Thanks for the clarification, and in the NBC news interview, he stressed that if you have a CCWP, ALWAYS carry that handgun anywhere it’s legal to do so....’you never know when ‘this’ is going to happen’, paraphrasing...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Mass Shooting That Didn’t Happen Today
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Sutherland Springs saw 26 killed and 24 wounded. White Settlement saw 2 killed. Sutherland Springs lasted eleven minutes, and the assailant fired over 700 rounds. White Settlement last six seconds and the assailant got off two rounds for effect and a third probably by muscle reflex as the fatal shot took him out.American Man said:I saw a previous recording of the lunatic like Julian Castro where he was babbling about how armed security is not the answer as well as some other talking heads... and this was in response to the Sutherland Springs church shooting... where they didn't have a team of armed security and 20+ were slaughtered.
The anti-gun forces can't refute those numbers, so they're scrambling.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well sure, they don’t want to acknowledge it because their version of gun safety is no guns. It is the same reason they won’t protect gun owner privacy when they promote universal background checks. They aren’t interested in any law that doesn’t further confiscation or make it more difficult for peaceable people to own firearms.
They’d rather see that whole church murdered because it is a double-win. Wrongthinking people dead and a new drum to beat to disarm the rest of us. It is time, more like way past time, to acknowledge a vast proportion of our opponents do not disagree with us out of goodwill differences on policy. They disagree with us because they want us dead.
They’d rather see that whole church murdered because it is a double-win. Wrongthinking people dead and a new drum to beat to disarm the rest of us. It is time, more like way past time, to acknowledge a vast proportion of our opponents do not disagree with us out of goodwill differences on policy. They disagree with us because they want us dead.
It is time, more like way past time, to acknowledge a vast proportion of our opponents do not disagree with us out of goodwill differences on policy. They disagree with us because they want us dead.
I respectfully disagree with that statement. I think that they're misguided and naive, but not actually wishing for our deaths. Sure, there might be a few examples of nutcases who say such things. But they exist on both sides.
The frequency of these events is a relatively new in our culture. Many people are struggling with the concept that you need to have trained and armed civilians in a house of worship and they see the solution in gun control. I don't agree, but that's a far cry from wishing death on others.
I heard a long story about this shooting on NPR yesterday, hardly a conservative source. And they had nothing but good things to say about the outcome and the guards involved.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Mainah said:The frequency of these events is a relatively new in our culture.
No, it isn’t. It is just being highlighted for the purpose of pushing gun control.
I think that they're misguided and naive, but not actually wishing for our deaths.
In any population of people greater than 100, there will be exceptions. Not all of them wish us dead, enough of them do that they are no longer a freakish exception to civility.
And, to be fair, because it is sensational and something that the media knows will attract viewers.It is just being highlighted for the purpose of pushing gun control.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Yes, it is a perfect story for today’s clickbait media. It doesn’t only draw eyes to start with, but it is “sticky” in the comment section as well.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Giant shocker - attacker was a mentally ill prohibited person with a criminal record. He had apparently visited the church several times for handouts but frequently became angry when given food instead of cash according to the pastor.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church-shooting-gunman-cash-requests-anger-vists-minister
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church-shooting-gunman-cash-requests-anger-vists-minister
Look, I get the frustration. However this is a site full of advice on how to respond to deadly threats. When you describe everyone who disagrees with us on gun control policy as someone who wants us dead that's a concern for me.
The facts in this tragedy support our cause. The media has been unable to refute that so far. Why not take a breath, grieve the loss, and then use the facts to support our case?
The facts in this tragedy support our cause. The media has been unable to refute that so far. Why not take a breath, grieve the loss, and then use the facts to support our case?
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Mainah said:When you describe everyone who disagrees with us on gun control policy as someone who wants us dead that's a concern for me.
A. That’s not what I did or said.
B. I don’t care if you are concerned.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
There are those who oppose us, and those who don't support us.Mainah said:When you describe everyone who disagrees with us on gun control policy as someone who wants us dead that's a concern for me.
IMHO, there are a lot of people in the Yoo Ess of Ay who "support" gun control because they have been brainwashed to believe that gun control is the magic talisman that will make everyone safe and the world filled with pink unicorns. I don't think those people want us dead. They just think we're crazy.
But then there are the active proponents of gun control, the Chuck Schumers, the Michael Bloombergs, the Shannon Wattses, the media shill talking heads ... if you don't believe they would be overjoyed to wake up and find that all the pro-2A citizens in the U.S. were suddenly dead, I honestly think you are not seeing them for who and what they are. I'm not saying they want to kill us -- but they'd be giddy with joy if someone else did it for them.
The pro gun-control advocates don't see this as a legitimate justification for gun rights at all. They just see more gun violence, and yet another shooting. They don't see good guys and bad guys. They just see gun guys. To them, the assailant was just another gun guy, and a problem that is internal to the gun culture. The argument that we need more gun people to take out other gun people doesn't make sense to them and they're just worried about getting caught in the gun people's crossfire. Therefore, they see a need for an authority to step in and take the guns away from everyone.
If they were in that church that day, they weren't just horrified by two innocent people being killed, but also by all the people, more than a half-dozen, drawing their guns and pointing their guns, and in their hoplophobia, want all the guns to go away.
To them, they just see a church full of people that appear eager for gun play and it doesn't in any way resolve the nightmare that unfolded.
The pro-gun rights people's answer so far has amounted to, "it could have been worse." Which, from the perspective of someone pro-gun control is interpreted as the gun people saying, "we can make it worse."
If they were in that church that day, they weren't just horrified by two innocent people being killed, but also by all the people, more than a half-dozen, drawing their guns and pointing their guns, and in their hoplophobia, want all the guns to go away.
To them, they just see a church full of people that appear eager for gun play and it doesn't in any way resolve the nightmare that unfolded.
The pro-gun rights people's answer so far has amounted to, "it could have been worse." Which, from the perspective of someone pro-gun control is interpreted as the gun people saying, "we can make it worse."
To them, they just see a church full of people that appear eager for gun play and it doesn't in any way resolve the nightmare that unfolded.
I've followed this story, and I haven't seen or heard that narrative reported. I'll concede that they don't know what to think because none of their theories played out.
A. That’s not what I did or said.
You said this:
They’d rather see that whole church murdered because it is a double-win. Wrongthinking people dead and a new drum to beat to disarm the rest of us. It is time, more like way past time, to acknowledge a vast proportion of our opponents do not disagree with us out of goodwill differences on policy. They disagree with us because they want us dead.
But then there are the active proponents of gun control, the Chuck Schumers, the Michael Bloombergs, the Shannon Wattses, the media shill talking heads ... if you don't believe they would be overjoyed to wake up and find that all the pro-2A citizens in the U.S. were suddenly dead, I honestly think you are not seeing them for who and what they are. I'm not saying they want to kill us -- but they'd be giddy with joy if someone else did it for them.
I don't believe that. I do believe that they'd be thrilled to wake up and find us too lazy to vote and organize. That's much different than celebrating the deaths of fellow Americans.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, you can cut & paste. Now, explain the difference between your summary of what I said and what I actually said so we can see if you understand as well.
Yes, I understand you don’t believe that. It was abundantly clear that you have different views than me on this subject from the first post. I don’t understand why you think restating what you believe in different ways is going to change my mind. I disagree with you.
In theory, you could sway my opinion by stating facts that support your argument. In practice, you haven’t demonstrated you are capable of even that step and since I haven’t arrived at my opinion casually, it strikes me as unlikely you will be able to marshal any kind of facts that sway my opinion - but it would be a nice change from just restating your opinion in different ways and thinking I’m going to be convinced by that.
Mainah said:I don't believe that. I do believe that they'd be thrilled to wake up and find us too lazy to vote and organize. That's much different than celebrating the deaths of fellow Americans.
Yes, I understand you don’t believe that. It was abundantly clear that you have different views than me on this subject from the first post. I don’t understand why you think restating what you believe in different ways is going to change my mind. I disagree with you.
In theory, you could sway my opinion by stating facts that support your argument. In practice, you haven’t demonstrated you are capable of even that step and since I haven’t arrived at my opinion casually, it strikes me as unlikely you will be able to marshal any kind of facts that sway my opinion - but it would be a nice change from just restating your opinion in different ways and thinking I’m going to be convinced by that.
Last edited:
That's a very good point and a great question. I have several close family members and several close friends who support gun additional gun control. Yet I love them and I know that they love me, and I know that they would never wish me harm.
They just want to feel safe. I took your post as an implication that most gun control advocates would rather see me dead than make any concessions. That has not been my experience.
They just want to feel safe. I took your post as an implication that most gun control advocates would rather see me dead than make any concessions. That has not been my experience.
They are reporting how the gunman had multiple arrests and a long criminal record but was still able to obtain or possess a gun because in spite of his record of criminal offenses and mental illness he was not on any kind of "watch list," there was no red-flag law that could have been used to strip him of his guns, and no universal background check to prevent him from possessing.
Additionally, they're repeatedly misreporting Jack Wilson as a former FBI-agent to support the narrative that law-enforcement alone has the proper credentials to handle firearms appropriately. The whole FBI thing appears to be a complete fabrication.
It is true the story doesn't support pro-gun-control's false narrative as well as mass-shootings where intervention comes even later, and that's why the story is being buried after only two days. By tomorrow, it will be completely out of the newscycle.
Additionally, they're repeatedly misreporting Jack Wilson as a former FBI-agent to support the narrative that law-enforcement alone has the proper credentials to handle firearms appropriately. The whole FBI thing appears to be a complete fabrication.
It is true the story doesn't support pro-gun-control's false narrative as well as mass-shootings where intervention comes even later, and that's why the story is being buried after only two days. By tomorrow, it will be completely out of the newscycle.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Mainah said:They just want to feel safe. I took your post as an implication that most gun control advocates would rather see me dead than make any concessions. That has not been my experience
If they love you and would never wish you harm, why does your being armed make them feel unsafe?
Good question. Consider this article from another thread here: https://medium.com/handwaving-freak...nce-that-gun-deaths-are-cultural-277cb90fa06d
I grew up in Pittsburgh, and lived in Maine. The article describes clear patterns of suicide vs. homicide gun deaths in both regions. it is possible to live somewhere that experiences relatively low gun violence and still have experienced great personal tragedy associated with guns. In either case if you aren't familiar with guns it's all terrifying.
I grew up in Pittsburgh, and lived in Maine. The article describes clear patterns of suicide vs. homicide gun deaths in both regions. it is possible to live somewhere that experiences relatively low gun violence and still have experienced great personal tragedy associated with guns. In either case if you aren't familiar with guns it's all terrifying.