Concealed Carry Stops Mass Shooting in Church

[stanc]

Stan, We all agree that you are entitled to your opinion.

On the other hand, you seem to live in a different world than the rest of us.

Nah. Same world, Joe. I just think differently than most folks. I analyze things logically instead of giving knee-jerk, emotional reactions.

The video shows the perp with shotgun out and pointed a the parishioner, who then went into the crouch position anfd then the first shot broke.

Your description is inaccurate. The perp pulled out his shotgun and pointed it at the apparently unarmed parishioner. At that moment, an armed security guard who was sitting a few feet away, stood up and drew his pistol. Before he could bring it to bear on the target, he was shot.

There is no way one can validly claim from that video that the CCW holder initiated the exchange.

That's different than what I said.

We do not know what would have happened if the CCW had not drawn his weapon.

I think we can at least agree it would have been a situation of deprivation of liberty with explicit or implied threats of violence. In hindsight we also know the perp had no moral self-restraint. These parishioners had previously agreed they were not going to be intimidated or threatened and defending themselves with equal force is their strategy. They were exercising their right to self defense and dignity. A tragic result when exercising a human right does not make exercising it, wrong.

Do you not consider it wrong to needlessly get oneself and another innocent person killed?

From what I'm seeing about the story, the CCW may actually have triggered the shooting. The act of drawing his pistol escalated the situation and made him a threat to the gunman, whose original intent may have been robbery or intimidation, not murder.

Yes, it might have ended without tragedy if the first victim had not gone for his gun. Or it might have been a calculated bloodbath like the recent Christchurch mosque shooting (where all the victims were unarmed). Which one?

I'd say more likely the former than the latter, all things considered.

- The perp did not start shooting until the CCW drew his weapon and became a lethal threat to the gunman.
- After shooting the two victims, the perp stopped shooting and started running away, instead of shooting more churchgoers.
- The perp had a shotgun with a 4-round or maybe 5-round magazine, and I've seen no reports that he had any spare ammo.

If, as you imply the congregation brought it on themselves by attending church with firearms...

I implied no such thing, and it's dishonest of you to say that I did.

If nobody except the perp knows what he will do, or not do with his gun you can't blame the victims for assuming the worst and/or exercising their right to self-defense.

Regardless of how a victim reacts, they are never to blame.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions, including victims.

Stop blaming the victims to suit an anti-gun narrative

Stop falsely accusing me of saying things that I didn't say. I have not blamed the victims to suit an anti-gun narrative.

Stan, On a related matter, I don't appreciate your anti-gun rhetoric on this forum. You have gone to some effort over the years to conceal it but it leaks out and in this discussion is obvious.

I have never engaged in anti-gun rhetoric. For some unfathomable reason, you habitually misperceive or misconstrue my remarks. If I say A + B = C, you invariably see it as D - E = F.

Except for the point that what I have read on it, the defender did not necessarily wear a uniform. Not that it makes any difference one way or the other.

I agree. I used the phrase "uniformed security guard" solely to describe the individual. I did not say that wearing a uniform made the thread title invalid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJG4MHuu...ploademail Pretty well sums it up.

Doesn't exaggerate much, does he.

...the church member saved over 200 lives by using his personal handgun to shoot and kill the killer...