security guard =/= good guy with a gun.

Are you implying that the average gun owner has firearm training and can handle situations under pressure like say... a law enforcement officer? If that's what you're saying, then I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but most of my gun owning friends are absolutely the type that think they would be John Wick in a situation like that but would fold worse than a wet napkin in the wind. And this story will get plenty of coverage cuz schmucks like you will beat this story into the ground about how good guys with guns are at the ready at all times. And FYI I myself own a weapon(Sig P320 compact) so I'm not exactly against gun ownership. I just have a distaste for people like you who think gun owners are inherently good and righteous.

Ah yes, give every man, woman, and child in the country a gun. Sounds like a great plan.

Fox News made sure the news got out. Gun control is the notion that we can discourage wolves from eating sheep by eliminating sheepdogs. Today, the sheepdogs were there. If Bloomberg and those like him get their way...

Whatever happened to not using these tragedies to push a political agenda? Or does that only apply when [i]pro[/i]-gun control people do it? When it’s anti-gun control it’s fine?

I wish I could write this as a universal reply to almost anyone who's posted here, because too much energy has been spent trying to turn people from one side to the other. But here goes. When speaking about a sensitive topic like this one, especially in American politics, there usually emerge two distinct sides, and every person usually fits into one side or the other. But never both. And never neither. Choosing neither side brands one apathetic, while choosing both brands one a pacifist. So this continues, both sides throwing insults and both raising decent points, but without anyone willing to step into the middle ground, or propose something different. That's what's been happening in this thread. Nothing gets done in this manner, nothing gets done by playing war with politics. By saying "My side is good and your side is bad". I hope we can all see that, and thus recognize that the next step is to find a way to speak without sides. Something we can all agree on, regardless of side. Nothing concrete, maybe just an idea, from which we can all pitch in to build something real, rather than continuously tearing each other down. So the idea I'm proposing is that, when it comes to tragedy, it is more desirable to prevent the tragedy than treat it. To learn how to stop bad things from happening at all, rather than assuming they will happen and learning how to best treat the aftermath. Adoption of this concept is why so many diseases have been eradicated: we focused on preventing them altogether, and we made vaccines. A 'good guy with a gun' might be, in some situations, a good way to treat a shooting as it's happening, but I'm saying I want something better. I want to find a way to stop them from happening, at least to scale them back. Because preventing the disease across the board is a more long-term solution than treating each case. [spoiler]I can already see you typing, saying I must actually be on the [anti-] gun-control side, since I said something that vaguely resembles 'good guy with gun is [not] bad'. I'm sorry, but that is not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that we shouldn't stop here. I'm proposing an idea that might help us find common ground, and I'm saying that we shouldn't do nothing. And if we can't agree on that, is there anything we can agree on? [/spoiler]

False dichotomy. As usual.

I think I might have to rethink my position on this topic.

I am absolutely terrified of some dude who has put maybe 50 rounds down range over 10 years deciding to be the big man. I am all for good guys with guns, but I want it to be good guys with guns [b][i][u]AND[/u][/i][/b] training! Honestly, those classes are exhilarating. They also really make your realize how little training & unprepared you are by just "owning" a firearm. I won't say they are fun, because that depends on the instructor, but they are worth the time & the money if you are serious about carrying. It will also make me be less worried about some accountant seeing me draw my gun & shooting me because they could not do a threat assessment.

I don't get it. If the guy never had a gun it wouldn't need stopping ??

So do you know the one victims name? I think its important that you do since you're using their death to push your agenda.

The overarching problem with guns is the culture that they feed. Is it good that the shooter was stopped? Absolutely! But the fact that is you feel so unsafe in your own country that people are bringing guns to church is mildly terrifying. Everyone having a knife to everyone else's throat so nobody can kill anyone else without dying as well is, in no way, a peaceful, nor sane way to live, people need to understand this.

Imagine if you restricted guns so it was extremely hard or impossible to get one for a church shooting 🤭 Unfortunately this doesn’t fit the absolute idiot narrative so don’t expect it to get much coverage

Good guys 1 bad guys 50,000. Second half coming after the break

Man, I'm as pro 2A as anyone else but it appears that the pro 2A group is falling into the anti-gun group's mindset where as soon as a tragedy like this happens they get online and start talking about how it shows their side is correct. Neither side is going to win this argument anytime soon, feels like they're both talking past each other. I think it'd help if people tried to get educated about the topic though because it seems like a huge portion of the anti-gun group is very uninformed or misinformed. I haven't looked into this specific incident much but it sucks that it happened at all and I hope that media outlets dedicate most of their 24 hour cycle to remembering the victim and praising the people that acted and prevented anymore from dying because had it been worse we'd see the next few days be completely devoted to covering it. I don't think it'll happen, but I'm hoping.

If that had happened in California or New York, that dude would have taken out as many as he had ammo for. And If someone did stop the shooter with deadly force, they'd probably send the person to prison. Fortunately it happened in a state that has some semblance of sanity. The defender should get a medal of honor and a huge reward. This is a perfect example of how important the second amendment and the right to carry is. Lives were absolutely saved here in the absence of the police, who would have only shown up after the fact and spent the rest of the day identifying bodies.

And I just left that area last week trippy...

That's what I'm fine with, the second guy with the gun had a small gun, not some full auto rifle that would be overkill. I'm fine with sidearms and rifles that need a manual function to fire again. I like guns, I'll probably get one eventually, but I dont like guns that are overkill for pretty much everything other than straight up war.

At least try to keep it in your pants.

Yes, finally, out of all the mass shootings we've had someone w a gun was there. Of course, it still didn't stop shooter from shooting people so...