Mass Shooting at Texas Church

[Grayfox54]

Here's one answer for you. A former co-worker of mine was always very active in his church. He also has a handgun permit and carries all the time. He retired a few years ago and now volunteers several days a week as church security. They always have an armed volunteer in the building. On Sundays, during services, there may be a half dozen or more armed people there. That's how you deal with situations like this. 

Just because its a church doesn't mean you have to be unprotected lambs for the slaughter. More churches need to realize this. 

[peejman]

2 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

Here's one answer for you. A former co-worker of mine was always very active in his church. He also has a handgun permit and carries all the time. He retired a few years ago and now volunteers several days a week as church security. They always have an armed volunteer in the building. On Sundays, during services, there may be a half dozen or more armed people there. That's how you deal with situations like this. 

Just because its a church doesn't mean you have to be unprotected lambs for the slaughter. More churches need to realize this. 

In response to the church events in Knoxville a few years ago, my church now employs a uniformed local cop during normal services and other large events. So there's a police car in front of the building and the officer is inside, not doing traffic control.   

[bersaguy]

15 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

I too think I would prefer to carry and attempt to protect my family and those around me rather than having a government/authority determine who is sane and who is not.

Should access to mental healthcare be a thing? Of course it should. Just don’t go creating a list of sanes vs crazies and try to limit rights based on which list a person is on.

Do we take away any other constitutional rights based on sanity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look how many thousands of peoples names got put on that NO FLY List that should not have been on it and they still have not got that fixed yet!!!!

[n0rlf]

17 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Late last night I was watching Fox before going to bed and it was aid a couple times that the good guy with a gun had a gun just like the bad guys gun so so depending on what kind of round was found to have killed the bad guy they should be able to determine if the good guy killed him cause he left his bad guy rifle at the scene of the church. If they find the good guy did it we will probably never know it............JMHO

If he shot himself with an AR and drove away I would be surprised. Not unthinkable but unlikely. 

[RC3]

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/

noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

    

   It doesnt always have to be political though. Shotting a crowd can be considered terrorism. 

[Omega]

36 minutes ago, RC3 said:

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/

noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

    

   It doesnt always have to be political though. Shotting a crowd can be considered terrorism. 

I think it does have to be political, otherwise any act can be labeled terrorism.  Shooting up a place like Lanza did was not political, and therefore not terrorism.  Yea, I know semantics as I am sure the people in that church were terrorized, but strictly speaking not one in the same.  Of course to me both should be treated with extreme prejudice, no matter why or what label they put on it.

[TNMTBik3r]

1 hour ago, Steelharp said:

Latest report, he did not obtain gun legally. Also, this was his in-laws church, the people that reported him for beating their daughter and grandchild. Also reported he draped an Antifa flag on the pulpit before he started.

I saw a report last night that his in-laws lived in town, but not that they went to that church. My thought upon reading that report was in-laws either were there or known to frequent the church, and were his true target.

[RC3]

41 minutes ago, Omega said:

I think it does have to be political, otherwise any act can be labeled terrorism.  Shooting up a place like Lanza did was not political, and therefore not terrorism.  Yea, I know semantics as I am sure the people in that church were terrorized, but strictly speaking not one in the same.  Of course to me both should be treated with extreme prejudice, no matter why or what label they put on it.

I see your point. Its just that it is causing terror. And pointing fingers, blame and nothing is going to be done to curb the issue. They are going to to keep playing the blame game until the next one.

[shotgunshooter]

This covers my thought on the whole security thing.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[bersaguy]

I agree with some of the video but not all of it. He mentioned to make sure your members that carry have the same training as law enforcement. In all honesty I think any person that spends as much time at ranges as folks do here can probably shoot more accurately then many LEO's so asking them to have LEO training is a non starter in many cases........JMHO.

I had a friend stop in today that attends a small church here in Gallatin and he and several friends of his that also attend the church and on any given Sunday there are 5 to 7 armed and trained people attending the service. Several of them are Vets and they have sent up a code word similar to the Secret Service. The congregation all know the code word is "GUN" that is announced loudly by who ever sees the possible shooter and everyone in the church knows to get down below the pughs to gain cover while the security people confront the shooter. They actually do drills to make sure everyone responds just like fire drills when we were kids in school. The security people are not all in same location but in different areas so they can see most all the members of the church. He said they began doing this almost 2 years ago and the entire congregation is in approval. 

[peejman]

From the news lines I read earlier, I get the idea that his intent was to kill his in-laws, but they weren't there so he just started shooting.  

Also appears the sanctuary (using that word causes me pain) had one door, so escape wasn't much of an option. 

[Someotherguy]

 

[SWCUMBERLAND]

38 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

I agree with some of the video but not all of it. He mentioned to make sure your members that carry have the same training as law enforcement. In all honesty I think any person that spends as much time at ranges as folks do here can probably shoot more accurately then many LEO's so asking them to have LEO training is a non starter in many cases........JMHO.

I had a friend stop in today that attends a small church here in Gallatin and he and several friends of his that also attend the church and on any given Sunday there are 5 to 7 armed and trained people attending the service. Several of them are Vets and they have sent up a code word similar to the Secret Service. The congregation all know the code word is "GUN" that is announced loudly by who ever sees the possible shooter and everyone in the church knows to get down below the pughs to gain cover while the security people confront the shooter. They actually do drills to make sure everyone responds just like fire drills when we were kids in school. The security people are not all in same location but in different areas so they can see most all the members of the church. He said they began doing this almost 2 years ago and the entire congregation is in approval. 

 

I applaud the sensible nature of this precaution and the sensible reaction of its beneficiaries.

 

Must be said, though, that I mourn at needing it.

 

SWC

[mikegideon]

30 minutes ago, peejman said:

From the news lines I read earlier, I get the idea that his intent was to kill his in-laws, but they weren't there so he just started shooting.  

Also appears the sanctuary (using that word causes me pain) had one door, so escape wasn't much of an option. 

That isn't an old building, which means that fire code shouldn't have let them have only one exit

[Danger Rane]

1 hour ago, bersaguy said:

I agree with some of the video but not all of it. He mentioned to make sure your members that carry have the same training as law enforcement. In all honesty I think any person that spends as much time at ranges as folks do here can probably shoot more accurately then many LEO's so asking them to have LEO training is a non starter in many cases........JMHO.

Keeping in mind that churches (especially large ones) can often be as risk averse as any business, I interpreted John's comment about the LEO type training to be a wind out of the sails argument/solution for those that would not want to implement security teams due to possible legal risk involved. Havinging helped a couple churches establish and implement similar security protocols I can say that their biggest concern is usually the perceived risk of a churchgoer dropping/loosing a firearm that a child could pick up or someone accidentally shooting someone. Believe it or not many pastors and church administrators are not gun people, some are, but most I have encountered are not, so they often have to be educated. With the uptick in these types of attacks maybe some will educate themselves and be more open to reasonable security measures. My dad is a pastor of a small church in California and he has been carrying in the pulpit for years. He said that he has the best view in the house from the pulpit and he shoots/trains regularly to maintain proficiency. He takes being the shepard of the flock seriously in many ways.

I know the Warrior Poet personally and I can assure you that he does not think that everyone needs to have LEO training to carry a gun, though as a firearms instructor he obviously feels passionate about people bettering themselves through training if possible. I don't think anyone can argue with the benefits of that.

[mikegideon]

Interview. Good guy with the gun...

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by mikegideon

[E4 No More]

8 hours ago, mikegideon said:

Interview. Good guy with the gun...

 

The "facts" that they presented in text are factually wrong. He hit the shooter twice, and he died from a self-inflicted gunshot.

[Erik88]

Here is another longer interview. Good samaritan retrieved AR-15 with EO tech from safe, ran barefoot to the church and engaged shooter at about 25 yards. Had conscious of mind to aim for his side where he thought shooter didn't have plates. 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by Erik88

[E4 No More]

Has anyone confirmed that he was wearing body armor? I've only heard that he was wearing a helmet with a dark face shield and "tactical" outfit.

[bersaguy]

Ok so what am I missing here. The bad guy is using a so called assault rifle out side the church and  inside the Church. When he is confronted by good guy with gun, good guy says Perp fires at him with a hand gun, no assault rifle? Where did it go? The good guy puts a round through bad guys side between front and back armor injuring bad guy and then fires at least to more shots striking bad guy again. Bad guy gets in vehicles and shoots twice through side glass, Good guy fires 1 more round  about head high and side glass shatters and bad guy drives off and pursuit begins. Bad guy calls father while running and says I have been shot and I am going to die, runs off road and then back on road and then wrecks again with good guys right behind him after good guy fires one more round taking out back glass of bad guy vehicle. After wreck there is not  any more movement by bad guy. One would assume by phone call to father the bad guy knew he was fatally injured and was going to die. Did i miss anything? It would appear that any coroner could almost upon sight of body determine if the shooter died from self inflicked gun shot wound. Are the authorities trying to protect the good guy and say that he did not infact kill the bad guy or are they trying to hide the fact that a good guy with a gun killed a bad guy with a gun? Especially a gun that the "LEFT" claims Americans should not own and don't need to own as self defense weapons?????

[DaveTN]

17 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Ok so what am I missing here. The bad guy is using a so called assault rifle out side the church and  inside the Church. When he is confronted by good guy with gun, good guy says Perp fires at him with a hand gun, no assault rifle? Where did it go? The good guy puts a round through bad guys side between front and back armor injuring bad guy and then fires at least to more shots striking bad guy again. Bad guy gets in vehicles and shoots twice through side glass, Good guy fires 1 more round  about head high and side glass shatters and bad guy drives off and pursuit begins. Bad guy calls father while running and says I have been shot and I am going to die, runs off road and then back on road and then wrecks again with good guys right behind him after good guy fires one more round taking out back glass of bad guy vehicle. After wreck there is not  any more movement by bad guy. One would assume by phone call to father the bad guy knew he was fatally injured and was going to die. Did i miss anything? It would appear that any coroner could almost upon sight of body determine if the shooter died from self inflicked gun shot wound. Are the authorities trying to protect the good guy and say that he did not infact kill the bad guy or are they trying to hide the fact that a good guy with a gun killed a bad guy with a gun? Especially a gun that the "LEFT" claims Americans should not own and don't need to own as self defense weapons?????

It doesn’t appear (to me) that anyone is trying to hide anything. No one (other than the good guy and witnesses) is going to speculate on what happened. The good guy needs no protection.

[E4 No More]

45 minutes ago, bersaguy said:

Ok so what am I missing here. The bad guy is using a so called assault rifle out side the church and  inside the Church. When he is confronted by good guy with gun, good guy says Perp fires at him with a hand gun, no assault rifle? Where did it go? The good guy puts a round through bad guys side between front and back armor injuring bad guy and then fires at least to more shots striking bad guy again. Bad guy gets in vehicles and shoots twice through side glass, Good guy fires 1 more round  about head high and side glass shatters and bad guy drives off and pursuit begins. Bad guy calls father while running and says I have been shot and I am going to die, runs off road and then back on road and then wrecks again with good guys right behind him after good guy fires one more round taking out back glass of bad guy vehicle. After wreck there is not  any more movement by bad guy. One would assume by phone call to father the bad guy knew he was fatally injured and was going to die. Did i miss anything? It would appear that any coroner could almost upon sight of body determine if the shooter died from self inflicked gun shot wound. Are the authorities trying to protect the good guy and say that he did not infact kill the bad guy or are they trying to hide the fact that a good guy with a gun killed a bad guy with a gun? Especially a gun that the "LEFT" claims Americans should not own and don't need to own as self defense weapons?????

There are numerous reports that the ME has stated that the fatal wound is consistent with a self-inflicted gunshot.

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, SWJewellTN said:

Has anyone confirmed that he was wearing body armor? I've only heard that he was wearing a helmet with a dark face shield and "tactical" outfit.

Last I heard, he was wearing a plate, front only.

[TGO David]

On 11/6/2017 at 2:08 AM, SWCUMBERLAND said:

Can anything be done for the bereaved? Will TGO set up something to be done in relief of families of the victims?  WHere do i send $? Would I could send me, but I cannot. (Drag not having a car.)

 

1

I'm going to leave fundraising for assistance for the victims' families to the organizations closer to them where it makes the most sense.  I do respect the desire to do something for them, though.

[Murgatroy]

What bothers me through the whole thing is how existing process failed. He was guilty of a crime that he spent more than a year in prison for (a felony.) He was guilty of domestic assault. He had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. And subsequently escaped. He had been charged in a case of animal cruelty, later dropped as part of a plea bargain. He was denied a carry permit...

 

This is a person that never should have been able to purchase a gun for MULTIPLE reasons. Yet still be bought one. This is not a call for more laws, but a reason to re-evaluate the existing. I am not a proponent of 'let's call them all mentally ill,' because that is a very slippery slope, but this is a glaring example of someone that should have been watched, identified and prevented.

 

It baffles me, given the steps I have had to go through due to NICs and Brady delays to clear my name, with a mostly perfect record (I am not an angel,) that someone so glaringly 'off' made it through. For the record I have cleared my name and obtained a KY CCDW. However half of my last dozen purchases have come at a Brady Delay.