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

[PredFan]

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.

You and the left are not only stupid enough to say something like this, but you are stupid enough not to understand exactly how stupid it is. I've explained it to you before, and you still post this stupidity.

 

[PredFan]

Trump is correct, but he's a bit unclear in the way he stated it. If it wasn't a gun-free zone. the shooter wouldn't have attacked the club. All of these shootings have one thing in common; they all happen in gun-free zones. Shooters like this guy don't like people fighting back.

 

[Norman]

Trump is correct, but he's a bit unclear in the way he stated it. If it wasn't a gun-free zone. the shooter wouldn't have attacked the club. All of these shootings have one thing in common; they all happen in gun-free zones. Shooters like this guy don't like people fighting back.

Yeah, he was just like a good democrat in that way... then again, he was a registered democrat.

 

[Correll]

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".

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

ONE homosexual with a gun could have made the difference.

He would not have to run towards danger.

Take cover and when he could see the shooter, start returning fire.


ALSO keep in mind the SHOOTER is not a Hollywood action star either.

This may be true but don't you think in most cases someone with the intentions to do such an act would do some kind of training to prepare?

Actually, no I don't think most cases that they would.

Maybe some marksmen ship practice.

What type of training is readily available to a lone wolf that would prepare him for a shooting spree or a gun battle?

 

[Correll]

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

I never said that anyone would "react like James Bond". I was responding to Correll regarding the necessity of head shots where body armor was involved. The topic of Hollywood was neither expressed nor implied.

My idea of "Hollywood" was just an example...not a topic. I think many people expect too much from those victims in Orlando.

You could very well be right about that. Panicked people in a dark, loud area may not be capable of much rational thought.

Hiding and shooting back at someone trying to kill you would not take a lot of "rational thought".

Hiding and self defense are Instinctual.

Maybe. It would entirely depend on the individuals involved. Without having been there my first guess id that the shooter would have all the advantage. He would be looking for someone to fight back probably and concentrate on neutralizing resistance.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

I never said that anyone would "react like James Bond". I was responding to Correll regarding the necessity of head shots where body armor was involved. The topic of Hollywood was neither expressed nor implied.

My idea of "Hollywood" was just an example...not a topic. I think many people expect too much from those victims in Orlando.

You could very well be right about that. Panicked people in a dark, loud area may not be capable of much rational thought.

Hiding and shooting back at someone trying to kill you would not take a lot of "rational thought".

Hiding and self defense are Instinctual.

Maybe. It would entirely depend on the individuals involved. Without having been there my first guess id that the shooter would have all the advantage. He would be looking for someone to fight back probably and concentrate on neutralizing resistance.

My first guess is that he would be focused on killing as many people as he could before they got away or the police arrived.

The shooter does have the advantage though in that he probably has a bigger gun(s) and more ammo.

But less of an advantage than if NO ONE can shoot back.

 

[Lakhota]

When people are motivated and no longer afraid of death, that gives them a major edge over people who want to live. They have a calmness and coolness that helps to compensate for their possible lack gunmanship and/or military-style training. If they also happen to be proficient - that makes them even more lethal.

 

[HUGGY]

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".

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

ONE homosexual with a gun could have made the difference.

He would not have to run towards danger.

Take cover and when he could see the shooter, start returning fire.


ALSO keep in mind the SHOOTER is not a Hollywood action star either.

This may be true but don't you think in most cases someone with the intentions to do such an act would do some kind of training to prepare?

Actually, no I don't think most cases that they would.

Maybe some marksmen ship practice.

What type of training is readily available to a lone wolf that would prepare him for a shooting spree or a gun battle?

I don't know about all parts of the country but up here in WA state there are THOUSANDS of places to practice firing weapons. Pick the target. Find an old farm . Lay out the distances and obstacles. Pack in a few bales of hay or straw to represent critical personnel to overcome. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to set up a training area.

 

[Correll]

When people are motivated and no longer afraid of death, that gives them a major edge over people who want to live. They have a calmness and coolness that helps to compensate for their possible lack gunmanship and/or military-style training. If they also happen to be proficient - that makes them even more lethal.

No, it doesn't.

They cowardly attack people while those people are going about their lives.

They have the element of surprise.

They can arm themselves and cowardly attack people who are likely NOT armed, or at best, lightly armed.

If they find a place with limited exits and lots of victims, they can can be very lethal.

 

[Correll]

A head shot might not even be necessary.
Getting hit by a .357, .40, or .45, even with body armor + trauma plate, is going to HURT. Like getting bashed by a baseball bat kind of hurt.
Something like that would likely put someone out of action for at least a few seconds - seconds that could be used to either make an escape or close in to disarm or otherwise subdue.

People in bad situations don't react like James Bond. Many freeze. Many just lose their minds and just completely tune out. Only one in a hundred have the where with all to run TOO danger. I doubt if any of those types are homosexuals. Stop trying to view the world like in a Hollywood action movie. Average people can't afford to have stunt doubles follow them around to do the action shots.

ONE homosexual with a gun could have made the difference.

He would not have to run towards danger.

Take cover and when he could see the shooter, start returning fire.


ALSO keep in mind the SHOOTER is not a Hollywood action star either.

This may be true but don't you think in most cases someone with the intentions to do such an act would do some kind of training to prepare?

Actually, no I don't think most cases that they would.

Maybe some marksmen ship practice.

What type of training is readily available to a lone wolf that would prepare him for a shooting spree or a gun battle?

I don't know about all parts of the country but up here in WA state there are THOUSANDS of places to practice firing weapons. Pick the target. Find an old farm . Lay out the distances and obstacles. Pack in a few bales of hay or straw to represent critical personnel to overcome. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to set up a training area.

Gun ranges I've been at, that would not be allowed, not without being part of a reenactment or shooting group.


And the more preparation, the more chance that someone will be alerted.

 

[Lakhota]

When people are motivated and no longer afraid of death, that gives them a major edge over people who want to live. They have a calmness and coolness that helps to compensate for their possible lack gunmanship and/or military-style training. If they also happen to be proficient - that makes them even more lethal.

No, it doesn't.

They cowardly attack people while those people are going about their lives.

They have the element of surprise.

They can arm themselves and cowardly attack people who are likely NOT armed, or at best, lightly armed.

If they find a place with limited exits and lots of victims, they can can be very lethal.

Yes, it does. Reread what I wrote very slowly.

 

[hadit]

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

Only to the simple

Stop with the lamo insults.

It really is not complicated. A gun free zone is of course a soft target. An establishment like Pulse must certainly now look at their security preparedness and review the lack thereof and take measured steps to protect their patrons.

It's a fucking no brainer.

Why won't Republicans allow guns at the Republican National Convention?

Because they are confident that security will be tight enough to keep rabid Hillary supporters away from the sane people. You might as well ask why the democrats will demand ID from those who attend their convention but fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from having to prove they are eligible to vote. You know, when it really counts.

 

[Siete]

99.99% of the people who carry have never been trained to deal with with a dark crowded club scenario ... unless they were standing within 5 feet of the shooter when he walked in the front door, stopped, ripped off 25 rounds in 3 seconds, and they were able to stop him then and there, stopping him after that would be hard.

even the most highly trained swat officer wont get in a shoot out with a perp when/if theres 300 people in the same room in a dim lit building ... they just wont.

 

[Correll]

99.99% of the people who carry have never been trained to deal with with a dark crowded club scenario ... unless they were standing within 5 feet of the shooter when he walked in the front door, stopped, ripped off 25 rounds in 3 seconds, and they were able to stop him then and there, stopping him after that would be hard.

even the most highly trained swat officer wont get in a shoot out with a perp when/if theres 300 people in the same room in a dim lit building ... they just wont.

It doesn't matter if people haven't been trained.

Some lunatic with a rifle is shooting people.

You don't need training to know that that is the problem nor what to do about it.

And a "shoot out" with a perp is better than a the perp just gunning people down unimpeded.

 

[OldLady]

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?

No. I found out last night. He wasn't injured, but he was "outgunned." He was calling L.E. as he shot, but he couldn't stop the guy. He has to feel AWFUL, poor guy.

 

[Contumacious]

waco, Twin Peaks restaurant.

That was a gang fight. Try again.

The allegation was "a bunch of NRA gun nuts shooting blindly in the dark".

The question was "When has that ever happened?"

It happened at Twin Peaks in Waco, TX.

Examine the widely distributed video of the incident for proof.

Certainly, you're not alleging that only gang members were present; are you?

Precisely, and the example of Twin Peaks doesn't fit. Give the name(s) of the innocent bystanders who pulled out their guns and shot back at the perps and hit other innocent bystanders. This scenario never happens, but the gun grabbers keep using it as an excuse to justify gun free zones. In fact, I can only think of two instances where return gunfire at an attacker resulted in innocent bystanders being hurt and in both instances it was done by the NYPD, not the average Joe Blow with a CWP.

You've strayed into the area where you're identifying a distinction without a difference. Whether or not the guy firing the weapon means to or not, he may hit the "opponent" or a bystander. In both cases of whether the guy firing is part of the melee or not you had an untrained assailant hitting an innocent bystander.

Sheriff David Clarke's radio ad says 911 not best option, urges residents to take firearms classes

Sheriff David Clarke's radio ad says 911 not best option, urges residents to take firearms classes

 

[ClosedCaption]

"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?

No. I found out last night. He wasn't injured, but he was "outgunned." He was calling L.E. as he shot, but he couldn't stop the guy. He has to feel AWFUL, poor guy.

Another case of Pumpkin flat out not knowing what the fuck shes talking about but does that stop her? Hell naw

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

No. I found out last night. He wasn't injured, but he was "outgunned." He was calling L.E. as he shot, but he couldn't stop the guy. He has to feel AWFUL, poor guy.

Another case of Pumpkin flat out not knowing what the fuck shes talking about but does that stop her? Hell naw

Hasn't stopped you, either. This actually means there was no security, which is even better.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

No. I found out last night. He wasn't injured, but he was "outgunned." He was calling L.E. as he shot, but he couldn't stop the guy. He has to feel AWFUL, poor guy.

Another case of Pumpkin flat out not knowing what the fuck shes talking about but does that stop her? Hell naw

If I had a penny for every ignorant post you've made, I'd have over 40,000 pennies. You're certainly not one to talk about getting facts wrong.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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?

No. I found out last night. He wasn't injured, but he was "outgunned." He was calling L.E. as he shot, but he couldn't stop the guy. He has to feel AWFUL, poor guy.

Another case of Pumpkin flat out not knowing what the fuck shes talking about but does that stop her? Hell naw

Hasn't stopped you, either. This actually means there was no security, which is even better.

Ahh yes, You said the Security guard wasnt real security because he was dead. Now you find out that not only is he not dead but he exchanged gun fire with the nut job. And to you that means "there was no security"

Great a dead guy whos not dead and security who was there "wasnt there". Anything else you'd like to get wrong since you're doing so great at it?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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

Was he killed?

No. I found out last night. He wasn't injured, but he was "outgunned." He was calling L.E. as he shot, but he couldn't stop the guy. He has to feel AWFUL, poor guy.

Another case of Pumpkin flat out not knowing what the fuck shes talking about but does that stop her? Hell naw

Hasn't stopped you, either. This actually means there was no security, which is even better.

Ahh yes, You said the Security guard wasnt real security because he was dead. Now you find out that not only is he not dead but he exchanged gun fire with the nut job. And to you that means "there was no security"

Great a dead guy whos not dead and security who was there "wasnt there". Anything else you'd like to get wrong since you're doing so great at it?

Considering he ended up surviving and allowing a ton of people in the bar to die, yeah, I'd say he wasn't real security. Also, considering someone in this thread said that he was shot, and we haven't had other information up until now, it's easy to come to the conclusion he was dead beforehand. Sounds to me like he failed and then ran off.