- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Or,
3) Sometimes bad things just happen and you cannot prevent every horrible thing that could happen from happening. You could make it legal to carry a gun into every church in American, but legal or not, no one other than a psychopath is going to carry a gun into the a house of God.
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.
Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.
Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry
At least I am consistent in my views of people who use an event like this to push for their anti or pro gun platform. Are you consistent? I say the same about those morons on the other side of the gun debate who attempt to politicize an event such as this even before the families have a chance to bury their dead. It's disgusting and this idiot is scum.
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.
Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry
"Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead," Cotton wrote.
Do you agree with this portion of his statement:
It wouldn't have had to be one of those nine people, for heaven's sake. Could have been anyone present.
What we DO know is that making it a gun-free zone didn't stop the bad guy and HIS gun.
Do you agree with this portion of his statement:
He has never given us an explanation why churches should ban guns
Then how do you explain all the mass murders that weren't in gun free zones? That didn't seem to stop the bad guys either.
“.....no more than one quarter of the shootings occurred in public spaces that were so-called ‘gun-free zones.”
The Gun-Free Zone Myth: No relationship between Gun-Free Zones and Mass Shootings | Armed With Reason
that is speculative. even if they had been armed, its speculation to say they could have drawn and effectively engaged the killer so as to save 8 lives. MIGHT be alive is probably a fair comment but if you asked me-the correct position is that if the victims had proper training and weapons, they would have had a better chance of surviving then those who have no weapons and no other training.
its all about increasing odds.
“Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton wrote. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.
Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry
It wouldn't have had to be one of those nine people, for heaven's sake. Could have been anyone present.
What we DO know is that making it a gun-free zone didn't stop the bad guy and HIS gun.
I found more of his statement here:
Charleston shootings: NRA blames victims as reactions echo Newtown | US news | The Guardian
That makes it more than speculative.
I take issue with the one comment on its own. "Might" is not a fair comment when speaking of another person's responsibility in the deaths of others in which he did not pull the trigger himself.
I've been in many victim disarmament arenas in RED states like Oklahoma.
I've never doubted that someone was concealed carrying besides policemen who are legal.
Though I will add that we all went through metal detectors all six sessions of the Wrestling Nationals in St. Louis .
what about worshippers make them either immune from criminal attacks or incapable of responsibly possessing a firearm
there is no reason why a church should be a victim disarmament zone.
can you tell us why-other than you apparently are against people owning or carrying firearms no matter what?
innocent people died because some asshole shot them. less of them may have died if they had been able to fight back effectively. do you disagree with that?
There are several good reasons.
The odds that your armed congregation will ever use a gun to stop a mad man approach zero. 350,000 congregations, say 3 meetings a week, 52 per year, roughly 55 million gatherings minimum per year, and, what, maybe 5 incidents (1/10,000,000) per year that might potentially have been stopped with a qualified, trained, armed person who can reliably take out a shooter without killing other innocents. So the odds of a 'good guy with a gun' taking out a bad guy are less than being struck by lightning, by a factor of at least 10
And for those of us who don't feel skeered without a gun on us at all times, an armed person changes the atmosphere for every one of those meetings for the vast majority of attendees, and for most of them they don't feel any safer (they aren't), and the change is negative, sometimes VERY negative. Lots of people have never shot and are simply very uncomfortable around firearms. Others may have very good reasons to fear them, and guns bring back horrible memories.
I'm not scared of guns or of people with guns, but I don't want to worship with the guy next to me with a Glock, and worry if he's sane, if he knows anything about using his weapon, if his child is going to grab it, take it out of mom's purse while she's singing the hymn and shoot me in the back, that the idiot is going to take it into the bathroom and leave it on the back of the toilet for some child to grab, etc.
So the increase in safety is zero, and it comes with it depending on who is attending, their life history, their comfort with firearms, some potentially huge downsides. Some will simply not attend if the congregation is armed. You can like that or agree or not, but that is just fact. About the only good thing is some people who for whatever reason feel obligated to be armed at all times for what are in most areas of the country irrational reasons will feel safer. Nearly everyone else AT BEST is ambivalent, and in just a huge number of cases, the gun will detract from the act of worship.
Why would anyone think it's ok to bring a gun to church??
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.
Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry
Might? With the least likely possibility. I think far fetched is not strong enough a term. Do you agree the that Cotton put the blame squarely on the pastor, without equivocation?
Even though I am a gun owner and a very strong 2nd amendment advocate I do not carry at services readily. While there is a biblical passage in which Jesus himself instructs the disciples to carry a sword for self defense, his overall message was love and IMO one shouldn't feel the need to carry a weapon in church, defiling a holy place in and of itself is disgusting, but taking it to a further level of murdering the innocent and even in the name of prejudicial hatred is a level of evil on an almost indescribable scale.I found more of his statement here:
Charleston shootings: NRA blames victims as reactions echo Newtown | US news | The Guardian
That makes it more than speculative.
I take issue with the one comment on its own. "Might" is not a fair comment when speaking of another person's responsibility in the deaths of others in which he did not pull the trigger himself.
What you're assuming is that it was 1) legal, 2) someone was paranoid enough to take a gun to Bible study, 3) was qualified to use the gun in a crowd, 4) took out the shooter before the shooter killed him or her. A further assumption is that having armed people at 55 million gatherings a year has no downside, no accidents, no one left their gun on the toilet and a kid found it, no one accidentally discharged it during services and shot someone in the back, etc.
So the odds are very, very, very high (99.999%?) that the AME authorizing legal gun carry changes absolutely nothing at all.
And if the response is, well, if someone HAD a gun and WAS trained, and COULD reliably kill an active shooter in that situation, then 9 lives could have been saved. Sure, and if they'd just banned white people who do almost all mass shootings in the U.S. they'd also have been fine. So let's just say that black churches ban crackers from attending? Nine people would still be alive!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?