More than 20 dead from Texas church shooting

Why weren't good guys with guns able to stop this bad guy with a gun?

in Texas? wrote:

Why weren't good guys with guns able to stop this bad guy with a gun?

Must be a liberal church.

Just another day in the mass shooting capital of the world!

vivalarepublica wrote:

Just another day in the mass shooting capital of the world!

Likely a Mexican drug cartel guy with a stolen SSN who should have been deported, but instead obtained guns via Fast and Furious.

DRINK FUCK FIGHT wrote:

in Texas? wrote:

Why weren't good guys with guns able to stop this bad guy with a gun?

The POS was killed by a good guy with a gun. But please don’t let that detail stop you from dancing on the graves of the victims. It is what you evil libbbtwats are known for, and that is why America is disgusted by you?

Ok, so when a gun nut says that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, I should interpret that to mean "a good guy with a gun an stop a bad guy with a gun after the bad guy with a gun has killed 20+ people"? That caveat tends to get left out of the argument. In fact, the implication of the argument seems to be that good guys with guns can basically eliminate the threat posed by bad guys with guns, and when you add the above mentioned caveat, the whole argument kind of becomes invalid, doesn't it?

Also, did you really select a user name that sets off the LR censors just to try to prevent people from actually responding to your posts? LOL.

... meanwhile, pretty much everyone in every other civilised country in the world just shakes their head and ... non-Americans simlpy cannot begin to get their heads around your crazy gun laws.

I'm going to say that 20 dead is better than 40

bloodsport wrote:

in Texas? wrote:

Ok, so when a gun nut says that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, I should interpret that to mean "a good guy with a gun an stop a bad guy with a gun after the bad guy with a gun has killed 20+ people"? That caveat tends to get left out of the argument. In fact, the implication of the argument seems to be that good guys with guns can basically eliminate the threat posed by bad guys with guns, and when you add the above mentioned caveat, the whole argument kind of becomes invalid, doesn't it?

Also, did you really select a user name that sets off the LR censors just to try to prevent people from actually responding to your posts? LOL.

I'm going to say that 20 dead is better than 40

You think the guy would have killed 40 people if no one (including him) had guns?

in Texas? wrote:

bloodsport wrote:

I'm going to say that 20 dead is better than 40

You think the guy would have killed 40 people if no one (including him) had guns?

Are you saying that 20 was absolutely the most the guy could have killed?

bloodsport wrote:

in Texas? wrote:

You think the guy would have killed 40 people if no one (including him) had guns?

Are you saying that 20 was absolutely the most the guy could have killed?

No. I am saying that the idea that free access to guns improves safety is nonsensical. When good guys and bad guys all have guns, a bad guy can kill 20 people before he's stopped. If the good guys and bad guys all didn't have access to guns, fewer than 20 people would have been killed.

Was anyone heard yelling Allahu Akbhar?

in Texas? wrote:

bloodsport wrote:

Are you saying that 20 was absolutely the most the guy could have killed?

No. I am saying that the idea that free access to guns improves safety is nonsensical. When good guys and bad guys all have guns, a bad guy can kill 20 people before he's stopped. If the good guys and bad guys all didn't have access to guns, fewer than 20 people would have been killed.

and I'm saying the people who are not dead are pretty happy the good guy had a gun...if you want to say that he should have prevented the shooting then I guess you win

Apparently the good guys with guns failed to show. Suspect reportedly shot himself.

There'll be outrage for a minute and then it will be back to business as usual.

HereWeGoAgain. wrote:

Apparently the good guys with guns failed to show. Suspect reportedly shot himself.

There'll be outrage for a minute and then it will be back to business as usual.

If you want to change gun laws, you should aim to pull off successful shootings in rural conservative places. Maybe then they will get the message.

HereWeGoAgain. wrote:

Apparently the good guys with guns failed to show. Suspect reportedly shot himself.

There'll be outrage for a minute and then it will be back to business as usual.

This is entirely dependent upon whether the chap is identified as a terrorist....particularly one leaning towards Islam.

If he's a middle aged white guy, probably a shrug of the shoulders and "well...it happens".

in Texas? wrote:

bloodsport wrote:

Are you saying that 20 was absolutely the most the guy could have killed?

No. I am saying that the idea that free access to guns improves safety is nonsensical. When good guys and bad guys all have guns, a bad guy can kill 20 people before he's stopped. If the good guys and bad guys all didn't have access to guns, fewer than 20 people would have been killed.

Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh? If a psycho wants to kill, they will find the means. That truck attack in France killed 70 with a single vehicle.

DRINK FUC FIGHT wrote:

in Texas? wrote:

Why weren't good guys with guns able to stop this bad guy with a gun?

The POS was killed by a good guy with a gun. But please don’t let that detail stop you from dancing on the graves of the victims. It is what you evil libbbtwats are known for, and that is why America is disgusted by you?

But confusing. He killed himself - so, was he a POS or the good guy? Did he need more guns so he could have killed himself sooner?

More Americans killing Americans with guns, yup, please never change your gun laws. I agree with the hard right, there’s no problem to see, move along.. Keep up the good work gun people!

More Americans killing Americans with guns

No proof the shooter was American, yet.