Alabama McDonald's gunman killed by armed dad, who is injured in shootout

a reply to: CharlesT

no - i am asking the most important question

the OP claims the gunman entered to start a mass shooting

he fired first - and shot at what EXACTLY - hint - his first shots netted zero casualties

go figure

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Krakatoa

The investigative assistance for violent crimes act, passed in 2012, defines a mass killing as "a killing with at least three deaths, excluding the perpetrator."

This had the POTENTIAL to be a mass killing, yet not necessarily the intent.

A2D

Yes, I am aware of that. However, I was asking the ATS poster whining about the definition what their ideas of "mass" means.

But, thanks for the confirmation.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Not one of them, nor in any news report I've read about in the REAL WORLD has the gunman entering with guns blazing.

Well, I'm not sure how you haven't heard about the North Hollywood shootout, but those fellas fired rounds into the ceiling to scare everybody in the bank. I suppose it's possible, but I can't imagine they're the only ones to have ever done that in history.

In any event, I think the point being made is that you're sensationalizing the story in a manner befitting an MSM article. Gunman went into a McDonald's for, as of right now, unknown reasons. Fella on scene was carrying and put said gunman down. Fella on scene is, apparently, a private citizen. Good on him, but end of story.

All the talk of "prevented a mass shooting" with "no others hurt or killed" (guess we're ignoring the part where dude's son got shot?) and "he must be trained because he killed the gunman and has a CCL" (side note, Alabama doesn't require any sort of training course to obtain a CCL, and plenty of trained shooters miss rounds in combat and plenty of untrained shooters land rounds in combat) is just that: talk. Hyperbolic talk, no less.

Good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. End of story. Everything else you're going on about is just you trying to dress it up.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: CharlesT

no - i am asking the most important question

the OP claims the gunman entered to start a mass shooting

he fired first - and shot at what EXACTLY - hint - his first shots netted zero casualties

go figure

So, to you, how many had to be in that building for it to be the potential for a "mass"? It's an important question.

FFS

a reply to: Krakatoa

Real life is not a TV script, genius.

Granted. But, the gunman is dead, so I guess he wasn't a "genius" either.

a reply to: Krakatoa

your reading comprehension - and amnesia of your own replies - has struck again

YOU claim it was the begining of a " mass shooting - not me

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krakatoa

Not one of them, nor in any news report I've read about in the REAL WORLD has the gunman entering with guns blazing.

Well, I'm not sure how you haven't heard about the North Hollywood shootout, but those fellas fired rounds into the ceiling to scare everybody in the bank. I suppose it's possible, but I can't imagine they're the only ones to have ever done that in history.

In any event, I think the point being made is that you're sensationalizing the story in a manner befitting an MSM article. Gunman went into a McDonald's for, as of right now, unknown reasons. Fella on scene was carrying and put said gunman down. Fella on scene is, apparently, a private citizen. Good on him, but end of story.

All the talk of "prevented a mass shooting" with "no others hurt or killed" (guess we're ignoring the part where dude's son got shot?) and "he must be trained because he killed the gunman and has a CCL" (side note, Alabama doesn't require any sort of training course to obtain a CCL, and plenty of trained shooters miss rounds in combat and plenty of untrained shooters land rounds in combat) is just that: talk. Hyperbolic talk, no less.

Good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. End of story. Everything else you're going on about is just you trying to dress it up.

No, the point is that I repeatedly see and hear the claims that armed citizens cannot be trusted to defend themselves and others in this exact type of situation. That it would result in masses of innocents killed due to the incompetent shooting of said citizens. here is an actual example, real life not supposition, that refutes that baseless claim.

Yet, some feel the need to get pedantic and spin it like a tornado to deflect from the reality that in this case, it does refute their claims. Will it be like this in all cases, surely not...but, it has shown with actual evidence that it can work and save a mass of lives when done properly.

That is the main point.....not this other crap being debated.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Krakatoa

your reading comprehension - and amnesia of your own replies - has struck again

YOU claim it was the begining of a " mass shooting - not me

Yes, and legally a mass is 4 or more people that are killed. In this case, there was that number in jeopardy at the scene of a masked man entering a building and firing away. That is a fact.

He was stopped by a citizen that was exercising his 2nd Amendment right, with nobody but the gunman killed. That is a fact.

And, I still await your answer on how many constitute a "mass" of people that have to be in imminent danger to qualify?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Yet, some feel the need to get pedantic and spin it like a tornado to deflect from the reality that in this case, it does refute their claims. Will it be like this in all cases, surely not...but, it has shown with actual evidence that it can work and save a mass of lives when done properly.

Yet, some feel the need to sensationalize and spin it like a tornado from the reality, which in this case is that a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy, with unknown intentions, with a gun, and his own kid was wounded in the exchange of gunfire.

You got called out on sensationalizing the story. Your defense for doing so is to ignore the fact that you've sensationalized it and point the finger at others for sensationalizing it in a negative way. Or, more directly, to point the blame at others for making the sensational claim that good guys with guns can't stop bad guys with guns. That's it, really. I don't recall seeing anybody disputing the fact that a good guy stopped a bad guy, and stopped him pretty definitively. Simply that in your effort to refute one sensational claim, you've made several of your own sensational claims.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Why did I just know this was on Fox News?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Krakatoa

Why did I just know this was on Fox News?

Why did I know you wouldn't read the entire OP where I also provided a link tot he local news station reporting the incident.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: CharlesT

no - i am asking the most important question

the OP claims the gunman entered to start a mass shooting

he fired first - and shot at what EXACTLY - hint - his first shots netted zero casualties

go figure

Ummm...so if you roll a grenade into a room with people in it...and it fails to explode...do we get to state that it wasn't a mass homicide attempt...because no one was killed...?

So...apparently...if we have an inept...couldn't hit the broadside of a barn...loser...open fire in a restaurant and misses his intended targets...it wasn't an attempted mass shooting...cause...ineptness...?

I fail to see how ineptness...and lack of accuracy...make the attempt any less valid...

Perhaps you could splain it to me...





YouSir

originally posted by: Krakatoa




Imagine that, an armed and trained citizen foils an attempted mass shooting before police arrive with no others hurt or killed.

Where in the article does it say that he's trained? Or are you just making that up?

That said, I'm glad no one got killed.

a reply to: Krakatoa

A more factual headline would have been: "Two gunmen exchange fire in an Alabama McDonalds. One dead, two with minor injuries".

Inference about motive and potential outcomes is entirely unfounded.

It could just as realistically been "A confused Halloween prankster gets the date wrong and is taken down by an armed killer" or "Accidental discharge of robbers weapon in an Alabama McDonald leads to fatal shooting".

That is the problem with US News. It is 80% spin.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Krakatoa

Why did I just know this was on Fox News?

Why did I know you wouldn't read the entire OP where I also provided a link tot he local news station reporting the incident.

Perhaps because both News services drew inferences about the motives and potential outcomes with no actual basis in fact... and 'hero' stories receive high approval in their viewer/reader demographics.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: CharlesT

no - i am asking the most important question

the OP claims the gunman entered to start a mass shooting

he fired first - and shot at what EXACTLY - hint - his first shots netted zero casualties

go figure

The man was a poor shot then? That can explain why he got no score. We have to see the CCTV video to tell what he shot at first because no one knows what he was aiming at in that article. So your question itself is Un answerable with the amount of Data we have on hand. And you know that and are trolling.

a reply to: YouSir

That's how the left and the media lie to say mass shootings aren't prevented. If you kill them before they kill people then it's not a mass shooting and you can't prove it would be.

a reply to: YouSir

I bet it was a out of work Star wars Storm trooper.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

MAY have .. but to open fire during a robbery is pretty stupid because police are immediately called by everyone in the area hearing it. So while it's possible that scenario would require a really stupid robber, which do exist. Regardless, this had the potential to turn deadly, and was stopped by an armed citizen.

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: Krakatoa




Imagine that, an armed and trained citizen foils an attempted mass shooting before police arrive with no others hurt or killed.

Where in the article does it say that he's trained? Or are you just making that up?

That said, I'm glad no one got killed.

Read my response to that question in this thread. I shouldn't have to repeat myself to someone inferring I am a liar.