Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting At SC Nightclub

a reply to: boncho

What an asinine leap of logic.

1.5 million defensive firearm uses does not mean that no crime occurred or was reported. And making the assertion that defensive gun use = no crime occurred is so wildly inaccurate it's beyond preposterous.

The freaking OP was a defensive gun usage AND a crime occurred. The defensive gun use STOPPED the crime, which had already begun, from continuing. The attacker was still charged with attempted murder, and the use of a gun to stop him still counts as a defensive use of firearm. Shooting somebody who's broken into your home doesn't magically negate the fact that they committed a felonious crime. It doesn't mean they magically don't get charged. Law enforcement doesn't show up, see the attacker has been shot and then call it all square and drive off.

Good Christ your logic fail is extreme.

Now imagine, if they decide to pull a con with let's say 10-15 mass incidents with aggressive character(induced or planned), they could really ask for a Martial Law to happen. Not to say that I see any direct need for them(the misconceptions) to throw you Martial Law, I'm just observing how easy it would be considering their ease with the havoc industry in US.

Dear Comrade, I hearby declare you a wrecker and a counter revolutionary. The Party wishes to take away all of the Kulaks and peasants guns. Your actions are not in accord with the will of the Party. Pack some warm clothes.... and bring a shovel...

a reply to: xuenchen

Imagine what would have happened if neither of them had guns!

But no, the answer is ALWAYS MORE guns...

Im from Alabama.
Ive done several hundred police car graphics.
In the process ive asked several cops what to do in a situation of gun wielding and the only thing i hear is..
Make sure you shoot them dead.
That or you WILL be sued and prob lose.

B

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Whoop-de-do! Still sitting at 182 mass shootings in 2016... That's a disgrace for a civilized nation.

I love how they are mixing in the gang activity in those Democrat-controlled cities with more gun regulation and controls...

originally posted by: Nyteskye
a reply to: xuenchen

Imagine what would have happened if neither of them had guns!

But no, the answer is ALWAYS MORE guns...

How are you going to stop that... with laws?

Laws like... Don't shoot innocent people in a bar? Don't murder?

Like those laws?

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm so glad you posted this! I saw the story online earlier today and was going to post it because this is another example of many why we need responsible, practiced, non-criminal people to carry concealed firearms. The U.S. is under attack from within plus there is a premeditated false flag epidemic in gun free zones.

I don't own any guns but I'm sure glad I know plenty of people who do!

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Whoop-de-do! Still sitting at 182 mass shootings in 2016... That's a disgrace for a civilized nation.

542 people died from injuries in the shower. I could go on about so much more that kills so many more, but you stick to this if it makes you feel good. I am sure they will appreciate that.
Here's a link to that stat. but we are most concerned with guns.
danger.mongabay.com...

mass shooting with a pistol ?

thats a doozy, lol

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
mass shooting with a pistol ?

thats a doozy, lol

I know right? Gun control freaks will jump on anything to strip away basic human rights...

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
mass shooting with a pistol ?

thats a doozy, lol

9 shots can get 9 kills.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
mass shooting with a pistol ?

thats a doozy, lol

9 shots can get 9 kills.

thats just a bad night in chicago

handguns are still used to commit suicide more than anything else

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
Whoop-de-do! Still sitting at 182 mass shootings in 2016... That's a disgrace for a civilized nation.

But how many mass shootings were prevented by potential victims who shot back??? You don't know because the liberal media doesn't report those things...

This entire thread is disturbing. I support mental health checks for gun ownership. That way, most of ATS won't have access to them.

a reply to: Shamrock6

1.5 million defensive firearm uses does not mean that no crime occurred or was reported.

Um...yes it does. 1-the use of a gun implies it was used to prevent a crime. Your not allowed to wave guns around for the sake of it. The police did not record these 1.5-4.5 Million uses of gun defense they were taken on phone surveys How have you not realized this after I've repeatedly stated as much, and gave you links on it?

The stats do not fit in with the overall cases of crime/gun crime. As mentioned, it was a phone survey. Reliable statistics put it at 55-80k. Your argument only applies to 55-80k cases.

Also why 1.5 million, I told you, they had someone else do the survey and compile 4.5 million, why not use more if thats the argument you stand by? If you can fake 1.45 Million why not fake 4.45?

And making the assertion that defensive gun use = no crime occurred is so wildly inaccurate it's beyond preposterous.

If a crime occurred for every instance of defensive gun use then where are the other stats to back it up? Remember the data coming from the surveys does not correlate with other data. So it's like extra information. It doesn't fit in. The actual data that correlates only suggests there are 55-80k cases of defensive use. So the rest is all extra "off the books" incidents apparently.

The freaking OP was a defensive gun usage AND a crime occurred. The defensive gun use STOPPED the crime, which had already begun, from continuing.

Number-1 You missed the point, the claim on the surveys is extra data and doesn't correlate to real world data to back it up. Real data only suggests 55k-80k, not 1.5-4.5 Million. So in those 4.5 Million cases they supposedly did not get recorded, they are cases off the books. Reported by those survey people who failed to mention or involve official data sets (police).

The freaking OP was a defensive gun usage AND a crime occurred. The defensive gun use STOPPED the crime, which had already begun, from continuing.

Number-2. The OP is citing a partisan rag pushing an agenda. It wasn't a "mass shooting". It was a rage shooting. They are known to happen club districts or cities with club districts. There were no life threatening injuries. He may not have intended to kill anyone. Mass shooting or active shooter defined by FBI:

The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition of the term "mass murder".

Number-3:

Thompson was charged with four counts of attempted murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and unlawful carrying of a weapon.

www.wistv.com...

Notice there is possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, unlawful carry of a weapon, but... no "prohibited possession of a weapon" or "illegal possession of a firearm" (Or equivalent)

Hmm...

Did that quant little town news, who tried so hard to push a partisan headline forget to mention where the shooter got his gun? Not sure I've seen a case where illegal gun owner didn't get charged for it.

Here's another case, same circumstances, but notice the shooter clearly had an illegal gun.

They forgot to charge the guy with in the OP case with regular possession (which suggests it was his gun, purchased legally), the two charges he got related to it are related to the crime itself. If he bought the gun legally, why isn't the headline:

LEGAL GUN OWNER SHOOTS 4 PEOPLE, BECOMES ILLEGAL GUN POSSESSOR, CWP SAVES THE DAY WITH MORE GUNZ

???

Tell me, if neither of them had guns who would get shot?

Shooting somebody who's broken into your home doesn't magically negate the fact that they committed a felonious crime. It doesn't mean they magically don't get charged. Law enforcement doesn't show up, see the attacker has been shot and then call it all square and drive off.

Right, so you agree the 1.5-4.5 Million statistic taken on phone surveys is false then right? That people lied or skewed the data. Great. So we finally agree on something. You see, if it's as you claim, the 1.5 Million cases would be documented by police, there'd be no need to get the data from phone surveys.

That is my logical argument. You just didn't see it.

Good Christ your logic fail is extreme.

See above. Also read your own words back to yourself. Well done.

a reply to: boncho

Um...no it doesn't.

Again, using the OP: the crime of murder was prevented by a defensive carry. The crime of attempted murder was not prevented.

See how that works? It's a pretty simple concept. I know you need every opportunity you can get to rail against a) guns, b) the US, and c) guns in the US, but your "logic" doesn't hold water.

Good try though.

a reply to: xuenchen

Since when is a drunken bar fight between pistol packing yahoos the same as someone shooting up a bunch of strangers with an "assault rifle?" Fail.

God bless the CCW that stopped that madman.

Its unfortunate that our laws didn't allow the CCW to tap the trigger until the perp was unresponsive

originally posted by: supremecommander
God bless the CCW that stopped that madman.

Its unfortunate that our laws didn't allow the CCW to tap the trigger until the perp was unresponsive

You mean the guy that shot a man who had emptied his clip and could have been overpowered by the other patrons? Once he'd used up his bullets, he was unarmed.