Church shooting stopped by 2nd Amendment....

[David13]

I hate to say it, but in this situation, the typical gun control rhetoric backfired.

Here is the article I wrote on this issue, please correct me if my facts are not correct:

When Texas was making it legal for people to use conceal carry permits in churches, Joe Biden made a statement complaining that allowing people to use guns in church buildings is completely irrational.

On Sunday, Dec 29, 2019, there was a shooting inside a Texas church. Two good men, each having a gun, became heroes and saved many lives. They killed the shooter so the event did not become a massacre.

Events like this usually allow people to cry for more gun control so that that these mass shooting events stop. But in this case, the ability to use such rhetoric has backfired. It was because more people had a gun in the area that many lives were saved.

Of course, the argument can be made that if gun control laws were stricter, neither the bad guy or the good guy could have a gun and then no one would have died.

But, is this a factual argument?

It was worth trudging up to the attic and pulling out my copy of Glenn Beck's certified autographed copy of "Arguing with Idiots" to make sure I have my facts straight.

While I can't copy the whole chapter on gun control statistics, what I can do is just give one excerpt of this book.

"After the 1996 'Dunblane Massacre,' in which a man shot and killed 16 children and their teacher at a primary school, England instituted a handgun ban.

Remember the English Declaration of Rights...restrains only [the] queen--Parliament can do whatever they want and...they wanted to take guns away. So, in 1997, they did. Over a decade later, the results are in: the ban is a disaster. From 1998 through 2005, the number of deaths and injuries from handguns skyrocketed 340 percent" (emphasis added).

So here is a factual statistic where the experiment was applied. Removing the people's right to a handgun resulted in more deaths by handgun over the following years.

I think I am sticking with Minister Britt Farmer who said, “We lost two great men today, but it could have been a lot worse...I’m thankful our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves.”

READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/news/9854-pastor ... themselves
© Neon Nettle

David Leppard, "Ministers 'Covered Up' Gun Crime," London Times August 26, 2007, www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime ... 328368.ece.

Glenn Beck, "Arguing with Idiots", Mercury Radio Arts Inc. 2009, p. 44,53

"Handgun Crime 'Up' Despite Ban," news.bbc.co.uk, July 16, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm.

There really is no argument at all that if gun laws were stricter, the shooter would not have had a gun.

There is no logic to it, no reality.

You can turn to Prohibition. Or better yet drugs.

There is a huge federal government bureaucracy known as the Drug Enforcement Administration. Their annual budget is in the BILLIONS. Note Billions, not millions, They have been at it for 40 years.

And I think you are aware as I that drugs are available in every town, no matter how small throughout the US of A.

And you would have to be out of your mind to think that a prohibition that didn't work on alcohol, and does not work on drugs would in some magical way prevent ANYONE from having a gun and shooting anyone they wanted to shoot.

Or grotesquely dishonest.
dc

I should add also, that there is no such thing as "hand gun crime". No gun ever committed a crime, just like no car ever drove drunk. It was the shooter, the criminal, that one who had the gun ... ILLEGALLY .. or who drove the car under the influence.

[Juliet]

I hate to say it, but in this situation, the typical gun control rhetoric backfired.

Here is the article I wrote on this issue, please correct me if my facts are not correct:

When Texas was making it legal for people to use conceal carry permits in churches, Joe Biden made a statement complaining that allowing people to use guns in church buildings is completely irrational.

On Sunday, Dec 29, 2019, there was a shooting inside a Texas church. Two good men, each having a gun, became heroes and saved many lives. They killed the shooter so the event did not become a massacre.

Events like this usually allow people to cry for more gun control so that that these mass shooting events stop. But in this case, the ability to use such rhetoric has backfired. It was because more people had a gun in the area that many lives were saved.

Of course, the argument can be made that if gun control laws were stricter, neither the bad guy or the good guy could have a gun and then no one would have died.

But, is this a factual argument?

It was worth trudging up to the attic and pulling out my copy of Glenn Beck's certified autographed copy of "Arguing with Idiots" to make sure I have my facts straight.

While I can't copy the whole chapter on gun control statistics, what I can do is just give one excerpt of this book.

"After the 1996 'Dunblane Massacre,' in which a man shot and killed 16 children and their teacher at a primary school, England instituted a handgun ban.

Remember the English Declaration of Rights...restrains only [the] queen--Parliament can do whatever they want and...they wanted to take guns away. So, in 1997, they did. Over a decade later, the results are in: the ban is a disaster. From 1998 through 2005, the number of deaths and injuries from handguns skyrocketed 340 percent" (emphasis added).

So here is a factual statistic where the experiment was applied. Removing the people's right to a handgun resulted in more deaths by handgun over the following years.

I think I am sticking with Minister Britt Farmer who said, “We lost two great men today, but it could have been a lot worse...I’m thankful our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves.”

READ MORE: https://neonnettle.com/news/9854-pastor ... themselves
© Neon Nettle

David Leppard, "Ministers 'Covered Up' Gun Crime," London Times August 26, 2007, www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime ... 328368.ece.

Glenn Beck, "Arguing with Idiots", Mercury Radio Arts Inc. 2009, p. 44,53

"Handgun Crime 'Up' Despite Ban," news.bbc.co.uk, July 16, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm.

There really is no argument at all that if gun laws were stricter, the shooter would not have had a gun.

There is no logic to it, no reality.

You can turn to Prohibition. Or better yet drugs.

There is a huge federal government bureaucracy known as the Drug Enforcement Administration. Their annual budget is in the BILLIONS. Note Billions, not millions, They have been at it for 40 years.

And I think you are aware as I that drugs are available in every town, no matter how small throughout the US of A.

And you would have to be out of your mind to think that a prohibition that didn't work on alcohol, and does not work on drugs would in some magical way prevent ANYONE from having a gun and shooting anyone they wanted to shoot.

Or grotesquely dishonest.
dc

I agree, and I really liked Catherine Austin Fitt's narc dollar article: https://ratical.org/co-globalize/narcoDollars.html What a run down on how the drug trade takes over the world.

Unfortunately, it seems the mainstream rhetoric after every shooting is that we need to take away guns because then we would all be safer. Of course this isn't true, and it's sad that we have to spell it out.

[David13]

This is the tragic story of the woman who fought for conceal-carry in TX, and is still lobbying for fewer restrictions. Her experience shows the result of being "obedient" and leaving her handgun in her car while she had lunch with her parents. She was trained in using a handgun, she was hiding under a table with her purse, with a clear shot at the gunman, and her gun was in her car, not her purse. She watched as the gunman killed her parents, and more than 20 other souls.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/09 ... n-control/

This is here story. As told by her. There is another video after this where, later in life she retells her story. They use the nonsense term "gun violence" there, but she has something to say about that. That she was a victim not of a gun, but of a mad man, and legislators who deprived her of her right to protect herself and her family.

[BeNotDeceived]

The hypocrisy from leadership in this matter is disappointing.

Well... since the church is self insured (up to a point) it has to say something preemtorilyso as to ward off huge payouts when an occasion does happen in an LDS Ward building.

You can bet the larcenous lawyers will be going after the deep pockets of the church and place blame and Responsability for an incident.

Better for the church to say “no guns” except for (trained) law enforcement. Because otherwise the top leadership would be dragged into some kind of lawsuit when an attorney for an innocent bystander gets shot and killed by a white hat member trying to take down the bad guy.

That’s what would likely happen.

Besides I think none of the current twelve have served in the military...??

May be wise to load same ammunition LE uses.

Likely correct, no vets !!

What a crock , but not shiitake mushrooms. gbng
Shiitake mushrooms , but not a crock of ‘em. dbnp

[hedgehog]

The hypocrisy from leadership in this matter is disappointing.

Well... since the church is self insured (up to a point) it has to say something preemtorilyso as to ward off huge payouts when an occasion does happen in an LDS Ward building.

You can bet the larcenous lawyers will be going after the deep pockets of the church and place blame and Responsability for an incident.

Better for the church to say “no guns” except for (trained) law enforcement. Because otherwise the top leadership would be dragged into some kind of lawsuit when an attorney for an innocent bystander gets shot and killed by a white hat member trying to take down the bad guy.

That’s what would likely happen.

Besides I think none of the current twelve have served in the military...??

That's our fault for not being a squeaky wheel and pushing lawsuits against gun ban organizations like colleges when shootings do happen.

[Elizabeth]

Elder Uchtdorf, served in the German Air Force

Besides I think none of the current twelve have served in the military...??

[hedgehog]

Great point we should start referring to it as gun prohibition. Hoist them on their own petards.

[JohnnyL]

https://www.deseret.com/2020/1/5/210509 ... ings-armed

"Not just anyone can legally carry a firearm into a church. It’s a violation of Nebraska statute to carry a weapon into a church and concealed carry permit holders are advised of that law, as well as other prohibited places, during certification courses. In order to carry concealed in a church, a person must be a documented member of a security team."

[Lizzy60]

https://www.deseret.com/2020/1/5/210509 ... ings-armed

"Not just anyone can legally carry a firearm into a church. It’s a violation of Nebraska statute to carry a weapon into a church and concealed carry permit holders are advised of that law, as well as other prohibited places, during certification courses. In order to carry concealed in a church, a person must be a documented member of a security team."

Okay, so that's Nebraska. I'm aware that people are under different restrictions in each state. That's why Texas enacted regulations last year, which saved lives at the church in White Settlement. In TX, any person with a conceal carry permit may conceal carry in any church. If a particular church prohibits concealed carry weapons, their only recourse on discovering that a person has a weapon is to ask that person to take his weapon out of the building. As long as the person does so, there is no other recourse.

[mudflap]

It's so ridiculous- making man-made laws that ignore natural law.

Natural law says: if someone tries to kill me or my family or friends, I have a right to defend myself and them.

Can you imagine applying man-made laws to nature? : "Ok, Mrs. Bear, we're going to paint this line around your den- you're not allowed to swipe at us on this side of the line, even if we provoke you."

[Lizzy60]

https://www.deseret.com/2020/1/5/210509 ... ings-armed

"Not just anyone can legally carry a firearm into a church. It’s a violation of Nebraska statute to carry a weapon into a church and concealed carry permit holders are advised of that law, as well as other prohibited places, during certification courses. In order to carry concealed in a church, a person must be a documented member of a security team."

With this story appearing in the Deseret News, are we going to see the LDS Church authorizing the formation of armed security teams in those states where this is legal? Is this formation of armed security teams in LDS buildings currently legal in Utah? I know the Handbook says that only police officers on duty may carry their weapon in a church meeting, but these armed security teams are not uniformed, and are not on-duty policemen.

[mudflap]

Utah has a bunch of mountains to protect them, remember?

sarcasm = "on".