[Newsbot]

Title: Two dead, one critically wounded after gunman opens fire at church outside Fort Worth, Texas
Category: Uncle Sam
Posted By: Martin15
Date: 2019-12-29 12:48:05

[Martin15]

Bart will no doubt take note of this.

[xerxes]

What he probably won't take note of is how, in spite armed parishioners, the perp still managed to shoot two people before being stopped.

[PluggyRug]

xerxes xerxes:

What he probably won't take note of is how, in spite armed parishioners, the perp still managed to shoot two people before being stopped.

He was stopped by armed parishioners. Would have been much worse without them.

[fifeboy]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

xerxes xerxes:

What he probably won't take note of is how, in spite armed parishioners, the perp still managed to shoot two people before being stopped.

He was stopped by armed parishioners. Would have been much worse without them.

I haven't looked into this particular case, but wouldn't one be able to call most shooters "armed civilians?" Unless it's a case of a military or police person gone nuts.

Perhaps the headlines should read something like "armed civilian kills two, killed by other armed civilian!"



Perhaps we can get Banjo Boy to put his 12 gauge pump action down and pick it for us on the banjo.

[Thanos]

Did someone say banjo?

[fifeboy]

Thanos Thanos:

Did someone say banjo?

YEE HAW pardner

[Thanos]

Oddly enough both sides lost the argument with this shooting. The antis lost because clearly the parishioners being armed prevented another full-fledged massacre of sitting ducks from occurring. The pros also lost though because the parishioners being armed in what is probably a well-known guns-allowed zone didn't do anything at all to scare off this asshole from attacking them. Kind of weird how this one worked out. Once again, the solution isn't to police the firearms or ban them. The only real fix is to put blanket bans on certain people (e.g. political & religious extremists, known domestic abusers, those who've been proven to have made threats in person or online, etc.) from ever getting one in their hands.

[rickc]

Its clearly a win for the pros. Two people being shot by someone on a rampage is nothing. The attacker always has the advantage because he knows whats going down. The victims do not know that something is going down until it starts going down. The person acting always has the upper hand over someone reacting as they have the element of surprise on their side. A few years back in my city a couple of gunman walked up to two uniformed police officers that were eating their lunch. They were able to shoot and kill both of them. All the training in the world does not help when you don't even know that you are in a gunfight.

One gunman in Dallas was able to kill 5 cops and injure 9 others through ambush, which addresses the other point. Just because an area is heavily armed does not prevent an attack. Armored cars get hit. Banks and casinos get robbed. People go into police stations and military bases to kill people. If someone has made the decision to kill someone and they are not afraid to die or rot in prison, than they are going to be very hard to stop. Just like a suicide bomber is very difficult to stop. Respecting citizens rights to carry firearms does not prevent shit from going down. It does give them a chance to defend themselves when shit does go down. A chance that they do not have in anti gun areas. People have the RIGHT to defend themselves. Its not a privilege. The death toll would have been much higher had this church been located in Mass, NY, NJ,all the other "gun free zones".

[Thanos]

Not really. The pro argument is that more armed citizens will make things safe, not safe-ish. If this one is similar to the Dallas shooting then it just shows that someone on a suicide mission isn't much deterred at all even when they know someone else is certainly going to be armed as well. Both sides promise perfection and both sides fail.

[N_Fiddledog]

xerxes xerxes:

What he probably won't take note of is how, in spite armed parishioners, the perp still managed to shoot two people before being stopped.

And the 2019 London Bridge attacker was able to stab 7 people, killing 2 before citizens with the nearest weapon - from a narwhal tusk to a fire extinguisher - were able to stop him.

So what's your point?

[rickc]

Show me where my side is promising perfection. My side says that I have a RIGHT to defend myself, thats all. I do not need to depend on the government to do the job for me. The big difference in the right and the left is that we on the right want equal starting points, what you do with your chances in life is up to you. The left wants equal outcomes for everyone, regardless of your efforts. You can have the right to defend yourself but if you do not learn how to shoot and you never practice than you can end up just as dead as the person who never owned a firearm. Thats on them. I am not going to force anyone to learn how to defend themselves any more than I am going to force them to eat a healthy diet.

Some people ARE afraid to die. Them knowing that you are armed IS a deterrent. People who are not afraid to die are almost always going to succeed in killing some people. Nothing is ever going to stop that. The FACT of the matter is that armed citizens put an early stop to this shooting. Compare the two victims to the body counts in gun free zones where they depend on the cops to save them. Cops who cower outside the building like parkland. Cops who don't even know what is going on like Virginia Tech. These people in this Texas church at least had a chance. The people in the schools did not.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

Both sides promise perfection and both sides fail.

Because neither side is asking why someone would want to open fire on random people in a church. Answering that question might lead to actual solutions to the problem.

[CharlesAnthony]

How odd....... the old guy in the video is laughing.

[stratos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Thanos Thanos:

Both sides promise perfection and both sides fail.

Because neither side is asking why someone would want to open fire on random people in a church. Answering that question might lead to actual solutions to the problem.

Probably the answer, if ever known, will be used by one side or the other to gain political points. The underlying cause will be ignored and nothing leading to a true solution will be searched for.