How sad is that. They need armed guards at their church, and it looks like at least a few other churchgoers were carrying in church. Jesus Christ lol
Not security guards. Church members who volunteered to be part of the security team at the church, a very common practice in churches of all sizes. Two of them shot the murderer nearly simultaneously approximately six seconds after he pulled out the shotgun.
How sad is that. They need armed guards at their church, and it looks like at least a few other churchgoers were carrying in church. Jesus Christ lol
Church security became a major issue in the state after a gunman walked into a church in Sutherland Springs two years ago and fatally shot 26 people and wounded 20 others.
We? I think it's fairly clear that the sentiment is "Geez, we have such a gun violence issue we need to have guns at church."
We have a violence issue in which you choose to tie to guns alone. Remember the knifing during a Jewish holiday? If someone had the intent and a "machete" a whole lot of people at that church would have died. I personally don't carry but I have no problem those who do, hundreds of which most people pass every day and nothing happens.
Remember this was a shotgun, but I bet that a good half dozen would be dead with a "broomstick" blade.
In this specific case I'm glad someone was able to stop things from being worse. YMMV.
Can they sin in heaven?I'm always a little amazed by Christian's who are afraid to meet their maker.
This is a terrible argument which has been thoroughly explored in this and other threads.
Are you asserting that guns are not a more effective/efficient killing tool for larger numbers of people than bladed weapons? Because there's no opinion necessary. If you're not, fair enough.In you opinion so we'll agree to disagree
Not security guards. Church members who volunteered to be part of the security team at the church,
One implies that the average church member, with maybe a bit of training, can step up to protect his fellow parishioner. "Security guard" makes it seem like only those licensed by the state, or in a select class, should be given such power.What's the difference between "security guards" and "members who volunteered to be part of the security team"?
The churchgoers carrying were part of the volunteer security team.
This why some people in Texas are scared to go to church.
One implies that the average church member, with maybe a bit of training, can step up to protect his fellow parishioner. "Security guard" makes it seem like only those licensed by the state, or in a select class, should be given such power.
It may be semantics to most, but some see it as a crucial difference if they support the idea that the right to a gun and self-defense is the right of every law abiding citizen. Especially to those who believe that if you are able to do so, you have a moral responsibility to step up and be a sheepdog to protect the flock when the wolf comes prowling around.
If I walked into a church and saw that it had a security team, I would turn around and walk right out. Go home and pray the way Jesus intended.
Dude is hailed as a Hero, ok, but he wouldn't be necessary practically anywhere else on Earth...it would be more impressive if there wasn't more than 1 Mass Shootings/day.
I don’t know that I would consider the security guy that shot the murderer a hero since he was doing the job he volunteered to do. I don’t believe he would consider himself a hero either. Mass shootings happen in other parts of the world.
The Myth That the US Leads the World in Mass Shootings | Jon Miltimore
Widely circulated comments and data seem to conclusively say that the US leads the world in mass shootings and the violence is unique, a product of “America’s gun culture.” It’s a slam dunk case except for one thing: it’s not true.fee.org
I don’t know that I would consider the security guy that shot the murderer a hero since he was doing the job he volunteered to do. I don’t believe he would consider himself a hero either. Mass shootings happen in other parts of the world.
The Myth That the US Leads the World in Mass Shootings | Jon Miltimore
Widely circulated comments and data seem to conclusively say that the US leads the world in mass shootings and the violence is unique, a product of “America’s gun culture.” It’s a slam dunk case except for one thing: it’s not true.fee.org
I have a vague feeling this Lott guy is a propagandist I've come across before.
I suspect FEE is _yet another_ one of those lobby groups for the rich, dressed up as educational charities. Who funds them? Any Koch money involved, by any chance? [Just googled it, and, yup, of course it is! What a surprise!]
I notice those stats _yet again_ depend on cherry picking so as to include Brevik's spree in the Norway figures. Norway, of course, has a small population, so picking a period that includes their biggest ever mass shooting makes the per-capita figure look high.
But it's not really honest, because you are comparing a small population country that is subject to wild variations with a much larger country, and picking the time period in which they would be at their worst (by far) becuase of that one outlier event. Seriously dishonest.
It would be more honest to look at the EU as a whole, where such variations would be cancelled out. If you are going to consider small countries individually, then pick a much longer time-period.
Either that or pick one US state as a comparator, and make sure you pick one that had a particularly large shooting in the time period concerned.
I'd also wonder why one would think Albania is a place you want to compete with when it comes to gun-violence. It's awash with guns, and, apparently, has a long history of resolving problems between families by multi-generational lethal feuds. And Serbia and Macedonia are not exactly countries I'd be happy to aspire to, either. Why not pick Somalia or Yemen while you are at it?
The children trapped by Albania's blood feuds
How dozens of families' lives are affected by long-running, violent disputes.www.bbc.co.uk
France is a more interesting one, and there's possible some grains of truth in that one. It actually has rather lax gun-control, compared to the UK or Germany (the countries that actually have strong gun control anre both near the bottom of the list).
I do think that's something that gets overlooked - not all of Europe has particularly strong gun-control, and it's gotten worse since Schengen opened the borders, including to eastern europe, which had a lot of guns left over from the collapse of the Soviet bloc.
I notice the time frame was carefully selected to include the Islamic terror shootings in France at the end of 2015 (which, IIRC involved guns smuggled in across those open borders). I wonder if that's a coincidence? On the one hand, it's fair, as those were gun killings (and arguably connected to Europe's own gun-control problem), but still, it makes one wonder about the chosen time-period, in that it starts with Brevik and finishes with the Paris shootings.
It does, I admit, make me thankful we had the good sense to put Britain on an Island. Moderates the climate, deters Nazi invasions, and makes gun-control easier - what's not to like?
Might be a good thing that Doggerland sank.
That linked article is dishonest. It quotes Obama saying "at some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries." Which makes him sound like an idiot, but the article leaves out his next sentence "It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. " That tells you what you need to know about the article.
Here's is a direct comparison between Lott's and Lankford's disparate claims regarding the frequency of mass shootings.
Bottom line is that it entirely depends on definitions. Lott's numbers include terrorist attacks, which are far more frequent in certain other countries than in the US.
You _could_ maybe argue that terror attacks should be included. They are still gun killings, though I suppose the difference is they can have foreign logistical support (in this case, guns smuggled in very specifically for the purpose).
But then it still seems the time period is cherry picked, as the main attacks occurred one month before the end of that 7 year window (why 7 years? seems an odd time window to use).
I'm trying to remember whether Lott is the guy who produced some article I saw that got the facts wrong about how UK murder rates are calculated.
I actually think Lott's method is probably more valid. Most terrorist attacks aren't really "foreign sourced" anyway. Besides, we'd have to back out several of our own mass shootings, such as the Pulse Nightclub and the Planned Parenthood shootings, as both were politically motivated attacks.