Gunman shoots up church and is stopped by member

Gunman shoots up church and is stopped by member (Read 1505 times)

Print

Marcus

#41 December 12, 2007, 01:56:48 am

THE FAT ONE
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Sep 28, 2002
Posts: 2690

I brought up the whole Ron Paul thing to see what kind of responses I'd get. For anyone who's curious, I'm a minarchist. But my political views aren't important...

Because I know all of you will be voting for the correct candidate.

Mike Gravel

Logged

big ass skelly

#42 December 12, 2007, 02:48:25 am

Ò_Ó
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 12, 2002
Posts: 4313

Quote from: angry black man on December 11, 2007, 09:04:03 pm

Would you fuck with me if I had an M16A1 slung over my shoulder?

No I'd probably think you're a scared little child in a man's body, unable to have any kind of impact on other people without the immediate threat of violence.

"Do what I want and think what I think or I'll hurt you." You're as bad as every mugger and armed robber there's ever been you piece of shit.

Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 02:50:09 am by Mark

Logged

Brown

#43 December 12, 2007, 02:48:49 am

ブラウンの人
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jul 17, 2004
Posts: 1160

Quote from: Harry Manback on December 11, 2007, 01:32:11 pm

WOW security guards at a fucking church, that has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of...

if there werent any guards in the fucking church, more people would have died.

thank god the guy was stopped before more people got shot.

Logged

ATARI

#44 December 12, 2007, 04:08:47 am

Lichens!
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 26, 2002
Posts: 4136

Yeah I think that we have already established that the idea of a security guard is not necessarily as foreign or as absurd as ihatemalus seems to think it is.
One of my teachers mentioned about this yesterday in class, and what he had heard was, since the church has previoulsy been recieving threats of violent nature, the hired the ushers to pack heat. (Also, this was an usher not a "security guard.")

Logged

Marcus

#45 December 12, 2007, 05:08:44 am

THE FAT ONE
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Sep 28, 2002
Posts: 2690

Quote from: Mark on December 12, 2007, 02:48:25 am

No I'd probably think you're a scared little child in a man's body, unable to have any kind of impact on other people without the immediate threat of violence.

"Do what I want and think what I think or I'll hurt you." You're as bad as every mugger and armed robber there's ever been you piece of shit.

Ah, this is the kind of response I was looking for!

You miss my point, good sir. I'm looking to protect the people, not bend them to my will. By giving every man* a gun, you eliminate the need to do things on impulse. If I wanted to mug you, my first thought would be "What if he's a better draw? Or a better shot?" The slightest bit of hesitation is enough to get even the strongest willed men to back down.

Hence why gun control is stupid. RON PAUL.

*When I say every man, I mean every man. Women are not genetically fit to carry firearms.

raun pol

Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 05:11:47 am by angry black man

Logged

big ass skelly

#46 December 12, 2007, 05:27:17 am

Ò_Ó
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 12, 2002
Posts: 4313

heh don't worry I actually saw this post

Quote

I brought up the whole Ron Paul thing to see what kind of responses I'd get. For anyone who's curious, I'm a minarchist. But my political views aren't important...

Because I know all of you will be voting for the correct candidate.

Mike Gravel

you made that doesn't show up because of our great forums. I decided not to edit.

Making stupid posts to force outraged replies, gg to you my friend.

Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 05:31:26 am by Mark

Logged

big ass skelly

#47 December 12, 2007, 05:33:42 am

Ò_Ó
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 12, 2002
Posts: 4313

Is this that trolling for "lulz" I've heard so much about?

Logged

Xeno|Soft

#48 December 12, 2007, 05:53:11 am

Chicken Hunter
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 18, 2002
Posts: 564

Quote from: Mark on December 12, 2007, 02:48:25 am

No I'd probably think you're a scared little child in a man's body, unable to have any kind of impact on other people without the immediate threat of violence.

"Do what I want and think what I think or I'll hurt you." You're as bad as every mugger and armed robber there's ever been you piece of shit.

I don't know what your smoking, but if I saw a black dude with an m16 slung over his shoulder, I'm thinking "fuck that shit" and cross the street to get where I need to go. Not doing a physiological anaylisis as to why he is insecure and carrying a gun.

Logged

Feldschlacht IV

#49 December 12, 2007, 06:03:37 am

The Notorious M.O.G.
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2003
Posts: 1784

I thought it was pretty obvious in the first place that marcus was joking.

Jesus.

Logged

Farren

#50 December 12, 2007, 07:06:20 am

I fear and I tremble
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2005
Posts: 6165

Quote from: Federal Inspector David Drozdowski on December 12, 2007, 04:08:47 am

Yeah I think that we have already established that the idea of a security guard is not necessarily as foreign or as absurd as ihatemalus seems to think it is.

Well it isn't the security that seems so absurd to me, its the idea of that person being armed with a lethal weapon that is so goddamn retarded.

I mean they don't let ME carry mace or anything, let alone a damn GUN.

I think its ridiculous that this woman was allowed to carry a loaded weapon around IN A CHURCH no less, despite whether or not it saved a few people from ONE nutball with a gun I still think its stupid AND dangerous.

Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 07:08:49 am by Harry Manback

DEUCE: MEETING THE URINE UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL AND REALIZING IT'S JUST LIKE ME AND MY PREJUDICES THIS WHOLE TIME WERE COMPLETELY FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF PTTTTHTHTHH GOD IT'S EVERYWHERE<br />DEUCE: FUCK THIS TASTES LIKE PISS<br />PANTS: WHERE IT SHOULD TASTE LIKE COTTON CANDY OR PICKLES<br />DEUCE: OR AT LEAST LIKE URINE NOT PISS

Logged

Xeno|Soft

#51 December 12, 2007, 07:12:03 am

Chicken Hunter
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jun 18, 2002
Posts: 564

What is so special about a church that you find it so odd that the secruity carries guns? The church HARDLY has a peacefull reputation.

This is like asking why the secret service carries guns in the white house...yes, the church is a popular thing in America, probably more popular than politics.

Logged

big ass skelly

#52 December 12, 2007, 07:16:12 am

Ò_Ó
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 12, 2002
Posts: 4313

Quote from: Perpetual Moogle on December 12, 2007, 06:03:37 am

I thought it was pretty obvious in the first place that marcus was joking.

Jesus.

American and in a military force. If anyone's going to surprise me by having what seems to be a fucking unreasonable viewpoint he's a likely candidate. jokes are funny, written sarcasm doesn't work even with giant text, I've been up all night

Also I just found out what Ron Paul is. It's not a nice thing.

Logged

Pepoke

#53 December 12, 2007, 07:21:02 am

Mr. Analogy
Group: Member
Joined: Aug 22, 2006
Posts: 301

Quote from: Harry Manback on December 12, 2007, 07:06:20 am

Well it isn't the security that seems so absurd to me, its the idea of that person being armed with a lethal weapon that is so goddamn retarded.

I mean they don't let ME carry mace or anything, let alone a damn GUN.

I think its ridiculous that this woman was allowed to carry a loaded weapon around IN A CHURCH no less, despite whether or not it saved a few people from ONE nutball with a gun I still think its stupid AND dangerous.

Yeah I kind get where youre coming from...Realistically most people dont imagine church members with loaded weapons at their disposal at their church...Unless its like a Klan church or something

Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 07:23:04 am by Pepoke

:::

Quote

>im checking the windows before i go to bed..
>>thatll do no good, im already in the house

Oh, that dog of mine!

Logged

ase

#54 December 12, 2007, 07:26:25 am

It's A Short Eternity... live with it
Group: Premium Member
Joined: May 23, 2003
Posts: 4526

dammit Marcus don't scare me like that again. not to mention INVISIBLE POSTS

Logged

Clucky

#55 December 12, 2007, 07:29:23 am

DJ Smilie...
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 295

Quote from: Harry Manback on December 12, 2007, 07:06:20 am

Well it isn't the security that seems so absurd to me, its the idea of that person being armed with a lethal weapon that is so goddamn retarded.

I mean they don't let ME carry mace or anything, let alone a damn GUN.

I think its ridiculous that this woman was allowed to carry a loaded weapon around IN A CHURCH no less, despite whether or not it saved a few people from ONE nutball with a gun I still think its stupid AND dangerous.

Okay, sure it's weird that some woman had a loaded gun in the church, and I'm pretty sure that not all of the ushers have loaded guns, but it's not that fucking insane.

Logged

Marcus

#56 December 12, 2007, 02:30:23 pm

THE FAT ONE
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Sep 28, 2002
Posts: 2690

Quote

American and in a military force. If anyone's going to surprise me by having what seems to be a fucking unreasonable viewpoint he's a likely candidate.

If there's anyone more self aware of the stupidity in a country's government, it's the standing military. Once you sign, there's no going back, but you witness the truth firsthand so it's a win-lose situation.

Quote

Making stupid posts to force outraged replies, gg to you my friend.

i get my kicks on the internet. its serious business.

Quote

I mean they don't let ME carry mace or anything, let alone a damn GUN.

I don't know where you live (I'm going to assume not America) because most people are allowed to carry any concealable, non pistol weapon as a means of self defense. I've seen mace bottles that look double as lipstick; one side gives you a nice ruby red gloss, the other contains a powerful spray of the blinding stuff. If you have a permit, you can carry a small arm that's limited to a certain caliber (like... derringer small) and in most southern states you can carry a visible small arm as long as it's in a secured holster that's visibly fastened around your waist or shoulders.

I've walked through wal-marts where people are armed. You don't really think twice about it because after a while you get used to it, but my county has the lowest gun related crimes in the entire state.

Logged

Zeratul

#57 December 12, 2007, 03:22:26 pm

Sick son of a bitch
Group: Member
Joined: May 10, 2003
Posts: 292

Quote from: Harry Manback on December 12, 2007, 07:06:20 am

Well it isn't the security that seems so absurd to me, its the idea of that person being armed with a lethal weapon that is so goddamn retarded.

I mean they don't let ME carry mace or anything, let alone a damn GUN.

I think its ridiculous that this woman was allowed to carry a loaded weapon around IN A CHURCH no less, despite whether or not it saved a few people from ONE nutball with a gun I still think its stupid AND dangerous.

I think you're being a little naive.
Obviously there are two types of security: armed and unarmed.
Unarmed guards are mostly hired when there is no real expectation of anything happening, but you want to reduce the possibility (as in no one was probably going to do anything anyways, but they definitely won't when there's a person there), as well as making the people around feel secure and know the property (in this case a church) and so on.
Armed guards exist because, well, shit happens. If you're carrying or watching money or anything of great value, or if there is a large event where there is a percieved chance of some nutbag coming out and being violent, it makes all the sense in the world for there to be an armed guard. In this case there had been a shooting at a nearby mission area, and they decided the chances of them being a target was likely enough that they wanted one or a few guns on the property.
Besides, given her background in law enforcement, I doubt that she wasn't both licensed and experienced in the use of handguns.
But yeah, saving lives is stupid and dangerous.

Those who can, pay. Those who can't, delay.

Logged

Rye Bread

#58 December 12, 2007, 04:32:48 pm

old skool
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2003
Posts: 780

Quote from: Harry Manback on December 12, 2007, 07:06:20 am

Well it isn't the security that seems so absurd to me, its the idea of that person being armed with a lethal weapon that is so goddamn retarded.

I mean they don't let ME carry mace or anything, let alone a damn GUN.

I think its ridiculous that this woman was allowed to carry a loaded weapon around IN A CHURCH no less, despite whether or not it saved a few people from ONE nutball with a gun I still think its stupid AND dangerous.

I agree with this. I've worked security in places that are much more likely to have violent outbreaks or random psychos with weapons than a fucking church, and I still didn't carry a loaded lethal weapon on me.

Logged

Zeratul

#59 December 12, 2007, 05:34:33 pm

Sick son of a bitch
Group: Member
Joined: May 10, 2003
Posts: 292

Quote from: Evil Bob on December 12, 2007, 04:32:48 pm

I agree with this. I've worked security in places that are much more likely to have violent outbreaks or random psychos with weapons than a fucking church, and I still didn't carry a loaded lethal weapon on me.

This is very simply because armed guards are more expensive than unarmed guards and whatever locations you worked had management who did not percieve a large enough threat to justify the extra expense.
I don't think the church acted too crazily in this regard. Really, what it boils down to is that it's their church and they get to decide what kind of security they have around. Given that their fears ended up being justified I don't really see the argument for demonizing the leaders or whoever for putting armed guards inside. There were shootings in the area, they believed they might be targeted next, they took measures to minimize the danger, the situation occured, and the perpetrator was dealt with. I simply have trouble seeing why it's irrational for a church which is willing to pay for armed guards to have them.

Last Edit: December 12, 2007, 05:36:38 pm by Zeratul

Those who can, pay. Those who can't, delay.

Logged

ATARI

#60 December 12, 2007, 08:30:48 pm

Lichens!
Group: Premium Member
Joined: Oct 26, 2002
Posts: 4136

Quote from: Zeratul on December 12, 2007, 05:34:33 pm

This is very simply because armed guards are more expensive than unarmed guards and whatever locations you worked had management who did not percieve a large enough threat to justify the extra expense.
I don't think the church acted too crazily in this regard. Really, what it boils down to is that it's their church and they get to decide what kind of security they have around. Given that their fears ended up being justified I don't really see the argument for demonizing the leaders or whoever for putting armed guards inside. There were shootings in the area, they believed they might be targeted next, they took measures to minimize the danger, the situation occured, and the perpetrator was dealt with. I simply have trouble seeing why it's irrational for a church which is willing to pay for armed guards to have them.

This. Especially when I pointed out that earlier the church had recieved threats to it's congregation. (Which is also very large, which would also be a valid reason for armed guards. )

Logged