Jump to content


What's with the ads?

Photo
* * - - - 5 votes

Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(


883 replies to this topic

What's with the ads?

#51 HomeAgain

HomeAgain

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3798 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 06:18 AM

You guys.  Do you know how easy it is to get a gun in Texas?

 

We were there 6 weeks before a rifle was given to a kid in our troop for a high prize in scout popcorn sales.  People auction these things off at raffles and fairs.

 

Yes, there needs to be stricter gun control in Texas.  Full stop.


  • Dotwithaperiod, Hannah, OH_Homeschooler and 9 others like this

#52 Twolittleboys

Twolittleboys

    Hive Mind Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 739 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 06:35 AM

QFT
And prayers for the families of the victims, for the church, and for the little town. Let them heal.

 

I did pray for the families. But honestly, if I was one of the victims (survivor, family, neighbor etc.) of this or any other mass shooting, I would be spitting mad at all the "thoughts and prayers" with nothing else happening. Sure, if EVERYONE prayed and thought healing thoughts there would be no more shootings (or most other crime) - but realistically this is just not going to happen and people have to take personal responsibility for effecting change.


  • Amira, OH_Homeschooler, hornblower and 10 others like this

#53 chiguirre

chiguirre

    RABble raiser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7738 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:06 AM

Pretty hard to shoot up a church if you can't get your hands on the appropriate weapon.

 

 

Well there are some 300 million guns in the US, so it's not going to be difficult to find a weapon.

 

Not every gun would be an appropriate weapon for killing 26 people and wounding as many more in under 15 minutes. For that you need something with a large magazine capacity and the ability to reload quickly. For the Las Vegas shooting, the perpetrator needed the bump stock or he wouldn't have been able to fire fast enough to hit 500 people in 10 minutes. You can't massacre this many people without military style hardware. A hunting rifle, a double barreled shotgun or a Colt 45 just can't do this. You will still have shootings but the body count will not be as horrific. At this point, I'd be happy with less horrific. Reinstating the assault weapon ban would be a big step in the right direction.


  • Happy, Barb_, Amira and 15 others like this

#54 HomeAgain

HomeAgain

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3798 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:09 AM

I did pray for the families. But honestly, if I was one of the victims (survivor, family, neighbor etc.) of this or any other mass shooting, I would be spitting mad at all the "thoughts and prayers" with nothing else happening. Sure, if EVERYONE prayed and thought healing thoughts there would be no more shootings (or most other crime) - but realistically this is just not going to happen and people have to take personal responsibility for effecting change.

 

This.

 

If prayers were the answer, there never would have been a holocaust or the genocides before and after.  We cannot sit back and decide that our only option is prayer that a deity will make it all better.  Our prayers should be for guidance in doing what is right, courage in putting it into action, foresight to see how this will affect future generations, and compassion for those who have been wronged.

 

Not a solution.  The solution has to come from us, helping ourselves.
 


  • Amira, 8circles, nansk and 7 others like this

#55 J-rap

J-rap

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11471 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:12 AM

I do think prayers are crucial.  But I also think God is absolutely depending on us to act.


  • Amira, emzhengjiu, 8circles and 2 others like this

#56 Arctic Mama

Arctic Mama

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 07:33 AM

And for Scalia not to take the rightmost position in a debate is quite unusual, as I think we all know.

That’s an inaccurate assessment of his jurisprudence. He didn’t take whatever the “rightmost” position was, he took whatever the originalist position was, with rare exception. That is the position many of us on the right side of the political spectrum favor, but it doesn’t mean he intentionally voted to line up with a political agenda, but rather that his ethos of how to decide cases was whatever he understood to be most true to the principles, structure, and intent of the constitution as conceived by the framers.

And in Heller, his caveat lined up with that ethos as well - that the right was guaranteed and was an individual right, not a corporal/group or military right, and that it also could be subject to certain restrictions of scope and qualification based on criminal status.

Which, I might add, is the position the vast majority of us gun toting NRA members hold to as well. Something that tends to get missed in this discussions when there is disagreement on what those restrictions and qualifications should be, and whether expanding them moves into the territory of abridging that right too much for it to be meaningful anymore.

It’s right up there with jumping to banning websites and censoring the internet every time revenge p*rn or hate speech is posted. Some would do it, but it doesn’t make it the proper legislative response to the individual situation.

The fact that the typical talking points got dusted off while bodies were still warm on the ground is gross and oh so predictable. I’m not going to engage in this merry go round on guns yet again, but Scalia does deserve defending of his jurisprudence and the consistency behind it.

Edited by Arctic Mama, 06 November 2017 - 07:44 AM.

  • Carol in Cal., Cindy in FL., transientChris and 11 others like this

#57 Dotwithaperiod

Dotwithaperiod

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5695 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 08:45 AM

A dishonorable discharge DOES get a ding. This man was court martialed. He is barred from having possession of a weapon. But felons aren't often honest.

I'm absolutely not opposed to background checks for a weapon. But I'm not sure that would have prevented this.

No, he wasn't banned. It was a Bad Conduct discharge. He beat the crap out of his wife and child, spent a year in military prison, then the military deemed it a lesser charge of bad conduct, meaning he still could own weapons.
Along with the fact that men with a history of domestic violence is a huge factor in these type of terroristic acts, it is also insane that we choose to not do anything. We keep saying that nothing can stop this type of attack, in one of the only damn countries in the world that it REPEATEDLY HAPPENS.

Edited by Dotwithaperiod, 06 November 2017 - 08:45 AM.

  • Barb_, Amira, OH_Homeschooler and 14 others like this

#58 OhElizabeth

OhElizabeth

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30839 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 08:47 AM

Ok, can I ask a question? Honestly, I haven't been watching any of the coverage because it seemed focused on showing people traumatized, which I don't need right now. Was anyone in that church concealed carry? Did they have security policies? Because y'all are talking about how they could take away guns from criminals (who lie, steal, etc.), but this was Texas. I thought the idea was in Texas so many people have guns to protect themselves. Where were their guns when they needed them? 

 

Or was the whole thing just so fast? Did he walk in after the service started? I mean, something that big (an assault rifle??) isn't something you just hide. So did he come in after the service started and people were vulnerable? 

 

It just so does not add up to me. Churches KNOW they are targets right now and they have to have safety plans. 



#59 Dotwithaperiod

Dotwithaperiod

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5695 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 08:50 AM

So where do we even start??
Why can't we address, as a nation, abusers' access to weapons.
  • TechWife, 8circles, nansk and 5 others like this

#60 Dotwithaperiod

Dotwithaperiod

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5695 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:02 AM

I find the "we need more laws" rhetoric ridiculous. We already have laws - it was already illegal for this shooter to possess a gun as he was dishonorably discharged from the air force. With over 300 MILLION guns in the United States, we need a way to remove weapons from criminals, before imposing additional requirements on law abiding citizens. Latest reports are that it was an armed neighbor who shot and wounded the shooter. Who would your additional laws hurt - the guy already breaking the law, or the one who stopped him? I'm all for laws that will reduce criminals' access to weapons, and I would start by finding out how this shooter gained access to his weapons and find ways to prohibit a tradgedy by like this from happening in the future. But having seen the hoops that my FIL (a law abiding veteran) went through to try to purchase a gun in NY with no success, I'm not willing to give up my guns, my means of protection, until the criminals are unarmed.

And for the record - AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle. It stands for Armalite, the company who originally manufactured the AR-15. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic (not automatic) weapon just like most pistols.

Not true. He was not dishonorably discharged. Bad conduct discharge.could still own weapons after spending a year in military prison for assaulting his wife and child.
Sounds like the military group that decided beating the crap out of your family didn't deserve a harsher discharge...
  • Lady Florida., 8circles, onelittlemonkey and 3 others like this

#61 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7805 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:09 AM

QFT
And prayers for the families of the victims, for the church, and for the little town. Let them heal.

 

Okay.  Just pretend we are discussing the other mass shootings we were told we couldn't talk about at the time.


Edited by ChocolateReign, 06 November 2017 - 09:10 AM.

  • Eliana, Lady Florida., 8circles and 6 others like this

#62 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7805 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:11 AM


The fact that the typical talking points got dusted off while bodies were still warm on the ground is gross and oh so predictable. I’m not going to engage in this merry go round on guns yet again, but Scalia does deserve defending of his jurisprudence and the consistency behind it.

 

When don't we have warm bodies on the ground from mass shootings?


  • Barb_, Eliana, Lady Florida. and 13 others like this

#63 chiguirre

chiguirre

    RABble raiser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7738 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:12 AM

Ok, can I ask a question? Honestly, I haven't been watching any of the coverage because it seemed focused on showing people traumatized, which I don't need right now. Was anyone in that church concealed carry? Did they have security policies? Because y'all are talking about how they could take away guns from criminals (who lie, steal, etc.), but this was Texas. I thought the idea was in Texas so many people have guns to protect themselves. Where were their guns when they needed them? 

 

Or was the whole thing just so fast? Did he walk in after the service started? I mean, something that big (an assault rifle??) isn't something you just hide. So did he come in after the service started and people were vulnerable? 

 

It just so does not add up to me. Churches KNOW they are targets right now and they have to have safety plans. 

 

He shot in through the windows first. He was wearing tactical body armor. A neighbor did shoot at him as he was leaving (and may have hit him) and then jumped in a pickup that happened by and those two civilians chased him as he was driving away. 


  • OhElizabeth and okbud like this

#64 mommyoffive

mommyoffive

    Just Visiting

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2923 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:15 AM

We need to do whatever we can to stop these mass shootings.   This is not what life should be like in America in 2017.   I think it will take more than one law or change, but we need to do it. 

Maybe some people will not like it, but would they rather have to worry and be affected by this? 

 

We can't be alarmed when these things happen and then forget about them a week or month later.   My god each one is so horrible and any life lost is too much.   How can we as a nation let innocent young children be killed like at Sandy Hook or basically a battlefield happen in Las Vegas and not change things?  

 

It seems like this happens everyday now.  Enough is Enough. 


  • Barb_, Amira, Hannah and 6 others like this

#65 Dotwithaperiod

Dotwithaperiod

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5695 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:23 AM

That’s an inaccurate assessment of his jurisprudence. He didn’t take whatever the “rightmost” position was, he took whatever the originalist position was, with rare exception. That is the position many of us on the right side of the political spectrum favor, but it doesn’t mean he intentionally voted to line up with a political agenda, but rather that his ethos of how to decide cases was whatever he understood to be most true to the principles, structure, and intent of the constitution as conceived by the framers.

And in Heller, his caveat lined up with that ethos as well - that the right was guaranteed and was an individual right, not a corporal/group or military right, and that it also could be subject to certain restrictions of scope and qualification based on criminal status.

Which, I might add, is the position the vast majority of us gun toting NRA members hold to as well. Something that tends to get missed in this discussions when there is disagreement on what those restrictions and qualifications should be, and whether expanding them moves into the territory of abridging that right too much for it to be meaningful anymore.

It’s right up there with jumping to banning websites and censoring the internet every time revenge p*rn or hate speech is posted. Some would do it, but it doesn’t make it the proper legislative response to the individual situation.

The fact that the typical talking points got dusted off while bodies were still warm on the ground is gross and oh so predictable. I’m not going to engage in this merry go round on guns yet again, but Scalia does deserve defending of his jurisprudence and the consistency behind it.

Ha! Yet the typical talking points of immigration can be started immediately after an attack, right?
So let's see...
1. He's a lone wolf, not a terrorist.
2. It's not really an assault rifle, let me explain the difference
3. Their dead bodies are still warm, too soon to discuss policy.
4. Let's pray, instead.
5. If it wasn't a gun, he could have used a stick or slingshot or shovel, etc
6. We don't outlaw all cars when a vehicle is used as a weapon, right?
Got it. It is the same old same old, as you always make a point to say. You've given up caring? Fine. But others have not.
Want to pray? Pray also that the rule-makers grow some balls and have the courage to confront the problem.
Lone wolf instead of a single group? How about understanding how domestic violence and mental illness play a part in violence, in mass amounts and individual homicide/suicide. Background checks- can me make these more effective in ANY way? Lobbyists-- is there any connection between the amount of money the NRA and weapon manufacturers give to our members in Congress, state, and local??
Policy change? Why is it acceptable to immediately jump to promoting harsher immigration policies, denigrating religious groups, etc but it is TOO SOON to discuss gun legislation? Their bodies will always be warm on the ground, as this insanity happens every single day in this country.

Edited by Dotwithaperiod, 06 November 2017 - 09:25 AM.

  • Barb_, Jann in TX, Amira and 19 others like this

#66 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32492 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:27 AM

Ok, can I ask a question? Honestly, I haven't been watching any of the coverage because it seemed focused on showing people traumatized, which I don't need right now. Was anyone in that church concealed carry? Did they have security policies? Because y'all are talking about how they could take away guns from criminals (who lie, steal, etc.), but this was Texas. I thought the idea was in Texas so many people have guns to protect themselves. Where were their guns when they needed them? 

 

Or was the whole thing just so fast? Did he walk in after the service started? I mean, something that big (an assault rifle??) isn't something you just hide. So did he come in after the service started and people were vulnerable? 

 

It just so does not add up to me. Churches KNOW they are targets right now and they have to have safety plans. 

I understand not wanting to watch the coverage.   Hugs.

 

Yes, he walked in about half an hour after the service had started.  I am not opposed to churches having a safety plan.  What type of safety plan would you suggest?  Lots of people are packed into a relatively small space, seated in pews so maneuverability is limited.  The minister is almost certainly not going to be packing during his church sermon.  What were these church members supposed to do against a man armed with weapons that can fire multiple rounds in a very short span of time?  I am not opposed to a safety plan but I have a hard time envisioning one that would have prevented this from happening.  Maybe lessening the damage, though.  

 

As a Texan, and as the relative of a lot of people who are Texans, many of whom live in tiny Texas towns, I think I may have some insight here regarding why no one immediately shot the man while inside the church.  Why did no one apparently have a gun available inside the church?  We don't carry our guns into church.  This is Texas but that doesn't mean all of our citizens walk around armed to the teeth.  Far from it.  That church is a house of worship, not a house of war.  I don't even own a gun but I have a lot of relatives that do.  It is part of the culture and they know how to safely use them.  But they don't have semi-automatic anything.  They have shot guns or 6 shooters of some kind, mainly used on ranches/farms.  And they don't carry them into church.  Mom was talking about this yesterday.  We just don't carry a gun into a house of worship.  Anyone's house of worship.  Why would we?

 

Considering how many zillions of churches there are in the State of Texas, and how many have actually had someone come in and shoot up the congregation, the odds are STRONGLY in our favor that we are not in danger when we go to church.  Why would someone automatically assume that after NO gun violence in their church since the church was created there would suddenly be a violent attack of this nature?  There are crimes committed every day in cities across the country, including where I live.  That doesn't mean I carry a gun with me as I walk out the door, nor should I feel like I failed in some way if I choose not to carry a gun but am then involved in a violent crime involving guns.  This town had NO reason to fear that someone would come marching in and shoot them. 

 

Is there an issue with gun violence?  Yes.  Absolutely.  And it needs to somehow be addressed.  NOW.  Is one solution to arm everyone so we all go around carrying guns?  And if we choose not to carry a gun but we get shot then, well, its our fault for not being armed?  NO.  I don't see that as the solution at all.

 

I think it is a multifaceted problem and no one change will solve everything but there have been a lot of good suggestions.  Reinstating the ban on assault weapons would be one of them, IMHO.  

 

That does not mean that ANYONE should feel obligated to carry a gun into their church on the off chance that a random person will come walking in one morning and shoot everyone.  

 

But yes, I do think churches could try and institute some safety planning.  Not that it could prevent what happened but it MIGHT save a life or two if the congregation had some plan in place.


  • chiguirre, Silver Brook and aggie96 like this

#67 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27125 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:29 AM

Last time I checked, they didn't have much info on the guy, but I thought he had domestic violence history among other things.  They also said his family had some ties in the church.

 

Last week a somewhat prominent woman in our community was brutally murdered (throat slit) by a guy who had been reported as having violated a protection order in favor of this woman 3x.  There was a warrant out for his arrest but the cops didn't act on it.

 

This is a small part of a big pattern in this country and in the world.  We don't take domestic violence seriously and there is absolutely no good reason for that.


  • chiguirre, Barb_, Carol in Cal. and 7 others like this

#68 Tibbie Dunbar

Tibbie Dunbar

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6320 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:31 AM

Sand walker, Arctic Mama, and others concerned about respect for survivors healing and still warm bodies - how do you not see by now that the survivors guilt and sorrow are intensified and compounded by helplessness? Anyone recovering from loss wants to do something, to make it count, to set it right. It's practically one of the stages of grief. But survivors and family members of mass shooting victims have nothing, nothing, nothing to make them hope for a future where this doesn't happen. They have to mourn and go forward, knowing their other children may also be slaughtered somewhere else. A child who survived San Antonio may grow up to die in a college campus shooting. An adult at San Antonio may have survived Ft. Hood...the real comfort - by which I mean justice and closure - would be for the authorities and everyone else to tell the truth about this war zone we are living in, and immediately take known researched, effective measures to reduce these massacres of innocents in our land.
  • chiguirre, Barb_, Dotwithaperiod and 16 others like this

#69 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27125 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:31 AM

And yes, I do want some people in church to be packing weapons for protection.  We have some cops in our church (members, not in uniform) and I assume they are carrying.


  • MercyA likes this

#70 Tibbie Dunbar

Tibbie Dunbar

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6320 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:37 AM

One Step, I live moments from a difficult urban neighborhood. A friends church has a well armed and well trained security force that patrols and protects the church during Sunday services. These are congregants who received special training thru a police program. They used to just come armed and stay ready, but now they are on active duty while their families worship, and this is why:

This summer, the foyer and children's center were strafed by automatic gunfire, on a Sunday morning. If the children had not been in the sanctuary for a special music program, on any other Sunday they would have all been lined up at that exact time, to be picked up by parents, right in front of those doors and walls that were shattered by bullets. Possibly most of the children would have been killed.
  • OhElizabeth likes this

#71 hornblower

hornblower

    Vegan Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11518 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:42 AM


The fact that the typical talking points got dusted off while bodies were still warm on the ground is gross and oh so predictable. I’m not going to engage in this merry go round on guns yet again, but Scalia does deserve defending of his jurisprudence and the consistency behind it.


We can talk about Vegas if you prefer. 


There's also an entire contingent of people - me included - noting for posterity on social media that if I'm killed in a mass shooting, don't waste time with your prayers; I want the people who cared for me politicize the %^&((*&! out of it, instantly and unceasingly, to make change happen. We honor victims by pledging change.

It's not really any different than asking for donations to a cancer charity at a funeral. 

 


  • chiguirre, Barb_, Dotwithaperiod and 19 others like this

#72 Bluegoat

Bluegoat

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12497 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:42 AM

Ok, can I ask a question? Honestly, I haven't been watching any of the coverage because it seemed focused on showing people traumatized, which I don't need right now. Was anyone in that church concealed carry? Did they have security policies? Because y'all are talking about how they could take away guns from criminals (who lie, steal, etc.), but this was Texas. I thought the idea was in Texas so many people have guns to protect themselves. Where were their guns when they needed them? 

 

Or was the whole thing just so fast? Did he walk in after the service started? I mean, something that big (an assault rifle??) isn't something you just hide. So did he come in after the service started and people were vulnerable? 

 

It just so does not add up to me. Churches KNOW they are targets right now and they have to have safety plans. 

 

Shooting at someone from within a crowd isn't a great idea in general.  


  • chiguirre, Amira, Eliana and 2 others like this

#73 SKL

SKL

    Qualified Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27125 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:48 AM

Ok, can I ask a question? Honestly, I haven't been watching any of the coverage because it seemed focused on showing people traumatized, which I don't need right now. Was anyone in that church concealed carry? Did they have security policies? Because y'all are talking about how they could take away guns from criminals (who lie, steal, etc.), but this was Texas. I thought the idea was in Texas so many people have guns to protect themselves. Where were their guns when they needed them? 

 

Or was the whole thing just so fast? Did he walk in after the service started? I mean, something that big (an assault rifle??) isn't something you just hide. So did he come in after the service started and people were vulnerable? 

 

It just so does not add up to me. Churches KNOW they are targets right now and they have to have safety plans. 

 

Having lived in a quiet, small rural community, I would guess they did not feel vulnerable.  "I know my community and nobody here is that evil or crazy."
 



#74 ChocolateReign

ChocolateReign

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7805 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:50 AM

The likelihood of the average person being able to successfully return fire after someone has started firing from behind them with a semi-automatic high capacity weapon is absurdly low.  Most churches cannot afford armed security patrols during services, and we are well and truly ****ed as a nation if that is what it takes to be safe in church.


  • Dotwithaperiod, OH_Homeschooler, Eliana and 12 others like this

#75 hornblower

hornblower

    Vegan Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11518 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:52 AM

And yes, I do want some people in church to be packing weapons for protection.  We have some cops in our church (members, not in uniform) and I assume they are carrying.


This is so crazy to me. It would be like living in a war zone.  

This must be some frog in hot water thing playing out.  I cannot imagine accepting this. 

I had a friend who moved to a country with a high murder rate in the early 00s and we talked about safety and whether the family would be ok and what types of precautions they would take. Same with some other friends of dh who are geologists and moving families to remote and areas with poor policing and civil strife.  The idea that you have armed guards all over the place is just not normal.  

I will not accept this as normal.  I'm an atheist and I find the idea of weapons in a house of worship abhorrent. 


  • Amira, Eliana, Frances and 14 others like this

#76 chiguirre

chiguirre

    RABble raiser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7738 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 09:53 AM

USA Today is reporting that the perpetrator's inlaws belonged to this church. I think we have a motive.


  • umsami and MercyA like this

#77 LarlaB

LarlaB

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:01 AM

The lack of logical, critical thinking here is stunning, particularly on a board devoted to classical education.

I suppose by your logic the Las Vegas shooting was because of hatred of country music, and the Newtown shooter hated young children.

Neither, of course, seems to be true at all.


Well HATE is a common denominator isn’t it? It’s an oversimplification to say that guns and easy access are the root of the issue. It’s not. It’s hatred, violence and evil in the heart of man that motivates them to collect weapons, plan and execute an attack. Guns are the mechanism by which they choose to enact their evil.

A mentally ill person, psychopath or individual with intense rage and hatred in their hearts IS the problem. The fact that they have easy access to ‘legal’ assault weapons further compounds the problem. I support limits on gun ownership but am not naive enough to believe that gun control is the solution to the evil heart issue.

From a psychological perspective, I would expect someone who is intent on inflicting harm and destruction on others to find a way to do so even if guns are harder to access.

But we’ve had this discussion here. 1000 Times.
  • Sweet Charlotte, Snoopytwo, aggie96 and 1 other like this

#78 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32492 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:10 AM

One Step, I live moments from a difficult urban neighborhood. A friends church has a well armed and well trained security force that patrols and protects the church during Sunday services. These are congregants who received special training thru a police program. They used to just come armed and stay ready, but now they are on active duty while their families worship, and this is why:

This summer, the foyer and children's center were strafed by automatic gunfire, on a Sunday morning. If the children had not been in the sanctuary for a special music program, on any other Sunday they would have all been lined up at that exact time, to be picked up by parents, right in front of those doors and walls that were shattered by bullets. Possibly most of the children would have been killed.

I can see the need in some instances, especially in urban settings, for TRAINED personnel to be armed and ready to defend a church in today's day and age, and for a carefully laid out plan to be in place for what to do in given situations.  And for the congregation at large to be trained in what to do should a shooting occur.  It sickens me that this might be needed but I acknowledge that we may seriously have reached this point, at least for some churches.  Possibly.

 

My response was to the apparent assumption that these church members of a tiny town church should have ASSUMED they were in danger and carried weapons into the church and that they somehow failed their fellow members by not packing (which is kind of how OhE's post read to me, although that may not have been her intent at all).  I disagree with that premise and felt I had to say something.  Add up how many churches are out there vs. how many have actually been involved in a mass shooting and I don't see statistically why anyone in that church (or any other church) should have felt obligated to bring their weapon into the church or that they somehow failed themselves or their fellow members by not carrying a weapon and shooting the man as soon as he fired.  

 

I am not saying that what you mentioned is not a needed plan under certain circumstances.  That actually makes sense to me in certain circumstances, although it breaks my heart that it might be a good idea.  That is very different from the minister and the congregation at large feeling they have to bring weapons into their church every time they attend worship on the off chance that somebody might show up with weapons that can rapid fire bullets.  I don't agree that it should be expected for the minister or the congregation of a church to be packing every time they go to church service or to feel like they failed in some way if they don't.  

 

ETA:  I agree with others, I reject the idea that all churches need armed guards so that people can attend worship.  Or that firing guns around a large crowd of tightly packed panicky church members is a good idea, either.


Edited by OneStepAtATime, 06 November 2017 - 10:53 AM.

  • Carol in Cal. and Amira like this

#79 chiguirre

chiguirre

    RABble raiser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7738 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:13 AM


A mentally ill person, psychopath or individual with intense rage and hatred in their hearts IS the problem. The fact that they have easy access to ‘legal’ assault weapons further compounds the problem. I support limits on gun ownership but am not naive enough to believe that gun control is the solution to the evil heart issue.

From a psychological perspective, I would expect someone who is intent on inflicting harm and destruction on others to find a way to do so even if guns are harder to access.

But we’ve had this discussion here. 1000 Times.

 

Gun control won't solve the violent person who wants to kill people problem but it will limit the consequences. I'd rather there were no mass shootings but that's not possible. What is possible is banning high capacity magazines, bump stocks, body armor, etc. If shooters didn't have this gear they couldn't kill as many people in 10 minutes. I'd much rather have 3 or 4 killed than 26 or 58.


  • Barb_, Amira, Eliana and 10 others like this

#80 Tibbie Dunbar

Tibbie Dunbar

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6320 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:16 AM

One Step at a Time, I wasn't disagreeing with you or arguing? I don't think the trained squad should be necessary. I even think it's probably somewhat harmful for the children of those men to feel that while they're going to Sunday school, daddy is armed for war. :( I definitely don't think ministers and other clergy or staff should be armed for defense, any more than most of us think schoolteachers, bus drivers, and pilots should be armed.

I just meant to post that if it happens, here's the first church I've heard of to have anything like a security plan in place. My friend told me the police had informed them that this is a growing concept. She was as shocked as I was.
  • OneStepAtATime likes this

#81 OhElizabeth

OhElizabeth

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30839 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:23 AM

I understand not wanting to watch the coverage.   Hugs.

 

Yes, he walked in about half an hour after the service had started.  I am not opposed to churches having a safety plan.  What type of safety plan would you suggest?  Lots of people are packed into a relatively small space, seated in pews so maneuverability is limited.  The minister is almost certainly not going to be packing during his church sermon. 

 

 

One Step, I live moments from a difficult urban neighborhood. A friends church has a well armed and well trained security force that patrols and protects the church during Sunday services. These are congregants who received special training thru a police program. They used to just come armed and stay ready, but now they are on active duty while their families worship, and this is why:

This summer, the foyer and children's center were strafed by automatic gunfire, on a Sunday morning. If the children had not been in the sanctuary for a special music program, on any other Sunday they would have all been lined up at that exact time, to be picked up by parents, right in front of those doors and walls that were shattered by bullets. Possibly most of the children would have been killed.

Bingo. Absolutely the pastor could be packing heat. Churches now are assigning and know who is packing heat at a given service. And if the shooter was able to WALK IN, then they AREN'T FOLLOWING a safety plan. Safety plans include things like security for the doors, locking the doors so that people can exit but not enter, having people stationed, having cameras. 

 

 

Shooting at someone from within a crowd isn't a great idea in general.  

 

But the guy WALKS IN with a visible assault rifle, and there's no one at the doors stopping him??? 

 

If the guy was shooting through the windows and then came in, that's even more astonishing. They had no security plan. Sitting ducks. 


  • MercyA likes this

#82 Tibbie Dunbar

Tibbie Dunbar

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6320 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:27 AM

Bingo. Absolutely the pastor could be packing heat. Churches now are assigning and know who is packing heat at a given service. And if the shooter was able to WALK IN, then they AREN'T FOLLOWING a safety plan. Safety plans include things like security for the doors, locking the doors so that people can exit but not enter, having people stationed, having cameras. 
 
 

 
But the guy WALKS IN with a visible assault rifle, and there's no one at the doors stopping him??? 
 
If the guy was shooting through the windows and then came in, that's even more astonishing. They had no security plan. Sitting ducks.


I must be having trouble tracking this morning. I am not sure how my post warrants these responses...I was talking about security plans for churches being a *very, very new* concept for most Americans. We do NOT have security plans. We do NOT have an on guard, OPSEC culture around peaceable activities like going to church or school. Because up until the last fifteen minutes of history, we didn't need them.
  • OhElizabeth, Eliana, 8circles and 3 others like this

#83 gardenmom5

gardenmom5

    Amateur Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19814 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:29 AM

USA Today is reporting that the perpetrator's inlaws belonged to this church. I think we have a motive.

 

apparently - his 2nd set of ?soon-to-be?already? ex inlaws.   he was married before - and divorced at the time he was dishonorably discharged for domestic violence. (so it should have been illegal for him to have a gun.)


  • transientChris likes this

#84 OhElizabeth

OhElizabeth

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30839 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:31 AM

I can see the need in some instances, especially in urban settings, for TRAINED personnel to be armed and ready to defend a church in today's day and age, and for a carefully laid out plan to be in place for what to do in given situations....

 

My response was to the apparent assumption that these church members of a tiny town church should have ASSUMED they were in danger and carried weapons into the church and that they somehow failed their fellow members by not packing (which is kind of how OhE's post read to me...

 

Actually that's PRECISELY what I'm saying, that people are not stepping up if they do not have a safety plan in their church, do not have designated conceal/carry people for the day, do not have proper procedures for how you handle doors, etc. You don't need drills for the whole church. You just need a board and leadership that has put in place the plan and has the people who are there handling it. It's a leadership problem. And if people say well only urban churches, was this an urban church??

 

The church is an easy target for abuse, whether it's people seeking access to children, people seeking financial access, people seeking a crowd to attack and make a point. Easy, easy targets. You HAVE to have procedures, plans, and security in place. We could talk about safety of ANY group in the church, any aspect. The point is you HAVE to put in safeguards or you are easy targets. 

 

Plans like this are the norm in our area. If you go to a church that doesn't have security plans or plans to protect youth, finances, etc., talk with your leadership. 


  • Aura and MercyA like this

#85 OhElizabeth

OhElizabeth

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30839 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:35 AM

I must be having trouble tracking this morning. I am not sure how my post warrants these responses...I was talking about security plans for churches being a *very, very new* concept for most Americans. We do NOT have security plans. We do NOT have an on guard, OPSEC culture around peaceable activities like going to church or school. Because up until the last fifteen minutes of history, we didn't need them.

 

Yeah, I didn't mean anything personal. These attacks have been in the news enough for the past few years that churches around here have had plans in place for a number of years already. I was just surprised that in TEXAS they didn't have plans in place. TEXAS, where they're always talking about their guns and how they value order.



#86 OH_Homeschooler

OH_Homeschooler

    Hive Mind Royal Larvae

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1267 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:35 AM

Bingo. Absolutely the pastor could be packing heat. Churches now are assigning and know who is packing heat at a given service. And if the shooter was able to WALK IN, then they AREN'T FOLLOWING a safety plan. Safety plans include things like security for the doors, locking the doors so that people can exit but not enter, having people stationed, having cameras. 

 

 

 

But the guy WALKS IN with a visible assault rifle, and there's no one at the doors stopping him??? 

 

If the guy was shooting through the windows and then came in, that's even more astonishing. They had no security plan. Sitting ducks. 

 

So now Americans at church are "sitting ducks" for just living their lives and not expecting to be mowed down by psychos with automatic weapons? 

Noted.

 

You do realize that there are SO many factors and things that can go wrong even if you have a plan, and there are armed citizens and guards there familiar with the plan? And that these things still happen when there are armed citizens in place, like Las Vegas? People grossly underestimate the adrenaline, confusion, and so many other conditions that would render them paralyzed in an active shooter situation. 


Edited by OH_Homeschooler, 06 November 2017 - 10:37 AM.

  • Amira, Eliana, 8circles and 2 others like this

#87 Tibbie Dunbar

Tibbie Dunbar

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6320 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:40 AM

So now Americans at church are "sitting ducks" for just living their lives and not expecting to be mowed down by psychos with automatic weapons?

Noted.

You do realize that there are SO many factors and things that can go wrong even if you have a plan, and there are armed citizens and guards, and these things still happen when there are armed citizens in place? Like Las Vegas? People grossly underestimate the adrenaline, confusion, and so many other conditions that would render them paralyzed in an active shooter situation.


Think of the crossfire. Madman with AK fires on church, parishioners with rifles fire back, bullets are ricocheting and nobody knows where gunfire is coming from...why do we all think a battle is going to be easy or tidy, or that anyone who is not literally a combat veteran is going to have a clue in a war with assault rifles involved? We've either watched too much television or not enough.
  • chiguirre, Barb_, Amira and 12 others like this

#88 Barb_

Barb_

    Master of None

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10680 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:41 AM

When we realize pastors are packing heat in the pulpit we have to take a step back and acknowledge we are in an arms race against ourselves. That never ends well.
  • Happy, Amira, emzhengjiu and 21 others like this

#89 chiguirre

chiguirre

    RABble raiser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7738 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:46 AM

apparently - his 2nd set of ?soon-to-be?already? ex inlaws.   he was married before - and divorced at the time he was dishonorably discharged for domestic violence. (so it should have been illegal for him to have a gun.)

 

It seems he was discharged for bad conduct which is not the same as dishonorably discharged. He also had a Texas Department of Public Safety Private Security Guard license. He bought the gun at Academy (a huge sporting goods chain, not a shady gun show operator whose business depends on selling to people who can't pass the background check).


  • OH_Homeschooler, Corraleno, heatherwith3 and 1 other like this

#90 8circles

8circles

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6426 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:48 AM

Well HATE is a common denominator isn’t it? It’s an oversimplification to say that guns and easy access are the root of the issue. It’s not. It’s hatred, violence and evil in the heart of man that motivates them to collect weapons, plan and execute an attack. Guns are the mechanism by which they choose to enact their evil.

A mentally ill person, psychopath or individual with intense rage and hatred in their hearts IS the problem. The fact that they have easy access to ‘legal’ assault weapons further compounds the problem. I support limits on gun ownership but am not naive enough to believe that gun control is the solution to the evil heart issue.

From a psychological perspective, I would expect someone who is intent on inflicting harm and destruction on others to find a way to do so even if guns are harder to access.

But we’ve had this discussion here. 1000 Times.

 

Are Americans so much more hateful than citizens of other countries? Do we have so much more intense rage and hatred in our hearts than others? If so, why?

 

Why does mental illness in citizens of other countries not cause mass shootings like it seems to here?

 

Do other countries not have the number of psychopaths that we have here in the US? If so, why? 


Edited by 8circles, 06 November 2017 - 10:55 AM.

  • chiguirre, Melissa in Australia, Lady Florida. and 11 others like this

#91 OneStepAtATime

OneStepAtATime

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32492 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:50 AM

Actually that's PRECISELY what I'm saying, that people are not stepping up if they do not have a safety plan in their church, do not have designated conceal/carry people for the day, do not have proper procedures for how you handle doors, etc. You don't need drills for the whole church. You just need a board and leadership that has put in place the plan and has the people who are there handling it. It's a leadership problem. And if people say well only urban churches, was this an urban church??

 

The church is an easy target for abuse, whether it's people seeking access to children, people seeking financial access, people seeking a crowd to attack and make a point. Easy, easy targets. You HAVE to have procedures, plans, and security in place. We could talk about safety of ANY group in the church, any aspect. The point is you HAVE to put in safeguards or you are easy targets. 

 

Plans like this are the norm in our area. If you go to a church that doesn't have security plans or plans to protect youth, finances, etc., talk with your leadership. 

 

I appreciate your willingness to share your opinion and I do understand why many feel this way.  Honestly though, I respectfully but strongly disagree with the belief that all houses of worship should now be training personnel to defend their house of worship and arming to the teeth and having the pastor carry a weapon into his place of worship to help defend that house of worship or that having all houses of worship do this will solve anything and I definitely reject the idea that because this was a Texas church they should absolutely have been packing and ready for a shoot out or that they are to blame because so many got killed.  Unfortunately, I have no time to discuss this further.  I apologize.  I will try to return to this later but I assume by that time this thread will either be locked or zillions of pages long and my response may no longer be needed.


  • chiguirre, Barb_, OhElizabeth and 1 other like this

#92 8circles

8circles

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6426 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:51 AM

One Step at a Time, I wasn't disagreeing with you or arguing? I don't think the trained squad should be necessary. I even think it's probably somewhat harmful for the children of those men to feel that while they're going to Sunday school, daddy is armed for war. :( I definitely don't think ministers and other clergy or staff should be armed for defense, any more than most of us think schoolteachers, bus drivers, and pilots should be armed.

I just meant to post that if it happens, here's the first church I've heard of to have anything like a security plan in place. My friend told me the police had informed them that this is a growing concept. She was as shocked as I was.

The bold: Totally. What a mind-fuck for a kid. Here's to the generations to come that think this is normal - Cheers!

 

Side-note: I would never in a million, trillion, bazillion years attend a church with armed guards, patrols, or CC attenders that I was aware of.  I'll pray, worship, and fellowship elsewhere, thankyouverymuch.


  • Melissa in Australia, Lady Florida., MrsBasil and 1 other like this

#93 J-rap

J-rap

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11471 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:51 AM


The fact that the typical talking points got dusted off while bodies were still warm on the ground is gross and oh so predictable. I’m not going to engage in this merry go round on guns yet again, but Scalia does deserve defending of his jurisprudence and the consistency behind it.

 

I've never understood this.  Why isn't it the time?  Often it's a big or tragic event that serves as the catalyst for discussion on how we can attempt to make improvements.  Why is this gross?  It doesn't make the situation any less horrific, at all.  


  • chiguirre, OH_Homeschooler, Frances and 7 others like this

#94 Arctic Mama

Arctic Mama

    Beekeeping Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:52 AM

I must be having trouble tracking this morning. I am not sure how my post warrants these responses...I was talking about security plans for churches being a *very, very new* concept for most Americans. We do NOT have security plans. We do NOT have an on guard, OPSEC culture around peaceable activities like going to church or school. Because up until the last fifteen minutes of history, we didn't need them.


Our church has one here in Ohio, and our last one did in Alaska. I’d say these weren’t implemented until five years ago or so.
  • OhElizabeth and MercyA like this

#95 hornblower

hornblower

    Vegan Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11518 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:53 AM

Maybe just skip church altogether. Meet at the gun range, shout Jesus once in a while, and call it worship. 


  • OhElizabeth, Melissa in Australia, Lady Florida. and 11 others like this

#96 chiguirre

chiguirre

    RABble raiser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7738 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:53 AM

Yeah, I didn't mean anything personal. These attacks have been in the news enough for the past few years that churches around here have had plans in place for a number of years already. I was just surprised that in TEXAS they didn't have plans in place. TEXAS, where they're always talking about their guns and how they value order.

 

Texas is a big place and there are all sorts of people who live here. We're actually in the middle of the pack of states for gun ownership:

 

https://www.thoughtc...lations-3325153

 

We have signs up at the entrance of many stores and restaurants specifically banning firearms from the premises. 

 

It's also illegal to lock the doors at public places while they're open due to fire codes. So schools, churches, stores, libraries etc. have to have their doors open while they are open for business.



#97 8circles

8circles

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6426 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:53 AM

Actually that's PRECISELY what I'm saying, that people are not stepping up if they do not have a safety plan in their church, do not have designated conceal/carry people for the day, do not have proper procedures for how you handle doors, etc. You don't need drills for the whole church. You just need a board and leadership that has put in place the plan and has the people who are there handling it. It's a leadership problem. And if people say well only urban churches, was this an urban church??

 

The church is an easy target for abuse, whether it's people seeking access to children, people seeking financial access, people seeking a crowd to attack and make a point. Easy, easy targets. You HAVE to have procedures, plans, and security in place. We could talk about safety of ANY group in the church, any aspect. The point is you HAVE to put in safeguards or you are easy targets. 

 

Plans like this are the norm in our area. If you go to a church that doesn't have security plans or plans to protect youth, finances, etc., talk with your leadership. 

 

Hell to the NO.


  • OH_Homeschooler, Bluegoat and Sadie like this

#98 Dotwithaperiod

Dotwithaperiod

    Apprentice Bee Keeper

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5695 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:55 AM

apparently - his 2nd set of ?soon-to-be?already? ex inlaws. he was married before - and divorced at the time he was dishonorably discharged for domestic violence. (so it should have been illegal for him to have a gun.)

Good lord. He was NOT dishonorably discharged. Domestic violence, allowed to own weapon.
  • CindyH in NC, OH_Homeschooler, Eliana and 3 others like this

#99 8circles

8circles

    Hive Mind Queen Bee

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6426 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:57 AM

I've never understood this.  Why isn't it the time?  Often it's a big or tragic event that serves as the catalyst for discussion on how we can attempt to make improvements.  Why is this gross?  It doesn't make the situation any less horrific, at all.  

 

As if the situation - that 26 people (men, women, children) were shot at their house of worship - could possibly be made more gross... but by people desiring to make this never happen again? I'll take that kind of gross any day.

 

 


Edited by 8circles, 06 November 2017 - 12:40 PM.

  • Eliana, Lady Florida., Corraleno and 5 others like this

#100 dmmetler

dmmetler

    Chasing snakes!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14209 posts

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:57 AM

There is a mosque not far from my house. It has serious security fencing and limited entrance points, and 24 hour security guards. They've had enough threats that they feel it's needed, which is really sad. The Jewish community center, synagogue, and day school also have dramatically increased their security on their campus. I really wonder how long it's going to be before this is the norm for houses of worship and religious centers. Most high schools in my area have metal detectors and security as well.
  • OhElizabeth, transientChris, YaelAldrich and 2 others like this