Look, there's lots of ways for people to defend themselves without resorting to lethal means.
Certainly: pointing a gun at someone trying to attack you is a fantastic non-lethal deterrent.
Twisting of words, and rhetorical bullshit.
To judge a collective based on its most radical members is a logical fallacy.
To assume an argument has a false conclusion because it contains a fallacy is a logical fallacy.
Twisting of words, and of what "fallacy of fallacies" actually is for.
In my opinion, this probably the most rational way to approach theism rather than "GOD DOESN'T EXIST AND EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES HE IS IS AN UNEDUCATED MORON" (see: majority of atheists) or "GOD EXISTS AND EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES HE ISN'T IS AN UNEDUCATED MORON" (see: majority of theists).
Though I didn't mention it in the original edit, this is also a dick move. Painting entire groups of people because of what a few do.
Now, if only we can get catholic priests banned from being in public in any capacity...
Hey guys, let's attack religion for no good reason!
While I am an atheist, I still practice a religion, and to see nonreligious people make sweeping attacks against religions is just as offensive, bigoted, and destructive as seeing a zealous theist attacking everyone that doesn't adhere to his own religious beliefs.
Please show some respect for the religious or nonreligious beliefs of others, as long as they are not used to attack others, and keep in mind that not all religious organizations are hateful.
This one is more the context: The discussion was about the predation of innocent youth by Catholic priests. How is this in any way relevant? It reminds me of when the National Review defended the Nazis after Obama said the holocaust was "senseless violence". I.E. Non-relevant to what was being discussed, and actually rather disturbing in-context.