The investigation is in the early stages but once again, a killer walks into a school and starts shooting. The time for personal forgiveness will come as everything has a season (Eccl. 3:1-8), but the immediate need to stop the killer by having a competent police officer or armed citizen at the immediate scene of the shooting was not met.

In legal terms that may be some form of negligence in that many public high schools administrations operate under a fog of unreality, hoping the worst never happens to them and seem to lack the requisite skills to secure their schools.

In spiritual terms, they have failed their students, IMHO

Quote:

---

1 Timothy 5:8

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

---

Edit: I understand the high school has a police presence assigned. It will be interesting to find out exactly why this person was able to kill so many. And maybe it points to the fact that armed teachers should be an option.

Sigh....this will be my only post on the subject because I'm confident I know how this will play out.

First, adding more guns into the situation isn't the solution. Per the relatively recent FBI report, unarmed civilians are over 4 times more likely to stop an active shooter than armed civilians. Plus, it only reinforces the actual problem, which is the glorification of redemptive violence in our society. From top to bottom, we have a society that glorifies this cancer. We have national holidays to honor the violent. We hold up murderers, like Chris Kyle, as heroes. We idolize soldiers and cops. We teach children to "punch the bully in the nose". We raise them in a culture that justifies violence for even the pettiest of slights. Heck, we have people who believe killing someone is justified if they are simply stealing their property. It's no surprise when children mirror what they see in our society. Instead of introducing more tools for taking life into schools, how about we focus on training children in nonviolent conflict resolution? How about we address the problem we have with our culture's warped view of masculinity that inhibits young boys from healthy emotional expression? Adding a cop to a school is merely a putting a band-aid on a cancer patient.

Arming teachers is an even worse idea. I was an infantryman, and in the chaos of combat, even we made mistakes. We were trained nonstop in close quarter combat and target identification, and we still screwed up. We still had people freeze up in the moment, and this was in a place where we had no emotional attachment to our victims. Giving some teacher who has no real experience a gun, then adding hundreds of panicked children running around, is only going to result in more bloodshed. And, as the recent FBI study found, unarmed citizens are far more likely to stop an active shooter than an armed citizen.

Second, I absolutely reject your utterly flawed use of Paul's letter to Timothy here. So I've failed my family spiritually because I do not own a gun, nor would I use one? Talk about cherry picking and misapplying verses. So those early Christians who rejected the use of violence were failing their families spiritually? I'd say any failing is when we reject the example of Christ out of fear. Have I denied my faith because I believe we are to imitate our nonviolent Messiah?

Lastly, from a practical perspective, there's much that can be done to address the issue without adding more life-destroying weapons into the mix. Sure, it'll turn schools more into the prisons I've long viewed them to be, but it certainly will address the vulnerabilities currently found in schools.

From what I've read. He pulled the fire alarm and shot them as they came outside.

Hard to defend against that.

giving teachers guns, I don't know if that would cause more issues in cases like this.
Kids running in all directions and you expect a teacher to hit the shooter and not all the kids that might be behind him?

I don't go so far as retired. I think not teaching your kids to punch the bully in the nose is a prescription for a crappy childhood of being targeted. Sometimes it doesn't have to be that exactly but you have to show that you are willing to resort to violence if necessary.

Guns are practical solutions to bad guys with guns in many cases and only silly thinkers and misguided pacifists would deny that. But I just don't know if teachers with guns would solve these things.

RetiredAg said:

---

Arming teachers is an even worse idea. I was an infantryman, and in the chaos of combat, even we made mistakes. We were trained nonstop in close quarter combat and target identification, and we still screwed up. We still had people freeze up in the moment, and this was in a place where we had no emotional attachment to our victims. Giving some teacher who has no real experience a gun, then adding hundreds of panicked children running around, is only going to result in more bloodshed. And, as the recent FBI study found, unarmed citizens are far more likely to stop an active shooter than an armed citizen.

Second, I absolutely reject your utterly flawed use of Paul's letter to Timothy here. So I've failed my family spiritually because I do not own a gun, nor would I use one? Talk about cherry picking and misapplying verses. So those early Christians who rejected the use of violence were failing their families spiritually? I'd say any failing is when we reject the example of Christ out of fear. Have I denied my faith because I believe we are to imitate our nonviolent Messiah?

Lastly, from a practical perspective, there's much that can be done to address the issue without adding more life-destroying weapons into the mix. Sure, it'll turn schools more into the prisons I've long viewed them to be, but it certainly will address the vulnerabilities currently found in schools.

---

1.) That is why professional police departments train and armed response becomes part of muscle memory. Young soldiers freeze up in combat and make mistakes. That is why maturity and repetition are so vital to anybody who is charged with the responsibility of armed protection for others. The FBI study reflects that fact because school policy has heretofore precluded teachers from possessing firearms on school property and for most, their incompetence with weapons/use of force and/or their psychological predisposition should preclude them from carrying firearms during teacher duties. That doesn't mean a small number who are ready to shoulder such responsibility should be prohibited from doing so, legally.

2.) Of course you reject the passage from Timothy because...well, because you reject it. And Jesus had a "temple tantrum" :

John 2:

Quote:

---

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

---

But Jesus did not sin in his actions, despite this apparent assault on the money changers.

Finally, nothing in pacifist philosophy would have helped these kids on the day this murderer chose to carry out his evil actions. Like the Holocaust there is nothing that pacifism would have contributed to saving or helping the victims of carnage and inhuman experimentation other than expediting their slaughter.

UTExan said:

---

Edit: I understand the high school has a police presence assigned. It will be interesting to find out exactly why this person was able to kill so many. And maybe it points to the fact that armed teachers should be an option.

---

I have enormous respect for teachers. I think most of them are good hearted human beings who got into a poorly paying profession for good reasons. Most of them are parents. Most are mothers. Most care deeply about the children they teach. The prospect of asking these people to carry a gun on their hip so they they can shoot down a student if they have to makes me absolutely sick. I recognize the utilitarian value of this suggestion. But as a human being with love for the teaching profession, it makes me want to vomit. I wish I could better spit out the words for how awful I think this suggestion is.

Quote:

---

But as a human being with love for the teaching profession, it makes me want to vomit. I wish I could better spit out the words for how awful I think this suggestion is.

---

Not trying to be pedantic, but start answering police calls on domestic violence, assault and homicide for a few weeks. It will chase that revulsion away as you understand that sometimes human beings can be so brutal and violent that the only thing available to control their violence is lawful force---force used within the parameters of established law---and in the US that means consistent with the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Having an effective police force which suppresses the violent and respects the law abiding is what Robert Thieme called "establishment blessing".

IMHO, placing teaching or humanist ideals on a pedestal is idolatry. But that's me.

Since you misrepresented my position, I felt the need to address this:

Quote:

---

2.) Of course you reject the passage from Timothy because...well, because you reject it.

---

I don't reject the passage. I reject your blatant misuse of the passage. Especially when it's used in a way to accuse those who disagree of "spiritually failing" their families. It isn't supported by the life and teachings of Christ, the Apostles, or the early church fathers.

Quote:

---

And Jesus had a "temple tantrum" :

John 2:

Quote:

---

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

---

But Jesus did not sin in his actions, despite this apparent assault on the money changers.

---

If you get into the original language, you see that He did not use violence against any person. Also, had He done so, then that would have immediately canceled the prophecy from Isaiah 53:9 that He committed no violence.

Quote:

---

Finally, nothing in pacifist philosophy would have helped these kids on the day this murderer chose to carry out his evil actions. Like the Holocaust there is nothing that pacifism would have contributed to saving or helping the victims of carnage and inhuman experimentation other than expediting their slaughter.

---

Like the Holocaust? You mean the evil that was only possible because the Protestant-dominated nation (93% of pre-war Germany claimed Christ and nearly 60% were Protestant) rejected His teachings on nonviolence? And of course something in "pacifist philosophy" could have helped, especially given that unarmed persons are more likely than armed to stop the shooter. The "good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun" is a myth. But your misrepresentations of my position, especially w/ regard to the passage in Timothy and your assertion that I'm "spiritually failing" my family, is a great example of why this discussion doesn't go anywhere. You conveniently ignore the short-term remedies I did mention, as well as how to address the real cancer which is this top-to-bottom belief in the myth of redemptive violence.

Now that I've addressed the inaccuracies re: my views, I'll move on. I think people on both major sides (gun control vs more guns) are driven by a sincere desire to address this problem. I just believe there's a third way. A way for Christ's church to show the world, that doesn't rely on the flawed binary approach of the world. Have a good day, brother.

Macarthur said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

The "good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun" is a myth.

---

This might be the best thing typed on this thread. Huge myth.

---

Ridiculous. Sutherland Springs Baptist Church incident and many others---good guy (armed citizen) with gun stops bad guy. Why do you think we arm police and security? It is because that fundamental truth exists in a fallen world.

It's the words only way.

The reality is the kill counts would be way lower if we taught people to bum rush shooters

There is a time for personal forgiveness as demonstrated in the Faith: immediately, and infinitely (cf Luke 23:34, Matthew 5:44, Acts 7:60, Matthew 18:22).

Also...that's a pretty big stretch for 1 Timothy 5:8. I don't think St Paul was talking about killing other people.

St John Chrysostom says "the provision of which he speaks is universal, and relates to the soul as well as the body, since both are to be provided for," citing Isaiah 58:7 and Titus 1:16, and saying "it was the design of God, in uniting us by the ties of kindred, to afford us many opportunities of doing good to one another."

I don't disagree with your basic premise. I was a commissioned officer, I own many guns and enjoy shooting them. I don't know that I have a complete personal ethic on defense of others, or even of self defense, to the point of killing another with one of my firearms. I pray to God that I never have to decide. Probably today, I would shoot someone. But I am pretty certain that this wouldn't be to my spiritual benefit, and I know it is not a glorified thing for someone to do.

Lord have mercy on those killed, their families, and the killer.

I've been involved in training for active-shooter situations and they told us to:

1) Escape if possible
2) Hide if you can't escape
3) Fight if you can't run or hide

But they said the most effective way to reduce casualties is to get as many people out of the shooters way as quickly as possible.

Rushing the shooter sounds like a good plan if you have the right personele. But what if it's younger school children and an adult shooter? That's like telling people to stop a semi on the freeway by bum-rushing it.

RetiredAg said:

---

Since you misrepresented my position, I felt the need to address this:

Quote:

---

2.) Of course you reject the passage from Timothy because...well, because you reject it.

---

I don't reject the passage. I reject your blatant misuse of the passage. Especially when it's used in a way to accuse those who disagree of "spiritually failing" their families. It isn't supported by the life and teachings of Christ, the Apostles, or the early church fathers.

Quote:

---

And Jesus had a "temple tantrum" :

John 2:

Quote:

---

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

---

But Jesus did not sin in his actions, despite this apparent assault on the money changers.

---

If you get into the original language, you see that He did not use violence against any person. Also, had He done so, then that would have immediately canceled the prophecy from Isaiah 53:9 that He committed no violence.

Quote:

---

Finally, nothing in pacifist philosophy would have helped these kids on the day this murderer chose to carry out his evil actions. Like the Holocaust there is nothing that pacifism would have contributed to saving or helping the victims of carnage and inhuman experimentation other than expediting their slaughter.

---

Like the Holocaust? You mean the evil that was only possible because the Protestant-dominated nation (93% of pre-war Germany claimed Christ and nearly 60% were Protestant) rejected His teachings on nonviolence? And of course something in "pacifist philosophy" could have helped, especially given that unarmed persons are more likely than armed to stop the shooter. The "good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun" is a myth. But your misrepresentations of my position, especially w/ regard to the passage in Timothy and your assertion that I'm "spiritually failing" my family, is a great example of why this discussion doesn't go anywhere. You conveniently ignore the short-term remedies I did mention, as well as how to address the real cancer which is this top-to-bottom belief in the myth of redemptive violence.

Now that I've addressed the inaccuracies re: my views, I'll move on. I think people on both major sides (gun control vs more guns) are driven by a sincere desire to address this problem. I just believe there's a third way. A way for Christ's church to show the world, that doesn't rely on the flawed binary approach of the world. Have a good day, brother.

---

1.) Jesus did no violence for personal gain or malicious intent. If he did not strike the moneychangers then the implied threat of violence was there in the form of the whip. He certainly overturned their money tables which they would view as disruption of their commerce. He did /exorcise allow demons to enter a herd of swine and drown them and he did curse a fig tree out of its bearing season. The Hebrew word for violence in Isaiah 53:9 (chamas) carries the implication of wrong or wrongful violence. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2555.

2.) Germany of the 1920s and 30s was the result of the Versailles Treaty and Prussian-style imperialism which had infiltrated German politics under Bismarck and which continued. Germany was literally an "Army with a nation" to paraphrase William Manchester prior to WWI, thanks in no small part to Kaiser Wilhelm II. It was a hierarchical dictatorship contemptuous of democratic norms. After the war, Communists and their enemies battled in the streets and the occult made huge inroads into German political leadership. There was a word for war against the Catholics in this case (who espoused papal infallibility)---Kulturkampf and the German Empire actually passed legislation to forbid clergy from speaking on issues which were at odds with imperial policy. The institutional church was either a compliant creature of the empire or a foe. So it really had little power if there was no evangelism or Holy Spirit power to transform. And that is what is important: no church political stand or ideals will change society---only the power of the Holy Spirit to change individuals will make that happen.

3.) Note also in Luke 22 Jesus' disciples are allowed to carry swords when he calls for them. You would say this is in fulfillment of prophecy, but the fact that they actually possessed swords initially is telling.

Just heard of an incident in Illinois where an armed school guard(or some kind of school personnel) wounded a shooter before he could kill innocents.

I am torn on this issue due to my Christian beliefs, however, if it was my family I would protect them with armed force if their lives were threatened. And the only thing that will stop this stuff is fear of the Lord and changed hearts.

And edited to add that I have a very hard time using moral equivalency to compare the ethics of the Romans (which is what I assume the Church fathers were talking about) and the US. But I understand that my opinion is just my opinion.

k2aggie07 said:

---

There is a time for personal forgiveness as demonstrated in the Faith: immediately, and infinitely (cf Luke 23:34, Matthew 5:44, Acts 7:60, Matthew 18:22).

Also...that's a pretty big stretch for 1 Timothy 5:8. I don't think St Paul was talking about killing other people.

St John Chrysostom says "the provision of which he speaks is universal, and relates to the soul as well as the body, since both are to be provided for," citing Isaiah 58:7 and Titus 1:16, and saying "it was the design of God, in uniting us by the ties of kindred, to afford us many opportunities of doing good to one another."

I don't disagree with your basic premise. I was a commissioned officer, I own many guns and enjoy shooting them. I don't know that I have a complete personal ethic on defense of others, or even of self defense, to the point of killing another with one of my firearms. I pray to God that I never have to decide. Probably today, I would shoot someone. But I am pretty certain that this wouldn't be to my spiritual benefit, and I know it is not a glorified thing for someone to do.

Lord have mercy on those killed, their families, and the killer.

---

Amen!

My citation from Timothy is predicated on the notion when one is placed in a position of trust over children, one should plan for a whole spectrum approach to their welfare, including their physical protection. BTW, which branch of the service were you in? I was not aware of that.

k2aggie07 said:

---

There is a time for personal forgiveness as demonstrated in the Faith: immediately, and infinitely (cf Luke 23:34, Matthew 5:44, Acts 7:60, Matthew 18:22).

Also...that's a pretty big stretch for 1 Timothy 5:8. I don't think St Paul was talking about killing other people.

St John Chrysostom says "the provision of which he speaks is universal, and relates to the soul as well as the body, since both are to be provided for," citing Isaiah 58:7 and Titus 1:16, and saying "it was the design of God, in uniting us by the ties of kindred, to afford us many opportunities of doing good to one another."

I don't disagree with your basic premise. I was a commissioned officer, I own many guns and enjoy shooting them. I don't know that I have a complete personal ethic on defense of others, or even of self defense, to the point of killing another with one of my firearms. I pray to God that I never have to decide. Probably today, I would shoot someone. But I am pretty certain that this wouldn't be to my spiritual benefit, and I know it is not a glorified thing for someone to do.

Lord have mercy on those killed, their families, and the killer.

---

Blue star.

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's the words only way.

The reality is the kill counts would be way lower if we taught people to bum rush shooters

---

There is some truth to that in that it disrupts the OODA loop of most killers. But in the case of terrorism, you could be making the situation worse by allowing a determined killer to take out very people most likely to stop him by their proximity. The killer who assassinated Dallas police killed those closest as did the Baton Rouge killer who shot police conducting the same type of rush. It really depends on tactical proficiency of the killer him/herself. But a rush of lead coming from an unexpected direction is more statistically reliable, depending on the ability to deploy. I carry my gun to church and do not plan to shoot outside a certain range envelope due to safety factors.

Navy, civil engineering corps. I come from a long and distinguished line of maritime military service on both sides, and on my dad's side I'm 5th generation.

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

The "good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun" is a myth.

---

This might be the best thing typed on this thread. Huge myth.

---

Ridiculous. Sutherland Springs Baptist Church incident and many others---good guy (armed citizen) with gun stops bad guy. Why do you think we arm police and security? It is because that fundamental truth exists in a fallen world.

---

It is NOT ridiculous. It is a damn myth.

This is a BS myth perpetrated by the NRA and conservative news sites and channels. The guy in Sutherland Springs was met with gun fire in the parking lot after he had already done damage. That is baloney. And even if it's granted that he MIGHT have saved lives, it's very little consolation that 26 were slaughtered.

The research is absolutely NOT on you side. There are NOT 'many others'.

Armed guards, teachers, or whatever else you suggest does nothing to prevent this problem. We could argue on if it deters a shooter or not. You could have had an armed to the teeth Navy SEAL team near the entrance of the school and it won't prevent a shooter killing a lot of people at the far end of the school.

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

The "good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun" is a myth.

---

This might be the best thing typed on this thread. Huge myth.

---

Ridiculous. Sutherland Springs Baptist Church incident and many others---good guy (armed citizen) with gun stops bad guy. Why do you think we arm police and security? It is because that fundamental truth exists in a fallen world.

---

It is NOT ridiculous. It is a damn myth.

This is a BS myth perpetrated by the NRA and conservative news sites and channels. The guy in Sutherland Springs was met with gun fire in the parking lot after he had already done damage. That is baloney. And even if it's granted that he MIGHT have saved lives, it's very little consolation that 26 were slaughtered.

The research is absolutely NOT on you side. There are NOT 'many others'.

---

Hate to tell you but this is EXACTLY why police have 2-4 person armed shooter response teams. After the 1999 Columbine shootings Salt Lake City combined with the Los Angeles area law enforcement agencies to formulate response tactics to active shooters and we started training 18 years ago to do just this. In one of our own local active shooter incidents at Trolley Square in Salt Lake, the gunman was confronted by an off-duty , non-uniformed cop who helped contain him until regular police arrived and shot him. Dead.

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

The "good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun" is a myth.

---

This might be the best thing typed on this thread. Huge myth.

---

Ridiculous. Sutherland Springs Baptist Church incident and many others---good guy (armed citizen) with gun stops bad guy. Why do you think we arm police and security? It is because that fundamental truth exists in a fallen world.

---

It is NOT ridiculous. It is a damn myth.

This is a BS myth perpetrated by the NRA and conservative news sites and channels. The guy in Sutherland Springs was met with gun fire in the parking lot after he had already done damage. That is baloney. And even if it's granted that he MIGHT have saved lives, it's very little consolation that 26 were slaughtered.

The research is absolutely NOT on you side. There are NOT 'many others'.

---

Not trying to be argumentative, but could you give a link to this research? I can't help but believe that if one of the Sutherland Springs congregants had been carrying that a lot of death could have been prevented. And I know that this is not the politics board so I do not want it to devolve to that.

Armed air Marshalls seemed to have decreased air line terrorism.

This was a quick google result.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2017/10/05/440373/myth-vs-fact-debunking-gun-lobbys-favorite-talking-points/

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

The "good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun" is a myth.

---

This might be the best thing typed on this thread. Huge myth.

---

Ridiculous. Sutherland Springs Baptist Church incident and many others---good guy (armed citizen) with gun stops bad guy. Why do you think we arm police and security? It is because that fundamental truth exists in a fallen world.

---

It is NOT ridiculous. It is a damn myth.

This is a BS myth perpetrated by the NRA and conservative news sites and channels. The guy in Sutherland Springs was met with gun fire in the parking lot after he had already done damage. That is baloney. And even if it's granted that he MIGHT have saved lives, it's very little consolation that 26 were slaughtered.

The research is absolutely NOT on you side. There are NOT 'many others'.

---

Not trying to be argumentative, but could you give a link to this research? I can't help but believe that if one of the Sutherland Springs congregants had been carrying that a lot of death could have been prevented. And I know that this is not the politics board so I do not want it to devolve to that.

Armed air Marshalls seemed to have decreased air line terrorism.

---

Let me be clear and address this and UTex's post.

I completely agree that police, air marshals and other trained law enforcement officials certainly can be a deterant and we want those 'good guys' to have guns. Never intended otherwise w my comment.

My point is to address the myth that all we need is a bunch of civilian dude's that THINK they're prepared to do something when in reality they will do very little to help and, in most situations, make it far worse.

Quote:

---

Armed air Marshalls seemed to have decreased air line terrorism.

---

Any number of quick Google results show how ineffective that program has been.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/17/tsa-air-marshal-training-terrorism-planes/601236002/

Quote:

---

But now some lawmakers and critics in watchdog agencies are asking: Is the program that peaked at nearly $1 billion a year a program that has never caught a single terrorist on board a plane really needed?

---

Quote:

---

Critics of the program highlight the costs, the lack of terrorist incidents and argue that more air marshals are arrested than terrorists.
Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., would like to abolish the program that he said had about 4,000 air marshals in 2009 and averaged a total 4.2 arrests per year during the first seven years. He continues to slam the program as "the most needless, useless agency."
Air marshals themselves were arrested 148 times from November 2002 to February 2012, according to a report by ProPublica based on TSA documents. Air marshals were also charged with more than 5,000 cases of misconduct during that period, including 1,200 cases of lost equipment and 950 missed flights, the report said.

---

http://www.newsweek.com/tsas-800m-air-marshal-program-may-not-deter-terrorism-says-audit-663374

Quote:

---

Sixteen years after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration has admitted that it does not know whether federal air marshals actually deter terrorism, according to a declassified government report.

The report, released Monday, revealed that the TSA does not have data on whether its air-marshal program prevents potential attackers from targeting flights as they did in New York City on September 11, 2001. The program cost U.S. taxpayers more than $800 million in 2015.

---

Macarthur said:

---

This was a quick google result.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2017/10/05/440373/myth-vs-fact-debunking-gun-lobbys-favorite-talking-points/

---

And that is a far left site just after you griped about falsities from the NRA and far right groups. As I said, this is not the politics board so I do not want to get into a left vs right thing. I just can't help but think that if a congregant had been carrying at Sutherland Springs church that deaths could have been prevented. You obviously disagree. I do not think posting right OR left talking points is an accurate representation of the situation.

Macarthur said:

---

This was a quick google result.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2017/10/05/440373/myth-vs-fact-debunking-gun-lobbys-favorite-talking-points/

---

I will trust the FBI more than "American Progress"


In

In 10 active shooter incidents,

"citizens confronted the shooter. In eight of those incidents, one or more citizens safely and successfully acted to end the shooting. In four incidents, unarmed citizens confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting.

In two incidents, school staff confronted and restrained the shooter. In one incident, the citizen used his car to thwart the shooter. In one incident,the citizen persuaded the shooter to surrender via telephone during a police chase; she ran up to the shooter's car as he came to a stop and pulled him out of his seat, bringing the chase to an end.

In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In two incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter.

In two incidents, the citizens held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived. In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting.

In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit was wounded before he could fire at the shooter."

FBI Study: Active Shooter Incidents 2016-2017

Quote:

---

I just can't help but think that if a congregant had been carrying at Sutherland Springs church that deaths could have been prevented.

---

Maybe they could have. No way a carrying congregant can prevent a death or a few deaths. How many deaths are you willing to accept in order to ensure that anyone regardless of mental health or past crimes has easy access to guns?

There's absolutely nothing you can do about easy access to guns at this point in the US.