Armed Patrons kill gunman in church

Originally posted by dadudemon
You simply ignored the point I made.

Your point: "IT WASN'T THE GUN HOLDERS THAT STOPPED THE SHOOTER! IT WAS THE ARMED SECURITY!"

My point: "And the congregation was armed as well. They were within 1-3 seconds of also stopping the shooter. Your point is stupid. Calm down."

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.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Dude, I have little patience for your phony objectivity and right-slanted devil's advocate schtick.

If you don't have an answer, just say you don't have an answer

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see what you're trying to do but it's not going to work.

From the article:

Disregarding the security personnel responding quickly, 3-4 other people, armed with guns, walked toward the gunman as soon as he was shot. They were also within 1-3 seconds of responding. The security personnel, perhaps, saved 1-2 more lives by their quick response. But armed citizens were very closely behind them, responding to the shooting.

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.

“Two guns is two guns more than there should be in a place of worship.”

Yeah, tell that to the people who’s lives were saved from a psychotic shooter who could have potentially taken more innocent lives.

Sounds like the Bible needs a few amendments.

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

Always poisoning the well, Surt. Why?

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

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.

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
It's a much more accurate assessment of the situation.

What is wrong with mentioning the good guys with the guns?

The problem there is that loosening up gun control laws also makes guns more accessible to violent criminals, citizens without a prior criminal record with violent intent, and irresponsible gun owners...the very people responsible gun owners and unarmed citizens want more protection from. It just seems like a vicious cycle.

This law didn't make guns more accessible to violent criminals.

Originally posted by Robtard
Always poisoning the well, Surt. Why?

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.

Originally posted by Surtur
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 volunteered. This was a "good guys with a gun". Nothing you have said thus far negates that.

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.

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by Surtur
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.

It's what you're implying if the previous posts.

HurrDuur?

Originally posted by Robtard
It's what you're implying if the previous posts.

Nah.

Originally posted by Robtard
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.

Found another article.

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.

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"?

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.

^Gaslighting.

Originally posted by Surtur
^Gaslighting.

Originally posted by Robtard
Always poisoning the well, Surt. Why?

Originally posted by Robtard

Originally posted by Surtur
^Gaslighting.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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 upholstered 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 ti become a mass shooting. This is a great reason why you should arm and train your populace to safely and properly use guns.

Bingo. It's so weird that they are almost as triggered over a mass shooting being stopped as they are over actual mass shootings.