Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Utah Church Shooting on Father's Day
Christian Science Monitor with video
You know what this could mean, right? Utah may now have more church shootings than school shootings.
My only question is where were all the good guys with guns? This is Utah, after all.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"A Utah man is expected to survive after his son-in-law walked into Father's Day Catholic Mass and shot him in the head in front of a congregation of 300 people, many of whom hit the floor, then helped the victim, and chase after the suspect."
ReplyDeleteA guy takes one shot in a crowded church, then runs away to commit more violent crimes in order to escape. And I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that contrary to what you seem to think, most permit holders have very restricted personal rules of engagement. And practice very good fire discipline.
The assailant has been charged with possession of a firearm by a restricted person. And in Utah, permit holders are prohibited from carrying in a church that bans them. So the next question would be did this Catholic Church prohibit permit holders to carry. I seem to recall that the Catholic Church generally was in favor, so odds are good that it was prohibited. Perhaps someone else can correct me if I'm in error.
If you were right next to this guy with your gun you probably could not have stopped it. That's the fallacy of your argument for concealed carry making us all safer.
DeleteSure, you probably couldn't stop the first shot. However, you might be able to stop the second or third shot in a case where the shooter is trying to go on a spree. It would certainly be a better option than simply having to throw yourself in front of the shooter and absorb the shot the way a couple of guys did at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville.
DeleteBut then, you guys like to say that it would be impossible and that exhaustive studies have shown that carriers have never stopped a shooting. Never mind that those studies cherry pick incidents and don't include the recent Mall shooting in Oregon, the Appy School of Law shooting, etc.
Really? Mikeb, you know this because you've seen Sarge demonstrate his skills? I'll take his assessment over yours. You've shown yourself to be stubbornly ignorant when it comes to guns.
DeleteYou criticize people who carry, then you whine when people don't. But I never hear you make remarks about Laci or Dog Gone carrying. You don't object in concept to police carrying, even though your comments should apply equally well to them.
"If you were right next to this guy with your gun you probably could not have stopped it. That's the fallacy of your argument for concealed carry making us all safer."
DeleteAgain Mike, the first question should be did the church prohibit concealed carry? If it did, then whether someone could have intervened is sort of a moot point. Yep, if I was right next to the guy with my back turned I likely wouldn't have been able to stop it. Almost anyone can be shot from behind as illustrated by the sad demise of Chris Kyle.
It sounds like afterwards he ran away and carjacked someone to escape. Would I have shot a fleeing assailant in the back? Likely not. He was no longer a direct threat to me so justifying it to the police might be a challenge. And again, remember it's a crowded church.
This sounds like premeditated murder to me where he picked the most likely place for his target to be unarmed and focused in one direction. Cant say as to motive, but since there are witness accounts saying they saw the victim's daughter with bruises and he has a record of domestic disputes, I'm betting that the dad had a come to Jesus meeting with son-in-law telling him that he needs to knock off hurting his daughter. Something many fathers should and would do.
I don't see how this disproves the effectiveness of concealed carry. It is something I choose to do because I want to take responsibility for the safety of me and my family. Just like most police officers, if I never have to draw my pistol, I'll be quite ok with that.
"I want to take responsibility for the safety of me and my family."
DeleteHow many hours a day do you spend with your family?
Mikeb, do you ever address the main point, or do you always run off on tangents?
DeleteI bet he spends 24 hours a day with himself, and he wants to protect himself as well right?
DeleteMike,
DeleteThe number of hours per day I spend with my children are immaterial. Obviously, when the kids are in school and my son is doing his best to avoid spending time with either parent since he's 13 and his parents aren't "cool", I cant be there watching them.
There are even times when I'm not permitted to carry, ironically when I'm on duty with the Army Reserve. This however doesn't negate the benefits from having additional options in keeping them safe when they are with me.
Thanks for a serious answer to a partially ball-busting question. My point, in case you didn't get it is I find it odd that guys like you cite the family protection motive for being armed when you're hardly ever on hand. Protecting the family sounds good, but that's not what you guys are really all about.
DeleteMikeb, I'm tired of this term, ball-busting. It's like many of your favorite phrases--vague enough to mean whatever you want it to in a given situation.
DeleteOn the main point here, you discount the idea of both parents being armed and capable. You have rejected our calls for teachers to be armed. Basically, you cheer for the situations that disarm us and those we entrust our families to, but now you're trying to say we're dishonest in wanting to protect our families.
So if your kids don't wear seatbelts on the school bus, you shouldn't use car seats or seatbelts when you drive them around. Nice logic.
Delete