TexasCHLforum.com

Michael Bloomberg wants you to believe that gun control is about saving lives, but when a civilian uses his gun to save over 200 people's lives, he doesn’t talk about the lives saved, nor does he congratulate the person who saved those lives.

Instead, he talks about how those people shouldn’t have had those guns because the only people responsible enough to make a decision about saving your life are the cops.

So essentially, our control over those 200 plus lives is more important than your ability to save those same lives. So to Bloomberg, if you use your gun to save lives, he doesn’t care because you’re not a cop.

anygunanywhere wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:15 am

Mel wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:50 pm

anygunanywhere wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:14 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:59 pm Our justice system is seriously screwed up, which is another reason to never, ever let the government take away law abiding citizens firearms.

It’s a legal system not a justice system.

Actually it IS a justice system. The name is "The Criminal Justice System".

Actually it isn't about justice any more. It is about privileged classes and money. I stand by my post.

Keith B wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:36 pm AUSTIN, Texas (KEYE) - Governor Greg Abbott will present the Governor's Medal of Courage to the man who stopped a gunman in a deadly shooting at a church in North Texas last month.


http://cbsaustin.com/news/local/gov-abb ... rch-gunman

ELB wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:21 pm Some of Hockheim's technical points about conducting security "professionally" are good. Stuff to study when making a security plan.

He completely misses the point that volunteer security teams are in place because the "professionals" are a big drain on the budget of smaller churches. That's why they are "volunteers." It is also expensive in time and money, both of which come out of the pocket of the volunteers. The choice for the church is not between a bunch of amateurs or a professionally trained, years-of-experience, federally-salaried and -pensioned security team with an essentially unlimited budget capable of protecting the president. It is a choice between "nobody" and having a team of those willing to step up, a choice that became legal only a few months ago.

Hockheim's criticizing Jack Wilson and the team in general for stepping up fulfilling their volunteer duties as best they could given the constraints they have is absolutely loathsome and shows Hockheim himself to be an.... let's just say, for the sake of this forum's rules, "unprofessional." I don't think anyone (and I'll bet least of all the vol security team) is disregarding the errors and the missed opportunities by the volunteer security team, but that does not detract from their heroism. Absent that volunteer security team, no doubt the death toll was going to be higher.

I eagerly await his offer to provide volunteer church security teams free training. Oh, but he wants to be paid for his time. Ah.

(And given the antics of the Secret Service over the years, I would hardly hold them up as an example of how to do things).

JustSomeOldGuy wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:04 pm re: 'Hock's analysis.
Was it the best solution? No. Was it the best acceptable solution given that the average church has 1) no money to hire secret service level talent and 2) probably doesn't have secret service level talent among the congregation? Absolutely, especially when the alternative is a Luby's Cafeteria style debacle. And given that the mission of the average church is NOT to "bounce someone's <posterior> to the moon".

Hock, my personal opinion is that you're a jerk. You're comparing apples and oranges.......