(09-11-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In what world it it a red herring to say that the current law requiring background checks be completed by gun dealers worked, when, in fact, a gun dealer did not sell to the Midland shooter because he failed a background check???

Sorry, couldn't really get past that astonishing statement at the start.

The guy still bought a gun, right? Would you not admit that MOST convicted felons wouldn't even TRY and buy a gun from someone requiring a background check? Yet they still get them

It's a red-herring for the very obvious and demonstrable FACT that as I said, it is a solution in search of a problem. You believe this will curtail illegal purchases, and you found a situation where it delayed one... and you then jumped to the conclusion that if we just did it more often, we would do even better... despite the FACT that the method for people like this ISN'T to keep trying until they pass, but to either KNOW they will fail and not go that route, or fail and then go another route.

I feel I pretty accurately described why I called it a red-herring. Perhaps you are merely unfamiliar with the reference. A red herring is something intended to distract, and that is what this is. It is intended to 'prove' something that it can't possibly prove... That background checks keep people from getting guns. They very clearly did NOT do so here... and only would (your distraction) if you could have somehow made an illegal manufacturer and illegal seller of illegal guns, decide to participate in background checks and decline to sell the gun.

Since you can't do that, the point, even if true, is meaningless to the discussion.

It's like saying the solution to illegal drug use is more restrictions on pharmacies and taxes on prescription medication. Yes, it COULD stop them from getting them from pharmacies, but it doesn't do a thing about the already significant and established illegal drug trade and it places a big financial burden on 100+mm legal purchasers of prescription medication.

(09-11-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Ham, I bring up Warren because I actually looked up her policy positions as part of this debate, when I was being told that no Dem wants to propose any position but ones that would curb one's ability to own a gun.

and yet you then went on to demonstrate that this is precisely what her position is.

Illegal purchasers of guns and their suppliers won't comply with her proposal. Legal gun purchasers already comply with them... and you'd be restricting their ability (or increasing their liability) for owning one, legally. I'd note that there is more to ownership of something than the ability to hold it. There is also the ability to sell it.

Ham, I can't tell if you're misinterpreting what I said, or you're really hankering for an argument.

Once Tanq clarified the issue surrounding how the Midland gun was procured, and that the seller was not a private seller, but an illegal manufacturer/seller, my assessment of the situation changed. That comment I made about the effectiveness of background checks was with respect to licensed gun dealers, not on the effect/effectiveness of expanding background checks to cover private sellers.

That comment is not meaningless to the discussion, as you suggest it is, because the discussion was about what current/proposed laws could have stopped this mass shooting, and the current law kept a gun out of the shooter's hands for years. So it seems completely germane to comment on whether the current background law does keep guns out of people who are flagged in the system...

And to your final comment about Warren, are you arguing that increasing the enforcement of current laws about illegal sellers/manufacturers is actually a position the equates to increasing gun control? I can't tell, because you say they won't comply with her proposal, but the whole point of that policy proposal is that authorities have more support to go after people breaking the law.

The current law just delayed him. It prevented nothing.

(09-12-2019 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In what world it it a red herring to say that the current law requiring background checks be completed by gun dealers worked, when, in fact, a gun dealer did not sell to the Midland shooter because he failed a background check???

Sorry, couldn't really get past that astonishing statement at the start.

The guy still bought a gun, right? Would you not admit that MOST convicted felons wouldn't even TRY and buy a gun from someone requiring a background check? Yet they still get them

It's a red-herring for the very obvious and demonstrable FACT that as I said, it is a solution in search of a problem. You believe this will curtail illegal purchases, and you found a situation where it delayed one... and you then jumped to the conclusion that if we just did it more often, we would do even better... despite the FACT that the method for people like this ISN'T to keep trying until they pass, but to either KNOW they will fail and not go that route, or fail and then go another route.

I feel I pretty accurately described why I called it a red-herring. Perhaps you are merely unfamiliar with the reference. A red herring is something intended to distract, and that is what this is. It is intended to 'prove' something that it can't possibly prove... That background checks keep people from getting guns. They very clearly did NOT do so here... and only would (your distraction) if you could have somehow made an illegal manufacturer and illegal seller of illegal guns, decide to participate in background checks and decline to sell the gun.

Since you can't do that, the point, even if true, is meaningless to the discussion.

It's like saying the solution to illegal drug use is more restrictions on pharmacies and taxes on prescription medication. Yes, it COULD stop them from getting them from pharmacies, but it doesn't do a thing about the already significant and established illegal drug trade and it places a big financial burden on 100+mm legal purchasers of prescription medication.

(09-11-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Ham, I bring up Warren because I actually looked up her policy positions as part of this debate, when I was being told that no Dem wants to propose any position but ones that would curb one's ability to own a gun.

and yet you then went on to demonstrate that this is precisely what her position is.

Illegal purchasers of guns and their suppliers won't comply with her proposal. Legal gun purchasers already comply with them... and you'd be restricting their ability (or increasing their liability) for owning one, legally. I'd note that there is more to ownership of something than the ability to hold it. There is also the ability to sell it.

Ham, I can't tell if you're misinterpreting what I said, or you're really hankering for an argument.

Once Tanq clarified the issue surrounding how the Midland gun was procured, and that the seller was not a private seller, but an illegal manufacturer/seller, my assessment of the situation changed. That comment I made about the effectiveness of background checks was with respect to licensed gun dealers, not on the effect/effectiveness of expanding background checks to cover private sellers.

That comment is not meaningless to the discussion, as you suggest it is, because the discussion was about what current/proposed laws could have stopped this mass shooting, and the current law kept a gun out of the shooter's hands for years. So it seems completely germane to comment on whether the current background law does keep guns out of people who are flagged in the system...

And to your final comment about Warren, are you arguing that increasing the enforcement of current laws about illegal sellers/manufacturers is actually a position the equates to increasing gun control? I can't tell, because you say they won't comply with her proposal, but the whole point of that policy proposal is that authorities have more support to go after people breaking the law.

The current law just delayed him. It prevented nothing.

Only because he was willing to break another law to get a gun...

Not sure why his willingness of an individual to flout the law is relevant to the effectiveness of background checks to create a system that keeps dangerous individuals from legally purchasing guns.

Are you arguing against background checks for legal gun purchases?

(09-12-2019 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In what world it it a red herring to say that the current law requiring background checks be completed by gun dealers worked, when, in fact, a gun dealer did not sell to the Midland shooter because he failed a background check???

Sorry, couldn't really get past that astonishing statement at the start.

The guy still bought a gun, right? Would you not admit that MOST convicted felons wouldn't even TRY and buy a gun from someone requiring a background check? Yet they still get them

It's a red-herring for the very obvious and demonstrable FACT that as I said, it is a solution in search of a problem. You believe this will curtail illegal purchases, and you found a situation where it delayed one... and you then jumped to the conclusion that if we just did it more often, we would do even better... despite the FACT that the method for people like this ISN'T to keep trying until they pass, but to either KNOW they will fail and not go that route, or fail and then go another route.

I feel I pretty accurately described why I called it a red-herring. Perhaps you are merely unfamiliar with the reference. A red herring is something intended to distract, and that is what this is. It is intended to 'prove' something that it can't possibly prove... That background checks keep people from getting guns. They very clearly did NOT do so here... and only would (your distraction) if you could have somehow made an illegal manufacturer and illegal seller of illegal guns, decide to participate in background checks and decline to sell the gun.

Since you can't do that, the point, even if true, is meaningless to the discussion.

It's like saying the solution to illegal drug use is more restrictions on pharmacies and taxes on prescription medication. Yes, it COULD stop them from getting them from pharmacies, but it doesn't do a thing about the already significant and established illegal drug trade and it places a big financial burden on 100+mm legal purchasers of prescription medication.

(09-11-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Ham, I bring up Warren because I actually looked up her policy positions as part of this debate, when I was being told that no Dem wants to propose any position but ones that would curb one's ability to own a gun.

and yet you then went on to demonstrate that this is precisely what her position is.

Illegal purchasers of guns and their suppliers won't comply with her proposal. Legal gun purchasers already comply with them... and you'd be restricting their ability (or increasing their liability) for owning one, legally. I'd note that there is more to ownership of something than the ability to hold it. There is also the ability to sell it.

Ham, I can't tell if you're misinterpreting what I said, or you're really hankering for an argument.

Once Tanq clarified the issue surrounding how the Midland gun was procured, and that the seller was not a private seller, but an illegal manufacturer/seller, my assessment of the situation changed. That comment I made about the effectiveness of background checks was with respect to licensed gun dealers, not on the effect/effectiveness of expanding background checks to cover private sellers.

That comment is not meaningless to the discussion, as you suggest it is, because the discussion was about what current/proposed laws could have stopped this mass shooting, and the current law kept a gun out of the shooter's hands for years. So it seems completely germane to comment on whether the current background law does keep guns out of people who are flagged in the system...

And to your final comment about Warren, are you arguing that increasing the enforcement of current laws about illegal sellers/manufacturers is actually a position the equates to increasing gun control? I can't tell, because you say they won't comply with her proposal, but the whole point of that policy proposal is that authorities have more support to go after people breaking the law.

The current law just delayed him. It prevented nothing.

I dont think there is proof positive at all of any delay.

From CNN two points should be taken. The first is that the failed purchase was 5 years ago. The assumption is that any weapon purchased then would have been used then or sooner. There is no indication that that would have happened, because the actual stressor trigger was apparently him being fired the day of the shooting.

The second issue that CNN raises is that the actual firearm used may have been bought a *long time* ago --- maybe up to three years ago. This is may be proof that the buyer knew and circumvented his illegal status, but that time lag cuts completely against the argument of that being a delaying factor., From the CNN account, the gun has been sitting around for potentially up to a 'couple of years' prior to the stressor snap.

Quote:Still, Ator [the Midland shooter] managed to buy the firearm used in Saturday's mass shooting within the last couple of years, according to a third source.

So, no, from the CNN account Ator may very well have had his illegal weapon for seemingly a decent while. And this pretty much doesnt tie in to the 'the current law just delayed him' at all. Not does it buttress lad's defense and allegation that the proposed expansion of the private seller exemption did either.

(09-12-2019 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In what world it it a red herring to say that the current law requiring background checks be completed by gun dealers worked, when, in fact, a gun dealer did not sell to the Midland shooter because he failed a background check???

Sorry, couldn't really get past that astonishing statement at the start.

The guy still bought a gun, right? Would you not admit that MOST convicted felons wouldn't even TRY and buy a gun from someone requiring a background check? Yet they still get them

It's a red-herring for the very obvious and demonstrable FACT that as I said, it is a solution in search of a problem. You believe this will curtail illegal purchases, and you found a situation where it delayed one... and you then jumped to the conclusion that if we just did it more often, we would do even better... despite the FACT that the method for people like this ISN'T to keep trying until they pass, but to either KNOW they will fail and not go that route, or fail and then go another route.

I feel I pretty accurately described why I called it a red-herring. Perhaps you are merely unfamiliar with the reference. A red herring is something intended to distract, and that is what this is. It is intended to 'prove' something that it can't possibly prove... That background checks keep people from getting guns. They very clearly did NOT do so here... and only would (your distraction) if you could have somehow made an illegal manufacturer and illegal seller of illegal guns, decide to participate in background checks and decline to sell the gun.

Since you can't do that, the point, even if true, is meaningless to the discussion.

It's like saying the solution to illegal drug use is more restrictions on pharmacies and taxes on prescription medication. Yes, it COULD stop them from getting them from pharmacies, but it doesn't do a thing about the already significant and established illegal drug trade and it places a big financial burden on 100+mm legal purchasers of prescription medication.

(09-11-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Ham, I bring up Warren because I actually looked up her policy positions as part of this debate, when I was being told that no Dem wants to propose any position but ones that would curb one's ability to own a gun.

and yet you then went on to demonstrate that this is precisely what her position is.

Illegal purchasers of guns and their suppliers won't comply with her proposal. Legal gun purchasers already comply with them... and you'd be restricting their ability (or increasing their liability) for owning one, legally. I'd note that there is more to ownership of something than the ability to hold it. There is also the ability to sell it.

Ham, I can't tell if you're misinterpreting what I said, or you're really hankering for an argument.

Once Tanq clarified the issue surrounding how the Midland gun was procured, and that the seller was not a private seller, but an illegal manufacturer/seller, my assessment of the situation changed. That comment I made about the effectiveness of background checks was with respect to licensed gun dealers, not on the effect/effectiveness of expanding background checks to cover private sellers.

That comment is not meaningless to the discussion, as you suggest it is, because the discussion was about what current/proposed laws could have stopped this mass shooting, and the current law kept a gun out of the shooter's hands for years. So it seems completely germane to comment on whether the current background law does keep guns out of people who are flagged in the system...

And to your final comment about Warren, are you arguing that increasing the enforcement of current laws about illegal sellers/manufacturers is actually a position the equates to increasing gun control? I can't tell, because you say they won't comply with her proposal, but the whole point of that policy proposal is that authorities have more support to go after people breaking the law.

The current law just delayed him. It prevented nothing.

Only because he was willing to break another law to get a gun...

Not sure why his willingness of an individual to flout the law is relevant to the effectiveness of background checks to create a system that keeps dangerous individuals from legally purchasing guns.

Are you arguing against background checks for legal gun purchases?

No one is arguing for vitiating or rolliing the current background check. The argument from this quarter is that the proposed removal of the private sale exemption seemingly has no bearing on any mass shooting.

In short, it is low hanging fruit with a juicy, emotion laden tag line ('*gun show* LOOPHOLE), that doesnt impact on any mass shooting whatsoever. Kind of the kissing cousin of the low hanging fruit with juicy, and a deep emotion causing impact that doesnt actually describe anything ('fleebergeeber rifles').

And, imo, both you and OO may very well be utterly incorrect about any 'delay', notwithstanding the absence of any actual evidence aside from your bald supposition.

I just posted an item from CNN that has at least some evidence that your supposition to that effect is simply flat out wrong (as well as OOs comment above.)

(09-11-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, I can't tell if you're misinterpreting what I said, or you're really hankering for an argument.

And I can't tell if you're actually trying to respond or to merely debate in a circle.

Quote:Once Tanq clarified the issue surrounding how the Midland gun was procured, and that the seller was not a private seller, but an illegal manufacturer/seller, my assessment of the situation changed. That comment I made about the effectiveness of background checks was with respect to licensed gun dealers, not on the effect/effectiveness of expanding background checks to cover private sellers.

And yet you still said:
'The reason I don’t think it is a bad idea to expand background checks to private sellers, is it reduces a potential loophole where someone can slip through the cracks, legally, even if the ATF had an increased force and directive to curb illegal sales (like Warren proposes).'

I'm responding to this. How you can say 'not the effectiveness of expanding checks' and then argue in favor of doing just that is what I'm talking about. So while your assessment of the situation may have changed, your favored solutions have not... so you're making a distinction without a difference.

Said differently, you're claiming you weren't taking a position on effectiveness, and then claiming that expanding checks will reduce a potential loophole. By definition, you're arguing effectiveness.

Quote:That comment is not meaningless to the discussion, as you suggest it is, because the discussion was about what current/proposed laws could have stopped this mass shooting, and the current law kept a gun out of the shooter's hands for years. So it seems completely germane to comment on whether the current background law does keep guns out of people who are flagged in the system...

You don't know that. All you know is that the gun he used in the shooting he didn't have for years. He may have had numerous other guns, OR (and I know that this is hard to follow) his purpose years ago for wanting a gun may NOT have been to go on a shooting spree. To think that he wanted a gun years ago for nefarious purposes and then forgot about them until he decided to shoot up people over a traffic stop years later makes no sense. Your comment implies that you have evidence that he wanted to do this years ago, but was thwarted by the gun laws. All you know is that he couldn't buy one legally.

And again, I haven't seen ANYONE argue for eliminating current checks... so yes, the comment IS meaningless to the discussion and it's only purpose seems to be to support your opinion that if THIS is good, then more is better.

Quote:And to your final comment about Warren, are you arguing that increasing the enforcement of current laws about illegal sellers/manufacturers is actually a position the equates to increasing gun control? I can't tell, because you say they won't comply with her proposal, but the whole point of that policy proposal is that authorities have more support to go after people breaking the law.

Your comment was ' I bring up Warren because I actually looked up her policy positions as part of this debate, when I was being told that no Dem wants to propose any position but ones that would curb one's ability to own a gun.'

and while perhaps not every single position she takes does so, her proposal in toto absolutely DOES curb one's ability to own a gun. If you simply want to look at what she has put on her website, I understand why you feel this way... but the point I'm making is that she isn't going to say in her platform that what she means by 'expanded background checks' is not merely checking for felony records... which is what caught the guy you're using as support for your position... but it includes things like looking into financial records (violation of privacy) and complaints from neighbors (who may have their WON agenda) and all sorts of 'soft' things that are tantamount to a presumption of guilt. They aren't going to say that on their 200 word website, but that is what has been put into the 2,000+ word PROPOSALS.

A proposal isn't what a politician says it is. A proposal is what the law interprets the actually bill to mean.
I can say I propose to eliminate global warming by an expansion of existing fuel economy standards...
If that means pushing us from an average of 26 MPG to one of 30 MPG, that's one proposal
If that means pushing us from an average of 26MPG to entirely electric, that's a completely different one
If that means I'm going to ban cars over 10 years old or over 2,000 pounds, that's still another

They would all be 'expansions of existing fuel economy standards'.

Warren's proposals are
a) platitudes, which are precisely the things we're talking about that 'make sense' to people like you, until you know the facts of the actual situations...
b) mostly 'Orange Man Bad' in that it seems she references 'the Trump Administration' or 'The NRA' FAR more often than she mentions the killers she claims to be targeting. I think it clear who her target is, and it's not the criminals.

Important aside... by 'people like you' that isn't intended as an insult. I mean people who very likely don't buy guns, don't know why people buy guns.. especially 10 of them etc etc etc AND (since you admitted this) people who seem to accept politicians words and media interpretations at face value at least initially. I'm a skeptic.

(09-12-2019 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 10:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The guy still bought a gun, right? Would you not admit that MOST convicted felons wouldn't even TRY and buy a gun from someone requiring a background check? Yet they still get them

It's a red-herring for the very obvious and demonstrable FACT that as I said, it is a solution in search of a problem. You believe this will curtail illegal purchases, and you found a situation where it delayed one... and you then jumped to the conclusion that if we just did it more often, we would do even better... despite the FACT that the method for people like this ISN'T to keep trying until they pass, but to either KNOW they will fail and not go that route, or fail and then go another route.

I feel I pretty accurately described why I called it a red-herring. Perhaps you are merely unfamiliar with the reference. A red herring is something intended to distract, and that is what this is. It is intended to 'prove' something that it can't possibly prove... That background checks keep people from getting guns. They very clearly did NOT do so here... and only would (your distraction) if you could have somehow made an illegal manufacturer and illegal seller of illegal guns, decide to participate in background checks and decline to sell the gun.

Since you can't do that, the point, even if true, is meaningless to the discussion.

It's like saying the solution to illegal drug use is more restrictions on pharmacies and taxes on prescription medication. Yes, it COULD stop them from getting them from pharmacies, but it doesn't do a thing about the already significant and established illegal drug trade and it places a big financial burden on 100+mm legal purchasers of prescription medication.


and yet you then went on to demonstrate that this is precisely what her position is.

Illegal purchasers of guns and their suppliers won't comply with her proposal. Legal gun purchasers already comply with them... and you'd be restricting their ability (or increasing their liability) for owning one, legally. I'd note that there is more to ownership of something than the ability to hold it. There is also the ability to sell it.

Ham, I can't tell if you're misinterpreting what I said, or you're really hankering for an argument.

Once Tanq clarified the issue surrounding how the Midland gun was procured, and that the seller was not a private seller, but an illegal manufacturer/seller, my assessment of the situation changed. That comment I made about the effectiveness of background checks was with respect to licensed gun dealers, not on the effect/effectiveness of expanding background checks to cover private sellers.

That comment is not meaningless to the discussion, as you suggest it is, because the discussion was about what current/proposed laws could have stopped this mass shooting, and the current law kept a gun out of the shooter's hands for years. So it seems completely germane to comment on whether the current background law does keep guns out of people who are flagged in the system...

And to your final comment about Warren, are you arguing that increasing the enforcement of current laws about illegal sellers/manufacturers is actually a position the equates to increasing gun control? I can't tell, because you say they won't comply with her proposal, but the whole point of that policy proposal is that authorities have more support to go after people breaking the law.

The current law just delayed him. It prevented nothing.

Only because he was willing to break another law to get a gun...

Not sure why his willingness of an individual to flout the law is relevant to the effectiveness of background checks to create a system that keeps dangerous individuals from legally purchasing guns.

Are you arguing against background checks for legal gun purchases?

No one is arguing for vitiating or rolliing the current background check. The argument from this quarter is that the proposed removal of the private sale exemption seemingly has no bearing on any mass shooting.

In short, it is low hanging fruit with a juicy, emotion laden tag line ('*gun show* LOOPHOLE), that doesnt impact on any mass shooting whatsoever. Kind of the kissing cousin of the low hanging fruit with juicy, and a deep emotion causing impact that doesnt actually describe anything ('fleebergeeber rifles').

And, imo, both you and OO may very well be utterly incorrect about any 'delay', notwithstanding the absence of any actual evidence aside from your bald supposition.

I just posted an item from CNN that has at least some evidence that your supposition to that effect is simply flat out wrong (as well as OOs comment above.)

I guess I should have said "at most it delayed it".

Sad to see the demise of the Three Musketeers (one for all and all for one). I guess we will just have to go back to making sense separately.

Thanks for the info, which I did not have.

"mostly 'Orange Man Bad' in that it seems she references 'the Trump Administration' or 'The NRA' FAR more often than she mentions the killers she claims to be targeting. I think it clear who her target is, and it's not the criminals."

Her target to be President, and to that end she will say whatever makes her audiences clap and cheer. Targeting Trump and/or the NRA does that for her.

I doubt that any of the front runners give a fig about the deaths, other than that they make good campaign material. More deaths = more votes.

Beta in particular seems unhinged in his pursuit of applause. He has called for forcing rich people to let poor people live next to them. CHEERS! APPLAUSE!! What a man of the people!!!

wonder if this applies to the O'Rourkes

I guess now it is a liberal tenet that they can choose where people live.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pregna...li=BBnbcA1

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.

more

(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?

(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?

I guess you were not following what I said, but rather what you thought I said.

Before the law passed, it was illegal to have the guns in church, even if one had the carry certification.

Yes, I fully expect the security to be church members who volunteer for this duty, rather than uniformed private guns.

I am 100% in agreement with the bolded statement. In fact, I am not sure where we have any disagreement.

I think the whole incident just goes to show that places with armed, trained citizens are safer than gun-free zones.

The church was live streaming their service, so all is recorded. The whole incident lasted 6 seconds. Besides the two men designated as security, at least four more parishioners drew guns, but I don't think any of them fired a shot, as it was over so quickly. The minister thanked God that we live in a country where we are allowed to defend ourselves.

It will be interesting to get the details of how this happened, and why. One can only wonder how many would have died in a gun free zone.

(12-30-2019 12:10 AM)OptimisticOwl 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?

I guess you were not following what I said, but rather what you thought I said.

Before the law passed, it was illegal to have the guns in church, even if one had the carry certification.

Yes, I fully expect the security to be church members who volunteer for this duty, rather than uniformed private guns.

I am 100% in agreement with the bolded statement. In fact, I am not sure where we have any disagreement.

I think the whole incident just goes to show that places with armed, trained citizens are safer than gun-free zones.

I wasn’t disagreeing with anything you said, just adding to the conversation and updating the post, since the article had its text changed to provide more information.

(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?

(12-30-2019 08:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2019 12:10 AM)OptimisticOwl 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?

I guess you were not following what I said, but rather what you thought I said.

Before the law passed, it was illegal to have the guns in church, even if one had the carry certification.

Yes, I fully expect the security to be church members who volunteer for this duty, rather than uniformed private guns.

I am 100% in agreement with the bolded statement. In fact, I am not sure where we have any disagreement.

I think the whole incident just goes to show that places with armed, trained citizens are safer than gun-free zones.

I wasn’t disagreeing with anything you said, just adding to the conversation and updating the post, since the article had its text changed to provide more information.

Thank you for that. These shooting stories tend to evolve a bit over the first 48-72 hours.

(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.

It appears the shooter's weapon was a shotgun.

(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?

(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?

My understanding is that only the two security guys fired, but that may be subject to change.

I think to have those guns in church, all of them had to have a concealed carry license, which involves training to qualify.

Also, I think it likely that instead of having the same two guys be the security each and every Sunday, they are drawn from a pool of volunteer parishioners who are trained and qualified to have a gun in church. I assume the six guys drawing guns were probably all part of that pool, but only two were on duty that day. Do you have any reason to think they are untrained yahoos? White Settlement IS west of Fort Worth, but it is not the wild west.