Mass Shootings

A 'Good Guy With a Gun' Prevented a Texas Church Shooting From Becoming a Massacre

Two victims were killed at a church shooting in White Settlement, Texas. It would have been much worse had some parishioners not been armed.


Three people are dead following a shooting at a church service Sunday in White Settlement, Texas. A gunman killed two parishioners in the church just outside Fort Worth before being fatally shot by members of the church's volunteer security team.

The names of the perpetrator and victims have not been released as of this writing, and the motivation for the crime is currently unclear. One FBI agent described the shooter as a transient person from the area who had been arrested multiple times.

One thing we do know: The death toll likely would have been higher had the church's security team not been armed.

"We lost two great men today," said Britt Farmer, senior minister at the West Freeway Church of Christ, where the shooting happened, at a press conference. "It could have been a lot worse. I'm thankful that our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves."

Texas politicians and law enforcement were also quick to praise the church's security team, which they say prevented a larger massacre of the 242 people attending the Sunday service.

"Two of the parishioners who are volunteers on the security force drew their weapons and took out the killer immediately, saving an untold number of lives," said Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick at a Sunday night press conference.

The Texas legislature passed a bill in May 2019 eliminating a provision of state law that prohibited licensed firearm owners from possessing a handgun in places of worship. Prior to the passage of that law, which went into effect in September, it was unclear under what circumstances a person was legally able to carry a handgun in a church.

According to The New York Times, the West Freeway Church has had a security team for over 10 years, so it's not clear this new law had any bearing on whether the church would have had armed security present.

Still, the details of the shooting seem to vindicate the oft-derided phenomenon of a "good guy with a gun" stopping or preventing mass shootings. Gun rights advocates argued that allowing people to carry firearms in public places can deter unprovoked firearm violence, and also enable people to quickly stop such shooters.

In the White Settlement case, members of the church's security team were able to intervene immediately, thereby stopping additional bloodshed. A 2017 mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, where parishioners were unarmed, saw 26 people killed by a mass shooter. Meanwhile, gun control advocates are arguing that the fact that the White Settlement shooting happened at all is evidence that we need tighter restrictions of firearm ownership.

Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D–Texas), who spent much of his failed presidential bid arguing for confiscating people's AR-15s, declared that "what we are doing in Texas, what we are doing in this country, when it comes to guns is not working."

"It's no coincidence that the state has some of the weakest gun laws in the country," tweeted the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, which advocates bans on what it calls "weapons of war."

By arguing that we should ban certain firearms because they can be used to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, gun control advocates are acknowledging that mass shooters will continue to exist. Advocates of armed civilian "good guys" pretty much accept that premise as well. Which side is pushing a more effective solution to reduce mass shooting deaths?

Reason's Jacob Sullum has tirelessly pointed out that plenty of mass shooters are able to kill a lot of people despite using ordinary handguns or shotguns (like the shooter in the White Settlement case) that would not fit even the broadest definition of "weapon of war" or "assault weapon."

Restricting firearms, by contrast, could well deprive people of the means they need to defend themselves during a mass shooting.

The White Settlement case is one example where armed, private citizens saved a lot of lives. In an imagined counterfactual where none of the parishioners were armed and "weapons of war" were banned, the shooter still would have been able to kill a lot of people.

NEXT: Pete Buttigieg Says We Should Decriminalize All the Drugs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have had a theory for some time that the Dem leadership (Pelosi et al) figured they had a slim chance of beating Trump in 2020 and decided to let the kids run wild, to get it out of their system, because come 2024, who do the Republicans have? Trump is a one man show; all the 2024 GOP candidates will bebut pale shadows of Trump. Come 2024, the Demo adults can come roaring back and smash whichever pale shadow comes out of the GOP circus.

    And that is also why the Dems decided to not just touch the third rail of gun control,but go hog wild. Get it out of their system. Show the young pups that it is a bad platform, show them what happens when Beto or others talk of confiscating guns. Get it out of their system.

    1. P.S. I don’t know if I actually believe this. Sometimes it seems a better theory than other times.

    2. “I have had a theory for some time that the Dem leadership (Pelosi et al) figured they had a slim chance of beating Trump in 2020”

      Actually, Democrats are guaranteed to win in 2020. They’re up against a disgraced, impeached incumbent during a terrible economy. Not even Russian hacking will help Drumpf this time.


      1. OBL, it’s only a bad economy for social justice warriors like yourself who racked up a lot of student loan debt getting a medieval studies degree, can’t get a job, and now are relegated to sponging off their parents for the foreseeable future, while spending their days perusing and commenting on websites about how unjust everything is. For almost everyone else, the economy is great. In short, you’re just a loser.

        1. The first rule of Reason Commentariat Club is…don’t take OBL seriously.

          We’ll disclose the other rules as you violate them. In the meantime, welcome to the club.

    3. Nope. You give them too much credit. First, no politician will ever just write off an election. They are too unpredictable and too much is at stake. The Democrats have gone full retard because the people who are smart enough to know better either are not in the party anymore or can’t control the ones who are not.

      Second, your theory assumes the kids will learn something. They won’t. If Trump is re-elected, they will remember everything and learn nothing. The fault will be that Trump cheated or that the nominee wasn’t really a leftist. Even if the party leaders followed your plan it wouldn’t work because leftists never learn the right lessons.

      1. Second, your theory assumes the kids will learn something.

        Kids learn all the time. Trouble is, by the time they’ve learned enough to not be idiots, they’re middle-aged and there’s a new crop of ignorant kids coming up behind them.

        1. Kids learn but leftists rarely if ever do.

          1. I would argue that kids tend to be leftists, and there will always be kids. Some people refuse to learn as they age, it’s true, but it’s no coincidence that the political left is dominated by the very young.

            1. The “betters”, so we’ve been told. Haha.

            2. There’s always going to be appeal in leftist ideologies which allow young people to claim they have the answer to everything.

      2. The Dems have no answer. Their best candidate is a walking gaffe waiting to happen, and he makes Sanders and Trump look mentally agile. Their young candidates have gravitas. Their billionaires have gravitas but no appeal to the progressive base or the common citizen. Socialism costs too much and is too big a risk when the economy is running at full throttle. They need to go mainstream but their base won’t let them and they don’t have any well known mainstream options anyway.

        1. their young candidates have NO gravitas (typo)

      3. Dems: “get it out of their system” or “full retard” getting even worse?


    4. Don Trump junior for President in 2024!

  2. White Settlement, Texas.

    There are no good guys with guns in White Supremacist, Texas.

    1. This town is right across the border from Problematic, Oklahoma.

  3. “It could have been a lot worse. I’m thankful that our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves.”

    I would have hoped the minister’s thought process would be more along the lines of ‘God allows that’; it’s called free-will. The government simply didn’t infringe upon it in this instance.

  4. “By arguing that we should ban certain firearms because they can be used to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, gun control advocates are acknowledging that mass shooters will continue to exist.”

    Three points:

    1) AR-15s became popular because of the assault weapons ban, and sales are still driven by the fear of a ban.

    Before the assault weapons ban during the Clinton administration, hardly anyone even knew they wanted an AR-15. Banning them is a big part of what made them so popular. As recently as the Obama administration, AR-15 sales would skyrocket in the aftermath of every mass shooting–for fear that the Obama administration would ban them. Since Trump was elected, AR-15 sales have plummeted–because people are no longer so afraid of them being banned. Colt has even decided to stop manufacturing AR-15s for the consumer market because demand has dried up.

    Moral of the story: If you want to blame someone for the popularity and proliferation of AR-15s in this country, blame the gun grabbers. It really is mostly their fault.

    2) Fetishistic coverage of mass shootings probably contributes to their frequency.

    If the allure of being a mass shooter to a nut-job is about being someone important, sensationalist coverage of mass shooters by the news media surely must contribute to that. If you’re a psychopath who wants the media to devote a whole week of sensationalist coverage to you personally, there’s an easy way to accomplish that. All you have to do is be a psychopath who doesn’t care about the lives of other people or yourself, and the news media has shown you how to do the rest. The media should be ashamed of itself. They’re basically glorifying mass shootings in the minds of marginalized psychopaths. It’s disgusting.

    3) 8chan

    8chan murder spree enthusiasts are surely among the internet’s most horrible people. I’m not sure if they ever found themselves a new home. The last batch of comments I saw quoted from them, they were trolling about how such and such a mass shooter was an idiot and a failure because he got himself killed before he could kill more than a couple of victims. Truly deplorable speech, but I can’t help but wonder if that kind of speech doesn’t also deter more would-be mass shooters. If you’re an isolated, socially awkward person, probably the last thing you want to do is get yourself killed only to be ridiculed for it by the 8chan trolls you were trying to impress.

    1. ARs are also good, cheap, and customizable; their modularity allows a tremendous variety for all budgets; the ammo is relatively cheap; and the softish recoil makes them fun for a lot more people then .30-caliber rifles.

      1. Are you saying that because of that, gun grabbers aren’t responsible for making AR-15s infamous and popular in the first place or that AR-15 sales aren’t driven by the fear of bans?

        1. It’s not a binary choice.

          1. See the article I linked below.

            The fact is that AR-15 sales are largely driven by buyers who fear them being banned.

            The fact is that AR-15s have been sold by Colt to the civilian market since 1964–and they were a niche product that very few people cared about until Clinton’s assault weapons ban in the 1990s expired in 2004. It was the ban that brought them to everybody’s attention.

            Captain Cook knew that sauerkraut would prevent scurvy. Fresh vegetables wouldn’t last on long voyages in the 1760s, but sauerkraut would. The problem with sauerkraut was that his sailors wouldn’t eat it. Ordering them to eat it wouldn’t stop them from chucking it overboard when no one was looking. So Captain Cook did the smart thing–he put out an order that only the officers were allowed to eat sauerkraut and all the rest of the crew were prohibited. He basically banned sauerkraut, and you know what happened?

            Suddenly his crew started clamoring for sauerkraut like it was AR-15s.

            Isn’t it funny how that works?

            God says you can have anything you want–except for the fruit of that one tree–and, suddenly, the fruit of that tree is the only thing you want.

          2. Here are some additional stats:

            “American Outdoor Brands, which manufactures firearms and accessories, is also the holding company for Smith & Wesson, which made the AR-15 used in the Parkland, Fla., shooting. From the day after Trump’s election through Friday, the value price of a share of American Outdoor Brands was down 58.54 percent. The company did $903 million in net sales in 2017, including $772 million from firearms.

            In the same period, the share value of Vista Outdoor, which manufactures shooting products and outdoor goods, from CamelBak water bottles to Blazer ammunition, dropped nearly 52 percent. The company’s website lists 50 brands produced, including 13 under its shooting sports division. That division did more than $1 billion in sales in 2017.

            Share prices for Sturm, Ruger & Co. dropped 9.4 percent in value since Trump’s election. The company manufactures pistols, revolvers, rifles and accessories and brought in $522 million in net firearm and castings sales in 2017.

            The S&P 500 marched steadily higher over the same period, finishing up 27 percent through Friday.


            When the fear of gun bans fades, sales of guns drop dramatically.

            Trump being elected President did more to hurt gun sales than anything else could. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, there probably would have been millions more AR-15s in circulation than there are now. If she had tried to ban them, there would have been even more.

            1. A gun show near me, just after the Second Dem debate was so crowded that you could pick up a rifle without poking someone.

              LOTS of out of state licence plates.

              As there was little regular ammo on sale at the show, all the farm and gun stores in town had their shelves cleared as folks headed out of town.

      2. On the other hand, they are like erectors sets, rubics cubes, and lego, a project that is sure to fall apart as all project guns do.

        And the loading levers and various springs on parts releases are so stiff one has to be Rambo to use them.

        But they are a cool looking middle finger to the gun grabbers.

        1. You’ve NEVER held an AR-15. It’s a semi auto version of our beloved Corp’s M16-A/A4/M-4. And if my crayon eating, beer chugging brethren in the Marines that manage to keep them clean and functioning, so can most Americans. You wouldn’t happen to be Gersh Kuntzman by any chance?

          And legos don’t fall apart.

    2. Also note that this mass killing will not be categorized as a mass killing by most sites because it had fewer than 4 deaths, including the shooter.

      See this site.

      He looked at all spree killings (not family, not robbery, etc) and found something very interesting. When civilians stopped spree killers by being at the scene, as in this church, there were almost always fewer than 4 deaths. Often the killer would shoot himself as soon as he saw a civilian with a gun. But spree killers stopped by police almost always had more victims simply because it took so long for the police to show up.

      Ergo, sites which only count 4 or more deaths as mass shootings undercount shooters stopped by civilians.

      Whether the original division was intentional or not, continuing it must be. It is soooooo handy to not show how good guys with a gun stop so many bad guys with guns.

      1. He would have kept shooting if he hadn’t been killed. Because he didn’t kill more people before he was killed by a civilian exercising his Second Amendment rights doesn’t mean that a civilian exercising his Second Amendment rights didn’t save the lives of more people–no matter how various websites count mass shootings.

        1. Two of our greatest warriors were murdered in Texas at a gun range while armed…mass shooters want to be shot and go to places they know they will be killed.

          1. “…mass shooters want to be shot and go to places they know they will be killed.”

            Then the sooner the better.

          2. There were holes in Chris Kyle’s story that you could drive a truck through.

            1. You’ve got to figure anything related to the cia is going to be standard psyop fodder. If not a psyop, then simply a cia kill for sticking his neck out. Like those tech fags that get shot walking home or driving their Mercedes at 3am. Which means Snowden was a psyop because he’s still alive.

        2. “a civilian exercising his Second Amendment rights”

          The guy was stopped by the Church’s security team. Even though they were a volunteer team, I’m not sure that they count as “civilians” exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in this case.

          1. I am. It was a retired guy in his off time.

          2. That’s stupid. If it wasn’t for the 2nd Amendment, churches wouldn’t even be allowed to have volunteer security teams. It’s literally the reason the security team exists in the first place.

          3. Civilian security teams don’t count as civilians because they were a security team?

            Keep twisting that logic moron.

            1. Thanks for your reply. Calling these guys “civilians” seemed to convey the impression that they were just a couple of average parishioners who happened to have guns on them that day. It sounds as if, in actuality, they were part of a security team, and were expected to be armed. I am not hung up on the definition of “civilian” here, but simply wondered about the implication or the way the case was represented. For example, non-government security people have carried firearms for as long as I can remember, but if a private guard in a bank shot a robber in an attempted heist, the newspapers would not refer to the guard as a “civilian exercising his Second Amendment rights,” as if to promote the notion that everyone should be carrying guns to the bank. The twisted logic that I sensed was the opposite of what you imagine in my comment. Let me add, for the record however, that I am a firm supporter of Second Amendment rights, and am certainly not commenting on the legality or wisdom of carrying firearms into a church, and I join the many people who were glad that these guys in Texas did.

              1. “seemed to convey the impression”

                “I am not hung up on the definition of “civilian” here“

                “the newspapers would not refer to the guard as a “civilian exercising his Second Amendment rights,””

                I, on the other hand, am more interested in what words mean than your impressions and how newspapers spin stories.

                1. “I, on the other hand, am more interested in what words mean…”

                  Then you should be interested in connotations here.

          4. “I’m not sure that they count as “civilians” exercising their 2nd Amendment rights”

            They weren’t government employees dispatched in response to someone calling 911.

            1. I got that, but if they were private guards hired by a bank, and shot a robber in an attempted heist, would they be described as “civilians”? The point was that, as part of a security team, they were expected to be armed, and thankfully they were.

          5. You can still be a civilian if you practice and are organized. Even if you were military or law enforcement.

            An analysis of the film I watched showed 7 armed people advancing on the shooter within a few seconds of him pulling his gun. That is how this sort of thing ends. Whatever degenerate fantasies mass shooters have, I am sure that few of them aspire to be shot down like a rabid dog by someone’s grandma. When having that happen becomes the expected result of attempting a church shooting, church shootings will be over.

            Sort of like aircraft hijackings. After flight 93, anyone trying to hijack a plane is probably going to immediately have most of the other passengers literally trying to beat them to death and tear them apart. The days of getting a suitcase full of money and landing in Havana are over.

          6. The key word here is voluntary. Someone said “Hey anyone here wanna carry a gun in case a nutcase shows up and starts shooting?” And these fellas said “Sure!”

        3. What I said is that because a civilian killed the shooter before he shot enough people, he won’t be listed in, for instance, Mother Jones’ list of mass shooters.

          I also said that link has a good analysis of other spree killers who also did not shoot enough victims to be on Mother Jones’ list, and most of the spree killers who were terminated early were terminated by good guys with guns.

          1. If they’re trying to answer the question of whether the Second Amendment is an effective means of stopping mass shooters, and they’re purposely not counting all the times when a mass shooting was abbreviated by some civilian exercising his Second Amendment rights–then they’re torturing the data.

            1. Prevention is also hard to measure. The one neighbor I know who used a gun to stop a home invasion never fired a shot. They saw the gun, they ran. There are no stats for that.

      2. 4 is also a low enough number that the every weekend gang killings get counted as mass shootings, so they can say there are 350+ mass shootings in a year, when really there’s usually about a half dozen.

    3. Colt dropped out of the AR market because their products were medium quality at a premium price. Because of the popularity, there are a huge variety of manufacturers out there, and you could easily find an AR of the same quality as Colt’s for less, or for the same price, get one that was much better. They had no position in the marketplace.

      1. Colt stopped selling AR-15s to the general public because demand fell off dramatically after Trump was elected.

        If lower priced alternatives were in greater demand than Colt’s higher quality, higher priced offerings, that doesn’t change the fact that the number of AR-15s being bought by consumers since Trump took office has fallen off dramatically.

        It also doesn’t change the fact that if the gun grabbers want fewer AR-15s to go into production and circulation, then they STFU about AR-15s, because it’s their banning of them in the 1990s that made them so popular when the assault weapons ban expired, and it’s their threats to ban assault weapons in the aftermath of every mass shooting that makes people run out and buy them.

        1. “Since Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory, sales have slowed, particularly for the top-selling AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, so much that gun executives have termed it the “Trump slump.” An industry that capitalized on fear of gun control to drive sales during Democratic administrations is finding it is hard to turn out buyers when those concerns dissipate.

          . . . .

          Mark Kresser, former chief executive of gun maker Taurus Holdings Inc., said the AR-15 boom probably won’t return absent another political shift. “The shine is coming off the nickel,” he said.

          Smith & Wesson parent company American Outdoor Brands Corp. said falling demand for its AR-style rifles caused revenue from long guns to fall 50% to $90 million for the year ended April 30, compared with the previous fiscal year.

          Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc. reported a 13.5% drop in firearms net sales for the first six months of the year compared with a year earlier. The company doesn’t break down sales by type of firearms, but it sells AR-15-style rifles.

          . . . .

          Periodic government calls for restricting or banning the AR-15, which has been used in some of the deadliest mass killings, sparked waves of panic gun-buying during President Barack Obama’s two terms.

          “Obama was the best AR-15 salesman there was,” said Chris Waltz, a 54-year-old gun dealer and Army veteran in Warner Robins, Ga.

          Similarly, the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency drove sales in the months leading to the November 2016 presidential election.

          Mark Westrom, former owner and CEO of AR-rifle maker Armalite, recalled the buyer panic after Mr. Obama called for an assault-weapons ban after the December 2012 killing of 20 children and six adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., by a gunman with an AR-15-style rifle. The legislation failed.

          “The structure of the market was massively expanded by various panics,” said Mr. Westrom, who ran Armalite from 1994 to 2013. He said the company ramped up production during these periods, carefully calculating their duration.

          “This is an odd market that is stimulated by Democratic administrations,” Mr. Westrom said.

          The “anxious buyer” was considered the largest group of potential first-time gun buyers, according to a 2017 marketing report produced by Southwick Associates Inc. for the shooting sports foundation.

          Again, if the gun grabbers wanted to minimize the number of AR-15s that go into production and circulation, they should STFU in the aftermath of mass shootings and stop trying to ban them.

        2. “Colt stopped selling AR-15s to the general public because demand fell off dramatically after Trump was elected.”

          Or it could be that most everyone who wanted an AR-15 type rifle had already bought one.

          1. If the fact is that demand is driven by the fear of the president trying to ban them, then I’m not sure I understand the distinction between people not wanting to buy them because they aren’t afraid of them being banned and the observation that most everyone who wanted one have have already bought one. Certainly, even if market saturation were the issue, whatever new sales there were would largely be driven higher by the fear of a ban anyway.

            I’d say that we’re mostly talking recreational shooting when we’re talking about AR-15s, because they’re hard to carry concealed, but even the “recreational” description may be pushing it. Running ammunition through those things is expensive. Like how most of the sailboats in Long Beach harbor never leave their slips, most AR-15s aren’t being shot very often. Some people buy them because they use them recreationally all the time. Plenty of people buy them because they like to have them. Harleys can be like that, too. Lots of things are like that.

        3. Colt stopped selling to the consumer market because they are behind on fulfilling their government contracts both here and abroad. Full stop.

    4. Colt decided to halt production of Armalite based rifles for the civilian market because they were overwelmed with military and police contracts and needed full production to meet the contracts. Besides the M&P markets go for one or two standard issue type all identical. Civilian markets want variations styled for self-defense or varmint hunting or larger game (deer, feral hog) or target matches (civilian marksmanship programs) or repros of historical variants. The small, more agile AR makers can respond to civilian needs better than Colt.

      Check FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2018: 697 people murdered by assailants using “personal weapons” that is unarmed assailants using hands, feet, etc. Less than 300 people murdered by assailants using rifles of all identified types. ARs are a subset of all rifles: you are more likely to be murdered by an unarmed assailant than by an assailant armed with a rifle and you are about as likely to be struck by lightning than by a person using an AR rifle. Banning hands and feet or requiring personal lightning rods would save more lives than a successful AR ban. And dammit an AR ban is as likely to be successful as the Volstead Act or the Marihuana Tax Act. Geez don’t people learn from history?

  5. …before being fatally shot by members of the church’s volunteer security team.

    THEY COUNT AS DE FACTO POLICE. So I’m chalking this up to first responders saving the day from a gunman who otherwise would have been stopped at the door by the law banning guns in places of worship if it hadn’t been callously lifted.

    1. “…who otherwise would have been stopped at the door by the law banning guns”

      Yep, that’ s all we need. Just a law that says thou shalt not…never fails.

      Yes, I’m reading this as sarcasm. Right?

      1. Just a law that says thou shalt not…never fails.

        When “Thou shalt not kill” means “Thou shalt not live”, pull the trigger.

      2. Sarcasm. Yeah, that’s real helpful.

    2. When the hell has a mass shooter been stopped from entering a gun-free zone by a law declaring it a gun-free zone?

      Was Nickolaus Cruz stopped by Joseph Biden’s 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act from entering Parkland FL high school carrying a rifle case?????

      These laws affect only legal gun owners who respect the law.

      I am losing respect for law reading and hearing this anti-gun nonsense.

    3. You’re an idiot. You think homicidal maniacs read signs?

      That was a rhetorical question.

  6. 1. “I’m thankful that our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves.”
    The government just stopped violating you God given (natural) right to stay alive.
    2. “Prior to the passage of that law, which went into effect in September, it was unclear under what circumstances a person was legally able to carry a handgun in a church.”
    Prior to the passage, and after the passage, you are constitutionally allowed to carry a handgun, or any other armament, anywhere you damn well please.

    Welcome to the revolution.

    1. Nope. You have neither a god-given or constitutional right to carry a firearm on any private property under my control or ownership (however you may, if you ask nicely, be granted a BadLib-given non-exclusive temporary right to do so).

      1. Stop me bitch.

        1. Well, he could charge you with trespass.

          1. Only if you refuse to leave.

          2. That won’t stop me from carrying.

      2. “You have neither a god-given or constitutional right to carry a firearm on any private property under my control or ownership”

        Except he does.
        May not have your permission to carry while there, and may not have the right to enter or stay on your property when you’ve instructed him otherwise, but he does have the right to carry it.

    2. Under a Constitutional Carry situation where there were no gun control laws, all government or private property security or owners could do is ask that you not have firearms on that property.

      If you did and got caught, you could be removed from that property.

  7. cnn: “two people were killed in a mass shooting at a Texas church” You can bet on it.

    1. No need to speculate. Here’s the actual CNN headline:

      “Church shooting: Armed parishioners carried guns because of this Texas law.”

      1. ha! exactly the kind of fake news i would expect from them.

  8. Uh no, these mass shooters are suicidal so they go to places they know they will be shot dead.

    1. So let’s accommodate them. After a few more of these only those will a clear desire to commit “suicide by sanctuary” will even attempt it.

    2. I suspect though that most want to go out with a bang (no pun intended) and be recognized as something like “the most lethal mass murderer ever” or similar. The more often that plan ends in, mostly, just being dead, the less likely others are to follow suit (esp. if the media would publicize the aborted mass murders as much as they publicize the ones that are successful because there are too few people in the target audience allowed to protect themselves).

    3. Uh no, these mass shooters are suicidal so they go to places they know they will be shot dead.

      Remind me what percentage of mass shootings happen in “gun free zones?”

      1. None of them.
        If there’s a gun, it’s not a gun free zone.
        Thus, no mass shootings occur in gun free zones.
        Therefore, gun free zones work. Q.E.D.

        /prog logic.

  9. John Lott: Concealed-permit gun holders save lives — Texas church attack just the latest example

    In Antioch, Tenn., on Sept. 24, 2017, Emanuel Kidega Samson shot one person and injured seven others. But the attack could have been much worse. Samson was slightly injured when a 22-year-old usher, Robert Engle, tried to stop him, which gave Engle a chance to retrieve his permitted concealed handgun from his car. Engle went back into the church and held the attacker at gunpoint until police arrived.

    In Aurora, Colo., on April 24, 2012, Kiarron Parker crashed his car into other vehicles in a church parking lot and opened fire on congregants as he exited his vehicle. Parker killed one person before being shot dead by a parishioner who was an off-duty police officer.

    In Spartanburg, S.C., on March 25, 2012, a gunman kicked open a church door and pointed a shotgun at the pastor and his congregation. Parishioner Aaron Guyton, a concealed weapons permit holder, got the drop on the man and held him at gunpoint while two others held him down. Sheriff Chuck Wright called Guyton and others at the church “everyday heroes.”

    In Colorado Springs, Colo., on Dec. 9, 2007: Matthew Murray killed two people in the Colorado Springs New Life Church parking lot before being shot by church member and volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam. A wounded Murray then committed suicide.

    1. +1000

    2. + 1000 more

  10. Any moment now, I expect Rev. Art will weigh in, telling us how great it will be in the near future when the clingers get outnumbered by their diverse betters, who will vote in legislators to enact common-sense gun control, so that congregations like this can be massacred like they deserve.

    1. The betters are attempting just that in Virginia. Let’s see how that plays out.

      1. For one thing, it’s playing out in many municipalities becoming 2nd Amendment sanctuary cities.

  11. this incident is not mentioned on Huffington must be because it doesn’t fit their narrative that good guys with guns don’t exist and if not reported then they they must not

  12. So the guy with a machete killed more people than the guy with a gun did.
    There was really only one difference in the two situations.
    Guess what it was

  13. So Beto takes an example of weak gun control laws working and says it’s an example of weak gun control laws not working?

  14. Only two people killed, success!

    Now everyone just has to walk around armed like it’s the Wild West, yeeeeehawww!!!

    1. We get it, you know you can’t control yourself so you need laws to force you to do so.

      1. Who needs laws?


        1. There’s 81 million of us in possession of some 350 million weapons and some 7 trillion rounds of ammunition. If we were as stupid and lawless as you claim, you wouldn’t be able to walk without tripping over a body.

  15. Gun control laws have weaker punishments than the crimes that criminals intend to use the guns to commit.

    Therefore what gun control law will influence gun crime?

    Sure we need to have gun license laws to keep guns out of the hands of demonstrated criminally irresponsible and incompetent people, but that’s about it.

    1. “…shall not be infringed.”


      1. Cool, I want a fully automatic machine gun and a box of hand grenades!

        A rocket launcher would be awesome too.

        1. And if you pass the background check for a Class 3 license and a destructive devices license, you can have all three. It will cost you 200 dollars per NFA stamp.

    2. “…we need to have gun license laws to keep guns out of the hands of demonstrated criminally irresponsible and incompetent people,”

      “Demonstrated criminally irresponsible” [never mind incompetent, by whatever standard you mean] persons are the embodiment of those who don’t give a flying fuck about any law.

      So tell me how that is supposed to work. If you are going to go to a place to kill a bunch of people, you’d better not have a gun on you because you’ll really really really get in trouble over it.

  16. Evidence is for people who care about maximizing human well-being. Anecdotes serve those with an ideological agenda.

    1. Do you believe the statistics are on gun restrictionists’ side?

      1. Without a hint of doubt they are.

  17. 2 people dead including one that was armed. Guns don’t prevent suicidal mass shooters.

    1. But they apparently cut down on the volume of killing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.