I've dealt with Lloyd before. He has the standard talking points for a Flat Earther and wonders if we need guns in churches. He should ask Jeanne Assam if she needed hers, I guess.
Now, Lloyd writes in a bit of tongue in cheek style (the dude wrote scripts for Frasier!!!!), so much of what he writes should be filtered through that lens. I know I write sarcastically, so that doesn't automatically rate dismissal.
Lloyd's logical flaw, however, is that gun = violence. Automatically. There is no difference in protecting your children vs. murdering someone for their credit cards. A gun is just that, an automatic instance of violence, even if it remains holstered and unloaded.
So, assuming that bringing a firearm into church (something I do all the time) is the same as causing violence one could be lead to believe that guns have no place in a sanctuary. Someone should have told that to the gunman that killed Reverend Fred Winters. He didn't respect the sanctuary's magical force field that keeps violence out.
Interestingly, many of the parishioners committed acts of violence against the gunman in order to subdue him. If Lloyd's logic was thorough, he'd be claiming that those in the pews should have just sat there and allowed the gunman to continue his rampage until everyone was dead or the killer was petered out and took a nap.
Had someone belted the gunman over the head with a communion tray, would Lloyd be asking if metallic dishes had no place in a place of worship? Probably not. I'd bet though that that would be because people like Lloyd buy into the whole myth that intent is transferrable. Hence why his argument is weak.