I, too, have watched the first video, the ASP commentary, plus a slow-speed video on BitChute that was zoomed in on the assailant. I’ve seen comments on muzzle discipline by the later responding members. The muzzle comments may be on the mark or they might be the result of the camera angle giving limited information/perspective.
The real issue, IMO, is the assailant was allowed access to the auditorium rather than being stopped when first encountered in his strange get-up/disguise in the foyer. There is much to be learned from this incident. The new requirement is constant vigilance or Condition Orange on Jeff Cooper’s scale.
I teach our security team rings of defense. If you see someone that stands out start communicating to the team.
We want to be proactive and not reactive in our defense.
Well, in terms of stopping the killer before he even got in the church, the problem is how “welcoming” do you want to be.
Think of those poor people in the Charleston black church shooting where Dylann Roof was the shooter. They had to know something was wrong, when this strange white kid shows up in an all-black church of older people. My memory is that they actually spent time with him participating in a Bible study before he opened fire on them.
They had to know something was wrong, but they still spent time with him trying to reach him, probably knowing it might not turn out well. And they still welcomed him when the rational response would have been to immediately kick him out when he first showed up.
I know somewhere there is a YouTube video of Pastor John Piper being interviewed on this topic, and whether he would carry a gun to defend himself in such a circumstance. He said no, his reasoning being that if he were killed, he knows he is going to heaven, but if he were to shoot and kill the attacker, the attacker would then spend eternity in Hell, and he didn’t want that on his conscience. That response had made me think.