I think this "good guy with a gun" discussion is missing the point. In this case the good guy had a hunting rifle. No one is suggesting that additional restrictions be applied to hunting rifles. The discussion is about restrictions on military rifles. If military rifles were somehow magically fully banned, this good guy Texan would still have his hunting rifle and he still could have acted in the way he did. The difference would be that the bad guy would be shooting at the church with a hunting rifle also instead of an assault rifle. He would probably have only killed a few people instead of 26 (or whatever the number is now) before the good guy shot him.
Somehow these discussion always seem to go immediately from from "let's ban assault weapons" to "liberals want to take away all guns from everyone". It would not be that hard to fix this if people just tried a little.
What’s the distinction between hunting rifles and assault rifles? Do you want to ban anything with a magazine?
Yeah, that is a great question if your goal is to just shut down the discussion. Back when I used to hunt (albeit never in Texas), there were very specific rules about what guns you could use to hunt what animals during specific seasons. You could start there. I bet even Texas has rules about what types of firearms you can hunt with. But as I said, if you even tried just a little, this would be an easy thing to solve (kind of like defining p0rn). Deciding what is a hunting rifle and what is not is not the issue. The issue is that as soon as anyone even tries, the talking points come out to antagonize the base.
A) You're completely mistaken with your initial premise. Willeford used the exact same type of gun that the gunman used, that is an AR-15.
http://beta.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-shooting-guns-20171106-story.htmlhttps://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/corner/453470/texas-hero-reportedly-used-his-own-ar-confront-sutherland-springs-shooterB) Your claim that he would've only killed a few with a hunting rifle is nonsense. Both guns below are the exact type of caliber with the exact capacity and overall level of deadliness, and both were equally capable of performing what occurred in Texas, even though I'm sure you'd consider one a "hunting" rifle and one a "military" rifle. The only real difference is that one is "black and scary" with more possible modifications that have a negligible effect on its deadliness (none of which were reported to be used in this instance, such as bump stocks or super high capacity magazines).

You've made this argument before in other threads, and I've thoroughly explained to you why this notion just isn't as clear cut as you're arguing. Perhaps the reason there are these "talking points" regarding your argument is because it's just a bad argument that doesn't play out in reality.
Yes, there's absolutely certain restrictions that we should already have, such as on these bump stock modifications and super capacity magazines, and we should probably ban all private sales of firearms outside of FFL dealers. But this notion that there's this huge class of "military" rifles out there that are so conceptually distinct from "hunting" rifles that aren't already banned or very tightly regulated is just a fantasy. The overwhelming majority of these acts are committed by AR-15s, which when not modified are essentially just black ranch rifles that are used to hunt coyotes, deer, pigs, and many other animals due to being one of the most popular guns/calibers for medium to big-sized game.