Perfect scenario good guy with gun vs bad guy with gun. What happened?

[HomerJS]

Who said he was done shooting people? From what I’ve read, his intent was to go after his ex-wife and her family. He supposedly targeted the church since that is where they normally attended. If he hadn’t been shot and followed, I would say there was a high likelihood the killing was not over. Most mass shooters don’t stop until they are confronted.

- Merg

Because he left church voluntarily he wasn't forced out.

 

[HomerJS]

History and statistics show that mass shooters only stop once confronted. So, if he hadn’t been shot and followed, it is very likely there would have been more shot.

So, yes, it is speculation on my part that he would shoot others, but so is yours that I am a Trump supporter. Why don’t you try sticking to the conversation on hand (pun intended)?

- Merg

Do you want to speculate on the "hundreds" of people who would have been killed in a congregation of 50??

 

[The Merg]

Because he left church voluntarily he wasn't forced out.

Correct, he left the church because his target was not there.

Let me ask you this... After he left the church, what do you think he was going to do next? Head down to the local bar and grab a beer to relax after a hard day?

- Merg

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Actually, he was stopped when he put a bullet in his own head.

No, he was killed when he put a bullet through his head and he was laying in his SUV wounded twice by the NRA instructor that stopped him.

 

[The Merg]

Do you want to speculate on the "hundreds" of people who would have been killed in a congregation of 50??

That’s a stupid question. I never said that “hundreds” were saved. But it is reasonable to speculate that he would have continued to kill people if he had not been confronted in some way.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not on the side that everyone should be armed and everything will be safer then. However, a “good guy” with a gun in the right place at the right time can be beneficial at times. In this case, it’s a shame that the neighbor only got there when the guy was leaving the church, but there’s a good chance he prevented further bloodshed elsewhere.

- Merg

 

[imported_tajmahal]

They didn't stop him you moron. They tracked him and called police.

Bad as Trump. Fucking lie every other sentence. Hey Donnie Jr. I guess he was stopped from killing hundreds of people when the congregation was around 50.

He shot him twice you liar and followed him, never losing sight of the killer until the killer shot himself.

 

[HomerJS]

That’s a stupid question. I never said that “hundreds” were saved. But it is reasonable to speculate that he would have continued to kill people if he had not been confronted in some way.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not on the side that everyone should be armed and everything will be safer then. However, a “good guy” with a gun in the right place at the right time can be beneficial at times. In this case, it’s a shame that the neighbor only got there when the guy was leaving the church, but there’s a good chance he prevented further bloodshed elsewhere.

- Merg

Trump made that claim

 

[The Merg]

Trump made that claim

I don’t normally pay attention to what he says. My neck starts to hurt from all the head shaking.

- Merg

 

[HomerJS]

He shot him twice you liar and followed him, never losing sight of the killer until the killer shot himself.

Key phrase "shot himself" You don't get to claim having sex with women from jerking off.

 

[The Merg]

Key phrase "shot himself" You don't get to claim having sex with women from jerking off.

I’ll disagree with you here… Not about having sex with women, but…

If confronting the shooter causes the shooter to kill himself as opposed to going and shooting other people, I would think that would be seen as stopping the shooter. The citizen might not have fired the kill shot, but he helped stop any further violence.

- Merg

 

[brandonbull]

Since apparently waiting for actual facts is too hard for some zinfuckheads....

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/07/inside-the-texas-church-she-thought-it-was-her-turn-to-die-then-outside-a-man-appeared/


The crow some of you LYING, idiot, make up shit, agenda blinded nitwits are eating. Couldn't even wait a day before making up shit.

And to try to discredit this guy!

This is why I and many other people don't trust any of you leftloons on the gun debate. Your agendas ALWAYS trump facts.

How you assholes like your crow? Raw I hope.

I'm sure zin and the rest of Team Banana will call that lies, accuse you of being a racist Russian troll and that they know the truth.

 

[werepossum]

And you called me the idiot. When you allow everyone to carry weapons, and then ban them in church, the church becomes a canned hunt. Stupid church banned guns knowing they were leaving the congregation defenseless. Oops.

That's a valid point - sort of a reverse "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king". Reminds me of the Florida tourist shooting epidemic a few years back; when asked why they targeted tourists, the arrested criminals invariably responded "because they have money and they don't have guns".

As to the OP's point, I recommend a hat. A Walmart is about the worst possible scenario for self defense, and literally everyone knows this.

 

[werepossum]

Moot point because neither are a good idea or even remotely possible. Until both sides acknowledge that fact and stop making ridiculous claims and arguments we won't make any progress on this problem.

More guns statistically equals more accidents and even intentional misuse, but almost all guns in this country (99%+) are used safely and never hurt anything more than a tin can, paper target or a deer. We could do a better job with our "instant" background checks, and much more has to be done to identify violent individuals, especially those who commit domestic violence, and strip them of their gun ownership rights. We also need to care for our fellow man and stop letting those with mental illness fall through the cracks. There is no easy answer to reducing violence in our society.

All those gun owners in that Walmart who took up defensive position were smart as heck. They were ready to defend themselves and others had the shooter come their way. Tough cookies if that slowed the cop's investigation down a bit. Not dying > making it easy to identify shooter.

Damned well said.

 

[Zaap]

And once more, THIS bullshit is why the left loses by default the gun debate.

Multiple pricks right here in this thread, caught red handed, outright lying about what happened because pushing an agenda is more important than facts that go against it.

You can tell that certain leftloon assholes here absolutely HATE... I mean HATE the fact a guy with a gun showed up and chased the shooter off.

What kind of DEPRAVED ASSHOLE NITWIT not only hates that that happened instead of more carnage so they can politicize it, but then actively LIES about it happening and tries to discredit it? Only a soulless loonbag.

And yet watch the same assholes just keep right on lying, despite eye witnesses saying what really happened and not 'the shooter was finished! He just left! No guy with a gun was any help at all!'

Not even enough guts among the lot of anti-gun nitwits to admit they called this one wrong and own up. Just more spin and lies and 'oh I wish more had died so I can point fingers and whine about it like I give two shits other than my agenda!'


What an obvious bunch of soulless shitbags. Keep lying, lefttwits. This and thibgs like it is why you lose this entire debate.

 

[bshole]

If only SlowSpyder had been there, a hero

Actually I do have the same question posed by the OP but with regards to the church shooting. Do people not carry their weapons into the church? Seems like in Texas the entire congregation could have returned fire. Maybe we'll learn that they did.

You are in a church worshiping God and he just sits back and lets you get slaughtered? If he really wanted you to worship him, the absolute least he could do is protect you while you are doing it.

 

[BigDH01]

And once more, THIS bullshit is why the left loses by default the gun debate.

Multiple pricks right here in this thread, caught red handed, outright lying about what happened because pushing an agenda is more important than facts that go against it.

You can tell that certain leftloon assholes here absolutely HATE... I mean HATE the fact a guy with a gun showed up and chased the shooter off.

What kind of DEPRAVED ASSHOLE NITWIT not only hates that that happened instead of more carnage so they can politicize it, but then actively LIES about it happening and tries to discredit it? Only a soulless loonbag.

And yet watch the same assholes just keep right on lying, despite eye witnesses saying what really happened and not 'the shooter was finished! He just left! No guy with a gun was any help at all!'

Not even enough guts among the lot of anti-gun nitwits to admit they called this one wrong and own up. Just more spin and lies and 'oh I wish more had died so I can point fingers and whine about it like I give two shits other than my agenda!'


What an obvious bunch of soulless shitbags. Keep lying, lefttwits. This and thibgs like it is why you lose this entire debate.

You know, from the opposite side it looks like the right is thrilled about guns and shooters because an active shooter was stopped by someone with a gun... ignoring the 26 people that had already been killed and pretending like this is a huge success for guns.

So while you say the left wanted more carnage, the left would say the right is ignoring the 26 dead bodies and pretending like this wasn't already a tragedy.

So, keep lying rightwit?

 

[HomerJS]

I’ll disagree with you here… Not about having sex with women, but…

If confronting the shooter causes the shooter to kill himself as opposed to going and shooting other people, I would think that would be seen as stopping the shooter. The citizen might not have fired the kill shot, but he helped stop any further violence.

- Merg

That would be a guess. People have claimed he went back to the car for other weapons. He could have easily returned fire after being shot.

Point is neither of us know. However you can not presume facts not in evidence just to fulfill a narrative.

 

[The Merg]

That would be a guess. People have claimed he went back to the car for other weapons. He could have easily returned fire after being shot.

Point is neither of us know. However you can not presume facts not in evidence just to fulfill a narrative.

I think you are missing my point. History shows that almost all mass shooters only stop once they are confronted. Most do not actually shoot it out, but if confronted will usually do suicide by cop or commit suicide.

The fact that he left the church is no indication that he was done. The fact that he had additional firearms in his car would indicate that he planned to do more.

But, you are right. We don’t know what he would have done. However, we can look at historical events to get an idea of what he might have done.

We do know that his ex-wife and ex-in-laws appeared to have been his target and that he did not get his target at the church. Is it unreasonable to think he would have continued to go and search them out? I don’t think so.

- Merg

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Is it unreasonable to think he would have continued to go and search them out? I don’t think so.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume anything about someone willing to murder dozens of people, as I don't (and hopefully you don't) think like them. We're talking about someone who's got something broken in their brain, in some form or fashion. He may have been just as likely to squat in the road and take a shit as seek out someone else to shoot at. Making any assumptions about what he would or would not do after the point at which he got shot, or shot himself, is just navel-gazing.

 

[soulcougher73]

Isn't everyone a "good guy" with a gun..until they do this? Then they are the "bad guy" with a gun.

 

[Paladin3]

Isn't everyone a "good guy" with a gun..until they do this? Then they are the "bad guy" with a gun.

That's what sucks and rocks at the same time about a free society, we only punish citizens and take away their right to own firearms AFTER they've done something to legally justify doing so. It makes it harder to preempt every violent crime, but it doesn't unfairly punish citizens without due process. So how much freedom do we want to sacrifice for perceived safety?

Better we should do our best to identify/help/stop the mentally ill and criminally violent before they go on shooting sprees. So long as we don't violate citizen's rights to due process along the way that's about all we can do unless you get the political and popular support for gun confiscation.

 

[bradly1101]

In the case of Vegas I saw on the news that many people at the concert were armed, but when interviewed they said that they were afraid to be seen as the shooter if they pulled their weapon out. I wonder if that also happened at Walmart.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume anything about someone willing to murder dozens of people, as I don't (and hopefully you don't) think like them. We're talking about someone who's got something broken in their brain, in some form or fashion. He may have been just as likely to squat in the road and take a shit as seek out someone else to shoot at. Making any assumptions about what he would or would not do after the point at which he got shot, or shot himself, is just navel-gazing.

You mean until someone stopped him. A good thing someone did.

 

[bradly1101]

the church becomes a canned hunt.

We live in such a great country.

 

[bradly1101]

That's what sucks and rocks at the same time about a free society, we only punish citizens and take away their right to own firearms...

I don't choose to ignore the obviously important first clause in the sentence that makes up the 2nd amendment. I know I'm stepping on the toes of "settled law," but I'd crush those toes if I could. The question I have is, why did the majority on the Supreme Court choose to ignore it?