Charleston shootings: Is the NRA right to blame the victims for not taking guns to Church?

Posted by: Kreakin

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/19/nra-mass-shootings-south-carolina-church

  • Yes, if you don't have a Sunday gun it's your fault if someone shoots you at Church. They should of gone to a church that allows firearms.

  • No, you are not at fault if you don't take a gun to prayer. The NRA point is insulting.

17% 3 votes
83% 15 votes
  • Yea, right. Cant leave home without a gun or two.

    Posted by: TBR
  • the NRA is nothing more than a lobbyist for the firearms manufacturers and retailers ... they no longer represent their members or anyone else... the ONLY represent PROFITS now.

  • Why would you bring gun to a church? Dad: "Ok, Billy, time to go to church!" Billy: "Hold on dad, lemme grab my glock".

  • No has to take a gun with them to a peaceful place like a church. Had stricter background checks been placed, this atrocity could have been prevented.

  • Although you should not have to have guns in a religious setting, but in order to protect yourself and others it is best to. Or at least have armed security officers and security checks for safety reasons. Pretty much like an airport.

    Posted by: Najs
  • Don't tread on them, NRA.

  • The NRA is absolutely ridiculous. They should be treated as such.

  • more guns = more victims. Maybe not in a specific shooting, but it does hold up in society in general.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-22T01:33:40.1802955-05:00
Guys, please do research prior to posting stupidity. The NRA board member never blamed anyone, including the pastor. First, the comment cited in articles I have seen starts with the word "And" which tells me there is more to the comment. Second, he simply pointed out the pastor voted against concealed carry, Concealed carry is a license given by the state to legally carry a handgun while keeping it from public view. These are given to law abiding citizens that pass both written and hands-on exams including precision firing tests. Finally, he states if the Pastor explicitly allowed concealed carry in his church, which he did not, a member of the church may have been carrying a firearm legally at the time the incident happened. If a member was carrying at that time, said member may have been able to fire on the shooter, eliminating the threat before all 8 of those victims were killed. When in an environment where not 24 hours after a mass shooting, our politicians are in public not morning the tragedy but instead using it to their advantage to push gun control policies, tugging on people's heart strings, pro-gun advocates must respond. Before we get angry at the edited dialog, we must realize first that the media is pushing this false narrative that he said he BLAMED or set responsibility of the deaths on the Pastor. Truth is, he simply stated the obvious, and facts. Fact: The Pastor was against concealed Carry. Fact: The pastor was against concealed carry in church. Fact: Concealed carry in church legislation was voted down, meaning it remained illegal to conceal carry on church property. Fact: No law abiding citizen would be able to carry. Fact: Due to it being illegal to carry in church, no church member had an ability to defend the group. Fact: If a person present was carrying, those 8 deaths may not have all happened. Carrying weapons in church is not a new idea, in fact, in early colonial towns, there was a law on the books that it was illegal to enter a church WITHOUT being armed and are still on the books today. This obviously was for revolutionary purposes, but I want to make the point known for those that want to argue that church is no place for guns.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-22T01:40:22.2468274-05:00
@tajshar2k Stricter background checks would NOT have stopped this young man. The firearm was given to him by a family member in private. Let's say we needed background checks and one rule was "Guys with the name (insert name) can never have a firearm." Since this was provided in private, who is to say the transaction would not have still taken place? After all, the kid was a known drug addict taking medication to help him get over his addictions. That still didn't keep the family from giving him a gun. Right?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-06-22T01:46:05.4066265-05:00
@skyfish That's an ignorant and honestly stupid statement straight off the anti-gun lobbyist talking points paper. The NRA fights VERY hard all day every day to make sure people that don't like guns don't take them away from law abiding citizens. Here's my question for all those anti-gun guys out there: What happens when an armed suspect enters your house? The average response time for officers is 7 minutes, once on scene they need to wait for backup and assess the situation, once the home is entered (or any structure public or private) they must diligently clear each room so they aren't attacked from behind. You're looking at say 10-15 minutes of solo play time with an armed intruder. How do you handle those 10-15 minutes in a way that you stay alive?
Kreakin says2015-06-22T11:20:18.3562925-05:00
Fact: It's not their fault.
TBR says2015-06-23T01:34:21.2722665-05:00
MakeSensePeopleDont - This scenario you describe is not accurate. Home invasions are rare, and when they DO happen they are about property crime. The criminal is attempting to LEAVE with your stuff as quick as possible. Let them take your crap and they will leave. Go shopping in the AM with all family members alive.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.