• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA executive suggests slain Charleston pastor to blame for gun deaths

Or,

3) Sometimes bad things just happen and you cannot prevent every horrible thing that could happen from happening. You could make it legal to carry a gun into every church in American, but legal or not, no one other than a psychopath is going to carry a gun into the a house of God.

No that is a silly position I find to have no merit. lots of good people carry guns into churches. We know of a case where someone doing that stopped many innocents from being killed. Two Roman Catholic Priests were at the range/gun store where my family practices-they were taking CCW classes and they said they certainly were in support of parishioners packing. this was before this shooting BTW

I find it offensive that you claim that anyone who carries a gun legally in a church is a psychopath

that is really really stupid
 
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.

Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry

I don't think it was horrible, but the NRA should be more sensitive. Do they have to be? Hell no. Should they be? Damn right.

They should just keep doing what they should and do do. That is, they should always advocate for more freedom in regards to the 2A. If a mass shooting like this occurs, they shouldn't be getting into this the way they did it. Just keep towing the line they have, don't get caught in distractions that can lose you members and reputation.
 
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.

Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry

At least I am consistent in my views of people who use an event like this to push for their anti or pro gun platform. Are you consistent? I say the same about those morons on the other side of the gun debate who attempt to politicize an event such as this even before the families have a chance to bury their dead. It's disgusting and this idiot is scum.
 
At least I am consistent in my views of people who use an event like this to push for their anti or pro gun platform. Are you consistent? I say the same about those morons on the other side of the gun debate who attempt to politicize an event such as this even before the families have a chance to bury their dead. It's disgusting and this idiot is scum.

I think your consistency is admirable but your hyperbole is a bit silly. and yes its silly to be spewing out comments of a political nature before the Coroner has even finished his gruesome duties. But this comment appears to be in reaction to a guy who is well known in using the blood of innocents as fuel for his political attack on guns, Obama
 
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.

Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry

Do you agree with this portion of his statement:
"Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead," Cotton wrote.
 
Do you agree with this portion of his statement:

that is speculative. even if they had been armed, its speculation to say they could have drawn and effectively engaged the killer so as to save 8 lives. MIGHT be alive is probably a fair comment but if you asked me-the correct position is that if the victims had proper training and weapons, they would have had a better chance of surviving then those who have no weapons and no other training.

its all about increasing odds.
 
It wouldn't have had to be one of those nine people, for heaven's sake. Could have been anyone present.

What we DO know is that making it a gun-free zone didn't stop the bad guy and HIS gun.


Then how do you explain all the mass murders that weren't in gun free zones? That didn't seem to stop the bad guys either.

“.....no more than one quarter of the shootings occurred in public spaces that were so-called ‘gun-free zones.”

The Gun-Free Zone Myth: No relationship between Gun-Free Zones and Mass Shootings | Armed With Reason
 
Do you agree with this portion of his statement:

That statement is valid. To deny such validity is asinine. However, of course, his blaming the pastor for anything was uncalled for.
 
He has never given us an explanation why churches should ban guns

I think there is a pacifistic train of thought that says any form of violence is incompatible with Christian faith and Jesus' message. For example, I wouldn't expect a church full of Quakers or Mennonites to be packin'. At the other end we have the Catholic Church and its Swiss Guard, which is a veritable army tasked with defending the Pope and the various houses of worship at the Vatican.
 
that is speculative. even if they had been armed, its speculation to say they could have drawn and effectively engaged the killer so as to save 8 lives. MIGHT be alive is probably a fair comment but if you asked me-the correct position is that if the victims had proper training and weapons, they would have had a better chance of surviving then those who have no weapons and no other training.

its all about increasing odds.

I found more of his statement here:

Charleston shootings: NRA blames victims as reactions echo Newtown | US news | The Guardian
“Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,” Cotton wrote. “Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

That makes it more than speculative.

I take issue with the one comment on its own. "Might" is not a fair comment when speaking of another person's responsibility in the deaths of others in which he did not pull the trigger himself.
 
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.

Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry

I've been in many victim disarmament arenas in RED states like Oklahoma.
I've never doubted that someone was concealed carrying besides policemen who are legal.
Though I will add that we all went through metal detectors all six sessions of the Wrestling Nationals in St. Louis .
 
It wouldn't have had to be one of those nine people, for heaven's sake. Could have been anyone present.

What we DO know is that making it a gun-free zone didn't stop the bad guy and HIS gun.

The gun free zone is irrelevant. I attend a church. Concealed carry is allowed here. I know the people I am with. I know them well. Not one person in there carries a gun just because it is legal. There is 0 reason to believe that even if they could have been allowed to carry anyone would have or that it would have mattered. It could have made it worse.

What ifs are pointless. Noone knows which is my point that this being a gun free zone is irrelevant.

What we do know is the people who were attacked and the laws in SC are not to blame. Saying this senator is even partly to blame because he failed to enact laws to allow people to carry guns in churches is a stupid and ignorant attempt to politicize this incident. This NRA exec needs to be bitch slapped hard enough to continually remind him to not exploit tragic deaths for political gain.

And I am not anti gun. I dont think we really need more gun control. I dont think more gun control would have helped either. All gun control and anti gun control arguments are irrelevant to this incident. This is not about gun control anymore than it is about gay marriage, illegal aliens, the world series, or low calorie brownies.
 
I found more of his statement here:

Charleston shootings: NRA blames victims as reactions echo Newtown | US news | The Guardian


That makes it more than speculative.

I take issue with the one comment on its own. "Might" is not a fair comment when speaking of another person's responsibility in the deaths of others in which he did not pull the trigger himself.

innocent people died because some asshole shot them. less of them may have died if they had been able to fight back effectively. do you disagree with that?
 
I've been in many victim disarmament arenas in RED states like Oklahoma.
I've never doubted that someone was concealed carrying besides policemen who are legal.
Though I will add that we all went through metal detectors all six sessions of the Wrestling Nationals in St. Louis .

yeah you never know who is going to stash a colt in their singlet or have a smith and wesson in their tights!!
 
what about worshippers make them either immune from criminal attacks or incapable of responsibly possessing a firearm

there is no reason why a church should be a victim disarmament zone.

can you tell us why-other than you apparently are against people owning or carrying firearms no matter what?

There are several good reasons.

The odds that your armed congregation will ever use a gun to stop a mad man approach zero. 350,000 congregations, say 3 meetings a week, 52 per year, roughly 55 million gatherings minimum per year, and, what, maybe 5 incidents (1/10,000,000) per year that might potentially have been stopped with a qualified, trained, armed person who can reliably take out a shooter without killing other innocents. So the odds of a 'good guy with a gun' taking out a bad guy are less than being struck by lightning, by a factor of at least 10

And for those of us who don't feel skeered without a gun on us at all times, an armed person changes the atmosphere for every one of those meetings for the vast majority of attendees, and for most of them they don't feel any safer (they aren't), and the change is negative, sometimes VERY negative. Lots of people have never shot and are simply very uncomfortable around firearms. Others may have very good reasons to fear them, and guns bring back horrible memories.

I'm not scared of guns or of people with guns, but I don't want to worship with the guy next to me with a Glock, and worry if he's sane, if he knows anything about using his weapon, if his child is going to grab it, take it out of mom's purse while she's singing the hymn and shoot me in the back, that the idiot is going to take it into the bathroom and leave it on the back of the toilet for some child to grab, etc.

So the increase in safety is zero, and it comes with it depending on who is attending, their life history, their comfort with firearms, some potentially huge downsides. Some will simply not attend if the congregation is armed. You can like that or agree or not, but that is just fact. About the only good thing is some people who for whatever reason feel obligated to be armed at all times for what are in most areas of the country irrational reasons will feel safer. Nearly everyone else AT BEST is ambivalent, and in just a huge number of cases, the gun will detract from the act of worship.
 
innocent people died because some asshole shot them. less of them may have died if they had been able to fight back effectively. do you disagree with that?

Might? With the least likely possibility. I think far fetched is not strong enough a term. Do you agree the that Cotton put the blame squarely on the pastor, without equivocation?
 
There are several good reasons.

The odds that your armed congregation will ever use a gun to stop a mad man approach zero. 350,000 congregations, say 3 meetings a week, 52 per year, roughly 55 million gatherings minimum per year, and, what, maybe 5 incidents (1/10,000,000) per year that might potentially have been stopped with a qualified, trained, armed person who can reliably take out a shooter without killing other innocents. So the odds of a 'good guy with a gun' taking out a bad guy are less than being struck by lightning, by a factor of at least 10

And for those of us who don't feel skeered without a gun on us at all times, an armed person changes the atmosphere for every one of those meetings for the vast majority of attendees, and for most of them they don't feel any safer (they aren't), and the change is negative, sometimes VERY negative. Lots of people have never shot and are simply very uncomfortable around firearms. Others may have very good reasons to fear them, and guns bring back horrible memories.

I'm not scared of guns or of people with guns, but I don't want to worship with the guy next to me with a Glock, and worry if he's sane, if he knows anything about using his weapon, if his child is going to grab it, take it out of mom's purse while she's singing the hymn and shoot me in the back, that the idiot is going to take it into the bathroom and leave it on the back of the toilet for some child to grab, etc.

So the increase in safety is zero, and it comes with it depending on who is attending, their life history, their comfort with firearms, some potentially huge downsides. Some will simply not attend if the congregation is armed. You can like that or agree or not, but that is just fact. About the only good thing is some people who for whatever reason feel obligated to be armed at all times for what are in most areas of the country irrational reasons will feel safer. Nearly everyone else AT BEST is ambivalent, and in just a huge number of cases, the gun will detract from the act of worship.

that is a silly response. mass shootings are extremely rare-be it churches, schools or movie theaters. Yet they happen enough for Democrats to want to ban semi auto rifles (used in less than 2% of all shootings) "high capacity" (the sign of dishonesty is using that term) magazines etc. If mass shootings are prevalent enough to call for stripping away the constitutional rights of millions then its far more reasonable for people to be armed as insurance against such shootings.

I don't attend church save for funerals or weddings these days. I don't carry all the time-I always have a firearm in my car unless its illegal and the only reason why I have a gun on me now-at home is because the house across the street was the subject of an armed robbery (a very rare occurrence) and the robber has yet to be caught and I often am 100s of yards from my house due to the size of my property.

but you would never ever know I had a gun. and if I was sitting in a pew next to you, you'd never know. So your claiming it would detract from your worship is just plain BOGUS. and that you appear to be afraid of people carrying guns is not my concern. If you are afraid to carry-DO NOT but stop judging those who do
 
that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. the killer is responsible but disarmed victims are easier to kill. we saw lots of lefties blame Adam Lanza's mom for the sandy hook murders as well.

Pond scum-LOL. the fact is, people who don't like the NRA are going to pretend what this guy said was horrible, those who find victim disarmament zones to be silly are going to note that this is another case where the body count was higher than it should have been if someone had been able to legally carry

What you're assuming is that it was 1) legal, 2) someone was paranoid enough to take a gun to Bible study, 3) was qualified to use the gun in a crowd, 4) took out the shooter before the shooter killed him or her. A further assumption is that having armed people at 55 million gatherings a year has no downside, no accidents, no one left their gun on the toilet and a kid found it, no one accidentally discharged it during services and shot someone in the back, etc.

So the odds are very, very, very high (99.999%?) that the AME authorizing legal gun carry changes absolutely nothing at all.

And if the response is, well, if someone HAD a gun and WAS trained, and COULD reliably kill an active shooter in that situation, then 9 lives could have been saved. Sure, and if they'd just banned white people who do almost all mass shootings in the U.S. they'd also have been fine. So let's just say that black churches ban crackers from attending? Nine people would still be alive!
 
Might? With the least likely possibility. I think far fetched is not strong enough a term. Do you agree the that Cotton put the blame squarely on the pastor, without equivocation?

not playing that game Gina. The killer was the cause of the deaths. Obama blaming our gun rights as a response was IMHO worse than the NRA guy blaming the pastor for creating a gun free zone. I'd be curious to know if any of those killed would have carried if the pastor had allowed it. If not, the entire argument is moot and stupid and the NRA guy would have no merit to his argument as to this massacre
 
I found more of his statement here:

Charleston shootings: NRA blames victims as reactions echo Newtown | US news | The Guardian


That makes it more than speculative.

I take issue with the one comment on its own. "Might" is not a fair comment when speaking of another person's responsibility in the deaths of others in which he did not pull the trigger himself.
Even though I am a gun owner and a very strong 2nd amendment advocate I do not carry at services readily. While there is a biblical passage in which Jesus himself instructs the disciples to carry a sword for self defense, his overall message was love and IMO one shouldn't feel the need to carry a weapon in church, defiling a holy place in and of itself is disgusting, but taking it to a further level of murdering the innocent and even in the name of prejudicial hatred is a level of evil on an almost indescribable scale.
 
What you're assuming is that it was 1) legal, 2) someone was paranoid enough to take a gun to Bible study, 3) was qualified to use the gun in a crowd, 4) took out the shooter before the shooter killed him or her. A further assumption is that having armed people at 55 million gatherings a year has no downside, no accidents, no one left their gun on the toilet and a kid found it, no one accidentally discharged it during services and shot someone in the back, etc.

So the odds are very, very, very high (99.999%?) that the AME authorizing legal gun carry changes absolutely nothing at all.

And if the response is, well, if someone HAD a gun and WAS trained, and COULD reliably kill an active shooter in that situation, then 9 lives could have been saved. Sure, and if they'd just banned white people who do almost all mass shootings in the U.S. they'd also have been fine. So let's just say that black churches ban crackers from attending? Nine people would still be alive!

you lose all credibility when you start calling someone who carries Paranoid and given the fact this is not the first time a church has been attacked, your argument is both silly and contrary to reality.

I suspect-given your other posts, that you don't support anyone but cops carrying handguns in public
 
Back
Top Bottom