Pastor killed with his own gun at church

[Gutwrench]

I didn’t say he broke a law, but although it seems he thought carrying a gun was in the best interests of himself and the church, I laid out some good reasons why that absolutely is not the case. A gunfight between somebody in the front of the church vs somebody in the back of the church is not a good idea.

The fact the victim is a Pastor is irrelevant then, but the op and P_X have made the victim being a Pastor relevant. It’s faulty logic.

 

[Gutwrench]

Also, yes, because it’s a church. It should be a place free of violence ideally. And if security is considered to be needed, the LAST person it should be coming from is the pastor.

See my post above.

 

[Gutwrench]

I can't fix your alexia, my wise friend. Or are you trying to tell me how to live?!!*!*!!!

Deflection noted.

 

[SuperMatt]

The fact the victim is a Pastor is irrelevant then, but the op and P_X have made the victim being a Pastor relevant. It’s faulty logic.

I think it’s very relevant. In a church, the pastor should not have a gun to defend against a shooter because he’d be firing from the front of the church towards the back, with all his parishioners caught in-between. Also, there is my personal feeling that pastors should be discouraging people from violence... I think carrying around a gun as a pastor is a poor example of Jesus’ teachings... but that is my opinion.

 

[Gutwrench]

I think it’s very relevant. In a church, the pastor should not have a gun to defend against a shooter because he’d be firing from the front of the church towards the back, with all his parishioners caught in-between.

It’s not an idyllic world. Do you feel a Christian Pastor is prohibited from protecting him/her self? Do you feel he/she must stand idle and allow other be slaughtered? What about a Rabbi or Imam? The fact this is a church and the victim is a pastor is irrelevant when it comes to self protection. Yet that’s what’s being said here.

 

[User.45]

Deflection noted.

I think it’s very relevant. In a church, the pastor should not have a gun to defend against a shooter because he’d be firing from the front of the church towards the back, with all his parishioners caught in-between. Also, there is my personal feeling that pastors should be discouraging people from violence... I think carrying around a gun as a pastor is a poor example of Jesus’ teachings... but that is my opinion.

This. It's also ironic that reminding people of the teachings of non-violence in Christianity is the equivalent of telling Christians how to live according some open "minded people."

 

[Gutwrench]

View attachment 2391

This. It's also ironic that reminding people of the teachings of non-violence in Christianity is the equivalent of telling Christians how to live according some open "minded people."

Reminding people of non-violence isn’t what was being said or what you said. But I understand why you want to spin away from it. I would too.

 

[User.45]

Reminding people of non-violence isn’t what was being said or what you said. But I understand why you want to spin away from it. I would too.

Honestly? Nobody cares. If they do, well, it's not illegal to actually read back.
On the other hand, I have to give it to you. You're pretty good at making everybody flee topics that make you uncomfortable.

​

 

[User.45]

-----

Guns Automatically Prime Aggressive Thoughts, Regardless of Whether a “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy” Holds the Gun​

Abstract

The mere presence of weapons can increase aggression—called the “weapons effect.” Weapons are theorized to increase aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. This research tested the robustness of the weapons effect using two large representative samples of American adults (total N = 1,097). Participants saw photos of criminals, soldiers, police in military gear, or police in regular gear with guns. Experiment 2 also included a condition with photos of Olympians with guns used to shoot inanimate targets. The control group was police in plainclothes without guns. The accessibility of aggressive thoughts was measured using a word fragment task (e.g., KI_ _ can be completed as KILL or KISS). Photos of individuals with guns used to shoot human targets primed aggressive thoughts, regardless of whether a “good guy” (soldier, police) or “bad guy” (criminal) held the gun. Photos of Olympians with guns used to shoot inanimate targets did not prime aggressive thoughts.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

-----

Psychology has an issue with reproducibility but not really when it comes to the Weapons effect.
A lot of us on this forum advocate for issues to address drivers of crime, such as income inequality, inadequate access to housing, education, healthcare, or hell, even groceries.
So if someone is in disagreement and all, it would be nice to corroborate the notion how owning weapons actually contributes to personal or public safety on a large scale.
It generates a positive feedback loop that elevates risk on a large scale, placing most of us at higher risk. Including non-consenting children.

 

[Thomas Veil]

...The pastor had a gun on him for self-defense (assuming that) and the result this time was the polar opposite.

It certainly wasn’t a shining example of the “good guy with a gun” argument, was it?

 

[Gutwrench]

Honestly? Nobody cares. If they do, well, it's not illegal to actually read back.
On the other hand, I have to give it to you. You're pretty good at making everybody flee topics that make you uncomfortable.

​

I challenged the op and you with your own words. Perhaps critically thinking the topic through would help you. Consider I’ve done you a favor.

 

[User.45]

I challenged the op and you with your own words. Perhaps critically thinking the topic would help you. Consider I’ve done you a favor.

Can you show which of my words you've challenged me with I really missed that part, lol.

Still waiting.... I guess I'll have to sum it up for you:
You started up with an assumption (object of my comment), followed by projecting another assumption into a paradox. You followed it up by explicitly (and proudly) ignoring the text that would have clarified your first false assumption. Finally you've made a leap to victim blaming. Pretty poor for a critical thinker, but excellent for a troll.

Enjoy your fridge shelves.

PX

 

[Gutwrench]

Can you show which of my words you've challenged me with I really missed that part, lol.

Still waiting.... I guess I'll have to sum it up for you:
You started up with an assumption (object of my comment), followed by projecting another assumption into a paradox. You followed it up by explicitly (and proudly) ignoring the text that would have clarified your first false assumption. Finally you've made a leap to victim blaming. Pretty poor for a critical thinker, but excellent for a troll.

Enjoy your fridge shelves.

PX

Glad to help: 11, 26, 31, 32, 36, 47, 51.

 

[leekohler2]

Glad to help: 11, 26, 31, 32, 36, 47, 51.

Those are numbers, not words. If you are too damn lazy to quote points you take issue with, then you’re not good at this, at all. I will echo what others have said- if this pastor was worried about his safety, hiring security was the best option.

 

[Gutwrench]

Those are numbers, not words. If you are too damn lazy to quote points you take issue with, then you’re not good at this, at all.

Read the thread. Focus on 2, 11, 13, and 15.

 

[leekohler2]

Read the thread. Focus on 2, 11, 13, and 15.

The request was not for post numbers. The request was for you to quote what you have issue with. You have made assumptions based on your own projections, not something anyone actually said. Disappointed to see this kind of lazy posting in this forum.

 

[Gutwrench]

The request was not for post numbers. The request was for you to quote what you have issue with. You have made assumptions based on your own projections, not something anyone actually said. Disappointed to see this kind of lazy posting in this forum.

The request was for me to repeat myself. I don’t play that game. if I posted the answer once its the reader’s responsibility. I graciously pointed the requestor back to the post. I don’t need to waste my time typing it again.

I’ll clarify where I feel it necessary.

 

[leekohler2]

The request was for me to repeat myself. I don’t play that game. if I posted the answer once its the reader’s responsibility. I graciously pointed the requestor back to the post. I don’t need to waste my time typing it again.

I’ll clarify where I feel it necessary.

Well then, since you can't be bothered to be a decent contributing member, I can't be bothered with your posts. I didn't think i would have to put anyone in this forum on ignore, but I guess I do. I will not argue with people who put words in other people's mouths and then when caught, refuse to admit what they did. Congrats, you're the first to make my ignore list. Let's hope you're the last.

 

[User.45]

Well then, since you can't be bothered to be a decent contributing member, I can't be bothered with your posts. I didn't think i would have to put anyone in this forum on ignore, but I guess I do. I will not argue with people who put words in other people's mouths and then when caught, refuse to admit what they did. Congrats, you're the first to make my ignore list. Let's hope you're the last.

Same here. I'm here for actual 2-way conversations. The "other forum" is always there if I want to indulge in the spectacle of trolling.

I will echo what others have said- if this pastor was worried about his safety, hiring security was the best option.

At the end of the day the saddest thing is that people getting shot in school or church is the norm in the USA.
We turned public safety into an arms race. Yet, the gun didn't make the pastor safer. There is very good reason to think it did the opposite.

 

[leekohler2]

Same here. I'm here for actual 2-way conversations. The "other forum" is always there if I want to indulge in the spectacle of trolling.


At the end of the day the saddest thing is that people getting shot in school or church is the norm in the USA.
We turned public safety into an arms race. Yet, the gun didn't make the pastor safer. There is very good reason to think it did the opposite.

Exactly, I'm not going to put up with trolling in this forum. If that's what someone wants to do, they're going to the ignore box immediately.

Clearly this pastor did not get trained well on how to handle his gun. I'm tired of people making excuses for that. If he claimed to have it for self-defense, then he should have also gotten proper training, which he clearly did not. If he was that concerned, and it appears he was right to be, then having a properly trained security guard would have been a much better option.