Jack Wilson prevented a Mass Shooting | 4 dead (including the shooter) is a mass shooting, Jack made the shooter #3

Couldn't they be legally carried in both cases though?...

Not inside the Church in 2017. This is what brought on the law change. And the law change was effective in cutting down the time the shooter had from 11 minutes to 6 seconds because it allowed the people inside to protect themselves.

If the church had chosen to post the verbiage of 30.06 at the door, congregants would have been restricted. As of the 2017 shooting, concealed carry would have been permissible as long as the verbiage was NOT posted. The law change simply clarified the wording of the original law.
Unfortunately, the Sutherland Springs victims were simply not prepared for such an incident.

Texas Penal Code Chapter 46 Section 46.035 UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER Paragraph B, 6 (effective until Sept 1, 2019) states -

(b) A license holder commits an offense if... carries a handgun... (6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship;
(A lot of the legal fluff and jargon redacted to make reading it easier and less of a test of the attention span. Feel free to read the full text by searching the link below)

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/StatutesByDate.aspx
Statute was researched for the date the Sutherland Srings shooting occurred, Nov 5 2017.

The 30.06 statute applies to all other places that wish to not have firearms carried on the premises that are not listed in the above statute.

Only a Class A Misdemeanor, but still enough to lose your license.

Good point.

2hsnp9.jpg (click to show) Upvote!

Nice!!! I like it!

Americans still don't address the problem that in the developed world America is the only place where mass shootings happen on a regular basis. Why is that?

This wasn't a mass shooting. Jack prevented it from becoming a mass shooting with his accurate return fire. If there were more Jacks in this world then the "mass shooting" would become a thing of the past.

Mass Shooting Definition:
"FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter.

This difference is that we do not count the shooter among the victims when determining if a shooting reaches the threshold of Mass Shooting. It insures a clear separation between victims of a shooting and those who perpetrate the crime."

www.shootingtracker.com

So..... This is one less then it could have been,
Thanks to Jack.

And to answer your question, there are not enough Jacks and too many laws restricting the other Jacks out there who legally can't do anything but are more than capable.

One less than it could've been. hmmm. I still think you should aim higher than that. One less out of the many, many is not a good record. It's like saying we cured your gonorrhea, but you still have HIV.....

Gun free zones have had years of opportunities to do what they were supposed to do and never delivered. This, however, is a start, and it always starts with one, and for once it is in the correct direction. Thank you Texas!
And please, by all means, when your argument faulters, revert to name calling just like every other 4th grader on here.

You can't have gun free zones when you have no effective borders between cities or states.

Gun free zones are the same as "keep of the grass" signs to criminals, them being told they can not do something. Armed opposition, in contrast to signs, is something that will stop a criminal once they start that criminal activity.
Take that option away, and it will end up a reflection of Mexico being run by the cartels. Since they are already North of the border.

Strange that other developed countries don't have this problem. Must be something unique in the American psyche that leads them to extreme bouts of violence and demanding the right to be armed. I guess you have to cure American culture first

You are more than welcome to go live in a country where you are not allowed to defend yourself. I have, and I don't like it. Nobody has a vested interest in my safety like I do. You can rely on other people for your safety if you like, I have been let down, so no thanks. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.