Good guy with a gun

The story is still developing, but so far we know that at the Texas church, a man armed with a shotgun opened fire on the congregants at communion. A number of armed church members responded, one of them shooting the assailant dead, saving numerous lives.

The only way these things end well is when a good guy with a gun ALREADY THERE intervenes.

39 thoughts on “Good guy with a gun

  1. Of course the real point is to keep “these things” from starting. To help with that, lethal weapons should be treated – at the very least – with the same degree of control that we apply to drivers and automobiles. That is simple common sense.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The assailant used a shotgun, not anything even considered for a ban.

      Yeah, it would be nice to prevent such things, How do you propose to do so? Send psychic unicorns to gore them the day before?

      Effective response is possible, prevention when someone is willing to die to do his harm is not.

      And ‘simple common sense’ is just the name you give to your unexamined assumptions and prejudices.


      1. It may well be an unexamined prejudice that regulation and tracking of gun users and guns should be closer to the regime for cars and trucks where people have to prove their competence, their ownership and are held accountable for misuse but most people share it. Thus, “common sense.”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “Irrational“ opinions are a matter perspective. Kinda like believing the Government is coming to take all your guns away.

          Something I would consider a bit hysterical…

          Liked by 2 people

    1. You really miss the point when you trot these out. We will continue to have law abiding “good guys”, like today, with guns.

      That doesn’t mean we stop trying to limit the “bad guys” from having them.

      Yes, we will not likely eliminate this type of situation, but it does NOT prove your point.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The proposed SB16 would not prevent the bad guy from having a shotgun, but it would prevent the good guy from having a center fire semi-automatic handgun of modern design.

        The problem isn’t the shotgun the bad guy had, and certainly not the handguns the good guys had, it was the bad guy having any gun.


      2. RE: “That doesn’t mean we stop trying to limit the ‘bad guys’ from having them.”

        No, but something else does mean that. That would be the trade off between safety and liberty. We can have one or the other, but not both.


          1. Calling people names just makes you feel so superior. My kids stopped thinking that when they turned 15.

            ‘Those who would give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.’ Pinhead Benjamin Franklin.


          2. @tabor

            I’ve spent countless hours reading everything I can find on Franklin. He was a brilliant and multifaceted man well ahead of his times.

            The quote you provided is one of his most famous, but should be taken in context with what he considered “essential liberties”, a topic he debated vigorously during our country’s birthing process.

            As an exceptionally pragmatic individual he knew that things would change and evolve and that the Constitution would need to evolve with it as a “living” basis for thoughtful adjustment (your boy Scalia would not have been a fan).

            It’s a shame we no longer have his wisdom to help guide us on this increasingly intractable issue, but I’m confident he wouldn’t be “drawing lines” that cannot be crossed. IMO.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @Tabor

            Is there a better more polite word for these armed self-styled militiamen protecting our “liberty” than “pinhead?” If so, please share. What is it?

            As for your lecture from your high horse, save it for after you decide to forego your constant use of fascist buzzwords for the political mainstream in this country.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Better than if no one but the assailant was armed.

        BTW, it was about 40 feet, I doubt I could have confidently made a clean head shot on the first try from that range, but I’m pretty sure that I could have gotten a disabling hit in one or more of my first 10 rounds.

        You don’t have to be perfect, you just have to be there.


        1. With your lack of confidence in your own abilities, I would hope your instructor was doing the shooting in this case. Pumping out 10 rounds just allows the law of averages to come into play and an innocent bystander gets hit. Collateral damage, no big deal. Unless it is YOUR loved one.


          1. 10 rounds takes about 5 seconds, but assume I hit a bystander. Assume I hit 2. Since they will unintended there is a good chance they will be non-lethal, but even if they are.

            That’s still better than allowing the assailant to keep firing aimed shots at others until he runs out of ammunition.

            Any way you define it, an immediate armed response saves lives. Because if he isn’t stopped, he’s going to kill a lot of someone’s loved ones.

            That’s where anti-gunners consistently err, you compare imperfect results with perfection, when the proper comparison is with a slaughter.


          2. And you compare proposed laws with already passed laws. A good tackle form behind would have been just as effective as your 10 shots and no bystanders would have been “collateral damage”. And wouldn’t it be grand that you got sued for unlawful wounding in hitting your 1 or 2 bystanders. Or better yet, because you were so reckless, you were charged and convicted with felony reckless endangerment, then you would have to say good bye to all of your firearms.

            And your idea about imperfect results could as easily apply to gun control measures that pass the constitutionality test and become law.


          3. Yeah, you go ahead and tackle the guy with a shotgun and his back against the wall from behind.

            Even assuming you could maneuver around behind him and successfully take him by hand, how many people would he kill while you were getting into position?

            I’ll stick with my handgun.

            BTW, what is it you think is reckless about engaging a mass murderer while he is in the act of killing people? If you think every engagement can be won with no collateral damage, you watch too much TV.


          4. What difference would that have made? He was taken out in 6 seconds by an armed citizen ALREADY THERE.

            That is the key, the police will always arrive too late.


    1. Depends on what you are scoring.

      If it is those cases in which the shooting ended before the assailant ran out of ammunition or targets, it would be close to 100% because someone ALREADY THERE was armed. No matter how brave the police are, they are always too late to intervene successfully.


      1. @Tabor

        What difference?

        Well, if you insist on ignoring the obvious I will point it out – the rate of fire of an AR-15 with a bump-stock weapons is above 5 rounds per second. So, from the first shot until shot in the head the maniac could have fired 30 shots instead of 2. Many more people would have been killed or maimed. Beyond that who knows the effect on the security guy if he was confronting such a hail of bullets. Would his aim still have been so true? Nobody can say. So, I will say again . . .

        Thank God that this maniac could not afford an AR-15 with a drum and a bump stock.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. If he were using a bump stock, he might not have landed any lethal hits at all. Bump stocks are hideously inaccurate, and only likely to be effective against tightly packed crowd as in the Vegas shooting.

          Spraying rounds more into a thinner crowd is going to waste 90% or more and get many wounded per fatality.

          As for the drum magazine, it doesn’t matter how may rounds you still hold after you’re dead.

          In that crowd, his shotgun was probably the worst case.

          You don’t really know anything about firearms, so you probably would do better not to comment on capabilities.


          1. @Tabor

            Well, his first shot with that bump stock AR15 would have been just as accurate as his first shotgun blast. So now with the shotgun he has one shot left in his six seconds remaining to live. With the bump stock rattling away at least 29 more rounds would have come pouring out. Each with the capability of killing or wounding two or more people. Your contention that they would all miss in a crowded church shows how ideology has completely crippled your objectivity and common sense.

            You likely do know a lot more about guns than I do – it is obviously something that is very important to you for some reason. With that said, I have owned at least one gun since I got my first .22 when I was ten. I currently own two. I will decline your invitation to keep my mouth shut on gun mayhem. I know enough to have informed opinions.

            In a spirit of good fellowship, I will stipulate your superior knowledge but I have to ask – What good is being knowledgeable if you prefer alternative facts to obvious realities? Do you really think that a shotgun was the worst case scenario in a crowded church or do you lack the integrity to admit that it isn’t because it does not fit with your opposition to limiting civilian firepower.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The crowd in that church was not dense enough to expect more than 1 in 5 shots would have hit. Further, even with a bump stock, you don’t fire continuously. If you don’t break it into bursts, barrel rise will put the rounds over people’s heads.

            But marginal differences between the effectiveness of a shotgun and an AR are not the important take away. What was important was that he only had 6 seconds and not until his ammunition was exhausted.


          3. You have no doubt seen the video. The vital area on an adult is about 8 inches wide and 30 inches tall. From the shooters perspective, there is no way any portion of the room was occupied more than 20% by those areas. Probably closer to 10%.

            So, no, spraying the room with 30 rounds using a bump stock would not have resulted in 30 casualties. They are not magic bullets that seek a target. Most rounds would not hit anyone, and there would be many more non-lethal than lethal hits on those who were struck.

            Again, bump stocks are only effective on a tightly pack crowd, like the Vegas concert. And even there, with an ideally packed crowd, 1100 rounds were fired over a 10 minute period, producing only 58 fatalities. 19 rounds per fatality.

            No one can know for sure if he might have killed a few more, or none at all, with your hypothetical Bump stock equipped AR, and the drum magazine would not have been a factor as he only had time for 30 rounds if he fired continuously.

            It is your conclusions, leapt to with no analysis, that are FOS.


          4. Typical sophistry. I did not claim that 30 people would have been casualties only that more people would have been hurt. The statistics from Las Vegas are not relevant to this situation as even a little thought would reveal. It is laughable how you twist yourself into knots to deny the obvious – A rapid firing machine gun is more dangerous than a shotgun.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s