ADVERTISEMENT

This guy explains how to approach the issues underlying mass murders.

From concealed nation and he's a firearm enthusiast, let me guess. His idea is MORE guns! Is that about right? Doubt that I need to watch the video to figure that out. 'Merica...we love our guns!
 
From concealed nation and he's a firearm enthusiast, let me guess. His idea is MORE guns! Is that about right? Doubt that I need to watch the video to figure that out. 'Merica...we love our guns!
Watch the video and reach an informed conclusion about what the guy says.
 
Shouldn't we be mourning the loss of nine lives and the suffering families who have lost loved ones?

Using the tragedy to ramp up political discussions about guns, race, the media, and the confederate flag just rubs salt in old wounds which never seems to heal.

10563110_1107171489297431_1667349277710215020_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
The obvious place to begin

Is to repeal all the federal legislation protecting gun manufacturers, gun sellers, and gun runners from law suits stemming from how they market and sell their products. Let society free will as revealed by the American jury system weigh in unfettered by interest groups and politics. In short order the gun industry will regulate itself about how and to whom to distribute guns and ammo.
 
The problem there is, the list of mass shootings actually stopped by private citizens carrying concealed weapons (and I speak as someone who has a CCP) is pretty ****ing short, while the list of concealed carriers who made no difference or actually made things worse isn't. Wayne LaPierre to the contrary notwithstanding, all the real-world analysis available to someone who wants to know the actual truth supports the position that the answer to bad guys with guns isn't more good guys with guns; its a more rational scheme for controlling who gets guns. If you don't know that you don't know enough to be weighing in on this issue.

And George, I see you're still assiduously avoiding the fact-based community.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
The problem there is, the list of mass shootings actually stopped by private citizens carrying concealed weapons (and I speak as someone who has a CCP) is pretty ****ing short, while the list of concealed carriers who made no difference or actually made things worse isn't. Wayne LaPierre to the contrary notwithstanding, all the real-world analysis available to someone who wants to know the actual truth supports the position that the answer to bad guys with guns isn't more good guys with guns; its a more rational scheme for controlling who gets guns. If you don't know that you don't know enough to be weighing in on this issue.

And George, I see you're still assiduously avoiding the fact-based community.

Chicago--not the musical

Chicago is a bloody mess. Black lives don't matter there. There is a lot of blame to go around. But it sure doesn't start with Obama or with the city.

The gun-running pipeline from suburban gun shops to the inner city,where gun sales were restricted, was clear and obvious. The sheer volume of guns sold in some of these stores would have alerted a moron that the guns were being distributed in a secondary or black market. This was obvious to the seller, the distributer, and even the manufacturers of those firearms. This involved some very well known gun makers. Chicago filed suit to stop the nonsense. The GOP congress stepped in, after being lobbied by the gun industry, and halted these claims cold. These are the facts. These are real. The other reality is that blood is on the hands of all of those who support this crazy legislative immunity.



 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Watch the video and reach an informed conclusion about what the guy says.
Ok I now watched the video. And much to my surprise, it said exactly what I told you it would say. More guns! As Buzz already mentioned, statistics show that another gun is not that likely to deter a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely to make the situation worse instead of better. Everyone, except for the NRA spokespeople seem to know that.
 
Ok I now watched the video. And much to my surprise, it said exactly what I told you it would say. More guns! As Buzz already mentioned, statistics show that another gun is not that likely to deter a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely to make the situation worse instead of better. Everyone, except for the NRA spokespeople seem to know that.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

Interesting study. In 2010 it looks like justifiable homicides made up 2% of all gun related homicides. That doesn't include suicides and accidental deaths with firearms. Even accidental deaths look to be three times as likely as having to kill someone else in self defense if you look at the numbers.
 
From concealed nation and he's a firearm enthusiast, let me guess. His idea is MORE guns! Is that about right? Doubt that I need to watch the video to figure that out. 'Merica...we love our guns!
In the 1800's men took guns to church. And there weren't mass shootings. If those precious folks would have had guns on their person and concealed then the damage this maniac did would have been lessened. It's always easier to blame the gun instead of the person isn't it?
 
In the 1800's men took guns to church. And there weren't mass shootings. If those precious folks would have had guns on their person and concealed then the damage this maniac did would have been lessened. It's always easier to blame the gun instead of the person isn't it?
Sorry, Van, it isn't the 1800's, although at times I feel like you think it is. I was so glad to hear that my pastor doesn't feel anything like you . Although I knew he wouldn't. Again, is it so hard to understand the statistics? You are more likely to get hurt or killed if you own a gun than if you don't. I'll take my chances and stay away from the gunslinging days of the Wild West.
 
In the 1800's men took guns to church. And there weren't mass shootings. If those precious folks would have had guns on their person and concealed then the damage this maniac did would have been lessened. It's always easier to blame the gun instead of the person isn't it?
Did men attend church services armed in the 1800s? I don't know but would like to see the basis for that assertion established rather than assumed.
 
In the 1800's men took guns to church. And there weren't mass shootings. If those precious folks would have had guns on their person and concealed then the damage this maniac did would have been lessened. It's always easier to blame the gun instead of the person isn't it?

In the 1800s, oh ignorant one, gun control was a common feature of the political landscape in America. I don't think a lot of people took guns to church, and I'll bet a doughnut you have no evidence to the contrary, since people like you so seldom do.

And as noted elsewhere, all the data contradicts the claim t6hat concealed carry does anything measurable to reduce the cost of crazies with guns. Again, I'm quite sure you're talking through your hat here, since I've actually examined the evidence, which you clearly have not. Away with you.
 
In the 1800's men took guns to church. And there weren't mass shootings. If those precious folks would have had guns on their person and concealed then the damage this maniac did would have been lessened. It's always easier to blame the gun instead of the person isn't it?

Yeah, and in the 1800s black people were owned and certainly didn't spend time in the same churches as whites. But back then mass shootings were called "well regulated militias", but they much preferred to hang blacks or whip them to death. Do you actually believe the shit you type?
 
Ok I now watched the video. And much to my surprise, it said exactly what I told you it would say. More guns! As Buzz already mentioned, statistics show that another gun is not that likely to deter a mass murderer. In fact, it's more likely to make the situation worse instead of better. Everyone, except for the NRA spokespeople seem to know that.
No not "more" guns. Weapons in the hands of properly prepared persons in places where guns are now forbidden. The lunatic perps - or just evil perps - know where there will be no resistance - schools, churches, theaters. Let the bad guys know that there is likely to be someone - or several someones - in those places who are prepared to resist them and they'll either not try there or be resisted there and possibly shot. I want all these bad guys to think that everyone around them has a weapon and knows how to use it.
 
In the 1800's men took guns to church. And there weren't mass shootings. If those precious folks would have had guns on their person and concealed then the damage this maniac did would have been lessened. It's always easier to blame the gun instead of the person isn't it?
This is just a giant load of wrong, on a number of levels.
 
Sorry, Van, it isn't the 1800's, although at times I feel like you think it is. I was so glad to hear that my pastor doesn't feel anything like you . Although I knew he wouldn't. Again, is it so hard to understand the statistics? You are more likely to get hurt or killed if you own a gun than if you don't. I'll take my chances and stay away from the gunslinging days of the Wild West.
No, I don't think it is the 1800's today. And for this I am glad since we have indoor plumbing. I don't think the 1800's were the gunslinging days you are speaking of. What you had back then though was an ethic about guns. Guns were used mainly for hunting and protection. When people went to church they would either go to church before or after a hunt or they would have a gun to protect themselves to and fro from church since wild animals could attack or wild people. My view is not pro death. It is pro protection. If a person who is a good man or woman has a gun concealed they can do a lot of good in protecting themselves and others they love. It would be nice if the cops were on the premises all the time but they are not.
 
Yeah, and in the 1800s black people were owned and certainly didn't spend time in the same churches as whites. But back then mass shootings were called "well regulated militias", but they much preferred to hang blacks or whip them to death. Do you actually believe the shit you type?
You are making the mistake of changing the subject midstream. Where does racism come into my discussion. I am talking about black people today who were mowed down by the young man because they cold not protect themselves. This is what it is about. These were good people who died and I believe less would have if some of those good people had been concealing a gun to stop the evil that came into their house of worship.
 
No not "more" guns. Weapons in the hands of properly prepared persons in places where guns are now forbidden. The lunatic perps - or just evil perps - know where there will be no resistance - schools, churches, theaters. Let the bad guys know that there is likely to be someone - or several someones - in those places who are prepared to resist them and they'll either not try there or be resisted there and possibly shot. I want all these bad guys to think that everyone around them has a weapon and knows how to use it.

Cops in general don't know how or when to use their weapons, L, and studies demonstrate that for the most part soldiers don't either. The chances that America can put guns in the hands of ordinary citizens who know enough to make bad situations better without making bad situations worse is precisely zero in the real world. Trust me, I know: I've been shooting for 40 years, and have gone through the training course required to get a CCP in Oklahoma, which was an utter joke, but very like the training courses in other states. And that's not to mention the movement the gun nuts are now supporting to authorize concealed and open carry without any training.

Ya gotta get into the real world, dude. There's actually evidence out here. If you look at it your judgments might take on a bit of substance.
 
Cops in general don't know how or when to use their weapons, L, and studies demonstrate that for the most part soldiers don't either. The chances that America can put guns in the hands of ordinary citizens who know enough to make bad situations better without making bad situations worse is precisely zero in the real world. Trust me, I know: I've been shooting for 40 years, and have gone through the training course required to get a CCP in Oklahoma, which was an utter joke, but very like the training courses in other states. And that's not to mention the movement the gun nuts are now supporting to authorize concealed and open carry without any training.

Ya gotta get into the real world, dude. There's actually evidence out here. If you look at it your judgments might take on a bit of substance.

"Cops in general don't know how or when to use their weapons"?

Where does that come from? There are probably more standards, training, certifications, practice scenarios, experts, and expertise, about how and when to use hands, batons, and even firearms as weapons, in the real world than any other aspect of police activity. I don't think you know as much as you think you know. Actually you don't know what you are talking about. Training for CCP, or even training as a cop is one thing. Assessing risks and then deciding what to do about said risks in a split second when you or others face deadly threats is quite another. That is why the law is that a cop only needs to be reasonable in the application of force, including deadly force, not correct.
 
"Cops in general don't know how or when to use their weapons"?

Where does that come from? There are probably more standards, training, certifications, practice scenarios, experts, and expertise, about how and when to use hands, batons, and even firearms as weapons, in the real world than any other aspect of police activity. I don't think you know as much as you think you know. Actually you don't know what you are talking about. Training for CCP, or even training as a cop is one thing. Assessing risks and then deciding what to do about said risks in a split second when you or others face deadly threats is quite another. That is why the law is that a cop only needs to be reasonable in the application of force, including deadly force, not correct.[/QUOTEing
"Marksmanship" training for a cop back in my day, though intensive and replicating real situations, was nothing compared to today. Even at that we shot 1000s of round in training before we were ever allowed to carry our service weapons in recruit school. Added to both - but in the modern era must more tense and demanding - are situational, legal and moral training about the use of deadly force. Then there is training under extreme stress and fatigue. No one knows when an officer will have to use fatal force to save another or his own life. It might come when the worst possible stress has already occurred. That's why they train and train and train.
 
No, I don't think it is the 1800's today. And for this I am glad since we have indoor plumbing. I don't think the 1800's were the gunslinging days you are speaking of. What you had back then though was an ethic about guns. Guns were used mainly for hunting and protection. When people went to church they would either go to church before or after a hunt or they would have a gun to protect themselves to and fro from church since wild animals could attack or wild people. My view is not pro death. It is pro protection. If a person who is a good man or woman has a gun concealed they can do a lot of good in protecting themselves and others they love. It would be nice if the cops were on the premises all the time but they are not.

How many times in the Bible does it say, "Fear not"?
How often did Jesus admonish those "of little faith"?
Yet you advocate guns in church?
And you espouse this from the pulpit?
OMG.
 
How many times in the Bible does it say, "Fear not"?
How often did Jesus admonish those "of little faith"?
Yet you advocate guns in church?
And you espouse this from the pulpit?
OMG.
Did I say I espouse this from the pulpit? No. But if some of my people had concealed weapons would I worry at all? No. Let me ask you a question. Why is it ok for cops to have guns? Think about it? Isn't it because they are good people who protect us? How is it any different for good people to have concealed weapons to protect themselves and those they love? You act like it's the gun that is evil. No, a gun is amoral. It depends on who is using it.
 
Did I say I espouse this from the pulpit? No. But if some of my people had concealed weapons would I worry at all? No. Let me ask you a question. Why is it ok for cops to have guns? Think about it? Isn't it because they are good people who protect us? How is it any different for good people to have concealed weapons to protect themselves and those they love? You act like it's the gun that is evil. No, a gun is amoral. It depends on who is using it.
Some of the sheep continue to show their disdain for the sheepdogs - until the wolf comes around. Then they will show their cowardice by fleeing to the protection of the sheepdogs which is their only redoubt as they aren't capable of protecting themselves and their own families. Fortunately for them, there are sheepdogs, even the ones they dislike and abuse, often ready to protect those who aren't capable of or willing to protect themselves. Let's hope there are always enough sheepdogs - even for those too cowardly to act to protect themselves and especially their families.
 
In the 1800s, oh ignorant one, gun control was a common feature of the political landscape in America. I don't think a lot of people took guns to church, and I'll bet a doughnut you have no evidence to the contrary, since people like you so seldom do.

And as noted elsewhere, all the data contradicts the claim t6hat concealed carry does anything measurable to reduce the cost of crazies with guns. Again, I'm quite sure you're talking through your hat here, since I've actually examined the evidence, which you clearly have not. Away with you.
I think we have a Buzz imposter here. Buzz could occasionally be a jerk, but not like you have been from the first post - and not so overtly or constantly. He also didn't routinely make assertions about statistics without linking to something to back them. Unless Buzz has turned into an extremely cranky and bitter blowhard, you're not THE Buzz.
 
Last edited:
"Cops in general don't know how or when to use their weapons"?

Where does that come from? There are probably more standards, training, certifications, practice scenarios, experts, and expertise, about how and when to use hands, batons, and even firearms as weapons, in the real world than any other aspect of police activity. I don't think you know as much as you think you know. Actually you don't know what you are talking about. Training for CCP, or even training as a cop is one thing. Assessing risks and then deciding what to do about said risks in a split second when you or others face deadly threats is quite another. That is why the law is that a cop only needs to be reasonable in the application of force, including deadly force, not correct.

Well, it comes from a good deal of research, CoH, which is more than I suspect you've done. Among other things I've talked at length to two of my golf buddies, one of whom used to be chief of police here and the other of whom was a long-time FBI agent, and neither would do anything with respect to your assertions other than laugh. Hard.

Really poor straw man, by the way: note that my point was not that cops don't shoot all that well (though in response to a question why cops don't shoot the guns out of bad guys hands my friend the ex-chief, after he stopped laughing, said it was because "we're lucky if we can hit them anywhere at all"). but that cops don't know how or when to use their weapons. If the recent rash of unjustified use of weapons by cops hasn't made that clear to you, you're not paying attention.
 
Some of the sheep continue to show their disdain for the sheepdogs - until the wolf comes around. Then they will show their cowardice by fleeing to the protection of the sheepdogs which is their only redoubt as they aren't capable of protecting themselves and their own families. Fortunately for them, there are sheepdogs, even the ones they dislike and abuse, often ready to protect those who aren't capable of or willing to protect themselves. Let's hope there are always enough sheepdogs - even for those too cowardly to act to protect themselves and especially their families.

Piss off piss ant. You are a despicable excuse for a human being.

BTW, if you think you're a "sheepdog" think again. Oh, you're in the pen with the sheep and the sheepdogs, but it's not because you're either one of those . . . you're what's left after either is done digesting . . . .
 
Did I say I espouse this from the pulpit? No. But if some of my people had concealed weapons would I worry at all? No. Let me ask you a question. Why is it ok for cops to have guns? Think about it? Isn't it because they are good people who protect us? How is it any different for good people to have concealed weapons to protect themselves and those they love? You act like it's the gun that is evil. No, a gun is amoral. It depends on who is using it.

So you're admitting to being a hypocrite? You admit to having a different standard for what you preach and the way you'd behave?

Either you live your faith fully, Van, or you have absolutely no business being a pastor. We see a lot more evidence of the latter here than the former.
 
Well, it comes from a good deal of research, CoH, which is more than I suspect you've done. Among other things I've talked at length to two of my golf buddies, one of whom used to be chief of police here and the other of whom was a long-time FBI agent, and neither would do anything with respect to your assertions other than laugh. Hard.

Really poor straw man, by the way: note that my point was not that cops don't shoot all that well (though in response to a question why cops don't shoot the guns out of bad guys hands my friend the ex-chief, after he stopped laughing, said it was because "we're lucky if we can hit them anywhere at all"). but that cops don't know how or when to use their weapons. If the recent rash of unjustified use of weapons by cops hasn't made that clear to you, you're not paying attention.

Well, people actually paid me

to litigate cop use of force cases. Did okay too,* I guess somebody thought i know something about that. BTW, an FBI agent would have a hard time even qualifying as an expert witness on the standard of care for a cop on the street. Some chiefs would be in the same boat. I wouldn't use either one in front of a jury. BBTW, the marksmanship comment wasn't mine.

*One of the federal magistrates even yelled at me for my client having the reputation of being the stingiest of any in this district when it came to settling use of force cases. That was in the context of a arrest resulting in death. I took her remark as a high compliment.
 
Well, people actually paid me

to litigate cop use of force cases. Did okay too,* I guess somebody thought i know something about that. BTW, an FBI agent would have a hard time even qualifying as an expert witness on the standard of care for a cop on the street. Some chiefs would be in the same boat. I wouldn't use either one in front of a jury. BBTW, the marksmanship comment wasn't mine.

*One of the federal magistrates even yelled at me for my client having the reputation of being the stingiest of any in this district when it came to settling use of force cases. That was in the context of a arrest resulting in death. I took her remark as a high compliment.

I see you're still not into logic or coherent argument.
 
Some of the sheep continue to show their disdain for the sheepdogs - until the wolf comes around. Then they will show their cowardice by fleeing to the protection of the sheepdogs which is their only redoubt as they aren't capable of protecting themselves and their own families. Fortunately for them, there are sheepdogs, even the ones they dislike and abuse, often ready to protect those who aren't capable of or willing to protect themselves. Let's hope there are always enough sheepdogs - even for those too cowardly to act to protect themselves and especially their families.

Don't you ever get tired of this schtick? You're a caricature of a right wing gun nut. I'll take my chances with the police, the people that are actually trained to do this. Or with no one. I'd feel much safer that way than the millions of macho men ( in their head) vigilantes George Zimmermans out there. And statistics show I'd be right to do so. How so we know the difference between the sheepdogs and the wolves when we are all gun toting cowboys?
 
You are making the mistake of changing the subject midstream. Where does racism come into my discussion. I am talking about black people today who were mowed down by the young man because they cold not protect themselves. This is what it is about. These were good people who died and I believe less would have if some of those good people had been concealing a gun to stop the evil that came into their house of worship.

I think we should just all carry guns. We'd be much safer. No, wait, two guns. Yeah, we all need to have two guns at all times.
 
So you're admitting to being a hypocrite? You admit to having a different standard for what you preach and the way you'd behave?

Either you live your faith fully, Van, or you have absolutely no business being a pastor. We see a lot more evidence of the latter here than the former.

Jesus would have carried a gun. It's pretty obvious when you read his teachings that he would've been all about guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
No, I don't think it is the 1800's today. And for this I am glad since we have indoor plumbing. I don't think the 1800's were the gunslinging days you are speaking of. What you had back then though was an ethic about guns. Guns were used mainly for hunting and protection. When people went to church they would either go to church before or after a hunt or they would have a gun to protect themselves to and fro from church since wild animals could attack or wild people. My view is not pro death. It is pro protection. If a person who is a good man or woman has a gun concealed they can do a lot of good in protecting themselves and others they love. It would be nice if the cops were on the premises all the time but they are not.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
 
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
I second that emotion, RB: absolutely all the empirical evidence supports the thesis that citizens carrying guns seldom do anything with them to prevent or impede crime, and more frequently make bad situations worse. Why anyone is still asserting that an armed populace makes anyone safer in this day and age is just beyond me; there's no reason at all to believe that's true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RBB89
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Plus, were blacks even allowed to own guns back then? I mean, Van does know these were black people that were shot? If Van was alive in the 1800s touting for blacks to carry guns in church, or to own guns at all, he would've been strung up himself.
 
Don't you ever get tired of this schtick? You're a caricature of a right wing gun nut. I'll take my chances with the police, the people that are actually trained to do this. Or with no one. I'd feel much safer that way than the millions of macho men ( in their head) vigilantes George Zimmermans out there. And statistics show I'd be right to do so. How so we know the difference between the sheepdogs and the wolves when we are all gun toting cowboys?
I do hope, for your sake, that you never have to experience the necessity to defend yourself or your family from serious threat of harm while the police are on the way.
 
Don't you ever get tired of this schtick? You're a caricature of a right wing gun nut. I'll take my chances with the police, the people that are actually trained to do this. Or with no one. I'd feel much safer that way than the millions of macho men ( in their head) vigilantes George Zimmermans out there. And statistics show I'd be right to do so. How so we know the difference between the sheepdogs and the wolves when we are all gun toting cowboys?
Piss off piss ant. You are a despicable excuse for a human being.

BTW, if you think you're a "sheepdog" think again. Oh, you're in the pen with the sheep and the sheepdogs, but it's not because you're either one of those . . . you're what's left after either is done digesting . . . .
You get worse and worse every time your leftist extremism is challenged. It's true Sope. Someone better than you will have to protect you if it ever comes to that. I hope it doesn't.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT