Texas is a "stand your ground" state, if attacked you're not required to retreat and avoid the situation. Quite the contrary, you're allowed to use deadly force if you have reason to believe yours may be in danger. So everybody involved will claim they were attacked out of the blue, without any kind of provocation from their side, something that may be impossible to disprove when everybody else says the same. As a consequence the murders may be impossible to prosecute.

Looks like a possible mass shooting may have been averted.

"An 18-year-old woman suspected of making threats to Denver-area schools has been found dead, the FBI says.

Sol Pais was reportedly obsessed with the 1999 Columbine high school massacre, in which two teenagers murdered 12 students and a teacher.

The alleged threat led to school closures for half a million students and a manhunt for the Florida woman.

She allegedly travelled to the state and bought a shotgun ahead of the 20th anniversary of the Columbine shooting.

The FBI tweeted on Wednesday there was no longer a threat to the community and the suspect is deceased.

Officials said at a news conference that local schools would reopen on Thursday and events marking the anniversary of the 1999 shooting would continue on Saturday.

It was not immediately clear how she died or whether any shots were fired in the operation, which saw nearly 30 armed officers swarm the woods near the Echo Park Campground in the Arapaho National Forest, CBS News reports."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47969359

And another for the collection. Shame it's never likely to end.

"A gunman opened fire at a synagogue in California on Saturday, killing one woman and wounding three other people, police said.

A 19-year-old man named as John Earnest was arrested after the attack, in Poway, north of the city of San Diego.

The synagogue had been hosting a Passover celebration when the gunman burst in, reports said."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48081535

Some interesting points:

Suspected hate crime
Inspired by Christchurch and Pittsburgh
Could have been worse, prevented by someone else with a gun

Let's look at your last point closely:

1. The 'someone else' was an off-duty policeman, trained in firearms use. He couldn't hit the gunman.
2. The gunman was actually already fleeing the synagogue when the off-duty policeman took out his gun.

So, it looks like nothing was prevented from getting worse by anyone else having a gun.

I read off duty cop was in the Synagogue at the time of the attack. Let’s wait and see.

So it's OK for you to make wild speculative comments, but someone questioning their reliability has to "wait and see"?

Does anyone else feel there's something the wrong way round here?

Security guard (which often in the US is an off-duty cop), and definitely a hate-crime:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...e0pvFZImH-4yLM

Tom

From the linked article

It sounds like that wasn't what happened in this case, but many, many Americans do subscribe to the idea that the best way to combat a "bad guy with a gun" is to have a "good guy with a gun".

I think the overriding thing that's wrong here is that any place of worship needs security guards, but whether it's a Synagogue in the US, a Mosque in NZ, or a Catholic church in Sri Lanka, that's where we are.

Although, if the 'good guy' had opened fire in a crowded room, trying to hit a gunman, or gunmen, the casualty rate could well be much higher.

We don't know yet but it maybe that the security guard resisted firing because of the crowded room.

Either that or just permanently close all churches, synagogues, mosques, temple and any other places of worship.

Imagine "nothing to kill or die for".

Your idea was tried successfully in Srilanka. Churches were closed, people prayed at home, nobody died.

... and pubs, restaurants, cafes, nightclubs, shopping centres, embassies, offices...?

Yes, of course. I was merely pointing out that while Loz's post might come across as a bit flippant, it's a widely held view in the States.

Unfortunately, many who believe in the good guy theory don't think further to scenarios such as you state. It's always a Hollywood vision that comes to mind, where the good guy has a clear shot and no one else gets hurt.

At least six people have been killed in a church in Burkina Faso in what appears to be an attack by jihadi gunmen. The attack follows the killing of five teachers in another part of the country on Friday last week.

They do think that but they ignore spectacular failures of such thinking like in Las Vegas.

Or consider this:
If one good guy is a good thing, certainly 2-3-4 of them are even better, right? RIGHT?

Ok, so we have good guy #1 (GG#1) engaging the bad guy. Now GG#2 appears and sees two people shooting at each other. Not knowing which is which he takes out both while he has a clear shot, just to be sure. Now GG#3 shows up, obviously he must assume that GG#2 is the bad guy and kills him, too.

That's what multiple good guys witha a gun would result in, assuming they actually decide to get active.

That is easy to resolve; just pass a law that the bad guys have to wear black hats!

Real life example of an innocent man killed by police during a mall shooting
Source