Concealed Carry Stops Mass Shooting in Church

[montana]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...hurch-shooter/ https://globalnews.ca/video/6346360/...urch-shooting/

[Plainsman]

Naturally, this won't get any mention in the MSM. It conflicts with their agenda. Breitbart and a very few other outlets have done us a great service by getting this out there where it can be seen. I wish lots more people could see it. And learn.

[FLshooter]

I love a story with a happy ending.

[phishfood]

Nothing happy about that, but at least it wasn't as sad as it could have been.

So thankful that the good guy was there and prepared, and so sorry that he will have to deal with the aftermath.







And to the vermin scum who want to disarm us, and poo poo the idea that citizens are their own best defense, suck it, sit down, and hush your silly mouth.

[stanc]

Naturally, this won't get any mention in the MSM. It conflicts with their agenda. Breitbart and a very few other outlets have done us a great service by getting this out there where it can be seen. I wish lots more people could see it. And learn.

Actually, the story got good coverage in the MSM, so "lots more people" did see it.

Earlier I happened to watch ABC World News Tonight, where it was the lead story.

- ABC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IKbgO9qnLs
- CBS - https://youtu.be/J67MMTqcyAo?t=41
- NBC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMaii-BJzGg

Nothing happy about that, but at least it wasn't as sad as it could have been.

So thankful that the good guy was there and prepared, and so sorry that he will have to deal with the aftermath.

And to the vermin scum who want to disarm us, and poo poo the idea that citizens are their own best defense, suck it, sit down, and hush your silly mouth.

Unfortunately, this event fails to support "the idea that citizens are their own best defense."

None of the armed parishioners were effective, all but one drawing their weapons too late.

And the first parishioner who drew his pistol was also the first person shot by the attacker.

It was a uniformed security guard -- not a CCW citizen -- who shot and killed the attacker.

[Klem]

Unfortunately, this event fails to "poo poo the idea that citizens are their own best defense."

None of the armed parishioners were effective, all but one drawing their weapons too late.

And the first parishioner who drew his pistol was also the first person shot by the attacker.

It was a uniformed security guard -- not a CCW citizen -- who shot and killed the attacker.

"Unfortunately"... What on earth are you saying Stan?

'Unfortunately' means you would prefer if the incident 'poo poo'd' [was critical of?] the idea of armed self-defence. Have I read you correctly? You do know this is a gun forum?

Here is the video of the event. Give the parishioners a break, please. They are not Tier-One operators but mature-age, kind-hearted folk. Plus they are praying in a church for goodness sake; not poised in a trench for the whistle to blow. They are obligated by context to give this guy the benefit of the doubt until it is frankly too late. They can't act until he shows his hand. It's always a case of initiative; the bad guy starts with it, and the victims need to think and react.

No, to my mind they were very effective in regaining the initiative; in the circumstances they were lightning fast.

0.07 He reveals the gun.
0.10 He shoulders the gun.
0.11 He fires the first shot.
0.12 He fires the second shot.
0.13 He is shot.

Why don't you get out to the range with a PACT timer and see how you go. Start sitting with your eyes open, then start with your eyes closed. Make sure your gun is holstered under a jacket. Then shoot from 20 metres standing with hostages in between. It would help if the target was robotic and moving. Then start on his first shot...The guy or girl who shot him was very effective.

I get what you are saying; that it is 'unfortunate' that we are permitted to carry weapons for self-defence and choose to do so, but it is also unfortunate people like you want to dissuade us from doing so.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9N4df_1577655564

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

The Armed Citizen - American Rifleman
< https://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen/ >

[stanc]

"Unfortunately"... What on earth are you saying Stan?

'Unfortunately' means you would prefer if the incident 'poo poo'd' [dissuaded?] the idea of armed self-defence. Have I read you correctly? You do know this is a gun forum?

Unfortunately, I failed to say what I meant.

What I intended to say was: Unfortunately, this event fails to support "the idea that citizens are their own best defense."

Give the parishioners a break, please. They are not Tier-One operators but mature-age, kind-hearted folk. Plus they are praying in a church for goodness sake; not poised in a trench for the whistle to blow. They are obligated by context to give this guy the benefit of the doubt until it is frankly too late. No, to my mind they were very effective in regaining the initiative; lighting fast - very impressive.

I can't imagine how, to your mind, the parishioners were at all effective, let alone "lighting fast" and "very impressive."

The first victim was so slow and casual in drawing his pistol, he was easily shot and killed by the gunman.

And none of the other armed parishioners even began to respond until after the gunman was already dead.

What is 'unfortunate' is that we have to carry weapons for self-defence, and unfortunate people like you try to dissuade us from doing so.

I'm in no way trying to dissuade anyone from going armed. I'm merely noting that this event does not show what the OP and others claim.

Concealed carry parishioners did not neutralize the threat. An armed security guard did.

[Klem]

Why do the clothes the person who shot the assailant make any difference to your pro, or anti-gun argument?

What do you think the OP is saying? - He hasn't posted a single word.

What on earth are you trying to say?

[montana]

Unfortunately, this event fails to support "the idea that citizens are their own best defense."

None of the armed parishioners were effective, all but one drawing their weapons too late.

And the first parishioner who drew his pistol was also the first person shot by the attacker.

It was a uniformed security guard -- not a CCW citizen -- who shot and killed the attacker.

I can't imagine how, to your mind, the parishioners were at all effective, let alone "lighting fast" and "very impressive."

The first victim was so slow and casual in drawing his pistol, he was easily shot and killed by the gunman.

The murderer was stopped by a citizen with a firearm Stan, security guards are citizens. From what I counted, "there were 4 more armed parishioners" ready to engage. If no parishioners had been armed, "then this could have easily been another mass murder" played out too many times in gun free zones pushed upon us by your democrat friends you endorse. The first victim, "you criticized for a poor draw" was looking down the barrel of a shotgun" and yet continued to engage. He created precious time for the security guard, "who also drew his weapon very slowly" to be able to neutralize the shooter. I counted almost 4 seconds, "for the security guard to draw his hand gun" after he saw the shot gun. If the security guard had failed, there were others ready to engage. Yet you claim this event fails to support the idea that citizens are their own best defence???? Stan, having a detailed body guard 24/7, "like anti gun Bloomberg allows only for himself" would be the best defence. Better yet, "having the secret service protect us like anti gun Hillary Clinton has" would be the best defence. Unfortunately in the real world, "with out unicorns and care bears for us common folk" the best defence is having the right to arm our selves.

[BluntForceTrauma]

RIP the good citizens murdered in cold blood.

This incident speaks these lessons to me:

1) It's good to be a good shot. The security guard made a head killshot from, wow, how far away? Looks like about 15 yards to me. Practice for accuracy!

2) Carry concealed at all times and places.

3) It is very difficult to know what to do in the moment. Cut these people some slack.

If situational and tactical awareness can be learned and practiced, it should be.

The perp pulled a shotgun from under his cloak and pointed it at a citizen's belly at close range. The citizen chose to draw on him and got shot. Mistake? Technically, speaking, yes, I suppose. But which of us knows the "right" thing to do in that situation? Maybe he should have fell to the floor and feigned groveling to buy himself some time until the gunman was distracted. The lesson here is train oneself to be alert and tactically minded.

I don't think any criticism is warranted against average citizens taken by surprise in a nightmare scenario, and I certainly don't think it means concealed carry is a poor idea. If the security guard hadn't made such a perfect shot, the other citizens moving into position would have opened fire. Whole thing would've been a lot messier, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have brought their weapons to church.

[montana]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-chu...freeway-church More information on the church security detail.https://www.dailywire.com/news/texas...ampaign=pepple

[stanc]

The murderer was stopped by a citizen with a firearm Stan, security guards are citizens.

True, but the premise of the thread is that "Concealed Carry Stops Mass Shooting," not that having a security guard does.

From what I counted, "there were 4 more armed parishioners" ready to engage.

The trouble is, they did not have gun in hand and ready to engage until after the gunman was lying dead on the floor.

If no parishioners had been armed, "then this could have easily been another mass murder" played out too many times in gun free zones pushed upon us by your democrat friends you endorse.

1. It was the armed guard -- not the concealed carry parishioners -- who stopped a likely mass murder.

2. AFAIK, I do not have any friends who are Democrats. And I have not ever endorsed any Democrats.

The first victim, "you criticized for a poor draw" was looking down the barrel of a shotgun" and yet continued to engage.

No, he did not engage. He was killed before he could fire a shot.

He created precious time for the security guard, "who also drew his weapon very slowly" to be able to neutralize the shooter. I counted almost 4 seconds, "for the security guard to draw his hand gun" after he saw the shot gun. If the security guard had failed, there were others ready to engage. Yet you claim this event fails to support the idea that citizens are their own best defence????

Yes. If there had been no security guard present, the gunman could easily have emptied his SBS into the congregation by the time that any of the CCW parishioners were ready to engage him.

What the incident does support is the employment of armed security guards at such gatherings.

Stan, having a detailed body guard 24/7, "like anti gun Bloomberg allows only for himself" would be the best defence.

You just contradicted yourself.

Better yet, "having the secret service protect us like anti gun Hillary Clinton has" would be the best defence. Unfortunately in the real world, "with out unicorns and care bears for us common folk" the best defence is having the right to arm our selves.

I'm wholeheartedly in favor of being able to be armed, but as this incident shows, just having a gun is not enough.

[stanc]

RIP the good citizens murdered in cold blood.

This incident speaks these lessons to me:

1) It's good to be a good shot. The security guard made a head killshot from, wow, how far away? Looks like about 15 yards to me. Practice for accuracy!

2) Carry concealed at all times and places.

3) It is very difficult to know what to do in the moment. Cut these people some slack.

If situational and tactical awareness can be learned and practiced, it should be.

The perp pulled a shotgun from under his cloak and pointed it at a citizen's belly at close range. The citizen chose to draw on him and got shot. Mistake? Technically, speaking, yes, I suppose. But which of us knows the "right" thing to do in that situation? Maybe he should have fell to the floor and feigned groveling to buy himself some time until the gunman was distracted. The lesson here is train oneself to be alert and tactically minded.

I don't think any criticism is warranted against average citizens taken by surprise in a nightmare scenario, and I certainly don't think it means concealed carry is a poor idea. If the security guard hadn't made such a perfect shot, the other citizens moving into position would have opened fire. Whole thing would've been a lot messier, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have brought their weapons to church.

I pretty much agree with all of that. But, you and Klem seem to have read something into my posts that isn't there. I never criticized any of the church folks for not performing better -- let alone like "Tier-One operators" -- in such a nightmare scenario.

[BluntForceTrauma]

A self-defense trainer's perspective on the incident. VIDEO HERE.