Klem Wrote:"Unfortunately"... What on earth are you saying Stan?Unfortunately, I failed to say what I meant. :o
'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?
What I intended to say was: Unfortunately, this event fails to support "the idea that citizens are their own best defense."
Klem Wrote: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.
Klem Wrote: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.