Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

[OldLady]

Donald Trump Wishes There Had Been More Armed Orlando Clubgoers Shooting Blindly In The Crowded Room

There actually was a security guard with a gun. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.​

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

More: Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

Trump failed to realize, or acknowledge, that there WAS a good guy with a gun there who traded gunfire with the attacker - an off-duty police officer in uniform.

I wish there had been more "good guys with guns" there too.

Perhaps one of them could have gotten a good shot at the guy before the Death Toll reached 50.


The idea that armed civilians stopping mass shootings being rare, is pretty stupid.

When you consider that mass shootings are rare.

Yeah, it would have been sooo much better with a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark.

There is also the high likelihood of a terrorist perpetrating such an act will be wearing full body armor. The "good" citizen would have to be a crack shot on most likely a moving target. Head shots are rare under those circumstances. Unless your "pistol has a laser pointer attached or a scope, going up against the AR15 is stupid. The terrorist was trained with weapons. Your "good" citizen would also need the kind of close in combat training necessary.

Just sayin...

Full body armor is rare, expensive and likely to attract FBI attention and depending on how "Full" could tip off security or others that you are about to do something.

AND still does not cover everything.


Head shots at 10 or 20 feet are not that "rare".

I'm trying to envision Kevlar pants. How do you walk ?

 

[Lakhota]

Right and because they werent armed they all decided trying to live isnt worth it? Guns make people brave!

Now you're just showing how ignorant you are. If they had guns, they'd have been able to shoot him from a distance. Without said guns, they were just either trying to escape or being shot... or both. Or do you not think that holding a gun significantly increases your chances of survival? If that's the case, feel free to try protecting your house and family from an armed burglar with your bare hands. I'm sure it'll work out great.

"IF" a lot of things but you guys arent even considering the fact that some people were more interested in saving themselves than saving everyone.

I mean, could someone with a gun make a difference? Sure. Will they because they have a gun decide to act? No.

COULD THEY? Yes. I mean, if we're playing the anything is possible game then sure!

We are playing the anything is possible game.

You lefties are playing WI there was tight gun control.

We righties are playing, WI there was one or more, more guys with guns.


Both are legitimate in discussions of policy.

In a nightclub? I thought they had security there...Didnt they?

I don't think one guy that was transformed into a corpse at the door counts as legitimate security.

Was he killed?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why? He didnt have good training?

More that one guy obviously wasn't enough. Again, if the people in the bar were actually armed, this wouldn't be an issue.

How do you know it was one guy with bad training?

Hey pinhead, it was one guy with probably a 9MM handgun against an AR15.

Ok, was it one guy with bad training or are you guys just making it up on the fly?

It was one guy. I also feel like you're suggesting he's poorly trained if he doesn't blow away the guy once he walks through the door. You're clearly an ignorant Libtard, trying to troll people.

You said he wasnt legit security

I don't think one guy that was transformed into a corpse at the door counts as legitimate security.

I asked how did you come to the conclusion this guy 1. Wasnt armed and 2. Wasnt "legitimate" security?

 

[OldLady]

Right and because they werent armed they all decided trying to live isnt worth it? Guns make people brave!

Now you're just showing how ignorant you are. If they had guns, they'd have been able to shoot him from a distance. Without said guns, they were just either trying to escape or being shot... or both. Or do you not think that holding a gun significantly increases your chances of survival? If that's the case, feel free to try protecting your house and family from an armed burglar with your bare hands. I'm sure it'll work out great.

"IF" a lot of things but you guys arent even considering the fact that some people were more interested in saving themselves than saving everyone.

I mean, could someone with a gun make a difference? Sure. Will they because they have a gun decide to act? No.

COULD THEY? Yes. I mean, if we're playing the anything is possible game then sure!

We are playing the anything is possible game.

You lefties are playing WI there was tight gun control.

We righties are playing, WI there was one or more, more guys with guns.


Both are legitimate in discussions of policy.

In a nightclub? I thought they had security there...Didnt they?

I don't think one guy that was transformed into a corpse at the door counts as legitimate security.

He was an off duty cop. Pretty well trained, dontcha think?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Now you're just showing how ignorant you are. If they had guns, they'd have been able to shoot him from a distance. Without said guns, they were just either trying to escape or being shot... or both. Or do you not think that holding a gun significantly increases your chances of survival? If that's the case, feel free to try protecting your house and family from an armed burglar with your bare hands. I'm sure it'll work out great.

"IF" a lot of things but you guys arent even considering the fact that some people were more interested in saving themselves than saving everyone.

I mean, could someone with a gun make a difference? Sure. Will they because they have a gun decide to act? No.

COULD THEY? Yes. I mean, if we're playing the anything is possible game then sure!

We are playing the anything is possible game.

You lefties are playing WI there was tight gun control.

We righties are playing, WI there was one or more, more guys with guns.


Both are legitimate in discussions of policy.

In a nightclub? I thought they had security there...Didnt they?

I don't think one guy that was transformed into a corpse at the door counts as legitimate security.

Was he killed?

Pretty sure he was first.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

More that one guy obviously wasn't enough. Again, if the people in the bar were actually armed, this wouldn't be an issue.

How do you know it was one guy with bad training?

Hey pinhead, it was one guy with probably a 9MM handgun against an AR15.

Ok, was it one guy with bad training or are you guys just making it up on the fly?

It was one guy. I also feel like you're suggesting he's poorly trained if he doesn't blow away the guy once he walks through the door. You're clearly an ignorant Libtard, trying to troll people.

You said he wasnt legit security

I don't think one guy that was transformed into a corpse at the door counts as legitimate security.

I asked how did you come to the conclusion this guy 1. Wasnt armed and 2. Wasnt "legitimate" security?

I meant that one guy wasn't enough to count as security, clearly, since everyone in the night club wasn't 'secure'.

 

[Contumacious]

D.C. police Chief Cathy Lanier urges public to ‘take down’ active gunman if they can

 

[mikegriffith1]

You're a complete, total, abject idiot.

It is just unbelievable that you would still be applying your absurd PC spin onto the commonsense suggestion that more armed good guys would have been better than what we had.

Just how many people do have to die before IDIOTS like you will get a clue?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Donald Trump Wishes There Had Been More Armed Orlando Clubgoers Shooting Blindly In The Crowded Room

There actually was a security guard with a gun. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.​

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

More: Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

Trump failed to realize, or acknowledge, that there WAS a good guy with a gun there who traded gunfire with the attacker - an off-duty police officer in uniform.

Something else Trump doesn't know anything about.

 

[Valerie]

^ add it to his massive list...

 

[Contumacious]

You're a complete, total, abject idiot.

It is just unbelievable that you would still be applying your absurd PC spin onto the commonsense suggestion that more armed good guys would have been better than what we had.

Just how many people do have to die before IDIOTS like you will get a clue?

D.C. police Chief Cathy Lanier urges public to ‘take down’ active gunman if they can

 

[Slyhunter]

There wasn't adequate armed security for a gun free zone. It's really that simple.

If they are going to have gun free zones, owners of such places should be free to sue for not providing adequate protection.

 

[Lakhota]

To my utter amazement, I just learned from a U.S. Senator on MSNBC that if someone is on the terrorist watch list - that does not prevent them from legally buying a gun.

 

[skookerasbil]

Anybody see the gun stocks today?

Buy gun stocks s0ns........they are flying off the shelves today in record numbers.......might sell a million by weeks end!!!


WINNING!!!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It's certainly possible that a club goer COULD have stopped the Islamic nut and lessened the carnage, but the stupid asshole left do not want innocent law abiding citizens to even have a fighting chance. Thy like it when thy are sitting ducks. Apparently the more carnage the better to them.

 

[skookerasbil]

PS.....nobody cares about gun control.

The emotional hemophiliacs lost huge on Saturday........thankfully for the rest of us. Always have had the political IQ of a small soap dish.


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities_1.jpg.html'][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

The best allies the terror bad guys have are progressives...........the Dept of Assholes wing of every Mosque.

 

[HUGGY]

Donald Trump Wishes There Had Been More Armed Orlando Clubgoers Shooting Blindly In The Crowded Room

There actually was a security guard with a gun. That didn’t stop the massacre.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.​

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

More: Trump: A Good Guy With A Gun Could Have Helped Stop Orlando Massacre

Trump failed to realize, or acknowledge, that there WAS a good guy with a gun there who traded gunfire with the attacker - an off-duty police officer in uniform.

I wish there had been more "good guys with guns" there too.

Perhaps one of them could have gotten a good shot at the guy before the Death Toll reached 50.


The idea that armed civilians stopping mass shootings being rare, is pretty stupid.

When you consider that mass shootings are rare.

Yeah, it would have been sooo much better with a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark.

There is also the high likelihood of a terrorist perpetrating such an act will be wearing full body armor. The "good" citizen would have to be a crack shot on most likely a moving target. Head shots are rare under those circumstances. Unless your "pistol has a laser pointer attached or a scope, going up against the AR15 is stupid. The terrorist was trained with weapons. Your "good" citizen would also need the kind of close in combat training necessary.

Just sayin...

Full body armor is rare, expensive and likely to attract FBI attention and depending on how "Full" could tip off security or others that you are about to do something.

AND still does not cover everything.


Head shots at 10 or 20 feet are not that "rare".

I'm trying to envision Kevlar pants. How do you walk ?

It was just a possibility. Don't get too excited. I was just trying to think how I would prepare myself as a theoretical terrorist for such an adventure. I would certainly expect to get killed but would want to live long enough to do the maximum amount of damage.

 

[whitehall]

Didn't we learn anything when the jihad Major Hasan murdered 13 Fort Hood Soldiers and wounded 30 others and the Military Police had to call the local civilian Police Department and it was a single female hero of a Police Officer who finally took him down while the M.P.'s were running for cover? An armed security guard might not be the best example of a "good guy with a gun". There is nothing like a guy with a gun who is facing death to get some balls and use the freaking thing even in the gay community.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, it would have been sooo much better with a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark.

When has that ever happened?

waco, Twin Peaks restaurant.