__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
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.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
__________________
Last edited by Eternal Idol on Jan 6th, 2020 at 01:46 AM
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."]
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.
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 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.]
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.
__________________
Last edited by Eternal Idol on Jan 6th, 2020 at 10:01 AM
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
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".
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.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
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.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
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.
Calm down, I'm sorry the gunman being stopped like this has triggered you so badly.
I'll keep you in my prayers.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
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.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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?
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.
But aren't you impressed that regular ol' citizens displayed better trigger discipline than some police, though?
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?
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Jan 6th, 2020 at 03:31 PM