Did no one else find it tacky that the church posted the footage of congregants getting shot to score political points?
Serious question, did the guy have a shotgun? Seems like if he would of had a semi automatic weapon he probably would have done a lot more damage even with the CHL expert there. As I've said many times, gun supporters are okay with these casualties as long as they keep their guns. I hate both sides of the debate to be honest. Gun supporters exaggerate that everybody wants to take their guns when only few politicians have actually gone as far as saying something to that effect. All most people support is a compromise, where there are stronger background checks, certain groups are not allowed to own a gun, etc etc, for the most part a small inconvenience to buy a gun, but not the extreme positions they claim antigun supporters are taking. Personally, I am on the extreme end and I'd be okay with abolishing guns from this country, but whatever, I can live with people having their toys if they would at least compromise on what we can do to limit the amount of weapons available.
It is irrational that our country is at a point where church goers feel the need to bring a gun to church to protect themselves.
To bring light to an earlier post, it must be noted that the gunman had a shotgun. Not a modified AR that could fire 100 rounds in seconds. To the question of why gun control, this cannot be overstated. Gun laws and assault weapon bans will not stop shootings, but it is clear it will save some lives. The main reason this hero was likely able to move quick and take out the gunman was because he wasn’t met with a weapon that would have overpowered the room in 2 seconds. I think guns aren’t going away and there’s no way to go door to door and round up everyone’s weapons. We are in the mud for some time, and mass shootings are going to continue to be a way of life. I have a little one going to school now and a teacher for a wife. Don’t think for 2 seconds even my liberal ass doesn’t worry about a shooting and think anything should be done to protect my family. But the debate is incredibly disingenuous and it makes me sick. This morning folks on the right were high fiveing each other because a shooter was shot by a good guy with a gun before he could kill more people. How low have sunk in this debate?? This need to own the libs on the Internet has turned your a$$hole brains to mush. Your political games keeps real solutions from at least lessening the damage done. Give it up with the NRA talking points and be a real f-ing human being for 2 seconds. What we learned today is that shotguns are easier to disarm in a firefight. That’s it, and it’s not a happy thing to celebrate either. I’m glad a hero was there to save more lives but if the NRA had it their way, it would have been even easier for the gunman to have stopped at his local central market on his way to church, grabbed some milk, some bread, and an automatic AR with a high capacity magazine instead of taking the weapon he had available which is meant for home defense, killing snakes, or in combat close quarter encounters with only a few rounds meant to be fired at a time. That’s just a fact.
The point of gun control isn't to stop people from defending themselves, it's to make it so that people don't need to in the first place. Smart law abiding sane gun owners are not the problem. It's everybody else.
There is gun control and it's done little to help deter such events. As more gun control is enacted, these mass shooting situations have only increased. The word gun control itself is linguistic propaganda, and it's misleading to say we don't already have some form of gun restrictions and laws. The thing is, there will never be enough gun control for some people. But in reality, the more you try to control it, the more problems you will make with the unintended consequences. But do tell how your gun control, and let's be clear, you're dreamed up version of it, would have stopped that man from obtaining a gun through other means and shooting people?
He had like five other guns drawn on him bro. It wouldn't have mattered, but it's nice that the pro got him. As one should expect. A professionally trained person is the most likely to get a shot off first and hit the target. I have little doubt that there would have been return fire regardless.
The gun control laws don't work because they are gapping loops that were never closed. Just basic things as having a license to buy one isn't executed well. The NRA constantly fights against common sense measures because it doesn't want ANY gun control. Gun control isn't about banning guns, it's about regulating a dangerous weapon. And smart gun control laws may very well have stopped this guy. It certainly would have saved lives across the country.
Not really. ________ Kinnunen had several arrests and convictions over the past decade. Fort Worth police arrested him in 2008 and charged him with felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, according to Department of Public Safety court records. The charge was later lowered to misdemeanor deadly conduct, and he was convicted in 2009, the records show. In December 2013, Fort Worth police arrested Kinnunen for misdemeanor theft and he was convicted in January 2014, the records show.
Downplaying the skill of this man is not a smart move. He domed that guy from over 30 feet away with a single shot. That is not typical.
It's funny, but you could argue with this guy with facts and **** but the only thing he sees is: "good guy killed bad guy, sure one good guy still lost his life, but the most important thing is good guy killed bad guy, therefore, that's why we need access to guns." In mass shootings this scenario rarely happens, but of course, we will have our anti-gun control folks celebrating this one outlier.
@Ottomaton basically already summarized this entire problem and solution very well. Dam the river upstream. There really isn't any other way around it other than going full bore lower case socialism to increase the standard of living, reduce poverty, and otherwise eliminate or reduce the factors that contribute to gun violence. But of course that is anathema to modern conservative ethos so we're stuck in this ever-increasing stupidity loop of "more guns means less gun violence". It's like gun advocates gave this country a disease, and now the 'only' cure is... more disease. Gun proliferation is a flawed solution to a problem that never should have existed in the first place.
why isn't there any attention to the ID of the shooter here? Is it really that typical whenever a crazy white gun lunatic decides to shoot up a place? You know @bigtexxx was salivating at the thought of creating another omar thread
