Church Of Christ...We hate the sin and love the sinner, but will kill a bitch at a moment's notice.

And this post of yours is why we can’t have actual dialog in mental health and guns.
A person 20 years ago is depressed for whatever reason and that’s good enough for you to deny them their rights forever?
Once crazy they are always crazy in your book?

Tainted. Scarlet lettered.

Please do clean that before trying to peddle that load of bullshit. He shot the security guards who were a threat first. That may have also been because they were visible employees of the church that supposedly denied him when he came for charity from them.

The reality is this sort of shooting is perfectly fine in my book. These are a bunch of entitled white gun lubbing texans who run absolutely hypocritical to the christian teachings they use to bash others over the head with. The guy who shot them is supposed to be the type jesus, remember jesus, this is a place to worship jesus. This was the type of person Jesus was supposedly preaching charity and help for. If the news he had shown up asking for help and was denied is true, then they literally did not help the poor because they were too concerned with funding their church, paying for armed security, and spending on bling and because of that some angry person shot up their gun toatting violent security.

If we look at the reality they could have saved a shitload of money, gave the guy a few bucks, not hired a bunch of armed thugs to keep them safe, and had a metal detector and denied people access who had firearms and no one would have died. Instead they let in every white guntarded evangelical trump supporter into their prayer meeting and suffered the consequences. This happened to the right people. It wasn't some dance club, school, music festival, or unarmed church full of black people. This was a bunch of white priviledged texass trumpanzee guntards. The guy made sure to shoot the locked and loaded violent of them first so if there was some poor innocent person they got a good lesson about why you don't hang out with a bunch of armed violent trumpanzees. You can do that all day long in my book.

Personally, I would never be in a texass church with a whole bunch of gun toting violent evangelical right wingers. There is a reason for that and it is because it is an unsafe place full of hate and white nationalist violence. If you want to shoot those places up you wandered into the right place and go get your shoot on. Keep it where it belongs with the religious terrorists.

Did you notice whom I was quoting? Let me run it by you again:

Gunforge: "You can't take away someone's Second Amendment rights just because they were hospitalized for depression 20 years ago!"

That ain't me, babe. It's the way the more extreme of you gunlubbers tend to frame it. It's a deflection, and not much more sophisticated than the "Whatabout...?" game.

I've never posted anything remotely like that, but if you've got nothing better to do you can provide evidence to the contrary.

Then how many people do you think he would have shot if none of the parishioners were armed?

Those people were volunteers. Not paid security.

seriously? A shitload! He would have killed until he had to stop to reload and even then he may have accomplished a reload and continued to kill. But Tererun would have no problem with it because they are all evil right wingers who have it coming anyway, so it's all good.
Funny though Tererunt said they were all privileged whites and one of the two victims was black.
Must have been their token black I guess.

How about we learn to read. My argument would actually be how many people I thought he would have shot if we did not have such loose gun laws and a church allowing anyone with a gun to come in.

The answer to that would be none. The guy had multiple run ins with the law, was clearly unstable, and did not have trouble getting a gun in america and wandering into a crowded place with security. At multiple places this could have been stopped.

Please, do not put your straw men up and pretend you are arguing with me. I did not make that argument you stated, and again you resort to a piss poor tactic of avoiding an argument you cannot address.

They were security with a gun, and when the wrongful death lawsuits start by their family because these men lost their life because of negligence by the church then it will cost the church. At least the church got what it paid for with volunteer armed people playing cowboy in their church.

Yeah, when you allow everyone to come armed to your church you do deserve the shooting deaths. This is what a gun toting community deserves for giving everyone firearms and having them everywhere. This is what is going to happen as history and statistics prove. So yes this is what idiots deserve when they all run around with deadly weapons they do not need.

Sorry dude, but this is the price for your violence. I am just happy it was paid by a bunch of texas trumpian evangelicals rather than actually innocent people who don't want guns everywhere. The right people are dead. Three less trump and republican voters is a better thing. My hopes and prayers were answered.

That was your argument?

How was the church negligent?

You continuously prove that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.83.htm

Yeah, sorry about any confusion. I thought it was a colloquialism that everyone would understand.

In hindsight, I should have recognized it, but to be honest, in all of the defensive and combat firearms training I've had, I've never been told to keep firing until the magazine is empty irregardless of the threat being over.

perhaps the line of reasoning is because you can never really be sure that the threat's over.

Or it's adrenaline. It's not uncommon for security/law enforcement types to expend a lot of rounds because of it.

True stress-induced adrenaline is intense.

I am sure some lawyer can make that argument.

Yeah, but what if there's another threat? What if you've just emptied your magazine into a person that's already dead when he's got a buddy?

What argument? "The church was negligent because...." what?

One I thought you were ignoring me, which this means you arent't as I could have guessed.

Two, I am talking about the families of the victims put in a position of guarding the church suing the church for not having the proper level of safety to protect them from being shot while employed, even voluntarily, by the church.

Sorry, but you still suck at this law thing. As an employer you would have a certain responsibility to provide a safe environment for your employees to perform their duty. For that matter the death of an employee can often result in financial compensation when an employee is harmed through the performance of their job for an organization. So yes there may be some liability for the families to be covered by the church. The church is probably insured for things like damages for injury and loss of life for it's employees while performing their jobs. All of that is common for business entities in regards to worker related injuries.

wanna try again there dumbass? You are batting o on knowing how things work. Perhaps we know why you are a townie sheriff and not a lawyer. You should go back to ignoring me as you do better that way.

been there, done that. Suffice it to say I'm not a fan. Adrenaline is counter-productive in the majority of cases and harmful in the cumulative sense.

Like I was saying to @Elwood the guards were performing as employees for the church when shot. Even volunteer employees have rights to compensation for injuries and their families may have claims if they are killed while performing duties of the employer. This is simple OSHA stuff. Those guys have families, and the church probably has insurance that will cover their employees families in case of an event like this.

On top of that this might be a case of negligence if the church is allowing firearms be brought in. A lawyer can argue that as volunteers these men were endangered by the church by being security for the church. Since the church might have made no effort to deny a person entry they contributed the the environment that allowed for their employees to be shot. While the people attending might have been in a situation where they attend at their own risk, an employee has required duties and is not the same as someone who is just there. The church would have a responsibility to maintain a safe working environment for employees which allowing anyone with a gun to come in might be seen as not being safe.

It is a legal thing which a lawyer could argue based on the victims being volunteer employees.

Okay, but you claiming that they're employees doesn't make them employees. Could you provide a link the "simple OSHA stuff" that backs up your claim?

Actually, the articles and church claim they were volunteer security. That is an employee handling responsibilities for the church. Otherwise they would just be armed parishoners.

I am merely going by what is reported, and the legal definitions. I cannot show up at the local clinic and just start helping people who show up there for medical treatment. I have to apply and be working for them even if I am just volunteering because I would be providing a service on their behalf. You still have to be employed by an organization even if you are volunteering for that organization because when you work for them they have legal responsibility for your safety while working for them.

Does that help explain my point better?

Nevermind. I found it.

"Two, I am talking about the families of the victims put in a position of guarding the church suing the church for not having the proper level of safety to protect them from being shot while employed, even voluntarily, by the church." - Tereruin

That makes no fucking sense on any level. If you are pulling security duty then you are the proper level of safety! If you are the janitor pushing a broom and the church security guard drops the ball and you get killed, your family might have a legal leg to stand on. But if you are the one guarding the church and you are allowed to use what would be considered reasonable and sufficient protective measures then you are the one providing the proper level of safety for all intents & purposes. You put yourself in that position and assume the risks & responsibilities inherent in the task. How can the church ensure your safety when you are the one who ensures the churches safety?

Amazing that you bust on Elwood for not knowing how the law works when I shudder to think how your ass would handle such a job. Those poor townspeople would be fucked six ways from Sunday!

I would like to point out that while guns may not end up being banned in most places by the government, they will end up being effectively banned from business owned properties via insurance regulations. Churches and commercial property are owned and insured. Churches would be incorporated entities under US law even though they would fall under the not for profit area of incorporation. Businesses are liable for the safety of people on their property, and also to maintain insurance to protect customers, employees, and visitors to their property in the case of injury.

One of the things that will happen as gun incidents become more common is that businesses will find it harder and more expensive to insure their properties while also allowing guns on their properties. What will also happen is that in order to allow armed people on their property they will have to have some form of rules and methods for allowing that. Businesses are not going to risk their capital on the rights of some asshole to bring their gun. So either they will ban guns on their property and secure against them based on what the insurance company will define as the proper security against firearms, or they will be forced to spend large amounts of money on firearm related insurance and force everyone into safety regulations on their property to conform with what their firearm insurance demands.

The more of these shootings that occur, the more we all are going to get probed so some people can have guns in society. That may actually mean things like metal detectors in malls, arenas, and other places where masses of people gather. The more the insurance companies lose money to gun injuries and lawsuits, the more businesses will be required to conform to their regulations. Once everyone has to get scanned and wanded for going shopping like they are getting on a plane you guys can kiss your guns goodby.

Then it will go down to insurance. You don't think the lawyers are just going to drop this when they can make lawsuits against the church for these people, do you? They are calling everyone they can in this congregation talking about PTSD and psychological damage as we speak. It is all going to go after this church because that is where the money is. The church is going to have to go to their insurance company. I am also sure compensated in some way is vague enough to cover these employees. Did they get a good parking space? That is compensation. Did they get a tax write off for their time? That is compensation. Did the church pay for their uniforms and bullets? That is compensation. Did they get a reach around from the preist? That is compensation.

I've waited a couple days before posting in this thread to see how it went. The 'usual suspects' after a mass shooting are strangely absent. Why?

What? Nothing to say? No gun control agenda to push here, like usual? Did we find a little crack in your false ideology? @Bailey @garamet @RickDeckard @Amaris @Ancalagon @Shirogayne @We Are Borg @matthunter @Nova ?