Concealed Carry Stops Mass Shooting in Church

[montana]

Well, that is what you often do. This thread is a good example. Good guy kills bad guy, and your emotional reflex is to automatically see it as "good guy stops mass shooting" even though you don't know if a mass shooting had actually been stopped.

And, you completely ignore -- or fail to see -- possibilities that are contrary to your narrative, such as the idea (which even Klem agreed could be the case) that the perp in this incident may have been in the church to intimidate or rob people, and might not have shot anyone if the CCW hadn't drawn his gun.

All joking aside Stan, you once again take the narrative of the anti-gun media and politicians. This reflects the thinking of Saul Alinsky, who wrote ?Rules for Radicals,Never let a good crisis go to waste. If a mad dog goes into a gun free zone and slaughters many people, it proves guns need to be banned or heavily regulated. If a gun man is stopped, "by a good guy with a gun in a crowded place" there is no way to prove it stopped a mass shooting and should be down played and dismissed.https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...GY0m9Hsmi-jjE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJG4MHuuh3g https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmat...hsbxLPJJS7kThe nut job pulled a shotgun out of his coat and pointed it at an elderly man, which triggered the response of the closest member of the security detail. The piece of trash never hesitated and shot him at point blank range and then, "with out hesitation" proceeded to shoot the un-armed man who posed no threat. The evil POS then quickly moved to the front centre of the church, "with the shot gun poised for more shooting" and was quickly terminated by the instructor of the security detail. But from this wisdom, we should accept the possibility the POS was only going to rob and intimidate the people after he,"with out any mercy or hesitation" blasted an un-armed deacon, "who posed no threat to him"???? Your logic follows those of a battered wife, making excuses for her abusive husband.

[stanc]

All joking aside Stan, you once again take the narrative of the anti-gun media and politicians. This reflects the thinking of Saul Alinsky, who wrote ?Rules for Radicals,Never let a good crisis go to waste. If a mad dog goes into a gun free zone and slaughters many people, it proves guns need to be banned or heavily regulated. If a gun man is stopped, "by a good guy with a gun in a crowded place" there is no way to prove it stopped a mass shooting and should be down played and dismissed.

Again you make a false accusation. I have never said that guns should be banned or heavily regulated. Nor did I say that incidents like this should be downplayed and dismissed.

The nut job pulled a shotgun out of his coat and pointed it at an elderly man, which triggered the response of the closes member of the security detail. The piece of trash never hesitated and shot him at point blank range...

Yes. I've addressed that at least twice.

[montana]

Again you make a false accusation. I have never said that guns should be banned or heavily regulated. Nor did I say that incidents like this should be downplayed and dismissed.

No you just keep repeating the anti-gun narrative, "that down plays CCH" while claiming to be pro gun. https://www.theblaze.com/news/columb...aking%20NewsIn In the article, the writer said it's good that Wilson had a gun because he was qualified as a former sheriff's deputy and firearms instructor, but that the ability of other, potentially less-qualified gun owners to carry in church is cause for concern.

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

They were all armed security Stan, and were all parishioners. Yet your first response is too down play the citizens pro second Amendment aspect like the anti's in the articles I posted. As the first nation people would say, you speak with forked tongue.

Yes. I've addressed that at least twice.

Like I stated, the logic of a battered wife!

[FLshooter]

I agree. I don't know how you think that relates to the post of mine you responded to, but I agree with your statement.

Well,it does relate to your post.If you you agree that ?Anytime someone pulls a gun in public,they are a threat to life and must be stopped?.
Then you must acknowledge that the FFL holder who went for his gun also agreed with my statement.Because he died trying to stop him.
That being said.Our conversation is over.
Peace-out

[Double Naught Spy]

If he was there to commit a mass shooting, why did he not start shooting until the CCW drew his weapon? Why didn't he just stand up and empty his gun into the congregation?

If he was there to commit a mass shooting, why -- after shooting the two victims -- did the perp stop shooting and started running away, instead of shooting more churchgoers?


If the CCW had not drawn his weapon, he and the other parishioner might not have been killed.

There is the assumption of logic here that may not be realistic in any way. It could very well be argued based on his actions that he wasn't going to start shooting unless the congregation failed to give him the cash the church had refused him on previous occasions or unless they didn't bend to his demands. He may have been there to kill people, but hadn't fully worked up the nerve to do so, or was having second thoughts before starting. Who knows what was going through his mind?

Why did he turn to run away? I don't know that you and I watched the same video. Looks to me like he simply opening the distance between him and the immediate threats and turning to kill the preacher at whom he attempted to fire. Fortunately, his third shot missed.

Interestingly, the shooting took places on the day of his dead (suicide) brother's birthday. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/ch...-says/2284572/ Relevant? Who knows?

If the security team had not drawn then maybe the two killings may not have occurred. Sure. In the realm of possibilities, that is one possible outcome. In the realm of possibilities, so is mass murder. He threatened the lives of people there. He showed ability (had gun), opportunity (was present within range of gun), and intent (pointed gun at a person). He was a credible lethal threat. Believing he would not hurt anybody ends once he pointed a gun at a person.

[Klem]

Hanging around a gun forum wanting to argue that guns provoked an armed gunman, who was otherwise not going to shoot and only did what he did to defend himself, is fantasy denial that even the Russians would be proud of. They call it 'Maskirovka'; deflect, deny, confuse and mislead...and stick to it stubbornly, even when it's obvious.

• You don't know what he was thinking or intended.
• We know that he pulled the trigger and murdered two people.
• We know that the parishioners tried to defend themselves.
• We know they were entitled to defend themselves using such force that is necessary.

To read anything more into it is wishful thinking related to whatever agenda you want to spruik.

To imply he was the victim, who attended with a gun that could only kill about 5 or more (so he likely never intended mass murder, just normal murder), just trying to defend himself from those trigger-happy parishioners who provoked him, and were responsible for their own demise. Then the poor guy tried to flee to avoid more bloodshed, is the craziest anti-gun spin rhetoric you've ever peddaled on this forum. And everyone else in shock disbelief at such fantastical imaginations think you are open to logical counter-argument.

You would have to be the most stubborn, crafty, anti-gunner I have ever come across. What do you hope to achieve on a pro-gun forum? One or two of us giving up our guns? Sewing the seeds of doubt over the years while pretending to be one of us? I usually don't bother getting into arguments with you but on this occasion you have outdone yourself. Bravo! [clap, clap,. clap].

[lazyengineer]

I call it the 9/11 hijacking rule. Before 9/11, if the plane was hijacked - everyone cooperated, you'd land in Cuba, and be home in a week. After 9/11 - you have no choice but to assume you all are going to die, and fight tooth and nail. If you take a bullet, it means the next guy isn't taking one and maybe he'll be able to do something, because you're all dead anyway otherwise.

Today, a large 2-handed firearm drawn like that with obvious ill intent in a place of innocence; you have to assume it's for the purpose of a mass-murder now. And act accordingly. If it means a bad draw while facing the guy, for the purpose of drawing the fire and attention so that others can respond more effectively, then sucks you drew that card today - so be it; that's what you do. Not to say I expect or demand anyone to do so; but the guy was a real hero in my book, as I suspect he indeed knew how this was going play out.

[FLshooter]

Hanging around a gun forum wanting to argue that guns provoked an armed gunman, who was otherwise not going to shoot and only did what he did to defend himself, is fantasy denial that even the Russians would be proud of. They call it 'Maskirovka'; Do something and then deny you did it, deflect, deny, confuse and mislead...and stick to it stubbornly, even when it's obvious.

• You don't know what he was thinking or intended.
• We know that he pulled the trigger and murdered two people.
• We know that the parishioners tried to defend themselves.
• We know we are entitled to defend ourselves using such force that is necessary.

To read anything more into it is wishful thinking related to whatever agenda you want to spruik.

To imply he was the victim, who attended with a gun that could only kill about 5 or more (so he likely never intended to commit mass murder, just one or two, or four, or more), just trying to defend himself from those murderous parishioners who provoked him and were responsible for their own demise, Then the poor guy tried to flee to avoid more bloodshed, is the craziest anti-gun spin rhetoric you've ever peddaled on this firearm forum. And everyone else who is in shock disbelief at such a fantastical imagination thinks you are open to logical counter-argument.

You would have to be the most stubborn, crafty, anti-gunner I have ever come across. What do you hope to achieve on this forum? One or two of us giving up our guns? Sewing the seeds of doubt over the years while pretending to be one of us? I usually don't bother getting into an argument with you but on this occasion you have outdone yourself. Bravo! [clap, clap,. clap].

I have wasted time and gotten myself unnecessarily frustrated having discussions w/anti gunners.They never get it.
For those who understand no explanation is necessary.For those who do not understand,no explanation is possible.

[grayfox]

"Let's roll!"
Amen to Klem.
And Lze, FLs, Dns, et al.
Stan when you go on like this, it makes me want to just ignore you and continue to think about the sobering aspects all the rest are honestly discussing. There is a lot to learn here and I for one for not want one person to distract from that.
This is indeed a sobering event... the guy who drew his fire could, for all we know, have decided to do it in a split second in order to save others. I will give him that heroic action and refuse to give any decency or "benefit of doubt" - intent or otherwise - to the perp.
No one forced the perp to find/procure a shotgun, to go there, to use a disguise, to take that shotgun into church-- he alone bears responsibility for his actions, he created his own internal rage or whatever motivation he used, he created that untenable confrontation. It doesn't matter to me what gun he chose to use. He was a perp, and he had only unjustifiable, evil intent to do life-taking harm. No, I will give him no cover. No sir.

[PNWTargets]

Hold up. Do we have members on this forum that do not support the second amendment?!

[LR1955]

Hold up. Do we have members on this forum that do not support the second amendment?!

Guys:

This is exactly what Stan wants -- an endless argument.

Also, I absolutely refuse to allow a witch hunt on this forum and that is precisely how this will turn out if it is allowed to start.

LR55

[PNWTargets]

In other news Soleimani is dead.

[stanc]

Well,it does relate to your post.If you you agree that "Anytime someone pulls a gun in public,they are a threat to life and must be stopped."
Then you must acknowledge that the FFL holder who went for his gun also agreed with my statement.

Yes, that seems likely.

There is the assumption of logic here that may not be realistic in any way. It could very well be argued based on his actions that he wasn't going to start shooting unless the congregation failed to give him the cash the church had refused him on previous occasions or unless they didn't bend to his demands. He may have been there to kill people, but hadn't fully worked up the nerve to do so, or was having second thoughts before starting. Who knows what was going through his mind?

None of us know what was going through his mind. What we do know is that he did not start shooting until he was faced with a lethal threat to his life.

Why did he turn to run away? I don't know that you and I watched the same video. Looks to me like he simply opening the distance between him and the immediate threats and turning to kill the preacher at whom he attempted to fire. Fortunately, his third shot missed.

What third shot of his? There were only three shots in total that are heard in the video: Two by the gunman, and one by the security guard.

If the security team had not drawn then maybe the two killings may not have occurred. Sure. In the realm of possibilities, that is one possible outcome. In the realm of possibilities, so is mass murder. He threatened the lives of people there. He showed ability (had gun), opportunity (was present within range of gun), and intent (pointed gun at a person).

Pointing a gun at a person does not prove intent to commit murder. We do not know what his intent was when he first produced the shotgun.

• You don't know what he was thinking or intended.
• We know that he pulled the trigger and murdered two people.
• We know that the parishioners tried to defend themselves.
• We know they were entitled to defend themselves using such force that is necessary.

We also know that he did not start shooting until he was faced with a lethal threat to his life.

To imply he was the victim...

I implied no such thing.

You would have to be the most stubborn, crafty, anti-gunner I have ever come across.

Yes, I'm such a crafty, dedicated anti-gunner that in order to deceive people into thinking I'm pro-gun, I spent over a quarter-century writing articles like this: https://www.tactical-life.com/firear...-grendel-65mm/

I call it the 9/11 hijacking rule. Before 9/11, if the plane was hijacked - everyone cooperated, you'd land in Cuba, and be home in a week. After 9/11 - you have no choice but to assume you all are going to die, and fight tooth and nail. If you take a bullet, it means the next guy isn't taking one and maybe he'll be able to do something, because you're all dead anyway otherwise.

Today, a large 2-handed firearm drawn like that with obvious ill intent in a place of innocence; you have to assume it's for the purpose of a mass-murder now. And act accordingly. If it means a bad draw while facing the guy, for the purpose of drawing the fire and attention so that others can respond more effectively, then sucks you drew that card today - so be it; that's what you do. Not to say I expect or demand anyone to do so; but the guy was a real hero in my book, as I suspect he indeed knew how this was going play out.

I agree with you, for the most part. However, typically in church shootings, the gunman does not come in and sit through a sermon, then talk to people and hold one at gunpoint before getting around to shooting the congregation. Instead they walk in and start blasting away. In this case, the gunman did not start shooting until the CCW drew his weapon and became a threat to the gunman.

IMO, it was foolish of the CCW to draw when he did. He had zero chance of success, and accomplished nothing but get himself (and the other parishioner) killed. Better to have waited until the gunman's attention was diverted, enabling the CCW to engage.

Guys: This is exactly what Stan wants -- an endless argument.

Actually, I don't. I regret allowing myself to get drawn into these arguments.

[grayfox]

re: Sulemanni. That is the language they understand. Breaka you face.

[JASmith]

Stan — you continue to prove my point by endless argument about what happened. Trying to apologize for the clearly illegal and life-threatening actions of the perp does no one any good.

Further, it seems that your only motivation for these absurd claims is to draw attention but you seem to have no interest in exhibiting genuine give and take until you are close to being banned again, again, and again . . .