Top Navigation  
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues

 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Back Issues
 Discount Books
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

 BHM Forum
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Lost Password
 Write For BHM

Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.

Massad Ayoob


Friday, October 9th, 2015

Well, they’re at it again.  Their egos deeply invested in their narrative that “guns are bad and so are the people who own them,” we now hear prohibitionists telling us that no mass murder has ever been stopped by a “good guy with a gun.”

Au contraire.   Here are a dozen cases where armed good people of both genders stopped massacres by drawing and if necessary, firing their own guns.

To this list I would add the Aurora, Colorado church shooting which, ignored by the media, happened within two months of the mass murder in the “gun free zone” theater in that same community.  The perp opened fire at the church, killing an innocent woman; before he could claim any more victims, a parishioner drew his own legally-carried concealed handgun and shot the murderer dead.  Didn’t read about that in the mass media, did you?  Or the incident some years ago in Cape Town, South Africa where organized terrorists attacked a church and opened up with machine guns and grenades, but were routed by a single parishioner who returned fire with a five-shot snub-nose .38.  And shall we remember the many armed citizens who saved people at the Westgate Mall terrorist attack, while soldiers and police fibrillated outside?

Note that from the monster at Sandy Hook to the one in the Aurora theater to the latest at the Oregon campus, these punks have surrendered, suicided, or gone down in front of righteous gunfire as soon as good guys with guns entered the equation.

The mayor of Bethlehem has recently called on more citizens to carry guns and stop terrorist attacks, recognizing that armed citizens have done so before in his country . Said the mayor, “If we look at the statistics in Jerusalem and elsewhere, we see that aside from the police, civilians carrying weapons have foiled terror attacks. They will increase the likelihood of fast intervention.”

I wish American politicians and pundits could face reality so.


  1. Spencer B. Says:

    Another excellent article, Mas. This is a much appreciated resource.

    It’s been good to get caught up here on your blog, Sir.

    All the best!

  2. Chris Parks Says:

    “Here are a dozen cases” may be a dead link.

  3. Paul Edwards Says:

    Just to let you all know that “I’m Back Again”, Just Barely!

    Mas, Great take, on the cowardly Oregon College Murderer coverage!

    Thanks again Mas

  4. Mas Says:

    Paul, best wishes for a fast and total recovery!

  5. Dave Arbenz Says:

    The “Here are a dozen cases” does not work.

  6. Michael V Says:

    Chris Parks is right, the first link in the article doesn’t work. Here it is for reference:

  7. Two-gun Steve Says:

    Many firearms prohibitionists seem to suffer from a particular egotism that makes them feel that they possess some sort of special omniscience that somehow renders them invulnerable or otherwise excepted from the realities of negative consequences, while giving them the right to dictate how others should think and behave. Pacifists can practice their philosophy all they want for all I care, but please don’t force pacifism on me, because in a life-or-death situation pacifism is a form of suicide, or maybe something even worse. To echo others, take a look at Jesus’ admonition that it was time to sell one’s cloak (if necessary) and buy a sword. Then remember that the sword of today an effective firearm. My personal experience with ownership has been positive by far, and undeniably life-saving.

  8. JohnM Says:

    After many years of agonizing over the reactions of the “anti-gun” crowd, I have arrived at a conclusion. There are two kinds of Americans, those who possess firearms for their own, use, enjoyment and self defense and those who do not.
    Depending on where you align your self. If you don’t have a gun, you don’t think anyone else should either.
    It’s that simple.
    Do you agree?

  9. Paul Edwards Says:

    Thanks Mas


  10. Jaji Says:

    No mass murder has ever been stopped by a good guy with a gun: Wonder if the US entering WWII counts? Nah, because the anti-gun zealots and their zombified followers don’t think the US military can be the good guys either.

    Funny too how using their (ill-)logic the police arriving with guns and putting down a mad dog doesn’t count as “good guys with guns” either. It’s almost as if they have no grasp on reality…

  11. Dennis Says:

    Mas, may be just my computer, but when I attempt to go to your first link, I get “this web page is unavailable”. Has it been taken down?

  12. Dennis Says:

    An evil doer stopped before he can do evil cannot become a mass murderer.

    Sheep, without canine teeth, can only be protected from the wolf by sheep dogs with canine teeth.

    A cat that has been de-clawed and de-fanged should never venture outside the protection of home to fend for itself, unless accompanied by a friendly cat that hasn’t.

    Just because someone refuses to acknowledge a fact does not negate the fact.

  13. Oisin og Says:

    To draw comparisons between societal norms in Israel and the USA is odious and misleading.

    Are you suggesting that what passes for a normal society in Jerusalem is to be preferred to what is the reality in cities in the United States?

    Jerusalem is an armed camp which simmers constantly on the cusp of major civil unrest.

  14. David S. Keough Says:

    Paul get well fast. Mas, I can’t bring up anything with that link.

  15. eightblack Says:

    Mas great article. The link is kaput

  16. Robert Amor Says:

    Thanks again, Mas. You are a beacon of light in a darkening world. Thanks for your strengthening words! Good shall prevail!

  17. Craig Brownell Says:

    The honorable (cough) opposition is uninterested in facts.

    Their purpose is rousing rabble into overturning civil rights on the basis of fear.

    It has worked in the past and only ends in tragedy.

    Their Utopia will never be realized.

    They are totally vested in the outcome, supported by ‘useful idiots’ too stupid to foresee the ultimate result.

    It worked for Stalin, why not here?

    Well, there is this “little inconvenience” called the U.S. Constitution.

    The problem is getting nine bat-clothed mystics in Washington, D.C. to read 18th Century English.

  18. Bob Frost Says:

    Excellent, solid observation and, as usual, well presented. A terrific resource.

    Thank you.

    along those lines, I have coined a term for any group’s self delusion hyperfocused on assumed evils, such as firearms and being firearm owners. They will accept no possible explanations or judgements but their own.

    Gyroscopic Partisan Myopia:

    …so focused on being adversarial toward presumed villains as to not look at all never mind both ways when crossing streets. Probably STILL running with scissors, too.

  19. Mas Says:

    Everyone: the Evil Princess tells me the link is fixed.

    Oisin Og: What I’m suggesting is that when life-threatening emergency strikes, there is less death and suffering if it can be dealt with immediately. A citizen shooting a mass murderer before the police can get there is no different from using a fire extinguisher while waiting for the fire department to arrive, or administering first responder emergency medical care while awaiting the paramedics. What part of that didn’t you grasp?

    JohnM: I’ve known many people who didn’t own guns themselves, but were neutral on the issue or philosophically and logically allied with us who do.

  20. Steve from MA Says:

    “Jerusalem is an armed camp which simmers constantly on the cusp of major civil unrest”.

    Oh, really, I thought you talking about Detroit, Cleveland, Oakland, …

    Point of fact, it is quite difficult for an Israeli civilian, even for my cousin who was a sniper in the IDF, to obtain a personal handgun license. Maybe Netanyahu has eased the laws. At one point they encouraged teachers to be armed to thwart terrorist attacks.

  21. George Says:

    Oisin og wrote:

    “Jerusalem is an armed camp which simmers constantly on the cusp of major civil unrest.”

    How is that any different from the South side of Chicago, Baltimore, etc?

  22. Todd Says:

    First the anti-gunners tell us we can’t be armed because we don’t have the “extensive” training that cops have and we’d just end up mowing down a bunch of innocents.

    Then, when an incident does occur, and us “untrained” civilians don’t act like cops, we’re told we never protect the public.

    I have news for the anti-gunners… priority number one is protecting myself, not a bunch of folks who have chosen not to protect themselves.

  23. Todd Says:

    Hard to say how many mass shooting were stopped by civilians as a mass shooting doesn’t become a mass shooting until 4 people are killed. So if a civilian kills the shooter after the shooter kills 1, 2, or 3 people, it wasn’t a mass shooting that was stopped.

    In the cases where a shooter was killed by a CCW, there is no way of knowing how many people the shooter would have killed (i.e. whether a mass shooting was stopped or simply a shooter was stopped).

  24. Dave--VA Says:

    Thanks for the link to the great article about armed citizens stopping mass murderers, Mas. I posted it on Facebook so that all of the anti-gun people I come in contact with there can see it. So far, none of them has made any comment on it at all. What can they say? They have been denying that this has ever happened & denying that it is even possible. It’s proof that the sources of their information are just propaganda, as I have been telling them for years. I hope others will share it on social media to get the word out, too. It’s a great way to reach a lot of people & it’s free.

    On a somewhat related topic, here is another article that I just discovered about how & where some of the more recent mass murderers got their murder weapons, despite being mentally ill or having other disqualifications. It’s very informative & I think you will all find it interesting, if you haven’t seen it already. Even though it’s from the NY Times, it’s very objective:

  25. Michael JT Says:

    The continuing myth of the so called “Wild West” in America is just that, a myth. The fact is that there were very few shoot outs on main street at high noon.
    Back then they proved the adage, “An armed society is a polite society.” A woman could walk home after dark generally without fear. And if she were attacked and raped, the perpetrator generally didn’t get to see the sun rise.

    I’m not advocating vigilante justice, (almost within eyesight of where I’m sitting is a snaggled old tree on top of a hill where sometime in the late 1800’s they hanged three horse thieves. One was a sixteen year old kid who probably was totally innocent of stealing horses, but had the bad luck to be in the company of two actual thieves when they were caught. Bad luck for him but a huge wake up call for other potential horse thieves) but rather another, newer adage, “More guns, less crime.”

  26. Z Says:

    Todd even in such an instance, one can infer the killer’s intent by how much ammo and how many weapons he was carrying.

    A murderer armed with 1-2 handguns and a spare magazine at most likely has a different goal in mind than someone who carries 3+ weapons, usually including a rifle and/or shotgun, several magazines, and more weapons/ammo in the trunk of their car or their backpack.

  27. Don -Pa. Says:

    Dennis, Paul – good to have you both back – I’ve always enjoyed your inputs here. Please continue to mend, guys.

    Jaji, Todd – great posts. Only God knows just how many lives have been saved by the intervention of armed forces in the wars. Then there is the no less righteous actions taken by responsibly armed citizens throughout history. We know, sadly, why our “media” doesn’t headline those stories and choose instead, to trumpet untruths and outright lies. The truth is the exact opposite, as we know all too well. It just means we must try even harder to emulate the methods, the lifestyle, of folks like Massad Ayoob and so many others, who use discussion to educate those who are on the fence. We must always remember no one will be convinced by arguing or bullying. Always take the positive approach – it does work.

    Mas – thanks for doing what you do – every day, You always inspire, make me laugh, but most importantly, teach me something – every time I read one of your articles, blogs, etc. Please keep up the good work!

  28. Dennis Says:

    Wishing you a speedy, complete recovery, Paul.

  29. William Says:

    Over the years, I have seen several “anti armed civilian” MSM guest commentators posed the question, “If a loved one of yours was caught up in a mass murder incident and was probably about to be killed, would you hope that they themselves or other good guys (or gals) present were armed with a firearm”.

    Every one of them refused to answer the question, always defaulting to the things that could possibly go wrong if a good guy with a gun were present.

    I think their refusal to answer the question, answers the question.

  30. TN_MAN Says:

    To Dave–VA,

    Thank you for the link to the NY Times article. It was, indeed, very interesting. It illustrates an entire set of cases where (for various reasons) the instant background check system failed to prevent the sale of firearms to individuals who later proved to be dangerous and unstable or who were associated with dangerous and unstable family members.

    For those who will learn its lesson, it teaches the truth that gun control schemes generally are ineffective. This lesson is lost on left-wing politicians like President Obama. As evidenced by his press conference right after the Oregon shooting, he continues to sell gun control as the greatest thing to come along since the invention of the wheel or sliced bread. Funny how that, the more gun control fails, the more those on the political left love it. To quote from the Book of Proverbs: “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly”.

    Those on the left embrace a worldview whereby humans are inherently good and (therefore) all evils must be traced to social forces external to mankind. This worldview leads them into a mindset whereby evils spring from such things as poverty, racism, ignorance, drug abuse and weapon proliferation. They cannot tolerate the truth that evil people will always find a way to commit wrongs since, in their innermost soul, those on the left simply do not accept the concept of “evil people”. Only social forces are evil. These negative social forces cause evil by nurturing and tempting otherwise “good people” to fall under their spell and influence.

    Therefore, those on the left absolutely need a scapegoat, such as the proliferation of firearms, to blame for violence. Their mind cannot accept that these mass murders and psychopaths are to blame. So, they cling to gun control like a small child clings to a teddy-bear. It is the only plank they have to stand upon.

  31. Old Fezzywig Says:


    Doctor Michael Savage says liberalism is a “mental disorder.”

    A person with a snubnose .38 triumphed over terrorists with machine guns and grenades? HOLY GUACAMOLE! Even John Wayne couldn’t do that! Maybe the parishioner believed “only hits count,” and maybe the terrorists believed in “spray and pray.” I don’t know.

  32. Old Fezzywig Says:

    Two-gun Steve,

    If I was a pacifist, and allowed myself to be murdered, I would be an accomplice to my own murder. That would be sin. Basically it is suicide by another’s hand. Pacifists do believe in running away, I’m sure. Would a pacifist pray for the soul of a murderer as he or she is murdering the pacifist’s children? (For the record, I am a Calvinist). I guess they might try to simply restrain the murderer. Genesis chapter 9 verse 6 comes to mind. God is no pacifist.

    A pacifist would say “Wait for the police,” if a good guy with a gun was needed. Would a pacifist say, “Wait for the EMTs,” if first aid was needed?

  33. Old Fezzywig Says:

    I work Security at a small university. I was present when a female student made the following comment to myself, and the others present. “No one should have guns because ANYONE can go CRAZY and start shooting people.” I asked her, “Should the police have guns?” She answered, “No one should have guns.”

    Actually this girl is a very nice, otherwise-intelligent person. She also considers herself to be an expert on the Holocaust.

  34. Spencer Says:

    I wonder what effect it would have on would-be mass murderers, that is when the bad guys are killed if the news media displayed graphic photos of the eviscerated dirt-bags at the crime scenes and later during the autopsies.

    A lot of these mass-killer weasels fantasize about achieving immortal infamy after their craven acts, but what would their reactions be if they saw others of their putrid ilk depicted in gruesome death photos. Might this be a deterrent and would it be worth trying? But perhaps that’s asking the news media to demonstrate they have some stones and decency.

  35. Swifty Morgan Says:

    Keep in mind that those elitists who ” Know Better ” what is good for all will try to disarm everyone. Example ; New Jersey lawmaker caught on tape saying , ” We needed a law that would CONFISCATE – CONFISCATE – CONFISCATE “…… Easily found on youtube.

  36. RGL Says:

    Nir Barkat is the mayor of Jerusalem, not Bethlehem.

  37. Two-gun Steve Says:

    Old Fezzywig: the element of surprise coming from the hand-gunner had a lot to do with running off the cowardly terrorists. In their minds he was no doubt the vanguard of the police force.

    Thanks for the comments on pacifism. A friend of mine said the other day after the NAU shooting in Flagstaff that “nobody deserves to be shot,” I think in reaction to the young ages involved, with the idea that shooting to prevent harm is too extreme. Not very much good logic there, just the all-too-prevalent attitude that “boys will be boys,” and that aggressors should be infinitely accommodated. Pure insanity.

  38. Paul Edwards Says:

    Below is a copy of our email to our Senators, and Congressman
    telling them to “Defund” all of Obama’s iIlegal, Unconstitutional “End Runs” around our Constitution, to impose his own brand of Gun Control, in the “Gun Free Killing Zones” across America!

    We are contacting you, OUR Elected Federal Legislators, because President Obama has made it clear that, for him, more gun control is the answer to his own so-called Federal “Gun Free” Killing Zones, which invite may of America’ mentally warped ill, to flock to such Gun Free Killing Zones, to express themselves’ by executing as many innocent, Obama Dis-Armed persons as possible before Armed SWAT arrives to neutralizer the shooter.

    Now, Obama is calling for new Executive Actions to impose more illegal, and Unconstitutional background checks and other restrictions on private gun Owner’s God given, and Constitutionally Protected Rights.

    But, to do this, President Obama’s trying to make an end-run around Congress, which is why WE are DEMANDING YOU you to also DEMAND that the next Speaker of the House PROMISES to use the appropriations process to defund (aka, kill) every one of Obama’s illegal Executive Actions on gun control.

    Defunding gun control, that is, using the congressional “power of the purse” — is the same way Congress repealed an FBI gun tax under President Clinton, overturned a shotgun import ban by Obama, and killed the ATF’s multiple sales registration throughout the country.

    This is the best, and ONLY way to repeal gun control, but it will require the Republicans to put on their “big boy pants.”

    Paul and Pam Edwards
    Stevensville, Montana 59870-6145

  39. Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one) Says:

    First, at the risk of diluting my main point in the next paragraph, let me supplement Mas’ list with this much-better documented one from pro-gun law professor Eugene Volokh at his Volokh Conspiracy blog:

    With all respect for both Mas and Professor Volokh, I have to ask whether or not there is a straw man being set up here to be knocked down. Who, specifically, is actually saying, “we now hear prohibitionists telling us that no mass murder has ever been stopped by a ‘good guy with a gun.'”? I don’t mean generic “liberals” or “prohibitionists” but specific names, dates, and citations? I suppose it’s possible that someone would say something as stupid as that, but you can find people who say that the Earth is flat, too. Professor Volokh puts the challenge in the form of a question, “Opponents occasionally ask: If that’s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven’t heard of even one such example.” I think putting it that way is far more credible, but even then I can’t imagine that it’s a question in the form of a challenge so much as a real question seeking information. I would also note that Volokh makes the distinction in many of his example between “what very well could have been a mass shooting, but we can’t know for sure” and simply presuming that the situation which was stopped would necessarily have become a mass shooting.

  40. Johan Says:

    The opposite of a “gun free zone” sign was the “no tresspassing-firearms in use” sign seen while taking a detour around some road construction.

  41. Mas Says:

    Liberal Dave, here’s a start for ya: .

    I saw the same BS regurgitated by one of CNN’s innumerable talking heads last week.

    I thought Eugene Volokh did a very good job of demonstrating manifest intent to kill more by several of the citizen-stopped killers he mentioned.

  42. Paul Edwards Says:

    @Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one)
    At the risk starting a non-ending dis-agreement here, Of course there is is a straw man being set up here to be knocked down, US.

    Obama have created the entire “No Gun Killing Zones”, in order to further his Repeated cries “That We Can Not Become So Used To These Mass Killings that we find them “Acceptable”.

    “Soo, if You will not call upon our Politicians to pass more “Gun Control”, I, President Obama, will have to Act for all of you, “and write Illegal, and Un-Constitutional Executive Orders to put a stop to these mass killings (That I have created, and allowed) to create the Gun Control I haven’t been able to get, any other way, without you, or the Federal Legislators, because I am going to leave this as my Legacy, no matter what!

    Hope you will not fell offended by thoughts on this subject?


  43. Rich Rostrom Says:

    JohnM @October 10th, 2015 Says:

    There are two kinds of Americans, those who possess firearms for their own, use, enjoyment and self defense and those who do not.
    Depending on where you align your self. If you don’t have a gun, you don’t think anyone else should either.

    Then I must be a black swan.

    I don’t own a gun. I never have. I can see why it might be desirable, but I’ve never felt the need strongly enough to spend the money and jump through the necessary hoops. I’ve fired guns on a number of occasions, even a full-auto once. It was fun, but not fun enough to attract me as a hobby.

    I have no objection to any other sane, law-abiding, adult citizen owning guns; I believe the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to own guns. So there.

  44. Tom606 Says:

    Wise liberals will advise their devoted followers not to carry any kind of weapons, especially firearms, which will only be taken from those folks by their attackers and used against them, although most thugs are very nice.

    Instead, people should carry designer knee pads with them at all times, so when they are confronted by evildoers, those folks can put on their pads and stay comfortable when they get down on their knees to beg for mercy. At no time should people become violent and try to hurt their tormentors because we are all civilized and members of the World Community, and should talk rationally and resolve our problems peacefully. When struck by a bad guy, it’s much better to turn the other cheek than to blow away the slimy creep with your trusty blaster.

  45. Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one) Says:

    Mas: I asked, you answered: thank you. Perhaps your and Volokh’s examples will help put a stop to that unproductive line of objection.

    Paul: As I’ve discussed at length here before, the constitutionality of gun regulations is largely unsettled due to the failure of the Supreme Court to take cases upholding (mostly) or overturning (occasionally) gun regs at the state and local level.

  46. Paul Edwards Says:

    Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one)

    Agree. The SC seems to want lower courts to assume the burden of makinf SA decisions firt, before thry will act on them?


  47. Don - Pa. Says:

    Mr. Edwards – excellent post, Sir! You have perfectly defined what this POTUS is about – his legacy, come hell or high water. What is most depressing to me is how the majority of our populace seem to be blind – that is, they cannot see through the smokescreen perpetuated by Mr. Obama and amplified by the travesty that calls itself “the mainstream media.” I simply refuse to believe that this majority doesn’t care, as put forth by some. Most folks will not take the time to really read everything, instead reading just the headlines and perhaps a paragraph or two – then claiming to “get it.” They have been taught to seek instant gratification.

  48. Jacob Morgan Says:

    Well, how many times since the battle of the Blair House has having armed secret service agents saved a President? And that was more than half a century ago. So there you have it, arming undercover secret service agents is ineffective.

    Maybe Barry can set an example by executive ordering the secret service to toss all their “weapons that belong on foreign battle fields” into the back of the next C-130 headed to Afghanistan.

  49. Alonzo Gomez Says:

    It’s going to be a depressing comment, but I lost hope that the antis or the media (same difference) would see the light and quit repeating the same old tired lies. I think that some are mistaken, but they are so willingly, and the others are just pushing an agenda any way they can. Like politicians they just keep hammering falsehoods with a straight face because if you keep repeating it someone will believe it.
    Thankfully one can still find a few men of integrity and common sense out there in positions of power, but probably not at the highest levels where it counts. We have to keep fighting the good fight knowing that it’s an uphill battle against a very powerful propaganda machine.

  50. Greg Tag Says:

    The bottom line for MOST of the antis is this: they believe that only government may legitimately use deadly force and should have a monopoly on deadly force. No use of deadly force by private citizens is ever legitimate.

    That’s why they have no problem with politicians with bodyguards- politicians and public officials are the embodiment of the state – they are important to society. You and I are not , and if my family is injured because we are unarmed when we encounter a predator the innocent lives are simply collateral damage. The leftists are undisturbed – they would prefer that the innocent suffer rather than have means of deadly force themselves.

    As an example look at the typical New York set TV cop show. Every week we are shown frightened victims cowering in fear , the bodega owner shaking as he pays protection, terrified witnesses threatened by the thug of the week , relatives unwilling to speak to the police because the don or boss bad guy has threatened. The detectives promise police protection, they are good guys and they will try … But they are the last defense except for a 9 iron or a Louisville slugger … If the cops fail to protect , the victims, outgunned , die. A benevolent state wants to help and if they fail oh well.

    Such scenes set in NYC would never work set in Houston or Dallas. The bodega owner in Houston probably has a revolver and the Korean merchant in Ft Worth likely has an AR in his shop. The family threatened by scum does not have to exclusively rely on the police, they can have the means to ensure their own defense.

    Several years ago my oldest daughter and I were watching a show like mentioned above. The terrified victims were breathlessly waiting for police response to 911 crying silently as the bad men searched their house. My daughter absorbed the plot line and asked, simply ” why don’t they have a gun and just shoot those bad men?” I told her it was illegal to have a gun in NYC. Her response – ” why would anyone want to live where you cannot defend yourself?”

    Beats me.


  51. backwoodsloafer Says:

    Since mainstream media is ignoring “cases where armed good people of both genders stopped massacres by drawing and if necessary, firing their own guns,” where can one go, besides this blog and the NRA’s “Armed Citizen” to find these cases? Mas and others, would you mind listing where you go to get your news? Thanks.

  52. Mas Says:

    Backwoodsloafer, Google will get ya there.

  53. Paul Gaertner Says:

    Mas, all:

    A bit of research has brought me to this article for a simple question. The Pearl High School shooting (which is first in the linked list) is widely referenced in relation to campus concealed carry, and whether or not Myrick “saved additional lives” by stopping Woodham as he was leaving the campus largely hinges on whether or not the shooter was heading to Pearl Junior High to continue his spree.

    Pro-gun sources about the incident will almost inevitably include some form of the following: “His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up” ( Anti-gun sources never mention this subsequent intent, and sometimes “forget” that Myrick was even armed.

    I am searching for a contemporaneous news source that refers to the shooter’s future plans. This is made more complex thanks to the Satanist aspect of the case, which captured most of the attention in major media. However, if authorities learned after the shooting that Woodham planned to kill more people at PJHS, surely that revelation made the news in 1997. Unfortunately, the Rankin County News — the local paper — has archives online only back to 2008.

    Any sources for this information?


  54. Mas Says:

    I met and interviewed Mr. Myrick when he was still in Pearl, a few years after the incident. All input at that time was that Woodham had more ammo and the gun still with him and was heading for the Junior High when interdicted.

  55. Paul Gaertner Says:

    While I appreciate your reply, Mas, was this fact not reported somewhere in contemporaneous news? As I understand it, Myrick stopped Woodham on his way driving _out_ of the high school, which makes it unclear how he would know where the shooter was headed unless told so. PJHS, while not a long distance from PHS, is several turns away after exiting the PHS grounds, on a campus area shared with an elementary school (these locations have not changed in the intervening 18 years).

    I have read/viewed every story and news clip I can find and many quote Myrick discussing the events, but none include him identifying the shooter’s future plans on that day or the day after… nor at any point frankly. The references I do find, which tend to be 2009 and later, claim that “authorities subsequently learned”. This implies (to me at least) that police or the DA’s office made some statement — either a release or at a press conference — revealing this new knowledge. Where is the news coverage of this? This plan is not in the killer’s own writings, and was not introduced at his trial.

    Honestly, if there isn’t news of the time supporting the contention that Woodham was heading the PJHS to kill more people, we should not be claiming that this was the case. There are many contemporaneous reports that _do not_ reference this future intent… of course, we can point to the bias of CNN and People Magazine as a reason for that, but this approach is pretty hollow if we cannot produce a shred of positive evidence. Having the gun and additional ammo in his possession makes the shooter a very dangerous person when Myrick stops him, period. At the very least, to police and himself. Adding claims to the situation without any support for them simply provides a hole the anti-gunners can poke.


  56. Mas Says:

    Paul, if you still have doubts, contact the authorities in Pearl.

  57. Paul Gaertner Says:

    It’s not a matter of doubts, Mas, it’s a matter of evidence. Of course without evidence I have doubts… I trust everyone would. I do have an inquiry in to the Rankin County News and I’ll try the Pearl PD as well. Should anyone read this and have a relevant contemporary reference, I would appreciate the information.


  58. Mas Says:

    Paul, you’re invited to come back here and share whatever the county shares with you.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.