Well yes, because it wasn't relevant to the point that the shooter was stopped by security guards. I'll explain further below**
My point was the facts, I even copy/pasted from the story to show you. No need to get passively hostile here.
**Your point is overall pointless and a distraction to the point above, as we have no idea what those armed people would have done if there were no security guards and they had to stop the shooter themselves.
Everyone likes to imagine they're the 'hero with a gun' who will stay cool, calm and collected in a gun fight, but you don't know until you get into one. Especially for people who have had zero military and/or close to zero to zero standard weapons training.
Maybe they would have taken out the shooter faster than the guards and less innocents were killed or maybe they would have panicked and even more innocent people were killed. I don't know them personally or their skill level or personalities.
If you don't have an answer, just say you don't have an answer
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
Bingo, but hey they gotta try. Like I said they hate the optics of this. They'd prefer if a white male had gunned down 30 people.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
That's a lot of typing just to ignore the simple fact that they would have shot him dead within 1-3 seconds of the security guards had the security guards not existed.
The faulty assumption is that no one would have done anything and he would have gone on a killing spree before being stopped by police. I found 0 examples to support your position. I don't even think you're being honest in this conversation, as well. It's just "anti-GOP, anti-Trump" stuff because you see this as another partisan thing to argue about.
What is wrong with mentioning the good guys with the guns?
This law didn't make guns more accessible to violent criminals.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Nope, that's kinda what you tried by shrugging this off. "They were armed security!". Yep, armed security made possible by a law passed by conservatives.
These were not randomly hired private security, these were members of the church who volunteer to protect their church. This was a "good guys with a gun" story. Nothing you have said thus far negates that.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Not once did I say I had a problem with whatever law made it legal for a church to have weapons allowed, so you're making that up. IMO, it's a good thing, especially with the rise of shooters going into Mosque and Synagogues. Let the places of worship be armed I say, better yet, have it be screened security personal who know what they're doing.
The story literally says they were "the congregation’s security team" and goes on to separate them from the other armed church goers who did not participate in the gun fire. Why does it matter if they volunteered or were paid armed security, they're armed security guards is the point.
I never said you had an issue with the law. Your issue is clearly that good guys with guns stopped a shooter.
I'm so sorry this is happening to you.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
This is an assumption. They very possibly might have, or one of more of them might have panicked (as not everyone with a gun is a Rambo) and accidentally shot an innocent, causing more confusion among the other armed worshipers. Why I stuck to the facts that the shooter was taken out by security guards, as noted in the story.
No one mentioned anything anti-Trump or anti-GOP, so you're just shit-trolling me again.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
The "security" personnel were just members of the church.
The members stood up, upholstered their guns, and started bum-rushing the shooter literally 1 second after the shooter opened fire. Four people. Four.
The man who shot the shooter? An old man. Head shot. You can literally see 3 men enter the left side of the video, one man from the right, guns unholstered, aimed at the murderer as they cautiously close in on the shooter.
I won't post the video, you can look that up yourself. But here's a screenshot.
(please log in to view the image)
0/10, do not recommend the video. It's no better than a snuff film, leaves you feeling sick, and I hate it. All because of a stupid internet argument, I watched 3 people get killed.
Will you admit that you're not an honest actor in this conversation and are just posting out of massive cognitive dissonance or will you double-down because it's "cool" to oppose anything you view as "not Democrat"?
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Dec 30th, 2019 at 10:12 PM
I covered it here: "The story literally says they were "the congregation’s security team" and goes on to separate them from the other armed church goers who did not participate in the gun fire. Why does it matter if they volunteered or were paid armed security, they're armed security guards is the point."
If the story got that part wrong, okay then. I said I had no problem with churches being armed.
This also has nothing to do with "Democrats" either, unless you think Democrats are all anti-gun.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I don't need to respond: the facts speak for themselves. Any point that doesn't state that the armed congregation stopped the shooting before it got worse, is just stupid. The video clearly shows the church goers stopped the shooting.
I watched 3 people get killed to take a screen shot to prove this point. If anyone else wants to watch the video to also take the screen shot to prove me right, feel free. Debate should be done by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. There's nothing to debate. The armed congregation unholstered their guns, aimed at the shooter, killed him, and carefully approached the downed gunman. All this took place in less than 10 seconds. Armed citizens stopped a shooting before it got MUCH much worse.
This is a legitimate mass shooting stopped before it became a mass shooting. This is a great reason why you should arm and train your populace to safely and properly use guns.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Dec 30th, 2019 at 10:35 PM
Bingo. It's so weird that they are almost as triggered over a mass shooting being stopped as they are over actual mass shootings.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.