Do you/would you carry a concealed firearm to Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inisfallen said:
40.png
upant:
would you say usa today is promoting a little fear with their video?
Click to expand...
What video? All I see is an image from Twitter. I’m pretty sure it’s a joke.
Click to expand...
free beacon has it

usa today had to clarify that it wasn’t used so i’m not so sure folks didn’t take them at their fakenews word.

 
Last edited:
Still looks like a joke to me. Whether or not there is such a device. I don’t care. I don’t care what USA Today prints. I don’t care at all. It’s irrelevant trivia.
 
but is it fear-mongering?

making a bad evil gun look even worse to push an agenda
 
Since I haven’t seen the story, only the Twitter image you posted, and a link to a story about the USA Today story, I can’t comment on it.

And, in any even, I don’t really care. I know what I think about gun regulation. I know what I think about the NRA. I know what I think about this fantastic, unreal climate of fear that the NRA and (some) gun rights advocates encourage. I know what I think about the carnage going on in our country.

And I know what I think about carrying guns at Mass.
 
Look at that absolute sewage headlines from the extreme left:

“When a bystander fired on the Texas church shooter, the NRA found its hero” <— Washington Post

“The Heroism in the Sutherland Springs Shooting Does Not Validate the “Good Guy With a Gun” Argument” <— Slate magazine
 
Duesenberg said:
Look at that absolute sewage headlines from the extreme left:

“When a bystander fired on the Texas church shooter, the NRA found its hero” <— Washington Post

“The Heroism in the Sutherland Springs Shooting Does Not Validate the “Good Guy With a Gun” Argument” <— Slate magazine
Click to expand...
I’ll provide the links you neglected to include in your post.

First, the Slate piece:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...th_a_gun_confronted_devin_kelley_but_did.html

I’m not sure why you think this article is “sewage.” Did you even read it, or just assume that, because it was published in Slate, it was some kind of leftist rant?

From the article:
Willeford was undoubtedly heroic, but as an argument for wider gun rights, this example is not as straightforward as conservatives make it seem.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more. Mr. Willeford did not, unfortunately, stop the mass shooting at Sutherland Springs. He did, maybe, assist in the apprehension of the shooter (or, more accurately, the discovery of his body).

However, as the article says, it is possible that Mr. Willeford prevented more killings. We don’t, and will never, know, but it’s possible:
But did Willeford prevent Kelley from resuming his rampage at a second location? It’s possible. After all, Kelley was shot in the firefight and dropped his gun before he jumped into his vehicle, and the ensuing chase by Willeford and the other man may have led to Kelley’s car crash and/or apparent suicide. But we don’t know—no evidence suggests that Kelley planned to shoot more people elsewhere.
Click to expand...
So, I’m not sure why you see this article as “sewage.” Can you explain?

The Washington Post article is here. It’s not really a terrible story, even from your point of view. What about it, in your opinion, makes it “sewage”?
 
If you watch both the KHBS and (rather long) Crowder interviews with Stephen Willeford, you get some pretty important details that pretty clearly indicate that the church shooter intended to continue.
  • The church shooter had more guns and ammunition in his vehicle than he could possibly have used to shoot up a church that he knew had only about 50 parishioners (Protestants, is that the right word?) in it at the most.
  • The church shooter was wearing Kevlar body armor and a riot control helmet; the only reason that Willeford was able to shoot and (though we’ll never know because he killed himself) most likely mortally wound him was because said body armor didn’t go over the side, but just draped over the front and back. The shooter presumably knew that church services are not usually attended by people who are armed, even in southern Texas.
  • The church shooter left his vehicle running with the door open when he went in, obviously preparing to leave in a hurry once done. Most people who perform these things expect to die at their locations and act accordingly.
  • This isn’t from the interviews, but: when the shooter was fleeing in his vehicle, he called his father and informed him that he did not expect to survive. This was after he had been shot. Had this been a suicide (and therefore, not a continuation), he would have left the note before, not after.
This is the pattern of a man who wanted to kill as many people as possible and get away with it. He put on the body armor so he would survive longer so he could kill more people. He left his car running so he could move to another location to evade the cops and kill more people. He had way more firepower than needed to shoot up one church because he expected to kill more people. He called his parents because he panicked and realized he had failed in his psychotic quest to kill more people.

So when Slate reports that
no evidence suggests that Kelley planned to shoot more people elsewhere.
Click to expand...
that is a pretty glaring error.

Willeford failed to stop the mass shooting (he wasn’t in the church at the time, his gun safe was in his house, and pistols are terrible against Kevlar), but he did mitigate it and potentially save hundreds of people. Given that the shooter was armed and dressed for a protracted firefight with police and that he had several more guns with him, we know that the number is at least one.

When you say that
Inisfallen said:
He did, maybe, assist in the apprehension of the shooter (or, more accurately, the discovery of his body).
Click to expand...
that is the most despicable form of understatement.

Also, the report mentions only in passing that Willeford was armed with a weapon traditionally considered an assault rifle (an AR-15 type, similar to that used by the church shooter himself), nullifying their “assault rifle” argument completely, and fails to mention at all that it was illegal for the church shooter to own any firearms anyway.

The Slate article fails as a piece of journalism. I’d call it sewage.
 
Last edited:
The good guy with a gun still couldn’t prevent one of the worst massacres in US history. People in Church killed for no reason, among them innocent children.
 
Still could not save 26.

That’s the reason I keep hearing, “if only a good guy with a gun”. One of the worse massacres still happened.
 
The shooter escaped from a mental hospital; beat people severely; was imprisoned for a year.

This fellow had many opportunities to turn his life around.

Meanwhile, the bureaucracy utterly failed … all the rules and laws had no effect.

And anyone with any mechanical skills can obtain or make a gun.
 
I just visited a major Canadian city. It seemed very diverse to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top