Active shooter thread

[yoladu 4066]

excuse my ignorance on firearms, but should we be thankful that the shooter did not use a AR-15 type weapon?

a more effective killing machine than a shotgun, correct?

 

[formermav43 4599]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

ok, so to address the actual situation: it's a sad thing all around. 

when there is an increasingly rare situation when i sit in a church (catholic, usually, since i am one), i'm not thinking about my gun, because i do not have my gun.

would christ want his people armed in his house of worship?

this is the guy that preached peace and martyrdom. he laid down his life to make a point. so did his followers. 

I agree with you that this part is not a political discussion. But, for what it’s worth, some of that is/was taking place on the other thread with no banning-I know because I share your concerns and voiced them to an extent there. 

[Continental Op 3934]

Dennison is an irritating cunt but he wasn't politicizing things any more than the pro-gun crowd was before blacklab swooped in to white knight for them.

[BradInATX 9208]

My issue with the "good guys with guns" who carry to cracker barrel and church is that they're all fat diabetic morons.

[jkates 313]

1 hour ago, yoladu said:

excuse my ignorance on firearms, but should we be thankful that the shooter did not use a AR-15 type weapon?

a more effective killing machine than a shotgun, correct?

 

An AR-15 isn't necessarily the more effective killing tool. 

That said, he could have fired more rounds in that time frame. But, it seemed like he wasn't interested in max carnage, because he also could have chosen to fire the shotgun more quickly. The AR would have required more precise aiming than the shotgun. I can't tell where the 2 congregants were struck, but the 2nd one seemed to get hit low. That proved to be lethal with the shotgun, maybe it would not have been with a .223? 

[BradInATX 9208]

 

 

 

That proved to be lethal with the shotgun, maybe it would not have been with a .223? 

 

It would have been with the 8 223 (or better 556) rounds the assailant could have fired from an AR

 

[Goredho 17341]

3 hours ago, jkates said:

That's a bizarre first sentence, full of emotion but lacking legs. What about the pro-gun culture enabled this lunatic to have a shotgun and/or made him use it at this church?

As to the 2nd sentence, plenty of pro-gun (really, pro-2A) folks - including the NRA, IIRC - argue for things like gun violence restraining orders. It's myopic to equate not supporting your preferred gun policies with inaction or enabling something like this.

It is incredibly efficient to kill with a gun and ridiculously cheap and easy to obtain one.  The pro-gun culture ensures that, which results in guns being the method of choice when a nutjob wants to go out with a bang.  Note the murderer did not use a class 3 firearm when he attacked this church.  It would have been more efficient, and he would have had a better chance in that church while being outgunned.  Why?  Because he couldn't run down the block, plunk down $200 and have the ability to put one under his coat before walking into that church.

The NRA and 2nd amendment folks oppose sensible gun reform (like red flag laws, waiting periods, etc...) at every turn.  Please feel free to educate me with sources where they are being proactive about keeping guns out of the hands of people that have no business owning them.  The most I have ever seen is lip service towards universal background checks.

I'm a gun owner and have hunted all my life.  My wife and I have our concealed-carry permits.  I own a pump .22, Glock .40, two SigSauer P238s, a pimped-out Remington 870 Shotgun, and a Remington .30-06 that I use regularly.  I have several other guns, including ones that would be classified as assault rifles, that I've inherited that I don't use regularly.  I am teaching my children how to shoot our pump .22 and they will grow up to hunt like I did.  We live in a rural area and go to an outdoor range once a month as a family outing.  Hunting and shooting is a great legacy that I am happy to be able to pass down to them.

What is myopic is not being able to see that the biggest threat to that legacy is the bloody obstinance shown by America's gun fetishists in the face of a changing world.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13406]

32 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

My issue with the "good guys with guns" who carry to cracker barrel and church is that they're all fat diabetic morons.

I see zero problem if any church, business, whatever decides on which people should be armed whether through paid security or selected volunteers. However when random people decide for themselves to be the armed security, it increases the likelihood of morons shooting each other.

 

[Homercles 10205]

3 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm not defending dennison for his posts on that thread, but i do not think having an honest discussion about guns in church is a political discussion. i'll discuss this in a subsequent post.

i also note that every time one of these shooting happens, the daily texan thread is full of people who are all in on ccl and good guys with guns, etc, and that's an okay area of discussion.  we also let comments like "religion of peace" go when it's a muslim attack. 

i just find that the loudest complainers of "cloak rooming bada bing" don't see the plank in their own eye when it comes to politicizing things. 

please note this is just my stupid opinion, and opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one, and it's full of shit.

I agree with this 100%.  There’s a group of 4-5 people who always swoop in and ramp up the post count in those shooting/gun threads.  DD was doing his patented, often tired, ‘drop a short statement or post a single isolated question’ schtick that many find annoying...but it’s a tough question on why we seem to have weekly shootings and what to do about it.  
 

I certainly don’t think it was worth a week off, and I wasn’t surprised to see those same 4-5 people furiously repping BLs post about the ban.  Those are also the same people ballyhooing about CRing up threads in the board discussion forum.  I’m not a mod and a lower-end poster here so what do I know.  

[jkates 313]

9 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

 

 

 

 

It would have been with the 8 223 (or better 556) rounds the assailant could have fired from an AR

 

Which I noted. I also noted that the shooter didn't seem interested in speed. He could have fired a lot faster, even with a shotgun. We'll likely never know why he didn't. Point being, the AR may have been worse, but not necessarily.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

49 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

My issue with the "good guys with guns" who carry to cracker barrel and church is that they're all fat diabetic morons.

like this?:

[Tom 2959]

3 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

 

i just find that the loudest complainers of "cloak rooming bada bing" don't see the plank in their own eye when it comes to politicizing things. 

please note this is just my stupid opinion, and opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one, and it's full of shit.

 

Occassionally one of them will have the self awareness to end a post with a "/no CR" tag as a wink and a nod that they don't want to hear anything from you, but they still need to make sure you hear their conservative/pro-NRA opinions.  Most don't even bother with the pretense.

The Daily Texan is a safe space for the NRA crowd who don't want to have to defend their opinions or be challenged.  

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Tom

[jimmyjazz 45538]

20 minutes ago, Goredho said:

It is incredibly efficient to kill with a gun and ridiculously cheap and easy to obtain one.  The pro-gun culture ensures that, which results in guns being the method of choice when a nutjob wants to go out with a bang.  Note the murderer did not use a class 3 firearm when he attacked this church.  It would have been more efficient, and he would have had a better chance in that church while being outgunned.  Why?  Because he couldn't run down the block, plunk down $200 and have the ability to put one under his coat before walking into that church.

The NRA and 2nd amendment folks oppose sensible gun reform (like red flag laws, waiting periods, etc...) at every turn.  Please feel free to educate me with sources where they are being proactive about keeping guns out of the hands of people that have no business owning them.  The most I have ever seen is lip service towards universal background checks.

I'm a gun owner and have hunted all my life.  My wife and I have our concealed-carry permits.  I own a pump .22, Glock .40, two SigSauer P238s, a pimped-out Remington 870 Shotgun, and a Remington .30-06 that I use regularly.  I have several other guns, including ones that would be classified as assault rifles, that I've inherited that I don't use regularly.  I am teaching my children how to shoot our pump .22 and they will grow up to hunt like I did.  We live in a rural area and go to an outdoor range once a month as a family outing.  Hunting and shooting is a great legacy that I am happy to be able to pass down to them.

What is myopic is not being able to see that the biggest threat to that legacy is the bloody obstinance shown by America's gun fetishists in the face of a changing world.

Just + repping to negate the absurd neg you just got from jkates.

Edited December 30, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

23 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I see zero problem if any church, business, whatever decides on which people should be armed whether through paid security or selected volunteers. However when random people decide for themselves to be the armed security, it increases the likelihood of morons shooting each other.

 

[Darwin]And?[/Darwin]

Edited December 30, 2019 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Mole 4319]

I’m glad to see the guy in maroon called out for putting half the room in danger with his irresponsibility.  While this is widely being used to push the “good guys with guns” idea, it also demonstrates the inherent danger of “good guys with guns.” Had that turned into a shootout, lots of people would have died. In a shootout situation, how are the good guys supposed to tell each other apart from the bad guys? Had the maroon guy shot across the crowd and started hitting people, would he have been a bad guy or a good guy?

The responsible and accurate shooter saved lives at the hands of both the bad and good guys.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Mole

[The_Great_Hornsby 3319]

The "what if" hand wringing in here is comical, just be glad the guy hit and killed the shooter and the body count was low

[Homercles 10205]

3 minutes ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

The "what if" hand wringing in here is comical, just be glad the guy hit and killed the shooter and the body count was low

Would you want to be in that room if a dozen people pulled out guns and started blasting?  I think it’s a legit concern.  I’m glad it ended ‘well’ but I’d prefer it never happened, and my blood curdles at the thought of my 3/6yo kids reaction at a shootout...they may have started running blindly and taken an errant round from a 75yo with a glock.  

[The_Great_Hornsby 3319]

3 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Would you want to be in that room if a dozen people pulled out guns and started blasting?  I think it’s a legit concern.  I’m glad it ended ‘well’ but I’d prefer it never happened, and my blood curdles at the thought of my 3/6yo kids reaction at a shootout...they may have started running blindly and taken an errant round from a 75yo with a glock.  

Most of the guys with guns ran in after the dude was neutralized. Everyone is a tough guy when the threat is quelled. 

[Mole 4319]

“What if” is the foundation of gun safety. The guy in maroon has no business carrying. He put everyone in the room at risk. He might not be a bad guy, but he certainly wasn’t a good guy either. 

[Goredho 17341]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just + repping to negate the absurd neg you just got from jkates.

Thanks, but not necessary.  Negging someone you disagree with is an intellectual white flag.

[Bama Chick 28596]

 

Occassionally one of them will have the self awareness to end a post with a "/no CR" tag as a wink and a nod that they don't want to hear anything from you, but they still need to make sure you hear their conservative/pro-NRA opinions.  Most don't even bother with the pretense.

The Daily Texan is a safe space for the NRA crowd who don't want to have to defend their opinions or be challenged.  

 

 

It’s just another self-curated echo chamber for them. Like their Twitter and Facebook feeds and watching Fox News. Any opposing views are “political” and their views are just “stating my opinion”.

 

Notice these folks never come here to defend their views where they might be challenged.

 

They’re pussies and cowards who hide behind their guns and close their eyes and ears to anything that might make them feel wrong.

 

They suck.

[tchookem 3900]

The "what if" hand wringing in here is comical, just be glad the guy hit and killed the shooter and the body count was low

The whole reason people buy guns is "what if", and I'd venture to say it's led to more accidental deaths than violent deaths it's prevented.

[hayden_horn 11360]

3 hours ago, Continental Op said:

Dennison is an irritating cunt but he wasn't politicizing things any more than the pro-gun crowd was before blacklab swooped in to white knight for them.

i don't blame blacklab at all. often times, when we are moderating, we are responding to a notification or a complaint. blacklab is a busy dude and hates dealing with political bullshit, and dennison is a known shit stirrer, so i imagine that's what he saw, and he has little patience for that, so he just dealt with it.

my issue is with the posters who are the loudest "no cloak room!" complainers doing their own kind of dog whistle politicizing of issues on the daily texan because they don't want to come here. the second someone starts to call them on their bullshit, they cry foul. they may have the plausible deniability, but they fucking know exactly what they are doing.

Edited December 30, 2019 by hayden_horn

[DDD Dad 14243]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

blacklab is a busy dude and hates dealing with political bullshit.

When he's not in jail.

[cactusflinthead 27594]

 

[hookemATL 11602]

9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i don't blame blacklab at all. often times, when we are moderating, we are responding to a notification or a complaint. blacklab is a busy dude and hates dealing with political bullshit, and dennison is a known shit stirrer, so i imagine that's what he saw, and he has little patience for that, so he just dealt with it.

my issue is with the posters who are the loudest "no cloak room!" complainers doing their own kind of dog whistle politicizing of issues on the daily texan because they don't want to come here. the second someone starts to call them on their bullshit, they cry foul. they may have the plausible deniability, but they fucking know exactly what they are doing.

It’s their “safe space” to jerk off about how cool guns are. When they get tickled a bit, their cunt hairs stand on edge and they blast their “no cloak room!” rape whistles. It’s bitchassedness, plain and simple. 

[atomheartbevo 89396]

3 hours ago, BradInATX said:

My issue with the "good guys with guns" who carry to cracker barrel and church is that they're all fat diabetic morons.

But those guys make great cover/shields and could do a good job of taking fire from the shooter.

[atomheartbevo 89396]

6 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd be less concerned about good guys with guns if they could all shoot like that LEO does.  I still think it's a flawed concept, but holy smokes he was cool as a cucumber. 

Honest question, as I don't shoot:  is that distance similar to the distance one trains at in most ranges?  Seeing it all go down, it looked like a (metaphorical) mile.

He apparently hasn't been LEO since the '80s, and was a reserve deputy or whatever, at that.

He is a shooting instructor, both for LEOs and civilians, including LTC, and we've all seen plenty of situations where LEOs completely suck ass at shooting in a live-fire situation.

Some (not you) are overlooking the fact that he probably is a better shot than most LEOs out there, because being a shooting instructor is what he's done for decades.

[InkaUtexas 25486]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

But those guys make great cover/shields and could do a good job of taking fire from the shooter.

now just make it mandatory for them to wear body armor. 

[atomheartbevo 89396]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

now just make it mandatory for them to wear body armor. 

The 'beetus has quite a bit of stopping power.

[atomheartbevo 89396]

3 hours ago, Goredho said:

The NRA and 2nd amendment folks oppose sensible gun reform (like red flag laws, waiting periods, etc...) at every turn.  Please feel free to educate me with sources where they are being proactive about keeping guns out of the hands of people that have no business owning them.  The most I have ever seen is lip service towards universal background checks.

As somebody who was in the NRA (I was young, it was less insane), and as somebody who has followed them and their lobbyists for a long time, they refuse to budge a single inch on anything that could prevent a lot of tragedies (beefed up red flag laws, discussions on age, waiting periods, etc., etc.), and in the end, it is going to cause the pro-gun crowd a lot of problems, and will cost them dearly.

We are going to get a Dem White House, Senate, and House, and they will give us something a lot tougher than the Assault Weapons Ban from the 1990s.

People seem to forget that the original AWB was challenged hundreds of times in court, and it only went away because it had a sunset provision and Republicans happened to be in control when the 10-year period ended.

Because the NRA and their fans refuse to budget a single inch, we will get an AWB II (only I have a feeling it will cover a lot of non-AWB types).  And because the AWB had 10 years of case history, and because of all of the mass shootings that have happened since the early 90s,  the people pushing a new AWB through will have that history to beef up an AWB II and make it even more court-proof (and public opinion-proof).

Of course, the NRA will be happy, because they'll be able to fundraise like nobody's business.  Private jets and mansions for all of the leadership!

[atomheartbevo 89396]

39 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

I'm surprised they hadn't moved him elsewhere if he was looking sketchy as hell.  I've seen security at my wife's church do that with sketchy-looking people.

edit: I'm also willing to that this will become the norm for anybody looking sketchy.

Edited December 30, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[DDD Dad 14243]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I'm surprised they hadn't moved him elsewhere if he was looking sketchy as hell.  I've seen security at my wife's church do that with sketchy-looking people.

edit: I'm also willing to that this will become the norm for anybody looking sketchy.

Hmm.  So maybe he approached Tony wanting the collection plate and when he refused that's what set him off.

[workswithseed 2033]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

 

It’s just another self-curated echo chamber for them. Like their Twitter and Facebook feeds and watching Fox News. Any opposing views are “political” and their views are just “stating my opinion”.

 

Notice these folks never come here to defend their views where they might be challenged.

 

They’re pussies and cowards who hide behind their guns and close their eyes and ears to anything that might make them feel wrong.

 

They suck.

Jesus Christ, it's like y'all have memories of goldfish. These same arguments were had on the shit site, but on the other side. 

 

[cactusflinthead 27594]

17 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I'm surprised they hadn't moved him elsewhere if he was looking sketchy as hell.  I've seen security at my wife's church do that with sketchy-looking people.

edit: I'm also willing to that this will become the norm for anybody looking sketchy.

He was on the radar. But, who is a shooter and a threat and who is a homeless person you want to try to reach?

 

[atomheartbevo 89396]

Just now, cactusflinthead said:

He was on the radar. But, who is a shooter and a threat and who is a homeless person you want to try to reach?

I expect things will be much different next Sunday for a lot of churches.

It can be handled as "you appear to be new here and maybe in need of help, and we are happy you chose to worship with us, can we introduce you to <insert other pastor/deacon/whoever here> and can we pray with you privately, and maybe help you if you have any needs, we have a lot of resources".  

That's how I've seen it done.

[cactusflinthead 27594]

Exactly how it's done. Seen it too.

[cactusflinthead 27594]

Dylann Roof got to sit there the whole time. I've been the only white boy in a black church. That's probably not happening again unless I get an invite. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11802]

1 hour ago, hookemATL said:

It’s their “safe space” to jerk off about how cool guns are. When they get tickled a bit, their cunt hairs stand on edge and they blast their “no cloak room!” rape whistles. It’s bitchassedness, plain and simple. 

They’re also generally the whiny snowflakes that report anything that offends their delicate non sensibilities.

[American Swindle 102]

19 hours ago, NWBuck said:

I don't think I'll ever be able to understand a faith tradition which believes that having a musical instrument in their sanctuary is an abomination before God, but bringing weapons to worship is OK because you might need to kill someone. 

Even more disturbing is when we live in a nation where the second part might be accurate, as it was today. 

I don't think I'll ever be able to understand why many seem to replace any positive religion , with say, the religion of politics or the state.  Boil the issue down a bit more, is it okay for a church to have members that are strapped to defend it?  

Even more disturbing is we live in a nation of pansy ass soy boys that don't understand that the founders of our country thought the second amendment was as important as the 1st amendment. Also, I like how you frame your point around "OK because you might need to kill someone," instead of defending the defenseless or the property and people of the church.  The bottom line is bringing a weapon to worship is totally fine as one might need to protect the church and drastically limit the amount of mass shooter casualties that would have occurred if zero members of the congregation were unarmed. 

Furthermore, the fact is mass shooter casualties drastically reduces when the shooter is met with violent force.   Casualties also reduce the quicker that violent force is executed.  

 

It's almost as if the radical gun control advocates hate that the parishioner successfully disarmed and ended the violence so quickly.  I feel sad for you, I really do. 

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45538]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

He apparently hasn't been LEO since the '80s, and was a reserve deputy or whatever, at that.

He is a shooting instructor, both for LEOs and civilians, including LTC, and we've all seen plenty of situations where LEOs completely suck ass at shooting in a live-fire situation.

Some (not you) are overlooking the fact that he probably is a better shot than most LEOs out there, because being a shooting instructor is what he's done for decades.

OK, it's possible his skill wasn't wholly related to his LEO background, but regardless, he did a good job bringing that particular bad guy down.  I don't think there's any harm in acknowledging this.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

6 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

It's almost as if the radical gun control advocates hate that the parishioner successfully disarmed and ended the violence so quickly.  I feel sad for you, I really do. 

Please point out one single post that says this.  Point out two if you're feeling really salty.

[atomheartbevo 89396]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, it's possible his skill wasn't wholly related to his LEO background, but regardless, he did a good job bringing that particular bad guy down.  I don't think there's any harm in acknowledging this.

If it was only one shot, which it seems like it was, it was an amazingly accurate shot, given the circumstances (including the fact that the murderer was oriented towards him), and it showed a helluva lot of discipline on his part.

I was thinking more in terms of many LEOs would have put several rounds into the guy or in his direction, and I shudder to think what Bubba and his buddies in the pews would have done.

Edited December 30, 2019 by atomheartbevo

[DDD Dad 14243]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

If it was only one shot, which it seems like it was, it was an amazingly accurate shot, given the circumstances (including the fact that the murderer was oriented towards him), and it showed a helluva lot of discipline on his part.

I was thinking more in terms of many LEOs would have put several rounds into the guy or in his direction, and I shudder to think what Bubba and his buddies in the pews would have done.

Aren't LEOs taught to unload their clip/magazine into the central mass of the bad guy?  I'm pretty sure I've seen that on TV.

[NWBuck 8547]

10 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Aren't LEOs taught to unload their clip/magazine into the central mass of the bad guy?  I'm pretty sure I've seen that on TV.

Only if they are holding the gun sideways. 

[Homercles 10205]

7 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Only if they are holding the gun sideways. 

[American Swindle 102]

Please point out one single post that says this.  Point out two if you're feeling really salty.

Jimmy “gotcha” Jazz ignoring every other point in my post but this, how surprising.

The comment was directed at the overall commentary from the gun control crowd that I’ve seen on the inter webs, not a particular post or poster on this board.

Good Day Sir.

[jimmyjazz 45538]

27 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Jimmy “gotcha” Jazz ignoring every other point in my post but this, how surprising.

The comment was directed at the overall commentary from the gun control crowd that I’ve seen on the inter webs, not a particular post or poster on this board.

Good Day Sir.

 

 

"I feel sad for you".

Be less intellectually dishonest.  Gotcha.

[JimmyJames 12271]

27 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

 

Jimmy “gotcha” Jazz ignoring every other point in my post but this, how surprising.

The comment was directed at the overall commentary from the gun control crowd that I’ve seen on the inter webs, not a particular post or poster on this board.

Good Day Sir.

 

 

Good day. Soyboy. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

28 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

 

Jimmy “gotcha” Jazz ignoring every other point in my post but this, how surprising.

The comment was directed at the overall commentary from the gun control crowd that I’ve seen on the inter webs, not a particular post or poster on this board.

Good Day Sir.

 

 

I mean you were quoting and responding to a poster on this very thread. 

If your response was meant to be directed to the entire internet maybe you should have posted it there instead.