On Sept. 1, eight new gun laws took effect in texas, including this one:

The eight new gun laws in Texas will:

-- Allow Texans with concealed carry permits to take guns into churches, synagogues and other places of worship unless the church posts signs prohibiting firearms on the premises.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/laws-ease-texa...d=65326443

(ABC news, so not a blog to be ignored.)

(12-30-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 11:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 06:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Fort Worth shootings

"A man shot two people during a church service in White Settlement, Texas, on Sunday before two armed parishioners shot and killed him, White Settlement Police Chief J.P. Bevering said."

Good thing they passed that law allowing licensed gun owners to have them in church.

Text must have been updated for clarification since you posted. Now reads:

Quote: A man shot and killed two people during a church service in White Settlement, Texas, on Sunday morning before two members of the church security team shot and killed him, authorities said.

Very good that two trained, licensed, and armed individuals were in the church to stop further blood shed. Sounds like they were members of the church that also serve as security “guards” (not clear if uniformed, though) for the church. A bit from later in the article:

Quote: Lt. Gov. Patrick said the state now allows licensed handgun owners to legally carry weapons into places of worship. Another law allows churches to develop, train and plan for their own teams to provide security.

Kind of strange that a law needed to be passed for a church to provide its own security. But maybe the previous law outlawing carrying in places of worship made that illegal?

Have you seen the still from the video that shows at least 6 people (not counting the two people the baddie dropped and the baddie) having handguns drawn?

Yes.

I think this incident shows the best antidote to bad men with guns is good men with guns.

The used to be somebody here(I think it was here) whose argument against having guns was that there would a free-for-all hail of bullets which would be more dangerous to the audience than gunmen methodically killing people without opposition.

Not this time.

I would add that the best antidote is having good TRAINED men with guns.

While Tanq commented that others drew their weapons (haven’t watched the video), I don’t think it’s surprising that the two who were credited for stoping the shooting were trained and part of the security group for the church. I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun.

Do we know if any non-security member fired a shot?

Obtaining a conceal carry permit requires a not insubstantial amount of training. One wold assume the 6 packing all had that.

FYI:the victims

FYI: the shooter

Sounds like this church is very security conscious

(12-30-2019 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-29-2019 11:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Text must have been updated for clarification since you posted. Now reads:


Very good that two trained, licensed, and armed individuals were in the church to stop further blood shed. Sounds like they were members of the church that also serve as security “guards” (not clear if uniformed, though) for the church. A bit from later in the article:


Kind of strange that a law needed to be passed for a church to provide its own security. But maybe the previous law outlawing carrying in places of worship made that illegal?

Have you seen the still from the video that shows at least 6 people (not counting the two people the baddie dropped and the baddie) having handguns drawn?

Yes.

I think this incident shows the best antidote to bad men with guns is good men with guns.

The used to be somebody here(I think it was here) whose argument against having guns was that there would a free-for-all hail of bullets which would be more dangerous to the audience than gunmen methodically killing people without opposition.

Not this time.

I would add that the best antidote is having good TRAINED men with guns.

While Tanq commented that others drew their weapons (haven’t watched the video), I don’t think it’s surprising that the two who were credited for stoping the shooting were trained and part of the security group for the church. I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun.

Do we know if any non-security member fired a shot?

Obtaining a conceal carry permit requires a not insubstantial amount of training. One wold assume the 6 packing all had that.

I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

Quote: Wilson said he was head of security for the West Freeway Church of Christ and that he and other members of the church who were part of the congregation's volunteer security team were "not going to allow evil to succeed." Wilson in the past has owned a gun range, taught firearm safety, including members of the church's security team, and was a former Hood County reserve deputy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcdfw....true%26amp

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Have you seen the still from the video that shows at least 6 people (not counting the two people the baddie dropped and the baddie) having handguns drawn?

Yes.

I think this incident shows the best antidote to bad men with guns is good men with guns.

The used to be somebody here(I think it was here) whose argument against having guns was that there would a free-for-all hail of bullets which would be more dangerous to the audience than gunmen methodically killing people without opposition.

Not this time.

I would add that the best antidote is having good TRAINED men with guns.

While Tanq commented that others drew their weapons (haven’t watched the video), I don’t think it’s surprising that the two who were credited for stoping the shooting were trained and part of the security group for the church. I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun.

Do we know if any non-security member fired a shot?

Obtaining a conceal carry permit requires a not insubstantial amount of training. One wold assume the 6 packing all had that.

I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

Quote: Wilson said he was head of security for the West Freeway Church of Christ and that he and other members of the church who were part of the congregation's volunteer security team were "not going to allow evil to succeed." Wilson in the past has owned a gun range, taught firearm safety, including members of the church's security team, and was a former Hood County reserve deputy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcdfw....true%26amp

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

I am pretty sure.

The security team was volunteers from within the church. You seem to be making an assumption that all of them had experience and background equal to or better than Wilson, when in fact the opposite is most likely to be true. Wilson was appointed head of security for a reason.

I ask you again, on what basis to you assume even one of the people with guns in the church was untrained? On what basis do you think they should not have been allowed there with their gun?

I think if somebody has enough training to qualify for a concealed carry license, he has enough training.

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Have you seen the still from the video that shows at least 6 people (not counting the two people the baddie dropped and the baddie) having handguns drawn?

Yes.

I think this incident shows the best antidote to bad men with guns is good men with guns.

The used to be somebody here(I think it was here) whose argument against having guns was that there would a free-for-all hail of bullets which would be more dangerous to the audience than gunmen methodically killing people without opposition.

Not this time.

I would add that the best antidote is having good TRAINED men with guns.

While Tanq commented that others drew their weapons (haven’t watched the video), I don’t think it’s surprising that the two who were credited for stoping the shooting were trained and part of the security group for the church. I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun.

Do we know if any non-security member fired a shot?

Obtaining a conceal carry permit requires a not insubstantial amount of training. One wold assume the 6 packing all had that.

I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

Quote: Wilson said he was head of security for the West Freeway Church of Christ and that he and other members of the church who were part of the congregation's volunteer security team were "not going to allow evil to succeed." Wilson in the past has owned a gun range, taught firearm safety, including members of the church's security team, and was a former Hood County reserve deputy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcdfw....true%26amp

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

So what is the connection between your first comment of "I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun" and your reply about 'how much more the head of security' had?

Your first comment seemingly (perhaps not) ignored the level of training that a CCL is, and that it appears that all the guns drawn were by CCL holders. So, I threw that out there.

I dont understand why you feel the need to emphasize the superlative level of the head of security in reply to my comment.

(12-31-2019 02:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes.

I think this incident shows the best antidote to bad men with guns is good men with guns.

The used to be somebody here(I think it was here) whose argument against having guns was that there would a free-for-all hail of bullets which would be more dangerous to the audience than gunmen methodically killing people without opposition.

Not this time.

I would add that the best antidote is having good TRAINED men with guns.

While Tanq commented that others drew their weapons (haven’t watched the video), I don’t think it’s surprising that the two who were credited for stoping the shooting were trained and part of the security group for the church. I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun.

Do we know if any non-security member fired a shot?

Obtaining a conceal carry permit requires a not insubstantial amount of training. One wold assume the 6 packing all had that.

I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

Quote: Wilson said he was head of security for the West Freeway Church of Christ and that he and other members of the church who were part of the congregation's volunteer security team were "not going to allow evil to succeed." Wilson in the past has owned a gun range, taught firearm safety, including members of the church's security team, and was a former Hood County reserve deputy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcdfw....true%26amp

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

So what is the connection between your first comment of "I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun" and your reply about 'how much more the head of security' had?

Your first comment seemingly (perhaps not) ignored the level of training that a CCL is, and that it appears that all the guns drawn were by CCL holders. So, I threw that out there.

I dont understand why you feel the need to emphasize the superlative level of the head of security in reply to my comment.

The connection is that the current level of training required for an LTC is not sufficient to actually train someone on how to properly use a firearm, and definitely not enough to cause the outcome we saw here. You’re required to take an online course and a short, less than half a day, range test (https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/ltc/faqs/index.htm). That will not prepare someone with little to no experience how to react in a deadly situation and not cause more damage.

The level of proficiency demonstrated by the man who stopped the shooter made it pretty clear he had significant training and was prepared to act.

People are trying to use this as an example of how a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, and while true on the surface, there is more to it. This is most definitely an example of why people who own guns and are properly trained and experienced in their use should be allowed to continue to own them for self defense.

(12-30-2019 11:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes.

I think this incident shows the best antidote to bad men with guns is good men with guns.

The used to be somebody here(I think it was here) whose argument against having guns was that there would a free-for-all hail of bullets which would be more dangerous to the audience than gunmen methodically killing people without opposition.

Not this time.

I would add that the best antidote is having good TRAINED men with guns.

While Tanq commented that others drew their weapons (haven’t watched the video), I don’t think it’s surprising that the two who were credited for stoping the shooting were trained and part of the security group for the church. I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun.

Do we know if any non-security member fired a shot?

Obtaining a conceal carry permit requires a not insubstantial amount of training. One wold assume the 6 packing all had that.

I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

Quote: Wilson said he was head of security for the West Freeway Church of Christ and that he and other members of the church who were part of the congregation's volunteer security team were "not going to allow evil to succeed." Wilson in the past has owned a gun range, taught firearm safety, including members of the church's security team, and was a former Hood County reserve deputy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcdfw....true%26amp

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

I am pretty sure.

The security team was volunteers from within the church. You seem to be making an assumption that all of them had experience and background equal to or better than Wilson, when in fact the opposite is most likely to be true. Wilson was appointed head of security for a reason.

I ask you again, on what basis to you assume even one of the people with guns in the church was untrained? On what basis do you think they should not have been allowed there with their gun?

I think if somebody has enough training to qualify for a concealed carry license, he has enough training.

Not sure how I’m making the assumption that they all have equal experience and background, especially since I asked if anyone else fired a shot.

I’m not assuming they are untrained, nor did I say that I think they should not have been allowed to have their gun there. Can you point me to where I said that?

Maybe there was some confusion with my first post, when I mentioned that we need to add “trained” to the saying about how good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. That wasn’t saying that these men weren’t trained, but rather that it is clear that, in this instance, the training and gun handling proficiency played a significant role in stopping the mass shooter.

Do you disagree that the training these men undertook played a role in them reacting so swiftly?

(12-31-2019 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 02:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

So what is the connection between your first comment of "I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun" and your reply about 'how much more the head of security' had?

Your first comment seemingly (perhaps not) ignored the level of training that a CCL is, and that it appears that all the guns drawn were by CCL holders. So, I threw that out there.

I dont understand why you feel the need to emphasize the superlative level of the head of security in reply to my comment.

The connection is that the current level of training required for an LTC is not sufficient to actually train someone on how to properly use a firearm, and definitely not enough to cause the outcome we saw here. You’re required to take an online course and a short, less than half a day, range test (https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/ltc/faqs/index.htm). That will not prepare someone with little to no experience how to react in a deadly situation and not cause more damage.

Funny, the requirement per the law is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency' to the instructor. lad, the CCL isnt a 'training to use the gun' thingy -- it is a 'demonstrating proficiency' and a 'know the law' thingy. You kind of gloss that over there.

I guess to you, demonstrating proficiency in a handgun is not good enough, nor is knowing the law good enough.

Quote:The level of proficiency demonstrated by the man who stopped the shooter made it pretty clear he had significant training and was prepared to act.

No doubt he was trained and prepared to act. But funnily, you dismiss a CCL out of hand with only regards to a link.

Have you seen the test? Do you know what it is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency'? Serious questions here lad, my guess is zero to both counts.

No offense lad, the CCL *shows* you are trained in proficiency and knowledge of the use and the ramifications of such use. You are correct it is not training --- it is a test to note whether you are trained sufficiently to be allowed to do the act.

You pooh-poohing the CCL on a blind basis really doesnt do the licensure justice.

Quote:People are trying to use this as an example of how a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, and while true on the surface, there is more to it. This is most definitely an example of why people who own guns and are properly trained and experienced in their use should be allowed to continue to own them for self defense.

And an example to note what exactly a CCL denotes, perhaps.

(12-31-2019 08:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I would add that the best antidote is having good TRAINED men with guns.

While Tanq commented that others drew their weapons (haven’t watched the video), I don’t think it’s surprising that the two who were credited for stoping the shooting were trained and part of the security group for the church. I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun.

Do we know if any non-security member fired a shot?

Obtaining a conceal carry permit requires a not insubstantial amount of training. One wold assume the 6 packing all had that.

I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

Quote: Wilson said he was head of security for the West Freeway Church of Christ and that he and other members of the church who were part of the congregation's volunteer security team were "not going to allow evil to succeed." Wilson in the past has owned a gun range, taught firearm safety, including members of the church's security team, and was a former Hood County reserve deputy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcdfw....true%26amp

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

I am pretty sure.

The security team was volunteers from within the church. You seem to be making an assumption that all of them had experience and background equal to or better than Wilson, when in fact the opposite is most likely to be true. Wilson was appointed head of security for a reason.

I ask you again, on what basis to you assume even one of the people with guns in the church was untrained? On what basis do you think they should not have been allowed there with their gun?

I think if somebody has enough training to qualify for a concealed carry license, he has enough training.

Not sure how I’m making the assumption that they all have equal experience and background, especially since I asked if anyone else fired a shot.

I’m not assuming they are untrained, nor did I say that I think they should not have been allowed to have their gun there. Can you point me to where I said that?

Maybe there was some confusion with my first post, when I mentioned that we need to add “trained” to the saying about how good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. That wasn’t saying that these men weren’t trained, but rather that it is clear that, in this instance, the training and gun handling proficiency played a significant role in stopping the mass shooter.

Do you disagree that the training these men undertook played a role in them reacting so swiftly?

I think one of them was exceptionally highly trained. And that one was very specifically noting the shooter from the get go.

At least 4 others were trained sufficiently to be able to assess the situation and react appropriately, based on video and stills that I saw. They happened not to be 'head of security' but in the congregation, and they also happened to be less 'hawkeye' on the baddie as the head of security, as would be expected of a attendee as opposed to a head of security.

(12-31-2019 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 02:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

So what is the connection between your first comment of "I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun" and your reply about 'how much more the head of security' had?

Your first comment seemingly (perhaps not) ignored the level of training that a CCL is, and that it appears that all the guns drawn were by CCL holders. So, I threw that out there.

I dont understand why you feel the need to emphasize the superlative level of the head of security in reply to my comment.

The connection is that the current level of training required for an LTC is not sufficient to actually train someone on how to properly use a firearm, and definitely not enough to cause the outcome we saw here. You’re required to take an online course and a short, less than half a day, range test (https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/ltc/faqs/index.htm). That will not prepare someone with little to no experience how to react in a deadly situation and not cause more damage.

Funny, the requirement per the law is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency' to the instructor. lad, the CCL isnt a 'training to use the gun' thingy -- it is a 'demonstrating proficiency' and a 'know the law' thingy. You kind of gloss that over there.

I guess to you, demonstrating proficiency in a handgun is not good enough, nor is knowing the law good enough.

Quote:The level of proficiency demonstrated by the man who stopped the shooter made it pretty clear he had significant training and was prepared to act.

No doubt he was trained and prepared to act. But funnily, you dismiss a CCL out of hand with only regards to a link.

Have you seen the test? Do you know what it is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency'? Serious questions here lad, my guess is zero to both counts.

No offense lad, the CCL *shows* you are trained in proficiency and knowledge of the use and the ramifications of such use. You are correct it is not training --- it is a test to note whether you are trained sufficiently to be allowed to do the act.

You pooh-poohing the CCL on a blind basis really doesnt do the licensure justice.

Quote:People are trying to use this as an example of how a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, and while true on the surface, there is more to it. This is most definitely an example of why people who own guns and are properly trained and experienced in their use should be allowed to continue to own them for self defense.

And an example to note what exactly a CCL denotes, perhaps.

So defensive, Tanq.

Not poo-pooing anything, really. I’m simply stating that this person had significant training above the requirements, and that is likely what allowed him to respond how he did.

Do you think all LTC holders would have been able to hit a moving target some 30 to 50 ft away with such ease?

(12-31-2019 09:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 08:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Obtaining a conceal carry permit requires a not insubstantial amount of training. One wold assume the 6 packing all had that.

I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

Quote: Wilson said he was head of security for the West Freeway Church of Christ and that he and other members of the church who were part of the congregation's volunteer security team were "not going to allow evil to succeed." Wilson in the past has owned a gun range, taught firearm safety, including members of the church's security team, and was a former Hood County reserve deputy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcdfw....true%26amp

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

I am pretty sure.

The security team was volunteers from within the church. You seem to be making an assumption that all of them had experience and background equal to or better than Wilson, when in fact the opposite is most likely to be true. Wilson was appointed head of security for a reason.

I ask you again, on what basis to you assume even one of the people with guns in the church was untrained? On what basis do you think they should not have been allowed there with their gun?

I think if somebody has enough training to qualify for a concealed carry license, he has enough training.

Not sure how I’m making the assumption that they all have equal experience and background, especially since I asked if anyone else fired a shot.

I’m not assuming they are untrained, nor did I say that I think they should not have been allowed to have their gun there. Can you point me to where I said that?

Maybe there was some confusion with my first post, when I mentioned that we need to add “trained” to the saying about how good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. That wasn’t saying that these men weren’t trained, but rather that it is clear that, in this instance, the training and gun handling proficiency played a significant role in stopping the mass shooter.

Do you disagree that the training these men undertook played a role in them reacting so swiftly?

I think one of them was exceptionally highly trained. And that one was very specifically noting the shooter from the get go.

At least 4 others were trained sufficiently to be able to assess the situation and react appropriately, based on video and stills that I saw. They happened not to be 'head of security' but in the congregation, and they also happened to be less 'hawkeye' on the baddie as the head of security, as would be expected of a attendee as opposed to a head of security.

I think we are in agreement that trained men and women with guns are a good antidote to bad men with guns.

I think the training required to get a concealed carry permit is enough. I think anything beyond is just gravy. So, if your congregation has men who have law enforcement experience, fine. sign 'em up. If there is somebody who owns a gun range, good. But those guys are rare, so if those are the floor, then there will not be many volunteer guards who meet the Lad requirements.

The video showed six men drawing guns. It is likely all six were part of the security force, but even if they were not, it is likely that they had concealed carry permits. I think it is very unlikely that any were scofflaws who were carrying concealed weapons unlawfully. I grew up in that kind of church, and one of the constant sermons was "render unto Caesar" (follow the laws of men as well as of God).

What training beyond that for a CC permit do you think should be required to be a part of a volunteer church security team?

I don't know if you have ever been to Hood county, but I have. Being a reserve deputy there is not the elite of law enforcement. More like being a reserve linebacker for a D-III school.

I do think that good men with guns are more likely to stop bad men with guns in any public place. More likely than a sign on the wall(saying no guns allowed), anyway. But if you think the sign makes it safer, state your case.

(12-31-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 02:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 11:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think the guy who killed the shooter had more than just the training required for a concealed carry license...

If you read further, the security team ID’d the shooter as being suspect when he entered the church, and they were ready to act as soon as the shotgun was pulled and fired.

This is a great example of how well trained and prepared individuals can be a great tool to stop mass shooters and protect innocent bystanders. I’m not sure how far we can extrapolate these results to the average Joe with even some training.

So what is the connection between your first comment of "I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun" and your reply about 'how much more the head of security' had?

Your first comment seemingly (perhaps not) ignored the level of training that a CCL is, and that it appears that all the guns drawn were by CCL holders. So, I threw that out there.

I dont understand why you feel the need to emphasize the superlative level of the head of security in reply to my comment.

The connection is that the current level of training required for an LTC is not sufficient to actually train someone on how to properly use a firearm, and definitely not enough to cause the outcome we saw here. You’re required to take an online course and a short, less than half a day, range test (https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/ltc/faqs/index.htm). That will not prepare someone with little to no experience how to react in a deadly situation and not cause more damage.

Funny, the requirement per the law is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency' to the instructor. lad, the CCL isnt a 'training to use the gun' thingy -- it is a 'demonstrating proficiency' and a 'know the law' thingy. You kind of gloss that over there.

I guess to you, demonstrating proficiency in a handgun is not good enough, nor is knowing the law good enough.

Quote:The level of proficiency demonstrated by the man who stopped the shooter made it pretty clear he had significant training and was prepared to act.

No doubt he was trained and prepared to act. But funnily, you dismiss a CCL out of hand with only regards to a link.

Have you seen the test? Do you know what it is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency'? Serious questions here lad, my guess is zero to both counts.

No offense lad, the CCL *shows* you are trained in proficiency and knowledge of the use and the ramifications of such use. You are correct it is not training --- it is a test to note whether you are trained sufficiently to be allowed to do the act.

You pooh-poohing the CCL on a blind basis really doesnt do the licensure justice.

Quote:People are trying to use this as an example of how a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, and while true on the surface, there is more to it. This is most definitely an example of why people who own guns and are properly trained and experienced in their use should be allowed to continue to own them for self defense.

And an example to note what exactly a CCL denotes, perhaps.

So defensive, Tanq.

Not poo-pooing anything, really. I’m simply stating that this person had significant training above the requirements, and that is likely what allowed him to respond how he did.

Do you think all LTC holders would have been able to hit a moving target some 30 to 50 ft away with such ease?

The guy made a fantastic head shot --- at distance. No doubt about it. But, that isnt the point.

And no, not all CCL holders would be able to do that. But that isnt the point either.

The point is that there were multiples of people able and ready to respond. Not with the super duper level that you may think is the level. But on that, we will most likely disagree.

What should change in the 'level of proficiency' from the current CCL to make acceptable to you then? But loaded question, this requires you to denote what the sufficient level of sufficiency is, as opposed to a link, and the paraphrase 'just an hour or two at the range'.

I guess in lad world only when you can put a bullet side-temple in a laterally moving person 30-50 ft away can you have a gun? Let alone carry it? That is what you are seemingly advocating by jumping up and down and flapping your wings about the skill level of the baddie dropper. If so, jsut come out and say it --- if not and you dont think the CCL is enough, just say that. When you state that the CCL isnt enough, then please do regale us about *your* experience with the CCL process, and very specifically why that isnt good enough for lad-world.

I guess in lad-world, it really smarts that a good guy drops a baddie. And the fallback is 'well this guy was super duper prepared'. Apparently you want uber super duper extra mustard on top training so only people who can make that head shot can carry?

I mentioned that CCLs had to have decent amounts of proficiency just to have the CCL. And from the accounts that I read, the other 4 people there with drawn weapons had such CCLs.

You respond with a post that makes it sound like the CCL is something you apply for from a cereal box ad. All apparently without knowing anything about the test, nor anything about the range demonstration of proficiency. A level of proficiency that is clearly a mark above 'gee Mabel I bought me a gun, let me go plink some stuff...'.

But notwithstanding what the CCL denotes, you seemingly put it out there as 'not good enough'. Funny that.

(12-31-2019 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What training beyond that for a CC permit do you think should be required to be a part of a volunteer church security team?

Apparently when you can head shot a lateral target at 30-50 feet seems to be an acceptable criterion. Also, apparently, the level of demonstrated proficiency for a CCL isnt. Seems kind of arbitrary to me. Perhaps situationally so.

I don't think everybody with a CCL should necessarily be asked to be a security guard at a church. Leave those choices up to the head of security, who ever that may be.

I do think a CCL should be required of anybody who is asked, and if they don't already have one, they should be required to get one before serving in that capacity.

(12-31-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think everybody with a CCL should necessarily be asked to be a security guard at a church. Leave those choices up to the head of security, who ever that may be.

I do think a CCL should be required of anybody who is asked, and if they don't already have one, they should be required to get one before serving in that capacity.

Agree with all 4 issues.

more

"A woman in one of the middle pews, holding a handgun aloft, calmly guided terrified churchgoers to safety..."

"... being there with a gun is not enough,” said Chuck Chadwick, the leader of the National Organization of Church Security and Safety, who runs a Texas-based security service for churches. “You’ve got to be trained enough to be able to carry out what you need to do in the time you have to do it.”

agree


But that notion has been ridiculed by gun control advocates, who argue that taking high-powered weaponry out of the hands of dangerous individuals can save even more lives.

High-powered weaponry? It was a shotgun.

“It’s not rocket science,” said State Representative Mary Gonzalez, a Democrat from El Paso. “There are so many things that could be done that we just haven’t been doing in the state. We are not trying to take away guns. We’re just trying to make sure guns are not in the hands of the wrong people.”

Well, he was the wrong people, and he got a gun anyway.

(12-31-2019 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 09:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 02:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So what is the connection between your first comment of "I’m a big proponent of mandating training, both safety and handling, for those who want to own a gun" and your reply about 'how much more the head of security' had?

Your first comment seemingly (perhaps not) ignored the level of training that a CCL is, and that it appears that all the guns drawn were by CCL holders. So, I threw that out there.

I dont understand why you feel the need to emphasize the superlative level of the head of security in reply to my comment.

The connection is that the current level of training required for an LTC is not sufficient to actually train someone on how to properly use a firearm, and definitely not enough to cause the outcome we saw here. You’re required to take an online course and a short, less than half a day, range test (https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/ltc/faqs/index.htm). That will not prepare someone with little to no experience how to react in a deadly situation and not cause more damage.

Funny, the requirement per the law is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency' to the instructor. lad, the CCL isnt a 'training to use the gun' thingy -- it is a 'demonstrating proficiency' and a 'know the law' thingy. You kind of gloss that over there.

I guess to you, demonstrating proficiency in a handgun is not good enough, nor is knowing the law good enough.

Quote:The level of proficiency demonstrated by the man who stopped the shooter made it pretty clear he had significant training and was prepared to act.

No doubt he was trained and prepared to act. But funnily, you dismiss a CCL out of hand with only regards to a link.

Have you seen the test? Do you know what it is to 'demonstrate handgun proficiency'? Serious questions here lad, my guess is zero to both counts.

No offense lad, the CCL *shows* you are trained in proficiency and knowledge of the use and the ramifications of such use. You are correct it is not training --- it is a test to note whether you are trained sufficiently to be allowed to do the act.

You pooh-poohing the CCL on a blind basis really doesnt do the licensure justice.

Quote:People are trying to use this as an example of how a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, and while true on the surface, there is more to it. This is most definitely an example of why people who own guns and are properly trained and experienced in their use should be allowed to continue to own them for self defense.

And an example to note what exactly a CCL denotes, perhaps.

So defensive, Tanq.

Not poo-pooing anything, really. I’m simply stating that this person had significant training above the requirements, and that is likely what allowed him to respond how he did.

Do you think all LTC holders would have been able to hit a moving target some 30 to 50 ft away with such ease?

The guy made a fantastic head shot --- at distance. No doubt about it. But, that isnt the point.

And no, not all CCL holders would be able to do that. But that isnt the point either.

The point is that there were multiples of people able and ready to respond. Not with the super duper level that you may think is the level. But on that, we will most likely disagree.

What should change in the 'level of proficiency' from the current CCL to make acceptable to you then? But loaded question, this requires you to denote what the sufficient level of sufficiency is, as opposed to a link, and the paraphrase 'just an hour or two at the range'.

I guess in lad world only when you can put a bullet side-temple in a laterally moving person 30-50 ft away can you have a gun? Let alone carry it? That is what you are seemingly advocating by jumping up and down and flapping your wings about the skill level of the baddie dropper. If so, jsut come out and say it --- if not and you dont think the CCL is enough, just say that. When you state that the CCL isnt enough, then please do regale us about *your* experience with the CCL process, and very specifically why that isnt good enough for lad-world.

I guess in lad-world, it really smarts that a good guy drops a baddie. And the fallback is 'well this guy was super duper prepared'. Apparently you want uber super duper extra mustard on top training so only people who can make that head shot can carry?

I mentioned that CCLs had to have decent amounts of proficiency just to have the CCL. And from the accounts that I read, the other 4 people there with drawn weapons had such CCLs.

You respond with a post that makes it sound like the CCL is something you apply for from a cereal box ad. All apparently without knowing anything about the test, nor anything about the range demonstration of proficiency. A level of proficiency that is clearly a mark above 'gee Mabel I bought me a gun, let me go plink some stuff...'.

But notwithstanding what the CCL denotes, you seemingly put it out there as 'not good enough'. Funny that.

In my world it smarts when a good guy drops a baddy?

What the **** is wrong with you?

(12-31-2019 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In my world it smarts when a good guy drops a baddy?

I think in the liberal world, not you specifically, it can be a bad thing when a good guy drops a baddy.



I think, generically, nonpolice using guns, even on baddies, is frowned upon by the libs. Much better that nobody has guns. Supposed to call 911 and wait to be rescued. Look at the quotes from Beta and other Dem officials.

(12-31-2019 12:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 12:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In my world it smarts when a good guy drops a baddy?

I think in the liberal world, not you specifically, it can be a bad thing when a good guy drops a baddy.



I think, generically, nonpolice using guns, even on baddies, is frowned upon by the libs. Much better that nobody has guns. Supposed to call 911 and wait to be rescued. Look at the quotes from Beta and other Dem officials.

I think you’ll see the majority of people lament that the situation needed to have a good guy with a gun (GGG) take down a bad guy with a gun (BGG), but it is likely a small minority who think it’s bad that a GGG stopped a BBG. If that’s not the case, then you’re suggesting liberals are sad that a mass murderer was stopped.