FASH-BASH FIZZLES, FECKLESS FELON FEARFULLY FLEES FIREARMS?

1. Mass,

   Good overview of what is known at this time. Maybe you can give us more as the facts are known.
   Thanks for you time and effort in these articles. They are always good.

   Bob

2. Fabled Firearms Fancier Forms Flawless Feature!

   Makes me wish I still kept my blog updated!

3. Too bad the Perp did not taste his own medicine.
   BTW I haven’t yet heard of a good guy shooting wildly
   in one of these mass murder tragedies.
   What kind of Gat was the Skum running ?
   How many rounds fired ?

   We are sitting ducks in communist calif. (not worthy of Capital letters)

   Plus: Gas is 12 cents more and Diesel is 20 cents more today
   because the Politburo has raised taxes overnight here.

   Ya know Mas…..call me old fashioned but, an industrial sized wood chipper
   could do a yeoman’s job of detouring a lawless shooter like this.

4. Words of wisdom from a living legion.

5. Your assessment of the situation is spot on Mas. The left would grab at any chance to discredit law abiding citizens who are legally armed.

6. Interesting that, like most lies drummed up to foment hatred of “the others,” this rumor took off. Interesting to see how it started too: http://time.com/5008829/antifa-november-4-rumors/

   • “Interesting that, like most lies drummed up to foment hatred of “the others,” this rumor took off.”

     You got that right. Of course I’m sure you are speaking of:

     “Hands up-don’t shoot”

     or-

     “The main threat to young black males is being shot by white police”

     or-

     “The police acted ‘stupidly’.”- Barack Obama

     or-

     ” ‘Krystallnacht’ was a spontaneous uprising” – Joseph Goebbels

     I could go on and on, but all have one thing in common, demonstrable lies repeated ad nauseum by liberal fascists attempting to rally people of hate to rally against those they hate.

     Thanks for reminding us of their subterfuge and deceptive practices.

7. Mas,

   I only heard these important comments from you. I heard there was a shooting near Denver, but no more details.

   The article you linked to makes the cops look stupid. If only the bad guy fired his gun, then it should be easy to identify him. The others will draw and point their guns, but their trigger fingers won’t move, and the guns’ barrels won’t jump. Pretty simply to identify a guy who fired his gun multiple times versus people who didn’t fire at all. See, the anti-gunners will twist, and turn, and squirm before they say anything good about the defensive use of guns, or the NRA.

   I am glad the writer did quote a pro-gunner, who had good words to say. I guess we just need to wait for the day when a female, black, lesbian, wheelchair-bound victim uses a gun to stop a mass shooting. That’s the only time shooting back will be heroic. And the press will have to stress that her relatives were cops and they taught her how to shoot, not the NRA.

   • Roger Willco,

     Liberal reporters have liberal agendas. They cherry pick what info they report. What they reported as wasted time by detectives studying the videos, as if the search for the suspect that had fled after being confronted by good guys with guns couldn’t begin until they ascertained he was the only shooter, is deliberately misleading.

     Sure, the detectives, after the fact, in the quiet of a viewing room, must study the videos to make sure the shooter acted alone. Yes, it would be obvious whether one of the good guys with a gun pulled the trigger. What would not be so obvious would be the mannerism of each person as to whether their actions were in defensive response to the shooter or whether they were providing back-up to him. After that “wasted time”, I’m sure not one detective was upset that good guys with guns caused the bad guy to flee or begrudged the time spent. They were just covering bases.

     The search for the suspect would have already been underway based on descriptions broadcast by responding patrol officers prior to the detectives arrival. I’ve read no reporting saying the arrest was a result of information gleaned from the videos or was delayed by the time spent analyzing them (other than innuendo by the media).

     • Thanks, Dennis. You say liberal reporters let their biases creep into their stories? Naw, that could never be. Reporters are unbiased. Unlike us mere mortals, they are as pure as the wind-driven snow.

       Islamic Sharia Supremacists are the enemy without, and Leftists/Media types/Democrats/Marxists are the enemy within.

8. I strongly doubt that we will see much more of this anywhere in the media.
   While the initial shooter and potential mass-murderer is another “poster-child” for “gun-control” the rest of the story is not and therefore will be dropped.
   By the same token the manure filled paddock shooting in vegas seems to have list all of its momentum as it became more complcated. The media does not want to give us an opportuinty to think, only to reflexively jerk to their out-of-tune jig.

9. I live about 10 minutes from Orland Park, IL, one of the so called places that Antifa were going to cause mayhem. Yesterday, Nov 4th, was cold, rainy and miserable. When I think og the primary Antifa leadership, I think of the movie character, Kip, from “Napoleon Dynamite” and could just see the hissy fit thrown because all the other snowflakes were too cd to march to their demonstrations. They decided to stay home and play XBox in their mom’s basements.

10. There are occasions when uncomfortable facts don’t fit a social agenda and some high-minded folks will ignore those details so their cause is not challenged.

    Back in 2012, a crazed shooter in a Portland, Oregon (where I live), shopping mall apparently ended his killing spree and committed suicide when a CCW permit holder, exercising great restraint, merely aimed his handgun at the rampaging nutter. Following that event, most of the local news media, and a small army of turn-the-other-cheek squealers, scoffed at the notion of any connection between the actions of the CCW fellow and the bad guy.

    • That guy, a 21 year old Nick, DID indeed stop that massacre. Funny thing….. per some non-compliant signs at that mall (I’ve been in ther,e seen them, realised the signs were not compliant and thus not binding, so I carried in there anyway) that mall was generally considered a gun free zone. BUT< as detailed, non-enforceable. I'm certain Nick was well aware of this as he was carrying in there anyway. Note, law enforcement never mentioned the "gun free" status of the place, Yes, per his, and other, accounts, his drawing down on the perp DID indeed end the spree. Only two killed at that point. Hundreds were within the perp's range, he was kitted out to kill hundreds in short order. Once he saw Nick's gun drawn on him, he turned, walked down into another hallway, and did the best thing he'd done all day with his gun… ended his own wretched existence.

      Turns out another very close personal friend of mine happened to ALSO be in the mall… a woman who is VERY highly trained and skilled, and carries everywhere legal or not. She happened to be a ways down one of the hallways in a store, heard the shots, began heading toward them, but the place went into lockdown, imprisoning her inside that store. She was FURIOUS, DEMANDED to be let out.. but the automatic systen could not be overridden to allow her to exit. She believes to this day she had a chance of using her 1911 to take out the perp… but is content that the other Good Guy with a Gun did the work. He lheld his fire because of the danger of hitting someone else, innocent, in the backdrop beyond the perp. He wanted to get a clean shot, but then the perp turned and left…… extreme restraint demonstrated by this very young citizen.

11. I’ll look forward to your follow-up Mas, as always. I’m surprised the nutty liberal “reporters” haven’t yet drawn a bead on the type or even model of firearm the offender used. But I’d better shut up, lest I give them any ideas…

12. Being reported right now, shooter has killed 20-24, wounding another 20 plus, in small town Baptist church in central Texas. Fled location and killed by law enforcement some 5 miles away. No reports of any good guys with a gun able to intervene. Sad. Pray for the victims. It sounds as if everyone in attendance was either killed or wounded.

    • First reports usually wrong. Now reporting local residents gave pursuit and may be who killed suspect.

    • Turns out they’re wrong. How about that. A nearby neighbor engaged the killer, got a hit or two, and the killer was found expired in his car down the road after fleeing his murder in progress.

13. 27 dead, 30 injured, in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

    How long is it going to be before we start seeing these daily? It’s almost weekly now.

    If I were y’all, totally opposing any and all gun control, even in the slightest, I’d be shaking in my boots. Just how many of these events is it going to take before the vast majority of folks in the US say that they don’t give a damn about the Second Amendment and if it takes a repeal of that amendment to ban — and, yes, I’ve said the “b” word — guns, then they’ll be all for it.

    At least 60% of the US population were already in favor of stricter gun laws: http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

    The purpose of this thread was to try to protect the “good guy with a gun” notion. If that idea is going to gain you any political capital, then y’all have to step up your game because unless you include LEO’s in the “good guy” category, you sure don’t have much of a track record for stopping these mass shootings. Oh, yeah, you can argue that there were fewer victims, as Mas argued here, but that is, at best, cold comfort.

14. It does appear that citizens helped suppress and track down the Sutherland Springs shooter. That does not, however, take away from the fact that the shooter was able to kill 27 people and injure 30 before that happened. Where was the good guy with the gun that would _prevent_ this from happening or (not that this is acceptable) limit it to 2-3 victims? Where would you find a more gun-friendly place than rural Texas? If good guy with a gun is a truly positive thing, this guy should’ve been shredded after the first few shots.

    • Librul Dave, you fail to recall that until just last year, NO ONE could lawfully carry their gun into any “house of worship” in Texas. It seems likely to me that, in such a quiet rural area, few if any of the folks in that building had been made aware of the radical change in Texas law that now allows such carry. It was jusst about a year ago Texas changed the laws, and the change is subtle and conplcated, not simple and logical. But the meaning is clear. It is now legal….., unless the ones in control of the property (ministers and such, in the case of churches) specificaly post notices that it is not OK. I don’t know if those were posted.. but my strong guess is that the folks there were simply unaware of the changd. I can’t imagine that NONE OF THEM have and use guns. I’ll bet many oave their Mother May I Card and carry elsewhere. Long habits are hard to break, and the status quo ante follows as the pressnt status quo. My strong bet is this will change in THAT congregation, and many others all across Texas. Word will get out now that everyone needs to carry who can. Next time, the good guy with a gun will be INSIDE the building, and begin shooting back causing the perp to be the second thud on the floor.

15. Well stated, Dennis – as usual. It’s almost amusing to observe the lamestream media fall all over itself trying to be the first, the most informed. What passes for news reporting today has fallen so very far. How sad that our children and grandchildren will never know what real reporting was like.

16. Liberal Dave, just what gun laws do you think would have prevented this? Perhaps forbidding those with dishonorable discharges from owning guns? Oh, wait– we’ve long had that already; it appears this killer fit that profile; and he got one anyway.

    That’s why they call them “lawbreakers,” Dave.

    You wrote, “Where was the good guy with the gun that would _prevent_ this from happening or (not that this is acceptable) limit it to 2-3 victims?”

    Dunno what that means to you, Dave, but it means to me that we need MORE good guys with guns. That’s twice in a week that a mass murderer fled when good guys leveled guns at him. There is a clue there…

    • Liberal Dave is simply responding like any individual, enslaved to left-wing ideology, always does. As I have noted, repeatedly, left-wing individuals make subconscious assumptions that give them a “fixed idea” that all humans are born as “blank slates” and their actions are solely determined by external social, economic and environmental forces.

      When a left-wing individual, such as Liberal Dave, sees a terrible crime like this perpetrated, his or her immediate “knee-jerk” reaction is to cast about for an external influence to blame. Firearms have long been the “whipping boy” and the “scapegoat”, picked by the Left, as the “causal factor” for human-on-human violence. A Century ago, the whipping boy was alcohol but, with the abject failure of alcohol prohibition, the Left needed a replacement scapegoat. So, they have “moved on” to firearms as the source of violence with firearm prohibition as the new magic solution. Doesn’t that sound familiar? 🙂

      That is the automatic thought-pattern and worldview of Leftists in general. Although “thought-pattern” may be a misnomer since there is no actual “thought” involved in the process. It is a subconscious response. Rather like jerking your hand back when you touch a red-hot stove.

      Because of its subconscious origin, facts and logic simply do not work to temper the left-wing auto-reaction.

      As shown in this blog, Liberal Dave’s automatic response was to issue a rant calling for stricter gun laws and warning us that we will face even greater suppression of our liberty and our rights if we don’t immediately yield to the demands of the American Left.

      He won’t really respond to your question about which gun laws would have prevented this crime because there is no answer. The criminal who perpetrated this attack broke a host of existing laws. As a man with a dishonorable discharge, he should have already been barred from purchasing a firearm. Yet he seems to have got hold of at least one nevertheless. Last time I looked, firing a gun in public place, assault with a deadly weapon and premeditated murder were also actions forbidden by law. None of these laws stopped this individual and no law ever will. The law can only punish after the fact. Its only preemptive effect is to discourage crime for fear of that punishment. However, if an individual is already determined on suicide and wants to give the world as much pain and suffering, as possible, before accepting that death for himself, then the fear of “after-the-fact” punishment is moot. Clearly, most such mass-murderers (as in this case) do not intend to stick around for their punishment.

      The most effective action that could be taken to stop this kind of thing would be for the news media to adopt voluntary standards that the names and life history of such mass murderers will be suppressed. The news media would continue to report the facts of the crime but would deliberately withhold any publicity or notoriety regarding the perpetrator of the crime.

      Without the media attention, the attraction of this kind of crime would be greatly diminished.

      However, don’t hold your breath waiting for the left-wing dominated mainstream media to step up to the plate. They will scream about the sanctity of the First Amendment Right of Freedom of the Press even as they simultaneously scream for the suppression of the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

      • YOU, Sir, have it right. End the “free publicity” bought and paid for by the blood of the innocents. NEVER mention the perp’s name, He is the Texas Church Shooter” or the Newtown School lShooter, of the Aurora Theatre Killer> NO more, We will ALL know of the incident, few will ever rememer his name.. No fame. Less gain. No more copycats. sounds good to me.

    • Both Mas and TN_MAN say that I (in TN’s words), “call[ed] for stricter gun laws.” Would either of you care to point out exactly where I did that? Indeed, where I “called for” _anything_? TN got closer to what I actually said when he went on to say that I was, “warning us that we will face even greater suppression of our liberty and our rights if we don’t immediately yield to the demands of the American Left” though, once again, I didn’t say the “if” part of that, either.

      This CNN article (which really isn’t about Trump, despite the title) sets out a pretty good summary, I think, of the opposing positions on gun control and just how far apart those positions are. The Pew Research poll linked in the article is pretty interesting, too.

      • Forgot to add the link:
        http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

      • And forgot to add the link to the article (batting a thousand today):
        http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/trump-guns-texas-shooting/index.html

      • “If I were y’all, totally opposing any and all gun control, even in the slightest, I’d be shaking in my boots. Just how many of these events is it going to take before the vast majority of folks in the US say that they don’t give a damn about the Second Amendment and if it takes a repeal of that amendment to ban — and, yes, I’ve said the “b” word — guns, then they’ll be all for it.”

        Troll much?

        ROTFLOLWTIME
        Such fun reading your comments. No real need to respond; just poking the ribs a bit.

    • Liberal Dave – to address your latest points, it is true that you did not state a direct call for stricter gun control laws. However, by quoting statistics that the majority of Americans want such laws and by warning that the overturn of the 2nd Amendment is possible if gun-owners don’t yield to such demands, you certainly imply support for those positions. So, I read your post (as did Mas also) as including implied support for stricter gun control laws. Given that firearm prohibition is a cornerstone of American left-wing ideology and given your known views as a “Solid Liberal”, surly this was not the “stretch” that you make it out to be.

      As for your links to the Pew survey and CNN article, these simply illustrate the classic divide between left-wing and right-wing modes of thought. On some issues, such as education for example, there can be some common ground between the Left and Right worldviews. However, firearms prohibition is a polarizing issue in which there can be no such common ground. The tabula rasa worldview inherent to left-wing ideology means that violence scapegoats, such as alcohol and firearms, will always be readily believed by leftists. As we well know, the American Left’s belief in the magic curing powers of gun control is stronger even than the Pope’s faith in Jesus. As you also well know, supporters of the 2nd Amendment are the total opposite side of the coin. We view the effort to implement even more layers of gun control and disarmament as a “red herring” that only diverts time and effort, from the search for real solutions to violence, into channels that are not only wasteful but that are actually highly dangerous to the freedoms cherished by all Americans.

    • Mas,TN_MAN,Dennis and other ‘Brother’s (as Mas would address you),

      I call it the ‘Samantha Syndrome’ when liberals and others go all advanced rationalisation on the gun control band wagon. Reality doesn’t care two shakes about one’s logic or rationalizations. Just like Samantha Stephens’ magical solutions on the TV sitcom ‘Bewiched’, it just doesn’t work the way the ‘know it will.

      It as also consistent with that wonderful concept of wishful thinking. Same issues apply: Reality in particular.

      Subconscious? I guess that makes as much sense as anything. I will let the psycoanalytics hash that out. Reality is much more direct:

      The human mind cannot be contained. Evil will be evil be it with a gun, knife, bomb, social or political group, government, media or other means. An ambush can by definition be impossible to avoid.it can be countered, given adequate resources.

      So Liberal Dave, wiggle your nose and vaporize (or restrict) all the guns to your heart’s desire. You will be surprised and obviously shocked at the many ways that approach simply will not work.

      • That should read other ‘Brothers’

        I just love autocorrect on phones with small screens. smh

17. The recent church shooting in Texas was horrible, but stopped short by an armed citizen and his neighbor:
    https://news.grabien.com/story-texas-dept-public-safety-armed-citizen-engaged-killer-ending
    https://news.grabien.com/story-man-describes-how-neighbor-stopped-church-shooter-his-rifle
    https://news.grabien.com/story-man-describes-gunfight-and-chase-between-texas-attacker-and

    Just checked Yahoo! news front page. 23 headlines for the killer, lots for the victims and political figures weighing in. Zero for the people who stopped the killing.

    • MSM feeding frenzy as usual.

      Not I interested in reporting the news; Must push the agenda, stir & direct the emotions, keep the sheep looking & moving in the right direction.

18. Liberal Dave asked “Where was the good guy with the gun that would _prevent_ this from happening or (not that this is acceptable) limit it to 2-3 victims?”

    It may be that the church was a Gun Free Zone since each church in Texas is currently allowed to decide for itself whether or not to permit firearms on its premises. If the church in this case does allow concealed carry for license holders, it may be that many of its parishioners did not know that because up until 2016 firearms were not permitted in Texas churches under any circumstances. Furthermore, gun control advocates try to dissuade people from legally carrying firearms for protection into houses of worship by arguing that it is disrespectful, irreligious, & unseemly to do so. Whatever the case, it seems rather disingenuous to discourage or to prevent people from legally carrying firearms into churches & then to ask “Where were the good guys with the guns who would prevent this from happening?”

    One thing is certain & that is that no gun control laws will ever prevent criminals, psychos, terrorists, or mass murderers from entering places of worship to kill people there, so calls for more gun control laws, which have consistently proven to be ineffective, are spurious. They are solely intended to disarm & to persecute law abiding citizens who are perceived by liberals to be the enemy of their agenda.

    In addition, I am sure that you are all aware of at least some of the cases in which parishioners have stopped would be mass murderers from completing their missions, such as the New Life Church incident in Colorado. These do demonstrate that if any of the intended victims are armed, it is much less likely that the casualty count will be as high as if they were all unarmed.

    Finally, in answer to Liberal Dave’s question, it appears that the good guy with a gun in Sutherland, Texas was outside the church when the attack occurred & that he shot the murderer, then pursued him until he died. It’s not hard to imagine what might have occurred if he had been inside the church with a gun when the attack began instead.

    • In case you haven’t seen this yet, here is an update:

      http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/sharpshooting-plumber-fired-shot-that-took-down-texas-church-gunman/

    • Actually, Texas law on carrying in church changed in 1997. Unfortunately, the change is confusing.
      Texas Penal Code section 46.035(b)(6) [in the original 1995 law] prohibits licensed carry “on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.”
      Section 46.035(i) [added in 1997] says, “Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.”
      So under Texas law licensees can’t carry in church unless the church doesn’t post a large sign. Very few churches post such signs, because 1,000,000+ Texas licensees.

    • My policy on carrying in church is to go ahead and assume its OK until/unless I learn specifically that it is not. I’ve carried in churches in Texas, even before it was “legal”…. concealed is concealed. I also know that at least a few of the men, and a couple of women, I knew at those times were also carrying. Security trumps some silly anticonstitutional law. In Texas, I also trusted that, had the worst case unfolded and I’d been called upon to take out such a perp, the local DA would be unlikely to press charges, realising my intentions and actions saved lives. Those times were in rural areas, though, not the big cities.

      Time we ALL once more take up the burden placed upon ALL OF US by that Second ARticle of Ammendment.. the “security of a free state)” (society) falls upon the members of that society. Not upon government, hirelings, military, “them”…. but upon US. And THAT is why we have the inviolable right to self-arm and defend.

19. Wow, Liberal Dave. I’m not going to respond to your posts. Once upon a time I felt that while we disagreed on a lot, you were capable of rational reasoning. It appears I was wrong.

    To the others here, I just watched an interview by a CNN on the scene reporter conducting an interview with Johnnie Langendorff (not the interview by local TV done yesterday). Langendorff said that the neighbor who shot Kelley was also armed with an AR carbine. The neighbor had heard the multiple shot coming from the church, grabbed his gun, running barefooted outside, where he engaged the shooter, and remained barefoot until he and Langendorff ran the suspect to ground after he bled out.

    The CNN reporter asked Langendorff what he was thinking as it all unfolded, and appeared shocked when he answered “Nothing”. The reporter repeated, “Nothing?”. Langendorff replied, “I wasn’t thinking nothing, just that we couldn’t let him get away, we had to do what was right.”

    Two identical weapons, each in the hands of a human being. One being utilized for evil, the other to neutralize the perpetrator of evil.

    Question. If the AR rifle is singled out for blame and even hate for being used to kill innocent people, why not single out the AR rifle used to prevent further murders as worthy of praise and respect for the part it played as a tool of heroism. What? A gun is an inanimate object? Exactly. Used for both good or evil, incapable of either on its own.

    • One more thought concerning inanimate objects/tools and their use/misuse by humans.

      The common syringe. Indispensable in modern life saving medicine. Vaccinations, antibiotics, insulin, and countless other good applications. Yet, go to any public park for an early morning walk and you see them, used and discarded on the ground and in the gutters by drug addicts to feed their addictions. Most are covered with the germs of the abusers, HIV, hepatitis, STD’s. Left to be possibly picked up by innocent children to be exposed to these deadly diseases. Yes, the innocent syringe, capable of saving lives or ending lives through abuse, overdose, and intentional injection of poisonous chemicals.

      Where do liberals stand when it comes to syringes? Well, they reason, they are capable saving lives, hand them out for free of course,… to the abusers,.. at tax payer expense. The liberal mind is a puzzling thing.

      • Dennis, as a pharmacist I can tell you to be cautious in a public bathroom. I had occasion to find used needles in CVS Pharmacy bathrooms after drug addicts used them; sometimes hidden in the trash waiting to surprise someone emptying the trash.

        But they are saving lives (of drug addicts). Well, IF they bother to get a clean syringe on a mostly regular basis …
        If yet use a condom also … And we know how compliant addicts are about using proper syringe disposal and other common sense things like condoms & needles.

    • WELL SAID!!!

20. Mas said: “drawing as few or fewer people than the pathetic turnouts of the anti-gun ‘Million Mom March'”

    Million Mom March, DC and elsewhere, May, 2000: 750,000 attendees in DC, about a million across the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Mom_March

    When I referred to the Million … March in my prediction on this, I was thinking more of:

    – National Organization for Marriage, March for Marriage, DC, June 2017: 47 attendees (including babies)

    – Two Million Biker rally, DC, September, 2014: fewer than 50 attendees

    – Larry Klayman rally calling for the overthrow of President Obama expected to draw “millions to occupy Washington D.C.” and “occupy parks, sidewalks, public areas” until the president leaves office (hmmmm…that sounds recently familiar), DC, November, 2013: fewer than 100 people

    – Operation American Spring, promised to bring 30 million people to DC to overthrow President Obama (revised down to 20 million, then 10 million), DC, May, 2014: around 100 people

    Those were more like what I had in mind when I said, “I suspect that this is going to be one of those Million Man Marches where a few hundred people show up.” Million Mom March where around a million actually did show up across the US? Not so much.

21. Re eliminating active shooters: Effective security often entails a combination of visible and hidden deterrent, joined with the element of surprise. At least a little fortification can be in order. Two trained security guards are what I consider minimal. Nothing is wrong with competent, trained volunteers, though. Train your group to safely ambush any wanna-be attackers. People who don’t want to admit that insanity can happen anywhere, anytime, need to get properly educated and promote preparation BEFORE something happens within their sphere of influence. Not preparing a deterrent generally amounts to helping evildoers along.

Comments are closed.