Local Plumber Fired Shot That Took Out Texas Church Shooter

Uh, no he did not. The gunman took himself out. Nice try. What is it with right wing types and telling lies?

This hero is the stereotypical uneducated gun-nut hick that anti-gunners imagine when they think about those dangerous rural folk clinging to their God and guns that we need 100 new laws and bans to protect us from. He saved lives. With his gun.

originally posted by: soundguy
Uh, no he did not. The gunman took himself out. Nice try. What is it with right wing types and telling lies?

He took himself out because he'd already been shot twice, was bleeding out, and crashed his car. He put himself out of his own misery. He was likely gonna die anyway. All because of what this armed citizen did.

originally posted by: face23785
This hero is the stereotypical uneducated gun-nut hick that anti-gunners imagine when they think about those dangerous rural folk clinging to their God and guns that we need 100 new laws and bans to protect us from. He saved lives. With his gun.

Did he? If the bad guy didn't have a gun in the first place, that's 26 fewer people that would have been murdered.

He mitigated the damage maybe, but the net loss here is still in favor of guns doing more harm than good.

a reply to: Aazadan

Meanwhile, in the country guns save lives every day as various dangerous animals are shot. Those are almost impossible to report on, and are never even considered in this discussion.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
As I said to my wife, the only way someone could possibly shot up a church, killing one year old infants in addition to persons of all ages, would be if they were:

a) Entrenched in a Satanic delusion, having gone down a rabbit hole of mania rooted in conspiracies which speak against Christ & His nature, purpose & power.
b) A mind-controlled slave, someone who was totally unable to control what was happening to him, being controlled by fascist nazis who have taken over vast aspects of the Deep State.

Noting that he had a military background, the mind-controlled slave option may seem the most plausible - but either option is equally possible, and perhaps equally likely. We know that Nazis did infiltrate & maintain covert control over much of the CIA during its early years, well beyond the 'known' details of Operation Paperclip - so there are definitely persons within the deep state who do not value life in the same way that most ordinary people do. For them, there is no God, and to shoot infants & all ages like fish in a barrel, during a Sunday service of those who worship God, means nothing more than killing literal fish in a barrel, if it serves their purpose - and it makes their point most fully known, causing them to be feared by those in power who would oppose them. Such acts may well be intended to cement their hold on power - "This is what we'll do if you seek to uproot us" - a threat which may cause good people within the intelligence community to abandon their attempts to uncover & exterminate the infiltration. If there is no God, then there is no consequence. That is how they view the world. And somehow, they must be stopped.

Or just crazy as a loonbird in a violent way. People can be crazy as a loonbird in a friendly way, those people can be fun to be around....but not everyday.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
This hero is the stereotypical uneducated gun-nut hick that anti-gunners imagine when they think about those dangerous rural folk clinging to their God and guns that we need 100 new laws and bans to protect us from. He saved lives. With his gun.

Did he? If the bad guy didn't have a gun in the first place, that's 26 fewer people that would have been murdered.

He mitigated the damage maybe, but the net loss here is still in favor of guns doing more harm than good.

The net loss is that if this guy had been prevented from getting guns, he could have murdered those 26 people by other means. We just had a terrorist use a truck to kill 8 people 2 weeks ago. Last year in France a truck attack killed 80+ people. No one decides "well I want to kill a bunch of people, but I can't get a gun so I'm just gonna go on with the rest of my life. I no longer want to commit murder". Get real bro.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Meanwhile, in the country guns save lives every day as various dangerous animals are shot. Those are almost impossible to report on, and are never even considered in this discussion.

Maybe we need to encourage city living more then? I remember several years ago my step sister was living in a cabin at Lake Tahoe, and she woke up one night to a noise in her kitchen. A black bear had wandered in, she fought it off by throwing a cast iron pan at it. Not to say that attacking a bear is the smartest idea... but it worked.

I guess my main point is that guns aren't needed, even out in the country you have small towns which create an environment that dangerous animals don't enter. We have alternatives with how we structure society. It's a lot of work, but it's an actual goal we could work towards. It's a workable solution that we can put on the table. Maybe there's other solutions, but I haven't heard one yet. I would be all for a solution that kept guns around but could solve gun crimes, I just haven't heard one yet.

a reply to: face23785

That requires more expense, and has lower results on average. It also takes longer to plan out, and time is often a mitigating factor on violence.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: face23785

That requires more expense, and has lower results on average. It also takes longer to plan out, and time is often a mitigating factor on violence.

False. Almost all of these mass shootings are well-planned ahead of time, and guns/ammo/accessories are quite a bit more expensive than the charge to rent a truck. If you want to move away from mass shootings and instead just look at personal crime, the weapon really doesn't matter. You can kill 1 or 2 people in a crime of passion with just about anything. We know. About 4,000 people are killed in the US without a gun every year. We have a violent crime problem, not a gun problem.

It's a worse oversight. Locked up in a mental health facility because he smuggled guns on his Air Force base in order to kill the chain of command and then escaped. Dangerous crazy.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: face23785

That requires more expense, and has lower results on average. It also takes longer to plan out, and time is often a mitigating factor on violence.

False. Almost all of these mass shootings are well-planned ahead of time, and guns/ammo/accessories are quite a bit more expensive than the charge to rent a truck. If you want to move away from mass shootings and instead just look at personal crime, the weapon really doesn't matter. You can kill 1 or 2 people in a crime of passion with just about anything. We know. About 4,000 people are killed in the US without a gun every year. We have a violent crime problem, not a gun problem.

And what's your solution to that violent crime problem? Is it arming people? What about the people who can't afford guns? What about the people who can't own guns? What about the people who shouldn't own guns? What about private businesses that want gun free zones?

When everyone is carrying a pistol, what happens when criminals start using semi automatic rifles with illegal modifications to be made fully automatic (or with bump stocks, legal modifications)? Do we then expect every day people to start carrying bigger and bigger guns?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: face23785

That requires more expense, and has lower results on average. It also takes longer to plan out, and time is often a mitigating factor on violence.

False. Almost all of these mass shootings are well-planned ahead of time, and guns/ammo/accessories are quite a bit more expensive than the charge to rent a truck. If you want to move away from mass shootings and instead just look at personal crime, the weapon really doesn't matter. You can kill 1 or 2 people in a crime of passion with just about anything. We know. About 4,000 people are killed in the US without a gun every year. We have a violent crime problem, not a gun problem.

And what's your solution to that violent crime problem? Is it arming people? What about the people who can't afford guns? What about the people who can't own guns? What about the people who shouldn't own guns? What about private businesses that want gun free zones?

When everyone is carrying a pistol, what happens when criminals start using semi automatic rifles with illegal modifications to be made fully automatic (or with bump stocks, legal modifications)? Do we then expect every day people to start carrying bigger and bigger guns?

The violent crime problem doesn't have a quick fix solution. I know that's what you guys want, ya know, just ban "assault rifles" or a little tweak to the background checks or something. There's no quick fix for these issues. I'm not a criminologist, I can't tell you what the solution is. But passing more laws that will only impact people who follow the law definitely isn't the answer.

I do have one problem with the businesses that want to be gun-free zones though. Whether you agree with it or not, it's unconstitutional. And in case you haven't noticed, these mass shooters tend to pick gun-free zones to go do their thing. This guy didn't, but almost all the recent ones have been. Schools, movie theaters that have no-gun policies, cities that have strict gun laws. Why do you suppose that is?

a reply to: Aazadan

You can't say that if he didn't have a gun 26 people would be alive, he could have made a bomb, he could have blocked the exits and lit the building on fire. More could be dead and in a far worse way. People have been killing people since we have been around, if not guns, bombs, arrows, swords, knives, sticks, rocks, shoelaces, pencils, screwdrivers...you can kill someone with anything, quit blaming the tool, I bet you believe the hammer makes the house. So far my hammer has not by it's own will built anything, nor have my guns murdered anyone.

I'm glad I live in a state where on any given day I'm surrounded by guns, even the little old lady out for a stroll has her revolver on her side, personally I like to keep mine concealed, but more power to anyone who carries.

a reply to: uninspired

You are correct. I used to live in Alaska, which has among the least restrictive gun laws in the US. People carried everywhere. They don't have an abnormally high shooting rate. The statistics prove these people wrong. There's no correlation between the gun ownership rate and the shooting rate.

a reply to: face23785

I don't care about a quick solution, I think we've already established there isn't one of those. Gun control would take 50 years to take effect, and likely have zero impact for the first 20.

Ideas like lists are an unworkable halfway point, because people can get around lists unless the list is designed so that eventually everyone winds up on it.

Lets come up with solutions. Time scale is only relevant when debating between multiple solutions. Right now we have zero.

a reply to: face23785

If gun ownership rates play no part in it, then why do Australia and the UK have fewer shootings than the US? Why does Japan have even less than that?

At some point, you have to look at it and see that accessibility to guns does play a factor here.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: face23785

If gun ownership rates play no part in it, then why do Australia and the UK have fewer shootings than the US? Why does Japan have even less than that?

At some point, you have to look at it and see that accessibility to guns does play a factor here.

I love how you leave out 200 other countries. There are countries that have high gun ownership rates and have low shooting rates, and countries that have low gun ownership rates and have high shooting rates. In the 1st week of a high school statistics class you'd learn that means that gun ownership rates aren't driving the problem.

What we have in common with other countries that have high shooting rates is a high overall crime rate. We have rampant crime like 3rd world hellholes that we're not allowed to clamp down on because it's considered "racist".

a reply to: BlueJacket>>> Shot placement is the key, I guess. he was hit by a rifle bullet and still managed to drive away until he lost control and crashed and then offed himself. Just yesterday two PA state police exchanged gunfire with a stopped vehicle driver. One officer was shot and is in critical condition with three bullet wounds, the driver was hit multiple times and was able to drive away and then went to a hospital some distance away. Where he was arrested. The tragedy there was that the driver would have walked away with just a speeding ticket but his belligerence and behavior led to a field sobriety test which was then cause for his arrest for suspicion of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He got into a fight with the officers, managed to get to his car where he retrieved a handgun and started shooting. Moron.

dudlius.....if a church attendee had a pistol he could take out the assault in one shot

Garrett Hammerheads in 44 mag hardened to 25 Brinnell with a .30 meplat....one shot through two rhinos or two elk or two bear...all the way through and out the other side.......all the wives around North Texas here have one in their purse

one shot stops any bad actorwhether dangerous game in Africa or that 700 pound wild hog stampin his foot at ya