thought Lord Lucien was making a joke about gun-toting Mormons.

These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news.

"Good guy with a gun saves dozens!" sure sounds better for the pro-gun argument than "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards".

I will never understand how people watch this kind of shit unfold and think to themselves, "That's why we need more guns."

As opposed to the people that watch it and think "we need to take away guns from law abiding citizens."

So armed guards did their job? Okay, good; that's their job. It's a same two innocent people had to die first.

Originally posted by Robtard
So armed guards did their job? Okay, good; that's their job. It's a same two innocent people had to die first.

Yes the armed volunteers successfully killed the bad guy thanks to a law passed by the texas governor earlier this year allowing firearms to legally be carried in places of worship.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news.

"Good guy with a gun saves dozens!" sure sounds better for the pro-gun argument than "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards".

Likewise "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards" sounds better for the anti-gun argument than "Good guy with a gun saves dozens". Why is one of those headlines more acceptable than the other?



In this specific case it's not hard to understand seeing this and thinking "we should have more guns".

The reason the body count isn't higher is because the governor of Texas signed a bill allowing people to bring firearms into a place of worship.

So yes, more guns in the hands of responsible citizens would be a good thing.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news.

"Good guy with a gun saves dozens!" sure sounds better for the pro-gun argument than "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards".

I will never understand how people watch this kind of shit unfold and think to themselves, "That's why we need more guns."

An alternative perspective is that gun prohibition never works and only affects people who would obey the law, anyway.

Originally posted by dadudemon
An alternative perspective is that gun prohibition never works and only affects people who would obey the law, anyway.

Remember the church shooting in Texas back in 2017? 26 people died and another 20 were injured. The shooter was stopped by a good guy with a gun, but not one from the church. This was a guy who lived nearby and heard the shots and came running.

Imagine if this law allowing people to carry in places of worship existed in Texas back then and you had armed volunteers in that church? Instead of 26 dead you might have only had a few people dead. Of course any death is tragic, but 2-3 dead is preferable to 26.

For this recent shooting clearly the crazed killer wouldn't have stopped if the law prohibited guns in places of worship. Prohibiting that would have only impacted the responsible law abiding citizens who saved the day.

I can see why some on the left will not like this story. This isn't merely just some good guys with guns who saved the day. This is a direct result of legislation passed by conservatives in Texas.

These were security personal.

Don't get any ideas about taking your gun to church, you're inexperienced and more likely to harm yourself or an innocent, Surt.

Originally posted by Robtard
These were security personal.

Don't get any ideas about taking your gun to church, you're inexperienced and more likely to harm yourself or an innocent, Surt.

I see what you're trying to do but it's not going to work.


From the article:



Disregarding the security personnel responding quickly, 3-4 other people, armed with guns, walked toward the gunman as soon as he was shot. They were also within 1-3 seconds of responding. The security personnel, perhaps, saved 1-2 more lives by their quick response. But armed citizens were very closely behind them, responding to the shooting.

Originally posted by Surtur
Likewise "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards" sounds better for the anti-gun argument than "Good guy with a gun saves dozens". Why is one of those headlines more acceptable than the other?

It's a much more accurate assessment of the situation.


Originally posted by Surtur
In this specific case it's not hard to understand seeing this and thinking "we should have more guns".

The reason the body count isn't higher is because the governor of Texas signed a bill allowing people to bring firearms into a place of worship.

So yes, more guns in the hands of responsible citizens would be a good thing.
The problem there is that loosening up gun control laws also makes guns more accessible to violent criminals, citizens without a prior criminal record with violent intent, and irresponsible gun owners...the very people responsible gun owners and unarmed citizens want more protection from. It just seems like a vicious cycle.

Originally posted by dadudemon
An alternative perspective is that gun prohibition never works and only affects people who would obey the law, anyway.
I know you've posted information about other countries with very strict gun laws before, and have made the argument that while gun crime is low, actual incidents of violence have remained roughly the same.

Were there significant difference in murders per capita than in the US?

Did the introduction of stricter gun laws reduce the overall number of homicides?

Is there a statistic for how many violent gun crimes are committed by people with no prior gun crime offenses?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
It's a much more accurate assessment of the situation.



The problem there is that loosening up gun control laws also makes guns more accessible to violent criminals, citizens without a prior criminal record with violent intent, and irresponsible gun owners...the very people responsible gun owners and otherwise want more protection from. It just seems like a vicious cycle.

What would you suggest to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while leaving law abiding citizens alone?

Originally posted by Silent Master
As opposed to the people that watch it and think "we need to take away guns from law abiding citizens."
Originally posted by Silent Master
What would you suggest to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while leaving law abiding citizens alone?
Dude, I have little patience for your phony objectivity and right-slanted devil's advocate schtick.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I know you've posted information about other countries with very strict gun laws before, and have made the argument that while gun crime is low, actual incidents of violence have remained roughly the same.

Right. In Japan's and Australia's cases, violent crime actually increased as well as their murder rates after their strict gun laws went into effect.

And in some places, violent crime and homicides sharply increased after strict gun laws went into effect.

This should not be used as evidence that guns help keep violent crime down or help reduce murder rates: that's not the case. They are likely to be independent variables, for the most part, or have confounding factors at play that sometimes creates a correlation and sometimes has none. Defensiv Gun Uses (commonly referred to as DGUs in research) may lower both violent crimes and homicides. Jury is still out on that.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Were there significant difference in murders per capita than in the US?

Not sure what your question is but this at least partially addresses your question:

https://i.imgur.com/9ZgDpi0.png

https://i.imgur.com/GdSLs9u.png

https://i.imgur.com/WCXYkP0.png

Part 2 of Chicago's Handgun Ban Data which is important:
https://i.imgur.com/FzZr3UQ.png



Also, I should note that the US doesn't have a homicide problem. We have a black-on-black violence problem. If you compare our white population to, say, all of Germany, we have lower homicide rates than even Germany. This is not something the Media and leftists want to talk about. They LOVE to talk about guns being the problem instead of us having a black culture problem. I'm quite adamant about the black violence problem needing to be addressed. More prison time, harsher sentences, more racist police-policies are NOT the correct answer. None of those help.


Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Did the introduction of stricter gun laws reduce the overall number of homicides?

No, there seems to be a trend of homicides and violent crimes increasing after stricter gun laws go into effect (see above charts).

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Is there a statistic for how many violent gun crimes are committed by people with no prior gun crime offenses?

There is recidivism data but what you're asking, I don't know if it exists. That seems to be a subset of a subset of people. Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders.

The cases where they are not first time offender are crimes of passion or familial disputes. Or gang violence.




Probably the best case of strict gun laws not doing jack is Russia. Much stricter gun laws than the US. MUCH higher homicide rates than the US.

I thought about and compiled a long list of actions I think we should take from a legislative perspective. In that, I included no-nonsense gun regulations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You simply ignored the point I made.

Your point: "IT WASN'T THE GUN HOLDERS THAT STOPPED THE SHOOTER! IT WAS THE ARMED SECURITY!"

My point: "And the congregation was armed as well. They were within 1-3 seconds of also stopping the shooter. Your point is stupid. Calm down."

Well yes, because it wasn't relevant to the point that the shooter was stopped by security guards. I'll explain further below**

My point was the facts, I even copy/pasted from the story to show you. No need to get passively hostile here.

**Your point is overall pointless and a distraction to the point above, as we have no idea what those armed people would have done if there were no security guards and they had to stop the shooter themselves.

Everyone likes to imagine they're the 'hero with a gun' who will stay cool, calm and collected in a gun fight, but you don't know until you get into one. Especially for people who have had zero military and/or close to zero to zero standard weapons training.

Maybe they would have taken out the shooter faster than the guards and less innocents were killed or maybe they would have panicked and even more innocent people were killed. I don't know them personally or their skill level or personalities.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Dude, I have little patience for your phony objectivity and right-slanted devil's advocate schtick.

If you don't have an answer, just say you don't have an answer

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see what you're trying to do but it's not going to work.


From the article:



Disregarding the security personnel responding quickly, 3-4 other people, armed with guns, walked toward the gunman as soon as he was shot. They were also within 1-3 seconds of responding. The security personnel, perhaps, saved 1-2 more lives by their quick response. But armed citizens were very closely behind them, responding to the shooting.

Bingo, but hey they gotta try. Like I said they hate the optics of this. They'd prefer if a white male had gunned down 30 people.

Originally posted by Surtur
Bingo, but hey they gotta try. Like I said they hate the optics of this. They'd prefer if a white male had gunned down 30 people.

Always poisoning the well, Surt. Why?

Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes, because it wasn't relevant to the point that the shooter was stopped by security guards. I'll explain further below**

My point was the facts, I even copy/pasted from the story to show you. No need to get passively hostile here.

**Your point is overall pointless and a distraction to the point above, as we have no idea what those armed people would have done if there were no security guards and they had to stop the shooter themselves.

Everyone likes to imagine they're the 'hero with a gun' who will stay cool, calm and collected in a gun fight, but you don't know until you get into one. Especially for people who have had zero military and/or close to zero to zero standard weapons training.

Maybe they would have taken out the shooter faster than the guards and less innocents were killed or maybe they would have panicked and even more innocent people were killed. I don't know them personally or their skill level or personalities.

That's a lot of typing just to ignore the simple fact that they would have shot him dead within 1-3 seconds of the security guards had the security guards not existed.

The faulty assumption is that no one would have done anything and he would have gone on a killing spree before being stopped by police. I found 0 examples to support your position. I don't even think you're being honest in this conversation, as well. It's just "anti-GOP, anti-Trump" stuff because you see this as another partisan thing to argue about.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
It's a much more accurate assessment of the situation.

What is wrong with mentioning the good guys with the guns?



This law didn't make guns more accessible to violent criminals.

Originally posted by Robtard
Always poisoning the well, Surt. Why?

Nope, that's kinda what you tried by shrugging this off. "They were armed security!". Yep, armed security made possible by a law passed by conservatives.

These were not randomly hired private security, these were members of the church who volunteer to protect their church. This was a "good guys with a gun" story. Nothing you have said thus far negates that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a lot of typing just to ignore the simple fact that they would have shot him dead within 1-3 seconds of the security guards had the security guards not existed.

The faulty assumption is that no one would have done anything and he would have gone on a killing spree before being stopped by police. I found 0 examples to support your position. I don't even think you're being honest in this conversation, as well. It's just "anti-GOP, anti-Trump" stuff because you see this as another partisan thing to argue about.

This is an assumption. They very possibly might have, or one of more of them might have panicked (as not everyone with a gun is a Rambo) and accidentally shot an innocent, causing more confusion among the other armed worshipers. Why I stuck to the facts that the shooter was taken out by security guards, as noted in the story.

No one mentioned anything anti-Trump or anti-GOP, so you're just shit-trolling me again.

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said you had an issue with the law. Your issue is clearly that good guys with guns stopped a shooter.

I'm so sorry this is happening to you.

It's what you're implying if the previous posts.

HurrDuur?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's what you're implying if the previous posts.

Nah.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is an assumption. They very possibly might have, or one of more of them might have panicked (as not everyone with a gun is a Rambo) and accidentally shot an innocent, causing more confusion among the other armed worshipers. Why I stuck to the facts that the shooter was taken out by security guards, as noted in the story.

No one mentioned anything anti-Trump or anti-GOP, so you're just shit-trolling me again.

Found another article.

The "security" personnel were just members of the church.

The members stood up, upholstered their guns, and started bum-rushing the shooter literally 1 second after the shooter opened fire. Four people. Four.

The man who shot the shooter? An old man. Head shot. You can literally see 3 men enter the left side of the video, one man from the right, guns unholstered, aimed at the murderer as they cautiously close in on the shooter.

I won't post the video, you can look that up yourself. But here's a screenshot.

https://i.imgur.com/rwmSqgi.jpg


0/10, do not recommend the video. It's no better than a snuff film, leaves you feeling sick, and I hate it. All because of a stupid internet argument, I watched 3 people get killed.



Will you admit that you're not an honest actor in this conversation and are just posting out of massive cognitive dissonance or will you double-down because it's "cool" to oppose anything you view as "not Democrat"?

^Gaslighting.

Originally posted by Surtur
^Gaslighting.

Originally posted by Robtard
Always poisoning the well, Surt. Why?

Originally posted by Robtard


https://media.tenor.com/images/49ffda7291ef9f28cf52782002b09b61/tenor.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
^Gaslighting.

I don't need to respond: the facts speak for themselves. Any point that doesn't state that the armed congregation stopped the shooting before it got worse, is just stupid. The video clearly shows the church goers stopped the shooting.

I watched 3 people get killed to take a screen shot to prove this point. If anyone else wants to watch the video to also take the screen shot to prove me right, feel free. Debate should be done by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. There's nothing to debate. The armed congregation unholstered their guns, aimed at the shooter, killed him, and carefully approached the downed gunman. All this took place in less than 10 seconds. Armed citizens stopped a shooting before it got MUCH much worse.


This is a legitimate mass shooting stopped before it became a mass shooting. This is a great reason why you should arm and train your populace to safely and properly use guns.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't need to respond: the facts speak for themselves. Any point that doesn't state that the armed congregation stopped the shooting before it got worse, is just stupid. The video clearly shows the church goers stopped the shooting.

I watched 3 people get killed to take a screen shot to prove this point. If anyone else wants to watch the video to also take the screen shot to prove me right, feel free. Debate should be done by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. There's nothing to debate. The armed congregation upholstered their guns, aimed at the shooter, killed him, and carefully approached the downed gunman. All this took place in less than 10 seconds. Armed citizens stopped a shooting before it got MUCH much worse.


This is a legitimate mass shooting stopped before ti become a mass shooting. This is a great reason why you should arm and train your populace to safely and properly use guns.

Bingo. It's so weird that they are almost as triggered over a mass shooting being stopped as they are over actual mass shootings.

Originally posted by Surtur
Bingo. It's so weird that they are almost as triggered over a mass shooting being stopped as they are over actual mass shootings.

Yes, but do you support my gun law regulation policies?

I need some of the ideas fleshed out. What does a hearty conceal carry license requirement look like to you? For instance in my state you gotta pay a couple hundred bucks and do 16 hours of training(a 2 day class, 8 hours each day). Would that be enough? If not, what would?

And what kind of child prevention requirements would you mean?

EDIT: And what would you do when it comes to background checks that we don't do now?

There is recidivism data but what you're asking, I don't know if it exists. That seems to be a subset of a subset of people. Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders. [

Originally posted by Raptor22
Maybe we just shouldnt let stupid people have guns. Is there a way we could do that?

Could do basic IQ test. Might not be a bad idea.

Though this would mean that Trump supporters would lose their guns, I see right through your Liberal/Leftist/Progressive tactics! :0

Originally posted by Robtard
Originally posted by Raptor22
Maybe we just shouldnt let stupid people have guns. Is there a way we could do that?

Could do basic IQ test. Might not be a bad idea.

Though this would mean that Trump supporters would lose their guns, I see right through your Liberal/Leftist/Progressive tactics! :0

It'd be balanced out by lefties losing guns so it's not a very smart progressive tactic(and thus fits in perfectly with progressive tactics)

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news.

"Good guy with a gun saves dozens!" sure sounds better for the pro-gun argument than "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards".

I will never understand how people watch this kind of shit unfold and think to themselves, "That's why we need more guns."

Bad guys will always be able to arm themselves.

The only answer to a gun is a gun.

I will never understand how many people can't seem to grasp that incredibly simple fact.

Surely if we banned all guns the bad guys would give theirs up. I mean if they wouldn't then anyone advocating for the banning of all guns just isn't very bright.

Originally posted by Surtur
Surely if we banned all guns the bad guys would give theirs up. I mean if they wouldn't then anyone advocating for the banning of all guns just isn't very bright. Bad guys wouldn't give them up and you know it, it's simple reverse psychology.


That's why I suggest a federal program aimed at distributing more guns to everyday citizens. A 9mm in every waistband and a shotgun in every car. When everybody else is armed bad guys will reflexively disarm--they're contrarians by definition, after all.

Originally posted by Surtur
I need some of the ideas fleshed out. What does a hearty conceal carry license requirement look like to you?

I've done that in other posts:

Classroom instruction + written and practical exam. Accommodations can be made for the visual or hearing impaired. If you are not intelligent enough to pass this written exam or physically capable enough to pass the practical exam (actually shooting a gun with targets, showing proper safety procedure, etc.), then you should not be allowed to conceal and carry.

Originally posted by Surtur
For instance in my state you gotta pay a couple hundred bucks and do 16 hours of training(a 2 day class, 8 hours each day). Would that be enough? If not, what would?

No. Exams. Both written and practical. Needs more of that.

Originally posted by Surtur
And what kind of child prevention requirements would you mean?

Some states already have these requirements: it's just not federally required.

I'm sure you can think of the answers:

1. Safe, secure, storage of guns, in general.
2. Quick-draw guns, that are loaded (like under your bed or drawer), should be stored in quick access safes or use quick access locks. If you can't be arsed to upkeep your quick access weapons (such as replacing the batteries) and you have children in your home, looks like you're not responsible enough to have guns in your home with children. This would be mostly a passive law. We won't be doing random home inspections like Japan does.
3. Teaching children safe gun use and procedure when they are in kindergarten. They get taught about fires, bad weather, etc. Why not guns? Research shows that teaching them young saves lives. We should teach them more about health and safety stuff, for sure.

Originally posted by Surtur
EDIT: And what would you do when it comes to background checks that we don't do now?

Many states already have hearty background checks. This is simply requiring all states to perform this. Inconsistency is a problem. This is also known as a universal background check. The background check criteria are already outlined in the text I quoted.

With a system that makes background checks super easy, there should be no 2 month waiting periods. I think 3 days is good. I need research to support shorter or longer waiting periods.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bad guys wouldn't give them up and you know it, it's simple reverse psychology.


That's why I suggest a federal program aimed at distributing more guns to everyday citizens. A 9mm in every waistband and a shotgun in every car. When everybody else is armed bad guys will reflexively disarm--they're contrarians by definition, after all.

You joke but...

According to research, violent crime would actually go down but gun-related accidental injury, death, and suicide would go up.

Originally posted by molikotigo
There is recidivism data but what you're asking, I don't know if it exists. That seems to be a subset of a subset of people. Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders.
Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders.

lol


I sound so smart if those words come from another person.


I have bots that love me. WEEEE!

Originally posted by dadudemon
You joke but...

According to research, violent crime would actually go down but gun-related accidental injury, death, and suicide would go up.

Hmm, given violent crime with guns outnumbers suicides, etc. by a lot I'd say...worth it?

Originally posted by Surtur
Hmm, given violent crime with guns outnumbers suicides, etc. by a lot I'd say...worth it?

Let people kill themselves as long as they don't harm others when they do it.

See I find it god damn pathetic the way the media reacts to any good guy with a gun story. They try to destroy the narrative and poison the well. Look at this shit:

Texas shooting isn't as simple as it seems

Imaging being triggered people are happy a shooting was prevented from being more tragic than it could have been. It honestly feels like they'd be happier if the shooter mowed down 20-30 people.

"Are we relegated to finding solace in the fact that only three people died inside of a church in the latest tragedy, and must we seek comfort in the idea that six people felt a need to be armed as they worshiped? Is this really how we live in America? Of course, it's foolish to think Texans weren't already carrying guns into their churches; the gun is what won the West, and often still brings food to the table. But are we heading to a time where one worshiper has to whisper to the next, "Cover me, I'm going up to take communion?"

Wow lol

Originally posted by MOLIKATY
Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders. xender discord omegle ivism data but what you're asking, I don't know if it exists. That seems to be a subset of a subset of people. Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders.

They really do seem to wish these heroes weren't there. Or at the very least they are bothered by their presence.

https://i.imgur.com/p8BbG4n.jpg

The number one response to that tweet(at least when I click it) is a f*cking mic drop that perfectly sums up why this story is leaving certain folk so damn butthurt.

https://i.imgur.com/x3gGRF0.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
You joke but...

According to research, violent crime would actually go down but gun-related accidental injury, death, and suicide would go up. Good That shit is funnier.

Originally posted by Surtur
The number one response to that tweet(at least when I click it) is a f*cking mic drop that perfectly sums up why this story is leaving certain folk so damn butthurt.

https://i.imgur.com/x3gGRF0.jpg

I think it's quite a stretch to say a similar attack in a public place be as controlled as this one.

All of them were part of a group specifically trained for this scenario, they knew the members of the congregation, and were already suspicious of the attacker. Two of the guards were still killed, and it was the most experienced guard that killed the attacker.

Public shootings in which nobody knows each other are much likelier to be chaotic. I think it was just last year that an armed citizen returned fire on a spree killer, and was shot to death by police, of all people.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I think it's quite a stretch to say a similar attack in a public place be as controlled as this one.

All of them were part of a group specifically trained for this scenario, they knew the members of the congregation, and were already suspicious of the attacker. Two of the guards were still killed, and it was the most experienced guard that killed the attacker.

Public shootings in which nobody knows each other are much likelier to be chaotic. I think it was just last year that an armed citizen returned fire on a spree killer, and was shot to death by police, of all people.

Maybe but I think this speaks to the value of having trained armed people in churches, schools, etc.

Cuz let us face it gun attacks just randomly in public aren't what capture our attention usually, right? It's usually a school or church or some place.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I think it's quite a stretch to say a similar attack in a public place be as controlled as this one.

I agree. You won't find a more right-wing, gun-loving, scenario like this one except for a church in the Midwest/Texas. This is a specific scenario that can only happen in one of these churches. Granted, there are literally thousands of them in the conceal carry states all over the Midwest, but you won't see shooters very often try to pull this off in those thousands of churches. They will do the more cowardly thing such as shooting up schools and shopping centers.

You wouldn't have gotten a faster response if he had opened fire in a police station.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
All of them were part of a group specifically trained for this scenario,

Wait a minute...no.

No they weren't. One was. He just happened to be the closest from the video footage that we saw.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
...and were already suspicious of the attacker.

But this does not detract from the scenario, at all. Being suspicious of a shooter doesn't magically make all the people with conceal carry teleport to the site. Nor does it arm everyone. Nor does it train everyone.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Two of the guards were still killed, and it was the most experienced guard that killed the attacker.

They were not guards. They were members of the congregation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. You won't find a more right-wing, gun-loving, scenario like this one except for a church in the Midwest/Texas. This is a specific scenario that can only happen in one of these churches. Granted, there are literally thousands of them in the conceal carry states all over the Midwest, but you won't see shooters very often try to pull this off in those thousands of churches. They will do the more cowardly thing such as shooting up schools and shopping centers.

You wouldn't have gotten a faster response if he had opened fire in a police station.



Wait a minute...no.

No they weren't. One was. He just happened to be the closest from the video footage that we saw.



But this does not detract from the scenario, at all. Being suspicious of a shooter doesn't magically make all the people with conceal carry teleport to the site. Nor does it arm everyone. Nor does it train everyone.



They were not guards. They were members of the congregation.
Yes, they were members of the congregation, but were they not also volunteer guards/armed ushers organized and trained by Jack Wilson (the one who killed the attacker) some time after the last church massacre in Texas?

They may not have had the experience he had (former reserve deputy sheriff and firearms instructor), but they likely had more firearm/armed security training than the average American has, and were specifically on the lookout for anyone who could threaten their congregation.

Regarding my comment about suspicion, they were armed and ready to take action on a suspicious person, two armed ushers were killed until a third and by far the most experienced one of the bunch shot the killer. It all happened very quickly and there was little to no confusion as to whom the threat was coming from. I cannot imagine the same scenario would turn out as relatively under control in a public place full of people without much connection to each other and completely unprepared for such an attack.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/30/us/texas-shooting-hero-jack-wilson/index.html

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Yes, they were members of the congregation, but were they not also volunteer guards/armed ushers organized and trained by Jack Wilson (the one who killed the attacker) some time after the last church massacre in Texas?

No.

The article said 2 people in church security noticed him on the cameras. Those are your volunteer security personnel. They were in a security booth, not seen in the video.


I could volunteer as armed security anywhere, as well. Any church. I'm really really fast with a handgun, too. But I'm nothing special compared to anyone else who goes to the shooting range and does speed shooting and target shooting.

It's super fun: try it.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
They may not have had the experience he had (former reserve deputy sheriff and firearms instructor), but they likely had more firearm/armed security training than the average American has, and were specifically on the lookout for anyone who could threaten their congregation.

Correct. Required for a conceal carry license. Which is why I advocate for no-nonsense conceal carry laws, at the federal level. Within a short period of time (a few months, perhaps), we'd have millions of armed and trained conceal carry people all over the place.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Regarding my comment about suspicion, they were armed and ready to take action on a suspicious person, two armed ushers were killed until a third and by far the most experienced one of the bunch shot the killer. It all happened very quickly and there was little to no confusion as to whom the threat was coming from. I cannot imagine the same scenario would turn out as relatively under control in a public place full of people without much connection to each other and completely unprepared for such an attack.


Watch the video (if you can stomach watching 3 people get killed). Eyes weren't on the suspect until he aggressively approached one of the members of the congregation.

There's no which way to spin this: suspicion doesn't matter and does not work with the narrative you're trying to paint. Notice that 5 others, armed, with aim on the suspect, approach the downed criminal after he is taken out.



Here's what would happen in a public place: there is a possibility of an innocent bystander getting shot because the bullet will pass through the bad guy and hit bodies in the trajectory of the shot. Hollywood doesn't like to show realistic ballistics.

This is why armed and trained people, who know guns really well, should be required to pass both a written and a practical exam before they get a conceal carry license. Or open carry.

"Oh, this Berretta I am armed with has quite a bit penetrating power. If I shoot the bad guy, the old lady behind him will also get hit and it could be fatal. I need to reposition myself so the trajectory does not include the old lady cowering behind him."


G8-7aJVScbc

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe but I think this speaks to the value of having trained armed people in churches, schools, etc.

Cuz let us face it gun attacks just randomly in public aren't what capture our attention usually, right? It's usually a school or church or some place.

There is some value in having security anywhere and especially in the most vulnerable places, even if armed, for sure. I don't agree that private citizens who are licensed to carry firearms are best suited to provide that security, though. For example, I don't think teachers should be armed at school, as their primary responsibility during an emergency should be getting their students to safety, not putting themselves and their students in danger by trying to standoff against a shooter.

Schools and churches are typically more shocking because they're considered generally safe places for our most vulnerable citizens (children and the elderly), where we wouldn't expect that level of violence.

Personally, Las Vegas was the most shocking for me, as I go there fairly often, know at least one person who was shot there, the number of casualties, the length of occurrence, and the fact that it did not stop until the shooter killed himself. Very disturbing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No.

The article said 2 people in church security noticed him on the cameras. Those are your volunteer security personnel. They were in a security booth, not seen in the video.


Are you citing a different article than the one in the link I shared?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/30/us/texas-shooting-hero-jack-wilson/index.html

It stated both men killed were part of the church's security team. In the next couple of paragraphs, the article cites Wilson's experience as a reserve deputy sheriff and as a firearms instructor, and credits him with training several members (quoted as hundreds, though that seems like an exaggeration) of the congregation on the use of firearms and other means of preparedness, presumably those among the security team as well:

Wilson shot the gunman just seconds after two parishioners were shot. The two victims were members of the church security team and were identified as Anton Wallace, 64, of Fort Worth and Richard White, 67, of River Oaks, according to a statement released by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Officials had said Sunday night that multiple members of the church security team responded to the gunman. However, Wilson was the only person who shot him, and he fired only once, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Monday.

Paxton also revealed that Wilson is a former reserve deputy sheriff and a firearms instructor.

"My understanding is, he was a reserve deputy and had significant training, had his own shooting range, had taught other people how to shoot, had taught many people in this church how to be prepared," Paxton told reporters at a news conference. "He's not just responsible for his actions, which ultimately saved the lives of maybe hundreds of people, but he's also responsible for training hundreds in that church."]


Originally posted by dadudemon
I could volunteer as armed security anywhere, as well. Any church. I'm really really fast with a handgun, too. But I'm nothing special compared to anyone else who goes to the shooting range and does speed shooting and target shooting.

It's super fun: try it.

That's pretty cool.

I've done some target shooting before, and it is fun. I'm still undecided on whether or not to have a gun of my own. I do like the look of the Sig Sauer P226 stainless Elite, but I don't feel like I really need one. I'm sure I'd feel safer having one if I woke up in the middle of the night to the sound of someone breaking into my house, but otherwise, I think it would be more of a hazard.

I keep thinking of some neighbors I had a few years ago, a young couple---I never met them, but I had read the story in the news. Their house was burglarized, and their home security company called each of them about the alarms, so they both left their jobs to check it out. The burglar was still inside, found at least one of their guns, and shot them both to death as they arrived separately. The woman was pregnant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correct. Required for a conceal carry license. Which is why I advocate for no-nonsense conceal carry laws, at the federal level. Within a short period of time (a few months, perhaps), we'd have millions of armed and trained conceal carry people all over the place.

That's a scary thought for me. Americans are proud, headstrong, and act on emotion more often than not when confronted, in my experience. Seems more true in recent years than before. I barely trust the average driver not to be jackass on the road, much less levelheaded and rational if I call them out on it. Maybe I'm being unreasonably pessimistic here, but where you may see millions of responsible citizens ready to defend themselves and those in danger, I see millions of ticking timebombs, overzealous would-be heroes, and just plain irresponsible gun owners mixed in right along with them.

I understand my concerns are based on personal experience, and are anecdotal, at best. I'm sure you have data to suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Watch the video (if you can stomach watching 3 people get killed). Eyes weren't on the suspect until he aggressively approached one of the members of the congregation.

There's no which way to spin this: suspicion doesn't matter and does not work with the narrative you're trying to paint. Notice that 5 others, armed, with aim on the suspect, approach the downed criminal after he is taken out.

I hate watching footage of people being killed--I don't even like watching fight videos--but I've seen it. I was discussing it elsewhere, so it was necessary to carry on with the debate. I'm not physically repulsed by them; rather, I'm disgusted by the cruelty people demonstrate. Sad stuff to watch. Imagine needing an armed security team to feel secure during a service, and then this happens? How f*cked up is it that these people may be considering body armor just to go to their neighborhood church? It's tragedies like this here that convince me there is no god...certainly not a benevolent and all-knowing one who gives a f*ck about us...but anyhow...

Not sure what we're arguing about here, though.

Jack Wilson (the guy who shot and killed the attacker) said he was suspicious of him as soon as he saw him. Even so, he did not reach for his pistol until after the shotgun was revealed, and was not able to draw it and return fire until around the time both armed parishioners were shot and killed. He's obviously the crackshot of the group, so if he was killed himself or for whatever reason didn't have a clear shot, I do think more people would have died before the other armed parishioners had a chance to stop him, assuming they could. I'm not especially impressed by the fact that they approached the killer with guns drawn after he'd already been shot in the head.

The volunteer security team member who fatally shot a gunman in a Texas church Sunday said he began watching the shooter as soon as he entered the sanctuary.

Jack Wilson, head of security at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, told CNN affiliate KTVT that he had "eyes" on the man right away.

"After he shot (the two victims), he went and started towards the front of the sanctuary and that's when I was able to engage him, and I fired one round," he told KTVT.

Wilson didn't say why he was suspicious, but another parishioner told KTVT the man's appearance made her uncomfortable because he appeared to be wearing a wig.]

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's what would happen in a public place: there is a possibility of an innocent bystander getting shot because the bullet will pass through the bad guy and hit bodies in the trajectory of the shot. Hollywood doesn't like to show realistic ballistics.

This is why armed and trained people, who know guns really well, should be required to pass both a written and a practical exam before they get a conceal carry license. Or open carry.

"Oh, this Berretta I am armed with has quite a bit penetrating power. If I shoot the bad guy, the old lady behind him will also get hit and it could be fatal. I need to reposition myself so the trajectory does not include the old lady cowering behind him."


G8-7aJVScbc
I'd expect more experienced law enforcement military personnel with combat experience would be specifically trained and hardened enough for this scenario to keep cool under fire long enough to consider these things.

I have my doubts as to how many people, even those who have firearm training, would be considering things like innocent people in shot trajectory in the heat of the moment, when adrenaline puts one in fight-or-flight mode.

Originally posted by dadudemon
An alternative perspective is that gun prohibition never works and only affects people who would obey the law, anyway.
I also don't think a nationwide gun ban alone would be effective. It's not just the guns themselves, after all...our people are f*cked. Too many are afflicted by mental health issues, and desperation from poverty or from the fear of becoming impoverished due to their personal circumstances.

Do you think a federal gun prohibition law would be effective in significantly dropping gun homicides, gun violence, and homicides in general if the government also enacted the following?

*generous gun buybacks
*universal healthcare, including mental health care
*legalization and regulation of recreational drugs
*shift law enforcement focus from drugs to violent crime and weapons trafficking
*retraining law enforcement on the use of non-lethal force vs lethal force, with emphasis on non-lethal force
*increased prison sentences for gun crimes
*shift in prison focus from punishment to rehabilitation

Originally posted by Surtur
What is wrong with mentioning the good guys with the guns?
Nothing, as long the problem--in this case, a gunman killing two men--is also mentioned, instead of only how it concluded.

Take this thread, for example. Just reading the title, you'd think the gunman was stopped before he could kill anybody. Same kind of thing on the other place I frequent.

A better headline/thread title would have been something along the lines of "Gunman kills 2 in church; killed by church security".

Originally posted by Surtur
This law didn't make guns more accessible to violent criminals.
No, this particular law allowing guns in church didn't make guns more accessible to violent criminals, but Texas' generally lax gun laws may have contributed to how the gunman, a known local criminal and homeless man, was able to get a gun in the first place.

That's why you should have read the link in the OP, instead of basing your entire opinion on just the thread title. don't blame others for your laziness.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That's why you should have read the link in the OP, instead of basing your entire opinion on just the thread title. don't blame others for your laziness.
You mean the link to the article the OP entitled "link"? Yeah, that's the story in a nutshell, right?

I didn't need to click the link and read the article (which did have a much more complete headline in "Security team quickly kills gunman after fatal shooting at Fort Worth-area church", as I was already familiar with the story, Moment Waster.

Sure you were, that explains why DDM had to correct you multiple times.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Sure you were, that explains why DDM had to correct you multiple times.
Clearly you didn't see where I corrected him about the two men killed being a part of the church's security team after all. Or you ignored it altogether.

I don't care. I'm going to sleep for a few hours before work.

Make yourself useful and f*ck off, yeah?

you sound tired and grumpy maybe you should Go to bed?

Calm down, I'm sorry the gunman being stopped like this has triggered you so badly.

I'll keep you in my prayers.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Nothing, as long the problem--in this case, a gunman killing two men--is also mentioned, instead of only how it concluded.

Take this thread, for example. Just reading the title, you'd think the gunman was stopped before he could kill anybody. Same kind of thing on the other place I frequent.

A better headline/thread title would have been something along the lines of "Gunman kills 2 in church; killed by church security".

To be honest, seeing the title of the thread didn't make me think anything other than that armed patrons killed a gunman. I recognize that headlines and thread titles can't get all the details in.

And I disagree about your better headline. Maybe I'd agree if you changed "church security" to "armed patrons". But you probably wouldn't like that and I suspect I know why: it kills a narrative you don't like. You don't like the good guy with the gun narrative. I bet even the phrase "church volunteers" instead of "church security" wouldn't be good enough, amirite? So when you phrase it as "church security" it's disconnected. It conjures up the image of hired help as opposed to just locals so invested in the community they decided to volunteer to help protect their church. Saying "security" could make it less about a good guy with a gun and more about just people doing their jobs, but no these were volunteers. They *were* good guys with guns who stopped a bad guy.



Been a while since the shooting I'm sure we'd hear democrats hooting and hollering if a lax gun law made it possible for the gunman to get a gun.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to have an adult conversation with me, Eternal Idol.

Ignore the haters and immature replies. Continue to have a normal adult conversation with me if you do have the time. I enjoy it. There is never a need to get pissy, butthurt, buttmad, peepeeweeknee, etc. It's just a convo about guns which all of us should acknowledge can be used as murder tools.


Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Are you citing a different article than the one in the link I shared?

Yes, Surt's, in the OP.

About Paxton being a gun instructor: consider that I would have to attend a gun-glass with a similar instructor. I could have been the person closest to the shooter and I would have been the one to quick draw. Considering the discipline of the 5 other people who had their guns drawn and approach the downed suspect, seems they were all quite prepared for this situation.

It seems like a great reason to require every able-bodied man, 16-72, to be trained and armed like colonial cities required. lol That's not the case we should be making.But, to me, it does make a great case that we need to pass a federal law that establishes a minimum standard to get a conceal carry license.


Originally posted by Eternal Idol
That's pretty cool.

I've done some target shooting before, and it is fun. I'm still undecided on whether or not to have a gun of my own. I do like the look of the Sig Sauer P226 stainless Elite, but I don't feel like I really need one. I'm sure I'd feel safer having one if I woke up in the middle of the night to the sound of someone breaking into my house, but otherwise, I think it would be more of a hazard.

Nothing wrong with not having a gun, yet. I still do not have a gun in my home. My little brother has enough guns for everyone in my family and then some. He lives on a lot of land and I can target shoot when I want(his rules are: "follow proper gun safety and you buy the ammo - come and shoot any time".

The most fun is the speed shooting. If you haven't done it, pass the training and do it! It is just like that video of Keanu Reeves doing a speed run course when he was training for John Wick.

Anyway, to your point: if you have kids in your home and you don't want or have the time to properly secure a "live firearm" for safety purposes, you're not safely served keeping a firearm in your home. You could be better off with a baton, baseball bat, or even a large knife. If you life in a cramped space, a gun wouldn't be a good idea anyway: knife. The second amendment allows for this, too. Arm yourself to proper safety but don't fall for the rabid "buy and own all the guns guns guns!" stuff.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I keep thinking of some neighbors I had a few years ago, a young couple---I never met them, but I had read the story in the news. Their house was burglarized, and their home security company called each of them about the alarms, so they both left their jobs to check it out. The burglar was still inside, found at least one of their guns, and shot them both to death as they arrived separately. The woman was pregnant.

Absolutely terrible. That is probably such an extremely rare scenario that it has only happened once, however. I cannot find the case you referenced when I go to look it up but I do find many references to a robber getting shot and even a robber getting shot with his own gun by the homeowner:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/robber-shot-to-death-with-own-gun-by-homeowner-at-westbury-residence/285-afc25f14-b9c3-4a1b-a666-5279970949fb



Originally posted by Eternal Idol
That's a scary thought for me. Americans are proud, headstrong, and act on emotion more often than not when confronted, in my experience. Seems more true in recent years than before. I barely trust the average driver not to be jackass on the road, much less levelheaded and rational if I call them out on it. Maybe I'm being unreasonably pessimistic here, but where you may see millions of responsible citizens ready to defend themselves and those in danger, I see millions of ticking timebombs, overzealous would-be heroes, and just plain irresponsible gun owners mixed in right along with them.

I understand my concerns are based on personal experience, and are anecdotal, at best. I'm sure you have data to suggest otherwise.

I agree. I am referring to the existing pool of millions of conceal carry owners being required to get licenses to a higher standard to keep their existing conceal carry license. Under my proposal, the law would apply nationally instead of just in, say, Colorado. So it's just ensuring the existing pool can pass both the written and practical exams to keep or get a national conceal carry license. It would likely improve existing safety standards for guns in the home and accidental injury due to better education and testing standards that apply nation-wide.

And here's the data: NRA says 19 million Americans have conceal carry licenses:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20191013/number-of-concealed-carry-permit-holders-increased-again

Likely, the NRA would object to my law, however.




Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I hate watching footage of people being killed--I don't even like watching fight videos--but I've seen it. I was discussing it elsewhere, so it was necessary to carry on with the debate. I'm not physically repulsed by them; rather, I'm disgusted by the cruelty people demonstrate. Sad stuff to watch. Imagine needing an armed security team to feel secure during a service, and then this happens? How f*cked up is it that these people may be considering body armor just to go to their neighborhood church? It's tragedies like this here that convince me there is no god...certainly not a benevolent and all-knowing one who gives a f*ck about us...but anyhow...

I don't even know why a church needs security to begin with. When did this become a thing? I know churches where gang violence is a thing needs security. Because gang hits would happen at those churches or around those churches. But ruralish Texas? Why is this a thing?

Not sure what we're arguing about here, as well. Perhaps we are not?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I do think more people would have died before the other armed parishioners had a chance to stop him, assuming they could. I'm not especially impressed by the fact that they approached the killer with guns drawn after he'd already been shot in the head.

I agree on the first part but it is more of a probabilities thing. We don't know how good those other 5 were. Perhaps all of them were better quick drawers? We don't know. We do know they all displayed excellent reaction and gun control (pun intended), however. I am impressed with them showing trigger discipline after the bad guy was shot in the head. They had no way of knowing the attacker was down and out of the attack he started and approaching, guns drawn, cautiously, was the best approach.




Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I'd expect more experienced law enforcement military personnel with combat experience would be specifically trained and hardened enough for this scenario to keep cool under fire long enough to consider these things.

But aren't you impressed that regular ol' citizens displayed better trigger discipline than some police, though?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I have my doubts as to how many people, even those who have firearm training, would be considering things like innocent people in shot trajectory in the heat of the moment, when adrenaline puts one in fight-or-flight mode.

It's covered in the basic training of conceal carry classes. Target penetration in the self defense portion - which discusses caliber, round velocity, gun models, etc. - are part of the course work. You'll get the ol' example like so: "if the robber is in the shot trajectory t of your son, running at you, reconsider firing your gun unless you want a dead robber and a dead son."

And I wonder if someone has collected data on "good guys with a gun"? How often do they hit an innocent when their gun is discharged? And how often do they rethink firing their weapon on the bad guy because of the line-of-sight issue?

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I also don't think a nationwide gun ban alone would be effective. It's not just the guns themselves, after all...our people are f*cked. Too many are afflicted by mental health issues, and desperation from poverty or from the fear of becoming impoverished due to their personal circumstances.

Do you think a federal gun prohibition law would be effective in significantly dropping gun homicides, gun violence, and homicides in general if the government also enacted the following?

*generous gun buybacks
*universal healthcare, including mental health care
*legalization and regulation of recreational drugs
*shift law enforcement focus from drugs to violent crime and weapons trafficking
*retraining law enforcement on the use of non-lethal force vs lethal force, with emphasis on non-lethal force
*increased prison sentences for gun crimes
*shift in prison focus from punishment to rehabilitation

No.

Because Glasgow (which hit a peak in 2005 - was called the murder capital of the Western World) proved that gun bans do not work. If people want to kill each other, they will kill each other.

The fact that Japan has any gun homicides should be proof of this (despite their homicide rates staying the same before both of their major gun restrictions went into place, both times).


Also, if you remove black on black violence from the United States violence crime data, the US has better violent crime rates than most first world countries. The gun debate is a dishonest debate to begin with. We do not have a gun violence problem in the US: we have a black on black violence problem in the US. But that's an very uncomfortable conversation for leftists and progressives: actually saving black lives is inconvenient.

Originally posted by Surtur
To be honest, seeing the title of the thread didn't make me think anything other than that armed patrons killed a gunman. I recognize that headlines and thread titles can't get all the details in.

And I disagree about your better headline. Maybe I'd agree if you changed "church security" to "armed patrons". But you probably wouldn't like that and I suspect I know why: it kills a narrative you don't like. You don't like the good guy with the gun narrative. I bet even the phrase "church volunteers" instead of "church security" wouldn't be good enough, amirite? So when you phrase it as "church security" it's disconnected. It conjures up the image of hired help as opposed to just locals so invested in the community they decided to volunteer to help protect their church. Saying "security" could make it less about a good guy with a gun and more about just people doing their jobs, but no these were volunteers. They *were* good guys with guns who stopped a bad guy.



Been a while since the shooting I'm sure we'd hear democrats hooting and hollering if a lax gun law made it possible for the gunman to get a gun.
No. Security on its own isn't misleading, but it wouldn't bother me if they emphasized it was an armed security team formed by volunteers from the church congregation. Referring to them as armed patrons is still fine, but it does omit the fact that they are a trained and organized group specifically put together to stand up to the threat of violent people, like the would-be mass murderer they encountered this time.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
No. Security on its own isn't misleading, but it wouldn't bother me if they emphasized it was an armed security team formed by volunteers from the church congregation. Referring to them as armed patrons is still fine, but it does omit the fact that they are a trained and organized group specifically put together to stand up to the threat of violent people, like the would-be mass murderer they encountered this time.

I think "armed patrons" is fine and you could find out more details about them in the article that follows. Like that they were volunteers, local members of the church, etc.

Calling them security is technically true just like if a kid takes a gun to school and blows his brains out in the bathroom it's technically a school shooting, but it's not the kind of situation one thinks of when they hear the term "school shooting". The term, in most people, will conjure up a situation of a student with a gun harming others not himself. Likewise when people hear about armed security it does not immediately conjure up images up locals volunteering to help out.

That seems to be a subset of a subset of people!

I remember this thread and I remember folk getting butthurt good guys with guns saved the day. Good times.

I'm sure they will be relieved this isn't a new instance of the narrative being shattered, but rather just a thread necro.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Yep, I guess you got me... I wish he'd killed more...

Dumb ass.


Ignore the troll, a coward hiding behind false accounts has no room to talk.

Originally posted by cdtm
a coward hiding behind false accounts has no room to talk.

Shit, who has Putinbot threatened this time?!

Originally posted by Surtur
Shit, who has Putinbot threatened this time?!


I miss Whirly.

Originally posted by Surtur
I remember this thread and I remember folk getting butthurt good guys with guns saved the day. Good times.

I'm sure they will be relieved this isn't a new instance of the narrative being shattered, but rather just a thread necro.

^ Necro'd a thread to lie and pretend win (again) because Trump's in the shitter right now. Too funny

Didn't lie or necro anything. You can see someone else responded before me.

Originally posted by Surtur
Didn't necro anything

You said this is a "necro", dummy.

To your edit: Yes you did. Stop socking, Surt

That insane group of cult members overpowered a man who was only exercising his right to bear arms and defend himself.

These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news.

thanks,
John

Originally posted by Johnfinvin
These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news.

thanks,
John

I don't agree.

However, I think stories like these get far more attention than the stories about shootings that should get attention.


Young black men are still dying in large numbers to violence in the US. And very few people seem to care. Even fewer want to do anything about it.

^ what suggestions do you have for fixing that? Besides Gun control, that's obvious. This is a pretty difficult problem to solve.

Originally posted by socool8520
^ what suggestions do you have for fixing that? Besides Gun control, that's obvious. This is a pretty difficult problem to solve.

I've posted on this topic many times with the solutions. If I'm not feeling lazy later today, I'll dig up my old posts.

More gun control is not on the list of solutions.

Originally posted by Robtard
You said this is a "necro", dummy.

To your edit: Yes you did. Stop socking, Surt Is Surt socking again... tsk!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've posted on this topic many times with the solutions. If I'm not feeling lazy later today, I'll dig up my old posts.

More gun control is not on the list of solutions.

now that you mention it, I think we have went back and forth on this before. My memory sucks sometimes.

Originally posted by socool8520
now that you mention it, I think we have went back and forth on this before. My memory sucks sometimes.

Perhaps but I think I only talked to Snowdragon at length about the topic a couple of years back.

From what I can remember from my research:

There is the trust building that police need to do with the people (there was lengthy article of many many different items the police need to do to rebuild the trust). Black people have the last amount of trust for the police of any race demographic, by far. Not even right-wing libertarians come even close to the distrust black people have of the police.

Universal Healthcare is huge for helping stop the violence and improve the Black-Plight

Having a healthcare option regardless of employment status is very helpful for mental health, substance abuse cessation programs, and overall health.


Culture of education-hate
The black culture of "selling out to be an Uncle Tom" has to die and die quickly. Many black people realize how important and education is. But this type of culture is so pervasive that it is one of the biggest destroyers of black-socio-economic mobility (the true way a people genuinely can rise up out of the cycle of poverty and violence is SEM).

This one in particular irritates me. I volunteer with a local black-youth charity group. It focuses on getting young men of color (but almost all are black) out of the cycle of violence and consistently into school. The hate for education and the perception that it makes you a sellout is TOXIC AS F*CK and I hate it with a passion.


End Welfare and Make Black Fathers Become Dads
This is it. This is 90% of all of it. Maybe even 95% of all of it. The single worst thing that Democrats have done is destroyed the black family unit with welfare programs that arose from the Civil Rights Movement. Talk to any social worker: even in black families where one or both parents are abusive, the children all have far better outcomes than single parent homes. Having a father and a mother in the same home while the children grow up is the single best thing any parents can do for their children. Don't do drugs and teach your children to be functioning adults and you've succeeded.

Democrats and leftists don't like to talk about this. It's considered racist to consider the fact that the Civil Rights Movement destroyed black families. But that's what happened.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/black-family-40-years-lies-12872.html

Somehow, we have to teach black youth to not have babies until they are married. The universal healthcare options may help with that: we need free contraceptives readily available to the masses.

The only ones who openly criticise "love 'em and leave 'em" culture are perceived racists.


There's a reason Mike Bloomberg said he only talked about black gun violence at a church because he knew the audience would he receptive with a preacher always talking about it.


And that's the key. No outsider can get away with criticism of black culture, AT ALL. Period.

The problem of fatherless children will remain a problem as long as the community accepts it as part of their culture.

Originally posted by cdtm
The only ones who openly criticise "love 'em and leave 'em" culture are perceived racists.


There's a reason Mike Bloomberg said he only talked about black gun violence at a church because he knew the audience would he receptive with a preacher always talking about it.


And that's the key. No outsider can get away with criticism of black culture, AT ALL. Period.

The problem of fatherless children will remain a problem as long as the community accepts it as part of their culture.

They went from 90%+ core families with marriages to something ridiculous like 17%.

Look at the policies and see what happened to destroy the black family unit.


We should just have black people join the Mormon Church (LDS). Family is strongly emphasized, sex-before-marriage a no-no, and abortion not okay outside of the obvious exceptions. The LDS church also has a strong welfare program, excellent financial stability, and job assistance programs (help people get to work). Lastly, Mormons strongly believe in an education. These address all the problems that plague the black community.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They went from 90%+ core families with marriages to something ridiculous like 17%.

Look at the policies and see what happened to destroy the black family unit.


We should just have black people join the Mormon Church (LDS). Family is strongly emphasized, sex-before-marriage a no-no, and abortion not okay outside of the obvious exceptions. The LDS church also has a strong welfare program, excellent financial stability, and job assistance programs (help people get to work). Lastly, Mormons strongly believe in an education. These address all the problems that plague the black community.


After reading the entire article several times, one thing that sticks out is the seemingly coordinated attack on the data.


I wish I could be a fly on the wall at the CDC and other organizations and universities, to see how these decisions get made. Is it a coincidence that they pile on? Are they in contact with each other, or rely on the same think tanks?


Are these responses thought through at all. Or is there some emotional, indignant CEO's who feel personally injured, and throw the weight of their organizations behind a counter attack?


I mean, anyone who's worked for anyone knows the people at the top can do literally whatever they want, and you have to do what THEY want. So if they say "What racist bs. I want that message taken down, NOW" without a second glance, that's what you do. Or you leave.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They went from 90%+ core families with marriages to something ridiculous like 17%.

Look at the policies and see what happened to destroy the black family unit.


We should just have black people join the Mormon Church (LDS). Family is strongly emphasized, sex-before-marriage a no-no, and abortion not okay outside of the obvious exceptions. The LDS church also has a strong welfare program, excellent financial stability, and job assistance programs (help people get to work). Lastly, Mormons strongly believe in an education. These address all the problems that plague the black community.

Doesn't Christianity also promote a lot of those things. I don't think religion change will help them. It is one of those things that will be very hard to change.

Originally posted by socool8520
Doesn't Christianity also promote a lot of those things. I don't think religion change will help them. It is one of those things that will be very hard to change.

I was being facetious. But 10% serious.

There are entire congregations in Oakland, of Mormons, that are almost all black. And I love it.

Never did get an answer to this, guess the question was to hard for him to answer.


Originally posted by Silent Master
What would you suggest to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while leaving law abiding citizens alone?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Never did get an answer to this, guess the question was to hard for him to answer.

Chop criminal's hands off?