Top Dem: Church Shooting Would Have Been Worse if Parishioners Had Been Armed

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: when innocent people are gunned down by a spree killer (regardless of his motivations) most people empathize with the victims. They imagine being there. Their next thought isn’t “a gun law would have stopped it from happening in the first place.” If prodded, they are willing to consider the proposal “what if someone had been armed?” That kind of common sense logic, which evokes Hollywood-inspired visions of successful armed defense, leaves anti-gunners in an awkward position. That’s when the spout abject stupidity, like the pearls dropping from Democratic strategist Bob Shrum’s mouth. Never mind. He’s helping the cause of gun rights. Keep talking guys, keep talking. [h/t DrVino]

comments

  1. avatar ST says:

    “if only someone had been armed….”

    Realizing this requires some degree of knowledge about how guns really work.

    Unfortunately there are millions of folks in America who have never seen a firearm in real life except on a police officers belt. The only contact folks from DC, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, Los Angeles, San Fransisco etc have with firearms is at the top of this article-a talking head saying guns are some technological mystery no non-government employee could ever solve or use responsibly.

    To us that’s a logically preposterous notion. To someone in DC, it sounds like a reasonable statement. How would they know different?

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Good point. Text amended to answer that question.

    2. avatar Removed_californian says:

      “Except on a police officer’s belt”

      Or on tv or the movies where only bad guys and special operatives ever seem to have guns.

      1. avatar Lone Ranger says:

        It is worse than that. TV & movies go out of their way to portray civilians using firearms as reckless buffoons only capable of getting themselves killed by the bad guys. Times 10 for concealed carriers. All part of the long con to get Americans to not only give up their rights but feel good about doing it.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “It is worse than that. TV & movies go out of their way to portray civilians using firearms as reckless buffoons only capable of getting themselves killed by the bad guys.”

          Sometimes.

          Many other times guns are used as tools. Things good guys use to stop bad guys.

          Hollywood rarely portrays the guns themselves as inherently evil. Evil people, yes. They portray guns being used to stop evil people…

          Hollywood doesn’t realize they are a major positive influence on the changing public attitude towards guns…

          Keep up the good work, Hollywood (and the first person shooter video games)…

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      ” . . .The only contact folks from DC, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, Los Angeles, San Fransisco etc have with firearms is at the top of this article-a talking head saying guns are some technological mystery no non-government employee could ever solve or use responsibly. . .”

      They’re cosmopolites. We now have multiple generations of people who spend their entire lives in densely populated urban areas. They don’t drive, have never even owned a car, and are completely lacking in the even the most rudimentary mechanical skills. There was no one in their parent’s or even their grandparent’s generations who knew how to fix things so, of course, they don’t know how to fix anything either. They call someone to screw in lightbulbs. Of course they’re terrified of guns and, of course, they think POTG are crazed Nazis who have to be dealt with. If they are our future, we’re doomed.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        I know the type. What’s really remarkable is how many of them sincerely believe it is through their efforts that our technological civilization is created and sustained.

      2. avatar Nate says:

        I live in Upstate NY, (I’m from Wisconsin though) and I live in a suburb (Syracuse area), I lived in a rural area for a few years. Anyways we have kids from NYC come up to go to college and they are so ignorant its not even funny. If it didn’t happen in the 5 borough’s it didn’t exist. They would come over to see a normal sized house and call it a mansion. Many of them didn’t know how to really take care of themselves either. Anyways I carry a knife as do most people and they would say “OMG Don’t carry that I don’t want you to get arrested” and when they saw a gun they would say something stupid like “Put that away you’ll get in trouble if the police see it” or “don’t kill anyone”. I’m trying to think of some even more dumb comments but I try and rid my brain of the stupidity and lack of knowledge that bounces around in the 5 boroughs of NYC.

      3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        We now have multiple generations of people who spend their entire lives in densely populated urban areas. They don’t drive, have never even owned a car, and are completely lacking in the even the most rudimentary mechanical skills. There was no one in their parent’s or even their grandparent’s generations who knew how to fix things so, of course, they don’t know how to fix anything either.
        Sounds like the populace of Soylent Green. Maybe in the future, liberals will eat liberals, and if our society collapses that will probably happen.

    4. avatar ThomasR says:

      I don’t agree, ST. I believe this statement shows the general attitude of contempt that statists have for ability of the general population in using lethal force to effectively defend themselves and others from human predators.

      After all, the whole idea behind the “monopoly of force” by the government is that only those anointed and blessed by the Powers That Be have not only the training, but are also the only ones with the emotional maturity to use such power wisely.

      This shows the attitude that they look at the general population as just a bunch of over grown children, emotionally unstable, wilful; that will strike out and just start shooting people out of a momentary pique of irratation. The other common view is that they will just blaze away in a self-defense situation, mowing down the innocent in attempting to stop the bad guy.

      What is really bizarre, is that many of these “general population” fully agrees with contemptuous view of themselves as completely incompetent humans.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        It’s not “monopoly on force”, but “monopoly on the initiation of force.” Big difference, as your truncated version suggests that lawful self-defense be banned.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          His “truncated version” accurately describes the mindset he is complaining about.

          Your version, though actually correct in fact, doesn’t describe the way they look at it. Thus, I think he said the right thing given the point he was trying to make, (He even put quotes around it.)

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          Sorry J-H. But your response is a little too “truncated” (couldn’t resist), :), I’m not sure of the point your making.

  2. avatar John F lake havasu Az says:

    I for one would much rather have the ability to defend my self rather than watch my friends DIE, The shooter had seconds to reload twice, and ALL THE SHEEP were killed except the one he decided to be a witness,,,,How could it have been worse there was only ONE servivor by his choice?

    1. avatar Cicero Smith says:

      I heard he had time to reload 5 times

      1. avatar Glenn says:

        Reloading his Glock 5 times and not having one bullet left to finish himself means he had to use more than 50 bullets, maybe 60, to kill 9 people at close range.

        I thought only cops needed that many bullets per person.

        Certainly, a single well placed bullet coming from the back room where the preacher’s wife and children were hiding, could have ended this spree with far less damage, if the killer didn’t have the advantage of shooting fish in a barrel.

  3. avatar Heretical Politik says:

    How could things have possibly been any worse?

    1. avatar ClayinUT says:

      You have to look at where he is coming from. The last thing these Anti’s want is for the shooter to be brought down after the first shot was fired. With no bloody shirt, there is no good tragedy that they can cash in on. that is how it could have been wore in their eyes.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        You beat me to it. I was about to post, “Making things worse means ‘making it impossible for us to exploit the murder of otherwise-useless minorities to push our political agenda.’ ” Because I’m sure that’s all the use the hoplophobe left has for blacks: As pawns in the progressive struggle.

        I wish I didn’t have to be so frigging cynical about my political opponents, but it seems justified more often than not.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Exactly. He shot everyone, and no one was shooting back. How could it have possibly been worse if someone else was shooting back? Utterly ridiculous and totally lacking in logical thought to so suggest.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Exactly.

        Oftentimes they’ll claim that more people will die in the crossfire than would have died from the shooting itself.

        How one could possibly tell is beyond me; they’d have to play both alternate universes and compare. But this is one of those cases where you CAN tell. There were NO potential victims of a crossfire who would have been all right without one, as this clown shot everyone. So whatever tenuous logic this argument minght normally have is COMPLETELY missing here.

        1. avatar Richard in WA says:

          Except for the facts in this case, it’s a *possibility*. The usual focus – on what could have happened instead of what did happen/is actually happening.

          The guy shot nearly everyone in the church. How could a possible cross fire in an un-crowded room have been worse?

  4. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    That they think that a gun fight is worse than a unhampered and methodical group execution is outright bizarre to me.

  5. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Well Karl Rove wants to repeal the 2nd to stop gun violence, so on a scale of 1-10 in absurdity spoken from the political class, this would rank a 5.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/21/karl-rove-only-way-to-stop-the-violence-is-to-repeal-2nd-amendment/

    1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

      Not a Karl Rove fan here. But the interview you reference did not look like he was advocating the repeal but rather pointing out that further restricting gun ownership would require a near impossible task to be constitutional. I am, not sure, but that is how the comment without much context looked to me.

    2. Karl Rove was mocking the antis argument reiterating that the 2nd amendment will not be repealed so they should just forget about trying. Rove was turning leftists words against them. Don’t take what he said out of context. He was on their show when he said that so he argued on their terms so they might understand. He may have even been baiting them to agree that the 2nd amendment should be repealed but they did not take the bait. Had they jumped on that line, I am sure he would have said “that’s not going to happen”.

      1. avatar clickboom says:

        That is some quality damage control, Rove should hire you.

        1. Do you honestly believe the face of the Republican political machine went on national TV and advocated repealing the 2nd Amendment? Think about that. Seriously. Then watch the segment again in the context I described.

  6. avatar Rokurota says:

    Was this person responding to someone’s proposition that the victims should have armed themselves? The context would help.

    On topic, I think we need to beat the “THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARMED” drum gently. Yes, it would have been better if they had been. But we do ourselves no favors to tsk-tsk after the fact. Encourage keeping and bearing arms and liberalize gun laws, yes, but leave the finger pointing and blaming to the other side.

    1. The way you do it is to show sympathy for the victims and outrage at the murderer. Say it like this: “I wish I was in that church that day so I could have tried to save lives.” That sounds sheepdoggish, I know, but so be it.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Or such as….

        …”It is unfortunate that there were gun laws in place that dis-allowed law-abiding people from possibly making a positive difference. ”

        When you use the word “I” then the left will just accuse you of wishing to be some superhero make-believe fantasy nut.

        1. It’s called walking the walk. Putting your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up.
          If “I” am not willing to put myself in that situation in order to fight for good then I have no right whatsoever to expect anyone else to do the same.
          It is the very reason I started carrying a gun and disobeying “no guns allowed” signs.

  7. avatar brentondadams says:

    I know right… The killer could have gotten hurt

  8. avatar KenB says:

    Clearly he is racist.

    He would rather see every black person killed instead of one white criminal.

  9. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Points to a mindset of who wants to survive. I’ve been in situations (non combat – hand caught in a rotating shaft) where a worker was hurt and 8 people just stood doing nothing. They could not get beyond processing the scene until they were directed. I pointed a each and gave them a task to which they could act upon. Forward to a gunmen in a room, a culture of disarmament in presence of an active shooter, I suggest the majority froze.

    The horror is a talking head relaying lawful self defense would not help and therefore additional gun control is required shows how disconnected leadership is from reality. Carrying arms is not a haphazard affair, it’s a conscience decision in which one understands risk and does ones best to equalize it.

    It’s confirmed a large section of our society is determined to publicly disarm the minority.

  10. avatar Removed_californian says:

    The gun grabbers always say “if it saves just one life,” and they’re right. Gun free zones do save “just one life”: the life of the asshole who commits the crime…

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      ^^Stealing that^^

  11. avatar Adrik says:

    “Yeah the criminal could have been hurt!” How could this have possibly been worse? Are these people developmentally disabled or just plain ignorant?

  12. avatar bobmcd says:

    What we need to do every time this latest massacre is brought up is to point out the exact opposite example of a church massacre in Colorado that was stopped by an armed member of the congregation.

  13. avatar George says:

    We have evidence for armed people stopping killers.

    His evidence is……..

  14. avatar Silver says:

    It takes leftist level stupidity to believe a spree that left everyone dead except an intentionally spared child could have been worse.

    As the man once said, never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.

  15. avatar Grant says:

    He’s not wrong, less victims would be worse. For human stains like him, who use the death and suffering of others as the brick and mortar of everything they build. All a matter of perspective.

  16. avatar Billy the crib says:

    Could have been worse? What’s worse than dying? The worst that could have happened did happen.

  17. avatar blasko says:

    The benefit they get for saying that is because there are no examples of a gun stopping a mass shooting. So they can play the ‘what if’ game all day long with that argument.

    The problem is that anytime a good guy with a gun is present at a shooting, it doesn’t turn into a mass shooting to begin with and there’s no media coverage because that defeats their narrative.

  18. avatar Bill Cook says:

    Does anyone think that any of those poor souls at that church said to themselves “Thank God no one here is armed!”

  19. avatar Rick3 says:

    Total ignorance about the subject never stops a political advisor from speaking about the subject, as if they knew what they were talking about.

  20. avatar Retired LEO. says:

    The area the church is in is also one of the heaviest patrolled. Between the tourism & the scum around the area where we’re the cops? That said, every time we go anywhere in Charleston we are armed. Even my son has a can of OC & a TASER when we shop at the slave market called the city market which is a flea market.

    The trip taxpayers paid for the Governor to go to India to bring jobs from there was a joke.
    When this country has true equality in the constitution, and the politicians understand we as citizens have rights guaranteed then the we will be United States, until then we are the citizens against the socialist/jihadists that our politicians support that want us neutered so it’s easier for them to take over OUR country fully.

  21. avatar ThomasR says:

    His statement is perfectly in line with a liberal/progressive/statist mind set.

    What would have been worse was a citizen showing the ability to effectively stop a mass murderer from murdering alot of people with a gun, with a gun.

    The whole reason for a statists existence would be erased. The horror!!

  22. avatar Model66 says:

    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste…” – Mayor Rahm

    Isn’t it comforting to know that the Democratic Machine is already considering ways to have their 2016 primaries benefit from a massacre?

  23. avatar Glenn says:

    A Democratic state senator in Illinois thinks that things would be better if churches were made into what I term “fish-in-a-barrel” zones.

    I think that in the interest of free speech, “fish-in-a-barrel” zone stickers should be placed along side the “no concealed carry” stickers required by Illinois law so that the false sense of security provided by gun free zones can be moderated by reason on a frequent basis.

  24. avatar TruthTellers says:

    Gosh, even if someone is shooting at you the Democrat’s still don’t want people to fight back unless you are black and the shooter is a white cop.

  25. avatar O2HeN2 says:

    As Dr. Susan Gratia-Hupp found during the Lubys cafeteria massacre, during a shooting like this all the good guys hit the floor or start running away from the shooter, leaving one wide-open, easy target standing.

    O2

  26. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Bob Schrum, Dickie Morris, Karl Rove and a thousand others are the behind the scenes scum that play a huge role in how we get the government we get. Makes you sick when they step out from behind the curtain and expose what low lifes they are.

  27. avatar MFishburne says:

    Logic fails. It’s mentioned repeatedly here. How do we get this out to the masses?

    If someone was armed, they might have had a slim chance at survival. You can’t argue the reasoning. Slim is better than none!

  28. avatar Warlocc says:

    Anyone have the full version of this? I would love to see if the people on the show think it’s as insane as we do.

  29. avatar David says:

    For everyone and anyone who thinks that adults can’t learn how to operate a gun safely in two hours should be shown a twelve year old who can. Especially one who competes in some type of action pistol sport. And to make things interesting have that child shoot against a regular police officer who doesn’t. It would make their heads explode.

  30. avatar 2ndABill says:

    I was attending a Bible Study at a small church in Delaware that had been burglarized recently.

    Before all arrived, the assistant pastor arrived and had verified their CHL was still good. Showed us the small mouse gun they had brought. A lady member showed her .357 revolver she kept in her purse. It was about my turn when other members arrived and I got the fish-eye from the assistant pastor indicating silence may be best. A moment later the new arrival started a rant that she was glad no guns were at church! At least 1/2 of the Bible Study was tooled up and she did not know.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      That’s both awesome (in large part) and disgusting (in small part). Allow me to elaborate.

      It’s awesome that you were in a population, fifty percent of which were armed. The usual rate of concealed carry is much, much less than that. (And yes, even though I’m one of those blankety-blank atheists on this board, I approve of people at a peacable bible study being able to defend themselves.)

      It’s disgusting that this individual is such a hoplophobe and so cluless.

  31. avatar BigDinVT says:

    That’s some pretty twisted logic, there. I would have said what kind of drugs was this guy on but with a last name like that….

  32. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Google church shootings stopped or limited by a good guy/gal with a gun…my late black mother-in-law always had a 38 in her purse at HER church in CHICAGO-on the westside too. Yeah illegal at the time but she didn’t die from some lunatic…the stupid shite that comes from the dumbocrats is mind-boggling…

  33. avatar Rich K. says:

    It would only have been worse from the liberals’ perspective, because there would have been fewer victims for them to gloat over, and probably a dead racist wacko.

  34. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    When will they stop blaming the gun and start blaming the person for their horrendous actions?

    This psycho could have just as easily poured gasoline at the exits of the church, threw the 5-gallon gas can inside and lit the place up, killing damn near everyone.

    Would the same people be just as vigorously be blaming the gasoline??? Or the 5-gallon can??? I don’t seem to remember the same vigor in calling for the confiscation of all pressure cookers after the Boston bombings.

    It’s quite obvious these people have an agenda, are too blinded by their hoplophobia, or are just too entranced like sheep by the Media’s meme, to think rationally about the issue.

    Today, on an internet podcast, Obama said that we should emulate the Australian model (full civilian disarmament) – and in almost the same breath – openly mocked people for fearing that the “federal government and the black helicopters are all coming to get your guns”

    It’s quite obvious their agenda is full civilian disarmament. That’s what they are openly calling for now, just as Obama did today.

    When they banned alcohol, did alcohol go away? Did the ‘war on drugs’ make cocaine, crack and heroin go away?

    The only thing that disarming the law abiding population does is ensure that ONLY criminals will have guns and the rest of us will be defenseless at the hands of any evil, psychotic person that wishes to harm us or our loved ones.

    And short of disarmament, every single additional gun control law or measure that they have proposed to-date would have done nothing to prevent this horrible massacre.

    This event only proves once again that their entire argument is fundamentally flawed and only based on their emotions, with no chance of preventing another tragedy like this. They even admitted as much with their last attempt after Newtown to basically take us back to the 1800’s and start a massive gun confiscation. ‘Will this do anything to prevent another Newtown?’, they were asked. ‘No, but we have to do something”, they answered.

    Perhaps that something should be to address the root cause, to blame the person, and not the implement they used to commit their grievous act.

  35. avatar gsnyder says:

    The only reason the option of equal force could be more dangerous is if all the good guys freaked and shot each other.

  36. avatar Don says:

    The only way being disarmed would have been better if would be if this guy was alone at the bible study and unarmed when the racist anti-social killer showed up.

    -D

  37. avatar Dustin says:

    Because every one of the dead people said, as they lay dying “Thank God I’m a victim and about to die with no means of fighting back or preventing it.”

    I’m shocked at the lengths Black People will go to become martyrs for their democrat owners… Get off the vote plantation and fight for yourselves, dammit!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email