Reply With Quote
The shooter shouldn't be a given. That's the point, dip .
You don't have to demonstrate that you're an insecure cuck. We all know that already.
The shooter shouldn't be a given. That's the point, dip .
Like I said, I'll let you know
You'll let me know , cuck.
This goes back to what I said - neither you nor I can change the fact that the shooter is a given. Proof of that is that you've done nothing to change it. The only other possible answer is that you chose not to do anything about it.
So can you do anything about it? I can tell you that I cannot stop someone in Dallas from walking into a crowded room and opening fire. From that perspective it's a given. It happens a lot, ergo a given. You can plant your wishes right next to the dead bodies, neither will ever bear fruit.
The only thing Blake can do is helplessly watch brown dudes whatever woman was stupid enough to get saddled with him.
The brown dudes shouldn't be a given. That's the point.
The irony of this statement is I'm sure lost on you.
If you say so, sparky.
It’s all opinion, yours certainly respectable. To me, any time we have innocent casualties, I really can’t put it over 80. If you’re just rating the response given the situation, you’re grading on a scale (which is fine, but it’s part of the whole situation).
The point of the thread is the response, not the fact that people still shoot up populated "safe spaces". That's another issue. If you were talking to a friend or family member about what they should do to protect themselves, you'd likely not say anything about what congress should do. You'd likely assume society is a constant, and that being prepared is the variable (along with cir stance - luck). I would agree that ideally we would never encounter these issues. The truth is that we could, and with that hanging over my head I have to weigh my options. I'd rather be the one pulling a firearm to address the cause than the one cowering and waiting for the gunman to find me, if those are my choices.
There are at least a couple schools of thought on this issue:
1. We have a problem - mass shootings/attempts are a huge issue that needs to be addressed by legislation
2. I have a problem - the issues of society are beyond my individual ability to solve, and I can only prepare for the possibility that I might be involved in one of these events if I frequent high population areas, especially gun free zones.
Both of these can be true, but if you only consider the 1st one, you are leaving your well being to chance, and being caught in a situation like that, you won't get to decide once the event begins to unfold.
One of the stupidest comments in this thread. Cops get ambushed all the time. Yes one of the victims was drawing their weapon when he was shot. They are all victims of the attack, they don't need to be casualties for that to be true.
What’s the probability #2 occurs and is it worth the risk of being prepared for the possibility it occurs? What about the people who overestimate the probability of #2 and prepare irresponsibly? Do you think we should do everything in our power to make sure that the people who choose to prepare for the improbable, prepare for it responsibly?
You're again focusing on the macro. You're suggesting possibly we have a problem . It doesn't address the second school of thought - that I have a problem. What other people do isn't my responsibility either. However I don't see that happening. The trend is for concealed carry to be more and more the thing in every state. 30 years ago it was almost nowhere. Are people randomly shooting each other in fear of mass shootings?
I just want to point out that the thread le mentioned the incident, not the resolution. I don’t want to speak for SR21, but I think that’s what he was referencing. I certainly was. I can’t easily detach one thing from the other. Whether the resolution statistically might’ve worked out for the better, I feel analyzing the whole isn’t a disservice or criticism of that, but that the topic itself is fairly larger to try to narrow down.
On the second part of your post, I understand your prerogative, but I just don’t share it. This probably goes more towards the philosophical, and I can only speak for myself. I can’t ask anybody else to live the way I do, so obviously this is entirely personal (and the choices you listed are just as much). I don’t actively spend time thinking of scenarios where there’s a mass shooter, or a drunk driver runs me over, or I’m diagnosed with insta-death grade 22 leukemia, or other relatively random situation that might end my life at any given time. I try to enjoy every day as much as I can, fully aware that it ends at some point, and such is life. I’m not scared about it and I’m also not suicidal or anything like it. I love life but should it end tomorrow, I had a heck of a ing nice ride. The only reason I think we can do better is because I do think we can. It’s not going to be overnight and it’s not going to be a silver bullet. Again, this is a very complex problem in many levels, but that shouldn’t really preclude us from thinking and trying ideas to try to chip at it, even if we have to take a couple of step backs to move forward.
I carry a first aid kit in my trunk along with blankets and lanterns/flashlights. I don't spend time thinking about what could happen while I am driving. I know what can happen so I consider rational due diligence to be prudent. We might disagree with what's rational.
There is very little risk to you or anyone else as a result of you carrying a first aid kit or blankets or lanterns or flashlights. That’s not the case with a firearm. When that variable is introduced while also considering the probability of you “having a problem”, then yeah, I think your solution to your potential problem is irrational, and quite frankly irresponsible. But it’s your right.
This will always be the outcome.
Now I’m comfortable in church.
The most important thing that had to take place first for church security was simple in this case:
And it was still messy.
Alarms went off in Jack Wilson’s head the moment a man wearing a fake beard, a wig, a hat and a long coat walked into a Texas church for Sunday services.
Sure, I do due diligence too. However, we all also do risk assessment based on our environment and ourselves. And there I find flaws too. We’re not always really good judges of ourselves. Psychological state is huge. We also tend to get comfortable and at times, sloppy. It happens in all aspects of life. A large amount of accidents happen because of that.
Part of that risk assessment is introspection. Where do you draw the line for worst case? Where do you put statistical odds of events? All very personal, very different from person to person and even environment to environment.
There are over 18.5 million CHL permits issued in the US. How many events like you described have occurred in the CHL community vs the non CHL community? I think your concern is irrational and not at all supported by the facts.
Those alarm bells would be worthless without the ability to respond.
Was it really so slow in here an hour before midnight on NYE that, in a thread you already had 80+ posts in, you went back to the beginning to pick a fight with a comment from the first page?
The victims are the ones that are shot. The church didn't prevent more deaths by arming the congregation. They prevented deaths by arming trained, qualified, and identified security personnel. No one is opposed to that.
“We can’t prevent every incident, we can’t prevent mental illness from occurring, and we can’t prevent every crazy person from pulling a gun, but we can be prepared like this church was,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told reporters Monday.
The victims are the ones that are shot. The church didn't prevent more deaths by arming the congregation. They prevented deaths by arming trained, qualified, and identified security personnel. No one is opposed to that.
I side with the Texas AG.
You made a really stupid comment without knowing any of the facts. Just own it.
What facts was I lacking? I knew the killer was shot by volunteer security. You apparently didn't, or you chose to lie and suggest that the killer was stopped by some run-of-the-mill concealed carriers.
Now that everyone knows the facts, you're continuing to try to dunk on a segment of the population that doesn't exist - an imaginary segment that opposes having armed security personnel to protect churches. Paxton's quote isn't even related to my post, and I don't disagree with it anyway. You're just throwing at the wall now. Go kiss your guns and relax.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
